Now, it's John Conyers. He's apparently denying, "vehemently," all charges of sexual harassment that have been alleged by a number of women. (That number seems to be growing by the day.) I have a couple of thoughts about this latest outrage.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The Tax Plan
I'm not sure what to make of this Republican tax bill. I tried one of those online calculators for what was termed the Trump tax cuts for my taxes and I don't think we'll make out real well on it. It's hard to tell, since I used 2016 income figures 2017 will be a bit different, somewhat less. I didn't have as many classes, so I made less. With K's retirement, we lost three months of her income, her social security not kicking in until December. And I made a little less money from writing in '17. So, I used last year's numbers.
I know there is an increase of $12,000 in the standard deduction, to $24,000. But the proposal, at least one of them, eliminates the individual exemptions, $4,100 (or so) a person. So the three of us will lose more than $12,000. So much for the help from the standard deduction. The child credit, for Michael? One proposal is for a credit of $1,600 per child; the other is only $1,000. Depending on the credit for children, we'll either come out a wee bit ahead/break even or a wee bit behind.
I'd assume there are a lot of other folks in my position, too. Where is this promised income tax reform that will give us guys in the middle, still struggling, a bit of relief? So, where is this tax cut?
I think if I was a member of Congress, I'd vote "no" because it doesn't give any real relief to a lot of folks, those in the middle.
Also, it seems to me small businesses should not pay a higher tax rate than larger corporation. And, according to some tax expert on the radio, that's what will happen. I believe small businesses employ more than the larger ones. So, the idea that a cut in the corporate tax will result in more hiring doesn't apply to a similar cut for smaller companies, ones who employ more? So, Salvatore's Pizza will still pay a higher rate than GE? Of course, I know why and so do you. Sal can't afford the big donations or to hire lobbyists.
What I really liked today was Trump saying the only thing Democrats favor is more taxes. Well, that's not exactly true, but does have a large element of truth. And didn't Schumer and Pelosi look like real jackasses in their meeting with Trump today? Oh, wait...... They didn't show! But inviting in the media with the two empty chairs was great!
Go back and check You Tube speeches of Democrats clamoring for relief for the little guy, for small business owners, for those inheriting those small businesses, etc. Then why are they, to a person, opposing the current tax plan? It surely couldn't be that they are against it only because it's a Republican plan, could it? Nah.....
Maybe it's that they see what I saw a few paragraphs above. But I doubt it. It's not as if they were scrambling to cut our taxes on their own, ever.
There is some concern that the tax cut (for some) will not generate enough in new government revenue, that the deficit will increase. There's even talk of building in safety nets, to raise taxes automatically if not enough revenue is created through growth. But it's the same old story, never any talk of cutting spending. Wasn't last year's government intake the largest in history? Yet the deficit increased yet again. Like Ron Reagan said, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Indeed we do......
I know there is an increase of $12,000 in the standard deduction, to $24,000. But the proposal, at least one of them, eliminates the individual exemptions, $4,100 (or so) a person. So the three of us will lose more than $12,000. So much for the help from the standard deduction. The child credit, for Michael? One proposal is for a credit of $1,600 per child; the other is only $1,000. Depending on the credit for children, we'll either come out a wee bit ahead/break even or a wee bit behind.
I'd assume there are a lot of other folks in my position, too. Where is this promised income tax reform that will give us guys in the middle, still struggling, a bit of relief? So, where is this tax cut?
I think if I was a member of Congress, I'd vote "no" because it doesn't give any real relief to a lot of folks, those in the middle.
Also, it seems to me small businesses should not pay a higher tax rate than larger corporation. And, according to some tax expert on the radio, that's what will happen. I believe small businesses employ more than the larger ones. So, the idea that a cut in the corporate tax will result in more hiring doesn't apply to a similar cut for smaller companies, ones who employ more? So, Salvatore's Pizza will still pay a higher rate than GE? Of course, I know why and so do you. Sal can't afford the big donations or to hire lobbyists.
What I really liked today was Trump saying the only thing Democrats favor is more taxes. Well, that's not exactly true, but does have a large element of truth. And didn't Schumer and Pelosi look like real jackasses in their meeting with Trump today? Oh, wait...... They didn't show! But inviting in the media with the two empty chairs was great!
Go back and check You Tube speeches of Democrats clamoring for relief for the little guy, for small business owners, for those inheriting those small businesses, etc. Then why are they, to a person, opposing the current tax plan? It surely couldn't be that they are against it only because it's a Republican plan, could it? Nah.....
Maybe it's that they see what I saw a few paragraphs above. But I doubt it. It's not as if they were scrambling to cut our taxes on their own, ever.
There is some concern that the tax cut (for some) will not generate enough in new government revenue, that the deficit will increase. There's even talk of building in safety nets, to raise taxes automatically if not enough revenue is created through growth. But it's the same old story, never any talk of cutting spending. Wasn't last year's government intake the largest in history? Yet the deficit increased yet again. Like Ron Reagan said, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Indeed we do......
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
The Groper of the Moment?
It's become dizzying, all these claims and charges of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape. How are we to keep any of it straight? It's reaches the highest levels of the political, entertainment, and communications industries, if not others.
I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges. I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave. Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.
Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges? OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases. After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before? If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court? I think, though, that number is very small. The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.
Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever. Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there. Perhaps it's because of "social media." (Oh, I still dislike that term!) People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.
Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them. As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.
Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s. "If it feels good, do it!" So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?" I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality. Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence). Remember the cry, "Free sex!?" Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance. I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."
This is not to condone or accept any of this. It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it. And I'm having a difficult time doing that.
One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere. So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side. Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives." Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights." Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?
Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc. Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language. I can't stand it. Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me. In a larger crowd, I don't like it. But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear. And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it. Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?" I think it's more a matter of "sameness." I don't think the sexes are the same. Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing. Women still don't get the Three Stooges. Men still don't get tear-jerker movies. That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.
On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil." No kidding! OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil." I don't particularly share it, but I understand. But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured." It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.
Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena. I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place. It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts. I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there. But it, LCA, still irks me. What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena. I think it came to about 40%. Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?
I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges. I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave. Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.
Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges? OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases. After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before? If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court? I think, though, that number is very small. The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.
Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever. Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there. Perhaps it's because of "social media." (Oh, I still dislike that term!) People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.
Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them. As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.
Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s. "If it feels good, do it!" So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?" I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality. Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence). Remember the cry, "Free sex!?" Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance. I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."
This is not to condone or accept any of this. It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it. And I'm having a difficult time doing that.
One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere. So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side. Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives." Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights." Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?
Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc. Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language. I can't stand it. Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me. In a larger crowd, I don't like it. But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear. And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it. Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?" I think it's more a matter of "sameness." I don't think the sexes are the same. Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing. Women still don't get the Three Stooges. Men still don't get tear-jerker movies. That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.
On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil." No kidding! OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil." I don't particularly share it, but I understand. But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured." It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.
Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena. I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place. It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts. I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there. But it, LCA, still irks me. What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena. I think it came to about 40%. Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?
Monday, November 13, 2017
Once Again...
...we "deplorables" are targeted, unwittingly this time.
In the newspaper this weekend, an op-ed from a Democratic Congressmen lamented "the Republican tax plan" because it "doesn't help the middle class." Excuse me for not laughing (although I did, but not in a funny way). Since when do the Democrats care about giving anyone tax cuts, let alone the middle class, you know, we who the Democratic candidate for President last year called "deplorables." (Yes, I know what she and her supporters said she meant, but I don't buy it, not for an instant.)
Oh, this righteous (self-righteous?) Congressman spouts all the right talking points, "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations," "a scam for the working people," "hard working Michiganians need tax relief," etc. Again I ask, when was the last time the Democrats offered a tax cut for anyone, let alone the middle class? (Hey, I'm not excusing the Establishment Republicans either. They've come to enjoy spending other people's money, too.)
Maybe there has been a tax cut and I just have forgotten about it--or didn't hear about it.
Then, on the radio this AM, I heard a Democrat from Michigan's Congressional delegation on "the Republican tax cut," too. I don't know if it was our US Senator or a local Congresswoman; I never heard her identified and don't know voices. Oh, woe are we! This Bozo was concerned, oh I could tell from her voice over the radio how concerned, was about "increasing the deficit," further burdening our children and grandchildren. I guess it was nice that this was radio; I can't imagine a Democrat keeping a straight face when talking about "increasing the deficit."
Why is the deficit such a big deal--now? Remember the threats to "shut down government" because of threats to slow government spending? (Again, let's not let the Establishment Republicans off the hook either.) Oh, seniors will lose their Social Security (the funds of which they have raided and raided) and Medicare. Those in need will lose their Medicaid. Oh, everyone will lose everything!! We can't cut spending to cut the deficit. Well, apparently now that the Republicans are tendering a tax bill, we or rather they can at least complain about the deficit.
BTW, the toady radio host had a wonderful opportunity for a meaningful question. All he had to do was ask, "Why is an increase to the deficit important now? It never was to you before?" But no, the sycophant let her off the inviting hook, "scot free."
BTW, from what I've read of the bill, I think it stinks. Of course, with so much flying around, who knows what it looks like today? A lot of middle class folks will jump at the sizable increase in the standard deductions. They'll not notice, at least not right away, that they personal and dependent exemptions disappear. The savings, at least at face value, will be lost to the vanishing exemptions. It's probably too early to really figure out savings, but from the summaries I saw last week, once again people like me will get the short end. And, are these Bozos really going to eliminate deductions for charitable giving? At the least, such deductions should be added so they can be taken even by folks using the short form. But let's wait and see......
I received a couple of sarcastic e-mails noting "the eloquence" of some of Don Trump's tweets. I likely don't have to repeat I am no fan of Trump. But I did have to laugh at this. I suspect that these same e-mailers never were sarcastic in describing the "eloquent" Obama. Remember his "eloquence?" "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Other than the grating use of "got," it sort of reminds us of Lincoln and Jefferson, right? How about this "eloquence?" "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I know, I know. But how "eloquent!" I'll refrain from asking where the gun control folks were on this one. "Oh, but he didn't mean that......" Again, I know, I know.
"This isn't how it should be...... You should be able to walk around the neighborhood without worrying about being shot or fighting or getting jumped by other kids." This came from a 12-year old living in Detroit. The article is about the culture of violence in Detroit neighborhoods. It cited a study that showed 87% of Detroit school kids "knew someone who had been killed, wounded, or disabled by gun violence." That should make us want to vomit! I won't minimize any of the other tragedies we've faced in this country recently, but when are we going to start addressing this? When will the NFL players kneel over this culture of violence in their cities? I don't understand.
I was reminded of Coach Rick Wilson over the weekend. I was glad I had an opportunity to explain the huge influence he had on my life to another Amherst alumnus who didn't know him. Coach Wilson was the renowned college basketball coach at AC. He received numerous awards. I was not a basketball player, hardly. But he was my freshman baseball coach. (I'm so old, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports back then!) He had a lot of old-fashioned ideas and he had us follow them. And he and I butted heads, at least once. From that major confrontation, which he won, deservedly so, he became a man I admired. We struck up, if not exactly a friendship, at least a relationship from which I benefited a great deal. My last three years, I'd see Coach Wilson in the gym, around the athletic facilities. In season or not, he'd stop and inquire about things; he didn't just ask, blithely, "How are things going?" He asked about my classes, how they were going, what I was doing with them, if I was keeping up--BTW, how did he know what classes I was taking?????? Not often, but sometimes, I'd stop by his office, just to say "Hi." He really seemed to enjoy that and then would start with is questions. Occasionally, he'd stop by a varsity practice or game, too, and made me feel important. He's dead now, but I remember him fondly. After graduation, I only returned to campus once for about 35 years. But that one time I did make sure I stopped by to see him. About eight years ago, at a reunion, I had a talk with one of his best players, one who made the last cut with the Lakers when they had Wilt, Hazzard, Goodrich, etc. (Dave has since died, too, hit by a car while riding his bike.) Our talk centered around the gruff Coach Wilson and butting heads with him, Dave far, far more often than I, obviously. But we both ended up agreeing that he was a great man, one who was important to each of us. I missed Dave at the last reunion, if only to renew our conversation about Rick Wilson.
In the newspaper this weekend, an op-ed from a Democratic Congressmen lamented "the Republican tax plan" because it "doesn't help the middle class." Excuse me for not laughing (although I did, but not in a funny way). Since when do the Democrats care about giving anyone tax cuts, let alone the middle class, you know, we who the Democratic candidate for President last year called "deplorables." (Yes, I know what she and her supporters said she meant, but I don't buy it, not for an instant.)
Oh, this righteous (self-righteous?) Congressman spouts all the right talking points, "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations," "a scam for the working people," "hard working Michiganians need tax relief," etc. Again I ask, when was the last time the Democrats offered a tax cut for anyone, let alone the middle class? (Hey, I'm not excusing the Establishment Republicans either. They've come to enjoy spending other people's money, too.)
Maybe there has been a tax cut and I just have forgotten about it--or didn't hear about it.
Then, on the radio this AM, I heard a Democrat from Michigan's Congressional delegation on "the Republican tax cut," too. I don't know if it was our US Senator or a local Congresswoman; I never heard her identified and don't know voices. Oh, woe are we! This Bozo was concerned, oh I could tell from her voice over the radio how concerned, was about "increasing the deficit," further burdening our children and grandchildren. I guess it was nice that this was radio; I can't imagine a Democrat keeping a straight face when talking about "increasing the deficit."
Why is the deficit such a big deal--now? Remember the threats to "shut down government" because of threats to slow government spending? (Again, let's not let the Establishment Republicans off the hook either.) Oh, seniors will lose their Social Security (the funds of which they have raided and raided) and Medicare. Those in need will lose their Medicaid. Oh, everyone will lose everything!! We can't cut spending to cut the deficit. Well, apparently now that the Republicans are tendering a tax bill, we or rather they can at least complain about the deficit.
BTW, the toady radio host had a wonderful opportunity for a meaningful question. All he had to do was ask, "Why is an increase to the deficit important now? It never was to you before?" But no, the sycophant let her off the inviting hook, "scot free."
BTW, from what I've read of the bill, I think it stinks. Of course, with so much flying around, who knows what it looks like today? A lot of middle class folks will jump at the sizable increase in the standard deductions. They'll not notice, at least not right away, that they personal and dependent exemptions disappear. The savings, at least at face value, will be lost to the vanishing exemptions. It's probably too early to really figure out savings, but from the summaries I saw last week, once again people like me will get the short end. And, are these Bozos really going to eliminate deductions for charitable giving? At the least, such deductions should be added so they can be taken even by folks using the short form. But let's wait and see......
I received a couple of sarcastic e-mails noting "the eloquence" of some of Don Trump's tweets. I likely don't have to repeat I am no fan of Trump. But I did have to laugh at this. I suspect that these same e-mailers never were sarcastic in describing the "eloquent" Obama. Remember his "eloquence?" "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Other than the grating use of "got," it sort of reminds us of Lincoln and Jefferson, right? How about this "eloquence?" "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I know, I know. But how "eloquent!" I'll refrain from asking where the gun control folks were on this one. "Oh, but he didn't mean that......" Again, I know, I know.
"This isn't how it should be...... You should be able to walk around the neighborhood without worrying about being shot or fighting or getting jumped by other kids." This came from a 12-year old living in Detroit. The article is about the culture of violence in Detroit neighborhoods. It cited a study that showed 87% of Detroit school kids "knew someone who had been killed, wounded, or disabled by gun violence." That should make us want to vomit! I won't minimize any of the other tragedies we've faced in this country recently, but when are we going to start addressing this? When will the NFL players kneel over this culture of violence in their cities? I don't understand.
I was reminded of Coach Rick Wilson over the weekend. I was glad I had an opportunity to explain the huge influence he had on my life to another Amherst alumnus who didn't know him. Coach Wilson was the renowned college basketball coach at AC. He received numerous awards. I was not a basketball player, hardly. But he was my freshman baseball coach. (I'm so old, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports back then!) He had a lot of old-fashioned ideas and he had us follow them. And he and I butted heads, at least once. From that major confrontation, which he won, deservedly so, he became a man I admired. We struck up, if not exactly a friendship, at least a relationship from which I benefited a great deal. My last three years, I'd see Coach Wilson in the gym, around the athletic facilities. In season or not, he'd stop and inquire about things; he didn't just ask, blithely, "How are things going?" He asked about my classes, how they were going, what I was doing with them, if I was keeping up--BTW, how did he know what classes I was taking?????? Not often, but sometimes, I'd stop by his office, just to say "Hi." He really seemed to enjoy that and then would start with is questions. Occasionally, he'd stop by a varsity practice or game, too, and made me feel important. He's dead now, but I remember him fondly. After graduation, I only returned to campus once for about 35 years. But that one time I did make sure I stopped by to see him. About eight years ago, at a reunion, I had a talk with one of his best players, one who made the last cut with the Lakers when they had Wilt, Hazzard, Goodrich, etc. (Dave has since died, too, hit by a car while riding his bike.) Our talk centered around the gruff Coach Wilson and butting heads with him, Dave far, far more often than I, obviously. But we both ended up agreeing that he was a great man, one who was important to each of us. I missed Dave at the last reunion, if only to renew our conversation about Rick Wilson.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
"Normal People......" Drivers Music
I read an article this AM about the church shooting in Texas. A psychiatrist was interviewed, saying among other things, "Normal people don't shoot people." Hmmm......
Are we really to the point that we need someone with a license to tell us what is "normal?"
That raises all sorts of questions. What is "normal?" How is that identified? What "normalcy" (a term, I believe that stems from Warren Harding's 1920 Presidential campaign) is, well, normal? What abnormality is dangerous and how do we identify it? Doesn't everyone have little quirks and quiddities, well, everyone except me? (Ha Ha Ha. Ask Karen about that one!)
So, if we accept that, except in some situations such as self-defense or the defense of others, "normal people don't shoot people," how do we explain, not killings such as that in Texas or even terrorist attacks, but the wanton murders that go on in our cities every day? Are those thugs who shoot up others' houses trying to kill someone who "dissed" them "normal?" What about the animals (Yeah, that might offend some folks, but too bad!) who robbed the auto parts store last week and, after having been given the money they sought, stopped to shoot the worker in the head before they left? "Normal?" The list goes on. Have the "experts" even tried to explain these murderers as not "normal people?"
That's a serious question that needs to be addressed. What is it in our major cities that leads to so many murders without any sense of remorse or guilt? To far too many people, such shootings and murders are badges of honor. Look at the faces of those accused and convicted of murders. When sentenced most of them have smirks or "I'm really a tough guy" looks on their faces.
So, who will be the first "expert" to label these city murderers "not normal people?"
I was listening to the radio this AM on the way to and from a race. One station claims, "We Play Anything." I don't know if that's true, but I heard a variety of plays from different decades. I'm sure I can ID some folks of the '80s (but maybe not later than that) who could really sing, with good voices. But it seems to me that the songs of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (maybe with the exception of Bob Dylan--OK, pile on me for that one.) at least had people who could carry a tune. This station appeared to confirm that. The later "music" was just noise, someone shouting into a microphone I guess. Some of the instrumental playing was pretty good, other than the banging and pounding, but the voices weren't good at all. Oh, I enjoy some of the '80s and '90s music; some of it I like, but still hesitate to call it real "music." To each his/her own and I concede I might be wrong, that the screeching and banging and pounding are really music.
A few weeks ago some speaker on the radio claimed that in large cities like Detroit, as many as 60% of the drivers don't have licenses or insurance or both. Can that be right? What leads people to believe they can get away with this? If they are in accidents, it's all about them--why should they or their insurance companies pay someone else? When we were rear-ended in Detroit a year ago, the woman--on her cell phone when smacking into us--didn't have a license and didn't have insurance. The police who arrived told us that. And, they didn't arrest her, didn't give her a citation, didn't do anything except let her drive away (in another's car). I suppose with two or three or more murders a day, driving without a license or insurance isn't such a big deal? Still......
Are we really to the point that we need someone with a license to tell us what is "normal?"
That raises all sorts of questions. What is "normal?" How is that identified? What "normalcy" (a term, I believe that stems from Warren Harding's 1920 Presidential campaign) is, well, normal? What abnormality is dangerous and how do we identify it? Doesn't everyone have little quirks and quiddities, well, everyone except me? (Ha Ha Ha. Ask Karen about that one!)
So, if we accept that, except in some situations such as self-defense or the defense of others, "normal people don't shoot people," how do we explain, not killings such as that in Texas or even terrorist attacks, but the wanton murders that go on in our cities every day? Are those thugs who shoot up others' houses trying to kill someone who "dissed" them "normal?" What about the animals (Yeah, that might offend some folks, but too bad!) who robbed the auto parts store last week and, after having been given the money they sought, stopped to shoot the worker in the head before they left? "Normal?" The list goes on. Have the "experts" even tried to explain these murderers as not "normal people?"
That's a serious question that needs to be addressed. What is it in our major cities that leads to so many murders without any sense of remorse or guilt? To far too many people, such shootings and murders are badges of honor. Look at the faces of those accused and convicted of murders. When sentenced most of them have smirks or "I'm really a tough guy" looks on their faces.
So, who will be the first "expert" to label these city murderers "not normal people?"
I was listening to the radio this AM on the way to and from a race. One station claims, "We Play Anything." I don't know if that's true, but I heard a variety of plays from different decades. I'm sure I can ID some folks of the '80s (but maybe not later than that) who could really sing, with good voices. But it seems to me that the songs of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (maybe with the exception of Bob Dylan--OK, pile on me for that one.) at least had people who could carry a tune. This station appeared to confirm that. The later "music" was just noise, someone shouting into a microphone I guess. Some of the instrumental playing was pretty good, other than the banging and pounding, but the voices weren't good at all. Oh, I enjoy some of the '80s and '90s music; some of it I like, but still hesitate to call it real "music." To each his/her own and I concede I might be wrong, that the screeching and banging and pounding are really music.
A few weeks ago some speaker on the radio claimed that in large cities like Detroit, as many as 60% of the drivers don't have licenses or insurance or both. Can that be right? What leads people to believe they can get away with this? If they are in accidents, it's all about them--why should they or their insurance companies pay someone else? When we were rear-ended in Detroit a year ago, the woman--on her cell phone when smacking into us--didn't have a license and didn't have insurance. The police who arrived told us that. And, they didn't arrest her, didn't give her a citation, didn't do anything except let her drive away (in another's car). I suppose with two or three or more murders a day, driving without a license or insurance isn't such a big deal? Still......
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
The Seasons......
Out there this AM, at 7:00, it was 22 degrees. The coldest AM of the season so far, veneers of ice formed on the puddles for the first time. I call it, in my running journal, "Ice Day." (I also have a "Snow Day," obviously named, and a "Bug Day," when the deer flies are too nasty for running on the trails in the woods.)
This has been a strange autumn. Sept temperatures were in the upper 80s, even late in the month. I think due to that, we were cheated out of our usual fall color show. There are leaves on the ground, but many of them are still green. Out back, some of our trees are bare while others have barely lost any leaves. What colors there are, I noted again in the woods the other day, are muted.
I've been reminded of the Sumerian/Babylonian parable about the seasons, explaining each. The parable is based on their polytheistic religion in which the gods reflected forces of nature. One of the chief gods/goddesses was Ishtar, roughly Mother Nature.
This season, autumn, saw the death of Tammuz, Ishtar's husband. In order to get Tammuz back from the dead, Ishtar resorts to bribery; she ransoms the beauty of the land for the return of her husband. This is winter. In the spring, the bribery/ransom works and Tammuz is reborn. Summer, then, with husband and wife reunited, is a time of enjoyment of life. You know, this year this seems to work for me.
Normally, winter is, if not my favorite running season, one of the top two. I don't know why, but somehow I don't see that happening this year. I get the feeling that I won't see the beauty I usually see. I know the forecasts are practically useless, but so far the so-called "experts" are calling for a colder and snowier winter. But I usually enjoy the snow, running in it, shoveling it, etc. Cold really doesn't bother me while running. I've run in temperatures as low as 15 degrees below zero, actual temperature, not wind chill. I know people think I am crazy for running in sub-zero temperatures, but they really aren't bothersome. I bundle up with several layers and off I go.
This has been a strange autumn. Sept temperatures were in the upper 80s, even late in the month. I think due to that, we were cheated out of our usual fall color show. There are leaves on the ground, but many of them are still green. Out back, some of our trees are bare while others have barely lost any leaves. What colors there are, I noted again in the woods the other day, are muted.
I've been reminded of the Sumerian/Babylonian parable about the seasons, explaining each. The parable is based on their polytheistic religion in which the gods reflected forces of nature. One of the chief gods/goddesses was Ishtar, roughly Mother Nature.
This season, autumn, saw the death of Tammuz, Ishtar's husband. In order to get Tammuz back from the dead, Ishtar resorts to bribery; she ransoms the beauty of the land for the return of her husband. This is winter. In the spring, the bribery/ransom works and Tammuz is reborn. Summer, then, with husband and wife reunited, is a time of enjoyment of life. You know, this year this seems to work for me.
Normally, winter is, if not my favorite running season, one of the top two. I don't know why, but somehow I don't see that happening this year. I get the feeling that I won't see the beauty I usually see. I know the forecasts are practically useless, but so far the so-called "experts" are calling for a colder and snowier winter. But I usually enjoy the snow, running in it, shoveling it, etc. Cold really doesn't bother me while running. I've run in temperatures as low as 15 degrees below zero, actual temperature, not wind chill. I know people think I am crazy for running in sub-zero temperatures, but they really aren't bothersome. I bundle up with several layers and off I go.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
"Collision 'em!"
One of the pitfalls of being a language snob, to which I readily admit, is making a mistake myself. Yep, I make some mistakes and I often dislike myself for doing so.
I know language evolves. What was once frowned upon is now standard or at least accepted. But that doesn't mean I have to like the changes.
It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear that someone "is referencing" something or that something "impacts" or "grow your business." Grrr...... How's this one, if those are all right? If a football player tackles another player hard, can we say "He collisioned him?" Why not? Can't we say, "refers to" or "has an impact?" I know, I know......
I received an e-mail this week that included an article in which a Michigan state legislator was "shocked" that there's a teacher shortage in Michigan. "Shocked?" Is this guy a lame-brain? It was his political party which bears much of the responsibility for the shortage. He will remain anonymous to protect him from ridicule, although I think he deserves it. Gee, can anyone think why there's a teacher shortage in this state?
Hmmm...... Let's see. I can graduate from college with about $20-30,000 of student debt. I can become a teacher and make about $35,000 to start. If I'm lucky, I'll get annual bumps in pay, but that's if I'm lucky. Many/Most districts in this state have cut teacher pay over the past 11-12 years. Thanks to the Republican governor and state legislature, my district can expect less and less aid from the state; guess whose pay is tied to those cuts? Yep, mine. Now, the governor and legislature take away my pension or create some bogus one that isn't nearly as good. Toss in increased shares of health insurance premiums, much higher co-pays and deductibles--from that huge salary of $35,000. And I can also get ready for more tests and paperwork courtesy of our state legislators, you know, things that take away from real learning. If that's not enough, the corporate-types, media, and public in general will continue to dump all over me, blaming me for the sad state of education in this state. Yeah, I want to be a teacher.
On second thought, maybe I'll be a state legislator. Apparently there is no IQ test and starting pay is $71,000.
I was asked last week by a firm for whom I do some consulting (for want of a better term) what I like most about teaching. One of the things I said was that I am continually learning. (Karen has said more than once that I'd have been a professional student if I'd been given a choice.) I was reminded of this as I posted something in an e-mail exchange. The question arose of where the "3/5 Compromise" at the Constitutional Convention originated. Specifically, it was why "3/5?" That's a weird fraction. Why not "1/2" (50%)? After all one side, the Northern or Southern states, favored counting all (100%) or none (0%) of the slaves for representation in the House and/or taxation. A compromise, logically, then would have been "1/2." (I used my calculator.) But it wasn't; it was "3/5." I remember reading somewhere sometime that 3/5 came from a scientific study produced by a VA planter (Scientific? Yeah, right.) that demonstrated slave labor produced only 3/5 of the work of free labor. My problem is I can't remember where I found this, years and years ago. I don't recall the name of the author of the study or of the study itself. But if I could it would help explain a lot.
I've looked in a number of my old books. Nothing. I've look through my files. Nothing. I've looked online. Nothing. I even took to asking the gods. One of my Amherst professors has heard nothing of this. The author of a textbook I use in class and of quite a number of other books on Ante-Bellum and Reconstuction America knows nothing of it. Hmmm...... I fear I will not find the source.
I do know, though, that I must have read it somewhere. I'm not smart enough or creative enough to just make up something like this. I have two more inquiries out there, hoping to find answers. Sometimes learning is not easy.
I know language evolves. What was once frowned upon is now standard or at least accepted. But that doesn't mean I have to like the changes.
It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear that someone "is referencing" something or that something "impacts" or "grow your business." Grrr...... How's this one, if those are all right? If a football player tackles another player hard, can we say "He collisioned him?" Why not? Can't we say, "refers to" or "has an impact?" I know, I know......
I received an e-mail this week that included an article in which a Michigan state legislator was "shocked" that there's a teacher shortage in Michigan. "Shocked?" Is this guy a lame-brain? It was his political party which bears much of the responsibility for the shortage. He will remain anonymous to protect him from ridicule, although I think he deserves it. Gee, can anyone think why there's a teacher shortage in this state?
Hmmm...... Let's see. I can graduate from college with about $20-30,000 of student debt. I can become a teacher and make about $35,000 to start. If I'm lucky, I'll get annual bumps in pay, but that's if I'm lucky. Many/Most districts in this state have cut teacher pay over the past 11-12 years. Thanks to the Republican governor and state legislature, my district can expect less and less aid from the state; guess whose pay is tied to those cuts? Yep, mine. Now, the governor and legislature take away my pension or create some bogus one that isn't nearly as good. Toss in increased shares of health insurance premiums, much higher co-pays and deductibles--from that huge salary of $35,000. And I can also get ready for more tests and paperwork courtesy of our state legislators, you know, things that take away from real learning. If that's not enough, the corporate-types, media, and public in general will continue to dump all over me, blaming me for the sad state of education in this state. Yeah, I want to be a teacher.
On second thought, maybe I'll be a state legislator. Apparently there is no IQ test and starting pay is $71,000.
I was asked last week by a firm for whom I do some consulting (for want of a better term) what I like most about teaching. One of the things I said was that I am continually learning. (Karen has said more than once that I'd have been a professional student if I'd been given a choice.) I was reminded of this as I posted something in an e-mail exchange. The question arose of where the "3/5 Compromise" at the Constitutional Convention originated. Specifically, it was why "3/5?" That's a weird fraction. Why not "1/2" (50%)? After all one side, the Northern or Southern states, favored counting all (100%) or none (0%) of the slaves for representation in the House and/or taxation. A compromise, logically, then would have been "1/2." (I used my calculator.) But it wasn't; it was "3/5." I remember reading somewhere sometime that 3/5 came from a scientific study produced by a VA planter (Scientific? Yeah, right.) that demonstrated slave labor produced only 3/5 of the work of free labor. My problem is I can't remember where I found this, years and years ago. I don't recall the name of the author of the study or of the study itself. But if I could it would help explain a lot.
I've looked in a number of my old books. Nothing. I've look through my files. Nothing. I've looked online. Nothing. I even took to asking the gods. One of my Amherst professors has heard nothing of this. The author of a textbook I use in class and of quite a number of other books on Ante-Bellum and Reconstuction America knows nothing of it. Hmmm...... I fear I will not find the source.
I do know, though, that I must have read it somewhere. I'm not smart enough or creative enough to just make up something like this. I have two more inquiries out there, hoping to find answers. Sometimes learning is not easy.
Charity
Most major religions of the world emphasize charity, helping those in need of help. Recently there have been claims that seem absurd. Are they?
Is failure to support government programs that help the needy, such as Medicare, Obamacare, and welfare, un- or anti-Christian? Aren't Christians supposed to "care?"
On a broader scale, is it legitimate to translate one's religious tenets into political policies?
Are the above programs--Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, and other welfare programs--what Jesus (or Muhammad or fill in the blank) meant by "charity?" In fact, are government programs personal charity?
Because a politician might have the legislative authority to take some people's property/money and give it to others, does that make him personally charitable? Does it really show that he/she cares?
Might not excessive taxation by government and those politicians and bureaucrats who act as its agents also be seen as theft? Again, would Jesus (or others) support confiscating, by legislative fiat, the property/income of some to give to others? Would the type or nature of the program matter?
Is failure to support government programs that help the needy, such as Medicare, Obamacare, and welfare, un- or anti-Christian? Aren't Christians supposed to "care?"
On a broader scale, is it legitimate to translate one's religious tenets into political policies?
Are the above programs--Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, and other welfare programs--what Jesus (or Muhammad or fill in the blank) meant by "charity?" In fact, are government programs personal charity?
Because a politician might have the legislative authority to take some people's property/money and give it to others, does that make him personally charitable? Does it really show that he/she cares?
Might not excessive taxation by government and those politicians and bureaucrats who act as its agents also be seen as theft? Again, would Jesus (or others) support confiscating, by legislative fiat, the property/income of some to give to others? Would the type or nature of the program matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
