There was a relevant editorial in last Sunday's Detroit News. Nolan Finley correctly noted how every conversation, every dialogue today seems to be met with "Yeah, but......" How can there be serious discussion when, if a point is made, the other side counters with "Yeah, but.....?"
For instance, try to be critical of, say, Maxine Waters' idiotic diatribes and one is likely to be met with, "Yeah, but Trump is a fascist" or "racist" or whatever. If one questions the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it will be countered with "Yeah, but the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland." And, as Finley noted, this goes two ways. If Trump is criticized for not being hard-line with the Russians, the Trumpsters will respond with something about Obama sending billions of dollars to Iran. It's a good op-ed.
Related, perhaps, is another conversation-ender I've encountered in recent years. It's, "But that's different." If I point out that some folks live rather extravagantly, while they themselves criticize others for being "greedy," I'll be met with "But that's different." I question the local school district's defense of paying its administrators good money; the defense is top dollar is required to attract and retain good administrators, which I think is oxymoronic--good administrators?????? C'mon! OK, if I accept that (and I don't), but if I do, why isn't the same logic applied to teacher salaries? The local teachers are, if not the lowest in the county, very close to it and have been for five decades. "But that's different." Each of us can come up with countless examples of "But that's different." Of course it is.
"Historical illiteracy." I've heard or read that term several times recently and it concerns me. It doesn't take much effort to read or hear someone liken Trump and his policies to "Fascists" and/or "Nazis." Similarly, "concentration camps," "the Holocaust," including specifics such as "Krystallnacht," and the like are tossed out in comparison with the Trump administration actions. So cavalierly such comparisons are employed! It makes me wonder what is being taught in history courses, at whatever levels, to have supposedly educated people (e.g., reporters and columnists) make such analogies. Realize that I write all this knowing most people think that history isn't important.
There are several problems with this, this "historical illiteracy." First, it trivializes the Holocaust. Are people going to go through their lives thinking that what the Trump administration is doing now was what Hitler and the Nazis did in the Holocaust!?!?!? For example, can anyone explicitly show anything the Trump administration has done that compares with Krystallnacht? Of course, if one doesn't know what Krystallnacht was...... Second, it leads to hysteria. To compare anything to the Holocaust would do that. And ignorant people are easily led, falling victim to the false analogies. Yet, it whips them into furies.
How can we have any meaningful conversations/discussions when such false comparisons are so routinely made? And, with so many folks historically illiterate.....
There he goes with that history stuff again. Everyone but him knows history isn't important.
Not exactly the same is something I've been thinking about for a few weeks, with the primary elections soon upon us. I recall the 2016 Presidential election. I voted for neither major party candidate. And from the looks of things, that will also be the case in 2020. I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Nope, I won't do it. Far too many people do that and the result is we continually get "evils," lousy candidates from which to choose. Why bother working to get solid candidates for President when voters will invariably choose the one who is the "lesser of two evils?" Of course, that makes mud-slinging ever more important. Each party must dirty the other party's candidate more, to make him/her the greater of two evils.
I know. I know. People have many times told me, "You elected Trump." or "You wasted your vote." or some other such nonsense. No, I didn't do either. What I did was refuse to accept the junk that was thrown my way. If more people did that, perhaps we wouldn't be bombarded with junk. In fact, I think that by voting for junk (Clinton or Trump), people wasted their votes. There! My vote, to me, is much more valuable than junk.
I'm reading a book now that is challenging my values. It is Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It's interesting reading and does, indeed, cause me to think and rethink. I'm about half way through it and agree with much of the author's contentions. I don't agree with some of his claims, though. But the good thing is I have to think to come back to my own conclusions. I understand the author's concern with the growing power of the President, authority that was never intended by the Founders and isn't supported by the Constitution. I guess that makes much of what Presidents do and have done for 100 years or more unconstitutional.
But here's something really cool--and lambaste me if you will. When he is critical of one President and his policies and then criticizes another in the same light, I think, "But that's different." Ha ha ha. The reality is, though, there are differences. Some Presidents acted with some disregard toward the Constitution in far, far different circumstances than others. I don't think the actions can rightly compare. For instance, were the times of, say, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt as dire as those faced by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War? The Civil War was life-threatening for the US, the others not quite so. The author apparently doesn't accept that premise. It's as if he is writing from the premise of "cetera paribus," that is, "everything being equal," when everything wasn't equal. (I knew economics courses in college would eventually come in handy!)
I suppose the several factual errors I have found in the book are trivial, but they make me question other things I read that I didn't know. For instance, the vote of Congress to declare war on Japan on December 8, 1941 was not "unanimous." Again, perhaps that's trivial and I am being my picayunish self. But it does lead me to doubts.
The last four chapters are of four Presidents "who tried to save America." I've not yet come to them, but note that one of them has to do with Calvin Coolidge. I'm glad to see him in with that group and look forward to reading that chapter. I believe Coolidge has been given a bum deal in rankings and in the textbooks and teachers history courses.
I'm too tired to proofread. Please forgive any errors......
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Democracy v Republic?
A Michigan state legislator, whose name I don't remember, has made some proposals about the teaching of history in state K-12 schools. I heard him briefly on the radio this AM where he was explaining/defending his proposals which were in this AM's newspaper. I haven't read the article and only heard his proposal to remove "democracy" as a descriptor of the US form of government.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Where Does It End?
Apparently a kid who was born a boy and now claims to be transgender was allowed to compete in the Connecticut state high school track meet--as a girl. Is it a surprise he won his events, by sizable margins?
The kid admits he was born as a boy, but she identifies as a girl. In rare circumstances only, can elite women compete with men. Compare marathon times. What person would put a woman at offensive tackle vs some NFL defensive lineman? In an interview I heard, one guy said that if the UConn women's basketball team was put on the court with the UConn men's team, "the men might lose." Maybe so, but I doubt it, really doubt it.
So, what happens when guys not good enough to make the NBA or the PGA Tour declare they "identify as women" and proceed to the WNBA and LPGA? Is that far behind? Will those doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) support the lost opportunities (think money!) for women?
I'm not taking an anti-transgender position. In fact, I just finished a book about transgenders. I do think, though, that someone with a male body, regardless of how he/she identifies, has a distinct advantage over most athletes with female bodies. Consider strength, speed, etc.
I wonder about the whole thing. How did the winner (and the transgender who finished second) really feel about the victory? He/She appeared excited, but, deep down? How did the girls (and their parents and coaches) feel about this, losing to someone with male physical abilities? What about the boys'/girls' parents? For that matter, how does this differ from the doping, esp the Soviet and Eastern European, scandals of the Olympics, the taking of male hormones by women athletes? The state high school officials claim their hands were tied, that they had to permit the competition due to state law. If, say, transgenders can use either rest room, they can compete in either meet, boys or girls.
Perhaps some boys, honestly or otherwise, should claim to be transgender and insist on competing in girls' meets/events.
If a person biologically a male, claims to be/identifies as a female, can he/she get, say, a college scholarship for the women's basketball team? Would a coach even consider it?
I don't know anything of the NoKo deal. But I find it very entertaining that those who criticized Obama over Iran are now lauding Trump over North Korea. And, vice versa, those supporters of Obama's deal are critical of Trump. That was probably predictable.
Some Hollywood-type (I, as usual, never heard of the guy.) made some comments about the Supremes' decision in the Colorado baker case. The baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding--or something like that. The baker was sued and lost in the state courts, but the Supremes overturned the state ruling. (I hope I have that right. It's so hard to keep things straight nowadays!) This Hollywood-type, who is smarter than you and I, disagreed and made some public comments that the baker should have to bake the cake when a gay wedding is held. OK, I don't have a problem with this, if...... If this Hollywood-type agrees to make a commercial touting the bakery and the baker's religious beliefs. Oh, the Hollywood-type doesn't agree with the baker, but thinks the baker should have to go against his beliefs. So, then turn-around is fair play. If the baker can be forced to go against his beliefs by others, so should the Hollywood-type in making the ad extolling the baker's religious beliefs. Maybe not......
I listened intently the other day. The person was saying something I didn't know; I realized I could learn from her. So, I tried to drink in as much as I could. So, then, why do so many people refuse to recognize others might, just might, know more than they do? Why are they so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to listening, to at least considering others' suggestions? Just because somebody played little league and watches games on the boob tube does not at all mean that person really knows baseball. I think far too many don't realize that. And it goes beyond baseball and other sports. I am willing to concede, too, that sometimes this describes me. I was glad the person the other night grabbed my attention. I not only learned some new things and gained some different perspectives, but also was reminded of learning from others in general. Now, can I remember that?
The kid admits he was born as a boy, but she identifies as a girl. In rare circumstances only, can elite women compete with men. Compare marathon times. What person would put a woman at offensive tackle vs some NFL defensive lineman? In an interview I heard, one guy said that if the UConn women's basketball team was put on the court with the UConn men's team, "the men might lose." Maybe so, but I doubt it, really doubt it.
So, what happens when guys not good enough to make the NBA or the PGA Tour declare they "identify as women" and proceed to the WNBA and LPGA? Is that far behind? Will those doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) support the lost opportunities (think money!) for women?
I'm not taking an anti-transgender position. In fact, I just finished a book about transgenders. I do think, though, that someone with a male body, regardless of how he/she identifies, has a distinct advantage over most athletes with female bodies. Consider strength, speed, etc.
I wonder about the whole thing. How did the winner (and the transgender who finished second) really feel about the victory? He/She appeared excited, but, deep down? How did the girls (and their parents and coaches) feel about this, losing to someone with male physical abilities? What about the boys'/girls' parents? For that matter, how does this differ from the doping, esp the Soviet and Eastern European, scandals of the Olympics, the taking of male hormones by women athletes? The state high school officials claim their hands were tied, that they had to permit the competition due to state law. If, say, transgenders can use either rest room, they can compete in either meet, boys or girls.
Perhaps some boys, honestly or otherwise, should claim to be transgender and insist on competing in girls' meets/events.
If a person biologically a male, claims to be/identifies as a female, can he/she get, say, a college scholarship for the women's basketball team? Would a coach even consider it?
I don't know anything of the NoKo deal. But I find it very entertaining that those who criticized Obama over Iran are now lauding Trump over North Korea. And, vice versa, those supporters of Obama's deal are critical of Trump. That was probably predictable.
Some Hollywood-type (I, as usual, never heard of the guy.) made some comments about the Supremes' decision in the Colorado baker case. The baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding--or something like that. The baker was sued and lost in the state courts, but the Supremes overturned the state ruling. (I hope I have that right. It's so hard to keep things straight nowadays!) This Hollywood-type, who is smarter than you and I, disagreed and made some public comments that the baker should have to bake the cake when a gay wedding is held. OK, I don't have a problem with this, if...... If this Hollywood-type agrees to make a commercial touting the bakery and the baker's religious beliefs. Oh, the Hollywood-type doesn't agree with the baker, but thinks the baker should have to go against his beliefs. So, then turn-around is fair play. If the baker can be forced to go against his beliefs by others, so should the Hollywood-type in making the ad extolling the baker's religious beliefs. Maybe not......
I listened intently the other day. The person was saying something I didn't know; I realized I could learn from her. So, I tried to drink in as much as I could. So, then, why do so many people refuse to recognize others might, just might, know more than they do? Why are they so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to listening, to at least considering others' suggestions? Just because somebody played little league and watches games on the boob tube does not at all mean that person really knows baseball. I think far too many don't realize that. And it goes beyond baseball and other sports. I am willing to concede, too, that sometimes this describes me. I was glad the person the other night grabbed my attention. I not only learned some new things and gained some different perspectives, but also was reminded of learning from others in general. Now, can I remember that?
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Hypocrisy, "Worth it," etc.
Following up on my "celebrity" post from a few weeks ago, I had to laugh at an e-mail/newsletter I received. The title of an article in it was "57 Celebrities Who Have Run Marathons." On a lark I looked through it, chuckling when I recognized about a dozen of the names, that's all. "Celebrities?" I guess not in my book.
I normally don't follow much in the way of the sports world. But one recent story intrigued me. Apparently the University of Michigan basketball coach is being considered for and is considering the Detroit Pistons coaching position. Hmmm..... I wonder why. There has been speculation, a number of theories. One is that he's positioning for more money from U of M. Maybe. He's getting about $4 million now. To me, how much more does one need? That's more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetimes, let alone one year. Maybe the lure of double that annually is strong. Another is that he might be eager to challenge himself on the highest level, the NBA. Hmmm. I wonder. Is the NBA "the highest level?" Surely it is pay-wise. But who is to say it's the epitome of coaching levels? Is coaching a Division I college team somehow "higher" than one in Division II or III? Is, for instance, teaching at the high school or even college level something "higher" than say, teaching kindergarten or first grade? I don't think so in either case. Besides, and this might well just be me and my value and views, I can't imagine a better coaching job than at a small Division III school. Maybe it's ego, the allure of bigger bucks, being on "the big or bigger stage" (celebrity?), etc. Still, I think it's a thoughtful issue.
I found myself acting hypocritically the other day. I guess I realized it at the time, but didn't change my behavior/plans. The specifics are not relevant and it was nothing major. It was not a question of good or bad, but more of better and not better. Nevertheless, I chose poorly.
It seems we are surrounded by hypocrisy today. I know people are not perfect; they make mistakes. And I also realize that it's not always easy to live completely principled lives all of the time or maybe even most of the time. Still, the hypocrisy hangs from the trees. I don't know if it's good that I recognize when I am a hypocrite. But it seems to me most folks don't--or don't care if they are.
I think those who tick me off the most are the ones who constantly or at least often call others "greedy" or "mean-spirited." Yet, it frequently, in fact as often as not, turns out these same name-callers spend tons of money--on lavish vacations that last for weeks, on expensive cars (often many of them, sometimes more cars than there are drivers in the household), golf/country club memberships, $40 and $50 bottles of wine for everyday dinner, etc. Yet in their own eyes, they aren't the greedy ones; it's always the other guys who are. I don't care how people spend their money; that's the key with me: it's their money! I have no business telling others how to spend their own earned money. And neither do these hypocrites, unless......
Unless they stop spending on these vacations, drop their country/golf club memberships, buy cars more in tune with what most folks buy, give up their pools that have decks with more square footage than my house, etc. (OK, they don't have to resort to Boone's Farm or Paisano, but how about good wines that cost half or less of what they now spend?) Again, I have no problem with how people spend their money; it's theirs. What irks me is those who live one way while preaching another message. They want to spend their own money how they want, but also want to tell others how to spend, too. I would be far less critical if they cut back on their own spending and donated more to charity or, ahem, voluntarily paid more in taxes.
And that leads to something else I came across recently, something I hear regularly. I think the first time I heard this was decades ago, maybe the L'Oreal television commercial that claimed, "...because you're worth it." Similarly, somebody last week said, "...because I deserve it." Well, maybe he/she does; maybe not. What makes people think they "deserve" something or are "worth it?" Now, if someone has worked toward a goal or an achievement, "deserve" and "worth" certainly are in the picture. But, just 'cuz? I don't think so, Tim. It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw on a kid maybe 30 or more years ago. It read, "I'm Somebody Because God Didn't Make No Junk." (Yes, I know......) I hope nobody believes that because there is a lot of "junk" out there among us.
In the same light, we can work hard, save, etc. so that we really "deserve" something. But that doesn't ensure we will be rewarded. That, of course, can be sad. But it can also be a situation where we can learn a few hard facts of life. And it can also be a time where we realize that the journey can be worth as much as the destination.
I normally don't follow much in the way of the sports world. But one recent story intrigued me. Apparently the University of Michigan basketball coach is being considered for and is considering the Detroit Pistons coaching position. Hmmm..... I wonder why. There has been speculation, a number of theories. One is that he's positioning for more money from U of M. Maybe. He's getting about $4 million now. To me, how much more does one need? That's more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetimes, let alone one year. Maybe the lure of double that annually is strong. Another is that he might be eager to challenge himself on the highest level, the NBA. Hmmm. I wonder. Is the NBA "the highest level?" Surely it is pay-wise. But who is to say it's the epitome of coaching levels? Is coaching a Division I college team somehow "higher" than one in Division II or III? Is, for instance, teaching at the high school or even college level something "higher" than say, teaching kindergarten or first grade? I don't think so in either case. Besides, and this might well just be me and my value and views, I can't imagine a better coaching job than at a small Division III school. Maybe it's ego, the allure of bigger bucks, being on "the big or bigger stage" (celebrity?), etc. Still, I think it's a thoughtful issue.
I found myself acting hypocritically the other day. I guess I realized it at the time, but didn't change my behavior/plans. The specifics are not relevant and it was nothing major. It was not a question of good or bad, but more of better and not better. Nevertheless, I chose poorly.
It seems we are surrounded by hypocrisy today. I know people are not perfect; they make mistakes. And I also realize that it's not always easy to live completely principled lives all of the time or maybe even most of the time. Still, the hypocrisy hangs from the trees. I don't know if it's good that I recognize when I am a hypocrite. But it seems to me most folks don't--or don't care if they are.
I think those who tick me off the most are the ones who constantly or at least often call others "greedy" or "mean-spirited." Yet, it frequently, in fact as often as not, turns out these same name-callers spend tons of money--on lavish vacations that last for weeks, on expensive cars (often many of them, sometimes more cars than there are drivers in the household), golf/country club memberships, $40 and $50 bottles of wine for everyday dinner, etc. Yet in their own eyes, they aren't the greedy ones; it's always the other guys who are. I don't care how people spend their money; that's the key with me: it's their money! I have no business telling others how to spend their own earned money. And neither do these hypocrites, unless......
Unless they stop spending on these vacations, drop their country/golf club memberships, buy cars more in tune with what most folks buy, give up their pools that have decks with more square footage than my house, etc. (OK, they don't have to resort to Boone's Farm or Paisano, but how about good wines that cost half or less of what they now spend?) Again, I have no problem with how people spend their money; it's theirs. What irks me is those who live one way while preaching another message. They want to spend their own money how they want, but also want to tell others how to spend, too. I would be far less critical if they cut back on their own spending and donated more to charity or, ahem, voluntarily paid more in taxes.
And that leads to something else I came across recently, something I hear regularly. I think the first time I heard this was decades ago, maybe the L'Oreal television commercial that claimed, "...because you're worth it." Similarly, somebody last week said, "...because I deserve it." Well, maybe he/she does; maybe not. What makes people think they "deserve" something or are "worth it?" Now, if someone has worked toward a goal or an achievement, "deserve" and "worth" certainly are in the picture. But, just 'cuz? I don't think so, Tim. It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw on a kid maybe 30 or more years ago. It read, "I'm Somebody Because God Didn't Make No Junk." (Yes, I know......) I hope nobody believes that because there is a lot of "junk" out there among us.
In the same light, we can work hard, save, etc. so that we really "deserve" something. But that doesn't ensure we will be rewarded. That, of course, can be sad. But it can also be a situation where we can learn a few hard facts of life. And it can also be a time where we realize that the journey can be worth as much as the destination.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Celebrity
What is our fascination with celebrity? I understand that we are not necessarily unique in this, but I still don't understand the fascination.
Oh, I'm sure for a long time people have turned out to see kings and queens, etc. Folks have sought autographs and other memorabilia. Look at Beatlemania and even the bobby soxers with Frank Sinatra before that. That's all fine and good for some people. I admit to saving a handful of baseball cards and even an autograph or two, but only of two players with whom I have a personal connection. But I'm not sure I could find them without a lengthy search.
More to my point is why does it seem people think the opinions of celebrities matter more than any other person's opinions? Look at the television shows, the talk shows. And how often do the Hollywood-types and hippy rock stars make the headlines for their views? I don't begrudge them their opinions. I just wonder why someone could think an entertainer of whatever sort has an opinion more worthy than anybody else's--just because he/she is an entertainer. In fact, I sometimes hear or read of one of them and just shake my head. Of course, they, like everyone, are entitled to opinions. That doesn't necessarily make it a good one or even a valid one.
In the same vein, I received an e-mail the other day (joking I hope!) about a possible Oprah Winfrey run at the Presidency. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion why couldn't she be nominated and, perhaps, even elected? I certainly wouldn't vote for her, but I think a lot of people just might. Why? It has to do with celebrity I think far more than her accomplishments, which are many. Would most who might support her think of what she has achieved rather than merely, "It's Oprah?"
An old Jewish proverb goes, "Opportunities neglected can never be recovered." Although "never" is a word that should be used with caution, I frequently think of "missed opportunities." Some of those thoughts reflect what an Amherst buddy asked me 50 years ago. "What if you'd gone to the University of Michigan instead of Amherst?" It wasn't a rhetorical question and it sparked some interesting discussions back when. And I've thought of that many times since. I don't regret and never have regretted going to Amherst. It was, although it took me more than a few years to figure it out, the formative experience of my life.
I thought of this when I was reading Dennis Prager's chapter on Exodus, from his book The Rational Bible. He brings the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, to life and demonstrates their relevance to today. Perhaps some of the lessons can form the basis of a future blog. My immediate thought was of "opportunities neglected."
More than once over the years I have regretted not taking one or two religion courses at Amherst, The Old Testament and The New Testament. I don't remember why I didn't take them. I took a number of courses from the religion department--two on Islam, one each on Buddhism, the Western Tradition, and the introductory course, among a couple of others. But I shied away from the OT and NT. I wish I hadn't and Prager's writing reminds me of that.
Perhaps it/they would have done me more good than, say, the sociology course or education course at UMass (What a waste! Although I didn't mind at the time that there was little if any work.) I took. In the long run, the OT or NT course or both would have served me better. "Opportunities neglected......"
The world is a changing place. Of course, as history shows us, the world is always changing, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. Perhaps this is the sentiment of one who (or is it the pretentious "whom?") Karen calls "an old curmudgeon," but I don't like many of them. Some I just don't understand and never will. Several sources, including Prager, reported that a Cornell University student presented her honors thesis in her underwear! Some honor! Yep. It's a convoluted story, but apparently she opted to give her dry run in short shorts and a beach-wear top. Her adviser suggested that clothing was not appropriate. So, the student, in her formal presentation, showed up in the same or similar clothes, but while presenting, proceeded to strip down to her bra and panties. Apparently there is some You Tube video of this. (There's probably a You Tube video of me while grocery shopping!) This was a formal thesis presentation!!!!!! I'm not sure of her point, maybe that "I'm more than what I wear?" Who knows? I'm as disturbed over the reaction as much as this student's grossly inappropriate behavior. First, her thesis adviser apologized! For what?!?!?! Second, of the several dozen students at the presentation, a majority stood and applauded her strip show. Third, her thesis advisory committee didn't walk out. I, for one, had I been on the evaluation board, would have left. I'm assuming, but could be wrong, that a full committee would be required for a passing grade. I'd have said, "Come back dressed appropriately and I'll listen." So, why didn't these professors walk out? Their behavior condoned her behavior. Why did the students rise and clap? Did they know what she was doing and approve? Or were they just enjoying the strip show? This student showed a great deal of disrespect toward her professors, toward the process, and toward academia, not to mention her own thesis (whatever its topic). Oh, no doubt she, like the students who applauded, thought she was cool and making a dramatic statement. Yep, "It's all about me!" I wonder, if indeed this episode is on You Tube, what her parents thought of it, seeing her daughter strip down in front of others. Imagine if they, too, were in the audience! I'm sure they were proud......
Oh, I'm sure for a long time people have turned out to see kings and queens, etc. Folks have sought autographs and other memorabilia. Look at Beatlemania and even the bobby soxers with Frank Sinatra before that. That's all fine and good for some people. I admit to saving a handful of baseball cards and even an autograph or two, but only of two players with whom I have a personal connection. But I'm not sure I could find them without a lengthy search.
More to my point is why does it seem people think the opinions of celebrities matter more than any other person's opinions? Look at the television shows, the talk shows. And how often do the Hollywood-types and hippy rock stars make the headlines for their views? I don't begrudge them their opinions. I just wonder why someone could think an entertainer of whatever sort has an opinion more worthy than anybody else's--just because he/she is an entertainer. In fact, I sometimes hear or read of one of them and just shake my head. Of course, they, like everyone, are entitled to opinions. That doesn't necessarily make it a good one or even a valid one.
In the same vein, I received an e-mail the other day (joking I hope!) about a possible Oprah Winfrey run at the Presidency. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion why couldn't she be nominated and, perhaps, even elected? I certainly wouldn't vote for her, but I think a lot of people just might. Why? It has to do with celebrity I think far more than her accomplishments, which are many. Would most who might support her think of what she has achieved rather than merely, "It's Oprah?"
An old Jewish proverb goes, "Opportunities neglected can never be recovered." Although "never" is a word that should be used with caution, I frequently think of "missed opportunities." Some of those thoughts reflect what an Amherst buddy asked me 50 years ago. "What if you'd gone to the University of Michigan instead of Amherst?" It wasn't a rhetorical question and it sparked some interesting discussions back when. And I've thought of that many times since. I don't regret and never have regretted going to Amherst. It was, although it took me more than a few years to figure it out, the formative experience of my life.
I thought of this when I was reading Dennis Prager's chapter on Exodus, from his book The Rational Bible. He brings the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, to life and demonstrates their relevance to today. Perhaps some of the lessons can form the basis of a future blog. My immediate thought was of "opportunities neglected."
More than once over the years I have regretted not taking one or two religion courses at Amherst, The Old Testament and The New Testament. I don't remember why I didn't take them. I took a number of courses from the religion department--two on Islam, one each on Buddhism, the Western Tradition, and the introductory course, among a couple of others. But I shied away from the OT and NT. I wish I hadn't and Prager's writing reminds me of that.
Perhaps it/they would have done me more good than, say, the sociology course or education course at UMass (What a waste! Although I didn't mind at the time that there was little if any work.) I took. In the long run, the OT or NT course or both would have served me better. "Opportunities neglected......"
The world is a changing place. Of course, as history shows us, the world is always changing, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. Perhaps this is the sentiment of one who (or is it the pretentious "whom?") Karen calls "an old curmudgeon," but I don't like many of them. Some I just don't understand and never will. Several sources, including Prager, reported that a Cornell University student presented her honors thesis in her underwear! Some honor! Yep. It's a convoluted story, but apparently she opted to give her dry run in short shorts and a beach-wear top. Her adviser suggested that clothing was not appropriate. So, the student, in her formal presentation, showed up in the same or similar clothes, but while presenting, proceeded to strip down to her bra and panties. Apparently there is some You Tube video of this. (There's probably a You Tube video of me while grocery shopping!) This was a formal thesis presentation!!!!!! I'm not sure of her point, maybe that "I'm more than what I wear?" Who knows? I'm as disturbed over the reaction as much as this student's grossly inappropriate behavior. First, her thesis adviser apologized! For what?!?!?! Second, of the several dozen students at the presentation, a majority stood and applauded her strip show. Third, her thesis advisory committee didn't walk out. I, for one, had I been on the evaluation board, would have left. I'm assuming, but could be wrong, that a full committee would be required for a passing grade. I'd have said, "Come back dressed appropriately and I'll listen." So, why didn't these professors walk out? Their behavior condoned her behavior. Why did the students rise and clap? Did they know what she was doing and approve? Or were they just enjoying the strip show? This student showed a great deal of disrespect toward her professors, toward the process, and toward academia, not to mention her own thesis (whatever its topic). Oh, no doubt she, like the students who applauded, thought she was cool and making a dramatic statement. Yep, "It's all about me!" I wonder, if indeed this episode is on You Tube, what her parents thought of it, seeing her daughter strip down in front of others. Imagine if they, too, were in the audience! I'm sure they were proud......
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Sun Thoughts
This AM's newspapers carried several stories that attracted my attention. First, "61 people shot in Chicago since Monday." "61?" At least 15 of them were hit with bullets from Friday evening to early Saturday morning. The police chief said "We have to get some common sense gun control laws in this country......" He added, "...not just this city, not just this state, but this country to stop this from happening." Hmmm...... He might be right; who knows? But if I have read correctly, Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. It seems to me Chicago doesn't have a gun problem, but a people problem. Too many folks have no value for human lives, except perhaps for their own. I know I've asked this before, but what leads a person to believe he can just pull out a gun and shoot someone for his car or shoes or jacket, or because he was "dissed," or for whatever reason? What kind of animal randomly shoots into a house no knowing who is sitting in the living room just watching the boob tube, doing homework, etc.? Ninety-nine percent of the gun owners in the US don't shoot people. Maybe someone ought to point that out to the police chief and suggest he look at the Chicago people who do. Maybe......
Second, Cal Thomas wrote a column that reads like a number of blogs and e-mails I've written in the distant and not-so-distant past. Sometimes Thomas is a bit too far out there for me, but not this day. "Vulgar goes mainstream." He cited that unfunny comedienne at the White House Correspondents' Dinner--her vile words and lack of civility. I thought I was reading my own words. Thomas asked why people didn't walk out. He noted more examples, too. Language that used to be found only in the locker room has made it to movies, television, newspapers, video games, and more. It seems nobody is shocked to hear such talk, "blue language" my college coach called it as he didn't permit it. Nobody is ashamed to use it. I chuckled at Thomas's "...having his mouth washed out with soap." My mother used to put soap on a wash rag and then clean out my filthy mouth. Oh, she didn't have to do it often and as bad as that was, it was better than her telling my dad when he got home from work. How can we punish kids for language that parents accept as normal on prime time television, in popular movies (even the kids' cartoons!), etc.? I know, I know...... "They're only words." Yeah, right.
I'm still not a fan of Don Trump, not at all. He shouldn't be President, at least in my view. If he's the best we can do, we are pathetic. That's not an endorsement of Obama or Clinton or anyone else. I find them equally disgusting. Another article, I think one day last week in the Wall Street Journal, wrote of Trump's accomplishments, that, because of them, we should ignore everything else he does. I remember what people said of Mussolini, of his accomplishments in Italy. "He makes the trains run on time." (Now, he really didn't, but that's not my point.) Because he "made the trains run on time," everything else he did could be overlooked. And, because I know a little bit about Hitler and his early days as the Fuhrer in Germany, I could make some other comparisons. (I know, I know...... He who resorts to "Hitler" in an argument loses by default.) But from 1933 on to when the tides of war turned against Germany, he was very popular. He turned the economy around. He created jobs. He made it so Germany was feared again. He made Germany great again, after the humiliation of the loss of the First World War and the "diktat," the Treaty of Versailles. (Now, not all of that is so, but it was the general perception.) Things were, as they always are, a bit different. In Germany, opposition was silenced and people were imprisoned and even disappeared. Almost immediately Jews were targeted. But as long as the economy began to boom and the massive unemployment of the Depression dissipated, these things were ignored or, at least, overlooked. I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler or even Mussolini, not at all. I am concerned that Trump's accomplishments (and I think they are underrated by his opponents and overrated by his supporters) lead many to overlook and ignore what shouldn't be overlooked and ignored. (And I could cite more examples/comparisons.) As usual, I concede that I might be all wrong on this.
Second, Cal Thomas wrote a column that reads like a number of blogs and e-mails I've written in the distant and not-so-distant past. Sometimes Thomas is a bit too far out there for me, but not this day. "Vulgar goes mainstream." He cited that unfunny comedienne at the White House Correspondents' Dinner--her vile words and lack of civility. I thought I was reading my own words. Thomas asked why people didn't walk out. He noted more examples, too. Language that used to be found only in the locker room has made it to movies, television, newspapers, video games, and more. It seems nobody is shocked to hear such talk, "blue language" my college coach called it as he didn't permit it. Nobody is ashamed to use it. I chuckled at Thomas's "...having his mouth washed out with soap." My mother used to put soap on a wash rag and then clean out my filthy mouth. Oh, she didn't have to do it often and as bad as that was, it was better than her telling my dad when he got home from work. How can we punish kids for language that parents accept as normal on prime time television, in popular movies (even the kids' cartoons!), etc.? I know, I know...... "They're only words." Yeah, right.
I'm still not a fan of Don Trump, not at all. He shouldn't be President, at least in my view. If he's the best we can do, we are pathetic. That's not an endorsement of Obama or Clinton or anyone else. I find them equally disgusting. Another article, I think one day last week in the Wall Street Journal, wrote of Trump's accomplishments, that, because of them, we should ignore everything else he does. I remember what people said of Mussolini, of his accomplishments in Italy. "He makes the trains run on time." (Now, he really didn't, but that's not my point.) Because he "made the trains run on time," everything else he did could be overlooked. And, because I know a little bit about Hitler and his early days as the Fuhrer in Germany, I could make some other comparisons. (I know, I know...... He who resorts to "Hitler" in an argument loses by default.) But from 1933 on to when the tides of war turned against Germany, he was very popular. He turned the economy around. He created jobs. He made it so Germany was feared again. He made Germany great again, after the humiliation of the loss of the First World War and the "diktat," the Treaty of Versailles. (Now, not all of that is so, but it was the general perception.) Things were, as they always are, a bit different. In Germany, opposition was silenced and people were imprisoned and even disappeared. Almost immediately Jews were targeted. But as long as the economy began to boom and the massive unemployment of the Depression dissipated, these things were ignored or, at least, overlooked. I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler or even Mussolini, not at all. I am concerned that Trump's accomplishments (and I think they are underrated by his opponents and overrated by his supporters) lead many to overlook and ignore what shouldn't be overlooked and ignored. (And I could cite more examples/comparisons.) As usual, I concede that I might be all wrong on this.
Friday, May 4, 2018
How Deep Is......
Wasn't it the Bee Gees or some such group that sang, "How deep is the Swamp," er "your love?" I was reminded of that, the deepness of the Swamp in DC this week with the announcement from Paul Ryan that he wouldn't seek re-election.
My initial reaction was, "Good! Let's get rid of another one of those guys who stabbed his constituents in the back." But I took a measure of my reaction and have a different, somewhat different, take on this. Again, I might be wrong, but......
I think Ryan is a good man, a decent guy who intended to do what's right. No doubt he made some difference. For instance, it was Ryan not Trump who brought about the recent tax cuts. (My mind is still not made up about that one. I see many folks and businesses who have apparently profited from the coming tax cuts. So far I don't appear to be one of them. I'll know more this time next year.) Ryan's plans (beginning in 2011) to balance the federal budget were well-thought, if not universally popular.
Paul Ryan is a smart guy, very intelligent. But I think he was caught in the wrong place--that is the Swamp. Ryan is an idea guy, a policy wonk. But, esp in his position as Speaker, he was required to forgo his strengths and become, well, a politician. He began to try to form consensus, coalitions, etc. Those terms resurfaced, "reach across the aisle," "bipartisanship," etc. It remained, though, that such efforts were incumbent on just one of the two parties, not the other.
So Ryan, as Speaker, was forced to abandon his strengths. A good man, a bright one, was swallowed up by the Swamp and became a liability, a detriment.
Do I buy his reasons for resigning? Maybe. Surely life as a Congressman is not particularly conducive to family life. It's even less so as Speaker. I understand Ryan's explanation. But I also think he realizes, although he'll never admit it, that he became part of the Swamp. And he found that to be very troublesome. (Of course, I'm speculating. I have no pipeline to Ryan's innermost thoughts.) It's as if he asked himself, "What have I become?" and he didn't like the answer. There is also some talk that he also knows the mess that has been created, in part by him, and he doesn't want to be around when it really hits the fan. Maybe. Perhaps, too, he doesn't want to be associated with a political party which has as its nominal head one such as Don Trump. Again, I'm speculating.
But the lesson is this. The DC Swamp is deep. We have allowed it to become so. There's nobody "draining" it. I'm not sure at this point if it can be drained. Ryan's exit tells me that he sees neither party willing to try to get rid of the morass. And the Swamp has swallowed a good man in Paul Ryan.
When are people going to get tired of being lied to? I was sent a clip from the movie Network (which I've never seen) in which some newscaster on air pleads with viewers to go to their windows and doors and scream, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." I wonder when people today will, if ever, reach that point with all of the lies they are told. We are bombarded with lies, from politicians and other government-types, from the media, from corporations. The lies come on a grand scale, the national level, and on lesser, state and local, levels. I wonder if some of the liars realize they are lying or if they are just following the script/agenda they are told to follow. But some of them are bold enough to admit they lie, but, of course, for a greater good, at least greater in their eyes. It's not just the morality of lying (If our leaders lie, lie, lie, what sort of role-modeling is that for others, esp our young? "Hey, our President(s) lie(s). Why can't I?"), but the detriment of no longer knowing who and what to believe. I suppose the liars have learned as long as people get their "stuff," what the Romans provided as "bread and circuses," the lies can continue.
I never heard of that so-called comedienne who ripped on the President's press secretary at the recent dinner for the press corps. She was certainly out of order and, if the little bit I heard is representative, I wonder how she makes a living in comedy. In my view, when she started in on that, it was time for everyone to walk out. That few if any did tells me a lot about that press corps, esp the big-names. Perhaps I expect too much, integrity from people. After all, shame has disappeared for many, if not most, people. What I also found interesting was that the people who seemed to be most upset at all of this are Trumpsters! Ha Ha Ha......
That Fresno State professor who made those cruel and nasty comments about Barbara Bush upon her death should be fired--post haste! No, tenure doesn't and shouldn't protect her. Some ding-a-ling from the U of M had a letter-to-the-editor defending the twits/tweets as an extension of tenure. He is all wet. Tenure protects--and should protect--professors in the classroom, not their personal rants. I've read about professors on some college campuses who are conservatives and even voted for Trump, but are leery, if not afraid, to publicly admit it. They fear shunning, ostracism from their colleagues. How interesting that this loon from California is defended, not shunned and ostracized, by fellow professors. Like the press corps that didn't walk out, they tell me a lot about themselves. I can't believe they would want to have someone like her in their profession. We live in strange times.
When are people going to get tired of being lied to? I was sent a clip from the movie Network (which I've never seen) in which some newscaster on air pleads with viewers to go to their windows and doors and scream, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." I wonder when people today will, if ever, reach that point with all of the lies they are told. We are bombarded with lies, from politicians and other government-types, from the media, from corporations. The lies come on a grand scale, the national level, and on lesser, state and local, levels. I wonder if some of the liars realize they are lying or if they are just following the script/agenda they are told to follow. But some of them are bold enough to admit they lie, but, of course, for a greater good, at least greater in their eyes. It's not just the morality of lying (If our leaders lie, lie, lie, what sort of role-modeling is that for others, esp our young? "Hey, our President(s) lie(s). Why can't I?"), but the detriment of no longer knowing who and what to believe. I suppose the liars have learned as long as people get their "stuff," what the Romans provided as "bread and circuses," the lies can continue.
I never heard of that so-called comedienne who ripped on the President's press secretary at the recent dinner for the press corps. She was certainly out of order and, if the little bit I heard is representative, I wonder how she makes a living in comedy. In my view, when she started in on that, it was time for everyone to walk out. That few if any did tells me a lot about that press corps, esp the big-names. Perhaps I expect too much, integrity from people. After all, shame has disappeared for many, if not most, people. What I also found interesting was that the people who seemed to be most upset at all of this are Trumpsters! Ha Ha Ha......
That Fresno State professor who made those cruel and nasty comments about Barbara Bush upon her death should be fired--post haste! No, tenure doesn't and shouldn't protect her. Some ding-a-ling from the U of M had a letter-to-the-editor defending the twits/tweets as an extension of tenure. He is all wet. Tenure protects--and should protect--professors in the classroom, not their personal rants. I've read about professors on some college campuses who are conservatives and even voted for Trump, but are leery, if not afraid, to publicly admit it. They fear shunning, ostracism from their colleagues. How interesting that this loon from California is defended, not shunned and ostracized, by fellow professors. Like the press corps that didn't walk out, they tell me a lot about themselves. I can't believe they would want to have someone like her in their profession. We live in strange times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
