Ah, my grandson has a sense of humor. Sometimes it is grating, sometimes pretty funny. This afternoon, he asked if a friend could spend the night. Grandma said, "I don't know, honey. Grandpa and I are going out." Without missing a beat, Bopper said, "It's always about you and Grandpa, isn't it?" Just as Grandma was getting ready to....Bopp smiled and said, "Just joking." He and his buddy are in the basement, watching the Three Stooges I hope, and will soon be up here asking for a pizza. Of course, Grandpa will get it for them.
So, some of the Islamist detainees at Gitmo are staging hunger strikes. That's mindful of the IRA hunger strikes in Brit prisons during the '70s. I guess my answer to such strikes is this: bring food to the cells and let the prisoners decide if they want to eat or starve. It's their choice. The doo-gooders (and I mean "doo") will complain about that, but the doo-gooders (and I mean "doo") will complain no matter what happens--force feed, give in to demands, withhold food....
Let's see, Washington politicians get all worked up when some states announce they aren't going to enforce laws passed in Washington that those states don't like--that is, the states won't enforce laws with which they disagree. This is the theory of nullification, still quite controversial in US History. Ultimately, nullification leads to secession--that is, the Civil War! Anyway, these same DC politicians don't seem to have any problem not enforcing laws that they don't like.
President Obama is one of these, epitomized. I know historians, in general, don't rate President Eisenhower very high, sort of middle of the pack. I rate him much better, in the top ten. (Of course, maybe I'm not a historian!) One, among many, reason is that although Eisenhower didn't at all like the Supremes' decision in Brown v Board of Ed, he used federal troops in Little Rock in '57 to enforce it. He noted that he took an oath to enforce the law, which is what Brown did--tell us what the law was. It was his responsibility, one he took seriously. On the other hand, President Jackson is usually rated among the top Presidents, in the top 7 or 8 at least. Yet, in 1830, when the Marshall Court ruled unfavorably (in Jackson's eyes) in a case involving Indians, Jackson purportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let's see him enforce it." Jackson ignored, willfully, his Constitutional responsibilities. Did I say anything about Jackson's treatment of Indians or that he owned slaves????? OK, candor forces me to say there are some anomalies in both of these Jackson demerits.
Senator Debbie Stabenow wants to score political points with those getting college loans with a bill to restore the previous interest rate on student loans--to 3.4% I think. Is it the cynic in me that sees this as one more attempt to create a group dependent on the federal government? After all, she never once has mention the role of the federal government in driving up college tuition in the first place.
I was talking with some people tonight and asked them, rhetorically, why colleges can't require their professors to actually teach, that is, teach four or five classes instead of one or two. It's utter ridiculous. Let's see--four or five classes is 12 or 15, maybe 20 at most, hours a week of classroom time. Assume two hours a week for each class to grade papers and toss in a few hours of office time. That's about 30 hours of work--give or take--each week. That leaves 10 hours for research--for classes, which often ends up in journal articles, guest lectures, or even books. Oh, that's just 40 hours. There's nothing that says professors can't work more hours beyond 40, esp if they are going to get paid for journal articles, guest lectures, or even books. I'll bet many of these same professors speak often of the greed of Big Oil, bankers, etc. Oh, for once I am speaking from experience.
So, instead of one professor making, say, $100,000 for teaching four or five classes, the situation now often calls for three professors, teaching one or two classes, for $100,000 each. How many professors on each campus??????
I hope the umpires and coaches from our little league were watching the Tigers the other night. One of the opponents, Nick Swisher Michael tells me, tapped a foul squib shots, just inching down the third base line in foul territory. Swisher gave up on the ball and didn't run. The Tiger catcher, though, followed the ball and it began to roll back into fair territory. As soon as it did roll back as a fair ball, the Tigers' catcher picked it up and tagged the batter--OUT! So, a ball in foul territory isn't necessarily a foul ball, not if it rolls fair without touching anyone or anything. Hmmm...... I wonder if any of the league coaches and umpires saw that and said, "Hey, he was right." Sometimes I actually do show I know some things about baseball. But most don't listen.
OK, out to read about Willie Mays..... I know he replaced Bobby Thompson in CF when he first came up to the Giants. I didn't know Thompson was perceived by most people as the best CF in the National League! And the Giants didn't hesitate to put Mays in CF and move Thompson (who wasn't happy about it) to LF. Oh, and Willie learned early on the advantages of playing a shallow CF. Gee, I preach that all the time--to our players and to our coaches. There's a logic behind it, playing the odds. But again, most don't listen to me.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Danger?
The Detroit Free Press ran an editorial while we weren in Las Vegas that is very frightening as well as ignorant. It holds that, although President Obama's recent executive order regarding "global warming" is constitutionally dubious (it's actually more than dubious), the danger of global warming justifies even unconstitutional usurpation of authority.
First, the Free Press clings to its "flat earth" thinking. Here, read Charles Krauthammer's column on that: http://gazettextra.com/news/2013/jul/04/obamas-global-warming-folly/ And there are many others that can be found casting serious and intelligent doubt on the fears perpetrated in the name of "global warming."
More significant is the Free Press's stance on executive usurpation of power. So, according to the FP, the ends justify the means? That is pretty ignorant. I've written this before, but it bears repeating. Mussolini made the trains run on time (he actually didn't, but....) in Italy. Hitler virually eliminated unemployment in Germany. Stalin (forcibly) brought the USSR into the 20th Century.
Perhaps a future President will deem that newspapers, through irresponsible reporting, biased and slanted accounts, etc., contribute to the moral decay of this country. Therefore, using the FP's logic, the President can use his powers, unconstitutionally use his powers, to muzzle or even shut down newspapers.
I wonder if the editors at the Free Press have ever read the story of Pandora's Box??????
First, the Free Press clings to its "flat earth" thinking. Here, read Charles Krauthammer's column on that: http://gazettextra.com/news/2013/jul/04/obamas-global-warming-folly/ And there are many others that can be found casting serious and intelligent doubt on the fears perpetrated in the name of "global warming."
More significant is the Free Press's stance on executive usurpation of power. So, according to the FP, the ends justify the means? That is pretty ignorant. I've written this before, but it bears repeating. Mussolini made the trains run on time (he actually didn't, but....) in Italy. Hitler virually eliminated unemployment in Germany. Stalin (forcibly) brought the USSR into the 20th Century.
Perhaps a future President will deem that newspapers, through irresponsible reporting, biased and slanted accounts, etc., contribute to the moral decay of this country. Therefore, using the FP's logic, the President can use his powers, unconstitutionally use his powers, to muzzle or even shut down newspapers.
I wonder if the editors at the Free Press have ever read the story of Pandora's Box??????
Monday, July 8, 2013
Mon Thoughts
No doubt, the weather here today and yesterday have been more uncomfortable for me (and Karen) than last week in Las Vegas. Running, mowing the lawn, biking, cleaning the garage, weeding, anything just finds the sweat rolling off me--and it doesn't stop even if I do. Yes, 117 degrees is hot, but....
Why does MLB allow fans to choose the All-Star starters? I know the rationale is that the game is for the fans, but fans pick their favorite players, not necessarily the best. (That's like students identifying as their "best" teacher the one who was their "favorite." That could be worlds of difference.) Two points to make about this. First, how can this possibly be Miggy Cabrera's first start in an All-Star game? Well, that's because fans pick their favorites, not the best players. Perhaps the name of the game should be changed? Second, why don't fans also, then, pick the pitchers and back-up players? After all....
So, apparently the pilot of the plane that crashed at SFO was landing that particular plane for the first time? Hmmm...... I'm certainly no expert on flying--in fact, I don't like it! But, if I remember correctly, SFO's landing come in over the water, with the landing strip suddenly appearing. It's like flying into Logan in Boston, flying over the ocean, with a crash seeming imminent and then the runway sprouting up out of nowhere. Maybe an easier landing would have been better for an inaugural landing? Of course, as Karen noted, there's so much computer assistance, maybe my thought is off-base.
OK, lots to do, even with the thunderstorm still raging--almost an hour now. Out......
Why does MLB allow fans to choose the All-Star starters? I know the rationale is that the game is for the fans, but fans pick their favorite players, not necessarily the best. (That's like students identifying as their "best" teacher the one who was their "favorite." That could be worlds of difference.) Two points to make about this. First, how can this possibly be Miggy Cabrera's first start in an All-Star game? Well, that's because fans pick their favorites, not the best players. Perhaps the name of the game should be changed? Second, why don't fans also, then, pick the pitchers and back-up players? After all....
So, apparently the pilot of the plane that crashed at SFO was landing that particular plane for the first time? Hmmm...... I'm certainly no expert on flying--in fact, I don't like it! But, if I remember correctly, SFO's landing come in over the water, with the landing strip suddenly appearing. It's like flying into Logan in Boston, flying over the ocean, with a crash seeming imminent and then the runway sprouting up out of nowhere. Maybe an easier landing would have been better for an inaugural landing? Of course, as Karen noted, there's so much computer assistance, maybe my thought is off-base.
OK, lots to do, even with the thunderstorm still raging--almost an hour now. Out......
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Lying?
When is lying not lying?
When Roger Clemens lied to a committee of Congress about his steroid use, he was prosecuted in a criminal court. He was acquitted. And this was over an issue of major national importance--baseball!
The Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence lied to a committee of Congress, too. I think it was late last winter. I haven't seen anything about prosecuting him. And I don't expect to see him in court, not at all. The guy even admitted lying, later saying he told "the least untruthful" thing. Huh? "Least untruthful?"
So, something as trivial as drug use in baseball--let MLB take care of its own problems--is of major importance to the federal government. But lying about spying on American citizens (and, of course, the President also blatantly lied about, although not before a Congressional committee) is OK, I guess.
Is this a great country or what? I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Oh, while I'm at it....
A recent article on the decline of the wolf population on Isle Royale was blamed on "man-made global warming." Apparently, Lake Superior doesn't freeze between the island and Minnesota and Canada. So, wolves can't make the trek to Isle Royale to repopulate. Now, there may be global warming (but, remember, the late '70s was characterized as the start of a "New Ice Age"), but it's not at all clear its cause is "man-made." Cyclical variations, activity of the sun, etc. are just as likely causes. But, the media wants us to believe we are causing all these problems with our man-made global warming. Was that at all necessary? Couldn't the reporter have just noted that Lake Superior now freezes over less frequently, even due to "global warming?" But, no--"man-made" had to be used. Couldn't a sharp editor have erased "man-made?" I guess not......
BTW, I see the Chinese (you know, our "friends") have made it so that Christians must hold their services underground in fear. Being an "unregistered Christian" is against Chinese law. Huh? Yep, and more than a thousand Chinese have been arrested for breaking the law. Hey! Let's do more business with the Chinese, you know, the ones who steal our technology, hack into our defense systems, manipulate prices, and persecute Christians. Yet, we still have many pundits/columnists who laud their "friends" (I guess I don't want to use the term "our" any longer), big corporations and state governments eager to do business with the Chinese ("global economy," "world market," etc.), and even local radio personalities who flock to China to cover the Chinese auto show! What was it Lenin called them, "useful idiots?" I know, I know...... It's a global economy. There's a vast market for us to exploit. And so on.... Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time (He really didn't, but people thought he did.). And Hitler virtually eliminated unemployment. And Stalin brought the USSR into the modern age. Hasn't anyone remember the Sullivan Rules? Oh, I forgot...history isn't important.
When Roger Clemens lied to a committee of Congress about his steroid use, he was prosecuted in a criminal court. He was acquitted. And this was over an issue of major national importance--baseball!
The Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence lied to a committee of Congress, too. I think it was late last winter. I haven't seen anything about prosecuting him. And I don't expect to see him in court, not at all. The guy even admitted lying, later saying he told "the least untruthful" thing. Huh? "Least untruthful?"
So, something as trivial as drug use in baseball--let MLB take care of its own problems--is of major importance to the federal government. But lying about spying on American citizens (and, of course, the President also blatantly lied about, although not before a Congressional committee) is OK, I guess.
Is this a great country or what? I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Oh, while I'm at it....
A recent article on the decline of the wolf population on Isle Royale was blamed on "man-made global warming." Apparently, Lake Superior doesn't freeze between the island and Minnesota and Canada. So, wolves can't make the trek to Isle Royale to repopulate. Now, there may be global warming (but, remember, the late '70s was characterized as the start of a "New Ice Age"), but it's not at all clear its cause is "man-made." Cyclical variations, activity of the sun, etc. are just as likely causes. But, the media wants us to believe we are causing all these problems with our man-made global warming. Was that at all necessary? Couldn't the reporter have just noted that Lake Superior now freezes over less frequently, even due to "global warming?" But, no--"man-made" had to be used. Couldn't a sharp editor have erased "man-made?" I guess not......
BTW, I see the Chinese (you know, our "friends") have made it so that Christians must hold their services underground in fear. Being an "unregistered Christian" is against Chinese law. Huh? Yep, and more than a thousand Chinese have been arrested for breaking the law. Hey! Let's do more business with the Chinese, you know, the ones who steal our technology, hack into our defense systems, manipulate prices, and persecute Christians. Yet, we still have many pundits/columnists who laud their "friends" (I guess I don't want to use the term "our" any longer), big corporations and state governments eager to do business with the Chinese ("global economy," "world market," etc.), and even local radio personalities who flock to China to cover the Chinese auto show! What was it Lenin called them, "useful idiots?" I know, I know...... It's a global economy. There's a vast market for us to exploit. And so on.... Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time (He really didn't, but people thought he did.). And Hitler virtually eliminated unemployment. And Stalin brought the USSR into the modern age. Hasn't anyone remember the Sullivan Rules? Oh, I forgot...history isn't important.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Sainthood?
I see Pope Francis I (What took so long for a pope to take the name "Francis?" Haven't any of them heard of Francis of Assisi or Francis de Sales, among others?) has given the green light for Pope John Paul (George and Ringo) to attain sainthood. He's confirmed two "miracles."
First, what constitutes a "miracle?" Second, does the proposed saint perform the "miracle" or is it done in his/her name by God?
Are the saints chosen exclusively from Catholics? Of course, Mother Teresa seemed a logical and deserving candidate for sainthood. After all, if she wasn't a "saint," what justification can there be for them? She even donated her Nobel Peace Prize money to the Little Sisters of the Poor. Now, if that isn't a miracle....
I wondered about this earlier. What is a miracle? Who can be a saint? Do the rules, then, preclude, say, Abraham Lincoln and/or Martin Luther King from sainthood? Granted, I'm not a Catholic, so it's not my business, but that seems unfortunate (I can't think of the right word). Who has positively affected people's lives in such wonderful ways as these two? Can sainthood, then, only be conferred by actions performed after a saint has died?
And, of course, some "saints" have been demoted. Didn't St. Christopher (with the medals and statues for safe travel) become "Mr. Christopher?" Has he been re-elevated? I don't know.
In some instances, with all of those former popes now saints, it seems like sainthood is like what the schools do in "teacher-of-the-year" awards. The rewards go to those who play the game best. Maybe not, but......
First, what constitutes a "miracle?" Second, does the proposed saint perform the "miracle" or is it done in his/her name by God?
Are the saints chosen exclusively from Catholics? Of course, Mother Teresa seemed a logical and deserving candidate for sainthood. After all, if she wasn't a "saint," what justification can there be for them? She even donated her Nobel Peace Prize money to the Little Sisters of the Poor. Now, if that isn't a miracle....
I wondered about this earlier. What is a miracle? Who can be a saint? Do the rules, then, preclude, say, Abraham Lincoln and/or Martin Luther King from sainthood? Granted, I'm not a Catholic, so it's not my business, but that seems unfortunate (I can't think of the right word). Who has positively affected people's lives in such wonderful ways as these two? Can sainthood, then, only be conferred by actions performed after a saint has died?
And, of course, some "saints" have been demoted. Didn't St. Christopher (with the medals and statues for safe travel) become "Mr. Christopher?" Has he been re-elevated? I don't know.
In some instances, with all of those former popes now saints, it seems like sainthood is like what the schools do in "teacher-of-the-year" awards. The rewards go to those who play the game best. Maybe not, but......
Double Standards
I'm not certain I'm clear on the Paula Deene (sp?) controversy. I don't know much about her and, in fact, am not sure how to spell her last name. I know she has a television food show--or did have one. Apparently, she was dismissed from her show and lost a number of endorsement jobs because of insensitive racial slurs uttered decades ago. That doesn't excuse them, but were they really decades ago? She may or may not have deserved dismissal. Again, I don't know the specifics.
But how do those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep rolling along? Haven't they also been the focal points of racial controvesies, in bad ways? How do some political commentators such as Bill Maher (again, I never watch him and am not sure of the spelling) get away with what they call people, esp women? Where are the women's groups when this happens? How about the Gangsta-Rappers?
If it's not right to say something, it's not right for anyone to say it.
But how do those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep rolling along? Haven't they also been the focal points of racial controvesies, in bad ways? How do some political commentators such as Bill Maher (again, I never watch him and am not sure of the spelling) get away with what they call people, esp women? Where are the women's groups when this happens? How about the Gangsta-Rappers?
If it's not right to say something, it's not right for anyone to say it.
Las Vegas
I continue to be amazed at the place! Karen and I have been there more than a dozen times and I can't get over the ostentation. I say that in a positive way.
We don't gamble, but walk through the casinos often. I think there were as many gamblers as I've seen in a few years. It was hard to tell on the Strip, though, because likely many were inside, out of the intense heat, or by the pools.
The heat was intense--two days hit 117 degrees, tying all-time temperature records. The other days were 115, 112, and 111. How unsettling to find the temperature 109 degrees at 11 PM! I ran one AM at 100 degrees and two at 98. It cooled off one day, all the way down to 93. These AM runs came around 6:00. And, I was not the only one out there running. I didn't count closely, but one AM I saw another couple dozen runners on the Strip. I only ran the Strip two days, heading out past the airport the other days. But those AMs were not as tough as running, say, this AM here in Michigan--at 70-some degrees and heavy humididity.
I did find myself wearing down. It was likely the heat which had a sapping effect. But it was also, likely, from chasing with the kids. It was a go-go-go trip.
I remember, years ago, people telling me how cheap food and drinks were in Las Vegas. Karen and I had never been there until Matt moved out to take a job. I was anxious to see steak and prime rib dinners for $3 and $5. Yeah, right! Sometime between my friends' visits and ours, the Las Vegas folks figured out they didn't have to give low-cost meals. The buffet this time, for six of us, with tip, was more than $250. Oh, the food was good, very good, and there was a lot of it, both in volume and variety. Other restaurants have followed suit. I stopped at a drug store to pick up a 12-pack of soda and was stunned to find the price--$7.49! That's not a 24-can case, but a 12-can pack. I opted for water. But, we always eat well in Las Vegas. Since we don't gamble......
Matt and Linda watched the kids while Grandma and Grandpa went to see Human Nature: The Motown Sound at the Venetian. Wow! What a show! I think it's my favorite of all the shows we've seen out there. The group--Human Nature--is promoted by none other than Smokey Robinson. Each of the four group members sings very well. They don't try to copy the original song or dance routines, but give their own renditions. Well, they pretty much dance like white guys from Australia. But they were very entertaining, interacting with the audience quite well. In shows I like, I often find myself singing right along with the performers. Karen often elbows me to stop. Not this night, since Human Nature frequently urged us to sinc along with them. I think, although I thought Human Nature was good and the band was terrific, the key to the show was the Motown Sound--all the songs. They have a grandeur, a greatness of their own. I plan to take in the show again on a future trip.
People are, for the most part, rude and inconsiderate. At first I singled out certain groups, but came to the conclusion it's most people. They don't walk on the right. They don't move over. They don't squeeze in on elevators. For that matter, they don't let those on the elevators get off befor they try to get on. Obversely, the workers are pretty good at working with people. Of all the folks we dealt with, only one or two seemed as if they thought they were put out dealing with us. Of course, I sort of figured out one of out waiter's tips/pay. While we had breakfast, about 45 minutes in the restaurant, I calculated that the guy would pick up at least $34 in tips; that doesn't include his base pay and I figured on minimal tips (Karen tips very well and likely, in Vegas, more folks tipped well). And I couldn't see all of the tables in his section and, remember, we were in-and-out in about 45 minutes.
I had a nice lunch with an Amherst buddy, who has a law office--a branch--in Las Vegas. We meet when I get out there and, as usual, I enjoyed it.
I think K is planning our next trip for Nov or Dec...... Maybe it will cool off a bit by then.
We don't gamble, but walk through the casinos often. I think there were as many gamblers as I've seen in a few years. It was hard to tell on the Strip, though, because likely many were inside, out of the intense heat, or by the pools.
The heat was intense--two days hit 117 degrees, tying all-time temperature records. The other days were 115, 112, and 111. How unsettling to find the temperature 109 degrees at 11 PM! I ran one AM at 100 degrees and two at 98. It cooled off one day, all the way down to 93. These AM runs came around 6:00. And, I was not the only one out there running. I didn't count closely, but one AM I saw another couple dozen runners on the Strip. I only ran the Strip two days, heading out past the airport the other days. But those AMs were not as tough as running, say, this AM here in Michigan--at 70-some degrees and heavy humididity.
I did find myself wearing down. It was likely the heat which had a sapping effect. But it was also, likely, from chasing with the kids. It was a go-go-go trip.
I remember, years ago, people telling me how cheap food and drinks were in Las Vegas. Karen and I had never been there until Matt moved out to take a job. I was anxious to see steak and prime rib dinners for $3 and $5. Yeah, right! Sometime between my friends' visits and ours, the Las Vegas folks figured out they didn't have to give low-cost meals. The buffet this time, for six of us, with tip, was more than $250. Oh, the food was good, very good, and there was a lot of it, both in volume and variety. Other restaurants have followed suit. I stopped at a drug store to pick up a 12-pack of soda and was stunned to find the price--$7.49! That's not a 24-can case, but a 12-can pack. I opted for water. But, we always eat well in Las Vegas. Since we don't gamble......
Matt and Linda watched the kids while Grandma and Grandpa went to see Human Nature: The Motown Sound at the Venetian. Wow! What a show! I think it's my favorite of all the shows we've seen out there. The group--Human Nature--is promoted by none other than Smokey Robinson. Each of the four group members sings very well. They don't try to copy the original song or dance routines, but give their own renditions. Well, they pretty much dance like white guys from Australia. But they were very entertaining, interacting with the audience quite well. In shows I like, I often find myself singing right along with the performers. Karen often elbows me to stop. Not this night, since Human Nature frequently urged us to sinc along with them. I think, although I thought Human Nature was good and the band was terrific, the key to the show was the Motown Sound--all the songs. They have a grandeur, a greatness of their own. I plan to take in the show again on a future trip.
People are, for the most part, rude and inconsiderate. At first I singled out certain groups, but came to the conclusion it's most people. They don't walk on the right. They don't move over. They don't squeeze in on elevators. For that matter, they don't let those on the elevators get off befor they try to get on. Obversely, the workers are pretty good at working with people. Of all the folks we dealt with, only one or two seemed as if they thought they were put out dealing with us. Of course, I sort of figured out one of out waiter's tips/pay. While we had breakfast, about 45 minutes in the restaurant, I calculated that the guy would pick up at least $34 in tips; that doesn't include his base pay and I figured on minimal tips (Karen tips very well and likely, in Vegas, more folks tipped well). And I couldn't see all of the tables in his section and, remember, we were in-and-out in about 45 minutes.
I had a nice lunch with an Amherst buddy, who has a law office--a branch--in Las Vegas. We meet when I get out there and, as usual, I enjoyed it.
I think K is planning our next trip for Nov or Dec...... Maybe it will cool off a bit by then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
