This is getting ridiculous. Have we, many of us, become wooden-headed? (Thanks to Barbara Tuchman for that great term.)
Over the course of the past few days, the NFL and other kneelers have been likened to "Martin Luther King," "Rosa Parks," and other civil rights leaders. Give me a break!!!!!! Do these people not want to be taken seriously? Talk about an egregious example of hyperbole!
One letter writer asked for "the courage to take a knee." Yeah, right. An editorial in today's newspaper rightly ripped on the Ann Arbor city council members who took knees during the opening Pledge of Allegiance. Yeah, in snow-flake village Ann Arbor that too real "courage."
What's so courageous or anything but divisive about guys kneeling for the National Anthem and then going right out and playing, er, working (sorry--ha ha ha) to make several hundred thousand dollars in three hours, if that?
Here, want to be "courageous?" Want to be likened to King and Parks, rightly honored for putting their lives on the line? (After being released from jail after refusing to give up her bus seat, Rosa and her husband were sitting at their kitchen table. He said, "Rosa, you know they'll kill you." Yeah, you kneelers are really brave!) Try this. Kneel if you want; if your employers are fine with it, that's OK with me, too. But instead of playing your games, er, working for the afternoon, walk out and lead demonstrations on the city halls or police departments. Better yet, take your protests--on Sunday afternoons!--to the known drug dens and gang clubhouses. Yeah, try that. Then maybe you'll gain some credibility with me.
One conservative think tank in Michigan is trying to get access to the e-mails of the president of the University of Michigan. (I think they have some, if not all.) This president should be severely reprimanded and punished, if not fired, by the university regents. (Of course he won't be; nothing will be done.) According to an op-ed the other day, this guy has admitted creating speeches to students so they were "deliberately anti-Trump" because he didn't want to "waste an important opportunity to influence students' votes." Huh? The guy is entitled to his opinions, his private opinions. To work this way with students is reprehensible. Turn the tables. Suppose a university president would have worked equally diligently toward an "anti-Obama" or "anti-Clinton" campaign? (Of course few academics would because, to the arrogant elitists, Obama and Clinton remain "the Messiah" and "the world's smartest woman." And, after all, they are academics......) And to think that, until I was a senior in high school, I wanted to be a student at the University of Michigan. Actually I was accepted there, ready to play ball. (I only applied to two places.) Boy, was I lucky--in more ways than one.
I remarked somewhere that the fall colors were lacking this year, fearing we might miss Mother Nature's wonderful annual art show. One popular (poplar)/cottonwood is completely leafless, while my half dozen or so maples were still full of their leaves--green leaves. I noticed for the first time this AM, on my run, quite a few reds, yellows, and oranges. It's as if they came overnight, from out of nowhere. Now, I hope the forecast rain doesn't knock these colorful gems off their branches too soon. That happened a few years back and I was surprised at how disappointed I was.
BTW, I'm very glad for Justin Verlander. Oh, I wish he was still a Tiger. But the success he's having as an Astro is great to see. He was the ALCS (?) MVP with a microscopic ERA. I might have read this last week or so. In series-clinching playoff or World Series games, Verlander's ERA is something like 1.40. Isn't that close to impossible in this day and age? That's sort of Sandy Koufax-ish! (I still remember Mickey Mantle, striking out for the fourth time in a Series game vs Koufax, muttering as he threw his bat in the bat rack, "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" It wasn't a question. And to top it off, I think that was a game Koufax had arm troubles and couldn't throw his curve or slider, only his fastball--and the Yankees knew it!)
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Disrespect. Strange. "I-Thou."
This just won't go away. I was hoping all this "kneeling" would disappear, but I guess not. This AM I heard someone from the NFL (I don't know if it was a player or union rep or league official) say, "We don't mean any disrespect of the flag or veterans" or soldiers by kneeling. Oh? Has "mean" taken a place along side "feel?"
How's this? Let's ask these same apologists about the mascot/nickname "Redskins." No doubt, as I know from first-hand experience, defenders will say, surprise!, "We don't mean any disrespect......" For the record, I think the term "Redskins" is a slur, is a pejorative. It is offensive, in its origins and its use over time. But that's not my point here, as I also think not standing for the National Anthem is also a slur, a pejorative. It is offensive.
I have little doubt that those who defend "kneeling" would oppose "Redskins." And I also have no doubt that, when questioned about the apparent inconsistency, the response would be "Oh, but that's different." Of course it is; it always is. Apparently respect has also become relative.
I see one NFL player, whose name was foreign to me, is donating the rest of his year's salary to establish some sort of foundation/scholarship for education. The guy has already funded two scholarships for the U of Virginia in the aftermath of August's troubles. I'm guessing that this NFLer is not a member of Black Lives Matter. And I'm waiting for more and more NFL players to do likewise. How long should I wait?
I hope this is the last I write about this NFL stuff. I really hadn't planned to add anything to my previous comments, but when I heard "We don't mean any disrespect......" I may have written something like this before: If thoughts can have a profound influence on the world, we should be careful how we think.
Have you read the Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land? It's about a man who was raised by Martians, on Mars, and returns to Earth as a young adult. You can imagine the strangeness. Sometimes I feel that way, a stranger in a strange land.
It seems I often don't recognize the world I live in, from many perspectives. The differences of my youth, growing up and with the activities of 50 and 60 years ago, vs the lives of kids today are of different worlds. Behavior of the young and not-so-young has devolved. Standards, all sorts of standards, have been debased. Writing? Manners? Discussion? Television? Morality? Where to stop? And, yes, I'm one of those, as Karen calls me, "old coots" who doesn't think these changes are for the better.
Here's one example. A couple weeks ago, I was at a high school football game. Numerous announcements were made over the PA system advising students from both schools to behave. One group, well far more than one group, chose to disregard that warning. Two administrators from one of the schools, as well as a group of parents, moved in to quell the misbehavior. The students in this group, instead of behaving, grew more belligerent and obstreperous. The language, the attitude, the everything was disrespectful if not worse. It reminded me of "my world," years ago. On one of those pretty wasteful "career days" at the high school, I hosted a lawyer from town. During his talk, a student was acting up a bit, quite rude. I walked behind the kid and gave him a little thwap on the side of his head. After the presentation, and I couldn't tell if the lawyer was put out or not, he asked, "Can you do that?" that is "thwap" students? I just looked at him and said, "The kid straightened up, didn't he?" I could give many more examples and maybe will later this week or next.
But it's a different world, isn't it? ...a strange land.
I hope that there are big donors behind this and this isn't coming from our tax money. I think college football and basketball coaches are vastly overpaid. What they make, at least from their universities, is obscene, really obscene. Today's newspaper cited the salaries of the baseball and softball coaches at the U of M. Over the course of the new contracts they signed, each will be getting $500,000 a year. That' half a million dollars! Do you think the physics or history professors earn that much? I know, I know...... Chemistry labs don't attract spectators.
Richard Wilbur was a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for poetry. He was named the Poet Laureate of the US. He died last weekend. I was oddly moved by his passing. Maybe it was because he died on the same date as my mother, 24 years ago. Maybe it was because he was an alumnus of Amherst. Maybe it was because his poetry gave me joy. Maybe it was all of these.
Talk about "strange." Perhaps it's just the nerdy me. The other day I had an actual conversation that included Martin Buber ("I-Thou"), Paul Tillich, and other 20th Century theologians. It wasn't a particularly long talk, but they came up. Now that doesn't happen every day.
How's this? Let's ask these same apologists about the mascot/nickname "Redskins." No doubt, as I know from first-hand experience, defenders will say, surprise!, "We don't mean any disrespect......" For the record, I think the term "Redskins" is a slur, is a pejorative. It is offensive, in its origins and its use over time. But that's not my point here, as I also think not standing for the National Anthem is also a slur, a pejorative. It is offensive.
I have little doubt that those who defend "kneeling" would oppose "Redskins." And I also have no doubt that, when questioned about the apparent inconsistency, the response would be "Oh, but that's different." Of course it is; it always is. Apparently respect has also become relative.
I see one NFL player, whose name was foreign to me, is donating the rest of his year's salary to establish some sort of foundation/scholarship for education. The guy has already funded two scholarships for the U of Virginia in the aftermath of August's troubles. I'm guessing that this NFLer is not a member of Black Lives Matter. And I'm waiting for more and more NFL players to do likewise. How long should I wait?
I hope this is the last I write about this NFL stuff. I really hadn't planned to add anything to my previous comments, but when I heard "We don't mean any disrespect......" I may have written something like this before: If thoughts can have a profound influence on the world, we should be careful how we think.
Have you read the Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land? It's about a man who was raised by Martians, on Mars, and returns to Earth as a young adult. You can imagine the strangeness. Sometimes I feel that way, a stranger in a strange land.
It seems I often don't recognize the world I live in, from many perspectives. The differences of my youth, growing up and with the activities of 50 and 60 years ago, vs the lives of kids today are of different worlds. Behavior of the young and not-so-young has devolved. Standards, all sorts of standards, have been debased. Writing? Manners? Discussion? Television? Morality? Where to stop? And, yes, I'm one of those, as Karen calls me, "old coots" who doesn't think these changes are for the better.
Here's one example. A couple weeks ago, I was at a high school football game. Numerous announcements were made over the PA system advising students from both schools to behave. One group, well far more than one group, chose to disregard that warning. Two administrators from one of the schools, as well as a group of parents, moved in to quell the misbehavior. The students in this group, instead of behaving, grew more belligerent and obstreperous. The language, the attitude, the everything was disrespectful if not worse. It reminded me of "my world," years ago. On one of those pretty wasteful "career days" at the high school, I hosted a lawyer from town. During his talk, a student was acting up a bit, quite rude. I walked behind the kid and gave him a little thwap on the side of his head. After the presentation, and I couldn't tell if the lawyer was put out or not, he asked, "Can you do that?" that is "thwap" students? I just looked at him and said, "The kid straightened up, didn't he?" I could give many more examples and maybe will later this week or next.
But it's a different world, isn't it? ...a strange land.
I hope that there are big donors behind this and this isn't coming from our tax money. I think college football and basketball coaches are vastly overpaid. What they make, at least from their universities, is obscene, really obscene. Today's newspaper cited the salaries of the baseball and softball coaches at the U of M. Over the course of the new contracts they signed, each will be getting $500,000 a year. That' half a million dollars! Do you think the physics or history professors earn that much? I know, I know...... Chemistry labs don't attract spectators.
Richard Wilbur was a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for poetry. He was named the Poet Laureate of the US. He died last weekend. I was oddly moved by his passing. Maybe it was because he died on the same date as my mother, 24 years ago. Maybe it was because he was an alumnus of Amherst. Maybe it was because his poetry gave me joy. Maybe it was all of these.
Talk about "strange." Perhaps it's just the nerdy me. The other day I had an actual conversation that included Martin Buber ("I-Thou"), Paul Tillich, and other 20th Century theologians. It wasn't a particularly long talk, but they came up. Now that doesn't happen every day.
Monday, October 16, 2017
National Character Matters Week?
I haven't checked for the accuracy of this, but I heard that this week is "National Character Matters Week." Well, as one who firmly believes that "character matters," I support this, well maybe. First, is this going to merely be another one of those designated weeks or months for this favorite trendy cause or that favorite trendy agenda? If so, don't bother.
Second, how delightful that "National Character Matters Week" was instituted, I am led to believe, by a resolution by Congress and announced by the President. Presumably they did all this with a straight face, although keeping one must have been quite an effort.
"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress" wrote Mark Twain more than a century ago. And although it might be debatable, I think it's worse now than then. It's as if members of Congress have made careers of being dishonest, of lying. If any group in the US surely doesn't subscribe to "character matters," it must be Congress. BTW, I'm not letting Presidents off the hook here. They are in the same sleazy boat, esp Clinton, Obama, Trump.
We have politicians who exude charm and concern for others ("We care!") while in reality act in the most deceiving, dishonest, and mean ways. "Character matters" indeed.
But what about the rest of the country? Does character still matter? We can write off Hollywood and those types. Movies, television, music (particularly gangsta rap), and video games hardly reflect a sense that character matters. Quite the opposite in fact. They, like members of Congress and Presidents, seem to make careers on sleaze.
The media include almost daily examples of their lack of character. From omission to obfuscation to outright lies, they show their true colors. Unless one is watching a network of one's own particular beliefs, the media are recognized for what they've become, liars playing for their own agendas, candidates, parties, etc. Ask a conservative about CNN or MSNBC. Ask a liberal about Fox News.
We reward bad behavior. Is that a signal that "character matters?" After all of the lying done by Obama, is there any doubt that had he been able to run again in 2016 that he would have swamped (Yes, I am using that term with deliberation!) Trump? Of course he would have. Hillary Clinton, for gosh sakes, was the Democratic nominee! Bill Clinton remains, not an outcast, a pariah for all of his despicable personal behavior, but an icon among Democrats. Mitch McConnell has told how many bold-faced lies to his constituents in Kentucky? And they must know it, the lying. Yet voters there keep sending him back--and Republicans elect him to the highest position of authority in the Senate!
Che Guevara, a mass murdering thug who looked up to Stalin and Mao, is feted as a hero on tee shirts and even underwear. Magazines and colleges, well, some of the professors, do the same (although I don't know about the professors' underwear) and they should know better. Or is it OK, that is, of good character to mass murder depending on one's cause?
How much money do college football and basketball coaches earn? Tell me one person who was surprised a couple of weeks ago when the FBI handed down indictments in recruiting scandals. OK, I'll tell you one--me! Yep, I am surprised that it took so long and also surprised that more college coaches weren't named. But that's OK, character doesn't matter if we win in football and basketball. We can cheat then and it's all right. "C'mon, it's football and basketball!"
Character? We can't even engage in civil discourse. We name-call. If we can't argue persuasively or if the other side has a better argument, we just turn to calling names--"bigot," "racist," "Neanderthal," or, in my specific experience, "negative." Does character matter when this has the distinct result of shutting up people? Who wants to be called names? Remember how the Republicans run when the Democrats call them "mean-spirited" and "heartless?" Heck, I had a hard time keeping running partners at the high school when the administration, unable to come up with reasonable defenses of their stupidity which I questioned, resorted to labeling me "negative."
I think technology is behind much of this loss of character. How easy it is to hide behind the protection of a computer or I-phone and spout off.
We reward lack of character--with our votes, with our money, with our adulation. We reward bad behavior in so very many ways. Not only that, if someone dares criticize lack of character, bad behavior, that someone is critized--with name-calling, boycotts, etc.
Someone once wrote that character is what you do when nobody is looking. OK, but I also think that character is what you do when everybody is looking.
"National Character Matters" Week. I will celebrate it, at least in my mind. I will also assume that most people, famous and otherwise, will give it lip service.
Second, how delightful that "National Character Matters Week" was instituted, I am led to believe, by a resolution by Congress and announced by the President. Presumably they did all this with a straight face, although keeping one must have been quite an effort.
"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress" wrote Mark Twain more than a century ago. And although it might be debatable, I think it's worse now than then. It's as if members of Congress have made careers of being dishonest, of lying. If any group in the US surely doesn't subscribe to "character matters," it must be Congress. BTW, I'm not letting Presidents off the hook here. They are in the same sleazy boat, esp Clinton, Obama, Trump.
We have politicians who exude charm and concern for others ("We care!") while in reality act in the most deceiving, dishonest, and mean ways. "Character matters" indeed.
But what about the rest of the country? Does character still matter? We can write off Hollywood and those types. Movies, television, music (particularly gangsta rap), and video games hardly reflect a sense that character matters. Quite the opposite in fact. They, like members of Congress and Presidents, seem to make careers on sleaze.
The media include almost daily examples of their lack of character. From omission to obfuscation to outright lies, they show their true colors. Unless one is watching a network of one's own particular beliefs, the media are recognized for what they've become, liars playing for their own agendas, candidates, parties, etc. Ask a conservative about CNN or MSNBC. Ask a liberal about Fox News.
We reward bad behavior. Is that a signal that "character matters?" After all of the lying done by Obama, is there any doubt that had he been able to run again in 2016 that he would have swamped (Yes, I am using that term with deliberation!) Trump? Of course he would have. Hillary Clinton, for gosh sakes, was the Democratic nominee! Bill Clinton remains, not an outcast, a pariah for all of his despicable personal behavior, but an icon among Democrats. Mitch McConnell has told how many bold-faced lies to his constituents in Kentucky? And they must know it, the lying. Yet voters there keep sending him back--and Republicans elect him to the highest position of authority in the Senate!
Che Guevara, a mass murdering thug who looked up to Stalin and Mao, is feted as a hero on tee shirts and even underwear. Magazines and colleges, well, some of the professors, do the same (although I don't know about the professors' underwear) and they should know better. Or is it OK, that is, of good character to mass murder depending on one's cause?
How much money do college football and basketball coaches earn? Tell me one person who was surprised a couple of weeks ago when the FBI handed down indictments in recruiting scandals. OK, I'll tell you one--me! Yep, I am surprised that it took so long and also surprised that more college coaches weren't named. But that's OK, character doesn't matter if we win in football and basketball. We can cheat then and it's all right. "C'mon, it's football and basketball!"
Character? We can't even engage in civil discourse. We name-call. If we can't argue persuasively or if the other side has a better argument, we just turn to calling names--"bigot," "racist," "Neanderthal," or, in my specific experience, "negative." Does character matter when this has the distinct result of shutting up people? Who wants to be called names? Remember how the Republicans run when the Democrats call them "mean-spirited" and "heartless?" Heck, I had a hard time keeping running partners at the high school when the administration, unable to come up with reasonable defenses of their stupidity which I questioned, resorted to labeling me "negative."
I think technology is behind much of this loss of character. How easy it is to hide behind the protection of a computer or I-phone and spout off.
We reward lack of character--with our votes, with our money, with our adulation. We reward bad behavior in so very many ways. Not only that, if someone dares criticize lack of character, bad behavior, that someone is critized--with name-calling, boycotts, etc.
Someone once wrote that character is what you do when nobody is looking. OK, but I also think that character is what you do when everybody is looking.
"National Character Matters" Week. I will celebrate it, at least in my mind. I will also assume that most people, famous and otherwise, will give it lip service.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Another Crisis
I'm upset with myself. I'm giving the NFL far too much of my attention. Oh, it's not the games or the standings or the players. I can't tell you how many games, say, the Lions have won. I'm pretty sure I can't name even five or six running backs in the NFL--I probably can QBs, though. But it's this taking a knee thing.
The other day was a riveting Detroit News article about the "Struggle with crime" in black Detroit neighborhoods. I'm guessing the statistics provided in the article are vastly understated. But besides the actual crimes themselves, imagine the psychological and emotional distress the residents in these neighborhoods must endure. I'm not just talking about the shootings--gang-related, random, for "dissing" someone, desiring another's shoes, etc. One section explained how an uncle in Detroit shot and killed his nephew because he didn't like the look he was getting--shot and killed over a dirty look! The city is celebrating that the number of annual murders is down to 300 or so now. What? First, that's about one a day. Second, Detroit now has fewer than one-third of the people/population it had 50 years ago. That's not one-third less population, but one-third of the people! So, cynically, one might come to the conclusion there are fewer people to kill? (Should we cite Chicago, DC, and/or other major cities?)
But consider some of the "tips," the strategies given to residents "to avoid becoming crime victims." They are told, if they buy televisions, computers, or other such items, not to leave the empty boxes by the house. Those boxes are invitations for robberies. They are told "not to get boxed in" at fast-food restaurants or at traffic stops to avoid carjackings. Don't buy gas at night. Carry "decoy wallets," with dummy credit cards and a few dollars to hand over to robbers. Heck, they are advised not to keep Christmas trees by windows; Chris trees are "signals" to thieves that there are things worth stealing. People moving into new homes should move in at night so they don't tell thugs what is being brought into the houses. And there's more......
OK, I understand there are some rogue police officers out there, but the number must be pretty small. I understand, too, that there are some racists among the police departments; again, I'd guess the percentage is small. Even if my guess on the few numbers is wrong, how many more black citizens are being terrorize, not by the police, but by thugs in their own neighborhoods? People shouldn't have to live that way.
Where are the NFL kneelers on that?????? Here we have players making far more money in a single season than many of us make in our lifetimes. (One night I was out to dinner with a group of guys, most teachers or former teachers. One NFL player that day signed a contract that gave him more money in a season that the five or six of us made over our careers, all of us put together!) Why aren't they "tithing," that is, giving one-tenth of their inflated incomes to help in the black neighborhoods? Instead, they "take a knee." Sure they do; it costs them nothing. No doubt there are a number of NFL players (and other professional athletes) who do give back to their communities. But also there is no doubt not nearly enough of them do. "Tithing?" Hey, here's an idea. Why don't they devote half of their incomes to their communities? I know why and so do you.
I have no idea which player it was the other day said if the owners cracked down and prohibited players from taking a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner, he'd quit. I don't remember his exact words; like I said, I never heard of 99% if these guys. Maybe somebody talked to him; I don't know. But later that same day he took it back. Well, he wouldn't really quit...... Of course he wouldn't.
Protest. Protest. Protest. I don't see anyone protesting life in the cities. Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when a 6-year old playing in his neighborhood park is shot in a drive-by shooting? Where are they when a 9-year old is killed in a drug-related trial to keep his father from testifying? Where is the protest when a little girl reading on her mother's bed is shot to death when her house is riddled with bullets? Where are the protests and demonstrations in front of known gang clubhouses and drug dens? Gangs and drugs are the causes of much of the daily hell these good residents experience. Ah, but protesting this and these are not trendy. Such demonstrations might require some people to face some uncomfortable truths......
The other day was a riveting Detroit News article about the "Struggle with crime" in black Detroit neighborhoods. I'm guessing the statistics provided in the article are vastly understated. But besides the actual crimes themselves, imagine the psychological and emotional distress the residents in these neighborhoods must endure. I'm not just talking about the shootings--gang-related, random, for "dissing" someone, desiring another's shoes, etc. One section explained how an uncle in Detroit shot and killed his nephew because he didn't like the look he was getting--shot and killed over a dirty look! The city is celebrating that the number of annual murders is down to 300 or so now. What? First, that's about one a day. Second, Detroit now has fewer than one-third of the people/population it had 50 years ago. That's not one-third less population, but one-third of the people! So, cynically, one might come to the conclusion there are fewer people to kill? (Should we cite Chicago, DC, and/or other major cities?)
But consider some of the "tips," the strategies given to residents "to avoid becoming crime victims." They are told, if they buy televisions, computers, or other such items, not to leave the empty boxes by the house. Those boxes are invitations for robberies. They are told "not to get boxed in" at fast-food restaurants or at traffic stops to avoid carjackings. Don't buy gas at night. Carry "decoy wallets," with dummy credit cards and a few dollars to hand over to robbers. Heck, they are advised not to keep Christmas trees by windows; Chris trees are "signals" to thieves that there are things worth stealing. People moving into new homes should move in at night so they don't tell thugs what is being brought into the houses. And there's more......
OK, I understand there are some rogue police officers out there, but the number must be pretty small. I understand, too, that there are some racists among the police departments; again, I'd guess the percentage is small. Even if my guess on the few numbers is wrong, how many more black citizens are being terrorize, not by the police, but by thugs in their own neighborhoods? People shouldn't have to live that way.
Where are the NFL kneelers on that?????? Here we have players making far more money in a single season than many of us make in our lifetimes. (One night I was out to dinner with a group of guys, most teachers or former teachers. One NFL player that day signed a contract that gave him more money in a season that the five or six of us made over our careers, all of us put together!) Why aren't they "tithing," that is, giving one-tenth of their inflated incomes to help in the black neighborhoods? Instead, they "take a knee." Sure they do; it costs them nothing. No doubt there are a number of NFL players (and other professional athletes) who do give back to their communities. But also there is no doubt not nearly enough of them do. "Tithing?" Hey, here's an idea. Why don't they devote half of their incomes to their communities? I know why and so do you.
I have no idea which player it was the other day said if the owners cracked down and prohibited players from taking a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner, he'd quit. I don't remember his exact words; like I said, I never heard of 99% if these guys. Maybe somebody talked to him; I don't know. But later that same day he took it back. Well, he wouldn't really quit...... Of course he wouldn't.
Protest. Protest. Protest. I don't see anyone protesting life in the cities. Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when a 6-year old playing in his neighborhood park is shot in a drive-by shooting? Where are they when a 9-year old is killed in a drug-related trial to keep his father from testifying? Where is the protest when a little girl reading on her mother's bed is shot to death when her house is riddled with bullets? Where are the protests and demonstrations in front of known gang clubhouses and drug dens? Gangs and drugs are the causes of much of the daily hell these good residents experience. Ah, but protesting this and these are not trendy. Such demonstrations might require some people to face some uncomfortable truths......
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Leave Us Alone!
Three centuries ago, Czar Peter the Great banned Russian men from wearing beards. His first method to enforce this ban was to slap a tax on beards. (He also taxed glass, chimneys, and even dying! If I recall correctly, it was called a "soul tax.") He even personally shaved his generals. Later, he sent his soldiers through the countryside to shave those remaining recalcitrant.
Taxes have often been a way for government not just to raise revenue, but to regulate trade and to influence people's consumption. Check, for instance, what states have the highest and the lowest taxes on cigarettes. I suppose such taxes are well-intentioned, but are still quite bothersome and sometimes dangerous.
Some cities in the US have enacted taxes on soda/pop. (I know, I know. In Michigan it's "pop," but my years in Massachusetts made me prefer "soda.") First, such a tax is regressive, as are all taxes on food and beverages. They hit lower incomes harder than upper incomes. Chicago, NYC, and other places have found such levies to be very unpopular, to the point of near repeal.
The experience in Philadelphia, though, is instructive. The soda tax there was assumed to raise more than $90 million dollars for the city's treasury, much of it earmarked for education. Once again, government projections were off, way off. About half of the projected revenue was realized. But it gets worse. After passing the tax, Pepsi has seen almost a 50% drop in business. The 100 area Pepsi employees who are going to be laid off probably don't care a fig about the $45 million in revenues. Canada Dry, too, has given employees notice that there will be layoffs. I'm sure the additional municipal revenue doesn't excite them much, either.
What's happening isn't necessarily a decrease in consumption. Philadelphians are just driving to neighboring cities where there is no tax and buying their Pepsi, Canada Dry, etc. there.
(Over the past decades, there has been a decrease in the consumption of pop--or soda or tonic or coke, generically, or soft drink or cold drink--in the US. But that's because more and more people are turning to healthier drinks.)
Again, such taxes are always sugar-coated. Oh, the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) are helping us with our health. The money will go to, say, the schools. Who can oppose such things? That is, who can oppose such things until the complete picture is unveiled?
And it always turns out like that. Government, stay out of my life, our lives! Don't try to dictate what I drink or eat or buy or...... I know what's good for me and what isn't. Frankly, I still drink too much soda, both diet and regular, you know, the ones with high fructose corn syrup. I know all about it, but it's my choice. And it should be my choice, not some perhaps well-meaning, perhaps self-righteous politicians or government bureaucrats.
When I see such government overreach, I am reminded of Prohibition. People, to get their alcohol, were purchasing and drinking anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, formaldehyde, and even embalming fluid. To stop that, the federal government ordered such fluids to be denatured. But instead of adding substances such as soap, which would merely make drinkers sick, mercury and strychnine were added. Mercury and strychnine? Aren't those poisons, poisons that kill? One year, 11 thousand Americans died because of this. The government reaction was, simply, "They shouldn't have been drinking in the first place." That is, these Americans, who were engaging in an activity that just a year or two before was perfectly legal, an activity which in moderation is harmless, an activity that was a perfectly normal social activity for thousands of years all over the world, deserved to die.
Granted, a soda tax isn't quite as extreme. But Prohibition provides a picture of what an unfettered government can and often will do.
Government, it has become expected, is supposed to "do something." No, don't do anything or, rather, do very little. Take the "obesity epidemic" as claimed by the CDC. Supposedly, about 40% of all American adults are obese, not just overweight or fat, but obese. Visually, I have no reason to doubt that. But health and "obesity" are personal responsibilities, not government's. Americans don't have an obesity problem; fat Americans have an obesity problem.
But, of course, it's now standard for government to "do something." Look at the school lunch programs. Anecdotally at least, those healthy lunch programs are a massive failure. Don't take my word for it, gleaned from articles and stories from school workers. Kids throw away the carrot and celery sticks--and who wouldn't?????? Seriously, who reads the gov't-mandated "calorie counts" on the menus of restaurants? Don't try to tell my you do.
All these food regulations are written by politicians and bureaucrats who have their own agendas. They don't know you and me, other than we are the sources for the monies they fund their boondoggles.
And I've written about this before, but these same politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for cutting physical activity, physical education in our schools. Sure, we may consume more calories than we did several decades ago, but I submit our problems with being fat stem more from an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. We aren't active enough. We watch too much television and play too many video games. We buy tractor lawn mowers (loud enough to resemble Boeing 747s!) and snow blowers instead of getting out and doing the chores ourselves, with our bodies. And, as if to underscore the lack of importance of an active lifestyle, the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") cut physical education in the schools. There's a lesson our students surely are learning well! But, of course, phys ed isn't on the tests......
Yes, obesity is a problem. It drives up costs for all of us, whether we are fat or not. We all pay for it, in health insurance and hospital costs. We get stuck behind fat people in the aisle of stores and can't pass them going up stairs. We have to park farther away from our destinations because of handicap parking spaces reserved not only for those really needing them, but for obese people. But it's not an American problem; it's not for government to once again stick in its ugly head and make it worse--and more expensive. Let's let government leave us alone and make this a personal responsibility.
Yeah, I know, I know......
Taxes have often been a way for government not just to raise revenue, but to regulate trade and to influence people's consumption. Check, for instance, what states have the highest and the lowest taxes on cigarettes. I suppose such taxes are well-intentioned, but are still quite bothersome and sometimes dangerous.
Some cities in the US have enacted taxes on soda/pop. (I know, I know. In Michigan it's "pop," but my years in Massachusetts made me prefer "soda.") First, such a tax is regressive, as are all taxes on food and beverages. They hit lower incomes harder than upper incomes. Chicago, NYC, and other places have found such levies to be very unpopular, to the point of near repeal.
The experience in Philadelphia, though, is instructive. The soda tax there was assumed to raise more than $90 million dollars for the city's treasury, much of it earmarked for education. Once again, government projections were off, way off. About half of the projected revenue was realized. But it gets worse. After passing the tax, Pepsi has seen almost a 50% drop in business. The 100 area Pepsi employees who are going to be laid off probably don't care a fig about the $45 million in revenues. Canada Dry, too, has given employees notice that there will be layoffs. I'm sure the additional municipal revenue doesn't excite them much, either.
What's happening isn't necessarily a decrease in consumption. Philadelphians are just driving to neighboring cities where there is no tax and buying their Pepsi, Canada Dry, etc. there.
(Over the past decades, there has been a decrease in the consumption of pop--or soda or tonic or coke, generically, or soft drink or cold drink--in the US. But that's because more and more people are turning to healthier drinks.)
Again, such taxes are always sugar-coated. Oh, the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) are helping us with our health. The money will go to, say, the schools. Who can oppose such things? That is, who can oppose such things until the complete picture is unveiled?
And it always turns out like that. Government, stay out of my life, our lives! Don't try to dictate what I drink or eat or buy or...... I know what's good for me and what isn't. Frankly, I still drink too much soda, both diet and regular, you know, the ones with high fructose corn syrup. I know all about it, but it's my choice. And it should be my choice, not some perhaps well-meaning, perhaps self-righteous politicians or government bureaucrats.
When I see such government overreach, I am reminded of Prohibition. People, to get their alcohol, were purchasing and drinking anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, formaldehyde, and even embalming fluid. To stop that, the federal government ordered such fluids to be denatured. But instead of adding substances such as soap, which would merely make drinkers sick, mercury and strychnine were added. Mercury and strychnine? Aren't those poisons, poisons that kill? One year, 11 thousand Americans died because of this. The government reaction was, simply, "They shouldn't have been drinking in the first place." That is, these Americans, who were engaging in an activity that just a year or two before was perfectly legal, an activity which in moderation is harmless, an activity that was a perfectly normal social activity for thousands of years all over the world, deserved to die.
Granted, a soda tax isn't quite as extreme. But Prohibition provides a picture of what an unfettered government can and often will do.
Government, it has become expected, is supposed to "do something." No, don't do anything or, rather, do very little. Take the "obesity epidemic" as claimed by the CDC. Supposedly, about 40% of all American adults are obese, not just overweight or fat, but obese. Visually, I have no reason to doubt that. But health and "obesity" are personal responsibilities, not government's. Americans don't have an obesity problem; fat Americans have an obesity problem.
But, of course, it's now standard for government to "do something." Look at the school lunch programs. Anecdotally at least, those healthy lunch programs are a massive failure. Don't take my word for it, gleaned from articles and stories from school workers. Kids throw away the carrot and celery sticks--and who wouldn't?????? Seriously, who reads the gov't-mandated "calorie counts" on the menus of restaurants? Don't try to tell my you do.
All these food regulations are written by politicians and bureaucrats who have their own agendas. They don't know you and me, other than we are the sources for the monies they fund their boondoggles.
And I've written about this before, but these same politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for cutting physical activity, physical education in our schools. Sure, we may consume more calories than we did several decades ago, but I submit our problems with being fat stem more from an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. We aren't active enough. We watch too much television and play too many video games. We buy tractor lawn mowers (loud enough to resemble Boeing 747s!) and snow blowers instead of getting out and doing the chores ourselves, with our bodies. And, as if to underscore the lack of importance of an active lifestyle, the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") cut physical education in the schools. There's a lesson our students surely are learning well! But, of course, phys ed isn't on the tests......
Yes, obesity is a problem. It drives up costs for all of us, whether we are fat or not. We all pay for it, in health insurance and hospital costs. We get stuck behind fat people in the aisle of stores and can't pass them going up stairs. We have to park farther away from our destinations because of handicap parking spaces reserved not only for those really needing them, but for obese people. But it's not an American problem; it's not for government to once again stick in its ugly head and make it worse--and more expensive. Let's let government leave us alone and make this a personal responsibility.
Yeah, I know, I know......
Sunday, October 8, 2017
"I feel......"
"I feel......" I've heard that more than once over the course of the last week or so. To start, there's nothing wrong with feeling, if in the right context. But when feeling replaces thinking, there's a problem. I think we've reached that point.
I don't think it was coincidental that each of the "I feel" comments came from past or present teachers. I know for years, in class, I had students in their essays write things they felt, rather than what they knew. And there were many teachers who encouraged that, feeling instead of knowing, with, for instance, writing daily journals. So much for the misnomer "critical thinking."
"I feel they," the NFL kneelers, "have a right of free speech" or something of that nature. That, again, is not coincidental that this comment came from teachers. It shows an ignorance of the concept of free expression/speech. And it's certainly not just teachers who misunderstand this. (I just heard the comments from teachers.) No doubt, these people would cite, in supporting their feelings, the First Amendment. I'm certain few of them know what the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...or of speech, or of the press or of the people to peaceably assemble......" The key word is "Congress." The First Amendment restricts government, not private employers. There is no "freedom of speech" for the NFLers unless the owners want to give it to them. What if, say, back in another lifetime when I was teaching in the schools, I opted to post banners in my room asking that the millage be defeated because the school board and administrators will just waste the money? Do I have the right of "free speech?" Read the amendment and then consider the school district is a level of government. If anything, I should be able to post such a statement, without repercussions. Now, how far do you think I'd have gotten with that one? (I did have on my bulletin board, often the only thing, a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yes, principals and at least one superintendent were aware it was there.)
Such ignorance of the First Amendment is not unexpected. I've written this in the past that I think many teachers' college degrees are fake degrees, work required for them not nearly as rigorous, the curriculum not nearly of the quality, of real degrees. I have some standing to make such a statement. I have two real degrees, that is, not from the schools of education, as well as two degrees from schools of education, teaching degrees. I know of what I speak/write.
Is it any surprise, then, that people who have gone through the public schools don't comprehend the meaning of the First Amendment? Their teachers don't even know it. (Oh, the stories I could tell!)
But, as is being proven more and more, "I feel" is good enough.
I think it's been blown out of proportion, esp in light of the real problems we face, but this NFL QB snafu is ridiculous. What did he say? Something about being asked about pass patterns by a girl? To me, the women doing sports are just as bad as the men, maybe worse. I say "worse" only because some of the men are former players who can tell funny or relevant stories.
A columnist this AM has it all wrong about female reporters covering sports. No, they should not be allowed in men's locker rooms. Well, they should, but only if they, too, strip down to their bras and panties, wearing towels wrapped around their bodies. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it.
Another one wrote this, claiming that the Trump administration's ruling to roll back the Obamacare requirement of providing birth control in insurance packages. That, of course, stems from some people's/employers' religious and moral objections to this. But this editor claims the Trump decision will lead to "more unplanned pregnancies...more abortions...more children with preventable disabilities." Huh? So, now it's our fault, my fault for all these terrible things!?!?!? Hey lady (Yes, I'm being snide here!), what about people curbing or controlling their sexual urges? NO NO, we can't have that. (Gee, Hugh Hefner just died last week, you know, the one most responsible for the "Moral Revolution," which I call the "Immoral Revolution." NO NO, we can't have that, controlling sexual urges.) Why don't these complainers purchase their own insurance policies or, get riders, that cover birth control? NO NO, we can't have that. People actually be responsible for their own lives? C'mon...... For that matter, why doesn't this lady start something, maybe a Face Book page or a Go Fund Me or whatever those things are, to pay for such policies for those she's lamenting? Or, even better, why doesn't she (and those who agree with her) pay out of their own pockets for the birth control policies? I know why and so does she. But how rich, blaming the Trump administration for "more abortions" and "more unplanned pregnancies." There's a lot to lament about Trump, but this isn't one of the things. But, of course, this lady "feels......"
I don't think it was coincidental that each of the "I feel" comments came from past or present teachers. I know for years, in class, I had students in their essays write things they felt, rather than what they knew. And there were many teachers who encouraged that, feeling instead of knowing, with, for instance, writing daily journals. So much for the misnomer "critical thinking."
"I feel they," the NFL kneelers, "have a right of free speech" or something of that nature. That, again, is not coincidental that this comment came from teachers. It shows an ignorance of the concept of free expression/speech. And it's certainly not just teachers who misunderstand this. (I just heard the comments from teachers.) No doubt, these people would cite, in supporting their feelings, the First Amendment. I'm certain few of them know what the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...or of speech, or of the press or of the people to peaceably assemble......" The key word is "Congress." The First Amendment restricts government, not private employers. There is no "freedom of speech" for the NFLers unless the owners want to give it to them. What if, say, back in another lifetime when I was teaching in the schools, I opted to post banners in my room asking that the millage be defeated because the school board and administrators will just waste the money? Do I have the right of "free speech?" Read the amendment and then consider the school district is a level of government. If anything, I should be able to post such a statement, without repercussions. Now, how far do you think I'd have gotten with that one? (I did have on my bulletin board, often the only thing, a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yes, principals and at least one superintendent were aware it was there.)
Such ignorance of the First Amendment is not unexpected. I've written this in the past that I think many teachers' college degrees are fake degrees, work required for them not nearly as rigorous, the curriculum not nearly of the quality, of real degrees. I have some standing to make such a statement. I have two real degrees, that is, not from the schools of education, as well as two degrees from schools of education, teaching degrees. I know of what I speak/write.
Is it any surprise, then, that people who have gone through the public schools don't comprehend the meaning of the First Amendment? Their teachers don't even know it. (Oh, the stories I could tell!)
But, as is being proven more and more, "I feel" is good enough.
I think it's been blown out of proportion, esp in light of the real problems we face, but this NFL QB snafu is ridiculous. What did he say? Something about being asked about pass patterns by a girl? To me, the women doing sports are just as bad as the men, maybe worse. I say "worse" only because some of the men are former players who can tell funny or relevant stories.
A columnist this AM has it all wrong about female reporters covering sports. No, they should not be allowed in men's locker rooms. Well, they should, but only if they, too, strip down to their bras and panties, wearing towels wrapped around their bodies. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it.
Another one wrote this, claiming that the Trump administration's ruling to roll back the Obamacare requirement of providing birth control in insurance packages. That, of course, stems from some people's/employers' religious and moral objections to this. But this editor claims the Trump decision will lead to "more unplanned pregnancies...more abortions...more children with preventable disabilities." Huh? So, now it's our fault, my fault for all these terrible things!?!?!? Hey lady (Yes, I'm being snide here!), what about people curbing or controlling their sexual urges? NO NO, we can't have that. (Gee, Hugh Hefner just died last week, you know, the one most responsible for the "Moral Revolution," which I call the "Immoral Revolution." NO NO, we can't have that, controlling sexual urges.) Why don't these complainers purchase their own insurance policies or, get riders, that cover birth control? NO NO, we can't have that. People actually be responsible for their own lives? C'mon...... For that matter, why doesn't this lady start something, maybe a Face Book page or a Go Fund Me or whatever those things are, to pay for such policies for those she's lamenting? Or, even better, why doesn't she (and those who agree with her) pay out of their own pockets for the birth control policies? I know why and so does she. But how rich, blaming the Trump administration for "more abortions" and "more unplanned pregnancies." There's a lot to lament about Trump, but this isn't one of the things. But, of course, this lady "feels......"
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Wed
Sunday AM, I woke to 36 degrees and heavy frost, if not ice!, on the windshields of our cars. Without gloves or hat, my running partner said, "You're a far braver man than I, Gunga Din." It was chilly. This AM, about half an hour earlier than my Sun run, it was 70 degrees, with near 100% humidity. The air was so close/thick and we did have some brief thunder dunders before noon. Michigan is known for its quickly changing weather, but this seems odd even for the Great Lake State.
I've written about Thomas Sowell in the past. The man is not only brilliant, but filled with common sense. Of course, he'll never get any accolades like Pulitzers, etc. He's a black man who doesn't fit the norm. He's critical of things like Black Lives Matter, Affirmative Action, etc. I'm not sure he's a conservative, but he's certainly not a liberal.
He had a great quotation a while ago. "There are two vacancies on the Supreme Court." This was after the death of "the great Antonin Scalia" and before the appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. Sowell continued, "The other [vacancy] is Anthony Kennedy." What a scathing criticism! And it's right on the money most of the time.
I read a mass e-mail from a college president who was critical of education today. Of course, much of his finger-pointing was at teachers. It's not a secret I am critical of many teachers, who, frankly, should not be teachers or should be taught how to teach. But I found it very rich, indeed, to read this guy making almost $1,000,000 a year criticizing teachers who make $40,000 or $50,000. That he doesn't see the disconnect in that, the the rationale behind salaries, tells me the guy isn't quite as sharp as some folks think he is.
Here's a link to an article everyone should read, esp those kneeling NFL players and their sycophant (bobble head) owners and coaches.
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/10/03/blacks-vs-police-n2389488 (You may have to cut and paste the link into your browser.)
It's by Walter Williams and, as usual, is brilliant and really can't be criticized, not rationally. Here's a wonderful question he asks, Why are Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Michael Brown held up as heroes to so many people? It needs to be answered, I think, and is at the root of much of the issue. Williams' training as an economist makes him almost immune to criticism, at least in rational discourse, one that is based on facts. Thomas Sowell, as noted above, is the same. That is, unless facts no longer matter.
Emerging from the Las Vegas tragedy is yet another example of "sloppy thinking" by many in this country. Of course, the yelps and cries about Trump's restrictions on immigration from eight (Is that the number now?) majority Muslim nations were loud and omnipresent. "We can't punish all Muslims for the terrorism of a few," the critics howled. That these eight nations actively sponsored and harbored terrorists is/was not considered. Still, it's some of the same people who now want to ban guns after Las Vegas. Wait, I have a question to ask these who howled at Trump's restrictions. Aren't you doing the same thing, punishing 99.9% of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a very small deluded minority? I know, I know...... "But that's different." Of course it is; it always is.
I think I wrote about "Third Graders" the other day. Maybe I give these television personalities too much credit, assigning them to third grade. Today one of the talking heads (I don't watch enough television to know who it was) said something like this. "I find it interesting that all or at least most of these shooters stop shooting after six or seven minutes," adding, "because he's killed or kills himself." Hmmm...... Maybe he was just punch-drunk from being on the air too much the past few days. Or, maybe not.
I've written about Thomas Sowell in the past. The man is not only brilliant, but filled with common sense. Of course, he'll never get any accolades like Pulitzers, etc. He's a black man who doesn't fit the norm. He's critical of things like Black Lives Matter, Affirmative Action, etc. I'm not sure he's a conservative, but he's certainly not a liberal.
He had a great quotation a while ago. "There are two vacancies on the Supreme Court." This was after the death of "the great Antonin Scalia" and before the appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. Sowell continued, "The other [vacancy] is Anthony Kennedy." What a scathing criticism! And it's right on the money most of the time.
I read a mass e-mail from a college president who was critical of education today. Of course, much of his finger-pointing was at teachers. It's not a secret I am critical of many teachers, who, frankly, should not be teachers or should be taught how to teach. But I found it very rich, indeed, to read this guy making almost $1,000,000 a year criticizing teachers who make $40,000 or $50,000. That he doesn't see the disconnect in that, the the rationale behind salaries, tells me the guy isn't quite as sharp as some folks think he is.
Here's a link to an article everyone should read, esp those kneeling NFL players and their sycophant (bobble head) owners and coaches.
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2017/10/03/blacks-vs-police-n2389488 (You may have to cut and paste the link into your browser.)
It's by Walter Williams and, as usual, is brilliant and really can't be criticized, not rationally. Here's a wonderful question he asks, Why are Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Michael Brown held up as heroes to so many people? It needs to be answered, I think, and is at the root of much of the issue. Williams' training as an economist makes him almost immune to criticism, at least in rational discourse, one that is based on facts. Thomas Sowell, as noted above, is the same. That is, unless facts no longer matter.
Emerging from the Las Vegas tragedy is yet another example of "sloppy thinking" by many in this country. Of course, the yelps and cries about Trump's restrictions on immigration from eight (Is that the number now?) majority Muslim nations were loud and omnipresent. "We can't punish all Muslims for the terrorism of a few," the critics howled. That these eight nations actively sponsored and harbored terrorists is/was not considered. Still, it's some of the same people who now want to ban guns after Las Vegas. Wait, I have a question to ask these who howled at Trump's restrictions. Aren't you doing the same thing, punishing 99.9% of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a very small deluded minority? I know, I know...... "But that's different." Of course it is; it always is.
I think I wrote about "Third Graders" the other day. Maybe I give these television personalities too much credit, assigning them to third grade. Today one of the talking heads (I don't watch enough television to know who it was) said something like this. "I find it interesting that all or at least most of these shooters stop shooting after six or seven minutes," adding, "because he's killed or kills himself." Hmmm...... Maybe he was just punch-drunk from being on the air too much the past few days. Or, maybe not.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Tue
As if the Las Vegas tragedy wasn't enough of a blow (My son and daughter-in-law live there.), there was a gun/shooting threat at my grandson's high school. It was later determined that the threat "was not credible," but still......
Karen watched news shows on several stations during the day yesterday. I half-listened, as I wrote, read, and graded papers. But one thing struck me, a question: Are these stations anchors and interviewers in third grade? The question they posed to witnesses/survivors and so-called "experts" were frequently worse than juvenile; they were infantile. How do these people get their jobs? A better question is how they keep them??????
I was listening to the radio on the drive to class this AM. As usual, the host was lecturing to us, pontificating on the real, the true answers to everything. I was only half paying attention when I heard "expousing," not "exposing" or "espousing," but "expousing." I perked up and waited to hear if the know-it-all said it again. He did, twice more, again, "expousing." OK, I'm a language snob, but this guy makes his living my using language, speaking correctly it is hoped. So, now he had my attention and stuck his foot in his mouth again, although in his self-righteousness, he wouldn't never realize it or admit it. He ranted on the schools and those who keep insisting the US is a democracy. "We're no such thing!" he adamantly stated. He went on to that claptrap I have heard before, about the US being a republic, not a democracy. What made it worse was his arrogant attitude about it.
Of course the US is a republic. Check out the definition of the word. It can't be argued otherwise. But at the same time, we are also a democracy. What is the definition of "democracy?" It's from two Greek words which translate to "rule by people" or something close to that. What are the first three words of the Constitution?????? The Preamble begins with "We the People......" It doesn't start with "We the States" or anything similar. And it could. The Founders could have written what they wanted it to be. In fact, many of them were leery of "rule by the people" and preferred rule by the States or something other than "...the people." That's why there are institutions like the Electrical College, the election of US Senators by state legislatures (changed with the 17th Amendment), etc.
We can define/describe the US government in many ways, just as an orange can be described by shape, by color, by taste, etc. We have a federal government, with several levels: national, state, and local. We do have a republic. And we do have a democracy. Now, it's not a direct democracy, of course not. We are too big, in population and in area, to have a direct democracy. Instead we have an indirect democracy, also referred to as a republican or representative democracy.
That these guys don't see this and yet then grouse about how schools aren't teaching others is what is particularly grating.
I see an Amherst grad won a Nobel Prize for his work with Drosophila Melanogaster--fruit flies! In one of my science classes there, we did genetic experiments with Drosophila. Well, we were supposed to be learning about mating, counting males/females upon birth. The experiment required us to knock out the fruit flies in their tubes so we could count the males and the females, keeping records, etc. My first fling at it I messed up. I used far too much ether and didn't knock out my flies, but killed them. Oops. Professor Yost, who had to be laughing inside at me, gave me another chance. I willingly took it and was determined not to murder my Drosophila, not this time. So I didn't. In fact, I didn't use enough ether and, before I was done counting them, the fruit flies all woke up and few off into the room. I'm sure Professor Yost was roaring inside, but he was nice enough to tell me just to move on. I guess there are no Nobels in store for me.
Karen watched news shows on several stations during the day yesterday. I half-listened, as I wrote, read, and graded papers. But one thing struck me, a question: Are these stations anchors and interviewers in third grade? The question they posed to witnesses/survivors and so-called "experts" were frequently worse than juvenile; they were infantile. How do these people get their jobs? A better question is how they keep them??????
I was listening to the radio on the drive to class this AM. As usual, the host was lecturing to us, pontificating on the real, the true answers to everything. I was only half paying attention when I heard "expousing," not "exposing" or "espousing," but "expousing." I perked up and waited to hear if the know-it-all said it again. He did, twice more, again, "expousing." OK, I'm a language snob, but this guy makes his living my using language, speaking correctly it is hoped. So, now he had my attention and stuck his foot in his mouth again, although in his self-righteousness, he wouldn't never realize it or admit it. He ranted on the schools and those who keep insisting the US is a democracy. "We're no such thing!" he adamantly stated. He went on to that claptrap I have heard before, about the US being a republic, not a democracy. What made it worse was his arrogant attitude about it.
Of course the US is a republic. Check out the definition of the word. It can't be argued otherwise. But at the same time, we are also a democracy. What is the definition of "democracy?" It's from two Greek words which translate to "rule by people" or something close to that. What are the first three words of the Constitution?????? The Preamble begins with "We the People......" It doesn't start with "We the States" or anything similar. And it could. The Founders could have written what they wanted it to be. In fact, many of them were leery of "rule by the people" and preferred rule by the States or something other than "...the people." That's why there are institutions like the Electrical College, the election of US Senators by state legislatures (changed with the 17th Amendment), etc.
We can define/describe the US government in many ways, just as an orange can be described by shape, by color, by taste, etc. We have a federal government, with several levels: national, state, and local. We do have a republic. And we do have a democracy. Now, it's not a direct democracy, of course not. We are too big, in population and in area, to have a direct democracy. Instead we have an indirect democracy, also referred to as a republican or representative democracy.
That these guys don't see this and yet then grouse about how schools aren't teaching others is what is particularly grating.
I see an Amherst grad won a Nobel Prize for his work with Drosophila Melanogaster--fruit flies! In one of my science classes there, we did genetic experiments with Drosophila. Well, we were supposed to be learning about mating, counting males/females upon birth. The experiment required us to knock out the fruit flies in their tubes so we could count the males and the females, keeping records, etc. My first fling at it I messed up. I used far too much ether and didn't knock out my flies, but killed them. Oops. Professor Yost, who had to be laughing inside at me, gave me another chance. I willingly took it and was determined not to murder my Drosophila, not this time. So I didn't. In fact, I didn't use enough ether and, before I was done counting them, the fruit flies all woke up and few off into the room. I'm sure Professor Yost was roaring inside, but he was nice enough to tell me just to move on. I guess there are no Nobels in store for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
