I thought we were done with this, cries for impeachment of Supreme Brett Kavanaugh. Most if not all of the Democrat Presidential hopefuls have either called for impeachment proceedings or have suggested them. I have a question for these folks. How did they stand on the vote not to remove Bill Clinton from the Presidency 20 years ago? After all, several of the Dems referred to Kavanaugh as "lying under oath" to Congress, although is it "lying" if Kavanaugh denied doing something that never happened? Clinton, too, lied under oath and had his license to practice law in Arkansas suspended for five years. He also, due to the lies, was disbarred from Supreme Court practice, although I think he voluntarily gave up that to preclude further penalties/punishments. So, if Kavanaugh should be impeached due to lying under oath, which it more and more appears he wasn't remotely doing so, what about Clinton? What about the Democrat Senators who, if I recall, voted unanimously "not guilty?"
And I have lost a lot of interest in the Democrats' impeachment efforts toward President Trump. It seems to me much ado about nothing. But I am willing to concede maybe there is something somewhere. I hear talk of Trump's behavior as "unconstitutional." Yep, I understand that. But what about other Presidents who have had their actions overturned by the Supremes? Weren't those Presidents acting, then, "unconstitutionally?" Why weren't there impeachment proceedings against them?
I know this will elicit howls and maybe even name-calling (but I'm used to it), but where were such strident impeachment calls against Obama? Can anyone, with a straight face, deny that he exceeded on far more than one occasion his Constitutional powers? That is, he acted unconstitutionally. So.....?
Yet, instead of actually doing anything (and that they aren't is likely a good thing?), the Clown Show called the US Congress proceeds. Here's how much of a circus it is. Last week, my represenative sent a newsletter touting the latest achievement of hers. She helped pass legislation protecting pets. I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of our pets. But one would think their are thousands of anti-cruelty-to-animals laws in this country--state and local laws. But, I guess in a Clown Show, that is a big deal.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
History
I know history isn’t important. It doesn’t have its own place on the public
school state tests. For years if the
coach or art teacher (or someone) didn’t have enough classes to teach, he/she
was given a history class or two. After
all, “It’s just history.” (If "Anyone can teach," what do we ask about one teaching history?)
I was once, at
one of the colleges, asked to fill in at the last minute (an emergency) for
another history class. I agreed and
asked the dean relevant questions: What
course was it? What was the
subject/topic for the day? She just
replied, “I don’t know. It’s history.” She dismissed me with, “History is
history.”
It seems fewer and fewer college students are
majoring in history. Many people see it
as a “dead-end” subject, one that doesn’t lead to jobs. I'm sure students are counseled to believe that. They are told this by family members and others. How short-sighted and narrow-minded is that?
Last September, I received a schedule of
events for the Amherst Homecoming Weekend later in October. At Homecomings (and Reunions) the college
presents activities for the Alumni, often classes, lectures, panel discussions,
to attend. (Yeah, I’ve heard the
jokes. “Do you have to take a test?”) I noted that, at least on this schedule,
there were no history classes (the students' history classes) for the Alumni to sit in on. There were economics, English, math, a
variety of sciences, etc., but not a single history course. Maybe, I hope, history classes don’t meet on
Fridays? Yeah, that must be the reason,
not that nobody is interested in history.
That said, reading history,
especially written by gifted writers like David McCullough, Joseph Ellis, Doris
Kearns Goodwin, and others, is not just entertaining, exciting to read. Episodes of the past, requiring very little
imagination, can easily be seen in our times and lives of today. Are these the lessons of history teachers
speak of? ("...teachers speak of?" I remember what Winston Churchill purportedly said about the rule to never end a sentence with a prepostion. "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put." So there!)
A Russian official in the ‘50s
said, “The American loves his car, his refrigerator, his house. But he does not love his country.” Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but I think
maybe that, in a sense, pertains to today.
Do we love our NFL, reality and other television shows, vacations, and
other creature comforts more than we love or at least appreciate the country
that has allowed us to have them? For
many Americans, it sure seems so. They
take things for granted. Many think they
“deserve” things, as if getting them is a “right.” (Everything is a “right” nowadays. I saw a headline the other day claiming,
“Clean water is a right.”) And for a
good number of them, getting those things for free, that is, paid for by
others, is also a “right.” Often, such
an attitude is buttressed by politicians pandering for votes.
.
History can teach us, if we are willing to learn, that what we have today did not always come easily. Many people had to work hard, sacrificed their lives, etc. so we can live as we do. I read a story way back when about Lech Walesa, the Polish leader of the union Solidarity. Solidarity took the lead in what was to lead to the downfall of the commies in Poland. He spoke of the US Bill of Rights. He urged Americans not to take the Bill of Rights for granted, claiming he read it every day. Here is a guy who was beaten and imprisoned, whose life was always on the line, who had his family threatened, all to want for Poles what we have here in the US. He is telling us that our rights do not come cheaply, that they are not automatic. There were many people in US history who experienced the same dangers as Walesa. We should know about them.
I thought about this the other day, too. Today, the US has the best football
players and perhaps other athletes in the world, but do we have the best
teachers in the world? Is the answer a given? And
the way we compensate those groups, we are likely to perpetuate that. But that's a topic for another day.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
"We believe....
...in democracy, except when we don't."
That seems to be the going thing, especially by the arrogant elitists out there. (I know the arguments that there are no "democracies," not per se. I don't agree and have written about that before.) Apparently, if the people decide/vote the ways the upper crust want them to vote, all is fine and dandy. Democracy works! But if they don't, well, it doesn't and the arrogant ones have to save us from ourselves.
I was reminded of this with the continuing Brexit battle in Britain. In 2016, if I remember, British voters opted to leave the European Union. The margin was slim, about 5%, but the turnout was pretty high. The reasons aren't important here. The British voters may have been right, may have been wrong. But, if one believes in a democracy, that people can rule themselves (at least indirectly), don't people also have the right to be wrong? And if one believes in democracy, one also believes that, eventually, people will get things right. In Britain, those who know better are putting up a whale of a battle to prevent Brexit. Apparently they are winning.
I think that is happening here in the US. The arrogant elitists are trying and have been for going on three years now, to overturn the 2016 Presidential election. Like Don Trump or not (and I don't), he was duly--legally and Constitutionally--chosen President of the US. But those who are smarter than the rest of us have worked hard, expending and wasting how much time, energy, money, and other resources, to undo what Americans did. The doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") are trying to save us from outselves.
This one is more tenuous, especially here in Michigan. I am not a fan of "emergency manager laws." They have been used, with moderate success, by governors to save citizens from themselves. Duly elected, say, school boards have been replaced by appointed emergency managers. I understand that sometimes money comes from other sources than the school districts or cities and an argument might be made that, having a vested financial interest, outside bodies/people can step in. I'm not sure I buy that. Is it naive of me to believe that if people/voters choose the wrong paths, they should be able to sink or swim on their own? Should cities and school districts (at least their government functions) be allowed to collapse from the weight of their own incompetence and/or corruption? It's a tough question.
But it leads me back to my original statement, "We believe in democracy except when we don't." It reminds me of what I've said about schools for years. Those who run them are fond of the refrain, "We're here for the kids." I add something. "We're here for the kids except when we're not." By the way, I don't necessarily believe in that, that education is necessarily primarily "for the kids." But that's a topic for a future post.
That seems to be the going thing, especially by the arrogant elitists out there. (I know the arguments that there are no "democracies," not per se. I don't agree and have written about that before.) Apparently, if the people decide/vote the ways the upper crust want them to vote, all is fine and dandy. Democracy works! But if they don't, well, it doesn't and the arrogant ones have to save us from ourselves.
I was reminded of this with the continuing Brexit battle in Britain. In 2016, if I remember, British voters opted to leave the European Union. The margin was slim, about 5%, but the turnout was pretty high. The reasons aren't important here. The British voters may have been right, may have been wrong. But, if one believes in a democracy, that people can rule themselves (at least indirectly), don't people also have the right to be wrong? And if one believes in democracy, one also believes that, eventually, people will get things right. In Britain, those who know better are putting up a whale of a battle to prevent Brexit. Apparently they are winning.
I think that is happening here in the US. The arrogant elitists are trying and have been for going on three years now, to overturn the 2016 Presidential election. Like Don Trump or not (and I don't), he was duly--legally and Constitutionally--chosen President of the US. But those who are smarter than the rest of us have worked hard, expending and wasting how much time, energy, money, and other resources, to undo what Americans did. The doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") are trying to save us from outselves.
This one is more tenuous, especially here in Michigan. I am not a fan of "emergency manager laws." They have been used, with moderate success, by governors to save citizens from themselves. Duly elected, say, school boards have been replaced by appointed emergency managers. I understand that sometimes money comes from other sources than the school districts or cities and an argument might be made that, having a vested financial interest, outside bodies/people can step in. I'm not sure I buy that. Is it naive of me to believe that if people/voters choose the wrong paths, they should be able to sink or swim on their own? Should cities and school districts (at least their government functions) be allowed to collapse from the weight of their own incompetence and/or corruption? It's a tough question.
But it leads me back to my original statement, "We believe in democracy except when we don't." It reminds me of what I've said about schools for years. Those who run them are fond of the refrain, "We're here for the kids." I add something. "We're here for the kids except when we're not." By the way, I don't necessarily believe in that, that education is necessarily primarily "for the kids." But that's a topic for a future post.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
China?
I got a big laugh out of all this kerfuffle (and that's a pretty cool word!) over the NBA and China. What's the big deal? Other than NBA players (according to one sports column I read), "who are caught in a mess they know little about," who doesn't know all about Communist China? It's been, since 1949 (and before) a brutal dictatorship. But who cares?
Our President offered "Congratulations" for the seventy years of brutal dictatorship, complete with massive human rights violations, millions of imprisonments, and ten millions of murders. (No, I don't believe Trump was sending any sort of subliminal message.) Our former governor frequently lauded his efforts to open trade between Michigan and China. A past state superintendent of schools, now some sort of consultant, often refers to "my friends the Chinese." And how many of our corporations have overlooked all these abuses to do business with the commies in China? All that money......
Besides the human rights violations and perhaps up to a million murders in the past seven decades, the commies have stolen our corporate patents and intellectual property, hacked into our government and military secrets, etc. Yet, how proud Americans are with their relationship with such murdering tyrants! Nothing of such dealings with the US can occur without commie approval; so, then, who are the Americans dealing with? Yep......
But, that's OK. It's all about the money. It's always all about the money. The Chinese government can run over protesting individuals with tanks. They can shoot, in cold blood, protesters in Hong Kong. Let's go back a few decades and remember the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
It's not just the NBA which is groveling to the commies. It seems like most of corporate and political America has been doing the same thing. We've had Presidents sell US techonology secrets to the Chinese military. US-based airlines, clothing manufacturers, and hotel chains have kowtowed to the commies, fearful of offending them and putting all that money in peril. Again, I ask, what's the big deal with the NBA? We've already sold our souls to the devil. (Remember, "...but the economy's good.") Surely we don't want to offend our friends the Chinese. Money-grubbing takes precdence.
When Congress voted to open trade with the Chinese several decades ago, many of the so-called "experts" hypothesized that would liberalize China, that society and government there would open up, with more rights, economic and political. That doesn't appear to have happened, does it?
(Remember, though, the NBA didn't stop players from wearing "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," despite that meme being false. The NBA punished Charlotte, NC by taking away the All-Star game because of a law requiring transgenders to use the rest rooms that coincided with their gender at birth. It was critical of President Trump's ban on immigrants from several Muslim nations that export terrorism. Apparently the NBA is fine with protesting injustices in the US, but not with far more egregious ones in China. And don't get me started on Nike and that Kaepernick guy. "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything." Well, we can't expect billions of dollars to be "sacrificed," can we?)
Granted, there probably isn't much we can do to help the Hong Kong protesters, who are, after all, just seeking the same rights we have. But we don't have to grovel to the despots for the sake of getting all that money from the lucrative Chinese market. But do we turn our backs of those seeking freedom to defend one of the most brutal regimes in all of human history? Apparently we do.
I would say, of the money grubbers, "Shame on you!" But I have long thought shame is something which has disappeared in these United States.
Please excuse any typos and other errors. I'm too tired to proofread.
Our President offered "Congratulations" for the seventy years of brutal dictatorship, complete with massive human rights violations, millions of imprisonments, and ten millions of murders. (No, I don't believe Trump was sending any sort of subliminal message.) Our former governor frequently lauded his efforts to open trade between Michigan and China. A past state superintendent of schools, now some sort of consultant, often refers to "my friends the Chinese." And how many of our corporations have overlooked all these abuses to do business with the commies in China? All that money......
Besides the human rights violations and perhaps up to a million murders in the past seven decades, the commies have stolen our corporate patents and intellectual property, hacked into our government and military secrets, etc. Yet, how proud Americans are with their relationship with such murdering tyrants! Nothing of such dealings with the US can occur without commie approval; so, then, who are the Americans dealing with? Yep......
But, that's OK. It's all about the money. It's always all about the money. The Chinese government can run over protesting individuals with tanks. They can shoot, in cold blood, protesters in Hong Kong. Let's go back a few decades and remember the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
It's not just the NBA which is groveling to the commies. It seems like most of corporate and political America has been doing the same thing. We've had Presidents sell US techonology secrets to the Chinese military. US-based airlines, clothing manufacturers, and hotel chains have kowtowed to the commies, fearful of offending them and putting all that money in peril. Again, I ask, what's the big deal with the NBA? We've already sold our souls to the devil. (Remember, "...but the economy's good.") Surely we don't want to offend our friends the Chinese. Money-grubbing takes precdence.
When Congress voted to open trade with the Chinese several decades ago, many of the so-called "experts" hypothesized that would liberalize China, that society and government there would open up, with more rights, economic and political. That doesn't appear to have happened, does it?
(Remember, though, the NBA didn't stop players from wearing "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," despite that meme being false. The NBA punished Charlotte, NC by taking away the All-Star game because of a law requiring transgenders to use the rest rooms that coincided with their gender at birth. It was critical of President Trump's ban on immigrants from several Muslim nations that export terrorism. Apparently the NBA is fine with protesting injustices in the US, but not with far more egregious ones in China. And don't get me started on Nike and that Kaepernick guy. "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything." Well, we can't expect billions of dollars to be "sacrificed," can we?)
Granted, there probably isn't much we can do to help the Hong Kong protesters, who are, after all, just seeking the same rights we have. But we don't have to grovel to the despots for the sake of getting all that money from the lucrative Chinese market. But do we turn our backs of those seeking freedom to defend one of the most brutal regimes in all of human history? Apparently we do.
I would say, of the money grubbers, "Shame on you!" But I have long thought shame is something which has disappeared in these United States.
Please excuse any typos and other errors. I'm too tired to proofread.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
The Electrical College and Flavored Vaping
After a newspaper erroneously printed an obituary of the still living Mark Twain, he quipped, "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated." I didn't realize it's been since July that I've posted here. At may age, I wonder if any thought......
I've had lots to think about, lots to confront and to be confronted by, etc., but have just been far too busy for a retired guy. Each of the last three weekends, I had on my list of things to do, "Blog!" I ran out of time, I guess.
One thing that seems to be gaining momentum is the National Popular Vote plan. I strongly oppose that. The idea is to get rid of the Electrical College. It's not hard to figure out who is behind that, considering that of the last five Presidential elections twice Democrats won the national popular vote but, due to the existence of the Electrical College, lost the elections. (I'm going to resist saying, "Poor losers!") According to the plan, a state which signs on agrees to assign all of its Electrical votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if that candidate loses in that state. First, there are historical reasons for the existence of the Electrical College. I don't think they are obsolete today. Second, NO!!!!!! I don't want my vote wasted just because of what voters in the other states want. I want my vote counted, whether for a minor party candidate or a write-in candidate. Why should my vote count for less than some California voter? For that matter, why should my vote not count at all? Third, this is another way some folks are trying to circumvent the Constitution. (I know, I know. "The Constitution is just a document that was written by old white men." Try reading it and thinking about it before agreeing with that ignorant comment.) I believe about 15 states have already signed on the the National Popular Vote plan, states whose Electrical votes add to 196. (Double check my figures.) Only a handful of states, whose votes total another 74, will put the plan into action. That is, a minority of the states can circumvent the Constitution in this instance. That, my friends, is frightening and wrong! I hope Michigan isn't foolish enough to sign on to this.
Michigan's governor has issued a decree banning flavored vaping types. (I don't know much about vaping, so am unaware of the proper terminology.) The idea is to help prevent teen-age use and the accompanying health concerns and even deaths that occur from vaping. Does the governor and those who have cheered the decree really think this will prevent vaping from youths to any degree? I really doubt it. Isn't smoking a "health crisis," as the governor cited to rationalize her vaping ban, for kids, too? Isn't smoking a bigger danger for kids, esp for the long haul, than vaping? (I'm just guessing it is.) Kids are prevented from smoking by laws, too, right? Ha Ha Ha. For that matter, isn't underage drinking a far bigger problem than vaping? Don't flavored alcoholic drinks attract youthful and illegal drinkers? So, why doesn't the governor ban those sweet drinks? Hmmm...... I can think of some reasons, none of which make sense in light of the governor's professed ban on flavored vaping. Why should adult vapers (as opposed to "vapors?") also be prohibited from the flavors? After all, they can still purchase and drink the flavored alcoholic beverages. And they can still smoke. Should we consider the precedent of Big Government again stepping in and prohibiting things it doesn't like?
I have several other topics, but this is long enough for today. Besides, I have essays to grade, the first of the term. Ugh! I'll try to get to those topics by this weekend. As usual, I'm not going to proofread this, so please overlook any typos.
I've had lots to think about, lots to confront and to be confronted by, etc., but have just been far too busy for a retired guy. Each of the last three weekends, I had on my list of things to do, "Blog!" I ran out of time, I guess.
One thing that seems to be gaining momentum is the National Popular Vote plan. I strongly oppose that. The idea is to get rid of the Electrical College. It's not hard to figure out who is behind that, considering that of the last five Presidential elections twice Democrats won the national popular vote but, due to the existence of the Electrical College, lost the elections. (I'm going to resist saying, "Poor losers!") According to the plan, a state which signs on agrees to assign all of its Electrical votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if that candidate loses in that state. First, there are historical reasons for the existence of the Electrical College. I don't think they are obsolete today. Second, NO!!!!!! I don't want my vote wasted just because of what voters in the other states want. I want my vote counted, whether for a minor party candidate or a write-in candidate. Why should my vote count for less than some California voter? For that matter, why should my vote not count at all? Third, this is another way some folks are trying to circumvent the Constitution. (I know, I know. "The Constitution is just a document that was written by old white men." Try reading it and thinking about it before agreeing with that ignorant comment.) I believe about 15 states have already signed on the the National Popular Vote plan, states whose Electrical votes add to 196. (Double check my figures.) Only a handful of states, whose votes total another 74, will put the plan into action. That is, a minority of the states can circumvent the Constitution in this instance. That, my friends, is frightening and wrong! I hope Michigan isn't foolish enough to sign on to this.
Michigan's governor has issued a decree banning flavored vaping types. (I don't know much about vaping, so am unaware of the proper terminology.) The idea is to help prevent teen-age use and the accompanying health concerns and even deaths that occur from vaping. Does the governor and those who have cheered the decree really think this will prevent vaping from youths to any degree? I really doubt it. Isn't smoking a "health crisis," as the governor cited to rationalize her vaping ban, for kids, too? Isn't smoking a bigger danger for kids, esp for the long haul, than vaping? (I'm just guessing it is.) Kids are prevented from smoking by laws, too, right? Ha Ha Ha. For that matter, isn't underage drinking a far bigger problem than vaping? Don't flavored alcoholic drinks attract youthful and illegal drinkers? So, why doesn't the governor ban those sweet drinks? Hmmm...... I can think of some reasons, none of which make sense in light of the governor's professed ban on flavored vaping. Why should adult vapers (as opposed to "vapors?") also be prohibited from the flavors? After all, they can still purchase and drink the flavored alcoholic beverages. And they can still smoke. Should we consider the precedent of Big Government again stepping in and prohibiting things it doesn't like?
I have several other topics, but this is long enough for today. Besides, I have essays to grade, the first of the term. Ugh! I'll try to get to those topics by this weekend. As usual, I'm not going to proofread this, so please overlook any typos.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Amash and the Two-Parties
Ronald Reagan famously said, when becoming a Republican, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. It left me."
That has always resonated with me, not exclusively with the Democrats, but with the Republicans, too. I don't identify with either party and often I refuse to vote for candidates they offer. Neither party is what it was 50 or 40 or maybe even 30 years ago. They have both changed, moved, and not for the better.
On July 4, West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash announced he was leaving the Republican Party, becoming an Independent. Good for him! The parties, as he correctly stated, have become "an existential threat to American principles and institutions." They have become concerned more with themselves, with grabbing and holding power. That's not, in itself, a bad thing. After all, if one doesn't get elected, one can't do anything. But once they get elected, both Republicans and Democrats, they do all they can to remain in power, for themselves, not for the American people. Some folks will dispute that, but from where I'm sitting it's true. Neither has represented me; neither has reflected the values and principles I hold dear. "I didn't leave the _____ Party. It/They left me."
My hopes that Amash's departure will spark a major difference are small. Few people care. They blindly vote the way their unions or professional organizations tell them to vote. They vote for the candidates who raise the most money, regardless of their effectiveness in office. It's become de rigueur to "Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Bah! When given a choice between two evils, choose neither. That's what Amash has done.
For doing so, he is to be commended. But what does the President do? Instead of praising one who leaves "the Swamp," he goes off on one of his typical cowboy tweets/twits (or whatever they are called) and called Amash "disloyal" and "one of the dumbest" members of Congress. Particularly ironic and hugely funny is that Trump had the gall to actually call someone else "a loser." (Trump supporters, spare me your invective. I'll never vote for him. But we can agree to disagree with civility.)
Rather than merely playing party politics, going along to get along, perhaps more elected officials, especially in Washington, would do well to think about Amash and his reasons for defecting. (I'm using that word for fun.) If more joined the Amash bandwagon......
That has always resonated with me, not exclusively with the Democrats, but with the Republicans, too. I don't identify with either party and often I refuse to vote for candidates they offer. Neither party is what it was 50 or 40 or maybe even 30 years ago. They have both changed, moved, and not for the better.
On July 4, West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash announced he was leaving the Republican Party, becoming an Independent. Good for him! The parties, as he correctly stated, have become "an existential threat to American principles and institutions." They have become concerned more with themselves, with grabbing and holding power. That's not, in itself, a bad thing. After all, if one doesn't get elected, one can't do anything. But once they get elected, both Republicans and Democrats, they do all they can to remain in power, for themselves, not for the American people. Some folks will dispute that, but from where I'm sitting it's true. Neither has represented me; neither has reflected the values and principles I hold dear. "I didn't leave the _____ Party. It/They left me."
My hopes that Amash's departure will spark a major difference are small. Few people care. They blindly vote the way their unions or professional organizations tell them to vote. They vote for the candidates who raise the most money, regardless of their effectiveness in office. It's become de rigueur to "Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Bah! When given a choice between two evils, choose neither. That's what Amash has done.
For doing so, he is to be commended. But what does the President do? Instead of praising one who leaves "the Swamp," he goes off on one of his typical cowboy tweets/twits (or whatever they are called) and called Amash "disloyal" and "one of the dumbest" members of Congress. Particularly ironic and hugely funny is that Trump had the gall to actually call someone else "a loser." (Trump supporters, spare me your invective. I'll never vote for him. But we can agree to disagree with civility.)
Rather than merely playing party politics, going along to get along, perhaps more elected officials, especially in Washington, would do well to think about Amash and his reasons for defecting. (I'm using that word for fun.) If more joined the Amash bandwagon......
Saturday, July 6, 2019
"Patriotism?"
An Independence Day editorial seemed to me to get it a bit wrong. Nolan Finley (The Detroit News) seems to equate being "extremely proud" of the United States with "patriotism." I suppose defining the terms might alleviate my consternation with Finley's assertions.
For instance, he cites a Gallup Poll on this Fourth of July that finds "only 45 percent of Americans are 'extremely proud' of their country." The next sentence he counterposes that with 2001, when "70 percent of Americans considered themselves "highly patriotic." Hmmm......
Let me facetiously (What is unique about that word, facetiously?) dismiss our growing penchant for the things that really matter in life, such as the next NFL season, new episodes of Dancing with the Stars and Survivor, etc., which would obviously steal from our patriotic zeal. But it seems wrong to conflate "pride" with "patriotism." It's as if we assume our country and our government are one and the same thing. Perhaps that's what many people have come to believe.
One can certainly be patriotic and still not be proud of what one's country is doing, right? I know this is a stretch ("He who first invokes 'Hitler' in an argument loses."), but couldn't one still be a patriotic German, but not at all be proud of what Germany was doing in the '30s and '40s? Isn't that what the Underground was all about?
One of my professors, Henry Steele Commager, once wrote an essay to which I've referred many times in many situations. He asserted that, often, the most important members of a society are its critics. Can't a critic of a country still be patriotic, especially if that country is taking the wrong path?
Can't one not be proud of our institutionalization of slavery or involvement in, say, Vietnam, and still be patriotic? If I'm not a fan of President Trump, and I'm not, does that mean I'm not patriotic? Hardly. And were those not "proud" of what President Obama did or even that he was President unpatriotic? Again, hardly.
I keep thinking of some ding-a-ling, maybe Joe Biden (?), who some years ago claimed it was "patriotic" to pay more taxes. (No, I don't remember the context.) So, although there were a couple attempts to establish a federal income tax before 1913, there was none that lasted. (A Constitutional amendment was required.) Does that mean all those Americans before then (and the 99% who still didn't pay any federal income taxes when it was initially enacted) weren't patriotic? Should we list the names? Were those who opposed a federal income tax unpatriotic? And, if paying more taxes is so "patriotic," why aren't the wealthy people, particularly the wealthy Democrats, lining up to voluntarily pay more? Why do so many folks, yes, even patriots, hire accountants, lawyers, and other tax experts to get the most out of exemptions, credits, and deductions?
Finley did cite Oakland County Judge Michael Warren and Judge Warren's attempt to shore up the teaching of American history. He doesn't wan to "sugar coat," as Finley notes, the history of the US. That is, we should be teaching the flaws in our past. But we shouldn't teach them at the expense of the wonderful things that evolved from the great American experiment nor should we emphasize them to the point of trivializing American successes.
This will no doubt rankle any relativists and multiculturalists who might read this, but, yes, the United States is an exceptional place. Yes, we are a better culture than, say, what is found in Saudi Arabia or China. And that's because of our Founding Principles. Those, as much as the physical United States of America, are the basis of American patriotism.
For instance, he cites a Gallup Poll on this Fourth of July that finds "only 45 percent of Americans are 'extremely proud' of their country." The next sentence he counterposes that with 2001, when "70 percent of Americans considered themselves "highly patriotic." Hmmm......
Let me facetiously (What is unique about that word, facetiously?) dismiss our growing penchant for the things that really matter in life, such as the next NFL season, new episodes of Dancing with the Stars and Survivor, etc., which would obviously steal from our patriotic zeal. But it seems wrong to conflate "pride" with "patriotism." It's as if we assume our country and our government are one and the same thing. Perhaps that's what many people have come to believe.
One can certainly be patriotic and still not be proud of what one's country is doing, right? I know this is a stretch ("He who first invokes 'Hitler' in an argument loses."), but couldn't one still be a patriotic German, but not at all be proud of what Germany was doing in the '30s and '40s? Isn't that what the Underground was all about?
One of my professors, Henry Steele Commager, once wrote an essay to which I've referred many times in many situations. He asserted that, often, the most important members of a society are its critics. Can't a critic of a country still be patriotic, especially if that country is taking the wrong path?
Can't one not be proud of our institutionalization of slavery or involvement in, say, Vietnam, and still be patriotic? If I'm not a fan of President Trump, and I'm not, does that mean I'm not patriotic? Hardly. And were those not "proud" of what President Obama did or even that he was President unpatriotic? Again, hardly.
I keep thinking of some ding-a-ling, maybe Joe Biden (?), who some years ago claimed it was "patriotic" to pay more taxes. (No, I don't remember the context.) So, although there were a couple attempts to establish a federal income tax before 1913, there was none that lasted. (A Constitutional amendment was required.) Does that mean all those Americans before then (and the 99% who still didn't pay any federal income taxes when it was initially enacted) weren't patriotic? Should we list the names? Were those who opposed a federal income tax unpatriotic? And, if paying more taxes is so "patriotic," why aren't the wealthy people, particularly the wealthy Democrats, lining up to voluntarily pay more? Why do so many folks, yes, even patriots, hire accountants, lawyers, and other tax experts to get the most out of exemptions, credits, and deductions?
Finley did cite Oakland County Judge Michael Warren and Judge Warren's attempt to shore up the teaching of American history. He doesn't wan to "sugar coat," as Finley notes, the history of the US. That is, we should be teaching the flaws in our past. But we shouldn't teach them at the expense of the wonderful things that evolved from the great American experiment nor should we emphasize them to the point of trivializing American successes.
This will no doubt rankle any relativists and multiculturalists who might read this, but, yes, the United States is an exceptional place. Yes, we are a better culture than, say, what is found in Saudi Arabia or China. And that's because of our Founding Principles. Those, as much as the physical United States of America, are the basis of American patriotism.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Lesson Plan?
I've been working--both thinking and writing--on a term project for my fall class(es). I did this before, back in the high school, and it was mildly popular, but haven't yet tried it at either of the colleges. I don't remember when and why I came up with this.
It is based on the NCAA March Madness brackets. Back when, teaching high school world history, I chose 64 people, one for each bracket. I tried to seed them. Students were asked to recall what we learned of each and then voted/chose the "winners." They couldn't just pick a favorite. It was a little more difficult than that, but you get the idea.
I am trying to make this far more involved for the college students. I haven't yet decided what form it will take, but likely will be a replacement for a term paper or some other lengthy assignment I have. Perhaps students will be asked to write something of significance for each person, then will have to choose between the two in the brackets. Choices will have to be reasoned; no credit for a mere choice. Students will have to weigh accomplishments/importance for their selections. I anticipate five to ten pages per student, maybe more.
I'm stuck right now. Mostly lately I've been teaching US History, the first half, and, of course, Michigan History. It has been tough to come up with 64 names in the US History and even more difficult in Michigan History. I have 50+ for the US, but some are a little obscure. I have the #1 seeds: Lincoln, Madison, Washington, Jefferson. The #2 seeds are Franklin, J. Adams, Jackson, Hamilton. Those are subject to changes. I'm thinking of having 32 bracket slots. Calhoun, Grant, Webster, Clay, Lee, Davis, JQ Adams, Douglass, Tubman, Marshall, Taney, Whitney...... There is still some thinking to do.
Michigan History certainly would be at most 32 slots, but likely 16. Those of you not familiar with Michigan's history won't recognize many names: Cass, Mason, Astor, Cadillac, Chandler, Richard, Woodward, Young, Ford (two of them), Murphy, Durant, Williams.......
Both are still works in progress. But I am pretty excited about starting this at the colleges.
It is based on the NCAA March Madness brackets. Back when, teaching high school world history, I chose 64 people, one for each bracket. I tried to seed them. Students were asked to recall what we learned of each and then voted/chose the "winners." They couldn't just pick a favorite. It was a little more difficult than that, but you get the idea.
I am trying to make this far more involved for the college students. I haven't yet decided what form it will take, but likely will be a replacement for a term paper or some other lengthy assignment I have. Perhaps students will be asked to write something of significance for each person, then will have to choose between the two in the brackets. Choices will have to be reasoned; no credit for a mere choice. Students will have to weigh accomplishments/importance for their selections. I anticipate five to ten pages per student, maybe more.
I'm stuck right now. Mostly lately I've been teaching US History, the first half, and, of course, Michigan History. It has been tough to come up with 64 names in the US History and even more difficult in Michigan History. I have 50+ for the US, but some are a little obscure. I have the #1 seeds: Lincoln, Madison, Washington, Jefferson. The #2 seeds are Franklin, J. Adams, Jackson, Hamilton. Those are subject to changes. I'm thinking of having 32 bracket slots. Calhoun, Grant, Webster, Clay, Lee, Davis, JQ Adams, Douglass, Tubman, Marshall, Taney, Whitney...... There is still some thinking to do.
Michigan History certainly would be at most 32 slots, but likely 16. Those of you not familiar with Michigan's history won't recognize many names: Cass, Mason, Astor, Cadillac, Chandler, Richard, Woodward, Young, Ford (two of them), Murphy, Durant, Williams.......
Both are still works in progress. But I am pretty excited about starting this at the colleges.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Olio
I'm especially fond of this word as it is the name of my college's yearbook, The Olio. The word is not part of "margarine," as in "oleomargarine" ("oleo"). Olio means "a miscellaneous collection of things." That's what this blog post will be.
I am reminded this AM of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, specifically, the lines, "Water, water everyone and all the boards did shrink. Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink." Last night's rain really taxed our already water-logged yards, rivers, lakes, etc. On a run at the state park earlier this week, the river was already (before last night's deluge) over the boat launches. Docks on the lake across the street are underwater. Our backyard, already soggy and able to be mowed only twice so far this spring, has standing water. The next door neighbor's yard is half under water, worse than I've ever seen it. And the major road heading out of our subdivision was flooded over for only the second time I remember in 33 years. Back in April, Michael was worried if our yard would dry out in time for his graduation open house. I scoffed, noting it was April and eight weeks from his shindig. Hmmm...... Maybe he knew something.
This is the first spring/summer I'm not coaching or helping to coach a baseball team in 11 or 12 years. I tried to figure how many "seasons" I've coached baseball (not to mention football, basketball, gym hockey, or even pillow polo!). As close as I can figure, it's about 42 or 43 years. That includes the 10 years or so at the high school and my kids' and grandkids' teams. Some years I coached two teams simultaneously and at least two years had three teams on my plate in the same season. This year Michael wanted to play, but we couldn't find a local team and half-heartedly tried to create our own. Five or six was the most players we could recruit. So now we just go take BP for fun.
I re-read (for the third or fourth time) the book Teaching: What We Do. It's a book of about a dozen essays by Amherst professors. It was written in the '90 and about half of the inclusions are from my professors. I have said this a lot in the past--this book should be required reading for all aspiring teachers. It includes thoughts about teaching and learning, drawing up lesson plans, specific subject/discipline matter, formulating assignments and tests, etc. One of my English professors was also a student at Amherst, of course, long before I was there. He wrote about "sometimes impossible questions about thinking, meaning, knowing......" I'm pretty sure most students, surely me, when given such assignments didn't realize that "In English, as in life, it's by arriving at our borders that we discover ourselves." My physics professor wrote of devising first assignment questions that "set the values" for physics and the course. This is something I do in all of my history courses, regardless of specifics, that is American or World or Michigan, Ancient or Modern. I try to set the "rules" of history, including types of sources and their reliability/trustworthiness, bias/prejudice, "guessing" as in gaps in knowledge, etc.
More of an aside than anything, one of the older professors, also an Amherst graduate, wrote, "I'm strongly prejudiced against the notion that education at Amherst has improved over the past few decades." He cites the old vs the new curricula. He sees a weakness in the new curriculum, as a sort of "pluralism" that tries to be everything to everyone. Defending the old curriculum, under attack in recent decades before being changed, a curriculum derided as "boot camp," he cites, "Nobody has ever suggested that the US Marines are not well-trained." Indeed.
Over the years I've heard people claim they are "social liberals, but fiscal conservatives." And I was reminded of this twice in recent weeks. That, being "social liberals but fiscal conservatives," has puzzled me. How can that be? Don't "social liberal" policies require tons and tons of money? How does that mesh with "fiscal conservatism?" Maybe I'm missing something. Or do people make such claims merely because they heard that phrase and thought that it makes them seem more caring or more intelligent? (And, of course, claiming to care is far more important than doing anything to prove it.) Perhaps, though, I just don't understand.
In the past week I've read of two or three attempts, at the state and federal levels, to ban former legislators (US members of Congress, members of the state legislature) from becoming lobbyists upon leaving their legislative bodies. Apparently this has drawn bi-partisan support. But aren't there problems with this, including infringement upon First Amendment rights? Just as important, if such lobbying (by former legislative colleagues) is so nefarious, if such bipartisan legislators find such lobbying so repulsive, why don't they ignore it? Why don't they refuse to deal with these lobbyists? Although the posturing seems obvious, I can think of a number of reasons they don't unilaterally, personally write such lobbyists out of their own pictures. Heh Heh......
I am reminded this AM of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, specifically, the lines, "Water, water everyone and all the boards did shrink. Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink." Last night's rain really taxed our already water-logged yards, rivers, lakes, etc. On a run at the state park earlier this week, the river was already (before last night's deluge) over the boat launches. Docks on the lake across the street are underwater. Our backyard, already soggy and able to be mowed only twice so far this spring, has standing water. The next door neighbor's yard is half under water, worse than I've ever seen it. And the major road heading out of our subdivision was flooded over for only the second time I remember in 33 years. Back in April, Michael was worried if our yard would dry out in time for his graduation open house. I scoffed, noting it was April and eight weeks from his shindig. Hmmm...... Maybe he knew something.
This is the first spring/summer I'm not coaching or helping to coach a baseball team in 11 or 12 years. I tried to figure how many "seasons" I've coached baseball (not to mention football, basketball, gym hockey, or even pillow polo!). As close as I can figure, it's about 42 or 43 years. That includes the 10 years or so at the high school and my kids' and grandkids' teams. Some years I coached two teams simultaneously and at least two years had three teams on my plate in the same season. This year Michael wanted to play, but we couldn't find a local team and half-heartedly tried to create our own. Five or six was the most players we could recruit. So now we just go take BP for fun.
I re-read (for the third or fourth time) the book Teaching: What We Do. It's a book of about a dozen essays by Amherst professors. It was written in the '90 and about half of the inclusions are from my professors. I have said this a lot in the past--this book should be required reading for all aspiring teachers. It includes thoughts about teaching and learning, drawing up lesson plans, specific subject/discipline matter, formulating assignments and tests, etc. One of my English professors was also a student at Amherst, of course, long before I was there. He wrote about "sometimes impossible questions about thinking, meaning, knowing......" I'm pretty sure most students, surely me, when given such assignments didn't realize that "In English, as in life, it's by arriving at our borders that we discover ourselves." My physics professor wrote of devising first assignment questions that "set the values" for physics and the course. This is something I do in all of my history courses, regardless of specifics, that is American or World or Michigan, Ancient or Modern. I try to set the "rules" of history, including types of sources and their reliability/trustworthiness, bias/prejudice, "guessing" as in gaps in knowledge, etc.
More of an aside than anything, one of the older professors, also an Amherst graduate, wrote, "I'm strongly prejudiced against the notion that education at Amherst has improved over the past few decades." He cites the old vs the new curricula. He sees a weakness in the new curriculum, as a sort of "pluralism" that tries to be everything to everyone. Defending the old curriculum, under attack in recent decades before being changed, a curriculum derided as "boot camp," he cites, "Nobody has ever suggested that the US Marines are not well-trained." Indeed.
Over the years I've heard people claim they are "social liberals, but fiscal conservatives." And I was reminded of this twice in recent weeks. That, being "social liberals but fiscal conservatives," has puzzled me. How can that be? Don't "social liberal" policies require tons and tons of money? How does that mesh with "fiscal conservatism?" Maybe I'm missing something. Or do people make such claims merely because they heard that phrase and thought that it makes them seem more caring or more intelligent? (And, of course, claiming to care is far more important than doing anything to prove it.) Perhaps, though, I just don't understand.
In the past week I've read of two or three attempts, at the state and federal levels, to ban former legislators (US members of Congress, members of the state legislature) from becoming lobbyists upon leaving their legislative bodies. Apparently this has drawn bi-partisan support. But aren't there problems with this, including infringement upon First Amendment rights? Just as important, if such lobbying (by former legislative colleagues) is so nefarious, if such bipartisan legislators find such lobbying so repulsive, why don't they ignore it? Why don't they refuse to deal with these lobbyists? Although the posturing seems obvious, I can think of a number of reasons they don't unilaterally, personally write such lobbyists out of their own pictures. Heh Heh......
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Baseball's Hall of Fame
Last fall I read a book, The Cooperstown Casebook by Jay Jaffe. Its subtitle tells it all: "Who's in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Who Should Be, and Who Should Pack Their Plaques." The book piqued my interest, esp as those who know me at all, because of my strong belief that Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall.
But the book raised some good questions, made some good points, and provided food for thought. No doubt some of it is controversial, both for and against. And, as usual, I have spent some time, months later, thinking about it.
Has Baseball's Hall of Fame become a "Hall of Very Good" or even a "Hall of Good?" I don't mean to diminish the achievements of any of these players. From a personal level, I realize how skilled they were. In fact, I appreciate the skill levels of even the last players on the benches or in the bullpens. Most people probably don't recognize how good even these players are. Try to remember the best players you ever played with or against. Did any of them play in the Major Leagues?
Back to Jaffe's book. He suggests that, for many people, the Cooperstown as become a Hall of Valuable. Hmmm...... Is that bad? Isn't "value" a large part of "fame?" What about sentimentality, emotion? Do they water down the Hall of Fame?
But the best parts of the book are the analyses of players, "Who's in...Who Should Be...Who Should Pack......" Yes, Jaffe favors he admission of Ted Simmons. Hooray! But we all have our favorites, too. A recent newspaper article about Detroit Tiger Bill Freehan led to questions of why he doesn't have a plaque at Cooperstown. Maybe he doesn't have gaudy stats, but Freehan was an All-Star 11 of the 15 years he played, 11 of his last 13 years. That is, he was the premier American League catcher of his time. I suppose some might say that was because of other, weak catchers of those years. But somebody from then thought he was pretty darn good. And how do we compare players and their statistics with those of different eras? The game changes, from the ball, bats, and other equipment to the height of the pitcher's mound to the way the game is played/managers manage. In reality, the only fair comparison is with others of who played at he same time.
Some of Jaffe's picks are controversial. Yes, Simmons, Freehan, and Lou Whitaker should be in and he is critical of a Hall that doesn't include them. Some, such as Andruw Jones of the Braves and Jack Morris, are maybes. Those who he thinks should be "packing their plaques" include Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, and even Lefty Gomez and Catfish Hunter. No doubt, in some of these instances, election was based on emotion. Think Bill Mazeroski and the '61 Series. I'd guess others had to do with keeping names up front, for instance Rizzuto and Kell as long-time team announcers on radio/television. Did Jim Bunning's tenure in Congress affect his election? That doesn't mean these players aren't Hall worthy, although Jaffe thinks so.
Is longevity a factor? After all, Sandy Koufax had a relatively short career and, in fact, had only five seasons that were outstanding. Of course, during those five years he was probably the best pitcher baseball has ever seen. I recall one Series game, in '63 I think, when he threw a three-hit shutout vs the Yankees, using just his fastball due to an arm problem. And the Yanks knew that, that Koufax was throwing only fastballs. After whiffing for the fourth time, Mickey Mantle returned to the dugout, threw his bat into the bat rack, and swore "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" Indeed. By the way, I think Koufax is a no-brainer; he is deserving. But what about Nellie Fox? He played all or parts of 19 seasons and was one of the toughest batters to strike out in MLB history. But he wasn't a career .300 hitter and didn't amass 3,000 hits. He accumulated only 35 home runs. Hmmm......
Many now use Sabermetrics to evaluate players. Sabermetrics is an empirical analysis of the game, applying statistics to evaluate players, including those of different years. But, as noted above, the game has changed many times over the years. Ty Cobb led the league in HRs only once and the most he ever hit in a season were twelve. At one time, stealing bases was deemed more important than power hitting. How about the reliance on "relief pitching by committee," with "closers," "set-up men," and, I suppose, "set up men to set up men?"
One final word on sabermetrics and statistical analyses. I think this leaves out some intangibles, things that can't be measured. For instance, sabermetrics, if I understand this correctly, holds that teams should forgot sacrifice bunts, that runners score more often when not sacrificing. But doesn't that discount what could happen, what can't be quantified? If the threat of a bunt is there, all sorts of things happen. Pitchers have added pressure, to throw the ball high. Getting the ball up might make it easier for a potential bunter to hit rather than bunt. After all, unless the defense is stealing the other teams signs, it must prepare for the bunt. There is also added pressure, esp on the infield, which must hurry the play on a bunt. And, with a bunt in question, the defense must move in, playing out of position. Again, with the infield out of position, playing more shallow, if a batter doesn't bunt, how many ground balls would sneak by the fielders into the outfield? There's no way to quantify the "what ifs?"
Regardless, I recommend Jaffe's book. It is well written and provides a lot of food for thought, as well as sometimes evoking anger--grrrrrr!
But the book raised some good questions, made some good points, and provided food for thought. No doubt some of it is controversial, both for and against. And, as usual, I have spent some time, months later, thinking about it.
Has Baseball's Hall of Fame become a "Hall of Very Good" or even a "Hall of Good?" I don't mean to diminish the achievements of any of these players. From a personal level, I realize how skilled they were. In fact, I appreciate the skill levels of even the last players on the benches or in the bullpens. Most people probably don't recognize how good even these players are. Try to remember the best players you ever played with or against. Did any of them play in the Major Leagues?
Back to Jaffe's book. He suggests that, for many people, the Cooperstown as become a Hall of Valuable. Hmmm...... Is that bad? Isn't "value" a large part of "fame?" What about sentimentality, emotion? Do they water down the Hall of Fame?
But the best parts of the book are the analyses of players, "Who's in...Who Should Be...Who Should Pack......" Yes, Jaffe favors he admission of Ted Simmons. Hooray! But we all have our favorites, too. A recent newspaper article about Detroit Tiger Bill Freehan led to questions of why he doesn't have a plaque at Cooperstown. Maybe he doesn't have gaudy stats, but Freehan was an All-Star 11 of the 15 years he played, 11 of his last 13 years. That is, he was the premier American League catcher of his time. I suppose some might say that was because of other, weak catchers of those years. But somebody from then thought he was pretty darn good. And how do we compare players and their statistics with those of different eras? The game changes, from the ball, bats, and other equipment to the height of the pitcher's mound to the way the game is played/managers manage. In reality, the only fair comparison is with others of who played at he same time.
Some of Jaffe's picks are controversial. Yes, Simmons, Freehan, and Lou Whitaker should be in and he is critical of a Hall that doesn't include them. Some, such as Andruw Jones of the Braves and Jack Morris, are maybes. Those who he thinks should be "packing their plaques" include Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, and even Lefty Gomez and Catfish Hunter. No doubt, in some of these instances, election was based on emotion. Think Bill Mazeroski and the '61 Series. I'd guess others had to do with keeping names up front, for instance Rizzuto and Kell as long-time team announcers on radio/television. Did Jim Bunning's tenure in Congress affect his election? That doesn't mean these players aren't Hall worthy, although Jaffe thinks so.
Is longevity a factor? After all, Sandy Koufax had a relatively short career and, in fact, had only five seasons that were outstanding. Of course, during those five years he was probably the best pitcher baseball has ever seen. I recall one Series game, in '63 I think, when he threw a three-hit shutout vs the Yankees, using just his fastball due to an arm problem. And the Yanks knew that, that Koufax was throwing only fastballs. After whiffing for the fourth time, Mickey Mantle returned to the dugout, threw his bat into the bat rack, and swore "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" Indeed. By the way, I think Koufax is a no-brainer; he is deserving. But what about Nellie Fox? He played all or parts of 19 seasons and was one of the toughest batters to strike out in MLB history. But he wasn't a career .300 hitter and didn't amass 3,000 hits. He accumulated only 35 home runs. Hmmm......
Many now use Sabermetrics to evaluate players. Sabermetrics is an empirical analysis of the game, applying statistics to evaluate players, including those of different years. But, as noted above, the game has changed many times over the years. Ty Cobb led the league in HRs only once and the most he ever hit in a season were twelve. At one time, stealing bases was deemed more important than power hitting. How about the reliance on "relief pitching by committee," with "closers," "set-up men," and, I suppose, "set up men to set up men?"
One final word on sabermetrics and statistical analyses. I think this leaves out some intangibles, things that can't be measured. For instance, sabermetrics, if I understand this correctly, holds that teams should forgot sacrifice bunts, that runners score more often when not sacrificing. But doesn't that discount what could happen, what can't be quantified? If the threat of a bunt is there, all sorts of things happen. Pitchers have added pressure, to throw the ball high. Getting the ball up might make it easier for a potential bunter to hit rather than bunt. After all, unless the defense is stealing the other teams signs, it must prepare for the bunt. There is also added pressure, esp on the infield, which must hurry the play on a bunt. And, with a bunt in question, the defense must move in, playing out of position. Again, with the infield out of position, playing more shallow, if a batter doesn't bunt, how many ground balls would sneak by the fielders into the outfield? There's no way to quantify the "what ifs?"
Regardless, I recommend Jaffe's book. It is well written and provides a lot of food for thought, as well as sometimes evoking anger--grrrrrr!
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
But...
...what if we're wrong?
It's the title of a book I read a while back. The premise, "what if we're wrong," is intriguing/enticing and the opening explanations of it are interesting. The author, Chuck Klosterman, begins with gravity, how 2,000 years of Aristotelian theories about gravity were wrong. The "facts" people believed to be inexorably true were not true. So, then, what things do we believe to be true today aren't true either?
Another book I just finished, Origins, a novel by Dan Brown, is quite different in substance, but still caused me to ask a lot of questions. There again--Questions.
I've actually thought about this, or at least a version of it, for a long time. What of the questions we don't ask. I tell students, often, "I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions."
But what questions aren't asked? Why don't we ask them? I suppose that's for a variety of reasons. The answers to them might be so "self-evident," at least to us, as to render such questions useless or even silly. I suppose that's what people thought for 2,000 years about Aristotle's teachings.
Sometimes they might be uncomfortable questions, the answers upsetting, causing self-doubt, personal and collective, for instance.
And some questions are not asked because of fear. Who wanted to risk the anger and retribution of the Medieval Catholic Church? Doubters faced not only imprisonment or death, but worse--the death penalty of the soul, excommunication. Ask Galileo and others! And today, who wants to be called names, marginalized or ignored, even isolated? After all, we are (at least most of us) social animals.
Amherst historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote that a society's most important members are its critics. Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with men who were not yes-men. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. We have failed to learn from these men. We make it very difficult to practice what they've taught.
As I've written before, it's easier to accept than it is to question. Questioning is an important part of challenging, of scrutinizing. I know, personally, those who question are often marginalized and ignored. It's far easier to be a sycophant (We don't get to use that word often, so I'll take the opportunity!), a bobble head who agrees with whatever is offered. To challenge those in authority, long-held beliefs, etc. takes courage.
Switching gears, I find it laughable to hear members of Congress threaten to cite witnesses before their committees with contempt for lying. Lying! Excuse me for falling into the cliche-ridden trap of politicians and lying, but seriously? Perhaps they should clean up their own house(s) before they start flinging charges around.
I know, I know. "But that's different." Of course it always is. I suppose one might argue that lying under oath is one thing. Just plain lying is another. OK. But don't "just plain lies" also harm people, all of us?
What is particularly galling are the lies euphemistically called "campaign promises." I'm guessing that the candidates know they are telling lies just to garner votes. They have no intentions of following through on their lies, er, promises. And voters seem to have come to accept campaign promises, at least many of them, as lies. As I have asked before, aren't many broken campaign promises prime examples of fraud? And if they are, what aren't the perpetrators prosecuted?
In the same vein, I filled out a local school board survey the other day regarding an upcoming bond and millage election, November I think. I repeatedly indicated I will vote no on both. Even when tossed in with another local bond issue, on which I said I will vote yes, I still said I'll reject the local district's two proposals. At the end, I was asked my reasons. I was pretty blunt and said both the school board and the administration have made poor decisions in the past, have been deceitful if not outright dishonest, etc. I have no confidence in either (which may be redundant because, for the most part, the school board is a rubber stamp for the administration). This is not a question of viewpoint, either. The deceit and/or dishonesty, for decades, has been out there for anyone interested to see. I am certain, beyond doubt, that my survey responses will be ignored. As long as the sycophant/bobble heads continue to vote the way school boards/administrations (and other politicians) want, why would they change?
Last but not least today, I have been reminded of this several times in recent weeks, obliquely if not directly. So-and-so "is not as bad as" another so-and-so. NO! As I noted in the past few elections, Presidential and otherwise, I no longer will "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." NO! Over the course of the past few decades, look where this has taken us. As noted above, as long as voters continue to accept the crap the major parties throw at us, we will continue to be fed crap. It might take an election cycle or two for voters to force parties to change, but it won't if voters don't rise up and say, in effect, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I realize, for many people, times are pretty darn good right now, at least financially/economically. But there is more to life than money.
This is naive of me, I know. But I cling to the precept that character matters, still. Apparently to many folks it doesn't. As long as "the trains run on time" (They didn't, but I'm not quibbling.), all else is fine. Moral fabric is important. And we are losing it quickly, if we haven't already lost it. I can't for the life of me understand how Americans, for a couple of decades now, have accepted poor moral behavior from our leaders in all walks of life merely because "the economy is good." I actually had someone tell me that during the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair. If our leaders, and not just political leaders, can act immorally and unethically, why can't the rest of us? I know that much of this, the immorality and lack of ethics, has been going on forever, but now it occurs openly and we know it. By ignoring or at least dismissing it, we condone it. By extension......
This was driven home a couple of weeks ago while I listened to the radio coming home from class. a caller referred to the Michigan governor's campaign, "...and I'll fix the damn roads!" I found the use of "damn" to be offensive, although most people probably cheered. Anyway, this caller said he was driving down a road with his 5-year old daughter. He hit a sizable pot hole that jarred the car. He was stunned, then angry, to hear his daughter say, "Fix the damn roads!" This came from a five-year old! I know, I know. I'm a prude. Maybe most people think it's cute for a five-year old to use language like this, but not me. Perhaps it's the father's fault; he's said it? But maybe it's the fault of the people who thought it was cute for a candidate for governor to say it.
It's the title of a book I read a while back. The premise, "what if we're wrong," is intriguing/enticing and the opening explanations of it are interesting. The author, Chuck Klosterman, begins with gravity, how 2,000 years of Aristotelian theories about gravity were wrong. The "facts" people believed to be inexorably true were not true. So, then, what things do we believe to be true today aren't true either?
Another book I just finished, Origins, a novel by Dan Brown, is quite different in substance, but still caused me to ask a lot of questions. There again--Questions.
I've actually thought about this, or at least a version of it, for a long time. What of the questions we don't ask. I tell students, often, "I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions."
But what questions aren't asked? Why don't we ask them? I suppose that's for a variety of reasons. The answers to them might be so "self-evident," at least to us, as to render such questions useless or even silly. I suppose that's what people thought for 2,000 years about Aristotle's teachings.
Sometimes they might be uncomfortable questions, the answers upsetting, causing self-doubt, personal and collective, for instance.
And some questions are not asked because of fear. Who wanted to risk the anger and retribution of the Medieval Catholic Church? Doubters faced not only imprisonment or death, but worse--the death penalty of the soul, excommunication. Ask Galileo and others! And today, who wants to be called names, marginalized or ignored, even isolated? After all, we are (at least most of us) social animals.
Amherst historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote that a society's most important members are its critics. Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with men who were not yes-men. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. We have failed to learn from these men. We make it very difficult to practice what they've taught.
As I've written before, it's easier to accept than it is to question. Questioning is an important part of challenging, of scrutinizing. I know, personally, those who question are often marginalized and ignored. It's far easier to be a sycophant (We don't get to use that word often, so I'll take the opportunity!), a bobble head who agrees with whatever is offered. To challenge those in authority, long-held beliefs, etc. takes courage.
Switching gears, I find it laughable to hear members of Congress threaten to cite witnesses before their committees with contempt for lying. Lying! Excuse me for falling into the cliche-ridden trap of politicians and lying, but seriously? Perhaps they should clean up their own house(s) before they start flinging charges around.
I know, I know. "But that's different." Of course it always is. I suppose one might argue that lying under oath is one thing. Just plain lying is another. OK. But don't "just plain lies" also harm people, all of us?
What is particularly galling are the lies euphemistically called "campaign promises." I'm guessing that the candidates know they are telling lies just to garner votes. They have no intentions of following through on their lies, er, promises. And voters seem to have come to accept campaign promises, at least many of them, as lies. As I have asked before, aren't many broken campaign promises prime examples of fraud? And if they are, what aren't the perpetrators prosecuted?
In the same vein, I filled out a local school board survey the other day regarding an upcoming bond and millage election, November I think. I repeatedly indicated I will vote no on both. Even when tossed in with another local bond issue, on which I said I will vote yes, I still said I'll reject the local district's two proposals. At the end, I was asked my reasons. I was pretty blunt and said both the school board and the administration have made poor decisions in the past, have been deceitful if not outright dishonest, etc. I have no confidence in either (which may be redundant because, for the most part, the school board is a rubber stamp for the administration). This is not a question of viewpoint, either. The deceit and/or dishonesty, for decades, has been out there for anyone interested to see. I am certain, beyond doubt, that my survey responses will be ignored. As long as the sycophant/bobble heads continue to vote the way school boards/administrations (and other politicians) want, why would they change?
Last but not least today, I have been reminded of this several times in recent weeks, obliquely if not directly. So-and-so "is not as bad as" another so-and-so. NO! As I noted in the past few elections, Presidential and otherwise, I no longer will "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." NO! Over the course of the past few decades, look where this has taken us. As noted above, as long as voters continue to accept the crap the major parties throw at us, we will continue to be fed crap. It might take an election cycle or two for voters to force parties to change, but it won't if voters don't rise up and say, in effect, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I realize, for many people, times are pretty darn good right now, at least financially/economically. But there is more to life than money.
This is naive of me, I know. But I cling to the precept that character matters, still. Apparently to many folks it doesn't. As long as "the trains run on time" (They didn't, but I'm not quibbling.), all else is fine. Moral fabric is important. And we are losing it quickly, if we haven't already lost it. I can't for the life of me understand how Americans, for a couple of decades now, have accepted poor moral behavior from our leaders in all walks of life merely because "the economy is good." I actually had someone tell me that during the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair. If our leaders, and not just political leaders, can act immorally and unethically, why can't the rest of us? I know that much of this, the immorality and lack of ethics, has been going on forever, but now it occurs openly and we know it. By ignoring or at least dismissing it, we condone it. By extension......
This was driven home a couple of weeks ago while I listened to the radio coming home from class. a caller referred to the Michigan governor's campaign, "...and I'll fix the damn roads!" I found the use of "damn" to be offensive, although most people probably cheered. Anyway, this caller said he was driving down a road with his 5-year old daughter. He hit a sizable pot hole that jarred the car. He was stunned, then angry, to hear his daughter say, "Fix the damn roads!" This came from a five-year old! I know, I know. I'm a prude. Maybe most people think it's cute for a five-year old to use language like this, but not me. Perhaps it's the father's fault; he's said it? But maybe it's the fault of the people who thought it was cute for a candidate for governor to say it.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Another Ranking
I came across this idea the other day, in line with my recent post of rankings of Presidents. This one is far more difficult for many reasons. Who are the most influential figures in US history? Wow! What an undertaking that one is!
Again, perhaps we have to set parameters, as we did with Presidents. What is meant by "most influential?" Does it mean for the better, whatever that might be, or merely changed things regardless of good or bad? Of course, such a ranking would transcend politics and would lead to considerations of far more than that.
A ranking from one to whatever would be far too arduous for me. But I have some inclusions to consider. They aren't by any means my only ones, just ones off the top of my head this morning.
Surely I would include some Presidents. Those who know me even a little know Abraham Lincoln and George Washington would be near the top of my ratings. Lincoln, of course, won the Civil War and started the ball rolling to abolish slavery. He redefined the great American experiment, adding the principle of equality to those of freedom and liberty. Washington, by sheer dint of his personality and his prestige, forged a new nation, establishing a republic. Remember, many wanted and even expected him to become the king; that's what history showed--a victorious general became the ruler. He refused. Somewhere in there would be Andrew Jackson, too. For all of his bigotry and racism, Jackson and his era created the American democracy. For the first time, control of the government was not exclusively in the hands of the elites, but common folks, too. (Well, for the time being, at least adult white males regardless of wealth and religion.) I suppose we could debate his role in that democratization, but can you think of another person at the time who could have inspired such growth?
But what about some other Presidents, maybe not such good ones? For instance, didn't James Buchanan have great influence on the coming of the Civil War?
More than likely I'd have others, too, perhaps not for their roles as chief executives. Thomas Jefferson wrote the American Creed, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. James Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution and was the primary author of most of the Bill of Rights.
Getting away from politics/government, how about Henry Ford? It is not mere hyperbole to say "He put the nation on wheels." Toss in mass production of cars and the $5 day. (Let's give Charlie Sorensen and James Couzens credit, too.) Not only did these make cars available/affordable for more and more Americans. If something as complex as a car could be mass produced on an assembly line, anything could. That paved the way for the affluence of the 20th Century. And what about how the Model T changed the gene pool of the US??????
Surely Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller should be considered. They made oodles of money and then gave much of it away. Think of how they transformed American life, helping to create an urban society out of an agricultural one. Think of the jobs they provided, for better or worse, and the new and affordable goods they made available to more and more Americans. "Robber barons?" Of course, but their influence extended far beyond that.
Thomas Edison? Philo Farnsworth? The list of inventors and entrepreneurs is so vast maybe we could have a list of the Top 100 of them.
Susan B. Anthony surely would be on such a ranking, with her courageous and eloquent (at least sometimes!) efforts toward women's suffrage and other rights. We could toss in others such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Carrie Chapman Catt (I love that name!). Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin. Perhaps that is the most significant novel in US history. It (along with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850) brought to the North visions of the reality of slavery, something that Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote might well have been in "the Feejee [sic] Islands."
No doubt, Martin Luther King would be on my list. Who more than he led the modern civil rights movement? And, very much related, what about Jackie Robinson? King once said to Don Newcombe, "Don, you'll never know how easy you and Jackie and Roy [Campanella] and Larry [Doby] made it for me to do my job by what you did on the baseball field."
I know he's on our ten-dollar bill, but I wonder if most Americans realize that Alexander Hamilton forged the American financial/economic system, paving the way for the later transformation from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. Have many heard of Henry Clay, whose sobriquet was "The Great Compromiser?" As odious as some of those compromises were, it might well be argued that they held off the Civil War for decades until the North was in a position to win it, that is, preserve the Union.
Think of Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, Charles Drew, and all the other doctors and scientists who have saved countless lives. Polio? Quite a few young people today never heard of it thanks to Salk and Sabin. In the '50s, 2,000 lives were annually claimed by polio and another 16,000-17,000 were paralyzed by the disease. Blood donations and transfusions? Drew was the driving force behind blood banks and blood mobiles. He not only was a brilliant doctor, but also a man of great courage and integrity. During WW2, when the US military segregated blood from blacks and blood from whites, Drew resigned in protest from his position as the head of American and British blood plasma banks.
Again, perhaps we have to set parameters, as we did with Presidents. What is meant by "most influential?" Does it mean for the better, whatever that might be, or merely changed things regardless of good or bad? Of course, such a ranking would transcend politics and would lead to considerations of far more than that.
A ranking from one to whatever would be far too arduous for me. But I have some inclusions to consider. They aren't by any means my only ones, just ones off the top of my head this morning.
Surely I would include some Presidents. Those who know me even a little know Abraham Lincoln and George Washington would be near the top of my ratings. Lincoln, of course, won the Civil War and started the ball rolling to abolish slavery. He redefined the great American experiment, adding the principle of equality to those of freedom and liberty. Washington, by sheer dint of his personality and his prestige, forged a new nation, establishing a republic. Remember, many wanted and even expected him to become the king; that's what history showed--a victorious general became the ruler. He refused. Somewhere in there would be Andrew Jackson, too. For all of his bigotry and racism, Jackson and his era created the American democracy. For the first time, control of the government was not exclusively in the hands of the elites, but common folks, too. (Well, for the time being, at least adult white males regardless of wealth and religion.) I suppose we could debate his role in that democratization, but can you think of another person at the time who could have inspired such growth?
But what about some other Presidents, maybe not such good ones? For instance, didn't James Buchanan have great influence on the coming of the Civil War?
More than likely I'd have others, too, perhaps not for their roles as chief executives. Thomas Jefferson wrote the American Creed, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. James Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution and was the primary author of most of the Bill of Rights.
Getting away from politics/government, how about Henry Ford? It is not mere hyperbole to say "He put the nation on wheels." Toss in mass production of cars and the $5 day. (Let's give Charlie Sorensen and James Couzens credit, too.) Not only did these make cars available/affordable for more and more Americans. If something as complex as a car could be mass produced on an assembly line, anything could. That paved the way for the affluence of the 20th Century. And what about how the Model T changed the gene pool of the US??????
Surely Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller should be considered. They made oodles of money and then gave much of it away. Think of how they transformed American life, helping to create an urban society out of an agricultural one. Think of the jobs they provided, for better or worse, and the new and affordable goods they made available to more and more Americans. "Robber barons?" Of course, but their influence extended far beyond that.
Thomas Edison? Philo Farnsworth? The list of inventors and entrepreneurs is so vast maybe we could have a list of the Top 100 of them.
Susan B. Anthony surely would be on such a ranking, with her courageous and eloquent (at least sometimes!) efforts toward women's suffrage and other rights. We could toss in others such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Carrie Chapman Catt (I love that name!). Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin. Perhaps that is the most significant novel in US history. It (along with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850) brought to the North visions of the reality of slavery, something that Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote might well have been in "the Feejee [sic] Islands."
No doubt, Martin Luther King would be on my list. Who more than he led the modern civil rights movement? And, very much related, what about Jackie Robinson? King once said to Don Newcombe, "Don, you'll never know how easy you and Jackie and Roy [Campanella] and Larry [Doby] made it for me to do my job by what you did on the baseball field."
I know he's on our ten-dollar bill, but I wonder if most Americans realize that Alexander Hamilton forged the American financial/economic system, paving the way for the later transformation from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. Have many heard of Henry Clay, whose sobriquet was "The Great Compromiser?" As odious as some of those compromises were, it might well be argued that they held off the Civil War for decades until the North was in a position to win it, that is, preserve the Union.
Think of Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, Charles Drew, and all the other doctors and scientists who have saved countless lives. Polio? Quite a few young people today never heard of it thanks to Salk and Sabin. In the '50s, 2,000 lives were annually claimed by polio and another 16,000-17,000 were paralyzed by the disease. Blood donations and transfusions? Drew was the driving force behind blood banks and blood mobiles. He not only was a brilliant doctor, but also a man of great courage and integrity. During WW2, when the US military segregated blood from blacks and blood from whites, Drew resigned in protest from his position as the head of American and British blood plasma banks.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
History That Never Happened
I was reminded of the book, History That Never Happened: A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If.....? It was written by Alexander DeMandt, a German historian. I have often said I would like to teach a course on historiography. (But there are two roadblocks. I don't want to do the paperwork and I'm pretty sure I couldn't get any students to take such a course.) The book is quite pedantic, but I would still require it for reading in my historiography course. It offers a number of ideas well worth pondering.
I'm not talking about "fake history." (Ha Ha Ha!) That's stuff that everyone is taught, but never really occurred. I'm thinking about Washington and chopping down the cherry tree, the apple falling on Newton's head, Paul Revere's "ride," Nero fiddling while Rome burned, and the like.
I (and DeMandt) don't mean things like these. Rather, I mean, as DeMandt's title suggests, things that could have happened if...... Here are some examples. The possibilities are not unrealistic, but with a little tweak here or there could very well have come to pass.
Someone today told me of a new book out about a failed (obviously) assassination plot against George Washington. This led me to thinking about DeMandt's book. What if Washington had been assassinated during the Revolution? Where would that have left us, left the US? I am pretty sure there wouldn't have been a US, although I don't have a crystal ball. Of the three or four major factors in the Americans winning their independence, Washington was certainly one of them. Yet, had he been killed......
Perhaps not so dramatic, what if Abraham Lincoln had won the US Senate seat from Stephen Douglas in 1858? It was a tight race. In fact, a historian later surmised that had US Senators been elected by voters instead of chosen by state legislatures (The 17th Amendment was not added until 1913.) in 1858, it is likely Lincoln would have been the winner. Would Lincoln have been satisfied with a seat in the US Senate, so much so that he'd not have considered running for the Presidency two years later? Would he, in learning the ropes in the Senate, not have had enough time to prepare to be a Presidential candidate? After all, the Cooper Union Address won him the Republican nomination and, hence, the election. If he was in the US Senate, it was probable he wouldn't have come to Cooper Union. So then, imagine the Civil War, the institution of slavery, and more without Abraham Lincoln.
How different history would have been had the piece of shrapnel that hit Hitler's thigh had hit a foot two higher or the mustard gas attack to which he was subjected had taken far worse than it did. What if, at the Battle of Marathon, the "favored" Persians had defeated the Greeks? Think of the consequences if Charles "the Hammer" Martel had not defeated the Muslim Umayyad armies at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732.
There are many, many other examples we can find. Of course, getting students to read such a book might be problematic. It's hard enough to get them to read history that did happen! But the lesson is this. Our choices have consequences, some far more significant that others. The outcomes of events have consequences, too. We need to be careful in what we decide. We need, perhaps, to try to imagine the results of a decision. What will possibly happen if we do this? What will likely happen if we do that? It's yet another reason why we should study history.
I'm in a rush this weekend, so please forgive any typos or other mistakes.
I'm not talking about "fake history." (Ha Ha Ha!) That's stuff that everyone is taught, but never really occurred. I'm thinking about Washington and chopping down the cherry tree, the apple falling on Newton's head, Paul Revere's "ride," Nero fiddling while Rome burned, and the like.
I (and DeMandt) don't mean things like these. Rather, I mean, as DeMandt's title suggests, things that could have happened if...... Here are some examples. The possibilities are not unrealistic, but with a little tweak here or there could very well have come to pass.
Someone today told me of a new book out about a failed (obviously) assassination plot against George Washington. This led me to thinking about DeMandt's book. What if Washington had been assassinated during the Revolution? Where would that have left us, left the US? I am pretty sure there wouldn't have been a US, although I don't have a crystal ball. Of the three or four major factors in the Americans winning their independence, Washington was certainly one of them. Yet, had he been killed......
Perhaps not so dramatic, what if Abraham Lincoln had won the US Senate seat from Stephen Douglas in 1858? It was a tight race. In fact, a historian later surmised that had US Senators been elected by voters instead of chosen by state legislatures (The 17th Amendment was not added until 1913.) in 1858, it is likely Lincoln would have been the winner. Would Lincoln have been satisfied with a seat in the US Senate, so much so that he'd not have considered running for the Presidency two years later? Would he, in learning the ropes in the Senate, not have had enough time to prepare to be a Presidential candidate? After all, the Cooper Union Address won him the Republican nomination and, hence, the election. If he was in the US Senate, it was probable he wouldn't have come to Cooper Union. So then, imagine the Civil War, the institution of slavery, and more without Abraham Lincoln.
How different history would have been had the piece of shrapnel that hit Hitler's thigh had hit a foot two higher or the mustard gas attack to which he was subjected had taken far worse than it did. What if, at the Battle of Marathon, the "favored" Persians had defeated the Greeks? Think of the consequences if Charles "the Hammer" Martel had not defeated the Muslim Umayyad armies at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732.
There are many, many other examples we can find. Of course, getting students to read such a book might be problematic. It's hard enough to get them to read history that did happen! But the lesson is this. Our choices have consequences, some far more significant that others. The outcomes of events have consequences, too. We need to be careful in what we decide. We need, perhaps, to try to imagine the results of a decision. What will possibly happen if we do this? What will likely happen if we do that? It's yet another reason why we should study history.
I'm in a rush this weekend, so please forgive any typos or other mistakes.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Ranking Presidents
I recently came across several more evaluations/rankings of Presidents. They were similar, but did have some differences.
This, I think, would be quite a task. The very best and very worst would be easy or at least easier. Differentiating between, say, Truman and Eisenhower would be tough. And the more I learn/older I get, my views change, too. For instance, I'm no longer a big fan of T. Roosevelt--he was a progressive who planted the early seeds of Big Government and, for all of his popularity, he was an egotistical jerk.
My first two, in this order, are Lincoln and Washington, with no likely rivals. I think my reasons have been made abundantly clear. (That some, just a couple, of rankings didn't have Abe and George as the top two befuddles me. Such rankings immediately lose their legitimacy with me.) As noted, I like Truman and Eisenhower. John Adams (Daddy) and Reagan are in the top eleven or twelve, too. I also think a lot of Coolidge and not just because he is also a Lord Jeff. For me, unless faced with situations like those countenanced by Lincoln and Washington, mostly less is more. Madison and Monroe deserve some recognition as well.
The absolute worst include Buchanan, Carter, Harding, and A. Johnson, maybe a few others. I'd have to separate my prejudices to try to be fair to Nixon (I don't like him), Clinton (I don't like him), Obama (I don't like him), L. Johnson (I don't like him), and a few others. Perhaps naively, I still think that character matters. (For instance, I can't be convinced to vote for "the lesser of two evils." "Evil" is "evil.") I'm not sure the current historians/political scientists (mostly teachers/authors) separate their political beliefs from their personal views in their evaluations. How else to explain their perpetually low ranking of Coolidge and high ranking of Kennedy? (One ranking had JFK in the top half dozen citing only two assets, both of which made me laugh. He was assassinated and he was the first Roman Catholic President.)
We can eliminate W. H. Harrison and J. Garfield, who were in office far too short to evaluate. But how to tell the difference between Van Buren, Fillmore, Cleveland (actually pretty decent), Taft (also not too bad), Bush (Daddy), etc.?
I'm not a fan at all of Wilson, a racist/bigot besides being an arrogant progressive. Jackson is very problematic for a lot of reasons. If we count only Jefferson's first four years, he'd be in the top five. His second term wasn't so hot.
I suppose, though, I'd have to define "great." Does it mean the "best," as in doing the most good? Or, as I might have to grudgingly admit, does it mean "most influential," as in changing things for better or worse, regardless? I think I've noted before this would include F. Roosevelt, not at all a favorite of mine. The two lists would be different, other than the top two. Then toss in contemporary popularity. How does that affect, say, J. Q. Adams?
It's not as simple a task as one might think, as in cherry-picking one President and rating "good" or "bad."
This, I think, would be quite a task. The very best and very worst would be easy or at least easier. Differentiating between, say, Truman and Eisenhower would be tough. And the more I learn/older I get, my views change, too. For instance, I'm no longer a big fan of T. Roosevelt--he was a progressive who planted the early seeds of Big Government and, for all of his popularity, he was an egotistical jerk.
My first two, in this order, are Lincoln and Washington, with no likely rivals. I think my reasons have been made abundantly clear. (That some, just a couple, of rankings didn't have Abe and George as the top two befuddles me. Such rankings immediately lose their legitimacy with me.) As noted, I like Truman and Eisenhower. John Adams (Daddy) and Reagan are in the top eleven or twelve, too. I also think a lot of Coolidge and not just because he is also a Lord Jeff. For me, unless faced with situations like those countenanced by Lincoln and Washington, mostly less is more. Madison and Monroe deserve some recognition as well.
The absolute worst include Buchanan, Carter, Harding, and A. Johnson, maybe a few others. I'd have to separate my prejudices to try to be fair to Nixon (I don't like him), Clinton (I don't like him), Obama (I don't like him), L. Johnson (I don't like him), and a few others. Perhaps naively, I still think that character matters. (For instance, I can't be convinced to vote for "the lesser of two evils." "Evil" is "evil.") I'm not sure the current historians/political scientists (mostly teachers/authors) separate their political beliefs from their personal views in their evaluations. How else to explain their perpetually low ranking of Coolidge and high ranking of Kennedy? (One ranking had JFK in the top half dozen citing only two assets, both of which made me laugh. He was assassinated and he was the first Roman Catholic President.)
We can eliminate W. H. Harrison and J. Garfield, who were in office far too short to evaluate. But how to tell the difference between Van Buren, Fillmore, Cleveland (actually pretty decent), Taft (also not too bad), Bush (Daddy), etc.?
I'm not a fan at all of Wilson, a racist/bigot besides being an arrogant progressive. Jackson is very problematic for a lot of reasons. If we count only Jefferson's first four years, he'd be in the top five. His second term wasn't so hot.
I suppose, though, I'd have to define "great." Does it mean the "best," as in doing the most good? Or, as I might have to grudgingly admit, does it mean "most influential," as in changing things for better or worse, regardless? I think I've noted before this would include F. Roosevelt, not at all a favorite of mine. The two lists would be different, other than the top two. Then toss in contemporary popularity. How does that affect, say, J. Q. Adams?
It's not as simple a task as one might think, as in cherry-picking one President and rating "good" or "bad."
Monday, February 18, 2019
Presidents Day
It still baffles me why there is a day to celebrate all Presidents. And, esp, since it was done at the expense of two days that honor our two greatest Presidents, Lincoln and Washington. C'mon, what rationale can there be to lump Buchanan, Pierce, A. Johnson, Carter, and Harding in with them to celebrate?
It's no secret that Lincoln and Washington, to me, are the greatest Presidents. I don't think there's a challenge to their status. I also like Truman and Eisenhower (for different reasons, recognizing some of their doings I am not crazy about). I wonder if I'd surprise people to also mention Coolidge as one worthy of considerably more note than he receives. Jefferson (his first term at least), Reagan, Madison, and Monroe also are on my "good" list. Without thinking much more about that, I'm sure I'd add a few more.
I noted the worst, or at least among the worst, above. And I know this is political, but I'd add Obama to that list, maybe even Clinton. I know I'm going to be accused of being naive or worse, but I think character matters and these two...... That a recent C-Span poll of American historians ranks them so high reflects their biases. I hope their teaching doesn't do that.
What about F. Roosevelt? I know he is usually ranked in the top three in polls of historians. In fact, a few years ago, he flip-flopped with Washington to claim the #2 spot. I understand this, but only if "great" translates to "most influential." What FDR did, to me, was very destructive to the US and to Americans, although I'm sure most historians would disagree with me. Just like I may be displaying some political and philosophical biases, I think anyone who ranks FDR so highly does, too.
Jackson remains an enigma for me. He did some dastardly things, just horrible. Yet, his administration(s) paved the way for the future. That is, what he accomplished probably made the election of Lincoln possible. Without the transformation of the US under Jackson, would there have been a President Lincoln? And if not, well, you fill in the blank.
JFK remains problematic for me, too. I think he was scum and, well, I have noted my value of good character. His policies and actions vary in my estimation--some good, very good, and some bad, very bad. Yet, I have softened a bit on him over the years. His great abilities as a speaker, I think, were very inspirational. He drove people to do things they might not otherwise have done.
But let me emphasize, being an "average" President is not a slam, far from it. That reminds me of the 25th guy on the bench of a Major League Baseball team. There's no laughing at him! Do people realize how good he was to get there? Do they realize how many really, really good players never got there? The same with Presidents.
It's no secret that Lincoln and Washington, to me, are the greatest Presidents. I don't think there's a challenge to their status. I also like Truman and Eisenhower (for different reasons, recognizing some of their doings I am not crazy about). I wonder if I'd surprise people to also mention Coolidge as one worthy of considerably more note than he receives. Jefferson (his first term at least), Reagan, Madison, and Monroe also are on my "good" list. Without thinking much more about that, I'm sure I'd add a few more.
I noted the worst, or at least among the worst, above. And I know this is political, but I'd add Obama to that list, maybe even Clinton. I know I'm going to be accused of being naive or worse, but I think character matters and these two...... That a recent C-Span poll of American historians ranks them so high reflects their biases. I hope their teaching doesn't do that.
What about F. Roosevelt? I know he is usually ranked in the top three in polls of historians. In fact, a few years ago, he flip-flopped with Washington to claim the #2 spot. I understand this, but only if "great" translates to "most influential." What FDR did, to me, was very destructive to the US and to Americans, although I'm sure most historians would disagree with me. Just like I may be displaying some political and philosophical biases, I think anyone who ranks FDR so highly does, too.
Jackson remains an enigma for me. He did some dastardly things, just horrible. Yet, his administration(s) paved the way for the future. That is, what he accomplished probably made the election of Lincoln possible. Without the transformation of the US under Jackson, would there have been a President Lincoln? And if not, well, you fill in the blank.
JFK remains problematic for me, too. I think he was scum and, well, I have noted my value of good character. His policies and actions vary in my estimation--some good, very good, and some bad, very bad. Yet, I have softened a bit on him over the years. His great abilities as a speaker, I think, were very inspirational. He drove people to do things they might not otherwise have done.
But let me emphasize, being an "average" President is not a slam, far from it. That reminds me of the 25th guy on the bench of a Major League Baseball team. There's no laughing at him! Do people realize how good he was to get there? Do they realize how many really, really good players never got there? The same with Presidents.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Education
Amid all this frenzy in the schools about testing, testing, testing, I have been struck by something someone sent to me. It read, "The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see." (Discussing this, I was given a book to read, a kids' book, Duck/Rabbit. It is a very relevant book.) I think that was the essence of my college education.
Oh, without doubt, I didn't understand that, not at all then. It took me many years later that this dawned on me. Some years back, but not many, one of my college buddies and I were talking about Amherst. He related, "About five or six years after graduation, it clicked!" he said with great enthusiasm, even then. "I said to myself, 'I get it!'" I answered that I had the exact same revelation, although mine came a bit later, maybe eleven or twelve years after graduation. (I'm a slow learner.)
I'll use the courses/classes I still teach as an example. It's my job to test and grade students on the material in my class. (I don't go overboard with exams, generally giving a mid-term and a final. In between, I assign a good number of short essays.) So, I give tests with the expected questions. But, as I now realize, who other than me remembers what happened in, say, 1437 or 1805? And who recalls many/most of the names of many/most of the people? I would hope some dates, such as July 4th, 1776 and some of those who really made big differences and the differences they made are remembered, such as Lincoln, but......
This leads me back to Amherst. We always suspected that many of our professors gave us grades based on our overall GPAs. That is, if my average was a C+, some of my professors would give me a C+ for the course. I don't think this was dishonest. I don't recall many, if any, exams that were what might be considered "objective tests." No, I think most of them were far more subjective. I never had a multiple-choice test. My professors certainly weren't lazy; far from it. They often wrote more on my papers than I wrote myself. It was something I eventually learned from them: comments on papers aren't just for evaluation, but are teaching tools. But I suspect my professors knew something about the purpose and the value of an education. That, frankly, tests and grades aren't important in the overall scheme of things.
Yes, grades open doors. They can be indications of future success, but not always. Part of my ideas here stems from a discussion of several weeks ago. In discussing our college days, I revealed that my GPA, upon graduation, was a B-. Jaws dropped. "You mean you didn't have a B [average]?" No, I didn't and I never earned an A at Amherst, not one. I guessed, from the silence at the table after my revelation, that those others were thinking one of two things: Either I was lying (But why would I lie to make myself look worse; people lie to make themselves look better.) or I was a complete goof off in college (I admit I wasn't a bookworm, but I did work hard, far far harder than in graduate school; I remember, more than once, returning to campus from ball games on Saturday evenings and, before heading back to the house party, spending a couple of hours in a vacated classroom studying--on Saturday evening!)
As I noted above, it took me quite a while after graduation to figure what my education was all about. I wonder, to this day, at the graduation ceremony what my professors might have been thinking as I walked to get my degree. Did they just shake their heads, at least in their own minds, or did they know they had planted seeds that were yet to germinate?
Perhaps the politicians and corporate-types who are driving the test, test, test frenzy really haven't figured out education, its purpose and value. Maybe they don't realize that the most important things to be learned in education can't be tested.
It's one of the deep concerns and criticisms I have with American education today. The teachers and administrators, who should know better, have acceded, indeed have surrendered, to those who don't. But in the face of criticism, it's far easier to go along than to challenge, to fight back for what is right.
Gee, as I read through this, I hope I get my point across. I'm not sure I have.
Oh, without doubt, I didn't understand that, not at all then. It took me many years later that this dawned on me. Some years back, but not many, one of my college buddies and I were talking about Amherst. He related, "About five or six years after graduation, it clicked!" he said with great enthusiasm, even then. "I said to myself, 'I get it!'" I answered that I had the exact same revelation, although mine came a bit later, maybe eleven or twelve years after graduation. (I'm a slow learner.)
I'll use the courses/classes I still teach as an example. It's my job to test and grade students on the material in my class. (I don't go overboard with exams, generally giving a mid-term and a final. In between, I assign a good number of short essays.) So, I give tests with the expected questions. But, as I now realize, who other than me remembers what happened in, say, 1437 or 1805? And who recalls many/most of the names of many/most of the people? I would hope some dates, such as July 4th, 1776 and some of those who really made big differences and the differences they made are remembered, such as Lincoln, but......
This leads me back to Amherst. We always suspected that many of our professors gave us grades based on our overall GPAs. That is, if my average was a C+, some of my professors would give me a C+ for the course. I don't think this was dishonest. I don't recall many, if any, exams that were what might be considered "objective tests." No, I think most of them were far more subjective. I never had a multiple-choice test. My professors certainly weren't lazy; far from it. They often wrote more on my papers than I wrote myself. It was something I eventually learned from them: comments on papers aren't just for evaluation, but are teaching tools. But I suspect my professors knew something about the purpose and the value of an education. That, frankly, tests and grades aren't important in the overall scheme of things.
Yes, grades open doors. They can be indications of future success, but not always. Part of my ideas here stems from a discussion of several weeks ago. In discussing our college days, I revealed that my GPA, upon graduation, was a B-. Jaws dropped. "You mean you didn't have a B [average]?" No, I didn't and I never earned an A at Amherst, not one. I guessed, from the silence at the table after my revelation, that those others were thinking one of two things: Either I was lying (But why would I lie to make myself look worse; people lie to make themselves look better.) or I was a complete goof off in college (I admit I wasn't a bookworm, but I did work hard, far far harder than in graduate school; I remember, more than once, returning to campus from ball games on Saturday evenings and, before heading back to the house party, spending a couple of hours in a vacated classroom studying--on Saturday evening!)
As I noted above, it took me quite a while after graduation to figure what my education was all about. I wonder, to this day, at the graduation ceremony what my professors might have been thinking as I walked to get my degree. Did they just shake their heads, at least in their own minds, or did they know they had planted seeds that were yet to germinate?
Perhaps the politicians and corporate-types who are driving the test, test, test frenzy really haven't figured out education, its purpose and value. Maybe they don't realize that the most important things to be learned in education can't be tested.
It's one of the deep concerns and criticisms I have with American education today. The teachers and administrators, who should know better, have acceded, indeed have surrendered, to those who don't. But in the face of criticism, it's far easier to go along than to challenge, to fight back for what is right.
Gee, as I read through this, I hope I get my point across. I'm not sure I have.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Feb 12
My admiration for Abraham Lincoln is well known. I make no secret of it. Today is his birthday, 1809. (For class today, I will wear one of my Lincoln tie and a pair of my Lincoln socks. Students won't see my Lincoln tee shirt or briefs. I don't have a Lincoln beard!) It, individually, used to be celebrated. To substitute it, and Washington's Feb 22 birthday, with a generic "Presidents Day" is, to me, ridiculous. Millard Fillmore......who? Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan?
I won't give one of my lectures on Lincoln, but will forward what W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP, wrote about him in 1922. Of all the lessons we can learn about and from Lincoln, I think this is one of the greatest.
“Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters,--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. 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. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln.”
Happy Lincoln's Birthday!
Saturday, February 9, 2019
Income Inequality
Unlike global warming, I guess there's no debate that there is income inequality, world-wide as well as in the US. I read that the top ten hedge fund managers make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the United States. If that's so, that's pathetic.
I understand there is great wealth in this country. There are almost 700 billionaires here. I'm not sure I can count to 700 let alone one billion. The often berated "top 1%" control about 40% of all the nation's wealth. That really doesn't bother me. I don't think it should.
According to some of the figures I found, the wealthiest 1% of the people in the US pay a little more than 40% of the income taxes, while the top 3% pay more than half of them. And the tax rate for the richest folks is about double what it is for the "average" tax payer. I'm not arguing "fair share" here, mainly because the definition of "fair" is very elusive. I'm immediately suspicious when folks start talking about "fair," "fair share," etc.
I guess my question is, Why are so many people upset by others' wealth? That there are 700 billionaires in the US doesn't detract from my life, at least financially, does it? Maybe it does and I don't realize it. But I can't see that it does. Nor does it seem to have much of a negative impact on the vast majority of others' lives. (Political influence is a different story. That money can buy legislation that affects all of us is disturbing, particularly when that legislation harms more than it helps.)
Maybe many people, with the help of doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) have come to confuse income inequality with poverty. Surely there are many people in the US (too many) and the rest of the world who live in states of poverty. But doesn't "poverty" have an elusive definition? I wonder if it has become a subjective, not an objective, term of measurement.
More than 80% of American households have at least one big screen television, that's "at least one." (I have no idea what they cost.) Almost all Americans have cell phones, 77% with smart phones. (Does that number include kids? Regardless, I know two of the three Americans who don't have a cell phone.) And the list goes on. If this is the case, what is wrong with "income inequality?"
Is it because people are greedy, regardless of their own situations? Do they want what the other guy has? Is it envy? How does the wealth of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or any other billionaire make most Americans less comfortable?
I'm not cold-/hard-hearted. I know there is abject poverty in the United States. In a nation with this much wealth that seems tragic. But it seems that it's taboo to ask questions regarding that state of poverty. Why are people poor? Is it a natural condition in a capitalist system? I think Thomas Sowell has done a lot of work identifying that. He claims that there is always a state of flux, that many people in the lower income brackets rise while others in the upper brackets fall and vice versa. Still, there seems to be a permanent "underclass" as the economists and sociologists call it.
But why is that? Is it because of a lack of education? If that is the case, then why is that so? Can it really be the deteriorating state of schools/education, especially in urban areas? Is it that education is not valued among some people, that to be educated, to try hard in school is not cool?
I suspect that income inequality has become equated with unfairness. It's "unfair" that some people (and it depends on which people! Where are the outcries of the unfairness of the money professional athletes, hippy-rock stars, the top Hollywood-types, and their ilk have?) have a lot of money while others have less (although not necessarily so little as to be poverty-stricken).
At the same time perhaps the anger is not necessarily directed at wealth, but at the influence it can and does buy--political and governmental influence. That some people spend millions and more to influence their causes is all right while that others do the same is not OK and sparks cries of protest.
I understand there is great wealth in this country. There are almost 700 billionaires here. I'm not sure I can count to 700 let alone one billion. The often berated "top 1%" control about 40% of all the nation's wealth. That really doesn't bother me. I don't think it should.
According to some of the figures I found, the wealthiest 1% of the people in the US pay a little more than 40% of the income taxes, while the top 3% pay more than half of them. And the tax rate for the richest folks is about double what it is for the "average" tax payer. I'm not arguing "fair share" here, mainly because the definition of "fair" is very elusive. I'm immediately suspicious when folks start talking about "fair," "fair share," etc.
I guess my question is, Why are so many people upset by others' wealth? That there are 700 billionaires in the US doesn't detract from my life, at least financially, does it? Maybe it does and I don't realize it. But I can't see that it does. Nor does it seem to have much of a negative impact on the vast majority of others' lives. (Political influence is a different story. That money can buy legislation that affects all of us is disturbing, particularly when that legislation harms more than it helps.)
Maybe many people, with the help of doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) have come to confuse income inequality with poverty. Surely there are many people in the US (too many) and the rest of the world who live in states of poverty. But doesn't "poverty" have an elusive definition? I wonder if it has become a subjective, not an objective, term of measurement.
More than 80% of American households have at least one big screen television, that's "at least one." (I have no idea what they cost.) Almost all Americans have cell phones, 77% with smart phones. (Does that number include kids? Regardless, I know two of the three Americans who don't have a cell phone.) And the list goes on. If this is the case, what is wrong with "income inequality?"
Is it because people are greedy, regardless of their own situations? Do they want what the other guy has? Is it envy? How does the wealth of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or any other billionaire make most Americans less comfortable?
I'm not cold-/hard-hearted. I know there is abject poverty in the United States. In a nation with this much wealth that seems tragic. But it seems that it's taboo to ask questions regarding that state of poverty. Why are people poor? Is it a natural condition in a capitalist system? I think Thomas Sowell has done a lot of work identifying that. He claims that there is always a state of flux, that many people in the lower income brackets rise while others in the upper brackets fall and vice versa. Still, there seems to be a permanent "underclass" as the economists and sociologists call it.
But why is that? Is it because of a lack of education? If that is the case, then why is that so? Can it really be the deteriorating state of schools/education, especially in urban areas? Is it that education is not valued among some people, that to be educated, to try hard in school is not cool?
I suspect that income inequality has become equated with unfairness. It's "unfair" that some people (and it depends on which people! Where are the outcries of the unfairness of the money professional athletes, hippy-rock stars, the top Hollywood-types, and their ilk have?) have a lot of money while others have less (although not necessarily so little as to be poverty-stricken).
At the same time perhaps the anger is not necessarily directed at wealth, but at the influence it can and does buy--political and governmental influence. That some people spend millions and more to influence their causes is all right while that others do the same is not OK and sparks cries of protest.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
The Challenge of Reason
Last week in one of my history classes, I explained a perhaps apocryphal experiment performed by the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei about 400 years ago. In holding up a grape and an orange, he asked two Cardinals of the Catholic Church (important because they were among the educated elite) which of the pieces of fruit, the orange or the grape, would strike the table first. The educated men, along with the host and guests, agreed that the orange would land first. Galileo asked, "Why?" They, in different replies, said, "...because Aristotle said so." Of course, Aristotle claimed that, because the orange weighed more, it would fall faster and, therefore, hit before the grape. And people, educated and otherwise, believed that for almost 2,000 years. "What if Aristotle was wrong?" Galileo asked. What a silly question. Logic, along with Aristotle, assured that the orange would strike first because of its greater weight.
Galileo, toying with his audience, went to put away the fruit, stopped, and suggested that he, for fun, drop the grape and the orange. He did and you and I know what happened; they hit simultaneously. Yes, we know what happened without being there, thanks to Galileo. Several of the guests, stunned, asked if they could drop the fruit. They did and with the same results, as we know. So, Galileo showed these folks that Aristotle was wrong.
Hardly. Despite seeing with their own eyes, the Cardinals, especially, denied that Aristotle was wrong. They clung steadfastly to their own, as we know, ignorant views, refusing to concede. That was a lesson Galileo was trying to teach. I was also trying to teach a lesson to my students. I hope I was more successful than the great Italian scientist! (We'll find out this week when I collect students' essays.)
I've written this before, but think about it often, probably because I fall victim to it, too. It is easier to believe than it is to challenge. That was my lesson to my students. And, to pinpoint the peril of the challenge, they now know that Galileo was put on trial for his work. It was a Catholic Church court, one which had the power to execute Galileo and more. More? Yes, not only could it sentence Galileo to death, the death penalty, it also had the authority to excommunicate him, in essence, the death penalty of the soul. In the end, Galileo was imprisoned after he recanted what he knew to be true and was later confined to a house arrest of sorts. All this for challenging.
In a similar yet somewhat different vein, frequently change is not easy. I know it isn't for me. This can be doubly so because I don't assume change is synonymous with better. Sometimes it is not. For me, this is especially true regarding technology. Much technology is good, great even. But I refuse to bow to the god of Technology. I have been called, vis a vis technology, a Luddite. I don't run away from such a label. Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.
I am going to try this with my students this week. I will ask them to name an important/significant person of the 20th Century, just one. No doubt I'll get a bunch of Hippy Rock Stars, Hollywood-types, etc., but I hope also some folks of more substance. Then I'll ask them to name one important person of the 19th Century. This could be more difficult than it seems since I wonder how many students actually know what/when the 19th Century was! Then, the 18th Century and the 17th and the...... You catch on. I may have to, in the end, explain my purpose. (Well, one of them, since mostly I am curious as to how far back we can go. From my 48 years of teaching experience, I'm not optimistic.) History isn't just a subject so history teachers can have jobs. Among a variety of other things, history provides a sense of time, a sense of place; it helps us to explain how the human condition got us to where we are today. I know, I know......
Finally, I came across this and found it intriguing. An author cited Seymour Hersh, who he called "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century," relative to a well-researched story behind the death of Osama bin Laden. Hersh's account was starkly different from the one proffered by Barack Obama. Yet it seemed the author accepted Obama's story as the true account, not Hersh's. Hmmm...... I don't understand why. In the author's own words, "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century" vs a guy who blatantly and publicly lied to us, more than once. ("If you like your doctor, you can keep him." "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And "It won't cost you a single dime," or something like that. Of course, I did keep my health care plan, except it wasn't my health care plan. It covered less. There were higher deductibles and co-pays. And my premiums skyrocketed. But, then again, I've been accused of lying about that.) Why in the world would anyone take Obama's word over Hersh's? Perhaps I've come full circle. It's easier to believe our leaders than it is to challenge their veracity.
Galileo, toying with his audience, went to put away the fruit, stopped, and suggested that he, for fun, drop the grape and the orange. He did and you and I know what happened; they hit simultaneously. Yes, we know what happened without being there, thanks to Galileo. Several of the guests, stunned, asked if they could drop the fruit. They did and with the same results, as we know. So, Galileo showed these folks that Aristotle was wrong.
Hardly. Despite seeing with their own eyes, the Cardinals, especially, denied that Aristotle was wrong. They clung steadfastly to their own, as we know, ignorant views, refusing to concede. That was a lesson Galileo was trying to teach. I was also trying to teach a lesson to my students. I hope I was more successful than the great Italian scientist! (We'll find out this week when I collect students' essays.)
I've written this before, but think about it often, probably because I fall victim to it, too. It is easier to believe than it is to challenge. That was my lesson to my students. And, to pinpoint the peril of the challenge, they now know that Galileo was put on trial for his work. It was a Catholic Church court, one which had the power to execute Galileo and more. More? Yes, not only could it sentence Galileo to death, the death penalty, it also had the authority to excommunicate him, in essence, the death penalty of the soul. In the end, Galileo was imprisoned after he recanted what he knew to be true and was later confined to a house arrest of sorts. All this for challenging.
In a similar yet somewhat different vein, frequently change is not easy. I know it isn't for me. This can be doubly so because I don't assume change is synonymous with better. Sometimes it is not. For me, this is especially true regarding technology. Much technology is good, great even. But I refuse to bow to the god of Technology. I have been called, vis a vis technology, a Luddite. I don't run away from such a label. Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.
I am going to try this with my students this week. I will ask them to name an important/significant person of the 20th Century, just one. No doubt I'll get a bunch of Hippy Rock Stars, Hollywood-types, etc., but I hope also some folks of more substance. Then I'll ask them to name one important person of the 19th Century. This could be more difficult than it seems since I wonder how many students actually know what/when the 19th Century was! Then, the 18th Century and the 17th and the...... You catch on. I may have to, in the end, explain my purpose. (Well, one of them, since mostly I am curious as to how far back we can go. From my 48 years of teaching experience, I'm not optimistic.) History isn't just a subject so history teachers can have jobs. Among a variety of other things, history provides a sense of time, a sense of place; it helps us to explain how the human condition got us to where we are today. I know, I know......
Finally, I came across this and found it intriguing. An author cited Seymour Hersh, who he called "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century," relative to a well-researched story behind the death of Osama bin Laden. Hersh's account was starkly different from the one proffered by Barack Obama. Yet it seemed the author accepted Obama's story as the true account, not Hersh's. Hmmm...... I don't understand why. In the author's own words, "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century" vs a guy who blatantly and publicly lied to us, more than once. ("If you like your doctor, you can keep him." "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And "It won't cost you a single dime," or something like that. Of course, I did keep my health care plan, except it wasn't my health care plan. It covered less. There were higher deductibles and co-pays. And my premiums skyrocketed. But, then again, I've been accused of lying about that.) Why in the world would anyone take Obama's word over Hersh's? Perhaps I've come full circle. It's easier to believe our leaders than it is to challenge their veracity.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Random Thoughts
I've seen similar numbers before, but came across these a couple of weeks ago. I think they are worth pondering. In 1788, with a national population between 3 and 4 million, the candidates for President were George Washington and John Adams. With a population far in excess of 300 million, American voters were given the choice for President of Don Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hmmm......
Similarly, in 1790, the state of Virginia had a population of about 450,000. That is about the same size/number of people that reside in the cities of, say, Fresno, CA, Omaha, NE, and Colorado Springs, CO today. (Yep, I had to look up those populations.) Yet, VA 229 years ago yielded the likes of Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Pat Henry, George Mason, John Marshall, and others of similar if not equal brilliance. Similarly, with a slightly smaller population, Pennsylvania claimed Ben Franklin, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and John Dickinson among others. 1790 v 2019?
Twice in the past week I was greeted upon signing in to my Comcast account with news headlines that read of "historic" NBA games. "Historic?" NBA? Aren't we getting just a little carried away? I suppose if we stretched, really really stretched, the definition of "historic?" Nah, not even if we stretch it a lot.
Another such misused/overused word is "classic." Everything is a classic, it seems, ranging from sodas and potato chips to newly released books and music.
I was taught that words have meanings, complete with nuances and emphases. That we use many of them so cavalierly, so frequently ("Awesome," "totally," "absolutely" immediately come to mind.) leads them to lose their unique meanings. If everything is "awesome," then what do we call that which is really awesome?
I've shared some e-mails about the value of a liberal arts education for most people/students. Today, apparently, the purpose of a college education is to provide a job. That is, it's a money-making venture, at least potentially/theoretically, more than anything else. The view is common that degrees in the liberal arts are dead end degrees, that nothing can be done with them after graduation.
That's a very narrow and, I think, ignorant stance. That employers can't or won't recognize the value of applicants who have liberal arts degrees says much about them and doesn't validate that view. Perhaps liberal arts graduates face "dead ends," not because of their degrees, but because of the ignorance of employers.
All this is fed by our obsession with money-making (and technology for that matter--the twin gods of Money and Technology. All genuflect!). We are more concerned with financial/economic success that we are with helping our students prepare for meaningful, rewarding lives filled with varied ideas and the broad landscape of the human condition.
More and more, what I wrote years and years ago, taking my cue from an ad in a magazine, seems true, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
Lots more on my mind, but I need to prepare for class today, the first two on the Mott campus. Last week I started at Oakland.
Similarly, in 1790, the state of Virginia had a population of about 450,000. That is about the same size/number of people that reside in the cities of, say, Fresno, CA, Omaha, NE, and Colorado Springs, CO today. (Yep, I had to look up those populations.) Yet, VA 229 years ago yielded the likes of Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Pat Henry, George Mason, John Marshall, and others of similar if not equal brilliance. Similarly, with a slightly smaller population, Pennsylvania claimed Ben Franklin, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and John Dickinson among others. 1790 v 2019?
Twice in the past week I was greeted upon signing in to my Comcast account with news headlines that read of "historic" NBA games. "Historic?" NBA? Aren't we getting just a little carried away? I suppose if we stretched, really really stretched, the definition of "historic?" Nah, not even if we stretch it a lot.
Another such misused/overused word is "classic." Everything is a classic, it seems, ranging from sodas and potato chips to newly released books and music.
I was taught that words have meanings, complete with nuances and emphases. That we use many of them so cavalierly, so frequently ("Awesome," "totally," "absolutely" immediately come to mind.) leads them to lose their unique meanings. If everything is "awesome," then what do we call that which is really awesome?
I've shared some e-mails about the value of a liberal arts education for most people/students. Today, apparently, the purpose of a college education is to provide a job. That is, it's a money-making venture, at least potentially/theoretically, more than anything else. The view is common that degrees in the liberal arts are dead end degrees, that nothing can be done with them after graduation.
That's a very narrow and, I think, ignorant stance. That employers can't or won't recognize the value of applicants who have liberal arts degrees says much about them and doesn't validate that view. Perhaps liberal arts graduates face "dead ends," not because of their degrees, but because of the ignorance of employers.
All this is fed by our obsession with money-making (and technology for that matter--the twin gods of Money and Technology. All genuflect!). We are more concerned with financial/economic success that we are with helping our students prepare for meaningful, rewarding lives filled with varied ideas and the broad landscape of the human condition.
More and more, what I wrote years and years ago, taking my cue from an ad in a magazine, seems true, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
Lots more on my mind, but I need to prepare for class today, the first two on the Mott campus. Last week I started at Oakland.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Non-Essential?
Most Americans are not directly affected by the partial federal government shut down of nonessential services. But several hundred thousand federal workers are--they aren't getting paid. One might argue (I would argue!) that much of what the federal government does is nonessential, that's it's far too big and bloated. But I would also argue that federal workers should not be compelled to work if they aren't getting paid. No pay, no work
Some might counter, "Well, they'll get back pay when the shutdown is over." Nah, that doesn't work. Try this at the grocery store. "Hey, I'm a federal government worker and I haven't been paid. How about if you give me my food today and I'll pay when I get my back pay?" Yeah, right...... (I remember joking, but only somewhat, twenty or more years ago, about this. "Hey, I'm a teacher and we haven't had a raise in three or four years. Can I buy my food at the prices from three or four years ago?")
I have no idea if anyone has suggested this, but it certainly makes sense to me. Since members of Congress provide nonessential services, let's not pay them. I read where the Coast Guard might not receive paychecks this week. I can't imagine, other than members of Congress and maybe lobbyists, anyone thinking that those Senators and Congressmen/women are more essential than members of the Coast Guard. If they want to keep playing their games, make them pay for it.
For that matter, why doesn't one of the Senators or Congressmen suggest that he/she and his/her colleagues forgo their pay during the shutdown? What a principled statement that would make for, say, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from NY (a champion of the people!), or even that newly-elected foul-mouthed Detroit Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib (another champion of the people!) to refuse to accept pay. Nah, I don't think that would happen either. As usual, they are all talk
Since I brought up Tlaib, why haven't any members of the House suggested formal censure or reprimand for her foul-mouthed reference to the President? (And remember, I am no fan of Trump.) It certainly is within the authority of the House. As expected, many Republicans spoke out against Tlaib; so did a number of Democrats. As usual, talk is cheap.
Censure or reprimand would send a message, a principled message. (Perhaps, like a principled stance to forgo pay, I expect far too much from members of Congress.) Tlaib's words might well be considered "hate speech," right? Draw the line. "Incivility stops here and now!"
Censure or reprimand would also take courage and integrity. Nah, it won't happen.
Some might counter, "Well, they'll get back pay when the shutdown is over." Nah, that doesn't work. Try this at the grocery store. "Hey, I'm a federal government worker and I haven't been paid. How about if you give me my food today and I'll pay when I get my back pay?" Yeah, right...... (I remember joking, but only somewhat, twenty or more years ago, about this. "Hey, I'm a teacher and we haven't had a raise in three or four years. Can I buy my food at the prices from three or four years ago?")
I have no idea if anyone has suggested this, but it certainly makes sense to me. Since members of Congress provide nonessential services, let's not pay them. I read where the Coast Guard might not receive paychecks this week. I can't imagine, other than members of Congress and maybe lobbyists, anyone thinking that those Senators and Congressmen/women are more essential than members of the Coast Guard. If they want to keep playing their games, make them pay for it.
For that matter, why doesn't one of the Senators or Congressmen suggest that he/she and his/her colleagues forgo their pay during the shutdown? What a principled statement that would make for, say, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from NY (a champion of the people!), or even that newly-elected foul-mouthed Detroit Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib (another champion of the people!) to refuse to accept pay. Nah, I don't think that would happen either. As usual, they are all talk
Since I brought up Tlaib, why haven't any members of the House suggested formal censure or reprimand for her foul-mouthed reference to the President? (And remember, I am no fan of Trump.) It certainly is within the authority of the House. As expected, many Republicans spoke out against Tlaib; so did a number of Democrats. As usual, talk is cheap.
Censure or reprimand would send a message, a principled message. (Perhaps, like a principled stance to forgo pay, I expect far too much from members of Congress.) Tlaib's words might well be considered "hate speech," right? Draw the line. "Incivility stops here and now!"
Censure or reprimand would also take courage and integrity. Nah, it won't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
