"...and I wonder, still I wonder......" When was the last time I didn't run three days in a week? I can't remember. I built in a planned rest day on Tue, when the weather was fine. But I had a good, almost 70-mile week last week, and have had a string of 60+ weeks going. A day off was good. But then the rains came. I won't run in lightning, which we had one AM. I think that was day we lost power for 30 or 40 mins. And, I headed out on Thur, not getting very far before turning around. It was a monsoon, literally (as Ashley would say, although she doesn't know what "literally" means.). The skies opened and the wind drove the rain horizontally. I came home, drenched, in just a few mins. With classes, there was no time to run afterward. Now, with a run with my blind buddy scheduled for tomorrow AM, what about rain? He won't run in the rain.
I was interested to read the responses to the Det News' endorsement of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President. One reader wrote, "...both candidates (Shrillary and Don) are unacceptable," while another sent in, "...neither major party candidate is ideal." Boy, talk about an understatement! One said, "I admit the Democratic candidate has her flaws......" That one is also laughable, "flaws!" In the same letter, Johnson's lack of foreign policy awareness was called "embarrassing." Clinton hasn't done anything "embarrassing?" I can only laugh to keep from crying at some of these people. Yet a fourth called Johnson "a reasonable alternative" to the two Bozos.
I continue to be upset at those who think turning to a third party candidate is "abdicating your duty" or even "throwing away your vote." One on the radio yesterday suggested "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton." No No No! A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson, not for Clinton. I, nor anyone else, is obligated to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. I refuse to continue to vote for Bozos! I have a conscience and voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump or even Johnson is not "abdicating" anything. That only Trump or Clinton has a chance to win does not mean I must vote for one or the other, esp not if I find both of them extremely repulsive, not at all qualified to be President of the US. I, perhaps more than the bobble heads who blindly vote for whoever has a "D" or an "R" after his/her name, value my right to vote. I will not "throw it away," "waste it" by voting for Trump or Clinton. I cannot play the major parties' games. Ron Reagan said, years ago, something like, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party; it left me." I haven't left the Dems or the Reps; they have left me.
Related, I continue to see very few, if any Clinton signs and just a handful of bumper stickers. In fact, the only two yard signs for her I have seen referred to the fact that she should be in prison in '16, not the White House. (I know, I know...2017.) But the Trump signs seem to be multiplying--in yards, on the sides of roads, and on bumpers. I still think, despite how much I despise both of the candidates, the vote will be close and wouldn't be astonished if Trump wins. There are a lot of closet Trump voters out there, leery of voicing their choice because of the backlash. As if supporting Clinton is less deserving of scorn!
Crime statistics released the other day show crime, esp violent crime, is up in the US, while down a bit in Detroit. I'm not disputing the statistics; they might well be true. I just don't believe them. And that's what comes from a government (on all levels) that lies and lies and lies. Why in the world would I believe that crime is down in Detroit when every day--daily!--it seems there's another shooting death? Are they playing fast and loose with the numbers? Is the falling population affecting the percentages? And that in itself is a crime, that anything released by the government is immediately suspect and presumed to be manipulated.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
"Miss Piggy?"
First, a reply to Pat A. Signs? We had signs? Usually the only real sign we had was stealing, when the player sitting at the end of the bench took off his hat. Often our "sign" was me signalling with my hand to go to 2nd or telling the players, "bunt." I remember we beat an undefeated WB team, twice in a doubleheader, on last-inning squeezes, both (if I recall) with David Wolfe. I just told him and the runner on third to "squeeze." Neither time did WB, the coach or the players, believe it--but they both worked and we won a pair. Funny stuff......
How can we engage in dialogue when some speech is deemed unspeakable? We find this on our campuses, where close-minded students, professors, and administrators fear the challenge of opposing points of view. We find this in our media and sports/entertainment worlds, where those who say "incorrect" things, microaggressions that might upset some fragile feelings, are suspended or fired. And, of course, we use it in politics. If it's an idea the Establishment or other parts of the world don't like. ideas that make someone feel uncomfortable, it's taboo. Have you ever heard that reputed great leader President Obama say, ever say!, "Yes, we find such talk (or writing or video or......) repulsive, but this is America. We believe in free speech and a free press. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our liberty." I suspect you'll never hear him say that. Words like that would only come from a real leader.
So, today's big anti-Trump is that he once called a Miss Universe "Miss Piggy." I don't know that he did and there's been no confirmation/corroboration of her claim that he did. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. It wouldn't surprise me if he did, though.
That said, it also doesn't surprise me that the LameStream media is covering as if it's a big deal. Hmmm...... I know I'm losing my memory, but I fail to recall any meaningful, in-depth search into the charges of Juanita Broaddrick, Paul Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Linda Tripp, and others who have come forward with charges of sexual assault/rape against Bill Clinton. For that matter, I don't think the LameStreams have done much to investigate the charges that Hillary not only enabled her husband, but aided and abetted by threatening, slandering, etc. the accusers. If I don't have a hard time believing Trump said such a thing (or worse?), I also don't have trouble believing Clinton alleged actions.
But, of course, calling someone "Miss Piggy" is a whole lot worse than threatening, slandering, etc. those who make claims of sexual abuse/slander, isn't it? Especially to women and the women's rights groups? BTW, whatever happened to every sexual assault victim has "the right to be believed?" Oh, I understand; only some sexual assault victims have "the right to be believed."
When we think of the Clintons and their followers, remember this from that George Stephanopoulos (sp?) guy, talking in the 1993 documentary, The War Room,"...people who aren't going to matter." I know, I know. "You're taking this out of context." Maybe so, but I thought the Clintons were there for us, the "people." Yep, just like the women's rights groups, regular people ought to think about this one, too. And that's why I never watch anything this guy is on. (OK, you win. I really don't watch television anyway.)
I know it never happened, that nobody from the NFL was fined for wearing shoes or other markings commemorating the Sept 11 tragedy. One or two NFL players claimed they were threatened with fine, but nobody was. Still there are two things about this. First, does anyone believe the NFL wouldn't have fined a player if there had been a huge outcry, esp after that QB and the entire one team took a knee/knees during the Star-Spangled Banner? So. something that involves some national pride is threatened (or so it's been claimed), but something that is disrespectful isn't threatened, but, in fact, is lauded? I've already written about how they take their stances (that's a pun), but, at least as far as I've read, haven't done a think otherwise to improve things. But that's a different story. Second, isn't the NFL the league with a problem with drug abusers, women beaters, thugs with guns, etc.? Of course, some of them have been penalized/punished. But would the NFL consider wearing a pair of shoes in memory as egregious as these felonies? Wasn't Meyton Panning fined more than $20,000 for wearing high-top shoes to honor Johnny Unitas?????? Gee, there's yet another reason not to watch NFL games.
How can we engage in dialogue when some speech is deemed unspeakable? We find this on our campuses, where close-minded students, professors, and administrators fear the challenge of opposing points of view. We find this in our media and sports/entertainment worlds, where those who say "incorrect" things, microaggressions that might upset some fragile feelings, are suspended or fired. And, of course, we use it in politics. If it's an idea the Establishment or other parts of the world don't like. ideas that make someone feel uncomfortable, it's taboo. Have you ever heard that reputed great leader President Obama say, ever say!, "Yes, we find such talk (or writing or video or......) repulsive, but this is America. We believe in free speech and a free press. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our liberty." I suspect you'll never hear him say that. Words like that would only come from a real leader.
So, today's big anti-Trump is that he once called a Miss Universe "Miss Piggy." I don't know that he did and there's been no confirmation/corroboration of her claim that he did. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. It wouldn't surprise me if he did, though.
That said, it also doesn't surprise me that the LameStream media is covering as if it's a big deal. Hmmm...... I know I'm losing my memory, but I fail to recall any meaningful, in-depth search into the charges of Juanita Broaddrick, Paul Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Linda Tripp, and others who have come forward with charges of sexual assault/rape against Bill Clinton. For that matter, I don't think the LameStreams have done much to investigate the charges that Hillary not only enabled her husband, but aided and abetted by threatening, slandering, etc. the accusers. If I don't have a hard time believing Trump said such a thing (or worse?), I also don't have trouble believing Clinton alleged actions.
But, of course, calling someone "Miss Piggy" is a whole lot worse than threatening, slandering, etc. those who make claims of sexual abuse/slander, isn't it? Especially to women and the women's rights groups? BTW, whatever happened to every sexual assault victim has "the right to be believed?" Oh, I understand; only some sexual assault victims have "the right to be believed."
When we think of the Clintons and their followers, remember this from that George Stephanopoulos (sp?) guy, talking in the 1993 documentary, The War Room,"...people who aren't going to matter." I know, I know. "You're taking this out of context." Maybe so, but I thought the Clintons were there for us, the "people." Yep, just like the women's rights groups, regular people ought to think about this one, too. And that's why I never watch anything this guy is on. (OK, you win. I really don't watch television anyway.)
I know it never happened, that nobody from the NFL was fined for wearing shoes or other markings commemorating the Sept 11 tragedy. One or two NFL players claimed they were threatened with fine, but nobody was. Still there are two things about this. First, does anyone believe the NFL wouldn't have fined a player if there had been a huge outcry, esp after that QB and the entire one team took a knee/knees during the Star-Spangled Banner? So. something that involves some national pride is threatened (or so it's been claimed), but something that is disrespectful isn't threatened, but, in fact, is lauded? I've already written about how they take their stances (that's a pun), but, at least as far as I've read, haven't done a think otherwise to improve things. But that's a different story. Second, isn't the NFL the league with a problem with drug abusers, women beaters, thugs with guns, etc.? Of course, some of them have been penalized/punished. But would the NFL consider wearing a pair of shoes in memory as egregious as these felonies? Wasn't Meyton Panning fined more than $20,000 for wearing high-top shoes to honor Johnny Unitas?????? Gee, there's yet another reason not to watch NFL games.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Send in the Clowns......
First, I like the dialogue of the past few posts. And, most impressively, other than the very good ideas exchanged, it is civil. Keep it up. You guys are teaching me things and giving me much to think about.
Send in the clowns. That's about all I can say after last night's charade of a debate. Granted, it didn't watch it, but heard many exchanges, from all sides, on the radio this AM. It confirmed my view that the Presidential race is know-nothing vs do-nothing-good. See my earlier blog posts, any number of them, to see specific.
I am reminded, too, of the large disconnect there is between not just the political establishment and the common people, but between the LameStream media and we plebeians. I awoke this AM to newspaper and radio reports of the Clinton victory in the debate. From what I understand from callers to radio stations, multi-stations, not to mention almost every single poll (outside of CNN), Trump was the clear-cut winner. I guess that shows another thing, too. People likely hear and see what they want to hear and see.
From what I gather, too, the moderator wasn't really a moderator, that is not one who "arbitrates or mediates." He took sides, if not blatantly, at least by omission. Where Trump was confronted half a dozen times or more over his responses, Clinton was never challenged, not even with her lie that she didn't really call the TPP "the gold standard" by which trade agreements should be judged. (Interesting how some Michigan Dem candidates for Congress are railing against their Rep opponents for supporting the TPP. Maybe the Dems should get their stories straight.) Play fair. And do they still wonder why the American public doesn't trust the LameStreams, why network news ratings are in toilet?
The entire fiasco called the Presidential Campaign/Election has me upset, sometimes close to physically upset. I am serious. If I might borrow a phrase I read online this AM, it's the equivalent of "an American colonoscopy."
On to less sickening matters, baseball. I watch more of the Tigers than I used to watch. I remain in awe, often, of their raw abilities. I know what it takes to be a good ballplayer, at least the skill to be one. And then to make the Major Leagues?????? Wow. I've often remarked how much I enjoy seeing Cabrera bat. I think he is injured, not severely, but enough to make a difference, how matter small. I think his foot/leg still bother him. I went to a game a few weeks ago and he was wearing a brace over his ankle. And that was the night after he was limping on and off the field. Watch his swing. Sometimes it really seems out of whack (whatever a "whack" is). I think he also has hand and finger issues. Try swinging a bat with sore hands. Still he's hitting over .300, with 30-some HRs and is closing in on 100 RBIs. Think, too, how many hits are taken from him. One game last week he took the collar, but could easily had 3 hits, 3 balls hit right on the nose right at someone. On Sat, he lined to 3B, the fielder driving to his left to catch the ball after it had passed him! On Sun, the left fielder, maybe the best in the league, made a diving catch on his flair (which would have also added an RBI). That happens frequently, very frequently. I think Justin Verlander (I couldn't, just now, remember his first name for a few moments!) has pitched remarkably well this year. Other than that former Tiger pitcher who is 22-4, Verlander is certainly a Cy Young candidate. He deserves several more wins, not getting them because of little run support or blown games by the bullpen. His ERA is quite low and, if just two games are removed, it goes quite a bit lower. I like watching Ian Kinsler and Julio Iglesias. They are so smooth and play the game the right way, even though with his flair, Iggy is on the verge of being a hot dog. But he's so darn quick! How Victor Martinez hits it so hard and so far is also a wonder. I watched, in slow-motion, two of his HRs last week. Both of them seemed to be hit off his front foot, his body leaning out past his front foot! He's fun to watch hit, too, although I know he's struggling with physical ailments. AJ Martinez is someone to watch, too. I think he's learned a lot from Miggy, how to wait on pitches and hit them to RF. He now realizes he can hit HRs to right just as well as to left. Fullmer has an odd delivery. It seems like his body, legs, and arm don't really work together. It's as if he lunges when he throws the ball--that is, throws the ball at 96 and 97 mph! Toss in that often very wicked slider and, well, if I a hitter I 'm hoping the manager goes to the bullpen early.
And these guys often hit the ball so far and so hard! Lasers, BBs, frozen ropes, clothes lines, blue darters......none of these seem to fit any more. I presume it's the stronger players and lighter bats with their whip. I presume it's the pitchers throwing faster. Last week someone suggested the ball is wound a little tighter this season. Still it's amazing how hard and how far they hit the ball. A 5' 10" 150-pound outfielder doesn't stand much of a chance unless he can run like the wind. If he can't, and with a fair arm, he stands no chance.
But it's an odd game. Why, in a single game, can every pitcher get shelled? That is, like Sunday's game, each pitcher was wracked for a lot of runs. Is every one of those pitchers having an off day, all 11 or 12 of them--on the same day!?!?!? Is every hitter tuned in, all on the same day?
I still wonder sometimes at how the game is played at that level. I have several examples. With all of those shifts, can't any of the players, at least once in a while, drive the ball to the opposite field? How many hits are taken away because of the shifts? Might driving the ball the other way lead to a couple of hits that defeats the shift and cause it to be taken off? If, as the color guys on the boob tube and radio constantly tell us, these guys are the hitters they are supposed to be, why can't they shoot a couple the wrong way? I know the money is in home runs, but don't we often hear about "winning is number one?" Also, why do the outfielders play so deep? Not all of them do. The best ones don't; they play more shallow. For every home run that might be taken away, how many balls fall 5 or 10 feet in front of outfielders, base hits? And, for that matter, why can't they still get back for the long fly ball home runs that might still be caught? If they are such great athletes, with far better than average speed, can't they make up ground behind them, esp if they are taught, instinctually, to take the first step backward, regardless? And why do so few players know how to bunt, specifically bunt for a hit? Andrew Romine had a great idea the other day. With two outs and the bases loaded, he dropped a bunt. But he sacrificed, with two outs!, and the play failed. As soon as he squared away, the infielders knew to charge. A pretty good bunt still led to a force out at the plate. It was a great idea, esp for a guy who is hitting in the low .200s. But it's execution left much to be desired and led to an easy out. Had he bunted for a hit, that is, not squared around at all, the play might well have succeeded, even with a less than perfect bunt. Do managers and coaches not at all teach that skill? Is there no time, even if it might make the difference in a game or two? (Look at how the wild cards races are going this season. "...a game or two?")
Send in the clowns. That's about all I can say after last night's charade of a debate. Granted, it didn't watch it, but heard many exchanges, from all sides, on the radio this AM. It confirmed my view that the Presidential race is know-nothing vs do-nothing-good. See my earlier blog posts, any number of them, to see specific.
I am reminded, too, of the large disconnect there is between not just the political establishment and the common people, but between the LameStream media and we plebeians. I awoke this AM to newspaper and radio reports of the Clinton victory in the debate. From what I understand from callers to radio stations, multi-stations, not to mention almost every single poll (outside of CNN), Trump was the clear-cut winner. I guess that shows another thing, too. People likely hear and see what they want to hear and see.
From what I gather, too, the moderator wasn't really a moderator, that is not one who "arbitrates or mediates." He took sides, if not blatantly, at least by omission. Where Trump was confronted half a dozen times or more over his responses, Clinton was never challenged, not even with her lie that she didn't really call the TPP "the gold standard" by which trade agreements should be judged. (Interesting how some Michigan Dem candidates for Congress are railing against their Rep opponents for supporting the TPP. Maybe the Dems should get their stories straight.) Play fair. And do they still wonder why the American public doesn't trust the LameStreams, why network news ratings are in toilet?
The entire fiasco called the Presidential Campaign/Election has me upset, sometimes close to physically upset. I am serious. If I might borrow a phrase I read online this AM, it's the equivalent of "an American colonoscopy."
On to less sickening matters, baseball. I watch more of the Tigers than I used to watch. I remain in awe, often, of their raw abilities. I know what it takes to be a good ballplayer, at least the skill to be one. And then to make the Major Leagues?????? Wow. I've often remarked how much I enjoy seeing Cabrera bat. I think he is injured, not severely, but enough to make a difference, how matter small. I think his foot/leg still bother him. I went to a game a few weeks ago and he was wearing a brace over his ankle. And that was the night after he was limping on and off the field. Watch his swing. Sometimes it really seems out of whack (whatever a "whack" is). I think he also has hand and finger issues. Try swinging a bat with sore hands. Still he's hitting over .300, with 30-some HRs and is closing in on 100 RBIs. Think, too, how many hits are taken from him. One game last week he took the collar, but could easily had 3 hits, 3 balls hit right on the nose right at someone. On Sat, he lined to 3B, the fielder driving to his left to catch the ball after it had passed him! On Sun, the left fielder, maybe the best in the league, made a diving catch on his flair (which would have also added an RBI). That happens frequently, very frequently. I think Justin Verlander (I couldn't, just now, remember his first name for a few moments!) has pitched remarkably well this year. Other than that former Tiger pitcher who is 22-4, Verlander is certainly a Cy Young candidate. He deserves several more wins, not getting them because of little run support or blown games by the bullpen. His ERA is quite low and, if just two games are removed, it goes quite a bit lower. I like watching Ian Kinsler and Julio Iglesias. They are so smooth and play the game the right way, even though with his flair, Iggy is on the verge of being a hot dog. But he's so darn quick! How Victor Martinez hits it so hard and so far is also a wonder. I watched, in slow-motion, two of his HRs last week. Both of them seemed to be hit off his front foot, his body leaning out past his front foot! He's fun to watch hit, too, although I know he's struggling with physical ailments. AJ Martinez is someone to watch, too. I think he's learned a lot from Miggy, how to wait on pitches and hit them to RF. He now realizes he can hit HRs to right just as well as to left. Fullmer has an odd delivery. It seems like his body, legs, and arm don't really work together. It's as if he lunges when he throws the ball--that is, throws the ball at 96 and 97 mph! Toss in that often very wicked slider and, well, if I a hitter I 'm hoping the manager goes to the bullpen early.
And these guys often hit the ball so far and so hard! Lasers, BBs, frozen ropes, clothes lines, blue darters......none of these seem to fit any more. I presume it's the stronger players and lighter bats with their whip. I presume it's the pitchers throwing faster. Last week someone suggested the ball is wound a little tighter this season. Still it's amazing how hard and how far they hit the ball. A 5' 10" 150-pound outfielder doesn't stand much of a chance unless he can run like the wind. If he can't, and with a fair arm, he stands no chance.
But it's an odd game. Why, in a single game, can every pitcher get shelled? That is, like Sunday's game, each pitcher was wracked for a lot of runs. Is every one of those pitchers having an off day, all 11 or 12 of them--on the same day!?!?!? Is every hitter tuned in, all on the same day?
I still wonder sometimes at how the game is played at that level. I have several examples. With all of those shifts, can't any of the players, at least once in a while, drive the ball to the opposite field? How many hits are taken away because of the shifts? Might driving the ball the other way lead to a couple of hits that defeats the shift and cause it to be taken off? If, as the color guys on the boob tube and radio constantly tell us, these guys are the hitters they are supposed to be, why can't they shoot a couple the wrong way? I know the money is in home runs, but don't we often hear about "winning is number one?" Also, why do the outfielders play so deep? Not all of them do. The best ones don't; they play more shallow. For every home run that might be taken away, how many balls fall 5 or 10 feet in front of outfielders, base hits? And, for that matter, why can't they still get back for the long fly ball home runs that might still be caught? If they are such great athletes, with far better than average speed, can't they make up ground behind them, esp if they are taught, instinctually, to take the first step backward, regardless? And why do so few players know how to bunt, specifically bunt for a hit? Andrew Romine had a great idea the other day. With two outs and the bases loaded, he dropped a bunt. But he sacrificed, with two outs!, and the play failed. As soon as he squared away, the infielders knew to charge. A pretty good bunt still led to a force out at the plate. It was a great idea, esp for a guy who is hitting in the low .200s. But it's execution left much to be desired and led to an easy out. Had he bunted for a hit, that is, not squared around at all, the play might well have succeeded, even with a less than perfect bunt. Do managers and coaches not at all teach that skill? Is there no time, even if it might make the difference in a game or two? (Look at how the wild cards races are going this season. "...a game or two?")
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Dangerous Times?
Apparently some Major League catcher was suspended for the remainder of the season, without pay, by his team. His offense? He tweeted some comments about the riots in Charlotte, NC that apparently some folks might find offensive. I haven't seen the entire tweet, but what I did read might be offensive to some, but that's not the point. This AM I read that a reporter in Charlotte, either USA Today or CNN (I am not sure which) was also suspended for a month. His crime was to tweet to tell drivers to avoid using I-277 because mobs were shutting down the freeway and then surrounding cars. What is wrong with that, other than preventing some people from getting hurt or, as one of the rioters has been already, killed?
Is this what we've come to in the USA? If some people are offended by remarks or writings, the "offenders" are fired or suspended? How can we engage in meaningful dialogue if people are afraid of being on "the wrong side" and getting punished (suspension or dismissal) for it?
This is disturbing. The NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem offend a lot of people, a whole lot of them. Not only are they not at all punished, they are lauded. And this from a league that has a good number of drug abusers, women beaters, and others charged and/or convicted of assault. I would think I won't be watching any of the NFL games tomorrow. (OK, you caught me. I haven't watched any at all yet this season.)
Why is it that there are consequences if certain people are offended, but none if certain other people are offended? For that matter, will there be consequences for those who have not "protested," but rioted? A number of reporters have told of stores being looted, with the mobsters heading right to the beer and wine, the cigarettes, and the cash registers. If so much is found on cell phone, uploaded to You Tube, etc., surely those who commit acts of violence that ruin other people's homes and businesses, not to mention shooting others, can also be discovered--if the authorities are at all interested in finding them.
For that matter, have any of those people who have tweeted, "Kill all white cops" or "White cops are devils" or other such stuff been disciplined or dismissed from jobs? Wouldn't this be especially appropriate since in some of the past few shootings, not all, it's been black officers who did the shootings?
I don't remember the number or specifics, but haven't some college/university professors also been dismissed or otherwise disciplined for taking unpopular stances? On college campuses! But, as the recent decades have proven, perhaps the least tolerant places in the US are colleges and universities, precisely the places that are supposed to be the market place of ideas, many ideas, popular and otherwise.
Why are we so quick to rush to judgment about these police shootings? Even in the past week or so, with the terrorist attacks in Minn, NY, NJ, didn't we hear from our leaders (and I say that, "leaders," with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) not to do just that, "Don't rush to judgment about terrorism?" And in our rush to judgment, how many times, when the facts become known, the original judgments are wrong, very wrong? Yet, don't judge the terrorist attacks.
For that matter, a Detroit police officer died a week ago, from gunshot wounds from a thug, a car jacker. I'm still waiting for the protests about that. Where are the black leaders or Black Lives Matter? Where are the NFL players and all those college kids so concerned about lives?
In this same vein, how about this one? What if, heaven forbid, Clinton wins in November? (OK, it's also "heaven forbid" if Trump wins!) Trump supporters, despite the attempts to portray them all as "racists" and "bigots," will be very disappointed. Many, I'd even say most, Trump supporters have come to him, not because they are "racists" and "bigots," but as an alternative to the Establishment and politics and government that have alienated them. The wealthy, well I'm not sure they need much help, but they can buy politicians and bureaucrats--and apparently often do. The poor are covered with blanket after blanket of security, whether deserved or not, that is, from gaming the system. Many in the middle are left out in this ocean of despair, fighting to face the trials and tribulations of daily life, something the German Romanticists called "sturm und drang," storm and stress. They feel as if they have been abandoned, while others get all of the help. They have tried the system, playing by the rules, but have been again and again stabbed in the back by the Establishment. So then, in the face of all this, if Trump loses what if the Trumpsters riot, er, protest? (You know what the Lamestreams will label it.) Will they get the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards? Will they avoid any accountability or responsibility for their actions? In a sense, any such reaction will be far, far closer to the "protests" of 245 or so years ago, the colonists displeased with the government they were getting from the British Parliament and King--and their bureaucrats. But well all know, from history, that all those Founders were just old, rich, white men.
So, Ted Cruz has finally endorsed Don Trump--or so I heard. I find that very disappointing. OK, I would guess that, as young as Cruz is, if he has any hopes of future runs for the White House, he has to get in the good graces of the Republican Establishment. But how disappointing! One of the things that made Cruz so appealing was his stand on principles, pushing back against the lame Republican Establishment. The endorsement seems to indicate that he's allowed politics to "trump" principles. We find out that, when push comes to shove, Cruz is just another politician. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I am disappointed.
I know this got me in a lot of hot water with folks, far more than any of my other blog posts!, when I suggested that Kid Rock had a lousy voice, did not sing well, etc. I didn't say others couldn't like him or that he wasn't a good guy or that he didn't do good things for Detroit and Michigan, just that he really couldn't sing very well. You'd think I was as dastardly as John Lemon of the Beagles when he said, "We're more popular that Jesus." (Did he really say that?) Well, here I go again. I heard Bruce Springsteen a couple of times on the radio this AM. First, there are some of his songs (?) I like, that I really like. I like how they sound; I like to dance to some of them. But he sure has a lousy voice. One of the songs that came on I had heard before, many times, but I had no idea what its title was--I couldn't understand the words, which apparently repeated the title again and again. I only discovered it when the DJ said it. OK, there are some Springsteen things that are junk, just like some of Bob Seger's stuff isn't very good. But, I repeat, there are Springsteen things I like and even have a CD or two of his. Coming on right afterward were a couple of Prince tunes. I don't care much for the stuff he wrote and sang, but there were a couple that I rank pretty high on my list of favorites. But as a singer (even a writer?), he wasn't all that good. Even 1999, one of my favorites, isn't sung very well and includes a bunch of guttural moans and grunts that, well, what is their meaning?
It really is amazing that the Tigers are still in the hunt for a playoff spot with how sporadic and mediocre their bullpen has been. I wonder how many games have been blown by the relievers.
Is this what we've come to in the USA? If some people are offended by remarks or writings, the "offenders" are fired or suspended? How can we engage in meaningful dialogue if people are afraid of being on "the wrong side" and getting punished (suspension or dismissal) for it?
This is disturbing. The NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem offend a lot of people, a whole lot of them. Not only are they not at all punished, they are lauded. And this from a league that has a good number of drug abusers, women beaters, and others charged and/or convicted of assault. I would think I won't be watching any of the NFL games tomorrow. (OK, you caught me. I haven't watched any at all yet this season.)
Why is it that there are consequences if certain people are offended, but none if certain other people are offended? For that matter, will there be consequences for those who have not "protested," but rioted? A number of reporters have told of stores being looted, with the mobsters heading right to the beer and wine, the cigarettes, and the cash registers. If so much is found on cell phone, uploaded to You Tube, etc., surely those who commit acts of violence that ruin other people's homes and businesses, not to mention shooting others, can also be discovered--if the authorities are at all interested in finding them.
For that matter, have any of those people who have tweeted, "Kill all white cops" or "White cops are devils" or other such stuff been disciplined or dismissed from jobs? Wouldn't this be especially appropriate since in some of the past few shootings, not all, it's been black officers who did the shootings?
I don't remember the number or specifics, but haven't some college/university professors also been dismissed or otherwise disciplined for taking unpopular stances? On college campuses! But, as the recent decades have proven, perhaps the least tolerant places in the US are colleges and universities, precisely the places that are supposed to be the market place of ideas, many ideas, popular and otherwise.
Why are we so quick to rush to judgment about these police shootings? Even in the past week or so, with the terrorist attacks in Minn, NY, NJ, didn't we hear from our leaders (and I say that, "leaders," with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) not to do just that, "Don't rush to judgment about terrorism?" And in our rush to judgment, how many times, when the facts become known, the original judgments are wrong, very wrong? Yet, don't judge the terrorist attacks.
For that matter, a Detroit police officer died a week ago, from gunshot wounds from a thug, a car jacker. I'm still waiting for the protests about that. Where are the black leaders or Black Lives Matter? Where are the NFL players and all those college kids so concerned about lives?
In this same vein, how about this one? What if, heaven forbid, Clinton wins in November? (OK, it's also "heaven forbid" if Trump wins!) Trump supporters, despite the attempts to portray them all as "racists" and "bigots," will be very disappointed. Many, I'd even say most, Trump supporters have come to him, not because they are "racists" and "bigots," but as an alternative to the Establishment and politics and government that have alienated them. The wealthy, well I'm not sure they need much help, but they can buy politicians and bureaucrats--and apparently often do. The poor are covered with blanket after blanket of security, whether deserved or not, that is, from gaming the system. Many in the middle are left out in this ocean of despair, fighting to face the trials and tribulations of daily life, something the German Romanticists called "sturm und drang," storm and stress. They feel as if they have been abandoned, while others get all of the help. They have tried the system, playing by the rules, but have been again and again stabbed in the back by the Establishment. So then, in the face of all this, if Trump loses what if the Trumpsters riot, er, protest? (You know what the Lamestreams will label it.) Will they get the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards? Will they avoid any accountability or responsibility for their actions? In a sense, any such reaction will be far, far closer to the "protests" of 245 or so years ago, the colonists displeased with the government they were getting from the British Parliament and King--and their bureaucrats. But well all know, from history, that all those Founders were just old, rich, white men.
So, Ted Cruz has finally endorsed Don Trump--or so I heard. I find that very disappointing. OK, I would guess that, as young as Cruz is, if he has any hopes of future runs for the White House, he has to get in the good graces of the Republican Establishment. But how disappointing! One of the things that made Cruz so appealing was his stand on principles, pushing back against the lame Republican Establishment. The endorsement seems to indicate that he's allowed politics to "trump" principles. We find out that, when push comes to shove, Cruz is just another politician. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I am disappointed.
I know this got me in a lot of hot water with folks, far more than any of my other blog posts!, when I suggested that Kid Rock had a lousy voice, did not sing well, etc. I didn't say others couldn't like him or that he wasn't a good guy or that he didn't do good things for Detroit and Michigan, just that he really couldn't sing very well. You'd think I was as dastardly as John Lemon of the Beagles when he said, "We're more popular that Jesus." (Did he really say that?) Well, here I go again. I heard Bruce Springsteen a couple of times on the radio this AM. First, there are some of his songs (?) I like, that I really like. I like how they sound; I like to dance to some of them. But he sure has a lousy voice. One of the songs that came on I had heard before, many times, but I had no idea what its title was--I couldn't understand the words, which apparently repeated the title again and again. I only discovered it when the DJ said it. OK, there are some Springsteen things that are junk, just like some of Bob Seger's stuff isn't very good. But, I repeat, there are Springsteen things I like and even have a CD or two of his. Coming on right afterward were a couple of Prince tunes. I don't care much for the stuff he wrote and sang, but there were a couple that I rank pretty high on my list of favorites. But as a singer (even a writer?), he wasn't all that good. Even 1999, one of my favorites, isn't sung very well and includes a bunch of guttural moans and grunts that, well, what is their meaning?
It really is amazing that the Tigers are still in the hunt for a playoff spot with how sporadic and mediocre their bullpen has been. I wonder how many games have been blown by the relievers.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
A Canned Performance?
I have a passion for learning which, I hope, extends to my teaching. It has been painful for me to watch what has happened to education over the past 40+ years. The past couple of weeks have reinforced my distress over the state of education.
At Michael's open house last week, I am pretty sure we could have had a canned talk from at least four, maybe five of his classroom teachers. The presentations were much the same. Oh, the voices were different, but the messages were not. And I'm not necessarily being critical of the teachers--no. (People who know me I am critical enough of many teachers, but not in this instance. They were merely telling us what is.)
In these 4 or 5 courses, 40% of students' final grades comes from the final exams, that is, "the state assessment." And that's what each of the teachers called it and what showed up on their syllabi or on their smart boards. I guess I could have a problem with 40% of a high school student's final grade coming from a single final exam, but that's not my point here.
This was confirmed/corroborated by a talk with another high school teacher from a different school in a different district--"40%" to which he added, "...and we can't change it." So, as I thought through several days and asked this other teacher, "We have some guy who's never set foot in your school, let alone your classroom, has never talked to or even seen a single one of your students, who probably isn't even in Michigan, and the test he writes will determine 40% of some student's grade?" "Yep," I was told yet again, "and the test comes with the textbooks that teach to the test." Ah, here we go again--MONEY!
This is pathetic or worse. And we let it happen. Yes, it's our fault, to cite the old Shakespeare line. For too many years teachers didn't do their jobs of scrutinizing student learning and grading accordingly. Parents have let the bureaucrats, politicians, and corporate-types take over, using wide and sweeping criticism of teachers as their rationale. (And, as I noted, many teachers deserve the criticism, but not all.)
Democrats think the solution to the faltering education system is to throw more money at it, more and more money all the time. Now, I firmly believe the best teachers are vastly underpaid, particularly when compared with what others (even Bozos) in other occupations are paid. But some teachers are vastly overpaid, too. The problem is identifying the best from the run-of-the-mill or worse--and, as I've noted in the past, that's not easy due to emotions. (I ran into this just last spring when I asked Michael who his best teacher was. He replied with something like "I like her. She's nice." But I said, "No, I didn't say your favorite teacher, but your best. There's a difference." He thought only for a moment and said the same teacher. I asked him why. He replied, "Because she taught me the most." (OK, I don't remember the exact words in our conversation, but this is the gist of it.) But the constant more money, more money (often wasted, just flushed down the toilet) refrain of the Democrats and many in the education establishment is not what's needed.
But Republicans don't have a clue, either. Just because someone has "run a business" or "met a payroll" has nothing to do with understanding what goes into quality education/teaching. Look at our current governor of Michigan. He's taken a bad situation and made it worse because, of course, he (and his appointees) went to school and knows how to run one, at least the institution. Heck, with the emergency manager snafus, with the Flint water crisis, with "right-to-work-for-less," and lots more, he's shown he can't really even run a state. But, boy, he "ran a business" and "met a payroll." I wonder if he thinks he could manage the Tigers better than Brad Ausmus--probably thinks he can.
There are solutions and despite what some Bozos have claimed, I do have answers some times. You can go back through my archives to find some. (I don't want to go through them again right now; I must mow the back yard before I need a baler!) They aren't easy and surely won't be popular with a lot of people, but sometimes things worth undertaking require hard choices and work.
I saw an online op-ed this AM that reflecting my thinking of the past few weeks. I think I may have posted something about it last week or before. (That's just to show I don't just copy what others have written.) I noted that the Presidential polls are getting closer. Oh, Trump isn't getting more popular; Clinton is getting less popular. Trump is not surging; Clinton is sagging. So, now this op-ed author, who has lamented the choices in November, realizes that, "Hey, Trump could win!" Or, more to the point, he could be within a point or two of winning. All those who say they can't vote for Trump, if they did, could insure Clinton's defeat.
So that's me. If I could bring myself to vote for Trump, with all the others who think likewise of him, could Clinton be defeated? This author is now weaseling, not so sure of his November vote. I'm not like him. I'm sticking with Clinton is the worst possible choice for President--except for Trump and Trump is the worst possible choice for President--except for Clinton. Let's go back to last spring; my mantra remains, "When given the choice between two evils, choose neither."
At Michael's open house last week, I am pretty sure we could have had a canned talk from at least four, maybe five of his classroom teachers. The presentations were much the same. Oh, the voices were different, but the messages were not. And I'm not necessarily being critical of the teachers--no. (People who know me I am critical enough of many teachers, but not in this instance. They were merely telling us what is.)
In these 4 or 5 courses, 40% of students' final grades comes from the final exams, that is, "the state assessment." And that's what each of the teachers called it and what showed up on their syllabi or on their smart boards. I guess I could have a problem with 40% of a high school student's final grade coming from a single final exam, but that's not my point here.
This was confirmed/corroborated by a talk with another high school teacher from a different school in a different district--"40%" to which he added, "...and we can't change it." So, as I thought through several days and asked this other teacher, "We have some guy who's never set foot in your school, let alone your classroom, has never talked to or even seen a single one of your students, who probably isn't even in Michigan, and the test he writes will determine 40% of some student's grade?" "Yep," I was told yet again, "and the test comes with the textbooks that teach to the test." Ah, here we go again--MONEY!
This is pathetic or worse. And we let it happen. Yes, it's our fault, to cite the old Shakespeare line. For too many years teachers didn't do their jobs of scrutinizing student learning and grading accordingly. Parents have let the bureaucrats, politicians, and corporate-types take over, using wide and sweeping criticism of teachers as their rationale. (And, as I noted, many teachers deserve the criticism, but not all.)
Democrats think the solution to the faltering education system is to throw more money at it, more and more money all the time. Now, I firmly believe the best teachers are vastly underpaid, particularly when compared with what others (even Bozos) in other occupations are paid. But some teachers are vastly overpaid, too. The problem is identifying the best from the run-of-the-mill or worse--and, as I've noted in the past, that's not easy due to emotions. (I ran into this just last spring when I asked Michael who his best teacher was. He replied with something like "I like her. She's nice." But I said, "No, I didn't say your favorite teacher, but your best. There's a difference." He thought only for a moment and said the same teacher. I asked him why. He replied, "Because she taught me the most." (OK, I don't remember the exact words in our conversation, but this is the gist of it.) But the constant more money, more money (often wasted, just flushed down the toilet) refrain of the Democrats and many in the education establishment is not what's needed.
But Republicans don't have a clue, either. Just because someone has "run a business" or "met a payroll" has nothing to do with understanding what goes into quality education/teaching. Look at our current governor of Michigan. He's taken a bad situation and made it worse because, of course, he (and his appointees) went to school and knows how to run one, at least the institution. Heck, with the emergency manager snafus, with the Flint water crisis, with "right-to-work-for-less," and lots more, he's shown he can't really even run a state. But, boy, he "ran a business" and "met a payroll." I wonder if he thinks he could manage the Tigers better than Brad Ausmus--probably thinks he can.
There are solutions and despite what some Bozos have claimed, I do have answers some times. You can go back through my archives to find some. (I don't want to go through them again right now; I must mow the back yard before I need a baler!) They aren't easy and surely won't be popular with a lot of people, but sometimes things worth undertaking require hard choices and work.
I saw an online op-ed this AM that reflecting my thinking of the past few weeks. I think I may have posted something about it last week or before. (That's just to show I don't just copy what others have written.) I noted that the Presidential polls are getting closer. Oh, Trump isn't getting more popular; Clinton is getting less popular. Trump is not surging; Clinton is sagging. So, now this op-ed author, who has lamented the choices in November, realizes that, "Hey, Trump could win!" Or, more to the point, he could be within a point or two of winning. All those who say they can't vote for Trump, if they did, could insure Clinton's defeat.
So that's me. If I could bring myself to vote for Trump, with all the others who think likewise of him, could Clinton be defeated? This author is now weaseling, not so sure of his November vote. I'm not like him. I'm sticking with Clinton is the worst possible choice for President--except for Trump and Trump is the worst possible choice for President--except for Clinton. Let's go back to last spring; my mantra remains, "When given the choice between two evils, choose neither."
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Sun AM
Is there anything worse than getting up at 5:00 AM and discovering the newspaper isn't here yet? OK, there's a lot worse. Still, as one of my friends like to repeat, "Just sayin'......"
So, with a few minutes on my hands......
I got a big kick out of hearing some guy during the Tiger game yesterday say of some college game later in the evening, "a historic football game!" Now I don't know who was playing, but "historic?" That was worth a chuckle.
I read the comment from Gus, that Trump is saying what most people in this country believe. I'm not sure of that. First, I'm not sure Trump believes what he says. How can he when he keeps changing his mind? But more to the point, I think it's more a matter of people, many if not most, just plain being sick and tired, frustrated, angry, whatever other such term, with the Establishment, with the way things have gone. They are dissatisfied with where we are and blame the Establishment, both political parties. I do think Gus is right on the Bernie Sanders' thing. Who doesn't want freebies?
Speaking of Sanders, or at least his followers, how can any of them stoop to voting for Clinton after discovering that she and the Democrat Establishment "bullied," undercutting Sanders and his campaign? That is, they rigged the system. So, one might say, "Why are you surprised?" Well, I'm not, either that this happens in politics or that the Clintons are involved. But if voters are supporting Sanders (or Trump for that matter), isn't that why, the fixing of the system? How, then, can a full-fledged member of that system, one who used it to nefariously undercut her opponent, from her own party, get support from that opponent or his followers? When Sanders went to show support for Clinton, if that didn't convince people he was a doddering old fool, nothing will.
BTW, this guy who wanted to pay for all the freebies by taxing "the wealthy," how much money does he make as a US Senator? Right, that's about 3 or 4 times what we make here.
I was somewhat startled to read an op-ed by a self-professed Democrat that, "...neither party has a monopoly on wisdom." He's certainly right there, but for him, a Democrat at that, to admit such a thing is a surprise. I thought those arrogant elitists, from both parties, considered themselves smarter than the rest of us, knowing what's best for us better than we do. Well, maybe the guy is an expatriate. The arrogant elitists can't have us discovering "...neither party has a monopoly on wisdom."
And, sadly, another police officer, this time in Detroit, was shot and killed. A carjack last week was stopped and shot the officer, who died a couple days later from his wound(s). Gee, do you think the Detroit Lions (or any other NFL team or even single player!) will take knees during the National Anthem to protest murdering thugs in this country? No, I don't expect it either.
And has Don Trump gone liberal--again? His child care program sounds like something straight out of the DNC. Clinton also has a plan, a specific one, despite Trump's claims (When can we start calling them "lies?") that she doesn't "and never will." Both candidates' plans will cost billions of dollars a year. Clinton will try to pay for hers with a tax increase--what else? She's a Democrat. And we know how those usually work out. Trump, whose child care program costs are even higher than Clinton's!, said he'll pay for it by getting rid of waste and fraud. And, we know how that usually works out, too. Spend. Spend. Spend. That's all they ever want to do. To cite, yet again, Nobelist Milton Friedman, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
So, with a few minutes on my hands......
I got a big kick out of hearing some guy during the Tiger game yesterday say of some college game later in the evening, "a historic football game!" Now I don't know who was playing, but "historic?" That was worth a chuckle.
I read the comment from Gus, that Trump is saying what most people in this country believe. I'm not sure of that. First, I'm not sure Trump believes what he says. How can he when he keeps changing his mind? But more to the point, I think it's more a matter of people, many if not most, just plain being sick and tired, frustrated, angry, whatever other such term, with the Establishment, with the way things have gone. They are dissatisfied with where we are and blame the Establishment, both political parties. I do think Gus is right on the Bernie Sanders' thing. Who doesn't want freebies?
Speaking of Sanders, or at least his followers, how can any of them stoop to voting for Clinton after discovering that she and the Democrat Establishment "bullied," undercutting Sanders and his campaign? That is, they rigged the system. So, one might say, "Why are you surprised?" Well, I'm not, either that this happens in politics or that the Clintons are involved. But if voters are supporting Sanders (or Trump for that matter), isn't that why, the fixing of the system? How, then, can a full-fledged member of that system, one who used it to nefariously undercut her opponent, from her own party, get support from that opponent or his followers? When Sanders went to show support for Clinton, if that didn't convince people he was a doddering old fool, nothing will.
BTW, this guy who wanted to pay for all the freebies by taxing "the wealthy," how much money does he make as a US Senator? Right, that's about 3 or 4 times what we make here.
I was somewhat startled to read an op-ed by a self-professed Democrat that, "...neither party has a monopoly on wisdom." He's certainly right there, but for him, a Democrat at that, to admit such a thing is a surprise. I thought those arrogant elitists, from both parties, considered themselves smarter than the rest of us, knowing what's best for us better than we do. Well, maybe the guy is an expatriate. The arrogant elitists can't have us discovering "...neither party has a monopoly on wisdom."
And, sadly, another police officer, this time in Detroit, was shot and killed. A carjack last week was stopped and shot the officer, who died a couple days later from his wound(s). Gee, do you think the Detroit Lions (or any other NFL team or even single player!) will take knees during the National Anthem to protest murdering thugs in this country? No, I don't expect it either.
And has Don Trump gone liberal--again? His child care program sounds like something straight out of the DNC. Clinton also has a plan, a specific one, despite Trump's claims (When can we start calling them "lies?") that she doesn't "and never will." Both candidates' plans will cost billions of dollars a year. Clinton will try to pay for hers with a tax increase--what else? She's a Democrat. And we know how those usually work out. Trump, whose child care program costs are even higher than Clinton's!, said he'll pay for it by getting rid of waste and fraud. And, we know how that usually works out, too. Spend. Spend. Spend. That's all they ever want to do. To cite, yet again, Nobelist Milton Friedman, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Defying Belief
If I footnote comes at the end, what is a note at the beginning called? Anyway, Pat check my comment to your post of the other day. And Gus, check my comment to your post of two or three blogs ago. Thanks.
I am still having a very hard time that November matches Clinton v Trump. As I've noted before, I think the LameStream media are going to be surprised at the closeness of the election and that Don Trump might well win. Either way, Clinton or Trump, we lose and lose in a disastrous way.
Clinton and her supporters continue the lying. Her "face splash" in NY was due to the heat, although temps were in the 70s. Then it was dehydration, which was described as a problem she's had before; didn't Bill say it has happened at least twice before? Heh Heh. Then it was ammonia (I know, I know), but noninfectious. Didn't someone reveal she had a secret surgery in January? (That might just be the Internet talking, but if it's on the Internet......) I think the plain facts are she's old beyond her years, sick, and fragile, maybe even feeble. And she is a liar. One thing she is not, as the claim was, is "the smartest woman in the world." How can the "smartest woman" so often say, of Benghazi, of the e-mails, of her Senate vote for the Iraq War, etc., "But I didn't know." Again, anyone thinking of voting for her is, well, you know what I think.
And Trump is no better. As I've said, the only person worse for President that Clinton is Trump and the only person worse for President than Trump is Clinton. He can hold his own with Clinton when it comes to avoiding the truth. Those who still think he'll be good for the economy should remember that Trump will be good for whatever is good for Trump--nobody else. If we luck out and profit residually, well, he doesn't mind. If we don't, like all the little people he's stepped on in the past, well, he doesn't mind that either. To repeat, anyone thinking of voting for him is, well......
Yet, what is the choice? There is none other than not vote for either and hope, and that's all it is, a long-shot hope, that party leaders might well wake up and recognize that, if they actually choose a good candidate, they might win by luring back disenchanted voters.
I have little hope for that one. Still listening to/reading about the Republican Establishment, well the Democrat Establishment, too, they still "don't get it." Both sides are too busy casting aspersions at the American people to recognize the anger and frustration that led to Trump and the success of Bernie Sanders. (C'mon...... How did that doddering old fool nearly win the Dem nomination and, without the dirty tricks of the Dem Establishment, might well have?) Rather than looking within, at themselves, they choose to those of us down here in the trenches as the problem. They even look at us like we're stupid, really dumb. After all, we have, at least for a while?, stopped doing what they, who are obviously smarter than we are and know what's best for us better than we do, tell us. No, they don't understand and if we don't wake up and take control of American government and politics, the spiral downward will continue.
Now, it's not that I have any real hopes for that, either. I'm pretty sure the Washington folks (politicians and bureaucrats, not to mention the lobbyists) don't really want to fix things there. Well, that assumes they think there is anything wrong to fix. No, there isn't; all that needs fixing is us. The DC folks are really concerned about themselves, not us. They might not even realize that. They might even still think they are doing right.
Is this one true? The college conference the ACC has voted to remove all of the league championships slated for North Carolina due to the state's refusal to endorse the transgender bathroom scam?????? It is the height of hypocrisy. But we see that a lot on our college campuses, from our so-called "intellectual elites," don't we? They act in the name of "social justice," often without any real thinking. (Hey, isn't that the "intellectual" part of it, thinking?) As I've noted in the past, where is the outrage from the Social Justice Warriors (I really like the sarcasm there!), including the sanctimonious ACC and the ACC-member college presidents, regarding the corporate sponsors of all those athletic events/championships? Remember the boycotts of companies that did business with and in South Africa during the years of apartheid? Where are the boycotts of companies that still do business with and in countries who have laws against homosexuality or, even, impose the death penalty for it?????? (I know I've blogged about this before.) No doubt some of those big corporate sponsors of the ACC sell their products in these countries with capital punishment for gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. So...... No, the "intellectual elites" won't so anything like canceling contracts with their corporate sponsors, no matter where the companies do business. It reminds me of the way the feminists sat on their thumbs and spun when it came to Bill Clinton and his abuse of women. "Abuse? What abuse?" And, now, many women are supporting Hillary merely because she's a woman, despite her enabling all those years. Enabling? Heck, she actively went out to destroy the accusers!
I am still having a very hard time that November matches Clinton v Trump. As I've noted before, I think the LameStream media are going to be surprised at the closeness of the election and that Don Trump might well win. Either way, Clinton or Trump, we lose and lose in a disastrous way.
Clinton and her supporters continue the lying. Her "face splash" in NY was due to the heat, although temps were in the 70s. Then it was dehydration, which was described as a problem she's had before; didn't Bill say it has happened at least twice before? Heh Heh. Then it was ammonia (I know, I know), but noninfectious. Didn't someone reveal she had a secret surgery in January? (That might just be the Internet talking, but if it's on the Internet......) I think the plain facts are she's old beyond her years, sick, and fragile, maybe even feeble. And she is a liar. One thing she is not, as the claim was, is "the smartest woman in the world." How can the "smartest woman" so often say, of Benghazi, of the e-mails, of her Senate vote for the Iraq War, etc., "But I didn't know." Again, anyone thinking of voting for her is, well, you know what I think.
And Trump is no better. As I've said, the only person worse for President that Clinton is Trump and the only person worse for President than Trump is Clinton. He can hold his own with Clinton when it comes to avoiding the truth. Those who still think he'll be good for the economy should remember that Trump will be good for whatever is good for Trump--nobody else. If we luck out and profit residually, well, he doesn't mind. If we don't, like all the little people he's stepped on in the past, well, he doesn't mind that either. To repeat, anyone thinking of voting for him is, well......
Yet, what is the choice? There is none other than not vote for either and hope, and that's all it is, a long-shot hope, that party leaders might well wake up and recognize that, if they actually choose a good candidate, they might win by luring back disenchanted voters.
I have little hope for that one. Still listening to/reading about the Republican Establishment, well the Democrat Establishment, too, they still "don't get it." Both sides are too busy casting aspersions at the American people to recognize the anger and frustration that led to Trump and the success of Bernie Sanders. (C'mon...... How did that doddering old fool nearly win the Dem nomination and, without the dirty tricks of the Dem Establishment, might well have?) Rather than looking within, at themselves, they choose to those of us down here in the trenches as the problem. They even look at us like we're stupid, really dumb. After all, we have, at least for a while?, stopped doing what they, who are obviously smarter than we are and know what's best for us better than we do, tell us. No, they don't understand and if we don't wake up and take control of American government and politics, the spiral downward will continue.
Now, it's not that I have any real hopes for that, either. I'm pretty sure the Washington folks (politicians and bureaucrats, not to mention the lobbyists) don't really want to fix things there. Well, that assumes they think there is anything wrong to fix. No, there isn't; all that needs fixing is us. The DC folks are really concerned about themselves, not us. They might not even realize that. They might even still think they are doing right.
Is this one true? The college conference the ACC has voted to remove all of the league championships slated for North Carolina due to the state's refusal to endorse the transgender bathroom scam?????? It is the height of hypocrisy. But we see that a lot on our college campuses, from our so-called "intellectual elites," don't we? They act in the name of "social justice," often without any real thinking. (Hey, isn't that the "intellectual" part of it, thinking?) As I've noted in the past, where is the outrage from the Social Justice Warriors (I really like the sarcasm there!), including the sanctimonious ACC and the ACC-member college presidents, regarding the corporate sponsors of all those athletic events/championships? Remember the boycotts of companies that did business with and in South Africa during the years of apartheid? Where are the boycotts of companies that still do business with and in countries who have laws against homosexuality or, even, impose the death penalty for it?????? (I know I've blogged about this before.) No doubt some of those big corporate sponsors of the ACC sell their products in these countries with capital punishment for gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. So...... No, the "intellectual elites" won't so anything like canceling contracts with their corporate sponsors, no matter where the companies do business. It reminds me of the way the feminists sat on their thumbs and spun when it came to Bill Clinton and his abuse of women. "Abuse? What abuse?" And, now, many women are supporting Hillary merely because she's a woman, despite her enabling all those years. Enabling? Heck, she actively went out to destroy the accusers!
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Tue
OK, let's ask a serious question. This NFL QB and, indeed, an entire team...... If they are so committed to righting social injustice, instead of kneeling or holding hands or power fisting, when their teams come to play the Washington Redskins, why don't they refuse. That is, why don't they give up a week's pay to boycott a team whose name symbolizes the oppression they profess to oppose? Oh, that's different. Indeed it is! This would require a real sacrifice in the name of principle. After all, some of these guys might have to give up a million dollars or close to it. And gee, who can live on only $5 million a year these days?????? Right......
OK, here's another one for these guys. Why don't they protest the shooting of police officers? I heard this AM of two police officers who were shot yesterday in Detroit. Where's the protest? So, is it OK for thugs (at least one of the shootings was by a guy who had carjacked at gunpoint a car from an old lady) to shoot the police, but not for police to shoot thugs? Yes, I understand that there have been some egregious behaviors by some police, caught on film. But haven't most of these outlandish charges against them been eventually proven to be false, outright lies in some instances? Far, far more police officers are shot and killed by thugs than the other way around. As Casey Stengel used to say it, "You could look it up." But let's not let facts/reality get in the way of our "narrative." Nope, let's not let that happen.
I was thinking today of one of my Amherst professors, Professor Rozwenc. We called him "The Wizard of Roz" as he taught US History. He told us the story of "mugwumps," those who couldn't make up their minds, finding their "mugs" caught on one side of the fence and their "wumps" on the other. That's me, a mugwump. Regarding this Presidential election, I am a mugwump. Oh, I have decided between Clinton and Trump. Neither will get my vote. I just can't decide on where my vote will go. Will I write in a candidate, likely myself if I do? I already, unless people are blowing smoke at me, have about 11-12 committed write-ins. Will I vote for a minor party candidate? I won't vote for the Green Party candidate and Libertarian Gary Johnson has many views that don't seem to be very libertarian.
Some folks are still trying to talk me into voting for------no, not Clinton. They know that's a lost cause. But for Trump. Nope, I can't do it. As much as I have come to loathe the Establishment and how it has deteriorated life for so many Americans, how much it has lied and deceived, etc., I see Trump as one of them. He, too, has spent a lifetime of lying and deceiving, of taking advantage of the system to hose the little guy. Where should we look? Not paying bills of a few hundred thousand dollars, smirking to the creditors that his legal team will hold out until the little guy is paying more in legal fees than he's owed? Filing bankruptcy (which is fully legal, but not always ethical or honest) to stiff the little guys from getting their money? Using his contacts to utilized eminent domain/takings to grab real estate, not for public good, but his own? The list goes on. And, to boot, the man is a pathological liar according to many of the nation's observers. (That Clinton is one, too, doesn't boots Trump. Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?)
But Trump might just win. Although I shudder at the thought (and I also shudder at the thought of a Clinton win), he's narrowed the gap and is even ahead in some polls. Even here in Michigan, it's a lot closer than just a month ago. And, I think, there are a lot of people who, on election day, will vote for Trump, but won't admit it now. They won't admit it because they might fear being called names (a common tactic by the Democrats), thought stupid, or whatever. I think there are more of them out there than any of the pollsters recognize. Trump could win.
No matter what evil is brought up about Clinton, doesn't it seem it's always followed by a "but......" "Of course she's a pathological liar, but......" "Of course she's a hypocrite, but......" And here's another thing to ponder. Why are she and her campaign always so sneaky? It's like they are always trying to hide something, to pull one over--they never seem to tell the truth, not unless backed into a corner. And then they backtrack and try to explain by saying something about "misspeaking." Yeah, right......
I chuckled today listening to the radio. Yep, I actually had it on for most of the ride up to and back from classes. Not once but twice callers made good points in contraposition to what the hosts had said. And both times the hosts quickly said, "Well, thank you. But it's time for a break." And the callers found themselves cut off. Many on the radio do that--just cut off callers when they make good points. Some, two or three in particular, merely cut off the callers and call them names--"dummy," "schmuck," etc.--and the callers were anything but "dummies" and "schmucks." I wonder if I am the only one who then sees the hosts as the "dummies" and "schmucks."
Running and biking. I love doing both. Granted, at times I must be out on somewhat busy roads, but that's the chance I take. And "chance" it's becoming. The drivers are more and more dangerous, and I mean dangerous! A couple of weeks ago, a well-known Michigan runner and triathlete was run down and killed while training on her bike. One article I read noted that the driver was "distracted." Hmmm. "Distracted?" The accident occurred in the AM. Of particular concern and angst to me are two specific instances, which happen more frequently than one might imagine. While on my bike, I am sometimes driven from the road or, because I often ride the shoulders due to worry about "distracted" drivers, the shoulder by careless drivers. Sometimes they throw up gravel, too, when they slide off the road to the shoulder. How many times (I should count!) have these same inconsiderate (I'm being very nice here!) drivers had racks with bikes of their own on the backs of their vehicles?????? Or, on Sundays, how many church-goers are in such a rush they just plow down the road, oblivious to runners or bikers? With several churches up and down our main drag, there are quite a few. Maybe they don't want to be late for mass/service? Here's an idea. Why not get up a few minutes earlier and not worry about rushing to avoid being late? And, if they show up a bit early, gee, they might get a chance to worship privately for a few minutes or give personal thanks. Oh, but perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on these "distracted" drivers. After all, it is important to dial that number on the cell phone, send that text message, and put on that make-up......
OK, here's another one for these guys. Why don't they protest the shooting of police officers? I heard this AM of two police officers who were shot yesterday in Detroit. Where's the protest? So, is it OK for thugs (at least one of the shootings was by a guy who had carjacked at gunpoint a car from an old lady) to shoot the police, but not for police to shoot thugs? Yes, I understand that there have been some egregious behaviors by some police, caught on film. But haven't most of these outlandish charges against them been eventually proven to be false, outright lies in some instances? Far, far more police officers are shot and killed by thugs than the other way around. As Casey Stengel used to say it, "You could look it up." But let's not let facts/reality get in the way of our "narrative." Nope, let's not let that happen.
I was thinking today of one of my Amherst professors, Professor Rozwenc. We called him "The Wizard of Roz" as he taught US History. He told us the story of "mugwumps," those who couldn't make up their minds, finding their "mugs" caught on one side of the fence and their "wumps" on the other. That's me, a mugwump. Regarding this Presidential election, I am a mugwump. Oh, I have decided between Clinton and Trump. Neither will get my vote. I just can't decide on where my vote will go. Will I write in a candidate, likely myself if I do? I already, unless people are blowing smoke at me, have about 11-12 committed write-ins. Will I vote for a minor party candidate? I won't vote for the Green Party candidate and Libertarian Gary Johnson has many views that don't seem to be very libertarian.
Some folks are still trying to talk me into voting for------no, not Clinton. They know that's a lost cause. But for Trump. Nope, I can't do it. As much as I have come to loathe the Establishment and how it has deteriorated life for so many Americans, how much it has lied and deceived, etc., I see Trump as one of them. He, too, has spent a lifetime of lying and deceiving, of taking advantage of the system to hose the little guy. Where should we look? Not paying bills of a few hundred thousand dollars, smirking to the creditors that his legal team will hold out until the little guy is paying more in legal fees than he's owed? Filing bankruptcy (which is fully legal, but not always ethical or honest) to stiff the little guys from getting their money? Using his contacts to utilized eminent domain/takings to grab real estate, not for public good, but his own? The list goes on. And, to boot, the man is a pathological liar according to many of the nation's observers. (That Clinton is one, too, doesn't boots Trump. Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?)
But Trump might just win. Although I shudder at the thought (and I also shudder at the thought of a Clinton win), he's narrowed the gap and is even ahead in some polls. Even here in Michigan, it's a lot closer than just a month ago. And, I think, there are a lot of people who, on election day, will vote for Trump, but won't admit it now. They won't admit it because they might fear being called names (a common tactic by the Democrats), thought stupid, or whatever. I think there are more of them out there than any of the pollsters recognize. Trump could win.
No matter what evil is brought up about Clinton, doesn't it seem it's always followed by a "but......" "Of course she's a pathological liar, but......" "Of course she's a hypocrite, but......" And here's another thing to ponder. Why are she and her campaign always so sneaky? It's like they are always trying to hide something, to pull one over--they never seem to tell the truth, not unless backed into a corner. And then they backtrack and try to explain by saying something about "misspeaking." Yeah, right......
I chuckled today listening to the radio. Yep, I actually had it on for most of the ride up to and back from classes. Not once but twice callers made good points in contraposition to what the hosts had said. And both times the hosts quickly said, "Well, thank you. But it's time for a break." And the callers found themselves cut off. Many on the radio do that--just cut off callers when they make good points. Some, two or three in particular, merely cut off the callers and call them names--"dummy," "schmuck," etc.--and the callers were anything but "dummies" and "schmucks." I wonder if I am the only one who then sees the hosts as the "dummies" and "schmucks."
Running and biking. I love doing both. Granted, at times I must be out on somewhat busy roads, but that's the chance I take. And "chance" it's becoming. The drivers are more and more dangerous, and I mean dangerous! A couple of weeks ago, a well-known Michigan runner and triathlete was run down and killed while training on her bike. One article I read noted that the driver was "distracted." Hmmm. "Distracted?" The accident occurred in the AM. Of particular concern and angst to me are two specific instances, which happen more frequently than one might imagine. While on my bike, I am sometimes driven from the road or, because I often ride the shoulders due to worry about "distracted" drivers, the shoulder by careless drivers. Sometimes they throw up gravel, too, when they slide off the road to the shoulder. How many times (I should count!) have these same inconsiderate (I'm being very nice here!) drivers had racks with bikes of their own on the backs of their vehicles?????? Or, on Sundays, how many church-goers are in such a rush they just plow down the road, oblivious to runners or bikers? With several churches up and down our main drag, there are quite a few. Maybe they don't want to be late for mass/service? Here's an idea. Why not get up a few minutes earlier and not worry about rushing to avoid being late? And, if they show up a bit early, gee, they might get a chance to worship privately for a few minutes or give personal thanks. Oh, but perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on these "distracted" drivers. After all, it is important to dial that number on the cell phone, send that text message, and put on that make-up......
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Distress
I don't know what it's like to be clinically depressed, but we all have our little demons once in a while. Just thinking of the results of November lead me to be, if not depressed, at least distressed in a major way. As I wrote to a friend the other day, the only worse person in the US than Don Trump is Hillary Clinton and the only person in the US worse than Clinton is Trump. Of course, I utilize a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.
Charles Krauthammer, one smart dude!, had an interesting and poignant column this week. You can read it here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439865/chinese-snub-obama-airport-world-leaders-dont-respect-obama. He catalogs the disdain other world leaders have for Obama, Kerry, and, before him, Clinton. Foreign policy of the past 7-8 years reminds me of two school administrators with whom I had contact. One, to thwart (at least he though it would thwart) bullies during recess, a school principal allowed the bullies to make the game rules and to pick the team. Gee, guess how that one turned out?????? Two, at a parent conference with the ass't principal, student in attendance, the ass't principal said, to the student, "Now, I'm going to put you on a contract. I know this is the fifth one, but this time I really mean it." My loud guffaw ("How unprofessional!") was met by the kick to the back of my chair by a prissy staff member. (Yes, my look insured he'd never kick my chair again.)
I continue to be amazed at our college campuses--the "war on free speech" (as an article in last week's newspaper stated), the lack of rigor and quality, etc. How can educated people not know that free speech means tolerated ideas that we hate? We don't have to agree with them. We can work against them. But we have to tolerate them if we truly believe in freedom of speech.
My buddy Gus brought up this one. Where is the outrage, the public demonstration and protest, against all those Detroit Public School administrators who have been involved, some already tried, convicted, and sentenced, with bribery and kickbacks? How many millions of dollars were diverted (a nice way of saying "stolen?") from the education of black students? As Gus asked, where are the Black Lives Matter? Isn't this an important thing, the education of kids, that should "matter?" I think it's related to the lack of concern (at least other than immediate families and friends) of the incessant murders going on in our cities. I think the other day, mid-week, there were three fatal shootings in Detroit. Over the Labor Day weekend, if I recall, the newspaper said there were 3 fatalities among the 42 people who were shot. Where do people learn that it's OK to shoot other people?????? It's not and there need to be protests, demands, etc. Shock among suburbanites isn't going to work.
Is it true the Seattle Seahawks football team has indicated it will follow the lead of the 49ers QB who kneels (or at least refuses to stand) for the Star-Spangled Banner? The whole team will kneel or refuse to stand? If that's the case, I firmly believe each player, even the whole team, has the right to do so. Freedom of expression is not limited. We have to tolerate the ideas we find repulsive and repugnant. But, that said, the NFL has the authority to heavily fine the players and the team if this happens for being detrimental to the business. More so, if the team opts to take this position, I think the ticket-paying fans should walk out and demand refunds. The players have every right to voice or display their opinion. The NFL and, esp, the fans have rights to do as I suggested. And I think it was Gus who relayed this one. The coach of the US team in the World Cup hockey tournament was told some of his players were going to refuse to stand for the National Anthem when played. He purportedly said, "If they do, that's where they'll stay--on the bench!" Cool......
I admit I am a bit of a grammar snob. I realize that writing isn't easy; it takes a lot of thought and work, not to mention practice. I thank, to this day, all the writing my Amherst professors made me do. I also, upon graduation, had friends all over the US; this was before the Internet and e-mail and to stay in contact, we wrote letters, hand-wrote them. They were often lengthy and they gave me yet another opportunity to write. But I esp find it grating when I get poorly written letters, messages, etc. from the schools, both the colleges and public schools. I know it's often a case of me nit-picking. For instance, more than once I have received this, "Your student...have them." NO! "Student" is singular and "them" is plural. It should be, "Your student...have him or her." Again, maybe I am nit-picking, but shouldn't I be able to expect the education establishment to know and use good writing practices?
OK, it's time to get rid of this humididity [sic]. It's been around since July and coupled with the high temperatures has been brutal.
Charles Krauthammer, one smart dude!, had an interesting and poignant column this week. You can read it here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439865/chinese-snub-obama-airport-world-leaders-dont-respect-obama. He catalogs the disdain other world leaders have for Obama, Kerry, and, before him, Clinton. Foreign policy of the past 7-8 years reminds me of two school administrators with whom I had contact. One, to thwart (at least he though it would thwart) bullies during recess, a school principal allowed the bullies to make the game rules and to pick the team. Gee, guess how that one turned out?????? Two, at a parent conference with the ass't principal, student in attendance, the ass't principal said, to the student, "Now, I'm going to put you on a contract. I know this is the fifth one, but this time I really mean it." My loud guffaw ("How unprofessional!") was met by the kick to the back of my chair by a prissy staff member. (Yes, my look insured he'd never kick my chair again.)
I continue to be amazed at our college campuses--the "war on free speech" (as an article in last week's newspaper stated), the lack of rigor and quality, etc. How can educated people not know that free speech means tolerated ideas that we hate? We don't have to agree with them. We can work against them. But we have to tolerate them if we truly believe in freedom of speech.
My buddy Gus brought up this one. Where is the outrage, the public demonstration and protest, against all those Detroit Public School administrators who have been involved, some already tried, convicted, and sentenced, with bribery and kickbacks? How many millions of dollars were diverted (a nice way of saying "stolen?") from the education of black students? As Gus asked, where are the Black Lives Matter? Isn't this an important thing, the education of kids, that should "matter?" I think it's related to the lack of concern (at least other than immediate families and friends) of the incessant murders going on in our cities. I think the other day, mid-week, there were three fatal shootings in Detroit. Over the Labor Day weekend, if I recall, the newspaper said there were 3 fatalities among the 42 people who were shot. Where do people learn that it's OK to shoot other people?????? It's not and there need to be protests, demands, etc. Shock among suburbanites isn't going to work.
Is it true the Seattle Seahawks football team has indicated it will follow the lead of the 49ers QB who kneels (or at least refuses to stand) for the Star-Spangled Banner? The whole team will kneel or refuse to stand? If that's the case, I firmly believe each player, even the whole team, has the right to do so. Freedom of expression is not limited. We have to tolerate the ideas we find repulsive and repugnant. But, that said, the NFL has the authority to heavily fine the players and the team if this happens for being detrimental to the business. More so, if the team opts to take this position, I think the ticket-paying fans should walk out and demand refunds. The players have every right to voice or display their opinion. The NFL and, esp, the fans have rights to do as I suggested. And I think it was Gus who relayed this one. The coach of the US team in the World Cup hockey tournament was told some of his players were going to refuse to stand for the National Anthem when played. He purportedly said, "If they do, that's where they'll stay--on the bench!" Cool......
I admit I am a bit of a grammar snob. I realize that writing isn't easy; it takes a lot of thought and work, not to mention practice. I thank, to this day, all the writing my Amherst professors made me do. I also, upon graduation, had friends all over the US; this was before the Internet and e-mail and to stay in contact, we wrote letters, hand-wrote them. They were often lengthy and they gave me yet another opportunity to write. But I esp find it grating when I get poorly written letters, messages, etc. from the schools, both the colleges and public schools. I know it's often a case of me nit-picking. For instance, more than once I have received this, "Your student...have them." NO! "Student" is singular and "them" is plural. It should be, "Your student...have him or her." Again, maybe I am nit-picking, but shouldn't I be able to expect the education establishment to know and use good writing practices?
OK, it's time to get rid of this humididity [sic]. It's been around since July and coupled with the high temperatures has been brutal.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Happy Labor Day
Nationally, Labor Day has been celebrated in the US since 1894, although some states and cities marked a "Labor Day" some years before. Although it's becoming more commercialized, it doesn't seem as much as has Thanksgiving or Christmas or even the birthdays of Lincoln and Washington. And, it marks the unofficial end of summer.
Interesting to read that the so-called "right-to-work" laws (I prefer to call them "right-to-work-for-less" laws.) and the demise of labor unions have had an impact, a negative one, on lower and middle class workers in the US. I might have my numbers a bit jumbled, but labor union membership has fallen to about 11-12% of the American workforce; that's quite a tumble, from nearly 50% just 30 or 40 years ago.
The falling membership, combined with many states' "right-to-work-for-less" legislation, has seen an expected loss of income (inflation adjusted) for union members. And it's probably no surprise that nonunion workers have also see their wages decline. Several studies have pointed out that nonunion workers, both low- and middle-income earners, are making 10% to 16% less money. This goes for those with and without high school education and men and women.
I know the unions have had their faults, sometimes winning ridiculous concession in bargaining. But it's important to remember that they didn't negotiate unilaterally, in a vacuum. Management was also part of the process. Unions often protect lousy workers, but also protect good workers. If nothing else, check out the Flint Sit-Down Strike in 1936--the before and after. You can find a really good video of it (about 54 minutes) online. Listen to the workers who tell what working was like in the GM plants. And, we're talking the 1930s here, not the late 19th Century!
There was also a good op-ed in today's newspaper. It, as has almost universal, decried the choices we have for President. It, correctly, noted that neither major party candidate should be President, that neither is qualified. The author did point out, though, that "To some extent, we've been here before--after all, the election of Abraham Lincoln was the cue for a war." But then he added, "But no one remotely resembling Lincoln is running this year. If that doesn't worry you, maybe it should." In addition to the last sentence, the word "remotely" resonated with me.
The Tigers are hanging in there. Those waiting for the shoe to drop, the end of any playoff aspirations, are still waiting. The resilience of the Tigers is good to see and fun to watch. Just when it's about time to give up on a game, "Oh, another loss.," they come back to win. About the only distressing thing is that they often don't play the game very well--fielding mistakes, base running mistakes, etc. Some of the goofs are just plain stupid. In a way, it's a miracle they are winning games and are still in the hunt. Maybe that's because the other teams don't play very well, too.
BTW, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but the home plate umpires have been rotten. As I've noted, if those electronic boxes on the television screens are at all accurate, the umpires are terrible at balls and strikes. They are inconsistent, except on low balls, which always seem to be strikes. But others, high pitches, well, your guess is as good as the batters'. And, that makes it a difficult thing to combat while batting. "Is he going to call this one a strike this time or not?" It's not just the call, but the batters' thinking going into it. First, they might have to swing at a bad pitch. Second, that little bit of hesitation, with pitches coming in at 90+ mph, makes it tough to catch up with pitches coming in at 90+ mph. Again, if those electronic boxes are accurate, some of those pitches are a couple of ball widths inside or outside or up or down. And, one would think Major League umpires would catch on to catchers' practices of "framing the ball," of quickly jerking their mitts to the plate on pitches off the plate. Maybe not...... Go Tigers!
Interesting to read that the so-called "right-to-work" laws (I prefer to call them "right-to-work-for-less" laws.) and the demise of labor unions have had an impact, a negative one, on lower and middle class workers in the US. I might have my numbers a bit jumbled, but labor union membership has fallen to about 11-12% of the American workforce; that's quite a tumble, from nearly 50% just 30 or 40 years ago.
The falling membership, combined with many states' "right-to-work-for-less" legislation, has seen an expected loss of income (inflation adjusted) for union members. And it's probably no surprise that nonunion workers have also see their wages decline. Several studies have pointed out that nonunion workers, both low- and middle-income earners, are making 10% to 16% less money. This goes for those with and without high school education and men and women.
I know the unions have had their faults, sometimes winning ridiculous concession in bargaining. But it's important to remember that they didn't negotiate unilaterally, in a vacuum. Management was also part of the process. Unions often protect lousy workers, but also protect good workers. If nothing else, check out the Flint Sit-Down Strike in 1936--the before and after. You can find a really good video of it (about 54 minutes) online. Listen to the workers who tell what working was like in the GM plants. And, we're talking the 1930s here, not the late 19th Century!
There was also a good op-ed in today's newspaper. It, as has almost universal, decried the choices we have for President. It, correctly, noted that neither major party candidate should be President, that neither is qualified. The author did point out, though, that "To some extent, we've been here before--after all, the election of Abraham Lincoln was the cue for a war." But then he added, "But no one remotely resembling Lincoln is running this year. If that doesn't worry you, maybe it should." In addition to the last sentence, the word "remotely" resonated with me.
The Tigers are hanging in there. Those waiting for the shoe to drop, the end of any playoff aspirations, are still waiting. The resilience of the Tigers is good to see and fun to watch. Just when it's about time to give up on a game, "Oh, another loss.," they come back to win. About the only distressing thing is that they often don't play the game very well--fielding mistakes, base running mistakes, etc. Some of the goofs are just plain stupid. In a way, it's a miracle they are winning games and are still in the hunt. Maybe that's because the other teams don't play very well, too.
BTW, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but the home plate umpires have been rotten. As I've noted, if those electronic boxes on the television screens are at all accurate, the umpires are terrible at balls and strikes. They are inconsistent, except on low balls, which always seem to be strikes. But others, high pitches, well, your guess is as good as the batters'. And, that makes it a difficult thing to combat while batting. "Is he going to call this one a strike this time or not?" It's not just the call, but the batters' thinking going into it. First, they might have to swing at a bad pitch. Second, that little bit of hesitation, with pitches coming in at 90+ mph, makes it tough to catch up with pitches coming in at 90+ mph. Again, if those electronic boxes are accurate, some of those pitches are a couple of ball widths inside or outside or up or down. And, one would think Major League umpires would catch on to catchers' practices of "framing the ball," of quickly jerking their mitts to the plate on pitches off the plate. Maybe not...... Go Tigers!
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Coincidence?
Here's a great line from Streiff, at the Red State: "You really have to appreciate the relationship the Clinton criminal empire has with coincidence." I always have wondered how far it has extended. OK, I'm one who has always questioned the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, among others. Coincidence...... What was the joke about FBI Director James Comey? He is pictured with these words, "I would like to indict Hillary, but I don't want to end up with Vince Foster." Another goes, "She's as guilty as hell, but I don't want to die suddenly and mysteriously."
I was on my bike the other day and a woman in a car stopped and just started yakking. I never saw her before, but she was elderly (says the elderly man!). She went on a rant about Clinton, spewing forth all sorts of venom. Then she starting touting the wonders of Trump. I listened for a bit and then just shook my head, saying, "I don't think so" and rode off.
I see yet another "top Republican" has thrown his support to Clinton. I can't say I've heard of the guy, but he was called a "top Republican" by the newspaper. Of course, that's his right. I think he's very misguided, as he would be if he supported Trump, his party's candidate. But therein lies the problem, "top Republican." The Republican Establishment still doesn't get it, doesn't understand. It's them, the party elitists, who have caused Trump. They are the ones who ignored the Republican base. They are the ones who haven't reached out with a message to attract the independents and fence-sitters. They are the ones who, afraid of being called names, have caved in to Democrat/liberal demands from the government. Instead of sticking with principles, they bailed, fearful of taking principled stances that might cost them their positions. Well, it looks like their lack of principled actions have cost them their party.
Isn't it amazing that 34% (?) of Americans don't at all trust Trump? Even more amazing is that eve more, 37% (?), don't trust Clinton. I know we've had elections with putrid candidates--how about W. Bush and Gore in 2000? But have we ever had an election where so many Americans categorize the candidates as pathological liars?
I'm curious how the loathsome twosome at the head of the two parties' slates will affect the rest of the candidates? Will people stay home, disgusted? Will they come and vote for US Senate and House, as well as state and local offices? Only about 2 months to go...... Is this the beginning of the end?
I was on my bike the other day and a woman in a car stopped and just started yakking. I never saw her before, but she was elderly (says the elderly man!). She went on a rant about Clinton, spewing forth all sorts of venom. Then she starting touting the wonders of Trump. I listened for a bit and then just shook my head, saying, "I don't think so" and rode off.
I see yet another "top Republican" has thrown his support to Clinton. I can't say I've heard of the guy, but he was called a "top Republican" by the newspaper. Of course, that's his right. I think he's very misguided, as he would be if he supported Trump, his party's candidate. But therein lies the problem, "top Republican." The Republican Establishment still doesn't get it, doesn't understand. It's them, the party elitists, who have caused Trump. They are the ones who ignored the Republican base. They are the ones who haven't reached out with a message to attract the independents and fence-sitters. They are the ones who, afraid of being called names, have caved in to Democrat/liberal demands from the government. Instead of sticking with principles, they bailed, fearful of taking principled stances that might cost them their positions. Well, it looks like their lack of principled actions have cost them their party.
Isn't it amazing that 34% (?) of Americans don't at all trust Trump? Even more amazing is that eve more, 37% (?), don't trust Clinton. I know we've had elections with putrid candidates--how about W. Bush and Gore in 2000? But have we ever had an election where so many Americans categorize the candidates as pathological liars?
I'm curious how the loathsome twosome at the head of the two parties' slates will affect the rest of the candidates? Will people stay home, disgusted? Will they come and vote for US Senate and House, as well as state and local offices? Only about 2 months to go...... Is this the beginning of the end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
