It was a beautiful day today. The skies were sunny and the temps might have reached 80 degrees. There was a pleasant breeze. I managed to get in a nice long run this AM and followed it with a ride on the bike. Then it was work in the yard, Michael and I carrying and spreading about four yards of shredded bark (about half the pile of eight yards) and then doing some trim work on the blue spruces.
I know we need rain, a lot of it, but it's tough to grouse about a day like today.
Aren't the polls all over the place? Didn't one of them have Clinton ahead of Trump by about 11 or 12 points just a week or so ago? Then today a Rasmussen poll has Trump leading by 5 points. November is still a long way off; lots could happen. I suppose it wouldn't be too strange a scenario to have different candidates than we have now. Clinton has legal and, supposedly, health problems. I imagine if things are carried through with some honesty (you know, with the thoroughness and scrutiny that you and I would face!), who knows--she might be indicted? I doubt that, but...... And the Republicans keep tossing out the idea of changing their rules for the convention in Cleveland to prevent a Trump nomination. I doubt that, too, but...... Until I see any changes, major ones, I'm sticking to my election mantra, "When given a choice between two evils, choose neither."
BTW, I read an article lambasting Richard Nixon the other day. I'm no fan of his and think he received what he deserved. I know I've written about this before, here and in some publications, but I don't quite understand how and why Nixon was properly treated, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have not. What, exactly, is it Nixon did that Clinton and Obama didn't? All lied and covered up their activities. All had enemies' lists for their political opponents. All used the federal government for their own advantages and to the detriment/punishment of their opposition. The LameStream media have, for decades now, crowed about their role in bringing down Nixon. Yet, they sit silently and have allowed Clinton and Obama to skate. (No, Clinton's impeachment was a joke, a blip. All it did was to make him a martyr in the eyes of the Democrats.) Can we use this as explicit evidence of the bias in the LameStream media?
I saw several articles this week about the Democrats' sit-in in the US Senate last week. And, perhaps shame on me, I laughed at it. The Democrats tried to equate this with the sit-ins of the civil rights era, the '60. They even trotted out Rep John Lewis, a civil rights icon. Of course there were many things wrong with this, despite the spirited defense of it in this week's newspaper by Congressman Sandy Levin, who, to me, is overrated and hypocritical. The protest was, in part, over the failure of Republicans to cave in to Democrats' insistence that people put on "no-fly" lists be prevented from purchasing guns. This came after the tragic murders in Orlando by the ISIS-inspired terrorist. (Yep, we know that, despite the Justice Dept's attempts to redact the official report, including the 911 call the terrorist made to the police during the attack.) Even the ACLU, yes, the ACLU!--you know, that ultra-right wing group--opposed this. I would like to know who gets to put one, anyone, on such a "no-fly" list. Would this power be given to bureaucrats? Great, just great. Worse, would it be given to politicians? Right, we can trust them, can't we? Hey, wasn't Lewis once put on a "no-fly" list? (I'm not sure, but I think he was.) The participants in the sit-in were very disingenuous, if not dishonest or even stupid. There was nothing in their protest law that would have prevented the Orlando tragedy. As Casey Stengel often said, "You could look it up." There may be sound reasons to look more closely at gun legislation, but the misinformation, deception, and lies coming out do nothing to persuade.
Here's one for all of you U of M, esp Harbaugh, fans. It's a sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us. An 8th grade QB was offered a football scholarship to U of M, by Harbaugh. You read that right, 8th grade." Long ago I started chuckling at the insistence of many U of M supporters that it is "the Harvard of the West." Ha Ha Ha......
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
"Let's Move On......"
Whenever I hear this, "Let's move on," I am alerted to one thing. Somebody doesn't want to be held accountable/responsible.
Hillary Clinton, in the wake of the reports concerning her conduct during the Benghazi debacle, uttered this. "Let's move on." Of course she wants to "move on."
I haven't read either of the reports yet, but have seen the Democrats' version. It casts no blame, certainly none on Clinton. Gee, isn't that surprising?????? Who didn't see that one coming? I'm curious to read how Clinton's numerous blunders and cover-up are handled. Among many, two things stand out in my mind. First, it was the blatant dishonesty in claiming the murders in Benghazi were caused by some anti-Muslim You Tube presentation. (To make it look really good, wasn't the You Tube guy charged with some crime, maybe a violation of parole? I don't recall the specifics.) Second was Clinton's response before the Senate Oversight Committee, "What difference does it make?" (I know there have been attempts to put her callous comment into perspective, but I've read the exchange and "perspective" doesn't change anything.)
But I'm straying. "Let's move on." How many times have I heard that over the years? From politicians and bureaucrats? From school administrators? Almost immediately I think that someone somewhere is trying to escape blame, responsibility/accountability.
What's done is done. Let's not dwell on the past. Let's not point fingers. And all the rest. We need to point fingers. We need to dwell on the past. What's done is not necessarily done. If someone messed up, why in the world wouldn't we want to dwell on it? If someone made egregious mistakes, why in the world would we want to "move on?"
Letting people, in this manner, escape blame only can lead to more mistakes in the future, either from the same people who've never been held accountable or from others who know that they won't be held accountable. Would you want to use a surgeon who has more than once left a sponge in a patient? Would you want to hire an accountant who has repeatedly messed up tax filings? Would you want to eat at a restaurant that always messes up your bill?
People need to be held accountable and responsible. No more of this "Let's move on." We deserve to know who has made mistakes and how and why those mistakes were made. If that includes Clinton, well, so be it.
BTW, I saw a yard sign in the subdivision across the street. Next to the "TRUMP. Make America Great Again" sign was this "CLINTON: Prison 2016."
I wonder if Clinton will choose Senator Elizabeth Warren as her running mate? Elizabeth Warren, "Fauxcahontas" herself. Yep, to get her job at Harvard, she lied about being part American Indian. I guess being a woman wasn't enough; she had to claim further minority status. But isn't that a great nickname, "Fauxcahontas?"
I really don't think Clinton will nab her. Despite the claims of the most recent polls, I think the Clintons are not convinced this won't be a close election. Two women on the ticket? I know it's 2016, but I'm guessing there are many men out there who will be turned off at that prospect. (I, for one, would never note for this ticket, if it were to happen. But it has nothing to do with two women; it has everything to do with the types of women.) So that leaves.....?
Remember my mantra for the '16 Election, "When given the choice between two evils, choose neither."
Friday, June 24, 2016
Brexit Leads to "Shock!"
To hear the newscast today--radio and television and wait until the newspapers tomorrow--incredible amounts of "shock" are resounding throughout the world today. The source of the "shock" is Britain leaving the European Union. The US markets have fallen sharply, the President is upset, etc.
I think what has happened is that the arrogant elitists have been "shocked." In their infinite wisdom (at least in their own minds), this is a tragedy. What about globalism? What about cooperation? What about their, forget the common Britisher's, goals?
Once again I find these arrogant elitists to be complete out of touch with reality, at least the reality of the common folks. The politicians, the academics, the media, the experts...are all shocked. Obama, revealing his globalist hand as if he hadn't already, warned the Brits if they left the EU, they'd have to "go to the end of the queue." But who, really, couldn't see this coming, esp if the British pols listened to their constituents?
Who could possibly think the Brits are happy with what has happened and is happening to their nation and to them? They, like many European countries, have been flooded with immigrants from a very, very different culture and tradition. These immigrants have demanded and have received permission to follow their religious and traditional/cultural mandates. That is, they refuse to assimilate. For instance, large parts of whole cities are ruled by Sharia, the Islamic law. British law, centuries old, be damned. Brits themselves, like others in their own European countries, are victimized by immigrants who impose their own religious and social beliefs on them. (Note the attacks on Western women who, oddly enough, dress like Western women! Note, too, how silent the feminists in the West are......) And, remember, the Brits are in the process of becoming a minority in their own country, like many Europeans, due to the birthrates of those immigrants.
(If you want to gain keen insights into the minds of the Islamists, pick up a couple of novels by Daniel Silva. He is very enlightening. And, a bonus, his protagonist, Gabriel Allon, is terrific. (I almost used the word "awesome." It would have been the perfect word, had it not been co-opted and turned into a word of immense triteness.)
Yet those arrogant elitists, who know far more than we do, who know what's better for our countries and ourselves than we do, express "shock" at the Brexit.
Go ahead, vote for the Democratic or Republican nominees in November......
I think what has happened is that the arrogant elitists have been "shocked." In their infinite wisdom (at least in their own minds), this is a tragedy. What about globalism? What about cooperation? What about their, forget the common Britisher's, goals?
Once again I find these arrogant elitists to be complete out of touch with reality, at least the reality of the common folks. The politicians, the academics, the media, the experts...are all shocked. Obama, revealing his globalist hand as if he hadn't already, warned the Brits if they left the EU, they'd have to "go to the end of the queue." But who, really, couldn't see this coming, esp if the British pols listened to their constituents?
Who could possibly think the Brits are happy with what has happened and is happening to their nation and to them? They, like many European countries, have been flooded with immigrants from a very, very different culture and tradition. These immigrants have demanded and have received permission to follow their religious and traditional/cultural mandates. That is, they refuse to assimilate. For instance, large parts of whole cities are ruled by Sharia, the Islamic law. British law, centuries old, be damned. Brits themselves, like others in their own European countries, are victimized by immigrants who impose their own religious and social beliefs on them. (Note the attacks on Western women who, oddly enough, dress like Western women! Note, too, how silent the feminists in the West are......) And, remember, the Brits are in the process of becoming a minority in their own country, like many Europeans, due to the birthrates of those immigrants.
(If you want to gain keen insights into the minds of the Islamists, pick up a couple of novels by Daniel Silva. He is very enlightening. And, a bonus, his protagonist, Gabriel Allon, is terrific. (I almost used the word "awesome." It would have been the perfect word, had it not been co-opted and turned into a word of immense triteness.)
Yet those arrogant elitists, who know far more than we do, who know what's better for our countries and ourselves than we do, express "shock" at the Brexit.
Go ahead, vote for the Democratic or Republican nominees in November......
Ringo
Ringo was the least known/popular of the Beatles, right? I think that's safe to say. It wasn't that he was unpopular, but just that the others were more so. I think, later, I read that Ringo was really a very accomplished drummer, not just some throw in, but technically and artistically quite good. Last night we went to see Ringo Starr and His All-Starr Band. It was an enjoyable evening.
The All-Starrs are/were famous in the rock world themselves. The only name I heard of was Todd Rundgren, although there were members of Santana, Toto, and Mr. Mr. (?). They performed, along with Ringo's own and his Beatle songs, hits of their own.
It sure looked like the crowd, as one might expect, was an older one, at least most of it. And it seemed people were having a good time. People were really getting into the show.
The show itself, I thought, was OK, not great. That's not a slam. It's just that the music isn't my kind of music, either the old Beatle stuff or that of the All-Starrs. I recognized most of the songs, but not all of them, not even all of Ringo's. And the guitar solos, too many of them I thought, all seemed to morph into the same one, over and over. Again, the crowd really enjoyed hit after hit, but the songs were not my favorites; if they came on the radio (then and now) I'd likely change the station and I'd never purchase an album of them.
I did really enjoy the Santana selections. There were three of them and were quite good. They were, to me, the highlight of the show.
Mostly though, it was Ringo. I'm not one to idolize folks, not athletes, not hippy-rock stars, not Hollywood-types, not even leaders. For instance, I had a conversation last week with a guy who knows someone who met "every President since Nixon." I remarked that I am not sure if any of the Presidents since Nixon had invited me to the White House, I'd have accepted. Maybe I would have, if only to view the White House. But I did have a chance for passes to see/hear President Obama and I opted not to go. It wasn't a hard choice. I didn't want to go. I vaguely recall a similar instance with President Ford. But I found myself last night watching Ringo and marveling, "He was one of the Beatles." I was a bit surprised at myself. "He was one of the Beatles." And, I was never a Beatles fan. I think I only owned two of their albums, maybe one. Still......
But it was a good, clean show. Maybe it's my age, but I was extremely put off by the recent celebration in Cleveland over the Cavaliers' NBA win. Michael was watching it on the boob tube. Was there a reason so many of the players took off their clothes? At least, their shirts? Why did they have to be bare-chested? It's bad enough with the smut on prime-time television. That "Dancing" show's guys frequently remove their shirts. Why? We know why? And consider many of the so-called "reality shows," which of course bear little resemblance to reality. If not their dress, at least their premises are smutty. But why undress in a parade and celebration for an NBA title? Maybe it's just me and my age showing. Maybe it's something else, a sign of the times, a change that's not for the better.
The All-Starrs are/were famous in the rock world themselves. The only name I heard of was Todd Rundgren, although there were members of Santana, Toto, and Mr. Mr. (?). They performed, along with Ringo's own and his Beatle songs, hits of their own.
It sure looked like the crowd, as one might expect, was an older one, at least most of it. And it seemed people were having a good time. People were really getting into the show.
The show itself, I thought, was OK, not great. That's not a slam. It's just that the music isn't my kind of music, either the old Beatle stuff or that of the All-Starrs. I recognized most of the songs, but not all of them, not even all of Ringo's. And the guitar solos, too many of them I thought, all seemed to morph into the same one, over and over. Again, the crowd really enjoyed hit after hit, but the songs were not my favorites; if they came on the radio (then and now) I'd likely change the station and I'd never purchase an album of them.
I did really enjoy the Santana selections. There were three of them and were quite good. They were, to me, the highlight of the show.
Mostly though, it was Ringo. I'm not one to idolize folks, not athletes, not hippy-rock stars, not Hollywood-types, not even leaders. For instance, I had a conversation last week with a guy who knows someone who met "every President since Nixon." I remarked that I am not sure if any of the Presidents since Nixon had invited me to the White House, I'd have accepted. Maybe I would have, if only to view the White House. But I did have a chance for passes to see/hear President Obama and I opted not to go. It wasn't a hard choice. I didn't want to go. I vaguely recall a similar instance with President Ford. But I found myself last night watching Ringo and marveling, "He was one of the Beatles." I was a bit surprised at myself. "He was one of the Beatles." And, I was never a Beatles fan. I think I only owned two of their albums, maybe one. Still......
But it was a good, clean show. Maybe it's my age, but I was extremely put off by the recent celebration in Cleveland over the Cavaliers' NBA win. Michael was watching it on the boob tube. Was there a reason so many of the players took off their clothes? At least, their shirts? Why did they have to be bare-chested? It's bad enough with the smut on prime-time television. That "Dancing" show's guys frequently remove their shirts. Why? We know why? And consider many of the so-called "reality shows," which of course bear little resemblance to reality. If not their dress, at least their premises are smutty. But why undress in a parade and celebration for an NBA title? Maybe it's just me and my age showing. Maybe it's something else, a sign of the times, a change that's not for the better.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Hypocrisy?
Does the hypocrisy never end? Or am I just too hard on people?
I saw the other day where the head of Apple is refusing to give any assistance to the GOP Convention in Cleveland. His rationale is that Don Trump is a bad man, that he shouldn't be President, let alone the Republican nominee. And, of that I agree.
The head of Apple, whose name I forget, cited Trump's own words, his plans, etc., which he called discriminatory toward Muslims, women, other minorities, etc. So, let me get this straight. Trump is vilified for his anti-Muslim stance(s), esp regarding immigrants from the Middle East to the US; yet Apple continues to do business with these same Middle Eastern countries, the very bad men who run them. (If you haven't noticed, there are no democracies in the Middle East.) It's not OK to say bad things about Muslims, but it is OK to be business partners with people who persecute, torture, and murder their own people, who keep women in a state of near slavery, etc.
I was sent an article about this today, but I know I've written about this hypocrisy before, in the Middle East, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, etc. I am aware of the argument, that trade will benefit the people, allow for general prosperity in these countries, benefiting the lot of many people. (Hey, isn't this the "trickle-down" theory, so lambasted by the progressives when it is applied to the US? But never fear. Even if it won't work here, it surely will work in these oppressed countries, right?)
So, what good has come of all this trade from Apple, the auto companies, banks, etc.? Lots, right? I haven't double checked these statistics, but have no reason to disbelieve them. They sound about right and match what I do know. Despite all the oil wealth received by the Arab world (and trade with Western companies?), about 20% of the people there live on less than $2 a day, yes, a day. More than 60 million of those people are illiterate and, no doubt, due to their rotten status, most of them are women. This one is hard to believe, yet fits in what I've written about before. In the last 1000 years, the Arabs have translated fewer books than Spain translates in a year! Apparently the only book that counts in the Quran. And suppose these "facts" are off and only 10% or 20% are true? Right......
This holds with what I believe. The Arab world has never experienced an Enlightenment, nothing like the 18th Century movement that spawned the rights enjoyed by Americans and many in the West. Those rights, esp for certain groups, didn't appear overnight, but evolved, too slowly, but at least they did evolve. Remember, 400 years ago, Christians were also murdering Christians (Catholics v Protestants) over faith (like Sunnis v Shiites). Women were also treated as distinct inferiors. We can make a number of analogies. But then came the Enlightenment, the offspring of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Age of Exploration.
Where the Arab world was once very advanced in the science and technology of the Middle Ages, now it is backward. The pioneers in geometry and other math, astronomy, medicine (surgery, hospitals, pharmacies), and even literature and art have become backward, clinging to the past that permits public hangings, beheadings, etc. There will be no peace with Islam, or at least much of it, until there is some sort of Arabic/Islamic Enlightenment.
I got a real laugh out of a Clinton attack on Trump today. She said something about all of Trump's business ventures seem to "end up in Chapter 11." That's a good one and it calls for a response from Trump. He might make a similar claim, about how Clinton's political and legal ventures end up in indictments, investigations, even "Vince Foster" endings. Clinton v Trump! If there's any time where divine intervention is needed, it's right now!
I saw some report from the Atty-Gen where all references to "Islamic terrorism [or] extremism" are to be redacted from the official FBI reports on Orlando. Hmmm....... Does this surprise anyone? Look at how Obama so quickly jumped on the AR-15 (which I'm not even sure was the weapon used there). It is revealing to hear Obama and other anti-gun folks pontificate on this. They don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. They have led most Americans to believe, for instance, that the "AR" in the AR-15 stands for "automatic rifle." It does not! It comes from the name of the manufacturer back 50 or 60 years ago. Even one of the list serves to which I belong focused, not on the animal who pulled the trigger(s), but on the guns. Maybe I am missing the boat here, but that seems very misguided, at best. If a guy goes out and gets loaded and crashes his car, for example, into a crowd of people, killing many, do we focus on the car? "Let's ban cars!" or the alcohol? "Let's return to Prohibition!" (Where maybe the federal gov't can deliberately poison US citizens again?) No, the cause is the drunk, not the car, not the booze. So why is it different with shooters? Again, I'm willing to listen to disagreement here, but I can't follow the logic/illogic.
BTW, Karen was watching the boob tube the other day (last week?) when Obama gave his speech in Orlando. Who in his right mind still thinks the man is the most eloquent Presidential speaker "since Jefferson?" He bumbled his way through his talk. And no, I don't believe he was overcome with emotion, not at all. I still chuckle at the folks, back when, who said that, Obama the "most eloquent" President since Jefferson. Apparently they forgot about at least one other guy who deserves at least a little consideration--Abraham Lincoln. Maybe they haven't read any of his speeches, which, BTW, he wrote himself.
I saw the other day where the head of Apple is refusing to give any assistance to the GOP Convention in Cleveland. His rationale is that Don Trump is a bad man, that he shouldn't be President, let alone the Republican nominee. And, of that I agree.
The head of Apple, whose name I forget, cited Trump's own words, his plans, etc., which he called discriminatory toward Muslims, women, other minorities, etc. So, let me get this straight. Trump is vilified for his anti-Muslim stance(s), esp regarding immigrants from the Middle East to the US; yet Apple continues to do business with these same Middle Eastern countries, the very bad men who run them. (If you haven't noticed, there are no democracies in the Middle East.) It's not OK to say bad things about Muslims, but it is OK to be business partners with people who persecute, torture, and murder their own people, who keep women in a state of near slavery, etc.
I was sent an article about this today, but I know I've written about this hypocrisy before, in the Middle East, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, etc. I am aware of the argument, that trade will benefit the people, allow for general prosperity in these countries, benefiting the lot of many people. (Hey, isn't this the "trickle-down" theory, so lambasted by the progressives when it is applied to the US? But never fear. Even if it won't work here, it surely will work in these oppressed countries, right?)
So, what good has come of all this trade from Apple, the auto companies, banks, etc.? Lots, right? I haven't double checked these statistics, but have no reason to disbelieve them. They sound about right and match what I do know. Despite all the oil wealth received by the Arab world (and trade with Western companies?), about 20% of the people there live on less than $2 a day, yes, a day. More than 60 million of those people are illiterate and, no doubt, due to their rotten status, most of them are women. This one is hard to believe, yet fits in what I've written about before. In the last 1000 years, the Arabs have translated fewer books than Spain translates in a year! Apparently the only book that counts in the Quran. And suppose these "facts" are off and only 10% or 20% are true? Right......
This holds with what I believe. The Arab world has never experienced an Enlightenment, nothing like the 18th Century movement that spawned the rights enjoyed by Americans and many in the West. Those rights, esp for certain groups, didn't appear overnight, but evolved, too slowly, but at least they did evolve. Remember, 400 years ago, Christians were also murdering Christians (Catholics v Protestants) over faith (like Sunnis v Shiites). Women were also treated as distinct inferiors. We can make a number of analogies. But then came the Enlightenment, the offspring of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Age of Exploration.
Where the Arab world was once very advanced in the science and technology of the Middle Ages, now it is backward. The pioneers in geometry and other math, astronomy, medicine (surgery, hospitals, pharmacies), and even literature and art have become backward, clinging to the past that permits public hangings, beheadings, etc. There will be no peace with Islam, or at least much of it, until there is some sort of Arabic/Islamic Enlightenment.
I got a real laugh out of a Clinton attack on Trump today. She said something about all of Trump's business ventures seem to "end up in Chapter 11." That's a good one and it calls for a response from Trump. He might make a similar claim, about how Clinton's political and legal ventures end up in indictments, investigations, even "Vince Foster" endings. Clinton v Trump! If there's any time where divine intervention is needed, it's right now!
I saw some report from the Atty-Gen where all references to "Islamic terrorism [or] extremism" are to be redacted from the official FBI reports on Orlando. Hmmm....... Does this surprise anyone? Look at how Obama so quickly jumped on the AR-15 (which I'm not even sure was the weapon used there). It is revealing to hear Obama and other anti-gun folks pontificate on this. They don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. They have led most Americans to believe, for instance, that the "AR" in the AR-15 stands for "automatic rifle." It does not! It comes from the name of the manufacturer back 50 or 60 years ago. Even one of the list serves to which I belong focused, not on the animal who pulled the trigger(s), but on the guns. Maybe I am missing the boat here, but that seems very misguided, at best. If a guy goes out and gets loaded and crashes his car, for example, into a crowd of people, killing many, do we focus on the car? "Let's ban cars!" or the alcohol? "Let's return to Prohibition!" (Where maybe the federal gov't can deliberately poison US citizens again?) No, the cause is the drunk, not the car, not the booze. So why is it different with shooters? Again, I'm willing to listen to disagreement here, but I can't follow the logic/illogic.
BTW, Karen was watching the boob tube the other day (last week?) when Obama gave his speech in Orlando. Who in his right mind still thinks the man is the most eloquent Presidential speaker "since Jefferson?" He bumbled his way through his talk. And no, I don't believe he was overcome with emotion, not at all. I still chuckle at the folks, back when, who said that, Obama the "most eloquent" President since Jefferson. Apparently they forgot about at least one other guy who deserves at least a little consideration--Abraham Lincoln. Maybe they haven't read any of his speeches, which, BTW, he wrote himself.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Sunday/Sunday
Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there. I heard a fascinating history of Father's Day on the radio yesterday, learning a lot. Although Mother's Day has been around for seemingly forever, Father's Day is much newer.
It was quite a jolt this AM to open the newspaper and find not the normal/usual 3 1/2 to 4 pages of obituaries, but almost five full pages! Whoa! As I used to say, but don't quite enjoy it as much as I age, "They're dropping like flies." OK, so it's a little weird to turn first thing to the death notices. I guess it's an age thing? But I didn't recognize any names, although I often do--esp from the old neighborhood.
I also scanned the next three on the greatest Detroit songs of all time. I've not agreed with many I've seen in the past month or so, at least the order, but I've really enjoyed reading the paragraph or two that accompanies each entry. It's been a fun thing to follow.
Of course, with the tragedy of the terrorist shooting in Orlando, much of today's Detroit Free Press editorial section focuses on it. And, considering it's the Free Press, it wasn't hard to predict what would appear. Two of the lead op-eds are aiming at the number of guns in US society, discounting or minimizing any Constitutional rights. The authors seeks to revisit or "rethink" our rights in light of the glut (Is that the right word?) of recent shootings, esp of children, not to mention the mass shootings. Again, the views were not hard to predict.
I don't own any guns and haven't shot a gun in, what 50 years, or almost that. I don't love guns and I don't hate them. But I cringe when I hear or read of people who want to revisit or "rethink" our rights. If one right can be revisited or rethought, can't another one?
But these op-ed authors would be more credible if they got their facts straight, esp about guns and their capabilities. And, often their logic is strained, at best. I wonder, too, why they don't rail about the people who use guns to murder others. Where, in either of these op-eds, is anything about the Muslim extremist who shot all these people in Orlando? There wasn't a single sentence condemning the man himself or even ISIS, to whom he pledged allegiance. No, it was the gun. Do these writers ever rant about the punks who shoot Detroiters, spraying/riddling houses of those who "dissed" them or whatever idiotic reason used for shooting? Do they question the humanity of those who risk and often succeed in shooting kids? If they do, I don't see those columns. Why are they afraid to condemn the shooters, but only the guns? (No doubt they would argue they do, but I don't see those op-ed pieces.) So, if a guy goes out and gets loaded at a bar and runs some people over on his drive home, should we ban alcohol? (After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than shooters with rifles or shotguns, far far more!) It's not the beer's fault; it's the drinker's/drunk's, isn't it? I suppose some would say that's a faulty analogy, that alcohol isn't manufactured to kill people. But most guns aren't either, not even the often misrepresented AR-15s! Again, why are they so afraid or at least unwilling to call out people--shooters!?!?!?
Another op-ed attempted to deal with the fractured society we have, how uncivil we've become in discussing our differences, esp our political ones. The writer makes some good points and I agree with him. (That would surprise him, in light of his first paragraph. And it surprises me because I often find his arguments shallow, "sloppy thinking< to those of you who are regular readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions.") But agree though I did, I chuckled as I read. One of his points is that we often "delegitimize" our opponents' arguments, dismissing them out of hand without reason or real scrutiny. (Again, regular readers will recognize this, what I often call "name-calling"instead of debate or discussion or dialogue.) Yet, in reading several of his colleague's own op-ed pieces, they do exactly what his point emphasizes; they "delegitimize" the other side. Yep, I still am chuckling.
OK, here's a little more personal and rewarding/worthwhile end to today's post. Michael pitched for his baseball team on Fri, his first pitching in two years. (Don't ask why it was his first. I'm trying to keep this positive.) He was slated to pitch the 3rd and 4th innings, but the kid who was supposed to start didn't show up. So Michael started the game and pitched the 1st and 2nd innings--and the 3rd and 4th, too. Oh, and the 5th as well. He gave up two runs, one earned, and two or three hits. He had 7 or 8 strikeouts, too. He had one walk and hit one batsman. All in all, Grandpa (his coach!) was very happy--and so was he. To top it all off, he drilled a long double, pulling it down the right field line well over the RF's head. It was a good night to be a coach--and a Grandpa!
It was quite a jolt this AM to open the newspaper and find not the normal/usual 3 1/2 to 4 pages of obituaries, but almost five full pages! Whoa! As I used to say, but don't quite enjoy it as much as I age, "They're dropping like flies." OK, so it's a little weird to turn first thing to the death notices. I guess it's an age thing? But I didn't recognize any names, although I often do--esp from the old neighborhood.
I also scanned the next three on the greatest Detroit songs of all time. I've not agreed with many I've seen in the past month or so, at least the order, but I've really enjoyed reading the paragraph or two that accompanies each entry. It's been a fun thing to follow.
Of course, with the tragedy of the terrorist shooting in Orlando, much of today's Detroit Free Press editorial section focuses on it. And, considering it's the Free Press, it wasn't hard to predict what would appear. Two of the lead op-eds are aiming at the number of guns in US society, discounting or minimizing any Constitutional rights. The authors seeks to revisit or "rethink" our rights in light of the glut (Is that the right word?) of recent shootings, esp of children, not to mention the mass shootings. Again, the views were not hard to predict.
I don't own any guns and haven't shot a gun in, what 50 years, or almost that. I don't love guns and I don't hate them. But I cringe when I hear or read of people who want to revisit or "rethink" our rights. If one right can be revisited or rethought, can't another one?
But these op-ed authors would be more credible if they got their facts straight, esp about guns and their capabilities. And, often their logic is strained, at best. I wonder, too, why they don't rail about the people who use guns to murder others. Where, in either of these op-eds, is anything about the Muslim extremist who shot all these people in Orlando? There wasn't a single sentence condemning the man himself or even ISIS, to whom he pledged allegiance. No, it was the gun. Do these writers ever rant about the punks who shoot Detroiters, spraying/riddling houses of those who "dissed" them or whatever idiotic reason used for shooting? Do they question the humanity of those who risk and often succeed in shooting kids? If they do, I don't see those columns. Why are they afraid to condemn the shooters, but only the guns? (No doubt they would argue they do, but I don't see those op-ed pieces.) So, if a guy goes out and gets loaded at a bar and runs some people over on his drive home, should we ban alcohol? (After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than shooters with rifles or shotguns, far far more!) It's not the beer's fault; it's the drinker's/drunk's, isn't it? I suppose some would say that's a faulty analogy, that alcohol isn't manufactured to kill people. But most guns aren't either, not even the often misrepresented AR-15s! Again, why are they so afraid or at least unwilling to call out people--shooters!?!?!?
Another op-ed attempted to deal with the fractured society we have, how uncivil we've become in discussing our differences, esp our political ones. The writer makes some good points and I agree with him. (That would surprise him, in light of his first paragraph. And it surprises me because I often find his arguments shallow, "sloppy thinking< to those of you who are regular readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions.") But agree though I did, I chuckled as I read. One of his points is that we often "delegitimize" our opponents' arguments, dismissing them out of hand without reason or real scrutiny. (Again, regular readers will recognize this, what I often call "name-calling"instead of debate or discussion or dialogue.) Yet, in reading several of his colleague's own op-ed pieces, they do exactly what his point emphasizes; they "delegitimize" the other side. Yep, I still am chuckling.
OK, here's a little more personal and rewarding/worthwhile end to today's post. Michael pitched for his baseball team on Fri, his first pitching in two years. (Don't ask why it was his first. I'm trying to keep this positive.) He was slated to pitch the 3rd and 4th innings, but the kid who was supposed to start didn't show up. So Michael started the game and pitched the 1st and 2nd innings--and the 3rd and 4th, too. Oh, and the 5th as well. He gave up two runs, one earned, and two or three hits. He had 7 or 8 strikeouts, too. He had one walk and hit one batsman. All in all, Grandpa (his coach!) was very happy--and so was he. To top it all off, he drilled a long double, pulling it down the right field line well over the RF's head. It was a good night to be a coach--and a Grandpa!
Friday, June 17, 2016
Fri Thoughts
Despite what many folks may think, I'm not a Republican. But I will admit that some of them have impressed me recently. I am speaking of those Republicans who will not support Don Trump. I was reminded of that in the newspaper this AM. Four, at least, Rep Congressmen from Michigan have said they will not back Trump. Good for them, but that's not my point. Why aren't more Democrats doing the same? That is, where are the Democrats who won't support Clinton? Are there none? You must be kidding me. Trump is a terrible candidate for President; but so is Clinton. Are all those Democrats lockstep in their support for her? If so, it speaks volumes of the Democrats--none of which are at all complimentary, at least not to me.
I've been wonder for a couple weeks about the local high school football coach who is apparently in hot water for out-of-season practices and recruiting. Wait a minute! Why is this guy being singled out? Don't try to tell me other coaches don't also hold illegal practices, in football or even other sports. Are the practice rules for football different from those for other sports? If so, why? Why, for instance, can high school basketball teams hold basketball practices, clinics, and even scrimmages in the summer? Or is summer really winter, you know, when the basketball season is? Why, if legal, are basketball coaches/teams permitted to do this, but not football coaches/teams? And, how about high school baseball coaches who coach the local summer league teams? Hmmm...... Maybe they bring in a couple of kids who aren't on their school teams? Still, the inconsistency of the rules and/or their enforcement/application is not good.
For that matter, a local high school won its first district baseball championship, its first ever! Hooray for it. But its regional semifinal game was scheduled for the same time as the school's graduation ceremony, a Sat AM. No problem, right? Just reschedule the ball game for Fri afternoon or later Sat afternoon or even Sun or Mon. The state semis weren't until Thur or Fri of the next week. There was plenty of time, right? Wrong! Common sense is thrown out the window by the state hs athletic association. The team was told to forfeit its game, its first ever regional ball game. No change could be made to the schedule. Remember that the next time you hear such associations talk about "student-athletes," how they are "here for the kids," etc. More telling to me was the silence about this. Where were the school's administrators? They should have been jumping up and down all over the place, newspapers, television, radio? What about the players' parents? Where were they? Or, how's this? Why didn't the other schools in the regional refuse to play in protest--or all of the schools in the state tournament refuse to play? Well, I know why and so do you. Just remember, "We're here for the kids, until something else comes up." I recall, 45 or more years ago, at Amherst we (the baseball team) was invited to the Div 3 playoffs, somewhere in VA or WV. Our faculty voted not to let us go, since the games came during our final exam period. Were we disappointed? I don't remember being so; we knew, as good as our team was, why we were at Amherst. "Student-athletes" my eye......
BTW, a teammate sent me a well-researched article detailing the lack of evidence that Lord Jeffery Amherst was one to give smallpox-infected blankest to the Indians. There is no direct evidence to
"convict" him. Yet, let's not let facts get in the way of how we are supposed to feel. It, the article, is a further indictment of the lack of rigor/quality of the education at Amherst today, relative to what it once was. And, although the authors think the mascot, "Lord Jeff," was rightly eliminated because it was divisive, I disagree. Students and faculty put heavy pressure on the college trustees to get right of "Lord Jeff." And the trustees caved in. I'm not losing sleep over the issue, but I remember when my professors wrote "no sloppy thinking allowed" or things to that effect on my papers. Not only have students there now (not to mention their professors!) been able to get away with "sloppy thinking," they have been rewarded for it. Boy, don't I sound like, as Karen occasionally calls me, "an old coot?"
I've been wonder for a couple weeks about the local high school football coach who is apparently in hot water for out-of-season practices and recruiting. Wait a minute! Why is this guy being singled out? Don't try to tell me other coaches don't also hold illegal practices, in football or even other sports. Are the practice rules for football different from those for other sports? If so, why? Why, for instance, can high school basketball teams hold basketball practices, clinics, and even scrimmages in the summer? Or is summer really winter, you know, when the basketball season is? Why, if legal, are basketball coaches/teams permitted to do this, but not football coaches/teams? And, how about high school baseball coaches who coach the local summer league teams? Hmmm...... Maybe they bring in a couple of kids who aren't on their school teams? Still, the inconsistency of the rules and/or their enforcement/application is not good.
For that matter, a local high school won its first district baseball championship, its first ever! Hooray for it. But its regional semifinal game was scheduled for the same time as the school's graduation ceremony, a Sat AM. No problem, right? Just reschedule the ball game for Fri afternoon or later Sat afternoon or even Sun or Mon. The state semis weren't until Thur or Fri of the next week. There was plenty of time, right? Wrong! Common sense is thrown out the window by the state hs athletic association. The team was told to forfeit its game, its first ever regional ball game. No change could be made to the schedule. Remember that the next time you hear such associations talk about "student-athletes," how they are "here for the kids," etc. More telling to me was the silence about this. Where were the school's administrators? They should have been jumping up and down all over the place, newspapers, television, radio? What about the players' parents? Where were they? Or, how's this? Why didn't the other schools in the regional refuse to play in protest--or all of the schools in the state tournament refuse to play? Well, I know why and so do you. Just remember, "We're here for the kids, until something else comes up." I recall, 45 or more years ago, at Amherst we (the baseball team) was invited to the Div 3 playoffs, somewhere in VA or WV. Our faculty voted not to let us go, since the games came during our final exam period. Were we disappointed? I don't remember being so; we knew, as good as our team was, why we were at Amherst. "Student-athletes" my eye......
BTW, a teammate sent me a well-researched article detailing the lack of evidence that Lord Jeffery Amherst was one to give smallpox-infected blankest to the Indians. There is no direct evidence to
"convict" him. Yet, let's not let facts get in the way of how we are supposed to feel. It, the article, is a further indictment of the lack of rigor/quality of the education at Amherst today, relative to what it once was. And, although the authors think the mascot, "Lord Jeff," was rightly eliminated because it was divisive, I disagree. Students and faculty put heavy pressure on the college trustees to get right of "Lord Jeff." And the trustees caved in. I'm not losing sleep over the issue, but I remember when my professors wrote "no sloppy thinking allowed" or things to that effect on my papers. Not only have students there now (not to mention their professors!) been able to get away with "sloppy thinking," they have been rewarded for it. Boy, don't I sound like, as Karen occasionally calls me, "an old coot?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
