The End of November

Well, it's almost here.  As with most of the months, I ask, "Where did November go?"  And, for the past week or so, I think I've seen the sun one day--and not all of that day.  I like the grays and browns, but only for a while, certainly not for three or four months.  Snow helps to fix that.

Our household is still trying to understand, although I'm sure nobody ever really does, how a 15-year old just ups and dies.  One of Michael's friends did just that on Sat.  Michael, of course, has been devastated.  He played football, baseball, and basketball with the guy, who seemed like a genuinely nice kid.  We're not entirely sure what happened, but the obituary read "health issue."  Michael said he was told "heart failure." And the kid just had to have had a physical for football!  It was particularly hard on Michael, who had been "Snap-Chatting" with his friend just before this happened.  A lot of tears have been shed since Saturday.

I was discussing the election the other day with someone and it dawned on me--what about Inauguration Day?  Like the election as a whole, I can't get my mind around a Don Trump inauguration.  Wow!  And those who know me know I don't mean that in a good way.  Will I be as devastated on Inauguration Day was I was on Election Day?  And even worse, I'd have felt the same way had Clinton won.

Speaking of Clinton, remember how she and her supporters attacked Trump for hesitating about accepting the results of the election, if he lost, of course?  Now who is not accepting the results?  I'm not sure who is exactly behind them, but there have been a number of requests for recounts.  Yes, in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the popular vote was close.  But any recount is extremely unlikely to make any difference.  Plus......

What is with Jill Stein leading the call for recounts, at least in Wisconsin?  What did she get, maybe 1% of the vote?  What difference will a recount for her mean, unless she is working for Clinton to get Trump "unelected."  It makes no sense otherwise.  There I go again, seeing conspiracy all over the place.

OK, this will be controversial, but so be it.  Will the recount take a close look at any illegal votes that were cast?  That is, will any noncitizens, unregistered voters, or even dead people have their "votes" examined--closely?  No, I have no evidence that much of this happened or that any of it happened.  I'm not so naive, though, to believe it didn't, at least to some minor extent.  It's not like it hasn't happened before.  And I heard the Detroit clerk say the day before the election, in effect, nobody would be challenged for voting.  If a person had no ID, he/she would merely be asked to sign an affidavit affirming, "I am me."  That should quell any concerns about fraudulent voting.

There's more, but papers/essays are calling me for grading.  I'll save the other topics for later in the week.  Pray for Michael's friend and his family.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I know we might have to reach down a little bit this year, but there's still a lot for which to be thankful.  Let's, at least for a few days, focus on the good things happening.

But let's start tomorrow!

I see half a dozen states (or so) passed "minimum wage laws."  I wonder what the voters were thinking when they did that.  I'm guessing many of these same "yes" voters also support higher taxes for things such as alcohol and, esp, tobacco products.  The higher taxes, they'd argue, would drive up the prices and consumption/use would plummet.  Well, if we also drive up the prices for the good and services the minimum-wage earners make, won't consumption/use also have to fall?  After all, where would the money to meet the new minimum wage laws be found?  Of course, they would be in higher prices.  And I think big companies won't quite feel the crunch; they can raise prices only marginally and "make up for it in volume."  Small and medium-sized business hurt.  They can't make up for it "in volume" by definition.  So, where do they get the money to pay their employees what others who aren't business owners say they have to pay?  They can cut hours.  They can cut quality or service, likely to drive away customers.  They can reduce benefits, if there are any.  But mostly, I suspect, they will not hire as many workers, even firing/laying off some already there.  I'm sure the supporters of minimum wage laws mean well, think "a living wage."  But do they really think about the consequences?  I still like to throw this out at those who tell me they support minimum wager increases:  "Do you leave tips at McDonald's and Wendy's?"  Of course they don't......

I read this and lol'd out loud.  The headlines on an article I read were, "Post-election healing event" (my emphasis).  The "event" included "coping strategies" for those who are "hurting" at the results of the election.  Well, I'm hurting, too.  But I'd have been hurting even had the results turned out differently.  Either way, in my view, we lose.  But c'mon......  Is this a result of giving everyone a trophy at the end of the season?

Hampshire College was opened at the start of my junior year at Amherst.  It is right down the road (Rte 116), a few miles from our campus.  I'm guessing its mailing address is also "Amherst."  I was alerted that Hampshire, last week or so, banned flying the US flag on campus.  Huh?  There had been a flag-burning incident after the election.  I'm not certain of the exact circumstances, but that led to the college president issuing a directive to remove all flags.  Apparently this was in response to the "escalating hate-based violence." Where?  At Hampshire?  The flag-burning?  The anger the election of Trump had on students at Hampshire?  Who is this guy, this president?  For that matter, who are these students?  Oh, they are so angry and fearful!  I'm guessing the tuition their parents pay for this private school is a lot higher than the money many lower income families take home.  In this, like so much of what I see on college campuses, I see the spoiled rich kids acting out again.

I am not saying Black Lives Matter is responsible for the recent spate of police shootings and murders.  Let me repeat that lest anyone get the wrong message.  I am not saying Black Lives Matter is responsible for the recent spate of police shootings.  I am not one to condemn the many for the actions and words of a few.  But haven't a number of BLM marches included protesting chants of things such as, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon.?" Isn't that incendiary and despicable?  Maybe that gained a lot of nation-wide coverage, but here in Detroit, neither of the two newspapers played it up; in fact, I don't remember any articles about this although I admit I might have missed them.  So, with such chants, where are the condemnations, the blanket condemnations of BLM?  Where are these self-righteous elites who have denigrated all Trump supporters as "racist, bigoted, mysogynist, stupid/ignorant, white men?"  After all, if some Trump supporters are that (and I'd guess some of them are), they arrogant political and cultural snobs have designated all Trump supporters as such.  If those are now the rules of the game, what about applying them consistently?  I know why and do you.

There still is some smattering criticism of the Electrical College and how it and not the popular vote elected Don Trump.  There is a lot of misunderstanding of the EC.  One might well favor a direct popular vote in selecting the President.  That's fine; some people can believe that.  The EC became part of the US system so that the smaller states "mattered."  In 1787, four states (MASS, VA, PA, and NY) could have elected a President, the other nine states unable to stop them.  What leads anyone to think what would lead the nine smaller states to ratify the Constitution with such a system?  In other words, four states could dictate to nine states.  Looking at this year's election, Clinton would have lost the popular vote except, for example, the 2 million more votes she rec'd in California.  That is, she would have been elected even though more popular votes from 49 states and DC went to Trump.  (I hope I'm not misrepresenting that.)  Here's some irony.  Clinton would have won had she carried a few states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where she lost by mere handsful of votes.  Until toward the end, she didn't do a whole lot of campaigning there.  Had she paid more attention to the people there, she might well have won the Presidency.  But like the smaller states feared in a direct popular vote for President, apparently the people of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania didn't matter--until it was too late.  Like the FBI investigation, the election loss was Clinton's fault, not that of Comey or the Electrical College.

Sun Musings

Michigan is, indeed, a strange place at times.  I know I grow weary of references to Michigan's fickle weather.  "Don't like the weather?  Stick around a few hours; it'll change."  But I had to laugh this weekend.  It seems we went through an year's worth of seasons in less than 24 hours--sunny and bright 74 degrees on Fri, followed by nasty thunderstorms Fri night, and then a day of strong winds ("gale-force" the radio weather cast called them) and snow (although no real accumulation).  Now, the sun is out, but with the strong winds and temperatures hovering near the freezing mark.

Is it true that about 500 students and faculty members at U VA signed some letter criticized the university president for quoting, of all people, Thomas Jefferson?  Forget that he's the founder of the college, the third President of the US, and the author of the Declaration of Independence and Virginia statutes on religious freedom.  Nope, he owned slaves; that's enough to render him unquotable, I guess.  On top of that, the current university president's citation had nothing to do with slavery, nothing at all.  So, apparently I can no longer use this, from Jefferson, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle....  We are all Republicans.  We are all Federalists."  Regardless of its applicability to today, esp today, that "we are all Americans!," Jefferson is irrelevant.  Fools!  We are creating fools on our campuses.  (Well, some of the fools are teaching.)

Speaking of irrelevant, I'd guess the Free Press editor Stephen Henderson is becoming irrelevant.  Like so many, he likens support of Trump to "anti-Americanism" and "racism."  As a reader noted, "how shallow and unfortunate."  That's what Henderson has become, one who sees victimhood at every turn.  Yes, we have a way, in many instance, quite a way, to go with race relations, but Henderson is not helping.

I've seen the stories of the racist and bigoted actions of some people.  In Lansing the other day, a house that had been prepared to help a needy minority family was vandalized.  A noose was found in an area school.  What's wrong with people?  And it's these lame-brains who are perpetuating the myth that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots.  Find who they are and throw the book at them, just like those "demonstrators" who burned Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Tulsa, etc. should have the book thrown at them for arson, looting, and even in a couple of instances murder.

I think I've made it clear I'm not a fan of Trump.  I didn't and won't support him, although he's the President and I accept that--just like I didn't support Obama, but accepted him.  I don't pay much attention to the hysteria the LameStream media give to possible Trump appointees.  But I do pay attention to those he's interviewed and consulted.  To those who supported Trump because they thought he was "anti-Establishment" (something I strongly favor), I cautioned that he certainly wasn't, that he is "the Establishment," both politically and financially/economically.  And his potential appointees are moving in that direction--Establishment characters.

What's with Trump's "60 Minutes" interview?  How can he call the Clintons "good people?"  If he doesn't want to say bad things about them, just keep quiet.  If he wants to calm the vitriol, just keep quiet.  But don't insult us by saying they are "good people." And is he backing off on repealing Obamacare?

I really hope the Tigers don't decimate their roster because of salary cap restrictions/"taxes."  I'd hate to see Cabrera, Verlander, Kinsler, the Martinezes go anywhere.  That's esp if the salary cap "tax" is only a few million bucks.  I keep recalling that about 60% of his almost $700 million arena is being financed by taxpayers.  Hmmm......  $260 million from taxpayers vs a couple million to keep taxpayer, er, fan favorites??????

I read the obituaries more days than not.  Maybe there's a reason for this, maybe not--but often the deceased have photos attached to the notices, photos of what look like high school pictures of people who died at 80 years old. I just find that odd.

Education

I am one of those who thinks education in the US should be and needs to be far better than it is.  I've said this for decades.  I have leveled criticism in a number of directions and still do.

Recently I read a scathing critique of "the privatization of schools." that is of charter schools, online schools, for-profit schools, and the like.  I know I won't convince any advocates of these schools, but the evidence is clear, on average, charters, onlines, for-profits don't outperform traditional schools.  No doubt some individual such schools do, but let's then measure them up with the top-achieving public schools.  This article helped to open or re-open my eyes to some ideas--those of others as well as my own.

I used to make the analogy between private colleges and public colleges and private and public K-12 schools.  I'm not so sure that analogy is valid.  Oh, as a product of a private college and the wonderful education it provided, I'm still a big advocate of them, of their existence.  I no longer think that the same standards and evaluations apply to both scenarios.

It's interesting how much big-money is tied up in the privatization of education.  Some of the biggest names, some of the nation's wealthiest people have a stake in privatization.  We have to ask why.  I supposed, to give some of them the benefit of the doubt, they do have at least some altruistic motives.  From this article, let's emphasize "some."  There are many other motives, ranging from hatred of teachers' unions to political philosophy to just plain making money.

Outperform?  Most private schools--and this includes parochial ones--can pick and choose who can attend.  And, if those who have been selected prove to be problems, often it's out they go.  Those with special needs, too, are often not included in these schools.  That the privates "do more with less" is a fallacy.  They don't have to "teach" the students who cost far more than average students. And, of course, there are other factors.

The public schools are very reactionary.  They have fallen in line, like the good little sycophants they are, with all of these standardized tests.  Evidence is pretty clear. Standardized tests are not a very good indicator of quality education.  Again, with all of the propaganda out there, who is going to believe that?   Pointing to the nations with the best-performing schools in the world, e.g., Finland, students take very few standardized tests.  But in the past couple of decades, where can the money be found?  Yep, you nailed it--standardized tests.  It's not just the state-mandated tests either. The emphasis on Advance Placement tests and courses is another detriment.  I was taken aback, even stunned, last week when Michael told me on the drive home from school that only one of his classes had discussed the Presidential election--and that was one of the two classes without a state-mandated standardized test.  But, hey, wasting one day on something as trivial as the election of the President of the US (not to mention the historic character, the campaign, etc.) might cost a question or two on the test(s).  Some schools have eliminated recess to have more class time for "the tests."  The top-schools in the world actually have more recess time!  To get them ready for the tests, we now have students beginning to read and do math in kindergarten.  After all, that means more time to prepare to do well on the tests.  They might well be developmentally ready for reading and writing at age 5 (and, in fact, many students are), but are they socially ready?  Is that really in the best interests of students/children rather than in the best interests of schools paranoid about tests?  Again, pointing to the best-achieving schools in the world, students often aren't given the rudiments of math and reading until age 7 or so, the equivalent of second grade.  Until then, mostly school for them is play.  The last I heard, "play" wasn't on the tests.

Of course, what to do about improving schools?  First, don't assume any group that includes "reform" in its title is interested in better schools.  As often as not, even more so, the groups more interested in making money throw out the term "reform."

Despite the low ranking of US schools internationally, our best colleges and universities are still seen as the best in the world.  Would it be so hard to study what Harvard and Yale and Amherst (OK, I had to slip that in!) do to educate their students and then tailor K-12 education to match that?  (With that in mind, like any self-respecting old codger, I have my doubts about the continued quality at these institutions.  "Back when I was a kid......")  I've written on this a lot over the years; no need to recount it again.

I still think we need to attract and develop better teachers.  It's no surprise I think administrators are a large part of this problem, but it's also bigger than that.  I listened to a man last night, not a teacher by any means!, rant and rave about how Americans constantly hear about the importance of education, yet in spending, in how teachers are treated, etc., out actions belie our beliefs.  "We treat our teachers like sh*t," he bellowed, attracting the attention of others nearby.  (No doubt they thought, "There's another one of those teachers......)  Echoing what I've said for years, "Who in his (or her--I want to avoid any microaggressions!) right mind would be a teacher today?  Low pay. Constantly criticized."

Yet, there are difficulties with this.  I had another conversation this week about this.  There are some marvelous teachers out there, really hard-working, gifted, etc.  And there are likely enough serviceable teachers, too.  (As I noted in my discussion, "Not everyone can be Miguel Cabrera.  There is room for Andrew Romine."  I think Romine is a very underappreciated player.)  With the proper training and oversight (notably in the areas of their own education, quality, and rigor), something I really doubt can be provided by today's administrators (even if they wanted to provide it), these teachers can be effective.  But there are still far too many lousy teachers, just plain rotten, who belong in a lot of places not called classrooms.  I can still recite legions of stories.  The problem with this is in identifying the really good and the lousy teachers.  OK, it's not really difficult; it's the politics of such identification.  Who are sycophants (Yes, I like that word a lot and, besides, it was Dictionary.com's word of the day on Thur!) of the administrators?  How do you think their evaluations read vs those of teachers who question, well, questionable policies and programs?  Is one's "favorite" teacher one's "best" teacher?  As much as I hate to admit it, one or two of my Amherst professors were not at all "favorites," but they were very good teachers.  (Most of the best, though, were and remain favorites.)

If this Presidential election is an indictment of our educational system (and our inability to think critically), improvements must be made.  I really think implementing improvements will not be as difficult as convincing Americans to be concerned, of convincing them that improvements (other than tests, tests, tests), and of convincing them that there are very few people in education today who are capable of enacting true improvements.

The Beat Goes On.....

This is not about the election, not directly, but about the continued reaction.  There seems to be a growing contingent of students, at least on the U of M campus, who are upset.  And, it's not what one might suspect.

Apparently a petition has been signed by hundreds of students protesting, no, not Don Trump or his election or the obviously "racist, bigoted, misogynist, ignorant white males."  The protest, this time, is directed at the president of the supposedly "inclusive," "diverse" university.  I think anyone with an open mind has laughed when U of M continually gives itself a congratulatory pat on the back for its efforts at "inclusiveness," "diversity," etc.  Hey, didn't it even hire some administrator at $150K to oversee all this?

Last week, the U of M president said, of the students there, "Ninety percent of you rejected the kind of hate and fractiousness......"  You can imagine the rest.  A number of students, a growing number, took exception to the statement.  And they showed an openness (Dare I call it "diversity" of opinion?) not usually seen in Ann Arbor.  One student called the president "extraordinarily arrogant to assume" those who voted for Trump support "racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of hatred."  Yep, it is.  But the president, like so many others on his side, are just as described, "arrogant."  They are always right and always know what's best, better of course than those ignorant guys.  Other students, male and female, added their own versions of the hypocrisy shown on the campus.  One suggested students are free to express ideas, as long as those ideas are those of the university.  By that, I guess, it's meant the administration, faculty, etc.

I know I've expressed many times my views on why many people supported Trump.  And it's know I am not one of those supporters.  He still worries me a great deal.  (As did a potential Clinton presidency.)  But I'm getting tired of this.  Where are all these vaunted "critical thinkers" our schools were supposed to have produced?  ("Critical thinking" isn't on the state tests?)  It is stunning to hear supposedly intelligent people merely reciting the latest prejudiced statements they heard on the radio or television.  I guess they haven't yet figured out the LameStreams?

The latest is the appointment of Steve Bannon as a chief Trump adviser.  I don't know a lot about the guy, very little in fact.  But he's already portrayed as a "white supremacist," "an anti-Semite," etc.  A lot of the fodder for these accusations come from a nasty divorce report?  Again, I have no idea what this guy really is.  But where was the concern when Obama appointed a communist (He admitted as much, although I don't know if he later repudiated his statement.) to his administration?  Yep, he was forced to resign and maybe this Bannon guy will be forced to resign, too.  It's not the communist or even Bannon.  It's people's reactions, just accepting the latest things they hear from often very biased sources.

OK, I fall victim to that, too.  It's easy, I supposed, with all the ease of getting "information" today. (Did one Trump protester really hold up a sign reading that Trump's wife should be raped?  I saw the photo, but was it doctored?)  And it's easy to fact-check, although I guess I am like others and am often too busy or lazy to do so.  So perhaps I am too harsh.  Still, the immediate rush to judgment of Trump voters, characterized as they have been, is very disturbing.

Reflections

Today, the second Sunday in November as usual, was the 38th annual Big Bird 10K.  If it's not my favorite race, it's right up there.  I ran it again, missing only in '91 after first running it in '88.  It's funny how the 10K distance has grown, that is, become longer.  I thought measurements were standard and consistent, but as I grow older the distances, the 10K for instance, gets longer.  Hmmm......

I was a few minutes slower than last year.  I think there were several reasons for that, beside being a year old.  I am really convinced last year was a tenth of a mile short of 6.2 miles (10K) and my Garmin showed 6.3 this AM.  (The course was slightly different.)  The wind was pretty stiff and always seemed to be in runners', at least my, face(s). I really hadn't trained, no speed work, and, despite my normal day off taper day yesterday, my legs felt heavy/dead.

But I was generally pleased.  I was second in my age group, just a few seconds off the pace.  And two runners, good runners!, who beat me last year by 20-30 seconds were .6 and 7 seconds ahead of me this AM.  I am pretty whacked out tonight, though.  It's funny what tough effort can do to one's sense of fatigue.

The election is over and I've had some time to reflect.  I'm not sure where we're going, but I haven't given up the notion that neither Trump nor Clinton should have been given chances to be President.

I'm taken by several things, though.  First, it's been very distressing to me to hear so many people blaming the election, that is, Trump's win, on "racist, bigoted, uneducated, stupid, white men."  That notion is all over the place.  If that's the prevailing view, we will miss the important lesson of the '16 Presidential campaign/election.  The vilification of those "stupid white guys" has been vehement and vituperative--and I think misses the point.  Those critics miss the point.  It wasn't about Trump; it was about dissatisfaction with the Establishment who had rigged the system against so many people.  Those people became more and more frustrated and angry at being people who really didn't matter any more--their job losses, the loss of their homes, the high cost of Obamacare, etc.  They were tired of arrogant elitists telling them how to live their lives.  But the criticism, seen in the vehemence and vituperation, actually confirm what the Trumpsters were protesting--the arrogance, the elitism of those who insist they are right and those who don't agree with them are racists, bigots, misogynists, and even stupid.  I'm particularly distressed to read this among many of my college school mates, from whom I expected better.  Oh, they were mostly Clintonistas, no doubt, but I thought they'd not be as arrogant and elitist as they have been.  Their words are very distressing.  In fact, in their words, I see the obverse/flip side of the coin of what they accuse Trump--even their fascist claims.  And they are sure they are right.  Like I noted in a previous post, sometimes I think they live in a different universe.

On the other hand, a few of the liberal columns I have read seem to want to canonize Clinton, sitting her right there with Mother Teresa.  (Well, Obama rec'd a Nobel for doing nothing; I suppose the Pope could do the same with Hillary?)  It was ridiculous, these attempts at hagiography.  Her lies and deception were merely attempts to protect her friends and family and, of course, herself.  I suppose we might say Don Corleone was merely trying to protect his family, too.

And, ironically, the Democratic Establishment, by rigging the nomination system to ensure the Clinton candidacy, likely cost the White House.  I don't know, of course, but suspect that Bernie Sanders might well have beaten Trump.  And what about Joe Biden?  No doubt none of them see it that way because, well, they are the smart ones and everyone else is stupid.

I chuckle, but only somewhat, at some of the rhetoric being sent around, esp by Democrats, but even the Republican Establishment which opposed Trump at every turn.  Now there must be "working together," "conciliation" or "reconciling," etc.  How odd, when just a few years ago, one of those calling for working together said, "Elections have consequences."  I wonder if he regrets saying that now.  I guess it depends on Trump.  Yep, "Elections have consequences."  How eloquent, far-sighted, and statesman-like.

Why do I get the impression Trump will be the Republican President like former Michigan governor Granholm?  Of her, a member of her own party once said, "She wants to play governor; she doesn't want to be governor."  I think Trump is the same.  He'll want to play at being President, but will he really want to be President and all the work, criticism, etc. that entails?

Infamy

November 8, 2016, "a date which will live in infamy."  Surely this won't become the standard like the real day of "infamy," that of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  But I think in many ways Americans should hang their heads in shame.

I had this in my mind for the past few days and would have written it regardless of the winner.  If you remember the song, "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right......"  Well, that's what we faced yesterday.  As I have noted for months now, neither of the candidates deserved to be President.  American voters should not have allowed either to be a choice.  But, alas, we did.  And now I fear the next four years.  Of course, as noted, I would also have feared the next four years had the result been turned around.

If there is any one good thing about this, it's that the Establishment has been defeated, at least for President.  (OK, I don't really believe this; Trump is Establishment, just not the political one.)  But I really doubt the political Establishment will "get it."  There are too many arrogant elitists among it and too many who are firmly ensconced to care about what many, if not most, American people want.  More about that, somewhat contradictory, in a minute.

I would guess our only hope is in appointments.  Who will the new President appoint?  Some think he will make strong appointments, to the Cabinet, to the Supreme Court, etc.  I have my doubts, esp since he is, I think, mentally imbalanced at least to a degree.  But can he pick worse than Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch?  Hillary Clinton?  Arne Duncan? etc.?  I would think not.  One never knows, though.

The arrogant elitists have already been sending out the e-mails, decrying the outcome because of "ignorant," "stupid," and, yes, "biased" and "racist" white males.  They obviously don't "get it," either.  They don't understand the frustration and anger at, frankly, a "rigged system," one which has continually worked against many Americans.  Elections in '12 (other than Obama's re-election) and '14 should have sent a message and I think did.  But it was ignored by the Establishment.  Now we will pay the price.  I really hope not, but I am not optimistic.

On an aside, I've really been thinking how in the world did we elect Obama, not once, but twice.  OK, I understand '08, with the excitement generated, the first black (at least half black candidate), the blame Bush (He "lied," you know.) for everything movement, the obvious media bias, etc.  That Obama was no more qualified to be President than Trump seemed to escape people.  (The other day someone said to me, "But he was a Senator......"  My reply was, "But how did he get elected to the Senate?  What qualifications did he have for that, other than meeting the limited Constitutional ones?)  2008 I see, but 2012?  Nope, I don't see that.  But there are still people out there who think he's been a good President.  Oh well......

Now, an election against the Establishment?  I don't know about other states, but a quick glance at Michigan state and local results indicates something far different.  Most of the Establishment candidates won and won handily.  Heck, John Conyers won almost 3/4 of the vote!  How did that happen??????  And I could cite others.  So, what was the answer if not Anti-Establishment sentiment?
Maybe this is Americans' version of electing Jesse Ventura or Al Franken in Minnesota?  I don't know and perhaps never will.  Is it our fascination, our obsession with fame, spurred on by reality television?  Why elect one Anti-Establishment candidate, to the top position, but revert to the same old politicians farther down the ballot?  Beats me.

I hope that we have blown this up far too much, that we can survive this.  After all, we survived the Civil War, with the help of our greatest President.  Lincoln began as a big question mark, flawed of course.  But he grew as the nation needed him to grow.  He had no ego, not one to speak of.  We made it through two world wars, too.  And we made it through Presidents like Buchanan, A. Johnson, Carter, etc.  Times are very different now, though, with American culture.  I suspect we will "make it" now, too.  The question, though, is will it be enough to merely "make it."  A lot of damage has been done over the course of the past few decades and can anyone seriously think we're not on a downward spiral?  Again, will mere survival under this President be enough to right the ship?  I have my doubts, but still have some hope, although it's draining quickly.

Another Universe?

A study out by the Kaiser Family Foundation reveals some interesting "facts."  Since 1999, family insurance premiums have increased 213 percent.  OK, I'll buy that.  That's an average, of course, but ours have gone up substantially more than that and that doesn't include higher deductibles and co-pays.  Inflation has also been on the upswing, by 44%.  Again, OK, that might be right, too.  But what world does this study poll when it comes to average wages??????  According to it, pay has increased 60%!  Where is that?!?!?!  Somebody somewhere must be getting whopping raises.  I think 2015 saw about a 5% increase for the middle class, according to "studies."  Again I ask, "Where is that?"  It's hard to believe these "studies" when there's so little evidence of their findings in our personal lives.  I must be living in another universe.

So the FBI concluded there's no evidence of wrong-doing by Clinton.  Who didn't see that one coming?  I wonder what the rank-and-file FBI agents are now thinking.  Perhaps they are satisfied, perhaps.

I guess I will never understand the left's fascination with Bill Clinton.  He is far, far more popular than his wife.  (I guess that might be understandable.)   How can this guy draw the crowds, get cheered?  How can the guy show his face in public?  I know we have lost our sense of shame, but the man dragged the Presidency through the mud, sullying both figuratively and literally, the White House.

Someone sent me a link to songs sung by The Impressions, with Jerry Butler, Curtis Mayfield, etc.  It was great to hear these guys sing!  Maybe my next CD purchase will be their greatest hits......

National Day of Mourning?

I think next Tue or Wed should be National Day of Mourning."  I can't decide which.  Anyone who celebrates, other than one of the two major party candidates, should seriously consider his/her sanity. As an editorial in today's News correctly noted, the election for President of the United States is between "a lunatic and a liar."  One is "a huckster who has exploited the worst natures of this country."  The other has no "respect for truth or the law."

This editorial began with the headline, "Election fails the nation."  It's a good piece and has nailed a lot of it.  But I think the editor missed a very important point.  It's the distinct possibility that it's not the election that has failed, but the American people.  We have finally got what we deserve!  I had a brief discussion with former Congressman Tom Davis at a college reunion about this subject.  He's written a book, The Partisan Divide.  I suggested just that, that Americans have exactly what they deserve.  He didn't at all agree.  He cited, as in his book, systemic difficulties in Congress (and I would submit all of government), that only voters can overcome.  We can agree on that.  But my contention remains, that Americans through their lethargy and their satisfaction with the modern version of "bread and circuses" have finally receive their due. We have accepted the bawdry and worse behavior of our government and politicians for years and years.  We have because they have allowed us to have practically everything.  Yet, like Faustus, Americans have sold their collective soul to the Devil.

Back to the editorial.  He thinks this is likely a one-time deal, an election that won't be allowed to happen again.  I have my doubts, pessimist and cynic that I am.  I don't see any changes.  First, what right-minded, sane person would consider running for office?  The LameStreams are overtly biased.  They no longer perform their duties as "tribunes" of the common people.  They are more interested in the lurid, in things that may have happened when candidates were in high school (note Mitt Romney at Cranbrook) than how they have messed up in office, broken laws again and again, taken advantage of others to get themselves ahead, etc.  (Don't blow a gasket.  Of course I'm talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton, at least one of whom belongs in jail.  You or I or David Petraeus--unless you can work out a pretty good deal for yourself because of your position, past or present--would likely be there for the same or similar actions.  If you don't believe that, there's nothing I can write or say to change your mind, so don't bother.  But I'm also talking about Don Trump.  Do a little research and see how many little guys he's trampled over the years.)  We have come to accept as normal the abnormal.  (Note last week's rant about the newspaper article detailing how it's now perfectly fine to use obscenities in our speech.  We allow babies to be killed for the sake of convenience.  Our children dress like, well, look for yourself. Watch prime time television or movies; listen to what's now called "music."  Yeah, I know I sound like a doddering old fogy.)  Can we regain our souls?    I'm not so sure we can.

I am drawn back to the ridiculous endorsement of Clinton by the Free Press.  Of course it wasn't unexpected.  And I understand choosing her over Trump, although I don't agree.  (Remember, I don't agree with choosing either.)  But to insult me and other readers with she's "a prepared, mature choice" and "one of the best-prepared candidates for the Presidency of the last century" is beyond ridiculous.  In fact, it's reason to never, ever take the Free Press seriously again, as if I've taken it very seriously at any time since Ron Dzwonkowski retired as editorial page editor.  (Oh, we didn't always agree, but I found him to be reasoned and reasonable, always giving one with opposing views pause to think and rethink.)

BTW, I hope someone can refresh my memory.  (No, you don't really need to do that.  That's merely rhetoric.)  What is it again that Nixon and his aides did that was any worse than what Clinton and her aides have done?  For that matter, what about Obama and the IRS, the Justice Dept, the NSA, etc.?  Of course, for decades it was easy to dislike Richard Nixon.  And, no, I'm not a fan of his. He receive exactly what he deserved, maybe not even enough.  But what about others?  Why have they received free passes?  Why do so many people, often very ignorantly, merely excuse the latter with "Oh, that's different?"

And I have to add this.  I noted the other day that I have sent in my notarized "Declaration of Intent to Be a Write-In Candidate."  Karen is not at all happy about that, mostly concerned that' I'll get on "some government watch list."  Now, isn't that extremely frightening?  This is where we've arrived?  We are now so afraid of our own government??????  I think that we've reached such a point is the frightening thing.

So, which is it to be, Tue or Wed, the "National Day of Mourning?"

Wed AM

Sometimes I just wonder......

The incumbents for regents, governors, trustees at the major Michigan universities all seem to be running on the issue of tuition, namely that they opposed tuition increases, opposed passing off higher costs to students in the form of higher tuition.  Doesn't that seem just a bit disingenuous?  After all, if these guys are the ultimate decision-makers (and tuition seems to me to be a pretty important decision!), how do the continuous increases keep happening?

The president of U of M makes upwards of $750,000!  C'mon......  I know presidents are mostly there for fund-raising and must be good at it to get money.  Still......  Three-quarters of a million dollars?  And there was an article the other day where U of M is spending $85 million to enact some diversity program on campus, complete with hiring a "diversity officer" to the tune of $385,000.  Gee, I wonder why tuition increases?

And, speaking of U of M, I almost lol'd out loud when reading about students there who have been "misgendered."  Huh?  I guess the school is allowing students to make up pronouns to fit themselves.  Two of the pronouns are "ze" and "zir."  I think I'll make up one for me, "Grrrrrr."

The fall colors seem to be a bit late this year.  I guess that's due to the hot summer and warm fall.  But the leaves have changed.  At first, they seemed muted to me.  Now, though, the full colors are displayed.  The ride up to class is just beautiful!

Gasoline prices are way down, but didn't you just know it......  There is some pipeline problem down South and "experts" are predicting a spike in prices.  Yep.

Sometimes I wonder who reads this blog.  A short while after writing something, I read an op-ed or an editorial in a newspaper or even online that reflects what I've written earlier.  Hmmm......

I'm just about through grading mid-term exams.  As usual, I am heartened by the really good scores of some students.  They have really done well.  At the same time, I am deflated by the terrible tests written by others.  It's as if I have to ask, "Were all of you students in the same class, doing the same reading, having the same assignments?"  Talking with one of my colleagues yesterday, I noted that there seems to be a strong correlation between doing the homework essays and good test scores.  (Yes, I'm being just a bit facetious.)  He chuckled and added, "Coming to class and on time is also a pretty good indicator [of good test scores]."  I noted to Karen the other day that, in collecting essays for one of my classes, six were handed in; maybe five others were e-mailed to me.  So that's eleven (Yes, I used my calculator!) with a class size maximum of 30.  I have noted to a couple of my buddies that, back when I was at Amherst, I would never have dreamed of not turning in a paper, regardless of its quality.  Nope, I wouldn't have dared to not complete an essay.  (And we had a ton of them!)  A piece critical of US higher education a few weeks ago claimed that college graduates know almost as little when they get their degrees as when they first started classes.  Maybe that's so; I don't know.  But I guess a logical question would be, "How do they then get degrees?"

A Week to Go

I filled out my absentee ballot yesterday and mailed it.  Old people get to do that in Michigan.  I hope my ballot's fate isn't linked to the reports that dozens/hundreds of absentee ballots mailed out by county clerks weeks ago have never reached their destinations.  My choices?  Let's just say you'd be real close to guessing correctly if you reckoned I voted as much anti-Establishment as I could, with very, very few exceptions.

How about this for the latest polls!  Trump is ahead in several of them and neck and neck in others.  I heard the WaPo poll has Trump ahead by 1.5% and the LA Times poll about the same.  I don't trust the polls usually and in this election I trust them even less.  I think a lot of usual nonvoters are coming out to vote.  Now, "likely voters" being asked are upping the numbers for Trump.  I sill think a lot of them have yet to be heard.  I don't claim to know who will win, but it's not going to be a runaway, unless the fix is in or I am very wrong in reading people.

One article I read in the past few days is saying to getting ready for 2000 all over again.  That is, Trump will win the popular vote, but Clinton will take the Electrical College (I know).  I don't want to see either one win, but it will be interesting to see the reactions to this.

How the Democrats will celebrate the system!  I hope they are reminded of 16 years ago and their reaction then--the theft of the election/White House.  It won't matter; they don't listen.  They are arrogant elitists.

Will, as I suggested weeks ago if this happens, Trump boosters react violently?  I saw a piece yesterday or today in the newspaper that broached that possibility.  Certainly nobody, well, no sane person, wants to see that happen.  But consider how alienated Trumpsters will feel and how they've watched for quite a few years now other groups riot, loot, burn, kill, etc. with impunity when they've felt aggrieved.

I see CNN fired that hypocrite Donna Brazile.  She's always seemed to be on her high horse, pontificating from on high about this and about that.  (I wonder if she's the daughter of the great Bobo Brazil, with just a letter different in the name??????)  "The fix is in?"  Gee, what is it when one debater gets the questions handed to her before the debate?  Maybe it's just a loophole?

Last, but not least today, I keep wondering which day will feel worse, next Tue or next Wed.  I still think I'm living a nightmare, a really bad dream, in which voters for President are faced with the two worst possible candidates for President, two candidates from whom there is no "lesser evil."  Then, the next day, I will wake up to the realization that one of them will have won.  I will have to face reality and see that "evil" has won.