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......