Since 2000, 500 kids have been shot and killed in Detroit. I believe that's just the city, not including the suburbs, which would add to this appalling number. That's almost 3 a month! What is with us?
The latest was an 8-year old shot while sleeping. Some derelict, who has learned to believe that he can shoot somebody if he is "dissed" or isn't given something he wants or you name it, opened fire with a high-powered rifle. A bullet struck the kid.
I know the argument about guns--far too many of them out there with far too many people who shouldn't have them. But does anyone think that if we move to get rid of guns, these derelicts will give up theirs?
What about--and I'm continuing to beat this horse and will until it's dead--changing the culture of violence, of thinking so little of human lives that it's permissible to take them for so trivial reasons? Someone has shoes or a jacket you want? Just shoot him or her and take it. Someone insulted you or you think insulted you? Just shoot him or her to take back your street cred.
I have no data, none, but I must think that television, movies, video games, and even some types of music have heavily influenced this culture of violence. We know advertising on television, etc. influences people's actions and attitudes. So, why then wouldn't all the violence in these media and games also influence people's actions and attitudes?
Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their ilk on this? Why aren't they leading the black communities out of this morass? For that matter, where is the President? Wasn't he a "community leader?" Isn't a President supposed to lead? How can they find issues more pressing than the epidemic of shooting and killing our kids?????? Of course, I have my ideas where these so-called "leaders" are. I won't offer what I think, but I think you can guess. They are some of the reasons why we have reached a state of moral mud.
Violence? How about in Gaza? And what are the LameStreams and the Obama Administration doing about that? (I will omit the United Nations, for obvious reasons.) For one thing, they are rewarding terrorists. Hamas, a terrorist organization, engages in regular/periodic attacks on Israel and Israelis and it's the Israelis of whom demands for concessions are made. How irrational is that? It reminds me of a local elementary school principal and his way of handling bullies in his school. When the bullies disrupted games on the playground, instead of punishing them, he let them pick the teams and make the rules! I am not making this up, not at all. This was his solution, to give the bullies "ownership," whatever the heck he meant by that. And by rewarding the bullies, did this principal end the bullying? Of course not; he encouraged even more of it. And some of us wonder why our schools are in the sad shape they are...... Look no farther than your local administrator. (OK, some of our teachers, too.)
Speaking of schools, when did it become "smart" to make education resemble video games? That's what is happening, you know. Oh, the euphemism is "technology." It's taken over classrooms and whole schools. There are virtual schools, where students don't have to take off their pajamas for class. (Oh, for that matter, many schools let kids where their PJs to school now and not only on special days!) I've written about the new god, "Technology," and how anyone who questions it immediately dismissed as a Neanderthal, Luddite, or worse. (There is a place for technology in education, but it's not the place it's now given. It is where it is now because, well, "follow the money.") I know, I know, we have to make education "relevant." Courses/Classes need to touch students, to grab their attention, and all that rigamarole. Students have to learn at their own paces. Hogwash! When did it become smart to allow students to determine the parameters of education? What do students know? Of course, we might ask this question. What do educators know if they let this occur and, in fact, encourage it?
And I wonder why I get headaches! (Actually, I don't believe in headaches; I don't get them.)
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mother Nature
Boy, Mother Nature is fickle and, at times, very powerful. That was the case with the storm the other day and quite a storm it was.
Here, we had two strong blows, about half an hour apart, with some rain accompanied by thunder and lightning. The rain was steady, but not particularly hard and didn't last an hour, not close to it. The winds, both times, were strong. We had some patio furniture on the deck knocked over, but that was about it.
The tornado/storm siren went off twice. The first time, the storm came and went. The skies cleared to a beautiful blue, with few clouds. The warning siren sounded. Too late! The second time it went off was just before the second wave of wind and rain/thunder and lightning.
But north of here, about 15 minutes or so, look out! I spent a few hours today helping friends to clean up their yard. I've never seen so many green leaves fallen on the ground. It was like the autumn, except the leaves weren't all the fall colors--just deep green. There were no large limbs down, but lots and lots of small twigs and branches. But more so, it was seeing the damage by the hail. Here, we had no hail, none at all. There, the newspapers reported "golf-ball size hail...." That was wrong. I saw my friends photos and the hail was closer to baseball-size. Their cars were pock-marked with big dings and dents from the hail. A tail-light was knocked out. The windshields were cracked in numerous places. The house?????? Siding was as dented as the autos. Several glass-brick windows were shattered. Plants were beaten to the ground. Even those heavy-duty plastic outdoor storage bins were pounded with holes! Those things are thick and sturdy, too! The roof needs to be repaired; window frames were destroyed.
Driving on their street, sort of a cul de sac, I've never seen so much traffic there. About 90% of it was construction vehicles. My friends said, since Sun, they come home and find many flyers from restoration companies on their door--and numerous calls from those companies are on their voice mails. Some houses, too, on their block were even worse off with damage.
We didn't do any restoration/repairs. The insurance folks are coming out to assess the damage and give an estimate. We just cleaned up the yard, which was work enough.
Now, a mile or two south--no hail. A mile or two north--no hail. There was the strong wind, like we had, and rain, but no hail. Fickle Mother Nature.
What was the old television for Imperial Margarine? "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."
Here, we had two strong blows, about half an hour apart, with some rain accompanied by thunder and lightning. The rain was steady, but not particularly hard and didn't last an hour, not close to it. The winds, both times, were strong. We had some patio furniture on the deck knocked over, but that was about it.
The tornado/storm siren went off twice. The first time, the storm came and went. The skies cleared to a beautiful blue, with few clouds. The warning siren sounded. Too late! The second time it went off was just before the second wave of wind and rain/thunder and lightning.
But north of here, about 15 minutes or so, look out! I spent a few hours today helping friends to clean up their yard. I've never seen so many green leaves fallen on the ground. It was like the autumn, except the leaves weren't all the fall colors--just deep green. There were no large limbs down, but lots and lots of small twigs and branches. But more so, it was seeing the damage by the hail. Here, we had no hail, none at all. There, the newspapers reported "golf-ball size hail...." That was wrong. I saw my friends photos and the hail was closer to baseball-size. Their cars were pock-marked with big dings and dents from the hail. A tail-light was knocked out. The windshields were cracked in numerous places. The house?????? Siding was as dented as the autos. Several glass-brick windows were shattered. Plants were beaten to the ground. Even those heavy-duty plastic outdoor storage bins were pounded with holes! Those things are thick and sturdy, too! The roof needs to be repaired; window frames were destroyed.
Driving on their street, sort of a cul de sac, I've never seen so much traffic there. About 90% of it was construction vehicles. My friends said, since Sun, they come home and find many flyers from restoration companies on their door--and numerous calls from those companies are on their voice mails. Some houses, too, on their block were even worse off with damage.
We didn't do any restoration/repairs. The insurance folks are coming out to assess the damage and give an estimate. We just cleaned up the yard, which was work enough.
Now, a mile or two south--no hail. A mile or two north--no hail. There was the strong wind, like we had, and rain, but no hail. Fickle Mother Nature.
What was the old television for Imperial Margarine? "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."
Monday, July 28, 2014
Looking Back
Sometimes things pop up in my mind from years and years ago. This is particularly astounding when often I can't walk from one room to the other without forgetting why I went there. I was reminded of this yesterday, a particularly humid day. I ran long early, with a medium-long bike ride. Then I mowed the back yard and did some other yard work, trimming bushes/shrubs and trees and collecting the yard waste. As the while, during my run, my ride, and my yard work, the "schweat" was just pouring off of me. The humididity [sic] had to be near 100%. Way back when, almost 50 years ago, when I worked road constructions, some of the old-timers (which, I guess, is what I am now?) would say on similarly humid days, "If it doesn't rain, it's missing a good chance."
Eventually we did get some rain, along with thunder and lightning. The rain was about an hour long, if that. And it appears we dodged a bullet. A friend of ours, about 15 mins north, sent some photos of what the almost baseball-sized hail did to her house, yard, and cars. Yep, she had a picture of the hail, in her hand. It was larger than a golf ball. It broke windows, dented (deeply) aluminium [sic] siding and her cars, and more, esp breaking the bottles of her wine tree. Fortunately, she lost power only for a short while. I read in the newspaper today that more than 200,000 utility customers were still without power overnight. I may be called into clean-up service tomorrow, after the insurance adjuster visits.
I guess CNN says it's "complicated" to determine if Hamas is using Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as "human shields" to cover their rocket attacks on Israel. Why is that "complicated?" Hamas and other terrorist groups constantly use this strategy/tactic (I'd guess it would really be a strategic, but see where it could be considered a tactic). They know the world, through the UN, with its lack of credibility, and the sissies in the US, will decry any Israeli retaliation that kills "innocent civilians." Oh, the protests! So, what are the Israeli's supposed to do? "Well, I guess since Hamas is firing rockets at us from populated areas, we can't fight back and defend ourselves. Oh we...." "Complicated," says CNN. I understand some people's concerns with Fox News and bias. But why are there no similar concerns with CNN or, for instance, NPR and other news providers?
I received an interesting article/blog today from another historian. It was about WW1 and, in particular, why it was a bad war in which to involve the US. What was most interesting to me was the view of President Woodrow Wilson. It was gratifying to see him portrayed as he really was, not how most historians and their books distort (lie?) about him. "Wilson's ego...knew no bounds," reads the article. Is that like me telling my students "Wilson was the most arrogant of elitists?" The historians and their textbooks never let on about the bigoted and racist Wilson, his intolerance of opposition, etc. And, for the most part, the deliberate (Doesn't it have to be deliberate, considering the intelligence of many historians?) deception/distortion (lies?) has worked. It reminds me of how well the similar views of Franklin Roosevelt has succeeded. Go ahead, try to tell someone that Roosevelt's New Deal, for instance, did not pull the US out of the Depression. Use facts and statistics, such as unemployment rates, production levels, etc. It won't matter. Any challenge to the prevailing view that the New Deal was marvelously successful will be met with largely deaf ears. For fun, try suggesting that the New Deal actually lengthened and maybe even deepened the Depression, as facts and statistics allow for arguing. But, no...... The historians and their textbooks have spoken. FDR has been anointed and there is no besmirching him, not even with facts. I've tried this and people look at me with an expression that all but says, "And you're supposed to be a history teacher?" This is with some college-educated people. Hey, even teachers I worked with wouldn't listen to my nonsense. Of course, many of them knew only what was in the textbook(s). I suppose that's what makes it easier to perpetuate the distortions about Wilson, F. Roosevelt, and others.
Eventually we did get some rain, along with thunder and lightning. The rain was about an hour long, if that. And it appears we dodged a bullet. A friend of ours, about 15 mins north, sent some photos of what the almost baseball-sized hail did to her house, yard, and cars. Yep, she had a picture of the hail, in her hand. It was larger than a golf ball. It broke windows, dented (deeply) aluminium [sic] siding and her cars, and more, esp breaking the bottles of her wine tree. Fortunately, she lost power only for a short while. I read in the newspaper today that more than 200,000 utility customers were still without power overnight. I may be called into clean-up service tomorrow, after the insurance adjuster visits.
I guess CNN says it's "complicated" to determine if Hamas is using Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as "human shields" to cover their rocket attacks on Israel. Why is that "complicated?" Hamas and other terrorist groups constantly use this strategy/tactic (I'd guess it would really be a strategic, but see where it could be considered a tactic). They know the world, through the UN, with its lack of credibility, and the sissies in the US, will decry any Israeli retaliation that kills "innocent civilians." Oh, the protests! So, what are the Israeli's supposed to do? "Well, I guess since Hamas is firing rockets at us from populated areas, we can't fight back and defend ourselves. Oh we...." "Complicated," says CNN. I understand some people's concerns with Fox News and bias. But why are there no similar concerns with CNN or, for instance, NPR and other news providers?
I received an interesting article/blog today from another historian. It was about WW1 and, in particular, why it was a bad war in which to involve the US. What was most interesting to me was the view of President Woodrow Wilson. It was gratifying to see him portrayed as he really was, not how most historians and their books distort (lie?) about him. "Wilson's ego...knew no bounds," reads the article. Is that like me telling my students "Wilson was the most arrogant of elitists?" The historians and their textbooks never let on about the bigoted and racist Wilson, his intolerance of opposition, etc. And, for the most part, the deliberate (Doesn't it have to be deliberate, considering the intelligence of many historians?) deception/distortion (lies?) has worked. It reminds me of how well the similar views of Franklin Roosevelt has succeeded. Go ahead, try to tell someone that Roosevelt's New Deal, for instance, did not pull the US out of the Depression. Use facts and statistics, such as unemployment rates, production levels, etc. It won't matter. Any challenge to the prevailing view that the New Deal was marvelously successful will be met with largely deaf ears. For fun, try suggesting that the New Deal actually lengthened and maybe even deepened the Depression, as facts and statistics allow for arguing. But, no...... The historians and their textbooks have spoken. FDR has been anointed and there is no besmirching him, not even with facts. I've tried this and people look at me with an expression that all but says, "And you're supposed to be a history teacher?" This is with some college-educated people. Hey, even teachers I worked with wouldn't listen to my nonsense. Of course, many of them knew only what was in the textbook(s). I suppose that's what makes it easier to perpetuate the distortions about Wilson, F. Roosevelt, and others.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
??????
Sometimes I can't get my mind around things.
I saw today that ISIS in Iraq blew up a shrine in Iraq, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah. I think that's what it was. It is holy to both Jews and Christians. But, regardless, the Muslim fundamentalists destroyed it, as they have many Christians in that city, Mosul. At one time Mosul had tens of thousands of Christians; now there are none.
So, where are the protests from the West? I'm not necessarily talking about Christians and Jews, but those who purport to believe in the ideas of the Enlightenment, you know, human rights?????? One of the basic tenets of the Enlightenment is freedom of religion. (Remember Voltaire's criticism of the Catholic Church, which had a monopoly in France on people's religion and religious thought--"Crush the infamous thing [the Church].") But, oh, these same human rights activists are all over criticism of Islam! Remember their condemnation of the anti-Islam video that purportedly was the cause of the Benghazi murders? (And, of course, we now know this was a blatant lie by the Obama administration.) How about the Dutch cartoons of Muhammad? Let's toss in the so-called "honor killings," where fathers and/or other relatives murder their own Muslim kin because of conversions to other religions. Yep, where is their outrage over this?
And, of course, they are all over Israel, too, for trying to defend itself. Apparently the tunnel system didn't sway them that Hamas means to do serious damage, even fatal damage, to the state of Israel. Note, too, the celebration as martyrs by the Palestinians of 25 of them supposedly killed by the IDF. It now seems as if those 25 Palestinians were shot, without any judicial proceedings, by Hamas for collaboration with the IDF.
Yet, note the left-wing criticism of the Supremes' decision in the Hobby Lobby case, one that deals with Christians' freedom of religion. First, I believe Hobby Lobby is a privately-owned corporation, a family company. Second, Hobby Lobby only opposed ObamaCare's dictate that it pay for all birth control, even the four methods that are abortive. Hobby Lobby's still paid for insurance that paid for 16 other methods of birth control. Third, if those are opposed are so adamant about Hobby Lobby's stance, to paraphrase the Starbucks' CEO in another, but I think related matter, "You can take your business elsewhere."
I saw today that ISIS in Iraq blew up a shrine in Iraq, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah. I think that's what it was. It is holy to both Jews and Christians. But, regardless, the Muslim fundamentalists destroyed it, as they have many Christians in that city, Mosul. At one time Mosul had tens of thousands of Christians; now there are none.
So, where are the protests from the West? I'm not necessarily talking about Christians and Jews, but those who purport to believe in the ideas of the Enlightenment, you know, human rights?????? One of the basic tenets of the Enlightenment is freedom of religion. (Remember Voltaire's criticism of the Catholic Church, which had a monopoly in France on people's religion and religious thought--"Crush the infamous thing [the Church].") But, oh, these same human rights activists are all over criticism of Islam! Remember their condemnation of the anti-Islam video that purportedly was the cause of the Benghazi murders? (And, of course, we now know this was a blatant lie by the Obama administration.) How about the Dutch cartoons of Muhammad? Let's toss in the so-called "honor killings," where fathers and/or other relatives murder their own Muslim kin because of conversions to other religions. Yep, where is their outrage over this?
And, of course, they are all over Israel, too, for trying to defend itself. Apparently the tunnel system didn't sway them that Hamas means to do serious damage, even fatal damage, to the state of Israel. Note, too, the celebration as martyrs by the Palestinians of 25 of them supposedly killed by the IDF. It now seems as if those 25 Palestinians were shot, without any judicial proceedings, by Hamas for collaboration with the IDF.
Yet, note the left-wing criticism of the Supremes' decision in the Hobby Lobby case, one that deals with Christians' freedom of religion. First, I believe Hobby Lobby is a privately-owned corporation, a family company. Second, Hobby Lobby only opposed ObamaCare's dictate that it pay for all birth control, even the four methods that are abortive. Hobby Lobby's still paid for insurance that paid for 16 other methods of birth control. Third, if those are opposed are so adamant about Hobby Lobby's stance, to paraphrase the Starbucks' CEO in another, but I think related matter, "You can take your business elsewhere."
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Thurs AM
Some random Thur AM thoughts:
Is this year seeing a bumper crop for deer? I see them all over the place, on the trails in the woods on my runs and bike rides, in people's front yards, off in fields as I drive by. Yesterday, a doe was standing in a front yard out on a back road, with a couple of fawns next to her. (Which reminds me of the Three Stooges schtick, "Oh, see the littler deer. Does it have any doe/dough? Yeah, two bucks.) The day before in the woods, another deer was standing out in the path, not moving until I was within 20 or so yards. And they've multiplied as road kill. Not far down the road toward town, a large one had been hit by a car, likely Sat night/early Sun AM. We saw it, dead, when we drove to Kensington Sun AM for our bike ride. With the heat and humidity, it didn't take long to putrefy--and putrefy it did! Wed evening, I finally saw a county truck stop to remove the carcass. Meanwhile, driving past while taking Bopper to basketball camp was certainly an olfactory experience--and not a pleasant one! How did the residents stand that rotten smell?
Today's newspaper had an interesting article on compensation ("outlandish" was used more than once) for college administrators. I've blogged about this several times, but the article is worth reading, esp for those who will pay for their kids' and grandkids' college educations. And, I submit, such ridiculous pay has percolated down to the public schools. Here's a link to the article:
http://www.peacevoice.info/2014/07/21/why-are-campus-administrators-making-so-much-money/
Who was surprised to discover that that animal who brazenly shot that two-year old girl in the head last month had been released from prison early? Yep, instead of being out on the street shooting this little girl in front of her father, this guy should have been in jail, not on one conviction, but at least two! BTW, a photo in the newspaper at his arraignment shows him with this wise-guy smirk on his face, like he's really baaaddd.
Related was another article about a convicted murderer who lasted an hour and a half during his execution. Oh, he "gasped" and "snorted" for almost two hours before he died. No doubt, the state of Arizona botched the execution. But are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy?????? One of the family members commented, to one of the murderer's lawyers (?), "This man conducted a horrific murder," actually two of them, planned and carried out, because a woman didn't want to date him, "and you guys [the lawyers who were seeking an emergency appeal during the protracted execution] are worried about the drugs [used to kill the scum]?"
BTW, it's been revealed that the EMU football player who was shot to death was killed for his iPhone. OK, I understand about guns, although I don't necessarily agree with banning them. What I don't understand is the reluctance, nay, the refusal to address the culture that makes killing other people OK. Where is the outrage against attitudes that encourage (and, yes, they are encouraged by our culture) shooting someone else because she has something you want, because he "dissed" you," etc.? Where are those like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. on this?
OK, so if we are so dissatisfied with the way things are in Washington (and, by transference, in our lives), if Congress has its lowest ratings ever, if 2/3s of Americans want to throw the bums--their bum--out, if the Tea Party is offering real differences, etc., why are voters opting to return the same bozos to Congress? In 293 primaries already held in various states, 291 of the incumbents have won. Granted, some of the results have been close, which might be saying something in light of the clout carried by incumbents and the money they can raise. Still, not only can we throw out the bums, but we can send a message that we're tired of elections being bought. (After all, look at the outcry over Citizens United, etc.) We continue to say one thing, but do another. We have chances to right the ship, but blow the opportunities, again and again.
And newspaper endorsements continue to baffle. All year long editorials and other opinion articles criticize elected officials--and in most cases rightly so. Then, when elections come, the newspapers almost always seem to endorse the incumbents or some other career/Establishment politician. Yep, baffle is the correct word.
BTW, we're at it again. Congressman Kerry Bentivolio, in the primary election coverage, is referred to as "the reindeer farmer...." But why isn't his opponent called "the lawyer who helped foreclose tens of thousands of home" during the recession? Again, how anyone can vote for a candidate who is supported by the Establishment is beyond me. At one time, when the Establishment could be trusted, yes. In recent years, not a chance.
So, what's with all these "shifts" in baseball? When certain hitters, usually the best or at least the big power hitters, bat, defenses will put three infielders on the pull-side of the infield. (For a left-handed batter, for instance, three infielders will play to the right of second base, one sort of a short outfielder.) Critics are decrying the loss of offense because of the shifts. There is even a movement, however incipient, to change the rules to prohibit shifts. C'mon, that whole idea is wrong in too many ways to list. First, can't these million-dollar Major League hitters hit one "the other way, " that is, away from the shift??? The ball doesn't even have to be hit hard since there is only one infield on the opposite side. Have they ever heard of bunts? Yep, with the third baseman playing out in short right field would make a bunt down the third base line a tough play, wouldn't it? (A couple of weeks ago, Karen was watching the game and Cabrera came to the plate. "Miggy's up!" she called to me. I came in to watch and he laced a rope up the middle--a sure hit, except that a shift was on and it was caught by the 2Bman. The next time up he dribbled a ball through the vacated right side of the infield, intentionally (not an intentional dribble, but to the right side), for a base hit. And the time after that he drilled a clothes line through the 2B position for yet another hit. The next day/game, there was no shift, same team.) Also, if we want to add to the offense, how about we ban certain pitches. Sliders are real hard to hit and what about cut fastballs? I think some pitchers still effectively throw forkballs/split finger fastballs. Let's get rid of them since they cut down on offense.
Is this year seeing a bumper crop for deer? I see them all over the place, on the trails in the woods on my runs and bike rides, in people's front yards, off in fields as I drive by. Yesterday, a doe was standing in a front yard out on a back road, with a couple of fawns next to her. (Which reminds me of the Three Stooges schtick, "Oh, see the littler deer. Does it have any doe/dough? Yeah, two bucks.) The day before in the woods, another deer was standing out in the path, not moving until I was within 20 or so yards. And they've multiplied as road kill. Not far down the road toward town, a large one had been hit by a car, likely Sat night/early Sun AM. We saw it, dead, when we drove to Kensington Sun AM for our bike ride. With the heat and humidity, it didn't take long to putrefy--and putrefy it did! Wed evening, I finally saw a county truck stop to remove the carcass. Meanwhile, driving past while taking Bopper to basketball camp was certainly an olfactory experience--and not a pleasant one! How did the residents stand that rotten smell?
Today's newspaper had an interesting article on compensation ("outlandish" was used more than once) for college administrators. I've blogged about this several times, but the article is worth reading, esp for those who will pay for their kids' and grandkids' college educations. And, I submit, such ridiculous pay has percolated down to the public schools. Here's a link to the article:
http://www.peacevoice.info/2014/07/21/why-are-campus-administrators-making-so-much-money/
Who was surprised to discover that that animal who brazenly shot that two-year old girl in the head last month had been released from prison early? Yep, instead of being out on the street shooting this little girl in front of her father, this guy should have been in jail, not on one conviction, but at least two! BTW, a photo in the newspaper at his arraignment shows him with this wise-guy smirk on his face, like he's really baaaddd.
Related was another article about a convicted murderer who lasted an hour and a half during his execution. Oh, he "gasped" and "snorted" for almost two hours before he died. No doubt, the state of Arizona botched the execution. But are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy?????? One of the family members commented, to one of the murderer's lawyers (?), "This man conducted a horrific murder," actually two of them, planned and carried out, because a woman didn't want to date him, "and you guys [the lawyers who were seeking an emergency appeal during the protracted execution] are worried about the drugs [used to kill the scum]?"
BTW, it's been revealed that the EMU football player who was shot to death was killed for his iPhone. OK, I understand about guns, although I don't necessarily agree with banning them. What I don't understand is the reluctance, nay, the refusal to address the culture that makes killing other people OK. Where is the outrage against attitudes that encourage (and, yes, they are encouraged by our culture) shooting someone else because she has something you want, because he "dissed" you," etc.? Where are those like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. on this?
OK, so if we are so dissatisfied with the way things are in Washington (and, by transference, in our lives), if Congress has its lowest ratings ever, if 2/3s of Americans want to throw the bums--their bum--out, if the Tea Party is offering real differences, etc., why are voters opting to return the same bozos to Congress? In 293 primaries already held in various states, 291 of the incumbents have won. Granted, some of the results have been close, which might be saying something in light of the clout carried by incumbents and the money they can raise. Still, not only can we throw out the bums, but we can send a message that we're tired of elections being bought. (After all, look at the outcry over Citizens United, etc.) We continue to say one thing, but do another. We have chances to right the ship, but blow the opportunities, again and again.
And newspaper endorsements continue to baffle. All year long editorials and other opinion articles criticize elected officials--and in most cases rightly so. Then, when elections come, the newspapers almost always seem to endorse the incumbents or some other career/Establishment politician. Yep, baffle is the correct word.
BTW, we're at it again. Congressman Kerry Bentivolio, in the primary election coverage, is referred to as "the reindeer farmer...." But why isn't his opponent called "the lawyer who helped foreclose tens of thousands of home" during the recession? Again, how anyone can vote for a candidate who is supported by the Establishment is beyond me. At one time, when the Establishment could be trusted, yes. In recent years, not a chance.
So, what's with all these "shifts" in baseball? When certain hitters, usually the best or at least the big power hitters, bat, defenses will put three infielders on the pull-side of the infield. (For a left-handed batter, for instance, three infielders will play to the right of second base, one sort of a short outfielder.) Critics are decrying the loss of offense because of the shifts. There is even a movement, however incipient, to change the rules to prohibit shifts. C'mon, that whole idea is wrong in too many ways to list. First, can't these million-dollar Major League hitters hit one "the other way, " that is, away from the shift??? The ball doesn't even have to be hit hard since there is only one infield on the opposite side. Have they ever heard of bunts? Yep, with the third baseman playing out in short right field would make a bunt down the third base line a tough play, wouldn't it? (A couple of weeks ago, Karen was watching the game and Cabrera came to the plate. "Miggy's up!" she called to me. I came in to watch and he laced a rope up the middle--a sure hit, except that a shift was on and it was caught by the 2Bman. The next time up he dribbled a ball through the vacated right side of the infield, intentionally (not an intentional dribble, but to the right side), for a base hit. And the time after that he drilled a clothes line through the 2B position for yet another hit. The next day/game, there was no shift, same team.) Also, if we want to add to the offense, how about we ban certain pitches. Sliders are real hard to hit and what about cut fastballs? I think some pitchers still effectively throw forkballs/split finger fastballs. Let's get rid of them since they cut down on offense.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Hypocrisy?
Perhaps I'm a bit too harsh on people, esp in expecting them to live what they preach. Is that too much of me to expect?
Headlines on today's front page showcase Michael Moore, the highly-esteemed (at least in liberal quarters) film maker. Frankly, I haven't seen any of his movies, but have read reviews of them by both liberals and conservatives. And, I have heard interviews, not many, over the years. I find him a typically bloviated, hypocritical liberal. This newspaper article confirms that view.
This guy, who passes himself off as sort of a "common man," looking out for the interests of the little guy who is at the mercy of those evil capitalists, is hardly that. A divorce proceeding has highlighted the hypocrisy. I wonder how many "common men" are worth more than $50 million? How many of them have a $2 million home on Torch Lake, not to mention a place in NYC? Yet, as a permanent resident of the Up North community said, "He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich." I might add filthy rich.
Again, I ask, why doesn't he live in a house like mine (which I find perfectly fine, considerably bigger and nicer than the one I grew up in back in the city) and give the rest of his money to the downtrodden, those whose dire lives he purports to improve? (According to our latest assessment, my house is worth less than 10%, considerably less, than his. And I'm perfectly comfortable and content.) But, again, perhaps I ask too much??????
Of course, that's par for the course for some doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). According to tax info supplied by both the President and VP, I give more (as a percentage of income) to charity than either--and in some years, more as a percentage of income than both combined. I'm not at all patting myself on the back; I should give more, but don't. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo).
I know I've written this before, many times. But how many of these people (regular folks, people I know) who criticize the greedy wealthy people, who lament the poor conditions of the downtrodden, etc., live what I consider to be extravagant lives? Variously, some live on lakes and have a boat or two or three. Many have one or two more cars than drivers in their households and we aren't talking about Ford Fiestas! What about their swimming pools and hot tubs, with decks with more square footage than my house--or at least close to it? How many have places Up North or Down South and take multiple vacations, often to escape the Michigan winters? There's more, like fine wines, memorabilia, sporting events (season tickets), and more.
I don't bemoan these people what they have. I don't begrudge them--not at all. It's their money and they can spend it any ways they want. What really grates me is their criticism of the greed of others.
Perhaps I just remember growing up, maybe differently from many of these people. I am grateful for what i have. Fifty years ago, had someone told me what my house and yard today would look like, I'd have laughed at him. Hey, we mowed the lawn, not with a power mower, but my hand--and it didn't take 15 minutes. (Oh, but we still groused; we were kids!) I'm guessing we didn't have 1,000 square feet in the house. Vacations? Oh, we took three or four that I remember, but that's about it. Our play pants/clothes were last year's school clothes. Fortunately, I love spaghetti because we had that two times a week--not to mention the leftovers for lunches. And I didn't and still don't complain. We were never hungry, always had clothes, etc. Many of my buddies describe the same scenarios, then and now. We'd have never thunk......
It's funny, just this AM, I was talking with another former teacher from our local school district, who taught about the time I did for just about as many years. We weren't at all complaining about our pensions, our retirement incomes. But when we both said the maximum we ever made in teaching here (Remember, the big argument against ever giving us more money, when it was there--Yep, administrators lied!--was that we had a good retirement/pension.) we chuckled and at least I thought, "That's chump change." And consider that, at least in this district, teachers have been forced to take 15-20% pay cuts over the past few years.
Headlines on today's front page showcase Michael Moore, the highly-esteemed (at least in liberal quarters) film maker. Frankly, I haven't seen any of his movies, but have read reviews of them by both liberals and conservatives. And, I have heard interviews, not many, over the years. I find him a typically bloviated, hypocritical liberal. This newspaper article confirms that view.
This guy, who passes himself off as sort of a "common man," looking out for the interests of the little guy who is at the mercy of those evil capitalists, is hardly that. A divorce proceeding has highlighted the hypocrisy. I wonder how many "common men" are worth more than $50 million? How many of them have a $2 million home on Torch Lake, not to mention a place in NYC? Yet, as a permanent resident of the Up North community said, "He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich." I might add filthy rich.
Again, I ask, why doesn't he live in a house like mine (which I find perfectly fine, considerably bigger and nicer than the one I grew up in back in the city) and give the rest of his money to the downtrodden, those whose dire lives he purports to improve? (According to our latest assessment, my house is worth less than 10%, considerably less, than his. And I'm perfectly comfortable and content.) But, again, perhaps I ask too much??????
Of course, that's par for the course for some doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). According to tax info supplied by both the President and VP, I give more (as a percentage of income) to charity than either--and in some years, more as a percentage of income than both combined. I'm not at all patting myself on the back; I should give more, but don't. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo).
I know I've written this before, many times. But how many of these people (regular folks, people I know) who criticize the greedy wealthy people, who lament the poor conditions of the downtrodden, etc., live what I consider to be extravagant lives? Variously, some live on lakes and have a boat or two or three. Many have one or two more cars than drivers in their households and we aren't talking about Ford Fiestas! What about their swimming pools and hot tubs, with decks with more square footage than my house--or at least close to it? How many have places Up North or Down South and take multiple vacations, often to escape the Michigan winters? There's more, like fine wines, memorabilia, sporting events (season tickets), and more.
I don't bemoan these people what they have. I don't begrudge them--not at all. It's their money and they can spend it any ways they want. What really grates me is their criticism of the greed of others.
Perhaps I just remember growing up, maybe differently from many of these people. I am grateful for what i have. Fifty years ago, had someone told me what my house and yard today would look like, I'd have laughed at him. Hey, we mowed the lawn, not with a power mower, but my hand--and it didn't take 15 minutes. (Oh, but we still groused; we were kids!) I'm guessing we didn't have 1,000 square feet in the house. Vacations? Oh, we took three or four that I remember, but that's about it. Our play pants/clothes were last year's school clothes. Fortunately, I love spaghetti because we had that two times a week--not to mention the leftovers for lunches. And I didn't and still don't complain. We were never hungry, always had clothes, etc. Many of my buddies describe the same scenarios, then and now. We'd have never thunk......
It's funny, just this AM, I was talking with another former teacher from our local school district, who taught about the time I did for just about as many years. We weren't at all complaining about our pensions, our retirement incomes. But when we both said the maximum we ever made in teaching here (Remember, the big argument against ever giving us more money, when it was there--Yep, administrators lied!--was that we had a good retirement/pension.) we chuckled and at least I thought, "That's chump change." And consider that, at least in this district, teachers have been forced to take 15-20% pay cuts over the past few years.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Scary Times?
There was an op-ed in the Wash Post this AM that "these are not the worst of times." The author might well be right, but they certainly are frightening.
She compares nuclear capabilities and accounts of political rights around the world then and today. She also notes Vietnam and how millions have escaped poverty (although it's somewhat surprising to see a Wash Post columnist cite "open markets" as a cause). But I think she misses some points.
There are some very scary things going on out there. One, of course, is Gaza. More than 300 Palestinians have died already. I'm not sure how many Israelis have been killed, but the number is considerably less, but not for want of trying by Hamas. The Israeli rocket defense dome, the uncovering of the tunnel system used by terrorists, etc., have limited their casualties. Yet, as Charles Krauthammer notes in his op-ed today, people are still talking (and hand-wringing) about "the cycle of violence." It's as if, to these people, the results of what the Israelis are doing and what Hamas is doing are morally equivalent. They aren't, not at all.
Here's Krauthammer's column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html
A disturbing thing is the habit of one side or even ignorant people to redefine terms, such as "moral equivalence." Read the paragraph, at least, of Krauthammer's piece. People, all hung up of other things, seem to have forgotten the past. Krauthammer reminds us of recent history, only ten or twelve years ago. I remember all those Israeli concessions to the PLO, led by Yassir ("That's My Baby") Arafat and that, after making this demands, he rejected Israel's concessions, at least at first. Yep, the Israelis gave Arafat everything he demanded, yet he demurred. Again, read the article and see what the Palestinians of Gaza did with what they were given. And ask yourself this, "What did all these other nations/people--the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Turks, even the Brits--ever give to the so-called 'Palestinians?'" These are the people who treated the Palestinians much worse than the Israelis. Oh, the answer to my question is, essentially, "nothing."
There was an editorial cartoon depicting the Tea Party, with the statement, "We are not extremists...and if you say we are, we'll destroy you." First, I've never heard any Tea Partier say that and have never seen any Tea Partier write that. And, what's "extreme" about the Tea Party goals? What's wrong with wanting lower taxes? What's wrong with wanting less government spending and less government control over our individual lives? What's wrong with wanting an end corporate welfare as well as much of the wasted individual welfare, so often abused? Of course, the Tea Party has targeted the liberals/Democrats, the architects of the now nearly $18 trillion (I can't begin to fathom a billion dollars let alone get my mind around trillions of them) of US debt, which doesn't include five or six times that of unfunded liabilities. (There we go again, redefining things to make them sound other than what they really are.) And Establishment Republicans have aided and abetted the spending insanity, not to mention the increasing controls on our freedoms. The LameStream media go right along with this, too. Oh, they criticize on occasions, but note, for instance, recent newspaper endorsements of candidates in the upcoming primary elections; they back the same old Establishment candidates, the ones who've wreaked all the damage. I'm not exactly sure why there has been such massive effort to inaccurately defame the Tea Partiers (OK, I at least have a pretty good idea.) with so much time, effort, and energy. But the defamation campaign has worked.
"Freedom of speech," guaranteed in the First Amendment. Now, there can be legitimate differences about the degree of "freedom" of our expression, for instance, "Yelling fire in a crowded theater." (How different our government's relationship to free expression than merely ten or twelve years ago when I was teaching government. Gee, I wonder if I'd get away with telling the truth today, of how government is chipping away little by little and lot by lot, at our freedoms of expression.) Note the number of journalists who have been targeted by the Justice Dept, not because they've done anything illegal, but merely to monitor sources and how they get their information. In fact, the Justice Dept has never claimed or alleged these journalists have broken any laws. Interesting, isn't it, how very silent the LameStream media are with this??????
And, regarding redefining terms, check out this article, very thought-provoking and relevant to what is happening right now. http://spectator.org/articles/59987/gutting-first-amendment
The author cites this chilling trend among our government officials, including members of Congress and some Supremes: "freedom of speech isn't an inalienable individual right--[that is] a right to say what you want regardless of what others think--but a privilege [my emphasis] that we exercise at the sufferance of 'the public.'" If there is any doubt to this, consider our college campuses, supposedly bastions of free thought and expression. While liberal speakers are invited with open arms, regardless of the legitimacy of their ideas, conservatives are usually not invited or, if they are, are met with hoots and shout-downs. (And, more and more over the past decades, we find this in our public schools.) So much for open dialogue, being able to defend thoughts in the face of challenges, or even rethinking one's opinion. (One of the things great about Abraham Lincoln was that he embraced this.)
Lots of food for thought for us today in the newspapers......
She compares nuclear capabilities and accounts of political rights around the world then and today. She also notes Vietnam and how millions have escaped poverty (although it's somewhat surprising to see a Wash Post columnist cite "open markets" as a cause). But I think she misses some points.
There are some very scary things going on out there. One, of course, is Gaza. More than 300 Palestinians have died already. I'm not sure how many Israelis have been killed, but the number is considerably less, but not for want of trying by Hamas. The Israeli rocket defense dome, the uncovering of the tunnel system used by terrorists, etc., have limited their casualties. Yet, as Charles Krauthammer notes in his op-ed today, people are still talking (and hand-wringing) about "the cycle of violence." It's as if, to these people, the results of what the Israelis are doing and what Hamas is doing are morally equivalent. They aren't, not at all.
Here's Krauthammer's column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html
A disturbing thing is the habit of one side or even ignorant people to redefine terms, such as "moral equivalence." Read the paragraph, at least, of Krauthammer's piece. People, all hung up of other things, seem to have forgotten the past. Krauthammer reminds us of recent history, only ten or twelve years ago. I remember all those Israeli concessions to the PLO, led by Yassir ("That's My Baby") Arafat and that, after making this demands, he rejected Israel's concessions, at least at first. Yep, the Israelis gave Arafat everything he demanded, yet he demurred. Again, read the article and see what the Palestinians of Gaza did with what they were given. And ask yourself this, "What did all these other nations/people--the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Turks, even the Brits--ever give to the so-called 'Palestinians?'" These are the people who treated the Palestinians much worse than the Israelis. Oh, the answer to my question is, essentially, "nothing."
There was an editorial cartoon depicting the Tea Party, with the statement, "We are not extremists...and if you say we are, we'll destroy you." First, I've never heard any Tea Partier say that and have never seen any Tea Partier write that. And, what's "extreme" about the Tea Party goals? What's wrong with wanting lower taxes? What's wrong with wanting less government spending and less government control over our individual lives? What's wrong with wanting an end corporate welfare as well as much of the wasted individual welfare, so often abused? Of course, the Tea Party has targeted the liberals/Democrats, the architects of the now nearly $18 trillion (I can't begin to fathom a billion dollars let alone get my mind around trillions of them) of US debt, which doesn't include five or six times that of unfunded liabilities. (There we go again, redefining things to make them sound other than what they really are.) And Establishment Republicans have aided and abetted the spending insanity, not to mention the increasing controls on our freedoms. The LameStream media go right along with this, too. Oh, they criticize on occasions, but note, for instance, recent newspaper endorsements of candidates in the upcoming primary elections; they back the same old Establishment candidates, the ones who've wreaked all the damage. I'm not exactly sure why there has been such massive effort to inaccurately defame the Tea Partiers (OK, I at least have a pretty good idea.) with so much time, effort, and energy. But the defamation campaign has worked.
"Freedom of speech," guaranteed in the First Amendment. Now, there can be legitimate differences about the degree of "freedom" of our expression, for instance, "Yelling fire in a crowded theater." (How different our government's relationship to free expression than merely ten or twelve years ago when I was teaching government. Gee, I wonder if I'd get away with telling the truth today, of how government is chipping away little by little and lot by lot, at our freedoms of expression.) Note the number of journalists who have been targeted by the Justice Dept, not because they've done anything illegal, but merely to monitor sources and how they get their information. In fact, the Justice Dept has never claimed or alleged these journalists have broken any laws. Interesting, isn't it, how very silent the LameStream media are with this??????
And, regarding redefining terms, check out this article, very thought-provoking and relevant to what is happening right now. http://spectator.org/articles/59987/gutting-first-amendment
The author cites this chilling trend among our government officials, including members of Congress and some Supremes: "freedom of speech isn't an inalienable individual right--[that is] a right to say what you want regardless of what others think--but a privilege [my emphasis] that we exercise at the sufferance of 'the public.'" If there is any doubt to this, consider our college campuses, supposedly bastions of free thought and expression. While liberal speakers are invited with open arms, regardless of the legitimacy of their ideas, conservatives are usually not invited or, if they are, are met with hoots and shout-downs. (And, more and more over the past decades, we find this in our public schools.) So much for open dialogue, being able to defend thoughts in the face of challenges, or even rethinking one's opinion. (One of the things great about Abraham Lincoln was that he embraced this.)
Lots of food for thought for us today in the newspapers......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
