I heard a couple of history lectures today on C-Span (again, don't ask). There were a couple of really great points.
One focused on the southern sense/culture of "honor" as a cause of secession and, ultimately, the Civil War. A questioner asked how that sense of "honor" might also be seen in the modern world/culture of Islam. Pretty good one.... More on that later next week.
The other asked about the sense of "honor" and more current times. The lecturer talked about a colleague of his who played football at U of Colorado and, rumor had it, had returned an int for a TD in the Orange Bowl. Finally, to set matters straight, the colleague showed a tape of the game...with his return. What struck the original history prof was that throughout the game, when players of either side made good/great plays, they just got up and went back to the huddle to await the next play. No showmanship. Cool.... Does that mean the players of the past cared less about winning, about doing well? I wouldn't think that at all. But it does tell us a lot, doesn't it?
I was also struck by a reference to southern defense of its position in a speech by the Alabamian Yancey. He talked about the right to rebel of Russian serfs, of hogs readied to be slaughtered, and, hence, of the southern states to secede. He was silent and and the prof didn't note it about the right of slaves to rebel. Hmmm.... But he was pretty darn good on why southerners, 80% or more of whom didn't own slaves, went to war over it, risking life and limb, property, everything.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Mantle
I enjoyed the Koufax biog by Leavy better than the Mantle one. Maybe that's because of the subject.
Mantle was maybe the most talented player ever. He certainly had two or three of the very best years any player amassed. And, to think he did all this with all of the injuries, often wrapped in tape like a mummy, is astounding. Toss in all his drinking and carousing....
Yet, despite Leavy's attempts to make him more sympathetic--he was generous to teammates, he was abused as a kid (what jerk wasn't abused as a kid?)--he still comes across as a low-life. Read how he autographed baseballs--or didn't autograph them. Read how he flaunted his marriage, openly. Read how he treated women, when he could or couldn't use them. It's hard to like someone like that, hard to root for him.
Interesting that, although they are cited as being interviews, Hank Aaron and Al Kaline, maybe even Frank Robinson were never quoted. Hmm....
Along the way, Joe DiMaggio also comes across as an A #1 jerk. I pretty much knew that, though. My dad didn't let that bother him--DiMaggio was the greatest, the standard against everyone else should be measured, if they could.
Mantle was maybe the most talented player ever. He certainly had two or three of the very best years any player amassed. And, to think he did all this with all of the injuries, often wrapped in tape like a mummy, is astounding. Toss in all his drinking and carousing....
Yet, despite Leavy's attempts to make him more sympathetic--he was generous to teammates, he was abused as a kid (what jerk wasn't abused as a kid?)--he still comes across as a low-life. Read how he autographed baseballs--or didn't autograph them. Read how he flaunted his marriage, openly. Read how he treated women, when he could or couldn't use them. It's hard to like someone like that, hard to root for him.
Interesting that, although they are cited as being interviews, Hank Aaron and Al Kaline, maybe even Frank Robinson were never quoted. Hmm....
Along the way, Joe DiMaggio also comes across as an A #1 jerk. I pretty much knew that, though. My dad didn't let that bother him--DiMaggio was the greatest, the standard against everyone else should be measured, if they could.
Friday, January 7, 2011
The Constitution
Yes, I have seen the recent appointments Obama made to his team of "czars." Why don't people seem to catch on to the term "czars," you know, as in the Russian autocrat? Remember these guys, the ones who invented "Siberia?" It is frightening how Congress, the courts, and the people are letting the executive and his bureaucrats do end runs around gov't of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The key to everything is whether Nov's elections will have any effect. Will those elected because of voter anger have the fortitude and courage to shut down these perversions of democracy? Will they echo the voters in their shouts of "That's enough!?!?" Will they play games and say all the "right things" will continuing business as usual? There have been several of them who have postured so, declaring how "moderate" or even "conservative" they are, despite records of voting for Obama, Reid, Pelosi 90% or more of the time. Hey, if we offer free dinners to people if they'd only agree on steak or seafood or whatever, we couldn't get 90% agreement! Will our elected reps return to the Constitution and its principles of limited gov't? I hope so, but fear not.
Power has a way of being intoxicating. Look at history, as unappetizing and uncool as it is. There is a reason, from the dawn of time, through the centuries, people have risked their lives and those of others--power. In our democracy, the "elites" have become intoxicated. Will they give up, willingly, the seat of power? It would take one of great moral fortitude and courage to do so, one who believes in the principles of limited gov't. Do you really think a Levin, a Stabenow, a Dingell, a Conyers, etc. would do so, esp when each of them believes he/she knows what is best for us, that he/she is smarter than we are?
I believe their ilk and the courts cringe at the idea that invoking the principles of the Constitution would limit, if not end, their increasing expansion of big government, of infringements on individual rights (not entitlements, etc.). Congress, the President, the bureaucrats, even the courts are not empowered to do whatever they like, whenever they like, just because they have been elected or appointed by Constitutional means. For instance, use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause by recent Congresses and Presidents, interpreted incorrectly by the courts, has been shameful, dishonest.
Note my previous comments on "dishonesty," be it with the media, politicians, local school boards, or what. Certainly we can disagree over some of the Constitution, esp its applications 220+ years after it was written. But honesty in terms of interpretation doesn't mean "everything goes," "all's fair...." etc. Hardly. Because something is supposed to make others "feel good" doesn't mean it is Constitutional. Because something makes others "feel "uncomfortable" doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.
As I've said before, none of this will affect me personally. I'll be dead soon enough. But for the future of young Americans, most namely my kids and grandkids, I am concerned. I want them to have all of the opportunities, all of the liberties I've had. Again, if you don't believe me, if you think I'm paranoid, some conspiracy nut, just read through the papers. If some gov't bureaucracy can force you to buy some kind of insurance, can make it so you can't buy a Happy Meal, what's next?
The key to everything is whether Nov's elections will have any effect. Will those elected because of voter anger have the fortitude and courage to shut down these perversions of democracy? Will they echo the voters in their shouts of "That's enough!?!?" Will they play games and say all the "right things" will continuing business as usual? There have been several of them who have postured so, declaring how "moderate" or even "conservative" they are, despite records of voting for Obama, Reid, Pelosi 90% or more of the time. Hey, if we offer free dinners to people if they'd only agree on steak or seafood or whatever, we couldn't get 90% agreement! Will our elected reps return to the Constitution and its principles of limited gov't? I hope so, but fear not.
Power has a way of being intoxicating. Look at history, as unappetizing and uncool as it is. There is a reason, from the dawn of time, through the centuries, people have risked their lives and those of others--power. In our democracy, the "elites" have become intoxicated. Will they give up, willingly, the seat of power? It would take one of great moral fortitude and courage to do so, one who believes in the principles of limited gov't. Do you really think a Levin, a Stabenow, a Dingell, a Conyers, etc. would do so, esp when each of them believes he/she knows what is best for us, that he/she is smarter than we are?
I believe their ilk and the courts cringe at the idea that invoking the principles of the Constitution would limit, if not end, their increasing expansion of big government, of infringements on individual rights (not entitlements, etc.). Congress, the President, the bureaucrats, even the courts are not empowered to do whatever they like, whenever they like, just because they have been elected or appointed by Constitutional means. For instance, use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause by recent Congresses and Presidents, interpreted incorrectly by the courts, has been shameful, dishonest.
Note my previous comments on "dishonesty," be it with the media, politicians, local school boards, or what. Certainly we can disagree over some of the Constitution, esp its applications 220+ years after it was written. But honesty in terms of interpretation doesn't mean "everything goes," "all's fair...." etc. Hardly. Because something is supposed to make others "feel good" doesn't mean it is Constitutional. Because something makes others "feel "uncomfortable" doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.
As I've said before, none of this will affect me personally. I'll be dead soon enough. But for the future of young Americans, most namely my kids and grandkids, I am concerned. I want them to have all of the opportunities, all of the liberties I've had. Again, if you don't believe me, if you think I'm paranoid, some conspiracy nut, just read through the papers. If some gov't bureaucracy can force you to buy some kind of insurance, can make it so you can't buy a Happy Meal, what's next?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Honesty?
First, to clear the air, I don't care what they do with Rich Rodriguez. I've written about him, U of M, college athletics (at least the "big-time" sports), etc. often enough.
But this AM on a radio show devoted to the reports of Richard Rodriguez's firing I heard some guy talk about "honesty" or, rather, the lack of it. He claimed it is "difficult to find" nowadays. "Everybody lies." Namely, he was talking about journalists, athletic officials, politicians, and gov't officials. To cite one of his examples, he talked about his local school board. Apparently in some sort of legal action with his local board, he offered to take a lie detector test with the State Police and encouraged the school officials to do the same. He claimed it was a matter of public record, the lie detector tests, and he passed, while the school guys declined. I guess the explanation was "seeing things from different perspectives." Yeah, right.... That's like "misspeaking," is it?
In the end, who cares about these college sports? Again and again, the NCAA and member schools have shown what a sham "student-athlete" is. They have demonstrated their hypocrisy and dishonesty. (Can you say Ohio State and Sugar Bowl--or whatever bowl it played?) If fans want to admit that it's all a joke, then cheer away! Alumni (and I heard this AM on the radio, for the umpteenth time, "he's an alumni;" these people get paid to fracture the English language) should be (but, of course, aren't) insulted, embarrassed, furious at what is happening at their alma maters. Speaks volumes to me....
But the larger question is honesty in the media. I won't go so far to say the media are dead, but it is telling that I read recently that a poll held blogs in higher confidence/trust than the mainstream/lamestream media. Those journalists with any integrity should be ashamed of that and should be working to make things better. Of course, they won't be able to, just as the best teachers can't make any real inroads to improving schools.
Before making cookies with Ashley, one more thing. Have you noticed the President's czars (regulatory agencies) are doing what Congress didn't pass? The health care death panels, that we were assured wouldn't be created? They have been, by agency directives. The cap and tax carbon taxes that were defeated by Congress? They've been enacted, by agency directives. When will members of Congress step up with some courage and integrity and stop this madness of government, not of the people, by the people, for the people, but by executive fiat and bureaucracy? Don't hold your breath. There's more, including a move by the Dems in the Senate to limit filibustering, something they vehemently opposed about 16 years ago--when they were in the minority!!!! Hypocrites.
I believe it really is a battle for the soul of our country and culture and the good guys are losing, badly. But, who cares? The OSU players got to play and won the game for the Big Ten!
But this AM on a radio show devoted to the reports of Richard Rodriguez's firing I heard some guy talk about "honesty" or, rather, the lack of it. He claimed it is "difficult to find" nowadays. "Everybody lies." Namely, he was talking about journalists, athletic officials, politicians, and gov't officials. To cite one of his examples, he talked about his local school board. Apparently in some sort of legal action with his local board, he offered to take a lie detector test with the State Police and encouraged the school officials to do the same. He claimed it was a matter of public record, the lie detector tests, and he passed, while the school guys declined. I guess the explanation was "seeing things from different perspectives." Yeah, right.... That's like "misspeaking," is it?
In the end, who cares about these college sports? Again and again, the NCAA and member schools have shown what a sham "student-athlete" is. They have demonstrated their hypocrisy and dishonesty. (Can you say Ohio State and Sugar Bowl--or whatever bowl it played?) If fans want to admit that it's all a joke, then cheer away! Alumni (and I heard this AM on the radio, for the umpteenth time, "he's an alumni;" these people get paid to fracture the English language) should be (but, of course, aren't) insulted, embarrassed, furious at what is happening at their alma maters. Speaks volumes to me....
But the larger question is honesty in the media. I won't go so far to say the media are dead, but it is telling that I read recently that a poll held blogs in higher confidence/trust than the mainstream/lamestream media. Those journalists with any integrity should be ashamed of that and should be working to make things better. Of course, they won't be able to, just as the best teachers can't make any real inroads to improving schools.
Before making cookies with Ashley, one more thing. Have you noticed the President's czars (regulatory agencies) are doing what Congress didn't pass? The health care death panels, that we were assured wouldn't be created? They have been, by agency directives. The cap and tax carbon taxes that were defeated by Congress? They've been enacted, by agency directives. When will members of Congress step up with some courage and integrity and stop this madness of government, not of the people, by the people, for the people, but by executive fiat and bureaucracy? Don't hold your breath. There's more, including a move by the Dems in the Senate to limit filibustering, something they vehemently opposed about 16 years ago--when they were in the minority!!!! Hypocrites.
I believe it really is a battle for the soul of our country and culture and the good guys are losing, badly. But, who cares? The OSU players got to play and won the game for the Big Ten!
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Palace Council
Stephen L. Carter is one of my favorite novelists. He also writes nonfiction, but I haven't yet read any of it. The Emperor of Ocean Park and New England White told brilliant tales. The Palace Council is equally wonderful.
Carter is one of those unique authors who is entertaining, but also teaches. He is insightful and thought-provoking. And he is not trendy or quirky; he is not, I'm sure, a favorite of the cognescenti. In other words, he won't win many of the awards that some other, much less deserving authors are given.
"You die young or you get old." That one has prompted a lot of thought, esp with the recent deaths that seem to have surrounded us--not to mention getting older myself! "Sometimes the 'what ifs' are all we have." Wow! "What's the sense of being a lawyer," one of his characters says, "if one can't make a difference?" Fill in any other career for "lawyer."
And, in his Notes, Carter writes this: "...the dawn of modern America--the mean-spirited America of me-first, trust-nobody, sound bites, revile-anyone-who-disagrees, and devil-take-the-hindmost. All of this misbehavior is a mark of our timidity, not our confidence. Americans across the political spectrum cannot bear dissent because we lack the courage to meet it squarely." Yep, Yep, and Yep again.
I would add, we lack the intellectual ability to defend our postures. It's much easier to call names, smear with a wide paint brush, ostracize, etc. than to rationally argue and attempt to persuade.
That's what has made, for me at least, the 2010 Amherst College Class of 1970 dialogue about "Lives of Consequence" so appealing and riveting. Opinions have varied, as expected. But they have been respectful of differing thoughts. They have examined the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, pointing out what needs illumination. There has been no attempt to "revile-anyone who disagrees," to ostracize or marginalize, to call names. The discussion has been the epitome of intellectual rigor. Our professors, I think, would be proud of what we have learned from them.
Now, contrast that, as Carter notes, with our politicans and government officials, those who run our schools, etc. They won't or more likely can't justify what they do. They unable to defend their ideas. So, instead, they attack the questioner(s), from individual critics to the Tea Partiers.
I certainly recommend Carter's novels.....
Carter is one of those unique authors who is entertaining, but also teaches. He is insightful and thought-provoking. And he is not trendy or quirky; he is not, I'm sure, a favorite of the cognescenti. In other words, he won't win many of the awards that some other, much less deserving authors are given.
"You die young or you get old." That one has prompted a lot of thought, esp with the recent deaths that seem to have surrounded us--not to mention getting older myself! "Sometimes the 'what ifs' are all we have." Wow! "What's the sense of being a lawyer," one of his characters says, "if one can't make a difference?" Fill in any other career for "lawyer."
And, in his Notes, Carter writes this: "...the dawn of modern America--the mean-spirited America of me-first, trust-nobody, sound bites, revile-anyone-who-disagrees, and devil-take-the-hindmost. All of this misbehavior is a mark of our timidity, not our confidence. Americans across the political spectrum cannot bear dissent because we lack the courage to meet it squarely." Yep, Yep, and Yep again.
I would add, we lack the intellectual ability to defend our postures. It's much easier to call names, smear with a wide paint brush, ostracize, etc. than to rationally argue and attempt to persuade.
That's what has made, for me at least, the 2010 Amherst College Class of 1970 dialogue about "Lives of Consequence" so appealing and riveting. Opinions have varied, as expected. But they have been respectful of differing thoughts. They have examined the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, pointing out what needs illumination. There has been no attempt to "revile-anyone who disagrees," to ostracize or marginalize, to call names. The discussion has been the epitome of intellectual rigor. Our professors, I think, would be proud of what we have learned from them.
Now, contrast that, as Carter notes, with our politicans and government officials, those who run our schools, etc. They won't or more likely can't justify what they do. They unable to defend their ideas. So, instead, they attack the questioner(s), from individual critics to the Tea Partiers.
I certainly recommend Carter's novels.....
Mickey Mantle
I'm reading a biog of Mickey Mantle. It's amazing the hold some athletes, Mantle in this case, have over others. A "roast" of Mantle was being planned. Bill Skowron was asked to be one of the roasters. He hesitated and finally declined, saying, "You want me to make fun of Mickey Mantle?" I'll be curious to see how the author (Jane Leavy, who wrote an outstanding biog of Sandy Koufax) sifts through the fact and the fiction. And it will be interesting to see people's perceptions of Mantle, contemporary and otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
