Is it much ado about nothing, the NFL quarterback (who I don't think I've ever heard of; is he even a starter?) who now refuses to stand for the Star-Spangled Banner/National Anthem? I understand in years past, with Jackie Robinson and the '68 Olympic athletes (Tommie Smith and John Carlos), such sentiments more than I do this NFL guy stance.
Without doubt, I agree with the man's right to sit or stand or do cartwheels during the National Anthem. After all, this is America and, at least I hope, we still have freedom of speech. Yes, the QB has a right to do what he did and to say what he said about his action(s). He may be wrong and very much off base, but he still has that right. But just because somebody has a right to do something, can do something, doesn't mean he should.
No, I don't think the man should be punished or shunned or even name-called. I would suggest, though, that he be enlightened and, perhaps, rethink his actions and words.
Of course there is still bigotry in this country. I can't imagine bigotry ever disappearing, ever. But to use the word "oppresses," as in "a country that oppresses black people and people of color" seems to me to be misguided, at best. Oppression and bigotry are not the same things. I question the man's knowledge, his education. For instance, he has been photographed wearing a Malcolm X baseball hat, the one with the big "X" on it. I wonder if he knows much about Malcolm's life, his whole life and his beliefs. I wonder if he realizes how farcical it is to make such statements when he, himself, is making millions of dollars (I don't know how much, but it must be millions) as an athlete, not because he's a white athlete or a black athlete, but as an athlete. I wonder if he realizes how many people sacrificed, as represented by the flag and the anthem, so he can have that right to these actions and words.
I wonder why he doesn't take his message to the inner cities to try to stop all the senseless murders that occur daily in Detroit, Chicago, DC, and more. More significant, I wonder why he doesn't take his millions and start an enterprise in the cities to help the financially downtrodden. After all, former Detroit Piston Dave Bing did exactly that, starting a successful steel company that employed many people in Detroit.
No, I can't take this guy seriously. Not yet, not until he shows something more than this.
I read about this case and did some research to see if the article was accurate and--it seems to be. A Texas girl in a Spanish class refused to sing the Mexican national anthem and recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance. It was an assignment. Now why in the world a teacher in the US would make such an assignment is beyond me, other than he/she wasn't thinking. There are a ton of other things that could be used to help teach Spanish or evaluate a student's mastery of the language. Why in the world would a teacher in the US require that? (Well, I do have an idea, but.....)
When given a failing grade on an alternative assignment (No, don't tell me teachers and school administrators are not vindictive!), the student sued. And a federal judge threw out her suit. The girl was to stand before a Mexican, not an American, flag and, with her hand on her heart, do the recitation(s). If she objected as a matter of conscience, how could her rights not have been violated, as the judge ruled? So, then, should the NFL QB then be penalized, punished, too? After all, he acted on his own country, its flag and anthem. The student was forced to act on a foreign country, its flag and anthem/pledge. And I understand there is a similar situation in Florida.
Am I the only one who seems to think this country is all mixed up and not at all in good ways??????
Thinking and taking stands on thinking is not always as simple as it sounds. For instance, I am not at all opposed to gay marriages. (I do have a problem with an adult male, who claims to feel more like a female, being allowed to go into a restroom where my 10-year old granddaughter is!) I would never boycott a business because it is owned my gays or hires gays, etc., never. By the same token, I think others, who have religious opposition to gay marriages, also have rights. They or rather their businesses should not be forced by government to do business, say, at gay marriages. I'm thinking of the federal suits or threats of suits over refusal on religious beliefs to cater or take the photographs at gay weddings. People who have sincere beliefs shouldn't be forced by government to act in ways contrary to those beliefs. There, that was simple enough.
Oops! Hold on a minute there, Adrian. Let's go back about 50 or 60 years. What about civil rights, the civil right movement? Should the Southern bigots (and many in the North) have been permitted to discriminate against blacks, on the basis of race? Now, after what I wrote above, hmmm...... And, it's not just the government acting to force the civil rights movement on people. Go back a hundred years before that, the Civil War! Should Abraham Lincoln have used the might of the federal government, its army, financial resources, population, etc., for the purpose of forcing people in the South to do what he and many in the North thought was right? Well, regarding the Civil War and Civil Rights, I agree the feds did the right things. But then how do I reconcile that with the heavy hand of the federal gov't in the struggle for gay rights?
I don't know and I don't like my lack of consistency. It is a conundrum I have not yet fully worked out, if I can every fully work it out.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Thursday, August 25, 2016
The End
I received an e-mail from one of my editors (the publisher) the other day. The next issue of the magazine will be its last one. Finances, esp in dealing with competition from digital sources, are the culprit. Although I knew it was struggling, the end of the mag caught me off guard.
And, I was saddened, a great deal.
No, I didn't make a living writing for it. In fact, people laugh when I tell them how much money I received for writing. I'm not at all being critical. The money was a bonus. I would have written for free, as I now do for a couple of other periodicals, online and hard copies. No, the money was never a factor or reason for writing. Still, I'm saddened.
I started writing for it in 1987, 29 years ago. Next year, I had figured, would have been my 30th year. It's the longest tenure I've had. I don't know how many articles, stories, columns I've written for it, but I'm guessing close to 200. That's just a guess. Although in the last years, it published six times a year, every two months, for the first 15-16 years, it was a monthly. Far more often than not I had something it an issue. And, esp the last 20 years or so, it was often two or three articles, columns, stories. Not often, but more than once, I had four or five. I think, just once, way back when, I had six stories in a single issue.
It was nice, in his e-mail, for the editor (publisher) to mention my name among the handful of writers over the years. I appreciated it. And, that was one of the reasons I enjoyed writing for this journal--the people. I had two editors in the course of those years and both were wonderful, often helpful. They threw articles my way and always responded when I needed help. And they very rarely changed (edited?) anything I wrote.
This isn't the first journal/magazine that has folded while I wrote for it. I haven't felt as saddened for any of them, at least not like this, except one--the first one that published any of my stuff. (I still love that word, stuff.) I don't know if a digital edition is being considered, but I will miss writing for this magazine and its people.
And, I was saddened, a great deal.
No, I didn't make a living writing for it. In fact, people laugh when I tell them how much money I received for writing. I'm not at all being critical. The money was a bonus. I would have written for free, as I now do for a couple of other periodicals, online and hard copies. No, the money was never a factor or reason for writing. Still, I'm saddened.
I started writing for it in 1987, 29 years ago. Next year, I had figured, would have been my 30th year. It's the longest tenure I've had. I don't know how many articles, stories, columns I've written for it, but I'm guessing close to 200. That's just a guess. Although in the last years, it published six times a year, every two months, for the first 15-16 years, it was a monthly. Far more often than not I had something it an issue. And, esp the last 20 years or so, it was often two or three articles, columns, stories. Not often, but more than once, I had four or five. I think, just once, way back when, I had six stories in a single issue.
It was nice, in his e-mail, for the editor (publisher) to mention my name among the handful of writers over the years. I appreciated it. And, that was one of the reasons I enjoyed writing for this journal--the people. I had two editors in the course of those years and both were wonderful, often helpful. They threw articles my way and always responded when I needed help. And they very rarely changed (edited?) anything I wrote.
This isn't the first journal/magazine that has folded while I wrote for it. I haven't felt as saddened for any of them, at least not like this, except one--the first one that published any of my stuff. (I still love that word, stuff.) I don't know if a digital edition is being considered, but I will miss writing for this magazine and its people.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Tue AM
I see Tom Watkins is at it again in today's Detroit News. He cautioned us against "bashing" the Commies in China. Instead, he insists, we must become friendlier, even embrace the Chinese. And all of this coziness is because of trade--economics, investment, jobs. I suppose my seemingly isolationist opposition to this is a bit naive. The world is different, much smaller than in the past. Although I dislike the terms "globalism" and "global economy" doesn't mean they aren't valid, likely even more than I'd like to admit. Still there are some concerns about sidling up with the Commies.
In the past, Watkins has noted his "Chinese friends." I presume that these are the folks we need to do business with, to trade, etc. Are these, though, the same people who steal our corporate secrets, hack into our national defense/safety systems, force abortions on second children in families, order tanks to run over protesters, etc.? If so, I don't want them to be my "friends." I want to do as little trade as possible with them.
In his op-ed, Watkins also practically canonizes Gov. Snyder for his efforts to bring Chinese trade to Michigan. He cites Snyder for doing more "than all his predecessors" in this area. But is that what it is, always with Snyder and his buddies--the bottom line? Gee, how has that worked out for us with much of that emergency manager garbage, the Flint water system, and more? It's like that with many of these politicians and corporate-types who think they know how to run education. (Not that those running the schools now know.) It's all about the bottom line--test results and budgets. They just don't get it.
Speaking of schools or, rather, teaching, this has been on my mind for the past few weeks--teaching. I have been bothered by two things. As I read through the summer issue of my Amherst Alumni Magazine, I noted the honorary degrees given by the college at this year's commencement. And I once again noted the lack of any honors given to teachers. Oh, there was one college professor, but just one. But there were no el-hi teachers. A few years back, but only for a short while, I think the college asked graduating seniors to identify good teachers from their pre-Amherst schooling and one was selected for recognition. I don't remember that happening for a while. How odd that a college so intent on teaching doesn't recognize teachers, at least not to the degree it should! I'm not at all suggesting that the college does recognize unworthy people; not at all. The doctors and lawyers and businessmen/women and civic leaders are all deserving. But so are educators!
This, I think, reflects the public's lack of appreciation for teachers, that is, for good ones. Those who know me are aware that I think far too many people who are in education don't belong in education. There are a lot more bad teachers out there than people realize. And, it's not easy to be a teacher. I know everyone was a student, went to school, and watched teachers for all those years. So, everyone then thinks he/she can be a teacher. (It's the father-in-law syndrome. Everyone played little league and watches games on the boob tube; so everyone is smarter than a major league manager.) Unfortunately, "everyone" is right. Anyone can be a teacher. But not many can be good teachers, really good ones. I've mellowed somewhat over the years. Although I believe there aren't a whole lot of good teachers, many more are serviceable than I had thought. Maybe I changed because I realized how difficult good teaching is--maybe. That said, this leads into my second concern of the past few weeks, a concern I've had for a long time.
Imagine teachers' anger at this, "Oh, anyone can teach......" Why, then, do so many of them just assume they can teach at the college level? (What, have a dozen? or so have expressed this idea to me over the past few months.) "I wish I had..." decided to teach at the colleges, I've been told. I guess it's like the father-in-law syndrome. All these teachers went to college, so they think they can teach there. They should know better (but maybe that's why they are teachers?). My friend and I often talk teaching and learning. She teaches first grade and I teach college history. We recognize that what each of us does is different, very different. My wife likes to say of elementary and secondary teachers, "They are different breeds." I'm not saying one is easier or harder, just that they are very different. So, what then leads so many teachers to think they can teach college-level courses? If there is a lack of respect and appreciation for what teachers do, in general, isn't there a similar lack for what college teaching entails? (Granted, esp outside of Amherst, I had some real dogs as college teachers. And, admittedly, there were some at Amherst who weren't very good, either, but not many. There were many incredible teachers there and I don't use the term "incredible" as cavalierly as it is tossed around today.) Yes, the "Oh, I should have done that" irks me. But I suppose it's a venial sin.
In the past, Watkins has noted his "Chinese friends." I presume that these are the folks we need to do business with, to trade, etc. Are these, though, the same people who steal our corporate secrets, hack into our national defense/safety systems, force abortions on second children in families, order tanks to run over protesters, etc.? If so, I don't want them to be my "friends." I want to do as little trade as possible with them.
In his op-ed, Watkins also practically canonizes Gov. Snyder for his efforts to bring Chinese trade to Michigan. He cites Snyder for doing more "than all his predecessors" in this area. But is that what it is, always with Snyder and his buddies--the bottom line? Gee, how has that worked out for us with much of that emergency manager garbage, the Flint water system, and more? It's like that with many of these politicians and corporate-types who think they know how to run education. (Not that those running the schools now know.) It's all about the bottom line--test results and budgets. They just don't get it.
Speaking of schools or, rather, teaching, this has been on my mind for the past few weeks--teaching. I have been bothered by two things. As I read through the summer issue of my Amherst Alumni Magazine, I noted the honorary degrees given by the college at this year's commencement. And I once again noted the lack of any honors given to teachers. Oh, there was one college professor, but just one. But there were no el-hi teachers. A few years back, but only for a short while, I think the college asked graduating seniors to identify good teachers from their pre-Amherst schooling and one was selected for recognition. I don't remember that happening for a while. How odd that a college so intent on teaching doesn't recognize teachers, at least not to the degree it should! I'm not at all suggesting that the college does recognize unworthy people; not at all. The doctors and lawyers and businessmen/women and civic leaders are all deserving. But so are educators!
This, I think, reflects the public's lack of appreciation for teachers, that is, for good ones. Those who know me are aware that I think far too many people who are in education don't belong in education. There are a lot more bad teachers out there than people realize. And, it's not easy to be a teacher. I know everyone was a student, went to school, and watched teachers for all those years. So, everyone then thinks he/she can be a teacher. (It's the father-in-law syndrome. Everyone played little league and watches games on the boob tube; so everyone is smarter than a major league manager.) Unfortunately, "everyone" is right. Anyone can be a teacher. But not many can be good teachers, really good ones. I've mellowed somewhat over the years. Although I believe there aren't a whole lot of good teachers, many more are serviceable than I had thought. Maybe I changed because I realized how difficult good teaching is--maybe. That said, this leads into my second concern of the past few weeks, a concern I've had for a long time.
Imagine teachers' anger at this, "Oh, anyone can teach......" Why, then, do so many of them just assume they can teach at the college level? (What, have a dozen? or so have expressed this idea to me over the past few months.) "I wish I had..." decided to teach at the colleges, I've been told. I guess it's like the father-in-law syndrome. All these teachers went to college, so they think they can teach there. They should know better (but maybe that's why they are teachers?). My friend and I often talk teaching and learning. She teaches first grade and I teach college history. We recognize that what each of us does is different, very different. My wife likes to say of elementary and secondary teachers, "They are different breeds." I'm not saying one is easier or harder, just that they are very different. So, what then leads so many teachers to think they can teach college-level courses? If there is a lack of respect and appreciation for what teachers do, in general, isn't there a similar lack for what college teaching entails? (Granted, esp outside of Amherst, I had some real dogs as college teachers. And, admittedly, there were some at Amherst who weren't very good, either, but not many. There were many incredible teachers there and I don't use the term "incredible" as cavalierly as it is tossed around today.) Yes, the "Oh, I should have done that" irks me. But I suppose it's a venial sin.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Japanese Internment
I'm reading a book now on Americans of Japanese descent (I don't like hyphenating "-Americans.") and the relocation and internment during the Second World War. I've read quite a bit about it and, in fact, did a very lengthy graduate paper (75 or more pages? I wonder if the professor actually read the whole thing??????) on Korematsu v US many years ago. Yet, this book is worth reading, for me and for others.
It's a reminder of what can go wrong when we take aim at others who are "different," at least "different" in some people's eyes. It can provide a lesson for today.
Granted, the situations are not the same. Today we have many illegal immigrants, some who might well have intentions of great harm. And then there was the hysteria of World War 2 and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. These factors are worth considering in our scrutiny, but can help us learn our lesson(s).
Remember, too, the 442nd Infantry Regiment was the most highly decorated unit for its size and length of service in US military history. The 442nd was composed of mostly Americans of Japanese descent, some of whom had been incarcerated in the internment camps and many/most of whom still had families locked away.
It is telling to me that F. Roosevelt, who initiated the relocation and internment by signing Executive Order 9066 about two months after Pearl, seems to get a free pass on this egregious infringement of Americans' rights.
I read that ISIS sent a young boy, a 12-year old?, into a wedding in Turkey with a suicide bomb. More than 50 people were killed and nearly 80 more wounded. Where is the outrage? Where is the US President on this? How about, at least, the Secretary of State? the United Nations? the Pope? Now maybe some or even all of these have spoken up and condemned this, but none of it made my papers this AM.
12-year old boy? What parent(s) would willingly (or even unwillingly!) send their son off to die like this? They must be incredibly stupid. Oh, they have bought into the fanaticism? Bologna/Baloney! I can't imagine, can any parent imagine, doing this with one of their children? And, I guess, if this is so righteous, why don't the fathers or mothers volunteer? How can anyone anywhere support ISIS? Of course, the silence (or mostly silence) on beheadings, stonings, hangings, throws off of tall buildings, etc. has been deafening, hasn't it?
Why aren't the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") who rant and rave so ignorantly about "world peace" ("All we are saying, is 'Give peace a chance.'" I'd sure like to, but tell it to ISIS or Hamas or Putin or, in the past, Hitler or Stalin or Mao......) protesting these actions of barbarity? Why aren't they in the streets every day? Why aren't they calling for boycotts? Heck, why don't they demand the US do something with relations with countries that sponsor/finance these fanatics? I think we know why, don't we?
BTW, I heard on the radio this AM that there were four more shootings in Detroit, resulting in three deaths, on Sunday. I haven't read the newspaper beyond page three yet, so I haven't come across them. Why aren't we blasting the front pages with this every single day??????
A rhetorical (At least I think it was rhetorical?) question was posed to me this AM. "How can any woman vote for Trump, after how he's treated women, how he's used them, how he's talked about them?" I didn't respond, but thought, "Good question! Now how about women who support Clinton after all she's done to denigrate women?"
It's a reminder of what can go wrong when we take aim at others who are "different," at least "different" in some people's eyes. It can provide a lesson for today.
Granted, the situations are not the same. Today we have many illegal immigrants, some who might well have intentions of great harm. And then there was the hysteria of World War 2 and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. These factors are worth considering in our scrutiny, but can help us learn our lesson(s).
Remember, too, the 442nd Infantry Regiment was the most highly decorated unit for its size and length of service in US military history. The 442nd was composed of mostly Americans of Japanese descent, some of whom had been incarcerated in the internment camps and many/most of whom still had families locked away.
It is telling to me that F. Roosevelt, who initiated the relocation and internment by signing Executive Order 9066 about two months after Pearl, seems to get a free pass on this egregious infringement of Americans' rights.
I read that ISIS sent a young boy, a 12-year old?, into a wedding in Turkey with a suicide bomb. More than 50 people were killed and nearly 80 more wounded. Where is the outrage? Where is the US President on this? How about, at least, the Secretary of State? the United Nations? the Pope? Now maybe some or even all of these have spoken up and condemned this, but none of it made my papers this AM.
12-year old boy? What parent(s) would willingly (or even unwillingly!) send their son off to die like this? They must be incredibly stupid. Oh, they have bought into the fanaticism? Bologna/Baloney! I can't imagine, can any parent imagine, doing this with one of their children? And, I guess, if this is so righteous, why don't the fathers or mothers volunteer? How can anyone anywhere support ISIS? Of course, the silence (or mostly silence) on beheadings, stonings, hangings, throws off of tall buildings, etc. has been deafening, hasn't it?
Why aren't the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") who rant and rave so ignorantly about "world peace" ("All we are saying, is 'Give peace a chance.'" I'd sure like to, but tell it to ISIS or Hamas or Putin or, in the past, Hitler or Stalin or Mao......) protesting these actions of barbarity? Why aren't they in the streets every day? Why aren't they calling for boycotts? Heck, why don't they demand the US do something with relations with countries that sponsor/finance these fanatics? I think we know why, don't we?
BTW, I heard on the radio this AM that there were four more shootings in Detroit, resulting in three deaths, on Sunday. I haven't read the newspaper beyond page three yet, so I haven't come across them. Why aren't we blasting the front pages with this every single day??????
A rhetorical (At least I think it was rhetorical?) question was posed to me this AM. "How can any woman vote for Trump, after how he's treated women, how he's used them, how he's talked about them?" I didn't respond, but thought, "Good question! Now how about women who support Clinton after all she's done to denigrate women?"
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Oops!
I bought me something the other day and I chuckled at my thoughts. I don't know that I needed the purchase, but it is pretty important to me. I laughed as I paid. It cost "only" I thought. Ah, for how many years have I decried "only" dollars? People, ahem, justify purchases by saying, "But it's only ______ dollars." I would often respond, "Is that a new kind of money, 'only dollars?'" and not positively.
Further, I justified my purchase by, at least initially, but saying, "I deserve it." Ha Ha Ha. "I deserve it." How many times have I questioned people, in jest and seriously, who have said, "I deserve it" or "I'm worth it?" I'm not big on "deserve" or "worth." What about earn it? Now, I did earn what I bought, although I'm not sure I "deserve" it or am "worth" it.
How many people today think they "deserve" or are "worth" things bought with other people's money, that is, expect government handouts? "Entitlements" are another name. I'll have to watch my thoughts......
Here is a good line from Nolan Finley's editorial this AM. "The Clintons are artists at dancing along the ethical edge." "Artists." Yeah, right. I can think of other terms. Didn't she claim they left the White House dirt poor, virtually penniless? Last year, they made $10 or $11 million and have a net worth of more than $110 million. They command hundreds of dollars for a single speech. I suppose I can see him getting that, although I have no desire to hear someone with his lack of character. But who in the heck would pay her anything to hear her, someone called "Shrillary?" Hmmm...... And where are the LameStream media on this Clinton Foundation scam? Imagine if W. Bush (and I'm no fan of his) or some other non-Democrat were involved in something like the Clinton Foundation. And there's no media bias? Heh Heh......
Mitch Albom is turning into a curmudgeon, like me? Last week, he rightly lambasted the Democrats' proposed attacks on inheritance, seeking to lower the limits on tax-free bequests. I think I have written about that, the wrongness of taxing inheritances. Oh, the letters in today's Free Press! All but one criticized Albom for his stance and, to a letter, each of the criticisms was filled with inconsistencies and flaws of logic. In other words, most of these Albom critics think it's OK to give more money to the gov't for all of the efficient and competent programs it runs. In fact, I think the term "entitlement" appeared in at least one of the letters.
Albom also had a good editorial on college "safe spaces." It was right on the money and, especially, exposed the hypocrisy of so much going on campuses today. Why is it that three black students at Claremont College can advertise for a roommate, but only a "person of color?" She wrote, "I don't want to live with any white folks?" Imagine if three white students advertised for only a white roommate. And the social media responses? You can imagine those. Both of the above are wrong, wrong, wrong. And at Hampshire College, only a few miles down the road from my own Amherst, a concert was canceled. It appears the Afro-Beat (whatever that is) band was "too white" for that type of music and the ensuing controversy made students feel "unsafe." I guess I subscribe to what that Oklahoma university president told students, "If you are looking for a 'safe place,' don't come here."
As I noted in an e-mail earlier today, the title of one of my favorite history books on the American Revolution surely fits our times, too......The World Turned Upside Down.
I enjoyed the two comments last time. Thanks for the compliments. Other than my father, I think I have always been my own worst critic. Thanks. But that's a good point on the federal courts and how they have destroyed the federal system. And therein, in many ways, is the crux of the problem, a behemoth of a federal gov't, run amok. Please keep the comments coming. We really need to engage in dialogue, esp if we can get others involved......
Further, I justified my purchase by, at least initially, but saying, "I deserve it." Ha Ha Ha. "I deserve it." How many times have I questioned people, in jest and seriously, who have said, "I deserve it" or "I'm worth it?" I'm not big on "deserve" or "worth." What about earn it? Now, I did earn what I bought, although I'm not sure I "deserve" it or am "worth" it.
How many people today think they "deserve" or are "worth" things bought with other people's money, that is, expect government handouts? "Entitlements" are another name. I'll have to watch my thoughts......
Here is a good line from Nolan Finley's editorial this AM. "The Clintons are artists at dancing along the ethical edge." "Artists." Yeah, right. I can think of other terms. Didn't she claim they left the White House dirt poor, virtually penniless? Last year, they made $10 or $11 million and have a net worth of more than $110 million. They command hundreds of dollars for a single speech. I suppose I can see him getting that, although I have no desire to hear someone with his lack of character. But who in the heck would pay her anything to hear her, someone called "Shrillary?" Hmmm...... And where are the LameStream media on this Clinton Foundation scam? Imagine if W. Bush (and I'm no fan of his) or some other non-Democrat were involved in something like the Clinton Foundation. And there's no media bias? Heh Heh......
Mitch Albom is turning into a curmudgeon, like me? Last week, he rightly lambasted the Democrats' proposed attacks on inheritance, seeking to lower the limits on tax-free bequests. I think I have written about that, the wrongness of taxing inheritances. Oh, the letters in today's Free Press! All but one criticized Albom for his stance and, to a letter, each of the criticisms was filled with inconsistencies and flaws of logic. In other words, most of these Albom critics think it's OK to give more money to the gov't for all of the efficient and competent programs it runs. In fact, I think the term "entitlement" appeared in at least one of the letters.
Albom also had a good editorial on college "safe spaces." It was right on the money and, especially, exposed the hypocrisy of so much going on campuses today. Why is it that three black students at Claremont College can advertise for a roommate, but only a "person of color?" She wrote, "I don't want to live with any white folks?" Imagine if three white students advertised for only a white roommate. And the social media responses? You can imagine those. Both of the above are wrong, wrong, wrong. And at Hampshire College, only a few miles down the road from my own Amherst, a concert was canceled. It appears the Afro-Beat (whatever that is) band was "too white" for that type of music and the ensuing controversy made students feel "unsafe." I guess I subscribe to what that Oklahoma university president told students, "If you are looking for a 'safe place,' don't come here."
As I noted in an e-mail earlier today, the title of one of my favorite history books on the American Revolution surely fits our times, too......The World Turned Upside Down.
I enjoyed the two comments last time. Thanks for the compliments. Other than my father, I think I have always been my own worst critic. Thanks. But that's a good point on the federal courts and how they have destroyed the federal system. And therein, in many ways, is the crux of the problem, a behemoth of a federal gov't, run amok. Please keep the comments coming. We really need to engage in dialogue, esp if we can get others involved......
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Polarizing?
An op-ed in today's newspaper (Yep, I've already read it, having been up since 3 AM.) notes the polarizing effect of "climate change." I initially didn't see the "climate change" angle, but thought, "Of course Americans are polarized. That's been the political strategy of the past few decades, hasn't it?"
Rather than stressing the more traditional values of hard work, etc. that bring to fruition the opportunities that abound in the US, Americans have been increasing led to believe that they are "owed" something, that they "deserve" something. I don't know exactly why they are owed or deserve something, but apparently they are. Heck, don't we even see it, overtly or otherwise, on our television commercials. "...because you're worth it." I know I've gotten into some trouble over the years when I asked some who have repeated something like this, "Exactly why do you 'deserve it?'" or "Why are you 'worth it?'" The implication in my question is "What did you do to earn it?," whatever "it" is. Everyone gets a trophy. Everyone gets a varsity letter/jacket, regardless of the activity or effort required or minimally required. If someone has something, well, he/she shouldn't have it if the rest of us don't. Perhaps that's the groundwork for so many callous shootings of people.
Divide and conquer. Isn't that a strategy that's been used throughout the ages? And American politics employs that, for the benefit of a few--namely, the Establishment. And those who are rising up against this strategy are diminished as "bigots" and "racists."
I had a great conversation on my run yesterday AM. It involved gov't mandates/laws that force people to do things that are against their beliefs, be they religious beliefs or even personal philosophies. Although the immediate topic was gay marriage, it extends to beyond. Why, we asked, can or even should gov't be allowed to force people to do certain things? That is, why can or should gov't force, say, florists or bakers to cater gay weddings? Extending that, why can or should gov't force employers to pay for health insurance that provides coverage for abortions or even birth control? If those things fly in the face of others' belief systems, why should they be force to go against their own beliefs? Now, taking the gay marriage issue, I am not at all opposed to gay marriages. I do have a problem with the transgender bathroom issue. But there are means to deal with any perceived bigotry, as my running partner noted. We can boycott businesses we think are bigoted or racist or whatever. We don't have to do business with them, taking our money elsewhere.
Now, this isn't, as we discussed, as simple as it seems. What, she brought up as I was thinking it, about civil rights back in the '50s and '60s? Should gov't have stepped in then? Hmmm...... And, to really extend that, what about the Civil War? Maybe this seems contradictory, but perhaps there are places for gov't action. Would slavery have ended in the US without the Civil War and its 700,000 deaths? Likely it would have. But, the important question is "When?" Would it have taken another 40 or 50 years if not longer, with the advent of industrialization in America? So, should we have subjected all those people and the next couple of generations to lives as slaves? What about the moral indignation of one person owning another? What about the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, our founding document?
In the '50s and '60s, states, esp in the South, were compelled by federal legislation and court rulings to extend civil rights. On the other hand, major gains in the civil rights movement were gained by economic boycotts of sorts, namely the lunch counter sit-ins that began in Greensboro, NC. Were those fast enough? big enough? I don't know.
But the conversation is worth having.
BTW, I enjoyed Gus' comment about Nixon and the Clintons, that when "you have [their] egos, you are bound to fall." I think so, too. The problem is, how much harm and evil is committed before their fall?
Rather than stressing the more traditional values of hard work, etc. that bring to fruition the opportunities that abound in the US, Americans have been increasing led to believe that they are "owed" something, that they "deserve" something. I don't know exactly why they are owed or deserve something, but apparently they are. Heck, don't we even see it, overtly or otherwise, on our television commercials. "...because you're worth it." I know I've gotten into some trouble over the years when I asked some who have repeated something like this, "Exactly why do you 'deserve it?'" or "Why are you 'worth it?'" The implication in my question is "What did you do to earn it?," whatever "it" is. Everyone gets a trophy. Everyone gets a varsity letter/jacket, regardless of the activity or effort required or minimally required. If someone has something, well, he/she shouldn't have it if the rest of us don't. Perhaps that's the groundwork for so many callous shootings of people.
Divide and conquer. Isn't that a strategy that's been used throughout the ages? And American politics employs that, for the benefit of a few--namely, the Establishment. And those who are rising up against this strategy are diminished as "bigots" and "racists."
I had a great conversation on my run yesterday AM. It involved gov't mandates/laws that force people to do things that are against their beliefs, be they religious beliefs or even personal philosophies. Although the immediate topic was gay marriage, it extends to beyond. Why, we asked, can or even should gov't be allowed to force people to do certain things? That is, why can or should gov't force, say, florists or bakers to cater gay weddings? Extending that, why can or should gov't force employers to pay for health insurance that provides coverage for abortions or even birth control? If those things fly in the face of others' belief systems, why should they be force to go against their own beliefs? Now, taking the gay marriage issue, I am not at all opposed to gay marriages. I do have a problem with the transgender bathroom issue. But there are means to deal with any perceived bigotry, as my running partner noted. We can boycott businesses we think are bigoted or racist or whatever. We don't have to do business with them, taking our money elsewhere.
Now, this isn't, as we discussed, as simple as it seems. What, she brought up as I was thinking it, about civil rights back in the '50s and '60s? Should gov't have stepped in then? Hmmm...... And, to really extend that, what about the Civil War? Maybe this seems contradictory, but perhaps there are places for gov't action. Would slavery have ended in the US without the Civil War and its 700,000 deaths? Likely it would have. But, the important question is "When?" Would it have taken another 40 or 50 years if not longer, with the advent of industrialization in America? So, should we have subjected all those people and the next couple of generations to lives as slaves? What about the moral indignation of one person owning another? What about the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, our founding document?
In the '50s and '60s, states, esp in the South, were compelled by federal legislation and court rulings to extend civil rights. On the other hand, major gains in the civil rights movement were gained by economic boycotts of sorts, namely the lunch counter sit-ins that began in Greensboro, NC. Were those fast enough? big enough? I don't know.
But the conversation is worth having.
BTW, I enjoyed Gus' comment about Nixon and the Clintons, that when "you have [their] egos, you are bound to fall." I think so, too. The problem is, how much harm and evil is committed before their fall?
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
I'm Baaaack!
K and I just returned from Las Vegas, visiting Matt and Linda. This time, for the first time, we took all three kids. And who said we don't gamble?????? No, they were fine and enjoyed the trip, the pools at the Monte Carlo, the buffet dinner, the magic show, time with Uncle Matt and Aunt Linda (and their dogs!), and the first flight (for the Codester), despite a major snafu by Delta on the way out.
The heat and humididity [sic] combination here is much worse than the much higher dry heat of Las Vegas. The other day I ran here in temps 20+ degrees cooler than LV, but it was a much, much tougher slog. Ugh!
I had someone today try to convince me to vote for Clinton. Huh? He tried to tell me she really isn't a liar and that I had to vote for her or Trump will be President. I had to emphatically tell him I'm not voting for either and it's not at all fault if either of the Bozos become President. In fact, I suggested he was at fault, along with others like him, who have played the parties' games all these years, sitting around and, well, letting them repeatedly throw Bozos at us for Presidential candidates. I don't think he like that. BTW, he's a Democrat--with a Cadillac, swimming pool, golf club membership, and more. Shouldn't he be voluntarily giving that money to gov't for all of the efficient good that it does?
In Vegas, while I was getting dressed one AM after a run, K had on the boob tube. Some woman was extolling the virtues of Clinton, rambling on and on. The counter-point couldn't even respond. She listened to all the junque and was so flabbergasted that anyone could say this, that is, extol virtues that Clinton doesn't have, that she couldn't respond. It was humorous, both the Bozo who supported Clinton and the counter who couldn't talk.
Mitch Albom ran a good column on Sun about the Dems' desire to enact another Death Tax, that is, an inheritance tax. Get a load of this one. Clinton, in pushing for yet another tax (on money that has already been taxed at least once!), said, "Just think what we could do with the......" whatever amount, $400 billion or?????? How typical of Dems, spend, spend, spend...... Despite the evidence, so clear-cut, of gov't inefficiencies and waste and the detrimental effects many, if not most, gov't programs have (in spite of their good intentions).
Gus sent me a terrifying e-mail today. If Clinton gets elected, is Jennifer Granholm in line for a Cabinet position? How frightening, although she does have qualifications, for a Democrat that is. Granholm was a rotten governor, Even a member of her own party said of her, "She loves to play governor, but she doesn't want to be governor." I still remember her solution to problems--catchy slogans. Lousy school systems? No problem. "Everybody goes to college" will solve that. Cities awash in disrepair, bankruptcy, and crime? That's an easy fix. "Cool cities!" fixes that. When did incompetence become a qualification for jobs?
I don't remember if it was the Detroit News or Free Press, but one day it ran an op-ed trying to explain why "millennial women" are opposed to Clinton. I'm not sure they are, but..... Why wouldn't they be? But what shook me most was her trying to equate Clinton the candidate with Obama and his Presidency. She wrote of how excited she was during Obama's two campaigns. I guess, out of ignorance and maybe "hope and change" (Did I just write that??????), I can see the first time, 2008. But after four years, in 2012, I can't at all see it. Granted, the alternative was Romney, a lousy choice, but better than Obama--or Trump--but still not worth voting for. Did this woman have her eyes closed? Did she just blindly follow the LameStream media for whom she now works?
I see Aetna is pulling out of ObamaCare. What took so long? I think the article said they have already lost almost half a billion dollars thanks to ObamaCare. So, again I ask, what took so long? Some other insurance companies have already pulled out. I don't really see how these companies are losing money. After all, since ObamaCare was enacted/put into action, we've paid about $5000 more in premiums, to also have higher deductibles and co-pays? I imagine I'm not the only one paying a lot more for a lot less.
BTW, "Just think of what we can do......" with extra tax money? I read that the IRS is hounding Michael Phelps and other US Olympic medalists to get their hands on taxes on the medal winners monetary prizes. The IRS can't even wait until they get home? Can't you just picture the politicians and bureaucrats rubbing their hands together in delight and ecstasy at the thought of all that revenue?
The heat and humididity [sic] combination here is much worse than the much higher dry heat of Las Vegas. The other day I ran here in temps 20+ degrees cooler than LV, but it was a much, much tougher slog. Ugh!
I had someone today try to convince me to vote for Clinton. Huh? He tried to tell me she really isn't a liar and that I had to vote for her or Trump will be President. I had to emphatically tell him I'm not voting for either and it's not at all fault if either of the Bozos become President. In fact, I suggested he was at fault, along with others like him, who have played the parties' games all these years, sitting around and, well, letting them repeatedly throw Bozos at us for Presidential candidates. I don't think he like that. BTW, he's a Democrat--with a Cadillac, swimming pool, golf club membership, and more. Shouldn't he be voluntarily giving that money to gov't for all of the efficient good that it does?
In Vegas, while I was getting dressed one AM after a run, K had on the boob tube. Some woman was extolling the virtues of Clinton, rambling on and on. The counter-point couldn't even respond. She listened to all the junque and was so flabbergasted that anyone could say this, that is, extol virtues that Clinton doesn't have, that she couldn't respond. It was humorous, both the Bozo who supported Clinton and the counter who couldn't talk.
Mitch Albom ran a good column on Sun about the Dems' desire to enact another Death Tax, that is, an inheritance tax. Get a load of this one. Clinton, in pushing for yet another tax (on money that has already been taxed at least once!), said, "Just think what we could do with the......" whatever amount, $400 billion or?????? How typical of Dems, spend, spend, spend...... Despite the evidence, so clear-cut, of gov't inefficiencies and waste and the detrimental effects many, if not most, gov't programs have (in spite of their good intentions).
Gus sent me a terrifying e-mail today. If Clinton gets elected, is Jennifer Granholm in line for a Cabinet position? How frightening, although she does have qualifications, for a Democrat that is. Granholm was a rotten governor, Even a member of her own party said of her, "She loves to play governor, but she doesn't want to be governor." I still remember her solution to problems--catchy slogans. Lousy school systems? No problem. "Everybody goes to college" will solve that. Cities awash in disrepair, bankruptcy, and crime? That's an easy fix. "Cool cities!" fixes that. When did incompetence become a qualification for jobs?
I don't remember if it was the Detroit News or Free Press, but one day it ran an op-ed trying to explain why "millennial women" are opposed to Clinton. I'm not sure they are, but..... Why wouldn't they be? But what shook me most was her trying to equate Clinton the candidate with Obama and his Presidency. She wrote of how excited she was during Obama's two campaigns. I guess, out of ignorance and maybe "hope and change" (Did I just write that??????), I can see the first time, 2008. But after four years, in 2012, I can't at all see it. Granted, the alternative was Romney, a lousy choice, but better than Obama--or Trump--but still not worth voting for. Did this woman have her eyes closed? Did she just blindly follow the LameStream media for whom she now works?
I see Aetna is pulling out of ObamaCare. What took so long? I think the article said they have already lost almost half a billion dollars thanks to ObamaCare. So, again I ask, what took so long? Some other insurance companies have already pulled out. I don't really see how these companies are losing money. After all, since ObamaCare was enacted/put into action, we've paid about $5000 more in premiums, to also have higher deductibles and co-pays? I imagine I'm not the only one paying a lot more for a lot less.
BTW, "Just think of what we can do......" with extra tax money? I read that the IRS is hounding Michael Phelps and other US Olympic medalists to get their hands on taxes on the medal winners monetary prizes. The IRS can't even wait until they get home? Can't you just picture the politicians and bureaucrats rubbing their hands together in delight and ecstasy at the thought of all that revenue?
Monday, August 8, 2016
Sun Ideas
Yesterday's newspaper caused some thinking.
Mitch Albom wrote a good column on the dumbness caused or elicited by smartphones. He was specifically aiming at that Pokemon Go. Several guys out in Calif were staring at their phone screens and fell off cliffs, more than 50 feet down! What, he asks, leads people to put phones down their pants, take pictures, and send them??????
The North Carolina voter ID law was flawed and it seems like the US Court of Appeals was correct in striking it down. But an editorial, I think, got it all wrong. The author rips on voter ID laws, equating them with a "new Jim Crow." There are parts of the NC law that were odious and might well have been aimed at limiting black voters. The court didn't go quite as far as claiming the law was racist, but the hint was there. But I still see no reason why voters should not have to show ID to vote. We need it for practically everything else. Why, I guess I might ask, do some people not have any IDs? Most folks have drivers' licenses and the state (at least Michigan) provides something called "a state ID" free of charge, I think. I don't know how prevalent actual voter fraud is, but suspect it is far more common that Democrats would lead us to believe.
Nolan Finley tackles a theme I've used before, that the Republican Party has run away from its core principles. The editorial reminded me of Ronald Reagan, when he once said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democrats left me." I will watch closely one of Finley's predictions, that Hillary Clinton's "paranoia, dishonesty, and willingness to destroy lives to protect her power will make [her] the Democrats' Richard Nixon." Hmmm...... I do disagree and think his view is contradictory regarding the Tea Party. He called it "a cancer" that was introduced in 2010. But then he claims the "GOP...changed, not me." The changes he cites are those of the Republican Establishment, the targets of the Tea Party. He defines "conservative [as] advocating for small and efficient gov't and an economy unburdened by excessive regulation and taxation...for mutually beneficial trade pacts, a strong defense...aid programs that encourage independence, not dependency, for the rule of law...and respect for the Constitution as written." Yep, that's the Tea Party! It's not "a cancer," but the GOP as it used to be, before the leadership/Establishment sold out. The Establishment became far more interesting in holding its own power and if that meant selling out principles, compromising again and again with no reciprocation, well so be it.
Mitch Albom wrote a good column on the dumbness caused or elicited by smartphones. He was specifically aiming at that Pokemon Go. Several guys out in Calif were staring at their phone screens and fell off cliffs, more than 50 feet down! What, he asks, leads people to put phones down their pants, take pictures, and send them??????
The North Carolina voter ID law was flawed and it seems like the US Court of Appeals was correct in striking it down. But an editorial, I think, got it all wrong. The author rips on voter ID laws, equating them with a "new Jim Crow." There are parts of the NC law that were odious and might well have been aimed at limiting black voters. The court didn't go quite as far as claiming the law was racist, but the hint was there. But I still see no reason why voters should not have to show ID to vote. We need it for practically everything else. Why, I guess I might ask, do some people not have any IDs? Most folks have drivers' licenses and the state (at least Michigan) provides something called "a state ID" free of charge, I think. I don't know how prevalent actual voter fraud is, but suspect it is far more common that Democrats would lead us to believe.
Nolan Finley tackles a theme I've used before, that the Republican Party has run away from its core principles. The editorial reminded me of Ronald Reagan, when he once said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democrats left me." I will watch closely one of Finley's predictions, that Hillary Clinton's "paranoia, dishonesty, and willingness to destroy lives to protect her power will make [her] the Democrats' Richard Nixon." Hmmm...... I do disagree and think his view is contradictory regarding the Tea Party. He called it "a cancer" that was introduced in 2010. But then he claims the "GOP...changed, not me." The changes he cites are those of the Republican Establishment, the targets of the Tea Party. He defines "conservative [as] advocating for small and efficient gov't and an economy unburdened by excessive regulation and taxation...for mutually beneficial trade pacts, a strong defense...aid programs that encourage independence, not dependency, for the rule of law...and respect for the Constitution as written." Yep, that's the Tea Party! It's not "a cancer," but the GOP as it used to be, before the leadership/Establishment sold out. The Establishment became far more interesting in holding its own power and if that meant selling out principles, compromising again and again with no reciprocation, well so be it.
Friday, August 5, 2016
Sooner or Later...
...everybody sits down to a banquet of consequences." Who wrote that? My guess is Robert Louis Stevenson. I'm pretty sure it was; I could look it up, but I'm a bit lazy this AM.
I don't know if I believe that. It seems to me some folks are immune to consequences, at least bad ones. Ronald Reagan was called "The Teflon President" because nothing bad ever seemed to stick to him. Bill Clinton, for all of the evil he's done, doesn't seem to have fared too badly because of it. And his wife, maybe worse than Clinton, is riding high, despite her dishonest life.
I was reminded of a much more trivial instance of this earlier this summer. Some of you know I was out there coaching Michael's team, 15-16 year olds, again. A couple of kids actually got some hits, but they didn't know it. Huh? They hit the ball without seeing it. I always find it funny to see some kid hit a foul ball behind the plate and take off running for first. It's an indication to me that the kid just plain lucked out and hit the ball, He never saw it. And some kids did get hits that way. Their heads were pulled, looking out into left field, while they hit the ball, purely by accident, out toward right field. Back when I played on the Detroit sandlots, we had a kid who was notorious for that. Oh, he had a great batting average, but time and time again, he hit the ball while staring down the third base line. How did that happen? Do the pitches just happen to hit the bats? How aggravating to hit a ball like a rocket right at a fielder for an out while another lucks into another hit.
OK, my analogy with lucky baseball players isn't completely the same, but...... Will people be called to account? Will they be held responsible, here or in an afterlife? Look at LBJ and his lying and deceit with Vietnam. How many lives, Americans and others, were lost because of his dishonesty, his vanity? Has he really been held up to scrutiny? If so, it certainly hasn't had the same play as that of Nixon. And what was worse, the LBJ handling of Vietnam or Nixon's Watergate? (This ignores, for the sake of a point, Nixon's handling of Vietnam.) Nixon is usually rated a failure as a President, one of our half dozen worst. LBJ, likely due to the Civil Rights legislation of '64 and '64, is rated in the top half. C'mon! And let's not leave it at Vietnam. How about his Great Society? It could well be argued that was an extremely deleterious policy/program, one that helped to destroy much of the social and economic fabric of society, at least parts of it.
How about Obama? I've written about ObamaCare, the IRS and other federal agency scandals, and more. What's this about the $400 million we handed over to Iran?????? Oh, it wasn't a payoff, a bribe or whatever. Oh, no. The White House said it wasn't. Where are the LameStreams on this? Heh Heh. We know, don't we.
What time is dinner (the banquet)?
I don't know if I believe that. It seems to me some folks are immune to consequences, at least bad ones. Ronald Reagan was called "The Teflon President" because nothing bad ever seemed to stick to him. Bill Clinton, for all of the evil he's done, doesn't seem to have fared too badly because of it. And his wife, maybe worse than Clinton, is riding high, despite her dishonest life.
I was reminded of a much more trivial instance of this earlier this summer. Some of you know I was out there coaching Michael's team, 15-16 year olds, again. A couple of kids actually got some hits, but they didn't know it. Huh? They hit the ball without seeing it. I always find it funny to see some kid hit a foul ball behind the plate and take off running for first. It's an indication to me that the kid just plain lucked out and hit the ball, He never saw it. And some kids did get hits that way. Their heads were pulled, looking out into left field, while they hit the ball, purely by accident, out toward right field. Back when I played on the Detroit sandlots, we had a kid who was notorious for that. Oh, he had a great batting average, but time and time again, he hit the ball while staring down the third base line. How did that happen? Do the pitches just happen to hit the bats? How aggravating to hit a ball like a rocket right at a fielder for an out while another lucks into another hit.
OK, my analogy with lucky baseball players isn't completely the same, but...... Will people be called to account? Will they be held responsible, here or in an afterlife? Look at LBJ and his lying and deceit with Vietnam. How many lives, Americans and others, were lost because of his dishonesty, his vanity? Has he really been held up to scrutiny? If so, it certainly hasn't had the same play as that of Nixon. And what was worse, the LBJ handling of Vietnam or Nixon's Watergate? (This ignores, for the sake of a point, Nixon's handling of Vietnam.) Nixon is usually rated a failure as a President, one of our half dozen worst. LBJ, likely due to the Civil Rights legislation of '64 and '64, is rated in the top half. C'mon! And let's not leave it at Vietnam. How about his Great Society? It could well be argued that was an extremely deleterious policy/program, one that helped to destroy much of the social and economic fabric of society, at least parts of it.
How about Obama? I've written about ObamaCare, the IRS and other federal agency scandals, and more. What's this about the $400 million we handed over to Iran?????? Oh, it wasn't a payoff, a bribe or whatever. Oh, no. The White House said it wasn't. Where are the LameStreams on this? Heh Heh. We know, don't we.
What time is dinner (the banquet)?
Thursday, August 4, 2016
The Job of Government?
Government feels the necessity of telling me what kind of television, light bulbs, toilets, health care, etc. to have. And no doubt as we move along it will expand its intrusiveness into our lives. How far off are electric cars, whether we want them or not?
But this latest story is both gut-wrenching/heart-breaking and angering.
In one of the suburbs last week, a 12-year old girl was killed in an automobile crash. A drunk driver plowed into her family's van at a high rate of speed and she died.
But, it wasn't just "a drunk driver." This guy, due to drinking and driving, had his license suspended or revoked (?) in 1991--remember that, 1991! Since, he's had about a dozen more DUIs or whatever they are called--a dozen! Why wasn't this guy locked up with the key tossed, tossed forever? I think I did hear he was jailed for a short sentence, but was released early.
OK, I know gov't can't watch everybody and can't watch anybody all of the time. (But it sometimes seems the IRS, NSA, FBI, etc. try, doesn't it?) And no, I don't want more/bigger gov't so that we can watch more people more often.
But instead of telling me what kind of fertilizer I can or can't put on my lawn, why don't we just lock up these murderers? It--a dozen times!!!!!!--should have been apparent this guy should be kept away from cars, that is, put away for the rest of his life.
I know what the bleeding-hearts will say. I wonder if they say the same thing about this poor little girl and her family. Maybe that's not fair of me, but the bleeding-hearts often bring this upon themselves.
But this latest story is both gut-wrenching/heart-breaking and angering.
In one of the suburbs last week, a 12-year old girl was killed in an automobile crash. A drunk driver plowed into her family's van at a high rate of speed and she died.
But, it wasn't just "a drunk driver." This guy, due to drinking and driving, had his license suspended or revoked (?) in 1991--remember that, 1991! Since, he's had about a dozen more DUIs or whatever they are called--a dozen! Why wasn't this guy locked up with the key tossed, tossed forever? I think I did hear he was jailed for a short sentence, but was released early.
OK, I know gov't can't watch everybody and can't watch anybody all of the time. (But it sometimes seems the IRS, NSA, FBI, etc. try, doesn't it?) And no, I don't want more/bigger gov't so that we can watch more people more often.
But instead of telling me what kind of fertilizer I can or can't put on my lawn, why don't we just lock up these murderers? It--a dozen times!!!!!!--should have been apparent this guy should be kept away from cars, that is, put away for the rest of his life.
I know what the bleeding-hearts will say. I wonder if they say the same thing about this poor little girl and her family. Maybe that's not fair of me, but the bleeding-hearts often bring this upon themselves.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Economics
IN a recent post on one of my list serves, a guy wrote something about "a political party," he meant the Republicans, which can do nothing but "oppose a black President." Now I'm not a shill for the Republicans and, esp, the Establishment Republicans. But to suggest that opposition to Obama stems from him being "a black President" is insulting. It seemed like his post was incriminating all those who think Obama is a rotten President. I guess, then, my question would be, "How about those of us, like me, who also think W. Bush was a rotten President? How are we characterized?"
Someone asked me a short while ago how Obama will be rated/ranked as a President. I said he'll be "way up there." That surprised my inquisitor, so I had to explain. As noted, I think Obama has been a bad President. Look at the lousy economic picture in the US. ObamaCare has failed miserably. Note how racially divided our country is, the biggest divisions since the Civil Rights movement. Foreign policy is in a shambles. Can we point to the myriad broken promises? What about the use of federal agencies to attack opponents and then the cover-ups that followed? The list could go on.
My inquisitor was baffled. If that's what's happened, how do I explain "way up there?" The ratings and rankings are done by academics and media-types. They love Obama. Any wrong-doings, any failure to recover to greatness, etc. well, that's "Bush's fault." Even after eight years?????? Yep. I am not kidding. I hope I am wrong and that the ratings and rankings reflect reality.
This started out, at least as I initially intended, as a peek at the economic condition of the country. I know locally, I don't think we have really emerged from the economic recession. I still see a lot, I mean a lot, of vacant store fronts. I do a lot of running and you'd be surprised at the number of homes that are still abandoned--and we're out here in Oakland County! I saw in the local section of the newspaper the other day, a firm is laying off 260 workers. On that same page, there were stories of sales/profit expectation that were far below predictions. (Gee, maybe that's why the workers were laid off?) I don't know if income is up or down, but my suspicions are that, if if they are up, for most people, esp the middle class, the increases have been wiped out by higher health insurance costs caused by ObamaCare. I know that's the situation here.
I saw today that Obama will be the only President not to have achieved a single year of 3% economic growth. Even Jimmy Carter managed that. Talk about "historic!" I know the President isn't responsible for all of that; of course he isn't. Like the football quarterback or hockey goldie, whose performances might well depend on receivers or left tackles or struggling defensemen, Presidents don't live in vacuums. They deal with forces, too, often beyond their control--world influences, Congress, natural catastrophes, etc. Yet, when times are good, boy, those Presidents are quick to claim credit for them, aren't they?
And the meager growth is even more meager when we consider other factors, including population growth. (What a minute? If the US population growth was 5% over the past year, why was economic growth about 2%? It can't be because some of the growth included people who aren't pulling their weight, can it?) Toss in that the last quarter's figure, 1.3% growth, has been downgraded to .8%. This is my point, although it sure took a long time to get there!
Why are the media silent on this? Why aren't we told about the meager growth over Obama's Presidency? Why aren't we told that last quarter's figure was far worse than originally reported?
There, if my friend was here right now, is what I'd tell her about Obama's ratings/rankings. It will take a great deal of digging to find out the truth, reality. And what academic, fully in the Obama camp, will do that digging??????
Someone asked me a short while ago how Obama will be rated/ranked as a President. I said he'll be "way up there." That surprised my inquisitor, so I had to explain. As noted, I think Obama has been a bad President. Look at the lousy economic picture in the US. ObamaCare has failed miserably. Note how racially divided our country is, the biggest divisions since the Civil Rights movement. Foreign policy is in a shambles. Can we point to the myriad broken promises? What about the use of federal agencies to attack opponents and then the cover-ups that followed? The list could go on.
My inquisitor was baffled. If that's what's happened, how do I explain "way up there?" The ratings and rankings are done by academics and media-types. They love Obama. Any wrong-doings, any failure to recover to greatness, etc. well, that's "Bush's fault." Even after eight years?????? Yep. I am not kidding. I hope I am wrong and that the ratings and rankings reflect reality.
This started out, at least as I initially intended, as a peek at the economic condition of the country. I know locally, I don't think we have really emerged from the economic recession. I still see a lot, I mean a lot, of vacant store fronts. I do a lot of running and you'd be surprised at the number of homes that are still abandoned--and we're out here in Oakland County! I saw in the local section of the newspaper the other day, a firm is laying off 260 workers. On that same page, there were stories of sales/profit expectation that were far below predictions. (Gee, maybe that's why the workers were laid off?) I don't know if income is up or down, but my suspicions are that, if if they are up, for most people, esp the middle class, the increases have been wiped out by higher health insurance costs caused by ObamaCare. I know that's the situation here.
I saw today that Obama will be the only President not to have achieved a single year of 3% economic growth. Even Jimmy Carter managed that. Talk about "historic!" I know the President isn't responsible for all of that; of course he isn't. Like the football quarterback or hockey goldie, whose performances might well depend on receivers or left tackles or struggling defensemen, Presidents don't live in vacuums. They deal with forces, too, often beyond their control--world influences, Congress, natural catastrophes, etc. Yet, when times are good, boy, those Presidents are quick to claim credit for them, aren't they?
And the meager growth is even more meager when we consider other factors, including population growth. (What a minute? If the US population growth was 5% over the past year, why was economic growth about 2%? It can't be because some of the growth included people who aren't pulling their weight, can it?) Toss in that the last quarter's figure, 1.3% growth, has been downgraded to .8%. This is my point, although it sure took a long time to get there!
Why are the media silent on this? Why aren't we told about the meager growth over Obama's Presidency? Why aren't we told that last quarter's figure was far worse than originally reported?
There, if my friend was here right now, is what I'd tell her about Obama's ratings/rankings. It will take a great deal of digging to find out the truth, reality. And what academic, fully in the Obama camp, will do that digging??????
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Ugh!
Isn't that a fitting word for today--in more ways than one? Outside here it is in the upper 80s or lower 90s, with humididity [sic] to match. I was doing things in the back yard and Michael came to ask me something, made a face, and asked, "Did you just get out of the shower?" No, Bopp, that is called "schweat." I was drenched. And it got a few degrees hotter later in the afternoon. The next three days are forecast with the same humididity [sic], but even higher temperatures. Will the 100+ degrees in Las Vegas next week be a respite from this steambath?
I do read the comments that are posted here. Gus and Pat have had some really good thoughts recently. I really liked Pat's characterization of Trump and Clinton, "Nope and Noper." I hadn't seen or heard that one. It's great. As always, comments are welcome, even encouraged.
I saw a wonderful car decal last weekend. You, no doubt, have seen the ones that read "26.2," signifying that the driver (?) has run a marathon. And there are those for various other distances of road races. The one last weekend read, "0.0." I laughed and laughed Take that, you runners! And, as you must know, I am one of those runners.
Today was/is election day. I voted, of course. I didn't like many of the candidates, but didn't write in any names. I did enjoy, however, voting for four precinct delegates to the Oakland County Republican convention. All four ran as "anti-Establishment" candidates. I don't remember if they also id'd themselves as "anti-Government," but the way things are now set up, aren't "anti-Gov't" and "anti-Estab" one and the same?
If you have not read any novels by Daniel Silva, do yourself a favor and pick one up. His protagonist is Gabriel Allon, a restorer of the finest artwork/paintings, who doubles as a nasty Israel agent. He can be really nasty, but he's also very intelligent. As I've said about other authors/novelists, if only 10% of what Silva writes is true, whoa!!!!!! He is really a good writer.
BTW, I just reserved a rental car for 5 days in Las Vegas. I always bid on Price Line and get pretty good deals. Here's one for you. The taxes and fees (federal, state, local) are more than the price of renting the car! Doesn't something seem very wrong about that??????
Over the course of the past few weeks, more people have exaggerated or even made up (I am convinced) things they said they did/accomplished. I have written before about my amazement at that. Why do they make up things? Even worse, why do they make up things that are so obviously not true? Maybe it's part of that "15 minutes of fame" thing. I don't know. But there's the other end of that spectrum, too. On Mon, Carrie and I ran a tough run--tough course with some not-so-gentle hills, a pretty good pace, and 80 degrees and high humididity [sic] to boot. Yet at the end, because we walked some of it, not much at all, she was disappointed and thought we didn't do very well. I tried to boost her a bit. I don't know if I succeeded. Does she not realize she did something that 95% of the US population couldn't do? I wish there were more like Carrie and fewer of the fantasizers!
Who didn't see this one coming? Some indictments are coming down in the Flint water crisis case. And, guess what, all of those so-far charged are the little guys. Yep, none of the top doggies......
Several folks have tried to convince me to vote for Clinton in Nov. Their rationale is that Trump must be defeated. None tried to defend Clinton as a legitimate candidate for President, only that she has to win so Trump isn't elected. Nope, I'm not falling for that and I told them so. In fact, in a lengthy e-mail to one of them I not only explained why Clinton doesn't deserve to be President, but urged a vote against her (as well as against Trump). One of these folks tried to put the burden on me if Trump (or Clinton?) is elected. I was having none of that. It's not my fault that the misdeeds, arrogance, etc. of the Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats have led to "Nope and Noper." (Thanks again, Pat!) As I told one of them, who suggested that a lot of people have sacrificed so I could have the right to vote, "I have no intention of not voting. I will vote. I just will never vote for Trump or for Clinton. I value my right to vote far too much to waste it on the likes of Clinton or Trump." I might well have added most Democrats and Establishment Republicans.
OK, out to finish a bit more work before getting dinner started.
I do read the comments that are posted here. Gus and Pat have had some really good thoughts recently. I really liked Pat's characterization of Trump and Clinton, "Nope and Noper." I hadn't seen or heard that one. It's great. As always, comments are welcome, even encouraged.
I saw a wonderful car decal last weekend. You, no doubt, have seen the ones that read "26.2," signifying that the driver (?) has run a marathon. And there are those for various other distances of road races. The one last weekend read, "0.0." I laughed and laughed Take that, you runners! And, as you must know, I am one of those runners.
Today was/is election day. I voted, of course. I didn't like many of the candidates, but didn't write in any names. I did enjoy, however, voting for four precinct delegates to the Oakland County Republican convention. All four ran as "anti-Establishment" candidates. I don't remember if they also id'd themselves as "anti-Government," but the way things are now set up, aren't "anti-Gov't" and "anti-Estab" one and the same?
If you have not read any novels by Daniel Silva, do yourself a favor and pick one up. His protagonist is Gabriel Allon, a restorer of the finest artwork/paintings, who doubles as a nasty Israel agent. He can be really nasty, but he's also very intelligent. As I've said about other authors/novelists, if only 10% of what Silva writes is true, whoa!!!!!! He is really a good writer.
BTW, I just reserved a rental car for 5 days in Las Vegas. I always bid on Price Line and get pretty good deals. Here's one for you. The taxes and fees (federal, state, local) are more than the price of renting the car! Doesn't something seem very wrong about that??????
Over the course of the past few weeks, more people have exaggerated or even made up (I am convinced) things they said they did/accomplished. I have written before about my amazement at that. Why do they make up things? Even worse, why do they make up things that are so obviously not true? Maybe it's part of that "15 minutes of fame" thing. I don't know. But there's the other end of that spectrum, too. On Mon, Carrie and I ran a tough run--tough course with some not-so-gentle hills, a pretty good pace, and 80 degrees and high humididity [sic] to boot. Yet at the end, because we walked some of it, not much at all, she was disappointed and thought we didn't do very well. I tried to boost her a bit. I don't know if I succeeded. Does she not realize she did something that 95% of the US population couldn't do? I wish there were more like Carrie and fewer of the fantasizers!
Who didn't see this one coming? Some indictments are coming down in the Flint water crisis case. And, guess what, all of those so-far charged are the little guys. Yep, none of the top doggies......
Several folks have tried to convince me to vote for Clinton in Nov. Their rationale is that Trump must be defeated. None tried to defend Clinton as a legitimate candidate for President, only that she has to win so Trump isn't elected. Nope, I'm not falling for that and I told them so. In fact, in a lengthy e-mail to one of them I not only explained why Clinton doesn't deserve to be President, but urged a vote against her (as well as against Trump). One of these folks tried to put the burden on me if Trump (or Clinton?) is elected. I was having none of that. It's not my fault that the misdeeds, arrogance, etc. of the Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats have led to "Nope and Noper." (Thanks again, Pat!) As I told one of them, who suggested that a lot of people have sacrificed so I could have the right to vote, "I have no intention of not voting. I will vote. I just will never vote for Trump or for Clinton. I value my right to vote far too much to waste it on the likes of Clinton or Trump." I might well have added most Democrats and Establishment Republicans.
OK, out to finish a bit more work before getting dinner started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
