"Defeated." That's a term that was expressed to me last week. I think it's a good term to use to explain a lot of what goes on today. I won't delve into the context of the use of "defeated" in my interesting conversation, but will co-opt it.
I think that word and it's sense of helplessness and hopelessness were what led to Bernie Sanders and, alas, Don Trump. Far too many Americans feel "defeated." I include myself among them.
Although I knew it was coming and wasn't at all surprised, the Detroit Free Press this AM endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Of course it would; who didn't know that? And, in the letters section of the newspaper there were echoes of the Free Press editorial. Despite my lack of surprise, I felt my head dip, in disappointment, in defeat. How can anyone endorse Clinton?
And then, from both the FP endorsement and letters, my head dipped even more. I understand if someone says, "I just can't vote for Trump. I have no choice." But the platitudes were nauseating. Can people really believe what they write about Clinton? Oh, her "experience," devoting her life to the lives of others, etc. Give me a break! I almost laughed as I thought these people are trying to turn her into Mother Teresa.
How can any right-thinking person vote for any Democrat who voted for Obamacare? The last estimates are 25% increases for Michigan. Some states/cities are seeing jumps far higher than that. Either Obama and his Democrat lackeys are very stupid or they were knowingly dishonest. And my e-mail to our US Senator last week, asking if she would help pay my increases since she helped pass this monstrosity, was met with silence--as usual.
Another writer took almost two full pages to rationalize swearing, curse words, even the worst of them. In fact, she not only excused their use, she found "experts" to say how "healthy" and "good for us" swearing is. It's not like I have never sworn; I still am known to throw out a choice word now and then. But this seems to me to be yet another step on the road to diminished moral standards, to see the defeat of standards of decency. It's more of that, "If it feels good, do it!" philosophy. To drop "f-bombs" and other nasty words from more prudent times seems to feed into the lack of civility we show to each other. But, hey, this is yet another reason to call me "Neanderthal."
More Trump signs are appearing. Boy, isn't that encouraging? But I did see four Clinton signs, two of which, like the ones last week, read, "Clinton for Prison 2016."
I'm almost waiting for "the next time," that is the next time somebody driving while on a cell phone does me in. I've recounted the two times cell-phone users rear-ended my cars, once so bad the officer coming to the scene marveled that I walked out of the totaled car. This AM, while I had the right-of-way (in addition to being a pedestrian) while running, I was almost nailed by some guy on his cell phone. He was so close to me I could see the face/dial of it, as he was watching it and not the road--or me! He didn't even know I was there until I yelled. My yell startled him and I almost wish that had led him to drive into a tree on the side of the road. I guess it's like swearing. Other people be damned; I'm going to do what I want to do.
Mitch Albom had a wonderful column today on Halloween costumes, that is, a column on how difficult it is to choose Halloween costumes. Dress as a "hobo?" Nope, Albom said that insults the homeless. An "Indian chief with head feathers?" Nope, that's "a cultural stereotype," a no-no. How about a cowboy, pretty harmless, huh? Nope, it was the cowboys who "occupied the West," taking it from the Indians. OK, "a mariachi singer" or "bullfighter," they can't be offensive? Tell that to Mexicans and Spaniards. "A clown?" "Are you kidding? Dressing like a clown today is the fastest way to get arrested." I think I'll stay home and pass out the candy. Or do I have to pass out carrot and celery sticks. I'll bet the kids would love those.
Anyway, Happy Halloween.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Gridlock?
Gridlock...... That has, in politics and government, become somewhat of a four-letter word. But, to me, gridlock might often be a preferable situation/condition in Washington, Lansing, and other places. There are lots of things I wish Congress and the whole federal government hadn't enacted. Of course, it's well known I am not at all in favor of Obamacare. Now, I know it passed without a single Republican vote (in the Senate?), but I think the country would have been far better off today without the monstrosity. (If you favor Obamacare, don't be afraid to send me lots of money to help pay for the thousands of extra dollars we've had to pay for our health insurance, for worse coverage. Gee, you mean Obama lied? No no. "But Bush lied......" I keep forgetting.
I remember a Wall Street Journal editorial, although I forget the legislation being considered, urging Congress, "Don't do something. Just stand there." That, of course, is a take-off on "Don't just stand there. Do something." For that matter, the state legislature could use the same advice.
I read today that the black museum at the Smithsonian has no reference to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas other than he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. (And, from a couple of books I've read, the whole episode was just was Thomas called it, "a high-tech lynching.") Isn't that pathetic! The nation's museum doesn't have a display, or anything!, for the second black Supreme. I wonder if it has anything to do with Thomas' conservative views. Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?
I saw a third Clinton sign today, "Hillary for Jail, 2016." I had seen the same sign some weeks ago on a different lawn, but it was replaced by a Trump sign. The Trump signs are going up like mushrooms after several days of rain around here. That's why I think the election will be far closer than many think. Could Trump win? Isn't that frightening? But Clinton winning is also frightening......
A New York university professor whose model has accurately predicted every Presidential election since 1912, with the exception of the Kennedy/Nixon campaign in '60, gives Trump an 87% chance of winning. He's even bet on it. Hmmm...... Investor's Business Daily released a poll with Trump ahead by 2%. With the proliferation of signs......
Yet the conspiracists are out. One is claiming a deal was made, the fix is in, after a summer '15 meeting between Bill Clinton and Trump, just before Trump announced his Republican candidacy and after Trump contributions to Clinton's fund and his support for her run for the Senate and Presidency earlier. So, is the fix in? Is Trump in this to ensure a Clinton victory? B. Clinton must be astute enough to know Hillary can't win on her own. Hmmm......
I received an e-mail from my alma mater, Amherst College, urging us "Let's come together to choose a new mascot." Some might remember last year the movement at the school to remove the former mascot/nickname "Lord Jeffs," as in Lord Jeffery Amherst. Students, back by the faculty and the administration, succeeded in the removal, based on some very specious reasons, a lack of logic and scholarship I found distressing at a college like Amherst. So, now alumni are being asked to "come together......" We/I have been given the chance of offering "a new mascot." I thought, "Hey, what about 'Lord Jeffs?'" I sent this, a request for my suggestion and my suggestion, around to my Amherst teammates and to a couple of the class list serves. They whole-heartedly endorsed my suggestion. I just wonder if they are trying to get me in trouble!
I remember a Wall Street Journal editorial, although I forget the legislation being considered, urging Congress, "Don't do something. Just stand there." That, of course, is a take-off on "Don't just stand there. Do something." For that matter, the state legislature could use the same advice.
I read today that the black museum at the Smithsonian has no reference to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas other than he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. (And, from a couple of books I've read, the whole episode was just was Thomas called it, "a high-tech lynching.") Isn't that pathetic! The nation's museum doesn't have a display, or anything!, for the second black Supreme. I wonder if it has anything to do with Thomas' conservative views. Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?
I saw a third Clinton sign today, "Hillary for Jail, 2016." I had seen the same sign some weeks ago on a different lawn, but it was replaced by a Trump sign. The Trump signs are going up like mushrooms after several days of rain around here. That's why I think the election will be far closer than many think. Could Trump win? Isn't that frightening? But Clinton winning is also frightening......
A New York university professor whose model has accurately predicted every Presidential election since 1912, with the exception of the Kennedy/Nixon campaign in '60, gives Trump an 87% chance of winning. He's even bet on it. Hmmm...... Investor's Business Daily released a poll with Trump ahead by 2%. With the proliferation of signs......
Yet the conspiracists are out. One is claiming a deal was made, the fix is in, after a summer '15 meeting between Bill Clinton and Trump, just before Trump announced his Republican candidacy and after Trump contributions to Clinton's fund and his support for her run for the Senate and Presidency earlier. So, is the fix in? Is Trump in this to ensure a Clinton victory? B. Clinton must be astute enough to know Hillary can't win on her own. Hmmm......
I received an e-mail from my alma mater, Amherst College, urging us "Let's come together to choose a new mascot." Some might remember last year the movement at the school to remove the former mascot/nickname "Lord Jeffs," as in Lord Jeffery Amherst. Students, back by the faculty and the administration, succeeded in the removal, based on some very specious reasons, a lack of logic and scholarship I found distressing at a college like Amherst. So, now alumni are being asked to "come together......" We/I have been given the chance of offering "a new mascot." I thought, "Hey, what about 'Lord Jeffs?'" I sent this, a request for my suggestion and my suggestion, around to my Amherst teammates and to a couple of the class list serves. They whole-heartedly endorsed my suggestion. I just wonder if they are trying to get me in trouble!
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Fixed Elections?
So, President Obama called Trump's claims of a potential "rigged election" preposterous and "unprecedented." Maybe he meant a candidate "whining" about "a rigged election." Obama said no credible historian or student (or something like that; I have forgotten his exact words) has ever made such a claim. Trump's "whining" is "not based on facts."
I've noted before that I don't think Obama is very well-educated, despite the degrees he supposedly possesses. He might want to think about his statements. Does he know about the Illinois results in the 1960 Presidential election? Richard Daly reminded his voters to "vote early and vote often." Nixon was even urged by some folks to contest the Illinois results in court. How about the Democrats' "whining" about the 2000 election? I wonder if Obama considers the DNC undermining of the Bernie Sanders' campaign "rigging." How about the New Black Panthers intimidation of voters in Philadelphia in '12? Maybe I'm the only one who finds Obama's comments to be disingenuous, if not ignorant.
I wonder if the news media will eat up Obama's words and tell us how he "really slammed" Trump. I won't be surprised.
Tie this with what I saw when Karen was watching the Family Feud. The question was, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you trust the federal government?" The top answer was "2." Yep...... Yet so many folks just swallow whole what comes out of the President's mouth.
I've noted before that I don't think Obama is very well-educated, despite the degrees he supposedly possesses. He might want to think about his statements. Does he know about the Illinois results in the 1960 Presidential election? Richard Daly reminded his voters to "vote early and vote often." Nixon was even urged by some folks to contest the Illinois results in court. How about the Democrats' "whining" about the 2000 election? I wonder if Obama considers the DNC undermining of the Bernie Sanders' campaign "rigging." How about the New Black Panthers intimidation of voters in Philadelphia in '12? Maybe I'm the only one who finds Obama's comments to be disingenuous, if not ignorant.
I wonder if the news media will eat up Obama's words and tell us how he "really slammed" Trump. I won't be surprised.
Tie this with what I saw when Karen was watching the Family Feud. The question was, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you trust the federal government?" The top answer was "2." Yep...... Yet so many folks just swallow whole what comes out of the President's mouth.
Naw?!?!?!
As you might have noticed, I'm not a real big fan of polls. I take a few online, sent to me, and I question the questions. They don't always allow me to express an accurate opinion. That is, I am limited to what the pollsters want to ask, not what I want to answer. The ways the questions are phrased, who is polled, margin of error, and more lead me to look askance at polls.
But I heard this one today and, as one much wiser than I once said, "If only 10% is true......" This poll claimed that fully 1/3 of all millennials in the US think George W. Bush was responsible for more deaths than Josef Stalin!!!!!! Huh? Something is wrong somewhere. Is it the teaching, lousy or slanted? (Hey, my grandson's US History course, one semester, covers the colonial period through the Second World War! Yes, all that in one semester. Where is the time for consideration, for perspective, for relevance? Of course, it's only silly stuff like the Revolutionary War, including those documents, what are they?, oh The Declaration of Independence and Constitution (and Bill of Rights). And the Civil War? As one AP teacher told her class, of the Civil War, on which she spent a whole two days, "A lot of people died; get over it. Now let's get on to the Gilded Age." And other silly stuff. Ah, but there's the state tests...... They are all-important. More than ever, and this is saying something from me, people who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about education are being allowed to make them. I thought it was bad before......) Or do students just not bother to pay attention and learn? After all, Stalin isn't on a reality show or a character in a video game......
Stalin killed millions, tens of millions. We'll never know for sure how many, but recent revisionists have tried to bring the number down, to maybe only 20 or 30 million. Bush, as lousy a President as he was, as reckless as he was in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, is not even in the same universe as "Uncle Joe," as his buddy Franklin Roosevelt called him.
And, I forget the actual numbers, but each was over 20%, many millennials had "favorable" impressions of murderers such as Lenin, Mao, and Che. How are we to fight evil when we can't even recognize it?
Also, I don't know if this is a product of the schools or not, but I read this today. I don't remember the exact words, but these are accurate in intent. So-and-so "is more reliable because he doesn't state any facts." Huh? So, if someone talks in very vague generalities or even just makes up stuff, that makes him/her "more reliable?"
I was reminded about something I've written about over the years, gridlock in government. A lot of people think gridlock is a bad thing. I disagree. It's a good thing, a very good thing. First, it might well afford valuable time to think or rethink an issue. Second, it prevents government from doing more bad stuff. (Of course, some folks think that gov't can do no wrong, that it is always working in our best interests, even if we don't think so.) Just think how much better off America and Americans would be had gridlock been able to block Obamacare. I know, I know...but that's not reality for most Americans.
Hmmm...... I've seen one, just one, Clinton yard sign. The Trump signs number in the dozens. Just the other day about half a dozen or more went up on the street across from us. For that matter, down on the corner of the two main roads, I counted 38 campaign signs on Mon AM. I wonder who, if anyone, will remove them three weeks from tomorrow.
But I heard this one today and, as one much wiser than I once said, "If only 10% is true......" This poll claimed that fully 1/3 of all millennials in the US think George W. Bush was responsible for more deaths than Josef Stalin!!!!!! Huh? Something is wrong somewhere. Is it the teaching, lousy or slanted? (Hey, my grandson's US History course, one semester, covers the colonial period through the Second World War! Yes, all that in one semester. Where is the time for consideration, for perspective, for relevance? Of course, it's only silly stuff like the Revolutionary War, including those documents, what are they?, oh The Declaration of Independence and Constitution (and Bill of Rights). And the Civil War? As one AP teacher told her class, of the Civil War, on which she spent a whole two days, "A lot of people died; get over it. Now let's get on to the Gilded Age." And other silly stuff. Ah, but there's the state tests...... They are all-important. More than ever, and this is saying something from me, people who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about education are being allowed to make them. I thought it was bad before......) Or do students just not bother to pay attention and learn? After all, Stalin isn't on a reality show or a character in a video game......
Stalin killed millions, tens of millions. We'll never know for sure how many, but recent revisionists have tried to bring the number down, to maybe only 20 or 30 million. Bush, as lousy a President as he was, as reckless as he was in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, is not even in the same universe as "Uncle Joe," as his buddy Franklin Roosevelt called him.
And, I forget the actual numbers, but each was over 20%, many millennials had "favorable" impressions of murderers such as Lenin, Mao, and Che. How are we to fight evil when we can't even recognize it?
Also, I don't know if this is a product of the schools or not, but I read this today. I don't remember the exact words, but these are accurate in intent. So-and-so "is more reliable because he doesn't state any facts." Huh? So, if someone talks in very vague generalities or even just makes up stuff, that makes him/her "more reliable?"
I was reminded about something I've written about over the years, gridlock in government. A lot of people think gridlock is a bad thing. I disagree. It's a good thing, a very good thing. First, it might well afford valuable time to think or rethink an issue. Second, it prevents government from doing more bad stuff. (Of course, some folks think that gov't can do no wrong, that it is always working in our best interests, even if we don't think so.) Just think how much better off America and Americans would be had gridlock been able to block Obamacare. I know, I know...but that's not reality for most Americans.
Hmmm...... I've seen one, just one, Clinton yard sign. The Trump signs number in the dozens. Just the other day about half a dozen or more went up on the street across from us. For that matter, down on the corner of the two main roads, I counted 38 campaign signs on Mon AM. I wonder who, if anyone, will remove them three weeks from tomorrow.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Sunday Musings
Michael was watching the Lions game today when it ended. Another NFL game was picked up in progress. It involved the Packers (who deserved to lose only because of the ugly "throwback" uniforms they wore!) and the Redskins. I thought to myself, "If 'Redskins' is such a bad word, esp to the PC crowd, why don't the NFL announcers just refuse to use it? Can't they just say 'Washington' and get the same result?" I, for one, find the term offensive; that's its historical origin, an offensive term. But, if the NFL allows players to kneel or take knees or whatever it is they do to "protest" some inequality that doesn't pertain to the players, why doesn't it also prevent the word "Redskins?"
I have no idea if there is a connection, but an article I read in the newspaper last week suggested that NFL television ratings are down, considerably, this season, particular after whatever week the kneeling protests began. It may be coincidental. Maybe more and more people are like me, just plain losing interest in football, particularly the NFL. Maybe Lifetime ("Television for Women") has had a lot of really great movies lately. I don't know. But perhaps, if the NFL is all about money, maybe it should look into it.
It still bothers me that a week or so ago, a group of women thought that Hillary Clinton going after the many women who accused Bill Clinton of rapin and sexually assaulting them. (OK, you might not believe Clinton, either one, did this, but that's your problem. Do you believe Bill Cosby did what he's been accused of doing?) One of them said, with most of the others agreeing, "What wife wouldn't support her husband?" Huh? When he raped women? (Hey, it was Hillary Clinton who said women who alleged such attacks should be believed.) I brought up Cosby, but was rebuffed and dismissed with an "Oh, that's different." Yep, it sure is.
There were lots of letters to the editor in the newspaper this AM, although I didn't get to read it/them until much later in the day. I was looking forward to reading them, but found them to be very disappointing. Regarding the election, a number of Clinton shills were published. Oh, we have to vote for her for a variety of reasons: she qualified, although the three such letters never gave any examples; she's the smartest woman, or some variation of that tired old lie; she "really cares" about people, which got me to laughing out loud. OK, if someone is voting for Clinton because she's seen as less evil that Trump, that's one thing. But to throw out these other "reasons" tests anyone's reason.
And one of the papers, maybe both, are touted the passage of a regional mass transit bill. I had another chuckles at least two of the proponents claimed the new tax would cost taxpayers "only" whatever amount they said per year. Isn't that a crock? Only...... The zoo tax was "only" dollars. The library tax was "only" dollars. The DIA tax was "only" dollars. The increase in Detroit water bills was "only" dollars, but was really a lot of "only" dollars. So, one might ask, what happened to the increase, almost doubling, of the regional SMART tax from just two years ago? And, while we're at it, maybe we should know how the money taken out of the cost of drivers' licenses and licence tabs and the gas tax has been spent. Some of that is specially earmarked for "rapid transit." It was interesting and telling that almost all of the pro-letters came from people who lived along the light rail line going down Woodward Ave. If it's such a good think, this investment in rapid transit that won't touch us out here in the hinterlands, why don't they just cough up a few voluntary dollars, "only" a few of them, to pay for it? I know why and so does everyone. For that matter, why don't the proponents of the transit tax seek an increase in the sales tax to pay for it? I think we know the answer to that one, too.
The Free Press had several "comic" sections today. Ashley enjoyed reading the colored pages section. I enjoyed some of the editorials. The Free Press described how well the current Oakland Co. executive has run the county for two decades or more. It cited all of his achievements, including appointing such good dept heads other counties and municipalities seek to use them and their advice. It also pointed to numerous accolades from even national publications that the current exec has earned. But then it endorsed someone else, who has said she'd try to retain the current dept heads. Huh?????? From the comments, the Free Press seems to have put more emphasis on personality than on achievement. Let's see who the Free Press endorses for President. That should be coming soon.
I picked up the newspaper the other day and there were three more murders in Detroit, with a couple others who were shot hanging on in hospitals in critical conditions. That doesn't include a few other shootings in the suburbs. But, we are told, crime rates are decreasing. I guess the key word is "rates."
Another comic section today was the college football section. I normally don't read it and for the following reason. MSU is struggling, mightily. And the sports writers are all over it, so very critical with their know-it-all views. I often wonder how many of these sports writers ever really played sports, at a highly competitive level. I'm not talking about little league or even high school sports, but higher level. I'm not saying that one has to have played at higher levels to know a lot about a sport, but I think that is required to realize how difficult it is to play at such levels, to succeed at such levels. I wonder how many folks know that fewer than 5% of high school athletes play college sports. And that number is inflated a bit by sports in which there are fewer high school participants, namely hockey and lacrosse. But, like so many others, these sports writers know everything. It reminded me of a local guy who back in Sept thought the Tigers should fire their manager because he took his starting pitchers out too soon, but in Oct he changed his tune and said the manager left his starters in too long. For that matter, and I am likely contradicting myself here, some of the color analysts, esp in baseball, really make some ridiculous statements, just bad things to say. Oh, well...... I guess I can go back to not reading the sports section.
On a happier note, the Lord Jeffs resumed their winning ways, defeating the White Mules of Colby 41-0. Last week, Middlebury stopped a 21-game winning streak--on a missed extra point. It's a comfort to know the players still have to go to class and do the work.
I have no idea if there is a connection, but an article I read in the newspaper last week suggested that NFL television ratings are down, considerably, this season, particular after whatever week the kneeling protests began. It may be coincidental. Maybe more and more people are like me, just plain losing interest in football, particularly the NFL. Maybe Lifetime ("Television for Women") has had a lot of really great movies lately. I don't know. But perhaps, if the NFL is all about money, maybe it should look into it.
It still bothers me that a week or so ago, a group of women thought that Hillary Clinton going after the many women who accused Bill Clinton of rapin and sexually assaulting them. (OK, you might not believe Clinton, either one, did this, but that's your problem. Do you believe Bill Cosby did what he's been accused of doing?) One of them said, with most of the others agreeing, "What wife wouldn't support her husband?" Huh? When he raped women? (Hey, it was Hillary Clinton who said women who alleged such attacks should be believed.) I brought up Cosby, but was rebuffed and dismissed with an "Oh, that's different." Yep, it sure is.
There were lots of letters to the editor in the newspaper this AM, although I didn't get to read it/them until much later in the day. I was looking forward to reading them, but found them to be very disappointing. Regarding the election, a number of Clinton shills were published. Oh, we have to vote for her for a variety of reasons: she qualified, although the three such letters never gave any examples; she's the smartest woman, or some variation of that tired old lie; she "really cares" about people, which got me to laughing out loud. OK, if someone is voting for Clinton because she's seen as less evil that Trump, that's one thing. But to throw out these other "reasons" tests anyone's reason.
And one of the papers, maybe both, are touted the passage of a regional mass transit bill. I had another chuckles at least two of the proponents claimed the new tax would cost taxpayers "only" whatever amount they said per year. Isn't that a crock? Only...... The zoo tax was "only" dollars. The library tax was "only" dollars. The DIA tax was "only" dollars. The increase in Detroit water bills was "only" dollars, but was really a lot of "only" dollars. So, one might ask, what happened to the increase, almost doubling, of the regional SMART tax from just two years ago? And, while we're at it, maybe we should know how the money taken out of the cost of drivers' licenses and licence tabs and the gas tax has been spent. Some of that is specially earmarked for "rapid transit." It was interesting and telling that almost all of the pro-letters came from people who lived along the light rail line going down Woodward Ave. If it's such a good think, this investment in rapid transit that won't touch us out here in the hinterlands, why don't they just cough up a few voluntary dollars, "only" a few of them, to pay for it? I know why and so does everyone. For that matter, why don't the proponents of the transit tax seek an increase in the sales tax to pay for it? I think we know the answer to that one, too.
The Free Press had several "comic" sections today. Ashley enjoyed reading the colored pages section. I enjoyed some of the editorials. The Free Press described how well the current Oakland Co. executive has run the county for two decades or more. It cited all of his achievements, including appointing such good dept heads other counties and municipalities seek to use them and their advice. It also pointed to numerous accolades from even national publications that the current exec has earned. But then it endorsed someone else, who has said she'd try to retain the current dept heads. Huh?????? From the comments, the Free Press seems to have put more emphasis on personality than on achievement. Let's see who the Free Press endorses for President. That should be coming soon.
I picked up the newspaper the other day and there were three more murders in Detroit, with a couple others who were shot hanging on in hospitals in critical conditions. That doesn't include a few other shootings in the suburbs. But, we are told, crime rates are decreasing. I guess the key word is "rates."
Another comic section today was the college football section. I normally don't read it and for the following reason. MSU is struggling, mightily. And the sports writers are all over it, so very critical with their know-it-all views. I often wonder how many of these sports writers ever really played sports, at a highly competitive level. I'm not talking about little league or even high school sports, but higher level. I'm not saying that one has to have played at higher levels to know a lot about a sport, but I think that is required to realize how difficult it is to play at such levels, to succeed at such levels. I wonder how many folks know that fewer than 5% of high school athletes play college sports. And that number is inflated a bit by sports in which there are fewer high school participants, namely hockey and lacrosse. But, like so many others, these sports writers know everything. It reminded me of a local guy who back in Sept thought the Tigers should fire their manager because he took his starting pitchers out too soon, but in Oct he changed his tune and said the manager left his starters in too long. For that matter, and I am likely contradicting myself here, some of the color analysts, esp in baseball, really make some ridiculous statements, just bad things to say. Oh, well...... I guess I can go back to not reading the sports section.
On a happier note, the Lord Jeffs resumed their winning ways, defeating the White Mules of Colby 41-0. Last week, Middlebury stopped a 21-game winning streak--on a missed extra point. It's a comfort to know the players still have to go to class and do the work.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
"Death Panel"
There was a really good op-ed in the newspaper today. With all of the, ahem, interest in Miss Piggy, locker room talk, etc., we haven't seen much about Obamacare. Other than a few letters-to-the-editor, I can't remember seeing anything about it in quite a while. Maybe there have been a few things out there, maybe even from the candidates. (Granted, I don't pay much attention to either one of them.) I just haven't seen it.
I suppose there's a good reason for that. It's been a disaster, by almost any account--other than the false narrative perpetuated by the administration and its lackey media. According to this op-ed, though, some of the media--the NY Times, good heavens, for one!--have taken a closer look at Obamacare. About the only success has been the number of people insured. Well, of course more people are going to be insured; if they don't sign up they'll be criminals (although I don't know if not enrolling is a criminal or a civil offense). As the op-ed notes (and I think I have said in the past), saying this is a "success" is like instituting a draft and then touting military recruitment numbers. The whole thing was based on lies and, if some of the leaks are to be believed, deliberate lies. No, we couldn't keep our insurance if we liked it. Hey, I'm not the only one who was given something he didn't like or want--less coverage for higher premiums and co-pays and lower deductibles. And that reflects another of the lies, that Obamacare won't cost you "a dime more." Well, that might technically be correct since it's cost me almost $5000 more over the course of its lifetime for, again, worse coverage. And, according to newspaper accounts, average premiums will increase by as much as 20% in Michigan in 2017. Great, just great.
Many (most?) states and counties have seen insurers flee the state or, I suppose more correctly, the state exchanges. It's time to scrap this crap and see if we still can get back to the health care we had before this monstrosity. I have a hard time believing this will happen, esp if Clinton is elected. Instead of getting rid of junk, the "fix" will be more gov't, a single-payer system. Imagine what this will do to competition and lower costs. To whom will the gov't single-payer system be responsible? Itself? We've seen how this works, haven't we? That's what Dems and, increasingly, Establishment Republicans do--create lousy programs and then create more lousy programs to try to fix them. And, invariably, the fixes fail. In fact, a Democrat US Senator has already made such a proposal to the US Senate. They don't learn, do they?
Another nice op-ed was on the same page, "...what is a sane voter do do?" It's a good question. But I enjoyed the author's characterization of the two candidates, "the worse two candidates in our country's history." Now, to me, after W. Bush and Obama, not to mention Kerry and Algore, that's really saying something. Where Trump is, among other things to me, "psychologically unfit" to be President, Clinton is "ethically unfit" to be President. Again, to me, that's among other things. I guess I see people who are supporting Trump (although I understand the original attraction and support it) as getting into the back seat of a car with a drunk driver. I liked how the op-ed writer wrote, of Clinton, "...a terrible record of incompetency." Yep. So, we have two rotten candidates, neither of whom should be anywhere near the Presidency and one of them, the winner, will "be saddled with the awful record of the present administration in almost every area." Is our only hope that Trump and Clinton will reach an agreement, both agreeing to drop out of the race??????
I wrote of this earlier this week or last, but still don't understand. I listened to a group of women, half a dozen or so, the other day/night talk of Trump's "locker room talk." They were appalled, very put off by the language. To her credit, one of them brought up the Clintons and their record of mistreatment of women. "Oh, no," a couple of the women said, "that's different." I kept my mouth shut, just listening, but found myself agreeing with that. It is "different." As reprehensible, boorish, offensive (You choose the adjective.) as Trump's conversation was, it was just that, talk. He didn't sexually assault or rape anyone (although I did hear today there is a lawsuit filed against him in that regard; I'd almost expect more soon.), at least not that these women knew (Maybe they do today, but the other night they didn't.). Although I'm sure he used his position to take advantage of subordinates, I can't prove it nor do I know of any such claims. But I'm not denying that happened. We do know, however, that Bill Clinton did use his superior/inferior relationship to have sex in the White House. And we know that Hillary Clinton used her power and influence to degrade, debase, and ruin (?) the lives of women who had the temerity to bring the assaults by her husband to the public. Yet, to these women, Trump's words were worse than either Clinton's actions. I'm not saying Trump hasn't ruined people. All I'm saying is simply that, to these women, Trump's words were worse than either Clinton's actions. I don't understand......
So, a couple weeks ago a front-page article claimed crime, serious crime, is down in Detroit. Why, then, each of the first two day's this week had stories of people shot and killed? And, as has become the rule, not the exception, the murders were buried back in Section A, not close to the front page.
Wes sent me a copy of Michael Savage's latest book, Scorched Earth. I had a chance to start it last night and have read about 50 pages. As one of my friends said, years ago about a different book, "If only 10% of it is true......" This book, "if only 10% of it is true," is very frightening. Worse, it is very depressing.
I suppose there's a good reason for that. It's been a disaster, by almost any account--other than the false narrative perpetuated by the administration and its lackey media. According to this op-ed, though, some of the media--the NY Times, good heavens, for one!--have taken a closer look at Obamacare. About the only success has been the number of people insured. Well, of course more people are going to be insured; if they don't sign up they'll be criminals (although I don't know if not enrolling is a criminal or a civil offense). As the op-ed notes (and I think I have said in the past), saying this is a "success" is like instituting a draft and then touting military recruitment numbers. The whole thing was based on lies and, if some of the leaks are to be believed, deliberate lies. No, we couldn't keep our insurance if we liked it. Hey, I'm not the only one who was given something he didn't like or want--less coverage for higher premiums and co-pays and lower deductibles. And that reflects another of the lies, that Obamacare won't cost you "a dime more." Well, that might technically be correct since it's cost me almost $5000 more over the course of its lifetime for, again, worse coverage. And, according to newspaper accounts, average premiums will increase by as much as 20% in Michigan in 2017. Great, just great.
Many (most?) states and counties have seen insurers flee the state or, I suppose more correctly, the state exchanges. It's time to scrap this crap and see if we still can get back to the health care we had before this monstrosity. I have a hard time believing this will happen, esp if Clinton is elected. Instead of getting rid of junk, the "fix" will be more gov't, a single-payer system. Imagine what this will do to competition and lower costs. To whom will the gov't single-payer system be responsible? Itself? We've seen how this works, haven't we? That's what Dems and, increasingly, Establishment Republicans do--create lousy programs and then create more lousy programs to try to fix them. And, invariably, the fixes fail. In fact, a Democrat US Senator has already made such a proposal to the US Senate. They don't learn, do they?
Another nice op-ed was on the same page, "...what is a sane voter do do?" It's a good question. But I enjoyed the author's characterization of the two candidates, "the worse two candidates in our country's history." Now, to me, after W. Bush and Obama, not to mention Kerry and Algore, that's really saying something. Where Trump is, among other things to me, "psychologically unfit" to be President, Clinton is "ethically unfit" to be President. Again, to me, that's among other things. I guess I see people who are supporting Trump (although I understand the original attraction and support it) as getting into the back seat of a car with a drunk driver. I liked how the op-ed writer wrote, of Clinton, "...a terrible record of incompetency." Yep. So, we have two rotten candidates, neither of whom should be anywhere near the Presidency and one of them, the winner, will "be saddled with the awful record of the present administration in almost every area." Is our only hope that Trump and Clinton will reach an agreement, both agreeing to drop out of the race??????
I wrote of this earlier this week or last, but still don't understand. I listened to a group of women, half a dozen or so, the other day/night talk of Trump's "locker room talk." They were appalled, very put off by the language. To her credit, one of them brought up the Clintons and their record of mistreatment of women. "Oh, no," a couple of the women said, "that's different." I kept my mouth shut, just listening, but found myself agreeing with that. It is "different." As reprehensible, boorish, offensive (You choose the adjective.) as Trump's conversation was, it was just that, talk. He didn't sexually assault or rape anyone (although I did hear today there is a lawsuit filed against him in that regard; I'd almost expect more soon.), at least not that these women knew (Maybe they do today, but the other night they didn't.). Although I'm sure he used his position to take advantage of subordinates, I can't prove it nor do I know of any such claims. But I'm not denying that happened. We do know, however, that Bill Clinton did use his superior/inferior relationship to have sex in the White House. And we know that Hillary Clinton used her power and influence to degrade, debase, and ruin (?) the lives of women who had the temerity to bring the assaults by her husband to the public. Yet, to these women, Trump's words were worse than either Clinton's actions. I'm not saying Trump hasn't ruined people. All I'm saying is simply that, to these women, Trump's words were worse than either Clinton's actions. I don't understand......
So, a couple weeks ago a front-page article claimed crime, serious crime, is down in Detroit. Why, then, each of the first two day's this week had stories of people shot and killed? And, as has become the rule, not the exception, the murders were buried back in Section A, not close to the front page.
Wes sent me a copy of Michael Savage's latest book, Scorched Earth. I had a chance to start it last night and have read about 50 pages. As one of my friends said, years ago about a different book, "If only 10% of it is true......" This book, "if only 10% of it is true," is very frightening. Worse, it is very depressing.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Equivalence
This AM's newspaper had an editorial titled, "Trump loses biggest pig fight." Again, for the umpteenth time, I will never vote for Trump (nor Clinton). What has been captured on tape and released by media outlets shows him to be what he really is, a cad of cads--or worse. The editorial certainly reveals that, too.
But where I have trouble is the "loses" part. The author considers Trump's words and actions to be worse than those of either Clintons--the 17 accusations of consensual or, esp, involuntary sex with Bill and the trampling, vilification, and even ruining of many of those women by Hillary using her position and power. NO!!!!!! Saying something, however vile, is one thing. Doing something is quite another. Saying is not breaking the law. Sexual abuse and rape are breaking laws.
I know I know...... Allegations, just allegations. And what flavor of Kool-Aid is your favorite? The women's groups who have continued to support the Clintons should be ashamed. That is, at one time, when shame existed, they would have been. No longer.
And note all those Establishment Republicans, so early to oppose Trump--and rightly so. Then they, albeit reluctantly, came on board with tepid support, at least some of them. Now, with the latest revelation about Trump (And what did they expect? These guys are supposed to be smart!), they've flip-flopped again, withdrawing their support and leveling criticism.
Will they, like other Establishment Republicans, throw their backing to Clinton, let's just say, the Clintons? The Democrats are the party of the Kennedy's; the Performing Arts Center named after one of the biggest womanizers in Presidential (if not other) history and what was the relationship between that President's brother and Marilyn Monroe? (Oh, you conspiracy nuts!) OK, how about the third brother at Chappaquiddick.? And yes, I could go on about others. I'm not saying the Democrats have a monopoly on lewd or other immoral behavior. I am merely critical of the selective outrage, of the false moral equivalence being tendered now.
On another note, the newspaper this AM also had an op-ed about Judge Damon Keith. Has there been a better American over the past 50 years or so? If you've followed his legal career, you know how articulate and compassionate the man has been, while staying within the confines of the law. It is a travesty that no President--Democrat or Republican!--elevated him to the Supreme Court. If any jurist was deserving (I think of Judge Learned Hand, for one), I can't think of many who were more so. Going way back when, at Fordson HS I had a sociology class with Mr. Chalmers, who I think was a very intelligent man. One of our group assignments was to find guest speakers to present to class. With the help of my father, I lined up Damon Keith, then chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. (I think he was appointed federal district judge later that year, I think.) I was excited and also very nervous to meet such a person, let alone the student bringing him to class. Let's just say I was more nervous to get a call from the school office that AM from Mr. Keith that he couldn't make it. But as might well be expected of a man of his integrity, he arranged for a substitute. Oh, well, the sub would be better than nobody, I guessed. Well, this substitute was no "nobody." He was Arthur Johnson. Who? You wouldn't ask that question if you knew anything about the civil rights movement in Detroit. Mr. Johnson was a college roommate of Martin Luther King. He served in a variety of positions before eventually becoming the president of the Detroit chapter of the NAACP. He did legendary work for the national NAACP, too. But I remember walking down the halls of Fordson, after meeting Mr. Johnson in the office, with more than a little trepidation. After all, this was Dearborn, unfortunately known for its segregationist policies, official or otherwise. And I was walking with this black man, with each and every other student staring at us. "Hey, what's Marinucci doing with that black guy?" (I'm guessing, in 1966, many were thinking "colored guy" or maybe worse.) Mr Johnson was very relaxed with me and Fordson and, as I recall, very pleasant. He gave our class a great talk that I hope students remembered. And Mr. Chambers (Remember, I said he was very smart) was quick to recognize what a prize we had in Mr. Johnson. He relieved me of my duties after class and took Mr. Johnson to lunch with the rest of the Social Studies Department.
Sometimes it's good to have to make choices, even if theoretical ones. Also in today's newspaper was an op-ed, "Sharpton or Pence? How would you vote?" It was another way to look at Trump v Clinton. Hmmm...... Sharpton or Pence? I'm no Pence fan, esp not his support for Indiana's "right-to-work-for-less" law. I don't think I would have the problem with Sharpton v Pence as I do with Trump v Clinton. I might choose, I think, Pence, given my dislike of the charlatan Sharpton. I might also choose "none of the above," although my dislike for Pence doesn't rival that of my abhorrence of Trump or Clinton or, for that matter, Sharpton. Now, is it unreasonable for me to ask why we can't have people like Damon Keith or Arthur Johnson running for President!?!?!?
But where I have trouble is the "loses" part. The author considers Trump's words and actions to be worse than those of either Clintons--the 17 accusations of consensual or, esp, involuntary sex with Bill and the trampling, vilification, and even ruining of many of those women by Hillary using her position and power. NO!!!!!! Saying something, however vile, is one thing. Doing something is quite another. Saying is not breaking the law. Sexual abuse and rape are breaking laws.
I know I know...... Allegations, just allegations. And what flavor of Kool-Aid is your favorite? The women's groups who have continued to support the Clintons should be ashamed. That is, at one time, when shame existed, they would have been. No longer.
And note all those Establishment Republicans, so early to oppose Trump--and rightly so. Then they, albeit reluctantly, came on board with tepid support, at least some of them. Now, with the latest revelation about Trump (And what did they expect? These guys are supposed to be smart!), they've flip-flopped again, withdrawing their support and leveling criticism.
Will they, like other Establishment Republicans, throw their backing to Clinton, let's just say, the Clintons? The Democrats are the party of the Kennedy's; the Performing Arts Center named after one of the biggest womanizers in Presidential (if not other) history and what was the relationship between that President's brother and Marilyn Monroe? (Oh, you conspiracy nuts!) OK, how about the third brother at Chappaquiddick.? And yes, I could go on about others. I'm not saying the Democrats have a monopoly on lewd or other immoral behavior. I am merely critical of the selective outrage, of the false moral equivalence being tendered now.
On another note, the newspaper this AM also had an op-ed about Judge Damon Keith. Has there been a better American over the past 50 years or so? If you've followed his legal career, you know how articulate and compassionate the man has been, while staying within the confines of the law. It is a travesty that no President--Democrat or Republican!--elevated him to the Supreme Court. If any jurist was deserving (I think of Judge Learned Hand, for one), I can't think of many who were more so. Going way back when, at Fordson HS I had a sociology class with Mr. Chalmers, who I think was a very intelligent man. One of our group assignments was to find guest speakers to present to class. With the help of my father, I lined up Damon Keith, then chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. (I think he was appointed federal district judge later that year, I think.) I was excited and also very nervous to meet such a person, let alone the student bringing him to class. Let's just say I was more nervous to get a call from the school office that AM from Mr. Keith that he couldn't make it. But as might well be expected of a man of his integrity, he arranged for a substitute. Oh, well, the sub would be better than nobody, I guessed. Well, this substitute was no "nobody." He was Arthur Johnson. Who? You wouldn't ask that question if you knew anything about the civil rights movement in Detroit. Mr. Johnson was a college roommate of Martin Luther King. He served in a variety of positions before eventually becoming the president of the Detroit chapter of the NAACP. He did legendary work for the national NAACP, too. But I remember walking down the halls of Fordson, after meeting Mr. Johnson in the office, with more than a little trepidation. After all, this was Dearborn, unfortunately known for its segregationist policies, official or otherwise. And I was walking with this black man, with each and every other student staring at us. "Hey, what's Marinucci doing with that black guy?" (I'm guessing, in 1966, many were thinking "colored guy" or maybe worse.) Mr Johnson was very relaxed with me and Fordson and, as I recall, very pleasant. He gave our class a great talk that I hope students remembered. And Mr. Chambers (Remember, I said he was very smart) was quick to recognize what a prize we had in Mr. Johnson. He relieved me of my duties after class and took Mr. Johnson to lunch with the rest of the Social Studies Department.
Sometimes it's good to have to make choices, even if theoretical ones. Also in today's newspaper was an op-ed, "Sharpton or Pence? How would you vote?" It was another way to look at Trump v Clinton. Hmmm...... Sharpton or Pence? I'm no Pence fan, esp not his support for Indiana's "right-to-work-for-less" law. I don't think I would have the problem with Sharpton v Pence as I do with Trump v Clinton. I might choose, I think, Pence, given my dislike of the charlatan Sharpton. I might also choose "none of the above," although my dislike for Pence doesn't rival that of my abhorrence of Trump or Clinton or, for that matter, Sharpton. Now, is it unreasonable for me to ask why we can't have people like Damon Keith or Arthur Johnson running for President!?!?!?
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Disasters
Isn't it amazing how much force natural disasters can pack? Right now I'm thinking of Hurricane Matthew. The wind. The water. And we can do nothing to stop it. Boy, wouldn't it be great if some day we learn how to harness all that power?
I read through the Detroit newspaper's grades of the Detroit Tigers for the '16 season. Despite the failure to make the playoffs, a number of players received grades of A. Verlander, yep! Imagine his season, his best in several years. Take away the one or two early disastrous outings and he might well have a Cy Young season on his hands. Lots of strikeouts. Very low ERA. I think he ended up with 15 or 16 wins, even with several games the relievers blew for him and a couple he lost with zero run support. Another was Kinsler. He is really fun to watch. I think he has an odd swing, almost sweeping at the ball. But the man can hit! And he is very, very good defensively, runs bases well, and is a good guy in the clubhouse. Several others, including the two Martinezes, had good grades and deserved them. Iglesias was also highly graded, again deservedly. I like the kid third baseman, Castellanos, too. It was a good move, I think, to bring back the manager, Ausmus. Last night, there was a guy bemoaning that, really upset by it. I asked why. "Well, he leaves his pitchers in too long!" Hmmm...... I told him, "If I was a hitter, I'd much rather see someone come in from the Tiger bullpen, anyone from the Tiger bullpen, than face Verlander, even a tired Verlander." There was no answer to that. I might be wrong, but......
But more than anything, I liked the A give to Cabrera. As the grader said, "He's the greatest. What else is there to know?" In what seemed like a relatively quiet season, he only hit about .315 or .316, with about 110 RBIs (for how many consecutive seasons?), and almost 40 HRs. And, as was noted in the article, he struggled through the season with several nagging injuries, that really never completely healed. I hope Tiger fans know how lucky they are to have witnessed this guy hit a baseball.
The Lord Jeffs saw their 20-game winning streak end today at Middlebury--on a blocked extra point attempt. That's quite a streak, esp for college players who actually have to go to class, do the work, etc. I traveled to Middlebury only once in my four years up there and forgot how beautiful it is there. The hills/mountains in the background, with the beginnings of the change of leaves, were really something.
I am sitting on several books others have sent to me, sent with strong recommendations. I hope to get to them this week, at least one of them. I am wrapping up the last of my review books, but still have some essays/papers to grade, too.
Yesterday, just before dinner, it was 82 degrees here, with some humididity [sic]. It took quite a while for me to stop "schweating" after cleaning up. But, this AM, at 6:00, it was 45 degrees outside. With highs expected in the upper 50s, maybe 60, the next couple days, Wed is supposed to push 80 degrees again. Go figure......
I read through the Detroit newspaper's grades of the Detroit Tigers for the '16 season. Despite the failure to make the playoffs, a number of players received grades of A. Verlander, yep! Imagine his season, his best in several years. Take away the one or two early disastrous outings and he might well have a Cy Young season on his hands. Lots of strikeouts. Very low ERA. I think he ended up with 15 or 16 wins, even with several games the relievers blew for him and a couple he lost with zero run support. Another was Kinsler. He is really fun to watch. I think he has an odd swing, almost sweeping at the ball. But the man can hit! And he is very, very good defensively, runs bases well, and is a good guy in the clubhouse. Several others, including the two Martinezes, had good grades and deserved them. Iglesias was also highly graded, again deservedly. I like the kid third baseman, Castellanos, too. It was a good move, I think, to bring back the manager, Ausmus. Last night, there was a guy bemoaning that, really upset by it. I asked why. "Well, he leaves his pitchers in too long!" Hmmm...... I told him, "If I was a hitter, I'd much rather see someone come in from the Tiger bullpen, anyone from the Tiger bullpen, than face Verlander, even a tired Verlander." There was no answer to that. I might be wrong, but......
But more than anything, I liked the A give to Cabrera. As the grader said, "He's the greatest. What else is there to know?" In what seemed like a relatively quiet season, he only hit about .315 or .316, with about 110 RBIs (for how many consecutive seasons?), and almost 40 HRs. And, as was noted in the article, he struggled through the season with several nagging injuries, that really never completely healed. I hope Tiger fans know how lucky they are to have witnessed this guy hit a baseball.
The Lord Jeffs saw their 20-game winning streak end today at Middlebury--on a blocked extra point attempt. That's quite a streak, esp for college players who actually have to go to class, do the work, etc. I traveled to Middlebury only once in my four years up there and forgot how beautiful it is there. The hills/mountains in the background, with the beginnings of the change of leaves, were really something.
I am sitting on several books others have sent to me, sent with strong recommendations. I hope to get to them this week, at least one of them. I am wrapping up the last of my review books, but still have some essays/papers to grade, too.
Yesterday, just before dinner, it was 82 degrees here, with some humididity [sic]. It took quite a while for me to stop "schweating" after cleaning up. But, this AM, at 6:00, it was 45 degrees outside. With highs expected in the upper 50s, maybe 60, the next couple days, Wed is supposed to push 80 degrees again. Go figure......
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
"I Don't Get It"
Boy, there's a phrase teachers don't care to hear. I think far more students are much more capable of learning than they realize or, at least, are willing to admit. There aren't a lot of dummies out there.
That said, here goes, "I don't get it." I find I live in a world I increasingly don't understand. Maybe I do understand, "get it," but am not willing to admit it.
On the news this AM, a man left his son in a hot car, deliberately. Apparently there is enough evidence to charge him with murder. Can that one be comprehended? Not by me.
Another local report the past few days had a carjacker pull a man and his wife, his pregnant wife, out of their car. With his hands raised, in the air, the carjacker shot the driver anyway. He also shot his wife. The driver died and the woman is in the hospital.
I wonder how many people are far more concerned with voting on Dancing with the Stars and those other similar shows than voting for President (OK, you got me there!) or at least other elective offices. I'm betting it's a lot.
I still don't understand American voters or the LameStream media. Maybe it's just our local outlets, radio, television, newspapers, but they seem far more interested in Don Trump's tax returns than Hillary Clinton's e-mails or the Clinton Foundation. Do the Lamestreams follow the public or does the public follow the Lamestream narrative? (Shame on me, using that trendy word, "narrative." I should know better.) For that matter, I wonder what Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Gennifer Flowers, and the others assaulted by Bill Clinton think of "Miss Piggy." I don't understand.
I engaged a Gen-Xer (or Millennial--I am so out of touch that I'm not sure I know the difference anyway) in conversation a while back. I was reminded of this the other day when thinking about how anyone could vote for Clinton. It was she who said something like people shouldn't have to work at jobs they don't like, "boring," "dead-end," "drudgery," (if I recall and it was a few years ago, I think), just to take care of their families, to see that they have health coverage. They should be able to follow their dreams, even if it means taking a job which does not allow them to take care of their families or, I supposed, taken to the extreme, work at all--if that's their dream. The Gen-Xer (or millennial) expressed something that is out of my realm of understand, except...... He agreed and said to me, "I suppose you don't agree with that." No, I told him, I don't. I don't remember my exact words, it was a few weeks or a month or so ago, but I replied, "You decided to have a family. You should be the one to take care of it, not others. You should want to, above all else, take care of your loved ones." I could tell I wasn't at all convincing, but I added this anyway, and these are the exact words, "It's not all about you, you know." Apparently I don't understand that, either.
And I guess Planned Parenthood or one of them Tweeted (Twittered?) something the other day about "Abortion being good for the economy." OK, I confess, I didn't read anything beyond that, not if there was any more Tweet (Twit), not of the article, nothing. That was enough for me. So we kill babies to have fewer mouths to feed? (Hey, let's be like our good trading partners, the commies in China!) So women can "follow their dreams" and work instead of raising babies--or at least carrying babies? And this "women's choice" thing is baffling. Didn't they make choices in engaging in an activity that could lead to pregnancies? But they don't want the responsibility if the "choice" goes awry?
And, again, I can't fathom why anyone would voter for either Trump or Clinton. I've written enough about that, but the thought still bothers me. It is baffling.
That said, here goes, "I don't get it." I find I live in a world I increasingly don't understand. Maybe I do understand, "get it," but am not willing to admit it.
On the news this AM, a man left his son in a hot car, deliberately. Apparently there is enough evidence to charge him with murder. Can that one be comprehended? Not by me.
Another local report the past few days had a carjacker pull a man and his wife, his pregnant wife, out of their car. With his hands raised, in the air, the carjacker shot the driver anyway. He also shot his wife. The driver died and the woman is in the hospital.
I wonder how many people are far more concerned with voting on Dancing with the Stars and those other similar shows than voting for President (OK, you got me there!) or at least other elective offices. I'm betting it's a lot.
I still don't understand American voters or the LameStream media. Maybe it's just our local outlets, radio, television, newspapers, but they seem far more interested in Don Trump's tax returns than Hillary Clinton's e-mails or the Clinton Foundation. Do the Lamestreams follow the public or does the public follow the Lamestream narrative? (Shame on me, using that trendy word, "narrative." I should know better.) For that matter, I wonder what Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Gennifer Flowers, and the others assaulted by Bill Clinton think of "Miss Piggy." I don't understand.
I engaged a Gen-Xer (or Millennial--I am so out of touch that I'm not sure I know the difference anyway) in conversation a while back. I was reminded of this the other day when thinking about how anyone could vote for Clinton. It was she who said something like people shouldn't have to work at jobs they don't like, "boring," "dead-end," "drudgery," (if I recall and it was a few years ago, I think), just to take care of their families, to see that they have health coverage. They should be able to follow their dreams, even if it means taking a job which does not allow them to take care of their families or, I supposed, taken to the extreme, work at all--if that's their dream. The Gen-Xer (or millennial) expressed something that is out of my realm of understand, except...... He agreed and said to me, "I suppose you don't agree with that." No, I told him, I don't. I don't remember my exact words, it was a few weeks or a month or so ago, but I replied, "You decided to have a family. You should be the one to take care of it, not others. You should want to, above all else, take care of your loved ones." I could tell I wasn't at all convincing, but I added this anyway, and these are the exact words, "It's not all about you, you know." Apparently I don't understand that, either.
And I guess Planned Parenthood or one of them Tweeted (Twittered?) something the other day about "Abortion being good for the economy." OK, I confess, I didn't read anything beyond that, not if there was any more Tweet (Twit), not of the article, nothing. That was enough for me. So we kill babies to have fewer mouths to feed? (Hey, let's be like our good trading partners, the commies in China!) So women can "follow their dreams" and work instead of raising babies--or at least carrying babies? And this "women's choice" thing is baffling. Didn't they make choices in engaging in an activity that could lead to pregnancies? But they don't want the responsibility if the "choice" goes awry?
And, again, I can't fathom why anyone would voter for either Trump or Clinton. I've written enough about that, but the thought still bothers me. It is baffling.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Corrections
OK, the Seahawks didn't take knees during the National Anthem. They merely linked arms. Is that different? Maybe and maybe not. From some of the "research" I've done, according to multiple sites, a few dozen players on most of the teams have taken knees.
I am a firm believer that the liberties granted in the Bill of Rights are protected from intrusion by the federal (and, through the 14th Amendment, the state) government(s). More on that later. But employers have a right to demand employees meet certain standards of behavior, dress, etc. I agree with that, although the courts often haven't. What I find ridiculous is the the NFL actually considered fining players for wearing cleats, armbands, etc. commemorating 9/11 and honoring the first-responders. After all, the NFL had to issue a press release, two days afterward, that it would not be levying fines. Yet, players who take knees, link arms, etc. in protest are protected. Look, either the NFL has rules or it doesn't. Apparently it can enforce them (or think about enforcing them) or not enforce them depending on circumstances. As I said, yet another reason not to watch the NFL.
Polls. "Scientific polls." And which of these "polls" is "scientific?" Are they so because the pollsters say so or make such claims? One in Detroit the other day interviewed 600 people to represent the entire state of Michigan. Now, how "scientific" was this poll when many Trump supporters are flying under the radar, either not admitting they'd vote for the Bozo or not "likely-to-vote" voters? And, how far off have many of these "scientific polls" been, like the local weather men--not exactly on the mark much of the time? Polls be damned! I think the election, as of now, will be a lot closer than the polls seem to indicate. That's not at all an endorsement of either major candidate, both of whom I despise and will never give my vote. I wonder if anyone has done a "scientific" study of election results relative to the number of yard signs and bumper stickers that are displayed.
Nolan Finley had an interesting column in today's newspaper, "Is Trump trying to lose?" Is my mind playing tricks on me or did I really post that idea months ago? No, I'm not going to check. If I did, I did. If I didn't, I didn't. Still, I've thought it! Other than the man is completely psycho, how else to explain his behavior? I have scoffed at many conspiracy theories, as has Finley, over the years. But does Trump think he can win with what he does and says? We have politicians from both parties who think they can just borrow and spend, borrow and spend (not to mention nail us on taxes!), yet Trump is worried about "Miss Piggy." And Trump didn't want to bring up Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions and Hillary's subsequent actions because their daughter was in the audience? Why would that stop Mr. Insensitive? He's now worried about how his actions will be perceived? And, Chelsea or not, it was her father who was involved. Maybe she should confront her father and mother and ask some penetrating (no pun intended) questions, like why her mother has been so willing to destroy the careers and lives of the women who have accused her husband. (BTW, why the outrage, deserved, against Bill Cosby, but so little, against Bill Clinton?) And, well, if you don't believe any of this history of sexual abuse and misconduct and the attempts to squash the accusers and their stories, there's no sense in us wasting our time discussing it.
Trump, after all, has spent a lot of time and money supporting Democrats and their policies over the years. Could he really be trying to hand the election to Clinton, to destroy the Republican Party (which might well deserve destruction, although not for the reasons Trump might have)? As Finley notes, I too am open to explanations other than this or "a serious mental disorder."
It seemed overt to me, one of the main reasons I oppose the Left. And article in today's Free Press suggested that schools of choice don't work in large part because parents are ignorant, they don't know any better, that they make their choices on the basis of ideology not practicality. (Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!). That sums it up--and you can toss in the Republican Establishment, from DC to Lansing and in-between. These elite are smarter than we are; they know what's best for us better than we do. From what I've observed over the years about politicians and bureaucrats, such a sentiment is highly suspect. But more to the point, it flies in the face of democratic principles, that the people can and should rule themselves.
I am a firm believer that the liberties granted in the Bill of Rights are protected from intrusion by the federal (and, through the 14th Amendment, the state) government(s). More on that later. But employers have a right to demand employees meet certain standards of behavior, dress, etc. I agree with that, although the courts often haven't. What I find ridiculous is the the NFL actually considered fining players for wearing cleats, armbands, etc. commemorating 9/11 and honoring the first-responders. After all, the NFL had to issue a press release, two days afterward, that it would not be levying fines. Yet, players who take knees, link arms, etc. in protest are protected. Look, either the NFL has rules or it doesn't. Apparently it can enforce them (or think about enforcing them) or not enforce them depending on circumstances. As I said, yet another reason not to watch the NFL.
Polls. "Scientific polls." And which of these "polls" is "scientific?" Are they so because the pollsters say so or make such claims? One in Detroit the other day interviewed 600 people to represent the entire state of Michigan. Now, how "scientific" was this poll when many Trump supporters are flying under the radar, either not admitting they'd vote for the Bozo or not "likely-to-vote" voters? And, how far off have many of these "scientific polls" been, like the local weather men--not exactly on the mark much of the time? Polls be damned! I think the election, as of now, will be a lot closer than the polls seem to indicate. That's not at all an endorsement of either major candidate, both of whom I despise and will never give my vote. I wonder if anyone has done a "scientific" study of election results relative to the number of yard signs and bumper stickers that are displayed.
Nolan Finley had an interesting column in today's newspaper, "Is Trump trying to lose?" Is my mind playing tricks on me or did I really post that idea months ago? No, I'm not going to check. If I did, I did. If I didn't, I didn't. Still, I've thought it! Other than the man is completely psycho, how else to explain his behavior? I have scoffed at many conspiracy theories, as has Finley, over the years. But does Trump think he can win with what he does and says? We have politicians from both parties who think they can just borrow and spend, borrow and spend (not to mention nail us on taxes!), yet Trump is worried about "Miss Piggy." And Trump didn't want to bring up Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions and Hillary's subsequent actions because their daughter was in the audience? Why would that stop Mr. Insensitive? He's now worried about how his actions will be perceived? And, Chelsea or not, it was her father who was involved. Maybe she should confront her father and mother and ask some penetrating (no pun intended) questions, like why her mother has been so willing to destroy the careers and lives of the women who have accused her husband. (BTW, why the outrage, deserved, against Bill Cosby, but so little, against Bill Clinton?) And, well, if you don't believe any of this history of sexual abuse and misconduct and the attempts to squash the accusers and their stories, there's no sense in us wasting our time discussing it.
Trump, after all, has spent a lot of time and money supporting Democrats and their policies over the years. Could he really be trying to hand the election to Clinton, to destroy the Republican Party (which might well deserve destruction, although not for the reasons Trump might have)? As Finley notes, I too am open to explanations other than this or "a serious mental disorder."
It seemed overt to me, one of the main reasons I oppose the Left. And article in today's Free Press suggested that schools of choice don't work in large part because parents are ignorant, they don't know any better, that they make their choices on the basis of ideology not practicality. (Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!). That sums it up--and you can toss in the Republican Establishment, from DC to Lansing and in-between. These elite are smarter than we are; they know what's best for us better than we do. From what I've observed over the years about politicians and bureaucrats, such a sentiment is highly suspect. But more to the point, it flies in the face of democratic principles, that the people can and should rule themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
