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.

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.