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.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
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......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
