I really enjoy reading editor Scott Sullivan's "Notes" and columnists Scott Hubbard and Tom Henderson in Michigan Runner. They combine wit, insight, knowledge, and new ideas. Hey, sometimes they are even controversial!
In the Jan/Feb issue of MR, Hubbard writes of a local DDS who has cheated in numerous races, in state and out. The guy was featured, as a cheat, in The New Yorker. I guess my questions, which will likely never be answered are, "Why do these guys cheat? What do they get out of false times? Are they so delusional they believe they ran that fast?" It's not as if this guy and others like him are setting world records, are making big bucks, qualifying for the Olympics. I suppose, reprehensible as it is, cheating to win prize money is one thing. But this DDS wasn't winning the big bucks. It even sounds like his own friends knew he wasn't running nearly as fast as he claimed. Is it a mental illness, fooling yourself in such a manner? Is it dangerous? I don't know. I don't get as worked up over it as Scott does, but it is perplexing and I understand the anger it provokes.
Henderson writes, as he has in the past, of the lack of fast runners in today's races. Oh, world records are being set by the elites, at all distances. But at our local races, times are much, much slower than they used to be. He decries that--and I understand it. I still do OK in most races, at least in my age-group. But, I joke, that's because there aren't many runners left in my age-group! And, besides the laughs, there's a lot of truth to that. Way back when, though, I tried to run fast, at least faster. I trained and worked hard, aiming at certain races. That's what Henderson wants, others, like in year's past, to run and train for faster races. Hmmmm.... I understand what he is saying and, in fact, note that I used to do just that, at least try to do that. It was the competitive nature in me. Now, though, I think I understand those who just run, not race, even in racing events.
I am reminded of my father, who was quite competitive and expected me to be that way, too. If I got a couple hits in a ball game, his comment was, "Why didn't you get three?" If I brought home five As and an A-, it was, "What's with the A-?" With his grandson, Matt, after scoring three TDs and rushing for a couple hundred yards in a high school game, Grandpa focused on this, "Why'd you fumble?" Some years back, I talked him into walking a local run/walk event. He walked it, conversationally, with an uncle. But, ten feet from the finish, my dad sprinted ahead to "win." That was his mien. I always remember at one of Matt's junior high cross country meets (cross country was the only sport the school district offered), one of his buddies just sort of loped along, finishing last by a considerable margin. My dad's comment was something like this, "Why does he bother?" The message was, of course, if you aren't going to try to win, why do it? I was upset by the comment and retorted, "What? Should he just stay home and play video games or watch movies?" Not at all taken aback by my reaction, he just shrugged, almost as if to say, "Yes." I don't think so and guess never have. It's much better to participate in something like running (or other physical activities/sports) than to sit.
I like to see lots of folks at races, even if the vast majority are not there to win or even to run fast/hard/their best. They are out there at least. My last two races confirmed that and reenlightened me. At the Big Bird 10K, I ran my slowest time ever, by maybe 6 or 7 minutes, maybe more. I was at least 5 minutes behind my time of just last year and about 15 or 16 minutes behind my PR, set on this course. Part of my slower run was by design, not wanting to aggravate an injury that was close to completely healed. Part of it was I wasn't really trained to run what I had in the past, largely due to the injury, which precluded any hard running all summer. At the start of the race, I ran with Darrell McKee for a mile or so. Darrell is in his mid-70s and has run each of the Big Birds, every one of them. He was running at about a 14-minute a mile pace and I really enjoyed running and yakking with him. He's quite a character and has a lot of good stories. Then I met up with another running friend, Jerry Mittman. Jerry has run oodles and oodles of marathons and half marathons. I ran with him for a couple of miles, about an 8:30 pace I'd guess, talking away. I did that with several other runners, too, ones I see at races. One even admonished me, "Get up there where you belong." I laughed, but remember thinking, "I am where I belong" or at least where I wanted to be. At the end, I wasn't at all gassed or even fatigued, but had one of my best Big Bird times, just not by the clock. Two nights later, I went to the Wayne County Light Fest 8K on Hines Park. It's an 8K/five mile run/walk through the Christmas and other holiday decorations of Hines Drive. I've run every one of these beautiful evening events, most often parking at the finish, running to the start to get my tee shirt, and then running back to the finish--about 10 miles or a little more. Most years I've done the Light Fest with my good running buddy Bob Drapal. Of course, we stop for eats afterward. (At first it was White Castles; then we had the good sense to stop at De Luca's for its great pizza!) The last couple of years, Karen and some other friends have joined Bob and me, for the Light Fest and for pizza. Karen and our friends would walk and Bob and I ran. This year, Bob opted to walk with Karen, Michelle, and Russ. Carrie wanted "more of a challenge" and asked me to walk and run it with her. So, I ran and walked, hardly a fast time and not my fastest Light Fest, but a good time nevertheless, with Carrie. In fact, like the Big Bird, I had one of my favorite Light Fests. De Luca's pizza was great, too!
I think there's a place for all kinds of runners, including in races. Guys who can't make the major leagues still play softball. Gals who don't make the Olympics still go skiing. They aren't necessarily racing, but they are out there.
If there's one thing I am sure of it's that we need to be more active. The obesity epidemic is going to swallow us. Anything that keeps us active is OK with me. And if some folks (including me when I shake this heel problem) want to work to run faster, great!
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Hold on to Your Hats!
Bill Clinton was named the “Father of the Year” by the National Father’s Day Council this week. I looked to see if this was from The Onion or The Ottster, but apparently it's legit! Obama and Algore "win" Nobel Peace Prizes.... Sometimes I just wonder.
And the Transportation Dept is considering a new tax, this one of mileage. I'm not sure--and I 'm sure the TD isn't either!--how it will work. But, preliminary talks are talking about keeping track of individuals' mileage and basing taxes on that. With the federally-mandated (or soon-to-be?) tracking (GPS) devices, well, you better keep your bicycle tires pumped up for that trip to the grocery store. BTW, how many lights does Algore have on in his mansion right now??????
In Michigan, several hundred business owners/corporate heads rated the possibility of the state's return to prosperity in '13 at 62 of 100, a 62% if my calculator is correct. That's a D-. Hmmmm.... I guess they aren't very optimistic about the coming year. They cited, mostly, coming taxes and bog-down government regulations. I keep reading about "the recovery," but I also keep seeing businesses shutting their doors. Just last night, taking Ashley to Girl Scouts, I saw two empty store fronts on M-59 that weren't empty last week.
Maybe I'm a bit picky, but I get a kick out of seeing cars in driveways with green bumper stickers, for instance, the "Co-Exist" ones. Well, it's not the bumper stickers, but what I see at the driveways. This AM out running, I noted several of these cars idling in the dark (I run out-and-back on these streets quite frequently) while owners wait for them to heat up inside. And invariably these same driveways are cleared, not by shovels, but snowblowers. And, once again, my all-time favorite was the huge SUV barreling down I 696 at 80 or more mph bearing the bumper sticker, "No Blood for Oil."
And the Transportation Dept is considering a new tax, this one of mileage. I'm not sure--and I 'm sure the TD isn't either!--how it will work. But, preliminary talks are talking about keeping track of individuals' mileage and basing taxes on that. With the federally-mandated (or soon-to-be?) tracking (GPS) devices, well, you better keep your bicycle tires pumped up for that trip to the grocery store. BTW, how many lights does Algore have on in his mansion right now??????
In Michigan, several hundred business owners/corporate heads rated the possibility of the state's return to prosperity in '13 at 62 of 100, a 62% if my calculator is correct. That's a D-. Hmmmm.... I guess they aren't very optimistic about the coming year. They cited, mostly, coming taxes and bog-down government regulations. I keep reading about "the recovery," but I also keep seeing businesses shutting their doors. Just last night, taking Ashley to Girl Scouts, I saw two empty store fronts on M-59 that weren't empty last week.
Maybe I'm a bit picky, but I get a kick out of seeing cars in driveways with green bumper stickers, for instance, the "Co-Exist" ones. Well, it's not the bumper stickers, but what I see at the driveways. This AM out running, I noted several of these cars idling in the dark (I run out-and-back on these streets quite frequently) while owners wait for them to heat up inside. And invariably these same driveways are cleared, not by shovels, but snowblowers. And, once again, my all-time favorite was the huge SUV barreling down I 696 at 80 or more mph bearing the bumper sticker, "No Blood for Oil."
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Enlightenment
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Some people are beginning to realize that "We" does not include everyone. "We" are Americans, in particular. I was reminded of this in an article I read this AM.
Many times I've posted that much of the problem with the Muslim world, but also much of the rest of it outside of the West, lies in that they've never embraced the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Perhaps in our own exuberance to share or spread these ideas and ideals we blindly believe that all people seek them. This is especially true of our intellectual elites.
Much of the world hasn't accepted the concept of individual freedoms. Women are treated much differently, in deleterious ways, than men. Rape is a crime that punishes the female victime. Women cannot be doctors, lawyers, or even drive automobiles. Freedom of religion/worship is nonexistent in much of the world. In fact, many (Islamists) think that not only is their religion best, it should be the only one; death to nonbelievers. Voting, free expression, property rights...they are Western values.
We make two mistakes. One, so poignantly pointed out by Lech Walesa, is that Americans take their rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, for granted. He, personally, knows how precious freedom is. And, in fact, he endured prison, physical beatings, and death threats to his family and himself (real death threats by commie agencies) in his quest to secure what Americans take for granted. Two, we erroneously assume that, given the opportunity, all people all over the world will strive to have what we have.
Again, we ignore our history and, indeed, the history of the world. The United States was a unique experiment. It was founded on a set of ideas and ideals, unlike other countries founded on ethnicity, religion, dynasties, etc. (Granted, as an experiment, we've made sometimes too slow progress in spreading our freedoms to our own Americans, but we've steadily moved forward.) We don't realize how tenuous the prospect of success/survival was. Few people in the world, even the West, expected the US to make it. As late as the Civil War, there were some nodding European heads, "See, we told you. It took longer than we thought, but the US is crumbling."
But equality can't be forced on people, not even here. We can provide, here, equality of opportunity, making the playing field as level as we can. (And, remember, "If men were angels....) But, as President Obama seems wont to do, we can't reward sloth, lack of skills or ability, etc. in the name of equality. Sometimes, we should think about what the ideas and ideals upon which this nation were founded really mean. We have strayed from them and we have misunderstood much of the rest of the world.
Some people are beginning to realize that "We" does not include everyone. "We" are Americans, in particular. I was reminded of this in an article I read this AM.
Many times I've posted that much of the problem with the Muslim world, but also much of the rest of it outside of the West, lies in that they've never embraced the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Perhaps in our own exuberance to share or spread these ideas and ideals we blindly believe that all people seek them. This is especially true of our intellectual elites.
Much of the world hasn't accepted the concept of individual freedoms. Women are treated much differently, in deleterious ways, than men. Rape is a crime that punishes the female victime. Women cannot be doctors, lawyers, or even drive automobiles. Freedom of religion/worship is nonexistent in much of the world. In fact, many (Islamists) think that not only is their religion best, it should be the only one; death to nonbelievers. Voting, free expression, property rights...they are Western values.
We make two mistakes. One, so poignantly pointed out by Lech Walesa, is that Americans take their rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, for granted. He, personally, knows how precious freedom is. And, in fact, he endured prison, physical beatings, and death threats to his family and himself (real death threats by commie agencies) in his quest to secure what Americans take for granted. Two, we erroneously assume that, given the opportunity, all people all over the world will strive to have what we have.
Again, we ignore our history and, indeed, the history of the world. The United States was a unique experiment. It was founded on a set of ideas and ideals, unlike other countries founded on ethnicity, religion, dynasties, etc. (Granted, as an experiment, we've made sometimes too slow progress in spreading our freedoms to our own Americans, but we've steadily moved forward.) We don't realize how tenuous the prospect of success/survival was. Few people in the world, even the West, expected the US to make it. As late as the Civil War, there were some nodding European heads, "See, we told you. It took longer than we thought, but the US is crumbling."
But equality can't be forced on people, not even here. We can provide, here, equality of opportunity, making the playing field as level as we can. (And, remember, "If men were angels....) But, as President Obama seems wont to do, we can't reward sloth, lack of skills or ability, etc. in the name of equality. Sometimes, we should think about what the ideas and ideals upon which this nation were founded really mean. We have strayed from them and we have misunderstood much of the rest of the world.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Ignoring Reality
I know I posted about this some time ago, likely when the NCAA penalties against Penn State were revealed. But it seems to me to be more than just a little bit of posturing to fine the university $60,000,000. First, what gives the NCAA such authority? Second, who's going to pay that money, any of the perpetrators of the pedophilia or the cover-up? Third, who will really be penalized? I guess the NCAA is making a statement. "Boy, look how tough we are! We're really cracking down!" Of course, the whole episode of pedophilia is revolting, sickening. Those involved, from Sandusky to all those who looked the other way, deserve what they get and more (I won't reveal my punishments for them). But c'mon.... Where is the NCAA on all of the things that it should be concerned with, not the pedophilia that should remain firmly in the hands of the legal system? Why doesn't the NCAA deal with illegal payments to so-called "amateur athletes?" Note the recent revelations of a former Ohio State football player that he "was living the NFL life" in college, "getting more money" then than he did as a professional. Where is the NCAA on assuring these so-called "student-athletes" are attending classes, doing the same work other students do? Again, let's point to an Ohio State football player who asked, in one of the social media sites, "Why should I gave to go to class? I came here to play football. I didn't come here to play school." Where are the NCAA investigations into those? How about drug usage and alcohol abuse? What about the crimes, including rape, that apparently are swept under the carpet? The NCAA permits the institutions to police themselves, sort of like letting the fox rule the henhouse. Of course, we know what is at the bottom of all of this: MONEY! And the self-important, but hypocritical folks at the NCAA should be ashamed. They aren't because look at all the money they are helping to bring in....
I have seen a number of articles and even cartoons applauding the success of the federal stimulus packages. Hmmmm...... Many point to the resurgence of the auto companies. Maybe, maybe not. Is unemployment really lower? The federal definition of "unemployment" makes it difficult to know. One ploy used is not counting people who quite looking for jobs because they are so frustrated and discouraged by seeking jobs that don't exist. One term that is used by some is "underemployment," that is, people who are now working part-time, some very part-time, who were formerly employed full-time. According to one Maryland economist, the actual unemployment/underemployment rate is far close to 15% than the 8% that is reported by the LameStreams. And, note the auto industry's jobs. Many of the new hires are now making a fraction of what auto workers used to make. (I'm not arguing for or against that, just stating what is.) And, it's likely that the US taxpayer is on the hook for about $30 billion dollars of that stimulus money, money that won't be paid back.
In the same vein, did John Boehner really express surprise that Barrack Obama told him, "We don't have a spending problem?" If so, how did this guy get to be Speaker of the House?
And, of taxing the wealthy at higher rates, note what is happening in France, where the wealthiest of folks are facing tax rates of 75%. Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries are reaping the benefits of the French tax increases. The wealthiest of the French are moving, out of France. Many French companies are also relocating. And, French companies remaining in France are hiring top executives/management from Amsterdam, Brussels, etc. because those who make the big bucks won't live in France. I guess some French actor, who is famous but I never heard of him, not only moved out of France with his fortune, but became a citizen of Russia. Apparently, after six months of Russian citizenship, he will be taxed at 13%. Hmmmmm....you steal, er tax, 75% of my money or I keep 87% of it?????? I know history isn't important, but look at the Depression years in the US, when federal tax rates were similarly high. Note what happened to investment money or, more accurately, what didn't happen. When, before the Second World War, tax rates were higher than 70%, unemployment skyrocketed back up to more than 20%, not too far off the earliest years of the Depression. After the war, after FDR and his tax, tax, and tax some more policies died, tax rates were cut, cut by a lot--almost 1/3 less. And by 1947, unemployment was under 4%. Hmmmm......
I have seen a number of articles and even cartoons applauding the success of the federal stimulus packages. Hmmmm...... Many point to the resurgence of the auto companies. Maybe, maybe not. Is unemployment really lower? The federal definition of "unemployment" makes it difficult to know. One ploy used is not counting people who quite looking for jobs because they are so frustrated and discouraged by seeking jobs that don't exist. One term that is used by some is "underemployment," that is, people who are now working part-time, some very part-time, who were formerly employed full-time. According to one Maryland economist, the actual unemployment/underemployment rate is far close to 15% than the 8% that is reported by the LameStreams. And, note the auto industry's jobs. Many of the new hires are now making a fraction of what auto workers used to make. (I'm not arguing for or against that, just stating what is.) And, it's likely that the US taxpayer is on the hook for about $30 billion dollars of that stimulus money, money that won't be paid back.
In the same vein, did John Boehner really express surprise that Barrack Obama told him, "We don't have a spending problem?" If so, how did this guy get to be Speaker of the House?
And, of taxing the wealthy at higher rates, note what is happening in France, where the wealthiest of folks are facing tax rates of 75%. Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries are reaping the benefits of the French tax increases. The wealthiest of the French are moving, out of France. Many French companies are also relocating. And, French companies remaining in France are hiring top executives/management from Amsterdam, Brussels, etc. because those who make the big bucks won't live in France. I guess some French actor, who is famous but I never heard of him, not only moved out of France with his fortune, but became a citizen of Russia. Apparently, after six months of Russian citizenship, he will be taxed at 13%. Hmmmmm....you steal, er tax, 75% of my money or I keep 87% of it?????? I know history isn't important, but look at the Depression years in the US, when federal tax rates were similarly high. Note what happened to investment money or, more accurately, what didn't happen. When, before the Second World War, tax rates were higher than 70%, unemployment skyrocketed back up to more than 20%, not too far off the earliest years of the Depression. After the war, after FDR and his tax, tax, and tax some more policies died, tax rates were cut, cut by a lot--almost 1/3 less. And by 1947, unemployment was under 4%. Hmmmm......
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Columnists
Years and years ago, a YMCA basketball playing buddy remarked to me that he still read, every once in a while, a celebrated Detroit sportswriter's column. He did that, he said, "to make sure he's as bad as usual." I never cared for this particular writer, either, wondering how he made some "hall of fame" or another, how he so often just lifted columns from the Sporting News, and why he was considered so good. I never saw it.
Clarence Page writes for the Chicago Tribune, his column syndicated throughout the nation. I don't always agree with Page, but I always respect his opinion. He's thoughtful, insightful, and, I think, well worth reading. Again, years ago, I believe Page was the one who strongly suggested that, along with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other black heroes, Black History Month should include Harry Truman. How insightful! Last week, Page had another thoughtful column, playing upon the 150 anniversary of The Emancipation Proclamation and the recently-released movie, Lincoln. Page correctly assesses the vast significance of Lincoln's document, "which gave a human rights mission to the Civil War," that is, changed the nature of the war and, indeed, of the grand experiment in liberty called the United States. It also led to the 13th Amendment, which, of course, Constitutionally abolished slavery. Both points are often missed in current US History textbooks and teachers, often due to a misinterpretation and misreading of The Emancipation Proclamation by Richard Hofstadter about 100 years ago. And, that misunderstanding of the importance of Lincoln's document has continued unabated until recently, the last few decades. Page asks, "Lincoln freed us for...this?" And then he points to "poverty culture," mostly affecting blacks. The immediate target of his column is some reality show (and I still can't figure out how and why these things are called "reality shows") that "glorifies...a newer form of slavery that we impose on ourselves." I guess the show focuses on some hippy-rock/rap singer (I use that term loosely here) who lives with the ten women with whom he has fathered eleven kids. No, marriage isn't in the picture. He takes the TV network to task for "shamelessly promoting a harem-like lifestyle as if it were a practical childrearing option." Of course, Page shows concern for the children. But he adds more. He notes that figures from 2009, more than 40% of children are born out of wedlock, that the number rises to more than 50% for women under 30 years old who give birth. For black women under 30, about two of every three babies are born to women without husbands. Page notes that having a traditional marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee success in childrearing, but it increases the odds manyfold. Yet, what sort of lifestyle is glorified?
I also read a column by E.J. Dionne. I usually skip him, not wanting to waste my time. For me, he falls into the category of my YMCA basketball friend. And, this time, Dionne didn't disappoint, either. It's the same old stuff with the guy. He wrote of the "fiscal cliff" deal, how it can be a possible starting point for fixing the federal government's financial mess. Yet, all he seemingly wrote about was raising revenues, that is, taxes. Oh, the increase must come from the wealthy. He ignores a lot of statistics that come from, well, the federal government's own accounting office. But, that's OK with many of these writers/columnists. They can just ignore facts when they get in the way of our politics and policies.
On another note, from last month, how interesting that the Republicans in Lansing ramrodded through several pieces of legislation during the state legislature's lame duck session. Oh, they used closed door meetings and deals and late night/early AM votes...you know, all the things the Republicans criticized about passage of ObamaCare. Again, I say, "a pox on all their houses/parties."
Clarence Page writes for the Chicago Tribune, his column syndicated throughout the nation. I don't always agree with Page, but I always respect his opinion. He's thoughtful, insightful, and, I think, well worth reading. Again, years ago, I believe Page was the one who strongly suggested that, along with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other black heroes, Black History Month should include Harry Truman. How insightful! Last week, Page had another thoughtful column, playing upon the 150 anniversary of The Emancipation Proclamation and the recently-released movie, Lincoln. Page correctly assesses the vast significance of Lincoln's document, "which gave a human rights mission to the Civil War," that is, changed the nature of the war and, indeed, of the grand experiment in liberty called the United States. It also led to the 13th Amendment, which, of course, Constitutionally abolished slavery. Both points are often missed in current US History textbooks and teachers, often due to a misinterpretation and misreading of The Emancipation Proclamation by Richard Hofstadter about 100 years ago. And, that misunderstanding of the importance of Lincoln's document has continued unabated until recently, the last few decades. Page asks, "Lincoln freed us for...this?" And then he points to "poverty culture," mostly affecting blacks. The immediate target of his column is some reality show (and I still can't figure out how and why these things are called "reality shows") that "glorifies...a newer form of slavery that we impose on ourselves." I guess the show focuses on some hippy-rock/rap singer (I use that term loosely here) who lives with the ten women with whom he has fathered eleven kids. No, marriage isn't in the picture. He takes the TV network to task for "shamelessly promoting a harem-like lifestyle as if it were a practical childrearing option." Of course, Page shows concern for the children. But he adds more. He notes that figures from 2009, more than 40% of children are born out of wedlock, that the number rises to more than 50% for women under 30 years old who give birth. For black women under 30, about two of every three babies are born to women without husbands. Page notes that having a traditional marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee success in childrearing, but it increases the odds manyfold. Yet, what sort of lifestyle is glorified?
I also read a column by E.J. Dionne. I usually skip him, not wanting to waste my time. For me, he falls into the category of my YMCA basketball friend. And, this time, Dionne didn't disappoint, either. It's the same old stuff with the guy. He wrote of the "fiscal cliff" deal, how it can be a possible starting point for fixing the federal government's financial mess. Yet, all he seemingly wrote about was raising revenues, that is, taxes. Oh, the increase must come from the wealthy. He ignores a lot of statistics that come from, well, the federal government's own accounting office. But, that's OK with many of these writers/columnists. They can just ignore facts when they get in the way of our politics and policies.
On another note, from last month, how interesting that the Republicans in Lansing ramrodded through several pieces of legislation during the state legislature's lame duck session. Oh, they used closed door meetings and deals and late night/early AM votes...you know, all the things the Republicans criticized about passage of ObamaCare. Again, I say, "a pox on all their houses/parties."
Friday, January 4, 2013
Respect?
Detroit mayor Dave Bing came close to nailing it yesterday at a news conference. Referring to the city's 386 murders, the most since the 1980s and, with the population losses, a more staggering murder rate than the 714 in 1974, Bing said, "We've just lost respect for each other. We've lost respect for life."
I think we've lost respect for other people's lives. Sure, there have been lots of murder/suicides. Most murders are not, though. It's OK to kill the other guy.
I wonder, too, how accurate those numbers are. How many other murders have taken place, but we don't know about them? Homeless people, transients, drug deals, etc. I'd think the number is significant, but don't know for certain.
I believe an Amherst mate from Chicago noted the Windy City had well over 500 murders in 2012, including about 25% of them kids. "Who," he asked, "is mourning them?" I don't think he is at all trivializing Newtown or any other mass shooting. I guess he's echoing, in other words, what I've asked before: How "outraged" do we need to become to actually do something?
But I realize that's easier said than done. In fact, I don't know what needs to be done. There are smarter people than I am who can figure that out. But, I do have some random ideas.
I still think there's a direct connection between the violence of video games, movies, and television shows and the "loss of respect for life." The message is sent and effectively; note the effectiveness of advertising. And, increasingly, the message is received by our younger citizens, those who are more into video games, movies, etc. It seems more and more of our murders are perpetrated by young people.
There's no sense of public shame any longer. Responsibility? Accountability? There is none. Note, for instance, our athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy-rock singers, and their ilk. Many of them, to a far greater percentage than the general population it seems, do the most outrageous and hideous things. But, because they can score TDs, make popular movies, sell a lot of CDs, the outrageous and hideous behavior is ignored. In fact, perhaps its glorified, in a sense. Why wouldn't a young person emulate the new "heroes?" How many of the Detroit Lions had serious brushes with the law in the past year? I'm not sure since I don't follow them very closely, but I think every home game was a sellout. Now, not all of the Lions are thugs; of course not. But the aura of thuggery exists and, perhaps, can be seen on the field with numerous silly penalties. Shame? Maybe we should just get rid of the word since it doesn't seem to have any meaning.
Some might say this is a stretch, but "respect for life" could well tie in to our liberal abortion laws. It's OK to just dispose of a baby because a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. (That, too, I assume includes shooting her body up with drugs or using it as a sex money maker.) I know, I know.... But I've never, ever heard a pregnant woman say she was carrying a "fetus," talk about her "fetus." No, it's her "baby." But how casually we end these young lives, before they've even started. "Respect for life?"
We've created a society/culture in which people expect to get things, to be given things, regardless of whether they've earned them. There's no sense of accomplishment or pride in being given things without any effort. Accomplishment and pride are, perhaps, ingredients toward respect. "It's mine. I want it, even if I haven't earned it or deserve it. If you get in my way, I'll blow you away to get it."
You know, how many thousands of troops do we have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever? I wonder, but just wonder, if they could be better deployed elsewhere, perhaps on our own streets. I know that's a very, very slippery slope, but how "outraged" are we, really?
There's more: guns, punishment, mental illness.... But "respect" must be earned. Earning means doing something to deserve.... Yet, too many people have this sense of entitlement. I once saw a tee shirt that read, "I'm somebody because God didn't make no junk." I would beg to differ.
I think we've lost respect for other people's lives. Sure, there have been lots of murder/suicides. Most murders are not, though. It's OK to kill the other guy.
I wonder, too, how accurate those numbers are. How many other murders have taken place, but we don't know about them? Homeless people, transients, drug deals, etc. I'd think the number is significant, but don't know for certain.
I believe an Amherst mate from Chicago noted the Windy City had well over 500 murders in 2012, including about 25% of them kids. "Who," he asked, "is mourning them?" I don't think he is at all trivializing Newtown or any other mass shooting. I guess he's echoing, in other words, what I've asked before: How "outraged" do we need to become to actually do something?
But I realize that's easier said than done. In fact, I don't know what needs to be done. There are smarter people than I am who can figure that out. But, I do have some random ideas.
I still think there's a direct connection between the violence of video games, movies, and television shows and the "loss of respect for life." The message is sent and effectively; note the effectiveness of advertising. And, increasingly, the message is received by our younger citizens, those who are more into video games, movies, etc. It seems more and more of our murders are perpetrated by young people.
There's no sense of public shame any longer. Responsibility? Accountability? There is none. Note, for instance, our athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy-rock singers, and their ilk. Many of them, to a far greater percentage than the general population it seems, do the most outrageous and hideous things. But, because they can score TDs, make popular movies, sell a lot of CDs, the outrageous and hideous behavior is ignored. In fact, perhaps its glorified, in a sense. Why wouldn't a young person emulate the new "heroes?" How many of the Detroit Lions had serious brushes with the law in the past year? I'm not sure since I don't follow them very closely, but I think every home game was a sellout. Now, not all of the Lions are thugs; of course not. But the aura of thuggery exists and, perhaps, can be seen on the field with numerous silly penalties. Shame? Maybe we should just get rid of the word since it doesn't seem to have any meaning.
Some might say this is a stretch, but "respect for life" could well tie in to our liberal abortion laws. It's OK to just dispose of a baby because a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. (That, too, I assume includes shooting her body up with drugs or using it as a sex money maker.) I know, I know.... But I've never, ever heard a pregnant woman say she was carrying a "fetus," talk about her "fetus." No, it's her "baby." But how casually we end these young lives, before they've even started. "Respect for life?"
We've created a society/culture in which people expect to get things, to be given things, regardless of whether they've earned them. There's no sense of accomplishment or pride in being given things without any effort. Accomplishment and pride are, perhaps, ingredients toward respect. "It's mine. I want it, even if I haven't earned it or deserve it. If you get in my way, I'll blow you away to get it."
You know, how many thousands of troops do we have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever? I wonder, but just wonder, if they could be better deployed elsewhere, perhaps on our own streets. I know that's a very, very slippery slope, but how "outraged" are we, really?
There's more: guns, punishment, mental illness.... But "respect" must be earned. Earning means doing something to deserve.... Yet, too many people have this sense of entitlement. I once saw a tee shirt that read, "I'm somebody because God didn't make no junk." I would beg to differ.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
"Deal?"
"Fiscal Cliff Deal?"
The whole thing will start over again before we know, perhaps in a couple of weeks. And Obama and the Democrats must be laughing their bejabbers off. "Deal?" Boehner and the Republicans, at least those who voted for the "deal," sold out again.
Where are any spending cuts? Oh, they're coming. I'm not going to hold my breath. As long as we have the same people in Washington who find it easy to spend other people's money, there won't be much in the way of spending cuts.
Of course, who didn't see this one coming? The sellouts have been occurring for quite some time now, all in the name of "bipartisanship" and "compromise." Yeah, right...... Who, exactly "compromised?" What, exactly, was it that the Democrats (con)ceded? Frankly, nothing. Again, one side caved, almost completely, while the other pretty much got what it wanted.
I do question the new definition of "middle class." Apparently, earning $250,000 a year--or thereabouts--is "middle class." Whoa! Then where does that put me? In my book, a quarter of a million bucks a year is a fortune. I think I'm pretty comfortable and I am nowhere near, not even close, to this new definition of $250,000. Of course, maybe we are now defining lifestyles, not income. I'd guess $250,000 is needed for a 3,000 or 4,000 square foot house, a place Up North, a couple of SUVs to drive, Disney World or a cruise every year, some huge high-def boob tubes, and all the latest "i" gadgetry (gotta have those, you know).
I had a discussion with a guy last week about this. He thinks "the wealthy should pay their fair share." OK, I asked him, "What's the limit?" Actually, I meant that in two ways. First, what limit delineates "the wealthy?" I would submit this guy is pretty darn wealthy, although he would deny it. But it became clear it's the other "wealthy guy" who should pay more. Certainly he shouldn't. He's not wealthy; just ask him. Second, how much more is "their fair share?" 40%? 50%? 60%? I guess I told him I think everyone should pay something in federal income taxes, however slight. Each person should have a stake, no matter how small, in the game. Hey, if I went to Las Vegas and gambled at the casino with no risk of losing my own money, I'd be stupid not to gamble until I hit the jackpot.
What was it George Bernard Shaw, I think, said about this? ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Or something like that.
The whole thing will start over again before we know, perhaps in a couple of weeks. And Obama and the Democrats must be laughing their bejabbers off. "Deal?" Boehner and the Republicans, at least those who voted for the "deal," sold out again.
Where are any spending cuts? Oh, they're coming. I'm not going to hold my breath. As long as we have the same people in Washington who find it easy to spend other people's money, there won't be much in the way of spending cuts.
Of course, who didn't see this one coming? The sellouts have been occurring for quite some time now, all in the name of "bipartisanship" and "compromise." Yeah, right...... Who, exactly "compromised?" What, exactly, was it that the Democrats (con)ceded? Frankly, nothing. Again, one side caved, almost completely, while the other pretty much got what it wanted.
I do question the new definition of "middle class." Apparently, earning $250,000 a year--or thereabouts--is "middle class." Whoa! Then where does that put me? In my book, a quarter of a million bucks a year is a fortune. I think I'm pretty comfortable and I am nowhere near, not even close, to this new definition of $250,000. Of course, maybe we are now defining lifestyles, not income. I'd guess $250,000 is needed for a 3,000 or 4,000 square foot house, a place Up North, a couple of SUVs to drive, Disney World or a cruise every year, some huge high-def boob tubes, and all the latest "i" gadgetry (gotta have those, you know).
I had a discussion with a guy last week about this. He thinks "the wealthy should pay their fair share." OK, I asked him, "What's the limit?" Actually, I meant that in two ways. First, what limit delineates "the wealthy?" I would submit this guy is pretty darn wealthy, although he would deny it. But it became clear it's the other "wealthy guy" who should pay more. Certainly he shouldn't. He's not wealthy; just ask him. Second, how much more is "their fair share?" 40%? 50%? 60%? I guess I told him I think everyone should pay something in federal income taxes, however slight. Each person should have a stake, no matter how small, in the game. Hey, if I went to Las Vegas and gambled at the casino with no risk of losing my own money, I'd be stupid not to gamble until I hit the jackpot.
What was it George Bernard Shaw, I think, said about this? ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
