Mon AM

 In more ways than one, it was a tough weekend.

I know it was the right thing to do, and Karen and I probably waited far too long, but we finalized our "living trust," along with our estate plan, last will and testament, etc.  It's all necessary, but it's very sobering to consider our own mortality.  I found the entire process very educational and enlightening; our lawyer was very, very good.  But it was hardly a cheery experience.

And I turned my ankle, if only slightly, again this weekend out running on the increasingly rutty roads.  The weather cold and wet and warm and cold and......  It's not been a winter conducive to good running, at least not for me. It's been a winter of sprained ankle, recovery, sprained ankle, recovery......  But it was really really great to get out on my bike for most of last week--gee, a week's worth of bike rides in the middle of February.

There's more, but......

I didn't watch the Oscars and had no intention of doing so.  I really don't do movies and likely would not have recalled the names of 90+% of those films and people on the show.  I am not at all interested in what dress so-and-so is wearing and don't find many of the jokes funny, esp the insider ones that require some knowledge of Hollywood.  If some folks want to watch all this, that's fine with me.  I prefer not to.

But Karen was watching her AM television show and there were clips after clips of the host, the presenters, and the recipients of giving their seemingly obligatory condemnations of the current administration.  (More about that in a second.)  It's as if the Hollywood-types must make some sort of anti-Trump comment or they'll be drummed out of the business.  It must be trendy.  "Oh, your anti-Trump diatribe was so, so, so......"  Give us a break.  Most of Middle America doesn't care what the Hollywood-types think.  Most of them live lives we could only dream about.  They have no idea, or have forgotten, what it's like to struggle with the storms and stresses of everyday life here in the Middle.  Again, I question their commitments; I think many of them are hypocrites.  Gee, if they had given up half, only half, of their incomes, lived in houses not quite so lavish, etc. maybe they could have bought health insurance policies for all those they claimed were "uninsured."

And, I repeat, where are the Establishment Republicans in repealing Obamacare. Oh, they were big talkers and maybe even doers when their repeal bills were doomed from the start by the inevitable prospect of an Obama veto.  Now, without the safety net of a veto, they have really backed off.  Is it all right if I call that political cowardice?  How about selective indignation?

Many are decrying that repeal of Obamacare will cause millions to lose their coverage.  First, I hardly think that will happen.  There are safety nets all over.  If those don't work, a repeal can include more safety nets.  I don't often hear anyone (OK, well I do, but few from the Establishment.) express much concern over the high costs--premiums, deductibles, co-pays, worse coverage--of health insurance to those in the Middle.  Did I recently read that the average cost of health insurance for a family exceeds $10,000?  We're not quite that high, but could have been very close had we not opted to change policies, gambling, I guess, on our health and accepting higher deductibles and co-pays.

"Empowerment."  I have never liked that word, esp not in the context it's been used over the past few decades.  But I was reminded of it the other AM, when, of all things, passing a pick-up truck with a "Trump" bumper sticker on it.  It seems, like so many things, "empowerment" is only "good" if a certain agenda is concerned.  Women can be "empowered."  Blacks can be "empowered."  College students can be "empowered."  And more "power" to them.  Aren't many folks selective in this, thpough?  The man I saw driving the pick-up surely felt "empowered" by Trump's victory.  I'm guessing, but don't know, he wasn't really enamored, not deep down, with Trump.  But it was his way of sticking it to the Establishment, one that has thumbed its collective nose at him and his Middle for years and years.  Instead of celebrating his "empowerment," he is derided as "a deplorable," as "ignorant," "stupid," "racist," "bigoted."  Maybe if the Establishment hadn't ignored and marginalized the concerns, the lives of the Middle there'd have been no Trump??????  There really is a divide in this country.

Speaking of Trump, when is he going to grow up?  I suspect never.  I keep waiting for some adults to come into the room, but so far they haven't shown.  Is there not enough work for Trump to do as President?  He keeps that tweeting or twittering or whatever it's called.  Grow up, man!  Why is he going after the LameStreams?  That isn't necessary.  He won; they (and Clinton) lost.  Most of America doesn't believe the LameStreams anyway; they have lost our trust and deservedly so.  I keep waking up thinking, when I hear "President Trump," I'm still deep into a bad dream.  (And remember, always remember, I think I'd have the same nightmare with Clinton!)  This is rapidly turning into a Clown Show.  I thought I'd only be able to use "Clown Show" in regard to our local school board and administration.  I guess not.

Under My Government......

I used to enjoy reading Judd Arnett's column in the Detroit Free Press, way back when.  (I know, I know......  The Free Press?)  Once in a while he'd offer his opinions on how to run things, under the heading "Under My Government."  It was always thought-provoking.

I thought of that today when I was considering Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.  If I were in her position, today, I think I'd start out this way.  I would invite, perhaps together, perhaps separately, the presidents of the two national teachers' unions to lunch.  I'd only ask questions.  "What do you see as the major problem with American education today?"  "What other major problems are there that need to be addressed?"  "What is the role of teachers' unions," namely the AFT and NEA?  And so on.  I would just listen, making sure that my lunch partners realized I was listening, really listening.

Now, I would also hope I wouldn't get the stock/standard teachers' union answers to my questions.  I might have to be a bit more probing.  And I wouldn't be dismissive of any of their concerns.  There may or may not be common ground, but how are we to know if we don't talk--and listen?

Next, I'd go to people I trusted and ask them to identify their best teachers, not their favorite ones.  I wouldn't automatically go to the "teacher-of-the-year" winners.  Some of them might well be among the list I would compile, but from my experiences, I'm very leery of recipients of these types of  awards.  Then I'd make a point of talking with them, too, in groups or individually, mostly asking questions--and listening.  The conversations would be confidential, encouraging an open dialogue with no fear of any retribution or repercussions.

I read an op-ed from a former state superintendent of schools.  He called for "urgency" in efforts to improve schools.  One thing I am pretty sure I'd avoid is talking to many administrators, including superintendents, on ways to bolster education.  Why would anyone consult those who have been the captains of a sinking ship?  I know I wouldn't.

This is how I would start my tenure as Secretary of Education.  And I would move on from there, with luck bolstered with some good ideas from my listening.

I'd also, "under my government," question the Establishment Republicans, esp those in the US House of Representatives.  Remember the tough talk they had when four or five times they passed bills calling for the repeal of Obamacare?  Of course, there was no chance of any repeal.  If the Senate actually passed a similar bill, Obama's veto pen was at the ready.  So, now, with majorities in both houses of Congress, with a President ready to sign a repeal, where is the Establishment Republican action?  Talk about gutless!  It's easy to do something when it means nothing.  To do something of substance takes courage.  Former Speaker John Boehner said the other day the House wouldn't repeal it.  Do these fools still not see why Trump was nominated and elected??????   Are they that arrogantly blind or just plain stupid?  Is it a fruitless question to ask when the wishes and needs of the people will be addressed?  I fear it is.

I had two good laughs last week.  One was a quote from some Hollywood-type.  I don't remember his name; I didn't recognize his name.  He said something like, maybe not the exact words, but pretty close, "The Oscars still matter."  Heh Heh.  To whom do they "still matter?"  Maybe I have it all wrong and a lot a folks still pay attention.  I don't know.  It would be nice to see the ratings for the awards show, if the numbers can be trusted.

I read several articles last week about the newspaper industry or at least some influential (at least in their own minds?) newspapers.  They finally (?) have recognized that they are in trouble.  Among other things, they are hurting financially.  Again, I don't remember the exact words, but coming from several of these journalism-types was this, "Trust us.  Who else are you going to trust?"  I'm assuming that was said with a straight face.  But my face wasn't straight when I read that.

Also in  the department of hilarity was this, from Major League Baseball.  Apparently the MLB wants to "speed up games" by giving automatic intentional walks instead of making pitchers deliberately throw four balls.  There are several things with that, but let's focus on "speed up the games." What is this proposed new rule going to cut, 30 seconds, maybe a minute from a game?  How many intentional passes are given in a typical game?  I think I read somewhere that there are .2 free passes per team per game.  That means a team will issue an intentional walk once every five games.  If the league is really concerned about the length of games, I don't think this will make much difference.  And it will take away potentially exciting miscues.

George Washington

Happy George Washington's Birthday!

With the amorphous "President's Day," sometimes it's good to remember individual Presidents who were great, ones who defined and sculpted the path of the US.  Washington was certainly one of those.

C-Span, I believe, came out with a recent ranking of Presidents.  That Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were rated numbers one and two gives the ranking some credibility.  I like a number of other places (Eisenhower and Truman, for instance), too; they are often underappreciated and underrated Presidents.  Some, though, lead me to question the legitimacy of the rankings.  Lyndon Johnson at # 10 and, esp, Barack Obama at # 12 seem way off-base and inaccurate to me, reflecting, perhaps, the bias of those involved.  But back to Washington.

His birthday, the 22nd of February, is an interesting story.  He was actually born on the 11th, in 1732. (BTW, how do you remember the square roots of 3 and 2 respectively?  They are easy.  The square root of 3 is 1.732, the year Washington was born.  The square root of 2 is 1.414, the year Columbus wasn't born.)  Britain at the time hadn't yet adopted the Gregorian calendar, which sought to correct the discrepancies of the old Julian calendar, namely how dates were straying from the seasons.  For instance, to keep up with the seasons, the Gregorian calendar added 10 days to the year in 1582.  That is, January 1st was followed by January 11th.  (It wasn't quite that simple, but you get the idea.)  Since the Gregorian calendar was a Catholic calendar (Pope Gregory XIII), not all countries adopted it.  (Some Orthodox European nations such as Russia/Soviet Union and Greece,didn't until the 20th Century.)  Because, in part, of the Protestant Reformation, Britain didn't come around until 1750 (the colonies, I believe, in 1752), adding 11 days then to conform.  Hence, Washington opted to celebrate his birthday on the 22nd to match up with the calendar change.  (I hope that makes a little sense.)

BTW, he didn't have wooden false teeth.  Oh, he had several sets of false choppers, made of ivory and animal (cow and sheep) teeth and even his own older teeth which had fallen out or been extracted.  And the springs that held some of them together seem as if they belonged in a torture chamber.  (Maybe that's why none of his portraits show him smiling?)  But there were no wooden teeth.  And I hate to shatter illusions, but he didn't chop down the cherry tree.  (I often feel like spilling the beans about Santa and the Easter Bunny when I reveal these.)

Of course Washington was a great President.  Almost by sheer dint of his personality, his reputation, he forged the new government of the US under the Constitution.  I don't think we, today, realize the opposition, the skepticism many Americans had in 1789.  The Constitution was not a universally accepted, let alone revered document.  Far from it.  It was almost, despite the questioning, "Things will be all right.  General Washington is on board."  It was expected, assumed that the first President would be George Washington.

It was more than him setting precedents--the first Cabinet appointments, vetoes, executive orders and agreements, dealing with Congress, setting policies both domestic and foreign.  There were a number of potential fatal events that he had to defuse:  the Whiskey Rebellion, Jay's Treaty, and many more.  Failure of the Republic was a real possibility, both from within and without.  Without George Washington what is today the US would look a lot different, if there even was a US.

Two things, I think, tell us much of what we need to know about the man.  When in London at the end of the war, portrait artist Benjamin West was asked by King George III "What will your General Washington" do now, having won the war for independence, with the victorious army at his beck and call?  The assumption, by the king at least, was that the same path as history had always taken would follow:  Caesar and others in the past, Napoleon in the near future; a victorious general would take the reins of power, as king, dictator, emperor.  West replied that he assumed Washington would return to Mt. Vernon, to his love of his farm/plantation and farming.  George III, perhaps not believing that, said, "If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world."  (I've also read/heard "...the greatest man since Jesus.")  And that's just what Washington did.

Remember, too, he could well have run for a third term and been easily elected, but he didn't,  He, once again, voluntarily, gave up power to return to his farm, like the Roman Cincinnatus.  He established the precedent of two terms for Presidents, which was honored by all subsequent Presidents until the egocentric, power-hungry Franklin Roosevelt.

Joseph Ellis (who apparently wasn't asked to rank the Presidents in this poll; nor was David McCullough) wrote, "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute.  Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior...the Foundingest Father of them all."

I'm Lost

Let's hope the US Supremes get it right.  If I understand this correctly, the Washington State supreme court upheld upon appeal the conviction of a florist who withheld services to a gay marriage, based on her "deeply-held religious convictions."  The florist, a septuagenarian and Southern Baptist, doesn't believe in gay marriages.  By all accounts, even that of the state of Washington which brought the complaint/charges, the lady had served the man many times before, knowing he was gay.  She did not discriminate against him for being gay.  What she did was hold firm to her religious beliefs that recognize only traditional man-woman marriages.

I suppose one might argue "What if one claims his/her religion prohibits performing services for an interracial marriage?"  I don't know of any religions that do that.  And, most important, should the government be in a position to dictate one's religious convictions?!?!?!

First light bulbs, then flush toilets.  Then the types of televisions......  Now religion?  "First they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so I said nothing.  Then they came after the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist so I said nothing.  Then they came after the communists, but I wasn't a communist so I said nothing......  Then they came after me and there was no one left to say anything."

Personally, if I owned a florist shop or a catering business, I'd have no problem with providing services for a gay wedding.  It's business.  But if this lady interprets her religion to prohibit that, who is the gov't to tell her what her religion, her beliefs really are??????

Do you think this one is up next?  Many black families have moved out of the inner cities.  Now, do you think the suburban grocery stores stock, say, "chitlins?"  Well, isn't that clear evidence of racial bias and discrimination?  Shouldn't, according to the Washington State courts, these suburban grocery stores be required to carry "chitlins?"

The heavy hand of government comes slammin' down again.

Abraham Lincoln

Happy Abraham Lincoln's Birthday!!!!!!

He was born on this date in 1809.  I was asked recently by several folks to rate our most recent Presidents.  That brought me back to Lincoln or, as W.E.B. DuBois wrote in September of 1922, "Again, Lincoln."  More about DuBois later.

I think Lincoln is, hands down, our greatest President.  That isn't to slight others, namely George Washington, who I also hold in the highest regard.  There are others, too, who I admire--Eisenhower, Truman, Jefferson, and more.  I realize that rankings/ratings of "Great" and such often include Franklin Roosevelt among the top.  I agree he belongs there, but for different reasons.  He was a very, very influential President, among other things, altering the entire federal system.  In that sense, he is deserving of his lofty post.  But I don't necessarily think what he accomplished was very good, at least not very beneficial to the US in the long haul.  I know that's a controversial position, but it depends on one's view of the role of government, particularly the federal government.  Beside, it sticks in my craw that even Harry Truman recognized, "The problem with the President [FDR] is that he lies."

Would it be a surprise if I said I don't think much, at least not much good, of our last several Presidents, going back to Clinton?  I am torn between some Presidents, such as Andrew Jackson and, to a lesser extent, Ronald Reagan.  I think JFK is overrated, although I recognize his gift for inspiring people to try to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do.  Despite what historians think of Woodrow Wilson, I'm not a big fan of his, either.  I am, however, perhaps surprisingly one who thinks favorably of Calvin Coolidge, an Amherst mate, if not a classmate, of mine.

So, Presidents' Day brings mixed reactions.  Although we've had a such a day for over a century, it sort of morphed into today's Presidents' Day.  Back when I was a kid (There, I said it!) both Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays were holidays, if not vacation days, at least celebrated.  In 1971, the Monday between those two Presidents' birthdays was formally created as Presidents' Day.  I strikes me as odd, among other things, that we choose to honor "all" Presidents.  Should we do so with, say, Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan?  How about Warren Harding or even Richard Nixon, who brought such disgrace to the office?  To lump them in with the likes of Lincoln and Washington almost seems like "participation trophies" to me.

But, "Again, Lincoln."  Lincoln was the President who won the Civil War.  He freed the slaves, getting rid of that blot on the American soul, one with which we still wrestle.  Yes, he freed the slaves.  Don't believe some of your teachers and textbooks who claim otherwise, especially regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.  Toss in winning the Civil  War, effectively ending slavery, and his efforts in pushing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.  And there's a whole lot more, but......

I think one of the greatest lessons we get from Abraham Lincoln was how he led his life.  Oh, despite my reverence for him, he wasn't perfect, wasn't God.  There's a story that he was, in the final days of the war, riding through and examining Richmond, VA, the Confederate war-ravaged capital.  On his horse he was recognized by some now freed, at least practically due to the victory of the Union, slaves.  They rushed over and surrounded him, falling to their knees, and praying--to him!  He became quite angry and raising his voice, shouted at them to stop.  "Do not pray to me!" he chastised them.  "I am not your God."  Pointing to a nearby church, he directed the blacks there.  "Go!  Go there and pray to your God."  Indeed, he was not perfect and he knew it.

W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP in 1909, wrote an essay seemingly critical of Lincoln.  The essay brought criticism, including the wrath of many in the black community.  How dare he criticize "Father Abraham!"  (Note the Biblical reference many blacks had toward Lincoln.)  But he felt he needed to explain, that he wasn't being critical.  Quite the opposite.  Hence, "Again, Lincoln."

Included in this essay is this paragraph.  It, I think, demonstrates, in general, why and how Lincoln was such a great President--and man.  He, from this characterization, should be inspirational.  DuBois wrote:

"Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century.  Certainly of the five masters--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning, and Lincoln--Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable.  And I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed.  The world is full of illegitimate children.  The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter.  The world is full of people hating and despising their fellows.  To these I love to say:  'See this man.  He was once one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln.'"  Indeed, "...he became Abraham Lincoln."

Happy Lincoln's Birthday!

Language

I really believe words have meanings, specific meanings.  Sometimes I face, if not criticism, at least some raised eyebrows with words I use, big words.  I suppose hearing them does bring a sense of ostentation (See?) in others.  I understand that.

But two things:  Often there are no better words to convey the meaning I intend.  (OK, instead of "sycophant" I certainly could use "bobble head.")  And if we don't use the words might they become extinct or, at least, little used?

This leads me to the use of language today, namely vulgar language.  I hope I'm not a prude; once in a while I'm known to throw out a four-letter word, but not very often.  Sometimes using profanity best expresses one's emotions, but there are usually better choices.  But it seems we resort to such words of profanity far too often today.

I think some people use such words to demonstrate how cool they are, as if being able to swear, cuss, curse makes them cool.  OK, if that's what they want to think.  But what good does actually using such words actually do?  Does the use of vulgarity really say more about the person using it, the changing values of society/culture, or what?

Of course, it's hard to go a day without hearing someone toss out an "F-bomb."  Other words, maybe only slightly less offensive, are commonplace.  We hear them on the radio and television.  I even will see them in print.  Words that were never, or very seldom, found in everyday conversation are now de rigeuer.  (There I go again!)  I'm not even talking about still crass words, but, for example, "screw," as in "We were screwed."  I suppose one might suggest that refers to the simple tool or fastener, but I really think we all know what is really meant.  This word wouldn't have been found in conversation not too long ago.

Language evolves and that is usually a good thing.  I think at one time what might be considered vulgar or profane is not now.  In Medieval Europe, for instance, reference to body parts or body functions as not considered so.  Language that was really offensive had to do with God or the Lord, taking His name in vain.  Such talk was found to be most shocking.

I suppose the use of profanity/vulgarity might serve some purposes.  As hinted above, maybe a good swear word can express an emotion or feeling, at least at the moment, better than a less offensive word.  That is, perhaps more genteel language can take us only so far, doesn't let us say what we really feel and want to say.  Maybe.  A good "F-bomb" might even be considered cathartic, although I'm not sold on the value of that.  But again, maybe.

Maybe using such words is also a sign of boredom or a limited education or even an attempt to be macho.  Then, I might ask, why do I hear more and more women using such language?  I suppose this reveals as much about me as anyone else, but I cringe when I hear an "F-bomb" coming from the mouth of a lady; yep, I just do.  I don't like hearing such words from men in public, but really hate it in women.  (I guess I know what that labels me!)

Without doubt the prevalence of such language, on the streets, in the restaurants, on the boob tube and radio, is a sign of changing values.  Surely we can see that on the small and big screens, the almost cavalier use of nudity.  Check the list of top songs and count the number of titles that include profane words--then try to listen to the lyrics.  It's cool, I guess, to have one's photo taken flipping the bird, symbolic speech as the Supremes would rule, to the President-elect; it shows how much one really cares.

Does the increased use of such words mirror a decline in our culture, if one actually thinks we are witnessing a decline?  (I think so, but what do I know?)  Is it a result of the "I, Me, Mine" "It's all about me" society we've become?  So what if someone else is offended?  "You can't tell me what to say!"

Yes, changing values, but I don't think the word "change" is synonymous with "better."  Maybe my concern is merely my own self-righteousness.  Am I trying to censor free speech?  But does free speech include the right to offend others, not their views or sensibilities, but (I can't think of the right word.).  I don't think of myself as a snowflake, but in this maybe I am.  By opposing the increasing prevalence of profanity and vulgarity, I don't think I'm trying to stifle debate or dialogue; can't we still argue our disagreements without such words?

Maybe I make too much of this.  After it, using such words might just be good clean, er, dirty fun???

Random Thoughts on a Rainy Wed.

I had to laugh, lol out loud, at this one.  I heard a sound bite on the radio news this AM.  A US Senator, whose identity I didn't catch, claimed of Betsy DeVos, she is "fundamentally incompetent" to be the Secretary of Education.  Isn't that one just choice?  C'mon, you're not laughing right now, hearing a US Senator calling someone else "incompetent?"  If you aren't, you certainly should be.

That reminds me.  The word "Senate" comes from the Romans, of course, from the Latin derivative "senex," which means a collection or group of old men.  (The original Roman Senate had a minimum age--60 years old.  If one was 59, he was too young!)  Another word with its derivative of "senex" is "senile."  Heh Heh......  You make the connection.

Speaking of DeVos' confirmation process, one local radio host was bemoaning the opposition to her nomination.  First, he thought it a shame that the two Michigan Senators were going to vote against her confirmation.  What?  Just because they are from the same state.....?  Second, he suggested that just because Senators disagree with her positions and philosophies is no reason not to vote to confirm.  Yep, he actually said that.  Someone should have called in to ask what might be a possible reason not to confirm.  Maybe a murder conviction?

I have heard some of the opposition to DeVos (and I don't favor her confirmation) is criticized as coming from "teachers' unions."  OK, I understand, both historically and personally, how unions have taken a wrong turn in many ways.  Often, it's not the membership, not at all, but the leadership.  But that rubs me the wrong way, that "teachers' unions" are seen as a major roadblock to improved education.  I won't convince many otherwise, but if people think the unions are the primary or even a major cause the the demise of US education, they are delusional.  There will never be meaningful improvement if the unions continue to be identified as the major culprit.And, remember, I have criticized unions for some of their activities and actions.

And one of the big blowhards on the radio was also complaining about the schools and the low ranking of the US among world schools.  I'd wager that this guy doesn't have the slightest idea on the criteria of the rankings or, esp, on the differences in students, who takes the tests on which the rankings are based, etc.  And I'm certainly aware that this multi-millionaire with "a cushy job making the big bucks" (Readers of my past blog posts will recognize that.) has never considered what teachers are paid and what they (at least the good ones) actually do every day--of the year.  (That "But they get their summers off" is hooey.)

Then there is an article in today's newspaper about unions in general.  It's critical of them, of course; it's trendy to be critical of unions, ignorant of the historical record.  Again, unions have gone off track in recent decades, but people forget unions haven't unilaterally acted vis-a-vis business.  In his criticism, the op-ed's author writes, "If the union[s] are as indispensable as union leaders suggest, why are employees rejecting [them, unions and their policies]?"  He goes on to cite the many states which have enacted "right-to-work" for less legislation and the decline in union membership, esp since that legislation was enacted.  The answer isn't that difficult, is it?  We've seen it here, locally.  If workers can obtain the same protections and benefits that the union procures without having to belong to a union, why join?  That is, if these greedy slackers can reap the same rewards without paying for them as those who do pay for them, why join?  Hey, if one doesn't want to join a union, he or she shouldn't be required to do so.  At the same time, that same person shouldn't receive the same benefits of union members, those who have in the past and continue now to pay for them.   Such greedy slackers are both selfish and ignorant of history.  Oh, there he goes with that history stuff again.

I was stunned that FoMoCo hourly workers are getting bonuses/profit sharing checks of about $9,000.  Yeow!  Today I heard that GM workers will be pocketing $12,000.  Double yeow!  I'm not bemoaning or begrudging them their checks.  I would like, before they get paid, for GM to pay back all of the money it owes US taxpayers.  For a number of reasons, I opposed the bail-outs in the first place, but am glad GM is back on its feet, esp glad for the workers.  But where are the billions of dollars that were, what, written off?  Hey, it's only the taxpayers' money.  It's no secret I think the money top execs is obscene.  But, at the same time, between their outlandish pay and the bonuses, couldn't each get a little less and bring down the prices of cars??????

I don't know if this is a new low, but it seems it might be.  Now some on the left seem to be citing Howard Stern on the mental stability of Don Trump.  I understand that the two guys are buddies, but still, c'mon......

The First Two Weeks

First things first--Pat A., please check the comment I posted after your comment the other day.  Congratulations!  If I can be of any help, let me know.  I'm very excited, too.

Well, the first two weeks of President Trump's Presidency have been a whirlwind.  Supporters and opponents can at least agree on that, right?

Like it or not, I think his announced immigration policy has been misrepresented or, at least, misunderstood by many.  First, it is not a "ban," but a delay until immigrants from certain countries can be "vetted."   (Did you know that the term, "vetting," comes from horse racing?  For a horse to be cleared to race, he had to be examined and approved by a veterinarian, a vet.)  You might say that's playing semantics, but OK.  Second, only seven countries have had immigrants targeted.  And I believe these seven countries were singled out by both W. Bush and Obama for, well, the dangers the immigrants posed.  Third, this is not the first time a President has so acted; in fact, under slightly different circumstances, Obama had a similar, although brief, order for those coming from Iraq.  Over the long haul, I don't think I like this; short-term, I'm not sure I like it either.  One thing I am sure of is that I don't want people coming here who intend to follow Sharia law rather than American law under the Constitution.

And, I'm not thrilled with some of Trump's appointments, particularly in the Cabinet.  Of course, those appointees are a President's prerogative, not mine.  And I didn't like many (any?) of Obama's appointments.

I hope Trump's bull in a china shop approach to foreign affairs, e.g., his talk with the Australian PM, isn't his style.  There is something to be said for treating long-time allies differently, with kid gloves?, than our opponents.  I hope he learns the finesse of diplomacy.

And I am still not at all convinced he will be good for workers, particularly the middle class, if there is one.  Why doesn't he, instead of all this stuff he's done, take aim on the tax system.  Namely, where is the effort toward tax cuts?  Too early?  Well, it hasn't been too early for other things.  And did I read that among the agenda items is a national right-to-work (that is, "right-to-work-for-less") law.  I wonder if many Trump voters are beginning to wonder if they did the right thing.

All that said, it is fun to watch the Democrats squirm.  Some of them are jumping up and down and saying some pretty stupid things.  And it's equally fun to think that the Establishment Republicans are squirming, too.  I guess they, too, don't quite get it, don't understand.  Trump's election was not just a repudiation of Obama, the Democrats, and liberal policies.  It was also a repudiation of the Establishment politics.

Note the Establishment......  Remember, since its inception, the Republicans vowed if they were given control of both houses of Congress and the White House Obamacare was gone; they would repeal it.  Gee, it doesn't seem like it now.  The Establishment Republicans are backing off and backing off quickly.  Now, it's just "tweaking" or "reforming" it.  All but the most diehard realize Obamacare was a rotten law.  (If you don't think so, there's nothing I can write to change your mind.  I would just ask you why, if health care was so important, why you didn't purchase a policy, at far less than Obamacare costs for one, for someone who didn't have coverage?)  I think Speaker Paul Ryan wants to repeal it; maybe Trump does, too, but who can trust anything he says?  But the Establishment Republicans appear to be searching for some ways to deceive us once again, by saying they got rid of Obamacare while actually keeping it.

Wed Musings

All that was missing was "a foot of snow."  This AM I ran uphill, into the wind, but only in about 5 or 6 inches of snow.  Yep, I chuckled, but also grateful there wasn't "a foot of snow."  It was very pretty out there this AM, just beautiful.  Deer tracks, or were they coyote?, were all over the freshly fallen white stuff.  And there was just enough to shovel, but not enough to be burdensome.  Come to think of it, I think I've shoveled each day this week, from one to three or four inches, Sun through Wed.  It's a good workout and fun, too.

I also laughed at Mon AM's newspaper.  There were four pages plus part of a fifth that covered Sun's MSU-UM basketball game.  OK, I know the game/rivalry is very important to a lot of people, but still......  C'mon.  Do we really need to know if Joey Basketball ate oatmeal for breakfast or Johnny Hoopster had a hangnail and missed two minutes of practice last week?  Who won by the way?

And isn't this college recruitment of high school athletes, namely football and basketball players, just a little ridiculous?  I know it's a multi-million dollar industry, but when do the adults begin to take over?

Michael and Cody had a basketball game on the boob tube last night, a college game, but I don't remember which teams.  I don't watch much, if any, basketball and was reminded why as I saw about ten minutes of the game.  First, when did the rules change?  It used to be players with the ball had to dribble when they moved their feet.  More than once I saw a driving player stop dribbling and come down with a foot (OK so far) and then take two more (easily counted without the slow-motion replay) steps to the basket and a lay-up.  The announcers cooed at "the great move" or "burst of quickness" each time.  Then there are the fouls.  The officials called a couple of fouls.  That surprised me because the last time I watched games, be they college or high school (I avoid the NBA like the plague.), I thought whistles must be in short supply; I never heard any.  Anyway, twice last night the whistles blew and fouls were called.  Both times, the TV guys said, "I didn't see that [the fouls]."  On the replay, one clearly showed the defender reaching in for the ball and grabbing the offensive player's forearm, not just a hack, but a grab.  "No, I didn't see it," one of the TV guys said.  Maybe he wasn't really looking?  The other time, a defender make a clean block of a shot; there was no foul on that, but a whistle was blown.  The TV guy exploded.  "Whoa!  That was all ball!"  The replay showed indeed there was a clean block, but followed by the defender's body just smashing into the driving player, sending him sprawling out of bounds.  "That was all ball!"  No, it wasn't.  I quit watching before I heard the ubiquitous, but almost always wrong, "Good no-call."

I came across a good line from Harry Truman, who had a good number of them.  He said, "The problem with the President," referring to Franklin Roosevelt, "is that he lies."  Heh Heh.  Gee, I wonder how that holds up with liberals, who almost worship at the altar of FDR.  Obviously, I don't.

Although I know it's too serious to laugh, I laugh anyway.  The LameStream media and the Democrats in Congress are laughable.  Are they stupid?  Are they too smart by half?  I don't understand them.  Why do we keep hearing about the "ban" on "Muslim" immigrants?  It's repeated again and again by the politicians in opposition and by the media, ad nauseum.  "It's not who we are" or "It's against American principles."  Huh?  Why are things sometimes OK, but other times, when others do the same things (or similar), it's as if the world is caving in?  First, it's a limited time detention, limited until proper "vetting" can be done.  (What is the derivation of that word, "vetting?"  I don't really know.)  Second, it's not all Muslims, but immigrants from seven nations, all ID'd by the way by our recently departed Messiah Obama.  Third, although the specific details were a bit different, Obama decreed (yes, decreed) the same thing about 5 years ago with immigrants from Iraq.

Trump's appointee to the Supreme Court has already led me to laugh--at several of the Democrats, namely Chuckie Schumer (How did he get to be minority leader, let alone a US Senator?) and Faux-cahontas, Elizabeth Warren.  Read or listen to their ignorant comments and then go back and do some research.  First, when they insist on a Justice who will stand up against "unconstitutional" executive actions, why didn't they also insist on that from their own appointees, or rather Obama's?  Heck, even W. Bush's John Roberts made a mockery of the Constitution, making a ridiculous ruling on the Congressional power to tax to uphold Obamacare.  (I know, I know--"The Constitution means what the judges say it means."  So stated Supreme Charles Evans Hughes.  I don't think so.  The judge might determine the law of the land, at least for a while, but they can still get it wrong.)  The fine or penalty for not purchasing health care cannot reasonably or in any other nonconvoluted way be called a "tax."  And calling for Supremes who will uphold the principle of stare decisis, (respected and abiding by past court rulings) seems a bit stupid. If all judges did that the law of the land would still be Plessy v Ferguson, "separate but equal" in race relations.  And, I think, if we go back to check, we will find both of these (and many of the other Dems) voted to confirm Judge Gorsuch for his Appeals Court seat.  Are the criteria/standards for the Supreme Court that much more stringent than the Appeals Court?

Gorsuch sounds like a good pick.  One source cited him as once saying, perhaps at his Appeals Court hearing?, that he made a number of rulings he didn't like.  That is, he didn't invoke his own prejudices or politics in a ruling; he ruled on the law and the Constitution.  It didn't matter whether he favored the law or not.  If Congress passed it and it didn't violate the Constitution, he was bound by oath to uphold it.

But it seems some politicians have redefined some terms.  Apparently "unconstitutional" now means "something we don't like."

Off to grade essays and rest a bit.  It appears I have a second run scheduled for this evening.