I hope you get the pun......
The slippery slope of monument destruction initiated or at least put on center stage by the Charlottesville tragedy keeps gnawing at me, leading to more and more thinking, esp as my history classes creep up, beginning this week.
First, did I hear this one correctly? There is now an outcry at the University of Southern California about the horse the school's cheerleaders use at football games. The loons want the horse dropped or at least have its name changed. It seems the horse's name is the same as Robert E. Lee's favorite horse, Traveler. Well, that certainly is a symbol that perpetuates the idea of white supremacy.
I appreciate the great article on "Mindless Iconoclasm" sent to me by Jerry O. It is articles like this that should form the basis for a discussion/dialogue on this issue. But I fear that "mindless" is taking firm root, as many of the protesters are acting out of ignorance.
Anyway, in response to an e-mail yesterday or the day before, I sent this, after some thought and research. (I doubt this is exactly what I sent, but it's close.) History shows us that abject evil, such as slavery, can appear to be perfectly normal to even good people depending on the time. Let's use Robert E. Lee as an example. By all accounts he was an honorable man, one who was respected far and wide. He was hard-working and achieved much. Hey, I think the man was the only West Point graduate to never had a demerit for bad conduct, etc. And he finished, academically, first in his class in getting his engineering degree. Yet......
This "good man" owned slaves. Some were his; some came from his wife and father-in-law. I'm not sure what went through his mind regarding the evilness of slavery. I do know he owned them, that when his father-in-law died, Lee could have freed his slaves immediately, but waiting five years to do so. When some of them, on the eve of the Civil War, tried to escape, they were captured, returned, and whipped mercilessly on the orders of Robert E. Lee. After the war, although he urged reconciliation, he never really advocated giving the now freedmen civil rights such as voting.
Yes, it is true he did free those slaves from his father-in-law. But that was just a short while before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. And Lincoln had announced months before that he was going to issue it on January 1, 1863. Why, then, didn't Lee free those slaves upon the death of his father-in-law or even the year before Lincoln announced the Emancipation?
But as I noted, he chose the wrong side of history. (I know that, too, is a slippery slope, "the wrong side of history," but it's my blog......) He opted to command armies that sought to retain the evil institution of slavery. Some might say he was merely holding true to "duty," the "duty of a soldier." I guess I might counter with "Where was Lee's sense of 'duty' to the United States? After all, he did attend the US Military Academy. He did serve in the US Army."
I digress some. If Lee was, by contemporary standards, an honorable man, one who gathered respect from most if not all, how could he abide slavery, taking an active part in the deplorable institution? At that time, it's not as if it were 100 or even 50 years earlier. By the 1850s there were many loud and intelligent voices and pens decrying the evils of slavery. He had to be aware, yet he chose, well, slavery.
So, how can such evil appear perfectly normal to such good people, like Robert E. Lee? I suppose one might say "Then he wasn't such a good person." Maybe, but that misses my point. And it's always dangerous to judge people of the past based upon contemporary values, isn't it? That's not at all to excuse or justify slavery, but consider today. Let's get away from beating up on those from our past and look in the contemporary mirror. Now this was my point at the start, before I was carried away.
Since 1973 (Roe v. Wade), in the US, our home nation, a thousand unborn children are killed (under the guise of euphemisms such as "abortion" or "reproductive rights," etc.) each day. And the organization that promotes and leads the way is not only protected by our government, but is funded by our tax dollars. Talk about "evil!" Others can play with the words all they want, but it's still evil. Lincoln once wrote of slavery, although it is appropriate here too, "Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon" or, in this instance, wantonly killed.
Gus has made some key points, too, well worth considering. How can we have meaningful discussions/dialogue if the first thing we do is call the other side names? We don't listen or seek to talk, but disparage those with differences. Perhaps I just did the same in my characterizations in the previous paragraph?
On another note, but still an important one, the lead headline in this AM's Detroit newspaper as about the Detroit Lion quarterback signing a five-year contract for $135 million dollars. Even without my calculator I know that's $27 a year. As I have written and said many times, I don't disparage any individuals or teams who agree to such contracts. If someone wants to pay, who am I to say, "No, don't take it!?" Who wouldn't take it? I would and my guess is you would, too.
Still I find it very dispiriting and disheartening. C'mon, these are sports, men playing kids' games. I, for one, know how very talented these athletes are and many of them have worked hard to get where they are. But, let me repeat, these are sports, men playing kids' games.
I think my views on the ineptitude of many teachers are no secrets. But good teachers are paid diddly-squat. Locally, it's rumored the teachers will get a 1/2% (That's one half percent!) raise on their contract, which will be more than offset at the beginning of the year by a huge, very huge, increase in the health care premiums they will pay. Yet, we give our athletes millions of dollars. It sort of makes a farce of always hearing about the importance of education, doesn't it?
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Suspensions
Many of you have probably seen the brawl(s) the other day between the Detroit Tigers and New York Yankees. It started, it is claimed, weeks ago with the deliberate, so claim the Tigers, beaning of some of their players. I don't know about the intent of the pitchers back then or even a couple the other day, but throwing at players is serious business.
Being hit by pitches can put players out of action for weeks and even months, if not whole seasons. Just look at the number of players who have lost time after being hit. Sometimes careers can be ruined. Remember Tony Conigliaro? And Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch thrown by Carl Mays.
Regarding the past, some might say, "Yeah, but those players didn't wear helmets." That's true, but how many pitchers were throwing balls at 98 mph, too?
Even if not leading to serious injury, those pitches can hurt! I remember two instances of being hit. Both left imprints of the stitches of the ball on me--once my chin and the other my side. And these pitches weren't 90+ mph!
I guess it's always been part of the game, tossed in with a little macho behavior, maybe false teamwork, etc. You hit my teammate, so I'll hit yours. That players can be hurt, seriously hurt, well, that's the breaks, no pun intended.
The MLB response, that is, the suspensions, seems bad. The man who dished out the penalties, Joe Torre, is a hall-of-famer due to his managing years with......the Yankees. Why was he allowed to make the decisions? Even if the man is honest, and I have no reason to believe he isn't, the appearances are suspect.
OK, Miguel Cabrera received a seven-game suspension, I suppose for starting the whole thing. I don't claim to know for certain, but do batters who charge the mound, something Cabrera didn't do, get something equally severe?
Why did the Yankee catcher get so many days off? OK, he threw a couple of punches, but he was just trying to defend himself. If needed, suspend him for a game or two.
The Tiger manager was suspended for a game; the Yankee manager didn't receive one. Hmmm...... I wonder why. Isn't it, considering Torre's connection to the Yankees, a legitimate question? And from what I saw, the Yankee manager was far more animated and vocal than the Tiger manager.
What about the Yankee, whose name I don't remember, who is clearly seen sucker punching at least two Tigers at the bottom of the pile? They were cheap shots on players unable to defend themselves. That guy received about half the time off as Cabrera. They were blatant cheap shots! Hmmm...... Can I ask another question? Aren't the Yankees in a pennant race, with this cheap shot artist one of their key players? Again, perhaps that has nothing to do with anything, but the perception remains.
No doubt, at least in my mind, was the next Yankee pitcher throwing at the Tiger catcher's head. At least I hope not. But, he did hit him in the head, with a 98 mph pitch. These are major leaguers. A major league pitcher has to have some control over his pitches. He didn't mean it? OK, but that's not necessarily relevant. In the NHL, players are penalized for high-sticking regardless of intent; they, as NHL players, are expected to be able to control their sticks. Hmmm.....
And, almost laughable, a Tiger pitcher who said he deliberately hit the last of the hit batsmen was suspended, too. His "crime" seems to be telling the truth. I wonder if he hadn't said he did it on purpose if he'd have been suspended. Two Yankee pitchers who hit batters weren't suspended. I'm not sure either of them were deliberately doing it, but...... But the one tendered the excuse that "it slipped." Did you ever have a throw "slip" out of your hands/fingers? How much juice did you have on the throw? 98 mph?
I have already commented on how bad I think many of the MLB umpires are on balls and strikes, esp if those electronic boxes on the television screens are remotely accurate. I don't pay attention to the NBA, which the last time I watched it with any regularity it often resembled the WWF when it came to fouls and violations. (The stars rarely fouled, but, if they missed a shot or lost the ball, were always fouled. My contention is these guys are very good officials, so they must be getting orders to call games the way they do. Isn't that the WWF?) One of my buddies said on every single NFL play, a holding call could be made--and on some plays they are. But, then, why only on some? Of course, I rarely watch the NFL or even big-time college football either.
Hmmm...... Maybe I've stumbled on a reason why.
Being hit by pitches can put players out of action for weeks and even months, if not whole seasons. Just look at the number of players who have lost time after being hit. Sometimes careers can be ruined. Remember Tony Conigliaro? And Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch thrown by Carl Mays.
Regarding the past, some might say, "Yeah, but those players didn't wear helmets." That's true, but how many pitchers were throwing balls at 98 mph, too?
Even if not leading to serious injury, those pitches can hurt! I remember two instances of being hit. Both left imprints of the stitches of the ball on me--once my chin and the other my side. And these pitches weren't 90+ mph!
I guess it's always been part of the game, tossed in with a little macho behavior, maybe false teamwork, etc. You hit my teammate, so I'll hit yours. That players can be hurt, seriously hurt, well, that's the breaks, no pun intended.
The MLB response, that is, the suspensions, seems bad. The man who dished out the penalties, Joe Torre, is a hall-of-famer due to his managing years with......the Yankees. Why was he allowed to make the decisions? Even if the man is honest, and I have no reason to believe he isn't, the appearances are suspect.
OK, Miguel Cabrera received a seven-game suspension, I suppose for starting the whole thing. I don't claim to know for certain, but do batters who charge the mound, something Cabrera didn't do, get something equally severe?
Why did the Yankee catcher get so many days off? OK, he threw a couple of punches, but he was just trying to defend himself. If needed, suspend him for a game or two.
The Tiger manager was suspended for a game; the Yankee manager didn't receive one. Hmmm...... I wonder why. Isn't it, considering Torre's connection to the Yankees, a legitimate question? And from what I saw, the Yankee manager was far more animated and vocal than the Tiger manager.
What about the Yankee, whose name I don't remember, who is clearly seen sucker punching at least two Tigers at the bottom of the pile? They were cheap shots on players unable to defend themselves. That guy received about half the time off as Cabrera. They were blatant cheap shots! Hmmm...... Can I ask another question? Aren't the Yankees in a pennant race, with this cheap shot artist one of their key players? Again, perhaps that has nothing to do with anything, but the perception remains.
No doubt, at least in my mind, was the next Yankee pitcher throwing at the Tiger catcher's head. At least I hope not. But, he did hit him in the head, with a 98 mph pitch. These are major leaguers. A major league pitcher has to have some control over his pitches. He didn't mean it? OK, but that's not necessarily relevant. In the NHL, players are penalized for high-sticking regardless of intent; they, as NHL players, are expected to be able to control their sticks. Hmmm.....
And, almost laughable, a Tiger pitcher who said he deliberately hit the last of the hit batsmen was suspended, too. His "crime" seems to be telling the truth. I wonder if he hadn't said he did it on purpose if he'd have been suspended. Two Yankee pitchers who hit batters weren't suspended. I'm not sure either of them were deliberately doing it, but...... But the one tendered the excuse that "it slipped." Did you ever have a throw "slip" out of your hands/fingers? How much juice did you have on the throw? 98 mph?
I have already commented on how bad I think many of the MLB umpires are on balls and strikes, esp if those electronic boxes on the television screens are remotely accurate. I don't pay attention to the NBA, which the last time I watched it with any regularity it often resembled the WWF when it came to fouls and violations. (The stars rarely fouled, but, if they missed a shot or lost the ball, were always fouled. My contention is these guys are very good officials, so they must be getting orders to call games the way they do. Isn't that the WWF?) One of my buddies said on every single NFL play, a holding call could be made--and on some plays they are. But, then, why only on some? Of course, I rarely watch the NFL or even big-time college football either.
Hmmm...... Maybe I've stumbled on a reason why.
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Sliding......
We are sliding down that "slippery slope." Several sources have reported that ESPN (I'd boycott the network, but how can I boycott something I never watch?) is pulling a reporter from football coverage at a University of Virginia game. UVa is in Charlottesville. The reporter's name is "Robert Lee." Well, maybe......
The official word was the executives were worried about several things, including that the reporter's name might offend the sensibilities of some people in Charlottesville. Well, maybe......
But Robert Lee's previous job before joining ESPN was not leading the Confederate Army. He doesn't look at all like Robert E. Lee. In fact, Robert Lee, the reporter, is of Asian heritage! "Lee!" "Lee," as in "House of Lee," my favorite Chinese restaurant in Farmington.
So, have we started the slide? Now ESPN is afraid that might possibly offend the sensibilities of idiots!?!?!? How do people get executive jobs like these?
If this wasn't so serious, if it couldn't be a portent of further lunacy, it would be extremely laughable.
The official word was the executives were worried about several things, including that the reporter's name might offend the sensibilities of some people in Charlottesville. Well, maybe......
But Robert Lee's previous job before joining ESPN was not leading the Confederate Army. He doesn't look at all like Robert E. Lee. In fact, Robert Lee, the reporter, is of Asian heritage! "Lee!" "Lee," as in "House of Lee," my favorite Chinese restaurant in Farmington.
So, have we started the slide? Now ESPN is afraid that might possibly offend the sensibilities of idiots!?!?!? How do people get executive jobs like these?
If this wasn't so serious, if it couldn't be a portent of further lunacy, it would be extremely laughable.
Monday, August 21, 2017
A Slippery Slope Indeed
First, to get it out of the way, no not "Everybody is talking about last night's episode of The Game of Thrones!" I was bombarded with that as I opened my Comcast Web page. In fact, I haven't talked to anyone who has talked about it. For that matter, I've never seen the program nor have I ever spoken to anyone about it. Maybe it's me......
It's a slippery slope indeed. All this talk and movement toward statues and memorials regarding the Civil War, slavery, etc. As I have noted in the past, upon reflection, I think it's not right to have places of honor for Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, et al. It's not necessarily that they owned slaves. It goes much deeper than that. To repeat, they had choices and they chose the wrong side of history, of humanity. They fought to perpetuate an evil against mankind and they lost. I'm not in favor of destroying such statues and memorials, but put them in museums or some other such places where they can be used to teach, to demonstrate why we choose not to honor Davis, Lee, Jackson, etc.
But, as might be expected, the slide down the slope has started. Where do we stop? Founding Fathers such as Washington and Jefferson (who penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights......") owned slaves. Are they to be removed from history, at least public history, too? Can not their other contributions, significant ones, outweigh the fact that they owned slaves? Washington and Jefferson create a different situation than Davis and Lee.
In Detroit over the weekend, protesters want a downtown statue of Chris topher Columbus taken down. Yes, he enslaved people. Did his "discovery" create the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? No. And if he didn't "find" the Americas, another European was certain to in a very short while. Like it or not, what Columbus did was to open a vast part of the world to Europeanization, to Christianization as well as helping to create a wealth, in Europe at least, that led to significant advances in civilization. I am not at all trying to condone anything evil. All that Europeanization and Christianization could have been done without slavery. (And don't forget that it existed all over the world before Columbus, that Asians and Africans as well as Europeans enslaved people, growing wealthy from the trade.) But Columbus made a very, very significant contribution. He changed the world, in one of the most important way ever. (I hope there's nobody out there who still thinks the New World was some Eden, an idyllic place that bordered on Paradise. It wasn't. Here's just one thing to remember: the natives here still practiced human sacrifice.)
Back to Detroit. It seems the demonstration included some ignorant people. I don't necessarily mean that as a pejorative. I don't think these people are stupid. But they don't know. For instance, what does "Reclaiming Our History: Detroit Without White Supremacy" mean? Apparently the protesters could find no evidence of the Confederacy in Detroit, so Columbus became their target. Of course, as one protester claimed, Columbus is "one of the key figures in this whole Western identity." Is that supposed to be a bad thing, that Western civilization developed differently from, say, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia? What's wrong with that Western civilization, the one that led the fight against slavery, fought for women's equality (albeit with a late start), guaranteed individual liberties, etc.? I guess I don't understand these people.
I think they mean well. But they are ignorant of history, ignorant of reality. (BTW, someone should have pointed out that Columbus never set foot in what was to become the US. In fact, when arriving in the New World, he thought he was in Asia.) Of course the US isn't perfect. We have a long way to go. There are still far too many injustices, esp considering that this is the 21st Century. But where else should be look for role models, for Utopias? the African republics? Islamic countries? Commie China?
OK, get rid of the memorials and statues that honor Davis, Lee, Jackson, etc. Put them away, preferably in museums. But leave Washington, Jefferson, and even Columbus alone. Celebrate the good that came because of these men, but also use the opportunity to point out they made mistakes, that they did bad things.
BTW, I am still thinking about the athletes, namely the NFLers, who are protesting during the National Anthem at games. I think they have a right to their opinions and a right to make statements on their opinions. But if it's during games and their employers, be it the NFL or team owners, say "Stop!" they should stop. Oh, they still have their private times to speak up. They can also quit their jobs (that is, playing in the NFL with its millions of dollars) and find other work that would allow them to voice their concerns. Why do I not think that will happen? Plus, I am really concerned about their selective outrage about the problems in America. I know they are not necessarily equivalent, but where are these athletes and their concerns with other problems? In Chicago last week, another 36 people were shot; half a dozen of them died. That happens every week there. What about other cities? When the lawless rioters (and I won't call them "protesters") burned and looted businesses and neighborhoods in Ferguson, Baltimore, and other places, where were these concerned athletes? Maybe someone should point out to them that a lot of lives were ruined. People lost their business and, because those businesses were destroyed, a lot more lost their jobs/livelihoods. People lost their homes. People were beaten and even killed during these riots. And how many were arrested or prosecuted or convicted or punished?
I've mentioned this in the past, but it bear repeating. Dave Bing started a company in Detroit, creating a lot of jobs. Willie Horton worked with Detroit kids after leaving the Tigers, for 40 years or more. (And instead of kneeling, during the Detroit riots in '67, Horton, still in his game uniform, left Tiger Stadium to try to talk people out of burning down others' homes.) How many others can we name who did likewise: Jimmy Brown, Alan Page, Bill Russell, Arthur Ashe, Muhammad Ali, and Jackie Robinson? The list is endless. These men and women did something other than just kneel or raise fists.
Athletes and sports can transcend larger issues. In many ways, that's how some people's minds get changed. I always cite the Jackie Robinson story in my classes on the civil rights movement. I believe Martin Luther King paid homage to Robinson and Don Newcombe, Lary Doby, and other baseball players telling them they "made all this possible." I wish today's athletes could see that. Yes, it's good to take stances. But if there is no action on them, those stances remain empty.
It's a slippery slope indeed. All this talk and movement toward statues and memorials regarding the Civil War, slavery, etc. As I have noted in the past, upon reflection, I think it's not right to have places of honor for Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, et al. It's not necessarily that they owned slaves. It goes much deeper than that. To repeat, they had choices and they chose the wrong side of history, of humanity. They fought to perpetuate an evil against mankind and they lost. I'm not in favor of destroying such statues and memorials, but put them in museums or some other such places where they can be used to teach, to demonstrate why we choose not to honor Davis, Lee, Jackson, etc.
But, as might be expected, the slide down the slope has started. Where do we stop? Founding Fathers such as Washington and Jefferson (who penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights......") owned slaves. Are they to be removed from history, at least public history, too? Can not their other contributions, significant ones, outweigh the fact that they owned slaves? Washington and Jefferson create a different situation than Davis and Lee.
In Detroit over the weekend, protesters want a downtown statue of Chris topher Columbus taken down. Yes, he enslaved people. Did his "discovery" create the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? No. And if he didn't "find" the Americas, another European was certain to in a very short while. Like it or not, what Columbus did was to open a vast part of the world to Europeanization, to Christianization as well as helping to create a wealth, in Europe at least, that led to significant advances in civilization. I am not at all trying to condone anything evil. All that Europeanization and Christianization could have been done without slavery. (And don't forget that it existed all over the world before Columbus, that Asians and Africans as well as Europeans enslaved people, growing wealthy from the trade.) But Columbus made a very, very significant contribution. He changed the world, in one of the most important way ever. (I hope there's nobody out there who still thinks the New World was some Eden, an idyllic place that bordered on Paradise. It wasn't. Here's just one thing to remember: the natives here still practiced human sacrifice.)
Back to Detroit. It seems the demonstration included some ignorant people. I don't necessarily mean that as a pejorative. I don't think these people are stupid. But they don't know. For instance, what does "Reclaiming Our History: Detroit Without White Supremacy" mean? Apparently the protesters could find no evidence of the Confederacy in Detroit, so Columbus became their target. Of course, as one protester claimed, Columbus is "one of the key figures in this whole Western identity." Is that supposed to be a bad thing, that Western civilization developed differently from, say, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia? What's wrong with that Western civilization, the one that led the fight against slavery, fought for women's equality (albeit with a late start), guaranteed individual liberties, etc.? I guess I don't understand these people.
I think they mean well. But they are ignorant of history, ignorant of reality. (BTW, someone should have pointed out that Columbus never set foot in what was to become the US. In fact, when arriving in the New World, he thought he was in Asia.) Of course the US isn't perfect. We have a long way to go. There are still far too many injustices, esp considering that this is the 21st Century. But where else should be look for role models, for Utopias? the African republics? Islamic countries? Commie China?
OK, get rid of the memorials and statues that honor Davis, Lee, Jackson, etc. Put them away, preferably in museums. But leave Washington, Jefferson, and even Columbus alone. Celebrate the good that came because of these men, but also use the opportunity to point out they made mistakes, that they did bad things.
BTW, I am still thinking about the athletes, namely the NFLers, who are protesting during the National Anthem at games. I think they have a right to their opinions and a right to make statements on their opinions. But if it's during games and their employers, be it the NFL or team owners, say "Stop!" they should stop. Oh, they still have their private times to speak up. They can also quit their jobs (that is, playing in the NFL with its millions of dollars) and find other work that would allow them to voice their concerns. Why do I not think that will happen? Plus, I am really concerned about their selective outrage about the problems in America. I know they are not necessarily equivalent, but where are these athletes and their concerns with other problems? In Chicago last week, another 36 people were shot; half a dozen of them died. That happens every week there. What about other cities? When the lawless rioters (and I won't call them "protesters") burned and looted businesses and neighborhoods in Ferguson, Baltimore, and other places, where were these concerned athletes? Maybe someone should point out to them that a lot of lives were ruined. People lost their business and, because those businesses were destroyed, a lot more lost their jobs/livelihoods. People lost their homes. People were beaten and even killed during these riots. And how many were arrested or prosecuted or convicted or punished?
I've mentioned this in the past, but it bear repeating. Dave Bing started a company in Detroit, creating a lot of jobs. Willie Horton worked with Detroit kids after leaving the Tigers, for 40 years or more. (And instead of kneeling, during the Detroit riots in '67, Horton, still in his game uniform, left Tiger Stadium to try to talk people out of burning down others' homes.) How many others can we name who did likewise: Jimmy Brown, Alan Page, Bill Russell, Arthur Ashe, Muhammad Ali, and Jackie Robinson? The list is endless. These men and women did something other than just kneel or raise fists.
Athletes and sports can transcend larger issues. In many ways, that's how some people's minds get changed. I always cite the Jackie Robinson story in my classes on the civil rights movement. I believe Martin Luther King paid homage to Robinson and Don Newcombe, Lary Doby, and other baseball players telling them they "made all this possible." I wish today's athletes could see that. Yes, it's good to take stances. But if there is no action on them, those stances remain empty.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Charlottesville
Last weekend in Charlottesville has me distressed and dispirited. Of course it was a tragedy that this women was run over and killed by some racist nut case. Of course Americans should roundly and soundly condemn such "white supremacy" groups. Sometimes it's very hard to believe we live in the 21st Century. Is this as far as we've progressed?
Let me get this out of the way. I think Trump's responses, the initial and subsequent ones, were not what was needed. I'll explain more later. He just continues to provide evidence he should not be the President. (No, neither should Clinton.) But, that said, his opponents' vehement responses were not what was needed either. It's pretty apparent, at least to me, that their concern is more with getting rid of Trump than with opposing the racism of the white supremacy groups. Of course those might be related.
I don't like that, because of these white supremacy nut cases, the vast majority of white Americans are cast as racists, bigots, etc. No! Are the vast majority of black Americans thugs? Are the vast majority of Muslim Americans terrorists? I'm not going to let these protesters have it both ways! None of us should.
Speaking of Presidents, where was the outrage at the equally limited response of Obama to the looting, burning, killing, etc. in Ferguson, Baltimore, etc.? Oh, he made speeches, but what he seemed to condemn were not the looters, the arsonists, etc., but the "big guns." Instead of using the Bully Pulpit to help bring folks to their senses (Burning, looting, etc., is not sensible, esp if they destroy businesses that employ blacks, destroy black homes!), he went on the attack against guns. If Trump's response was wrong, or at least mistimed (He shouldn't have blamed "both sides," not just then.), so was Obama's. Where was the outrage, among people, among politicians, among the Lamestream media, that they show against Trump now? All these folks who demonstrate such selective outrage lose all credibility with me.
What about these monuments, busts, etc. to those like Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and other Southern/Confederate officers? That's a tough one for me. It's all about history. On the one hand, should we honor Lee, Jackson, and others for being on the wrong side of history? They had choices and made the wrong one. But we can't erase history and we shouldn't try. The Civil War, brought about due to slavery, was a black mark on US History, "the shining city on the hill." (But consider this, as I ask my students, "Do you know that more than 80% of Southerners didn't own slaves? Would you go to war, risking your life, to perpetuate slavery if you didn't own any slaves?" That's what happened. It's a bit more complicated than that, but we should remember that slavery was the key issue, the point of dispute that led to secession.)
Do we need the monuments and other things that honor those who chose the wrong side to remember history, American history? In Europe, are there any monuments to those who perpetrated the Holocaust? There are deniers, you know. And some of the concentration camps are still in existence, as reminders of the Holocaust. But there are no memorials to the Nazis who sent these millions and millions of people to their deaths. Only the fringe nut cases still honor Hitler and his Nazi leaders; there are no monuments to them, just the remains of the concentration camps that remind us of the horrors, to keep us (I hope) from ever doing something like that again.
Am I equating Lee and Jackson to Hitler and Himmler? Is a more fitting analogy Lee and Erwin Rommel? Rommel was never a member of the Nazi Party and, in fact, was part of the Valkyrie Plot to assassinate Hitler in '44. But his generalship, his brilliant actions, made it easier for Hitler to do what he did. Do we have any memorials for Rommel?
All of us have warts, some bigger than others. Where do we start and stop with them? How about many of our celebrities? John Lennon was and remains bigger than life. Outside of the Dakota fans still gather to memorialize him. Yet, some of the things he advocated--drug usage, free love--have ruined many people's lives, have created many dysfunctional families. So, a memorial for him? Is that carrying things too far?
At the very least, we need to have a discussion, a very serious one, in this country and within ourselves. We need to examine our values. It's difficult to have that discussion in today's climate. Extremists from the left and the right have come to dominate the discussion--we shouldn't let them do that. Trump was right in condemning both sides--the Neo-Nazis/KKK and Anti-Fa--he just was wrong in his timing. The extremists are the ones screaming loudest and most often, their voices given far too much circulation by the Lamestream media. It's an unfortunate fact that loudest and most frequent often create the narrative (I dislike using that word, but can't think of another right now) and history. (For example, remember William Henry Harrison, "Old Tippecanoe?" He rode his victory over Tecumseh into the White House, "Old Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too." The thing is he didn't defeat Tecumseh. First, Tecumseh wasn't there; his brother Tenkshatawana was. Second, the evidence is pretty clear Harrison didn't win. He didn't lose either. It was more of a draw. But Harrison yelled, "I won! I won! I won!" loudly and often enough so that, well, he became "Old Tippecanoe" and President Harrison.)
I'm still trying to sort out a lot of this. But if, as seems to happen more and more, if one side is condemned and the other side gets off Scot-free, I think there will be bigger trouble, a reaction that won't be nice.
Let me get this out of the way. I think Trump's responses, the initial and subsequent ones, were not what was needed. I'll explain more later. He just continues to provide evidence he should not be the President. (No, neither should Clinton.) But, that said, his opponents' vehement responses were not what was needed either. It's pretty apparent, at least to me, that their concern is more with getting rid of Trump than with opposing the racism of the white supremacy groups. Of course those might be related.
I don't like that, because of these white supremacy nut cases, the vast majority of white Americans are cast as racists, bigots, etc. No! Are the vast majority of black Americans thugs? Are the vast majority of Muslim Americans terrorists? I'm not going to let these protesters have it both ways! None of us should.
Speaking of Presidents, where was the outrage at the equally limited response of Obama to the looting, burning, killing, etc. in Ferguson, Baltimore, etc.? Oh, he made speeches, but what he seemed to condemn were not the looters, the arsonists, etc., but the "big guns." Instead of using the Bully Pulpit to help bring folks to their senses (Burning, looting, etc., is not sensible, esp if they destroy businesses that employ blacks, destroy black homes!), he went on the attack against guns. If Trump's response was wrong, or at least mistimed (He shouldn't have blamed "both sides," not just then.), so was Obama's. Where was the outrage, among people, among politicians, among the Lamestream media, that they show against Trump now? All these folks who demonstrate such selective outrage lose all credibility with me.
What about these monuments, busts, etc. to those like Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and other Southern/Confederate officers? That's a tough one for me. It's all about history. On the one hand, should we honor Lee, Jackson, and others for being on the wrong side of history? They had choices and made the wrong one. But we can't erase history and we shouldn't try. The Civil War, brought about due to slavery, was a black mark on US History, "the shining city on the hill." (But consider this, as I ask my students, "Do you know that more than 80% of Southerners didn't own slaves? Would you go to war, risking your life, to perpetuate slavery if you didn't own any slaves?" That's what happened. It's a bit more complicated than that, but we should remember that slavery was the key issue, the point of dispute that led to secession.)
Do we need the monuments and other things that honor those who chose the wrong side to remember history, American history? In Europe, are there any monuments to those who perpetrated the Holocaust? There are deniers, you know. And some of the concentration camps are still in existence, as reminders of the Holocaust. But there are no memorials to the Nazis who sent these millions and millions of people to their deaths. Only the fringe nut cases still honor Hitler and his Nazi leaders; there are no monuments to them, just the remains of the concentration camps that remind us of the horrors, to keep us (I hope) from ever doing something like that again.
Am I equating Lee and Jackson to Hitler and Himmler? Is a more fitting analogy Lee and Erwin Rommel? Rommel was never a member of the Nazi Party and, in fact, was part of the Valkyrie Plot to assassinate Hitler in '44. But his generalship, his brilliant actions, made it easier for Hitler to do what he did. Do we have any memorials for Rommel?
All of us have warts, some bigger than others. Where do we start and stop with them? How about many of our celebrities? John Lennon was and remains bigger than life. Outside of the Dakota fans still gather to memorialize him. Yet, some of the things he advocated--drug usage, free love--have ruined many people's lives, have created many dysfunctional families. So, a memorial for him? Is that carrying things too far?
At the very least, we need to have a discussion, a very serious one, in this country and within ourselves. We need to examine our values. It's difficult to have that discussion in today's climate. Extremists from the left and the right have come to dominate the discussion--we shouldn't let them do that. Trump was right in condemning both sides--the Neo-Nazis/KKK and Anti-Fa--he just was wrong in his timing. The extremists are the ones screaming loudest and most often, their voices given far too much circulation by the Lamestream media. It's an unfortunate fact that loudest and most frequent often create the narrative (I dislike using that word, but can't think of another right now) and history. (For example, remember William Henry Harrison, "Old Tippecanoe?" He rode his victory over Tecumseh into the White House, "Old Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too." The thing is he didn't defeat Tecumseh. First, Tecumseh wasn't there; his brother Tenkshatawana was. Second, the evidence is pretty clear Harrison didn't win. He didn't lose either. It was more of a draw. But Harrison yelled, "I won! I won! I won!" loudly and often enough so that, well, he became "Old Tippecanoe" and President Harrison.)
I'm still trying to sort out a lot of this. But if, as seems to happen more and more, if one side is condemned and the other side gets off Scot-free, I think there will be bigger trouble, a reaction that won't be nice.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Fri Thoughts
An op-ed in today's newspaper included a statement on "...education and, most importantly, the skills to keep learning." Bingo! But I don't know where to start.
I've always maintained that the value of my college education was not necessarily in the actual learning that took place. Of course, my professors were demanding and we had to know a lot. After all, a common theme on my returned/graded papers was something like, "No sloppy thinking allowed." We had to support our views with facts and strong thoughts.
With full discount for my zeal regarding my Amherst experience, this is what we were taught. We had to apply ourselves, often with a great deal of sweat and, I dare say, self-discipline, to study different areas of academic discipline. For instance, although a history major, I took courses, as required, in subjects such as physics (with perhaps my best teacher), religion (from the Western Christian Tradition to Islam to Buddhism and Southern Baptism), sociology, biology (genetics), etc. And there was always writing, tons of writing. Such an education teaches students (graduates) to adapt to different environments and to accept the challenges those different environments offer. It allows one to appreciate, if not enjoy?, what people in other areas are doing and thinking. We were taught "the skills to keep learning," to apply ourselves to intellectual challenges, to think critically. (I hesitate to use that term, "critical thinking," as it has been co-opted to, I think, nefarious and negative effect. But......)
I am reminded of something my running friend Carrie and I frequently say amid our discussions on education. "Is love of learning no longer enough?" I think not......
Oh, there are plenty of people, books, Web sites, etc. that advocate such views. But who listens to them? Who acts on those views? Not many. Our politicians, aided and abetted by the education establishment (often cowed into obsequiousness), and corporate-types, intent on making money from the reform movement (which often includes everything but "reform"), have instituted the mentality of "test, test, test, and test some more." What room/time does that leave for the challenges and exploration of a liberal arts education? Besides, as we hear, esp from the Right, "What good is a liberal arts education? It just creates unemployable graduates?" What an incredibly ignorant view!
A liberal arts education teaches students to adapt, to see the interconnections between disciplines/areas of study. And isn't that what preparing for the ever-changing job market of the 21st Century is all about?
And if, regardless of philosophy, education is so very important, why don't we act like it is? Oh, we spout all of the right things about education and its importance, even if only to "get a job." But look at how we act, what we actually do? What we say and what we do are very different.
OK, my views on many teachers are not secret. I've written about them many times, here in my blog, in more private/personal letters and e-mails, and even in published letters-to-the-editor and op-ed articles. But if education is so important, look how we pay our teachers? (Again, remember I think many teachers are still overpaid.) If education, the work of teachers, is so vital, why in many school districts throughout the country are beginning teachers given a salary that qualifies them for food stamps (if they are single parents)? I am not at all complaining, not at all, but as I run through a nearby exclusive subdivision (or even houses being built behind ours), I see homes I could never afford. Oh, I noted what looks like construction workers walking out, getting into their trucks, and heading out to work in the AMs. I am not begrudging them their work or their pay/wages. Good for them. I know from personal experience that construction work is hard. But if they can afford such expensive homes, why can't teachers? A recent article cited the average value of a house in the entire US. That figure is about $80,000 more than what my house is worth. Another piece in our local newspaper noted that public school teachers in San Francisco can't afford to purchase homes in San Francisco.
Now much of this flies in the face of what goes on in schools today. I don't think the quality and rigor are nearly as great as decades ago. I suppose there are a number of reasons. Many teachers were not forced to experience rigorous, quality education in colleges. This leads to two things, bad things. One, they don't know what rigor is or, often, their own subject matter. Two, they have been taught themselves that education is not rigorous, is not difficult, does not require "sweat" and much self-discipline. I won't let the politicians and corporate-types off the hook. They have come to dominate educational philosophies--test, test, test, and test some more. Even kindergartners and first graders have to take the state tests, on computers no less! And let's also blame administrators and teachers for letting standards fall so much, if indeed they have as I believe they have.
Ultimately, though, I fall back on the lament of Carrie and me, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
BTW, please forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes. I'm too tired to proofread. I donated blood yesterday and that, oddly, seems to have sapped me.
I've always maintained that the value of my college education was not necessarily in the actual learning that took place. Of course, my professors were demanding and we had to know a lot. After all, a common theme on my returned/graded papers was something like, "No sloppy thinking allowed." We had to support our views with facts and strong thoughts.
With full discount for my zeal regarding my Amherst experience, this is what we were taught. We had to apply ourselves, often with a great deal of sweat and, I dare say, self-discipline, to study different areas of academic discipline. For instance, although a history major, I took courses, as required, in subjects such as physics (with perhaps my best teacher), religion (from the Western Christian Tradition to Islam to Buddhism and Southern Baptism), sociology, biology (genetics), etc. And there was always writing, tons of writing. Such an education teaches students (graduates) to adapt to different environments and to accept the challenges those different environments offer. It allows one to appreciate, if not enjoy?, what people in other areas are doing and thinking. We were taught "the skills to keep learning," to apply ourselves to intellectual challenges, to think critically. (I hesitate to use that term, "critical thinking," as it has been co-opted to, I think, nefarious and negative effect. But......)
I am reminded of something my running friend Carrie and I frequently say amid our discussions on education. "Is love of learning no longer enough?" I think not......
Oh, there are plenty of people, books, Web sites, etc. that advocate such views. But who listens to them? Who acts on those views? Not many. Our politicians, aided and abetted by the education establishment (often cowed into obsequiousness), and corporate-types, intent on making money from the reform movement (which often includes everything but "reform"), have instituted the mentality of "test, test, test, and test some more." What room/time does that leave for the challenges and exploration of a liberal arts education? Besides, as we hear, esp from the Right, "What good is a liberal arts education? It just creates unemployable graduates?" What an incredibly ignorant view!
A liberal arts education teaches students to adapt, to see the interconnections between disciplines/areas of study. And isn't that what preparing for the ever-changing job market of the 21st Century is all about?
And if, regardless of philosophy, education is so very important, why don't we act like it is? Oh, we spout all of the right things about education and its importance, even if only to "get a job." But look at how we act, what we actually do? What we say and what we do are very different.
OK, my views on many teachers are not secret. I've written about them many times, here in my blog, in more private/personal letters and e-mails, and even in published letters-to-the-editor and op-ed articles. But if education is so important, look how we pay our teachers? (Again, remember I think many teachers are still overpaid.) If education, the work of teachers, is so vital, why in many school districts throughout the country are beginning teachers given a salary that qualifies them for food stamps (if they are single parents)? I am not at all complaining, not at all, but as I run through a nearby exclusive subdivision (or even houses being built behind ours), I see homes I could never afford. Oh, I noted what looks like construction workers walking out, getting into their trucks, and heading out to work in the AMs. I am not begrudging them their work or their pay/wages. Good for them. I know from personal experience that construction work is hard. But if they can afford such expensive homes, why can't teachers? A recent article cited the average value of a house in the entire US. That figure is about $80,000 more than what my house is worth. Another piece in our local newspaper noted that public school teachers in San Francisco can't afford to purchase homes in San Francisco.
Now much of this flies in the face of what goes on in schools today. I don't think the quality and rigor are nearly as great as decades ago. I suppose there are a number of reasons. Many teachers were not forced to experience rigorous, quality education in colleges. This leads to two things, bad things. One, they don't know what rigor is or, often, their own subject matter. Two, they have been taught themselves that education is not rigorous, is not difficult, does not require "sweat" and much self-discipline. I won't let the politicians and corporate-types off the hook. They have come to dominate educational philosophies--test, test, test, and test some more. Even kindergartners and first graders have to take the state tests, on computers no less! And let's also blame administrators and teachers for letting standards fall so much, if indeed they have as I believe they have.
Ultimately, though, I fall back on the lament of Carrie and me, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
BTW, please forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes. I'm too tired to proofread. I donated blood yesterday and that, oddly, seems to have sapped me.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
19th Century Admissions Test
I was just introduced to a 19th Century admissions "test" for Amherst College. I'd assume that the test was similar to those for other institutions. Wow! Applicants were expected to know math, including algebra, and English grammar, yes, grammar! But the real test was in Latin and Greek--both! Yikes.
Of course it was a different time with different goals of a college education. I think Amherst, at the time of this test, was still a college mostly dedicated to preparing young men for the ministry. Still, it was fascinating to take the test. BTW, I cheated and was admitted, as long as I could afford the $36 room, board, and tuition. That translates to about $10,000 today, a far cry from the $60,000 plus now required. (I think it was about $3,200 when I began as a freshman. Four years later it was a little more than $5,400.)
I'm doing some reading now, history books. I was taken by this, after reading an article about some NY legislator (maybe even a member of Congress) who wants to changed the names of several NYC streets that bear the names of Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, etc. My curiosity was piqued as I recall many historians agreeing with such changes. So, then, do these same historians, in their writings still refer to rulers as "...the Great," as in Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, and others? After all, "Great" is appended to their names because of their conquests, right, or if not their conquests directly their rule based upon their conquests. Didn't they subjugate their own and other peoples? Weren't a lot of people killed in their wars of conquest? Or is the problem with Lee and Jackson that they fought for the South, trying to retain a way of life that included slavery? But these "Greats" also fought to keep ways of life that included slavery, granted of a different variety. Even to their subjects who weren't slaves, didn't they demand and exact heavy taxes/tribute? So, that these men made significant contributions to civilization and history, it's OK to overlook their bad behavior? I don't know. I am just asking.
According to most sources, the majority of college instructors identify as liberals, some even more so as progressives. They believe in more government, bigger government. That is the answer to everything, more and bigger government. So, as I am reading some books this summer, written by college instructors, I am reminded of the many civilizations that declined and even died because of the stultifying effects of domineering governments. The authors cite countries whose economies wilted or suffered, whose people paid the prices due to what they call "overbearing regulations," "heavy taxes," and "uncontrolled bureaucracies." And these books also note that some of these countries have rebounded by "opening up" opportunities by "the reduction of suffocating regulations and bureaucracies." One noted how one nation (It might have been India before the '90s.) declined until it rid itself of a regulation that required "around eighty agencies' approval before a company could do business." So, how do they reconcile what they obviously know about history with their political beliefs/philosophy?
It is humbling to know we belong to a species that could perpetrate such atrocities as The Holocaust and slavery/the slave trade.
Of course it was a different time with different goals of a college education. I think Amherst, at the time of this test, was still a college mostly dedicated to preparing young men for the ministry. Still, it was fascinating to take the test. BTW, I cheated and was admitted, as long as I could afford the $36 room, board, and tuition. That translates to about $10,000 today, a far cry from the $60,000 plus now required. (I think it was about $3,200 when I began as a freshman. Four years later it was a little more than $5,400.)
I'm doing some reading now, history books. I was taken by this, after reading an article about some NY legislator (maybe even a member of Congress) who wants to changed the names of several NYC streets that bear the names of Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, etc. My curiosity was piqued as I recall many historians agreeing with such changes. So, then, do these same historians, in their writings still refer to rulers as "...the Great," as in Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, and others? After all, "Great" is appended to their names because of their conquests, right, or if not their conquests directly their rule based upon their conquests. Didn't they subjugate their own and other peoples? Weren't a lot of people killed in their wars of conquest? Or is the problem with Lee and Jackson that they fought for the South, trying to retain a way of life that included slavery? But these "Greats" also fought to keep ways of life that included slavery, granted of a different variety. Even to their subjects who weren't slaves, didn't they demand and exact heavy taxes/tribute? So, that these men made significant contributions to civilization and history, it's OK to overlook their bad behavior? I don't know. I am just asking.
According to most sources, the majority of college instructors identify as liberals, some even more so as progressives. They believe in more government, bigger government. That is the answer to everything, more and bigger government. So, as I am reading some books this summer, written by college instructors, I am reminded of the many civilizations that declined and even died because of the stultifying effects of domineering governments. The authors cite countries whose economies wilted or suffered, whose people paid the prices due to what they call "overbearing regulations," "heavy taxes," and "uncontrolled bureaucracies." And these books also note that some of these countries have rebounded by "opening up" opportunities by "the reduction of suffocating regulations and bureaucracies." One noted how one nation (It might have been India before the '90s.) declined until it rid itself of a regulation that required "around eighty agencies' approval before a company could do business." So, how do they reconcile what they obviously know about history with their political beliefs/philosophy?
It is humbling to know we belong to a species that could perpetrate such atrocities as The Holocaust and slavery/the slave trade.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
At Last!
For a long time I've suggested that politicians be charged and tried for fraud. They lie and lie and lie, promising this and promising that, with no intentions of doing what they promise. They take donations and isn't this "fraud?" What is "fraud" other than taking something/money under false pretenses? Isn't that what many politicians do?
So, some donor to the Republican Party in Virginia is suing, under RICO laws, the GOP. He is upset that the Republicans failed to do what they promised, what they promised for seven years--to repeal Obamacare. "Give us Congress, the House and the Senate, and we'll repeal Obamacare." "Give us the Presidency and we'll repeal Obamacare." Well, they were given everything they asked and, after some equally fraudulent votes to repeal it knowing Obama was ready with a veto, didn't deliver on their promises.
I don't know how much money the guy donated, but I hope his suit isn't dismissed and makes it to trial. Of course, the Republican spokesmen pooh-poohed the suit as "frivolous" and "a nuisance suit." What else were they supposed to say? "Yeah, we deliberately lied in attempts to get money."
Maybe it's time to start treating politicians, at least many of them, like everyone else. If businessmen/women can be sued for fraudulent actions, politicians should be fair game, too. They have been able to get away with their dishonesty for far too long. It would be good to see other donors, upset at the dishonesty of the Republicans, also file lawsuits. (I don't think the Democrats should worry. They come right out and tell us they plan to steal our money for their agendas. They aren't at all dishonest about that.)
Repeal Obamacare? How many millions of dollars did that promise raise? How about other "promises," such as de-funding Planned Parenthood for its role in abortions? Oh, there are lots of examples. Maybe we can get those running for office to be honest with voters. No, I'm not holding my breath.
As I've noted many times, baseball is a funny game. Here's another instance. Miguel Cabrera is hitting the lowest he has in his career. Yet...... As of this week, his "line-drive rate" is second in the Majors, while his "hard-hit rate" is fourth. Yes, he's striking out more than usual, swinging at bad pitches, etc. But as an article this AM pointed out, Miggy hits a lot of line drives that are caught, obviously. If 15 of them, fewer/less than one more a week, fell in for hits, he'd be hitting over .300. The next time someone asserts with unfounded authority, "What's wrong with Miggy?," think about this.
BTW, I don't watch much of the Tigers and not any of other teams. But from what little I've seen, if Jose Iglesias doesn't win a Gold Glove, I'd really like to see who does. The kid is a magician in the field! His feet and, esp, hands are so quick! I noted in the newspaper this AM that he's hitting over .260. With his glove, whatever the Tigers are paying him isn't nearly enough, compared to what others get.
One of my high school players went on to play college ball and then pitch for a while in the Majors with the Brewers. When in college, the coaches there tried to change his form, notably the way he short-armed the ball. I don't know enough to make changes like that. But I do know he did well in high school and had no arm problems. In college, he was beset with arm troubles. When he was drafted and signed, he was allowed to go back to his old (natural?) delivery. And he had success, as I said, playing for a while in the Majors. It reminds me of running. Almost always, a runner's gait should be left alone. He/She is likely running with his/her natural stride, the one that is best for his/her body. Attempts to mess with it might well lead to injuries. As George Sheehan once wrote, "Every person is an experiment of one."
Is this true? It read like a headline from one of the tabloids. No, the Detroit News reported than half of the candidates running for office in Detroit (mayor?) are convicted felons. Is that so? Well, perhaps taking a look at the litany of recent past crooks holding public office in the city encouraged the felons. I guess I believe in second chances, but this is still disturbing.
I wonder what caused Senators Stabenow and Peters to finally issue their "blue slip" which will allow the nomination of Joan Larson to the US Court of Appeals to proceed in the confirmation process. I'd like to think the criticism directed their way, for being more concerned with Democrat Party wishes than the wishes and interests of their Michigan constituents, had some effect. But I'm not sure about that. Isn't it funny--and not ha-ha funny--that both (Peters then in the House) voted for Obamacare without any of the "due diligence" or "scrutiny" (their words) they've given a highly qualified (from both liberals and conservatives in the state), popular candidate (She received 59% of the popular vote in a three-way election for the state supreme court last November.).
Thursday was my Mom's birthday. She would have been 88 years old. It's hard to believe she died 24 years ago; that's a long time. I was telling someone the other day that, when I had some down times in college, 700 miles away, she was the one I'd call. And the afternoon long-distance calls ("Long Distance?" What's that?) were not cheap. She even ironed my baseball uniforms after washing and before games. I miss her a lot, even after 24 years.
So, some donor to the Republican Party in Virginia is suing, under RICO laws, the GOP. He is upset that the Republicans failed to do what they promised, what they promised for seven years--to repeal Obamacare. "Give us Congress, the House and the Senate, and we'll repeal Obamacare." "Give us the Presidency and we'll repeal Obamacare." Well, they were given everything they asked and, after some equally fraudulent votes to repeal it knowing Obama was ready with a veto, didn't deliver on their promises.
I don't know how much money the guy donated, but I hope his suit isn't dismissed and makes it to trial. Of course, the Republican spokesmen pooh-poohed the suit as "frivolous" and "a nuisance suit." What else were they supposed to say? "Yeah, we deliberately lied in attempts to get money."
Maybe it's time to start treating politicians, at least many of them, like everyone else. If businessmen/women can be sued for fraudulent actions, politicians should be fair game, too. They have been able to get away with their dishonesty for far too long. It would be good to see other donors, upset at the dishonesty of the Republicans, also file lawsuits. (I don't think the Democrats should worry. They come right out and tell us they plan to steal our money for their agendas. They aren't at all dishonest about that.)
Repeal Obamacare? How many millions of dollars did that promise raise? How about other "promises," such as de-funding Planned Parenthood for its role in abortions? Oh, there are lots of examples. Maybe we can get those running for office to be honest with voters. No, I'm not holding my breath.
As I've noted many times, baseball is a funny game. Here's another instance. Miguel Cabrera is hitting the lowest he has in his career. Yet...... As of this week, his "line-drive rate" is second in the Majors, while his "hard-hit rate" is fourth. Yes, he's striking out more than usual, swinging at bad pitches, etc. But as an article this AM pointed out, Miggy hits a lot of line drives that are caught, obviously. If 15 of them, fewer/less than one more a week, fell in for hits, he'd be hitting over .300. The next time someone asserts with unfounded authority, "What's wrong with Miggy?," think about this.
BTW, I don't watch much of the Tigers and not any of other teams. But from what little I've seen, if Jose Iglesias doesn't win a Gold Glove, I'd really like to see who does. The kid is a magician in the field! His feet and, esp, hands are so quick! I noted in the newspaper this AM that he's hitting over .260. With his glove, whatever the Tigers are paying him isn't nearly enough, compared to what others get.
One of my high school players went on to play college ball and then pitch for a while in the Majors with the Brewers. When in college, the coaches there tried to change his form, notably the way he short-armed the ball. I don't know enough to make changes like that. But I do know he did well in high school and had no arm problems. In college, he was beset with arm troubles. When he was drafted and signed, he was allowed to go back to his old (natural?) delivery. And he had success, as I said, playing for a while in the Majors. It reminds me of running. Almost always, a runner's gait should be left alone. He/She is likely running with his/her natural stride, the one that is best for his/her body. Attempts to mess with it might well lead to injuries. As George Sheehan once wrote, "Every person is an experiment of one."
Is this true? It read like a headline from one of the tabloids. No, the Detroit News reported than half of the candidates running for office in Detroit (mayor?) are convicted felons. Is that so? Well, perhaps taking a look at the litany of recent past crooks holding public office in the city encouraged the felons. I guess I believe in second chances, but this is still disturbing.
I wonder what caused Senators Stabenow and Peters to finally issue their "blue slip" which will allow the nomination of Joan Larson to the US Court of Appeals to proceed in the confirmation process. I'd like to think the criticism directed their way, for being more concerned with Democrat Party wishes than the wishes and interests of their Michigan constituents, had some effect. But I'm not sure about that. Isn't it funny--and not ha-ha funny--that both (Peters then in the House) voted for Obamacare without any of the "due diligence" or "scrutiny" (their words) they've given a highly qualified (from both liberals and conservatives in the state), popular candidate (She received 59% of the popular vote in a three-way election for the state supreme court last November.).
Thursday was my Mom's birthday. She would have been 88 years old. It's hard to believe she died 24 years ago; that's a long time. I was telling someone the other day that, when I had some down times in college, 700 miles away, she was the one I'd call. And the afternoon long-distance calls ("Long Distance?" What's that?) were not cheap. She even ironed my baseball uniforms after washing and before games. I miss her a lot, even after 24 years.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Creepy!
Today we have received several robo-calls identified as coming from "Final Solutions." That is very, very creepy! Now, there might be a legitimate business named "Final Solutions" and maybe the owners/managers don't know history, but that is very creepy.
Do they not know that the Final Solution was the euphemism the Nazis gave to the Holocaust, the genocide that killed six million Jews in an attempt to rid Europe of them, along with another five or six million people the Nazis deemed undesirable? Perhaps they don't.
But the Holocaust is a stark reminder that history includes chapters we aren't proud of and shouldn't be. It also teaches us humility. While we criticize the past and people from the past, that should remind us that we are no innocents ourselves. No doubt our children and grandchildren will be critical of us--what we've done and not done. We shouldn't forget that. Perhaps the robo-call company/people don't know that.
If they don't, that is troubling. I remember the quotation, maybe from one of Chaim Potok's brilliant novels: "...the profound humiliation of belonging to a species capable of such unspeakable acts." Of course, he (if Potok or whoever) was writing of the Holocaust. That is something we should always remember, if not of ourselves directly, at least of our "species."
BTW, on his show yesterday, Dennis Prager pronounced it correctly, "Naz-ism," not the almost ubiquitously mispronounced "Nazi-ism." I recall the high school AP US History teacher referring to the years prior to the Civil War as The "Anti-," not Ante-Bellum Era. Again, maybe I quibble, showing snobbery.
Of course, I was reminded of my first biology course, in high school, this AM. Carrie and I were talking about walking occasionally during our running. (I don't think walking while running is a big deal, certainly not a sin. If someone thinks so, well he/she is welcome to try to keep up with me for a week.) One of us brought up the word "metabolism." In high school, for the longest time I called it "met-uh-BOWL-iz-um." I guess I had the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. At Amherst, in one of my first history courses, we read about this guy "Goethe," you know, the famous "GO-eth." I had little idea, in class, who the instructor and other students were talking about when they said, "GER-te" or something like that. Maybe I shouldn't be the one to cast aspersions.
I still mispronounce words, often on purpose, but not always on purpose...... Sometimes I'm just ignorant.
I'm reading Dan Brown's Inferno, about half through with it. I've read The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Like Carrie said this AM on our run (We have wide-ranging and sometimes deep discussions.), "I wish I had read Angels and Demons first......" I think that would have made The DaVinci Code a bit easier, maybe. The recent Brown book is, of course, based on Dante's Divine Comedy, the first book of it--Dante's descent into Hell. Brown tries to put the epic poem into perspective, that is, how it was received by the people of the late Middle Ages. And it's frightening. Supposedly, Church attendance increased threefold because of the terrors of Hell described by Dante. It's something that is hard to teach in my class. I try to instill in students that people didn't always live the way we live now. This is a good example. Imagine students today with television, movies, video games, etc. trying to visualize people scared out of their wits by a poem. Teaching history isn't always easy.
I may have to re-read The Divine Comedy; after all it's been almost 50 years since I did.
Brown has given me a couple of ideas on how to approach this in my class, though. And I hope these ideas will help me make a connection (a segue?) between the latter Medieval Period and the Renaissance. I can try at least.
For whatever reasons, I was thinking earlier today (no, not running with Carrie, but on my bike ride) about two of the men who maybe had the most profound influences on my life. I am forever grateful to them and one of my regrets is that maybe I didn't express that, at least once. A major reason I still do some of the things I do is to pay back, if not these men, at least their memories, my memories of them. Silly? Maybe, but......
I'm reminded of them and of history. I know both of these men had flaws, serious ones. They were not evil men, not even bad men, but often neither was good. So, how do I reconcile my appreciation with the fact that frequently they were not paragons of goodness, far from it? I don't know if this is analogous, but I'll try.
Remember Andrew Jackson? There's that brouhaha over his portrait on the $20 bill. In addition to his horrid treatment of Indians, the man owned slaves, a lot of them. But history is complicated. Jackson and his times did a lot to influence the growth of democracy. Can anyone argue that was a bad thing, the growth of democracy? "But Jackson owned slaves?" Ah, the complications! Yes, he owned slaves. Jackson was a resident of the American South. Influential men of the South owned slaves. Had he not, had he freed them, had he spoken out against slavery, he would not have become President. He might have been a far better man, but he would never have become President. What, then, of the growth of democracy? What other American of the time could have expanded democracy the way Jackson and his influence did? Yep, I am still trying to think of one, too. No, we are not, at least I am not, comfortable with Jackson, but yet I realize......
It's the same with these two men who influenced my life so greatly. OK, maybe I think too much.
Do they not know that the Final Solution was the euphemism the Nazis gave to the Holocaust, the genocide that killed six million Jews in an attempt to rid Europe of them, along with another five or six million people the Nazis deemed undesirable? Perhaps they don't.
But the Holocaust is a stark reminder that history includes chapters we aren't proud of and shouldn't be. It also teaches us humility. While we criticize the past and people from the past, that should remind us that we are no innocents ourselves. No doubt our children and grandchildren will be critical of us--what we've done and not done. We shouldn't forget that. Perhaps the robo-call company/people don't know that.
If they don't, that is troubling. I remember the quotation, maybe from one of Chaim Potok's brilliant novels: "...the profound humiliation of belonging to a species capable of such unspeakable acts." Of course, he (if Potok or whoever) was writing of the Holocaust. That is something we should always remember, if not of ourselves directly, at least of our "species."
BTW, on his show yesterday, Dennis Prager pronounced it correctly, "Naz-ism," not the almost ubiquitously mispronounced "Nazi-ism." I recall the high school AP US History teacher referring to the years prior to the Civil War as The "Anti-," not Ante-Bellum Era. Again, maybe I quibble, showing snobbery.
Of course, I was reminded of my first biology course, in high school, this AM. Carrie and I were talking about walking occasionally during our running. (I don't think walking while running is a big deal, certainly not a sin. If someone thinks so, well he/she is welcome to try to keep up with me for a week.) One of us brought up the word "metabolism." In high school, for the longest time I called it "met-uh-BOWL-iz-um." I guess I had the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. At Amherst, in one of my first history courses, we read about this guy "Goethe," you know, the famous "GO-eth." I had little idea, in class, who the instructor and other students were talking about when they said, "GER-te" or something like that. Maybe I shouldn't be the one to cast aspersions.
I still mispronounce words, often on purpose, but not always on purpose...... Sometimes I'm just ignorant.
I'm reading Dan Brown's Inferno, about half through with it. I've read The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Like Carrie said this AM on our run (We have wide-ranging and sometimes deep discussions.), "I wish I had read Angels and Demons first......" I think that would have made The DaVinci Code a bit easier, maybe. The recent Brown book is, of course, based on Dante's Divine Comedy, the first book of it--Dante's descent into Hell. Brown tries to put the epic poem into perspective, that is, how it was received by the people of the late Middle Ages. And it's frightening. Supposedly, Church attendance increased threefold because of the terrors of Hell described by Dante. It's something that is hard to teach in my class. I try to instill in students that people didn't always live the way we live now. This is a good example. Imagine students today with television, movies, video games, etc. trying to visualize people scared out of their wits by a poem. Teaching history isn't always easy.
I may have to re-read The Divine Comedy; after all it's been almost 50 years since I did.
Brown has given me a couple of ideas on how to approach this in my class, though. And I hope these ideas will help me make a connection (a segue?) between the latter Medieval Period and the Renaissance. I can try at least.
For whatever reasons, I was thinking earlier today (no, not running with Carrie, but on my bike ride) about two of the men who maybe had the most profound influences on my life. I am forever grateful to them and one of my regrets is that maybe I didn't express that, at least once. A major reason I still do some of the things I do is to pay back, if not these men, at least their memories, my memories of them. Silly? Maybe, but......
I'm reminded of them and of history. I know both of these men had flaws, serious ones. They were not evil men, not even bad men, but often neither was good. So, how do I reconcile my appreciation with the fact that frequently they were not paragons of goodness, far from it? I don't know if this is analogous, but I'll try.
Remember Andrew Jackson? There's that brouhaha over his portrait on the $20 bill. In addition to his horrid treatment of Indians, the man owned slaves, a lot of them. But history is complicated. Jackson and his times did a lot to influence the growth of democracy. Can anyone argue that was a bad thing, the growth of democracy? "But Jackson owned slaves?" Ah, the complications! Yes, he owned slaves. Jackson was a resident of the American South. Influential men of the South owned slaves. Had he not, had he freed them, had he spoken out against slavery, he would not have become President. He might have been a far better man, but he would never have become President. What, then, of the growth of democracy? What other American of the time could have expanded democracy the way Jackson and his influence did? Yep, I am still trying to think of one, too. No, we are not, at least I am not, comfortable with Jackson, but yet I realize......
It's the same with these two men who influenced my life so greatly. OK, maybe I think too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
