Blind Certainty

One of the harmful effects of Americans' response to Covid is that we've lost our sense of probity. Integrity, honesty, and trust have all been victims, whether we want to admit it or not. It's not just the politicians and bureaucrats, but some of our most important and trusted institutions. And many in the general population have paid and are paying the price. Almost from the start, misinformation, disinformation, and lies (You can sort out the differences yourself.) were started and repeated, fed to the American people. Some of this was just because there was much "the experts" didn't know. I understand. They were making their best guesses. But some of it, I am convinced, was deliberate for whatever reasons. Social distancing (I still hate that term!) and masks were initially intended to "flatten the curve," that is, to prevent our medical facilities from becoming overwhelmed. They weren't meant to prevent Covid, but to let more people get sick later. Again, the concern was overwhelming hospitals and medical personnel. What was it, "fifteen days" to do so? We all know how that went. We bought into the most obvious misinformation. I guess individuals can decide for themselves how disingenuous or untruthful it was, deliberate or honest mistakes. Contradictions and lies repeatedly showed themselves, but no matter. People stayed away. They put on ineffective masks. Much of America was shut down by overzealous (eager?) politicians and bureaucrats. Covid aside, how many businesses were destroyed with the accompanying financial devastation weighing on millions of people? Our children were far more dangerously hurt--socially, psychologically, educationally--than by anything the virus was going to do to them. Yet, undergreat pressure from "the experts," including the media, we agreed and consented to the dishonesty. Americans seem to no longer possess the ability to challenge. They are told obvious untruths and willingly repeat rather than question them. The many flip flops didn't lead them to ask, "Hey, wait a minute? You said something and now that that isn't so, you changed your tune." In effect, they are cooperating or at least condoning evil, perpetuating it. Those who resist(ed) are and were, if not ignored, at least marginalized or ridiculed. Some of the resisters were not quacks, but highly qualified and recognized experts in the medical community. (Well, at least they were!). For many people, their ability to recognize reality, especially to tell right from wrong, has been eroded. So readily, without thinking about the consequences it seems, Americans have made it relatively easy for the powers-that-be to control them. This was something about which both George Washingto =n and Abraham Lincoln warned us. Perhaps worse, our beliefs that have been molded by misinformation and disinformation have become embedded in certainty. Go ahead, try to have a serious conversation about all this, the last two years or more under the Covid dictatorship. How many people who challenged the new status quo, regardless of its very tenuous assumptions and results, have been "canceled?" They and their thoughts are not to be taken seriously, if considered at all. This blind certainty to follow, again often blindly, what we are told has helped to create a more and more close-minded society. That is very dangerous to a country founded on the principles of our Founding Fathers. The late novelist David Foster Wallace once described this as "amounting to an imprisonment [of the mind] so total that the prisoners don't even know they are locked up." Frightening indeed! We have become not only dismissive, but disdainful of opposing, contrary ideas. The ability or willingness to listen to differences of opinions (in all areas, not just Covid-related) has disappeared. Opponents and challengers have had their character questioned. How hilarious (but not really) that is in that what we have come to not only accept, but embrace--that is, the worse of character--from our political and other leaders, including Presidents, and institutions. It takes courage to listen, especially to challenges to our "blind certainty." That is one of the most disturbing developments about the evolution of our educational and cultural institutions. One step that needs to be taken is to realize that sometimes there are no definite answers. I have repeatedly written and said over many years that believing is not the same as knowing. Related is that we think we have the ability to always identify "the right people," that is, "the experts," who can provide definite answers, which may not even exist. Not only might we not be right in our thoughts and beliefs, but those "right people" might also be wrong. Sometimes, has history teaches us, the truth is where we find it, not where we want it to be. OF course, some folks might hold opposing views out of ignorance or even to promote an agenda, perhaps with nefarious or evil motives. But we might also do well to remember and accept that differing opinions can be the results of principled reasoning. We may or may not know or even guess a person's motives. But history also teaches that people can legitimately interpret experiences and evidence differently. Or something like that......

Two Quick Thoughts

I have had two thoughts, inspired by Abraham Lincoln, the past week or so. First, if we were to have a Meeting of Minds dinner, here is a question I'd ask of him. Were an escaped/runaway slave to show up at your door, what would you do? Lincoln was a Constitutionalist and a legalist. He believed in the sanctity of the Constitution as a precious document. He was also devoted to the law. Throughout the years of his Presidency he struggled with the problem of how to abolish slavery in light of its protection in the Constitution (Article I, Sections 2 and 9, and Article 5 if I recall without double-checking) and Fugitive Slave Laws passed in 1793 and 1850. Lincoln and other Americans were required, by law, to aid in the apprehension and return of runaway slaves. Given his hatred of slavery and all it encompassed, yet his strong penchant for following the Constitution and obeying the law, what would Lincoln do in such a situation? We obviously will never know, but it is interesting to speculate in light of his conflicting and evolving views. Yep, that would be a question I'd ask him. The second is more convoluted. It deals with my lack of comprehension of a significant or at least vocal portion of Americans. Why are there so many anti-capitalists and even anti-democrats (not the political party) in academia and politics and increasingly so in the corporate world? I just don't understand them. They have prospered under the freedoms of democracy and capitalism. Why don't they celebrate American culture, founded not on geography, racial or ethnic lines, and/or out-and-out political and military might, but on the ideas and ideals of Enlightenment thinkers? These Enlightenment ideals were radical/revolutionary, that people could rule themselves, that they had natural rights not granted by government but to be guarateed by it, etc. I think far too many people conflate or actually confuse two terms: equality/egalitarianism and equity. The former, in general, refers to equal opportunities, to having those opportunities protected by government/law. The later has come to mean equal outcomes. I am, of course, generalizing with this. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting what has come to pass. There are egregious examples of evil being perpetrated under the protections of the Constitution and American law. Two obvious ones are slavery and corporate/capitalist exploitation of workers/labor. But on the whole, mischaracterizations of the 1619 Project withstanding, the United States has provided for far better lives for its citizens than any other civilization/society. Therein lies the issue, the difference between a real America and and ideal America. Returning to Lincoln and his wisdom, re-read the Gettysburg Address. "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." The word "proposition" and is key. Too many people do not understand this. Lincoln did, though. "All men are created equal" is a "proposition." It is not theorem or, in effect, a law. The US, as Lincoln well knew, was not perfect, not in practice. But it was always directed toward perfection. In fact, that's how he viewed the Civil War, even with all of its horrors and devastation. Who is ignorant enough to believe in utopia? Even Thomas More, whose book Utopia, forms the basis for the concept of utopia, "an ideally perfect place." More knew the derivation of the word utopia, from Greek meaning "nowhere or no place." Utopia, that is, a perfect society doesn't exist and, except to the most naive, never will. But as Lincoln went on to explain at Gettysburg, we still strive to attain perfection. He said, "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." That is, be a better person today than you were yesterday.

Student Loans

So it seems the Biden Administration is trying to buy votes for Democrats in the upcoming November mid-term elections. The means for doing this is forgiving student college loans. It's not clear if this means complete forgiveness or only a part of the loans. Other than those who will benefit from the freebie, what's there to like about this? I think it was President Herbert Hoover, in opposition to cancelling other nations' debts to the US from the First World War, who famously said, "They hired (borrowed) the money, didn't they?" Pay it back. Total student debt in the US stands close to $2 trillion, not quite, but close. Some economists say student debt repayment is a bigger financial burden than credit card debt and auto loans. Why is there so much college debt? A first place to look is at the federal government. How typical of the federal government to create a problem and then create another problem tryng to "fix" the first one. In guaranteeing payment of student debt to colleges for room, board, and tuition, the feds pretty much guaranteed what happened would happen. Colleges, knowing they'd get paid, kept increasing their bills to students. After all, if the federal government was going to guarantee payment, the schools were sure to get their money regardless of how much it was. Perhaps if students had been forced to get loans not secured by the feds, private lending institutions would have been a bit more circumspect in agreeing to pay colleges for the ever-increasing bills. That is, if the colleges were not absolutely certain they'd get their money, maybe they, too, would have given more consideration to their costs. I do have sympathy for students and parents in paying for a college education. The costs are astronomical and ridiculous. At my college room, board, and tuition for 2022-23 is in excess of $80,000; when I was a freshman, 55 years or so ago, costs were $3,200. I know there is said to be plenty of financial aid, but c'mon..... Nationally, there has been an explosion of administrative positions, often paying upwards of $100,000 annually. And how many tenured instructors teach only two or three courses a term--at full pay? Perhaps a solution might also be to look at the colleges themselves, the ones who jack up tuition, room and board, and the ubiquitous fees. Well, they do have to pay for their diversity officers, chancellors of equity, and vice presidents of inclusion, etc. Those six-figure salaries can add up! Maybe if the Biden Administration called the colleges to task..... After all, I'm guessing the vast majority of students didn't have their education improved one iota by the diversity, inclusion, and equity ministers. And I'll bet the parents who foot the bill would gladly trade lower college costs for elimination of such boondoggle positions. The President's press secretary recently stated "Not a single person in this country has paid a dime on federal student loans since this President took office." She seemed to say that boastfully, as if that was a good thing. Apparently that these students "hired the money, didn't they?" has never occurred to her or the administration. To cheat people out of their money, "people" here often meaning taxpayers, is not a good thing. I don't believe that is true, that "not a single person......" At least I don't want to believe it is true. I'd hope there would be enough students and former students with the character to repay their debts, especially if they could. I concede, in this day and age, I could be wrong. I have no idea how many people default on their loans, but assume the number/percentage is substantial. The reality of such "forgiveness" is that the burden of these loans would fall on taxpayers, most often those who didn't borrow the money. And think about those people who didn't go to college, didn't borrow money, or, worse, already paid off their debts. What about them? Do we just call them "saps" and move on? I won't forget during the Iowa caucuses, an Iowa farmer confronted Elizabeth Warren, a big proponent of debt forgiveness, about this. The farmer had saved for years to put his children through college, sacrificing so there wouldn't be a need for loans. What about him? he asked Warren. She seemed flummoxed and in her arrogant, self-righteous fashion dismissed the farmer. I guess that was her version of calling him a "sap." Once again in this country, people who do things the right way, such as accepting responsibility for their actions and paying their own way, are penalized. And not only are they penalized, but are called names ("saps"). So, for paying off all my student loans, under their terms, on time, I am a "sap." There is a further problem. How can it be that a single person, in this instance the President, can unilaterally wipe out trillions of dollars of debt with his signature? Isn't that why we have a Constitution, so that people like Biden (and Warren and Schumer.....) can't do this? What happened to the sanctity of contracts, which is, in effect, what a student loan is? I know the Constitution protects the inviolability of contracts from intrusions by states, but the federal government, I don't remember. Still, the principle is the same. A contract freely entered into by two or more parties should be inviolable. Yet, on a whim to perhaps buy votes, the President can undo this? If so, what is next? Here's an idea! Instead of forgiving student loan debt, why don't all those in favor of that, instead, pay off some student's loans? These Bozos will get what they claim is good, that is, recent graduates not struggling with debt, while also not passing along the financial burden to taxpayers. It would be nice to "forgive" my mortgage payment. Oh, I forgot. I paid off my mortgage 15 years early. But what about credit card debt? OK, I pay off my credit cards each month, too. Well, what about my auto loan? I could do with that being "forgiven." Mr. President, can you "forgive" that, too? I know, I know. Federal loans (or guarantees) vs private transactions. But once the door is opened, well, ask Pandora.

Science Revisited

I see the "scientists" are at it again. Mask mandates, boosters, shots for infants and toddlers. And, of course, the convincing factor provided (and accepted by most people) is "The science is settled." I've written about this before, but I think it might be time to revisit this idea, that "The science is settled." How often have we heard that in the past few decades, more recently in dealing with Covid? "The science is settled." The statement, for a variety of reasons (political, nefarious, economic), has been summarily used to push agendas. It has been successful to discourage challenge and debate, especially when challenges and open discussion are feared. It has succeeded in swaying people who don't really know, but think the scientific community is always right. (You can read "medical community" into that, too.) How easy it has been to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents of certain agendas by tossing out, "The science is settled." Who, it has been asserted, but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" In recent decades the best example has been "global warming," er, "climate change"--or whatever it's called now. I'm old enough to remember the Newsweek magazine cover in the '70s that proclaimed "A New Ice Age?" Then there was the assurance that, due to acid rain, all of our lakes would soon be destroyed. Of course, now (the past couple of years) it's how we deal with the Corona virus. "The science is settled." It's distressing enough to hear politicians, even Presidents themselves, echo this. But when scientists do likewise, it seems to me they have forgotten a basic principle of what they have studied. No, the science is not settled. It never is. That is the essence of science, that there are unknowns and there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "The science is settled," has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate (however compelling that debate may be), dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, and a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Worse, it sways and even convinces people who don't know much about an issue, but, well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. That the science is never settled is one of the important lessons I learned in my Physics courses at Amherst. I admit to not recognizing that at the time; it took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!" Consider..... For centuries, literally hundreds of years, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes something called "ether"). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. People, even scientists, accepted this because Aristotle (and Empedocles and other Greek scientists) said so. Other cultures, Chinese, Indian/Buddhist among them, had similar beliefs. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed! In 1633, if I recall correctly, the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial--with the very real possibility of losing his life and soul (excommunication, the death penalty of the soul). His crime was to challenge the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, another of those Greeks. He postulated that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. Galileo's observations led him to agree, at least in part, with the heliocentric theory of the Polish scientist Copernicus and other. The earth was not stationary, but in fact revolved around the sun. (Copernicus didn't get it exactly right, but he was headed in the right direction.) Such blasphemy/heresy (What did the Church know about science? How many "heretics" were killed because of the Church's scientific ignorance?) almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settle. No challenges allowed! More than two and a half centuries after Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists. "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us, strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize this "most genius" of scientists. Alexander Pope, a contemporary of Newton, penned this. "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. I think Newton would have disagreed with much of this. To him, the entire universe was open for continued scrutiny. 20th Century science has, if not disproved, at least modified many of Newton's theories. These include Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. But for 250 years, the science was settled. No challenges allowed! The 20th Century astronomer/astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.' And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists, well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization, sources of funding, and their own arrogance, know that. This is something we should all think about the next time, whether it's climate change, how do deal with the virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not and it never is.

Augustus

I just finished a novel by John Williams, Augustus. I enjoyed it a lot, but realize it's likely not for everyone. If I didn't learn much new, the book did lead to a great deal of thinking. Can a book, fiction or otherwise, receive any higher a compliment? When we think of Augustus, we think of power, of authority. As the first emperor of Rome (creating the Roman Empire), he had as much power as modern-day dictators (with allowances for technology, military advances, etc.).  He had many titles, Imperator (military conqueror, almost like emperor), Caesar (after his uncle and adoptive father, who was declared a god), Pater Patria (Father of his country), Consul (the highest "elected" office, elected by the Senate), Magisterium (highest judge), and Augustus ("Revered One") and Pontifex Maximus ("Great Bridge Builder") both religious titles. But among them all, his favorite title was Princeps, which implied he was the first citizen of Rome, but nevertheless, a citizen of Rome first and foremost. Despite all of his power, he was quite tolerant.  When a poet wrote a satirical, demeaning, and perhaps even blasphemous poem about Augustus, he not only took no action against the poet, but decreed nobody else was to do that either.  In effect, this poet was being protected by the man he had lampooned.  "I was never hurt by the bark of a dog" it was claimed he once said. In addition, he re-created Roman society, its economic life, so that any Roman citizen, regardless of the station of his birth, could become as wealthy as his efforts  (and accidents of life!) would take him. Forty or more years of Roman civil war, "Romans killing Romans" he lamented, were ended, too, at least for a while. In his last days, Augustus wrote, "It is remarkable to have grown so old that one must depend upon the work of others to search into one's own life."  He was a valetudinarian, no, not the graduate with the highest GPA in his/her class. He was like a hypochondriac on steroids, often thinking he was on his deathbed. How close he actually was might be questioned, but at least six times before he died at the age of 76 he thought he was checking out. He also warned his successors of policies that would, in a little more than a century after his death, lead down the long road to the downfall of Rome.  He was incredibly prescient. The legacy of Augustus isn't merely that he was the first and greatest of all the Roman emperors. It is that he saved Rome, "the world" at the time.  In doing so he also paved the way for (saved?) the Western Civilization to come a millenium and a half later.  Had he not saved Rome, is it likely that the West would have become what it did, the beacon for the rest of the world to emulate (although much of it chooses not to do that)? I know it's not fashionable to pay tribute to old white men, but Augustus is deserving of accolades.

Meeting of Minds

Steve Allen was a Renaissance man of sorts. He composed music (thousands of songs) and was an actor (including starring as Benny Goodman in the biopic of the jazz legend). He hosted pioneering radio and television shows (the original host of the Tonight Show). "And he was the author of 50 or more books (including Ripoff, the first book I ever reviewed for publication). One of his television and book projects was called "Meeting of Minds." It was a brilliant concept, at least to me. The premise was gathering "minds" of the past to discuss the past, present, and future. Each episode was a roundtable discussion, usually centered around dinner. Topics discussed included religion and religious toleration, women's rights, slavery, race, and specific historical events such as the Civil War. He presented personalities from all walks of life, from different time periods, and from the world over. For instance, one "dinner" included US Grant, Marie Antoinette, Karl Marx, and Sir Thomas More. Another "starred" Galileo, Emily Dickinson, Charles Darwin, and Attila the Hun. Actors and actresses, including his wife Jayne Meadows, played the parts, with Allen providing them a great depth of research. My question is this: If you could host a Meeting of Minds, who would you invite? You could have several episodes, so you wouldn't be restricted to four or five personalities. You, like Allen, could plumb the depths of history, all ages/eras, and travel the world. I'm pretty sure regular readers and those who know me recognize Abraham Lincoln would likely be my first invitee. Who would be his fellow first diners? So many from which to choose! Reserving the right to change my mind, I would initially complement him with Augustus, the first and greatest Roman emperor, Theodora, the wife and at least co-ruler of the Byzantines with her husband Justinian in the 6th Century, Mark Twain, and maybe David, of Goliath fame. Leonardo da Vinci would certainly help form a second group, maybe paired with Henry Ford. I might add Karl Marx and Aristotle. Another set might include Isaac Newton, George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Augustine. How interesting to have Genghis Khan for dinner with Emily Dickinsn and Jeanette Rankin, the first woman member of the US Congress who was the only person to vote "NO" to declarations of war for both the First and Second World Wars, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. Imagine this conversation between Atilla t. Hun and Emily Dickinson: "Attila, would you mind passing the bread?" "But of course Emily. Love your poetry by the way." "Can I call you Atti? Or how about Hunny?" Let me consider one more: Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, and Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. The possible lists are endless and we could mix and match! If you had your "Meeting of Minds," who would be invited?

"Let's Go Brandon!"

Several AMs on my runs this week I came across "Let's Go Brandon" signs and pennants/flags hanging from homes or on flag poles. "Let's Go Brandon" appears to have died down some, but I have some thoughts. I am not a Donald Trump supporter, never was and never will be. I didn't vote for him in '16 and '20 and, if he's nominated, won't in '24. People can disagree with that, but I've made myself clear. Others can accept that or not. And, they can support him if they want. This is America. I hope that doesn't cause anybody to "cancel" me. That seems to be the trend in recent years: Cancel anyone with whom one disagrees. At the same time, I can't imagine voting for Joe Biden. I don't claim the election in '20 was stolen, but I can't get my head around 80 million people voting for him--I just can't. If people and the lame stream media jumped all over Trump for his lies, they seem pretty quiet about the multitude of whoppers told by Biden. Talk about a sociopathic liar! Back to "Let's Go Brandon1" after getting the groundwork framed. First, I think the entire episode tells a lot about the lame stream media. Of course we all know where this originated. Some woman reporter was interviewing a NASCAR race winner, "Brandon" something. (I don't know his last name; I don't follow NASCAR.) In the background a huge chorus of "F**k Joe Biden" erupted from the stands. The reporter smiled and said something like, "Listen! They're cheering 'Let's Go Brandon!'" If I recall correctly, the NASCAR guy grinned and replied, "I don't think that's what they're saying." But that was the story, at least initially, "Let's Go Brandon!" I suppose I could cut the interviewer some slack, but I've heard the You Tube and "Let's Go Brandon!" wasn't what I heard in the least. That for a few days the lame stream media tried to run with this, a cover-up, says a lot. That the lame streams didn't figure out someone somewhere recorded what was actually being chanted and would soon appear all over the Internet tells even more. But there's no media bias, nope. Now, what really has had me thinking is the reaction of many people, from back when to now. I have heard people say, as well as write letters-to-editors, how "disrespectful" and "vulgar" "Let's Go Brandon!" is. One said, "It's obscene." Hmmm. Funny how selective memory as well as selective morals come into play here. I wonder how many of these same folks who cite the vulgarity, the obscenity of "Let's Go Brandon!" have ever thought about it. No curse word, nothing vulgar or obscene was uttered. What do these people think of "We were screwed?" I'm pretty sure "We were screwed" doesn't emanate from threaded fasteners used to attach items to wood, etc. Nope, that's not it. How many of them use that phrase, "We were screwed?" Are they being "vulgar?" If not, why not, especially if they think "Let's Go Brandon!" is obscene? How many of these same people said anything at all when real vulgarity was used to refer to Trump? For four years, was there any major celebrkty awards show that didn't have the obligatory "F**k Trump!" or a flashing of the middle finger? I don't recall any letters-to-the editor about that! (Should I bring up the roundly-applauded, by such people, photo of a decapitated Trump?) I also don't remember anyone telling me, face-to-face, about such obscenities/vulgarities. Nope. I know why, though. "But that's different." So, can I say the same thing as above regarding "disrespect," being "disrespectful?" Oh, the holier-than-thou, self-righteous might claim "He's the President. At least respect the office." Did they respect "the office" when Trump was holding it? I know the answer to that one, too. And some of those same critics of "Let's Go Brandon" fully embraced the Michigan governor's political ads in '18 that ended with "And I'll fix the damn roads!" So, "damn" is no longer "vulgar?" Maybe it isn't if certain people utter it, but is if others do. I will not forget a radio talk show caller during the gubernatorial (Isn't that a great word to say, "gubernatorial?") campaign, shocked that his 5-year old daughter said the word "damn" at the dinner table the night before. Thank you, Governor Whitmer! Those people my age can easily imagine would would have happened to one of us had we said "damn" at the dinner table back when! Out to walk Andy on our street, one that resembles the Burma Road of the Second World War--and our streets are paved!

One Man's Lonely Opinions

When I read newspapers or magazines any more, it seems as if I am living in another world, maybe even a different universe. What I read, either fact or opinion, is so very far removed from what I think or know. There were several examples today. I saw two articles about some NFL team (I don't remember which, but it was just one of many in the queue.) which signed some player who has been accused of sexual assault--not by a single woman, not by two or three, but about two dozen! Apparently a handful (not all) of the criminal charges have been dismissed, but none of the civil proceedings have been. Regardless..... What on earth possessed this team (and the others which bid, but lost out) to want to sign this guy? It's further evidence of how out of touch I am. Character really doesn't count, does it? Winning, making money, etc., that's what it's at. When will I ever learn the ways of modern American life? Now, toss in this. Whatever team signed this guy is paying him $40-some million a year--GUARANTEED! I'd say "Shame on this team, on the other bidding teams, on the NFL," but that's another of my antiquated principles. There is no shame. And, let's not limit this to professional sports. How many of our politicians, people elected to office by US!, have had similar character flaws overlooked because, as was said 25 years ago, "The economy is good?" (No, it's not about "mean tweets.") What about our media? Aren't any journalists embarrrassed by their colleagues, especially in the Lame Stream Media? Are they gullible, lazy, or stupid? Or do they just buy into the latest talking points of certain groups, be they political parties, environmental groups, or whatever? Perhaps they are crusaders, self-righteously believing they are helping to save the world--from, well, from ourselves? The list is longer, but you get the point, maybe. A couple of months ago, I wrote of toppling statues of Confederate "heroes." I have no problem with that, although I'd prefer just quietly removing them from public view. I stick with my opinion that taking up arms against the US was treason and traitors should not be honored with statues, memorials, and the like. I read two related letters-to-the-editor recently in a Civil War magazine. One I just question outright, that the writer's view is nothing I've seen. He wrote, "I grow weary of hearing people calling Robert E. Lee a traitor because he left the US Army." He cites, correctly, that others such as US Grant and George McClellan also left the US Army, but aren't called "traitors." I've never heard anyone call Lee a "traitor" because he resigned his commission in the US Army. He served and served well, but he wasn't married to the US Army. I don't know where this writer is coming from on this. That Lee fought against the United States, though, was treason. The second letter was far more off base. The author wrote, "[I] will never understand calling a man a traitor for fighting alongside his family and for his home." So far, I think I agree. But then the writer goes off course. He claims, "When government fails to represent you, your family, neighbors, and home it is time to throw off that government." So, that the federal government, if not initially, but eventually, fought to rid the country of the scourge of slavery is evidence that "fails to represent?" Make no mistake; the Civil War was about slavery. It might have been one thing, I suppose, to think like this writer 160 years ago, although I again disagree. It's quite another in 2022 to castigate the US government for seeking to abolish slavery. So, the Confederate government was more legitimate, deserving of Lee's loyalty, for fighting to keep slavery? That Confederate government "represent[ed]" Lee by attempting to retain the institution of slavery? Especially now, a century and a half later, it is remarkable to read a statement such as this one, "This country has produced no better man than Robert E. Lee," that same Robert E. Lee who owned and/or managed more than 200 slaves. A different universe? I know Joe Biden's approval numbers are in the tank, deep in the tank. But I still can't imagine 30% or more of the people in these various polls who think he's doing a good job. Who are these people? Where do they live? They certainly can't live by or like me, although I am certain some do. For that matter, I am convinced our governor, who recently filed certificates to run for re-election, will win again in the fall. I can't, not in the world I live in, imagine how she can win, but I think she will, easily. From where I sit, she hasn't "fixed damn roads" and has no intention to do so. With her unilateral, dicatorial executive orders severely damaged or even ruined the lives of many people, including our children. During Covid she ordered patients with the virus to be sent to senior care facilities, where our most vulnerable citizens lived--even after we knew they were most vulnerable. She joined with other governors in asking the federal government to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax, but is prepared to veto any similar legislation about the state gas tax. The state legislature passed an income tax cut which she vetoed. How could any Michigan voter cast a ballot for her?

Random Thoughts

A century or so ago, Thomas Huxley suggested it wouldn't be political corruption, that is, dishonest and self-serving politicians, which brought about the end of American democracy. He cited "an entrenched bureaucracy" as the more likely culprit. Perhaps the past two years of Covid protocols have provided a picture of how that might happen. Mark Twain was a very witty guy! One of my favorite observations of his is, "In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards." I came across this one recently. "Get your facts first. Then you can distort them as you please." I wonder if any of the people who steadfastly supported the Covid mandates, shutdowns, masks, etc. because they were "following the science" have had an epiphany. That is, have they realized that "the science is never settled?" The proclamations of that, "following the science" and "the science is settled," has lent a false legitimacy to the government reactions to Covid. It still befuddles me that in a country of 350 million people, American voters are still plagued with choices for President like W. Bush, Obama, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton, Trump, and Biden. Hundreds of millions of people and these are our choices? Consider this, relative to our candidates today. Seattle, WA and Denver, CO have populations of about 750,000 today. That is what the population of Virginia, the entire state, was in 1790. Yet, what did VA produce then? Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, the Lees, Mason, Randolph, and a guy by the name of Washington. Yep, think about that. I've read that the top ten hedge fund managers in the US (the top ten, not top ten percent) make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country. Hmmm..... I don't begrudge anyone who makes money legally. No doubt these managers provide a desirable service and provide it well. But it seems to me that perahps our priorities need to be reconsidered. While I'm at it, it seems to me that the issue of "income inequality" is a red herring. So what if the top 10% of income earners make 60% of all income in the US? (I'm not sure that is the exact figure since there are so many different data.) There are other statistics perhaps designed to shock people, for instance, that the typical American CEO makes 100 times the typical worker in his/her company. (Again, I don't know if that's the exact figure.) If other, namely, lower income groups are also better off, what's the problem? Today most families, even considered low income, can and do afford luxuries unheard of in other parts of the world and even the US just a few decades ago. Who doesn't have a big screen television, a smart phone (other than me!), video game consoles, NBA-player endorsed sneakers, etc.? Besides, Thomas Sowell has shown that most people who at one time were in the lowest 20% of income earners rise out of that group and, in fact, more end up in the top 20% than stay in the bottom 20%. I suppose it's like the argument involving the most recent federal income tax cut. Some people complain that the "rich guy" received a bigger cut (in actual dollar amount) than they did. They never consider that the same "rich guy" still pays far more in taxes than they do. Perhaps most people should be more concerned that a recent study showed the IRS targets far more lower income groups for audits than upper income groups, up to five times more. I see more and more colleges allowing students to determine their own curricula, courses of study. But as strange as I find that, the move toward an "open curriculum" seems more irresponsible. To assume 18- and 19-year olds know better than their professors and advisers what academic experiences will best serve them in their real world futures outside of their majors is folly. I guess this is where I make my pitch, yet again, for the increasingly unpopular liberal arts education, you know, what many people now call "dead-end degrees." I still maintain that those who refuse to see the advantages of liberal arts graduates as employees are narrow- and even close-minded. I heard another guy say the other day, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." I've heard that from people before. I wonder if they hear that on NPR????? I wanted to ask, "All those social programs you want, who will pay for them?" I didn't ask because I know the answer. I have heard it before. "Other people." Yep, those who want the social programs don't want to finance them; other people should. Gee, how many things are wrong with that line of thinking? Let's just start with selfishness. Why in the world is the Biden Administration trying to buy oil from Venezuela and Iran, but handcuffing US producers? Like so many other things I wonder about, why isn't this on the front pages of every newspaper in the US?

The January 6th "Insurrection"

It, January 6th, is still with us. The Congressional hearings are ongoing. The Justice Department is doing, well, who knows what it is doing? Aren't about three-quarters of those arrested, incarcerated, still awaiting trial? With so much talk about the threat to our democracy, what about the threat to these people's Constitutional rights to a speedy trial? But that's a topic for a future blog. We are still hearing it. "It" is this. That January 6th "insurrection" on the the Capitol building was "the greatest assault/threat on our democratic government since the Civil War." If I recall correctly some fools claimed this was a bigger threat than that Civil War. Such stupidity doesn't deserve a response. But even the modifying claim "since the Civil War" has come from unexpected sources, ones I thought were a little sharper than this. To start, from the dictionary, an insurrection is defined as "a rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government." I suppose people can have their own views, but I don't see January 6th as "a rebellion." Certainly it was reprehensible and embarrassing to the majority of us. But, seriously, does anyone really believe several hundred protesters led by Viking Helmet Man were going to overthrow the federal government or its civil authority? Where was its revolutionary army? I favor criminal actions against these perpetrators--with quick due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. I also favor criminal actions agains the BLM and Anti-fa rioters, er, "peaceful protesters," who rioted, looted, burned and otherwise destroyed public and private property, not to mention assaulted people. But, again I digress, a topic for a future blog. My intent here is to address the very ignorant view that January 6th was "the greatest threat on our Democracy." Hmmm. Where to start? Maybe Viking Helmet Man didn't pose as great a threat as liberal icon (and autocratic wannabe) Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR's Executive Order 9066 that interned 120,000 people, about two-thirds of whom were US citizens, during the Second World War because they were of Japanese ancestry. (Please spare me, "But that was different. We were at war." It doesn't fly. The 120,000 were no threat. Check out the history of the 442nd Regimental Combat Unit.) It seems to me that such an abuse of federal government power is a far greater threat to Americans than January 6th. What about the various Alien and Sedition Acts that have been enacted over the course of our history, from the 1790s to the Cold War? Isn't stifling perhaps the most fundamental of our Constitutional rights, freedom of speech not to mention freedom of the press and assembly, quite a threat? And these stemmed not from Viking Helmet Man, but from various Congresses and Presidents. Why wasn't Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War a bigger threat? He deliberately lied to the American people. As if that weren't enough, he was aided and abetted in the dishonesty by top military leaders and Congress. January 6th resulted in one death. (That four or five law enforcement officers were killed is a lie that continues to find life more than a year later.) The dishonesty/lies surrounding Vietnam led to the deaths of 58,282 Americans. (Ask Mike Bowen, who ran a mile with a 25-pound POW/MIA flag for each of his fellow soldiers who died. https://www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=20734 ) Is that Trump and many of his followers still push the idea that the election of 2020 was rigged, which sparked January 6th, a threat? More generally, what about the incredible amounts of money in American politics? It is not too hard to see that money counts for much more than the interests of many US citizens. What about the so-called "power elite," the intersection of large corporations (their leaders), the extremely wealthy, and policy makers? Perhaps I am misguided, but I think these elites and their money are far bigger threats to American democracy than Viking Helmet Man. I could go on with more examples, but you I hope get the picture. January 6th was not "the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War." It is a misguided and reprehensible event that has been turned into a political football.

Happy Birthday!

Yes, it's "Happy Birthday" time again. Today, it's George Washington's birthday, maybe. First, let me vent about the silly Presidents Day that took the place of Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays. Established in 1971 by Richard Nixon it's a "holiday set aside to honor all Presidents," he said adding, "even myself," it is ridiculous. Why in the world would we want to honor the likes of the two Johnsons, Harrison ("Tippecanoe" who was President for a month), "and Tyler, too," Buchanan, Harding, and others, including our last five Presidents? OK, OK, I guess people have their favorites and I know some folks disagree with me, but back to George Washington. Let me start by saying February 22nd isn't/wasn't really Washington's birthday/date. He was born on February 11th, 1731. But the British still worked under the old Julian Calendar (Julius Caesar, 45 BC) and didn't kick over to the updated Gregorian Calendar (Pope Gregory XIII, 1582). Remember the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII and his dispute with the Catholic Church and pope? That explains it. When Britain adopted the Gregorian Calendar, to catch up, it added one year and 11 days. That is February 11th, 1731 became February 22nd, 1732. (The year is easy to remember. It is the square root of 3--1.732!) Of course, now officially, thanks to Presidents Day, I guess Washington's birthday is a moving date, the third Monday of each year. Grrr..... Now, for fun, Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree and tell his father, when questioned, "I cannot tell a lie" and admit his guilt. That was made up by Washington's first biographer, Parson Weems, to illustrate George's honesty. And Washington didn't have wooden teeth. Oh, he had false teeth, several dentures' worth. Some of those teeth were his own extracted ones, sheep teeth, and even ivory choppers. Gee, I feel a bit like I just told a bunch of kids there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny! That Washington was one of three or four key factors in the United States winning its independence did not make him a great President. (Without Washington, the colonies lose the Revolutionary War, pure and simple. Just like without the assistance of nations such as France, Spain, and the Netherlands, the colonists would have lost.) The qualities he possessed surely led to a great President, but the fact that he was the winning general did not necessarily--he wasn't President yet. Also, that Washington led the Constitutional Convention, was the presiding officer, was also a very important thing. That someone of the stature and prestige in the eyes of most early Americans supported the Constitution carried a lot of weight. Remember, a lot of leaders, such as Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock (at least early on) held strong doubts about if not opposition to this new document called the Constitution. Washington's backing was significant. Again, he wasn't yet President. But when the Constitution was written, namely Article II dealing with the Executive, it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that Washington would be the first President. (I know, I know. "Washington wasn't the first President!" Yes, he was, under the Constitution. But if we include the old the Second Continental Congress--the defacto government of the now declared independent United States--and the Articles of Confederation, there were up to a dozen previous presidents--note I didn't capitalize the "p." Look up names like Peyton Randolph and John Hanson. And note, like Washington, Randolph and Hanson came from Virginia. That was no accident. Virginia was the most populous and wealthiest state.) Like Winston Churchill in the darkest days of the Second World War holding Britain together, Washington did similarly with the young US. There was no guarantee the experiment with self-rule would succeed. In fact, many, especially in Europe, believed that it would fail and these brash colonists would come crawling back to Britain, like a puppy dog with its tail between its legs. Washington's personality, characteristics like courage, honesty, and foresight, along with the prestige he held among Americans kept the US from what many thought would be quick collapse. The specifics are there to discover. In what I think is the best single-volume biography of Washington, His Excellency, Joseph Ellis wrote this. "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior, the Foundingest Father of them all." That pretty much sums it up. Happy Birthday, George Washington!

Happy Birthday!

Today is the 213th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. It is worth commemorating. Most surveys/rankings of US Presidents place Lincoln at the top, the best. I've seen a few, very few, that don't. But I would say that most thoughtful/knowledgeable people who know about the American past rate Lincoln as our greatest President. Although he did much more as President, the two things that obviously stand out are freeing the slaves and winning the Civil War. Through the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment (passed after his death) slavery was abolished. Despite the mistaken notion that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves, it did free slaves, many of them, perhaps as many as 100,000 or so. Of course, as some historians, textbooks, and history teachers claim, the Emancipation was a military measure designed to help win/end the Civil War. That it was mere bluster, only freeing slaves where they couldn't be practically freed, is wrong. There was a reason the newly emancipated blacks referred to Lincoln in Biblical terms, "Father Abraham." And that reason was he had freed many of them. In addition, the Emancipation got the ball rolling, no mean feat. Constitutionally and, I suppose, legally slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment. Eric Foner's brilliant book, The Fiery Trial, and the hit movie Lincoln detail the story behind Lincoln's efforts to enact the 13th Amendment. (By the way, the wording of the Amendment, "neither slavery or involuntary servitude...shall ever exist in the United States....." comes from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, enacted before the Constitution was written. The author of the 13th Amendment was Jacob Howard, a US Senator from Michigan.) It was finally ratified by the requisite number of states in December 1865. Slavery was abolished. Of course, neither the Emancipation nor the 13th Amendment would have mattered much had the South won the Civil War. And it came far closer to winning it than, I think, most people realize. But it was Lincoln who won it. I've studied the period pretty closely over the years and have found nobody, at least not to my understanding, else who could have done what Lincoln did, that is, win! Lincoln possessed a unique combination of admirable character traits: courage, honesty, humility, intelligence, knowledge, patience, and more. He understood human nature and politics, recognizing that people would not hear messages for which they weren't ready to hear. (Who had the greatest message in the history of the world? "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It was Jesus. And what did they do to him for trying to spread it? They killed him.) Lincoln was thoughtful, rarely acting impetuously or rashly. Recognizing, too, that others might have better ideas than his, listening was important to him. And he wasn't above changing his mind and using those better ideas. I've noted these two anecdotes before, but they are worth repeating on this day. They are not only revealing, but still excite me afer reading and relating them hundreds of times. Frederick Douglass was the leading black abolitionist. He and Lincoln, after a tenuous beginning, developed a friendship. After Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address, he returned to the White House to accept well-wishers. The receiving line was quite long. Douglass was in the crowd at the Capitol Building listening to the Address. He was so moved he decided he had to tell Lincoln what he thought of it. So he went to the White House and stood in the lengthy line. But when he finally arrived inside, he was unceremoniously ushered out, despite his claims of friendship with the President. After all, he was a black man. But Douglass was determined, eventually forcing his way into the reception room. His brusque entrance attracted more than a little notice, including that of Lincoln. Before Douglass could be ushered out, Lincoln saw him and cried out, "Here comes my friend Douglass." Just imagine that, in 1865 a white President of the US calling a black man "my friend!" But there's more. Calling Douglass to him, he said, loud enough for others to hear, "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address. How did you like it?" Whoa! Again consider this, in 1865, a white President asking a black man for his opinion! Douglass was embarrassed by the attention and the looks from the impatient crowd and begged off, "Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion....." Lincoln replied, "No, no. There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it." "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort!" (Note the Biblical reference again.) The President smiled. "I'm glad you liked it. I value your opinion." Again, imagine that exchange..... W. E. B. DuBois, some decades later, was one of the founders of the NAACP. In a 1922 essay, he responded to critics who thought he had criticized or disparaged "Father Abraham." As Lincoln had told Douglass 57 years before, DuBois might have said, "No, no." Among other things he wrote this. "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." Read that again, especially, "...and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." I still get chills every time I read it. Happy Birthday, Abraham. (He didn't like being called "Abe.")

Senator Philip A. Hart

No doubt most folks are unaware of Phil Hart whether they are Michigan natives or not. Philip A. Hart served Michigan in the US Senate for almost three full terms, dying in office in 1976. There have been, since 1789, almost 12,000 members of the US Senate and House. There are seven Congressional office buildings, each named after a member of Congress. One of the seven is The Senator Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building. There is a reason for this. I have written before about "character," more specifically to be clear, how good character matters. I recognize my view is likely a minority one, that most people don't agree with me. I stand by my belief. And when I think of good character, the best character, I am often reminded of the late Senator Phil Hart. Hart was a Democrat. I am sure I didn't (and wouldn't today) agree with all of his stances. Others didn't also. But that is the point. Others could disagree with Hart, yet at the time greatly respect him. He was that kind of guy. I believe it was columnist Colman McCarthy who wrote of Hart, "It was not an accident that he was the most trusted man in American politics." In the Second World War, Hart stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. He was wounded, a piece of shrapel severing the major artery in his right arm, severely enough that he was to be sent back to the States. Nope. He refused to leave his comrades behind, sneaked away in the middle of a night, and rejoined his unit. Six months later he fought in the key Battle of the Bulge. After the war, he returned to Michigan, holding a variety of political offices on the state level. He was elected to the US Senate in 1958, being sworn in on Janurary 3rd of the next year. He was an unabashed liberal, one of the most liberal members of the Senate at the time. He was a major factor in the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '68 as well as the Voting Rights Act of '65 (serving as Senate floor manager of the bill). In Congress, he didn't belittle or even criticize his opponents or their beliefs. In fact, it was generally accepted that, in debating the merits of a bill, Hart would present his opponents' arguments more clearly than they did! He believed in open, transparent governance. Here's their view and here's mine. Now choose. Somewhat incongruously I think, Hart was a good friend of James Eastland, a segregationist Senator from Mississippi. Despite Eastland's racism and anti-Semitism, neither of which he hid, Hart maintained a social friendship. Yet, when Eastland, due to his seniority, was in line to become President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Hart rose to oppose that--he rose alone! Hart believed Eastland's racism snf anti-Semitism disqualified him from being so close to the White House in the line of succession to the Presidency (VP, Speaker, Pres Pro Tem). And he stated that--friend or not. Conscience and good character mattered. Toward the end of his third term, Hart announced he would not seek re-election although he would have been a sure-fire winner. This was in line with his belief that younger men and women (!) with greater energy and idealism should hold Senate seats. And this was before he was diagnosed with melanoma that would claim his life a few short weeks before his term ended. At his funeral at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC, well over 1,000 people attended. It wasn't just the number, but who they were. According to a reporter there, "The rich and the powerful were there, dressed in tailored suits and fine furs. So were the poor and the powerless, dressed in jeans and parkas" Hart was known as "The Conscience of the Senate." That other Senators undeservedly were given the same title besmirches the legacy of Phil Hart. At the time, he was the most trusted man in US politics, a man of conviction and integrity even if they potentially clashed with his own political interests. He was still a sitting US Senator when the office building was named after him, the first time a still-serving Senator was so honored. BTW, his wife Jane Briggs Hart was quite a woman, too. She was the daughter of Walter Briggs, one-time owner of the Detroit Tigers (Briggs Stadium before Tiger Stadium). She was a licensed pilot and became the first woman to hold a helicopter pilot license in Michigan. An avid sailor, she crewed on more than a dozen of the famed Port Huron to Mackinac Races. Later, she skippered the first all-female crew and sailed across the Atlantic from Europe to the Caribbean with her sister. At the age of 40, she passed the NASA physical exam, the same one the male astronauts took. She was one of the co-founders of NOW, the National Organization of Women and an opponent of the Vietnam War, even being arrested in one of her protests. Although some of her views and actions might have embarrassed her husband, Senator Hart always supported his wife's right to her beliefs. I hope the next time there is mention of "The Senator Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building" people remember why it bears that name.

Greatest Baseball Player

A month or so back I finished a book, Baseball 100 by Joe Posnanski. It ranks the greatest players ever. What a daunting task, choosing the greatest baseball players of all time ("all times" as Muhammad Ali used to say). How does one evaluate over the years, from dead ball to juiced ball eras, from the high pitcher's mound to the flatter, from bus or train rides to opponents' cities to transcontinental flights, and more? What about the segregated years, with Major League Baseball and the Negro League? Add the Latin and even Asian players later. What carries more weight--hitting and to a lesser extent baserunning (offense) or fielding (defense)? How to rate everyday players compared to pitchers? What about other changes in the game, from the designated hitter and perfectly groomed cookie-cutter fields to starting pitchers lasting only six or seven innings to be followed by a relief specialist throwing upper 90-mph heat? All that said, Ponanski has done a marvelous job of rating and writing. No doubt there will be disagreements. But that's a lot of the fun of such lists. There are no definitive answers/choices, but there really are definitive answers/choices--our favorites! Ponanski rails on Bowie Kuhn's absence at Henry Aaron's 715th. In mocking his excuse, he adds, "Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame. He might not be the least deserving member, but he's in the photograph." I'm still chuckling. Several things caught my eye and are things I have thought about over the years. Willie Mays is generally considered, in almost all rankings, if not the greatest all-time player, at least in the top two or three. Yet, his lifetime batting average was .301, barely above the gold standard for hitters. (I know, I know. Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Carl Yaztrzemski, and others didn't have lifetime BAs of .300. Of course I consider them legitimate Hall of Famers. And had he not been injured for much of his career, Mantle might be right up there with Mays!) I'm not knocking Mays at all; I, too, consider him one of the very top players, if not the best ever. But consider this. With his lifetime BA of .301, how great must his other abilities/skills have been? Hitting for power. Baserunning. Fielding/Defense, both catching and throwing. Everyone remembers Mays' catch in the '54 World Series of the ball off the bat of Vic Wertz. It was astounding! Yet, I remember reading somewhere (although I can't remember exactly where) one of his teammates agreeing it was great catch. But he added he saw him make many other better catches. Better?!?!?! Many others?!?!?! Wow! Toss in a black man playing in the Major Leagues in the still often racially hostile cities of the '50s and '60s. I wonder if position players and pitchers should have their own "greatest" categories. Weighing greatness between a pitcher and an everyday player is tough. There are so many different criteria. Sandy Koufax rates position #70 on the list. He only had five really great years. Granted, they were likely the five greatest consecutive years any pitcher ever had. He was virtually unhittable. But it was only five years. Hmmm..... Is that ranking legitimate? I think so. I can see where some might disagree, but I always return to something Mickey Mantle said after striking out for the third or fourth time against Koufax in a World Series game. Koufax threw a three-or four-hit shutout, whiffing about 15 Yankees. Returning in frustration to the dugout, Mantle threw his bat, swearing, "How're we supposed to hit that shit!" I don't think it was really a question. Oh, and from early in the game, the Yankees knew, with a bum arm, Koufax could throw nothing but fastballs! Who was the greatest hitter? What criteria? Power? Average? Both? Of all the hitters I've seen, in person, Ted Williams and Miguel Cabrera are the best. I just remember Williams' last few years, seeing him hit at Tiger Stadium in the late '50s. I remember, at age 39 or so, he parked one off the facing of the third deck in right right field. If I recall correctly, at the time, only two or three balls had been hit over that third deck. I think, his second to last year in his late '30s, he led the league hitting .388. He slumped the next year, a year old, hittig only .328. In those marvelous years Cabrera had with the Tigers, I marveled at how he hit. It was as if he was hitting 95 mph fastballs off a tee. No shifts on him; he was as likely to hit a 400-foot home run to right center as to left center. And then there was the time he caught up with a 99 mph Mariano Rivera fastball, depositing it about 440 feet to straight-away center--to win the game. What about character? It's no secret I think character, good character, matters. That's especially so in government, politics, business, and other areas. What about baseball? Should a player who used PEDs, before they were banned by MLB, be penalized by exclusion from the lost of greatest players? After all, the commissioner who looked the other way when PEDs were helping baseball to revive after the labor disputes of the '90s was inducted into the Hall of Fame. What about someone who gambled on games, perhaps not even his own? Shoeless Joe Jackson? Excluded? So how do we evaluate Gaylord Perry, with him admitting he threw the spitter? As one of my buddies facetiously noted, "I think the spitter was illegal." Does his cheating eliminate him from consideration as "great?" I don't know all of the players Posnanski has in his Greatest 100. I was surprised at the inclusion of several, although Posnanski makes very convincing arguments. I'm not sure I agree. But that's the fun of such lists. One can be wrong, but right at the same time.

Random Thoughts on a Frigid Afternoon

Sounds like the title of a poem or a book of them. Joe Biden criticized the Supremes for striking down his/OSHA's vax mandate for private employees with more than 100 workers. He claimed his/OSHA's regulations were "common sense" approaches to CoVid. OK, this isn't directly about the governments' (federal, state, local) responses to the virus, although I am pretty sure I could argue they haven't been "common sense" approaches. This is about "common sense," the use of the term. It sure seems to me that requiring a voter to present valid identification before casting a ballot is "common sense." Yet, Biden and the Democrats don't think so. How can that not be? It seems as if that is a selective use of the term "common sense." Another such term is "domestic terrorist/terrorism." I read one day last week that the Department of Justice has established a "domestic terrorism unit." OK, exactly what is that? I recall the Attorney General a while back referring to parents who angrily confront (without violence!) local school boards with legitimate concerns as "domestic terrorists." That was at the urging of some national school boards organization with, perhaps, some involvement of the Secretary of Education. How in the world can parents, who are concerned, but not violent, about their children's education, be it Critical Race Theory or even specific instances of their daughters' rape/sexual assault at the hands of boys claiming to be girls, etc. be labeled any sort of "terrorists?" (One school board which endorsed such a policy of boys claiming to be girls having the right to use girls' bathrooms, where the assaults took place, not only tried to cover up the rapes, but tried to silence the concerned father. The father was met with local law enforcement and, if I recall, was beaten while arrested.) Now, consider this determination, this label of "domestic terrorists" while I have seen nothing of the sort applied to Black Lives Matter and Anti-fa rioters, er, "peaceful protesters" who actually did commit many acts of violence. They looted and burned, private businesses as well as government buildings and property. They were responsible for beatings and even deaths. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember any "domestic terrorism" emanating from these riots, er, "peaceful protests." For that matter, in a similar vein, how does the FDA continue to allow the term "vaccine" to be used with the products developed by Moderna, Pfizer, and J & J? Why are the government, Big Pharma, and the medical community allowed to call whatever this is a "vaccine?" It clearly isn't a vaccine (nor is the annual flu shot). A vax virtually eliminates a disease. There are practically zero cases now of polio, smallpox, measles, etc. Those have been eliminated by real vaccines, which by definition provide active immunity to infectious/contagious diseases. What Moderna, Pfizer, and J & J have produced might well mitigate CoVid and its symptoms, but they have not eliminated it, not even close. So, what do the people who compared this, early on, to the polio, smallpox, measles, etc. vaccines now say? These real vaccines were used against my "fake vax" criticisms. "Hey, people willingly get the smallpox, polio, [etc.] vaccines. Now we can eliminate CoVid with this vaccine." But CoVid hasn't at all been eliminated. It's like saying, since Mucinex mitigates cold and flu symptoms, it is a vax. No, it's not! And the FDA is complicit in this scam. For instance, it doesn't allow "frozen dairy desserts" that don't use real cream to be called "ice cream." That's because the frozen dairy desserts aren't ice cream. Why does the FDA allow the continued use of "vaccine" with these CoVid shots? Perhaps some would say I quibble. What's the big deal with how terms such as "common sense," "domestic terrorism," and "vaccine" are used? I don't think so. I think words are important and they matter. When we start changing the meanings of them to suit our purposes, we tread in dangerous waters. These are steps toward creating our own version of George Orwell's "newspeak." He used this term to show how Big Brother tried to diminish the range of thought," to blindly and meekly accept was is being told by the powers that be.

Toppling Statues

The woke crowd gets a lot wrong, no doubt. Some of what it does is ignorant, just plain stupid, or even criminal. That the Wokesters get away with so much, legally, historically, and more is a travesty. When government, corporations, and other institutions cave in to demands, if not jumping on the bandwagon, they are pathetic and send a dangerous message. And they and cancel culture are still at work. For speaking their minds, expressing ideas and views contrary to wokeness, people have lost their jobs, been vilified and even physically assaulted. But the woke crowd has got something right, toppling statues. Well, that is, toppling some statues and memorials. To deface or knock down memorials to those like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson is not just criminal, but ignorant. But some statues deserve to go. I am thinking of those memorials devoted to Confederates in the South. (To be fair, there are many streets, parks, schools, and more in other parts of the country named after Confederates.) These Southerners, in the Civil War, took up arms against the United States. I believe that is called treason! Why are so many people insistent on honoring traitors? In fact, folks like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson are still viewed as heroes. Consider that, even in the aftermath of the war, many of these Confederates held positions as US Senators and Congressmen, state governors and local officials, as well as leaders in business and education. Lee, for instance, became the president of Washington University and later had his name added, Washington and Lee University. Frederick Douglass once wrote, of the Civil War, "There was a right side and a wrong side. It is no part of our duty to confound right with wrong or loyalty with treason." I don't think Douglass or I argue about courage/bravery, but rather sedition and rebellion against the US. Take, for instance, Germany. There are no statues of Erwin Rommel in Germany. Although he welcomed Hitler's rise to power, Rommel was never a member of the National Social Party, never a Nazi. (I will for the time being ignore "The Rommel Myth.") It's as if the Germans are ashamed of Rommel and his role in the Second World War. If so, why aren't Americans, especially in the South, also ashamed of the Confederacy and those who fought for it? Not only did they fight against the United States, they fought to preserve slavery! If that was acceptable then, well, that's one thing, odious as it is/was. That many still find it acceptable now, even vehemently resisting removal, is clearly wrong. Tearing down Confederate statues and memorials is not an attempt to "rewrite history" as their defenders claim. In fact, it's the obverse, trying to preserve history. Why should history preserve the myth of traitors? We can tell the story of the Civil War without glorifying treason.