It seems many more people are upset with the appt of "emergency financial managers" on the state and local levels than with the appt of "czars" in the federal gov't. Both are, without question, anathem to the principle of democratic rule. In 1864, during the midst of the Civil War, it was suggested to A. Lincoln that he scrub the Presidential elections and just continue on as President. He, of course, said no. Cancellation of the elections would go a long way to proving what many, esp in Europe, had held--that people weren't capable of ruling themselves. This is esp poignant in that Lincoln faced the real possibility of defeat in 1864.
I wonder if it's the party doing the undemocratic thing that matters, with critics. The Reps are, by and large, the ones behind the "EFM" movement and the Dems have all the "czars." (Isn't that an odd name to give them, "czars," named after some of the strongest autocrats/tyrants of the day? Then, again, maybe it's not so odd.) Regarding the "EMFs", people have a right to elect who they want, good, bad, or somewhere in-between. That's why we have a democracy. That some folks think they can appt someone, temporary or otherwise, reeks of elitism. Read the views of the nobility in Europe during the Enlightenment, when all these ideas of popular sovereignty and individual freedom evolved. Those views sound like what's coming from our own elitists. We have a right to be wrong, to elect bad people--the key concept there is having a right to do so. We don't have an aristocracy. Like I tell my students, "you may think Hitler is St Adolf--you'd be wrong, but you can think that. This is a free country. You have the right to be wrong."
And these "czars" and other federal agencies who are accountable to--well, to nobody. What's with them? Where's the outrage? That they can, whether stupidly or otherwise, make decisions that affect our daily lives, often making them less pleasant, without oversight is patently undemocratic. Why do people put up with this? Is it because only a minority of us understand? This, too, stinks of elitism, that some people know more and better than we do. (The supreme irony is that their policies are often stupid and lead to disaster. But, of course, they aren't held responsible.) Even if they do (and I obviously don't think so) know more and better than we do, such an attitude is anathem to rule by the people.
Is it true, as I read this AM, that a recent USA/Mex World Cup soccer game held in Los Angeles, a largely hispanic crowd not only wildly cheered the Mexican team, but booed the Americans and disrespected the US flag and/or national anthem? OK, see above, but this is America and people have the right to do both. But I still can find such actions despicable and, in fact, incomprehensible. It goes to a core question I have. Why do so many people immigrate here, then try to turn the US into the place whence they came? If what they wanted to do was get away from a less than desirable place to go to a more desirable place, why try to change the latter to the former? I understand about bringing part of one's culture with him/her--and I appreciate that, from the music/symphonies to the foods--but why try to create something from which one was trying to escape?
Sometimes I just sits and thinks and sometimes I just sit.
Regardless, both are rotten things and need to be eliminated right now!
Monday, June 27, 2011
Bill Freehan
Interesting article in yesterday's paper. Sparky Anderson's number was 11--Bill Freehan had it before Sparky. The article pointed out just how good Freehan was. It suggested he deserves serious Hall of Fame consideration. I agree; in fact, I think he belongs in there. First, he was the best defensive catcher of his era. OK, in the later years his arm was pretty dead thanks to his football playing days at U of M. Still, there was no better receiver. Second, did anyone (maybe Paul Molitor?) hit more line drives than Freehan? How many times did he lace a line drive right smack to the left fielder? Third, he was an All-Star 11 years of the 15 he played. Again, I'll use this comparison. If Gary Carter and Carlton Fisk (I'll stick with catcher right now, but could use other positions as examples, too) are in the Hall, so should Freehan. And I've said this before, so should Ted Simmons. I'm not saying Carter or Fisk don't belong in the Hall, just that, if they do, so do Freehan and Simmons.
It's tough to remember a Tiger pitcher with the recent string that Verlander has put together. I haven't seen any of the games, but WOW! All those shutouts and very low-hit games. And I'll bet he has the hitters talking before the games he pitches. I just wonder why he has to come out when he throw 120 or so pitches. What will another 10 or 15 do--maybe even strengthen his arm some?
It's tough to remember a Tiger pitcher with the recent string that Verlander has put together. I haven't seen any of the games, but WOW! All those shutouts and very low-hit games. And I'll bet he has the hitters talking before the games he pitches. I just wonder why he has to come out when he throw 120 or so pitches. What will another 10 or 15 do--maybe even strengthen his arm some?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Loons
It would be hard to make up this stuff....
Apparently in Bethesda, MD, a group of parents were fined $500 by the local gov't because their kids had an "unauthorized" lemonade stand. To boot, the kids were raising money for some charity. Who are these people?????
I haven't read the story, but a photo in the newspaper accompanied news of education "reform" in Detroit. The "reform" will be a test case for perhaps later implementation throughout the state. But the key was the photo--along with the governor were half a dozen "education-types." Once again I repeat, in dealing with education the governor is out of his league.
Speaking of the schools, I see where a number of Oak Co schools made the "best" list in some national mag. Buried in the story are the criteria for determining "best." A whopping 15% of the criteria actually deal with students accomplishing anything. It's how many AP courses are offered, how many students take the AP test (not necessarily that they score well), the ratio of students to AP courses, etc. The lunacy is perpetuated.
I guess to string together what the present and past Michigan governors have said and the "best" rankings, why don't all schools teach all AP courses????? After all, if "best" means teaching the AP courses (not necessarily doing well in them) and if "everybody goes to college!," then.... There you go. Have another problem for me to solve? Loons, Loons everywhere....
Apparently in Bethesda, MD, a group of parents were fined $500 by the local gov't because their kids had an "unauthorized" lemonade stand. To boot, the kids were raising money for some charity. Who are these people?????
I haven't read the story, but a photo in the newspaper accompanied news of education "reform" in Detroit. The "reform" will be a test case for perhaps later implementation throughout the state. But the key was the photo--along with the governor were half a dozen "education-types." Once again I repeat, in dealing with education the governor is out of his league.
Speaking of the schools, I see where a number of Oak Co schools made the "best" list in some national mag. Buried in the story are the criteria for determining "best." A whopping 15% of the criteria actually deal with students accomplishing anything. It's how many AP courses are offered, how many students take the AP test (not necessarily that they score well), the ratio of students to AP courses, etc. The lunacy is perpetuated.
I guess to string together what the present and past Michigan governors have said and the "best" rankings, why don't all schools teach all AP courses????? After all, if "best" means teaching the AP courses (not necessarily doing well in them) and if "everybody goes to college!," then.... There you go. Have another problem for me to solve? Loons, Loons everywhere....
Monday, June 20, 2011
Good Reading
Good reading today, amid taxi service to basketball camp, a trip to "a park," four loads of laundairy [sic], mowing the lawn, and grading some papers. Between today's and yesterday's newspapers (I'm still not caught up!), there were several good articles, columns, and letters.
Walter Williams had a good one about some of his peeves, large and small. One had to do with the so-called (I'd say self-anointed) intelligent people. He wanted to know how and why they always seem to pick on their political enemies by labelling them "stupid," "ignorant," "not very intelligent," etc. And then he proceeded to point out the many great national and world calamities perpetrated by "smart," "intelligent" people. Ha Ha. Gee I wonder if that is the difference between the Tea Partiers and those teachers and union members who protest--one group is stupid and the other is smart? Again, Ha Ha. He also gets irked by poor grammar--me, too. And, in fact, I read an article in the same newspaper shortly afterward--incredibly poor grammar, misspellings, etc. I might have run out of red ink had I been grading it! I wonder if the columnist was that lousy or the editor was. Regardless, someone should be ashamed. (Oh, I forgot, there is no shame any longer.)
Speaking of columns, the Free Press had a spot on column about the injustice done to a couple who were accused of molesting their severely autistic daughter. The column wasn't necessarily about the false, completely false accusation. (It actually came, not from the daughter, but from an "education-type" who employed a now discredited method of extracting information from someone like this severely autistic daughter. Now, why anyone would listen to an "education-type" is beyond me, but I digress.) The columnist was taking two judges to task, very deservedly so, for their roles in perpetrating this miscarriage. In fact, where are the judicial tenure and review boards in this? If just some of what the columnist writes is true, these judges deserve to be kicked out on their bejabbers--even fined. (Oh, I'm forgetting a lot today. The "government-types" have created an immunity from prosecution in many instances, for themselves.) It doesn't matter, elective or appointive offices, far too many of these people think they are there for their own aggrandizement, for the benefit of their buddies or their parties, etc. They've forgotten their history, what the foundations of this country are. Yet, these are the same Bozos who are trying to "fix" education. Yeah, right.
Speaking of "fixing" education. I haven't received a call from Gov Snyder yet. Apparently, like almost everyone else, he doesn't read my blog. A few weeks ago I called him out, saying "he is out of his league" in dealing with education reform. (I also wrote that I agree with many of the things he's doing.) He's not seeking answers from those who've been through the rigors of quality education. In fact, he's, from what I can tell, consulting more "education-types." And, to underscore that, his tenure law (which if it hasn't passed the legislature, soon will) continues to let administrators determine if teachers are kept. Talk about letting the inmates run the asylum!
Speaking of tenure (aren't these segues great today?!?!?), there were a couple of nice letters about the new law. I think they were written by teachers, but aren't the same old sob stories. "Oh, we work so hard!" "Oh, we're so dedicated!" "Oh, we're there for the kids." Bologna (hats off to Oscar Mayer!)! Ask any worker if they "work so hard," are "so dedicated," etc. and guess what answer you'll get. Anyway, the letters asked legislators to check on their history (see above!), see why tenure laws were created. Of course they weren't enacted to guarantee lifetime positions! And those critics of tenure are dishonest to claim so. The letter writers go on to state that it's administrators who've fouled up the tenure system, by failing to act, either through ineptitude or cowardice, on the spirit of the tenure system. They could have and still can get rid of teachers--and likely for a lot less expense than critics claim. But they don't or can't do their jobs--hey, that's why most of them are administrators. Just coincidentally, while mowing the law today, I thought about a teacher I worked with, one whose nickname was "Cecil B." You can imagine why--she showed two, three, four, or more movies a week. OK, everyone knew this; it was no secret. The nickname was there for all to hear. So, why wasn't anything ever done about it? Why wasn't she told not to show two, three, four, or more movies a week? Was she even asked? (Not to my knowledge and I was dept head for a good number of those years.) Maybe she had a good rationale (although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bought it). Where were the administrators? Now, fast forward and remember nothing was said or done to her about the movieplex she ran. After she left, retirement, there were two others who showed just as many movies--almost as if they had pipelines to the local video joint. Again, I'm certain nothing was said to either of them--ever. Why not? That's what these tenure critics need to be addressing, not some law to get rid of a teacher on a whim. Once again, the loons are in control.
It's interesting how people know, everyone knows, government is all messed up. Nobody trusts officials--elected or appointed. Everyone makes fun of or criticizes the IRS, TSA, hey, the list is as long as your arm. Look at all the fools and perverts, cheats and liars. Yet, we're allowing gov't to make "reforms," to "fix" things. Are we stupid?????
There were a series of good letters about a recent liberal convention of Catholics. Both sides raised some good thoughts. First, those in defense of the Church remarked that the Church is the Church. It can't be flexible (you know, "diverse"). Faith is faith. Doctrine is doctrine. Can a religion's followers change their deity to satisfy their wants? That sort of is the antithesis of religion, isn't it? If these liberal Catholics think their religion is wrong, then why are they Catholics? They should seek their religious solace elsewhere. Second, isn't there something wrong with an institution that seeks severe penalties (sanctions, maybe even removal) against those acting to have women or gay priests, but merely transfers priests who molest boys (OK, sweeps the many instances of molestation under the rug)? What kind of God would approve punishment of those asking legitimate (if right or wrong) questions regarding gender and Church participation while not even slapping the hands of agents of that Church who molest boys? Hmmm.... Anyway, a good set of letters that every Catholic should consider.
OK, there goes half an hour of paper-grading time! Drat! Oh well.... Out to get a few more out of the way. Then, a thrilling lecture (I'm sure) about the events of the 1840s and 1850s that precipitated the Civil War.
Walter Williams had a good one about some of his peeves, large and small. One had to do with the so-called (I'd say self-anointed) intelligent people. He wanted to know how and why they always seem to pick on their political enemies by labelling them "stupid," "ignorant," "not very intelligent," etc. And then he proceeded to point out the many great national and world calamities perpetrated by "smart," "intelligent" people. Ha Ha. Gee I wonder if that is the difference between the Tea Partiers and those teachers and union members who protest--one group is stupid and the other is smart? Again, Ha Ha. He also gets irked by poor grammar--me, too. And, in fact, I read an article in the same newspaper shortly afterward--incredibly poor grammar, misspellings, etc. I might have run out of red ink had I been grading it! I wonder if the columnist was that lousy or the editor was. Regardless, someone should be ashamed. (Oh, I forgot, there is no shame any longer.)
Speaking of columns, the Free Press had a spot on column about the injustice done to a couple who were accused of molesting their severely autistic daughter. The column wasn't necessarily about the false, completely false accusation. (It actually came, not from the daughter, but from an "education-type" who employed a now discredited method of extracting information from someone like this severely autistic daughter. Now, why anyone would listen to an "education-type" is beyond me, but I digress.) The columnist was taking two judges to task, very deservedly so, for their roles in perpetrating this miscarriage. In fact, where are the judicial tenure and review boards in this? If just some of what the columnist writes is true, these judges deserve to be kicked out on their bejabbers--even fined. (Oh, I'm forgetting a lot today. The "government-types" have created an immunity from prosecution in many instances, for themselves.) It doesn't matter, elective or appointive offices, far too many of these people think they are there for their own aggrandizement, for the benefit of their buddies or their parties, etc. They've forgotten their history, what the foundations of this country are. Yet, these are the same Bozos who are trying to "fix" education. Yeah, right.
Speaking of "fixing" education. I haven't received a call from Gov Snyder yet. Apparently, like almost everyone else, he doesn't read my blog. A few weeks ago I called him out, saying "he is out of his league" in dealing with education reform. (I also wrote that I agree with many of the things he's doing.) He's not seeking answers from those who've been through the rigors of quality education. In fact, he's, from what I can tell, consulting more "education-types." And, to underscore that, his tenure law (which if it hasn't passed the legislature, soon will) continues to let administrators determine if teachers are kept. Talk about letting the inmates run the asylum!
Speaking of tenure (aren't these segues great today?!?!?), there were a couple of nice letters about the new law. I think they were written by teachers, but aren't the same old sob stories. "Oh, we work so hard!" "Oh, we're so dedicated!" "Oh, we're there for the kids." Bologna (hats off to Oscar Mayer!)! Ask any worker if they "work so hard," are "so dedicated," etc. and guess what answer you'll get. Anyway, the letters asked legislators to check on their history (see above!), see why tenure laws were created. Of course they weren't enacted to guarantee lifetime positions! And those critics of tenure are dishonest to claim so. The letter writers go on to state that it's administrators who've fouled up the tenure system, by failing to act, either through ineptitude or cowardice, on the spirit of the tenure system. They could have and still can get rid of teachers--and likely for a lot less expense than critics claim. But they don't or can't do their jobs--hey, that's why most of them are administrators. Just coincidentally, while mowing the law today, I thought about a teacher I worked with, one whose nickname was "Cecil B." You can imagine why--she showed two, three, four, or more movies a week. OK, everyone knew this; it was no secret. The nickname was there for all to hear. So, why wasn't anything ever done about it? Why wasn't she told not to show two, three, four, or more movies a week? Was she even asked? (Not to my knowledge and I was dept head for a good number of those years.) Maybe she had a good rationale (although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bought it). Where were the administrators? Now, fast forward and remember nothing was said or done to her about the movieplex she ran. After she left, retirement, there were two others who showed just as many movies--almost as if they had pipelines to the local video joint. Again, I'm certain nothing was said to either of them--ever. Why not? That's what these tenure critics need to be addressing, not some law to get rid of a teacher on a whim. Once again, the loons are in control.
It's interesting how people know, everyone knows, government is all messed up. Nobody trusts officials--elected or appointed. Everyone makes fun of or criticizes the IRS, TSA, hey, the list is as long as your arm. Look at all the fools and perverts, cheats and liars. Yet, we're allowing gov't to make "reforms," to "fix" things. Are we stupid?????
There were a series of good letters about a recent liberal convention of Catholics. Both sides raised some good thoughts. First, those in defense of the Church remarked that the Church is the Church. It can't be flexible (you know, "diverse"). Faith is faith. Doctrine is doctrine. Can a religion's followers change their deity to satisfy their wants? That sort of is the antithesis of religion, isn't it? If these liberal Catholics think their religion is wrong, then why are they Catholics? They should seek their religious solace elsewhere. Second, isn't there something wrong with an institution that seeks severe penalties (sanctions, maybe even removal) against those acting to have women or gay priests, but merely transfers priests who molest boys (OK, sweeps the many instances of molestation under the rug)? What kind of God would approve punishment of those asking legitimate (if right or wrong) questions regarding gender and Church participation while not even slapping the hands of agents of that Church who molest boys? Hmmm.... Anyway, a good set of letters that every Catholic should consider.
OK, there goes half an hour of paper-grading time! Drat! Oh well.... Out to get a few more out of the way. Then, a thrilling lecture (I'm sure) about the events of the 1840s and 1850s that precipitated the Civil War.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Sun Eve
I wonder why other restaurants don't try to copy the bread at Antonio's. It's the best--hands down. I almost never eat bread at restaurants, unless I have a sandwich. But it's almost the main course at Antonio's. And my bowl of pasta y fagioli was huge! I, really, barely touched my main course. Ah, there's lunch and/or dinner tomorrow.
Who's that daytime talk show host who said, on air, she'd lie under oath to protect her daughter from punishment--for a crime she committed?!?!? Ah, once again we are treated to the hypocrisy of those who still say, almost a mantra, "Bush lied." Oh, by the way, he didn't, at least not about Iraq and WMD.
Imagine a school district approving pay for someone (who worked in the district for less than a year!) who went 3-4 days over sick days, a same district that is continually pleading "poverty!" Imagine the teacher who was given pay for those days not being sick, but interviewing for a job in another district, an administrative job, going there to check out things, and, finally, joining the other district's administrators at a Tiger game--all being paid by the former district. The next time they start crying about having no money, I'll be sure to remind them of this. I'll also remind my teaching friends who complain about not getting enough state aid that perhaps they should get their own house in order before they start asking for support for more money. Hypocrites enormous.
Interesting how the state universities have all increased tuition by 6 to 9%. Hmmm...shall we talk about the "greedy" CEOs, the "greedy" bankers, "greedy" Wall Street, "greedy" Big Oil? BTW, how much money do the presidents of UM and MSU get each year--in addition to a nice house, car, etc.? Ah, let's remember they are there "for the kids." Hypocrites all....
Who's that daytime talk show host who said, on air, she'd lie under oath to protect her daughter from punishment--for a crime she committed?!?!? Ah, once again we are treated to the hypocrisy of those who still say, almost a mantra, "Bush lied." Oh, by the way, he didn't, at least not about Iraq and WMD.
Imagine a school district approving pay for someone (who worked in the district for less than a year!) who went 3-4 days over sick days, a same district that is continually pleading "poverty!" Imagine the teacher who was given pay for those days not being sick, but interviewing for a job in another district, an administrative job, going there to check out things, and, finally, joining the other district's administrators at a Tiger game--all being paid by the former district. The next time they start crying about having no money, I'll be sure to remind them of this. I'll also remind my teaching friends who complain about not getting enough state aid that perhaps they should get their own house in order before they start asking for support for more money. Hypocrites enormous.
Interesting how the state universities have all increased tuition by 6 to 9%. Hmmm...shall we talk about the "greedy" CEOs, the "greedy" bankers, "greedy" Wall Street, "greedy" Big Oil? BTW, how much money do the presidents of UM and MSU get each year--in addition to a nice house, car, etc.? Ah, let's remember they are there "for the kids." Hypocrites all....
Friday, June 17, 2011
Out of My Mind
Just curious: What would the Lame Stream media have done had Sarah P or W Bush said what BO said about ATMs? Yep, I can just imagine it. Yet, once again, he gets a free pass. I guess, then, it's a forever pass. I wonder if the Lame Streams know some intelligent people just laugh at them--even if they do, I'm sure they don't care. Remember, they, along with our elected reps, are smarter than we are; they are the elites.
It seems to me that the problem with having CEOs and other business-types running gov't is that "finding a solution" becomes an end in itself. It doesn't matter if the "problem" is studied, only that "a solution" is found.
The people--pols and media--jumping on the teacher tenure reform bandwagon are making a big mistake. Their entire argument is based on a very false assumption. As I read yet another pol's justification/rationale for supporting the tenure-reform bill under consideration, I couldn't help but shake my head. These people, to a person it seems, think administrators are the ones to manage this "new" system. Don't they know? Why do they assume administrators are competent, fair, knowledgeable about what quality education is and entails? Are they not at all familiar with schools? Do they not think about who was in charge when the schools went into the tanks? Knee-jerk reactions by some pretty thoughtless people.
How I must review the rules of the road. I have forgotten that, if on a cell phone, drivers are exempt from stopping at stop signs and some red lights. They do not have to use turn signals or pay attention to lights turning green. They can swerve across yellow lines and even go 20 mph over the limit or 20 mph under the limit. I didn't know driving with a cell phone had such advantages.
Why aren't people complaining about inflation? I know, I know, "What inflation?" I guess since the gov't has redefined "inflation" there isn't any. But, hmmm...gas prices are way up, as are beef, milk, bread, vegies, soda--seemingly everything but beer! You'd think the Lame Streams would jump on this, but I don't see a lot of stories about it. Is someone being protected? Sure seems like it--again.
The WEE-ner episode raises some interesting points. How can Americans, by and large a moral people (although that might be changing), trust immoral leaders in government? I know, I know--consenting adults, personal matters, "they all do it," ad infinitum. Who are critics to cast judgment? I think there was even a letter from a U of M professor somewhat along those lines. Well, I'll tell you who we are. We are people who believe there are moral standards, a moral compass that guides us to live together in a democracy. Otherwise, there would be chaos. Oh, there is increasing chaos? You got me there....
Out.
It seems to me that the problem with having CEOs and other business-types running gov't is that "finding a solution" becomes an end in itself. It doesn't matter if the "problem" is studied, only that "a solution" is found.
The people--pols and media--jumping on the teacher tenure reform bandwagon are making a big mistake. Their entire argument is based on a very false assumption. As I read yet another pol's justification/rationale for supporting the tenure-reform bill under consideration, I couldn't help but shake my head. These people, to a person it seems, think administrators are the ones to manage this "new" system. Don't they know? Why do they assume administrators are competent, fair, knowledgeable about what quality education is and entails? Are they not at all familiar with schools? Do they not think about who was in charge when the schools went into the tanks? Knee-jerk reactions by some pretty thoughtless people.
How I must review the rules of the road. I have forgotten that, if on a cell phone, drivers are exempt from stopping at stop signs and some red lights. They do not have to use turn signals or pay attention to lights turning green. They can swerve across yellow lines and even go 20 mph over the limit or 20 mph under the limit. I didn't know driving with a cell phone had such advantages.
Why aren't people complaining about inflation? I know, I know, "What inflation?" I guess since the gov't has redefined "inflation" there isn't any. But, hmmm...gas prices are way up, as are beef, milk, bread, vegies, soda--seemingly everything but beer! You'd think the Lame Streams would jump on this, but I don't see a lot of stories about it. Is someone being protected? Sure seems like it--again.
The WEE-ner episode raises some interesting points. How can Americans, by and large a moral people (although that might be changing), trust immoral leaders in government? I know, I know--consenting adults, personal matters, "they all do it," ad infinitum. Who are critics to cast judgment? I think there was even a letter from a U of M professor somewhat along those lines. Well, I'll tell you who we are. We are people who believe there are moral standards, a moral compass that guides us to live together in a democracy. Otherwise, there would be chaos. Oh, there is increasing chaos? You got me there....
Out.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Presidential Candidates?
I'm astounded that Romney, in a recent poll, outpointed Obama, 49-46. I've even more flabbergasted that Obama still gets 46%! I certainly don't understand. One radio show played a tape of a Hollywood-type (I'm not sure I even know who the guy is, but it sounded like he's well known in circles outside of me) singing the praises of Obama--oh, there was no substance to the guy's praise; he never gave any concrete accomplishments. I guess Obama just makes him feel good? And, again, I think these guys are hypocrites of the first rank.
Who can the Reps really run against Obama? I think he'll win in 2012 unless the Reps find a winner. I'm not a big Romney fan--I think he's a CINO and I don't trust him. Palin is intriguing, despite those who run her down. I think those who are so very critical of her (name-callers) tell us more about themselves than about her. Although I like her spunk and think her mind is often in the right place, I'm not sure she's got the intellectual wherewithal for the job. Maybe she does, but I've seen too many gaffes. She's nice to look at, though. I like Michelle Bachman, too. She's maybe a step up from Palin, but has some of the same flaws. But she's very easy on this old man's eyes, too. Paul Ryan, from what I understand, is a policy wonk, not politician enough to be President. That, just maybe, might be a good thing! How about Tom Davis or even Thad McCotter? Both are not national names, but have very good minds. The Reps better get moving. I fear they are letting an ideal opportunity be squandered.
Another radio show, Levin I think, just calls people names. He rarely ever engages in dialogue. And then he rationlizes by saying, "I don't debate with idiots." How convenient! Call people who disagree "idiots" and then say "I don't debate with idiots." He did call Obama "an idiot" and, I think, having "half a brain." I wonder who gave this guy Levin the name, "The Great One." He doesn't seem so "great" to me. But, he's entertaining and often has the right ideas. I guess I just don't care for his style. It rings of what the boobs running the schools do with critics--their silly programs and policies can't stand up to scrutiny, so they just call critics names. If the other guy is wrong, it should be easy enough to demonstrate it. That strengthens an argument, gives fodder to supporters, makes the other side look foolish (or something else, but not very good), and might even win over some from the other side.
I heard Tom Davis speak a couple weeks ago. He left a relatively safe seat in the House because of what he thinks is an inability of Dems and Reps, libs and cons, to get along. Government is too polarized. "One side gets its 'facts' from CNN and the other side gets its 'facts' from Fox." Both news outlets don't tell lies, he said, but to further their obvious agendas, maybe don't present the entire picture of events. But hasn't that always been so? Haven't newspapers always been biased, taking sides--usually openly and egregiously? For instance, why was the Springfield Republican called the "Republican?" Perhaps it's more the mass nature of the media. But Davis had some very valid points and, although it would never happen because he has ticked off the Republican leadership by being critic of a lack of Republican leadership, would be a good candidate for President.
There was a good letter-to-the-editor I read yesterday--I don't know the day/date because I'm still catching up on my reading from two weeks ago! It was from a teacher and wasn't the typical "teacher letter." There was no whining, no "oh, we're so dedicated and work so hard," none of that. But it was a thoughtful letter than asked the question and then offered answers: "Why would anyone want to be a teacher?" Yep! In the climate in this state (and perhaps nationally), why would anyone with any ability? I suppose there are those who are "dedicated" enough, but most people can take only so much abuse--financial, public, etc. And, remember, I often have said that I think many teachers and administrators deserve the criticism directed at them. I also read a few decent blurbs about why tenure is a good thing. I, too, have criticized tenure, but have also defended it. Why should a good teacher, one outspoken, intelligent, and courageous enough to stand up to stupid programs and policies be subjected to dismissal by an administrator who lacks those noted qualities? That "that's the way it is in the private sector," that is, people can be fired by incompetent, insecure bosses is hardly a rationale to get rid of tenure. The major problems with tenure are incompetent administrators who give it to teachers who aren't deserving and then don't follow up afterward (tenure doesn't provide a life-long job; that's a misconception) and teachers who get tenure (often undeservingly) who then coast as lousy teachers.
People often find it awkward to tell others some things. I was glad to be able a couple of weeks ago to tell some people what they have meant to me. I tried not to be sappy. I was not trying to get anything from my comments. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated and remembered, before it was too late and wouldn't be able to. My reward for doing so were a couple of barely perceptible nods while looking downward and a bit of teary eyes. Those responses made me very glad I said what I did. But there are still some things that can't be said, even good things. They might be taken the wrong way. They might create unwanted feelings. But I still feel them. Maybe the day will come when they can be revealed.
Who can the Reps really run against Obama? I think he'll win in 2012 unless the Reps find a winner. I'm not a big Romney fan--I think he's a CINO and I don't trust him. Palin is intriguing, despite those who run her down. I think those who are so very critical of her (name-callers) tell us more about themselves than about her. Although I like her spunk and think her mind is often in the right place, I'm not sure she's got the intellectual wherewithal for the job. Maybe she does, but I've seen too many gaffes. She's nice to look at, though. I like Michelle Bachman, too. She's maybe a step up from Palin, but has some of the same flaws. But she's very easy on this old man's eyes, too. Paul Ryan, from what I understand, is a policy wonk, not politician enough to be President. That, just maybe, might be a good thing! How about Tom Davis or even Thad McCotter? Both are not national names, but have very good minds. The Reps better get moving. I fear they are letting an ideal opportunity be squandered.
Another radio show, Levin I think, just calls people names. He rarely ever engages in dialogue. And then he rationlizes by saying, "I don't debate with idiots." How convenient! Call people who disagree "idiots" and then say "I don't debate with idiots." He did call Obama "an idiot" and, I think, having "half a brain." I wonder who gave this guy Levin the name, "The Great One." He doesn't seem so "great" to me. But, he's entertaining and often has the right ideas. I guess I just don't care for his style. It rings of what the boobs running the schools do with critics--their silly programs and policies can't stand up to scrutiny, so they just call critics names. If the other guy is wrong, it should be easy enough to demonstrate it. That strengthens an argument, gives fodder to supporters, makes the other side look foolish (or something else, but not very good), and might even win over some from the other side.
I heard Tom Davis speak a couple weeks ago. He left a relatively safe seat in the House because of what he thinks is an inability of Dems and Reps, libs and cons, to get along. Government is too polarized. "One side gets its 'facts' from CNN and the other side gets its 'facts' from Fox." Both news outlets don't tell lies, he said, but to further their obvious agendas, maybe don't present the entire picture of events. But hasn't that always been so? Haven't newspapers always been biased, taking sides--usually openly and egregiously? For instance, why was the Springfield Republican called the "Republican?" Perhaps it's more the mass nature of the media. But Davis had some very valid points and, although it would never happen because he has ticked off the Republican leadership by being critic of a lack of Republican leadership, would be a good candidate for President.
There was a good letter-to-the-editor I read yesterday--I don't know the day/date because I'm still catching up on my reading from two weeks ago! It was from a teacher and wasn't the typical "teacher letter." There was no whining, no "oh, we're so dedicated and work so hard," none of that. But it was a thoughtful letter than asked the question and then offered answers: "Why would anyone want to be a teacher?" Yep! In the climate in this state (and perhaps nationally), why would anyone with any ability? I suppose there are those who are "dedicated" enough, but most people can take only so much abuse--financial, public, etc. And, remember, I often have said that I think many teachers and administrators deserve the criticism directed at them. I also read a few decent blurbs about why tenure is a good thing. I, too, have criticized tenure, but have also defended it. Why should a good teacher, one outspoken, intelligent, and courageous enough to stand up to stupid programs and policies be subjected to dismissal by an administrator who lacks those noted qualities? That "that's the way it is in the private sector," that is, people can be fired by incompetent, insecure bosses is hardly a rationale to get rid of tenure. The major problems with tenure are incompetent administrators who give it to teachers who aren't deserving and then don't follow up afterward (tenure doesn't provide a life-long job; that's a misconception) and teachers who get tenure (often undeservingly) who then coast as lousy teachers.
People often find it awkward to tell others some things. I was glad to be able a couple of weeks ago to tell some people what they have meant to me. I tried not to be sappy. I was not trying to get anything from my comments. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated and remembered, before it was too late and wouldn't be able to. My reward for doing so were a couple of barely perceptible nods while looking downward and a bit of teary eyes. Those responses made me very glad I said what I did. But there are still some things that can't be said, even good things. They might be taken the wrong way. They might create unwanted feelings. But I still feel them. Maybe the day will come when they can be revealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
