Three Random Thoughts

I recently finished an essay on why the classics matter and why they should be read.  Hmmm......  First, what and who determines a classic?  We, like in all we do, throw the word around carelessly.  "A classic car," "a classic game," "a classic television show," etc.  Ha!  Must a classic be old, like the writings of Thucydides or Marcus Aurelius?  Can they be a bit more modern, such as Rousseau or Stendahl? Is something by Dostoevsky a classic?  Everything he wrote?  If not, why some and why not others?  Can we include non-Western works such as Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe? Do the classics offer us things that are more valuable, more useful than more modern (although still "serious") works, both nonfiction and fiction?  Can the novels of, say, Chaim Potok teach us as much, if not more, than the writings of Maimonides?   In taking wine tours, I've heard many guides and even wine-masters say, "Drink what you like.  The best wines are the ones you like."  Are books like that, that "classics" are the books we like? I re-read, for the umpteenth time, the chapter on creating a physics lesson plan by my physics professor (Professor Romer) in the book, Teaching:  What We Do.  Many times I've said and written that this book of thirteen essays by Amherst professors (many of whom were my teachers) should be required reading for all teachers; I'd even submit it's far more valuable than student teaching.  Professor Romer was also a graduate of Amherst, where his father taught, too.  His liberal arts background was apparent in his skilled writing, his references to art and poetry, for instance, in helping to explain physics.  It is a testament to the value of this "dead-end" degree, liberal arts.  These essays by my Amherst professors are more than obliquely critical of standardized tests.  By omitting much of the process that goes into solving physics problems (that is, finding the answers), much of the "pleasure" of physics (and Shakespeare, Ancient History/Ancient Morals, Philosophy and Foreign Languages, and more) is also omitted.  Students learn that the point is to "get the right answer."  This is what Prof Romer did in my physics class.  He showed us, among other important things, how the "problem" should be addressed.  This includes "idealization" of the problem.  In determining the arc of a batted baseball, wind resistance is ignored by physicists, who prefer "idealization."  But Prof Romer admitted, wind resistance isn't ignored by outfielders chasing that fly ball!  "Idealization" is fine to assume a "flat-earth dimension" when tracking the flight of a batted baseball; it's not quite so in the case of ICBMs. A student lucky enough to have had a physics professor who also teaches other, more advanced physics courses, might well go on to continue studying that advanced material his whole life.  That was/is with me and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.  That's one of the topics, along with quantum mechanics, lasers, cathode ray tubes, etc., that we studied in physics.  For instance, I've applied the lessons of Einstein's Special Theory, the concept of reality changing depending on one's frame of reference, one's perspective, in many ways--my writing, my teaching, etc.    I feel extremely fortunate to have had Professor Romer as a teacher and that I am still in touch with him several times a year.  It's interesting that, in retirement, he has taken to writing history!  He's published one book and is in the process of writing another.  We've shared a few ideas, more specifically, I had questions about his studies. And it's so darn cool that he and his wife, Betty, still remember the autographed baseball (signed by all of the Amherst team members in '71) that I gave to their son David (and the other professors' sons) who was a bat boy for our team that year.  When he, the son, moved out of the house permanently after receiving his graduate degree (to Calif I think), in boxing up things to move with him they came upon that ball.  When they told me that story it made me very happy.  David's wife, Christina, was the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. I wonder if Professor Romer realized how much this history major learned from his physics class. A while back I read Six Encounters with Lincoln by Elizabeth Brown Pryor. It was not the easiest book to read, but it had some good insights and I both learned things from it and have had some thoughts about Lincoln and his times. It is worth reading. Sometimes the author seems to want to be critical of Lincoln--and often is--but always comes back to what a great President and man he was. At times she wants him to be Superman, to fix all the evils of mid-19th Century America. Besides dealing with the Civil War and keeping the Union together, with the complex problems of slavery and emancipation, with a country full of citizens even more divided than they are today, etc., she is disappointed he didn't provide remedies for Indians, lead the fight for political rights for women, etc. I was struck by this, never I guess really considering it. "Abraham Lincoln...was never truly President of the entire United States." And, in fact, he wasn't. Oh, he never accepted that the Southern states had really left the Union, but the reality is that they did. (With this in mind, I am reminded of a panel discussion that included two of the best US historians, Joseph Ellis and Sean Willentz. During the discussion, Willentz made a point. Ellis went quiet, mulling that over, before admitting, "I didn't know that." Wait! Joe Ellis knows everything about early US history...... It was a good lesson for me.) But one of the pitfalls of the book is that the author, in sometimes criticizing Lincoln and his policies, seems to give serious credence to all views. That is, in weighing sides/arguments, she makes a mistake (I think) in giving equal weight to all of them. For instance, she claims that Lincoln always "missed the point" of the South, as if the Southern position of defending and perpetuating slavery was a valid one. That Lincoln didn't accept the institution of slavery, just because it was the Southern position, should not be a criticism of him. He didn't "miss the point," but refused to give legitimacy to it, esp after 1862.

1863

Today is the 157th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Although some historians consider his Second Inaugural to be his "greatest" speech, I think it was the Gettysburg Address--not to take anything from the Second Inaugural. And, if not his "greatest," perhaps his delivery at Cooper Union in February 1860 was Lincoln's most important. The speech at Cooper Union, according to Harold Holzer, "made Abraham Lincoln President." I agree. In New York, at Cooper Union, Lincoln accepted an invitation to speak in front of one of his chief adversary's (Salmon Portland Chase--no, I know it sounds fishy, but that was his name) supporters and on the home turf of one of his other opponents (William Seward). His success there won him the Republican nomination, not without a fight, and, hence, the Presidency. And if Lincoln hadn't been elected President..... But back to Gettysburg. Lincoln was not the featured speaker; that was Edward Everett former US Senator and president of Harvard, one of the silver tongues of the age. The occasion was the dedication of the cemetery in which about 7-8,000 soldiers were buried after the decisive Battle of Gettysburg the previous July. The President was invited almost as an afterthought, receiving a request to deliver a few words only a few weeks before hand. (The dedication was delayed for about two months, not quite, to allow Everett to recover from a stroke or heart attack (I forget which). No, he didn't write the speech on the back of an envelope on the train ride from Washington to the small Pennsylvania town. He put a great deal of thought into it. There are several drafts, five or six, and some evidence that he was polishing one of them the night before. Purportedly, one of the "drafts" was written afterward, when a friend asked Lincoln for the copy. Not wanting to disappoint his friend since all the drafts had gone elsewhere, he wrote what he thought/remembered he had said 272 words, that's all it was. But what words they were! After the speeches, Everett purportedly said to Lincoln, "I wish I could have said in two and a half hours what you said in two and a half minutes." That, "two and a half minutes," might have been stretching it. Many in the audience didn't even know the President had started, let alone finished, his address. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address transformed what Jefferson called, "The Empire of Liberty." Lincoln didn't believe that blacks and whites were equal; after all, he was still, in part, a man of his times. But he did strongly hold that blacks and whites shared the opportunity for equality. In fact, that is what the Gettysburg Address did. It changed the way Americans came to view the Declaration of Independence (To Lincoln, the Declaration, not the Constitution, was the bedrock on which American priciples and ideals rested.) and the entire American experiment. No longer were freedom and liberty the sole focuses (foci?). Equality took its place among them. "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That was key, a firm recommitment to the Jeffersonian ideal that "all men are created equal," blacks and whites both. He knew this would take time to catch on, for people to accept this. Lincoln understood people. They won't hear an idea until they are ready to listen to it. (How long has it taken people to heed the greatest message of all time, that of Jesus, "Love thy neighbor as thyself?" Not only didn't people listen then; they killed Jesus.) Indeed, his Gettysburg Address was met with mixed reviews, some very critical, "not worthy of an American President." It wasn't just the message, but its presentation. The words were poetic. Why not just say, "87 years ago..." or even "In 1776....?" No, he wrote "Four score and seven years ago....." Doing the math, he traced the beginnings of the American experiment to 1776, the year of the Declaration, not the victory over Britain or the adoption of the Constitution. Although many, especially in the audience that overcast day, didn't realize it, he likened the soldiers who died to those of Pericles 2,000 years before. Like the Greeks, the Union soldiers who fell on those July days died for us, for our democracy. "We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract." It was up to future Americans to make certain that "these dead shall not have died in vain." To me, at least, the Gettysburg Address remains the greatest articulation of the concept of self-rule: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." And Lincoln wrote it.

Some Virus Thoughts

I'm not an epidemiologist or virologist and never have played one on television. So I might be all wet on these thoughts. But it sure seems to me we have been going all wrong on this CoVid thing. Toss in that I have no idea who to believe on CoVid stories and "facts," although the "facts" always seem to be changing, some no longer "facts" at all. If the virus is coming back now, "with a vengeance" read one newspaper headline, maybe we should rethink how we are dealing with it. I'm not minimizing the severity of the disease, not at all. Anyone who does is being myopic. But, at the same time, there is such a thing as an overreaction. I think in many ways, that's what we have done, overreacted and often in very harmful ways. It still perplexes me that it seems almost everyone believes and follows what the politicians/governments are saying about the virus. At the least, politicians are the least trustworthy group in American. That's what the polls/surveys indicate again and again. They also have much to gain from their actions, even if they are wrong-headed. That is, playing politics with the virus can be rewarding, especially with nonthinking voters. So why do most people so blindly trust what our government officials say? Bureaucrats, too, have much to gain and little to lose. Most of them certainly don't have to worry about losing their jobs. In fact, the more useless paperwork they create, the more their jobs become "essential" and permanent. Are they ever held accountable? Given the unknown nature of the virus back in March, I'll concede a month or so of the initial responses. But once we found out that the most vulnerable were senior citizens and others with premorbidity conditions, why did states (like Michigan and New York) continue to move infected people into old folks' homes? If we discovered that kids, that is those under 20 years old, were not any more affected by the virus than the regular season flu, why were schools still shut down, with remote-learning? The media, too, have become complicit in the hysteria. A week or so ago, the headline read, "School-Age CoVid Hosptial Cases Surge in State." Hmmm. That sounds pretty serious. Reading the article, though, led to the discovery that there were "18" such cases in the entire state. Wait a minute? In a state with about 1.7 million school-age kids (according to the Michigan Dept of Ed Web Site), "18" is a "surge?" Isn't that about .0001 of a percent? (Where's my calculator?) A reasonable reader might well take such a story as hyperbole, an exaggeration not to be taken seriously. Yet we've been bombarded with such stories. Every day there are new lists of CoVid cases and Covid-related deaths. And they fan the flames of fear. The politicians, especially the Democrats, and their lapdog media, eager to curry favor or sell newspapers or show their sanctimonious intellectual superiority over the rest of us, have created a climate of fear. Who can blame people for being afraid of dying? "Do you want to die?" Well, actually, I can blame them. Had these fearful people thought about things instead of blindly following the least-trustworthy politicians and the opportunistic media, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. One of my e-mail regulars reminded me of something I wrote in a blog some months back. In light of the virus, I wondered what was going on in New Hampshire. After all, the state motto, it's even on the license plates, is "Live Free or Die." Are the citizens of New Hampshire caving in to the restrictions on our liberties and freedoms as easily as people in other states? Or has "Live Free or Die" been canceled as coming from old white men? The economist in me keeps thinking of "cost-benefit analysis." I know it was, a while ago, de rigueur to apply business practices to government operations. "Zero defects," "best practices," etc. were some catch-phrases. (For the record, I'm not at all convinced government or schools can always be based on business practices; they are different animals. But that's a topic for another show.) Why haven't the politicians applied "cost-benefit analysis" to the Covid response? Not everyone was "going to die" from Corona. As noted, young kids were not. Personally, I was never "going to die," not in the physical condition I am in. (Besides, even if I was in jeopardy, it's a matter of personal choice, not a dictatorial government mandate.) Yet, the harmful effects of the lockdown have affected far more people, in the worst of ways, than the China virus (Oops! That makes me a racist.) ever has. Note, again, school-age kids. The odds of them dying from CoVid are not much different from the regular/seasonal flu. We don't shut down schools every year during flu season, do we? Why not? Don't we care if our kids die? No, that's not it at all. The minuscule odds of kids dying from the regular/seasonal flu don't outweigh the detriments of closing schools, having virtual classes, etc. If we are going to "follow the science," as our politicians, bureaucrats, media, and other doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") constantly remind us, why don't we follow it with kids? No one in any right mind can argue the remote learning is remotely (ha ha ha) close to traditional face-to-face/in-person classes. That's especially so for the younger kids. Child psychiatrists and psychologists have demonstrated children are being harmed in many ways other than educationally. These include psychologically, socially, and even physically. (Perhaps more detail will come in a future blog. But don't take my word for it. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Why isn't that "science" being followed? In adults, substance (drugs and alcohol) abuse has skyrocketed. Suicides and spousal abuse have risen dramatically. I haven't checked, but I'd suspect so has violent crime (outside of the "peaceful protests," of course). How many people's lives have been worsened or even ruined by the loss of businesses, jobs, and income? I know, I know. "At least they aren't dead." No, the "science" shows the overwhelming majority of these people would not be "dead." And no, this isn't being selfish or greedy, not at all. Perhaps it's selfish and greedy to put one's own health (with really minimal dangers?) before the ruination of others' lives and livelihoods? I guess it's easy to pontificate so sanctimoniously about "saving lives" when one hasn't lost a business, job, or income. Again, maybe I'm all wet on this. Maybe I am wrong. I do know I don't trust the information we are being given. I also refuse to live my life in fear of the virus. I'd like to take the Michigan governor's orders and tell her where to stick them, but I can't go into a restaurant to eat; they are closed. I can't teach my classes in-person; my bosses have closed the college. I can't have a big gathering at my house; I don't have any friends. Perhaps the biggest casualty of Corona 2020 is thinking. People either have forgotten how or refuse to think for themselves. Perhaps that was inevitable as the US moves closer to a country where the government (and its left-leaning politicians) promises to take care of citizens from cradle to grave--at the expense of liberty.

"Biden Elected"

That was the headline in Sunday AM's newspaper. What struck me first, before the depression set in, was the absence of an exclamation point at the end. This surprised me because the Detroit Free Press doesn't hide its strong liberal bias. I guess even with the biased media, there is no real enthusiasm for Biden. More even than the preliminary results on Wednesday AM, this headline cemented the malaise I knew would come--regardless of who won the election. I had this same dispirited feeling in '16 as well as '08 and '12. How disheartening that, in a country the size of the US (335 million people), these are our choices. There are reasons, I suppose, but that might be fodder for a later post. For the US Senate seat in Michigan, a really sound candidate, John James, was defeated by the incumbent, Gary Peters. I find this tragic, really tragic, in more ways that one. Most important, that James lost is likely to discourage other good candidates from running. The likelihood of defeating an incumbent, esp one with almost 25 years in politics, appears very small. Why waste time, effort, and money? Why put yourself and even your family through the mud bath called a "campaign?" So, in Michigan, we are stuck with two Democrat lap dogs in the US Senate. It would be nice to sit down and ask our two US Senators why they voted to remove Don Trump in the impeachment trial, especially when the "evidence" against him appeared so bogus. No, they don't really respond to e-mails. Often I get no response. Sometimes I get them six or more months (yes months!) later. And sometimes the responses have nothing to do with the issues I brought up. But, back to the Presidential election. Yes, I think there was some fraud. I don't think there was enough to swing the election back to Trump, but I don't know. One way or another--fraud, incompetence, technology mistakes--this election does little to affirm any confidence in our electoral process except, I suppose, to Biden supporters. I think Trump deserves his day in court. Again, I don't think anything will come of it, that the results will change. But there are enough irregularities to merit some scrutiny. Apparently quite a few people have signed affidavits that they witnessed illegal election activities. In Michigan and other states, software problems transposed votes; that is, Biden received Trump's votes and vice versa--in heavily Republican counties. How many dead people voted? Who knows what to believe? But it's claimed a guy who died in 1984, who would now be 138 years old!, voted in Michigan. Several other people almost 120 years old, also with death certificates, voted here, too. Enough to change the results of the election? Not likely. But to restore confidence in the integrity of elections is worth investigating. And, if wrong-doing is uncovered, throw the book at the wrong-doers! Biden's calls for "unity" and "tolerance" ring very hollow to me. Where was all this sentiment for "unity" four years ago when the Democrats/Clinton lost? Oh, now that the Democrats have won, let's all play nice? From before Trump was even inaugurated, the Democrat obstruction was being planned and enacted. They lied and lied and lied in opposition. It was "Trump isn't my President!" and "Resist at all turns!" But now it's time to sing "Kumbaya." And what sort of "unity" is calling Trump voters names going to bring? In '16 and for four years, people who voted for Trump were all racists and bigots, really stupid people. The name-calling hasn't stopped. A NY Times op-ed called it "obscene" that 72 million Americans voted for Trump, suggesting they were moral failures. (Of course, voting for the scumbag Bill Clinton wasn't "obscene," wasn't an exercise in moral failure, nope!) An e-mail I received from a Trump hater marveled that after four years of Trump, people could still lack "common sense" and "decency." (I wonder if the letter writer refused to take his Trump tax cut!) After viewing the support Trump received, some people have said they now understand how "civilized, cultured Germans" chose Hitler. How ridiculous, especially in light of a call for "unity" and "tolerance." Maybe some of the Biden crew didn't get the memo that it's time to play nice. One thing that really befuddles me is the depth of hatred people have for Trump. Oh, I think it is easy to dislike and even hate him. He is a despicable man. But how deep must that hate be, how has it permeated some people's lives, that they would choose an obviously mentally incapable man such as Biden to be President? It's frightening that people can be so consumed with such hatred. As scummy as Bill Clinton was, as divisive as Barack Obama was, there wasn't that depth of hatred. Finally, Trump has nobody to blame for losing but himself. For one thing, he was never going to lose his base. Those people who cheered his adolescent tweets and comments were going to vote for him regardless. But, by continuing his childish behavior, he turned off people who might have voted for him because of the economy or because of the despicable behavior of the opposition Democrats and their complicit media partners, etc. Someone suggested to me, "What did you expect" from Trump? I guess Trump is who he is. He's incapable of growing up, of being an adult when it's time to be an adult. And that cost him another four years in the White House. Instead of directing their anger at the "stolen" election, perhaps they should direct it at Trump himself.

On Bozos and Other Thoughts

The United States is not alone in having Bozos for political/government leaders. I think Canadia [sic] has a real clown for a prime minister, Justin Trudeau. According to one report I read, from a reliable source, Trudeau recently addressed the beheading of a man in France for the man's criticism of Islam and Muhammad. Trudeau claimed he would "always defend freedom of expression," before going on to add, “Freedom of expression is not without limits.... We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet." We (or at least Canadians) apparently aren't guaranteed freedom of speech if it offends snowflakes; no, we can't make anyone uncomfortable. Regarding the context of Trudeau's comments, a question about the beheading of a Paris teacher who showed his students a cartoon that put Islam and Muhammad in a bad light, I wonder if Trudeau thinks beheading people for what they write, say, worship, etc. which "arbitrarily or unnecessarily injures" anyone, is OK. It sure seems ignorant giving a moral equivalence to a critical cartoon, novel, or even personal religious preference to lopping off one's head. To summmarize, "I believe freedom of expression except when I don't." Here is an article I think should be required reading for all Americans, especially those who seem unwilling to even consider alternates to shutting down the economy, quarantines, masking, social distancing (I still hate that term!), etc. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/ (You may have to copy and paste the URL into your browser.....) I have sent this link to folks in e-mails and have received very positive responses. The elections are very close, for President and for the US Senate seat in Michigan. In Detroit/Wayne County (and in other cities such as Philadelphia) large numbers of votes have once again mysteriously appeared/been found, well after the polling places closed. And, also mysteriously, those votes are overwhelmingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats. Is anyone surprised at this? That large numbers of votes were "found?" That they were found in political entities controlled by the Democrats? That the vast majority of those found votes are for Democrats? But isn't this what Democrats do? Are there ever any reports or jokes about Republican cemetery votes? Ask Richard Nixon v Kennedy in '60. Ask Coke Stevenson in '48 (who lost to Lyndon Johnson for the Senate seat in Texas by 87 votes, after the cemeteries were searched for voters. Allegedly, Johnson brushed off any thought of wrong-doing with "Dead people have a right to vote, too."). I stole this thought from an Amherst mate trying to find solace in today's political atmosphere. He cited Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. (To me, his Gettysburg Address was his best, the best political speech in all of US History. But the Second Inaugural is a very close runner-up. Some Lincoln scholars rate it his best. That gets no argument from me.) Lincoln reminded his battered countrymen, North and South, of the Founding Fathers' aspirations "to create a more perfect Union." The Civil War wasn't over; not yet. Personally, too, he had suffered. He had lost his son to illness and lost close friends and family to the war. ABout 700,000 or more of the population of North and South had died in combat. My classmate wrote, "One can't imagine the bitterness, the fatigue, the rush to retribution that faced him and the country on that cold March day." My fellow Lord Jeff went on, "Yet there he stood and had the wherewithal to say [these words]: 'With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in......'” Lincoln went on to finish the sentence, "to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan....." It certainly is a thought well worth considering--often.