With accolades to Marvin Gaye (and co-writers Al Cleveland and Obie Benson of the Four Tops), I have to wonder, today, what's goin' on?
I've written before how, purportedly, the British fife and drum corps played a popular British song, The World Turned Upside Down, when Cornwallis (actually, his aide General John O'Hara; Corny feigned illness--a bout of the gout--so he wouldn't have to give his sword to George Washington--ick! How demeaning!) surrendered at Yorktown. Yep, the Americans under Washington defeating the might British army under Cornwallis? The world must have been turned upside down.
And it seems, more and more every day, today's world is turned upside down. I know things are changing, sometimes for the better. That's good. A lot of things need to be changed. Other times I can't at all get my mind around things, what people are thinking, if they are at all.
An op-ed in yesterday's newspaper cited the state of Colorado's continued efforts to ruin the business (the life?) of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding based on his religious beliefs. The Supremes, in a "narrow victory" ("narrow" in scope only; it was a 7-2 decision) for the baker, ruled in his favor. I won't argue, at least not today, the merits of the baker's case. No, today it's the persistent attacks on him and those who believe like him (or at least attacks intended to intimidate them into submission).
First, and I know I'm likely beating a dead horse, the state of Colorado's efforts are being led by unelected officials. I've written ad nauseum about Big Government, the Deep State. It's not just the rotten politicians and their self-serving interests and actions. It's the bureaucrats who often are accountable to, well, nobody. They make up rules and regulations that often times are not even reviewable by other branches of government, including the courts.
These unelected Colorado officials lost in the Supreme Court, but they continue their assault. In what appears to be a contrived effort, more complaints have been brought against this baker (and those who profess similar religious beliefs). The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has sided with activists seeking to destroy the baker. (Apparently, freedom of religious beliefs is no longer a civil right in Colorado?) There must be a way to rein in these smug, arrogant, self-righteous (There! Did I make my views clear there?) bureaucrats.
Second, and more to my point, is the idiocy of the activists. Complaints, this time, against the baker stem from his refusal to bake other cakes, cakes requested by the activists. One asked him to make a cake with "an image of Satan smoking marijuana." Huh? Yep. The baker refused. But that's not the end. Another request was for "a three-tiered white cake" that included "a large figure of Satan licking a 9-inch black dildo." Oh, and the request continued, "I would like the dildo to be an actual working model that can be turned on......" This has to be fabricated, right? (But not in today's world, where a crucifix placed in a beaker of urine, among other such works, is considered art.)
What to call this? Lunacy? Depravity? Who are these people? What kind of people would order such a cake? Perhaps they thought they were being humorous? Nah, that wasn't it, not at all. Then, when refused, they filed a complaint with a government agency, an unelected government agency. To top it off, the agency accept the complaint and is acting on it.
Why isn't the government, Big Government, investigating people who make such complaints? (Yes, I'm being facetious, but only partially.) At the least, why hasn't every newspaper in the country printed the names of such depraved people? I wonder how their families, neighbors, and co-workers would respond. Noting the continued national slide into depravity/degeneration, maybe they would see the complainants as champions, some sort of heroes/heroines.
I have no problem with asking for a wedding cake to celebrate a gay wedding. That's fine with me. If a gay couple wants to get married, hooray for them. I hope they are happy. I also have no problem with one, due to religious beliefs, refusing to bake such a cake. Go find another baker! This is America! Use your money to fight against what you perceive as prejudice by taking your business elsewhere.
But all this stuff with "a dildo" is too much for me, beyond the Pale, far beyond it. I'd like to interview these complainants. "What kind of people are you?" I'd ask. "How did you even come up with such a thing?" (That's easy to answer. "I found it on the Internet." Besides, with the depraved state of modern creativity in the arts......) "Are you complaining against the refusal to bake a cake with 'Satan' or the refusal to bake a cake with 'a working dildo'?" Of course, is there a difference? Perhaps so, especially if this is an attack on religious freedom.
I can just see their responses to me, their arrogant, self-righteous responses. Again reaching back several decades, Bob Dylan once wrote, "The times they are a-changin'." (Note I said, "wrote," not "sang." That was deliberate.) Yes, they are. But not all of the changes are good.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
"Is the Country Still Here?"
It is reported that President Calvin Coolidge took a nap each afternoon, even slipping into his midday PJs, while still getting ten hours of sleep each night. Once, he upon wakening from one of those naps, he groggily asked, "Is the country still here?" Assured that it was, did he roll over and snatch a few more zzzzzz?
Funny as that seems, it has been used as fodder by historians (who know better than others; just ask them) to rate Coolidge far down the list of "best Presidents." I've seen him ranked as "low average" to "below average." Candidly, I have an affinity for Cool Cal. We are Amherst College mates, although he was a few years (?) ahead of me. I think he was a far better President than credited. I won't make my case here (perhaps in a later post), but two fairly recent biographies can do that for me. Although some readers don't care for Amity Shales' writing style, I found her book to be very enlightening, especially regarding Coolidge's economic/fiscal philosophies.
But to return to my point, "Is the country still here?" It was. And it still is. There is a valuable lesson there, if only we will heed it. The country is still here.
We don't need these "imperial Presidents." We'll get along just fine without them. Of course, most of the Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to the present would surely disagree. They, no doubt, think the country couldn't do without them.
We don't need this "Big Government." It is pervasive and continues to grow to the detriment of the American people. Last weekend there was an article about a local government that foreclosed on a citizen's rental property over a tax bill of $6.00, that's six dollars, that hadn't been paid. The county then old the house for $24,000. An op-ed urged the outgoing governor of Michigan to issue pardons to some men convicted and sentence to long years in prison although the evidence hardly warranted even a guilty finding. Prosecutors overzealously pushed for convictions, distorted or hiding exculpatory evidence.
Let's look at it another way. Federal regulatory agencies in 2016 issued almost 4,000 rules, most if not all of which have the force of law. By contrast, that same year Congress passed and the President signed 214 laws into effect. That's almost 20 "rules" for every law! And that is the long-term trend. Over the past 20 years or so, about 90,000 federal administrative rules have been issued, while over that same period, barely 4,000 laws have been enacted (on the national level). Granted, only about 20% of the rules are deemed "major" or "significant" based upon how much they cost, but I'd guess those designations depend on who has to abide by them. What about state and local agencies?
Granted, many laws that are passed created agencies to oversee those laws. And, admittedly, we can't expect our legislators to be experts on all or even most of these areas. There is a need for agencies, but the vast number we have? With the power to create rules that have the effect of law? And, the courts have often ruled that the executive and legislative branches can't overrule regulatory rules. (Is that redundant? Heh Heh.) In some instances, even the courts have no jurisdiction over the agencies. Interpretation is left up to the agencies. It didn't take geniuses to figure out that if the rules were clouded in vagueness, the interpreters had free reign.
I understand most folks don't care. Likely, at least directly, most people are not affected by the huge number of rules/regulations. As long as it's the other guy....... But how many millions if not billions of dollars are added to consumer costs, largely hidden costs, because of federal regulatory agencies?
We've heard some of the ridiculous ones. Some states prohibit collecting rain water, for instance to water gardens, claiming rain belongs to the states. You've read about the communities which require kids to procure licenses to have lemonade/Kool-Aid stands. The federal gov't requires small businesses with 100 or more employees to break down and record pay on the bases of gender and ethnicity. The list goes on......
Although I think like Calvin Coolidge, maybe I'm the last one to do so.
[As is becoming usual, please overlook/excuse any typos. I'm getting too old/tired to proofread.]
Funny as that seems, it has been used as fodder by historians (who know better than others; just ask them) to rate Coolidge far down the list of "best Presidents." I've seen him ranked as "low average" to "below average." Candidly, I have an affinity for Cool Cal. We are Amherst College mates, although he was a few years (?) ahead of me. I think he was a far better President than credited. I won't make my case here (perhaps in a later post), but two fairly recent biographies can do that for me. Although some readers don't care for Amity Shales' writing style, I found her book to be very enlightening, especially regarding Coolidge's economic/fiscal philosophies.
But to return to my point, "Is the country still here?" It was. And it still is. There is a valuable lesson there, if only we will heed it. The country is still here.
We don't need these "imperial Presidents." We'll get along just fine without them. Of course, most of the Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to the present would surely disagree. They, no doubt, think the country couldn't do without them.
We don't need this "Big Government." It is pervasive and continues to grow to the detriment of the American people. Last weekend there was an article about a local government that foreclosed on a citizen's rental property over a tax bill of $6.00, that's six dollars, that hadn't been paid. The county then old the house for $24,000. An op-ed urged the outgoing governor of Michigan to issue pardons to some men convicted and sentence to long years in prison although the evidence hardly warranted even a guilty finding. Prosecutors overzealously pushed for convictions, distorted or hiding exculpatory evidence.
Let's look at it another way. Federal regulatory agencies in 2016 issued almost 4,000 rules, most if not all of which have the force of law. By contrast, that same year Congress passed and the President signed 214 laws into effect. That's almost 20 "rules" for every law! And that is the long-term trend. Over the past 20 years or so, about 90,000 federal administrative rules have been issued, while over that same period, barely 4,000 laws have been enacted (on the national level). Granted, only about 20% of the rules are deemed "major" or "significant" based upon how much they cost, but I'd guess those designations depend on who has to abide by them. What about state and local agencies?
Granted, many laws that are passed created agencies to oversee those laws. And, admittedly, we can't expect our legislators to be experts on all or even most of these areas. There is a need for agencies, but the vast number we have? With the power to create rules that have the effect of law? And, the courts have often ruled that the executive and legislative branches can't overrule regulatory rules. (Is that redundant? Heh Heh.) In some instances, even the courts have no jurisdiction over the agencies. Interpretation is left up to the agencies. It didn't take geniuses to figure out that if the rules were clouded in vagueness, the interpreters had free reign.
I understand most folks don't care. Likely, at least directly, most people are not affected by the huge number of rules/regulations. As long as it's the other guy....... But how many millions if not billions of dollars are added to consumer costs, largely hidden costs, because of federal regulatory agencies?
We've heard some of the ridiculous ones. Some states prohibit collecting rain water, for instance to water gardens, claiming rain belongs to the states. You've read about the communities which require kids to procure licenses to have lemonade/Kool-Aid stands. The federal gov't requires small businesses with 100 or more employees to break down and record pay on the bases of gender and ethnicity. The list goes on......
Although I think like Calvin Coolidge, maybe I'm the last one to do so.
[As is becoming usual, please overlook/excuse any typos. I'm getting too old/tired to proofread.]
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Pearl Harbor
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the empire of Japan......"
This marked the beginning of the speech given by F. Roosevelt to a joint session of Congress asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 8.
I may have missed something, but nothing in my newspaper yesterday mentioned the Pearl Harbor attack. I don't think I saw anything as part of the online news blurbs. There might have been an article or more, but I didn't see anything. Maybe I just missed it.
I guess the question remains why the Japanese attacked the US. On face value, it seems pretty stupid. The US had more people, more resources, more money...... Of course, we know the Japanese are not stupid people. In effect, they were gambling. The gamble was we couldn't stomach a war, that we'd fight for a short while and then ask for peace with the Japanese being able to hold on to what they'd conquered.
Throughout the '30s, the US had shown it really lacked a will to fight. The isolationists were, if not dominant, at least a powerful force in US foreign policy. Our response to the invasion of Manchuria (northeast China), with its vast resources to feed the Japanese war industries, was laughable. It was almost as if the US said, "We're going to put a nasty letter in your file!" Later, the invasion of the rest of China and the rape of Nanking brought similar nonresponse. Even when the Japanese attacked one of our naval vessels (USS Panay), resulting in injuries and deaths to US sailors, the American response indicated we really didn't want to risk any fighting. The Japanese determined our will to fight, to enter a war, was minimal.
Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, knew Japan had to win quickly, that a long, protracted war would result in an American win. (He had spent several years in the US, even attending college here--Harvard, I think.)
The Japanese were seeking to build an empire, one that could supply the resources to their resource-starved nation. The US (and to a lesser extent, Britain) potentially stood in the way and had to be removed.
Finally, the USed some ordered sanctions on Japan. (Earlier attempts by the League were largely ineffective; they were sabotaged.) This led to the Japanese attacks in December 1941.
After the war, from prison, Hideki Tojo (War Minister and later Prime Minister) before his execution, wrote that the Japanese were only "defending ourselves." He said that the economic sanctions imposed by the US were "inhuman" and, "For Japan to do nothing would have meant the destruction of our nation." No mention was made of why the US slapped those sanctions on Japan--the invasion and colonization of Manchuria, the attack on mainland China, the rape of Nanking, the creation of what would be called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the Japanese Empire in the Pacific and East Asia).
Yamamoto was right, about losing a lengthy war, but wrong in his gamble.
The First World War saw a similar gamble by the Germans. In January 1917, German Chief of Staff von Falkenhayn convinced the Kaiser than Germany could end the war with a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. (It began almost two years earlier, but was quickly abandoned when the US voiced vociferous protests.) Wilhelm II had concerns about US entry, but he was convinced that the war would be over, that in effect Britain would be starved into suing for peace, before the Americans could make a difference. The Germans gambled--and lost.
This marked the beginning of the speech given by F. Roosevelt to a joint session of Congress asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 8.
I may have missed something, but nothing in my newspaper yesterday mentioned the Pearl Harbor attack. I don't think I saw anything as part of the online news blurbs. There might have been an article or more, but I didn't see anything. Maybe I just missed it.
I guess the question remains why the Japanese attacked the US. On face value, it seems pretty stupid. The US had more people, more resources, more money...... Of course, we know the Japanese are not stupid people. In effect, they were gambling. The gamble was we couldn't stomach a war, that we'd fight for a short while and then ask for peace with the Japanese being able to hold on to what they'd conquered.
Throughout the '30s, the US had shown it really lacked a will to fight. The isolationists were, if not dominant, at least a powerful force in US foreign policy. Our response to the invasion of Manchuria (northeast China), with its vast resources to feed the Japanese war industries, was laughable. It was almost as if the US said, "We're going to put a nasty letter in your file!" Later, the invasion of the rest of China and the rape of Nanking brought similar nonresponse. Even when the Japanese attacked one of our naval vessels (USS Panay), resulting in injuries and deaths to US sailors, the American response indicated we really didn't want to risk any fighting. The Japanese determined our will to fight, to enter a war, was minimal.
Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, knew Japan had to win quickly, that a long, protracted war would result in an American win. (He had spent several years in the US, even attending college here--Harvard, I think.)
The Japanese were seeking to build an empire, one that could supply the resources to their resource-starved nation. The US (and to a lesser extent, Britain) potentially stood in the way and had to be removed.
Finally, the USed some ordered sanctions on Japan. (Earlier attempts by the League were largely ineffective; they were sabotaged.) This led to the Japanese attacks in December 1941.
After the war, from prison, Hideki Tojo (War Minister and later Prime Minister) before his execution, wrote that the Japanese were only "defending ourselves." He said that the economic sanctions imposed by the US were "inhuman" and, "For Japan to do nothing would have meant the destruction of our nation." No mention was made of why the US slapped those sanctions on Japan--the invasion and colonization of Manchuria, the attack on mainland China, the rape of Nanking, the creation of what would be called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the Japanese Empire in the Pacific and East Asia).
Yamamoto was right, about losing a lengthy war, but wrong in his gamble.
The First World War saw a similar gamble by the Germans. In January 1917, German Chief of Staff von Falkenhayn convinced the Kaiser than Germany could end the war with a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. (It began almost two years earlier, but was quickly abandoned when the US voiced vociferous protests.) Wilhelm II had concerns about US entry, but he was convinced that the war would be over, that in effect Britain would be starved into suing for peace, before the Americans could make a difference. The Germans gambled--and lost.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Hmmm......
Is this yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us? A poll commissioned for The Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness revealed that among millennial respondents, 44% believe (I hesitate to use the word "think" because anyone who "believes" this surely isn't "thinking") that Barack Obama had a "bigger impact" on the US than George Washington. That defies my own belief!
Even if one thinks Obama was a good President (I most certainly do not!), he hardly compares with Washington or many others for that matter. I don't know what to make of this. Is it a reflection of the state of history education in our schools? of the students' teachers? of the current media? of sheer ignorance and lack of concern? Of course, what else might one expect of a group only 16% of which can identify what rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?
I once read an essay by Lech Walesa, the head of the Polish union Solidarity. He urged Americans not to take their Bill of Rights for granted. He knew how precious our individual rights were. After all, look at the sacrifices he made attempting to secure what he urged Americans to treasure. He was beaten and imprisoned. His family was threatened and, if I recall correctly, forced into exile in another country. And there was always the fear of what lay ahead from the commies. "'Lech' who?"
There are some other disturbing trends demonstrated in the poll's results, among them ignorance of American history and greatness coupled with a lack of knowledge of the world, past and present.
In a way, perhaps the millennials can't be blamed. They are fed a constant barrage of garbage that is reflected in their views. They hear Bernie Sanders laud socialism and, without knowing a thing about socialism, claim to favor it over capitalism. Yet ask these same ignoramuses about "free enterprise" or private entrepreneurs and they favor them too. Huh? Only one thing can explain that. It's not complimentary.
I was thinking of Catherine t. Great, the Russian Empress of the 18th Century. (I was so moved to think of her following a short e-mail from my Russian history professor at AC.) Catherine bore a strong resemblance, at least in governing style, to Augustus, the first and perhaps greatest of the Roman Emperors. Both were absolute rulers; they weren't democratic/republican (small d and small r) in the least. Yet, in claiming and holding such autocratic authority, both let others think they were in charge. Catherine, whose reign as been called "The Golden Age of the Russian Nobility," allowed the nobles to think they were running Russia or, at least, had the final voice. Augustus allowed the Roman Senate to think it was still in charge, as it had nominally been during most of the almost five centuries of the Republic (different from the Empire). Nope. Catherine and Augustus, in different times and with different methods, held the reins of government in their hands. I wonder if anyone but me things about weird things like that.
Even if one thinks Obama was a good President (I most certainly do not!), he hardly compares with Washington or many others for that matter. I don't know what to make of this. Is it a reflection of the state of history education in our schools? of the students' teachers? of the current media? of sheer ignorance and lack of concern? Of course, what else might one expect of a group only 16% of which can identify what rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?
I once read an essay by Lech Walesa, the head of the Polish union Solidarity. He urged Americans not to take their Bill of Rights for granted. He knew how precious our individual rights were. After all, look at the sacrifices he made attempting to secure what he urged Americans to treasure. He was beaten and imprisoned. His family was threatened and, if I recall correctly, forced into exile in another country. And there was always the fear of what lay ahead from the commies. "'Lech' who?"
There are some other disturbing trends demonstrated in the poll's results, among them ignorance of American history and greatness coupled with a lack of knowledge of the world, past and present.
In a way, perhaps the millennials can't be blamed. They are fed a constant barrage of garbage that is reflected in their views. They hear Bernie Sanders laud socialism and, without knowing a thing about socialism, claim to favor it over capitalism. Yet ask these same ignoramuses about "free enterprise" or private entrepreneurs and they favor them too. Huh? Only one thing can explain that. It's not complimentary.
I was thinking of Catherine t. Great, the Russian Empress of the 18th Century. (I was so moved to think of her following a short e-mail from my Russian history professor at AC.) Catherine bore a strong resemblance, at least in governing style, to Augustus, the first and perhaps greatest of the Roman Emperors. Both were absolute rulers; they weren't democratic/republican (small d and small r) in the least. Yet, in claiming and holding such autocratic authority, both let others think they were in charge. Catherine, whose reign as been called "The Golden Age of the Russian Nobility," allowed the nobles to think they were running Russia or, at least, had the final voice. Augustus allowed the Roman Senate to think it was still in charge, as it had nominally been during most of the almost five centuries of the Republic (different from the Empire). Nope. Catherine and Augustus, in different times and with different methods, held the reins of government in their hands. I wonder if anyone but me things about weird things like that.
Challenges
Several of my yoga instructors frequently tell us to challenge ourselves in our practice, to "challenge without pain." One says, "What doesn't challenge us doesn't change us." They, of course, are mostly speaking of the physical side of yoga. (I suspect they might disagree, that they'd include the spiritual and/or mental aspects of challenge.)
I have thought about this recently, about challenging our mind, our thoughts and ideas. How easy it is to sit back and watch the boob tube all the time. How easy it is to surrender our lives to interest in this sport or that sport. There are places for television watching, for the diversion that sports provides.
Recently, a few of us engaged in an e-mail discussion of the greatest Detroit Tiger of all time. That was fun and worthwhile. In response, I then asked what the greatest candy bar was/is. There's nothing wrong with either or like thing(s). Fun is not always a sin.
But do such "fun" things challenge our thoughts and ideas? To an extent, in certain areas, maybe they do. That's not what I mean here.
It's far easier to believe than it is to challenge. It's become a joke for almost everyone, "It's true. I read/found it on the Internet." Though we laugh at that, many of us subscribe to it. I know I sometimes, perhaps too often, fall into that error. Challenges to our beliefs require effort, thinking. It's not easy to confront what one "believes." What if what we've thought, based our views on, etc. is wrong?
That can be very disconcerting. Sometimes there's the realization that reality has upset our prejudices or at least our preconceived ideas. It's as if we get smacked across the face one day and discover we have arrived at a truth we weren't even looking for, a truth that causes a previous "truth" to tumble.
In many ways, this is where today's education is failing, failing students, failing society. I guess in a way, that's understandable. Teachers and others in the system are no longer allowed to create "microaggressions." Students can't be challenged, oh no. Schools must be "safe places." Or, if the school aren't "safe" themselves, they must provide "safe places" for students who have faced "microaggressions." As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up."
And I agree! Schools, especially colleges and universities, should be safe places. They should be places where ideas of all sorts, good and bad, popular and anathema, old and new, are safe to present and discuss. Instead of burying "ideas that we hate," put them out there where they face scrutiny, that is, challenge. Let students see if the ideas can stand on their own. Even more, let students confront ideas that challenge their own thoughts and beliefs.
I received another pair of Abraham Lincoln socks for Christmas. (Gee, if that keeps up, my Lincoln sock collection will soon surpass my Christmas sock collection, although his neckties have a way to go.) That present led me to reconsider what W.E.B. Dubois once wrote about Lincoln. I've noted this here before, but I often think of this and it bears repeating.
Of the five masters of the 19th Century, "Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable," Dubois wrote. "And I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man [Lincoln]. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
This is why I admire Lincoln so much. He grew. He grew as a President and he grew as a person. Lincoln did so by challenging his own thoughts. He sought differing opinions. Look no farther than his choice of Cabinet members, his Team of Rivals as Doris Kearns Goodwin put it. Those Cabinet members would force him to confront his ideas--and they did. Sometimes he stuck with what he held. Sometimes, though, he changed his mind. Others had better ideas than he did.
It's not easy to do what Lincoln did. I'm like most others in that regard, finding it easier to believe than to challenge. I should try harder.
Recently, a few of us engaged in an e-mail discussion of the greatest Detroit Tiger of all time. That was fun and worthwhile. In response, I then asked what the greatest candy bar was/is. There's nothing wrong with either or like thing(s). Fun is not always a sin.
But do such "fun" things challenge our thoughts and ideas? To an extent, in certain areas, maybe they do. That's not what I mean here.
It's far easier to believe than it is to challenge. It's become a joke for almost everyone, "It's true. I read/found it on the Internet." Though we laugh at that, many of us subscribe to it. I know I sometimes, perhaps too often, fall into that error. Challenges to our beliefs require effort, thinking. It's not easy to confront what one "believes." What if what we've thought, based our views on, etc. is wrong?
That can be very disconcerting. Sometimes there's the realization that reality has upset our prejudices or at least our preconceived ideas. It's as if we get smacked across the face one day and discover we have arrived at a truth we weren't even looking for, a truth that causes a previous "truth" to tumble.
In many ways, this is where today's education is failing, failing students, failing society. I guess in a way, that's understandable. Teachers and others in the system are no longer allowed to create "microaggressions." Students can't be challenged, oh no. Schools must be "safe places." Or, if the school aren't "safe" themselves, they must provide "safe places" for students who have faced "microaggressions." As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up."
And I agree! Schools, especially colleges and universities, should be safe places. They should be places where ideas of all sorts, good and bad, popular and anathema, old and new, are safe to present and discuss. Instead of burying "ideas that we hate," put them out there where they face scrutiny, that is, challenge. Let students see if the ideas can stand on their own. Even more, let students confront ideas that challenge their own thoughts and beliefs.
I received another pair of Abraham Lincoln socks for Christmas. (Gee, if that keeps up, my Lincoln sock collection will soon surpass my Christmas sock collection, although his neckties have a way to go.) That present led me to reconsider what W.E.B. Dubois once wrote about Lincoln. I've noted this here before, but I often think of this and it bears repeating.
Of the five masters of the 19th Century, "Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable," Dubois wrote. "And I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man [Lincoln]. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
This is why I admire Lincoln so much. He grew. He grew as a President and he grew as a person. Lincoln did so by challenging his own thoughts. He sought differing opinions. Look no farther than his choice of Cabinet members, his Team of Rivals as Doris Kearns Goodwin put it. Those Cabinet members would force him to confront his ideas--and they did. Sometimes he stuck with what he held. Sometimes, though, he changed his mind. Others had better ideas than he did.
It's not easy to do what Lincoln did. I'm like most others in that regard, finding it easier to believe than to challenge. I should try harder.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Thucydides
Gee, I hope that title, "Thucydides," doesn't frighten people off......
I'm guessing the name is familiar to most of you. He should be, rightly, called "The Father of History." He's not, of course, because we often don't get it right. Instead, that sobriquet (C'mon, when we get a chance to use words like that, seize it.) has been given to Herodotus.
I don't lose sleep over it, well, not too much sleep, but Herodotus was a fraud. Oh, he wrote history. But if he didn't know things, couldn't find facts, he just made them up. (Hey, that's what Karen tells people I do in class, just make up things. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.) If things couldn't be explained, that is the hows and whys of history, he might well just say something like, "The gods made them do it." (Maybe some of you will remember the Flip Wilson character, "Geraldine," who frequently excused her bad behavior with "The devil made me do it.")
Thucydides, on the other hand, tried to dig up facts and deal with them. That included interpretation, the stuff of history--the hows and whys, not merely the whos, whats, wheres, and whens. If not "The Father of History," he has been called "The First Scientific Historian." His thoughts from 2400 years ago provide some needed insight on our present condition, here in the US.
In describing a civil war which had broken out on one of the Hellenic islands (There was no country Greece, but a confederation or empire of individual city-states, often ferociously independent.), Thucydides wrote of the vengeful passion exhibited against the ruling classes "by those who had in the past been arrogantly oppressed instead of wisely governed." The revolt was by those who were trying to escape their plight of poverty, of being the down-trodden. (Dare I say of being the "deplorables?")
I've written about this before that the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not racists, are not bigots. Like Thucydides' rebels, they were sick and tired of being the downtrodden. Real or not, their perception was that the US government was not working for them; they saw it working for others, rich (corporations) and poor alike, but not for them. Although they were not the poorest of the poor, many of them saw that the American Dream, as they understood it, was being denied them--and their government was complicit.
Now we are engaged in what has been called "a cold civil war" between factions in the US. Each side has engaged in a fanatical zeal, one in which an attack on the other side is legitimized as an act of self-defense or even self-preservation. Despicable, even illegal behavior is not just excused, but lauded.
To Thucydides, ethics and morality were key components of society. But in his civil war, such were taken out of play. Changing events to change society was required, civil war then, cold civil war now. He cited, too, that to rationalize/legitimize changing events, words had to take on new meanings. Think of Orwell's Animal Farm and how language took on new meanings used to justify changes, often immoral and unethical changes in favor of those in power. If the meanings of words are changed cleverly enough, the concepts of morality and ethics can be maintained, if dishonestly. Think of today's euphemisms for abortion, "reproductive rights" among them.
Cheating, lying, and worse are held up as clever, not shameful, both then and now, while honesty is belittled as simple. BAMN! "By Any Means Necessary!" Rather than being used to improve the society of the people, to make it more just and fair-minded, strategies and tactics are used for the benefits of the parties. (I'm not singling out one party or the other, but indict both Democrats and Establishment Republicans.) Today, each sides seeks arguments, reasonable or otherwise thanks to social media and a compliant Lamestream media, to justify despicable actions. Opponents, often seekers of the truth, are destroyed by both parties. It is they, rather than the political leadership, who are portrayed as displaying deteriorating ethical and moral behavior and, I suppose, character.
No wonder, as Thucydides noted so long ago of the sides in his civil war, our parties and their adherents view each other with suspicion.
Is there a solution? Hmmm...... Thucydides might suggest a return to authentic moral lives, an ethical society. At least that was his recommendation to the Greeks/Hellenes. That didn't seem to work out so well. And, after a pretty long run themselves, the Romans ran into the same trap. (That's not to be confused with "Thucydides' Trap," a somewhat different, if related, concept.) Can we? I don't know. My innate cynicism and pessimism (a slight difference) leads me to doubt. From what I witness in our moral decline--in politics, entertainment, etc.--compounds that doubt. I hope I am wrong.
I'm guessing the name is familiar to most of you. He should be, rightly, called "The Father of History." He's not, of course, because we often don't get it right. Instead, that sobriquet (C'mon, when we get a chance to use words like that, seize it.) has been given to Herodotus.
I don't lose sleep over it, well, not too much sleep, but Herodotus was a fraud. Oh, he wrote history. But if he didn't know things, couldn't find facts, he just made them up. (Hey, that's what Karen tells people I do in class, just make up things. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.) If things couldn't be explained, that is the hows and whys of history, he might well just say something like, "The gods made them do it." (Maybe some of you will remember the Flip Wilson character, "Geraldine," who frequently excused her bad behavior with "The devil made me do it.")
Thucydides, on the other hand, tried to dig up facts and deal with them. That included interpretation, the stuff of history--the hows and whys, not merely the whos, whats, wheres, and whens. If not "The Father of History," he has been called "The First Scientific Historian." His thoughts from 2400 years ago provide some needed insight on our present condition, here in the US.
In describing a civil war which had broken out on one of the Hellenic islands (There was no country Greece, but a confederation or empire of individual city-states, often ferociously independent.), Thucydides wrote of the vengeful passion exhibited against the ruling classes "by those who had in the past been arrogantly oppressed instead of wisely governed." The revolt was by those who were trying to escape their plight of poverty, of being the down-trodden. (Dare I say of being the "deplorables?")
I've written about this before that the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not racists, are not bigots. Like Thucydides' rebels, they were sick and tired of being the downtrodden. Real or not, their perception was that the US government was not working for them; they saw it working for others, rich (corporations) and poor alike, but not for them. Although they were not the poorest of the poor, many of them saw that the American Dream, as they understood it, was being denied them--and their government was complicit.
Now we are engaged in what has been called "a cold civil war" between factions in the US. Each side has engaged in a fanatical zeal, one in which an attack on the other side is legitimized as an act of self-defense or even self-preservation. Despicable, even illegal behavior is not just excused, but lauded.
To Thucydides, ethics and morality were key components of society. But in his civil war, such were taken out of play. Changing events to change society was required, civil war then, cold civil war now. He cited, too, that to rationalize/legitimize changing events, words had to take on new meanings. Think of Orwell's Animal Farm and how language took on new meanings used to justify changes, often immoral and unethical changes in favor of those in power. If the meanings of words are changed cleverly enough, the concepts of morality and ethics can be maintained, if dishonestly. Think of today's euphemisms for abortion, "reproductive rights" among them.
Cheating, lying, and worse are held up as clever, not shameful, both then and now, while honesty is belittled as simple. BAMN! "By Any Means Necessary!" Rather than being used to improve the society of the people, to make it more just and fair-minded, strategies and tactics are used for the benefits of the parties. (I'm not singling out one party or the other, but indict both Democrats and Establishment Republicans.) Today, each sides seeks arguments, reasonable or otherwise thanks to social media and a compliant Lamestream media, to justify despicable actions. Opponents, often seekers of the truth, are destroyed by both parties. It is they, rather than the political leadership, who are portrayed as displaying deteriorating ethical and moral behavior and, I suppose, character.
No wonder, as Thucydides noted so long ago of the sides in his civil war, our parties and their adherents view each other with suspicion.
Is there a solution? Hmmm...... Thucydides might suggest a return to authentic moral lives, an ethical society. At least that was his recommendation to the Greeks/Hellenes. That didn't seem to work out so well. And, after a pretty long run themselves, the Romans ran into the same trap. (That's not to be confused with "Thucydides' Trap," a somewhat different, if related, concept.) Can we? I don't know. My innate cynicism and pessimism (a slight difference) leads me to doubt. From what I witness in our moral decline--in politics, entertainment, etc.--compounds that doubt. I hope I am wrong.
Friday, November 16, 2018
Modern Society
Here's something to ponder. What are the things you remember most fondly in your life? These can include moments with family and friends. What memories do you treasure most? Of what are you most proud? On your death bed, what will you remember?
I'm sure there are going to be different answers to this. I would likely bet on one thing, though. None of anyone's choices would include electronics--computers, video games, or even television or the movies.
Just before the priest comes in for last rites, I doubt I'll say, "Boy, I really remember that one episode of Charlie's Angels!" How many will recall "I really crushed everyone in Grand Theft Auto!" (No, that's not a typo. It's not really a question.) The list of things that won't be among what we'll remember from our lives is lengthy.
So, then, why do so many, particularly those younger folks, but not exclusively them, spend so much time watching television and movies, playing video games, etc.? If it were only the younger crowd, such might be chalked up to youthful indiscretions, that they haven't yet realized what is really important in life. (No, scoring high in Fortnight--?--is not a major accomplishment. If someone believes that...... No, nobody, deep down, really thinks that, do they?)
Similarly, what events have had major significance in your life? What, for better or worse, factors changed your life, pushing you in one direction or another? My guess is that video games, television shows, movies weren't among your candidates. Perhaps, if you were inspired by (or even won!) something like American Idol, maybe...... Did anyone ever watch The Andy Griffith Show and say, "When I grow up, I want to be just like Barney Fife or Gomer Pyle?"
Although I watch very, very little television (Karen can go on an out-of-town weekend shopping trip, leaving on Thur eve ad returning late Sun and she'll more often than not find the boob tube on the same station she left it three days earlier.), I understand the diversion movies, television, and even video games can provide. In our times of often complete lunacy? Yes, I understand the diversion factor. But why do so many folks let these activities dominate their lives?
And, perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe some people, on their death beds, will recall, "Remember how I dominated withe Mario Brothers?" or "Boy, watching Survivor was a highlight of my life." I don't think so, but, again, in our times of often complete lunacy, I could be wrong.
I'm sure there are going to be different answers to this. I would likely bet on one thing, though. None of anyone's choices would include electronics--computers, video games, or even television or the movies.
Just before the priest comes in for last rites, I doubt I'll say, "Boy, I really remember that one episode of Charlie's Angels!" How many will recall "I really crushed everyone in Grand Theft Auto!" (No, that's not a typo. It's not really a question.) The list of things that won't be among what we'll remember from our lives is lengthy.
So, then, why do so many, particularly those younger folks, but not exclusively them, spend so much time watching television and movies, playing video games, etc.? If it were only the younger crowd, such might be chalked up to youthful indiscretions, that they haven't yet realized what is really important in life. (No, scoring high in Fortnight--?--is not a major accomplishment. If someone believes that...... No, nobody, deep down, really thinks that, do they?)
Similarly, what events have had major significance in your life? What, for better or worse, factors changed your life, pushing you in one direction or another? My guess is that video games, television shows, movies weren't among your candidates. Perhaps, if you were inspired by (or even won!) something like American Idol, maybe...... Did anyone ever watch The Andy Griffith Show and say, "When I grow up, I want to be just like Barney Fife or Gomer Pyle?"
Although I watch very, very little television (Karen can go on an out-of-town weekend shopping trip, leaving on Thur eve ad returning late Sun and she'll more often than not find the boob tube on the same station she left it three days earlier.), I understand the diversion movies, television, and even video games can provide. In our times of often complete lunacy? Yes, I understand the diversion factor. But why do so many folks let these activities dominate their lives?
And, perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe some people, on their death beds, will recall, "Remember how I dominated withe Mario Brothers?" or "Boy, watching Survivor was a highlight of my life." I don't think so, but, again, in our times of often complete lunacy, I could be wrong.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Joseph Ellis
Joseph Ellis is one of my favorite historians. He taught at Mt. Holyoke, but arrived after I graduated from Amherst. (MHC is about 10 miles south, on Rte. 116, from AC. Rte. 116 borders both campuses.) He has written brilliant biographies/histories of the Founding Fathers: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and some general, but period specific books. I've read most of his books and enjoyed each of them, learning a lot. If you've not read anything by Ellis, try Founding Brothers to start. I suspect you won't stop at that one.
I also remember a lesson I learned from him, not directly, some years ago. He was sitting on a panel of historians. One of the others made a point and Ellis stopped, thought a few seconds, and said, "I didn't know that." What a lesson that was for me! Joseph Ellis admitting he didn't know something about early US history--and he knows everything about early US history. I have remembered that or at least tried to remember it.
Ellis has a new book out, which I'll have to buy. (Maybe that will be on my very short Christmas or birthday list!) It's an attempt to examine what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison (all Founders and Superstars!) would think of the divisive issues of today. (Please pronounce divisive's second syllable with a long, not a short i, as in "duh vy siv." I know, I know......) It's an interesting concept and use of history, one that helps to explain why it is important to study. Yet, the high regard I have for Ellis hasn't precluded me from taking exception to or at least questioning some of the ideas in his book, ones he presented in an interview.
He claimed our current problem/issue with divisiveness stems from how the US has grown. "It's a size problem." He cited the original population of the US (three to four million) vs that of today (325 million) and trying to do something original, something that has never been done (or even attempted) before, to "create a fully and genuinely multiracial society in a huge nation." Well, maybe. I'm not sure what he meant by "multi-racial" and, besides, I thought we were aiming for a post-racial society. That is, shouldn't the goal be to get beyond race, where it doesn't matter any more? Perhaps that is what he meant and I misinterpreted his comment--perhaps.
I think he left out something, an important factor in our current divisiveness--technology. It has exacerbated (I had to use that word; how often do I get to use it?) the problem. Without a long treatise on it, think "social media" and how it has opened many forums for even the most dreadful of ideas, often ones that, because they are in print/online, are taken as legitimate by millions of people. "I saw it online" or "I found it on the Internet."
In discussing the Founders, he cited that "We the People" didn't refer to blacks, Native Americans, and women. Of course he is right. But then he added that is going to "disappoint" Americans. Maybe not. The Founders were brilliant. Look what they created, with no model from which to work, to emulate! Of course, they weren't "our better angels." They were humans and, despite their foresight, products of their times. Also, they were compelled to compromise to achieve much of what they did. Maybe today we are sophisticated to recognize that.
"The Electoral College has got to go," Ellis said. He noted that the Founders would want us to see our Constitutional system as something organic, that we "have to make adaptations." Of course we do. How very different the late 18th Century was from today! Could the most brilliant and far-sighted of the Founders, say Franklin, Jefferson, or Dickinson, have contemplated automobiles, jet airplanes, the Internet, etc.? Surely not. The Electrical College [sic] was created for a purpose and I think that it still serves that purpose. One might disagree with it, but care must really be taken before we might make it "go," with a Constitutional amendment. Methinks Ellis's problem with the Electrical College is that his candidates lost in 2000 and 2016.
He missed a point, a big one, in claiming reasons for Americans' distrust in their government. In the '60s, 80% of us "trusted" our government, namely the federal government. That changed within a couple of decades, a distrust still holding today, perhaps as great as ever. Fewer than 20% of us now trust our government to do the right thing(s). Correctly, I think, Ellis cited the deviousness and lies surrounding the Vietnam War. But then he also claimed that the civil rights movement "alienated whites in the Confederacy" (a poor choice of words) and that Roe v Wade "alienates all evangelicals." NO! NO! NO! He omits an important factor or two.
First, he didn't make the connection between the falling degree of trust and the growing size of government. "Big Government," the one that ordered, deliberately, the poisoning of American citizens during Prohibition, is seen as an enemy by many Americans, especially those in the middle and lower middle classes. Second, if the civil rights movement "alienated" people, it wasn't just Southerners in "the Confederacy." And it wasn't the civil rights movement, per se, not in the long run. (The civil rights movement was a great episode in US history. People like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks--"Rosa, you know they'll kill you," pleaded her husband--and others showed remarkable courage.) It was what emanated from the movement. One example is affirmative action, necessary to some, but resentful to many, especially white males.
I think Ellis, in his answers to the interview questions, revealed a little of the arrogance of liberal academics described by David Gelernter. Note his use of "the Confederacy" and "the evangelicals," deplorables all. Such use sure seems a derogation.
I'd love to have a discussion with Ellis about this. First though, I should read his book, which I plan do do. I'm very certain I would learn a lot from him.
Hold on to your seats! I'm going to take a hard left (or right, it doesn't matter; it's not political) turn now. Late last week, I think as an introduction to one radio talk show or another, I don't recall which one, I heard something really, really cool. It was a symphonic version of Eric Clapton's Layla. I was very impressed. It sounded great! Then a few days later there was the Stones' Paint It Black, symphony-style, with strings and horns and all! I'll have to look online to see if there are CDs of such hits played by symphonies. There must be. Remember Procol Harem and Conquistador with the Edmonton (Canada) Symphony?
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Why They Hate Trump?
I was sent an online article, "The Real Reason They Hate Trump." The author, David Gelernter is a computer science professor at Yale. That he's quite the conservative makes me wonder how he's still at Yale? (Remember the law school there canceled classes so students could protest Brett Kavanaugh. Whatever happened to students protesting on their own time?) I've heard him on the radio and read some other things by him. He's one intelligent man, very smart.
I agreed with much of his article, but not all of it. In fact, maybe my dissents aren't really disagreements at all. He points to the arrogance of those to "hate Trump," citing many "leftists," "Democrats," the lamestream media, most academics, etc. It's not hard to guess those he singles out.
And he points to their arrogant elitism, that they, more than any others in the US, know what's best for everyone. Surely they know what's best for the "unwashed masses," the "deplorables," far better than they know themselves. Gelernter then makes a case that Trump is detested by all of these arrogant elitists because he's one of them, one of the "unwashed masses." Trump is one of them, a "deplorable," only an exaggerated one due to his wealth. He has "no constraints to cramp his style" because "he is filthy rich." But Trump is not, as Gelernter asserts, "a typical American," not by a long shot. If he is, I think we are doomed, rather sooner than later.
In large part, I think Gelernter is right. But I think the elitists of the left (and for that matter many Establishment Republicans who exhibit their own brand of arrogance) "hate Trump" not because he's Trump per se, but because the "deplorables," the "great unwashed" elected him instead of their hand-picked candidate. Had, say, Mitt Romney been nominated again to run against H. Clinton and won, does anyone think there would be such opprobrium against Romney--or any other Establishment Republican? Oh, they wouldn't have liked the outcome, but the vituperation would have been absent.
Taking a theme I was writing two years ago, right after Trump was elected, I don't think the hatred is really about him. Oh, he's an easy person to dislike, even hate. He's crude and coarse. He treats many people, especially women, shamefully. He's never learned that humility is a good quality to possess. I've said in the past that I don't like Trump, would never vote for him, although I guess I can tolerate him. Let's put it this way: I won't give back my tax cut. (As I wrote two years ago, I don't know if I would have been equally or more distressed and dispirited had Hillary Clinton won.) But I understand why so many people did and it's not, as the self-anointed American intelligentsia claim. The elitists still, apparently, don't recognize the reason(s). The "average Americans" that Gelernter cites (and Trump is not one of them) finally were sick and tired of being dumped on or, at the very least, their perceptions that they were being dumped on. The government, in their views, helped the poor and, if needed, the rich (or at least gave them breaks in the game). But those in the middle, the "average Americans," perceived that their government was there for everyone but them. They were sick and tired of it and of the Establishment candidates who were always presented to them--candidates who didn't speak for them, didn't represent them, and didn't do anything for them. We might argue whether this perception was, in fact, true, but perception is reality and that's what the Average Joe believed.
Regardless if Trump is one the "deplorables," the elitists resent Trump because of who elected him. And as I noted above, maybe this is a difference without a distinction.
Gelernter also raises other insightful points. I'd certainly agree that, if the Democrats are "intellectually bankrupt," (which is different, I think than "intellectually dishonest"), so are the Establishment Republicans. That I think so is hardly a ringing endorsement of Republicans. He writes , "Americans, left and right, are ashamed of [Trump]" for his treatment of women, adding "as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton." Are Americans really ashamed of "St. John?" I hardly think so. Most "average Americans" still think Kennedy was a great President, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. (In discussing this, "great Presidents," with my classes, I address this. Kennedy has his admirers. In the end, when I ask for evidence to support "great," I get little, if any. "So," I ask them without trying to be morbid, "Kennedy is 'great' because he was assassinated?" Sometimes I ask further, "Does that also make Garfield and McKinley 'great?'" OK, that's not a fair question as many/most students, college students, never heard of either.) Ashamed of JFK? I don't think so. And are they ashamed of Clinton? That's laughable. Although he might not be "St. Bill," even in the midst of the Lewinski affair, Americans were overwhelmingly in his corner. "Leave him alone," one Average American told me, "the economy is good." Do Americans give people they are ashamed of hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak? Do they invite him to endorse candidates? (Shouldn't the endorsement of such a shameful person be reason enough not to vote for a candidate?)
One other point Gelernter makes that I think is well worth considering. Many people who hate Trump are proud of it. Yes, it's a point of pride to hate! It seems that, in many circles, to be accepted, to be cool, one must hate Trump. Think about that for a while. I'm not sure that. as Gelernter claims, the typical "Trump-hater truly does hate the Average American...[and] America, too." But those elitists do believe they are smarter and believe that in an arrogant manner. They certainly would take exception with Gerlernter's last important insight, that "this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all--by plain citizens." Tell that one to an elitist! "...amateurs" and "plain citizens," indeed! Don't you mean "the great unwashed" and "the deplorables?"
Forgive any typos and other errors. I'm too tired (lazy?) tonight to proofread.
I agreed with much of his article, but not all of it. In fact, maybe my dissents aren't really disagreements at all. He points to the arrogance of those to "hate Trump," citing many "leftists," "Democrats," the lamestream media, most academics, etc. It's not hard to guess those he singles out.
And he points to their arrogant elitism, that they, more than any others in the US, know what's best for everyone. Surely they know what's best for the "unwashed masses," the "deplorables," far better than they know themselves. Gelernter then makes a case that Trump is detested by all of these arrogant elitists because he's one of them, one of the "unwashed masses." Trump is one of them, a "deplorable," only an exaggerated one due to his wealth. He has "no constraints to cramp his style" because "he is filthy rich." But Trump is not, as Gelernter asserts, "a typical American," not by a long shot. If he is, I think we are doomed, rather sooner than later.
In large part, I think Gelernter is right. But I think the elitists of the left (and for that matter many Establishment Republicans who exhibit their own brand of arrogance) "hate Trump" not because he's Trump per se, but because the "deplorables," the "great unwashed" elected him instead of their hand-picked candidate. Had, say, Mitt Romney been nominated again to run against H. Clinton and won, does anyone think there would be such opprobrium against Romney--or any other Establishment Republican? Oh, they wouldn't have liked the outcome, but the vituperation would have been absent.
Taking a theme I was writing two years ago, right after Trump was elected, I don't think the hatred is really about him. Oh, he's an easy person to dislike, even hate. He's crude and coarse. He treats many people, especially women, shamefully. He's never learned that humility is a good quality to possess. I've said in the past that I don't like Trump, would never vote for him, although I guess I can tolerate him. Let's put it this way: I won't give back my tax cut. (As I wrote two years ago, I don't know if I would have been equally or more distressed and dispirited had Hillary Clinton won.) But I understand why so many people did and it's not, as the self-anointed American intelligentsia claim. The elitists still, apparently, don't recognize the reason(s). The "average Americans" that Gelernter cites (and Trump is not one of them) finally were sick and tired of being dumped on or, at the very least, their perceptions that they were being dumped on. The government, in their views, helped the poor and, if needed, the rich (or at least gave them breaks in the game). But those in the middle, the "average Americans," perceived that their government was there for everyone but them. They were sick and tired of it and of the Establishment candidates who were always presented to them--candidates who didn't speak for them, didn't represent them, and didn't do anything for them. We might argue whether this perception was, in fact, true, but perception is reality and that's what the Average Joe believed.
Regardless if Trump is one the "deplorables," the elitists resent Trump because of who elected him. And as I noted above, maybe this is a difference without a distinction.
Gelernter also raises other insightful points. I'd certainly agree that, if the Democrats are "intellectually bankrupt," (which is different, I think than "intellectually dishonest"), so are the Establishment Republicans. That I think so is hardly a ringing endorsement of Republicans. He writes , "Americans, left and right, are ashamed of [Trump]" for his treatment of women, adding "as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton." Are Americans really ashamed of "St. John?" I hardly think so. Most "average Americans" still think Kennedy was a great President, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. (In discussing this, "great Presidents," with my classes, I address this. Kennedy has his admirers. In the end, when I ask for evidence to support "great," I get little, if any. "So," I ask them without trying to be morbid, "Kennedy is 'great' because he was assassinated?" Sometimes I ask further, "Does that also make Garfield and McKinley 'great?'" OK, that's not a fair question as many/most students, college students, never heard of either.) Ashamed of JFK? I don't think so. And are they ashamed of Clinton? That's laughable. Although he might not be "St. Bill," even in the midst of the Lewinski affair, Americans were overwhelmingly in his corner. "Leave him alone," one Average American told me, "the economy is good." Do Americans give people they are ashamed of hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak? Do they invite him to endorse candidates? (Shouldn't the endorsement of such a shameful person be reason enough not to vote for a candidate?)
One other point Gelernter makes that I think is well worth considering. Many people who hate Trump are proud of it. Yes, it's a point of pride to hate! It seems that, in many circles, to be accepted, to be cool, one must hate Trump. Think about that for a while. I'm not sure that. as Gelernter claims, the typical "Trump-hater truly does hate the Average American...[and] America, too." But those elitists do believe they are smarter and believe that in an arrogant manner. They certainly would take exception with Gerlernter's last important insight, that "this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all--by plain citizens." Tell that one to an elitist! "...amateurs" and "plain citizens," indeed! Don't you mean "the great unwashed" and "the deplorables?"
Forgive any typos and other errors. I'm too tired (lazy?) tonight to proofread.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Hidden Taxes?
The Democrat candidate for Michigan governor has repeated this. The condition of the roads which leads us to pay for auto repairs is, she said, a "Republican road tax." (And, yes, we've had blown tires and damaged rims, too.) Maybe. Maybe not.
I wonder if she considers the huge increases in my health insurance premiums, along with the higher co-pays and deductibles, to be a "Democrat health care tax." After all, Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote in Congress. So, obviously, the Democrats own it. "Republican road tax?" "Democrat health care tax?" I know, I know. "But that's different."
Relative to Michigan's Proposal 2, which I will vote against, I am reminded of Obama's words. "Elections have consequences......" Why, then, is it so wrong for those who win elections to draw up district boundaries? Isn't that a consequence of winning elections? I know, I know. "But that's different." By the way, do we really need more unaccountable, that is they never have to face voters, bureaucrats making decisions for us? Haven't we learned our lessons?
Adding to my post of last week about "Free," the freebies and handouts to which many people feel entitled and which many politicians promise in their bids to get elected, was an article I read the other day. Young folks, ages 19-35, by sizable majorities want those freebies, such as free health insurance and free college education. I guess nobody should be surprised. I wonder if, though, all those young folks realize that none of the freebies are really free.
I tried, I really did. I turned on the Detroit Lions game this afternoon. I told Karen I was going to just "veg out" and watch the game. The game remained on the boob tube for its entirety. I'll estimate that I watched, at most, 11 or 12 plays. It just held no interest for me. I know a lot of people live and die with professional sports. I don't happen to be one of them. And I didn't watch a single down of either MSU or UM yesterday. I did mange to catch the last quarter of the Amherst game on my computer. There were technical difficulties and I couldn't watch the first part of the game. I'm sure all will be happy (at least I am!) that the Lord Jeffs held off the Jumbos, 19-13, and are now 7-0 with two games to go. The Purple Cows come to Amherst in two weeks.
I just finished The Switch by Joseph Finder. It's a thriller and I enjoyed it. More so, it fed into my fears of Big Government, more and more unrestrained, and what it can do to citizens. Another book I read a few weeks ago had these gems: "How can one plan a book about lying without including politicians?" and "How [are we] to distinguish between the politician who is lying and the one who is just stupid?" Of course, despite the punctuation, they are more statements than they are questions.
If you are looking for a good book, try Nelson De Mille's Gold Coast. One reviewer called it an updated Great Gatsby. I wouldn't go that far, but I really enjoyed it. The characters were sound, both flawed and heroic, and the writing was very good. De Mille even managed, like Mario Puzo in The Godfather, to turn a Mafia boss into a sympathetic character! What to read next? I think I'll catch up on a pile of magazines I've not yet opened.
OK, I have to get this off my chest. I gave midterm exams in all of my classes last week. In one of my Michigan history courses, two students misspelled "Michigan," multiple times and all misspelled the same way(s). Plus, "Michigan" was splattered all over the exam itself, from a title to individual questions. I was tempted to just put a big F on the papers. Some years ago, I questioned an elementary teacher about why spelling isn't taught in the lower grades any longer. Back when, it was part of every academic day, grades one through six, with spelling textbooks, etc. Anyway, this elementary teacher said the theory was students "would catch on to spelling eventually." Well, many of them obviously didn't. Who could possibly think that? (Well, I know who, but......) If spelling doesn't count, isn't emphasized, why would students care about it? Again obviously many of them didn't and don't. It's like no longer requiring things like math flash cards and tables--addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. I was reminded of that during my last stop at McDonald's. I paid my $2.59 with 7 quarters, 6 dimes, 4 nickels, and 4 pennies. It took the guy about five minutes to count the change. I even wondered if he just finally gave up and put the coins in their proper tills. His calculator didn't help him much that night, did it? Still, nobody listens to me about the schools.
I wonder if she considers the huge increases in my health insurance premiums, along with the higher co-pays and deductibles, to be a "Democrat health care tax." After all, Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote in Congress. So, obviously, the Democrats own it. "Republican road tax?" "Democrat health care tax?" I know, I know. "But that's different."
Relative to Michigan's Proposal 2, which I will vote against, I am reminded of Obama's words. "Elections have consequences......" Why, then, is it so wrong for those who win elections to draw up district boundaries? Isn't that a consequence of winning elections? I know, I know. "But that's different." By the way, do we really need more unaccountable, that is they never have to face voters, bureaucrats making decisions for us? Haven't we learned our lessons?
Adding to my post of last week about "Free," the freebies and handouts to which many people feel entitled and which many politicians promise in their bids to get elected, was an article I read the other day. Young folks, ages 19-35, by sizable majorities want those freebies, such as free health insurance and free college education. I guess nobody should be surprised. I wonder if, though, all those young folks realize that none of the freebies are really free.
I tried, I really did. I turned on the Detroit Lions game this afternoon. I told Karen I was going to just "veg out" and watch the game. The game remained on the boob tube for its entirety. I'll estimate that I watched, at most, 11 or 12 plays. It just held no interest for me. I know a lot of people live and die with professional sports. I don't happen to be one of them. And I didn't watch a single down of either MSU or UM yesterday. I did mange to catch the last quarter of the Amherst game on my computer. There were technical difficulties and I couldn't watch the first part of the game. I'm sure all will be happy (at least I am!) that the Lord Jeffs held off the Jumbos, 19-13, and are now 7-0 with two games to go. The Purple Cows come to Amherst in two weeks.
I just finished The Switch by Joseph Finder. It's a thriller and I enjoyed it. More so, it fed into my fears of Big Government, more and more unrestrained, and what it can do to citizens. Another book I read a few weeks ago had these gems: "How can one plan a book about lying without including politicians?" and "How [are we] to distinguish between the politician who is lying and the one who is just stupid?" Of course, despite the punctuation, they are more statements than they are questions.
If you are looking for a good book, try Nelson De Mille's Gold Coast. One reviewer called it an updated Great Gatsby. I wouldn't go that far, but I really enjoyed it. The characters were sound, both flawed and heroic, and the writing was very good. De Mille even managed, like Mario Puzo in The Godfather, to turn a Mafia boss into a sympathetic character! What to read next? I think I'll catch up on a pile of magazines I've not yet opened.
OK, I have to get this off my chest. I gave midterm exams in all of my classes last week. In one of my Michigan history courses, two students misspelled "Michigan," multiple times and all misspelled the same way(s). Plus, "Michigan" was splattered all over the exam itself, from a title to individual questions. I was tempted to just put a big F on the papers. Some years ago, I questioned an elementary teacher about why spelling isn't taught in the lower grades any longer. Back when, it was part of every academic day, grades one through six, with spelling textbooks, etc. Anyway, this elementary teacher said the theory was students "would catch on to spelling eventually." Well, many of them obviously didn't. Who could possibly think that? (Well, I know who, but......) If spelling doesn't count, isn't emphasized, why would students care about it? Again obviously many of them didn't and don't. It's like no longer requiring things like math flash cards and tables--addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. I was reminded of that during my last stop at McDonald's. I paid my $2.59 with 7 quarters, 6 dimes, 4 nickels, and 4 pennies. It took the guy about five minutes to count the change. I even wondered if he just finally gave up and put the coins in their proper tills. His calculator didn't help him much that night, did it? Still, nobody listens to me about the schools.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
"Free!"
I wrote this one back in August, but apparently forgot to "publish" it.
Who can resist "Free?" What's not to like about getting free things? "You mean, I don't have to pay for them?" Nope. But somebody else does, often involuntarily.
A few weeks ago I upset some people when I said during a conversation, "I don't think I could vote for a Democrat, any Democrat." After a brief hesitation, I added, "At least not until Democrats change their values." Of course, those who know me also know I have a hard time voting for many Republicans, those of the Establishment variety. And I usually don't. But, for today, back to the Democrats.
I read some of the profiles of the Democratic candidates for governor in Michigan. One word that kept jumping out at me was "free." "Free" was all over the place. Each one promised free this and free that, from community college education and child care to job training and health care. Maybe I exaggerate the "free" stuff, but I don't think by much.
The problem is nothing is "free." Someone pays for it. I suppose if it's the next guy, we don't care--as long as it's not us. We should be able to spend our money the way we want. The other guy? Well, we, not him, should be able to determine how he spends his money through taxes and fees.
"Free" must be a tactic to win votes. Several candidates for the US House and state legislature are also running on "free" this and "free" that. Sooner or later maybe I'll ask, "Where do I sign up?"
I had to laugh. A few weeks ago, when I was doing some necessary driving, gasoline prices were well above $3.00. I think when I filled up the tank then, I paid $3.19 a gallon. I haven't needed gas and noticed a couple of stations with lower prices, down to $2.79. I'm getting close to an empty tank again and, just today, driving past two stations 10 miles miles apart, the price was back up to $3.09. We have a running joke, call me to find out when to buy gas. Don't buy it when I do. Wait a while, after I fill up. Inevitably the price will decrease.
That is like red lights at traffic signals. I am always stopped, well, it seems like always. The joke is, even if I'm a passenger in the front seat, the lights see me and turn to red. This AM, I had a short drive, with three traffic signals on the route. Yep, I was stopped at all three of them.
I have two online weather sites I frequent. Yeah, I know that's often silly since they are so very often wrong. A few weeks ago two days called for rain all day, the percentage of likelihood ranging from 70% to 100%. It rained neither day. But I like to check, maybe a day in advance, to see about my plans for running, biking, tossing BP, etc. Today was one of those funny days. Yesterday, both sites called for "Thunderstorms," with a likelihood of 100% most of the morning and early afternoon. This AM, one was calling for 100%while the other was down to 20-35%. By late afternoon, both were down to about 10%. Good! We can go out for some BP. Not so fast there, Bozo. About ten minutes before we were to leave, it started to rain. Sometimes it's just funny.
Who can resist "Free?" What's not to like about getting free things? "You mean, I don't have to pay for them?" Nope. But somebody else does, often involuntarily.
A few weeks ago I upset some people when I said during a conversation, "I don't think I could vote for a Democrat, any Democrat." After a brief hesitation, I added, "At least not until Democrats change their values." Of course, those who know me also know I have a hard time voting for many Republicans, those of the Establishment variety. And I usually don't. But, for today, back to the Democrats.
I read some of the profiles of the Democratic candidates for governor in Michigan. One word that kept jumping out at me was "free." "Free" was all over the place. Each one promised free this and free that, from community college education and child care to job training and health care. Maybe I exaggerate the "free" stuff, but I don't think by much.
The problem is nothing is "free." Someone pays for it. I suppose if it's the next guy, we don't care--as long as it's not us. We should be able to spend our money the way we want. The other guy? Well, we, not him, should be able to determine how he spends his money through taxes and fees.
"Free" must be a tactic to win votes. Several candidates for the US House and state legislature are also running on "free" this and "free" that. Sooner or later maybe I'll ask, "Where do I sign up?"
I had to laugh. A few weeks ago, when I was doing some necessary driving, gasoline prices were well above $3.00. I think when I filled up the tank then, I paid $3.19 a gallon. I haven't needed gas and noticed a couple of stations with lower prices, down to $2.79. I'm getting close to an empty tank again and, just today, driving past two stations 10 miles miles apart, the price was back up to $3.09. We have a running joke, call me to find out when to buy gas. Don't buy it when I do. Wait a while, after I fill up. Inevitably the price will decrease.
That is like red lights at traffic signals. I am always stopped, well, it seems like always. The joke is, even if I'm a passenger in the front seat, the lights see me and turn to red. This AM, I had a short drive, with three traffic signals on the route. Yep, I was stopped at all three of them.
I have two online weather sites I frequent. Yeah, I know that's often silly since they are so very often wrong. A few weeks ago two days called for rain all day, the percentage of likelihood ranging from 70% to 100%. It rained neither day. But I like to check, maybe a day in advance, to see about my plans for running, biking, tossing BP, etc. Today was one of those funny days. Yesterday, both sites called for "Thunderstorms," with a likelihood of 100% most of the morning and early afternoon. This AM, one was calling for 100%while the other was down to 20-35%. By late afternoon, both were down to about 10%. Good! We can go out for some BP. Not so fast there, Bozo. About ten minutes before we were to leave, it started to rain. Sometimes it's just funny.
Autumn 2018
At this time of the year, especially this year, I am reminded of the Sumerian legend that sought to explain the comings and goings of the four seasons. Ishtar, the goddess of fertility among other things, loses her husband, Tammuz, each fall. To resurrect her deceased Tammuz, Ishtar bribes the other gods, ransoming the beauty of the land. This is winter. In the spring, Tammuz is reborn and the summer represents the renewed enjoyment of life between Ishtar and her husband. In a way, that's how we characterize the seasons.
I wrote "especially this year." I really enjoy riding my bike. I'm purely a recreational rider, nothing fast and nothing particularly long. This summer I'd guess my longest ride was 15-16 miles or so, but most were between 6 and 12 miles. Regardless, I like my summer rides. This autumn, like Ishtar, I am saddened. Due to, mostly, the weather, but also my schedule, I've cut back on riding far too soon.
Karen claims that here in Michigan, "We don't have spring any more. We go right from winter to summer." Although not precisely true, it does seem we get the 20- and 30-degree days, with snow, followed by only a few weeks of more moderate temperatures, and then the 80-degrees hit us. I think in mid-April, after Karen returned from a week in Florida, we had a snowstorm; 5-6 inches were dumped on us. Within weeks, if I recall, we were experiencing mid- and upper-80 degree days, with high humidity. I think our first summer baseball game was played in 90 degrees with stifling humididity.
Two weeks ago from yesterday, Carrie and I ran and it was in the upper 80s. Since, the temperatures have fallen. Today's high was forecast to be 52, but so far hasn't come close. It was 26 degrees when I ran in the dark this AM. We're stuck at 45 degrees. Several days on my bike it's been in the 30s. I dress warmly, but with the constant steady breezes that seem to swirl from all directions, the rides are not comfortable. A couple of the days I wimped/whimped out and came home after a mile or two. The cold seemed to penetrate what I think were sufficient layers of clothing. And the wind took a lot of effort to fight.
I'm going to try to ride as late as I can (last year after Thanksgiving), but I'm not encouraged. Perhaps I can "ransom the land" and bribe the weather gods into bringing an early (and warm!) spring.
The elections are in two weeks, less actually. I've had several folks ask (in person and by e-mail) what I thought about them, the candidates and the proposals. I wrote to them, "I know it's hard to imagine me becoming even more cynical than I already am, but......"
I've stated in previous elections that I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." I won't do that. Evil is evil; bad is bad. No, I'm not, in essence, giving my vote then to the "other party." If a party wants my vote, give me candidates worth considering.
We do have one, I think. Running for the US Senate is John James. I like much of what I read and hear about him. He will get my vote, perhaps one of the few mainstream (Democrats or Establishment Republicans) candidates to do so. Yet, his is an uphill battle, which is a shame. His opponent, running for her fourth term in the US Senate, should never have been elected in the first place, 18 years ago. And she's done little to prove worthy of the seat. But the advantages of incumbency in raising money and name recognition and union support (for the bobble heads who blindly vote for the candidates hand-picked by their union leadership; that includes teachers) are often too much to overcome.
I can't fathom voting for candidates whose proposed policies (at least their political histories) would indicate a return to those eight years of economic malaise in Michigan. Now that the state's economy is humming, I guess voters don't think about it; the economy isn't an issue. Having short memories can be very dangerous.
(At the same time, I am very cautious about selling my soul--my vote--to the devil. Economic issues are very important, but at what cost/expense? I am reminded of the defense of Mussolini in Italy, "He makes the trains run on time." He actually didn't and there was a great deal of economic strife, but people believed it. The buffoon's other serious faults were overlooked because, well, "He makes the trains run on time.")
Each of the proposals in the state bears problems for me; I can't vote for any of them. Locally, I can't vote for any incumbent school board members, not after they stabbed employees and children in the back on school closings. (It would be hilarious if not so pathetic. The rumor is the school board and administration next spring are going to ask for a millage/bond issue to enlarge some of the elementary schools, the ones where the students from the closed school were sent. So, now, barely a year later, there is overcrowding? Gee, why close a school in the first place--and then not really close it, but use it for other purposes? Where are the savings, which by the way were not ever confirmed--$300,00? a million dollars?)
I have class tonight and I'm off to prepare. Please overlook/excuse any typos or other errors.
I wrote "especially this year." I really enjoy riding my bike. I'm purely a recreational rider, nothing fast and nothing particularly long. This summer I'd guess my longest ride was 15-16 miles or so, but most were between 6 and 12 miles. Regardless, I like my summer rides. This autumn, like Ishtar, I am saddened. Due to, mostly, the weather, but also my schedule, I've cut back on riding far too soon.
Karen claims that here in Michigan, "We don't have spring any more. We go right from winter to summer." Although not precisely true, it does seem we get the 20- and 30-degree days, with snow, followed by only a few weeks of more moderate temperatures, and then the 80-degrees hit us. I think in mid-April, after Karen returned from a week in Florida, we had a snowstorm; 5-6 inches were dumped on us. Within weeks, if I recall, we were experiencing mid- and upper-80 degree days, with high humidity. I think our first summer baseball game was played in 90 degrees with stifling humididity.
Two weeks ago from yesterday, Carrie and I ran and it was in the upper 80s. Since, the temperatures have fallen. Today's high was forecast to be 52, but so far hasn't come close. It was 26 degrees when I ran in the dark this AM. We're stuck at 45 degrees. Several days on my bike it's been in the 30s. I dress warmly, but with the constant steady breezes that seem to swirl from all directions, the rides are not comfortable. A couple of the days I wimped/whimped out and came home after a mile or two. The cold seemed to penetrate what I think were sufficient layers of clothing. And the wind took a lot of effort to fight.
I'm going to try to ride as late as I can (last year after Thanksgiving), but I'm not encouraged. Perhaps I can "ransom the land" and bribe the weather gods into bringing an early (and warm!) spring.
The elections are in two weeks, less actually. I've had several folks ask (in person and by e-mail) what I thought about them, the candidates and the proposals. I wrote to them, "I know it's hard to imagine me becoming even more cynical than I already am, but......"
I've stated in previous elections that I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." I won't do that. Evil is evil; bad is bad. No, I'm not, in essence, giving my vote then to the "other party." If a party wants my vote, give me candidates worth considering.
We do have one, I think. Running for the US Senate is John James. I like much of what I read and hear about him. He will get my vote, perhaps one of the few mainstream (Democrats or Establishment Republicans) candidates to do so. Yet, his is an uphill battle, which is a shame. His opponent, running for her fourth term in the US Senate, should never have been elected in the first place, 18 years ago. And she's done little to prove worthy of the seat. But the advantages of incumbency in raising money and name recognition and union support (for the bobble heads who blindly vote for the candidates hand-picked by their union leadership; that includes teachers) are often too much to overcome.
I can't fathom voting for candidates whose proposed policies (at least their political histories) would indicate a return to those eight years of economic malaise in Michigan. Now that the state's economy is humming, I guess voters don't think about it; the economy isn't an issue. Having short memories can be very dangerous.
(At the same time, I am very cautious about selling my soul--my vote--to the devil. Economic issues are very important, but at what cost/expense? I am reminded of the defense of Mussolini in Italy, "He makes the trains run on time." He actually didn't and there was a great deal of economic strife, but people believed it. The buffoon's other serious faults were overlooked because, well, "He makes the trains run on time.")
Each of the proposals in the state bears problems for me; I can't vote for any of them. Locally, I can't vote for any incumbent school board members, not after they stabbed employees and children in the back on school closings. (It would be hilarious if not so pathetic. The rumor is the school board and administration next spring are going to ask for a millage/bond issue to enlarge some of the elementary schools, the ones where the students from the closed school were sent. So, now, barely a year later, there is overcrowding? Gee, why close a school in the first place--and then not really close it, but use it for other purposes? Where are the savings, which by the way were not ever confirmed--$300,00? a million dollars?)
I have class tonight and I'm off to prepare. Please overlook/excuse any typos or other errors.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
L'Affaire Kavanaugh
It's hard to believe my last post was more than a month ago. I know I've been pretty busy, with three classes, fall baseball, my physical fitness activities, and other writing. I've been trying to get in more reading, too, but I haven't been overly successful. Still, September 4?
Yesterday Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by two votes in the US Senate to become the 114th justice to serve. (If I recall correctly, only Frank Murphy has come from Michigan!)
Some folks might think (hope) that this will help bring an end to the idiotic partisan bickering. I am not one of those people. Both parties have demonstrated again and again how stupid they are, how they are more concerned with themselves than with the health of the US, etc. Democrats and Republicans each have exhibited behavior, many times, of which they should be very ashamed. Of course neither party is ever ashamed. They are never humbled by their idiotic behaviors. That's because, as I've noted many times in the past, the parties are led by arrogant elitists, who know far better than we do what's best for us.
And the "Me Too" movement, if that's what it's called, continues to do irreparable harm to itself and to women who have been raped and abused. I do not minimize the crimes of rape and sexual abuse. Those who know me also know what I'd do, for instance, to some guy who abused my granddaughter. But to give blanket acceptance to each and every accusation does the movement and real victims no good. Think, too, about the irreparable harm done to the falsely accused. Proof is required!
Kavanaugh's accuser (I just never remember her name) claimed in her Senate testimony that she "was nobody'd pawn." I beg to differ. I think, wittingly or otherwise, she was a pawn. And for that matter, I think Kavanaugh was a pawn.
Mostly, I believe this had little to do with Kavanaugh. It had everything to do with President Trump. Many people have demonstrated they would go to extremes to "get Trump." The Kavanaugh candidacy showed those extremes. I don't know for certain if Kavanaugh did what she claimed. I do know I don't believe this accuser. Again, something might well have happened; I am not in the least convinced something did. Yet, how many people, millions, already had Kavanaugh tried and convicted, with no evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration to the accusations? All it took was an allegation.
It's not hard to find false accusations. Again, I'm not minimizing sex crimes, not at all. Online, start with "Tawana Bradley," "Duke Lacrosse," and work from there. It appears when it's "He said/She said," "She" is always believed--or that is what many people seem to think.
I don't think the accusations were important, that Kavanaugh was important. It could have been anyone Trump nominated. The point was to prevent confirmation, to prevent a Trump success. "Get Trump!" Do anything to stop him!
Those protesters would have a whole lot more credibility with me if they demonstrated against Bill Clinton (or a number of others we all could name). I don't remember hearing anything from Hillary Clinton on this. She might have said something and I just didn't hear/see it. But I can't recall any statements. Maybe she was too smart to voice an opinion?
Yesterday Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by two votes in the US Senate to become the 114th justice to serve. (If I recall correctly, only Frank Murphy has come from Michigan!)
Some folks might think (hope) that this will help bring an end to the idiotic partisan bickering. I am not one of those people. Both parties have demonstrated again and again how stupid they are, how they are more concerned with themselves than with the health of the US, etc. Democrats and Republicans each have exhibited behavior, many times, of which they should be very ashamed. Of course neither party is ever ashamed. They are never humbled by their idiotic behaviors. That's because, as I've noted many times in the past, the parties are led by arrogant elitists, who know far better than we do what's best for us.
And the "Me Too" movement, if that's what it's called, continues to do irreparable harm to itself and to women who have been raped and abused. I do not minimize the crimes of rape and sexual abuse. Those who know me also know what I'd do, for instance, to some guy who abused my granddaughter. But to give blanket acceptance to each and every accusation does the movement and real victims no good. Think, too, about the irreparable harm done to the falsely accused. Proof is required!
Kavanaugh's accuser (I just never remember her name) claimed in her Senate testimony that she "was nobody'd pawn." I beg to differ. I think, wittingly or otherwise, she was a pawn. And for that matter, I think Kavanaugh was a pawn.
Mostly, I believe this had little to do with Kavanaugh. It had everything to do with President Trump. Many people have demonstrated they would go to extremes to "get Trump." The Kavanaugh candidacy showed those extremes. I don't know for certain if Kavanaugh did what she claimed. I do know I don't believe this accuser. Again, something might well have happened; I am not in the least convinced something did. Yet, how many people, millions, already had Kavanaugh tried and convicted, with no evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration to the accusations? All it took was an allegation.
It's not hard to find false accusations. Again, I'm not minimizing sex crimes, not at all. Online, start with "Tawana Bradley," "Duke Lacrosse," and work from there. It appears when it's "He said/She said," "She" is always believed--or that is what many people seem to think.
I don't think the accusations were important, that Kavanaugh was important. It could have been anyone Trump nominated. The point was to prevent confirmation, to prevent a Trump success. "Get Trump!" Do anything to stop him!
Those protesters would have a whole lot more credibility with me if they demonstrated against Bill Clinton (or a number of others we all could name). I don't remember hearing anything from Hillary Clinton on this. She might have said something and I just didn't hear/see it. But I can't recall any statements. Maybe she was too smart to voice an opinion?
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
History That Never Happened
I've always wanted to teach a course in Historiography. It would explore the "stuff" of history: types of sources and their reliability, bias in recording and writing history (and it's not always "bad"), the influence of factors such as geography and personalities, etc. But that will never happen. For one reason, what students would take such a course? For another, I don't want to do the paper work. There's always paper work that is required. (When the former dean at one of the colleges discovered I was teaching Michigan History at the other college, she asked if I'd teach it there. I balked, saying, "I don't do paper work." She must have really wanted the course to be offered; she did the paper work herself and rushed its approval through the administration. I've taught it every semester since.)
But, if I did teach it I wouldn't have a textbook per se, but, like my Amherst courses in history (and most other courses) we'd use a half dozen or more books. One might be "History According to the Movies." Others would be "George v George: The American Revolution as Seen from Both Sides" and "The Geography Behind History." Certainly I would include, "History That Never Happened." It is subtitled, "A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If?" When I discuss this book in class, I joke with students, "I have enough trouble getting students to read history that did happen. How will I get them to read history that didn't happen?" Regardless, the book offers some really great opportunities for meaningful discussions.
For instance, Winston Churchill was named, even in many American polls in 1999, the "Person-of-the-20th-Century." I have no quibbles with that, but won't go into right or wrong choice. But in the early 1930s, Churchill was leaving a play in NYC. Heading out, he stepped into the street. But he looked the wrong way for traffic. (Remember, in Britain they drive on the wrong sides of the roads.) He was nailed by a car he didn't see. He was injured severely, vertebrae broken, pelvis shattered, and other fractures. He almost died. OK then, what if he did die after that accident? What happens to the Second World War, that is, its outcome? Many believe he helped forge an Allied victory by sheer dint of his personality. (Again, I won't go into my views of that, but that's why even in the US he received "Person-of-the-Century.") If Britain negotiated a peace treaty (likely an unfavorable one from a position of either near defeat or appeasement) with Hitler's Germany, then what? Where does that leave the rest of Europe, namely the Soviet Onion? And, after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US a few days later, what about any US involvement in Europe? Bases? Perhaps the US wouldn't have felt a need (pressure from Churchill to divert some US forces from the Pacific and Japan?) to fight at all in Europe? Does the USSR then fall, making Germany the unquestioned master of Europe and all the evil that would have entailed?
In 1833, Britain abolished slavery in the Empire. That's 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation and, two years later, the 13th Amendment and Northern victory in the Civil War. But let's go back to 1775 or so. What if, both in the colonies and London, cooler heads (such as John Dickinson and Edmund Burke) had prevailed and there'd been no revolt? Everyone kissed and made up and the colonies continued on as, well, British colonies. In 1833, the British abolition of slavery (although it was a gradual emancipation/abolition) in the Empire would have meant the American southern colonies would lose their slaves. Or would they? Would they, as they perceived matters 20-some years, resisted and fought to preserve the "peculiar institution?"
Had the southern colonies chosen to go to war with the British over this in 1833, how would the northern colonies have reacted? Would they have joined their fellow Americans to the South? If not, would a Southern colonial victory have resulted in an earlier Confederate States of America? Those who say, "Surely they North wouldn't have aided the South to preserve slavery" ignore some factors. The abolitionist movement in the North at the time was very fledgling, no Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (since no American government and almost two decades hence), no Uncle Tom's Cabin yet, etc. And, although gradual emancipation laws were passed in the Northern states earlier, effective abolition didn't come in many of them until the 1840s and "the badge of slavery" existed beyond then.
In the end, some might argue, such mental gymnastics is fruitless, even frivolous. I don't think so. In examining what happened and what might have happened "if," we are granted insight into our options and how they might result in different outcomes.
But, if I did teach it I wouldn't have a textbook per se, but, like my Amherst courses in history (and most other courses) we'd use a half dozen or more books. One might be "History According to the Movies." Others would be "George v George: The American Revolution as Seen from Both Sides" and "The Geography Behind History." Certainly I would include, "History That Never Happened." It is subtitled, "A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If?" When I discuss this book in class, I joke with students, "I have enough trouble getting students to read history that did happen. How will I get them to read history that didn't happen?" Regardless, the book offers some really great opportunities for meaningful discussions.
For instance, Winston Churchill was named, even in many American polls in 1999, the "Person-of-the-20th-Century." I have no quibbles with that, but won't go into right or wrong choice. But in the early 1930s, Churchill was leaving a play in NYC. Heading out, he stepped into the street. But he looked the wrong way for traffic. (Remember, in Britain they drive on the wrong sides of the roads.) He was nailed by a car he didn't see. He was injured severely, vertebrae broken, pelvis shattered, and other fractures. He almost died. OK then, what if he did die after that accident? What happens to the Second World War, that is, its outcome? Many believe he helped forge an Allied victory by sheer dint of his personality. (Again, I won't go into my views of that, but that's why even in the US he received "Person-of-the-Century.") If Britain negotiated a peace treaty (likely an unfavorable one from a position of either near defeat or appeasement) with Hitler's Germany, then what? Where does that leave the rest of Europe, namely the Soviet Onion? And, after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US a few days later, what about any US involvement in Europe? Bases? Perhaps the US wouldn't have felt a need (pressure from Churchill to divert some US forces from the Pacific and Japan?) to fight at all in Europe? Does the USSR then fall, making Germany the unquestioned master of Europe and all the evil that would have entailed?
In 1833, Britain abolished slavery in the Empire. That's 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation and, two years later, the 13th Amendment and Northern victory in the Civil War. But let's go back to 1775 or so. What if, both in the colonies and London, cooler heads (such as John Dickinson and Edmund Burke) had prevailed and there'd been no revolt? Everyone kissed and made up and the colonies continued on as, well, British colonies. In 1833, the British abolition of slavery (although it was a gradual emancipation/abolition) in the Empire would have meant the American southern colonies would lose their slaves. Or would they? Would they, as they perceived matters 20-some years, resisted and fought to preserve the "peculiar institution?"
Had the southern colonies chosen to go to war with the British over this in 1833, how would the northern colonies have reacted? Would they have joined their fellow Americans to the South? If not, would a Southern colonial victory have resulted in an earlier Confederate States of America? Those who say, "Surely they North wouldn't have aided the South to preserve slavery" ignore some factors. The abolitionist movement in the North at the time was very fledgling, no Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (since no American government and almost two decades hence), no Uncle Tom's Cabin yet, etc. And, although gradual emancipation laws were passed in the Northern states earlier, effective abolition didn't come in many of them until the 1840s and "the badge of slavery" existed beyond then.
In the end, some might argue, such mental gymnastics is fruitless, even frivolous. I don't think so. In examining what happened and what might have happened "if," we are granted insight into our options and how they might result in different outcomes.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Accuracy?
I've read a couple of pretty good history books recently. I enjoyed them and learned some new things. I also gained some different perspectives. But......
I found some errors in both books. These weren't typographical errors. Nor were they numerous, just a handful. Neither were they egregious mistakes. They were errors, though.
To make sure it wasn't my reading/error, I double checked each of them and the books were wrong. Again, the mistakes didn't detract from my enjoyment or learning.
But it led me to questions. When we find errors in books, namely nonfiction, however trivial, does that cast doubt on the rest of the book? Hmmm. In these instances, I have no reason to believe the books were completely off base. Quite the contrary. Still.......
I was reminded of a history textbook we were required to use when I taught in the high school. I didn't choose the book; others in the history/social studies department did. Perhaps shame on me for refusing to be involved in the selection. (I wanted to get paid for my work; the district thought I should work for free.) Perhaps. But really shame on the teachers who chose this book instead of others, including the one we were already using (which was top flight).
This book had a number of errors in it, historical errors. How these mistakes were entered in the first place, I don't know. How they escaped the editors and proofreaders, I don't know. (I have proofread several textbooks before final publication.)
Here are two that I remember. (This was 30 or more years ago, so I don't recall all of them.) This textbook had Italy fighting on the wrong side in the First World War. (I joked, "Well, no wonder the Italian army did so poorly. It didn't know what side it was on." In WWI, the reality is that it wasn't the Italian soldier who necessarily performed poorly; the poor performances came from the Italian leaders, military and political.) There was a photograph in a chapter about ancient China. The picture was of a Buddhist temple and the caption read something like, "This Buddhist temple in China......" The problem was that the temple was actually in India. I didn't catch this, but another teacher who did some overseas study in India did. He even had his own slides of the temple, taken by him when he was in India, not China. And, to be certain, I double checked and it is in India, not China. This was a lousy textbook. I suppose, in reality, who knew it? Certainly the teachers in my department who selected it didn't.
Why did they choose it? I don't remember, but have suspicions. First, in the central office/administration, the thought was to change textbooks every five or six years. That can have advantages, but caution was never taken not to make change for the sake of change. Second, it was cheaper than other books. Third, the teachers really had no sense of history, really weren't historians or even history teachers. And I'll repeat, I didn't take part because I refused to do extra work for free.
That leads me to another idea, one that has bothered me for years. Teachers complain about their pay, how they are treated, the inane paperwork and procedures than must be followed, etc. Someone told me the other day that the average teacher spends about five or six years teaching and then moves on to something else. I have no reason to disbelieve that. I was sent an article recently bemoaning the many good teachers who are leaving the field for the reasons listed above. I would add this, how many potentially good teachers don't become educators for those reasons? I won't go into teacher salaries, but they are ridiculously low. (Remember, though, I think many teachers are so bad they don't even deserve that.)
OK, teachers grumble and grouse. But, especially the elementary teachers, they continue to work for free. They go in two or three weeks before school starts and work. The attend the ice cream socials, voluntarily. They sign up for committee work. (In my view, this is not only stupid for teachers to do, that is, work for free, it is deleterious. Most committee work produces bad things.) I know, I know. This shows how "dedicated" they are. Baloney/Bologna. They are doing it "for the kids." Baloney/Bologna. (By fostering an atmosphere of working for free, that is, keeping teacher pay low, they are discouraging many good teachers from staying and others from even becoming educators. How does that help the kids? But I understand the premise. I just don't agree with it, especially considering the long run.)
Regardless, they complain. Yet they refuse to do much about it. Do they ever show their anger and dissatisfaction, their frustrations? How angry, frustrated, and dissatisfied can they be if they continue to work for free? How many don't work in their classrooms, leaving the bulletin boards bare? How many go home for dinner with their families instead of staying for an extra two or three hours for the "Welcome Back Ice Cream Socials?" How many tell administrators, "No, I won't serve on that textbook selection committee?" Yet, they complain at how poorly they are treated, how little they are paid, etc.
This past week I threw this Martin Luther King quotation out at several teachers, all of whom grouse but went in to their classrooms the first day they were opened. "Freedom was never voluntarily granted by the oppressor; it had to be demanded by the oppressed." OK, I realize the difference, esp in magnitude. But isn't the principle the same?
To finish, I was very saddened by the passing of Aretha Franklin. What a singer! She was one of my favorites. Michael asked me, "Grandpa, is it true she was the best singer ever in Detroit?" I smiled, thinking of the Kid Rock and M & Ms fans, and replied, "Yes, she was." I do have some other candidates for that sobriquet, "Best Singer Ever in Detroit," but I can't really say any topped her. Let's put it this way. There were some of her songs I didn't particularly like. But I rarely stopped listening or changed stations because her voice was so mesmerizing.
One of my all-time favorite tunes is Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I love it for several reasons, never tiring of hearing it. But I'd be hard pressed to subjugate Aretha's version of that song. It is just terrific! I can often pick my favorite two or three songs from my favorite groups and singers. I'm not sure I can limit my Aretha favorites to two or three.
The Aretha stories are legion. This is one of my favorites. Some years ago, at the Grammy Awards, Luciano Pavarotti canceled due to illness--about 30 minutes before the big doin's. Aretha was tapped as a fill-in and was asked what she'd like to sing. Without missing a beat, she asked what song Pavarotti was planning to do. She was told "Nessun Dorma," an aria from Puccini's opera Turandot. Uh...... She did it and just nailed it. You can find a version online. Prepare to have your socks knocked off!
I found some errors in both books. These weren't typographical errors. Nor were they numerous, just a handful. Neither were they egregious mistakes. They were errors, though.
To make sure it wasn't my reading/error, I double checked each of them and the books were wrong. Again, the mistakes didn't detract from my enjoyment or learning.
But it led me to questions. When we find errors in books, namely nonfiction, however trivial, does that cast doubt on the rest of the book? Hmmm. In these instances, I have no reason to believe the books were completely off base. Quite the contrary. Still.......
I was reminded of a history textbook we were required to use when I taught in the high school. I didn't choose the book; others in the history/social studies department did. Perhaps shame on me for refusing to be involved in the selection. (I wanted to get paid for my work; the district thought I should work for free.) Perhaps. But really shame on the teachers who chose this book instead of others, including the one we were already using (which was top flight).
This book had a number of errors in it, historical errors. How these mistakes were entered in the first place, I don't know. How they escaped the editors and proofreaders, I don't know. (I have proofread several textbooks before final publication.)
Here are two that I remember. (This was 30 or more years ago, so I don't recall all of them.) This textbook had Italy fighting on the wrong side in the First World War. (I joked, "Well, no wonder the Italian army did so poorly. It didn't know what side it was on." In WWI, the reality is that it wasn't the Italian soldier who necessarily performed poorly; the poor performances came from the Italian leaders, military and political.) There was a photograph in a chapter about ancient China. The picture was of a Buddhist temple and the caption read something like, "This Buddhist temple in China......" The problem was that the temple was actually in India. I didn't catch this, but another teacher who did some overseas study in India did. He even had his own slides of the temple, taken by him when he was in India, not China. And, to be certain, I double checked and it is in India, not China. This was a lousy textbook. I suppose, in reality, who knew it? Certainly the teachers in my department who selected it didn't.
Why did they choose it? I don't remember, but have suspicions. First, in the central office/administration, the thought was to change textbooks every five or six years. That can have advantages, but caution was never taken not to make change for the sake of change. Second, it was cheaper than other books. Third, the teachers really had no sense of history, really weren't historians or even history teachers. And I'll repeat, I didn't take part because I refused to do extra work for free.
That leads me to another idea, one that has bothered me for years. Teachers complain about their pay, how they are treated, the inane paperwork and procedures than must be followed, etc. Someone told me the other day that the average teacher spends about five or six years teaching and then moves on to something else. I have no reason to disbelieve that. I was sent an article recently bemoaning the many good teachers who are leaving the field for the reasons listed above. I would add this, how many potentially good teachers don't become educators for those reasons? I won't go into teacher salaries, but they are ridiculously low. (Remember, though, I think many teachers are so bad they don't even deserve that.)
OK, teachers grumble and grouse. But, especially the elementary teachers, they continue to work for free. They go in two or three weeks before school starts and work. The attend the ice cream socials, voluntarily. They sign up for committee work. (In my view, this is not only stupid for teachers to do, that is, work for free, it is deleterious. Most committee work produces bad things.) I know, I know. This shows how "dedicated" they are. Baloney/Bologna. They are doing it "for the kids." Baloney/Bologna. (By fostering an atmosphere of working for free, that is, keeping teacher pay low, they are discouraging many good teachers from staying and others from even becoming educators. How does that help the kids? But I understand the premise. I just don't agree with it, especially considering the long run.)
Regardless, they complain. Yet they refuse to do much about it. Do they ever show their anger and dissatisfaction, their frustrations? How angry, frustrated, and dissatisfied can they be if they continue to work for free? How many don't work in their classrooms, leaving the bulletin boards bare? How many go home for dinner with their families instead of staying for an extra two or three hours for the "Welcome Back Ice Cream Socials?" How many tell administrators, "No, I won't serve on that textbook selection committee?" Yet, they complain at how poorly they are treated, how little they are paid, etc.
This past week I threw this Martin Luther King quotation out at several teachers, all of whom grouse but went in to their classrooms the first day they were opened. "Freedom was never voluntarily granted by the oppressor; it had to be demanded by the oppressed." OK, I realize the difference, esp in magnitude. But isn't the principle the same?
To finish, I was very saddened by the passing of Aretha Franklin. What a singer! She was one of my favorites. Michael asked me, "Grandpa, is it true she was the best singer ever in Detroit?" I smiled, thinking of the Kid Rock and M & Ms fans, and replied, "Yes, she was." I do have some other candidates for that sobriquet, "Best Singer Ever in Detroit," but I can't really say any topped her. Let's put it this way. There were some of her songs I didn't particularly like. But I rarely stopped listening or changed stations because her voice was so mesmerizing.
One of my all-time favorite tunes is Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I love it for several reasons, never tiring of hearing it. But I'd be hard pressed to subjugate Aretha's version of that song. It is just terrific! I can often pick my favorite two or three songs from my favorite groups and singers. I'm not sure I can limit my Aretha favorites to two or three.
The Aretha stories are legion. This is one of my favorites. Some years ago, at the Grammy Awards, Luciano Pavarotti canceled due to illness--about 30 minutes before the big doin's. Aretha was tapped as a fill-in and was asked what she'd like to sing. Without missing a beat, she asked what song Pavarotti was planning to do. She was told "Nessun Dorma," an aria from Puccini's opera Turandot. Uh...... She did it and just nailed it. You can find a version online. Prepare to have your socks knocked off!
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Constitution and Presidents
I recently finished a book, Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It was interesting. I agreed with some of the author's assessments, but questioned some as well. Regardless, it was worth reading to once again challenge some of my beliefs.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Thoughts on the Road......
Karen and I just returned from a whirlwind trip to West Virginia to pick up our kids, who will be with us for several weeks. A bit fewer than six hours each way--ugh! I don't like to drive. (There's another step toward losing my "Man Card.")
Against my better judgment, both for safety purposes and morally, for most of the drive(s) I set the cruise control at 75 mph, five over the limit. Yet, how many cars and trucks passed me on the left? What were they doing--80 or 85? I always find that upsetting. So, these speeders have some place to go, to be somewhere at a specific time. What, do they think that other drivers also don't have places to be? More upsetting is the dangers they pose to others, namely, to me and mine! How arrogant they are! It's been long established that "speed kills." I guess their own situations allow them to put others' lives in danger. And that's OK because "It's all about me!"
When driving, most often I don't listen to the radio or tunes. Sometimes I listen to talk radio. But mostly I like it quiet. I'm not afraid of being alone with my own thoughts. Not Karen, though. There has to be noise--music. So, with all that time in the car, I had time to do some analyses. I know I'll be criticized by some, but......
Many performers just can't sing very well. To them, the musical scale is not "Do, Re, Mi......" It's "loud" and "louder." This I ascertained esp about those who are decent with instruments. Oh, they are talented with them; they're really good. But somehow that translates that they can sing. That is, they can play instruments really well, therefore they can sing really well, too. They can't. And, although I received quite a few critical notes the last time I panned some pretty popular performers (note I didn't call them "singers"), some of the most popular ones are just terrible. Karen was listening to some satellite station that was promoting the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame (which I think has become a Hall of Pretty Good according to the names identified as members). The DJs played hits from Hall members and often I just cringed. I like lyrics that complement the music. It makes for better listening. But many of the lyrics are nonsense. Maybe they make sense to people smoking banana peels, but not to anyone really listening for meaning. I really don't care, though. I don't get my ideas from most music and, besides, if the lyrics go along with the music, that's great for me. Again, some of those from R 'n' R Hall members were/are laughable.
Of course, I must admit I am one of the worst singers the world has ever seen/heard. I often scare myself at how bad I am. But like dancing, I don't care. If I enjoy it......
I saw a considerable number of billboards in Ohio condemning "Right-to-Work." There must be a movement there. I didn't like the recent Supremes' ruling and don't like Michigan's law, both as written and as interpreted. I don't think workers should be compelled to join unions to be employed. At the same time, they shouldn't get the same pay and benefits the union members worked and sacrificed for. If they want the same, then they shouldn't be allowed to freeload. Funny, perhaps, that many of those who oppose welfare programs as "freebies," that welfare recipients are "leeches," "spongers," etc., support "Right-to-Work" for less. Why aren't those who don't pay union dues, but benefit from union activities such as negotiations and job security also bloodsuckers and scrounges? Now, having unions use some of the dues money to support political candidates, well, that's more problematic for me. Maybe I'll address this later in a separate blog post.
And last week, taking the kids down to a Tiger game, there were several billboards comparing insurance rates in Metro Detroit to other metropolitan areas in the US. (I remember Phoenix, AZ and Milwaukee, WI as two of them.) If accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Michigan rates are about double the rest of the country. And, why is that? Could it be the footsies the insurance companies play with the legislators? Just sayin'...... (And I am still not sure I know what that, "Just sayin,'" means.)
We had a claim last winter. When our new premium came, the insurance company recouped the entire cost of the claim--with the first year's increase! When we called our agent, he merely said, "I wish you had called me first. I'd have told you to pay out of your own pocket [for the repairs]. It would have been cheaper." Great, just great. Then why have insurance? Gee, is it because the state legislators made it a law to have it? Well, not all the folks in Detroit have it. According to a Detroit newspaper article, as many as 2/3 of the drivers there don't have insurance. I can testify that at least one doesn't. On her cell phone, she rammed into our rear (with all three kids!) on Christmas Eve. She not only didn't have insurance, but no license either. And she insisted she didn't hit us, with her car jammed up our...... We were fortunate that a police car happened by; but the officers let her go--no insurance, no licence, talking on the cell phone, smashing our car and she was permitted to drive off. I guess with a murder a day in Detroit, this women didn't do all that much that was bad.
I wonder how many anti-Trump folks who have rejected this and rejected that, who have "resisted" this and "resisted" that, also refused to accept the savings they received on the tax cut? After all, if it was part of Trump's agenda...... And, for that matter, I wonder how many folks who've found jobs as part of Trump's agenda have quit them (or refused to accept them). After all, if the jobs were created as part of Trump's agenda...... (We can discuss who is responsible, but that's for another post.) Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Against my better judgment, both for safety purposes and morally, for most of the drive(s) I set the cruise control at 75 mph, five over the limit. Yet, how many cars and trucks passed me on the left? What were they doing--80 or 85? I always find that upsetting. So, these speeders have some place to go, to be somewhere at a specific time. What, do they think that other drivers also don't have places to be? More upsetting is the dangers they pose to others, namely, to me and mine! How arrogant they are! It's been long established that "speed kills." I guess their own situations allow them to put others' lives in danger. And that's OK because "It's all about me!"
When driving, most often I don't listen to the radio or tunes. Sometimes I listen to talk radio. But mostly I like it quiet. I'm not afraid of being alone with my own thoughts. Not Karen, though. There has to be noise--music. So, with all that time in the car, I had time to do some analyses. I know I'll be criticized by some, but......
Many performers just can't sing very well. To them, the musical scale is not "Do, Re, Mi......" It's "loud" and "louder." This I ascertained esp about those who are decent with instruments. Oh, they are talented with them; they're really good. But somehow that translates that they can sing. That is, they can play instruments really well, therefore they can sing really well, too. They can't. And, although I received quite a few critical notes the last time I panned some pretty popular performers (note I didn't call them "singers"), some of the most popular ones are just terrible. Karen was listening to some satellite station that was promoting the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame (which I think has become a Hall of Pretty Good according to the names identified as members). The DJs played hits from Hall members and often I just cringed. I like lyrics that complement the music. It makes for better listening. But many of the lyrics are nonsense. Maybe they make sense to people smoking banana peels, but not to anyone really listening for meaning. I really don't care, though. I don't get my ideas from most music and, besides, if the lyrics go along with the music, that's great for me. Again, some of those from R 'n' R Hall members were/are laughable.
Of course, I must admit I am one of the worst singers the world has ever seen/heard. I often scare myself at how bad I am. But like dancing, I don't care. If I enjoy it......
I saw a considerable number of billboards in Ohio condemning "Right-to-Work." There must be a movement there. I didn't like the recent Supremes' ruling and don't like Michigan's law, both as written and as interpreted. I don't think workers should be compelled to join unions to be employed. At the same time, they shouldn't get the same pay and benefits the union members worked and sacrificed for. If they want the same, then they shouldn't be allowed to freeload. Funny, perhaps, that many of those who oppose welfare programs as "freebies," that welfare recipients are "leeches," "spongers," etc., support "Right-to-Work" for less. Why aren't those who don't pay union dues, but benefit from union activities such as negotiations and job security also bloodsuckers and scrounges? Now, having unions use some of the dues money to support political candidates, well, that's more problematic for me. Maybe I'll address this later in a separate blog post.
And last week, taking the kids down to a Tiger game, there were several billboards comparing insurance rates in Metro Detroit to other metropolitan areas in the US. (I remember Phoenix, AZ and Milwaukee, WI as two of them.) If accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Michigan rates are about double the rest of the country. And, why is that? Could it be the footsies the insurance companies play with the legislators? Just sayin'...... (And I am still not sure I know what that, "Just sayin,'" means.)
We had a claim last winter. When our new premium came, the insurance company recouped the entire cost of the claim--with the first year's increase! When we called our agent, he merely said, "I wish you had called me first. I'd have told you to pay out of your own pocket [for the repairs]. It would have been cheaper." Great, just great. Then why have insurance? Gee, is it because the state legislators made it a law to have it? Well, not all the folks in Detroit have it. According to a Detroit newspaper article, as many as 2/3 of the drivers there don't have insurance. I can testify that at least one doesn't. On her cell phone, she rammed into our rear (with all three kids!) on Christmas Eve. She not only didn't have insurance, but no license either. And she insisted she didn't hit us, with her car jammed up our...... We were fortunate that a police car happened by; but the officers let her go--no insurance, no licence, talking on the cell phone, smashing our car and she was permitted to drive off. I guess with a murder a day in Detroit, this women didn't do all that much that was bad.
I wonder how many anti-Trump folks who have rejected this and rejected that, who have "resisted" this and "resisted" that, also refused to accept the savings they received on the tax cut? After all, if it was part of Trump's agenda...... And, for that matter, I wonder how many folks who've found jobs as part of Trump's agenda have quit them (or refused to accept them). After all, if the jobs were created as part of Trump's agenda...... (We can discuss who is responsible, but that's for another post.) Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
"Yeah, but....."
There was a relevant editorial in last Sunday's Detroit News. Nolan Finley correctly noted how every conversation, every dialogue today seems to be met with "Yeah, but......" How can there be serious discussion when, if a point is made, the other side counters with "Yeah, but.....?"
For instance, try to be critical of, say, Maxine Waters' idiotic diatribes and one is likely to be met with, "Yeah, but Trump is a fascist" or "racist" or whatever. If one questions the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it will be countered with "Yeah, but the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland." And, as Finley noted, this goes two ways. If Trump is criticized for not being hard-line with the Russians, the Trumpsters will respond with something about Obama sending billions of dollars to Iran. It's a good op-ed.
Related, perhaps, is another conversation-ender I've encountered in recent years. It's, "But that's different." If I point out that some folks live rather extravagantly, while they themselves criticize others for being "greedy," I'll be met with "But that's different." I question the local school district's defense of paying its administrators good money; the defense is top dollar is required to attract and retain good administrators, which I think is oxymoronic--good administrators?????? C'mon! OK, if I accept that (and I don't), but if I do, why isn't the same logic applied to teacher salaries? The local teachers are, if not the lowest in the county, very close to it and have been for five decades. "But that's different." Each of us can come up with countless examples of "But that's different." Of course it is.
"Historical illiteracy." I've heard or read that term several times recently and it concerns me. It doesn't take much effort to read or hear someone liken Trump and his policies to "Fascists" and/or "Nazis." Similarly, "concentration camps," "the Holocaust," including specifics such as "Krystallnacht," and the like are tossed out in comparison with the Trump administration actions. So cavalierly such comparisons are employed! It makes me wonder what is being taught in history courses, at whatever levels, to have supposedly educated people (e.g., reporters and columnists) make such analogies. Realize that I write all this knowing most people think that history isn't important.
There are several problems with this, this "historical illiteracy." First, it trivializes the Holocaust. Are people going to go through their lives thinking that what the Trump administration is doing now was what Hitler and the Nazis did in the Holocaust!?!?!? For example, can anyone explicitly show anything the Trump administration has done that compares with Krystallnacht? Of course, if one doesn't know what Krystallnacht was...... Second, it leads to hysteria. To compare anything to the Holocaust would do that. And ignorant people are easily led, falling victim to the false analogies. Yet, it whips them into furies.
How can we have any meaningful conversations/discussions when such false comparisons are so routinely made? And, with so many folks historically illiterate.....
There he goes with that history stuff again. Everyone but him knows history isn't important.
Not exactly the same is something I've been thinking about for a few weeks, with the primary elections soon upon us. I recall the 2016 Presidential election. I voted for neither major party candidate. And from the looks of things, that will also be the case in 2020. I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Nope, I won't do it. Far too many people do that and the result is we continually get "evils," lousy candidates from which to choose. Why bother working to get solid candidates for President when voters will invariably choose the one who is the "lesser of two evils?" Of course, that makes mud-slinging ever more important. Each party must dirty the other party's candidate more, to make him/her the greater of two evils.
I know. I know. People have many times told me, "You elected Trump." or "You wasted your vote." or some other such nonsense. No, I didn't do either. What I did was refuse to accept the junk that was thrown my way. If more people did that, perhaps we wouldn't be bombarded with junk. In fact, I think that by voting for junk (Clinton or Trump), people wasted their votes. There! My vote, to me, is much more valuable than junk.
I'm reading a book now that is challenging my values. It is Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It's interesting reading and does, indeed, cause me to think and rethink. I'm about half way through it and agree with much of the author's contentions. I don't agree with some of his claims, though. But the good thing is I have to think to come back to my own conclusions. I understand the author's concern with the growing power of the President, authority that was never intended by the Founders and isn't supported by the Constitution. I guess that makes much of what Presidents do and have done for 100 years or more unconstitutional.
But here's something really cool--and lambaste me if you will. When he is critical of one President and his policies and then criticizes another in the same light, I think, "But that's different." Ha ha ha. The reality is, though, there are differences. Some Presidents acted with some disregard toward the Constitution in far, far different circumstances than others. I don't think the actions can rightly compare. For instance, were the times of, say, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt as dire as those faced by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War? The Civil War was life-threatening for the US, the others not quite so. The author apparently doesn't accept that premise. It's as if he is writing from the premise of "cetera paribus," that is, "everything being equal," when everything wasn't equal. (I knew economics courses in college would eventually come in handy!)
I suppose the several factual errors I have found in the book are trivial, but they make me question other things I read that I didn't know. For instance, the vote of Congress to declare war on Japan on December 8, 1941 was not "unanimous." Again, perhaps that's trivial and I am being my picayunish self. But it does lead me to doubts.
The last four chapters are of four Presidents "who tried to save America." I've not yet come to them, but note that one of them has to do with Calvin Coolidge. I'm glad to see him in with that group and look forward to reading that chapter. I believe Coolidge has been given a bum deal in rankings and in the textbooks and teachers history courses.
I'm too tired to proofread. Please forgive any errors......
For instance, try to be critical of, say, Maxine Waters' idiotic diatribes and one is likely to be met with, "Yeah, but Trump is a fascist" or "racist" or whatever. If one questions the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it will be countered with "Yeah, but the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland." And, as Finley noted, this goes two ways. If Trump is criticized for not being hard-line with the Russians, the Trumpsters will respond with something about Obama sending billions of dollars to Iran. It's a good op-ed.
Related, perhaps, is another conversation-ender I've encountered in recent years. It's, "But that's different." If I point out that some folks live rather extravagantly, while they themselves criticize others for being "greedy," I'll be met with "But that's different." I question the local school district's defense of paying its administrators good money; the defense is top dollar is required to attract and retain good administrators, which I think is oxymoronic--good administrators?????? C'mon! OK, if I accept that (and I don't), but if I do, why isn't the same logic applied to teacher salaries? The local teachers are, if not the lowest in the county, very close to it and have been for five decades. "But that's different." Each of us can come up with countless examples of "But that's different." Of course it is.
"Historical illiteracy." I've heard or read that term several times recently and it concerns me. It doesn't take much effort to read or hear someone liken Trump and his policies to "Fascists" and/or "Nazis." Similarly, "concentration camps," "the Holocaust," including specifics such as "Krystallnacht," and the like are tossed out in comparison with the Trump administration actions. So cavalierly such comparisons are employed! It makes me wonder what is being taught in history courses, at whatever levels, to have supposedly educated people (e.g., reporters and columnists) make such analogies. Realize that I write all this knowing most people think that history isn't important.
There are several problems with this, this "historical illiteracy." First, it trivializes the Holocaust. Are people going to go through their lives thinking that what the Trump administration is doing now was what Hitler and the Nazis did in the Holocaust!?!?!? For example, can anyone explicitly show anything the Trump administration has done that compares with Krystallnacht? Of course, if one doesn't know what Krystallnacht was...... Second, it leads to hysteria. To compare anything to the Holocaust would do that. And ignorant people are easily led, falling victim to the false analogies. Yet, it whips them into furies.
How can we have any meaningful conversations/discussions when such false comparisons are so routinely made? And, with so many folks historically illiterate.....
There he goes with that history stuff again. Everyone but him knows history isn't important.
Not exactly the same is something I've been thinking about for a few weeks, with the primary elections soon upon us. I recall the 2016 Presidential election. I voted for neither major party candidate. And from the looks of things, that will also be the case in 2020. I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Nope, I won't do it. Far too many people do that and the result is we continually get "evils," lousy candidates from which to choose. Why bother working to get solid candidates for President when voters will invariably choose the one who is the "lesser of two evils?" Of course, that makes mud-slinging ever more important. Each party must dirty the other party's candidate more, to make him/her the greater of two evils.
I know. I know. People have many times told me, "You elected Trump." or "You wasted your vote." or some other such nonsense. No, I didn't do either. What I did was refuse to accept the junk that was thrown my way. If more people did that, perhaps we wouldn't be bombarded with junk. In fact, I think that by voting for junk (Clinton or Trump), people wasted their votes. There! My vote, to me, is much more valuable than junk.
I'm reading a book now that is challenging my values. It is Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It's interesting reading and does, indeed, cause me to think and rethink. I'm about half way through it and agree with much of the author's contentions. I don't agree with some of his claims, though. But the good thing is I have to think to come back to my own conclusions. I understand the author's concern with the growing power of the President, authority that was never intended by the Founders and isn't supported by the Constitution. I guess that makes much of what Presidents do and have done for 100 years or more unconstitutional.
But here's something really cool--and lambaste me if you will. When he is critical of one President and his policies and then criticizes another in the same light, I think, "But that's different." Ha ha ha. The reality is, though, there are differences. Some Presidents acted with some disregard toward the Constitution in far, far different circumstances than others. I don't think the actions can rightly compare. For instance, were the times of, say, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt as dire as those faced by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War? The Civil War was life-threatening for the US, the others not quite so. The author apparently doesn't accept that premise. It's as if he is writing from the premise of "cetera paribus," that is, "everything being equal," when everything wasn't equal. (I knew economics courses in college would eventually come in handy!)
I suppose the several factual errors I have found in the book are trivial, but they make me question other things I read that I didn't know. For instance, the vote of Congress to declare war on Japan on December 8, 1941 was not "unanimous." Again, perhaps that's trivial and I am being my picayunish self. But it does lead me to doubts.
The last four chapters are of four Presidents "who tried to save America." I've not yet come to them, but note that one of them has to do with Calvin Coolidge. I'm glad to see him in with that group and look forward to reading that chapter. I believe Coolidge has been given a bum deal in rankings and in the textbooks and teachers history courses.
I'm too tired to proofread. Please forgive any errors......
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Democracy v Republic?
A Michigan state legislator, whose name I don't remember, has made some proposals about the teaching of history in state K-12 schools. I heard him briefly on the radio this AM where he was explaining/defending his proposals which were in this AM's newspaper. I haven't read the article and only heard his proposal to remove "democracy" as a descriptor of the US form of government.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
