After a newspaper erroneously printed an obituary of the still living Mark Twain, he quipped, "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated." I didn't realize it's been since July that I've posted here. At may age, I wonder if any thought......
I've had lots to think about, lots to confront and to be confronted by, etc., but have just been far too busy for a retired guy. Each of the last three weekends, I had on my list of things to do, "Blog!" I ran out of time, I guess.
One thing that seems to be gaining momentum is the National Popular Vote plan. I strongly oppose that. The idea is to get rid of the Electrical College. It's not hard to figure out who is behind that, considering that of the last five Presidential elections twice Democrats won the national popular vote but, due to the existence of the Electrical College, lost the elections. (I'm going to resist saying, "Poor losers!") According to the plan, a state which signs on agrees to assign all of its Electrical votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if that candidate loses in that state. First, there are historical reasons for the existence of the Electrical College. I don't think they are obsolete today. Second, NO!!!!!! I don't want my vote wasted just because of what voters in the other states want. I want my vote counted, whether for a minor party candidate or a write-in candidate. Why should my vote count for less than some California voter? For that matter, why should my vote not count at all? Third, this is another way some folks are trying to circumvent the Constitution. (I know, I know. "The Constitution is just a document that was written by old white men." Try reading it and thinking about it before agreeing with that ignorant comment.) I believe about 15 states have already signed on the the National Popular Vote plan, states whose Electrical votes add to 196. (Double check my figures.) Only a handful of states, whose votes total another 74, will put the plan into action. That is, a minority of the states can circumvent the Constitution in this instance. That, my friends, is frightening and wrong! I hope Michigan isn't foolish enough to sign on to this.
Michigan's governor has issued a decree banning flavored vaping types. (I don't know much about vaping, so am unaware of the proper terminology.) The idea is to help prevent teen-age use and the accompanying health concerns and even deaths that occur from vaping. Does the governor and those who have cheered the decree really think this will prevent vaping from youths to any degree? I really doubt it. Isn't smoking a "health crisis," as the governor cited to rationalize her vaping ban, for kids, too? Isn't smoking a bigger danger for kids, esp for the long haul, than vaping? (I'm just guessing it is.) Kids are prevented from smoking by laws, too, right? Ha Ha Ha. For that matter, isn't underage drinking a far bigger problem than vaping? Don't flavored alcoholic drinks attract youthful and illegal drinkers? So, why doesn't the governor ban those sweet drinks? Hmmm...... I can think of some reasons, none of which make sense in light of the governor's professed ban on flavored vaping. Why should adult vapers (as opposed to "vapors?") also be prohibited from the flavors? After all, they can still purchase and drink the flavored alcoholic beverages. And they can still smoke. Should we consider the precedent of Big Government again stepping in and prohibiting things it doesn't like?
I have several other topics, but this is long enough for today. Besides, I have essays to grade, the first of the term. Ugh! I'll try to get to those topics by this weekend. As usual, I'm not going to proofread this, so please overlook any typos.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Friday, July 12, 2019
Amash and the Two-Parties
Ronald Reagan famously said, when becoming a Republican, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. It left me."
That has always resonated with me, not exclusively with the Democrats, but with the Republicans, too. I don't identify with either party and often I refuse to vote for candidates they offer. Neither party is what it was 50 or 40 or maybe even 30 years ago. They have both changed, moved, and not for the better.
On July 4, West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash announced he was leaving the Republican Party, becoming an Independent. Good for him! The parties, as he correctly stated, have become "an existential threat to American principles and institutions." They have become concerned more with themselves, with grabbing and holding power. That's not, in itself, a bad thing. After all, if one doesn't get elected, one can't do anything. But once they get elected, both Republicans and Democrats, they do all they can to remain in power, for themselves, not for the American people. Some folks will dispute that, but from where I'm sitting it's true. Neither has represented me; neither has reflected the values and principles I hold dear. "I didn't leave the _____ Party. It/They left me."
My hopes that Amash's departure will spark a major difference are small. Few people care. They blindly vote the way their unions or professional organizations tell them to vote. They vote for the candidates who raise the most money, regardless of their effectiveness in office. It's become de rigueur to "Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Bah! When given a choice between two evils, choose neither. That's what Amash has done.
For doing so, he is to be commended. But what does the President do? Instead of praising one who leaves "the Swamp," he goes off on one of his typical cowboy tweets/twits (or whatever they are called) and called Amash "disloyal" and "one of the dumbest" members of Congress. Particularly ironic and hugely funny is that Trump had the gall to actually call someone else "a loser." (Trump supporters, spare me your invective. I'll never vote for him. But we can agree to disagree with civility.)
Rather than merely playing party politics, going along to get along, perhaps more elected officials, especially in Washington, would do well to think about Amash and his reasons for defecting. (I'm using that word for fun.) If more joined the Amash bandwagon......
That has always resonated with me, not exclusively with the Democrats, but with the Republicans, too. I don't identify with either party and often I refuse to vote for candidates they offer. Neither party is what it was 50 or 40 or maybe even 30 years ago. They have both changed, moved, and not for the better.
On July 4, West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash announced he was leaving the Republican Party, becoming an Independent. Good for him! The parties, as he correctly stated, have become "an existential threat to American principles and institutions." They have become concerned more with themselves, with grabbing and holding power. That's not, in itself, a bad thing. After all, if one doesn't get elected, one can't do anything. But once they get elected, both Republicans and Democrats, they do all they can to remain in power, for themselves, not for the American people. Some folks will dispute that, but from where I'm sitting it's true. Neither has represented me; neither has reflected the values and principles I hold dear. "I didn't leave the _____ Party. It/They left me."
My hopes that Amash's departure will spark a major difference are small. Few people care. They blindly vote the way their unions or professional organizations tell them to vote. They vote for the candidates who raise the most money, regardless of their effectiveness in office. It's become de rigueur to "Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Bah! When given a choice between two evils, choose neither. That's what Amash has done.
For doing so, he is to be commended. But what does the President do? Instead of praising one who leaves "the Swamp," he goes off on one of his typical cowboy tweets/twits (or whatever they are called) and called Amash "disloyal" and "one of the dumbest" members of Congress. Particularly ironic and hugely funny is that Trump had the gall to actually call someone else "a loser." (Trump supporters, spare me your invective. I'll never vote for him. But we can agree to disagree with civility.)
Rather than merely playing party politics, going along to get along, perhaps more elected officials, especially in Washington, would do well to think about Amash and his reasons for defecting. (I'm using that word for fun.) If more joined the Amash bandwagon......
Saturday, July 6, 2019
"Patriotism?"
An Independence Day editorial seemed to me to get it a bit wrong. Nolan Finley (The Detroit News) seems to equate being "extremely proud" of the United States with "patriotism." I suppose defining the terms might alleviate my consternation with Finley's assertions.
For instance, he cites a Gallup Poll on this Fourth of July that finds "only 45 percent of Americans are 'extremely proud' of their country." The next sentence he counterposes that with 2001, when "70 percent of Americans considered themselves "highly patriotic." Hmmm......
Let me facetiously (What is unique about that word, facetiously?) dismiss our growing penchant for the things that really matter in life, such as the next NFL season, new episodes of Dancing with the Stars and Survivor, etc., which would obviously steal from our patriotic zeal. But it seems wrong to conflate "pride" with "patriotism." It's as if we assume our country and our government are one and the same thing. Perhaps that's what many people have come to believe.
One can certainly be patriotic and still not be proud of what one's country is doing, right? I know this is a stretch ("He who first invokes 'Hitler' in an argument loses."), but couldn't one still be a patriotic German, but not at all be proud of what Germany was doing in the '30s and '40s? Isn't that what the Underground was all about?
One of my professors, Henry Steele Commager, once wrote an essay to which I've referred many times in many situations. He asserted that, often, the most important members of a society are its critics. Can't a critic of a country still be patriotic, especially if that country is taking the wrong path?
Can't one not be proud of our institutionalization of slavery or involvement in, say, Vietnam, and still be patriotic? If I'm not a fan of President Trump, and I'm not, does that mean I'm not patriotic? Hardly. And were those not "proud" of what President Obama did or even that he was President unpatriotic? Again, hardly.
I keep thinking of some ding-a-ling, maybe Joe Biden (?), who some years ago claimed it was "patriotic" to pay more taxes. (No, I don't remember the context.) So, although there were a couple attempts to establish a federal income tax before 1913, there was none that lasted. (A Constitutional amendment was required.) Does that mean all those Americans before then (and the 99% who still didn't pay any federal income taxes when it was initially enacted) weren't patriotic? Should we list the names? Were those who opposed a federal income tax unpatriotic? And, if paying more taxes is so "patriotic," why aren't the wealthy people, particularly the wealthy Democrats, lining up to voluntarily pay more? Why do so many folks, yes, even patriots, hire accountants, lawyers, and other tax experts to get the most out of exemptions, credits, and deductions?
Finley did cite Oakland County Judge Michael Warren and Judge Warren's attempt to shore up the teaching of American history. He doesn't wan to "sugar coat," as Finley notes, the history of the US. That is, we should be teaching the flaws in our past. But we shouldn't teach them at the expense of the wonderful things that evolved from the great American experiment nor should we emphasize them to the point of trivializing American successes.
This will no doubt rankle any relativists and multiculturalists who might read this, but, yes, the United States is an exceptional place. Yes, we are a better culture than, say, what is found in Saudi Arabia or China. And that's because of our Founding Principles. Those, as much as the physical United States of America, are the basis of American patriotism.
For instance, he cites a Gallup Poll on this Fourth of July that finds "only 45 percent of Americans are 'extremely proud' of their country." The next sentence he counterposes that with 2001, when "70 percent of Americans considered themselves "highly patriotic." Hmmm......
Let me facetiously (What is unique about that word, facetiously?) dismiss our growing penchant for the things that really matter in life, such as the next NFL season, new episodes of Dancing with the Stars and Survivor, etc., which would obviously steal from our patriotic zeal. But it seems wrong to conflate "pride" with "patriotism." It's as if we assume our country and our government are one and the same thing. Perhaps that's what many people have come to believe.
One can certainly be patriotic and still not be proud of what one's country is doing, right? I know this is a stretch ("He who first invokes 'Hitler' in an argument loses."), but couldn't one still be a patriotic German, but not at all be proud of what Germany was doing in the '30s and '40s? Isn't that what the Underground was all about?
One of my professors, Henry Steele Commager, once wrote an essay to which I've referred many times in many situations. He asserted that, often, the most important members of a society are its critics. Can't a critic of a country still be patriotic, especially if that country is taking the wrong path?
Can't one not be proud of our institutionalization of slavery or involvement in, say, Vietnam, and still be patriotic? If I'm not a fan of President Trump, and I'm not, does that mean I'm not patriotic? Hardly. And were those not "proud" of what President Obama did or even that he was President unpatriotic? Again, hardly.
I keep thinking of some ding-a-ling, maybe Joe Biden (?), who some years ago claimed it was "patriotic" to pay more taxes. (No, I don't remember the context.) So, although there were a couple attempts to establish a federal income tax before 1913, there was none that lasted. (A Constitutional amendment was required.) Does that mean all those Americans before then (and the 99% who still didn't pay any federal income taxes when it was initially enacted) weren't patriotic? Should we list the names? Were those who opposed a federal income tax unpatriotic? And, if paying more taxes is so "patriotic," why aren't the wealthy people, particularly the wealthy Democrats, lining up to voluntarily pay more? Why do so many folks, yes, even patriots, hire accountants, lawyers, and other tax experts to get the most out of exemptions, credits, and deductions?
Finley did cite Oakland County Judge Michael Warren and Judge Warren's attempt to shore up the teaching of American history. He doesn't wan to "sugar coat," as Finley notes, the history of the US. That is, we should be teaching the flaws in our past. But we shouldn't teach them at the expense of the wonderful things that evolved from the great American experiment nor should we emphasize them to the point of trivializing American successes.
This will no doubt rankle any relativists and multiculturalists who might read this, but, yes, the United States is an exceptional place. Yes, we are a better culture than, say, what is found in Saudi Arabia or China. And that's because of our Founding Principles. Those, as much as the physical United States of America, are the basis of American patriotism.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Lesson Plan?
I've been working--both thinking and writing--on a term project for my fall class(es). I did this before, back in the high school, and it was mildly popular, but haven't yet tried it at either of the colleges. I don't remember when and why I came up with this.
It is based on the NCAA March Madness brackets. Back when, teaching high school world history, I chose 64 people, one for each bracket. I tried to seed them. Students were asked to recall what we learned of each and then voted/chose the "winners." They couldn't just pick a favorite. It was a little more difficult than that, but you get the idea.
I am trying to make this far more involved for the college students. I haven't yet decided what form it will take, but likely will be a replacement for a term paper or some other lengthy assignment I have. Perhaps students will be asked to write something of significance for each person, then will have to choose between the two in the brackets. Choices will have to be reasoned; no credit for a mere choice. Students will have to weigh accomplishments/importance for their selections. I anticipate five to ten pages per student, maybe more.
I'm stuck right now. Mostly lately I've been teaching US History, the first half, and, of course, Michigan History. It has been tough to come up with 64 names in the US History and even more difficult in Michigan History. I have 50+ for the US, but some are a little obscure. I have the #1 seeds: Lincoln, Madison, Washington, Jefferson. The #2 seeds are Franklin, J. Adams, Jackson, Hamilton. Those are subject to changes. I'm thinking of having 32 bracket slots. Calhoun, Grant, Webster, Clay, Lee, Davis, JQ Adams, Douglass, Tubman, Marshall, Taney, Whitney...... There is still some thinking to do.
Michigan History certainly would be at most 32 slots, but likely 16. Those of you not familiar with Michigan's history won't recognize many names: Cass, Mason, Astor, Cadillac, Chandler, Richard, Woodward, Young, Ford (two of them), Murphy, Durant, Williams.......
Both are still works in progress. But I am pretty excited about starting this at the colleges.
It is based on the NCAA March Madness brackets. Back when, teaching high school world history, I chose 64 people, one for each bracket. I tried to seed them. Students were asked to recall what we learned of each and then voted/chose the "winners." They couldn't just pick a favorite. It was a little more difficult than that, but you get the idea.
I am trying to make this far more involved for the college students. I haven't yet decided what form it will take, but likely will be a replacement for a term paper or some other lengthy assignment I have. Perhaps students will be asked to write something of significance for each person, then will have to choose between the two in the brackets. Choices will have to be reasoned; no credit for a mere choice. Students will have to weigh accomplishments/importance for their selections. I anticipate five to ten pages per student, maybe more.
I'm stuck right now. Mostly lately I've been teaching US History, the first half, and, of course, Michigan History. It has been tough to come up with 64 names in the US History and even more difficult in Michigan History. I have 50+ for the US, but some are a little obscure. I have the #1 seeds: Lincoln, Madison, Washington, Jefferson. The #2 seeds are Franklin, J. Adams, Jackson, Hamilton. Those are subject to changes. I'm thinking of having 32 bracket slots. Calhoun, Grant, Webster, Clay, Lee, Davis, JQ Adams, Douglass, Tubman, Marshall, Taney, Whitney...... There is still some thinking to do.
Michigan History certainly would be at most 32 slots, but likely 16. Those of you not familiar with Michigan's history won't recognize many names: Cass, Mason, Astor, Cadillac, Chandler, Richard, Woodward, Young, Ford (two of them), Murphy, Durant, Williams.......
Both are still works in progress. But I am pretty excited about starting this at the colleges.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Olio
I'm especially fond of this word as it is the name of my college's yearbook, The Olio. The word is not part of "margarine," as in "oleomargarine" ("oleo"). Olio means "a miscellaneous collection of things." That's what this blog post will be.
I am reminded this AM of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, specifically, the lines, "Water, water everyone and all the boards did shrink. Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink." Last night's rain really taxed our already water-logged yards, rivers, lakes, etc. On a run at the state park earlier this week, the river was already (before last night's deluge) over the boat launches. Docks on the lake across the street are underwater. Our backyard, already soggy and able to be mowed only twice so far this spring, has standing water. The next door neighbor's yard is half under water, worse than I've ever seen it. And the major road heading out of our subdivision was flooded over for only the second time I remember in 33 years. Back in April, Michael was worried if our yard would dry out in time for his graduation open house. I scoffed, noting it was April and eight weeks from his shindig. Hmmm...... Maybe he knew something.
This is the first spring/summer I'm not coaching or helping to coach a baseball team in 11 or 12 years. I tried to figure how many "seasons" I've coached baseball (not to mention football, basketball, gym hockey, or even pillow polo!). As close as I can figure, it's about 42 or 43 years. That includes the 10 years or so at the high school and my kids' and grandkids' teams. Some years I coached two teams simultaneously and at least two years had three teams on my plate in the same season. This year Michael wanted to play, but we couldn't find a local team and half-heartedly tried to create our own. Five or six was the most players we could recruit. So now we just go take BP for fun.
I re-read (for the third or fourth time) the book Teaching: What We Do. It's a book of about a dozen essays by Amherst professors. It was written in the '90 and about half of the inclusions are from my professors. I have said this a lot in the past--this book should be required reading for all aspiring teachers. It includes thoughts about teaching and learning, drawing up lesson plans, specific subject/discipline matter, formulating assignments and tests, etc. One of my English professors was also a student at Amherst, of course, long before I was there. He wrote about "sometimes impossible questions about thinking, meaning, knowing......" I'm pretty sure most students, surely me, when given such assignments didn't realize that "In English, as in life, it's by arriving at our borders that we discover ourselves." My physics professor wrote of devising first assignment questions that "set the values" for physics and the course. This is something I do in all of my history courses, regardless of specifics, that is American or World or Michigan, Ancient or Modern. I try to set the "rules" of history, including types of sources and their reliability/trustworthiness, bias/prejudice, "guessing" as in gaps in knowledge, etc.
More of an aside than anything, one of the older professors, also an Amherst graduate, wrote, "I'm strongly prejudiced against the notion that education at Amherst has improved over the past few decades." He cites the old vs the new curricula. He sees a weakness in the new curriculum, as a sort of "pluralism" that tries to be everything to everyone. Defending the old curriculum, under attack in recent decades before being changed, a curriculum derided as "boot camp," he cites, "Nobody has ever suggested that the US Marines are not well-trained." Indeed.
Over the years I've heard people claim they are "social liberals, but fiscal conservatives." And I was reminded of this twice in recent weeks. That, being "social liberals but fiscal conservatives," has puzzled me. How can that be? Don't "social liberal" policies require tons and tons of money? How does that mesh with "fiscal conservatism?" Maybe I'm missing something. Or do people make such claims merely because they heard that phrase and thought that it makes them seem more caring or more intelligent? (And, of course, claiming to care is far more important than doing anything to prove it.) Perhaps, though, I just don't understand.
In the past week I've read of two or three attempts, at the state and federal levels, to ban former legislators (US members of Congress, members of the state legislature) from becoming lobbyists upon leaving their legislative bodies. Apparently this has drawn bi-partisan support. But aren't there problems with this, including infringement upon First Amendment rights? Just as important, if such lobbying (by former legislative colleagues) is so nefarious, if such bipartisan legislators find such lobbying so repulsive, why don't they ignore it? Why don't they refuse to deal with these lobbyists? Although the posturing seems obvious, I can think of a number of reasons they don't unilaterally, personally write such lobbyists out of their own pictures. Heh Heh......
I am reminded this AM of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, specifically, the lines, "Water, water everyone and all the boards did shrink. Water, water everywhere nor any drop to drink." Last night's rain really taxed our already water-logged yards, rivers, lakes, etc. On a run at the state park earlier this week, the river was already (before last night's deluge) over the boat launches. Docks on the lake across the street are underwater. Our backyard, already soggy and able to be mowed only twice so far this spring, has standing water. The next door neighbor's yard is half under water, worse than I've ever seen it. And the major road heading out of our subdivision was flooded over for only the second time I remember in 33 years. Back in April, Michael was worried if our yard would dry out in time for his graduation open house. I scoffed, noting it was April and eight weeks from his shindig. Hmmm...... Maybe he knew something.
This is the first spring/summer I'm not coaching or helping to coach a baseball team in 11 or 12 years. I tried to figure how many "seasons" I've coached baseball (not to mention football, basketball, gym hockey, or even pillow polo!). As close as I can figure, it's about 42 or 43 years. That includes the 10 years or so at the high school and my kids' and grandkids' teams. Some years I coached two teams simultaneously and at least two years had three teams on my plate in the same season. This year Michael wanted to play, but we couldn't find a local team and half-heartedly tried to create our own. Five or six was the most players we could recruit. So now we just go take BP for fun.
I re-read (for the third or fourth time) the book Teaching: What We Do. It's a book of about a dozen essays by Amherst professors. It was written in the '90 and about half of the inclusions are from my professors. I have said this a lot in the past--this book should be required reading for all aspiring teachers. It includes thoughts about teaching and learning, drawing up lesson plans, specific subject/discipline matter, formulating assignments and tests, etc. One of my English professors was also a student at Amherst, of course, long before I was there. He wrote about "sometimes impossible questions about thinking, meaning, knowing......" I'm pretty sure most students, surely me, when given such assignments didn't realize that "In English, as in life, it's by arriving at our borders that we discover ourselves." My physics professor wrote of devising first assignment questions that "set the values" for physics and the course. This is something I do in all of my history courses, regardless of specifics, that is American or World or Michigan, Ancient or Modern. I try to set the "rules" of history, including types of sources and their reliability/trustworthiness, bias/prejudice, "guessing" as in gaps in knowledge, etc.
More of an aside than anything, one of the older professors, also an Amherst graduate, wrote, "I'm strongly prejudiced against the notion that education at Amherst has improved over the past few decades." He cites the old vs the new curricula. He sees a weakness in the new curriculum, as a sort of "pluralism" that tries to be everything to everyone. Defending the old curriculum, under attack in recent decades before being changed, a curriculum derided as "boot camp," he cites, "Nobody has ever suggested that the US Marines are not well-trained." Indeed.
Over the years I've heard people claim they are "social liberals, but fiscal conservatives." And I was reminded of this twice in recent weeks. That, being "social liberals but fiscal conservatives," has puzzled me. How can that be? Don't "social liberal" policies require tons and tons of money? How does that mesh with "fiscal conservatism?" Maybe I'm missing something. Or do people make such claims merely because they heard that phrase and thought that it makes them seem more caring or more intelligent? (And, of course, claiming to care is far more important than doing anything to prove it.) Perhaps, though, I just don't understand.
In the past week I've read of two or three attempts, at the state and federal levels, to ban former legislators (US members of Congress, members of the state legislature) from becoming lobbyists upon leaving their legislative bodies. Apparently this has drawn bi-partisan support. But aren't there problems with this, including infringement upon First Amendment rights? Just as important, if such lobbying (by former legislative colleagues) is so nefarious, if such bipartisan legislators find such lobbying so repulsive, why don't they ignore it? Why don't they refuse to deal with these lobbyists? Although the posturing seems obvious, I can think of a number of reasons they don't unilaterally, personally write such lobbyists out of their own pictures. Heh Heh......
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Baseball's Hall of Fame
Last fall I read a book, The Cooperstown Casebook by Jay Jaffe. Its subtitle tells it all: "Who's in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Who Should Be, and Who Should Pack Their Plaques." The book piqued my interest, esp as those who know me at all, because of my strong belief that Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall.
But the book raised some good questions, made some good points, and provided food for thought. No doubt some of it is controversial, both for and against. And, as usual, I have spent some time, months later, thinking about it.
Has Baseball's Hall of Fame become a "Hall of Very Good" or even a "Hall of Good?" I don't mean to diminish the achievements of any of these players. From a personal level, I realize how skilled they were. In fact, I appreciate the skill levels of even the last players on the benches or in the bullpens. Most people probably don't recognize how good even these players are. Try to remember the best players you ever played with or against. Did any of them play in the Major Leagues?
Back to Jaffe's book. He suggests that, for many people, the Cooperstown as become a Hall of Valuable. Hmmm...... Is that bad? Isn't "value" a large part of "fame?" What about sentimentality, emotion? Do they water down the Hall of Fame?
But the best parts of the book are the analyses of players, "Who's in...Who Should Be...Who Should Pack......" Yes, Jaffe favors he admission of Ted Simmons. Hooray! But we all have our favorites, too. A recent newspaper article about Detroit Tiger Bill Freehan led to questions of why he doesn't have a plaque at Cooperstown. Maybe he doesn't have gaudy stats, but Freehan was an All-Star 11 of the 15 years he played, 11 of his last 13 years. That is, he was the premier American League catcher of his time. I suppose some might say that was because of other, weak catchers of those years. But somebody from then thought he was pretty darn good. And how do we compare players and their statistics with those of different eras? The game changes, from the ball, bats, and other equipment to the height of the pitcher's mound to the way the game is played/managers manage. In reality, the only fair comparison is with others of who played at he same time.
Some of Jaffe's picks are controversial. Yes, Simmons, Freehan, and Lou Whitaker should be in and he is critical of a Hall that doesn't include them. Some, such as Andruw Jones of the Braves and Jack Morris, are maybes. Those who he thinks should be "packing their plaques" include Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, and even Lefty Gomez and Catfish Hunter. No doubt, in some of these instances, election was based on emotion. Think Bill Mazeroski and the '61 Series. I'd guess others had to do with keeping names up front, for instance Rizzuto and Kell as long-time team announcers on radio/television. Did Jim Bunning's tenure in Congress affect his election? That doesn't mean these players aren't Hall worthy, although Jaffe thinks so.
Is longevity a factor? After all, Sandy Koufax had a relatively short career and, in fact, had only five seasons that were outstanding. Of course, during those five years he was probably the best pitcher baseball has ever seen. I recall one Series game, in '63 I think, when he threw a three-hit shutout vs the Yankees, using just his fastball due to an arm problem. And the Yanks knew that, that Koufax was throwing only fastballs. After whiffing for the fourth time, Mickey Mantle returned to the dugout, threw his bat into the bat rack, and swore "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" Indeed. By the way, I think Koufax is a no-brainer; he is deserving. But what about Nellie Fox? He played all or parts of 19 seasons and was one of the toughest batters to strike out in MLB history. But he wasn't a career .300 hitter and didn't amass 3,000 hits. He accumulated only 35 home runs. Hmmm......
Many now use Sabermetrics to evaluate players. Sabermetrics is an empirical analysis of the game, applying statistics to evaluate players, including those of different years. But, as noted above, the game has changed many times over the years. Ty Cobb led the league in HRs only once and the most he ever hit in a season were twelve. At one time, stealing bases was deemed more important than power hitting. How about the reliance on "relief pitching by committee," with "closers," "set-up men," and, I suppose, "set up men to set up men?"
One final word on sabermetrics and statistical analyses. I think this leaves out some intangibles, things that can't be measured. For instance, sabermetrics, if I understand this correctly, holds that teams should forgot sacrifice bunts, that runners score more often when not sacrificing. But doesn't that discount what could happen, what can't be quantified? If the threat of a bunt is there, all sorts of things happen. Pitchers have added pressure, to throw the ball high. Getting the ball up might make it easier for a potential bunter to hit rather than bunt. After all, unless the defense is stealing the other teams signs, it must prepare for the bunt. There is also added pressure, esp on the infield, which must hurry the play on a bunt. And, with a bunt in question, the defense must move in, playing out of position. Again, with the infield out of position, playing more shallow, if a batter doesn't bunt, how many ground balls would sneak by the fielders into the outfield? There's no way to quantify the "what ifs?"
Regardless, I recommend Jaffe's book. It is well written and provides a lot of food for thought, as well as sometimes evoking anger--grrrrrr!
But the book raised some good questions, made some good points, and provided food for thought. No doubt some of it is controversial, both for and against. And, as usual, I have spent some time, months later, thinking about it.
Has Baseball's Hall of Fame become a "Hall of Very Good" or even a "Hall of Good?" I don't mean to diminish the achievements of any of these players. From a personal level, I realize how skilled they were. In fact, I appreciate the skill levels of even the last players on the benches or in the bullpens. Most people probably don't recognize how good even these players are. Try to remember the best players you ever played with or against. Did any of them play in the Major Leagues?
Back to Jaffe's book. He suggests that, for many people, the Cooperstown as become a Hall of Valuable. Hmmm...... Is that bad? Isn't "value" a large part of "fame?" What about sentimentality, emotion? Do they water down the Hall of Fame?
But the best parts of the book are the analyses of players, "Who's in...Who Should Be...Who Should Pack......" Yes, Jaffe favors he admission of Ted Simmons. Hooray! But we all have our favorites, too. A recent newspaper article about Detroit Tiger Bill Freehan led to questions of why he doesn't have a plaque at Cooperstown. Maybe he doesn't have gaudy stats, but Freehan was an All-Star 11 of the 15 years he played, 11 of his last 13 years. That is, he was the premier American League catcher of his time. I suppose some might say that was because of other, weak catchers of those years. But somebody from then thought he was pretty darn good. And how do we compare players and their statistics with those of different eras? The game changes, from the ball, bats, and other equipment to the height of the pitcher's mound to the way the game is played/managers manage. In reality, the only fair comparison is with others of who played at he same time.
Some of Jaffe's picks are controversial. Yes, Simmons, Freehan, and Lou Whitaker should be in and he is critical of a Hall that doesn't include them. Some, such as Andruw Jones of the Braves and Jack Morris, are maybes. Those who he thinks should be "packing their plaques" include Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, and even Lefty Gomez and Catfish Hunter. No doubt, in some of these instances, election was based on emotion. Think Bill Mazeroski and the '61 Series. I'd guess others had to do with keeping names up front, for instance Rizzuto and Kell as long-time team announcers on radio/television. Did Jim Bunning's tenure in Congress affect his election? That doesn't mean these players aren't Hall worthy, although Jaffe thinks so.
Is longevity a factor? After all, Sandy Koufax had a relatively short career and, in fact, had only five seasons that were outstanding. Of course, during those five years he was probably the best pitcher baseball has ever seen. I recall one Series game, in '63 I think, when he threw a three-hit shutout vs the Yankees, using just his fastball due to an arm problem. And the Yanks knew that, that Koufax was throwing only fastballs. After whiffing for the fourth time, Mickey Mantle returned to the dugout, threw his bat into the bat rack, and swore "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" Indeed. By the way, I think Koufax is a no-brainer; he is deserving. But what about Nellie Fox? He played all or parts of 19 seasons and was one of the toughest batters to strike out in MLB history. But he wasn't a career .300 hitter and didn't amass 3,000 hits. He accumulated only 35 home runs. Hmmm......
Many now use Sabermetrics to evaluate players. Sabermetrics is an empirical analysis of the game, applying statistics to evaluate players, including those of different years. But, as noted above, the game has changed many times over the years. Ty Cobb led the league in HRs only once and the most he ever hit in a season were twelve. At one time, stealing bases was deemed more important than power hitting. How about the reliance on "relief pitching by committee," with "closers," "set-up men," and, I suppose, "set up men to set up men?"
One final word on sabermetrics and statistical analyses. I think this leaves out some intangibles, things that can't be measured. For instance, sabermetrics, if I understand this correctly, holds that teams should forgot sacrifice bunts, that runners score more often when not sacrificing. But doesn't that discount what could happen, what can't be quantified? If the threat of a bunt is there, all sorts of things happen. Pitchers have added pressure, to throw the ball high. Getting the ball up might make it easier for a potential bunter to hit rather than bunt. After all, unless the defense is stealing the other teams signs, it must prepare for the bunt. There is also added pressure, esp on the infield, which must hurry the play on a bunt. And, with a bunt in question, the defense must move in, playing out of position. Again, with the infield out of position, playing more shallow, if a batter doesn't bunt, how many ground balls would sneak by the fielders into the outfield? There's no way to quantify the "what ifs?"
Regardless, I recommend Jaffe's book. It is well written and provides a lot of food for thought, as well as sometimes evoking anger--grrrrrr!
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
But...
...what if we're wrong?
It's the title of a book I read a while back. The premise, "what if we're wrong," is intriguing/enticing and the opening explanations of it are interesting. The author, Chuck Klosterman, begins with gravity, how 2,000 years of Aristotelian theories about gravity were wrong. The "facts" people believed to be inexorably true were not true. So, then, what things do we believe to be true today aren't true either?
Another book I just finished, Origins, a novel by Dan Brown, is quite different in substance, but still caused me to ask a lot of questions. There again--Questions.
I've actually thought about this, or at least a version of it, for a long time. What of the questions we don't ask. I tell students, often, "I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions."
But what questions aren't asked? Why don't we ask them? I suppose that's for a variety of reasons. The answers to them might be so "self-evident," at least to us, as to render such questions useless or even silly. I suppose that's what people thought for 2,000 years about Aristotle's teachings.
Sometimes they might be uncomfortable questions, the answers upsetting, causing self-doubt, personal and collective, for instance.
And some questions are not asked because of fear. Who wanted to risk the anger and retribution of the Medieval Catholic Church? Doubters faced not only imprisonment or death, but worse--the death penalty of the soul, excommunication. Ask Galileo and others! And today, who wants to be called names, marginalized or ignored, even isolated? After all, we are (at least most of us) social animals.
Amherst historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote that a society's most important members are its critics. Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with men who were not yes-men. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. We have failed to learn from these men. We make it very difficult to practice what they've taught.
As I've written before, it's easier to accept than it is to question. Questioning is an important part of challenging, of scrutinizing. I know, personally, those who question are often marginalized and ignored. It's far easier to be a sycophant (We don't get to use that word often, so I'll take the opportunity!), a bobble head who agrees with whatever is offered. To challenge those in authority, long-held beliefs, etc. takes courage.
Switching gears, I find it laughable to hear members of Congress threaten to cite witnesses before their committees with contempt for lying. Lying! Excuse me for falling into the cliche-ridden trap of politicians and lying, but seriously? Perhaps they should clean up their own house(s) before they start flinging charges around.
I know, I know. "But that's different." Of course it always is. I suppose one might argue that lying under oath is one thing. Just plain lying is another. OK. But don't "just plain lies" also harm people, all of us?
What is particularly galling are the lies euphemistically called "campaign promises." I'm guessing that the candidates know they are telling lies just to garner votes. They have no intentions of following through on their lies, er, promises. And voters seem to have come to accept campaign promises, at least many of them, as lies. As I have asked before, aren't many broken campaign promises prime examples of fraud? And if they are, what aren't the perpetrators prosecuted?
In the same vein, I filled out a local school board survey the other day regarding an upcoming bond and millage election, November I think. I repeatedly indicated I will vote no on both. Even when tossed in with another local bond issue, on which I said I will vote yes, I still said I'll reject the local district's two proposals. At the end, I was asked my reasons. I was pretty blunt and said both the school board and the administration have made poor decisions in the past, have been deceitful if not outright dishonest, etc. I have no confidence in either (which may be redundant because, for the most part, the school board is a rubber stamp for the administration). This is not a question of viewpoint, either. The deceit and/or dishonesty, for decades, has been out there for anyone interested to see. I am certain, beyond doubt, that my survey responses will be ignored. As long as the sycophant/bobble heads continue to vote the way school boards/administrations (and other politicians) want, why would they change?
Last but not least today, I have been reminded of this several times in recent weeks, obliquely if not directly. So-and-so "is not as bad as" another so-and-so. NO! As I noted in the past few elections, Presidential and otherwise, I no longer will "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." NO! Over the course of the past few decades, look where this has taken us. As noted above, as long as voters continue to accept the crap the major parties throw at us, we will continue to be fed crap. It might take an election cycle or two for voters to force parties to change, but it won't if voters don't rise up and say, in effect, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I realize, for many people, times are pretty darn good right now, at least financially/economically. But there is more to life than money.
This is naive of me, I know. But I cling to the precept that character matters, still. Apparently to many folks it doesn't. As long as "the trains run on time" (They didn't, but I'm not quibbling.), all else is fine. Moral fabric is important. And we are losing it quickly, if we haven't already lost it. I can't for the life of me understand how Americans, for a couple of decades now, have accepted poor moral behavior from our leaders in all walks of life merely because "the economy is good." I actually had someone tell me that during the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair. If our leaders, and not just political leaders, can act immorally and unethically, why can't the rest of us? I know that much of this, the immorality and lack of ethics, has been going on forever, but now it occurs openly and we know it. By ignoring or at least dismissing it, we condone it. By extension......
This was driven home a couple of weeks ago while I listened to the radio coming home from class. a caller referred to the Michigan governor's campaign, "...and I'll fix the damn roads!" I found the use of "damn" to be offensive, although most people probably cheered. Anyway, this caller said he was driving down a road with his 5-year old daughter. He hit a sizable pot hole that jarred the car. He was stunned, then angry, to hear his daughter say, "Fix the damn roads!" This came from a five-year old! I know, I know. I'm a prude. Maybe most people think it's cute for a five-year old to use language like this, but not me. Perhaps it's the father's fault; he's said it? But maybe it's the fault of the people who thought it was cute for a candidate for governor to say it.
It's the title of a book I read a while back. The premise, "what if we're wrong," is intriguing/enticing and the opening explanations of it are interesting. The author, Chuck Klosterman, begins with gravity, how 2,000 years of Aristotelian theories about gravity were wrong. The "facts" people believed to be inexorably true were not true. So, then, what things do we believe to be true today aren't true either?
Another book I just finished, Origins, a novel by Dan Brown, is quite different in substance, but still caused me to ask a lot of questions. There again--Questions.
I've actually thought about this, or at least a version of it, for a long time. What of the questions we don't ask. I tell students, often, "I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions."
But what questions aren't asked? Why don't we ask them? I suppose that's for a variety of reasons. The answers to them might be so "self-evident," at least to us, as to render such questions useless or even silly. I suppose that's what people thought for 2,000 years about Aristotle's teachings.
Sometimes they might be uncomfortable questions, the answers upsetting, causing self-doubt, personal and collective, for instance.
And some questions are not asked because of fear. Who wanted to risk the anger and retribution of the Medieval Catholic Church? Doubters faced not only imprisonment or death, but worse--the death penalty of the soul, excommunication. Ask Galileo and others! And today, who wants to be called names, marginalized or ignored, even isolated? After all, we are (at least most of us) social animals.
Amherst historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote that a society's most important members are its critics. Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with men who were not yes-men. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. We have failed to learn from these men. We make it very difficult to practice what they've taught.
As I've written before, it's easier to accept than it is to question. Questioning is an important part of challenging, of scrutinizing. I know, personally, those who question are often marginalized and ignored. It's far easier to be a sycophant (We don't get to use that word often, so I'll take the opportunity!), a bobble head who agrees with whatever is offered. To challenge those in authority, long-held beliefs, etc. takes courage.
Switching gears, I find it laughable to hear members of Congress threaten to cite witnesses before their committees with contempt for lying. Lying! Excuse me for falling into the cliche-ridden trap of politicians and lying, but seriously? Perhaps they should clean up their own house(s) before they start flinging charges around.
I know, I know. "But that's different." Of course it always is. I suppose one might argue that lying under oath is one thing. Just plain lying is another. OK. But don't "just plain lies" also harm people, all of us?
What is particularly galling are the lies euphemistically called "campaign promises." I'm guessing that the candidates know they are telling lies just to garner votes. They have no intentions of following through on their lies, er, promises. And voters seem to have come to accept campaign promises, at least many of them, as lies. As I have asked before, aren't many broken campaign promises prime examples of fraud? And if they are, what aren't the perpetrators prosecuted?
In the same vein, I filled out a local school board survey the other day regarding an upcoming bond and millage election, November I think. I repeatedly indicated I will vote no on both. Even when tossed in with another local bond issue, on which I said I will vote yes, I still said I'll reject the local district's two proposals. At the end, I was asked my reasons. I was pretty blunt and said both the school board and the administration have made poor decisions in the past, have been deceitful if not outright dishonest, etc. I have no confidence in either (which may be redundant because, for the most part, the school board is a rubber stamp for the administration). This is not a question of viewpoint, either. The deceit and/or dishonesty, for decades, has been out there for anyone interested to see. I am certain, beyond doubt, that my survey responses will be ignored. As long as the sycophant/bobble heads continue to vote the way school boards/administrations (and other politicians) want, why would they change?
Last but not least today, I have been reminded of this several times in recent weeks, obliquely if not directly. So-and-so "is not as bad as" another so-and-so. NO! As I noted in the past few elections, Presidential and otherwise, I no longer will "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." NO! Over the course of the past few decades, look where this has taken us. As noted above, as long as voters continue to accept the crap the major parties throw at us, we will continue to be fed crap. It might take an election cycle or two for voters to force parties to change, but it won't if voters don't rise up and say, in effect, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I realize, for many people, times are pretty darn good right now, at least financially/economically. But there is more to life than money.
This is naive of me, I know. But I cling to the precept that character matters, still. Apparently to many folks it doesn't. As long as "the trains run on time" (They didn't, but I'm not quibbling.), all else is fine. Moral fabric is important. And we are losing it quickly, if we haven't already lost it. I can't for the life of me understand how Americans, for a couple of decades now, have accepted poor moral behavior from our leaders in all walks of life merely because "the economy is good." I actually had someone tell me that during the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair. If our leaders, and not just political leaders, can act immorally and unethically, why can't the rest of us? I know that much of this, the immorality and lack of ethics, has been going on forever, but now it occurs openly and we know it. By ignoring or at least dismissing it, we condone it. By extension......
This was driven home a couple of weeks ago while I listened to the radio coming home from class. a caller referred to the Michigan governor's campaign, "...and I'll fix the damn roads!" I found the use of "damn" to be offensive, although most people probably cheered. Anyway, this caller said he was driving down a road with his 5-year old daughter. He hit a sizable pot hole that jarred the car. He was stunned, then angry, to hear his daughter say, "Fix the damn roads!" This came from a five-year old! I know, I know. I'm a prude. Maybe most people think it's cute for a five-year old to use language like this, but not me. Perhaps it's the father's fault; he's said it? But maybe it's the fault of the people who thought it was cute for a candidate for governor to say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
