Crazy, crazy Michigan! Two weeks ago today we had single-digit temperatures and last Sunday the temps reached the mid-50s. Today, it's snow, if only half an inch or an inch. But I surely prefer the snow and current temperatures to the rain we've been having.
So, the state wants to close two or three dozen "underperforming" schools in Detroit? Just last fall, the Detroit Public Schools were turned back over to the newly elected school board. The state, though, still wants to close the schools. The "underperforming" occurred, not under the Detroit School Board's leadership, but, you guessed it, that of the state. And a Free Press editorial calls for the state to fix the schools. What has the state been doing for five years? It certainly wasn't taking care of the water in Flint.
And hundreds of families have faced bankruptcy when a state agency accused them of unemployment fraud. It appears the accusations were in error. Many people lost tax refunds, personal property, etc., not to mention having their lives made much more difficult.
Gee, can we get just a little more government to control our lives?
Nolan Finley had a good editorial in today's Det News. He echoed (Hey, who reads this blog anyway?) what I've been saying for a couple of months now. The Establishment, esp the LameStream Media, "still don't get Trump voters." I have discovered this time after time. It's so easy to characterize them as "racists," "bigots," and "stupid people." I didn't vote for Trump (as regulars know), but recognized that, as Finley notes, "Trump voters have been furious and frightened for years." Nobody paid attention to them, certainly not the arrogant elitists of the Establishment, the politicians and media. Remember when Hillary Clinton called the Trump supporters "deplorable?" I know she tried to back away from it, but I think she really meant what she said. She also reflected the views of a lot her supporters, the arrogant elitists.
People were angry at a Presidential administration and entire political party that laughed at them, made fun of their values and morals. No matter how unethical and immoral the Establishment, including Obama, not the common folks, it claimed "moral high ground." And think of the irony of that, of the corruption and dishonesty that have been exposed, the broken promises that were never intended to be kept in the first place--by both parties!
Two things come to mind when thinking about the Establishment's failure to comprehend what happened. Hey, maybe it's willful blindness. A couple of terms back a local man ran for the US House of Representatives. Yes, the fact that he was on the ballot in the first place was a miscue. But he was continually referred to as "a reindeer farmer" who "played Santa Claus at Christmas." What? Are those things bad, really "deplorable?" Are they worse than, say, a career politician who has continually fed at the public trough, coming away with more money than you will ever earn in our entire lifetimes? And think of the arrogance of these name-callers. Maybe I'm not very smart, but I still don't see what's so bad about one being "a reindeer farmer" who "played Santa Clause at Christmas." The man may or may not have been qualified for the House, but how he was characterized by the Establishment is symptomatic of Trump voters' anger and frustration.
The other I noted a couple of weeks ago, when a caller to a local radio show responded to requests for view of Trump's Inaugural Address. He said he "choked up" at the speech, only to be met with chuckles from the radio hosts. Then he blurted, probably before anyone could hang up on him!, "Hey, I don't have a cushy job making the big bucks like you two......" Yep. In a nutshell, those two episodes explain the Trump voters and the failure of the arrogant elitists to understand what happened, not only in November, but the entire nomination and election campaigns.
I wonder if they will ever "get it."
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Higher Ed, Part 2
I am concerned with "critical thinking." It's the phrase I dislike; it's an education-type term. I approve of the concept. I think our college courses at Amherst, "Problems of Inquiry," introductory courses of sorts, addressed this. They were interesting, very much so, but unlike anything I had experienced in college. And they weren't easy! For instance, Problems of Inquiry Social Studies (PISS?), studied totalitarianism of the 20th Century by comparing Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia/Soviet Union. We had a dozen books (I remember counting.) and a number of other monographs to read. Examination of the topic was made through the eyes of history, economics (a Marxian view), psychology, political science, etc. There were a lot of papers, 3 to 5 pages, one due each Monday. Mondays were lecture days, while Wednesdays and Fridays were seminars of about 10 students.
I wonder, though, if such courses, which actually engage in critical thinking fit in with the "safe spaces" today's campuses promote. These courses, which challenge one's thoughts, might be out of place. Maybe; maybe not.
Another thing that is troublesome, too, is the dearth of apparent concern over knowledge. It seems facts, actually knowing things, are out of style. But how is one to thing critically without knowing something? I would think that knowledge is the basis for this. Or are we still in "feelings" mode?
Let's return to "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Back in another lifetime, I had very few things on my classroom bulletin boards. I tended to just take down and put up the same stuff from year to year. One was a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Another was an ad, a fake one that looked very real, for "Vegie Pops," popsicles that had flavors such as "peas," "onions," "carrots," etc. Yummy. Maybe my favorite was the one asking "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
I have always been somewhat disturbed that more and more, a college education is seen mostly as a step to getting a job, a quality job that pays a lot. Even students, as well as the universities themselves, see the primary goal of education as procuring "good-paying jobs." I would think, though, that a quality education would prepare a student for any job. Some of my college mates exemplified this. One majored in fine arts, his senior thesis a sculpting. He went to medical school. Another psychology major ended up managing literally millions of dollars of properties for various companies over his career. A math major became a college athletic director. And so on. There's nothing wrong, nothing at all, at preparing a student for the marketplace of careers. I don't think a basic, but strong, liberal arts curriculum precludes that; no, it doesn't. Yet so many, esp the corporate-types and even many politicians, decry such degrees in liberal arts as wasteful, having little value in that they don't prepare students for jobs. (That's one reason the corporate-types have favored the Common Core. They have the schools do their work of training employees. And, of course, a multi-billion dollar industry to supply Common Core curricula has emerged.)
In the same vein as viewing students as customers/clients, schools compete for customers/clients, er, students. No doubt they have always done this. But prior to recent decades, the selling points were strong academic standards, different programs, etc. (I won't stray into the business of college sports.) Such competition might still be based, at least somewhat, on academic excellence. But listen to or read the advertising--yes, colleges are now spending money on ads. I suppose these are all in the name of survival. Students find schools touting their dorms or food. But mostly I find grating the ease of requirements. I still am not sold on the increasing number of online courses. I've had one who teaches them tell me, when I asked about their rigor in comparison to traditional courses, "Oh, lord no!" Maybe; maybe not. Does even a cursory examination of this not result in the relative ease of online courses? Don't some ads even show students still in their pajamas going to class, in their rooms on the computers? And what about the boasts of colleges that students can satisfy four-year degree requirements in one year? How rigorous can those programs be?
This leads us full circle. Is a college degree today the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago? The costs of a college degree, I think it's a relevant question.
I wonder, though, if such courses, which actually engage in critical thinking fit in with the "safe spaces" today's campuses promote. These courses, which challenge one's thoughts, might be out of place. Maybe; maybe not.
Another thing that is troublesome, too, is the dearth of apparent concern over knowledge. It seems facts, actually knowing things, are out of style. But how is one to thing critically without knowing something? I would think that knowledge is the basis for this. Or are we still in "feelings" mode?
Let's return to "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Back in another lifetime, I had very few things on my classroom bulletin boards. I tended to just take down and put up the same stuff from year to year. One was a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Another was an ad, a fake one that looked very real, for "Vegie Pops," popsicles that had flavors such as "peas," "onions," "carrots," etc. Yummy. Maybe my favorite was the one asking "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
I have always been somewhat disturbed that more and more, a college education is seen mostly as a step to getting a job, a quality job that pays a lot. Even students, as well as the universities themselves, see the primary goal of education as procuring "good-paying jobs." I would think, though, that a quality education would prepare a student for any job. Some of my college mates exemplified this. One majored in fine arts, his senior thesis a sculpting. He went to medical school. Another psychology major ended up managing literally millions of dollars of properties for various companies over his career. A math major became a college athletic director. And so on. There's nothing wrong, nothing at all, at preparing a student for the marketplace of careers. I don't think a basic, but strong, liberal arts curriculum precludes that; no, it doesn't. Yet so many, esp the corporate-types and even many politicians, decry such degrees in liberal arts as wasteful, having little value in that they don't prepare students for jobs. (That's one reason the corporate-types have favored the Common Core. They have the schools do their work of training employees. And, of course, a multi-billion dollar industry to supply Common Core curricula has emerged.)
In the same vein as viewing students as customers/clients, schools compete for customers/clients, er, students. No doubt they have always done this. But prior to recent decades, the selling points were strong academic standards, different programs, etc. (I won't stray into the business of college sports.) Such competition might still be based, at least somewhat, on academic excellence. But listen to or read the advertising--yes, colleges are now spending money on ads. I suppose these are all in the name of survival. Students find schools touting their dorms or food. But mostly I find grating the ease of requirements. I still am not sold on the increasing number of online courses. I've had one who teaches them tell me, when I asked about their rigor in comparison to traditional courses, "Oh, lord no!" Maybe; maybe not. Does even a cursory examination of this not result in the relative ease of online courses? Don't some ads even show students still in their pajamas going to class, in their rooms on the computers? And what about the boasts of colleges that students can satisfy four-year degree requirements in one year? How rigorous can those programs be?
This leads us full circle. Is a college degree today the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago? The costs of a college degree, I think it's a relevant question.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Higher Education
Before the main topic, I heard these two on the radio this week. One was an ad for one of those new drugs on the market. It concluded with a warning about "possible side effects." And it added, "If you experience death or severe pain immediately call......" I'm waiting to hear that commercial again to see if I heard it right.
On a local radio show, a guest was berating the governor for his role in the Flint water crisis. The host, a toady for the governor, tried to defend him. Boy, the guest just then ripped the host to shreds, using the governor's own admissions for ammunition. It was great to hear!
A couple of weeks ago I read an article that said the lifetime income gap between workers with high school diplomas and college degrees is the widest it's ever been. I'm somewhat surprised. The article came at about the same time I was finished a book on higher education, which the book claims is "academically adrift."
I've wondered, but have no concrete proof, that a college education of today is the equivalent of a high school education--and the diplomas and degrees associated with each--of four or five decades ago. I suspect that it is..
I really don't think my classes are burdensome with the quantity of work. The reading isn't particularly heavy. I give no term-paper length assignments. In my 15 week courses, I usually assign 9 or 10 papers, one every week and a half or so (accounting for the first and last weeks). Some aren't very difficult, e.g., the maps. I know I probably shouldn't assign maps, but I am concerned about how little students know about places, where they are, how their geographical relationships are relevant and causative, and so on. Most of the assignments are about three-quarters of a page to a page in length. So I make no claims of burden when it comes to the amount of work. I do think, though, that I demand quite a bit of quality. In my usual classes of 30 to 37, rarely are there more than a handful, 3 or 4, of As. Usually, my individual class GPAs are a few ticks under 2.0/C. I demand proper spelling, the use of complete sentences and correct punctuation, etc. and grade for those, although they do not carry the most weight; content does. With all of that in mind......
For the most part, today, I don't think most colleges demand much of students; that is, they don't have to work very hard to get good grades. I'd guess most students don't prioritize their academic effort. Studying, at least hard and a lot, is not the primary focus of students. Oh, I make no "back when I was a kid" claims here. I, no doubt, was the same. Other things, at least to me, be they my athletics or social life, were more important than my studies. The difference, I think, was that my professors made me give the effort I wasn't likely to give on my own. They pushed me. The results might not have shown up at Amherst for me, but they certainly did later on at the three graduate universities I attended.
Many (most?) institutions confer degrees based upon credentials that do not reflect substantive scholarly or, at least, academic achievement. That is, they award "fake degrees."
In that light, this book holds that fewer and fewer professors are devoted to teaching. They don't see their primary job as teaching. Research and publication are often more in focus. And schools, which profess to emphasize teaching (and, therefore, learning), speak out of both sides of their mouths as they pressure professors to do research, to "publish or perish." They emphasize those to gain tenure, to move up the teaching ladders (from lecturer to assistant professor to associate professor to full professor). More and better teaching is not often rewarded; success or failure in other areas of academia is met with significant rewards or penalties.
At a certain point all teachers are compensated equally--except for what is published or comes from research. Hmmm...... Good teaching and bad teaching is rewarded the same. The lazy teacher gets the same pay as the one who, well, is still revising and reorganizing classes after 46 years. I know, I know. How do we identify "good" from "bad?" Sometimes it's easy, very easy. Other times it's quite difficult.
There are some professors who are quoted in this book. One said, "I have learned that people who call the shots," administrators, "do not value teaching." Should these people, then, be the ones to determine "good" from "bad" teachers, hence, pay? Another added, citing "messages...about being a teacher? It's really settling for a lesser thing." It is college, which I suspect is true for many others, What is the saying, "Those who can do; those who can't teach." (No, I don't believe it. I'm just citing an old adage.) "Learning is peripheral." Yet the degrees are still awarded.
For years I have enjoyed this, "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Of course it isn't. And I don't presume students, like me once, will buy into that--at least not yet. The goal, I think, is for professors to emphasize that, over and over, in their courses, in their assignments, etc., so that some day this will "click." Students, long past their student days, will finally "get it."
It is disturbing to read that some universities at least partially base tenure and other upward movement on student satisfaction surveys. At some schools, those are the primary measure. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this would inevitably lead: entertainment vs. actual teaching (although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, not necessarily), lighter work loads, and better grades. What better ways to make students happy? And, of course, this is a way to determine "good" and "bad" teachers, hence more or less compensation. Another major problem with that is that it sometimes takes a while, years in fact, for education "to click," for students "to get it." I know it did for me, about 5 or 6 years. I suspect I am not alone or unique in that.
Much of that stems from the fact that universities, no matter their public claims, view students as, well, consumers or clients. If the consumers aren't happy......
As to the commitment of colleges and universities to teaching and, therefore, learning, this book notes that in the year 2000, almost half (47%) were not faculty, that is, not involved in direct teaching. And according to many studies the number of administrators at colleges has increased by about one-third and other "support personnel" by half. I see that frequently, with announcements of the creation of a new this administrator or that administrator. And, let it be known, it's not just the colleges and universities that are doing this. It has permeated all of education.
To be continued......maybe.
On a local radio show, a guest was berating the governor for his role in the Flint water crisis. The host, a toady for the governor, tried to defend him. Boy, the guest just then ripped the host to shreds, using the governor's own admissions for ammunition. It was great to hear!
A couple of weeks ago I read an article that said the lifetime income gap between workers with high school diplomas and college degrees is the widest it's ever been. I'm somewhat surprised. The article came at about the same time I was finished a book on higher education, which the book claims is "academically adrift."
I've wondered, but have no concrete proof, that a college education of today is the equivalent of a high school education--and the diplomas and degrees associated with each--of four or five decades ago. I suspect that it is..
I really don't think my classes are burdensome with the quantity of work. The reading isn't particularly heavy. I give no term-paper length assignments. In my 15 week courses, I usually assign 9 or 10 papers, one every week and a half or so (accounting for the first and last weeks). Some aren't very difficult, e.g., the maps. I know I probably shouldn't assign maps, but I am concerned about how little students know about places, where they are, how their geographical relationships are relevant and causative, and so on. Most of the assignments are about three-quarters of a page to a page in length. So I make no claims of burden when it comes to the amount of work. I do think, though, that I demand quite a bit of quality. In my usual classes of 30 to 37, rarely are there more than a handful, 3 or 4, of As. Usually, my individual class GPAs are a few ticks under 2.0/C. I demand proper spelling, the use of complete sentences and correct punctuation, etc. and grade for those, although they do not carry the most weight; content does. With all of that in mind......
For the most part, today, I don't think most colleges demand much of students; that is, they don't have to work very hard to get good grades. I'd guess most students don't prioritize their academic effort. Studying, at least hard and a lot, is not the primary focus of students. Oh, I make no "back when I was a kid" claims here. I, no doubt, was the same. Other things, at least to me, be they my athletics or social life, were more important than my studies. The difference, I think, was that my professors made me give the effort I wasn't likely to give on my own. They pushed me. The results might not have shown up at Amherst for me, but they certainly did later on at the three graduate universities I attended.
Many (most?) institutions confer degrees based upon credentials that do not reflect substantive scholarly or, at least, academic achievement. That is, they award "fake degrees."
In that light, this book holds that fewer and fewer professors are devoted to teaching. They don't see their primary job as teaching. Research and publication are often more in focus. And schools, which profess to emphasize teaching (and, therefore, learning), speak out of both sides of their mouths as they pressure professors to do research, to "publish or perish." They emphasize those to gain tenure, to move up the teaching ladders (from lecturer to assistant professor to associate professor to full professor). More and better teaching is not often rewarded; success or failure in other areas of academia is met with significant rewards or penalties.
At a certain point all teachers are compensated equally--except for what is published or comes from research. Hmmm...... Good teaching and bad teaching is rewarded the same. The lazy teacher gets the same pay as the one who, well, is still revising and reorganizing classes after 46 years. I know, I know. How do we identify "good" from "bad?" Sometimes it's easy, very easy. Other times it's quite difficult.
There are some professors who are quoted in this book. One said, "I have learned that people who call the shots," administrators, "do not value teaching." Should these people, then, be the ones to determine "good" from "bad" teachers, hence, pay? Another added, citing "messages...about being a teacher? It's really settling for a lesser thing." It is college, which I suspect is true for many others, What is the saying, "Those who can do; those who can't teach." (No, I don't believe it. I'm just citing an old adage.) "Learning is peripheral." Yet the degrees are still awarded.
For years I have enjoyed this, "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Of course it isn't. And I don't presume students, like me once, will buy into that--at least not yet. The goal, I think, is for professors to emphasize that, over and over, in their courses, in their assignments, etc., so that some day this will "click." Students, long past their student days, will finally "get it."
It is disturbing to read that some universities at least partially base tenure and other upward movement on student satisfaction surveys. At some schools, those are the primary measure. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this would inevitably lead: entertainment vs. actual teaching (although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, not necessarily), lighter work loads, and better grades. What better ways to make students happy? And, of course, this is a way to determine "good" and "bad" teachers, hence more or less compensation. Another major problem with that is that it sometimes takes a while, years in fact, for education "to click," for students "to get it." I know it did for me, about 5 or 6 years. I suspect I am not alone or unique in that.
Much of that stems from the fact that universities, no matter their public claims, view students as, well, consumers or clients. If the consumers aren't happy......
As to the commitment of colleges and universities to teaching and, therefore, learning, this book notes that in the year 2000, almost half (47%) were not faculty, that is, not involved in direct teaching. And according to many studies the number of administrators at colleges has increased by about one-third and other "support personnel" by half. I see that frequently, with announcements of the creation of a new this administrator or that administrator. And, let it be known, it's not just the colleges and universities that are doing this. It has permeated all of education.
To be continued......maybe.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Hmmm......
I always have a lot of questions. I don't always or even often have the answers.
Why, for instance, out on my run this AM, from out of nowhere, did the name "Doug Finsterwald" come into mind? It was followed by "Cary Middlecoff." These guys were golfers back in the '50s. I wasn't a golf fan then (nor now), but I knew and apparently still know the names. Now, why did these names crop up? When I thought "Gene Littler," I forced myself to stop thinking......
I went to donate blood and what's happened far more often than not in the past 5 or 6 years occurred again. I walked in and said, "I'm here to donate." "Do you have an appointment?" "No, I don't." (I don't make appointments because of my hectic schedule; I often don't know what I'm doing--in more ways that one!) "Then I'm sorry," the worker politely said, "but we can't take you today." I looked around, at the empty chairs (The drive was open for another hour or so.) in front of me. Nobody was waiting. I saw five or six empty cots/beds, nobody donating on them. Hmmm...... "OK, thanks," and I walked out and returned home.
As I noted, this has happened frequently, but just over the past five or six years. I understand if others have appointments and there are waiting lines, but almost always there are no people in front of me, no people waiting, and there are empty cots. It's not just one place, but four or five places I've tried. I know the workers are volunteers and are only doing what they've been told to do, but who is telling them that?
What is particularly upsetting is that I get at least five or six phone calls a week asking me to donate because "There's a critical shortage of your blood type." I must get an equal number of e-mails, too, urging me to donate "to save up to three lives with one pint of blood." Hmmm...... Perhaps the "shortage" isn't so "critical?" I have addressed this to phone callers, who again are likely volunteers who can't really answer my questions or effectuate change, and in e-mails to the Red Cross. Still, no change in this policy.
Why are some people left out of the Baseball Hall of Fame? One sportswriter this AM opined on the possible nominees for 2017, the newly eligible names and those holdovers from recent years who've not yet gained enough votes. I can't really argue one way or the other on many of the players, since I don't know much about them. But, esp considering some who've made it in recent years, it's a mystery as to who others haven't. I am thinking of Alan Trammell, Ted Simmons, and Thurman Munson as definites. Strong candidates, but maybe not locks include Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris. Can it really be, as some have suggested, that where players play has an influence? Does playing in a major market play a role? If so, it shouldn't. Don't take my word for these players' merit; as Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up."
Why, for instance, out on my run this AM, from out of nowhere, did the name "Doug Finsterwald" come into mind? It was followed by "Cary Middlecoff." These guys were golfers back in the '50s. I wasn't a golf fan then (nor now), but I knew and apparently still know the names. Now, why did these names crop up? When I thought "Gene Littler," I forced myself to stop thinking......
I went to donate blood and what's happened far more often than not in the past 5 or 6 years occurred again. I walked in and said, "I'm here to donate." "Do you have an appointment?" "No, I don't." (I don't make appointments because of my hectic schedule; I often don't know what I'm doing--in more ways that one!) "Then I'm sorry," the worker politely said, "but we can't take you today." I looked around, at the empty chairs (The drive was open for another hour or so.) in front of me. Nobody was waiting. I saw five or six empty cots/beds, nobody donating on them. Hmmm...... "OK, thanks," and I walked out and returned home.
As I noted, this has happened frequently, but just over the past five or six years. I understand if others have appointments and there are waiting lines, but almost always there are no people in front of me, no people waiting, and there are empty cots. It's not just one place, but four or five places I've tried. I know the workers are volunteers and are only doing what they've been told to do, but who is telling them that?
What is particularly upsetting is that I get at least five or six phone calls a week asking me to donate because "There's a critical shortage of your blood type." I must get an equal number of e-mails, too, urging me to donate "to save up to three lives with one pint of blood." Hmmm...... Perhaps the "shortage" isn't so "critical?" I have addressed this to phone callers, who again are likely volunteers who can't really answer my questions or effectuate change, and in e-mails to the Red Cross. Still, no change in this policy.
Why are some people left out of the Baseball Hall of Fame? One sportswriter this AM opined on the possible nominees for 2017, the newly eligible names and those holdovers from recent years who've not yet gained enough votes. I can't really argue one way or the other on many of the players, since I don't know much about them. But, esp considering some who've made it in recent years, it's a mystery as to who others haven't. I am thinking of Alan Trammell, Ted Simmons, and Thurman Munson as definites. Strong candidates, but maybe not locks include Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris. Can it really be, as some have suggested, that where players play has an influence? Does playing in a major market play a role? If so, it shouldn't. Don't take my word for these players' merit; as Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up."
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Post Inauguration Thoughts
I still think it's a bad dream, a nightmare, but I will gladly say I'm wrong if I'm wrong on the next four years. It would be great if I have to make such an admission.
It made my night to hear a radio show caller. The host was asking folks to call in for their comments and impressions of the Inaugural Address. After the obligatory rants and raves of the anti-Trumpers, a guy called in saying, "I got choked up." The host and his sidekick laughed, the snickering evident. I wonder if they laughed at that national newsman who said of Obama's election, "I felt a trickle going up and down my leg?" Why do I doubt that? Anyway, this caller wasn't done and continued, after hearing the chuckles. "Hey, not everybody has a cushy job making the big bucks like you guys do. Some of us have to work for a living. You are the reason we voted for Trump." Well, the host and sidekick backed off a little, trying to worm their way out of it by asking for "specifics" of the address that "choked up" the caller. But the damage was done.
The arrogant elitists don't get it, don't get it at all. I'll repeat what I said months ago. It wasn't about Trump, although it is now. It was about anyone who wasn't the Establishment, anyone who looked like he/she would no longer ignore Middle America.
An op-ed in today's Detroit News confirmed that. (I sometimes wonder who reads this blog; the number is a whole lot more than I figure.) The editors talked about Trump delivering his speech "to the bars, barns and bowling alleys of America, speaking to the people who have felt so long ignored." Later, they added, "...the discontent and disconnect felt by the country's middle and their weariness with the elitists who control their fate yet have no clue about how they live." (Now I'm convinced a lot more folks read my blog!) "They may not understand what's he's [Trump] is talking about on the coasts, but they sure do in the flyover country."
Trump himself said, "Today we are transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the people." To which the editors wrote, "A few of those on the steps (the elitists on the steps of the Capitol) seemed to be looking around for the guillotines." Now that's a great line--as good as that radio caller.
And both the newspaper and online sources cited the "protests" and "demonstrations." There were photographs, esp a vivid one of a burning limousine. First, let's call these people what they are, felons. Then let's identify them, round them up (more than 200 already arrested; let's not let them off of the hook), prosecute them, and both lock them up and make them pay for the damage they've inflicted. The President probably should stick his nose into what is local law enforcement (although that didn't seem to stop the Obama Administration), perhaps he could apply a little executive pressure......
Hundreds of thousands, mostly women, are marching in protest in DC today. I understand. Trump's language has been caddy/catty. I think there can be serious questions about his treatment of women, although I have no direct proof, only questions. I understand the protests/demonstrations. (Keep them nonviolent!) Yet I still wonder in matters like this where similar protests were before, say, while Bill Clinton was President. Selective anger and protest leads to diminished credibility.
I'm still behind on my ideas on higher education, which I had planned to post a couple of days ago. I think I am too busy for a retired guy! I'll try to get to those later next week.
It made my night to hear a radio show caller. The host was asking folks to call in for their comments and impressions of the Inaugural Address. After the obligatory rants and raves of the anti-Trumpers, a guy called in saying, "I got choked up." The host and his sidekick laughed, the snickering evident. I wonder if they laughed at that national newsman who said of Obama's election, "I felt a trickle going up and down my leg?" Why do I doubt that? Anyway, this caller wasn't done and continued, after hearing the chuckles. "Hey, not everybody has a cushy job making the big bucks like you guys do. Some of us have to work for a living. You are the reason we voted for Trump." Well, the host and sidekick backed off a little, trying to worm their way out of it by asking for "specifics" of the address that "choked up" the caller. But the damage was done.
The arrogant elitists don't get it, don't get it at all. I'll repeat what I said months ago. It wasn't about Trump, although it is now. It was about anyone who wasn't the Establishment, anyone who looked like he/she would no longer ignore Middle America.
An op-ed in today's Detroit News confirmed that. (I sometimes wonder who reads this blog; the number is a whole lot more than I figure.) The editors talked about Trump delivering his speech "to the bars, barns and bowling alleys of America, speaking to the people who have felt so long ignored." Later, they added, "...the discontent and disconnect felt by the country's middle and their weariness with the elitists who control their fate yet have no clue about how they live." (Now I'm convinced a lot more folks read my blog!) "They may not understand what's he's [Trump] is talking about on the coasts, but they sure do in the flyover country."
Trump himself said, "Today we are transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the people." To which the editors wrote, "A few of those on the steps (the elitists on the steps of the Capitol) seemed to be looking around for the guillotines." Now that's a great line--as good as that radio caller.
And both the newspaper and online sources cited the "protests" and "demonstrations." There were photographs, esp a vivid one of a burning limousine. First, let's call these people what they are, felons. Then let's identify them, round them up (more than 200 already arrested; let's not let them off of the hook), prosecute them, and both lock them up and make them pay for the damage they've inflicted. The President probably should stick his nose into what is local law enforcement (although that didn't seem to stop the Obama Administration), perhaps he could apply a little executive pressure......
Hundreds of thousands, mostly women, are marching in protest in DC today. I understand. Trump's language has been caddy/catty. I think there can be serious questions about his treatment of women, although I have no direct proof, only questions. I understand the protests/demonstrations. (Keep them nonviolent!) Yet I still wonder in matters like this where similar protests were before, say, while Bill Clinton was President. Selective anger and protest leads to diminished credibility.
I'm still behind on my ideas on higher education, which I had planned to post a couple of days ago. I think I am too busy for a retired guy! I'll try to get to those later next week.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Inauguration Day
How is it correctly pronounced, "inaugyooration" or "inaugeration?" I've heard both and even one reporter, in the same report, say "inaugerate" and the "unaugyooration." I think I say "inaugyooration," but the more I think about it, self-consciously, I am not so sure. Hmmm......
Regardless, I have some thoughts on this Jan 20. I wonder how many folks know that the original Inauguration Day was Mar 4, so designated by the Constitution. It was only changed to Jan 20 with the passage of the 20th Amendment, ratified in '33. George Washington didn't take the oath of office until the end of April, getting a late start to NYC (then the capital) and also being held up on the way there by towns wanting to honor him with festivities. In 1849, Mar 4 fell on a Sun, so the pious Zachary Taylor wasn't sworn in until Mon, to keep the Sabbath holy. Outgoing Pres James Polk's term expired at noon on the 4th; that has led to some folks calling David Rice Atchison, the Sen Pres Pro-Tem at the time, a President for 24 hours. Actually, I think his term as US Sen had also expired and wasn't sworn in until Mar 5, too. Most historians and Atchison himself pooh-poohed the idea. A couple of other Presidents were sworn in on the 5th, at least publicly, but had taken the oath in private ceremonies on the 4th. The first President to be sworn in on Jan 20 was FDR. It was so cold that day the President sat on a hot water bottle (or maybe it an electric heating pad?) to keep his bejabbers warm! The night before JFK's Inauguration Day, DC was blanketed by a heavy show, 11-12 inches of the white stuff. Of course, Washington drivers are notorious for not being able to handle any snow, but almost a foot of it? Many of them left their cars, stranded, on Pennsylvania Ave, the parade route, and had to be towed before festivities began. The army had to be called out to help clear the route in time.
The first President to be sworn in in Washington, DC was Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Actually, it was nip and tuck whether he'd make it in time. The Electoral vote was a tie between TJ and Aaron Burr, the designated VP candidate of the Republican Party. But he refused to concede the Presidency to Jefferson (and I'm not sure that was Constitutionally viable anyway) and the US House was called upon to select the President. With so many Federalists (the opposition party) disliking Jefferson, only on the 36th ballot, with some helpful persuasion of the anti-Jefferson Alexander Hamilton, did the House finally settle on TJ over Burr.
Having Donald Trump as President of the US is, to me, an embarrassment. Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I'd also be embarrassed to have had Clinton as President. I was embarrassed to have her husband, after "L'Affaire Lewinsky," be the President. For that matter if I were a resident of Minnesota, I'd have the same embarrassed feeling to have Al Franken as one of my two US Senators.
I'm not embarrassed that W. Bush or Obama were Presidents. I was very disappointed in both and think both of them were bad Presidents, but that's different from being embarrassed.
I heard a great term for the Inaugural festivity boycotters today; "morons" they were called. I think, without much doubt, the boycotters are trying to draw attention to themselves more than anything. Oh, they might not admit it, but I think it's "Hey, look how cool I am! I'm boycotting the Trump Inauguration." Maybe not, but I think so. Can you imagine the names any boycotters would have been called in '12? Note I didn't include '08, for a reason. Obama, like Trump should be now, should have been given a chance. He was given that chance and turned into a lousy President, doing a lot of harmful things. So, why not a boycott to protest Obamacare, the disastrous foreign policy, the divisive politics he fostered? Nope, you know the names......
As much as I dislike Trump, a man much wiser than I told me something the other day. He noted some folks were hoping Trump would fail, hoping that the country would be harmed because of Trump's policies. "Why in the world," he said (or something like that), "would anyone wish the country to get worse?" If Trump can make the country better (I'll give him his chance, but I have strong doubts; I'm very willing to admit I was wrong if......), who wouldn't want that? Well, I think we all know some folks who wouldn't.
Happy Inauguration Day! Let's hope for the very best......
Regardless, I have some thoughts on this Jan 20. I wonder how many folks know that the original Inauguration Day was Mar 4, so designated by the Constitution. It was only changed to Jan 20 with the passage of the 20th Amendment, ratified in '33. George Washington didn't take the oath of office until the end of April, getting a late start to NYC (then the capital) and also being held up on the way there by towns wanting to honor him with festivities. In 1849, Mar 4 fell on a Sun, so the pious Zachary Taylor wasn't sworn in until Mon, to keep the Sabbath holy. Outgoing Pres James Polk's term expired at noon on the 4th; that has led to some folks calling David Rice Atchison, the Sen Pres Pro-Tem at the time, a President for 24 hours. Actually, I think his term as US Sen had also expired and wasn't sworn in until Mar 5, too. Most historians and Atchison himself pooh-poohed the idea. A couple of other Presidents were sworn in on the 5th, at least publicly, but had taken the oath in private ceremonies on the 4th. The first President to be sworn in on Jan 20 was FDR. It was so cold that day the President sat on a hot water bottle (or maybe it an electric heating pad?) to keep his bejabbers warm! The night before JFK's Inauguration Day, DC was blanketed by a heavy show, 11-12 inches of the white stuff. Of course, Washington drivers are notorious for not being able to handle any snow, but almost a foot of it? Many of them left their cars, stranded, on Pennsylvania Ave, the parade route, and had to be towed before festivities began. The army had to be called out to help clear the route in time.
The first President to be sworn in in Washington, DC was Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Actually, it was nip and tuck whether he'd make it in time. The Electoral vote was a tie between TJ and Aaron Burr, the designated VP candidate of the Republican Party. But he refused to concede the Presidency to Jefferson (and I'm not sure that was Constitutionally viable anyway) and the US House was called upon to select the President. With so many Federalists (the opposition party) disliking Jefferson, only on the 36th ballot, with some helpful persuasion of the anti-Jefferson Alexander Hamilton, did the House finally settle on TJ over Burr.
Having Donald Trump as President of the US is, to me, an embarrassment. Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I'd also be embarrassed to have had Clinton as President. I was embarrassed to have her husband, after "L'Affaire Lewinsky," be the President. For that matter if I were a resident of Minnesota, I'd have the same embarrassed feeling to have Al Franken as one of my two US Senators.
I'm not embarrassed that W. Bush or Obama were Presidents. I was very disappointed in both and think both of them were bad Presidents, but that's different from being embarrassed.
I heard a great term for the Inaugural festivity boycotters today; "morons" they were called. I think, without much doubt, the boycotters are trying to draw attention to themselves more than anything. Oh, they might not admit it, but I think it's "Hey, look how cool I am! I'm boycotting the Trump Inauguration." Maybe not, but I think so. Can you imagine the names any boycotters would have been called in '12? Note I didn't include '08, for a reason. Obama, like Trump should be now, should have been given a chance. He was given that chance and turned into a lousy President, doing a lot of harmful things. So, why not a boycott to protest Obamacare, the disastrous foreign policy, the divisive politics he fostered? Nope, you know the names......
As much as I dislike Trump, a man much wiser than I told me something the other day. He noted some folks were hoping Trump would fail, hoping that the country would be harmed because of Trump's policies. "Why in the world," he said (or something like that), "would anyone wish the country to get worse?" If Trump can make the country better (I'll give him his chance, but I have strong doubts; I'm very willing to admit I was wrong if......), who wouldn't want that? Well, I think we all know some folks who wouldn't.
Happy Inauguration Day! Let's hope for the very best......
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Health Care
I know I've ranted and raved about the ridiculous increases we've had to pay in our health insurance since Obamacare was enacted. (I refuse to call it "The Affordable......because it isn't affordable any longer for millions of Americans.) Besides the increased premiums, our coverage is worse. We had a new plan that my primary physician wouldn't accept. We are considering consulting a specialist, but are finding a similar problem, a pulmonologist within a reasonable distance who is either approved or will accept our second new plan. Both plans we've had to get since Obamacare went into effect also have increased, far higher, co-pays and deductibles. I guess I'd be willing to say we aren't playing the game properly, but from all the reports, there are millions of others who are in the same boat--far higher premiums with worse coverage.
One thing those who support Obamacare cite is "pre-existing conditions." In fact, many who favor replacing Obamacare are determined to take care of "pre-existing conditions." I guess I have a question about that. What is a "pre-existing condition?" Is it discovering a disease or ailment before purchasing insurance and then buy it to expect the insurance company to pay for it? (Insurance companies should be prohibited from canceling policyholders who contract such diseases and ailments; if premiums have been paid, regardless of the expensive or extensive treatment, insurers should have to pay.) If someone has been too needy, really needed to purchase insurance before contracting a illness or condition, that's likely a special situation that requires special treatment. I'm not heartless.
But I don't think that's what most people mean when they think or say "pre-existing conditions." At least that's not what I hear when I talk to people. It strikes me as illogical to force insurers to cover "pre-existing conditions" if the afflicted just didn't want to purchase insurance. Why, then, can't we use this "pre-existing conditions" for other types of insurance? Why should I buy automobile insurance? Shouldn't I be able to wait if I have an accident and they buy it to have the accident covered? Perhaps a bit eerier, what about life insurance? Why shouldn't Karen wait until I die before purchasing a life insurance policy on me? Wouldn't my death be, in that instance, "pre-existing?"
And, I suppose, we could extend that to other things in life. I guessing Las Vegas wouldn't like it if bets made after a game still had to be paid. Vis a Vis such a late bet, the game itself is "pre-existing," right? OK, maybe that's off the wall, but......
If that's all wrong, I'd like it to be explained to me.
Pretty cool, I thought, as I read the headline in the newspaper the other day. Social Security pay-outs will increase in 2017. Great! Hooray! Then came the downer. For most SS recipients, the increases will be offset by increases in Medicare payments. In fact, many SS recipients will see smaller checks due to the Medicare increases. Boy, they always get us, don't they?
I'm not in favor of Betsy DeVos as the head of the Dept of Ed. There are a lot of reasons and I think I've noted some. I don't like her blanket criticism of teachers' unions, her desire to get rid of them. It smacks of elitism and an ignorance of the role of teachers' unions. (Of course I recognize the bad things that unions have done, such as protecting lousy teachers. Rather, they don't protect lousy teachders; they merely make it harder to get rid of them.) Her support for the Common Core is also troublesome. That she prefers allowing states to enact CC rather than making it a national imperative doesn't absolve her from supporting something detrimental to education. Maybe her support is to be expected, in that much of CC is to benefit, not education, but businesses. I hope someone on the Senate Committee on Education, at her confirmation hearings, asks her if her "schools of choice," "voucher system," and "charter schools" include all students, including poor and disruptive students, those with learning disabilities, etc. Maybe they do, but I won't believe it until I hear it and, if needed, see it.
But my original point is this. Some have argued that she deserves confirmation by the Senate merely because Trump has appointed/nominated her and he has the right to appoint/nominate Cabinet members. I'd like to see how many who take that position opposed, say, Loretta Lynch, when nominated as Attorney-General by Obama. Would they say, "Oh, that was different," as if that's a valid argument/rationale? Even more significant, if Trump has the right, the US Senate also has a right, to confirm or not confirm/reject his appointees/nominees.
One thing those who support Obamacare cite is "pre-existing conditions." In fact, many who favor replacing Obamacare are determined to take care of "pre-existing conditions." I guess I have a question about that. What is a "pre-existing condition?" Is it discovering a disease or ailment before purchasing insurance and then buy it to expect the insurance company to pay for it? (Insurance companies should be prohibited from canceling policyholders who contract such diseases and ailments; if premiums have been paid, regardless of the expensive or extensive treatment, insurers should have to pay.) If someone has been too needy, really needed to purchase insurance before contracting a illness or condition, that's likely a special situation that requires special treatment. I'm not heartless.
But I don't think that's what most people mean when they think or say "pre-existing conditions." At least that's not what I hear when I talk to people. It strikes me as illogical to force insurers to cover "pre-existing conditions" if the afflicted just didn't want to purchase insurance. Why, then, can't we use this "pre-existing conditions" for other types of insurance? Why should I buy automobile insurance? Shouldn't I be able to wait if I have an accident and they buy it to have the accident covered? Perhaps a bit eerier, what about life insurance? Why shouldn't Karen wait until I die before purchasing a life insurance policy on me? Wouldn't my death be, in that instance, "pre-existing?"
And, I suppose, we could extend that to other things in life. I guessing Las Vegas wouldn't like it if bets made after a game still had to be paid. Vis a Vis such a late bet, the game itself is "pre-existing," right? OK, maybe that's off the wall, but......
If that's all wrong, I'd like it to be explained to me.
Pretty cool, I thought, as I read the headline in the newspaper the other day. Social Security pay-outs will increase in 2017. Great! Hooray! Then came the downer. For most SS recipients, the increases will be offset by increases in Medicare payments. In fact, many SS recipients will see smaller checks due to the Medicare increases. Boy, they always get us, don't they?
I'm not in favor of Betsy DeVos as the head of the Dept of Ed. There are a lot of reasons and I think I've noted some. I don't like her blanket criticism of teachers' unions, her desire to get rid of them. It smacks of elitism and an ignorance of the role of teachers' unions. (Of course I recognize the bad things that unions have done, such as protecting lousy teachers. Rather, they don't protect lousy teachders; they merely make it harder to get rid of them.) Her support for the Common Core is also troublesome. That she prefers allowing states to enact CC rather than making it a national imperative doesn't absolve her from supporting something detrimental to education. Maybe her support is to be expected, in that much of CC is to benefit, not education, but businesses. I hope someone on the Senate Committee on Education, at her confirmation hearings, asks her if her "schools of choice," "voucher system," and "charter schools" include all students, including poor and disruptive students, those with learning disabilities, etc. Maybe they do, but I won't believe it until I hear it and, if needed, see it.
But my original point is this. Some have argued that she deserves confirmation by the Senate merely because Trump has appointed/nominated her and he has the right to appoint/nominate Cabinet members. I'd like to see how many who take that position opposed, say, Loretta Lynch, when nominated as Attorney-General by Obama. Would they say, "Oh, that was different," as if that's a valid argument/rationale? Even more significant, if Trump has the right, the US Senate also has a right, to confirm or not confirm/reject his appointees/nominees.
Snow Days?
Today is a "snow day," at least for the kids. Michael rec'd a text around 5 AM and our call and e-mail came shortly afterward. Ashley and Cody seem happy while Michael went back to sleep. Karen merely rolled over when I went in to turn off the alarm clock and said, "No school today. Hooray." And she too is still sleeping.
Right after that, we lost our Comcast service--no boob tube, no phone, no computer/Internet. Not a big deal. I made Ashley her favorite pancakes, while the Codester had his bowl of Cinnamon Life, without cow juice.
Toward 7 AM I began to get ready for my classes. I was dressed and the figured I'd better check to see if the college was also canceled. With no phone or Internet service, I had Ashley call and, whew, to my relief, it was closed "until noon." Yes, I am disappointed. I must be the only one in history to be disappointed when my classes are canceled. What relieved me was not driving up there (about 45 minutes) only to find the cancellation. That would not have been good.
Now I'll have to cram the first three days of classes into two. They are among my favorite lessons, too.
Call me stupid or something similar, but I wonder if I still have to go up there since my last class runs from 11:00 to 12:25. Do I have to go for the last 25 minutes? I have a couple of e-mails in for that. Gee, I hope they don't laugh at me...... Karen already did.
It is icy out there, very icy. Walking on our walkway and driveway is very, very treacherous. I opted to use the grass, all ice-covered as it is. But my newspaper isn't here yet. I don't blame my delivery lady. It's nasty out there.
It's good, too, that I had planned a rest day this AM; that is, I wasn't going to run in part to help get the kids ready for school. I have a tentative date for running at 4:30, though. We'll see if the ice melts by then; temperatures are expected in the mid-40s.
Right after that, we lost our Comcast service--no boob tube, no phone, no computer/Internet. Not a big deal. I made Ashley her favorite pancakes, while the Codester had his bowl of Cinnamon Life, without cow juice.
Toward 7 AM I began to get ready for my classes. I was dressed and the figured I'd better check to see if the college was also canceled. With no phone or Internet service, I had Ashley call and, whew, to my relief, it was closed "until noon." Yes, I am disappointed. I must be the only one in history to be disappointed when my classes are canceled. What relieved me was not driving up there (about 45 minutes) only to find the cancellation. That would not have been good.
Now I'll have to cram the first three days of classes into two. They are among my favorite lessons, too.
Call me stupid or something similar, but I wonder if I still have to go up there since my last class runs from 11:00 to 12:25. Do I have to go for the last 25 minutes? I have a couple of e-mails in for that. Gee, I hope they don't laugh at me...... Karen already did.
It is icy out there, very icy. Walking on our walkway and driveway is very, very treacherous. I opted to use the grass, all ice-covered as it is. But my newspaper isn't here yet. I don't blame my delivery lady. It's nasty out there.
It's good, too, that I had planned a rest day this AM; that is, I wasn't going to run in part to help get the kids ready for school. I have a tentative date for running at 4:30, though. We'll see if the ice melts by then; temperatures are expected in the mid-40s.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Sun AM
Whew! The NY Times Sunday puzzle was the toughest one in a while, well, other than last week's when the clues and the puzzle itself didn't match up! In fact, today's might have been as hard as yesterday's Saturday Stumper, which is saying something. The clues that "stump" me most often are those involving recent (the last 30 or 40 years) television, movies, and hippy rock music. I still, though, refuse to do the puzzles in pencil; ink it is!
I admit to being a bit of a language snob. Some might dispute "a bit," though. In the past week I came across these no-nos, at least to me, in print: "grinded out" instead of "ground," "There was calls" instead of "were," "children living their life," instead of "lives," and "...will bare upon..." instead of "bear." OK, I suppose I am a little too much on this (There's another word, "anal," I don't like to use in this context.), but I would like to think that people who make their livings with the printed/written word should know how to use words properly. Maybe I should just get a life??????
Karen was watching some boob tube shows all day yesterday while I was working--reading and writing--in the dining room, really an extension of the living room. I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the show, but did hear, on quite a few occasions, some pretty vivid, shall I call it, language. Let's put it this way: I'd have never used those words at the dinner table when I was a kid or even as an adult, not if my mother was there--or my dad! There were no "f-bombs, " but pretty explicit language, esp for network, not cable, television. Do the producers use such language just because they can, that is, can get away with it without repercussions? Certainly our moral culture has changed and, as regular readers know, in my opinion not for the better. Is it merely that the producers think we can no longer use our imaginations, that we can't figure out a bad hombre wouldn't really use the word "fudge?" Not often, but in discussions in my classes a student will use one of these words. And why shouldn't he/she? They are on television. But I take time to explain I don't want such words used in my class(es). I suppose a few students might roll their eyes at me, but I haven't seen that yet.
The Detroit News had a couple of interesting editorials this AM. Nolan Finley had some good advice for Don Trump, "shut up and lead." Trump must stop all this twitter/tweeter (or whatever it's called) stuff. Who can take such a person seriously? Again, I'm not at all a Trump fan and don't need to rehash my disdain for him (or for Clinton), but if he wants to get things done starting Jan 21, maybe he should grow up a bit and stop acting like a junior high kid.
I also enjoyed the lead editorial. It rightly criticized what some have claimed as Obama' legacy accomplishments. (I suppose they are "accomplishments," just not good ones.) They include, among others, Obamacare, foreign policy, etc. (BTW, I haven't received an answer to my retort to Congressman Levin about the misnomer, "Affordable Care Act." I pointed out how, for millions of Americans, health care is no longer "affordable" or, at the least, premiums have take a far larger chunk out of their disposable incomes. I might also have mentioned--heh heh--higher deductibles and co-pays have made it even less "affordable." Nah, I won't get an answer and don't expect one. In fact, I've never received any reply from the Democrats in DC about the possibility of getting reimbursed for the five or six thousand dollars, that's five or six thousand dollars more, Obamacare has cost me since its implementation.) The News' criticism of foreign policy, Obamacare, etc. is right on the money.
But I was disappointed that, perhaps as a palliative in the final days of his Presidency, the editorial claimed Obama "was a president of high character and his personal conduct was beyond reproach." I guess if we dumb definitions and ethics down enough, we can make such statements. Obama was no Nixon or Lyndon Johnson in those regards, but to make such statements brings question to the legitimacy of the rest. And I suppose it's a matter of preference, but I still don't see (or hear?) that Obama is "a fine talker," an "eloquent" one.
I admit to being a bit of a language snob. Some might dispute "a bit," though. In the past week I came across these no-nos, at least to me, in print: "grinded out" instead of "ground," "There was calls" instead of "were," "children living their life," instead of "lives," and "...will bare upon..." instead of "bear." OK, I suppose I am a little too much on this (There's another word, "anal," I don't like to use in this context.), but I would like to think that people who make their livings with the printed/written word should know how to use words properly. Maybe I should just get a life??????
Karen was watching some boob tube shows all day yesterday while I was working--reading and writing--in the dining room, really an extension of the living room. I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the show, but did hear, on quite a few occasions, some pretty vivid, shall I call it, language. Let's put it this way: I'd have never used those words at the dinner table when I was a kid or even as an adult, not if my mother was there--or my dad! There were no "f-bombs, " but pretty explicit language, esp for network, not cable, television. Do the producers use such language just because they can, that is, can get away with it without repercussions? Certainly our moral culture has changed and, as regular readers know, in my opinion not for the better. Is it merely that the producers think we can no longer use our imaginations, that we can't figure out a bad hombre wouldn't really use the word "fudge?" Not often, but in discussions in my classes a student will use one of these words. And why shouldn't he/she? They are on television. But I take time to explain I don't want such words used in my class(es). I suppose a few students might roll their eyes at me, but I haven't seen that yet.
The Detroit News had a couple of interesting editorials this AM. Nolan Finley had some good advice for Don Trump, "shut up and lead." Trump must stop all this twitter/tweeter (or whatever it's called) stuff. Who can take such a person seriously? Again, I'm not at all a Trump fan and don't need to rehash my disdain for him (or for Clinton), but if he wants to get things done starting Jan 21, maybe he should grow up a bit and stop acting like a junior high kid.
I also enjoyed the lead editorial. It rightly criticized what some have claimed as Obama' legacy accomplishments. (I suppose they are "accomplishments," just not good ones.) They include, among others, Obamacare, foreign policy, etc. (BTW, I haven't received an answer to my retort to Congressman Levin about the misnomer, "Affordable Care Act." I pointed out how, for millions of Americans, health care is no longer "affordable" or, at the least, premiums have take a far larger chunk out of their disposable incomes. I might also have mentioned--heh heh--higher deductibles and co-pays have made it even less "affordable." Nah, I won't get an answer and don't expect one. In fact, I've never received any reply from the Democrats in DC about the possibility of getting reimbursed for the five or six thousand dollars, that's five or six thousand dollars more, Obamacare has cost me since its implementation.) The News' criticism of foreign policy, Obamacare, etc. is right on the money.
But I was disappointed that, perhaps as a palliative in the final days of his Presidency, the editorial claimed Obama "was a president of high character and his personal conduct was beyond reproach." I guess if we dumb definitions and ethics down enough, we can make such statements. Obama was no Nixon or Lyndon Johnson in those regards, but to make such statements brings question to the legitimacy of the rest. And I suppose it's a matter of preference, but I still don't see (or hear?) that Obama is "a fine talker," an "eloquent" one.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
The Inauguration
As Inauguration Day approaches, I am reminded of our great Presidents (Both of them; nah, I'm kidding. I think we've had maybe half a dozen truly great Presidents. If my assessment seems a bit harsh, well, we throw the term "great" around far too often. It takes away from its intent and definition that imply uniqueness and exceptionalism. I would add another half dozen or so who were very good, too, and some who were good. But I don't disparage even average Presidents. Average is a relative term. Compared to the rest of the baseball playing world, how does an average Major Leaguer stack up?!?!?! And of course, we've had some dogs, some really lousy ones. My rankings might be a topic for a later blog.)
Those who know me even in the least know that Abraham Lincoln leads the pack, hands down. If there is anyone who is my history hero, it's Lincoln. Hey, who else do you know who has two Abe Lincoln ties--and wears them? And I have Lincoln socks, tee shirts (more than one), and even a pair of briefs (which is probably more than you care or need to know!). George Washington also merits an incredible amount of respect. I was reminded of the Newburgh Conspiracy, which occurred before he was President, but nearly brought down the United States almost before it was born.
The conspiracy occurred because of soldiers in the Continental Army who threatened a mutiny. The government under the Articles of Confederation, really government of the individual thirteen states, couldn't pay the soldiers, backlogged a year or more. Led by officers, some of Washington's closest aides, the mutiny was a real possibility. The General (note I purposely capitlized "General") was informed of the trouble and addressed his soldiers, mostly battle-hardened officers. After a bit of a speech, a patriotic one, which largely defused the situation, the officers were cowed into silence before their General. Then, continuing, Washington paused to take out a recently procured eyeglasses. Wiping them, he said, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown grey [sic], but almost blind in service to my country." The silence was broken by open sobbing from these officers, the ones who had just defeated the greatest military in the world. A smattering of applause broke out, but only for a short while. When the officers realized what Washington had just said, that was drowned out by a resounding standing ovation.
Washington had just prevented the American Revolution from taking the same road that had been taken by previous revolutions and their generals. Unlike Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, and others in the past, and the Napster in the near future, Washington, with the victorious army at his beck and call, refused to grab power at the expense of the ideals of the Revolution. That was not at all trivial matter.
I've fallen into the same trap as some of my students on final exams. They, when asked what made Washington a great President, cite his role as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, as presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention (which was dead in the water without his presence), etc., things that occurred before he was President. The Newburgh Conspiracy occurred a few years before Washington was President, but his words and actions in the face of the potential mutiny permitted him to become President; that is, without them, there likely would never have been a President since there would have been no Constitution. Also, he exhibited the characteristics here that made him a great President. Besides, nobody is grading this as a final exam!
I know this will be lengthy. But I enjoy writing and sharing ideas. I believe it was the early Renaissance poet Petrarch who wrote, "Nothing weighs less than a pen and nothing gives more pleasure." He was, years later, found dead, sitting at his table, head on parchment, his pen (a feathered quill) in hand.
I've heard that as many as 200,000 women are planning to march, demonstrate at the Inaugural festivities. It's supposed to be protest, a nonviolent one, of Don Trump in hopes that he will take women's rights (?) into account in his Presidency. That's fine and good, I suppose. But what I would really like to know is where a similar march was while Bill Clinton was President. That lack takes a lot of credibility from any women's protests/demonstrations.
Obama really did give Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There might well be a reason, a legitimate one, for it. I just can't think of a single one. Oh, Biden is known for getting along with people, from both parties. But is being friendly a criterion for getting the PMF? I know most people remember VP Dan Quayle mostly because he misspelled "potatoe" and the Lamestream Media jumped all over him for it. (But the Lamestreams pretty much left untouched Obama's "57 states" and "Austrians speak Austrian.") I think, though, I could make a pretty good case he was at least as good a VP as Biden. This PMF for Biden reeks of, as a number of sources have opined, "a participation trophy." "Everybody is a winner!" "Nobody loses!" What to expect from a President who received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing, well, nothing? (I wonder, with the military actions ordered by Obama, his use of drones, etc., if the Nobel committee would like to take its award back. But probably not, since it didn't seem to mind that Algore's prize was shown to be a folly, too.)
There are lots of problems with such "participation trophies." Awards should be earned, not given for just showing up. Winning an award, esp if not deserved, gives the undeserving person an aura, an importance, a sense that the person is somebody worth listening to, worth following. After all, he/she has the trophy. Equally, if not more, some people really deserve such awards; they have earned them. When such honors are given to those not deserving, that denigrates the achievements that lead to more deserving recipients.
Those who know me even in the least know that Abraham Lincoln leads the pack, hands down. If there is anyone who is my history hero, it's Lincoln. Hey, who else do you know who has two Abe Lincoln ties--and wears them? And I have Lincoln socks, tee shirts (more than one), and even a pair of briefs (which is probably more than you care or need to know!). George Washington also merits an incredible amount of respect. I was reminded of the Newburgh Conspiracy, which occurred before he was President, but nearly brought down the United States almost before it was born.
The conspiracy occurred because of soldiers in the Continental Army who threatened a mutiny. The government under the Articles of Confederation, really government of the individual thirteen states, couldn't pay the soldiers, backlogged a year or more. Led by officers, some of Washington's closest aides, the mutiny was a real possibility. The General (note I purposely capitlized "General") was informed of the trouble and addressed his soldiers, mostly battle-hardened officers. After a bit of a speech, a patriotic one, which largely defused the situation, the officers were cowed into silence before their General. Then, continuing, Washington paused to take out a recently procured eyeglasses. Wiping them, he said, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown grey [sic], but almost blind in service to my country." The silence was broken by open sobbing from these officers, the ones who had just defeated the greatest military in the world. A smattering of applause broke out, but only for a short while. When the officers realized what Washington had just said, that was drowned out by a resounding standing ovation.
Washington had just prevented the American Revolution from taking the same road that had been taken by previous revolutions and their generals. Unlike Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, and others in the past, and the Napster in the near future, Washington, with the victorious army at his beck and call, refused to grab power at the expense of the ideals of the Revolution. That was not at all trivial matter.
I've fallen into the same trap as some of my students on final exams. They, when asked what made Washington a great President, cite his role as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, as presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention (which was dead in the water without his presence), etc., things that occurred before he was President. The Newburgh Conspiracy occurred a few years before Washington was President, but his words and actions in the face of the potential mutiny permitted him to become President; that is, without them, there likely would never have been a President since there would have been no Constitution. Also, he exhibited the characteristics here that made him a great President. Besides, nobody is grading this as a final exam!
I know this will be lengthy. But I enjoy writing and sharing ideas. I believe it was the early Renaissance poet Petrarch who wrote, "Nothing weighs less than a pen and nothing gives more pleasure." He was, years later, found dead, sitting at his table, head on parchment, his pen (a feathered quill) in hand.
I've heard that as many as 200,000 women are planning to march, demonstrate at the Inaugural festivities. It's supposed to be protest, a nonviolent one, of Don Trump in hopes that he will take women's rights (?) into account in his Presidency. That's fine and good, I suppose. But what I would really like to know is where a similar march was while Bill Clinton was President. That lack takes a lot of credibility from any women's protests/demonstrations.
Obama really did give Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There might well be a reason, a legitimate one, for it. I just can't think of a single one. Oh, Biden is known for getting along with people, from both parties. But is being friendly a criterion for getting the PMF? I know most people remember VP Dan Quayle mostly because he misspelled "potatoe" and the Lamestream Media jumped all over him for it. (But the Lamestreams pretty much left untouched Obama's "57 states" and "Austrians speak Austrian.") I think, though, I could make a pretty good case he was at least as good a VP as Biden. This PMF for Biden reeks of, as a number of sources have opined, "a participation trophy." "Everybody is a winner!" "Nobody loses!" What to expect from a President who received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing, well, nothing? (I wonder, with the military actions ordered by Obama, his use of drones, etc., if the Nobel committee would like to take its award back. But probably not, since it didn't seem to mind that Algore's prize was shown to be a folly, too.)
There are lots of problems with such "participation trophies." Awards should be earned, not given for just showing up. Winning an award, esp if not deserved, gives the undeserving person an aura, an importance, a sense that the person is somebody worth listening to, worth following. After all, he/she has the trophy. Equally, if not more, some people really deserve such awards; they have earned them. When such honors are given to those not deserving, that denigrates the achievements that lead to more deserving recipients.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
The Founders
First, tonight is a night fit for neither man nor beast. Over night into this AM, we had 5-6" of snow, followed by drizzle or outright rain all day. The streets are flooded. Stepping out of the car in a parking lot, my shoes were covered in cold water. Now the wind is whipping up, gusts predicted up to 40 or 50 mph. If it gets cold tonight, the roads will be terrible. No school?
We hear a lot about "original intent," what the Founders of the US would do with issues popping up today. I'm not a big believer in a wishy-washy reading of the Constitution to gather its meaning. The idea of a flexible or living document has some inherent problems. Yet, compare life in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with life in the 20th and 21st. I'm not sure we can make a comparison, not a valid one. Life is so very, very different.
How can we possibly know or, at least, suggest "the framer's intent" on current issues? Of course, there are some fundamental principles upon which we must not waver. My admiration, as I've noted here many times, for most of the Founders is great. Other than Lincoln, Washington comes as close to a historical idol as I have. The brilliance and foresight, the courage and learning/knowledge of these men was practically beyond compare, Let me repeat from Arthur Schlesinger, Sr, they comprised "the most remarkable generation of public men in the history of the United States or perhaps any other nation." Yet, do we risk deciding today's issues, at least specific ones, ones unique to the 21st Century, based upon what was experienced two hundred or more years ago?
These men lived in an era that was before automobiles, planes, atomic bombs, heart replacement surgery, computers, cell phones, television and radio. Women, blacks, and others were, in effect, not only non-citizens, but not people. They, with the possible exceptions of the minds of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, lived in a world far different from our own, one they couldn't possibly understand or predict.
If they were alive now, that would be a different story. They would have experience with the modern world. With their knowledge and brilliance of thought, we'd be fools not to consider what they proposed. Can we translate 18th Century knowledge, so long ago, to 21st Century problems? No doubt we can build on the foundation(s) they have given us. We can admire them and what they accomplished, something that nobody had done before in thousands of years. We can try to emulate their thinking, the care they put into it. And we must realize they do have a lot to teach us, if we would only learn.
We hear a lot about "original intent," what the Founders of the US would do with issues popping up today. I'm not a big believer in a wishy-washy reading of the Constitution to gather its meaning. The idea of a flexible or living document has some inherent problems. Yet, compare life in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with life in the 20th and 21st. I'm not sure we can make a comparison, not a valid one. Life is so very, very different.
How can we possibly know or, at least, suggest "the framer's intent" on current issues? Of course, there are some fundamental principles upon which we must not waver. My admiration, as I've noted here many times, for most of the Founders is great. Other than Lincoln, Washington comes as close to a historical idol as I have. The brilliance and foresight, the courage and learning/knowledge of these men was practically beyond compare, Let me repeat from Arthur Schlesinger, Sr, they comprised "the most remarkable generation of public men in the history of the United States or perhaps any other nation." Yet, do we risk deciding today's issues, at least specific ones, ones unique to the 21st Century, based upon what was experienced two hundred or more years ago?
These men lived in an era that was before automobiles, planes, atomic bombs, heart replacement surgery, computers, cell phones, television and radio. Women, blacks, and others were, in effect, not only non-citizens, but not people. They, with the possible exceptions of the minds of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, lived in a world far different from our own, one they couldn't possibly understand or predict.
If they were alive now, that would be a different story. They would have experience with the modern world. With their knowledge and brilliance of thought, we'd be fools not to consider what they proposed. Can we translate 18th Century knowledge, so long ago, to 21st Century problems? No doubt we can build on the foundation(s) they have given us. We can admire them and what they accomplished, something that nobody had done before in thousands of years. We can try to emulate their thinking, the care they put into it. And we must realize they do have a lot to teach us, if we would only learn.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
January 7, 1949
I really did check the date on this AM's newspaper, for the day and the year. Yep, it's January 7, 2017. And I am, in some ways, in disbelief.
Can it really be 2017? Where did the '70s and '80s and......go? Can it really by my 68th birthday? Where did 67 and 66 and......go?
I've had occasion the past few days to reminisce and share (I don't think I'm a greedy person, but used in this context I don't really care for this word. But I'll use it anyway.) some old memories. Some were good memories and some not-so-good, but all were valuable. Not everything worthwhile is fun.
It's hard to believe that I graduated from high school almost exactly, to the week, from high school 50 years ago and began college then, too. I think I was lucky to go to Fordson when I did. It had some dogs for teachers, but there were some really good ones, too. Being a teacher myself for 46 years has given me some insight on this. Messrs. Podorsek, Conte, Olson, and Nustad were great in math, really good. In chemistry, Messrs. Brooks and even Fitzpatrick were, too. And there were others, too, and I don't mean to slight them.
I told this story within the past week of Mr. Osterberg. His son is Iggy Pop of the Stooges and some documentary (?) coming out prompted the recollection. Mr. O was an English teacher, a real bear. He intimidated a lot of students, not an easy thing to do at FHS. In senior English, he was required to teach grammar, which he apparently hated. So, he assigned every assignment in the grammar book for homework, literally hours a night, and completed the grammar section in about 6 weeks. The rest of the time we had to do papers and make oral presentations on them. And, he sat at the back of the room waiting until we finished; then he ripped on us. I'm sure he couldn't do it today; he'd violate our "safe spaces." But we or at least I learned a lot from him, although he intimidated me, of course. But the story...... Like baseball teams everywhere, we took pre-game practice, the coach hitting balls to the outfield to throw to each base before the infield practice. (Of course, they can't do that today, not even in the little leagues. It might mess up the field. Do they know what sort of fields we played on back then? I remember going down to block a ball at Atkinson Field in Detroit, coming up to notice a gash on my knee. I had knelt on a piece of glass in the OF. It wasn't the only time. Today, though, the fields have to be pristine.) I was, heck, my teammates and friends who came to watch were stunned when Mr. Osterberg picked up a bat and would hit me fly balls while the others were finishing infield practice! He really did. And he'd often be joined by other teachers, including Mr. Brooks and Mr. Musgrove, my auto shop teacher. (Yep, at FHS the guys had to take shop classes. Lucky for me we did. At Amherst I earned more than one pizza by changing the oil on buddies' cars. One time, I gained the use of a car for a week--for the one or two dates I had in four years!--by fixing an exhaust system, the muffler and tailpipe.) Very many good memories emanate from FHS. Like so many things, I sometimes wish I had done some things differently. But it was a great time and I learned a great deal.
Of course, I've related how much Amherst has influenced my life, too. My professors were really good, at least most of them. I feel lucky to have had the chance to learn from them. Again, I wish I had done some things differently, like realized then what a great opportunity I had, but I'll bet that's the case with many folks, esp folks of my generation. I had a wonderful relationship with some of them and with some of the coaches, too. I cherish the contacts I still have with some of them and only regret I didn't keep up with those contacts with more of my professors. And my experiences in athletics, well, those were wonderful, too. It's funny, as one of my good buddies and I often note, most often it's not the wins and losses or the individual accomplishments, but the funny stories that matter most. Yep......
It's hard to believe, too, that it was 55 and 60 and more years ago I grew up in Dearborn, having moved from Detroit (on E. Philadelphia St, down the block from Blessed Sacrament Cathedral). I think Dearborn was a great place to have been a kid back then. No, we didn't know about segregation and Mayor Hubbard; we were kids. In fact, when we played, it didn't matter what color anyone was. A few times each summer we'd take our bikes into Detroit, it was right next door, looking for kids to play ball, sometimes for Cokes, us against them. We'd play who we found, white, blacks; it didn't matter. If we won, the Cokes tasted the same. When I got older and we traveled to the national tournament, one of my roommates was a black kid from Pershing. I didn't see him as "a black kid from Pershing," but as a teammate who was a great guy. What do we do to the innocence of youth?
But Dearborn was wonderful for a kid who liked to do things. Oh, it was the city, but within a 5- or 10-minute bike ride we could be at Devil's Woods, part of the 40 acres Henry Ford's dad left him. Much of the 40 acres was cultivated with soybeans, a favorite of the eccentric HF. But there were woods, "Devil's Woods" we called them, with rabbits and other critters. Even the city park, Ford Woods, for my earliest years, had a good section that was still, well, real woods. They were ripe for city kids to explore, make forts, hide, chase (but never catch) rabbits, etc. Later the city opted to clear them out, leaving some trees, for more picnic area. We played ball, anything round, without adult supervision. We followed the seasons, football, touch in the streets and tackle at the park or school field, in the fall; basketball in the winter, in the open schools or on the playground often unable to feel our fingers from the cold; and couldn't wait for baseball in the spring and summer. Of course, hockey found its way in the winter, too, on the ponds frozen by the city at Ford Woods or on Chase Road next to the Dearborn Pizzeria bocce ball courts. Boy, baseball was king. If we didn't have enough players, it was pitcher's hand out and we could only hit to the right or left side of 2nd base or we'd be out. We played home run derby at the idle ice rinks. And there was strikeout, where we'd make a square on the side of a building (usually one of the schools) and pitch and bat, one on one. William Ford School was ideal, with a fence far, but not too far. Over the fence, between two big trees, was a home run, which would bounce into Dearborn Pizzeria's parking lot. Off the fence on the fly was a triple and one bounce a double. Outs were balls caught by the pitcher or, of course, "strikeouts." During the school year, there was always a neighborhood school open for activities. Boy, the Ford Motor Company money (taxes!) were great to have! There was basketball in the gym and swimming in the pool. The cafeteria was split for board games or even dancing. Two nights it was at Maples, two others at Lowery, the next......
2017 and 68. Who'd a thunk it?
Can it really be 2017? Where did the '70s and '80s and......go? Can it really by my 68th birthday? Where did 67 and 66 and......go?
I've had occasion the past few days to reminisce and share (I don't think I'm a greedy person, but used in this context I don't really care for this word. But I'll use it anyway.) some old memories. Some were good memories and some not-so-good, but all were valuable. Not everything worthwhile is fun.
It's hard to believe that I graduated from high school almost exactly, to the week, from high school 50 years ago and began college then, too. I think I was lucky to go to Fordson when I did. It had some dogs for teachers, but there were some really good ones, too. Being a teacher myself for 46 years has given me some insight on this. Messrs. Podorsek, Conte, Olson, and Nustad were great in math, really good. In chemistry, Messrs. Brooks and even Fitzpatrick were, too. And there were others, too, and I don't mean to slight them.
I told this story within the past week of Mr. Osterberg. His son is Iggy Pop of the Stooges and some documentary (?) coming out prompted the recollection. Mr. O was an English teacher, a real bear. He intimidated a lot of students, not an easy thing to do at FHS. In senior English, he was required to teach grammar, which he apparently hated. So, he assigned every assignment in the grammar book for homework, literally hours a night, and completed the grammar section in about 6 weeks. The rest of the time we had to do papers and make oral presentations on them. And, he sat at the back of the room waiting until we finished; then he ripped on us. I'm sure he couldn't do it today; he'd violate our "safe spaces." But we or at least I learned a lot from him, although he intimidated me, of course. But the story...... Like baseball teams everywhere, we took pre-game practice, the coach hitting balls to the outfield to throw to each base before the infield practice. (Of course, they can't do that today, not even in the little leagues. It might mess up the field. Do they know what sort of fields we played on back then? I remember going down to block a ball at Atkinson Field in Detroit, coming up to notice a gash on my knee. I had knelt on a piece of glass in the OF. It wasn't the only time. Today, though, the fields have to be pristine.) I was, heck, my teammates and friends who came to watch were stunned when Mr. Osterberg picked up a bat and would hit me fly balls while the others were finishing infield practice! He really did. And he'd often be joined by other teachers, including Mr. Brooks and Mr. Musgrove, my auto shop teacher. (Yep, at FHS the guys had to take shop classes. Lucky for me we did. At Amherst I earned more than one pizza by changing the oil on buddies' cars. One time, I gained the use of a car for a week--for the one or two dates I had in four years!--by fixing an exhaust system, the muffler and tailpipe.) Very many good memories emanate from FHS. Like so many things, I sometimes wish I had done some things differently. But it was a great time and I learned a great deal.
Of course, I've related how much Amherst has influenced my life, too. My professors were really good, at least most of them. I feel lucky to have had the chance to learn from them. Again, I wish I had done some things differently, like realized then what a great opportunity I had, but I'll bet that's the case with many folks, esp folks of my generation. I had a wonderful relationship with some of them and with some of the coaches, too. I cherish the contacts I still have with some of them and only regret I didn't keep up with those contacts with more of my professors. And my experiences in athletics, well, those were wonderful, too. It's funny, as one of my good buddies and I often note, most often it's not the wins and losses or the individual accomplishments, but the funny stories that matter most. Yep......
It's hard to believe, too, that it was 55 and 60 and more years ago I grew up in Dearborn, having moved from Detroit (on E. Philadelphia St, down the block from Blessed Sacrament Cathedral). I think Dearborn was a great place to have been a kid back then. No, we didn't know about segregation and Mayor Hubbard; we were kids. In fact, when we played, it didn't matter what color anyone was. A few times each summer we'd take our bikes into Detroit, it was right next door, looking for kids to play ball, sometimes for Cokes, us against them. We'd play who we found, white, blacks; it didn't matter. If we won, the Cokes tasted the same. When I got older and we traveled to the national tournament, one of my roommates was a black kid from Pershing. I didn't see him as "a black kid from Pershing," but as a teammate who was a great guy. What do we do to the innocence of youth?
But Dearborn was wonderful for a kid who liked to do things. Oh, it was the city, but within a 5- or 10-minute bike ride we could be at Devil's Woods, part of the 40 acres Henry Ford's dad left him. Much of the 40 acres was cultivated with soybeans, a favorite of the eccentric HF. But there were woods, "Devil's Woods" we called them, with rabbits and other critters. Even the city park, Ford Woods, for my earliest years, had a good section that was still, well, real woods. They were ripe for city kids to explore, make forts, hide, chase (but never catch) rabbits, etc. Later the city opted to clear them out, leaving some trees, for more picnic area. We played ball, anything round, without adult supervision. We followed the seasons, football, touch in the streets and tackle at the park or school field, in the fall; basketball in the winter, in the open schools or on the playground often unable to feel our fingers from the cold; and couldn't wait for baseball in the spring and summer. Of course, hockey found its way in the winter, too, on the ponds frozen by the city at Ford Woods or on Chase Road next to the Dearborn Pizzeria bocce ball courts. Boy, baseball was king. If we didn't have enough players, it was pitcher's hand out and we could only hit to the right or left side of 2nd base or we'd be out. We played home run derby at the idle ice rinks. And there was strikeout, where we'd make a square on the side of a building (usually one of the schools) and pitch and bat, one on one. William Ford School was ideal, with a fence far, but not too far. Over the fence, between two big trees, was a home run, which would bounce into Dearborn Pizzeria's parking lot. Off the fence on the fly was a triple and one bounce a double. Outs were balls caught by the pitcher or, of course, "strikeouts." During the school year, there was always a neighborhood school open for activities. Boy, the Ford Motor Company money (taxes!) were great to have! There was basketball in the gym and swimming in the pool. The cafeteria was split for board games or even dancing. Two nights it was at Maples, two others at Lowery, the next......
2017 and 68. Who'd a thunk it?
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Sometimes...
...I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits. That is what today feels like. I don't know how to respond to some of the things I've read and heard, but not read, today.
Is it true four blacks from Chicago kidnapped a "special needs" man, tied him up, and tortured him, all the while spewing anti-Trump epithets and recording it on Face Book? There was nothing about it in my newspaper this AM. I heard it on the radio and found some things online. It's a heinous crime. Now, is it a "hate crime," too? I am not a fan of "hate crimes" or, rather, prosecution of crimes as such. The Chicago police have not identified it as one, taking a "wait-and-see" stance. I think that's a smart thing to do, even if the evidence at hand strongly suggests "hate crime." What is more revealing and disconcerting is the little I've heard about it. There was a clip on the radio of some CNN analyst telling us not to jump to conclusions. Hey, wait a minute! That's all we do or, at least, all a lot of people do. Didn't the President and his DOJ "jump to conclusions," long before facts were in in quite a few instances? Ferguson? Trayvon Martin? Henry Louis Gates? The list is pretty substantial. Why can we "jump to conclusions" some times, but "wait and see" other times?
Speaking of the President, or rather, one who wrote about him, an op-ed piece today seemed to be completely out of touch with reality. It claimed, "...Obama has run an administration of uncommon integrity." Who is this author? I suppose some folks believe this. Those targeted by Obama's IRS, DOJ, NSA, FBI, etc. might hesitate, at least a little. Does "uncommon integrity" include blatant lies? "You can keep your health insurance and it won't cost you a dime more." Someone as brilliant as Obama couldn't have really believed this, could he? That would make, well, less than "brilliant." So, then, isn't it a lie? And we could keep going......
While I'm at it, let's get on Trump, too. I'm not a big fan of his appointments so far. Someone, in response to my thoughts on that, "There's a good Establishment and a bad Establishment." I suppose that's right. But how to tell the difference? Let's pick on his choice for Sec of Ed. If Trump vowed to "drain the swamp," this is a funny way to do it. OK, she's not Washington Establishment, but can anyone argue she isn't "Establishment?" She's spent a fortune, a whole lot more than most of you and certainly I will make in our/my lifetime(s) advocating a special interest in education, one that a majority of Americans oppose, that is, charter schools. Now, you or others might favor "school choice," "vouchers," and even charter schools. Hey, I am on the fence about some of them. I didn't send one of my kids to the school he was "supposed to" attend--and I'm glad I didn't; we "chose" his school. I'm still doing that, too. But the charter school bill in Michigan, for one, has allowed public funds to go to, well, almost for-profit schools whose record of achievement is not at all noticeably better than public schools. Oh, there are some good charter schools; there are some good public schools as well. But, first of all, let's not at all compare charters with public schools or for that matter private/parochial schools with the publics. They don't play the same game. I certainly don't want to get rid of private schools--I opted to attend one to go to college. But let's not use test scores, silly test scores, to make comparisons. As I said, these various schools play different games. And targeting teachers' unions isn't the answer; that's a knee-jerk reaction for simple minds. I've tendered some answers to the problems with education here in the past, but there's no likelihood of any of them going anywhere.
I think I surprised someone the other day in a discussion about affirmative action. I'm pretty sure what was expected from my mouth, but that's not what came out. As one who, at least once in a matter that was important at the time, has been adversely affected by affirmative action, I have my antipathies toward it. Yet, I also see the need for it, a real need. I'm aware of the residue it leaves, but what alternative(s) is (are) there in many cases? I'm not smart enough to think of alternatives.
Is it true four blacks from Chicago kidnapped a "special needs" man, tied him up, and tortured him, all the while spewing anti-Trump epithets and recording it on Face Book? There was nothing about it in my newspaper this AM. I heard it on the radio and found some things online. It's a heinous crime. Now, is it a "hate crime," too? I am not a fan of "hate crimes" or, rather, prosecution of crimes as such. The Chicago police have not identified it as one, taking a "wait-and-see" stance. I think that's a smart thing to do, even if the evidence at hand strongly suggests "hate crime." What is more revealing and disconcerting is the little I've heard about it. There was a clip on the radio of some CNN analyst telling us not to jump to conclusions. Hey, wait a minute! That's all we do or, at least, all a lot of people do. Didn't the President and his DOJ "jump to conclusions," long before facts were in in quite a few instances? Ferguson? Trayvon Martin? Henry Louis Gates? The list is pretty substantial. Why can we "jump to conclusions" some times, but "wait and see" other times?
Speaking of the President, or rather, one who wrote about him, an op-ed piece today seemed to be completely out of touch with reality. It claimed, "...Obama has run an administration of uncommon integrity." Who is this author? I suppose some folks believe this. Those targeted by Obama's IRS, DOJ, NSA, FBI, etc. might hesitate, at least a little. Does "uncommon integrity" include blatant lies? "You can keep your health insurance and it won't cost you a dime more." Someone as brilliant as Obama couldn't have really believed this, could he? That would make, well, less than "brilliant." So, then, isn't it a lie? And we could keep going......
While I'm at it, let's get on Trump, too. I'm not a big fan of his appointments so far. Someone, in response to my thoughts on that, "There's a good Establishment and a bad Establishment." I suppose that's right. But how to tell the difference? Let's pick on his choice for Sec of Ed. If Trump vowed to "drain the swamp," this is a funny way to do it. OK, she's not Washington Establishment, but can anyone argue she isn't "Establishment?" She's spent a fortune, a whole lot more than most of you and certainly I will make in our/my lifetime(s) advocating a special interest in education, one that a majority of Americans oppose, that is, charter schools. Now, you or others might favor "school choice," "vouchers," and even charter schools. Hey, I am on the fence about some of them. I didn't send one of my kids to the school he was "supposed to" attend--and I'm glad I didn't; we "chose" his school. I'm still doing that, too. But the charter school bill in Michigan, for one, has allowed public funds to go to, well, almost for-profit schools whose record of achievement is not at all noticeably better than public schools. Oh, there are some good charter schools; there are some good public schools as well. But, first of all, let's not at all compare charters with public schools or for that matter private/parochial schools with the publics. They don't play the same game. I certainly don't want to get rid of private schools--I opted to attend one to go to college. But let's not use test scores, silly test scores, to make comparisons. As I said, these various schools play different games. And targeting teachers' unions isn't the answer; that's a knee-jerk reaction for simple minds. I've tendered some answers to the problems with education here in the past, but there's no likelihood of any of them going anywhere.
I think I surprised someone the other day in a discussion about affirmative action. I'm pretty sure what was expected from my mouth, but that's not what came out. As one who, at least once in a matter that was important at the time, has been adversely affected by affirmative action, I have my antipathies toward it. Yet, I also see the need for it, a real need. I'm aware of the residue it leaves, but what alternative(s) is (are) there in many cases? I'm not smart enough to think of alternatives.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Ball of Confusion......
Isn't that what the Temptations sang, about 45 or so years ago? "That's what the world is today, hey hey!" I think it is. And I have more and more trouble understanding it.
Back in college, we had to sign a "Statement of Intellectual Responsibility" for each course we took. In effect, it was an agreement that we wouldn't cheat, plagiarize, etc. in doing our work for the class. It was no big deal, signed just on a 3 x 5 card, but we took it seriously; at least everyone I know and I took it seriously.
"Intellectual Responsibility." Can that be translated to "Intellectual Honesty?" Maybe or maybe not, but that's one of the things bothering me today. I heard the acting head of the Democratic National Committee the other day. She's the one who was caught providing questions (answers?) to Hillary Clinton in her debates. And she's sorry, but only that she was caught. That should tell us all we need to know about her "honesty." But now she's at it again.
Apparently, it's up to Trump to find "common ground" with the Democrats. Wait a minute? This wasn't her or other Democrats' tune four years ago and eight years ago, was it? I distinctly recall this, "Elections have consequences." And what about "I've got a pen and I've got a phone?" Then there was, "I won. Get over it." So now that the shoe is on the other foot...... Hey, lady--and all you others like her--at least be intellectually honest. Don't change your rules now that the game is different.
Of course, now that the Democrats have been pulverized all over the nation, federal, state, and local elections, it's going to be all about "bipartisanship," "compromise," and "reaching across the aisle." Amnesia, in politics, is a valuable asset. It seems they refuse to confront the reasons for the drubbing they took in November, preferring to make excuses, call names, etc.
The Democrats don't appear to be considering their relationship with the people, with voters. How might they recharge, to find a course that would bring about a better relationship that would translate into more votes on the federal, state, and local levels? I think they won't, just like the Republican Establishment didn't, because they are arrogant enough to believe they and they alone have the answers. Rather than scrutinize the Election of 2016, try to comprehend it, and benefit from that, my guess is they will think they themselves have done nothing wrong. The voters, those "racist," "biased," "stupid" voters, need to be crushed--or at least marginalized once again.
I am very curious to see the Democrats in action during the Trump administration. (OK, I'm still very apprehensive about a Trump Presidency. I still don't know if I'm more distressed over Trump or if Clinton had won. I feel, still feel, that both candidates were rotten, neither deserving to be anywhere near the White House, except, maybe, on a tour with other tourists.) Let's see, now, who will be "The Party of No." We've heard the preliminaries, haven't we? Who will be the obstructionists? Will the lackey LameStream media be honest enough to confront this, if indeed it happens? I have my doubts, but we'll see.
The Inaugural festivities move forward, with controversy and, I think, humor. Oh, all those Hollywood-types and Hippy Rock guys, well, they are boycotting the Inauguration, at least the balls and other celebrations. (Hey, is it true that Obama had nine such balls and, afterward, invited the Hollywood-types and Hippy Rock guys back to the White House for more? From what I've read, Trump has three balls, one of which is limited to military personnel and first responders.) They refuse to provide entertainment (Note I didn't write "music," since many of them make noise that likely doesn't qualify as "music.") or even grace us (the US and its Inaugural festivities) with their collective royal presence. C'mon, give 'em a break!!!!!! How are all these Hollywood-types and Hippy Rock guys supposed to make it to Washington, DC when, after the election, they moved to Windsor and Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver and Moose Jaw and Medicine Hat? BTW, will these blowhards now give up most of their millions of dollars to charities and the poor?
One writer did some research, I guess, and came up with Clinton's margin of popular vote victory came in four California counties, not even the entire state. Again (See my post on the Electrical College of a few weeks ago.), the EC worked just as the Founders had intended. If people don't like it, try to change it. But I see that as a big mistake. Besides, how are these same folks going to deal with the historical changes in Congress that Reid and Pelosi ramrodded through now that the Republicans are in charge, esp in the White House?
I wonder what President Obama has planned for the next few years. I am no psychologist, not even of the armchair variety (and in many ways don't believe in it--heh heh), but I think he may have some trouble. I've always thought, for Obama, it's always about him. He's a narcissist of vast proportions. How will he handle being, well, irrelevant? Will he even acknowledge that the drubbing Democrats in elections all over the country, at all levels took was a negative reaction to, well, his years as President. (OK, I think people were also reacting to the Establishment, the Republicans, the bureaucrats, the LameStreams......)
His position as former President will open up tons of doors. But, despite his supposed degrees from Harvard and Columbia, I don't think he's particularly smart. Look, though, at the Clintons since Billy Boy left office, not in disgrace as he should have, but in triumph. From what I've read, Obama has already, while in office, increased his personal wealth to more than $12 million. How did that happen on a mere pittance, $400,000 a year, of a salary? I don't think he'll have any trouble financially, but I think he might personally. What if he is run through the ringer as Jimmy Carter was? Can Obama handle that? I suppose first we have to see if he will be hung out to dry or will the LameStreams and historians continue to treat him with kid gloves.
Back in college, we had to sign a "Statement of Intellectual Responsibility" for each course we took. In effect, it was an agreement that we wouldn't cheat, plagiarize, etc. in doing our work for the class. It was no big deal, signed just on a 3 x 5 card, but we took it seriously; at least everyone I know and I took it seriously.
"Intellectual Responsibility." Can that be translated to "Intellectual Honesty?" Maybe or maybe not, but that's one of the things bothering me today. I heard the acting head of the Democratic National Committee the other day. She's the one who was caught providing questions (answers?) to Hillary Clinton in her debates. And she's sorry, but only that she was caught. That should tell us all we need to know about her "honesty." But now she's at it again.
Apparently, it's up to Trump to find "common ground" with the Democrats. Wait a minute? This wasn't her or other Democrats' tune four years ago and eight years ago, was it? I distinctly recall this, "Elections have consequences." And what about "I've got a pen and I've got a phone?" Then there was, "I won. Get over it." So now that the shoe is on the other foot...... Hey, lady--and all you others like her--at least be intellectually honest. Don't change your rules now that the game is different.
Of course, now that the Democrats have been pulverized all over the nation, federal, state, and local elections, it's going to be all about "bipartisanship," "compromise," and "reaching across the aisle." Amnesia, in politics, is a valuable asset. It seems they refuse to confront the reasons for the drubbing they took in November, preferring to make excuses, call names, etc.
The Democrats don't appear to be considering their relationship with the people, with voters. How might they recharge, to find a course that would bring about a better relationship that would translate into more votes on the federal, state, and local levels? I think they won't, just like the Republican Establishment didn't, because they are arrogant enough to believe they and they alone have the answers. Rather than scrutinize the Election of 2016, try to comprehend it, and benefit from that, my guess is they will think they themselves have done nothing wrong. The voters, those "racist," "biased," "stupid" voters, need to be crushed--or at least marginalized once again.
I am very curious to see the Democrats in action during the Trump administration. (OK, I'm still very apprehensive about a Trump Presidency. I still don't know if I'm more distressed over Trump or if Clinton had won. I feel, still feel, that both candidates were rotten, neither deserving to be anywhere near the White House, except, maybe, on a tour with other tourists.) Let's see, now, who will be "The Party of No." We've heard the preliminaries, haven't we? Who will be the obstructionists? Will the lackey LameStream media be honest enough to confront this, if indeed it happens? I have my doubts, but we'll see.
The Inaugural festivities move forward, with controversy and, I think, humor. Oh, all those Hollywood-types and Hippy Rock guys, well, they are boycotting the Inauguration, at least the balls and other celebrations. (Hey, is it true that Obama had nine such balls and, afterward, invited the Hollywood-types and Hippy Rock guys back to the White House for more? From what I've read, Trump has three balls, one of which is limited to military personnel and first responders.) They refuse to provide entertainment (Note I didn't write "music," since many of them make noise that likely doesn't qualify as "music.") or even grace us (the US and its Inaugural festivities) with their collective royal presence. C'mon, give 'em a break!!!!!! How are all these Hollywood-types and Hippy Rock guys supposed to make it to Washington, DC when, after the election, they moved to Windsor and Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver and Moose Jaw and Medicine Hat? BTW, will these blowhards now give up most of their millions of dollars to charities and the poor?
One writer did some research, I guess, and came up with Clinton's margin of popular vote victory came in four California counties, not even the entire state. Again (See my post on the Electrical College of a few weeks ago.), the EC worked just as the Founders had intended. If people don't like it, try to change it. But I see that as a big mistake. Besides, how are these same folks going to deal with the historical changes in Congress that Reid and Pelosi ramrodded through now that the Republicans are in charge, esp in the White House?
I wonder what President Obama has planned for the next few years. I am no psychologist, not even of the armchair variety (and in many ways don't believe in it--heh heh), but I think he may have some trouble. I've always thought, for Obama, it's always about him. He's a narcissist of vast proportions. How will he handle being, well, irrelevant? Will he even acknowledge that the drubbing Democrats in elections all over the country, at all levels took was a negative reaction to, well, his years as President. (OK, I think people were also reacting to the Establishment, the Republicans, the bureaucrats, the LameStreams......)
His position as former President will open up tons of doors. But, despite his supposed degrees from Harvard and Columbia, I don't think he's particularly smart. Look, though, at the Clintons since Billy Boy left office, not in disgrace as he should have, but in triumph. From what I've read, Obama has already, while in office, increased his personal wealth to more than $12 million. How did that happen on a mere pittance, $400,000 a year, of a salary? I don't think he'll have any trouble financially, but I think he might personally. What if he is run through the ringer as Jimmy Carter was? Can Obama handle that? I suppose first we have to see if he will be hung out to dry or will the LameStreams and historians continue to treat him with kid gloves.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Let's hope 2017 is healthy and prosperous for us all. Let's also hope Don Trump doesn't become the disaster many of us suspect. (Remember, I think Clinton would have been, too, and that Obama and W. Bush were for 16 years before.) There is a lot of work to do, a lot of bad things that need to be undone.
They can start with Obamacare. Then undo a lot of the executive orders and other bureaucratic mandates that have stymied personal freedom. Will we see changes for the better? Call me a skeptic, but I still see government as run by "The Establishment."
I've always thought Rick Snyder was sneaky. I suppose my view was arguable, even after passage of such things as the "right-to-work-for-less" law. Some saw him as an outsider, one who could bring his mastery of business to bear fruit in government. I guess that didn't work out so hot with the appointments of the emergency managers, esp in Flint and Detroit Public Schools. There is an arrogance, of a different sort held by most politicians, an elitist view that his view is the only right one; opposing views are not allowed or at least tolerated. But he's apparently become a politician. A news article this AM showed that Snyder, if not encouraged, waited until a few hours before an expiration date to make a politically-motivated decision. According to state law passed several years ago, a law advocated and promoted by none other than Rick Snyder, to downsize state government when some judicial positions expired, they were not to be renewed. But a judge resigned four hours, four hours, before the expiration of the position. That allowed the governor to appoint a new judge and the position doesn't die. Hmmm...... This doesn't pass the smell test, not at all. I thought Republicans favored smaller government, that is, fewer gov't positions. I guess not, not if a Republican donor can get the appointment. And what about the appointee? According to the news article, he has no judicial experience and now is being appointed to the second highest court in Michigan. I know a lot of people like the governor and what he's done. Don't count me among them.
Talk of this came the other night, so I check it out. Of course, kids don't play outside any more, well, not much. A recent study showed that 6% of kids from 9 to 13 only played outside for an hour a week. 6%!!!!!! Another study claimed kids today play outside only about half as long as kids did just 20 or so years ago. Kids don't know how to play outside, not without adult supervision. Some school districts, in NY I think, hired adults to come to recess to show kids how to play age-old games. No, I can't make up this stuff. I'd guess the consequences of this are not at all good and that the price for it will be paid in the near future.
I have no answer for this problem. The end of 2016 brought a couple of murders in Detroit, with several others also shot, but not killed. Early the AM of Jan 1, yep, two more people were killed there. (Also unnerving is that these shootings came within a few miles of where I grew up, played and practiced ball, etc. I know the streets well.) Although official numbers won't be released until later this week, it appears there was an average of one murder a day in Detroit. I didn't finish the article so I don't know why, but it suggested the numbers will be understated. Chicago, esp the South and West sides, was apparently a war zone in '16. More than 5,000 people were shot there, 1100 more than the year before. On average, there were 2 or 3 killings a day! Guns may or may not be the answer, although I suspect not. Guns in Chicago, for instance, are illegal already. Most of them are brought in illegally. It seems more and more obvious that, somehow, someway, the culture has to be changed. The belief that it's all right to just shoot somebody, for whatever reason, petty or not, has to be changed.
I had to laugh at a recent Detroit Free Press article that lamented the dearth of substitute teachers. Are people that dense? It's not just substitutes, but other school workers who are in short supply, too. Where it seems just a short while ago there was a glut of teachers in almost all areas, now there are shortages. Toss in bus drivers, aides, clerical help, etc. Of course, there is no shortage of administrators; they keep multiplying. Just last week a man older than I am asked, perhaps rhetorically, "Why would anyone want to be a teacher today?" Extend that to other jobs in education, administrator excepted. The pay, in most districts/areas, was never great to start with. It's much worse now. In some states, beginning teachers' salaries qualifies for food stamps! Now the ignorant politicians and corporate-types are hammering at schools' performances. Both tenure and teacher unions, about the only protections for teachers, have been emasculated. (And, remember, I fully realize the bad aspects of teacher unions and tenure laws, but......) Everywhere one turns, teachers are under attack. Many teachers, no doubt, deserve the criticism. But many do not. And, for a young person seeking a career, such blanket criticism can't serve as an inducement to teach. As for the substitute teachers, one wrote that she gets about $12 an hour, when she works.
I just can't understand so many who still support President Obama, who think he's done a good job while in office. I can't for the life of me figure it out. I ran into a couple of those the other night and it's no good trying to offer an opposing view; they don't listen. Foreign policy? The world is far greater disarray. It's a far more dangerous place today. Domestic policy? Just for starters, the American people are more divided than they've been in a long time. Obama's policies, from the White House to the bureaucrats, have done little to unite. But, gee, consider the obstructionism (There we go with another of those "ism" words, becoming as ubiquitous and trite as "-gate" words.) of the Republicans. They became "the party of No," didn't they? Hey, didn't Obama have a Congress that was controlled by Democrats in 2009? Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader. Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. And didn't they ramrod legislation to make minority opposition less effective? (Boy, aren't they, the Democrats in Congress, scrambling now with their legislation now that the Republicans control not only Congress, but, at least nominally, the White House?) Aren't those on the left advocating Democrats obstruct Trump and his policies? What's that which is said about "whose ox is being gored?"
They can start with Obamacare. Then undo a lot of the executive orders and other bureaucratic mandates that have stymied personal freedom. Will we see changes for the better? Call me a skeptic, but I still see government as run by "The Establishment."
I've always thought Rick Snyder was sneaky. I suppose my view was arguable, even after passage of such things as the "right-to-work-for-less" law. Some saw him as an outsider, one who could bring his mastery of business to bear fruit in government. I guess that didn't work out so hot with the appointments of the emergency managers, esp in Flint and Detroit Public Schools. There is an arrogance, of a different sort held by most politicians, an elitist view that his view is the only right one; opposing views are not allowed or at least tolerated. But he's apparently become a politician. A news article this AM showed that Snyder, if not encouraged, waited until a few hours before an expiration date to make a politically-motivated decision. According to state law passed several years ago, a law advocated and promoted by none other than Rick Snyder, to downsize state government when some judicial positions expired, they were not to be renewed. But a judge resigned four hours, four hours, before the expiration of the position. That allowed the governor to appoint a new judge and the position doesn't die. Hmmm...... This doesn't pass the smell test, not at all. I thought Republicans favored smaller government, that is, fewer gov't positions. I guess not, not if a Republican donor can get the appointment. And what about the appointee? According to the news article, he has no judicial experience and now is being appointed to the second highest court in Michigan. I know a lot of people like the governor and what he's done. Don't count me among them.
Talk of this came the other night, so I check it out. Of course, kids don't play outside any more, well, not much. A recent study showed that 6% of kids from 9 to 13 only played outside for an hour a week. 6%!!!!!! Another study claimed kids today play outside only about half as long as kids did just 20 or so years ago. Kids don't know how to play outside, not without adult supervision. Some school districts, in NY I think, hired adults to come to recess to show kids how to play age-old games. No, I can't make up this stuff. I'd guess the consequences of this are not at all good and that the price for it will be paid in the near future.
I have no answer for this problem. The end of 2016 brought a couple of murders in Detroit, with several others also shot, but not killed. Early the AM of Jan 1, yep, two more people were killed there. (Also unnerving is that these shootings came within a few miles of where I grew up, played and practiced ball, etc. I know the streets well.) Although official numbers won't be released until later this week, it appears there was an average of one murder a day in Detroit. I didn't finish the article so I don't know why, but it suggested the numbers will be understated. Chicago, esp the South and West sides, was apparently a war zone in '16. More than 5,000 people were shot there, 1100 more than the year before. On average, there were 2 or 3 killings a day! Guns may or may not be the answer, although I suspect not. Guns in Chicago, for instance, are illegal already. Most of them are brought in illegally. It seems more and more obvious that, somehow, someway, the culture has to be changed. The belief that it's all right to just shoot somebody, for whatever reason, petty or not, has to be changed.
I had to laugh at a recent Detroit Free Press article that lamented the dearth of substitute teachers. Are people that dense? It's not just substitutes, but other school workers who are in short supply, too. Where it seems just a short while ago there was a glut of teachers in almost all areas, now there are shortages. Toss in bus drivers, aides, clerical help, etc. Of course, there is no shortage of administrators; they keep multiplying. Just last week a man older than I am asked, perhaps rhetorically, "Why would anyone want to be a teacher today?" Extend that to other jobs in education, administrator excepted. The pay, in most districts/areas, was never great to start with. It's much worse now. In some states, beginning teachers' salaries qualifies for food stamps! Now the ignorant politicians and corporate-types are hammering at schools' performances. Both tenure and teacher unions, about the only protections for teachers, have been emasculated. (And, remember, I fully realize the bad aspects of teacher unions and tenure laws, but......) Everywhere one turns, teachers are under attack. Many teachers, no doubt, deserve the criticism. But many do not. And, for a young person seeking a career, such blanket criticism can't serve as an inducement to teach. As for the substitute teachers, one wrote that she gets about $12 an hour, when she works.
I just can't understand so many who still support President Obama, who think he's done a good job while in office. I can't for the life of me figure it out. I ran into a couple of those the other night and it's no good trying to offer an opposing view; they don't listen. Foreign policy? The world is far greater disarray. It's a far more dangerous place today. Domestic policy? Just for starters, the American people are more divided than they've been in a long time. Obama's policies, from the White House to the bureaucrats, have done little to unite. But, gee, consider the obstructionism (There we go with another of those "ism" words, becoming as ubiquitous and trite as "-gate" words.) of the Republicans. They became "the party of No," didn't they? Hey, didn't Obama have a Congress that was controlled by Democrats in 2009? Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader. Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. And didn't they ramrod legislation to make minority opposition less effective? (Boy, aren't they, the Democrats in Congress, scrambling now with their legislation now that the Republicans control not only Congress, but, at least nominally, the White House?) Aren't those on the left advocating Democrats obstruct Trump and his policies? What's that which is said about "whose ox is being gored?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
