I noted Tiger pitcher Justin Verlander signed a new contract. I don't know what the annual payout is, but it averages to about $28,000,000 a year. I don't begrudge him his money and he is one of the two Tigers I don't mind paying to watch. But doesn't $28,000, 000 a year seem excessive? Isn't that close to $1 million a start? Good for him.
I read where some Hollywood-types make (earn?) more than $20,000--an hour! No doubt some bankers and CEOs of companies brought home equally large amounts. Again, I don't begrudge them their incomes as long as it is gained legally.
I just wonder, as I've written before, where is the anger, the protest with athletes' and Hollywood-types' income? Oh, we see how "greedy" the corporate world is--and it might well be; I'm not arguing one way or the other now--but we never, ever see about any "greed" in professional sports, movies and television, hippy-rock music, etc.
And the income that CEOs, for instance make stems from things we actually need. The head of Fords leads a company that builds cars; the CEO of Mobil runs a company that provides gasoline. We clamor against their incomes. Perhaps it's because we feel trapped, that we have no option but to buy cars and gas. Where do the incomes of movie stars, NFL players, the latest gangsta rappers come from? They come from us, just like the corporate incomes. But there's a difference, to me at least.
We don't need movies or the latest American Idol episode or an NBA game. Yet, we continue to pay such exorbitant salaries by buying tickets, game shirts, DVDs, etc. We pay for tickets--most of which are outlandishly priced. $10 to see an evening movie? Have you tried taking your grandkids to a ball game lately, tossing in a hot dog and pizza and soda?
I wonder how many nasty letters-to-the-editor I will see next week about the signing of Verlander by the Tigers. I'm guessing there will be no nasty ones, but plenty of good ones.
Sometimes I sits and wonder and sometimes I just sits....
Saturday, March 30, 2013
The Supremes
The Supreme Court heard arguments from two potentially significant cases last week. One concerned affirmative action right here in Michigan. The other focused on California's Prop 8 (?) and gay marriages. I haven't heard much about the Michigan case, but the gay marriage issue seemed to have popped at the seams last week. There's much I don't understand....
The issue of gay rights (and gay marriages/unions, families, etc.) is complex, but not complex at the same time. It's a hot-button issue, no doubt. Why does it, for instance, evoke great emotion and, I dare say, more action than all of the murders, especially of our children, going on in our cities? Why are people more stoked up about this than, say, abortions?
It seems to me that if two gay people want to get married, what's the problem? If they are in love and, at least initially going into the relationship, plan a long-term commitment, I don't see why they cannot be legally married. So what if a religion, but by no means all religions or even all members of any certain religion, is opposed? Government should not be in the business of enforcing a religious doctrine/belief. If a religion want to condemn homosexuality and, in that vein, marriage between homosexuals, that's fine. Those who oppose such unions can find a church that reflects their beliefs. Those who don't agree with such a church's views can find another religion. But, should our laws reflect a particular religion's tenets, in effect, legally enforcing a religious doctrine?
I think the argument that kids should be raised by a heterosexual couple because they will be better adjusted kids has been shot down pretty conclusively. Besides, as some anti-gay marriage proponents have argued, is marriage solely for the purpose of having children? If so, what if a couple decides not to have kids? What if they can't have kids because of some physical problems? Then, should they be required to take an oath that they will have kids? If they don't take the oath, should we prohibit them from marrying? Of course not and it's silly to assert so. And, what about all of the divorced marriages and single-parent families? Aren't the deleterious effects of them something to consider, more so than how a loving gay couple which wants kids affects children?
Some argue that the people of California have spoken, that the majority rules and Prop 8 reflects the view of the majority. Well, that's why we have a Constitution and a court system, to prevent tyranny of the majority. Majority rules in this country, except when the rights of the minority are trampled. Should we have not abolished slavery? In the South, the majority, even those who didn't own slaves, didn't favor abolition. I'd bet, although we didn't have polling in the 1860s, a good/sizable number, likely even a majority, in the North didn't favor abolition of slavery. Note the draft riots of 1863 and their root causes (of which there were several).
Several comments/questions from the Supremes, too, are troubling. It was suggested by several (Alito and Sotomayor, perhaps) of them that gay marriage should be allowed to play itself out, that it's too new--newer, one suggested, than technology like computers and cell phones. That suggests that the Supremes should stick a political finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing and then rule accordingly. Nope, that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
Ah, I've lost my train of thought.... I'll be back later.
The issue of gay rights (and gay marriages/unions, families, etc.) is complex, but not complex at the same time. It's a hot-button issue, no doubt. Why does it, for instance, evoke great emotion and, I dare say, more action than all of the murders, especially of our children, going on in our cities? Why are people more stoked up about this than, say, abortions?
It seems to me that if two gay people want to get married, what's the problem? If they are in love and, at least initially going into the relationship, plan a long-term commitment, I don't see why they cannot be legally married. So what if a religion, but by no means all religions or even all members of any certain religion, is opposed? Government should not be in the business of enforcing a religious doctrine/belief. If a religion want to condemn homosexuality and, in that vein, marriage between homosexuals, that's fine. Those who oppose such unions can find a church that reflects their beliefs. Those who don't agree with such a church's views can find another religion. But, should our laws reflect a particular religion's tenets, in effect, legally enforcing a religious doctrine?
I think the argument that kids should be raised by a heterosexual couple because they will be better adjusted kids has been shot down pretty conclusively. Besides, as some anti-gay marriage proponents have argued, is marriage solely for the purpose of having children? If so, what if a couple decides not to have kids? What if they can't have kids because of some physical problems? Then, should they be required to take an oath that they will have kids? If they don't take the oath, should we prohibit them from marrying? Of course not and it's silly to assert so. And, what about all of the divorced marriages and single-parent families? Aren't the deleterious effects of them something to consider, more so than how a loving gay couple which wants kids affects children?
Some argue that the people of California have spoken, that the majority rules and Prop 8 reflects the view of the majority. Well, that's why we have a Constitution and a court system, to prevent tyranny of the majority. Majority rules in this country, except when the rights of the minority are trampled. Should we have not abolished slavery? In the South, the majority, even those who didn't own slaves, didn't favor abolition. I'd bet, although we didn't have polling in the 1860s, a good/sizable number, likely even a majority, in the North didn't favor abolition of slavery. Note the draft riots of 1863 and their root causes (of which there were several).
Several comments/questions from the Supremes, too, are troubling. It was suggested by several (Alito and Sotomayor, perhaps) of them that gay marriage should be allowed to play itself out, that it's too new--newer, one suggested, than technology like computers and cell phones. That suggests that the Supremes should stick a political finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing and then rule accordingly. Nope, that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
Ah, I've lost my train of thought.... I'll be back later.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Respect
One of my buddies often remark how we referred and continue to refer after all of these years to our college instructors as "Professor" (me) and "Dr." (him). I think that's the measure of respect we had for them and what they did so well.
I always wear a tie to class. (OK, full disclosure requires admitting that, in 42 years, I didn't wear a tie twice, forgetting it both times. But, one of those times, Karen dropped off a tie on her way to work--after a frantic phone call from me.) It's a personal thing and I understand that others don't and their reasons for them. Wearing a tie, for me, is a way to respect the profession, the position. One of the first things I always notice about Governor Snyder is that he is tie-less.
What reminded me of this was both yesterday and last night seeing other instructors in Levis and tee shirts or flannel shirts with sneakers. Certainly others can dress the way they want to dress. And I'm not at all sure students even notice or if it has any impact on teaching, learning, or classroom dynamics. Nobody would admit it had a negative influence anyway, would they?
I understand, perhaps, elementary teachers and art, physical education, etc. teachers not getting all dressed up. Theirs is a messy world! But there's a difference between dressing down (note, I didn't say "slobby") and otherwise.
Perhaps it was merely coincidence and there's no correlation, but of the half dozen or so lectures I heard last weekend, the best were delivered by professors and authors who wore ties and the worst two were given by those in Levis.
Again, I don't know if it's a correlation and I certainly don't believe in a dress code for teachers, although I would keep a close eye on my staff if I were an administrator. I'm sure those who dress down would argue that has no impact on their teaching. They might be right. But to me it's a matter of respect.
I always wear a tie to class. (OK, full disclosure requires admitting that, in 42 years, I didn't wear a tie twice, forgetting it both times. But, one of those times, Karen dropped off a tie on her way to work--after a frantic phone call from me.) It's a personal thing and I understand that others don't and their reasons for them. Wearing a tie, for me, is a way to respect the profession, the position. One of the first things I always notice about Governor Snyder is that he is tie-less.
What reminded me of this was both yesterday and last night seeing other instructors in Levis and tee shirts or flannel shirts with sneakers. Certainly others can dress the way they want to dress. And I'm not at all sure students even notice or if it has any impact on teaching, learning, or classroom dynamics. Nobody would admit it had a negative influence anyway, would they?
I understand, perhaps, elementary teachers and art, physical education, etc. teachers not getting all dressed up. Theirs is a messy world! But there's a difference between dressing down (note, I didn't say "slobby") and otherwise.
Perhaps it was merely coincidence and there's no correlation, but of the half dozen or so lectures I heard last weekend, the best were delivered by professors and authors who wore ties and the worst two were given by those in Levis.
Again, I don't know if it's a correlation and I certainly don't believe in a dress code for teachers, although I would keep a close eye on my staff if I were an administrator. I'm sure those who dress down would argue that has no impact on their teaching. They might be right. But to me it's a matter of respect.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Teaching?
I must have missed something. Some Florida college instructor used this as a "critical thinking" assignment. He had students write "Jesus" on a piece of paper and then put the paper on the floor. Students were instructed to stomp on the paper. This was supposed to show something about tolerance or intolerance or something of religion?????? I must have missed something; at least I hope I did. How utterly ridiculous!
If it's true, as I heard it, how does this guy have tenure? Who gave it to him if this is the type of "teaching" he does? Maybe he thinks it makes him cool, that his students think him "cool." I don't know. Maybe he doesn't really know anything and this is all he can do. I don't know.
C'mon, this is a college class? Aren't there better ways to teach "tolerance" or "intolerance" and "critical thinking" (whatever that is)? Do parents willingly pay the exorbitant college tuition of today for this kind of "teaching?" I'm pretty sure most of his students just laugh at the guy, at least I hope they do.
And I'm left with two related thoughts. I'm not sure what "critical thinking" actually is. It has been a buzzword in education for some time and buzzwords in education are like scripture--don't ever question or challenge them, no matter how stupid. Over my 42 years, I've confronted a lot of similar things, pretty stupid things. In fact, I'd tell people outside of education about them and they likely thought I was lying--I wasn't. My buddy likes to tell the story of the school that spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars, special ordering television sets. He was incredulous, noting he had recently bought the same set for about one-third as much at one of the local appliance warehouses. Somewhat nonplussed, the school administrator finally blurted out, "But they're not safe!" Huh? "Not safe?" Yeah, he said, "They might blow up." My buddy and I burst out laughing, with me urging him to return the set so he didn't get hurt. The old "Values Clarification" stuff of the '70s was another silly thing.
I think "critical thinking" in my own education was professors writing on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed" and "If this is the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another college." Such comments were justly "critical" and they forced me to do a lot more "thinking." There..."critical thinking," I guess.
This whole "stomp on Jesus" silliness makes me wonder about the Broadway play, "The Book of Mormon." I guess it's a spoof of Mormonism, really making fun of it. Of course, there are aspects of Christianity which have been spoofed, too, particular Catholic schools with their nuns ("Nunsense," "Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" come to mind). Yet, the whole world holds its collective breath if someone draws a cartoon critical of Islam?????? I guess there are enough things in this world to make fun of without taking on religions. I'm talking about creeds, tenets, etc., not idiosyncrasies; those are fair game!
I'm reading a book that reminds me of "Pretend History." Many books and Hollywood, especially, have perpetuated the myth of the peaceful Amerinds, the natives the Europeans found when arriving in the New World. According to this view, the episodes of violence--battles, war, death, scalpings, and more--were all the result of those nasty Europeans (and some of them were nasty!). But that's just what it is, a myth. It's "Pretend History." As this book correctly points out, it wasn't the Europeans who introduced slavery to the Indians of the Americas. And the Indians themselves were pretty good at human sacrifices. They didn't need any outside help. There were wars of extinction and the nastiest of brutalities.
I was going to write tonight--a column and a review--but it's later than I thought. Reading sounds better, esp since I just received an e-mail confirming that a new book order shipped out to me today. And, the kids need to be cleaned up....
Out......
If it's true, as I heard it, how does this guy have tenure? Who gave it to him if this is the type of "teaching" he does? Maybe he thinks it makes him cool, that his students think him "cool." I don't know. Maybe he doesn't really know anything and this is all he can do. I don't know.
C'mon, this is a college class? Aren't there better ways to teach "tolerance" or "intolerance" and "critical thinking" (whatever that is)? Do parents willingly pay the exorbitant college tuition of today for this kind of "teaching?" I'm pretty sure most of his students just laugh at the guy, at least I hope they do.
And I'm left with two related thoughts. I'm not sure what "critical thinking" actually is. It has been a buzzword in education for some time and buzzwords in education are like scripture--don't ever question or challenge them, no matter how stupid. Over my 42 years, I've confronted a lot of similar things, pretty stupid things. In fact, I'd tell people outside of education about them and they likely thought I was lying--I wasn't. My buddy likes to tell the story of the school that spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars, special ordering television sets. He was incredulous, noting he had recently bought the same set for about one-third as much at one of the local appliance warehouses. Somewhat nonplussed, the school administrator finally blurted out, "But they're not safe!" Huh? "Not safe?" Yeah, he said, "They might blow up." My buddy and I burst out laughing, with me urging him to return the set so he didn't get hurt. The old "Values Clarification" stuff of the '70s was another silly thing.
I think "critical thinking" in my own education was professors writing on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed" and "If this is the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another college." Such comments were justly "critical" and they forced me to do a lot more "thinking." There..."critical thinking," I guess.
This whole "stomp on Jesus" silliness makes me wonder about the Broadway play, "The Book of Mormon." I guess it's a spoof of Mormonism, really making fun of it. Of course, there are aspects of Christianity which have been spoofed, too, particular Catholic schools with their nuns ("Nunsense," "Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" come to mind). Yet, the whole world holds its collective breath if someone draws a cartoon critical of Islam?????? I guess there are enough things in this world to make fun of without taking on religions. I'm talking about creeds, tenets, etc., not idiosyncrasies; those are fair game!
I'm reading a book that reminds me of "Pretend History." Many books and Hollywood, especially, have perpetuated the myth of the peaceful Amerinds, the natives the Europeans found when arriving in the New World. According to this view, the episodes of violence--battles, war, death, scalpings, and more--were all the result of those nasty Europeans (and some of them were nasty!). But that's just what it is, a myth. It's "Pretend History." As this book correctly points out, it wasn't the Europeans who introduced slavery to the Indians of the Americas. And the Indians themselves were pretty good at human sacrifices. They didn't need any outside help. There were wars of extinction and the nastiest of brutalities.
I was going to write tonight--a column and a review--but it's later than I thought. Reading sounds better, esp since I just received an e-mail confirming that a new book order shipped out to me today. And, the kids need to be cleaned up....
Out......
Monday, March 25, 2013
"A Good Man"
I was reminded yesterday of what Abigail Adams once said of George Washington. He was, she remarked, "a dangerous man." That was because Washington could persuade people to do things. of course, many men including tyrants/despots could do that. Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler, Castro, and others immediately come to mind.
But as the speaker was concluding this story, noting how lucky we were to have had Washington when we did, I found myself saying out loud what the speaker was saying, "because he was a good man."
Listening to several lectures over the weekend, I was again reminded of how difficult good lecturing really is. Each of the speakers seemed to know his/her stuff. A couple were quite good, especially the one who spoke of Washington. He had a heartfelt round of applause (not the trendy obligatory and faux standing ovation!) and deserved it. Another was pretty good, although I think his efforts were lost on his audience. Two others were, frankly, lousy. Although the subjects were of interest, they didn't put things together. I think it's also worth noting that the two best (of half a dozen or so) used no Power Points or other visual aids.
In the same vein, I read last week this, from a college professor: "People who don't teach for a living don't [recognize/realize] its difficulty." No, I don't think most people do. I think many folks, including those misplaced in the educational system (that is, charged with decision-making), think that anyone can teach. Whoever came up with "Those who can do and those who can't teach" did a great disservice.
But as the speaker was concluding this story, noting how lucky we were to have had Washington when we did, I found myself saying out loud what the speaker was saying, "because he was a good man."
Listening to several lectures over the weekend, I was again reminded of how difficult good lecturing really is. Each of the speakers seemed to know his/her stuff. A couple were quite good, especially the one who spoke of Washington. He had a heartfelt round of applause (not the trendy obligatory and faux standing ovation!) and deserved it. Another was pretty good, although I think his efforts were lost on his audience. Two others were, frankly, lousy. Although the subjects were of interest, they didn't put things together. I think it's also worth noting that the two best (of half a dozen or so) used no Power Points or other visual aids.
In the same vein, I read last week this, from a college professor: "People who don't teach for a living don't [recognize/realize] its difficulty." No, I don't think most people do. I think many folks, including those misplaced in the educational system (that is, charged with decision-making), think that anyone can teach. Whoever came up with "Those who can do and those who can't teach" did a great disservice.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Capital Punishment
I don't think favoring or opposing the death penalty is an easy matter. On this one, a person can think with his mind or with his heart. I'm not certain which is right. Two recent matters demonstrate this.
Within the past couple of weeks, a man who was held in prison for 27 years in New York was released. It was discovered he was innocent! I assume, with "27 years," the crime was one that in today's New York is a capital offense (but I'm not certain). Regardless, there are other such cases. What if this man had been put to death back then? In fact, there are hundreds of cases in which the convicted were later found to be innocent. One such instance occurred in Michigan in the 1830s, when it was still a territory, which is one reason the death penalty has never been used in Michigan under state laws. The death penalty is final. There is no "Oops!"
Yet, in the past few days comes a story of a guy who shot and killed a one-year old because the baby's mother didn't give the robber any money. The guy shot the baby in the head! Now, well, it's time to rethink the death penalty. This one pulls at the heart strings, shooting and killing a baby because the robber didn't get any money. Life in prison doesn't seem to do enough to punish this one.
The possibility of making an irreversible mistake, a big one, vs the most heinous of crimes that deserves the ultimate penalty??????
Within the past couple of weeks, a man who was held in prison for 27 years in New York was released. It was discovered he was innocent! I assume, with "27 years," the crime was one that in today's New York is a capital offense (but I'm not certain). Regardless, there are other such cases. What if this man had been put to death back then? In fact, there are hundreds of cases in which the convicted were later found to be innocent. One such instance occurred in Michigan in the 1830s, when it was still a territory, which is one reason the death penalty has never been used in Michigan under state laws. The death penalty is final. There is no "Oops!"
Yet, in the past few days comes a story of a guy who shot and killed a one-year old because the baby's mother didn't give the robber any money. The guy shot the baby in the head! Now, well, it's time to rethink the death penalty. This one pulls at the heart strings, shooting and killing a baby because the robber didn't get any money. Life in prison doesn't seem to do enough to punish this one.
The possibility of making an irreversible mistake, a big one, vs the most heinous of crimes that deserves the ultimate penalty??????
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Detroit
I don't like the Emergency Manager law and oppose the appointment of one for Detroit. I don't condone the way the city has been allowed to disintegrate right before our eyes, but the EM law and subsequent appoint hit me in very negative ways.
First, this is a democracy, a government of the people. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution are "We the People...." They aren't "We the states" or "We the government." I know, I know, "we aren't really a democracy." Baloney/Bologna! Yes, we are. A democracy is a government in which the people are sovereign, that ultimate authority for governmen stems from them. Of course we aren't a direct democracy, but a representative or republican democracy (or democratic republic, if that doesn't offend anyone as sounding too much like a commie state). The people of Detroit, not an EM appointed by a governor, should govern Detroit. If they do so poorly, as they quite evidently have, well that's the gamble democracy takes. If they ask for help, not have it foisted upon them, they should be helped--with conditions.
Second, EM laws and those who favor them and appoint the EMs smack far too much for my tastes of arrogant elitism. I'm not a big fan of that, arrogant elitism, the idea that some people (and they mostly identify themselves) are smarter than the rest of us. They know better what's best for us. Maybe they do (although history pretty much shows they don't, although we'll never convince them of that; imagine trying to tell Woodrow Wilson that!). But that's not the point, not at all.
I think Detroiters should protest. Maybe that will shake them out of their bad habits on election days. But I see Jesse Jackson has come to town, urging Detroiters to take some sort of action. That's fine, but I have a question. Where was Jesse Jackson before this? Where was he when the city was being dragged down? Where were his eloquent words and scathing indictments then? I don't remember anything coming from him when things were going down the drain. Oh, he might lead a march, a demonstration, and get his picture on the front pages of the newspapers. After all, isn't that how he's earned his living? He'd have a lot more credibility had he been here 20 and more years ago.
I guess that's now how things work....
First, this is a democracy, a government of the people. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution are "We the People...." They aren't "We the states" or "We the government." I know, I know, "we aren't really a democracy." Baloney/Bologna! Yes, we are. A democracy is a government in which the people are sovereign, that ultimate authority for governmen stems from them. Of course we aren't a direct democracy, but a representative or republican democracy (or democratic republic, if that doesn't offend anyone as sounding too much like a commie state). The people of Detroit, not an EM appointed by a governor, should govern Detroit. If they do so poorly, as they quite evidently have, well that's the gamble democracy takes. If they ask for help, not have it foisted upon them, they should be helped--with conditions.
Second, EM laws and those who favor them and appoint the EMs smack far too much for my tastes of arrogant elitism. I'm not a big fan of that, arrogant elitism, the idea that some people (and they mostly identify themselves) are smarter than the rest of us. They know better what's best for us. Maybe they do (although history pretty much shows they don't, although we'll never convince them of that; imagine trying to tell Woodrow Wilson that!). But that's not the point, not at all.
I think Detroiters should protest. Maybe that will shake them out of their bad habits on election days. But I see Jesse Jackson has come to town, urging Detroiters to take some sort of action. That's fine, but I have a question. Where was Jesse Jackson before this? Where was he when the city was being dragged down? Where were his eloquent words and scathing indictments then? I don't remember anything coming from him when things were going down the drain. Oh, he might lead a march, a demonstration, and get his picture on the front pages of the newspapers. After all, isn't that how he's earned his living? He'd have a lot more credibility had he been here 20 and more years ago.
I guess that's now how things work....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
