At this time of the year, especially this year, I am reminded of the Sumerian legend that sought to explain the comings and goings of the four seasons. Ishtar, the goddess of fertility among other things, loses her husband, Tammuz, each fall. To resurrect her deceased Tammuz, Ishtar bribes the other gods, ransoming the beauty of the land. This is winter. In the spring, Tammuz is reborn and the summer represents the renewed enjoyment of life between Ishtar and her husband. In a way, that's how we characterize the seasons.
I wrote "especially this year." I really enjoy riding my bike. I'm purely a recreational rider, nothing fast and nothing particularly long. This summer I'd guess my longest ride was 15-16 miles or so, but most were between 6 and 12 miles. Regardless, I like my summer rides. This autumn, like Ishtar, I am saddened. Due to, mostly, the weather, but also my schedule, I've cut back on riding far too soon.
Karen claims that here in Michigan, "We don't have spring any more. We go right from winter to summer." Although not precisely true, it does seem we get the 20- and 30-degree days, with snow, followed by only a few weeks of more moderate temperatures, and then the 80-degrees hit us. I think in mid-April, after Karen returned from a week in Florida, we had a snowstorm; 5-6 inches were dumped on us. Within weeks, if I recall, we were experiencing mid- and upper-80 degree days, with high humidity. I think our first summer baseball game was played in 90 degrees with stifling humididity.
Two weeks ago from yesterday, Carrie and I ran and it was in the upper 80s. Since, the temperatures have fallen. Today's high was forecast to be 52, but so far hasn't come close. It was 26 degrees when I ran in the dark this AM. We're stuck at 45 degrees. Several days on my bike it's been in the 30s. I dress warmly, but with the constant steady breezes that seem to swirl from all directions, the rides are not comfortable. A couple of the days I wimped/whimped out and came home after a mile or two. The cold seemed to penetrate what I think were sufficient layers of clothing. And the wind took a lot of effort to fight.
I'm going to try to ride as late as I can (last year after Thanksgiving), but I'm not encouraged. Perhaps I can "ransom the land" and bribe the weather gods into bringing an early (and warm!) spring.
The elections are in two weeks, less actually. I've had several folks ask (in person and by e-mail) what I thought about them, the candidates and the proposals. I wrote to them, "I know it's hard to imagine me becoming even more cynical than I already am, but......"
I've stated in previous elections that I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." I won't do that. Evil is evil; bad is bad. No, I'm not, in essence, giving my vote then to the "other party." If a party wants my vote, give me candidates worth considering.
We do have one, I think. Running for the US Senate is John James. I like much of what I read and hear about him. He will get my vote, perhaps one of the few mainstream (Democrats or Establishment Republicans) candidates to do so. Yet, his is an uphill battle, which is a shame. His opponent, running for her fourth term in the US Senate, should never have been elected in the first place, 18 years ago. And she's done little to prove worthy of the seat. But the advantages of incumbency in raising money and name recognition and union support (for the bobble heads who blindly vote for the candidates hand-picked by their union leadership; that includes teachers) are often too much to overcome.
I can't fathom voting for candidates whose proposed policies (at least their political histories) would indicate a return to those eight years of economic malaise in Michigan. Now that the state's economy is humming, I guess voters don't think about it; the economy isn't an issue. Having short memories can be very dangerous.
(At the same time, I am very cautious about selling my soul--my vote--to the devil. Economic issues are very important, but at what cost/expense? I am reminded of the defense of Mussolini in Italy, "He makes the trains run on time." He actually didn't and there was a great deal of economic strife, but people believed it. The buffoon's other serious faults were overlooked because, well, "He makes the trains run on time.")
Each of the proposals in the state bears problems for me; I can't vote for any of them. Locally, I can't vote for any incumbent school board members, not after they stabbed employees and children in the back on school closings. (It would be hilarious if not so pathetic. The rumor is the school board and administration next spring are going to ask for a millage/bond issue to enlarge some of the elementary schools, the ones where the students from the closed school were sent. So, now, barely a year later, there is overcrowding? Gee, why close a school in the first place--and then not really close it, but use it for other purposes? Where are the savings, which by the way were not ever confirmed--$300,00? a million dollars?)
I have class tonight and I'm off to prepare. Please overlook/excuse any typos or other errors.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Sunday, October 7, 2018
L'Affaire Kavanaugh
It's hard to believe my last post was more than a month ago. I know I've been pretty busy, with three classes, fall baseball, my physical fitness activities, and other writing. I've been trying to get in more reading, too, but I haven't been overly successful. Still, September 4?
Yesterday Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by two votes in the US Senate to become the 114th justice to serve. (If I recall correctly, only Frank Murphy has come from Michigan!)
Some folks might think (hope) that this will help bring an end to the idiotic partisan bickering. I am not one of those people. Both parties have demonstrated again and again how stupid they are, how they are more concerned with themselves than with the health of the US, etc. Democrats and Republicans each have exhibited behavior, many times, of which they should be very ashamed. Of course neither party is ever ashamed. They are never humbled by their idiotic behaviors. That's because, as I've noted many times in the past, the parties are led by arrogant elitists, who know far better than we do what's best for us.
And the "Me Too" movement, if that's what it's called, continues to do irreparable harm to itself and to women who have been raped and abused. I do not minimize the crimes of rape and sexual abuse. Those who know me also know what I'd do, for instance, to some guy who abused my granddaughter. But to give blanket acceptance to each and every accusation does the movement and real victims no good. Think, too, about the irreparable harm done to the falsely accused. Proof is required!
Kavanaugh's accuser (I just never remember her name) claimed in her Senate testimony that she "was nobody'd pawn." I beg to differ. I think, wittingly or otherwise, she was a pawn. And for that matter, I think Kavanaugh was a pawn.
Mostly, I believe this had little to do with Kavanaugh. It had everything to do with President Trump. Many people have demonstrated they would go to extremes to "get Trump." The Kavanaugh candidacy showed those extremes. I don't know for certain if Kavanaugh did what she claimed. I do know I don't believe this accuser. Again, something might well have happened; I am not in the least convinced something did. Yet, how many people, millions, already had Kavanaugh tried and convicted, with no evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration to the accusations? All it took was an allegation.
It's not hard to find false accusations. Again, I'm not minimizing sex crimes, not at all. Online, start with "Tawana Bradley," "Duke Lacrosse," and work from there. It appears when it's "He said/She said," "She" is always believed--or that is what many people seem to think.
I don't think the accusations were important, that Kavanaugh was important. It could have been anyone Trump nominated. The point was to prevent confirmation, to prevent a Trump success. "Get Trump!" Do anything to stop him!
Those protesters would have a whole lot more credibility with me if they demonstrated against Bill Clinton (or a number of others we all could name). I don't remember hearing anything from Hillary Clinton on this. She might have said something and I just didn't hear/see it. But I can't recall any statements. Maybe she was too smart to voice an opinion?
Yesterday Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by two votes in the US Senate to become the 114th justice to serve. (If I recall correctly, only Frank Murphy has come from Michigan!)
Some folks might think (hope) that this will help bring an end to the idiotic partisan bickering. I am not one of those people. Both parties have demonstrated again and again how stupid they are, how they are more concerned with themselves than with the health of the US, etc. Democrats and Republicans each have exhibited behavior, many times, of which they should be very ashamed. Of course neither party is ever ashamed. They are never humbled by their idiotic behaviors. That's because, as I've noted many times in the past, the parties are led by arrogant elitists, who know far better than we do what's best for us.
And the "Me Too" movement, if that's what it's called, continues to do irreparable harm to itself and to women who have been raped and abused. I do not minimize the crimes of rape and sexual abuse. Those who know me also know what I'd do, for instance, to some guy who abused my granddaughter. But to give blanket acceptance to each and every accusation does the movement and real victims no good. Think, too, about the irreparable harm done to the falsely accused. Proof is required!
Kavanaugh's accuser (I just never remember her name) claimed in her Senate testimony that she "was nobody'd pawn." I beg to differ. I think, wittingly or otherwise, she was a pawn. And for that matter, I think Kavanaugh was a pawn.
Mostly, I believe this had little to do with Kavanaugh. It had everything to do with President Trump. Many people have demonstrated they would go to extremes to "get Trump." The Kavanaugh candidacy showed those extremes. I don't know for certain if Kavanaugh did what she claimed. I do know I don't believe this accuser. Again, something might well have happened; I am not in the least convinced something did. Yet, how many people, millions, already had Kavanaugh tried and convicted, with no evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration to the accusations? All it took was an allegation.
It's not hard to find false accusations. Again, I'm not minimizing sex crimes, not at all. Online, start with "Tawana Bradley," "Duke Lacrosse," and work from there. It appears when it's "He said/She said," "She" is always believed--or that is what many people seem to think.
I don't think the accusations were important, that Kavanaugh was important. It could have been anyone Trump nominated. The point was to prevent confirmation, to prevent a Trump success. "Get Trump!" Do anything to stop him!
Those protesters would have a whole lot more credibility with me if they demonstrated against Bill Clinton (or a number of others we all could name). I don't remember hearing anything from Hillary Clinton on this. She might have said something and I just didn't hear/see it. But I can't recall any statements. Maybe she was too smart to voice an opinion?
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
History That Never Happened
I've always wanted to teach a course in Historiography. It would explore the "stuff" of history: types of sources and their reliability, bias in recording and writing history (and it's not always "bad"), the influence of factors such as geography and personalities, etc. But that will never happen. For one reason, what students would take such a course? For another, I don't want to do the paper work. There's always paper work that is required. (When the former dean at one of the colleges discovered I was teaching Michigan History at the other college, she asked if I'd teach it there. I balked, saying, "I don't do paper work." She must have really wanted the course to be offered; she did the paper work herself and rushed its approval through the administration. I've taught it every semester since.)
But, if I did teach it I wouldn't have a textbook per se, but, like my Amherst courses in history (and most other courses) we'd use a half dozen or more books. One might be "History According to the Movies." Others would be "George v George: The American Revolution as Seen from Both Sides" and "The Geography Behind History." Certainly I would include, "History That Never Happened." It is subtitled, "A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If?" When I discuss this book in class, I joke with students, "I have enough trouble getting students to read history that did happen. How will I get them to read history that didn't happen?" Regardless, the book offers some really great opportunities for meaningful discussions.
For instance, Winston Churchill was named, even in many American polls in 1999, the "Person-of-the-20th-Century." I have no quibbles with that, but won't go into right or wrong choice. But in the early 1930s, Churchill was leaving a play in NYC. Heading out, he stepped into the street. But he looked the wrong way for traffic. (Remember, in Britain they drive on the wrong sides of the roads.) He was nailed by a car he didn't see. He was injured severely, vertebrae broken, pelvis shattered, and other fractures. He almost died. OK then, what if he did die after that accident? What happens to the Second World War, that is, its outcome? Many believe he helped forge an Allied victory by sheer dint of his personality. (Again, I won't go into my views of that, but that's why even in the US he received "Person-of-the-Century.") If Britain negotiated a peace treaty (likely an unfavorable one from a position of either near defeat or appeasement) with Hitler's Germany, then what? Where does that leave the rest of Europe, namely the Soviet Onion? And, after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US a few days later, what about any US involvement in Europe? Bases? Perhaps the US wouldn't have felt a need (pressure from Churchill to divert some US forces from the Pacific and Japan?) to fight at all in Europe? Does the USSR then fall, making Germany the unquestioned master of Europe and all the evil that would have entailed?
In 1833, Britain abolished slavery in the Empire. That's 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation and, two years later, the 13th Amendment and Northern victory in the Civil War. But let's go back to 1775 or so. What if, both in the colonies and London, cooler heads (such as John Dickinson and Edmund Burke) had prevailed and there'd been no revolt? Everyone kissed and made up and the colonies continued on as, well, British colonies. In 1833, the British abolition of slavery (although it was a gradual emancipation/abolition) in the Empire would have meant the American southern colonies would lose their slaves. Or would they? Would they, as they perceived matters 20-some years, resisted and fought to preserve the "peculiar institution?"
Had the southern colonies chosen to go to war with the British over this in 1833, how would the northern colonies have reacted? Would they have joined their fellow Americans to the South? If not, would a Southern colonial victory have resulted in an earlier Confederate States of America? Those who say, "Surely they North wouldn't have aided the South to preserve slavery" ignore some factors. The abolitionist movement in the North at the time was very fledgling, no Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (since no American government and almost two decades hence), no Uncle Tom's Cabin yet, etc. And, although gradual emancipation laws were passed in the Northern states earlier, effective abolition didn't come in many of them until the 1840s and "the badge of slavery" existed beyond then.
In the end, some might argue, such mental gymnastics is fruitless, even frivolous. I don't think so. In examining what happened and what might have happened "if," we are granted insight into our options and how they might result in different outcomes.
But, if I did teach it I wouldn't have a textbook per se, but, like my Amherst courses in history (and most other courses) we'd use a half dozen or more books. One might be "History According to the Movies." Others would be "George v George: The American Revolution as Seen from Both Sides" and "The Geography Behind History." Certainly I would include, "History That Never Happened." It is subtitled, "A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If?" When I discuss this book in class, I joke with students, "I have enough trouble getting students to read history that did happen. How will I get them to read history that didn't happen?" Regardless, the book offers some really great opportunities for meaningful discussions.
For instance, Winston Churchill was named, even in many American polls in 1999, the "Person-of-the-20th-Century." I have no quibbles with that, but won't go into right or wrong choice. But in the early 1930s, Churchill was leaving a play in NYC. Heading out, he stepped into the street. But he looked the wrong way for traffic. (Remember, in Britain they drive on the wrong sides of the roads.) He was nailed by a car he didn't see. He was injured severely, vertebrae broken, pelvis shattered, and other fractures. He almost died. OK then, what if he did die after that accident? What happens to the Second World War, that is, its outcome? Many believe he helped forge an Allied victory by sheer dint of his personality. (Again, I won't go into my views of that, but that's why even in the US he received "Person-of-the-Century.") If Britain negotiated a peace treaty (likely an unfavorable one from a position of either near defeat or appeasement) with Hitler's Germany, then what? Where does that leave the rest of Europe, namely the Soviet Onion? And, after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US a few days later, what about any US involvement in Europe? Bases? Perhaps the US wouldn't have felt a need (pressure from Churchill to divert some US forces from the Pacific and Japan?) to fight at all in Europe? Does the USSR then fall, making Germany the unquestioned master of Europe and all the evil that would have entailed?
In 1833, Britain abolished slavery in the Empire. That's 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation and, two years later, the 13th Amendment and Northern victory in the Civil War. But let's go back to 1775 or so. What if, both in the colonies and London, cooler heads (such as John Dickinson and Edmund Burke) had prevailed and there'd been no revolt? Everyone kissed and made up and the colonies continued on as, well, British colonies. In 1833, the British abolition of slavery (although it was a gradual emancipation/abolition) in the Empire would have meant the American southern colonies would lose their slaves. Or would they? Would they, as they perceived matters 20-some years, resisted and fought to preserve the "peculiar institution?"
Had the southern colonies chosen to go to war with the British over this in 1833, how would the northern colonies have reacted? Would they have joined their fellow Americans to the South? If not, would a Southern colonial victory have resulted in an earlier Confederate States of America? Those who say, "Surely they North wouldn't have aided the South to preserve slavery" ignore some factors. The abolitionist movement in the North at the time was very fledgling, no Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (since no American government and almost two decades hence), no Uncle Tom's Cabin yet, etc. And, although gradual emancipation laws were passed in the Northern states earlier, effective abolition didn't come in many of them until the 1840s and "the badge of slavery" existed beyond then.
In the end, some might argue, such mental gymnastics is fruitless, even frivolous. I don't think so. In examining what happened and what might have happened "if," we are granted insight into our options and how they might result in different outcomes.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Accuracy?
I've read a couple of pretty good history books recently. I enjoyed them and learned some new things. I also gained some different perspectives. But......
I found some errors in both books. These weren't typographical errors. Nor were they numerous, just a handful. Neither were they egregious mistakes. They were errors, though.
To make sure it wasn't my reading/error, I double checked each of them and the books were wrong. Again, the mistakes didn't detract from my enjoyment or learning.
But it led me to questions. When we find errors in books, namely nonfiction, however trivial, does that cast doubt on the rest of the book? Hmmm. In these instances, I have no reason to believe the books were completely off base. Quite the contrary. Still.......
I was reminded of a history textbook we were required to use when I taught in the high school. I didn't choose the book; others in the history/social studies department did. Perhaps shame on me for refusing to be involved in the selection. (I wanted to get paid for my work; the district thought I should work for free.) Perhaps. But really shame on the teachers who chose this book instead of others, including the one we were already using (which was top flight).
This book had a number of errors in it, historical errors. How these mistakes were entered in the first place, I don't know. How they escaped the editors and proofreaders, I don't know. (I have proofread several textbooks before final publication.)
Here are two that I remember. (This was 30 or more years ago, so I don't recall all of them.) This textbook had Italy fighting on the wrong side in the First World War. (I joked, "Well, no wonder the Italian army did so poorly. It didn't know what side it was on." In WWI, the reality is that it wasn't the Italian soldier who necessarily performed poorly; the poor performances came from the Italian leaders, military and political.) There was a photograph in a chapter about ancient China. The picture was of a Buddhist temple and the caption read something like, "This Buddhist temple in China......" The problem was that the temple was actually in India. I didn't catch this, but another teacher who did some overseas study in India did. He even had his own slides of the temple, taken by him when he was in India, not China. And, to be certain, I double checked and it is in India, not China. This was a lousy textbook. I suppose, in reality, who knew it? Certainly the teachers in my department who selected it didn't.
Why did they choose it? I don't remember, but have suspicions. First, in the central office/administration, the thought was to change textbooks every five or six years. That can have advantages, but caution was never taken not to make change for the sake of change. Second, it was cheaper than other books. Third, the teachers really had no sense of history, really weren't historians or even history teachers. And I'll repeat, I didn't take part because I refused to do extra work for free.
That leads me to another idea, one that has bothered me for years. Teachers complain about their pay, how they are treated, the inane paperwork and procedures than must be followed, etc. Someone told me the other day that the average teacher spends about five or six years teaching and then moves on to something else. I have no reason to disbelieve that. I was sent an article recently bemoaning the many good teachers who are leaving the field for the reasons listed above. I would add this, how many potentially good teachers don't become educators for those reasons? I won't go into teacher salaries, but they are ridiculously low. (Remember, though, I think many teachers are so bad they don't even deserve that.)
OK, teachers grumble and grouse. But, especially the elementary teachers, they continue to work for free. They go in two or three weeks before school starts and work. The attend the ice cream socials, voluntarily. They sign up for committee work. (In my view, this is not only stupid for teachers to do, that is, work for free, it is deleterious. Most committee work produces bad things.) I know, I know. This shows how "dedicated" they are. Baloney/Bologna. They are doing it "for the kids." Baloney/Bologna. (By fostering an atmosphere of working for free, that is, keeping teacher pay low, they are discouraging many good teachers from staying and others from even becoming educators. How does that help the kids? But I understand the premise. I just don't agree with it, especially considering the long run.)
Regardless, they complain. Yet they refuse to do much about it. Do they ever show their anger and dissatisfaction, their frustrations? How angry, frustrated, and dissatisfied can they be if they continue to work for free? How many don't work in their classrooms, leaving the bulletin boards bare? How many go home for dinner with their families instead of staying for an extra two or three hours for the "Welcome Back Ice Cream Socials?" How many tell administrators, "No, I won't serve on that textbook selection committee?" Yet, they complain at how poorly they are treated, how little they are paid, etc.
This past week I threw this Martin Luther King quotation out at several teachers, all of whom grouse but went in to their classrooms the first day they were opened. "Freedom was never voluntarily granted by the oppressor; it had to be demanded by the oppressed." OK, I realize the difference, esp in magnitude. But isn't the principle the same?
To finish, I was very saddened by the passing of Aretha Franklin. What a singer! She was one of my favorites. Michael asked me, "Grandpa, is it true she was the best singer ever in Detroit?" I smiled, thinking of the Kid Rock and M & Ms fans, and replied, "Yes, she was." I do have some other candidates for that sobriquet, "Best Singer Ever in Detroit," but I can't really say any topped her. Let's put it this way. There were some of her songs I didn't particularly like. But I rarely stopped listening or changed stations because her voice was so mesmerizing.
One of my all-time favorite tunes is Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I love it for several reasons, never tiring of hearing it. But I'd be hard pressed to subjugate Aretha's version of that song. It is just terrific! I can often pick my favorite two or three songs from my favorite groups and singers. I'm not sure I can limit my Aretha favorites to two or three.
The Aretha stories are legion. This is one of my favorites. Some years ago, at the Grammy Awards, Luciano Pavarotti canceled due to illness--about 30 minutes before the big doin's. Aretha was tapped as a fill-in and was asked what she'd like to sing. Without missing a beat, she asked what song Pavarotti was planning to do. She was told "Nessun Dorma," an aria from Puccini's opera Turandot. Uh...... She did it and just nailed it. You can find a version online. Prepare to have your socks knocked off!
I found some errors in both books. These weren't typographical errors. Nor were they numerous, just a handful. Neither were they egregious mistakes. They were errors, though.
To make sure it wasn't my reading/error, I double checked each of them and the books were wrong. Again, the mistakes didn't detract from my enjoyment or learning.
But it led me to questions. When we find errors in books, namely nonfiction, however trivial, does that cast doubt on the rest of the book? Hmmm. In these instances, I have no reason to believe the books were completely off base. Quite the contrary. Still.......
I was reminded of a history textbook we were required to use when I taught in the high school. I didn't choose the book; others in the history/social studies department did. Perhaps shame on me for refusing to be involved in the selection. (I wanted to get paid for my work; the district thought I should work for free.) Perhaps. But really shame on the teachers who chose this book instead of others, including the one we were already using (which was top flight).
This book had a number of errors in it, historical errors. How these mistakes were entered in the first place, I don't know. How they escaped the editors and proofreaders, I don't know. (I have proofread several textbooks before final publication.)
Here are two that I remember. (This was 30 or more years ago, so I don't recall all of them.) This textbook had Italy fighting on the wrong side in the First World War. (I joked, "Well, no wonder the Italian army did so poorly. It didn't know what side it was on." In WWI, the reality is that it wasn't the Italian soldier who necessarily performed poorly; the poor performances came from the Italian leaders, military and political.) There was a photograph in a chapter about ancient China. The picture was of a Buddhist temple and the caption read something like, "This Buddhist temple in China......" The problem was that the temple was actually in India. I didn't catch this, but another teacher who did some overseas study in India did. He even had his own slides of the temple, taken by him when he was in India, not China. And, to be certain, I double checked and it is in India, not China. This was a lousy textbook. I suppose, in reality, who knew it? Certainly the teachers in my department who selected it didn't.
Why did they choose it? I don't remember, but have suspicions. First, in the central office/administration, the thought was to change textbooks every five or six years. That can have advantages, but caution was never taken not to make change for the sake of change. Second, it was cheaper than other books. Third, the teachers really had no sense of history, really weren't historians or even history teachers. And I'll repeat, I didn't take part because I refused to do extra work for free.
That leads me to another idea, one that has bothered me for years. Teachers complain about their pay, how they are treated, the inane paperwork and procedures than must be followed, etc. Someone told me the other day that the average teacher spends about five or six years teaching and then moves on to something else. I have no reason to disbelieve that. I was sent an article recently bemoaning the many good teachers who are leaving the field for the reasons listed above. I would add this, how many potentially good teachers don't become educators for those reasons? I won't go into teacher salaries, but they are ridiculously low. (Remember, though, I think many teachers are so bad they don't even deserve that.)
OK, teachers grumble and grouse. But, especially the elementary teachers, they continue to work for free. They go in two or three weeks before school starts and work. The attend the ice cream socials, voluntarily. They sign up for committee work. (In my view, this is not only stupid for teachers to do, that is, work for free, it is deleterious. Most committee work produces bad things.) I know, I know. This shows how "dedicated" they are. Baloney/Bologna. They are doing it "for the kids." Baloney/Bologna. (By fostering an atmosphere of working for free, that is, keeping teacher pay low, they are discouraging many good teachers from staying and others from even becoming educators. How does that help the kids? But I understand the premise. I just don't agree with it, especially considering the long run.)
Regardless, they complain. Yet they refuse to do much about it. Do they ever show their anger and dissatisfaction, their frustrations? How angry, frustrated, and dissatisfied can they be if they continue to work for free? How many don't work in their classrooms, leaving the bulletin boards bare? How many go home for dinner with their families instead of staying for an extra two or three hours for the "Welcome Back Ice Cream Socials?" How many tell administrators, "No, I won't serve on that textbook selection committee?" Yet, they complain at how poorly they are treated, how little they are paid, etc.
This past week I threw this Martin Luther King quotation out at several teachers, all of whom grouse but went in to their classrooms the first day they were opened. "Freedom was never voluntarily granted by the oppressor; it had to be demanded by the oppressed." OK, I realize the difference, esp in magnitude. But isn't the principle the same?
To finish, I was very saddened by the passing of Aretha Franklin. What a singer! She was one of my favorites. Michael asked me, "Grandpa, is it true she was the best singer ever in Detroit?" I smiled, thinking of the Kid Rock and M & Ms fans, and replied, "Yes, she was." I do have some other candidates for that sobriquet, "Best Singer Ever in Detroit," but I can't really say any topped her. Let's put it this way. There were some of her songs I didn't particularly like. But I rarely stopped listening or changed stations because her voice was so mesmerizing.
One of my all-time favorite tunes is Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I love it for several reasons, never tiring of hearing it. But I'd be hard pressed to subjugate Aretha's version of that song. It is just terrific! I can often pick my favorite two or three songs from my favorite groups and singers. I'm not sure I can limit my Aretha favorites to two or three.
The Aretha stories are legion. This is one of my favorites. Some years ago, at the Grammy Awards, Luciano Pavarotti canceled due to illness--about 30 minutes before the big doin's. Aretha was tapped as a fill-in and was asked what she'd like to sing. Without missing a beat, she asked what song Pavarotti was planning to do. She was told "Nessun Dorma," an aria from Puccini's opera Turandot. Uh...... She did it and just nailed it. You can find a version online. Prepare to have your socks knocked off!
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Constitution and Presidents
I recently finished a book, Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It was interesting. I agreed with some of the author's assessments, but questioned some as well. Regardless, it was worth reading to once again challenge some of my beliefs.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Thoughts on the Road......
Karen and I just returned from a whirlwind trip to West Virginia to pick up our kids, who will be with us for several weeks. A bit fewer than six hours each way--ugh! I don't like to drive. (There's another step toward losing my "Man Card.")
Against my better judgment, both for safety purposes and morally, for most of the drive(s) I set the cruise control at 75 mph, five over the limit. Yet, how many cars and trucks passed me on the left? What were they doing--80 or 85? I always find that upsetting. So, these speeders have some place to go, to be somewhere at a specific time. What, do they think that other drivers also don't have places to be? More upsetting is the dangers they pose to others, namely, to me and mine! How arrogant they are! It's been long established that "speed kills." I guess their own situations allow them to put others' lives in danger. And that's OK because "It's all about me!"
When driving, most often I don't listen to the radio or tunes. Sometimes I listen to talk radio. But mostly I like it quiet. I'm not afraid of being alone with my own thoughts. Not Karen, though. There has to be noise--music. So, with all that time in the car, I had time to do some analyses. I know I'll be criticized by some, but......
Many performers just can't sing very well. To them, the musical scale is not "Do, Re, Mi......" It's "loud" and "louder." This I ascertained esp about those who are decent with instruments. Oh, they are talented with them; they're really good. But somehow that translates that they can sing. That is, they can play instruments really well, therefore they can sing really well, too. They can't. And, although I received quite a few critical notes the last time I panned some pretty popular performers (note I didn't call them "singers"), some of the most popular ones are just terrible. Karen was listening to some satellite station that was promoting the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame (which I think has become a Hall of Pretty Good according to the names identified as members). The DJs played hits from Hall members and often I just cringed. I like lyrics that complement the music. It makes for better listening. But many of the lyrics are nonsense. Maybe they make sense to people smoking banana peels, but not to anyone really listening for meaning. I really don't care, though. I don't get my ideas from most music and, besides, if the lyrics go along with the music, that's great for me. Again, some of those from R 'n' R Hall members were/are laughable.
Of course, I must admit I am one of the worst singers the world has ever seen/heard. I often scare myself at how bad I am. But like dancing, I don't care. If I enjoy it......
I saw a considerable number of billboards in Ohio condemning "Right-to-Work." There must be a movement there. I didn't like the recent Supremes' ruling and don't like Michigan's law, both as written and as interpreted. I don't think workers should be compelled to join unions to be employed. At the same time, they shouldn't get the same pay and benefits the union members worked and sacrificed for. If they want the same, then they shouldn't be allowed to freeload. Funny, perhaps, that many of those who oppose welfare programs as "freebies," that welfare recipients are "leeches," "spongers," etc., support "Right-to-Work" for less. Why aren't those who don't pay union dues, but benefit from union activities such as negotiations and job security also bloodsuckers and scrounges? Now, having unions use some of the dues money to support political candidates, well, that's more problematic for me. Maybe I'll address this later in a separate blog post.
And last week, taking the kids down to a Tiger game, there were several billboards comparing insurance rates in Metro Detroit to other metropolitan areas in the US. (I remember Phoenix, AZ and Milwaukee, WI as two of them.) If accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Michigan rates are about double the rest of the country. And, why is that? Could it be the footsies the insurance companies play with the legislators? Just sayin'...... (And I am still not sure I know what that, "Just sayin,'" means.)
We had a claim last winter. When our new premium came, the insurance company recouped the entire cost of the claim--with the first year's increase! When we called our agent, he merely said, "I wish you had called me first. I'd have told you to pay out of your own pocket [for the repairs]. It would have been cheaper." Great, just great. Then why have insurance? Gee, is it because the state legislators made it a law to have it? Well, not all the folks in Detroit have it. According to a Detroit newspaper article, as many as 2/3 of the drivers there don't have insurance. I can testify that at least one doesn't. On her cell phone, she rammed into our rear (with all three kids!) on Christmas Eve. She not only didn't have insurance, but no license either. And she insisted she didn't hit us, with her car jammed up our...... We were fortunate that a police car happened by; but the officers let her go--no insurance, no licence, talking on the cell phone, smashing our car and she was permitted to drive off. I guess with a murder a day in Detroit, this women didn't do all that much that was bad.
I wonder how many anti-Trump folks who have rejected this and rejected that, who have "resisted" this and "resisted" that, also refused to accept the savings they received on the tax cut? After all, if it was part of Trump's agenda...... And, for that matter, I wonder how many folks who've found jobs as part of Trump's agenda have quit them (or refused to accept them). After all, if the jobs were created as part of Trump's agenda...... (We can discuss who is responsible, but that's for another post.) Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Against my better judgment, both for safety purposes and morally, for most of the drive(s) I set the cruise control at 75 mph, five over the limit. Yet, how many cars and trucks passed me on the left? What were they doing--80 or 85? I always find that upsetting. So, these speeders have some place to go, to be somewhere at a specific time. What, do they think that other drivers also don't have places to be? More upsetting is the dangers they pose to others, namely, to me and mine! How arrogant they are! It's been long established that "speed kills." I guess their own situations allow them to put others' lives in danger. And that's OK because "It's all about me!"
When driving, most often I don't listen to the radio or tunes. Sometimes I listen to talk radio. But mostly I like it quiet. I'm not afraid of being alone with my own thoughts. Not Karen, though. There has to be noise--music. So, with all that time in the car, I had time to do some analyses. I know I'll be criticized by some, but......
Many performers just can't sing very well. To them, the musical scale is not "Do, Re, Mi......" It's "loud" and "louder." This I ascertained esp about those who are decent with instruments. Oh, they are talented with them; they're really good. But somehow that translates that they can sing. That is, they can play instruments really well, therefore they can sing really well, too. They can't. And, although I received quite a few critical notes the last time I panned some pretty popular performers (note I didn't call them "singers"), some of the most popular ones are just terrible. Karen was listening to some satellite station that was promoting the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame (which I think has become a Hall of Pretty Good according to the names identified as members). The DJs played hits from Hall members and often I just cringed. I like lyrics that complement the music. It makes for better listening. But many of the lyrics are nonsense. Maybe they make sense to people smoking banana peels, but not to anyone really listening for meaning. I really don't care, though. I don't get my ideas from most music and, besides, if the lyrics go along with the music, that's great for me. Again, some of those from R 'n' R Hall members were/are laughable.
Of course, I must admit I am one of the worst singers the world has ever seen/heard. I often scare myself at how bad I am. But like dancing, I don't care. If I enjoy it......
I saw a considerable number of billboards in Ohio condemning "Right-to-Work." There must be a movement there. I didn't like the recent Supremes' ruling and don't like Michigan's law, both as written and as interpreted. I don't think workers should be compelled to join unions to be employed. At the same time, they shouldn't get the same pay and benefits the union members worked and sacrificed for. If they want the same, then they shouldn't be allowed to freeload. Funny, perhaps, that many of those who oppose welfare programs as "freebies," that welfare recipients are "leeches," "spongers," etc., support "Right-to-Work" for less. Why aren't those who don't pay union dues, but benefit from union activities such as negotiations and job security also bloodsuckers and scrounges? Now, having unions use some of the dues money to support political candidates, well, that's more problematic for me. Maybe I'll address this later in a separate blog post.
And last week, taking the kids down to a Tiger game, there were several billboards comparing insurance rates in Metro Detroit to other metropolitan areas in the US. (I remember Phoenix, AZ and Milwaukee, WI as two of them.) If accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Michigan rates are about double the rest of the country. And, why is that? Could it be the footsies the insurance companies play with the legislators? Just sayin'...... (And I am still not sure I know what that, "Just sayin,'" means.)
We had a claim last winter. When our new premium came, the insurance company recouped the entire cost of the claim--with the first year's increase! When we called our agent, he merely said, "I wish you had called me first. I'd have told you to pay out of your own pocket [for the repairs]. It would have been cheaper." Great, just great. Then why have insurance? Gee, is it because the state legislators made it a law to have it? Well, not all the folks in Detroit have it. According to a Detroit newspaper article, as many as 2/3 of the drivers there don't have insurance. I can testify that at least one doesn't. On her cell phone, she rammed into our rear (with all three kids!) on Christmas Eve. She not only didn't have insurance, but no license either. And she insisted she didn't hit us, with her car jammed up our...... We were fortunate that a police car happened by; but the officers let her go--no insurance, no licence, talking on the cell phone, smashing our car and she was permitted to drive off. I guess with a murder a day in Detroit, this women didn't do all that much that was bad.
I wonder how many anti-Trump folks who have rejected this and rejected that, who have "resisted" this and "resisted" that, also refused to accept the savings they received on the tax cut? After all, if it was part of Trump's agenda...... And, for that matter, I wonder how many folks who've found jobs as part of Trump's agenda have quit them (or refused to accept them). After all, if the jobs were created as part of Trump's agenda...... (We can discuss who is responsible, but that's for another post.) Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
"Yeah, but....."
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......
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......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
