...becoming or have already become?
I think I noted that on November 22, I saw nary an article on the Kennedy assassination, not a single one. Well, OK......
But on the way to class this AM, two different radio stations had something like "On this date in history." Both, as the lead, was "Frosty the Snowman first appeared on CBS" or whatever network it was. Neither mentioned, not a word at all, that this is the 76th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Maybe our entry into the Second World War isn't as important as Frosty, maybe. Maybe not everyone is high on history like I am. But maybe we've reached the abyss??????
I sometimes wonder who reads this blog. I generally get 50 or so hits/views, sometimes more than that. I think my highest was last summer with one post getting more than 100. Good. I also wonder why some of my posts show up on radio shows or in newspaper editorials/op-eds a week or two afterward.
Last weekend I posted about history and the dangers of not knowing it. This AM on one of the radio talk shows, a guest whose name I don't remember, talked of the current use of language. It was, I think, akin to my suggestions as to the use (misuse or abuse?) of history. Just as not knowing our history allows others to co-opt it, to define our history and therefore us, language can be co-opted, too. If terms are allowed to be used in ways that are dishonest or, at least, disingenuous, debates and discussions are one-sided. Take a term that is bandied about far too often, "fascist." It's become de rigueur among many to call names. If one disagrees with, say college students, that one is labeled a "fascist." I wonder if many of these students even know what a fascist is/was? Since when is disagreement an invitation to use the term "fascist?" Were then either Hamilton or Jefferson, depending on one's view, a fascist? After all, they disagreed and vehemently so.
Perhaps less dire, though, is our haphazard use of terms like "icon" and "classic." I heard someone say that of a moderately popular television show of some years ago. Maybe the person talking really liked the program; that doesn't necessarily make it a "classic." For that matter, is John Conyers, among others, really an "icon" of the civil rights movement? I guess that depends on one's definition. Surely he was an integral individual in civil rights. He played an important role. But when I think of "icons" of the civil rights movement I immediately think of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. That doesn't mean others, even nameless folks who did unrecorded deeds, haven't also been instrumental. I think tossing around words like "classic" and "icon" so willy-nilly cheapens the concepts. Not everything that a lot of people liked is a classic and not everyone involved in a movement, regardless of roles, is an icon.
Sort of funny, to me at least, was this, perhaps in the same vein. I walked into a school where I formerly taught and was greeted by a former colleague. He addressed me as "the venerable......" I smiled and later wondered if he knows what the word means. I've also been into that same place and been called "the legend." But I'm not sure if that is complimentary or not! I guess there are worse things to be called.
Yesterday, I had a nice enough run in the AM. I am combating some piriformis/sciatic problems, but they appear to be, however slowly, improving. Then, last night I went out for an evening run. I was a bit tired and maybe concerned about my piriformis/sciatic difficulties. But I was committed and off I went. By the time we finished, it was dark. (Fortunately, the trail we ran is smooth, hilly but smooth, so the dangers of tripping and falling were minimal.) It was a great run. It was so pretty out there, with no real pain either! And this AM, again in the dark before class, I had another beautiful run, this time for a little different reason. It snowed today. Nothing stuck, but the flakes were like big feathers, soft and floating in the air. Neither time did the cold bother me/us at all.
BTW, how do you get down off an elephant? You don't; you get down off a duck.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Friday, December 1, 2017
Teachers
I'm in my 47th year of teaching. I know that seems like a long time, but I don't see anything on the horizon to cause me to completely retire. I still enjoy it, as I noted in a lengthy e-mail regarding history and its teaching last week.
All these years and I still think of my own teachers, from way back. From the perspective of 47 years of teaching, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the good ones and the not-so-good ones.
I think I have written a number of times about my college professors at Amherst. Oh, I had some dogs there, but most were very good and some just brilliant. I have called them "The Gods." And, to me, they are. I am grateful for them and their teaching and feel honored to still be in contact with several of them.
But I want to go farther back than college. I think I remember almost every one of my elementary teachers and most of my junior high and high school teachers. Some I thought were pretty lousy back then and still think so. Others I thought were pretty good, some of them even growing in stature as I try to figure out this teaching stuff. (Yep, after 47 years, I'm still trying to figure it out!)
Most of my elementary teachers were very good. Oh, all but one or two were strict, quite so. That never bothered me, other than join in with others to say "How mean" or whatever one of them was. I learned a lot from them, including some self-discipline. Despite their strictness, at least to me, their caring always seemed apparent. If not always or even sometimes nurturing (Isn't that a buzz word now?), they did want us to learn and demanded it. If we didn't, due to our laziness or refusal, they jumped all over us.
In junior high, I had a much more mixed bag of teachers. One English teacher, I thought then and still think today, was very good. Oh, many of the students found him to be harsh, even mean. Hey, if a student was caught chewing gum in his class, he would say, "You are caught!" and then make the sinner stand in front of the class with the gum on his/her nose. It was quite the deterrent. Rumors were he was once a professional wrestler, although I never bought into it. He was a stickler for grammar, in speaking and in writing, and did his best to drill that into us. I always respected him and thought even more highly of him as a moved along with my own teaching. Obversely, another of my junior high teachers was the nicest, quietest woman one could imagine. Oh, she was smart. One would think with her demur stature, with her almost shy personality, she'd have trouble with classroom management, with discipline. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There were never any problems in her classes. She was a master!
One of my math teachers was also very, very good, but just one of them. I think a couple of the others were outside of their subject areas and it's almost as if the best students taught themselves with the text book. Another was highly regarded, even by my father, but I didn't think much of him, not compared to the math teacher I had before him. This one was very quiet, almost nerdy, but not quite. I suppose I wouldn't have been surprised to see him walking around with a slide rule hanging from his belt loops. I think, though, that he did have a plastic pocket liner! But he was really good at explaining math concepts, esp how they were used in story problems. (Are they still called that, "story problems?") And, any thought of "nerdiness" was erased when he came down to the gym after school and showed how to play basketball!
I really enjoyed my phys ed teacher, too. He was my football and swimming coach. For the longest time I wanted to be a phys ed teacher, to be just like him. He was far more than, "OK, this unit is volleyball" or "basketball" or whatever. He took time to show an interest, at least with me he did. I would bet a lot of others would say that, too. And, in the same vein, our assistant principal was just outstanding, too! He seemed to be everywhere at all times. And we were terrified of him--he was many of our parents' coach at one time or another and, back then, coaches were gods. How many times was I on the verge, when, from out of nowhere he'd emerge, saying, "Marinucci, do I have to call your old man--at work?" "NO!!!!!!" Any thought of wrong doing disappeared. Oh, by the way, I was on the receiving end of their paddles more than once--"more than once" shows how stupid I was. But this assistant principal was always there, always. In the gym, he'd be watching. Sometimes he'd challenge us to a game of "21," shooting free-throws. He shot them the very old-fashioned way, even then, underhanded like Wilt Chamberlain sometimes did. Except, I don't think he ever missed, ever lost to us. Sometimes he'd even beat us while he was blindfolded! And, to make things interesting, he (and my phys ed teacher) would play us for "Cokes." But neither ever made us pay up; I think they knew we had no money.
In high school, four of my math teachers were just outstanding. I went to Amherst toying with the idea of majoring in math. (Freshman calculus ended that thought!) They all had the same easy-going style, rarely showing any anger, always having the class(es) under control, and patiently teaching. I don't know if it is ironic or stereotypical or......but the only bad math teacher I had was a football coach. My two chemistry teachers were good, the advanced chem teacher outstanding, really really good. I remember he crammed the "required" material into one card marking period and used the last two for experiments. I remember some of them. He'd mix a solution and then give us a vial of it. We had to determine what the "ingredients" were. We'd do "dry labs" on paper, using all of the formulas, and then the actual experiments. If the experiments didn't come out the ways the dry labs suggested, we had to go through both and explain why they didn't.
I guess I'm not surprised it took a good long while for me to really learn to write. I credit that to two things. One, at Amherst that's all we did, well, other than read millions of pages. We had, in many classes, a 3-5 page paper due every Monday; going in there, I thought 3-5 pages was a term paper, not one for every Monday. Two, after graduation, my friends were all over the country, none here in Michigan. Long before e-mail and toll-free long distance calls, we wrote letters, often three and four and five pages, even longer. But back to high school. I had some mediocre English teachers. A couple were brand new, right out of college (and teachers have to start somewhere; I think it takes time to forget all that crap the schools of education try to teach) and another was out of her discipline. One taught me a lot, but I'm not sure it helped my writing at all. He didn't like the curriculum and rushed through the required grammar book; we had two or three hours of grammar homework a night to get through it. I'm sure he never graded the homework, a black mark on him, but...... He was very tough, making us do research papers and, most important to him, give oral reports on them. We dreaded that because he would try to tear us apart while presenting. But, he did teach us how to think, if only a bit (our fault, not his!), to be thorough, and to be able to back up what we wrote or said (or he'd tear us apart!).
It was kind of cool, my senior year in baseball, this tough English teacher and the second chemistry teacher would come to ball games. After we outfielders threw to bases, these two guys would alternative hitting me fly balls until the game(s) started. My buddies, players and otherwise, could scarcely believe their eyes! These were two hard cases, yet...... I think I had trouble believing it, too.
Oddly, throughout my junior high and high school times, I really didn't have a history (or social studies) teacher who I thought was very good, then and now. So, how did I become a history major? I think my Amherst professors were outstanding and that is why. But, again I digress. In junior high, I'll bet most of the students thought one of the teachers of history was great. I didn't then and think even less of him now. Perhaps ironically, he had a first-rate mind, at least in asking questions. (I think he was pretty close-minded, though). But he didn't work very hard at it and really didn't teach me anything. I think it was more a case of just going through the school year than anything. It's too bad; I think he had a lot to offer. (This teacher also frequently raved about an English teacher at the high school. He had her back when and told us how great she was and how lucky we'd be if we also had her when we got there. Well, I did and I found her to be mediocre, at best. I still remember one assignment we did that demonstrated she wasn't very good, couldn't really think.)
In high school, I had one social studies teacher I thought was very brilliant, had great ideas, and led wonderful classroom discussions. I learned from that. But I think he was lazy and what little work we had to do, he never graded, but had us do it in class. He could have been great. But my geography teacher was outstanding. When I took the class, it was the first time it was offered and, obviously, taught by him. He was really, really good. He had a wonderful personality and sense of humor and a great way of presenting material that wasn't always stuff that grabbed us. (It didn't hurt that he sat me next to a girl I eventually dated and took to the prom! She was great.) I later had him for a graduate statistics course in college. He had earned his PhD, but insisted that I continue to call him, not "Dr.," but "Mr.," just like in high school.
I supposed I could remember more, but now, I have to head off to class!!!!!! I'm looking forward to three hours on the civil rights movement. I bet students will be surprise at how much time we'll spend on Jackie Robinson!
All these years and I still think of my own teachers, from way back. From the perspective of 47 years of teaching, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the good ones and the not-so-good ones.
I think I have written a number of times about my college professors at Amherst. Oh, I had some dogs there, but most were very good and some just brilliant. I have called them "The Gods." And, to me, they are. I am grateful for them and their teaching and feel honored to still be in contact with several of them.
But I want to go farther back than college. I think I remember almost every one of my elementary teachers and most of my junior high and high school teachers. Some I thought were pretty lousy back then and still think so. Others I thought were pretty good, some of them even growing in stature as I try to figure out this teaching stuff. (Yep, after 47 years, I'm still trying to figure it out!)
Most of my elementary teachers were very good. Oh, all but one or two were strict, quite so. That never bothered me, other than join in with others to say "How mean" or whatever one of them was. I learned a lot from them, including some self-discipline. Despite their strictness, at least to me, their caring always seemed apparent. If not always or even sometimes nurturing (Isn't that a buzz word now?), they did want us to learn and demanded it. If we didn't, due to our laziness or refusal, they jumped all over us.
In junior high, I had a much more mixed bag of teachers. One English teacher, I thought then and still think today, was very good. Oh, many of the students found him to be harsh, even mean. Hey, if a student was caught chewing gum in his class, he would say, "You are caught!" and then make the sinner stand in front of the class with the gum on his/her nose. It was quite the deterrent. Rumors were he was once a professional wrestler, although I never bought into it. He was a stickler for grammar, in speaking and in writing, and did his best to drill that into us. I always respected him and thought even more highly of him as a moved along with my own teaching. Obversely, another of my junior high teachers was the nicest, quietest woman one could imagine. Oh, she was smart. One would think with her demur stature, with her almost shy personality, she'd have trouble with classroom management, with discipline. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There were never any problems in her classes. She was a master!
One of my math teachers was also very, very good, but just one of them. I think a couple of the others were outside of their subject areas and it's almost as if the best students taught themselves with the text book. Another was highly regarded, even by my father, but I didn't think much of him, not compared to the math teacher I had before him. This one was very quiet, almost nerdy, but not quite. I suppose I wouldn't have been surprised to see him walking around with a slide rule hanging from his belt loops. I think, though, that he did have a plastic pocket liner! But he was really good at explaining math concepts, esp how they were used in story problems. (Are they still called that, "story problems?") And, any thought of "nerdiness" was erased when he came down to the gym after school and showed how to play basketball!
I really enjoyed my phys ed teacher, too. He was my football and swimming coach. For the longest time I wanted to be a phys ed teacher, to be just like him. He was far more than, "OK, this unit is volleyball" or "basketball" or whatever. He took time to show an interest, at least with me he did. I would bet a lot of others would say that, too. And, in the same vein, our assistant principal was just outstanding, too! He seemed to be everywhere at all times. And we were terrified of him--he was many of our parents' coach at one time or another and, back then, coaches were gods. How many times was I on the verge, when, from out of nowhere he'd emerge, saying, "Marinucci, do I have to call your old man--at work?" "NO!!!!!!" Any thought of wrong doing disappeared. Oh, by the way, I was on the receiving end of their paddles more than once--"more than once" shows how stupid I was. But this assistant principal was always there, always. In the gym, he'd be watching. Sometimes he'd challenge us to a game of "21," shooting free-throws. He shot them the very old-fashioned way, even then, underhanded like Wilt Chamberlain sometimes did. Except, I don't think he ever missed, ever lost to us. Sometimes he'd even beat us while he was blindfolded! And, to make things interesting, he (and my phys ed teacher) would play us for "Cokes." But neither ever made us pay up; I think they knew we had no money.
In high school, four of my math teachers were just outstanding. I went to Amherst toying with the idea of majoring in math. (Freshman calculus ended that thought!) They all had the same easy-going style, rarely showing any anger, always having the class(es) under control, and patiently teaching. I don't know if it is ironic or stereotypical or......but the only bad math teacher I had was a football coach. My two chemistry teachers were good, the advanced chem teacher outstanding, really really good. I remember he crammed the "required" material into one card marking period and used the last two for experiments. I remember some of them. He'd mix a solution and then give us a vial of it. We had to determine what the "ingredients" were. We'd do "dry labs" on paper, using all of the formulas, and then the actual experiments. If the experiments didn't come out the ways the dry labs suggested, we had to go through both and explain why they didn't.
I guess I'm not surprised it took a good long while for me to really learn to write. I credit that to two things. One, at Amherst that's all we did, well, other than read millions of pages. We had, in many classes, a 3-5 page paper due every Monday; going in there, I thought 3-5 pages was a term paper, not one for every Monday. Two, after graduation, my friends were all over the country, none here in Michigan. Long before e-mail and toll-free long distance calls, we wrote letters, often three and four and five pages, even longer. But back to high school. I had some mediocre English teachers. A couple were brand new, right out of college (and teachers have to start somewhere; I think it takes time to forget all that crap the schools of education try to teach) and another was out of her discipline. One taught me a lot, but I'm not sure it helped my writing at all. He didn't like the curriculum and rushed through the required grammar book; we had two or three hours of grammar homework a night to get through it. I'm sure he never graded the homework, a black mark on him, but...... He was very tough, making us do research papers and, most important to him, give oral reports on them. We dreaded that because he would try to tear us apart while presenting. But, he did teach us how to think, if only a bit (our fault, not his!), to be thorough, and to be able to back up what we wrote or said (or he'd tear us apart!).
It was kind of cool, my senior year in baseball, this tough English teacher and the second chemistry teacher would come to ball games. After we outfielders threw to bases, these two guys would alternative hitting me fly balls until the game(s) started. My buddies, players and otherwise, could scarcely believe their eyes! These were two hard cases, yet...... I think I had trouble believing it, too.
Oddly, throughout my junior high and high school times, I really didn't have a history (or social studies) teacher who I thought was very good, then and now. So, how did I become a history major? I think my Amherst professors were outstanding and that is why. But, again I digress. In junior high, I'll bet most of the students thought one of the teachers of history was great. I didn't then and think even less of him now. Perhaps ironically, he had a first-rate mind, at least in asking questions. (I think he was pretty close-minded, though). But he didn't work very hard at it and really didn't teach me anything. I think it was more a case of just going through the school year than anything. It's too bad; I think he had a lot to offer. (This teacher also frequently raved about an English teacher at the high school. He had her back when and told us how great she was and how lucky we'd be if we also had her when we got there. Well, I did and I found her to be mediocre, at best. I still remember one assignment we did that demonstrated she wasn't very good, couldn't really think.)
In high school, I had one social studies teacher I thought was very brilliant, had great ideas, and led wonderful classroom discussions. I learned from that. But I think he was lazy and what little work we had to do, he never graded, but had us do it in class. He could have been great. But my geography teacher was outstanding. When I took the class, it was the first time it was offered and, obviously, taught by him. He was really, really good. He had a wonderful personality and sense of humor and a great way of presenting material that wasn't always stuff that grabbed us. (It didn't hurt that he sat me next to a girl I eventually dated and took to the prom! She was great.) I later had him for a graduate statistics course in college. He had earned his PhD, but insisted that I continue to call him, not "Dr.," but "Mr.," just like in high school.
I supposed I could remember more, but now, I have to head off to class!!!!!! I'm looking forward to three hours on the civil rights movement. I bet students will be surprise at how much time we'll spend on Jackie Robinson!
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Hmmm......
Now, it's John Conyers. He's apparently denying, "vehemently," all charges of sexual harassment that have been alleged by a number of women. (That number seems to be growing by the day.) I have a couple of thoughts about this latest outrage.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The Tax Plan
I'm not sure what to make of this Republican tax bill. I tried one of those online calculators for what was termed the Trump tax cuts for my taxes and I don't think we'll make out real well on it. It's hard to tell, since I used 2016 income figures 2017 will be a bit different, somewhat less. I didn't have as many classes, so I made less. With K's retirement, we lost three months of her income, her social security not kicking in until December. And I made a little less money from writing in '17. So, I used last year's numbers.
I know there is an increase of $12,000 in the standard deduction, to $24,000. But the proposal, at least one of them, eliminates the individual exemptions, $4,100 (or so) a person. So the three of us will lose more than $12,000. So much for the help from the standard deduction. The child credit, for Michael? One proposal is for a credit of $1,600 per child; the other is only $1,000. Depending on the credit for children, we'll either come out a wee bit ahead/break even or a wee bit behind.
I'd assume there are a lot of other folks in my position, too. Where is this promised income tax reform that will give us guys in the middle, still struggling, a bit of relief? So, where is this tax cut?
I think if I was a member of Congress, I'd vote "no" because it doesn't give any real relief to a lot of folks, those in the middle.
Also, it seems to me small businesses should not pay a higher tax rate than larger corporation. And, according to some tax expert on the radio, that's what will happen. I believe small businesses employ more than the larger ones. So, the idea that a cut in the corporate tax will result in more hiring doesn't apply to a similar cut for smaller companies, ones who employ more? So, Salvatore's Pizza will still pay a higher rate than GE? Of course, I know why and so do you. Sal can't afford the big donations or to hire lobbyists.
What I really liked today was Trump saying the only thing Democrats favor is more taxes. Well, that's not exactly true, but does have a large element of truth. And didn't Schumer and Pelosi look like real jackasses in their meeting with Trump today? Oh, wait...... They didn't show! But inviting in the media with the two empty chairs was great!
Go back and check You Tube speeches of Democrats clamoring for relief for the little guy, for small business owners, for those inheriting those small businesses, etc. Then why are they, to a person, opposing the current tax plan? It surely couldn't be that they are against it only because it's a Republican plan, could it? Nah.....
Maybe it's that they see what I saw a few paragraphs above. But I doubt it. It's not as if they were scrambling to cut our taxes on their own, ever.
There is some concern that the tax cut (for some) will not generate enough in new government revenue, that the deficit will increase. There's even talk of building in safety nets, to raise taxes automatically if not enough revenue is created through growth. But it's the same old story, never any talk of cutting spending. Wasn't last year's government intake the largest in history? Yet the deficit increased yet again. Like Ron Reagan said, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Indeed we do......
I know there is an increase of $12,000 in the standard deduction, to $24,000. But the proposal, at least one of them, eliminates the individual exemptions, $4,100 (or so) a person. So the three of us will lose more than $12,000. So much for the help from the standard deduction. The child credit, for Michael? One proposal is for a credit of $1,600 per child; the other is only $1,000. Depending on the credit for children, we'll either come out a wee bit ahead/break even or a wee bit behind.
I'd assume there are a lot of other folks in my position, too. Where is this promised income tax reform that will give us guys in the middle, still struggling, a bit of relief? So, where is this tax cut?
I think if I was a member of Congress, I'd vote "no" because it doesn't give any real relief to a lot of folks, those in the middle.
Also, it seems to me small businesses should not pay a higher tax rate than larger corporation. And, according to some tax expert on the radio, that's what will happen. I believe small businesses employ more than the larger ones. So, the idea that a cut in the corporate tax will result in more hiring doesn't apply to a similar cut for smaller companies, ones who employ more? So, Salvatore's Pizza will still pay a higher rate than GE? Of course, I know why and so do you. Sal can't afford the big donations or to hire lobbyists.
What I really liked today was Trump saying the only thing Democrats favor is more taxes. Well, that's not exactly true, but does have a large element of truth. And didn't Schumer and Pelosi look like real jackasses in their meeting with Trump today? Oh, wait...... They didn't show! But inviting in the media with the two empty chairs was great!
Go back and check You Tube speeches of Democrats clamoring for relief for the little guy, for small business owners, for those inheriting those small businesses, etc. Then why are they, to a person, opposing the current tax plan? It surely couldn't be that they are against it only because it's a Republican plan, could it? Nah.....
Maybe it's that they see what I saw a few paragraphs above. But I doubt it. It's not as if they were scrambling to cut our taxes on their own, ever.
There is some concern that the tax cut (for some) will not generate enough in new government revenue, that the deficit will increase. There's even talk of building in safety nets, to raise taxes automatically if not enough revenue is created through growth. But it's the same old story, never any talk of cutting spending. Wasn't last year's government intake the largest in history? Yet the deficit increased yet again. Like Ron Reagan said, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Indeed we do......
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
The Groper of the Moment?
It's become dizzying, all these claims and charges of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape. How are we to keep any of it straight? It's reaches the highest levels of the political, entertainment, and communications industries, if not others.
I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges. I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave. Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.
Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges? OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases. After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before? If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court? I think, though, that number is very small. The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.
Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever. Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there. Perhaps it's because of "social media." (Oh, I still dislike that term!) People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.
Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them. As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.
Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s. "If it feels good, do it!" So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?" I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality. Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence). Remember the cry, "Free sex!?" Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance. I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."
This is not to condone or accept any of this. It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it. And I'm having a difficult time doing that.
One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere. So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side. Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives." Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights." Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?
Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc. Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language. I can't stand it. Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me. In a larger crowd, I don't like it. But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear. And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it. Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?" I think it's more a matter of "sameness." I don't think the sexes are the same. Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing. Women still don't get the Three Stooges. Men still don't get tear-jerker movies. That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.
On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil." No kidding! OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil." I don't particularly share it, but I understand. But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured." It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.
Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena. I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place. It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts. I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there. But it, LCA, still irks me. What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena. I think it came to about 40%. Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?
I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges. I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave. Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.
Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges? OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases. After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before? If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court? I think, though, that number is very small. The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.
Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever. Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there. Perhaps it's because of "social media." (Oh, I still dislike that term!) People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.
Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them. As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.
Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s. "If it feels good, do it!" So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?" I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality. Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence). Remember the cry, "Free sex!?" Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance. I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."
This is not to condone or accept any of this. It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it. And I'm having a difficult time doing that.
One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere. So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side. Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives." Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights." Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?
Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc. Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language. I can't stand it. Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me. In a larger crowd, I don't like it. But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear. And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it. Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?" I think it's more a matter of "sameness." I don't think the sexes are the same. Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing. Women still don't get the Three Stooges. Men still don't get tear-jerker movies. That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.
On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil." No kidding! OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil." I don't particularly share it, but I understand. But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured." It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.
Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena. I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place. It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts. I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there. But it, LCA, still irks me. What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena. I think it came to about 40%. Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?
Monday, November 13, 2017
Once Again...
...we "deplorables" are targeted, unwittingly this time.
In the newspaper this weekend, an op-ed from a Democratic Congressmen lamented "the Republican tax plan" because it "doesn't help the middle class." Excuse me for not laughing (although I did, but not in a funny way). Since when do the Democrats care about giving anyone tax cuts, let alone the middle class, you know, we who the Democratic candidate for President last year called "deplorables." (Yes, I know what she and her supporters said she meant, but I don't buy it, not for an instant.)
Oh, this righteous (self-righteous?) Congressman spouts all the right talking points, "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations," "a scam for the working people," "hard working Michiganians need tax relief," etc. Again I ask, when was the last time the Democrats offered a tax cut for anyone, let alone the middle class? (Hey, I'm not excusing the Establishment Republicans either. They've come to enjoy spending other people's money, too.)
Maybe there has been a tax cut and I just have forgotten about it--or didn't hear about it.
Then, on the radio this AM, I heard a Democrat from Michigan's Congressional delegation on "the Republican tax cut," too. I don't know if it was our US Senator or a local Congresswoman; I never heard her identified and don't know voices. Oh, woe are we! This Bozo was concerned, oh I could tell from her voice over the radio how concerned, was about "increasing the deficit," further burdening our children and grandchildren. I guess it was nice that this was radio; I can't imagine a Democrat keeping a straight face when talking about "increasing the deficit."
Why is the deficit such a big deal--now? Remember the threats to "shut down government" because of threats to slow government spending? (Again, let's not let the Establishment Republicans off the hook either.) Oh, seniors will lose their Social Security (the funds of which they have raided and raided) and Medicare. Those in need will lose their Medicaid. Oh, everyone will lose everything!! We can't cut spending to cut the deficit. Well, apparently now that the Republicans are tendering a tax bill, we or rather they can at least complain about the deficit.
BTW, the toady radio host had a wonderful opportunity for a meaningful question. All he had to do was ask, "Why is an increase to the deficit important now? It never was to you before?" But no, the sycophant let her off the inviting hook, "scot free."
BTW, from what I've read of the bill, I think it stinks. Of course, with so much flying around, who knows what it looks like today? A lot of middle class folks will jump at the sizable increase in the standard deductions. They'll not notice, at least not right away, that they personal and dependent exemptions disappear. The savings, at least at face value, will be lost to the vanishing exemptions. It's probably too early to really figure out savings, but from the summaries I saw last week, once again people like me will get the short end. And, are these Bozos really going to eliminate deductions for charitable giving? At the least, such deductions should be added so they can be taken even by folks using the short form. But let's wait and see......
I received a couple of sarcastic e-mails noting "the eloquence" of some of Don Trump's tweets. I likely don't have to repeat I am no fan of Trump. But I did have to laugh at this. I suspect that these same e-mailers never were sarcastic in describing the "eloquent" Obama. Remember his "eloquence?" "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Other than the grating use of "got," it sort of reminds us of Lincoln and Jefferson, right? How about this "eloquence?" "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I know, I know. But how "eloquent!" I'll refrain from asking where the gun control folks were on this one. "Oh, but he didn't mean that......" Again, I know, I know.
"This isn't how it should be...... You should be able to walk around the neighborhood without worrying about being shot or fighting or getting jumped by other kids." This came from a 12-year old living in Detroit. The article is about the culture of violence in Detroit neighborhoods. It cited a study that showed 87% of Detroit school kids "knew someone who had been killed, wounded, or disabled by gun violence." That should make us want to vomit! I won't minimize any of the other tragedies we've faced in this country recently, but when are we going to start addressing this? When will the NFL players kneel over this culture of violence in their cities? I don't understand.
I was reminded of Coach Rick Wilson over the weekend. I was glad I had an opportunity to explain the huge influence he had on my life to another Amherst alumnus who didn't know him. Coach Wilson was the renowned college basketball coach at AC. He received numerous awards. I was not a basketball player, hardly. But he was my freshman baseball coach. (I'm so old, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports back then!) He had a lot of old-fashioned ideas and he had us follow them. And he and I butted heads, at least once. From that major confrontation, which he won, deservedly so, he became a man I admired. We struck up, if not exactly a friendship, at least a relationship from which I benefited a great deal. My last three years, I'd see Coach Wilson in the gym, around the athletic facilities. In season or not, he'd stop and inquire about things; he didn't just ask, blithely, "How are things going?" He asked about my classes, how they were going, what I was doing with them, if I was keeping up--BTW, how did he know what classes I was taking?????? Not often, but sometimes, I'd stop by his office, just to say "Hi." He really seemed to enjoy that and then would start with is questions. Occasionally, he'd stop by a varsity practice or game, too, and made me feel important. He's dead now, but I remember him fondly. After graduation, I only returned to campus once for about 35 years. But that one time I did make sure I stopped by to see him. About eight years ago, at a reunion, I had a talk with one of his best players, one who made the last cut with the Lakers when they had Wilt, Hazzard, Goodrich, etc. (Dave has since died, too, hit by a car while riding his bike.) Our talk centered around the gruff Coach Wilson and butting heads with him, Dave far, far more often than I, obviously. But we both ended up agreeing that he was a great man, one who was important to each of us. I missed Dave at the last reunion, if only to renew our conversation about Rick Wilson.
In the newspaper this weekend, an op-ed from a Democratic Congressmen lamented "the Republican tax plan" because it "doesn't help the middle class." Excuse me for not laughing (although I did, but not in a funny way). Since when do the Democrats care about giving anyone tax cuts, let alone the middle class, you know, we who the Democratic candidate for President last year called "deplorables." (Yes, I know what she and her supporters said she meant, but I don't buy it, not for an instant.)
Oh, this righteous (self-righteous?) Congressman spouts all the right talking points, "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations," "a scam for the working people," "hard working Michiganians need tax relief," etc. Again I ask, when was the last time the Democrats offered a tax cut for anyone, let alone the middle class? (Hey, I'm not excusing the Establishment Republicans either. They've come to enjoy spending other people's money, too.)
Maybe there has been a tax cut and I just have forgotten about it--or didn't hear about it.
Then, on the radio this AM, I heard a Democrat from Michigan's Congressional delegation on "the Republican tax cut," too. I don't know if it was our US Senator or a local Congresswoman; I never heard her identified and don't know voices. Oh, woe are we! This Bozo was concerned, oh I could tell from her voice over the radio how concerned, was about "increasing the deficit," further burdening our children and grandchildren. I guess it was nice that this was radio; I can't imagine a Democrat keeping a straight face when talking about "increasing the deficit."
Why is the deficit such a big deal--now? Remember the threats to "shut down government" because of threats to slow government spending? (Again, let's not let the Establishment Republicans off the hook either.) Oh, seniors will lose their Social Security (the funds of which they have raided and raided) and Medicare. Those in need will lose their Medicaid. Oh, everyone will lose everything!! We can't cut spending to cut the deficit. Well, apparently now that the Republicans are tendering a tax bill, we or rather they can at least complain about the deficit.
BTW, the toady radio host had a wonderful opportunity for a meaningful question. All he had to do was ask, "Why is an increase to the deficit important now? It never was to you before?" But no, the sycophant let her off the inviting hook, "scot free."
BTW, from what I've read of the bill, I think it stinks. Of course, with so much flying around, who knows what it looks like today? A lot of middle class folks will jump at the sizable increase in the standard deductions. They'll not notice, at least not right away, that they personal and dependent exemptions disappear. The savings, at least at face value, will be lost to the vanishing exemptions. It's probably too early to really figure out savings, but from the summaries I saw last week, once again people like me will get the short end. And, are these Bozos really going to eliminate deductions for charitable giving? At the least, such deductions should be added so they can be taken even by folks using the short form. But let's wait and see......
I received a couple of sarcastic e-mails noting "the eloquence" of some of Don Trump's tweets. I likely don't have to repeat I am no fan of Trump. But I did have to laugh at this. I suspect that these same e-mailers never were sarcastic in describing the "eloquent" Obama. Remember his "eloquence?" "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Other than the grating use of "got," it sort of reminds us of Lincoln and Jefferson, right? How about this "eloquence?" "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I know, I know. But how "eloquent!" I'll refrain from asking where the gun control folks were on this one. "Oh, but he didn't mean that......" Again, I know, I know.
"This isn't how it should be...... You should be able to walk around the neighborhood without worrying about being shot or fighting or getting jumped by other kids." This came from a 12-year old living in Detroit. The article is about the culture of violence in Detroit neighborhoods. It cited a study that showed 87% of Detroit school kids "knew someone who had been killed, wounded, or disabled by gun violence." That should make us want to vomit! I won't minimize any of the other tragedies we've faced in this country recently, but when are we going to start addressing this? When will the NFL players kneel over this culture of violence in their cities? I don't understand.
I was reminded of Coach Rick Wilson over the weekend. I was glad I had an opportunity to explain the huge influence he had on my life to another Amherst alumnus who didn't know him. Coach Wilson was the renowned college basketball coach at AC. He received numerous awards. I was not a basketball player, hardly. But he was my freshman baseball coach. (I'm so old, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports back then!) He had a lot of old-fashioned ideas and he had us follow them. And he and I butted heads, at least once. From that major confrontation, which he won, deservedly so, he became a man I admired. We struck up, if not exactly a friendship, at least a relationship from which I benefited a great deal. My last three years, I'd see Coach Wilson in the gym, around the athletic facilities. In season or not, he'd stop and inquire about things; he didn't just ask, blithely, "How are things going?" He asked about my classes, how they were going, what I was doing with them, if I was keeping up--BTW, how did he know what classes I was taking?????? Not often, but sometimes, I'd stop by his office, just to say "Hi." He really seemed to enjoy that and then would start with is questions. Occasionally, he'd stop by a varsity practice or game, too, and made me feel important. He's dead now, but I remember him fondly. After graduation, I only returned to campus once for about 35 years. But that one time I did make sure I stopped by to see him. About eight years ago, at a reunion, I had a talk with one of his best players, one who made the last cut with the Lakers when they had Wilt, Hazzard, Goodrich, etc. (Dave has since died, too, hit by a car while riding his bike.) Our talk centered around the gruff Coach Wilson and butting heads with him, Dave far, far more often than I, obviously. But we both ended up agreeing that he was a great man, one who was important to each of us. I missed Dave at the last reunion, if only to renew our conversation about Rick Wilson.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
"Normal People......" Drivers Music
I read an article this AM about the church shooting in Texas. A psychiatrist was interviewed, saying among other things, "Normal people don't shoot people." Hmmm......
Are we really to the point that we need someone with a license to tell us what is "normal?"
That raises all sorts of questions. What is "normal?" How is that identified? What "normalcy" (a term, I believe that stems from Warren Harding's 1920 Presidential campaign) is, well, normal? What abnormality is dangerous and how do we identify it? Doesn't everyone have little quirks and quiddities, well, everyone except me? (Ha Ha Ha. Ask Karen about that one!)
So, if we accept that, except in some situations such as self-defense or the defense of others, "normal people don't shoot people," how do we explain, not killings such as that in Texas or even terrorist attacks, but the wanton murders that go on in our cities every day? Are those thugs who shoot up others' houses trying to kill someone who "dissed" them "normal?" What about the animals (Yeah, that might offend some folks, but too bad!) who robbed the auto parts store last week and, after having been given the money they sought, stopped to shoot the worker in the head before they left? "Normal?" The list goes on. Have the "experts" even tried to explain these murderers as not "normal people?"
That's a serious question that needs to be addressed. What is it in our major cities that leads to so many murders without any sense of remorse or guilt? To far too many people, such shootings and murders are badges of honor. Look at the faces of those accused and convicted of murders. When sentenced most of them have smirks or "I'm really a tough guy" looks on their faces.
So, who will be the first "expert" to label these city murderers "not normal people?"
I was listening to the radio this AM on the way to and from a race. One station claims, "We Play Anything." I don't know if that's true, but I heard a variety of plays from different decades. I'm sure I can ID some folks of the '80s (but maybe not later than that) who could really sing, with good voices. But it seems to me that the songs of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (maybe with the exception of Bob Dylan--OK, pile on me for that one.) at least had people who could carry a tune. This station appeared to confirm that. The later "music" was just noise, someone shouting into a microphone I guess. Some of the instrumental playing was pretty good, other than the banging and pounding, but the voices weren't good at all. Oh, I enjoy some of the '80s and '90s music; some of it I like, but still hesitate to call it real "music." To each his/her own and I concede I might be wrong, that the screeching and banging and pounding are really music.
A few weeks ago some speaker on the radio claimed that in large cities like Detroit, as many as 60% of the drivers don't have licenses or insurance or both. Can that be right? What leads people to believe they can get away with this? If they are in accidents, it's all about them--why should they or their insurance companies pay someone else? When we were rear-ended in Detroit a year ago, the woman--on her cell phone when smacking into us--didn't have a license and didn't have insurance. The police who arrived told us that. And, they didn't arrest her, didn't give her a citation, didn't do anything except let her drive away (in another's car). I suppose with two or three or more murders a day, driving without a license or insurance isn't such a big deal? Still......
Are we really to the point that we need someone with a license to tell us what is "normal?"
That raises all sorts of questions. What is "normal?" How is that identified? What "normalcy" (a term, I believe that stems from Warren Harding's 1920 Presidential campaign) is, well, normal? What abnormality is dangerous and how do we identify it? Doesn't everyone have little quirks and quiddities, well, everyone except me? (Ha Ha Ha. Ask Karen about that one!)
So, if we accept that, except in some situations such as self-defense or the defense of others, "normal people don't shoot people," how do we explain, not killings such as that in Texas or even terrorist attacks, but the wanton murders that go on in our cities every day? Are those thugs who shoot up others' houses trying to kill someone who "dissed" them "normal?" What about the animals (Yeah, that might offend some folks, but too bad!) who robbed the auto parts store last week and, after having been given the money they sought, stopped to shoot the worker in the head before they left? "Normal?" The list goes on. Have the "experts" even tried to explain these murderers as not "normal people?"
That's a serious question that needs to be addressed. What is it in our major cities that leads to so many murders without any sense of remorse or guilt? To far too many people, such shootings and murders are badges of honor. Look at the faces of those accused and convicted of murders. When sentenced most of them have smirks or "I'm really a tough guy" looks on their faces.
So, who will be the first "expert" to label these city murderers "not normal people?"
I was listening to the radio this AM on the way to and from a race. One station claims, "We Play Anything." I don't know if that's true, but I heard a variety of plays from different decades. I'm sure I can ID some folks of the '80s (but maybe not later than that) who could really sing, with good voices. But it seems to me that the songs of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (maybe with the exception of Bob Dylan--OK, pile on me for that one.) at least had people who could carry a tune. This station appeared to confirm that. The later "music" was just noise, someone shouting into a microphone I guess. Some of the instrumental playing was pretty good, other than the banging and pounding, but the voices weren't good at all. Oh, I enjoy some of the '80s and '90s music; some of it I like, but still hesitate to call it real "music." To each his/her own and I concede I might be wrong, that the screeching and banging and pounding are really music.
A few weeks ago some speaker on the radio claimed that in large cities like Detroit, as many as 60% of the drivers don't have licenses or insurance or both. Can that be right? What leads people to believe they can get away with this? If they are in accidents, it's all about them--why should they or their insurance companies pay someone else? When we were rear-ended in Detroit a year ago, the woman--on her cell phone when smacking into us--didn't have a license and didn't have insurance. The police who arrived told us that. And, they didn't arrest her, didn't give her a citation, didn't do anything except let her drive away (in another's car). I suppose with two or three or more murders a day, driving without a license or insurance isn't such a big deal? Still......
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
The Seasons......
Out there this AM, at 7:00, it was 22 degrees. The coldest AM of the season so far, veneers of ice formed on the puddles for the first time. I call it, in my running journal, "Ice Day." (I also have a "Snow Day," obviously named, and a "Bug Day," when the deer flies are too nasty for running on the trails in the woods.)
This has been a strange autumn. Sept temperatures were in the upper 80s, even late in the month. I think due to that, we were cheated out of our usual fall color show. There are leaves on the ground, but many of them are still green. Out back, some of our trees are bare while others have barely lost any leaves. What colors there are, I noted again in the woods the other day, are muted.
I've been reminded of the Sumerian/Babylonian parable about the seasons, explaining each. The parable is based on their polytheistic religion in which the gods reflected forces of nature. One of the chief gods/goddesses was Ishtar, roughly Mother Nature.
This season, autumn, saw the death of Tammuz, Ishtar's husband. In order to get Tammuz back from the dead, Ishtar resorts to bribery; she ransoms the beauty of the land for the return of her husband. This is winter. In the spring, the bribery/ransom works and Tammuz is reborn. Summer, then, with husband and wife reunited, is a time of enjoyment of life. You know, this year this seems to work for me.
Normally, winter is, if not my favorite running season, one of the top two. I don't know why, but somehow I don't see that happening this year. I get the feeling that I won't see the beauty I usually see. I know the forecasts are practically useless, but so far the so-called "experts" are calling for a colder and snowier winter. But I usually enjoy the snow, running in it, shoveling it, etc. Cold really doesn't bother me while running. I've run in temperatures as low as 15 degrees below zero, actual temperature, not wind chill. I know people think I am crazy for running in sub-zero temperatures, but they really aren't bothersome. I bundle up with several layers and off I go.
This has been a strange autumn. Sept temperatures were in the upper 80s, even late in the month. I think due to that, we were cheated out of our usual fall color show. There are leaves on the ground, but many of them are still green. Out back, some of our trees are bare while others have barely lost any leaves. What colors there are, I noted again in the woods the other day, are muted.
I've been reminded of the Sumerian/Babylonian parable about the seasons, explaining each. The parable is based on their polytheistic religion in which the gods reflected forces of nature. One of the chief gods/goddesses was Ishtar, roughly Mother Nature.
This season, autumn, saw the death of Tammuz, Ishtar's husband. In order to get Tammuz back from the dead, Ishtar resorts to bribery; she ransoms the beauty of the land for the return of her husband. This is winter. In the spring, the bribery/ransom works and Tammuz is reborn. Summer, then, with husband and wife reunited, is a time of enjoyment of life. You know, this year this seems to work for me.
Normally, winter is, if not my favorite running season, one of the top two. I don't know why, but somehow I don't see that happening this year. I get the feeling that I won't see the beauty I usually see. I know the forecasts are practically useless, but so far the so-called "experts" are calling for a colder and snowier winter. But I usually enjoy the snow, running in it, shoveling it, etc. Cold really doesn't bother me while running. I've run in temperatures as low as 15 degrees below zero, actual temperature, not wind chill. I know people think I am crazy for running in sub-zero temperatures, but they really aren't bothersome. I bundle up with several layers and off I go.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
"Collision 'em!"
One of the pitfalls of being a language snob, to which I readily admit, is making a mistake myself. Yep, I make some mistakes and I often dislike myself for doing so.
I know language evolves. What was once frowned upon is now standard or at least accepted. But that doesn't mean I have to like the changes.
It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear that someone "is referencing" something or that something "impacts" or "grow your business." Grrr...... How's this one, if those are all right? If a football player tackles another player hard, can we say "He collisioned him?" Why not? Can't we say, "refers to" or "has an impact?" I know, I know......
I received an e-mail this week that included an article in which a Michigan state legislator was "shocked" that there's a teacher shortage in Michigan. "Shocked?" Is this guy a lame-brain? It was his political party which bears much of the responsibility for the shortage. He will remain anonymous to protect him from ridicule, although I think he deserves it. Gee, can anyone think why there's a teacher shortage in this state?
Hmmm...... Let's see. I can graduate from college with about $20-30,000 of student debt. I can become a teacher and make about $35,000 to start. If I'm lucky, I'll get annual bumps in pay, but that's if I'm lucky. Many/Most districts in this state have cut teacher pay over the past 11-12 years. Thanks to the Republican governor and state legislature, my district can expect less and less aid from the state; guess whose pay is tied to those cuts? Yep, mine. Now, the governor and legislature take away my pension or create some bogus one that isn't nearly as good. Toss in increased shares of health insurance premiums, much higher co-pays and deductibles--from that huge salary of $35,000. And I can also get ready for more tests and paperwork courtesy of our state legislators, you know, things that take away from real learning. If that's not enough, the corporate-types, media, and public in general will continue to dump all over me, blaming me for the sad state of education in this state. Yeah, I want to be a teacher.
On second thought, maybe I'll be a state legislator. Apparently there is no IQ test and starting pay is $71,000.
I was asked last week by a firm for whom I do some consulting (for want of a better term) what I like most about teaching. One of the things I said was that I am continually learning. (Karen has said more than once that I'd have been a professional student if I'd been given a choice.) I was reminded of this as I posted something in an e-mail exchange. The question arose of where the "3/5 Compromise" at the Constitutional Convention originated. Specifically, it was why "3/5?" That's a weird fraction. Why not "1/2" (50%)? After all one side, the Northern or Southern states, favored counting all (100%) or none (0%) of the slaves for representation in the House and/or taxation. A compromise, logically, then would have been "1/2." (I used my calculator.) But it wasn't; it was "3/5." I remember reading somewhere sometime that 3/5 came from a scientific study produced by a VA planter (Scientific? Yeah, right.) that demonstrated slave labor produced only 3/5 of the work of free labor. My problem is I can't remember where I found this, years and years ago. I don't recall the name of the author of the study or of the study itself. But if I could it would help explain a lot.
I've looked in a number of my old books. Nothing. I've look through my files. Nothing. I've looked online. Nothing. I even took to asking the gods. One of my Amherst professors has heard nothing of this. The author of a textbook I use in class and of quite a number of other books on Ante-Bellum and Reconstuction America knows nothing of it. Hmmm...... I fear I will not find the source.
I do know, though, that I must have read it somewhere. I'm not smart enough or creative enough to just make up something like this. I have two more inquiries out there, hoping to find answers. Sometimes learning is not easy.
I know language evolves. What was once frowned upon is now standard or at least accepted. But that doesn't mean I have to like the changes.
It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear that someone "is referencing" something or that something "impacts" or "grow your business." Grrr...... How's this one, if those are all right? If a football player tackles another player hard, can we say "He collisioned him?" Why not? Can't we say, "refers to" or "has an impact?" I know, I know......
I received an e-mail this week that included an article in which a Michigan state legislator was "shocked" that there's a teacher shortage in Michigan. "Shocked?" Is this guy a lame-brain? It was his political party which bears much of the responsibility for the shortage. He will remain anonymous to protect him from ridicule, although I think he deserves it. Gee, can anyone think why there's a teacher shortage in this state?
Hmmm...... Let's see. I can graduate from college with about $20-30,000 of student debt. I can become a teacher and make about $35,000 to start. If I'm lucky, I'll get annual bumps in pay, but that's if I'm lucky. Many/Most districts in this state have cut teacher pay over the past 11-12 years. Thanks to the Republican governor and state legislature, my district can expect less and less aid from the state; guess whose pay is tied to those cuts? Yep, mine. Now, the governor and legislature take away my pension or create some bogus one that isn't nearly as good. Toss in increased shares of health insurance premiums, much higher co-pays and deductibles--from that huge salary of $35,000. And I can also get ready for more tests and paperwork courtesy of our state legislators, you know, things that take away from real learning. If that's not enough, the corporate-types, media, and public in general will continue to dump all over me, blaming me for the sad state of education in this state. Yeah, I want to be a teacher.
On second thought, maybe I'll be a state legislator. Apparently there is no IQ test and starting pay is $71,000.
I was asked last week by a firm for whom I do some consulting (for want of a better term) what I like most about teaching. One of the things I said was that I am continually learning. (Karen has said more than once that I'd have been a professional student if I'd been given a choice.) I was reminded of this as I posted something in an e-mail exchange. The question arose of where the "3/5 Compromise" at the Constitutional Convention originated. Specifically, it was why "3/5?" That's a weird fraction. Why not "1/2" (50%)? After all one side, the Northern or Southern states, favored counting all (100%) or none (0%) of the slaves for representation in the House and/or taxation. A compromise, logically, then would have been "1/2." (I used my calculator.) But it wasn't; it was "3/5." I remember reading somewhere sometime that 3/5 came from a scientific study produced by a VA planter (Scientific? Yeah, right.) that demonstrated slave labor produced only 3/5 of the work of free labor. My problem is I can't remember where I found this, years and years ago. I don't recall the name of the author of the study or of the study itself. But if I could it would help explain a lot.
I've looked in a number of my old books. Nothing. I've look through my files. Nothing. I've looked online. Nothing. I even took to asking the gods. One of my Amherst professors has heard nothing of this. The author of a textbook I use in class and of quite a number of other books on Ante-Bellum and Reconstuction America knows nothing of it. Hmmm...... I fear I will not find the source.
I do know, though, that I must have read it somewhere. I'm not smart enough or creative enough to just make up something like this. I have two more inquiries out there, hoping to find answers. Sometimes learning is not easy.
Charity
Most major religions of the world emphasize charity, helping those in need of help. Recently there have been claims that seem absurd. Are they?
Is failure to support government programs that help the needy, such as Medicare, Obamacare, and welfare, un- or anti-Christian? Aren't Christians supposed to "care?"
On a broader scale, is it legitimate to translate one's religious tenets into political policies?
Are the above programs--Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, and other welfare programs--what Jesus (or Muhammad or fill in the blank) meant by "charity?" In fact, are government programs personal charity?
Because a politician might have the legislative authority to take some people's property/money and give it to others, does that make him personally charitable? Does it really show that he/she cares?
Might not excessive taxation by government and those politicians and bureaucrats who act as its agents also be seen as theft? Again, would Jesus (or others) support confiscating, by legislative fiat, the property/income of some to give to others? Would the type or nature of the program matter?
Is failure to support government programs that help the needy, such as Medicare, Obamacare, and welfare, un- or anti-Christian? Aren't Christians supposed to "care?"
On a broader scale, is it legitimate to translate one's religious tenets into political policies?
Are the above programs--Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, and other welfare programs--what Jesus (or Muhammad or fill in the blank) meant by "charity?" In fact, are government programs personal charity?
Because a politician might have the legislative authority to take some people's property/money and give it to others, does that make him personally charitable? Does it really show that he/she cares?
Might not excessive taxation by government and those politicians and bureaucrats who act as its agents also be seen as theft? Again, would Jesus (or others) support confiscating, by legislative fiat, the property/income of some to give to others? Would the type or nature of the program matter?
Sunday, October 22, 2017
The Never-Ending Story?
This is getting ridiculous. Have we, many of us, become wooden-headed? (Thanks to Barbara Tuchman for that great term.)
Over the course of the past few days, the NFL and other kneelers have been likened to "Martin Luther King," "Rosa Parks," and other civil rights leaders. Give me a break!!!!!! Do these people not want to be taken seriously? Talk about an egregious example of hyperbole!
One letter writer asked for "the courage to take a knee." Yeah, right. An editorial in today's newspaper rightly ripped on the Ann Arbor city council members who took knees during the opening Pledge of Allegiance. Yeah, in snow-flake village Ann Arbor that too real "courage."
What's so courageous or anything but divisive about guys kneeling for the National Anthem and then going right out and playing, er, working (sorry--ha ha ha) to make several hundred thousand dollars in three hours, if that?
Here, want to be "courageous?" Want to be likened to King and Parks, rightly honored for putting their lives on the line? (After being released from jail after refusing to give up her bus seat, Rosa and her husband were sitting at their kitchen table. He said, "Rosa, you know they'll kill you." Yeah, you kneelers are really brave!) Try this. Kneel if you want; if your employers are fine with it, that's OK with me, too. But instead of playing your games, er, working for the afternoon, walk out and lead demonstrations on the city halls or police departments. Better yet, take your protests--on Sunday afternoons!--to the known drug dens and gang clubhouses. Yeah, try that. Then maybe you'll gain some credibility with me.
One conservative think tank in Michigan is trying to get access to the e-mails of the president of the University of Michigan. (I think they have some, if not all.) This president should be severely reprimanded and punished, if not fired, by the university regents. (Of course he won't be; nothing will be done.) According to an op-ed the other day, this guy has admitted creating speeches to students so they were "deliberately anti-Trump" because he didn't want to "waste an important opportunity to influence students' votes." Huh? The guy is entitled to his opinions, his private opinions. To work this way with students is reprehensible. Turn the tables. Suppose a university president would have worked equally diligently toward an "anti-Obama" or "anti-Clinton" campaign? (Of course few academics would because, to the arrogant elitists, Obama and Clinton remain "the Messiah" and "the world's smartest woman." And, after all, they are academics......) And to think that, until I was a senior in high school, I wanted to be a student at the University of Michigan. Actually I was accepted there, ready to play ball. (I only applied to two places.) Boy, was I lucky--in more ways than one.
I remarked somewhere that the fall colors were lacking this year, fearing we might miss Mother Nature's wonderful annual art show. One popular (poplar)/cottonwood is completely leafless, while my half dozen or so maples were still full of their leaves--green leaves. I noticed for the first time this AM, on my run, quite a few reds, yellows, and oranges. It's as if they came overnight, from out of nowhere. Now, I hope the forecast rain doesn't knock these colorful gems off their branches too soon. That happened a few years back and I was surprised at how disappointed I was.
BTW, I'm very glad for Justin Verlander. Oh, I wish he was still a Tiger. But the success he's having as an Astro is great to see. He was the ALCS (?) MVP with a microscopic ERA. I might have read this last week or so. In series-clinching playoff or World Series games, Verlander's ERA is something like 1.40. Isn't that close to impossible in this day and age? That's sort of Sandy Koufax-ish! (I still remember Mickey Mantle, striking out for the fourth time in a Series game vs Koufax, muttering as he threw his bat in the bat rack, "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" It wasn't a question. And to top it off, I think that was a game Koufax had arm troubles and couldn't throw his curve or slider, only his fastball--and the Yankees knew it!)
Over the course of the past few days, the NFL and other kneelers have been likened to "Martin Luther King," "Rosa Parks," and other civil rights leaders. Give me a break!!!!!! Do these people not want to be taken seriously? Talk about an egregious example of hyperbole!
One letter writer asked for "the courage to take a knee." Yeah, right. An editorial in today's newspaper rightly ripped on the Ann Arbor city council members who took knees during the opening Pledge of Allegiance. Yeah, in snow-flake village Ann Arbor that too real "courage."
What's so courageous or anything but divisive about guys kneeling for the National Anthem and then going right out and playing, er, working (sorry--ha ha ha) to make several hundred thousand dollars in three hours, if that?
Here, want to be "courageous?" Want to be likened to King and Parks, rightly honored for putting their lives on the line? (After being released from jail after refusing to give up her bus seat, Rosa and her husband were sitting at their kitchen table. He said, "Rosa, you know they'll kill you." Yeah, you kneelers are really brave!) Try this. Kneel if you want; if your employers are fine with it, that's OK with me, too. But instead of playing your games, er, working for the afternoon, walk out and lead demonstrations on the city halls or police departments. Better yet, take your protests--on Sunday afternoons!--to the known drug dens and gang clubhouses. Yeah, try that. Then maybe you'll gain some credibility with me.
One conservative think tank in Michigan is trying to get access to the e-mails of the president of the University of Michigan. (I think they have some, if not all.) This president should be severely reprimanded and punished, if not fired, by the university regents. (Of course he won't be; nothing will be done.) According to an op-ed the other day, this guy has admitted creating speeches to students so they were "deliberately anti-Trump" because he didn't want to "waste an important opportunity to influence students' votes." Huh? The guy is entitled to his opinions, his private opinions. To work this way with students is reprehensible. Turn the tables. Suppose a university president would have worked equally diligently toward an "anti-Obama" or "anti-Clinton" campaign? (Of course few academics would because, to the arrogant elitists, Obama and Clinton remain "the Messiah" and "the world's smartest woman." And, after all, they are academics......) And to think that, until I was a senior in high school, I wanted to be a student at the University of Michigan. Actually I was accepted there, ready to play ball. (I only applied to two places.) Boy, was I lucky--in more ways than one.
I remarked somewhere that the fall colors were lacking this year, fearing we might miss Mother Nature's wonderful annual art show. One popular (poplar)/cottonwood is completely leafless, while my half dozen or so maples were still full of their leaves--green leaves. I noticed for the first time this AM, on my run, quite a few reds, yellows, and oranges. It's as if they came overnight, from out of nowhere. Now, I hope the forecast rain doesn't knock these colorful gems off their branches too soon. That happened a few years back and I was surprised at how disappointed I was.
BTW, I'm very glad for Justin Verlander. Oh, I wish he was still a Tiger. But the success he's having as an Astro is great to see. He was the ALCS (?) MVP with a microscopic ERA. I might have read this last week or so. In series-clinching playoff or World Series games, Verlander's ERA is something like 1.40. Isn't that close to impossible in this day and age? That's sort of Sandy Koufax-ish! (I still remember Mickey Mantle, striking out for the fourth time in a Series game vs Koufax, muttering as he threw his bat in the bat rack, "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" It wasn't a question. And to top it off, I think that was a game Koufax had arm troubles and couldn't throw his curve or slider, only his fastball--and the Yankees knew it!)
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Disrespect. Strange. "I-Thou."
This just won't go away. I was hoping all this "kneeling" would disappear, but I guess not. This AM I heard someone from the NFL (I don't know if it was a player or union rep or league official) say, "We don't mean any disrespect of the flag or veterans" or soldiers by kneeling. Oh? Has "mean" taken a place along side "feel?"
How's this? Let's ask these same apologists about the mascot/nickname "Redskins." No doubt, as I know from first-hand experience, defenders will say, surprise!, "We don't mean any disrespect......" For the record, I think the term "Redskins" is a slur, is a pejorative. It is offensive, in its origins and its use over time. But that's not my point here, as I also think not standing for the National Anthem is also a slur, a pejorative. It is offensive.
I have little doubt that those who defend "kneeling" would oppose "Redskins." And I also have no doubt that, when questioned about the apparent inconsistency, the response would be "Oh, but that's different." Of course it is; it always is. Apparently respect has also become relative.
I see one NFL player, whose name was foreign to me, is donating the rest of his year's salary to establish some sort of foundation/scholarship for education. The guy has already funded two scholarships for the U of Virginia in the aftermath of August's troubles. I'm guessing that this NFLer is not a member of Black Lives Matter. And I'm waiting for more and more NFL players to do likewise. How long should I wait?
I hope this is the last I write about this NFL stuff. I really hadn't planned to add anything to my previous comments, but when I heard "We don't mean any disrespect......" I may have written something like this before: If thoughts can have a profound influence on the world, we should be careful how we think.
Have you read the Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land? It's about a man who was raised by Martians, on Mars, and returns to Earth as a young adult. You can imagine the strangeness. Sometimes I feel that way, a stranger in a strange land.
It seems I often don't recognize the world I live in, from many perspectives. The differences of my youth, growing up and with the activities of 50 and 60 years ago, vs the lives of kids today are of different worlds. Behavior of the young and not-so-young has devolved. Standards, all sorts of standards, have been debased. Writing? Manners? Discussion? Television? Morality? Where to stop? And, yes, I'm one of those, as Karen calls me, "old coots" who doesn't think these changes are for the better.
Here's one example. A couple weeks ago, I was at a high school football game. Numerous announcements were made over the PA system advising students from both schools to behave. One group, well far more than one group, chose to disregard that warning. Two administrators from one of the schools, as well as a group of parents, moved in to quell the misbehavior. The students in this group, instead of behaving, grew more belligerent and obstreperous. The language, the attitude, the everything was disrespectful if not worse. It reminded me of "my world," years ago. On one of those pretty wasteful "career days" at the high school, I hosted a lawyer from town. During his talk, a student was acting up a bit, quite rude. I walked behind the kid and gave him a little thwap on the side of his head. After the presentation, and I couldn't tell if the lawyer was put out or not, he asked, "Can you do that?" that is "thwap" students? I just looked at him and said, "The kid straightened up, didn't he?" I could give many more examples and maybe will later this week or next.
But it's a different world, isn't it? ...a strange land.
I hope that there are big donors behind this and this isn't coming from our tax money. I think college football and basketball coaches are vastly overpaid. What they make, at least from their universities, is obscene, really obscene. Today's newspaper cited the salaries of the baseball and softball coaches at the U of M. Over the course of the new contracts they signed, each will be getting $500,000 a year. That' half a million dollars! Do you think the physics or history professors earn that much? I know, I know...... Chemistry labs don't attract spectators.
Richard Wilbur was a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for poetry. He was named the Poet Laureate of the US. He died last weekend. I was oddly moved by his passing. Maybe it was because he died on the same date as my mother, 24 years ago. Maybe it was because he was an alumnus of Amherst. Maybe it was because his poetry gave me joy. Maybe it was all of these.
Talk about "strange." Perhaps it's just the nerdy me. The other day I had an actual conversation that included Martin Buber ("I-Thou"), Paul Tillich, and other 20th Century theologians. It wasn't a particularly long talk, but they came up. Now that doesn't happen every day.
How's this? Let's ask these same apologists about the mascot/nickname "Redskins." No doubt, as I know from first-hand experience, defenders will say, surprise!, "We don't mean any disrespect......" For the record, I think the term "Redskins" is a slur, is a pejorative. It is offensive, in its origins and its use over time. But that's not my point here, as I also think not standing for the National Anthem is also a slur, a pejorative. It is offensive.
I have little doubt that those who defend "kneeling" would oppose "Redskins." And I also have no doubt that, when questioned about the apparent inconsistency, the response would be "Oh, but that's different." Of course it is; it always is. Apparently respect has also become relative.
I see one NFL player, whose name was foreign to me, is donating the rest of his year's salary to establish some sort of foundation/scholarship for education. The guy has already funded two scholarships for the U of Virginia in the aftermath of August's troubles. I'm guessing that this NFLer is not a member of Black Lives Matter. And I'm waiting for more and more NFL players to do likewise. How long should I wait?
I hope this is the last I write about this NFL stuff. I really hadn't planned to add anything to my previous comments, but when I heard "We don't mean any disrespect......" I may have written something like this before: If thoughts can have a profound influence on the world, we should be careful how we think.
Have you read the Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land? It's about a man who was raised by Martians, on Mars, and returns to Earth as a young adult. You can imagine the strangeness. Sometimes I feel that way, a stranger in a strange land.
It seems I often don't recognize the world I live in, from many perspectives. The differences of my youth, growing up and with the activities of 50 and 60 years ago, vs the lives of kids today are of different worlds. Behavior of the young and not-so-young has devolved. Standards, all sorts of standards, have been debased. Writing? Manners? Discussion? Television? Morality? Where to stop? And, yes, I'm one of those, as Karen calls me, "old coots" who doesn't think these changes are for the better.
Here's one example. A couple weeks ago, I was at a high school football game. Numerous announcements were made over the PA system advising students from both schools to behave. One group, well far more than one group, chose to disregard that warning. Two administrators from one of the schools, as well as a group of parents, moved in to quell the misbehavior. The students in this group, instead of behaving, grew more belligerent and obstreperous. The language, the attitude, the everything was disrespectful if not worse. It reminded me of "my world," years ago. On one of those pretty wasteful "career days" at the high school, I hosted a lawyer from town. During his talk, a student was acting up a bit, quite rude. I walked behind the kid and gave him a little thwap on the side of his head. After the presentation, and I couldn't tell if the lawyer was put out or not, he asked, "Can you do that?" that is "thwap" students? I just looked at him and said, "The kid straightened up, didn't he?" I could give many more examples and maybe will later this week or next.
But it's a different world, isn't it? ...a strange land.
I hope that there are big donors behind this and this isn't coming from our tax money. I think college football and basketball coaches are vastly overpaid. What they make, at least from their universities, is obscene, really obscene. Today's newspaper cited the salaries of the baseball and softball coaches at the U of M. Over the course of the new contracts they signed, each will be getting $500,000 a year. That' half a million dollars! Do you think the physics or history professors earn that much? I know, I know...... Chemistry labs don't attract spectators.
Richard Wilbur was a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for poetry. He was named the Poet Laureate of the US. He died last weekend. I was oddly moved by his passing. Maybe it was because he died on the same date as my mother, 24 years ago. Maybe it was because he was an alumnus of Amherst. Maybe it was because his poetry gave me joy. Maybe it was all of these.
Talk about "strange." Perhaps it's just the nerdy me. The other day I had an actual conversation that included Martin Buber ("I-Thou"), Paul Tillich, and other 20th Century theologians. It wasn't a particularly long talk, but they came up. Now that doesn't happen every day.
Monday, October 16, 2017
National Character Matters Week?
I haven't checked for the accuracy of this, but I heard that this week is "National Character Matters Week." Well, as one who firmly believes that "character matters," I support this, well maybe. First, is this going to merely be another one of those designated weeks or months for this favorite trendy cause or that favorite trendy agenda? If so, don't bother.
Second, how delightful that "National Character Matters Week" was instituted, I am led to believe, by a resolution by Congress and announced by the President. Presumably they did all this with a straight face, although keeping one must have been quite an effort.
"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress" wrote Mark Twain more than a century ago. And although it might be debatable, I think it's worse now than then. It's as if members of Congress have made careers of being dishonest, of lying. If any group in the US surely doesn't subscribe to "character matters," it must be Congress. BTW, I'm not letting Presidents off the hook here. They are in the same sleazy boat, esp Clinton, Obama, Trump.
We have politicians who exude charm and concern for others ("We care!") while in reality act in the most deceiving, dishonest, and mean ways. "Character matters" indeed.
But what about the rest of the country? Does character still matter? We can write off Hollywood and those types. Movies, television, music (particularly gangsta rap), and video games hardly reflect a sense that character matters. Quite the opposite in fact. They, like members of Congress and Presidents, seem to make careers on sleaze.
The media include almost daily examples of their lack of character. From omission to obfuscation to outright lies, they show their true colors. Unless one is watching a network of one's own particular beliefs, the media are recognized for what they've become, liars playing for their own agendas, candidates, parties, etc. Ask a conservative about CNN or MSNBC. Ask a liberal about Fox News.
We reward bad behavior. Is that a signal that "character matters?" After all of the lying done by Obama, is there any doubt that had he been able to run again in 2016 that he would have swamped (Yes, I am using that term with deliberation!) Trump? Of course he would have. Hillary Clinton, for gosh sakes, was the Democratic nominee! Bill Clinton remains, not an outcast, a pariah for all of his despicable personal behavior, but an icon among Democrats. Mitch McConnell has told how many bold-faced lies to his constituents in Kentucky? And they must know it, the lying. Yet voters there keep sending him back--and Republicans elect him to the highest position of authority in the Senate!
Che Guevara, a mass murdering thug who looked up to Stalin and Mao, is feted as a hero on tee shirts and even underwear. Magazines and colleges, well, some of the professors, do the same (although I don't know about the professors' underwear) and they should know better. Or is it OK, that is, of good character to mass murder depending on one's cause?
How much money do college football and basketball coaches earn? Tell me one person who was surprised a couple of weeks ago when the FBI handed down indictments in recruiting scandals. OK, I'll tell you one--me! Yep, I am surprised that it took so long and also surprised that more college coaches weren't named. But that's OK, character doesn't matter if we win in football and basketball. We can cheat then and it's all right. "C'mon, it's football and basketball!"
Character? We can't even engage in civil discourse. We name-call. If we can't argue persuasively or if the other side has a better argument, we just turn to calling names--"bigot," "racist," "Neanderthal," or, in my specific experience, "negative." Does character matter when this has the distinct result of shutting up people? Who wants to be called names? Remember how the Republicans run when the Democrats call them "mean-spirited" and "heartless?" Heck, I had a hard time keeping running partners at the high school when the administration, unable to come up with reasonable defenses of their stupidity which I questioned, resorted to labeling me "negative."
I think technology is behind much of this loss of character. How easy it is to hide behind the protection of a computer or I-phone and spout off.
We reward lack of character--with our votes, with our money, with our adulation. We reward bad behavior in so very many ways. Not only that, if someone dares criticize lack of character, bad behavior, that someone is critized--with name-calling, boycotts, etc.
Someone once wrote that character is what you do when nobody is looking. OK, but I also think that character is what you do when everybody is looking.
"National Character Matters" Week. I will celebrate it, at least in my mind. I will also assume that most people, famous and otherwise, will give it lip service.
Second, how delightful that "National Character Matters Week" was instituted, I am led to believe, by a resolution by Congress and announced by the President. Presumably they did all this with a straight face, although keeping one must have been quite an effort.
"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress" wrote Mark Twain more than a century ago. And although it might be debatable, I think it's worse now than then. It's as if members of Congress have made careers of being dishonest, of lying. If any group in the US surely doesn't subscribe to "character matters," it must be Congress. BTW, I'm not letting Presidents off the hook here. They are in the same sleazy boat, esp Clinton, Obama, Trump.
We have politicians who exude charm and concern for others ("We care!") while in reality act in the most deceiving, dishonest, and mean ways. "Character matters" indeed.
But what about the rest of the country? Does character still matter? We can write off Hollywood and those types. Movies, television, music (particularly gangsta rap), and video games hardly reflect a sense that character matters. Quite the opposite in fact. They, like members of Congress and Presidents, seem to make careers on sleaze.
The media include almost daily examples of their lack of character. From omission to obfuscation to outright lies, they show their true colors. Unless one is watching a network of one's own particular beliefs, the media are recognized for what they've become, liars playing for their own agendas, candidates, parties, etc. Ask a conservative about CNN or MSNBC. Ask a liberal about Fox News.
We reward bad behavior. Is that a signal that "character matters?" After all of the lying done by Obama, is there any doubt that had he been able to run again in 2016 that he would have swamped (Yes, I am using that term with deliberation!) Trump? Of course he would have. Hillary Clinton, for gosh sakes, was the Democratic nominee! Bill Clinton remains, not an outcast, a pariah for all of his despicable personal behavior, but an icon among Democrats. Mitch McConnell has told how many bold-faced lies to his constituents in Kentucky? And they must know it, the lying. Yet voters there keep sending him back--and Republicans elect him to the highest position of authority in the Senate!
Che Guevara, a mass murdering thug who looked up to Stalin and Mao, is feted as a hero on tee shirts and even underwear. Magazines and colleges, well, some of the professors, do the same (although I don't know about the professors' underwear) and they should know better. Or is it OK, that is, of good character to mass murder depending on one's cause?
How much money do college football and basketball coaches earn? Tell me one person who was surprised a couple of weeks ago when the FBI handed down indictments in recruiting scandals. OK, I'll tell you one--me! Yep, I am surprised that it took so long and also surprised that more college coaches weren't named. But that's OK, character doesn't matter if we win in football and basketball. We can cheat then and it's all right. "C'mon, it's football and basketball!"
Character? We can't even engage in civil discourse. We name-call. If we can't argue persuasively or if the other side has a better argument, we just turn to calling names--"bigot," "racist," "Neanderthal," or, in my specific experience, "negative." Does character matter when this has the distinct result of shutting up people? Who wants to be called names? Remember how the Republicans run when the Democrats call them "mean-spirited" and "heartless?" Heck, I had a hard time keeping running partners at the high school when the administration, unable to come up with reasonable defenses of their stupidity which I questioned, resorted to labeling me "negative."
I think technology is behind much of this loss of character. How easy it is to hide behind the protection of a computer or I-phone and spout off.
We reward lack of character--with our votes, with our money, with our adulation. We reward bad behavior in so very many ways. Not only that, if someone dares criticize lack of character, bad behavior, that someone is critized--with name-calling, boycotts, etc.
Someone once wrote that character is what you do when nobody is looking. OK, but I also think that character is what you do when everybody is looking.
"National Character Matters" Week. I will celebrate it, at least in my mind. I will also assume that most people, famous and otherwise, will give it lip service.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Another Crisis
I'm upset with myself. I'm giving the NFL far too much of my attention. Oh, it's not the games or the standings or the players. I can't tell you how many games, say, the Lions have won. I'm pretty sure I can't name even five or six running backs in the NFL--I probably can QBs, though. But it's this taking a knee thing.
The other day was a riveting Detroit News article about the "Struggle with crime" in black Detroit neighborhoods. I'm guessing the statistics provided in the article are vastly understated. But besides the actual crimes themselves, imagine the psychological and emotional distress the residents in these neighborhoods must endure. I'm not just talking about the shootings--gang-related, random, for "dissing" someone, desiring another's shoes, etc. One section explained how an uncle in Detroit shot and killed his nephew because he didn't like the look he was getting--shot and killed over a dirty look! The city is celebrating that the number of annual murders is down to 300 or so now. What? First, that's about one a day. Second, Detroit now has fewer than one-third of the people/population it had 50 years ago. That's not one-third less population, but one-third of the people! So, cynically, one might come to the conclusion there are fewer people to kill? (Should we cite Chicago, DC, and/or other major cities?)
But consider some of the "tips," the strategies given to residents "to avoid becoming crime victims." They are told, if they buy televisions, computers, or other such items, not to leave the empty boxes by the house. Those boxes are invitations for robberies. They are told "not to get boxed in" at fast-food restaurants or at traffic stops to avoid carjackings. Don't buy gas at night. Carry "decoy wallets," with dummy credit cards and a few dollars to hand over to robbers. Heck, they are advised not to keep Christmas trees by windows; Chris trees are "signals" to thieves that there are things worth stealing. People moving into new homes should move in at night so they don't tell thugs what is being brought into the houses. And there's more......
OK, I understand there are some rogue police officers out there, but the number must be pretty small. I understand, too, that there are some racists among the police departments; again, I'd guess the percentage is small. Even if my guess on the few numbers is wrong, how many more black citizens are being terrorize, not by the police, but by thugs in their own neighborhoods? People shouldn't have to live that way.
Where are the NFL kneelers on that?????? Here we have players making far more money in a single season than many of us make in our lifetimes. (One night I was out to dinner with a group of guys, most teachers or former teachers. One NFL player that day signed a contract that gave him more money in a season that the five or six of us made over our careers, all of us put together!) Why aren't they "tithing," that is, giving one-tenth of their inflated incomes to help in the black neighborhoods? Instead, they "take a knee." Sure they do; it costs them nothing. No doubt there are a number of NFL players (and other professional athletes) who do give back to their communities. But also there is no doubt not nearly enough of them do. "Tithing?" Hey, here's an idea. Why don't they devote half of their incomes to their communities? I know why and so do you.
I have no idea which player it was the other day said if the owners cracked down and prohibited players from taking a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner, he'd quit. I don't remember his exact words; like I said, I never heard of 99% if these guys. Maybe somebody talked to him; I don't know. But later that same day he took it back. Well, he wouldn't really quit...... Of course he wouldn't.
Protest. Protest. Protest. I don't see anyone protesting life in the cities. Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when a 6-year old playing in his neighborhood park is shot in a drive-by shooting? Where are they when a 9-year old is killed in a drug-related trial to keep his father from testifying? Where is the protest when a little girl reading on her mother's bed is shot to death when her house is riddled with bullets? Where are the protests and demonstrations in front of known gang clubhouses and drug dens? Gangs and drugs are the causes of much of the daily hell these good residents experience. Ah, but protesting this and these are not trendy. Such demonstrations might require some people to face some uncomfortable truths......
The other day was a riveting Detroit News article about the "Struggle with crime" in black Detroit neighborhoods. I'm guessing the statistics provided in the article are vastly understated. But besides the actual crimes themselves, imagine the psychological and emotional distress the residents in these neighborhoods must endure. I'm not just talking about the shootings--gang-related, random, for "dissing" someone, desiring another's shoes, etc. One section explained how an uncle in Detroit shot and killed his nephew because he didn't like the look he was getting--shot and killed over a dirty look! The city is celebrating that the number of annual murders is down to 300 or so now. What? First, that's about one a day. Second, Detroit now has fewer than one-third of the people/population it had 50 years ago. That's not one-third less population, but one-third of the people! So, cynically, one might come to the conclusion there are fewer people to kill? (Should we cite Chicago, DC, and/or other major cities?)
But consider some of the "tips," the strategies given to residents "to avoid becoming crime victims." They are told, if they buy televisions, computers, or other such items, not to leave the empty boxes by the house. Those boxes are invitations for robberies. They are told "not to get boxed in" at fast-food restaurants or at traffic stops to avoid carjackings. Don't buy gas at night. Carry "decoy wallets," with dummy credit cards and a few dollars to hand over to robbers. Heck, they are advised not to keep Christmas trees by windows; Chris trees are "signals" to thieves that there are things worth stealing. People moving into new homes should move in at night so they don't tell thugs what is being brought into the houses. And there's more......
OK, I understand there are some rogue police officers out there, but the number must be pretty small. I understand, too, that there are some racists among the police departments; again, I'd guess the percentage is small. Even if my guess on the few numbers is wrong, how many more black citizens are being terrorize, not by the police, but by thugs in their own neighborhoods? People shouldn't have to live that way.
Where are the NFL kneelers on that?????? Here we have players making far more money in a single season than many of us make in our lifetimes. (One night I was out to dinner with a group of guys, most teachers or former teachers. One NFL player that day signed a contract that gave him more money in a season that the five or six of us made over our careers, all of us put together!) Why aren't they "tithing," that is, giving one-tenth of their inflated incomes to help in the black neighborhoods? Instead, they "take a knee." Sure they do; it costs them nothing. No doubt there are a number of NFL players (and other professional athletes) who do give back to their communities. But also there is no doubt not nearly enough of them do. "Tithing?" Hey, here's an idea. Why don't they devote half of their incomes to their communities? I know why and so do you.
I have no idea which player it was the other day said if the owners cracked down and prohibited players from taking a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner, he'd quit. I don't remember his exact words; like I said, I never heard of 99% if these guys. Maybe somebody talked to him; I don't know. But later that same day he took it back. Well, he wouldn't really quit...... Of course he wouldn't.
Protest. Protest. Protest. I don't see anyone protesting life in the cities. Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when a 6-year old playing in his neighborhood park is shot in a drive-by shooting? Where are they when a 9-year old is killed in a drug-related trial to keep his father from testifying? Where is the protest when a little girl reading on her mother's bed is shot to death when her house is riddled with bullets? Where are the protests and demonstrations in front of known gang clubhouses and drug dens? Gangs and drugs are the causes of much of the daily hell these good residents experience. Ah, but protesting this and these are not trendy. Such demonstrations might require some people to face some uncomfortable truths......
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Leave Us Alone!
Three centuries ago, Czar Peter the Great banned Russian men from wearing beards. His first method to enforce this ban was to slap a tax on beards. (He also taxed glass, chimneys, and even dying! If I recall correctly, it was called a "soul tax.") He even personally shaved his generals. Later, he sent his soldiers through the countryside to shave those remaining recalcitrant.
Taxes have often been a way for government not just to raise revenue, but to regulate trade and to influence people's consumption. Check, for instance, what states have the highest and the lowest taxes on cigarettes. I suppose such taxes are well-intentioned, but are still quite bothersome and sometimes dangerous.
Some cities in the US have enacted taxes on soda/pop. (I know, I know. In Michigan it's "pop," but my years in Massachusetts made me prefer "soda.") First, such a tax is regressive, as are all taxes on food and beverages. They hit lower incomes harder than upper incomes. Chicago, NYC, and other places have found such levies to be very unpopular, to the point of near repeal.
The experience in Philadelphia, though, is instructive. The soda tax there was assumed to raise more than $90 million dollars for the city's treasury, much of it earmarked for education. Once again, government projections were off, way off. About half of the projected revenue was realized. But it gets worse. After passing the tax, Pepsi has seen almost a 50% drop in business. The 100 area Pepsi employees who are going to be laid off probably don't care a fig about the $45 million in revenues. Canada Dry, too, has given employees notice that there will be layoffs. I'm sure the additional municipal revenue doesn't excite them much, either.
What's happening isn't necessarily a decrease in consumption. Philadelphians are just driving to neighboring cities where there is no tax and buying their Pepsi, Canada Dry, etc. there.
(Over the past decades, there has been a decrease in the consumption of pop--or soda or tonic or coke, generically, or soft drink or cold drink--in the US. But that's because more and more people are turning to healthier drinks.)
Again, such taxes are always sugar-coated. Oh, the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) are helping us with our health. The money will go to, say, the schools. Who can oppose such things? That is, who can oppose such things until the complete picture is unveiled?
And it always turns out like that. Government, stay out of my life, our lives! Don't try to dictate what I drink or eat or buy or...... I know what's good for me and what isn't. Frankly, I still drink too much soda, both diet and regular, you know, the ones with high fructose corn syrup. I know all about it, but it's my choice. And it should be my choice, not some perhaps well-meaning, perhaps self-righteous politicians or government bureaucrats.
When I see such government overreach, I am reminded of Prohibition. People, to get their alcohol, were purchasing and drinking anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, formaldehyde, and even embalming fluid. To stop that, the federal government ordered such fluids to be denatured. But instead of adding substances such as soap, which would merely make drinkers sick, mercury and strychnine were added. Mercury and strychnine? Aren't those poisons, poisons that kill? One year, 11 thousand Americans died because of this. The government reaction was, simply, "They shouldn't have been drinking in the first place." That is, these Americans, who were engaging in an activity that just a year or two before was perfectly legal, an activity which in moderation is harmless, an activity that was a perfectly normal social activity for thousands of years all over the world, deserved to die.
Granted, a soda tax isn't quite as extreme. But Prohibition provides a picture of what an unfettered government can and often will do.
Government, it has become expected, is supposed to "do something." No, don't do anything or, rather, do very little. Take the "obesity epidemic" as claimed by the CDC. Supposedly, about 40% of all American adults are obese, not just overweight or fat, but obese. Visually, I have no reason to doubt that. But health and "obesity" are personal responsibilities, not government's. Americans don't have an obesity problem; fat Americans have an obesity problem.
But, of course, it's now standard for government to "do something." Look at the school lunch programs. Anecdotally at least, those healthy lunch programs are a massive failure. Don't take my word for it, gleaned from articles and stories from school workers. Kids throw away the carrot and celery sticks--and who wouldn't?????? Seriously, who reads the gov't-mandated "calorie counts" on the menus of restaurants? Don't try to tell my you do.
All these food regulations are written by politicians and bureaucrats who have their own agendas. They don't know you and me, other than we are the sources for the monies they fund their boondoggles.
And I've written about this before, but these same politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for cutting physical activity, physical education in our schools. Sure, we may consume more calories than we did several decades ago, but I submit our problems with being fat stem more from an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. We aren't active enough. We watch too much television and play too many video games. We buy tractor lawn mowers (loud enough to resemble Boeing 747s!) and snow blowers instead of getting out and doing the chores ourselves, with our bodies. And, as if to underscore the lack of importance of an active lifestyle, the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") cut physical education in the schools. There's a lesson our students surely are learning well! But, of course, phys ed isn't on the tests......
Yes, obesity is a problem. It drives up costs for all of us, whether we are fat or not. We all pay for it, in health insurance and hospital costs. We get stuck behind fat people in the aisle of stores and can't pass them going up stairs. We have to park farther away from our destinations because of handicap parking spaces reserved not only for those really needing them, but for obese people. But it's not an American problem; it's not for government to once again stick in its ugly head and make it worse--and more expensive. Let's let government leave us alone and make this a personal responsibility.
Yeah, I know, I know......
Taxes have often been a way for government not just to raise revenue, but to regulate trade and to influence people's consumption. Check, for instance, what states have the highest and the lowest taxes on cigarettes. I suppose such taxes are well-intentioned, but are still quite bothersome and sometimes dangerous.
Some cities in the US have enacted taxes on soda/pop. (I know, I know. In Michigan it's "pop," but my years in Massachusetts made me prefer "soda.") First, such a tax is regressive, as are all taxes on food and beverages. They hit lower incomes harder than upper incomes. Chicago, NYC, and other places have found such levies to be very unpopular, to the point of near repeal.
The experience in Philadelphia, though, is instructive. The soda tax there was assumed to raise more than $90 million dollars for the city's treasury, much of it earmarked for education. Once again, government projections were off, way off. About half of the projected revenue was realized. But it gets worse. After passing the tax, Pepsi has seen almost a 50% drop in business. The 100 area Pepsi employees who are going to be laid off probably don't care a fig about the $45 million in revenues. Canada Dry, too, has given employees notice that there will be layoffs. I'm sure the additional municipal revenue doesn't excite them much, either.
What's happening isn't necessarily a decrease in consumption. Philadelphians are just driving to neighboring cities where there is no tax and buying their Pepsi, Canada Dry, etc. there.
(Over the past decades, there has been a decrease in the consumption of pop--or soda or tonic or coke, generically, or soft drink or cold drink--in the US. But that's because more and more people are turning to healthier drinks.)
Again, such taxes are always sugar-coated. Oh, the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) are helping us with our health. The money will go to, say, the schools. Who can oppose such things? That is, who can oppose such things until the complete picture is unveiled?
And it always turns out like that. Government, stay out of my life, our lives! Don't try to dictate what I drink or eat or buy or...... I know what's good for me and what isn't. Frankly, I still drink too much soda, both diet and regular, you know, the ones with high fructose corn syrup. I know all about it, but it's my choice. And it should be my choice, not some perhaps well-meaning, perhaps self-righteous politicians or government bureaucrats.
When I see such government overreach, I am reminded of Prohibition. People, to get their alcohol, were purchasing and drinking anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, formaldehyde, and even embalming fluid. To stop that, the federal government ordered such fluids to be denatured. But instead of adding substances such as soap, which would merely make drinkers sick, mercury and strychnine were added. Mercury and strychnine? Aren't those poisons, poisons that kill? One year, 11 thousand Americans died because of this. The government reaction was, simply, "They shouldn't have been drinking in the first place." That is, these Americans, who were engaging in an activity that just a year or two before was perfectly legal, an activity which in moderation is harmless, an activity that was a perfectly normal social activity for thousands of years all over the world, deserved to die.
Granted, a soda tax isn't quite as extreme. But Prohibition provides a picture of what an unfettered government can and often will do.
Government, it has become expected, is supposed to "do something." No, don't do anything or, rather, do very little. Take the "obesity epidemic" as claimed by the CDC. Supposedly, about 40% of all American adults are obese, not just overweight or fat, but obese. Visually, I have no reason to doubt that. But health and "obesity" are personal responsibilities, not government's. Americans don't have an obesity problem; fat Americans have an obesity problem.
But, of course, it's now standard for government to "do something." Look at the school lunch programs. Anecdotally at least, those healthy lunch programs are a massive failure. Don't take my word for it, gleaned from articles and stories from school workers. Kids throw away the carrot and celery sticks--and who wouldn't?????? Seriously, who reads the gov't-mandated "calorie counts" on the menus of restaurants? Don't try to tell my you do.
All these food regulations are written by politicians and bureaucrats who have their own agendas. They don't know you and me, other than we are the sources for the monies they fund their boondoggles.
And I've written about this before, but these same politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for cutting physical activity, physical education in our schools. Sure, we may consume more calories than we did several decades ago, but I submit our problems with being fat stem more from an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. We aren't active enough. We watch too much television and play too many video games. We buy tractor lawn mowers (loud enough to resemble Boeing 747s!) and snow blowers instead of getting out and doing the chores ourselves, with our bodies. And, as if to underscore the lack of importance of an active lifestyle, the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") cut physical education in the schools. There's a lesson our students surely are learning well! But, of course, phys ed isn't on the tests......
Yes, obesity is a problem. It drives up costs for all of us, whether we are fat or not. We all pay for it, in health insurance and hospital costs. We get stuck behind fat people in the aisle of stores and can't pass them going up stairs. We have to park farther away from our destinations because of handicap parking spaces reserved not only for those really needing them, but for obese people. But it's not an American problem; it's not for government to once again stick in its ugly head and make it worse--and more expensive. Let's let government leave us alone and make this a personal responsibility.
Yeah, I know, I know......
Sunday, October 8, 2017
"I feel......"
"I feel......" I've heard that more than once over the course of the last week or so. To start, there's nothing wrong with feeling, if in the right context. But when feeling replaces thinking, there's a problem. I think we've reached that point.
I don't think it was coincidental that each of the "I feel" comments came from past or present teachers. I know for years, in class, I had students in their essays write things they felt, rather than what they knew. And there were many teachers who encouraged that, feeling instead of knowing, with, for instance, writing daily journals. So much for the misnomer "critical thinking."
"I feel they," the NFL kneelers, "have a right of free speech" or something of that nature. That, again, is not coincidental that this comment came from teachers. It shows an ignorance of the concept of free expression/speech. And it's certainly not just teachers who misunderstand this. (I just heard the comments from teachers.) No doubt, these people would cite, in supporting their feelings, the First Amendment. I'm certain few of them know what the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...or of speech, or of the press or of the people to peaceably assemble......" The key word is "Congress." The First Amendment restricts government, not private employers. There is no "freedom of speech" for the NFLers unless the owners want to give it to them. What if, say, back in another lifetime when I was teaching in the schools, I opted to post banners in my room asking that the millage be defeated because the school board and administrators will just waste the money? Do I have the right of "free speech?" Read the amendment and then consider the school district is a level of government. If anything, I should be able to post such a statement, without repercussions. Now, how far do you think I'd have gotten with that one? (I did have on my bulletin board, often the only thing, a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yes, principals and at least one superintendent were aware it was there.)
Such ignorance of the First Amendment is not unexpected. I've written this in the past that I think many teachers' college degrees are fake degrees, work required for them not nearly as rigorous, the curriculum not nearly of the quality, of real degrees. I have some standing to make such a statement. I have two real degrees, that is, not from the schools of education, as well as two degrees from schools of education, teaching degrees. I know of what I speak/write.
Is it any surprise, then, that people who have gone through the public schools don't comprehend the meaning of the First Amendment? Their teachers don't even know it. (Oh, the stories I could tell!)
But, as is being proven more and more, "I feel" is good enough.
I think it's been blown out of proportion, esp in light of the real problems we face, but this NFL QB snafu is ridiculous. What did he say? Something about being asked about pass patterns by a girl? To me, the women doing sports are just as bad as the men, maybe worse. I say "worse" only because some of the men are former players who can tell funny or relevant stories.
A columnist this AM has it all wrong about female reporters covering sports. No, they should not be allowed in men's locker rooms. Well, they should, but only if they, too, strip down to their bras and panties, wearing towels wrapped around their bodies. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it.
Another one wrote this, claiming that the Trump administration's ruling to roll back the Obamacare requirement of providing birth control in insurance packages. That, of course, stems from some people's/employers' religious and moral objections to this. But this editor claims the Trump decision will lead to "more unplanned pregnancies...more abortions...more children with preventable disabilities." Huh? So, now it's our fault, my fault for all these terrible things!?!?!? Hey lady (Yes, I'm being snide here!), what about people curbing or controlling their sexual urges? NO NO, we can't have that. (Gee, Hugh Hefner just died last week, you know, the one most responsible for the "Moral Revolution," which I call the "Immoral Revolution." NO NO, we can't have that, controlling sexual urges.) Why don't these complainers purchase their own insurance policies or, get riders, that cover birth control? NO NO, we can't have that. People actually be responsible for their own lives? C'mon...... For that matter, why doesn't this lady start something, maybe a Face Book page or a Go Fund Me or whatever those things are, to pay for such policies for those she's lamenting? Or, even better, why doesn't she (and those who agree with her) pay out of their own pockets for the birth control policies? I know why and so does she. But how rich, blaming the Trump administration for "more abortions" and "more unplanned pregnancies." There's a lot to lament about Trump, but this isn't one of the things. But, of course, this lady "feels......"
I don't think it was coincidental that each of the "I feel" comments came from past or present teachers. I know for years, in class, I had students in their essays write things they felt, rather than what they knew. And there were many teachers who encouraged that, feeling instead of knowing, with, for instance, writing daily journals. So much for the misnomer "critical thinking."
"I feel they," the NFL kneelers, "have a right of free speech" or something of that nature. That, again, is not coincidental that this comment came from teachers. It shows an ignorance of the concept of free expression/speech. And it's certainly not just teachers who misunderstand this. (I just heard the comments from teachers.) No doubt, these people would cite, in supporting their feelings, the First Amendment. I'm certain few of them know what the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...or of speech, or of the press or of the people to peaceably assemble......" The key word is "Congress." The First Amendment restricts government, not private employers. There is no "freedom of speech" for the NFLers unless the owners want to give it to them. What if, say, back in another lifetime when I was teaching in the schools, I opted to post banners in my room asking that the millage be defeated because the school board and administrators will just waste the money? Do I have the right of "free speech?" Read the amendment and then consider the school district is a level of government. If anything, I should be able to post such a statement, without repercussions. Now, how far do you think I'd have gotten with that one? (I did have on my bulletin board, often the only thing, a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yes, principals and at least one superintendent were aware it was there.)
Such ignorance of the First Amendment is not unexpected. I've written this in the past that I think many teachers' college degrees are fake degrees, work required for them not nearly as rigorous, the curriculum not nearly of the quality, of real degrees. I have some standing to make such a statement. I have two real degrees, that is, not from the schools of education, as well as two degrees from schools of education, teaching degrees. I know of what I speak/write.
Is it any surprise, then, that people who have gone through the public schools don't comprehend the meaning of the First Amendment? Their teachers don't even know it. (Oh, the stories I could tell!)
But, as is being proven more and more, "I feel" is good enough.
I think it's been blown out of proportion, esp in light of the real problems we face, but this NFL QB snafu is ridiculous. What did he say? Something about being asked about pass patterns by a girl? To me, the women doing sports are just as bad as the men, maybe worse. I say "worse" only because some of the men are former players who can tell funny or relevant stories.
A columnist this AM has it all wrong about female reporters covering sports. No, they should not be allowed in men's locker rooms. Well, they should, but only if they, too, strip down to their bras and panties, wearing towels wrapped around their bodies. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it.
Another one wrote this, claiming that the Trump administration's ruling to roll back the Obamacare requirement of providing birth control in insurance packages. That, of course, stems from some people's/employers' religious and moral objections to this. But this editor claims the Trump decision will lead to "more unplanned pregnancies...more abortions...more children with preventable disabilities." Huh? So, now it's our fault, my fault for all these terrible things!?!?!? Hey lady (Yes, I'm being snide here!), what about people curbing or controlling their sexual urges? NO NO, we can't have that. (Gee, Hugh Hefner just died last week, you know, the one most responsible for the "Moral Revolution," which I call the "Immoral Revolution." NO NO, we can't have that, controlling sexual urges.) Why don't these complainers purchase their own insurance policies or, get riders, that cover birth control? NO NO, we can't have that. People actually be responsible for their own lives? C'mon...... For that matter, why doesn't this lady start something, maybe a Face Book page or a Go Fund Me or whatever those things are, to pay for such policies for those she's lamenting? Or, even better, why doesn't she (and those who agree with her) pay out of their own pockets for the birth control policies? I know why and so does she. But how rich, blaming the Trump administration for "more abortions" and "more unplanned pregnancies." There's a lot to lament about Trump, but this isn't one of the things. But, of course, this lady "feels......"
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Wed
Sunday AM, I woke to 36 degrees and heavy frost, if not ice!, on the windshields of our cars. Without gloves or hat, my running partner said, "You're a far braver man than I, Gunga Din." It was chilly. This AM, about half an hour earlier than my Sun run, it was 70 degrees, with near 100% humidity. The air was so close/thick and we did have some brief thunder dunders before noon. Michigan is known for its quickly changing weather, but this seems odd even for the Great Lake State.
I've written about Thomas Sowell in the past. The man is not only brilliant, but filled with common sense. Of course, he'll never get any accolades like Pulitzers, etc. He's a black man who doesn't fit the norm. He's critical of things like Black Lives Matter, Affirmative Action, etc. I'm not sure he's a conservative, but he's certainly not a liberal.
He had a great quotation a while ago. "There are two vacancies on the Supreme Court." This was after the death of "the great Antonin Scalia" and before the appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. Sowell continued, "The other [vacancy] is Anthony Kennedy." What a scathing criticism! And it's right on the money most of the time.
I read a mass e-mail from a college president who was critical of education today. Of course, much of his finger-pointing was at teachers. It's not a secret I am critical of many teachers, who, frankly, should not be teachers or should be taught how to teach. But I found it very rich, indeed, to read this guy making almost $1,000,000 a year criticizing teachers who make $40,000 or $50,000. That he doesn't see the disconnect in that, the the rationale behind salaries, tells me the guy isn't quite as sharp as some folks think he is.
Here's a link to an article everyone should read, esp those kneeling NFL players and their sycophant (bobble head) owners and coaches.
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/10/03/blacks-vs-police-n2389488 (You may have to cut and paste the link into your browser.)
It's by Walter Williams and, as usual, is brilliant and really can't be criticized, not rationally. Here's a wonderful question he asks, Why are Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Michael Brown held up as heroes to so many people? It needs to be answered, I think, and is at the root of much of the issue. Williams' training as an economist makes him almost immune to criticism, at least in rational discourse, one that is based on facts. Thomas Sowell, as noted above, is the same. That is, unless facts no longer matter.
Emerging from the Las Vegas tragedy is yet another example of "sloppy thinking" by many in this country. Of course, the yelps and cries about Trump's restrictions on immigration from eight (Is that the number now?) majority Muslim nations were loud and omnipresent. "We can't punish all Muslims for the terrorism of a few," the critics howled. That these eight nations actively sponsored and harbored terrorists is/was not considered. Still, it's some of the same people who now want to ban guns after Las Vegas. Wait, I have a question to ask these who howled at Trump's restrictions. Aren't you doing the same thing, punishing 99.9% of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a very small deluded minority? I know, I know...... "But that's different." Of course it is; it always is.
I think I wrote about "Third Graders" the other day. Maybe I give these television personalities too much credit, assigning them to third grade. Today one of the talking heads (I don't watch enough television to know who it was) said something like this. "I find it interesting that all or at least most of these shooters stop shooting after six or seven minutes," adding, "because he's killed or kills himself." Hmmm...... Maybe he was just punch-drunk from being on the air too much the past few days. Or, maybe not.
I've written about Thomas Sowell in the past. The man is not only brilliant, but filled with common sense. Of course, he'll never get any accolades like Pulitzers, etc. He's a black man who doesn't fit the norm. He's critical of things like Black Lives Matter, Affirmative Action, etc. I'm not sure he's a conservative, but he's certainly not a liberal.
He had a great quotation a while ago. "There are two vacancies on the Supreme Court." This was after the death of "the great Antonin Scalia" and before the appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. Sowell continued, "The other [vacancy] is Anthony Kennedy." What a scathing criticism! And it's right on the money most of the time.
I read a mass e-mail from a college president who was critical of education today. Of course, much of his finger-pointing was at teachers. It's not a secret I am critical of many teachers, who, frankly, should not be teachers or should be taught how to teach. But I found it very rich, indeed, to read this guy making almost $1,000,000 a year criticizing teachers who make $40,000 or $50,000. That he doesn't see the disconnect in that, the the rationale behind salaries, tells me the guy isn't quite as sharp as some folks think he is.
Here's a link to an article everyone should read, esp those kneeling NFL players and their sycophant (bobble head) owners and coaches.
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/10/03/blacks-vs-police-n2389488 (You may have to cut and paste the link into your browser.)
It's by Walter Williams and, as usual, is brilliant and really can't be criticized, not rationally. Here's a wonderful question he asks, Why are Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Michael Brown held up as heroes to so many people? It needs to be answered, I think, and is at the root of much of the issue. Williams' training as an economist makes him almost immune to criticism, at least in rational discourse, one that is based on facts. Thomas Sowell, as noted above, is the same. That is, unless facts no longer matter.
Emerging from the Las Vegas tragedy is yet another example of "sloppy thinking" by many in this country. Of course, the yelps and cries about Trump's restrictions on immigration from eight (Is that the number now?) majority Muslim nations were loud and omnipresent. "We can't punish all Muslims for the terrorism of a few," the critics howled. That these eight nations actively sponsored and harbored terrorists is/was not considered. Still, it's some of the same people who now want to ban guns after Las Vegas. Wait, I have a question to ask these who howled at Trump's restrictions. Aren't you doing the same thing, punishing 99.9% of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a very small deluded minority? I know, I know...... "But that's different." Of course it is; it always is.
I think I wrote about "Third Graders" the other day. Maybe I give these television personalities too much credit, assigning them to third grade. Today one of the talking heads (I don't watch enough television to know who it was) said something like this. "I find it interesting that all or at least most of these shooters stop shooting after six or seven minutes," adding, "because he's killed or kills himself." Hmmm...... Maybe he was just punch-drunk from being on the air too much the past few days. Or, maybe not.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Tue
As if the Las Vegas tragedy wasn't enough of a blow (My son and daughter-in-law live there.), there was a gun/shooting threat at my grandson's high school. It was later determined that the threat "was not credible," but still......
Karen watched news shows on several stations during the day yesterday. I half-listened, as I wrote, read, and graded papers. But one thing struck me, a question: Are these stations anchors and interviewers in third grade? The question they posed to witnesses/survivors and so-called "experts" were frequently worse than juvenile; they were infantile. How do these people get their jobs? A better question is how they keep them??????
I was listening to the radio on the drive to class this AM. As usual, the host was lecturing to us, pontificating on the real, the true answers to everything. I was only half paying attention when I heard "expousing," not "exposing" or "espousing," but "expousing." I perked up and waited to hear if the know-it-all said it again. He did, twice more, again, "expousing." OK, I'm a language snob, but this guy makes his living my using language, speaking correctly it is hoped. So, now he had my attention and stuck his foot in his mouth again, although in his self-righteousness, he wouldn't never realize it or admit it. He ranted on the schools and those who keep insisting the US is a democracy. "We're no such thing!" he adamantly stated. He went on to that claptrap I have heard before, about the US being a republic, not a democracy. What made it worse was his arrogant attitude about it.
Of course the US is a republic. Check out the definition of the word. It can't be argued otherwise. But at the same time, we are also a democracy. What is the definition of "democracy?" It's from two Greek words which translate to "rule by people" or something close to that. What are the first three words of the Constitution?????? The Preamble begins with "We the People......" It doesn't start with "We the States" or anything similar. And it could. The Founders could have written what they wanted it to be. In fact, many of them were leery of "rule by the people" and preferred rule by the States or something other than "...the people." That's why there are institutions like the Electrical College, the election of US Senators by state legislatures (changed with the 17th Amendment), etc.
We can define/describe the US government in many ways, just as an orange can be described by shape, by color, by taste, etc. We have a federal government, with several levels: national, state, and local. We do have a republic. And we do have a democracy. Now, it's not a direct democracy, of course not. We are too big, in population and in area, to have a direct democracy. Instead we have an indirect democracy, also referred to as a republican or representative democracy.
That these guys don't see this and yet then grouse about how schools aren't teaching others is what is particularly grating.
I see an Amherst grad won a Nobel Prize for his work with Drosophila Melanogaster--fruit flies! In one of my science classes there, we did genetic experiments with Drosophila. Well, we were supposed to be learning about mating, counting males/females upon birth. The experiment required us to knock out the fruit flies in their tubes so we could count the males and the females, keeping records, etc. My first fling at it I messed up. I used far too much ether and didn't knock out my flies, but killed them. Oops. Professor Yost, who had to be laughing inside at me, gave me another chance. I willingly took it and was determined not to murder my Drosophila, not this time. So I didn't. In fact, I didn't use enough ether and, before I was done counting them, the fruit flies all woke up and few off into the room. I'm sure Professor Yost was roaring inside, but he was nice enough to tell me just to move on. I guess there are no Nobels in store for me.
Karen watched news shows on several stations during the day yesterday. I half-listened, as I wrote, read, and graded papers. But one thing struck me, a question: Are these stations anchors and interviewers in third grade? The question they posed to witnesses/survivors and so-called "experts" were frequently worse than juvenile; they were infantile. How do these people get their jobs? A better question is how they keep them??????
I was listening to the radio on the drive to class this AM. As usual, the host was lecturing to us, pontificating on the real, the true answers to everything. I was only half paying attention when I heard "expousing," not "exposing" or "espousing," but "expousing." I perked up and waited to hear if the know-it-all said it again. He did, twice more, again, "expousing." OK, I'm a language snob, but this guy makes his living my using language, speaking correctly it is hoped. So, now he had my attention and stuck his foot in his mouth again, although in his self-righteousness, he wouldn't never realize it or admit it. He ranted on the schools and those who keep insisting the US is a democracy. "We're no such thing!" he adamantly stated. He went on to that claptrap I have heard before, about the US being a republic, not a democracy. What made it worse was his arrogant attitude about it.
Of course the US is a republic. Check out the definition of the word. It can't be argued otherwise. But at the same time, we are also a democracy. What is the definition of "democracy?" It's from two Greek words which translate to "rule by people" or something close to that. What are the first three words of the Constitution?????? The Preamble begins with "We the People......" It doesn't start with "We the States" or anything similar. And it could. The Founders could have written what they wanted it to be. In fact, many of them were leery of "rule by the people" and preferred rule by the States or something other than "...the people." That's why there are institutions like the Electrical College, the election of US Senators by state legislatures (changed with the 17th Amendment), etc.
We can define/describe the US government in many ways, just as an orange can be described by shape, by color, by taste, etc. We have a federal government, with several levels: national, state, and local. We do have a republic. And we do have a democracy. Now, it's not a direct democracy, of course not. We are too big, in population and in area, to have a direct democracy. Instead we have an indirect democracy, also referred to as a republican or representative democracy.
That these guys don't see this and yet then grouse about how schools aren't teaching others is what is particularly grating.
I see an Amherst grad won a Nobel Prize for his work with Drosophila Melanogaster--fruit flies! In one of my science classes there, we did genetic experiments with Drosophila. Well, we were supposed to be learning about mating, counting males/females upon birth. The experiment required us to knock out the fruit flies in their tubes so we could count the males and the females, keeping records, etc. My first fling at it I messed up. I used far too much ether and didn't knock out my flies, but killed them. Oops. Professor Yost, who had to be laughing inside at me, gave me another chance. I willingly took it and was determined not to murder my Drosophila, not this time. So I didn't. In fact, I didn't use enough ether and, before I was done counting them, the fruit flies all woke up and few off into the room. I'm sure Professor Yost was roaring inside, but he was nice enough to tell me just to move on. I guess there are no Nobels in store for me.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Money
I got a big kick out of this AM's newspaper, specifically an op-ed decrying all the money involved in politics. As might be expected of this newspaper, the targets of the spending spree were the Republicans. And that well, might be so. I do not identify as a Republican. But I'll have to re-read the column. It seems I missed any mention of Democrat Debbie Stabenow's war chest of millions of dollars, stored up for the 2018 campaign and election. Yeah,I must have missed any such mention.
Speaking of money in politics, here's a novel idea. Well, it's not novel; I have broached it before. There are still many cries against the Supremes decision in the Citizens United case. I am of two minds about it. One, I don't like limiting spending based on what government rules. Two, I'll believe a corporation is a person when one is sent to the electric chair. But that's all for another time. Maybe this would solve the problem of overspending. Why don't voters discover what candidate has raised the most money and then vote for the other guy? If both of the major candidates have raised nearly equal amounts, vote for a third party candidate. A few such successful messages might get the attention of those running for office.
Surely our election system is insanity personified. Why do our campaigns last months, years even? That must be a big reason why we spend obscene amounts on politics, in effect, establishing a "pay-to-play" system. How democratic is that? I wonder if it is constitutional to limit campaigns to weeks, maybe five or six or them. I'm not a big fan of doing something just because "other countries do it," but other countries do limit campaigns. What candidate cannot get his or her message out in five or six weeks? If he or she can't, then that should be a reason not to vote for him or her.
Talk about insanity...... Over the past few weeks, I have seen a number of articles on how to improve schools. Every single one of them came from an education-establishment writer. Now, how crazy is that? We turn for solutions to the very people who created the education mess in the first place! I'm sure nobody will try this approach. Decades ago, the US educational system was the envy of the entire world (well, outside of the commie world). Sometime, in the late '60s or early '70s, we lost our edge, our top position. We fell and, according to many of the claims, fell fast. Often, the US ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in the area of quality education. (I'm just citing what many claim.) Why don't we go back, year-by-year, and discover the first indications of failing. See what we did before and after, that is what worked well and what later didn't work so well. Then we can return to what really worked.
I know, I know...... "But students learn differently today!" I would argue maybe so, that the "difference" lies in that many of them don't learn much, if anything at all. Perhaps a return to what actually taught students should be explored.
Consider, too, that many of our institutions of higher learning remain the best in the world. Why don't we see what they do and adapt their practices to other levels?
I've never seen these proposals anywhere at any time. I heard some guy this weekend blaming "those teachers' unions" for the decline in education. If anyone still believes the teachers' unions are responsible for the demise of education they are either delusional or very ignorant. One article I read decried the calls for "More Money!" for schools. He cited evidence that the US spends more money on education than other countries, yet doesn't get much bang for the buck. Here's something to consider. I don't deny that we spend "more money," but I do want to ask this: If that's so, why are our teachers paid so little? (I recognize that many teachers aren't worth what little they get, but that's no reason at all to penalize the good ones with salaries that are insulting!)
I understand, but don't understand, the public perceptions and even animosity toward teachers. Recently, one guy noted that he made "$150,000 a year quite a few times." I noted that's more than two times what I ever was paid in a year for teaching. He wasn't deterred, "But I was working 50 and 60 hours a week......" First, I know no good teachers who worked only 40 hours a week. (When he was in high school, I once asked one of my sons what he wanted to do when he grew up. There was a lot of hesitation, so I offered, "What about teaching?" I barely got it out of my mouth when he spit out, "No!" I asked why not and he replied, "You work too much.") Second, apparently this guy isn't so hot at math. Even at 60 hours a week, he worked 50% more than I did, but was paid 200% or more than I was. In part thanks to the society/culture we have created where making more and more money to buy more and more things is the goal, what college student is going to spend all that money and time (including that wasted year of student teaching) to come earn $35,000 a year to start, with hopes of topping out in the $50,000 or $60,000 range? I suppose it's one thing that teachers in, say, Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills can't afford houses in their school districts, but young teachers here struggle to buy homes where they teach.
So, I guess a legitimate question to ask is where all this money is going?????? I know and, as I have told several local school board members, until they address my concerns I will refuse to vote for any millage increases or bond proposals--and I will urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. (I guess the board members/schools are lucky I don't have many friends.)
Baseball. I am very glad to see Justin Verlander doing so well in Houston. I hope he get to the World Series and wins a ring! I'm also sad to see Brad Ausmus let go. I know a lot of folks don't like him, think he was a bad manager, etc. I'm not one of them. He didn't give himself a lousy bullpen every year. He didn't give himself outfielders who can't catch. He didn't sign flop after flop the past few seasons. (Well, not every signee was a flop!) I disagreed with him at times, but never thought he didn't know the game; we just have different philosophies on how best to play the game. But, like so, much, everybody knows everything. After all, everyone played little league......
Speaking of money in politics, here's a novel idea. Well, it's not novel; I have broached it before. There are still many cries against the Supremes decision in the Citizens United case. I am of two minds about it. One, I don't like limiting spending based on what government rules. Two, I'll believe a corporation is a person when one is sent to the electric chair. But that's all for another time. Maybe this would solve the problem of overspending. Why don't voters discover what candidate has raised the most money and then vote for the other guy? If both of the major candidates have raised nearly equal amounts, vote for a third party candidate. A few such successful messages might get the attention of those running for office.
Surely our election system is insanity personified. Why do our campaigns last months, years even? That must be a big reason why we spend obscene amounts on politics, in effect, establishing a "pay-to-play" system. How democratic is that? I wonder if it is constitutional to limit campaigns to weeks, maybe five or six or them. I'm not a big fan of doing something just because "other countries do it," but other countries do limit campaigns. What candidate cannot get his or her message out in five or six weeks? If he or she can't, then that should be a reason not to vote for him or her.
Talk about insanity...... Over the past few weeks, I have seen a number of articles on how to improve schools. Every single one of them came from an education-establishment writer. Now, how crazy is that? We turn for solutions to the very people who created the education mess in the first place! I'm sure nobody will try this approach. Decades ago, the US educational system was the envy of the entire world (well, outside of the commie world). Sometime, in the late '60s or early '70s, we lost our edge, our top position. We fell and, according to many of the claims, fell fast. Often, the US ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in the area of quality education. (I'm just citing what many claim.) Why don't we go back, year-by-year, and discover the first indications of failing. See what we did before and after, that is what worked well and what later didn't work so well. Then we can return to what really worked.
I know, I know...... "But students learn differently today!" I would argue maybe so, that the "difference" lies in that many of them don't learn much, if anything at all. Perhaps a return to what actually taught students should be explored.
Consider, too, that many of our institutions of higher learning remain the best in the world. Why don't we see what they do and adapt their practices to other levels?
I've never seen these proposals anywhere at any time. I heard some guy this weekend blaming "those teachers' unions" for the decline in education. If anyone still believes the teachers' unions are responsible for the demise of education they are either delusional or very ignorant. One article I read decried the calls for "More Money!" for schools. He cited evidence that the US spends more money on education than other countries, yet doesn't get much bang for the buck. Here's something to consider. I don't deny that we spend "more money," but I do want to ask this: If that's so, why are our teachers paid so little? (I recognize that many teachers aren't worth what little they get, but that's no reason at all to penalize the good ones with salaries that are insulting!)
I understand, but don't understand, the public perceptions and even animosity toward teachers. Recently, one guy noted that he made "$150,000 a year quite a few times." I noted that's more than two times what I ever was paid in a year for teaching. He wasn't deterred, "But I was working 50 and 60 hours a week......" First, I know no good teachers who worked only 40 hours a week. (When he was in high school, I once asked one of my sons what he wanted to do when he grew up. There was a lot of hesitation, so I offered, "What about teaching?" I barely got it out of my mouth when he spit out, "No!" I asked why not and he replied, "You work too much.") Second, apparently this guy isn't so hot at math. Even at 60 hours a week, he worked 50% more than I did, but was paid 200% or more than I was. In part thanks to the society/culture we have created where making more and more money to buy more and more things is the goal, what college student is going to spend all that money and time (including that wasted year of student teaching) to come earn $35,000 a year to start, with hopes of topping out in the $50,000 or $60,000 range? I suppose it's one thing that teachers in, say, Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills can't afford houses in their school districts, but young teachers here struggle to buy homes where they teach.
So, I guess a legitimate question to ask is where all this money is going?????? I know and, as I have told several local school board members, until they address my concerns I will refuse to vote for any millage increases or bond proposals--and I will urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. (I guess the board members/schools are lucky I don't have many friends.)
Baseball. I am very glad to see Justin Verlander doing so well in Houston. I hope he get to the World Series and wins a ring! I'm also sad to see Brad Ausmus let go. I know a lot of folks don't like him, think he was a bad manager, etc. I'm not one of them. He didn't give himself a lousy bullpen every year. He didn't give himself outfielders who can't catch. He didn't sign flop after flop the past few seasons. (Well, not every signee was a flop!) I disagreed with him at times, but never thought he didn't know the game; we just have different philosophies on how best to play the game. But, like so, much, everybody knows everything. After all, everyone played little league......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
