folly: the lack of good sense; foolishness.
The March of Folly is a wonderful book by Barbara Tuchman written about 30 years ago. I have had occasion to come into contact with it again and decided to read it--again. Tuchman is a masterful historian, not only telling tales that entertain, but also providing analogies and lessons. She won, if I recall, several Pulitzers somewhere along the way. Her breadth of knowledge and skill are seen in the books she wrote, from the Fourteenth Century to the First World War and more.
I think Tuchman took "folly" to an even stronger indictment, more dangerous and destructive than the mere definition.
The March of Folly should be required reading for all political office seekers. Can we assign the book to candidates and give them a test? Of course, the likelihood, as Tuchman repeatedly makes clear, is that no office holders will learn the lessons of the past. She wrote, "A phenomenon noticeable (and that's an understatement, surely) throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any other human activity." She continued, "...wisdom...is less operative and more frustrated than it should be. Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function?"
No doubt the response to this by many, if not all, politicians, is "No, no, no. That was them [sic]. We are we." Those of today are too arrogant to concede the point.
"While all other sciences have advanced," John Adams once admitted, government is at a stand, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago." And, I would suggest, two hundred plus years after Adams' comment, government is even worse.
"Wooden-headedness" Tuchman called it. Seeing conditions and then treating them with established biases, "the disease of divine mission," leads to the rejection, even ignorance, of any solutions other than those preconceived by the accepted doctrine. Of a Spanish ruler, she wrote, "No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential goodness." Isn't that the definition Einstein purportedly provided (He later said, "I probably didn't say that.") for insanity, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?" Of course, arrogant elitists wouldn't see it this way, would they?
But it's easy to dismiss Tuchman, as easy as dismissing John Adams and the rest of the Founding Fathers. After all, he was and they were merely wealthy old white men. Today, we denigrate them and their crowning achievement, the creation the the United States. For instance, just a few weeks ago, a NY Times op-ed lambasted the Electoral College, not as a mechanism to limit government power or tyranny by a majority, but as a defense to perpetuate slavery. With such ignorance of history, it's easy to make such a ridiculous claim. With such ignorance of history, it's easy to nod one's head in agreement. Who would listen to Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., who called the Founders "the most remarkable generation of public men in the history of the United States or perhaps any other nation?"
Can we not see the "folly" being practiced in Europe as we read this? Can we not see a similar "folly" followed in the US? Tuchman noted, "Power...frequently causes failure to think."
As Tuchman conclusively proves, "folly" leads to downfall, decline, and destruction. I suppose it's understandable, if not acceptable, that our elected officials and bureaucrats, that is, our leaders, refuse to see this. Their arrogance and elitism blinds them to their "folly." But what is it that leads the rest of us to refuse to see this? After all, those foolish policies weigh heavily on the rest of us. Are we really sedated by "bread and circuses?" There I go again, that history stuff.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Friday, December 30, 2016
2016
2016. It wasn't a very good year and I'm glad to see it go. No, I don't have a death wish and, although the older I get the more precious time becomes, 2016 is best banished to the scrap heap of history.
The disappointment of 2016 was at times overbearing. I recall so much about the Presidential election that weighed on me. First was the choice of the two candidates. How could Americans who were paying any attention at all allow people like Don Trump and Hillary Clinton anywhere close to the White House, let alone be the candidates? I remember my devastation with both and still don't know if I'm more or less devastated that Trump won and Clinton lost. How distressing to be in a lose-lose situation and esp a lose-lose situation with stakes so important!
This goes to the state and local levels, too. The non-politician in the governor's seat has been a major disappointment, in his headstrong and naive belief that government should be run like a business, everything depending on the bottom line. Note what's happened in Flint, with Detroit, with the very undemocratic emergency managers, etc. Lansing remains as sneaky (I'm being nice here.) as DC.
From the slight gleam of opportunity to overhaul the corrupt system came more disappointment. I think, without question, the anti-Establishment movement has lost. Trump was the anti-Establishment candidate to many people, but he's about as Establishment as they come. Note, for instance, his appointments so far. It appears the Republicans and Democrats alike have not learned the lesson and I am convinced people are either still convinced Trump is the one (to "drain the swamp") or are ready to give up, the fight being too draining itself.
It's been very disappointing to see the reactions of people whose intelligence/intellect I have respected resort to the tools of the ignorant, esp name-calling. Oh, I've experienced that, name-calling, over the years, particularly in the field of education. When ideas can't be defended, at least not well defended, against criticism, attack the critic with barrages of epithets. And that's what happened this year. Instead of standing back and taking stock of what has really happened--the frustration and anger of a large segment of people who feel marginalized or even ignored--it became, once again, easier to call that large segment names--"racist," "bigoted," "stupid," and even "Nazis."
Perhaps it's the curmudgeon in me setting in, but I am increasingly upset by the state of our culture, the direction in which our morals seem to be plummeting. I read a book a while ago from which this has stuck with me, "Morality belonged to our ancestors." That, of course, has multiple possible meanings, not many of which are good. This wrong direction is not a recent thing, of course, but seems to be intensifying in its speed. I've written much about this in the past, from our abdication of the value of human life (abortions, daily murders in our cities, etc.) to our greed for more "bread and circuses." But just consider this one that has stuck with me. Does anyone remember when Mother Teresa died? I'd wager not. But it was a few days after Princess Diana's death. I'm not at all diminishing the life of Diana, but c'mon......Mother Teresa!
I don't even recognize education any longer. The lower levels are dominated by "test, test, test," while the upper levels are transfixed on not upsetting students with a variety of ideas, esp ideas that might upset them. Although I realize that the media, mostly newspapers and magazines in our history, have always been biased, at least in the past that bias has been overt. People knew when they read a newspaper which way it leaned. Now, in their arrogance, the LameStream media claim to be "fair and balanced" or whatever the latest catch-phrase is. And, unfortunately, most people accept that they are, as long as the opinions, er, news, coincides with their own beliefs.
2016 did have some highlights. The Cubs won the World Series. The deaths of some celebrities was distressing but, although I question the sometimes fawning adoration we give them, perhaps it's good that we recall the memories they provided us. There were some personal times I'd never trade, too.
It is good, too, that the likes of Obama, Kerry, the Clintons, etc. are gone, we hope for good, never to cross our paths again. If anyone needs to see the pettiness of these people, their adolescent petulance, just look at Obama's/Kerry's last runs at Israel. (If all this was really necessary, why did they wait until a few weeks to do it?????? Might I suggest moral cowardice?) But I fear others, soon inebriated with power, will continue along the same paths.
But it's increasingly upsetting to see time running out, time in which so many things I'd like to see happen just won't happen.
The optimist in me hopes that 2017 will be a better year.
The disappointment of 2016 was at times overbearing. I recall so much about the Presidential election that weighed on me. First was the choice of the two candidates. How could Americans who were paying any attention at all allow people like Don Trump and Hillary Clinton anywhere close to the White House, let alone be the candidates? I remember my devastation with both and still don't know if I'm more or less devastated that Trump won and Clinton lost. How distressing to be in a lose-lose situation and esp a lose-lose situation with stakes so important!
This goes to the state and local levels, too. The non-politician in the governor's seat has been a major disappointment, in his headstrong and naive belief that government should be run like a business, everything depending on the bottom line. Note what's happened in Flint, with Detroit, with the very undemocratic emergency managers, etc. Lansing remains as sneaky (I'm being nice here.) as DC.
From the slight gleam of opportunity to overhaul the corrupt system came more disappointment. I think, without question, the anti-Establishment movement has lost. Trump was the anti-Establishment candidate to many people, but he's about as Establishment as they come. Note, for instance, his appointments so far. It appears the Republicans and Democrats alike have not learned the lesson and I am convinced people are either still convinced Trump is the one (to "drain the swamp") or are ready to give up, the fight being too draining itself.
It's been very disappointing to see the reactions of people whose intelligence/intellect I have respected resort to the tools of the ignorant, esp name-calling. Oh, I've experienced that, name-calling, over the years, particularly in the field of education. When ideas can't be defended, at least not well defended, against criticism, attack the critic with barrages of epithets. And that's what happened this year. Instead of standing back and taking stock of what has really happened--the frustration and anger of a large segment of people who feel marginalized or even ignored--it became, once again, easier to call that large segment names--"racist," "bigoted," "stupid," and even "Nazis."
Perhaps it's the curmudgeon in me setting in, but I am increasingly upset by the state of our culture, the direction in which our morals seem to be plummeting. I read a book a while ago from which this has stuck with me, "Morality belonged to our ancestors." That, of course, has multiple possible meanings, not many of which are good. This wrong direction is not a recent thing, of course, but seems to be intensifying in its speed. I've written much about this in the past, from our abdication of the value of human life (abortions, daily murders in our cities, etc.) to our greed for more "bread and circuses." But just consider this one that has stuck with me. Does anyone remember when Mother Teresa died? I'd wager not. But it was a few days after Princess Diana's death. I'm not at all diminishing the life of Diana, but c'mon......Mother Teresa!
I don't even recognize education any longer. The lower levels are dominated by "test, test, test," while the upper levels are transfixed on not upsetting students with a variety of ideas, esp ideas that might upset them. Although I realize that the media, mostly newspapers and magazines in our history, have always been biased, at least in the past that bias has been overt. People knew when they read a newspaper which way it leaned. Now, in their arrogance, the LameStream media claim to be "fair and balanced" or whatever the latest catch-phrase is. And, unfortunately, most people accept that they are, as long as the opinions, er, news, coincides with their own beliefs.
2016 did have some highlights. The Cubs won the World Series. The deaths of some celebrities was distressing but, although I question the sometimes fawning adoration we give them, perhaps it's good that we recall the memories they provided us. There were some personal times I'd never trade, too.
It is good, too, that the likes of Obama, Kerry, the Clintons, etc. are gone, we hope for good, never to cross our paths again. If anyone needs to see the pettiness of these people, their adolescent petulance, just look at Obama's/Kerry's last runs at Israel. (If all this was really necessary, why did they wait until a few weeks to do it?????? Might I suggest moral cowardice?) But I fear others, soon inebriated with power, will continue along the same paths.
But it's increasingly upsetting to see time running out, time in which so many things I'd like to see happen just won't happen.
The optimist in me hopes that 2017 will be a better year.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Merry Christmas!
Two of the best things about the season......
I love to watch the kids open their presents from "Santa." Sure, they get too many things and that can lead to greed and other troubles down the road. But their eyes and excitement make it all worthwhile, if only for the present. Both Ashley and Cody are still young enough to get that gleam, a real sparkle, in their eyes. Michael is a bit older, but still gets a look, a smile that says, "Yep, you nailed it."
And I love giving to charities and families in need. Oh, I'm not some major philanthropist, not by any means. But it is far more satisfying for me to donate than to receive anything.
All in all, it's a good time of the year to take stock and appreciate all I have, stuff (That's one of my very favorite words. I don't know why, but it is.) that I never would have dreamed of having. Yep, we're far from wealthy, but are comfortable, again more so than anything 40 or 50 or 60 years ago would have indicated.
Just one thing and I hesitate to write this, but it's been tearing at me for the past 36 or so hours. I can't at all understand Obama's decision to abstain from the UN resolution condemning Israel unless...... I know there is talk among some senior members of Congress about withholding our money from the UN. I don't really see that happening, but the talk is good. What has the UN become? Through some of its arms, it does some good. But in many ways it's merely become a soapbox (esp in the General Assembly) for empty talk and jabber for tyrants, petty and not-so-petty. Here's this resolution, tendered by Egypt (I think), a great bastion of human rights, supported by other guardians of freedom such as Russia and China. So Obama, in effect, by abstaining throws his weight, the weight of the US, behind these liberty-loving regimes. Why? Israel is not only an ally; it's the only democracy in the Middle East. Where is the UN (Security Council) and Obama Administration in, say, Syria, where tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) have been slaughtered? Where is the UN and Obama Administration with some resolution condemning the treatment of Christians in many of these Middle Eastern nations? I can't figure it out. Is Obama deliberately trying to make it harder for the incoming Trump Administration? I just can't see this abstention had Clinton been elected? I suppose it might have been coming regardless, but only if Clinton had agreed, which she might well have. Is Obama merely a small man, petty in this and many other things? I am at a loss. But I would love to see Congressional debate over funding to the UN, if only to make UN members squirm.
I love to watch the kids open their presents from "Santa." Sure, they get too many things and that can lead to greed and other troubles down the road. But their eyes and excitement make it all worthwhile, if only for the present. Both Ashley and Cody are still young enough to get that gleam, a real sparkle, in their eyes. Michael is a bit older, but still gets a look, a smile that says, "Yep, you nailed it."
And I love giving to charities and families in need. Oh, I'm not some major philanthropist, not by any means. But it is far more satisfying for me to donate than to receive anything.
All in all, it's a good time of the year to take stock and appreciate all I have, stuff (That's one of my very favorite words. I don't know why, but it is.) that I never would have dreamed of having. Yep, we're far from wealthy, but are comfortable, again more so than anything 40 or 50 or 60 years ago would have indicated.
Just one thing and I hesitate to write this, but it's been tearing at me for the past 36 or so hours. I can't at all understand Obama's decision to abstain from the UN resolution condemning Israel unless...... I know there is talk among some senior members of Congress about withholding our money from the UN. I don't really see that happening, but the talk is good. What has the UN become? Through some of its arms, it does some good. But in many ways it's merely become a soapbox (esp in the General Assembly) for empty talk and jabber for tyrants, petty and not-so-petty. Here's this resolution, tendered by Egypt (I think), a great bastion of human rights, supported by other guardians of freedom such as Russia and China. So Obama, in effect, by abstaining throws his weight, the weight of the US, behind these liberty-loving regimes. Why? Israel is not only an ally; it's the only democracy in the Middle East. Where is the UN (Security Council) and Obama Administration in, say, Syria, where tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) have been slaughtered? Where is the UN and Obama Administration with some resolution condemning the treatment of Christians in many of these Middle Eastern nations? I can't figure it out. Is Obama deliberately trying to make it harder for the incoming Trump Administration? I just can't see this abstention had Clinton been elected? I suppose it might have been coming regardless, but only if Clinton had agreed, which she might well have. Is Obama merely a small man, petty in this and many other things? I am at a loss. But I would love to see Congressional debate over funding to the UN, if only to make UN members squirm.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Sat AM
Before starting my screed, Merry Christmas to all. And to those celebrating Hanukah and Kwanzaa, happy holidays to you, too. I am not offended by those who say "Happy Holidays." But I do think it's really "Christmas." I don't think that should offend anyone either. What is offensive is the move to call "Christmas break" in the schools "Winter break." (Why, in the past, wasn't there a "Kwanzaa Break?") And why ban songs such as "Silent Night" or, my favorite, "Oh, Holy Night" from school Christmas concerts? Can't people just enjoy beautiful music? The words are not at all offensive; they just reflect different religious beliefs.
By the way, I was really distressed to read that reindeer really can't fly! That was news and a real shock to me. What's next? There's no Santa Claus?
Today's newspaper has a couple of articles/stories worth considering. One is a nice story about a man who is "Santa Claus." Oh, it takes him a long time, more than an hour, to get ready with his hair, beard, and outfit. But it's a fun and uplifting story to read. I kept thinking, though (and fie on me for doing that), of the local man who ran for the US House (and, due to some strange irregularities, was elected for a term before the Establishment defeated him). Invariably he was identified as "a reindeer farmer who played Santa Claus." The characterization was such that I guess it was intended to be a pejorative, that the man wasn't fit to be a Congressman because, well, he was "a reindeer farmer who played Santa Claus." He may or may not have been fit, but what did being "a reindeer farmer who played Santa Claus" have to do with it? And, more to my point, how could he have been worse than Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, and others in the US Senate or Nancy Pelosi and a host of others in the US House/
Yesterday's newspaper had three stories of shootings/murders in Detroit. There may have been more, but I just scanned the pages. And all three stories were on/in the back pages. Yet, apparently there are more pressing issues than killing our own people, more specifically, having engendered an attitude that it's fine to just go out and shoot people, consequences be damned.
In the "What's going on in our colleges?" category, one article included revelation that a Texas (?) university offered a course on Beyonce (Did I spell that correctly?) and the culture. That's not the title, but what the article noted. Maybe I'm behind the times and this is what now passes for education; but maybe I'm not. I know very little about Beyonce (and don't care to) other than she wears little in the way of clothes when she performs. I guess she was on the Super Bowl halftime show last year, but I don't at all remember that. That she, rather than, say, murders in Detroit (or Chicago or DC or......) is more of a concern speaks a lot; where's the college course on the plague of murders in our cities and that culture? Of course, maybe there is some relevance to Beyonce and I just don't see it. Then again, maybe there's a Nobel Prize in her future.
That the Obama Administration has turned its back, the American back, on Israel at the UN is very troubling. When does one shun an ally, a friend (albeit a sometimes nefarious one)? Israeli settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was "condemned" as a violation of "international law." I'm not current, I suppose, on how matters stand right at this instant. (How can anyone in this day and age be current on much of anything? Too much is going on and we are bombarded with this and that and......) But this Obama agreement (by abstaining, forsaking the US veto) with the UN Security Council's rebuke seems very short-sighted on the one hand and ignorant of history on the other. For one thing, go back about 70 years or so and see where "Palestinians" stood in the Arab world, the Middle East. For another, recall the deal brokered by Bill Clinton (?) that, in effect, saw the Israelis agree to every one of Yassir (That's My Baby) Arafat's demands. After some hesitation (I think he might have been caught off guard, that the Israels bowed to his wishes.), Arafat, again, having been given everything he wanted, nixed the deal, his own deal; he now wanted more. Is the Obama Administration that blind, willfully so perhaps? Does it not at all see that the destruction of Israel is the goal of the other Middle Eastern nations? If the Palestinians can be used as pawns in that destruction, well, that's OK. Again, "Palestinians?" Go back about 70 or 80 years.
Of course Trump's appointments are going to draw the wrath of the Democrats and/or liberals, if those two groups aren't one and the same. From my view, though, those appointees should be big disappointments to many of the little guys who voted for Trump. Along with the proposed tax plan, they might they be betrayals of those little guys who were sick and tired, frustrated, and angry at the Establishment? It seems, as I suspected, Trump is merely trading one aspect of the Establishment for another. I often wonder if even Trump was caught off guard by the results of the election, that he was surprised he won. I get the feeling he was. I might be wrong, but it seems so.
I not only know very little about Beyonce, but I never heard of this NBA guy who apparently is making $22 million a year!!!!!! I don't begrudge him his money/paycheck, but I think that is ridiculous. Before taxpayers are asked to finance, partially or completely, sports arenas and stadiums, I think the teams' budgets should be make public, very public. That doesn't mean someone can gain access to them as part of public domain or FOI. It means the newspapers should blare that information to the public. The information should include the salaries of players, many of whom make more money in a year than the rest of us make in our lifetimes. Yet, like everything else it seems, give Americans their "bread and circuses" and they don't care, are oblivious......
By the way, I was really distressed to read that reindeer really can't fly! That was news and a real shock to me. What's next? There's no Santa Claus?
Today's newspaper has a couple of articles/stories worth considering. One is a nice story about a man who is "Santa Claus." Oh, it takes him a long time, more than an hour, to get ready with his hair, beard, and outfit. But it's a fun and uplifting story to read. I kept thinking, though (and fie on me for doing that), of the local man who ran for the US House (and, due to some strange irregularities, was elected for a term before the Establishment defeated him). Invariably he was identified as "a reindeer farmer who played Santa Claus." The characterization was such that I guess it was intended to be a pejorative, that the man wasn't fit to be a Congressman because, well, he was "a reindeer farmer who played Santa Claus." He may or may not have been fit, but what did being "a reindeer farmer who played Santa Claus" have to do with it? And, more to my point, how could he have been worse than Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, and others in the US Senate or Nancy Pelosi and a host of others in the US House/
Yesterday's newspaper had three stories of shootings/murders in Detroit. There may have been more, but I just scanned the pages. And all three stories were on/in the back pages. Yet, apparently there are more pressing issues than killing our own people, more specifically, having engendered an attitude that it's fine to just go out and shoot people, consequences be damned.
In the "What's going on in our colleges?" category, one article included revelation that a Texas (?) university offered a course on Beyonce (Did I spell that correctly?) and the culture. That's not the title, but what the article noted. Maybe I'm behind the times and this is what now passes for education; but maybe I'm not. I know very little about Beyonce (and don't care to) other than she wears little in the way of clothes when she performs. I guess she was on the Super Bowl halftime show last year, but I don't at all remember that. That she, rather than, say, murders in Detroit (or Chicago or DC or......) is more of a concern speaks a lot; where's the college course on the plague of murders in our cities and that culture? Of course, maybe there is some relevance to Beyonce and I just don't see it. Then again, maybe there's a Nobel Prize in her future.
That the Obama Administration has turned its back, the American back, on Israel at the UN is very troubling. When does one shun an ally, a friend (albeit a sometimes nefarious one)? Israeli settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was "condemned" as a violation of "international law." I'm not current, I suppose, on how matters stand right at this instant. (How can anyone in this day and age be current on much of anything? Too much is going on and we are bombarded with this and that and......) But this Obama agreement (by abstaining, forsaking the US veto) with the UN Security Council's rebuke seems very short-sighted on the one hand and ignorant of history on the other. For one thing, go back about 70 years or so and see where "Palestinians" stood in the Arab world, the Middle East. For another, recall the deal brokered by Bill Clinton (?) that, in effect, saw the Israelis agree to every one of Yassir (That's My Baby) Arafat's demands. After some hesitation (I think he might have been caught off guard, that the Israels bowed to his wishes.), Arafat, again, having been given everything he wanted, nixed the deal, his own deal; he now wanted more. Is the Obama Administration that blind, willfully so perhaps? Does it not at all see that the destruction of Israel is the goal of the other Middle Eastern nations? If the Palestinians can be used as pawns in that destruction, well, that's OK. Again, "Palestinians?" Go back about 70 or 80 years.
Of course Trump's appointments are going to draw the wrath of the Democrats and/or liberals, if those two groups aren't one and the same. From my view, though, those appointees should be big disappointments to many of the little guys who voted for Trump. Along with the proposed tax plan, they might they be betrayals of those little guys who were sick and tired, frustrated, and angry at the Establishment? It seems, as I suspected, Trump is merely trading one aspect of the Establishment for another. I often wonder if even Trump was caught off guard by the results of the election, that he was surprised he won. I get the feeling he was. I might be wrong, but it seems so.
I not only know very little about Beyonce, but I never heard of this NBA guy who apparently is making $22 million a year!!!!!! I don't begrudge him his money/paycheck, but I think that is ridiculous. Before taxpayers are asked to finance, partially or completely, sports arenas and stadiums, I think the teams' budgets should be make public, very public. That doesn't mean someone can gain access to them as part of public domain or FOI. It means the newspapers should blare that information to the public. The information should include the salaries of players, many of whom make more money in a year than the rest of us make in our lifetimes. Yet, like everything else it seems, give Americans their "bread and circuses" and they don't care, are oblivious......
Thursday, December 22, 2016
The Electrical College and More
It seems like every day there is some new screed about abolishing the Electrical College, how it "cheated" the American people out of the President most of them wanted. If the US were a direct democracy, in the sense of electing Presidents, I would certainly agree. But the US is not a direct democracy and there are reasons for it, good reasons.
We have an indirect democracy, also known as a representative democracy or republican democracy. That has always been the case and the Founding Fathers established one under the Constitution for practical as well as theoretical reasons.
That seems to be eluding many of these calls for eliminating the EC. I believe it was the New York Times that ran a piece calling the EC a product of slave-owning patricians in the South. Well, many Southerners might well have favored the EC in 1787, as did many in the North. I wonder if this author even knows there were slaves in many Northern states at that time. (One of my Amherst professors, physics, wrote a little book a few years ago documenting 18th Century slavery in the Connecticut River Valley, that is, Massachusetts. The last I looked, Mass was north of the Mason-Dixon Line.) And the Times wonders why its readership is down??????
Among the reasons for the EC back then was that, in effect, in a popular vote, four states could choose the President (among other things). Nine states, then, would be left in the lurch even if vehemently opposing the winning candidate. Today, just using states' current populations, seven or eight states might be able to choose the President. (And that doesn't count the cemetery votes, illegal voters, and voting machines that recorded more votes than the number of voters who showed up.) So even today, voters in 42 or 43 states might not have their votes counted, if the top seven or eight states wanted/were unified. The EC was established for unity and to eliminate it is a recipe for disunity, not exactly something we need right now. I believe a small minority of states can still dictate the Presidential election outcome, but I think it takes 13 or 14 states to do so. At least that's some measure of restraint.
The Founders also were aware of tyranny, even tyranny of the majority. Well, if we have majority rule...... Of course we don't; we have many checks and balances to prevent, as in the past, one group from discriminating against another group. Granted, in many instances it took a long time, far too long, to see this work, but we are still getting there. Who would argue that, say, white males should be able to discriminate against, say, black females? After all, if whites are a majority (and I'm not sure they still are) and we believe in majority rule......
We have a federal system, one that allows states to control matters that affect them. Most obviously and of little debate, why should Florida be forced by a central gov't to purchase snow removal equipment the way Michigan or Minnesota or Alaska does? Taking that a step farther, why, through its larger population, should NY be able to determine immigration policy for Arizona? How many illegal immigrants are flooding over the NY state borders? How do New Yorkers have to deal with the problems and difficulties of illegal immigrants? Comparatively, they don't. And taking it a step farther, because California voters think that grown men, by stating their rest room preferences, should be allowed in the same rest rooms as little girls, why should Wyoming voters be forced to accept that same policy? (If you haven't noticed, California is a little different.)
In that same vein, Clinton rec'd about 2 1/2 million more votes than Trump; it might have been a few more or a few less, but I think that's about right. Regardless, California gave Clinton well over 4 million more votes to Clinton I'm not arguing Calif shouldn't count. Of course it should. And I could play this game with several states, but California is the one that makes the biggest difference. The Electrical College was created to prevent, in this instance, Calif from dictating a President to the rest of the states, esp the smaller ones.
If some don't buy that argument, I assume they also believe we should eliminate the US Senate. After all, why should a state with fewer than one million people, such as Wyoming or one of six other states, have the same representation as one, California again, with nearly 40 million people? Perhaps people think that is so; I don't know, but I'd guess not many do.
But mostly I think it odd that the EC wasn't in anyone's radar until after the election. When Clinton was the sure winner, even talk of an Electrical College landslide, it wasn't an issue. I still like my analogy of a month or so ago. Who wins the football game? It's the team with the most points, even if the other team has two or three or four times more yardage. If you don't like the way winners are determined, change the rules. But be careful. Look how the Democrats are now cringing at the "nuclear option" in the US Senate. (I hope that they are thanking Harry Reid.)
All this makes me wonder where some people get their education. OK, I'm not talking about the high schools. Kids there don't pay attention. But in the colleges, who can graduate with a degree without knowing the rationale for the EC? Who can spew forth the tripe that has been in some of the "We need to eliminate the EC now" op-eds? And do they think, think at all? In eliminating the EC, will these folks later come to regret their actions the way Senate Dems do the "nuclear option?"
We have an indirect democracy, also known as a representative democracy or republican democracy. That has always been the case and the Founding Fathers established one under the Constitution for practical as well as theoretical reasons.
That seems to be eluding many of these calls for eliminating the EC. I believe it was the New York Times that ran a piece calling the EC a product of slave-owning patricians in the South. Well, many Southerners might well have favored the EC in 1787, as did many in the North. I wonder if this author even knows there were slaves in many Northern states at that time. (One of my Amherst professors, physics, wrote a little book a few years ago documenting 18th Century slavery in the Connecticut River Valley, that is, Massachusetts. The last I looked, Mass was north of the Mason-Dixon Line.) And the Times wonders why its readership is down??????
Among the reasons for the EC back then was that, in effect, in a popular vote, four states could choose the President (among other things). Nine states, then, would be left in the lurch even if vehemently opposing the winning candidate. Today, just using states' current populations, seven or eight states might be able to choose the President. (And that doesn't count the cemetery votes, illegal voters, and voting machines that recorded more votes than the number of voters who showed up.) So even today, voters in 42 or 43 states might not have their votes counted, if the top seven or eight states wanted/were unified. The EC was established for unity and to eliminate it is a recipe for disunity, not exactly something we need right now. I believe a small minority of states can still dictate the Presidential election outcome, but I think it takes 13 or 14 states to do so. At least that's some measure of restraint.
The Founders also were aware of tyranny, even tyranny of the majority. Well, if we have majority rule...... Of course we don't; we have many checks and balances to prevent, as in the past, one group from discriminating against another group. Granted, in many instances it took a long time, far too long, to see this work, but we are still getting there. Who would argue that, say, white males should be able to discriminate against, say, black females? After all, if whites are a majority (and I'm not sure they still are) and we believe in majority rule......
We have a federal system, one that allows states to control matters that affect them. Most obviously and of little debate, why should Florida be forced by a central gov't to purchase snow removal equipment the way Michigan or Minnesota or Alaska does? Taking that a step farther, why, through its larger population, should NY be able to determine immigration policy for Arizona? How many illegal immigrants are flooding over the NY state borders? How do New Yorkers have to deal with the problems and difficulties of illegal immigrants? Comparatively, they don't. And taking it a step farther, because California voters think that grown men, by stating their rest room preferences, should be allowed in the same rest rooms as little girls, why should Wyoming voters be forced to accept that same policy? (If you haven't noticed, California is a little different.)
In that same vein, Clinton rec'd about 2 1/2 million more votes than Trump; it might have been a few more or a few less, but I think that's about right. Regardless, California gave Clinton well over 4 million more votes to Clinton I'm not arguing Calif shouldn't count. Of course it should. And I could play this game with several states, but California is the one that makes the biggest difference. The Electrical College was created to prevent, in this instance, Calif from dictating a President to the rest of the states, esp the smaller ones.
If some don't buy that argument, I assume they also believe we should eliminate the US Senate. After all, why should a state with fewer than one million people, such as Wyoming or one of six other states, have the same representation as one, California again, with nearly 40 million people? Perhaps people think that is so; I don't know, but I'd guess not many do.
But mostly I think it odd that the EC wasn't in anyone's radar until after the election. When Clinton was the sure winner, even talk of an Electrical College landslide, it wasn't an issue. I still like my analogy of a month or so ago. Who wins the football game? It's the team with the most points, even if the other team has two or three or four times more yardage. If you don't like the way winners are determined, change the rules. But be careful. Look how the Democrats are now cringing at the "nuclear option" in the US Senate. (I hope that they are thanking Harry Reid.)
All this makes me wonder where some people get their education. OK, I'm not talking about the high schools. Kids there don't pay attention. But in the colleges, who can graduate with a degree without knowing the rationale for the EC? Who can spew forth the tripe that has been in some of the "We need to eliminate the EC now" op-eds? And do they think, think at all? In eliminating the EC, will these folks later come to regret their actions the way Senate Dems do the "nuclear option?"
Monday, December 19, 2016
Mississippi Weather
Here, in Michigan, it's Mississippi Weather--two below. "Tupelo," get it? OK, that's a rotten joke, but it is cold. My car's thermometer in the driveway read "-2," while Karen's read "-4." Michael noted, on the trip to the bus stop, the reading was "-5." I think those qualify as cold.
I had a common-sense conversation with one of the workers at school last week. He said, "I heard 'It feels like it's 18 below our there this morning.'" We had just mentioned that I had 2 degrees at home. He added, "You know, if 'it feels like 18 below,' it is '18 below.'" Yep......
Today is Electrical College voting day. I still can't get my mind around a "President Trump." It is far too much for me to grasp. I told someone the other day, "I don't know if I would have found it more or less repugnant had Clinton been in line to be President." And, I really don't. I do know, the Clinton-supporter to whom I told that gave me a look of disbelief. Where are the front-page stories of Electors who have been harassed and even threatened, if true? They are supposed to vote against Trump, anybody, I guess, except Trump. Some states require their electors to vote for those states' popular vote winners. And, as I've noted in the past, how ridiculed Trump was for suggesting he might not accept the results of the election if he lost.
We were out, socially, this weekend. For the briefest of times, several folks brought up Trump and, not at all a surprise, were disgusted with his win. That's fine; this is America and we have the right to be disgusted. But two things, both of which I brought up, bothered me a lot. One, these people never, and I mean never, even when confronted with reality, acknowledge that Clinton is not "St. Hillary." And she's far, far from it. They ignore her sordid past or even, lamely, try to defend it. (My favorite was the woman who claimed, in response to Hillary's actions after Bill's sexual assault episodes, "What woman wouldn't defend her husband? "Of rape?" I countered with a great deal of incredulity. She ended the repartee with "Yes!" OK...... Two, when I found Obama's election, particularly his re-election, to be disgusting, why was I, if not openly, at least covertly viewed as some sort of "bigot" or "racist?" What does race have to do with someone I think has been a lousy, lousy President? I never brought it up or bring it up.
Why can't politicians be tried for fraud? OK, I really do mean broken campaign promises they make which they never in the least intended to keep. But even more I mean lies, open lies, that they tell to the American people. Can't we nail them on some sort of perjury, esp if on they lie, openly lie, on the floor of the US Congress? What about fraud? I'm not at all talking about differences of opinion, viewpoint, or policy, but blatant lies. I am reminded of Harry Reid, who when asked about his lie regarding Mitt Romney's failure to pay income taxes, one of those blatant lies. He just smiled and said, "It worked, didn't it?" Talk about "disgust......"
And why is Obama now, only now, talking and taking a hard line about the Russian hacking during the campaign/election? He, according to all accounts I've seen, knew about this even before the election. Was it that the hacking was no big deal since Clinton was assured of winning? Hmmm...... Once again this appears to be another case of selective outrage. More important, are the Russians accused (There's never been any proof, has there?) of tampering with vote totals? Maybe, even with the Trump victory, it's no big deal?
I saw a list of the "most sinful cities" in the US, from the cities, I think, with populations of 100,000 or more. It wasn't a surprise to see Las Vegas heading the list. I'm not naive, but number one? I've been there more than 20 times in the past 8 or 9 times, so I think I've seen the city and know what goes on there. But we don't engage in what might be considered "sinful" activity when we are there. No doubt others do and maybe that's even why a majority of people go there. But why is Las Vegas the "most sinful?" What about the cities that have far, far higher numbers and rates of murders? I would think that killing people is more "sinful" than gambling, lewdness, etc. But maybe that's just me. Why wouldn't Washington, DC or Chicago or my own Detroit be more "sinful?" Is there a day that goes by without a murder in Detroit? Not according to my daily newspaper; many days have multiple killings. And I wonder how many are not reported, drug deals gone bad that nobody knows about, corpses be dumped in dumpsters without any knowledge of them, etc. For that matter, and I know this is a stretch, but why not also, in this list, consider cities that show all that smut on television? Other than what goes on behind closed doors in Vegas, why are these televised shows any less "sinful" than "Sin City?" And, to boot, people go to Las Vegas; the television shows are piped into homes, although I suppose the argument can be made people can watch the Food Channel.
Another of my professors from Amherst died, at the end of November. I just discovered that the other day. Professor Pemberton likely never remembered me from his Religion 16 course, "The Western Tradition." Over the years I've joked with one of my buddies about Martin Buber and "I-Thou" and other things we remembered from our similar courses. But I was saddened a great deal to hear of Professor Pemberton's death. I remember three things, at least, about him, other than what I retained from his course. One was that he was a great lecturer. I know most of my Amherst classes were seminars, with 12 or fewer students. Religion 16 was larger, maybe 50, although I'm guessing it wasn't quite that big. It was a lecture and, c'mon "The Western Tradition," Martin Buber, "I-Thou," etc., I don't remember sleeping or wandering off or doodling in my notebook. I might well have on occasion. But what I recall most is being transfixed. Hey, how else would I remember "I-Thou?" Another was that Professor Pemberton always wore sport coats with patches on the elbows. Oh, the coats weren't threadbare, just stylish. I've always though that was cool. I have a couple of sport coats now, well past their primes, I haven't tossed or donated only because they, you guessed it, have patches on their elbows. A third was Professor Pemberton's erudition. He was brilliant. Like many, but not all, of my professors at Amherst (and far fewer at the three different graduate schools I attended) I marveled at how intelligent they were. How do people get to be so smart? Yet he was approachable and, although I'm sure he'd never recall me, always had time to talk. I don't know how successful I was or even that I specifically tried to emulate Professor Pemberton, but I tried to conduct my teaching-self in ways that reflected my professors at AC.
Two other things and then it's out to run. No, I won't let sub-zero temperatures keep me locked in the house for the day. And Carrie told Karen she want's to run today, but it might be closer to 20 degrees then. Both have to do with Amherst professors and me. About two years ago (Can it be two years already?) another Amherst professor died, Professor Olver. I never had her for a seminar, but she did lecture in a number of "Problems of Inquiry" courses I took. Yes, that is right; I did write "her." I was surprised when she died that her obituary made a big deal out of the fact she was the first full-time tenured female professor at Amherst. Yes, it is a big deal. But I think it's a far, far bigger deal that I don't ever remember thinking, "Hey, she's my only female professor." In fact, I don't recall any students saying that; some might well have, but I didn't hear anything of it. I think that's a big deal, that she was so good nobody even considered her gender.
I received a nice pre-Christmas note/e-mail from Professor Czap. He was my Russian History professor, two courses. And he, for a while, was my adviser--I didn't declare a history major until my junior year and had another adviser then. One of his sons was also a bat boy, with some other prof's sons, on the baseball team, too. I remember his office, often an obstacle course of sorts, with toys and things on the floor. He lived on Pleasant St, right across from his office in Faculty House, adjacent to the gym. I remember him as one of my great professors. Somewhere in the basement I still have my Russian History notebooks and at least several of my papers from his course(s). In grad school, to get graduate credit for taking an undergraduate class (Russian History) I had to do extra work. One of my "extras" was to write a long term paper. The other was to teach a class. I taught my class on Stalin's Purges of the '30s. I used my notes from Prof Czap's class and a paper I had written for it, which I had turned into one of my comprehensive essays (20 pages--or was it 40? I'll have to go downstairs and check.) for graduation. Let's just say my graduate professor was very impressed; but I knew it wasn't me. It was Professor Czap. It was all so easy because I had Professor Czap.
I spoke with one of my roommates/teammates and a great life-long friend yesterday on the phone. I think we caught up, as usual, with some banter, again as usual, about the good old days at Amherst. I was very pleased to hear him say he's "envious" that I have maintained a relationship, still after all these years, with some of my Amherst professors. I have several thoughts about that. I am lucky to have these contacts. I was lucky to have these professors, who were so instrumental in my life direction--professionally and otherwise. I regret I was not able to tell more of them how much they have/had influenced me, in such wonderful and positive ways. This is my attempt to do so now, without being obsequious about it, as seems to be the trendy thing to do now. I know this sounds very strange, but when they call me "Ron" in e-mails or conversations I get excited; but I still refer to them as "Professor," despite what many of my classmates/schoolmates do--now calling each other by first names. I can't call the gods by their first names, no matter how old I get.
I had a common-sense conversation with one of the workers at school last week. He said, "I heard 'It feels like it's 18 below our there this morning.'" We had just mentioned that I had 2 degrees at home. He added, "You know, if 'it feels like 18 below,' it is '18 below.'" Yep......
Today is Electrical College voting day. I still can't get my mind around a "President Trump." It is far too much for me to grasp. I told someone the other day, "I don't know if I would have found it more or less repugnant had Clinton been in line to be President." And, I really don't. I do know, the Clinton-supporter to whom I told that gave me a look of disbelief. Where are the front-page stories of Electors who have been harassed and even threatened, if true? They are supposed to vote against Trump, anybody, I guess, except Trump. Some states require their electors to vote for those states' popular vote winners. And, as I've noted in the past, how ridiculed Trump was for suggesting he might not accept the results of the election if he lost.
We were out, socially, this weekend. For the briefest of times, several folks brought up Trump and, not at all a surprise, were disgusted with his win. That's fine; this is America and we have the right to be disgusted. But two things, both of which I brought up, bothered me a lot. One, these people never, and I mean never, even when confronted with reality, acknowledge that Clinton is not "St. Hillary." And she's far, far from it. They ignore her sordid past or even, lamely, try to defend it. (My favorite was the woman who claimed, in response to Hillary's actions after Bill's sexual assault episodes, "What woman wouldn't defend her husband? "Of rape?" I countered with a great deal of incredulity. She ended the repartee with "Yes!" OK...... Two, when I found Obama's election, particularly his re-election, to be disgusting, why was I, if not openly, at least covertly viewed as some sort of "bigot" or "racist?" What does race have to do with someone I think has been a lousy, lousy President? I never brought it up or bring it up.
Why can't politicians be tried for fraud? OK, I really do mean broken campaign promises they make which they never in the least intended to keep. But even more I mean lies, open lies, that they tell to the American people. Can't we nail them on some sort of perjury, esp if on they lie, openly lie, on the floor of the US Congress? What about fraud? I'm not at all talking about differences of opinion, viewpoint, or policy, but blatant lies. I am reminded of Harry Reid, who when asked about his lie regarding Mitt Romney's failure to pay income taxes, one of those blatant lies. He just smiled and said, "It worked, didn't it?" Talk about "disgust......"
And why is Obama now, only now, talking and taking a hard line about the Russian hacking during the campaign/election? He, according to all accounts I've seen, knew about this even before the election. Was it that the hacking was no big deal since Clinton was assured of winning? Hmmm...... Once again this appears to be another case of selective outrage. More important, are the Russians accused (There's never been any proof, has there?) of tampering with vote totals? Maybe, even with the Trump victory, it's no big deal?
I saw a list of the "most sinful cities" in the US, from the cities, I think, with populations of 100,000 or more. It wasn't a surprise to see Las Vegas heading the list. I'm not naive, but number one? I've been there more than 20 times in the past 8 or 9 times, so I think I've seen the city and know what goes on there. But we don't engage in what might be considered "sinful" activity when we are there. No doubt others do and maybe that's even why a majority of people go there. But why is Las Vegas the "most sinful?" What about the cities that have far, far higher numbers and rates of murders? I would think that killing people is more "sinful" than gambling, lewdness, etc. But maybe that's just me. Why wouldn't Washington, DC or Chicago or my own Detroit be more "sinful?" Is there a day that goes by without a murder in Detroit? Not according to my daily newspaper; many days have multiple killings. And I wonder how many are not reported, drug deals gone bad that nobody knows about, corpses be dumped in dumpsters without any knowledge of them, etc. For that matter, and I know this is a stretch, but why not also, in this list, consider cities that show all that smut on television? Other than what goes on behind closed doors in Vegas, why are these televised shows any less "sinful" than "Sin City?" And, to boot, people go to Las Vegas; the television shows are piped into homes, although I suppose the argument can be made people can watch the Food Channel.
Another of my professors from Amherst died, at the end of November. I just discovered that the other day. Professor Pemberton likely never remembered me from his Religion 16 course, "The Western Tradition." Over the years I've joked with one of my buddies about Martin Buber and "I-Thou" and other things we remembered from our similar courses. But I was saddened a great deal to hear of Professor Pemberton's death. I remember three things, at least, about him, other than what I retained from his course. One was that he was a great lecturer. I know most of my Amherst classes were seminars, with 12 or fewer students. Religion 16 was larger, maybe 50, although I'm guessing it wasn't quite that big. It was a lecture and, c'mon "The Western Tradition," Martin Buber, "I-Thou," etc., I don't remember sleeping or wandering off or doodling in my notebook. I might well have on occasion. But what I recall most is being transfixed. Hey, how else would I remember "I-Thou?" Another was that Professor Pemberton always wore sport coats with patches on the elbows. Oh, the coats weren't threadbare, just stylish. I've always though that was cool. I have a couple of sport coats now, well past their primes, I haven't tossed or donated only because they, you guessed it, have patches on their elbows. A third was Professor Pemberton's erudition. He was brilliant. Like many, but not all, of my professors at Amherst (and far fewer at the three different graduate schools I attended) I marveled at how intelligent they were. How do people get to be so smart? Yet he was approachable and, although I'm sure he'd never recall me, always had time to talk. I don't know how successful I was or even that I specifically tried to emulate Professor Pemberton, but I tried to conduct my teaching-self in ways that reflected my professors at AC.
Two other things and then it's out to run. No, I won't let sub-zero temperatures keep me locked in the house for the day. And Carrie told Karen she want's to run today, but it might be closer to 20 degrees then. Both have to do with Amherst professors and me. About two years ago (Can it be two years already?) another Amherst professor died, Professor Olver. I never had her for a seminar, but she did lecture in a number of "Problems of Inquiry" courses I took. Yes, that is right; I did write "her." I was surprised when she died that her obituary made a big deal out of the fact she was the first full-time tenured female professor at Amherst. Yes, it is a big deal. But I think it's a far, far bigger deal that I don't ever remember thinking, "Hey, she's my only female professor." In fact, I don't recall any students saying that; some might well have, but I didn't hear anything of it. I think that's a big deal, that she was so good nobody even considered her gender.
I received a nice pre-Christmas note/e-mail from Professor Czap. He was my Russian History professor, two courses. And he, for a while, was my adviser--I didn't declare a history major until my junior year and had another adviser then. One of his sons was also a bat boy, with some other prof's sons, on the baseball team, too. I remember his office, often an obstacle course of sorts, with toys and things on the floor. He lived on Pleasant St, right across from his office in Faculty House, adjacent to the gym. I remember him as one of my great professors. Somewhere in the basement I still have my Russian History notebooks and at least several of my papers from his course(s). In grad school, to get graduate credit for taking an undergraduate class (Russian History) I had to do extra work. One of my "extras" was to write a long term paper. The other was to teach a class. I taught my class on Stalin's Purges of the '30s. I used my notes from Prof Czap's class and a paper I had written for it, which I had turned into one of my comprehensive essays (20 pages--or was it 40? I'll have to go downstairs and check.) for graduation. Let's just say my graduate professor was very impressed; but I knew it wasn't me. It was Professor Czap. It was all so easy because I had Professor Czap.
I spoke with one of my roommates/teammates and a great life-long friend yesterday on the phone. I think we caught up, as usual, with some banter, again as usual, about the good old days at Amherst. I was very pleased to hear him say he's "envious" that I have maintained a relationship, still after all these years, with some of my Amherst professors. I have several thoughts about that. I am lucky to have these contacts. I was lucky to have these professors, who were so instrumental in my life direction--professionally and otherwise. I regret I was not able to tell more of them how much they have/had influenced me, in such wonderful and positive ways. This is my attempt to do so now, without being obsequious about it, as seems to be the trendy thing to do now. I know this sounds very strange, but when they call me "Ron" in e-mails or conversations I get excited; but I still refer to them as "Professor," despite what many of my classmates/schoolmates do--now calling each other by first names. I can't call the gods by their first names, no matter how old I get.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Brrr......
I sure seems early for our first Arctic Blast. But temperatures are forecast to be in the single digits and even below zero over the course of the next few days. The teens next week might well feel like a heat wave.
The 10-11" of snow we received Sat PM to Sun PM was a surprise to me, too. One of the local stations was calling for "6 to 9 inches," but the others I heard were sticking to their predictions of "3 to 5." The first couple of rounds of shoveling were fine, a lot of fun. The snow, with low temperatures, was light and fluffy. And shoveling with Michael in the dark on Sun eve was fun, bringing back old memories. Monday's load, although only another 2 to 3" was heavy, very heavy and tough to move. I heard, although haven't confirmed, another big one is slated for next weekend. We'll see.
Tiger manager Brad Ausmus wants to cut down on the team's strikeouts next season. Yep, I'd say that's a good plan. Putting the ball in play, even if not a hit, is a good thing. There are always chances for errors. Hitting more often puts more pressure on a defense. Runners can move up, at least have a better chance than with strikeouts. But doesn't this fly in the face of something I've heard quite a bit the last few years and just just about the Tigers? Isn't one of the new-fangled items of analytics in baseball "going deeper into the count," the idea of making the pitcher throw more pitches by taking more, swing less early in the count? I suppose that works for some; but with so many bullpens getting better, is it really advantageous to knock a pitcher out early? I don't know: I am just asking.
Interesting, if true, that Trump actually picked up votes in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (according tot he newspaper this AM). The recount was stopped by the courts in Michigan and, I'd assume, is over. I wonder, though, if one aspect will get the attention it deserves. In Detroit, in about one-third of the precincts (?), more votes were tallied than voters who voted. Huh? Yep. And didn't Detroit vote overwhelmingly for Clinton (and other Democrats)? So, then, if that's the case...... I'll let you fill in the rest. And for how many years have we just laughed off "the cemetery vote?"
Back when the Democratic-controlled US Senate initiated the "nuclear option" to get passed filibuster rules, I was just hoping that this break with Senate history and tradition would come back to bite the Democrats. (And I'd have felt the same way had the Republicans acted like the Democrats.) Go back and find the comments of Harry Reid, then the Majority Leader, in justifying the decidedly unparliamentary skirting of the rules, time-honored rules. Now, after you've done that, with the Republicans now in the majority, with a Republican President, listen for the Democrats to lambaste the same "nuclear option" they created. If all this stuff wasn't so serious, it would be hilariously funny.
Remember how the Republicans were called "obstructionists" and "the party of 'no'" when some of them tried to slow down or stop Obama's worst measures? (Heh Heh!) We were reminded that "elections have consequences." Where are these same people, the name-callers, now? Well, they are out there trying to find ways to "obstruct" and say "no" to Trump. Will they be foisted on their own petards?
So, a group of students at Yale took down a portrait of William Shakespeare and replace it with a photograph of some obscure woman poet or writer or whatever she is. (I never heard of her or her work.) Of course, that's because Shakespeare is another one of those "white, old, even dead, men." How can he be relevant? And, according to the newspaper, the Yale English Dept members, well, at least the dept head, went along with it and even praised the students for their "insight." Huh? I don't care if he's a white dead man who lived almost 500 years ago. There haven't been many writers of any ilk who have captured the human condition--actions, emotions, etc.--better than Billy S. I suggested to several people, instead of doing nothing but condoning juvenile behavior by their students the Yale faculty should assign a paper, perhaps as a final exam. Students should be asked to actually determine, not with "feelings," but facts from analysis, whose picture is more appropriate. I am not advocating one over the other (although I know my choice); I am just advocating Yale professors to make this a learning experience, one that requires students to employ academic rigor and reasoning. After all, isn't Yale an Ivy League school??????
Meanwhile, as people protest the Trump appointments (and several of them seem very bad to me), this week there were 5 or 6 more black-on-black murders in Detroit.
The 10-11" of snow we received Sat PM to Sun PM was a surprise to me, too. One of the local stations was calling for "6 to 9 inches," but the others I heard were sticking to their predictions of "3 to 5." The first couple of rounds of shoveling were fine, a lot of fun. The snow, with low temperatures, was light and fluffy. And shoveling with Michael in the dark on Sun eve was fun, bringing back old memories. Monday's load, although only another 2 to 3" was heavy, very heavy and tough to move. I heard, although haven't confirmed, another big one is slated for next weekend. We'll see.
Tiger manager Brad Ausmus wants to cut down on the team's strikeouts next season. Yep, I'd say that's a good plan. Putting the ball in play, even if not a hit, is a good thing. There are always chances for errors. Hitting more often puts more pressure on a defense. Runners can move up, at least have a better chance than with strikeouts. But doesn't this fly in the face of something I've heard quite a bit the last few years and just just about the Tigers? Isn't one of the new-fangled items of analytics in baseball "going deeper into the count," the idea of making the pitcher throw more pitches by taking more, swing less early in the count? I suppose that works for some; but with so many bullpens getting better, is it really advantageous to knock a pitcher out early? I don't know: I am just asking.
Interesting, if true, that Trump actually picked up votes in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (according tot he newspaper this AM). The recount was stopped by the courts in Michigan and, I'd assume, is over. I wonder, though, if one aspect will get the attention it deserves. In Detroit, in about one-third of the precincts (?), more votes were tallied than voters who voted. Huh? Yep. And didn't Detroit vote overwhelmingly for Clinton (and other Democrats)? So, then, if that's the case...... I'll let you fill in the rest. And for how many years have we just laughed off "the cemetery vote?"
Back when the Democratic-controlled US Senate initiated the "nuclear option" to get passed filibuster rules, I was just hoping that this break with Senate history and tradition would come back to bite the Democrats. (And I'd have felt the same way had the Republicans acted like the Democrats.) Go back and find the comments of Harry Reid, then the Majority Leader, in justifying the decidedly unparliamentary skirting of the rules, time-honored rules. Now, after you've done that, with the Republicans now in the majority, with a Republican President, listen for the Democrats to lambaste the same "nuclear option" they created. If all this stuff wasn't so serious, it would be hilariously funny.
Remember how the Republicans were called "obstructionists" and "the party of 'no'" when some of them tried to slow down or stop Obama's worst measures? (Heh Heh!) We were reminded that "elections have consequences." Where are these same people, the name-callers, now? Well, they are out there trying to find ways to "obstruct" and say "no" to Trump. Will they be foisted on their own petards?
So, a group of students at Yale took down a portrait of William Shakespeare and replace it with a photograph of some obscure woman poet or writer or whatever she is. (I never heard of her or her work.) Of course, that's because Shakespeare is another one of those "white, old, even dead, men." How can he be relevant? And, according to the newspaper, the Yale English Dept members, well, at least the dept head, went along with it and even praised the students for their "insight." Huh? I don't care if he's a white dead man who lived almost 500 years ago. There haven't been many writers of any ilk who have captured the human condition--actions, emotions, etc.--better than Billy S. I suggested to several people, instead of doing nothing but condoning juvenile behavior by their students the Yale faculty should assign a paper, perhaps as a final exam. Students should be asked to actually determine, not with "feelings," but facts from analysis, whose picture is more appropriate. I am not advocating one over the other (although I know my choice); I am just advocating Yale professors to make this a learning experience, one that requires students to employ academic rigor and reasoning. After all, isn't Yale an Ivy League school??????
Meanwhile, as people protest the Trump appointments (and several of them seem very bad to me), this week there were 5 or 6 more black-on-black murders in Detroit.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Huh?
I sometimes wonder how these so-called "experts" on television get their jobs. This is esp so for the lawyers, the networks' legal experts. This one was heard this AM, dealing with some case out in California (?). "There are a lot of similarities in the two cases. But if we disregard the similarities, the cases are quite different." Huh??????
I find it upsetting that the President, his lackeys, his supporters, and the LameStream media (Am I being redundant here?) are now claiming that anyone who disagrees with the President, anyone who doesn't think he's been a good President, etc., is a racist. What if I think he's done a lousy job with foreign affairs, making the world less safe and stable with a wishy-washy foreign policy? What if I think he's overstepped his Constitutional authority as chief executive? What if I think he has not done very well on the domestic economic front, despite all the spin from his administration and the lap dog LameStreams? What if I think he's been very divisive rather than bringing people together? What if I think he's not nearly as "eloquent" as we've been led to believe? And so on...... How in the world does that make me a racist? I also found lots of faults with W. Bush, a lot of them and many of them similar complaints. So, vis-a-vis W. Bush, what names can his supporters call me?
I am also concerned that so many people seem blind, almost willfully so, when it comes to Hillary Clinton. It's no secret I have no respect or affinity for Don Trump. I didn't vote for him and I'd never vote for him. (Why do I feel compelled to repeat that again and again?) His appointments, so far, have been far less inspiring than his supporter or even those who say, "Let's give him a chance," seem to think. But how can anyone still think Clinton has been maligned, has been give "a bad rap?" OK, I understand where some folks think she was "the lesser of two evils," although I don't agree. We can disagree on that; that's fine. But how do people not see that she was a rotten candidate, a rotten person, etc.?
It bothers me, too, that so many continue to view Trump's election as a result of "bigoted, racist, stupid white men," who, BTW, belong to the KKK or Nazi Party or something like that. Will things ever get better if the Establishment of both parties, the LameStreams, etc., the self-anointed arrogant elitists, refuse to acknowledge how fed up many people are? The election was not "Trump," but Anti-Establishment.
Let's hope the price tags for Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, Ian Kinsler, and AJ Martinez are too high for any other teams and that they stay in Detroit. I think it would be a shame to break of this nucleus with the young pitchers coming back. What would the salary cap "tax" be for the billionaire Illich? He can't afford a few million bucks, esp with the taxpayers coming up with more and more money for his new Red Wings arena now that the Pistons are on board, too?
My favorite period of artists is the Renaissance. I love the naturalism, the individualism of the paintings and sculptures. I am always stunned at how realistic the art work is, at the painstaking detail of it. Michelangelo is my favorite, but I also like Raphael--and the other Turtles! Da Vinci is remarkable, but the only painting of his that is a favorite of mine is The Last Supper, which is one of my very top favorites. Today in class, I spent almost the entire two hours showing slides of Renaissance art, from comparisons with Medieval art and the influence of the Church and Bible (Christianity) to the use of concepts such as the above individualism and naturalism and the brighter colors. The Renaissance artists had egos, no doubt. They were Alfred Hitchcock before there was Alfred Hitchcock, many of them painting themselves in their works like Hitchcock gave himself cameo roles in his films.
Is this true? Was Algore's personal worth about $700,000 when he ran for President? I find that hard to believe in that he and his daddy were both career politicians. And then, now, he's worth more than $700 million? Are those true?
I find it upsetting that the President, his lackeys, his supporters, and the LameStream media (Am I being redundant here?) are now claiming that anyone who disagrees with the President, anyone who doesn't think he's been a good President, etc., is a racist. What if I think he's done a lousy job with foreign affairs, making the world less safe and stable with a wishy-washy foreign policy? What if I think he's overstepped his Constitutional authority as chief executive? What if I think he has not done very well on the domestic economic front, despite all the spin from his administration and the lap dog LameStreams? What if I think he's been very divisive rather than bringing people together? What if I think he's not nearly as "eloquent" as we've been led to believe? And so on...... How in the world does that make me a racist? I also found lots of faults with W. Bush, a lot of them and many of them similar complaints. So, vis-a-vis W. Bush, what names can his supporters call me?
I am also concerned that so many people seem blind, almost willfully so, when it comes to Hillary Clinton. It's no secret I have no respect or affinity for Don Trump. I didn't vote for him and I'd never vote for him. (Why do I feel compelled to repeat that again and again?) His appointments, so far, have been far less inspiring than his supporter or even those who say, "Let's give him a chance," seem to think. But how can anyone still think Clinton has been maligned, has been give "a bad rap?" OK, I understand where some folks think she was "the lesser of two evils," although I don't agree. We can disagree on that; that's fine. But how do people not see that she was a rotten candidate, a rotten person, etc.?
It bothers me, too, that so many continue to view Trump's election as a result of "bigoted, racist, stupid white men," who, BTW, belong to the KKK or Nazi Party or something like that. Will things ever get better if the Establishment of both parties, the LameStreams, etc., the self-anointed arrogant elitists, refuse to acknowledge how fed up many people are? The election was not "Trump," but Anti-Establishment.
Let's hope the price tags for Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, Ian Kinsler, and AJ Martinez are too high for any other teams and that they stay in Detroit. I think it would be a shame to break of this nucleus with the young pitchers coming back. What would the salary cap "tax" be for the billionaire Illich? He can't afford a few million bucks, esp with the taxpayers coming up with more and more money for his new Red Wings arena now that the Pistons are on board, too?
My favorite period of artists is the Renaissance. I love the naturalism, the individualism of the paintings and sculptures. I am always stunned at how realistic the art work is, at the painstaking detail of it. Michelangelo is my favorite, but I also like Raphael--and the other Turtles! Da Vinci is remarkable, but the only painting of his that is a favorite of mine is The Last Supper, which is one of my very top favorites. Today in class, I spent almost the entire two hours showing slides of Renaissance art, from comparisons with Medieval art and the influence of the Church and Bible (Christianity) to the use of concepts such as the above individualism and naturalism and the brighter colors. The Renaissance artists had egos, no doubt. They were Alfred Hitchcock before there was Alfred Hitchcock, many of them painting themselves in their works like Hitchcock gave himself cameo roles in his films.
Is this true? Was Algore's personal worth about $700,000 when he ran for President? I find that hard to believe in that he and his daddy were both career politicians. And then, now, he's worth more than $700 million? Are those true?
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Sat AMThoughts
I was listening to the radio this week, several times, on my drive to class(es). That's unusual because I usually drive without any noise, sometimes a CD, but usually nothing. I had Karen's car and the radio was tuned to an FM station; which one, I don't know, but it was one of those "classic rock" stations. I heard a few songs before turning off, well, the noise. I ended up chuckling. Oh, several of the songs I really enjoyed, but I was laughing at the singing. It was, in almost every one of the five or six songs, just terrible. I won't mention the singers/groups; the last time I took aim at some lousy singers/groups, I received a lot of grief, people upset at my characterization/evaluation. But, these singers couldn't sing very well. I focused not on the instruments, but the voices and, in almost every instance, they were comical. This coming from me, who can't carry a tune at all, not even in the shower. And, as I noted, I liked some of the songs.
I wonder if those arguing against the Electoral College overriding the popular vote in this year's Presidential election would also argue against courts, esp the federal courts, who override/declare unconstitutional laws passed by voters in various states. After all, if the popular vote is all that matters, shouldn't it matter all of the time?
I still can't get my head around "the inauguration of Don Trump." I must be living a bad dream. I certainly would have felt as bad, if not worse, had it been "the inauguration of Hillary Clinton." But I think the political reality of a Clinton inauguration would have been easier on me--no, she would have been a lousy President; I'm glad she lost. I do not want Trump to be President and his inauguration seems like a clown show.
A lot of folks are touting his Cabinet appointments. One I don't care for is Betsy De Vos at Education. First, I am not a big fan of the federal Dept of Ed. We already have 50 depts of ed, one in each of the states. Second, the wasteful spending and mandates of the Dept of Ed are, if I may use the word, deplorable. Remember Ronald Reagan campaigned on eliminating it, a boondoogle prize awarded to the NEA by Jimmy Carter for its support in '76. But Reagan was convinced, likely by Bill Bennett, that in the hands of the Republicans, the DoE would be a force for good. Well, my 46 years in education lead me to believe it hasn't been that; that it has been a big detriment. I'm pretty sure De Vos won't move to eliminate the DoE, either. I have grave concerns about her views of the Common Core. She may or may not still support it; she has been a supporter, than an opponent. I don't know if she just blows with the wind on her public pronouncements or not. I am pretty sure, though, that one of the foundations she finances, at least a good portion of it, is a strong supporter of the Common Core. I think her stance on charter schools is also misguided, that in viewing them, she wears blinders. In this appointment, Trump strikes out, at least to me he does. But, then again, I don't expect much of him. He shouldn't be President.
"Why in the world would any young person want to be a teacher today?" I've heard that, or several variations of it, probably half a dozen times, maybe more, over the past weeks. And none of the questioners, and it's really a statement and not a question, not a single one, was a teacher. I suppose there is among some, still a streak of altruism, that teaching is a noble profession. And of course, in its pristine state, it most certainly is. But I think many teachers, often through their unions, have sold their souls, some willingly and others unknowingly by not paying attention, by being simple bobble heads for the latest trendy educational fads (always based on studies, of course; but why do the studies of today run contrary to the studies of a couple of years ago?) If I have to explain the answer to that, well, it's probably too late.
I wonder if those arguing against the Electoral College overriding the popular vote in this year's Presidential election would also argue against courts, esp the federal courts, who override/declare unconstitutional laws passed by voters in various states. After all, if the popular vote is all that matters, shouldn't it matter all of the time?
I still can't get my head around "the inauguration of Don Trump." I must be living a bad dream. I certainly would have felt as bad, if not worse, had it been "the inauguration of Hillary Clinton." But I think the political reality of a Clinton inauguration would have been easier on me--no, she would have been a lousy President; I'm glad she lost. I do not want Trump to be President and his inauguration seems like a clown show.
A lot of folks are touting his Cabinet appointments. One I don't care for is Betsy De Vos at Education. First, I am not a big fan of the federal Dept of Ed. We already have 50 depts of ed, one in each of the states. Second, the wasteful spending and mandates of the Dept of Ed are, if I may use the word, deplorable. Remember Ronald Reagan campaigned on eliminating it, a boondoogle prize awarded to the NEA by Jimmy Carter for its support in '76. But Reagan was convinced, likely by Bill Bennett, that in the hands of the Republicans, the DoE would be a force for good. Well, my 46 years in education lead me to believe it hasn't been that; that it has been a big detriment. I'm pretty sure De Vos won't move to eliminate the DoE, either. I have grave concerns about her views of the Common Core. She may or may not still support it; she has been a supporter, than an opponent. I don't know if she just blows with the wind on her public pronouncements or not. I am pretty sure, though, that one of the foundations she finances, at least a good portion of it, is a strong supporter of the Common Core. I think her stance on charter schools is also misguided, that in viewing them, she wears blinders. In this appointment, Trump strikes out, at least to me he does. But, then again, I don't expect much of him. He shouldn't be President.
"Why in the world would any young person want to be a teacher today?" I've heard that, or several variations of it, probably half a dozen times, maybe more, over the past weeks. And none of the questioners, and it's really a statement and not a question, not a single one, was a teacher. I suppose there is among some, still a streak of altruism, that teaching is a noble profession. And of course, in its pristine state, it most certainly is. But I think many teachers, often through their unions, have sold their souls, some willingly and others unknowingly by not paying attention, by being simple bobble heads for the latest trendy educational fads (always based on studies, of course; but why do the studies of today run contrary to the studies of a couple of years ago?) If I have to explain the answer to that, well, it's probably too late.
Friday, December 2, 2016
Is Insanity Now the Norm?
Apparently some school district in Oregon (?) told teachers they might decorate their doors/rooms with Christmas items, but to be "respectful" and "sensitive" to others and refrain from putting up pictures of Santa Claus. So, now Santa isn't proper? How far are people going to go? Well, if the fools are at it again, how appropriate that its those running the public schools who are leading the way.
Is there anyone who thinks Jill Stein (Green Party) isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and/or Democrats? The woman received 1% of the popular vote, no Electrical College votes, and is seeking recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and my own Michigan. A good question is why she is doing this? I heard her being interviewed on the radio yesterday and she mumbled something about "preserving the integrity" of the electoral system, that voters can be assured their votes really count, or some mumbo-jumbo like that. The interviewer did once, but only once, ask her if she'd have asked for a recount if Clinton had won. Stein didn't answer, but talked around the question, saying more things about voters deserving to know their votes were counted. To my dismay, the interviewer didn't ask the question again or, esp, ask Stein why she didn't answer the question. It is a simple "yes" or "no" question.
I guess the matter in question is why, say in Michigan, 70,000 people voted, but skipped voting for President. According to some newspaper reports, that's not too far off the same numbers in 2012 and even 2008. About 50,000 voted in those elections, but didn't cast a vote for the top of the ballot. Why is that any indication of fraud or mistakes or anything? I was one of those who didn't vote for Clinton or for Trump. Neither one, still, in my view deserves/d to be President. Why should I one more time "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils?" I value my vote too much to do that. Why wouldn't another 20,000 or even more people feel the same way, so disgusted by the candidates and the process/system that they couldn't bring themselves to vote. Weren't these to two lousiest candidates the two major parties have even thrown at us? (Maybe not, but close.)
For that matter, where were all the cries of "recount" when so many irregularities showed up in previous elections? Heck, we laugh them off as "the cemetery vote" in Chicago or "cats and dogs voting." Isn't it odd that Clinton and the Democrats (and remember, I do not consider myself a Republican, not by any means) lambasted Trump for questioning the integrity of the upcoming election, for saying he didn't know if he'd accept the results, yet who is it who is contesting the results--after they lost? (C'mon, nobody really thinks Stein is acting as the Green Party candidate, with 1% of the vote, do they?) And who has been the only other party to contest a Presidential election in recent memory? Recall 2000.
The "$15 an hour" protesters are back at it again. I think Gus had a great comment a while back, asking why some of these multi-millionaire and even -billionaire CEOs, etc. couldn't do with a couple fewer millions and raise, voluntarily, their workers' pay. That said, I just wonder. First, the talk is about "a living wage." Is a fast-food job intended to be one that will help raise a family? Second, if the worker or the protesters are intending that, why haven't they acquired the skills to get a better-paying job? Aren't the fast-food jobs there for kids, entry-level steps, or for others, including we oldsters, seeking to supplement their incomes? Third, why is the emphasis, at least seemingly, on the fast-food workers' pay? I was talking with someone the other day who makes "about $2 more" than the protesters demand. Her duties and responsibilities are a universe apart from, say, someone flipping burgers. Yet, the pay isn't too far from the demands. For that matter, if I use the Obamacare formula for determining hours at a job, at one of my college positions, $15 an hour would be a raise of almost $1.50 an hour for me. So, maybe I should join the protesters. Oh, I can't today. I have a couple hours of essays to grade. I still like the suggestion I have made many times in the past to folks supporting the $15 an hour protesters. "The next time you go to a fast-food place, why don't you leave a tip?" Why do I doubt any of them do that?????
I threw this idea out during one of our runs last week--actually our only run due to weather, injuries, a funeral. Every day--and I mean that literally--there is another report or reports of yet more murders in Detroit. It's a daily thing. As I've noted in the past, some of the murders, because they've become so common, show up back on page 11 or page 12 of the newspaper. Why are there so many shootings? Where do people pick up the idea that they can just shoot others for the silliest of reasons, such as "He dissed me" or "I wanted his jacket?" Toss in, too, assaults, kidnappings, and carjackings that also seem to fill our newspapers. Why are there so many? Maybe it's just that now they are reported and in decades past they weren't. I don't buy that, but perhaps. Is the proliferation of violent crimes a product of our cultural norms, our dumbing-down of values? Do people think such violence is fine because it's seen everywhere we turn--television, movies, video games? Have those venues become reality to so many people that sensitivities (Boy, I hesitate to use that word considering the "Santa" post above!)? After all, we know that advertising on television and radio, on Internet sites, etc. works. Ads get people to act. So, if advertising on television, for instance, influences people to buy things, can all of the violence also lead people to act violently? I suppose there are studies to show if that's so.
Is there anyone who thinks Jill Stein (Green Party) isn't in cahoots with the Clintons and/or Democrats? The woman received 1% of the popular vote, no Electrical College votes, and is seeking recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and my own Michigan. A good question is why she is doing this? I heard her being interviewed on the radio yesterday and she mumbled something about "preserving the integrity" of the electoral system, that voters can be assured their votes really count, or some mumbo-jumbo like that. The interviewer did once, but only once, ask her if she'd have asked for a recount if Clinton had won. Stein didn't answer, but talked around the question, saying more things about voters deserving to know their votes were counted. To my dismay, the interviewer didn't ask the question again or, esp, ask Stein why she didn't answer the question. It is a simple "yes" or "no" question.
I guess the matter in question is why, say in Michigan, 70,000 people voted, but skipped voting for President. According to some newspaper reports, that's not too far off the same numbers in 2012 and even 2008. About 50,000 voted in those elections, but didn't cast a vote for the top of the ballot. Why is that any indication of fraud or mistakes or anything? I was one of those who didn't vote for Clinton or for Trump. Neither one, still, in my view deserves/d to be President. Why should I one more time "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils?" I value my vote too much to do that. Why wouldn't another 20,000 or even more people feel the same way, so disgusted by the candidates and the process/system that they couldn't bring themselves to vote. Weren't these to two lousiest candidates the two major parties have even thrown at us? (Maybe not, but close.)
For that matter, where were all the cries of "recount" when so many irregularities showed up in previous elections? Heck, we laugh them off as "the cemetery vote" in Chicago or "cats and dogs voting." Isn't it odd that Clinton and the Democrats (and remember, I do not consider myself a Republican, not by any means) lambasted Trump for questioning the integrity of the upcoming election, for saying he didn't know if he'd accept the results, yet who is it who is contesting the results--after they lost? (C'mon, nobody really thinks Stein is acting as the Green Party candidate, with 1% of the vote, do they?) And who has been the only other party to contest a Presidential election in recent memory? Recall 2000.
The "$15 an hour" protesters are back at it again. I think Gus had a great comment a while back, asking why some of these multi-millionaire and even -billionaire CEOs, etc. couldn't do with a couple fewer millions and raise, voluntarily, their workers' pay. That said, I just wonder. First, the talk is about "a living wage." Is a fast-food job intended to be one that will help raise a family? Second, if the worker or the protesters are intending that, why haven't they acquired the skills to get a better-paying job? Aren't the fast-food jobs there for kids, entry-level steps, or for others, including we oldsters, seeking to supplement their incomes? Third, why is the emphasis, at least seemingly, on the fast-food workers' pay? I was talking with someone the other day who makes "about $2 more" than the protesters demand. Her duties and responsibilities are a universe apart from, say, someone flipping burgers. Yet, the pay isn't too far from the demands. For that matter, if I use the Obamacare formula for determining hours at a job, at one of my college positions, $15 an hour would be a raise of almost $1.50 an hour for me. So, maybe I should join the protesters. Oh, I can't today. I have a couple hours of essays to grade. I still like the suggestion I have made many times in the past to folks supporting the $15 an hour protesters. "The next time you go to a fast-food place, why don't you leave a tip?" Why do I doubt any of them do that?????
I threw this idea out during one of our runs last week--actually our only run due to weather, injuries, a funeral. Every day--and I mean that literally--there is another report or reports of yet more murders in Detroit. It's a daily thing. As I've noted in the past, some of the murders, because they've become so common, show up back on page 11 or page 12 of the newspaper. Why are there so many shootings? Where do people pick up the idea that they can just shoot others for the silliest of reasons, such as "He dissed me" or "I wanted his jacket?" Toss in, too, assaults, kidnappings, and carjackings that also seem to fill our newspapers. Why are there so many? Maybe it's just that now they are reported and in decades past they weren't. I don't buy that, but perhaps. Is the proliferation of violent crimes a product of our cultural norms, our dumbing-down of values? Do people think such violence is fine because it's seen everywhere we turn--television, movies, video games? Have those venues become reality to so many people that sensitivities (Boy, I hesitate to use that word considering the "Santa" post above!)? After all, we know that advertising on television and radio, on Internet sites, etc. works. Ads get people to act. So, if advertising on television, for instance, influences people to buy things, can all of the violence also lead people to act violently? I suppose there are studies to show if that's so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
