Someone asked me last night what I thought of the Republican and Democratic conventions the past two weeks. She was somewhat disappointed that I watched neither. I watched not a minute.
I don't believe much of what either party says. And I continue to use the old Judy Collins song title, "Send in the Clowns." And, apparently, the Dems did just that.
Some comedienne (Can I still use the feminine version or am I creating a microaggression?) who I never heard of called Bernie Sanders supporters "ridiculous." The "Bernie or Bust" folks were booing throughout the first few days of the convention. And this comedienne, in her speech, said, "To the 'Bernie or Bust' people, you're being ridiculous." Hmmm...... So that's what the Dems now think? People who are expressing their opinions, right or wrong (and you know where I stand on Sanders), are "ridiculous?" I guess that isn't a surprise, is it?
My son has offered a unique opinion. He thinks Trump might well be running as a joke of sorts, that soon he'll just say about his campaign, "I was just kidding." I don't think so, but the newspaper the other day suggested something similar. "Is Trump trying to get Clinton elected?" the editorial headline read. That's food for thought. After all, has Trump over the years been a booster of the Clintons? I really don't know, not having been a follower of Trump or, for that matter, a fan of either of the Clintons. But there have been clips of Don saying good things about them.
There are many reasons not to vote for Trump. There are also many reasons not to vote for Clinton. I have cited them previously. But to follow one theme of last week, that Clinton would continue the legacy of Obama, is yet another to shun the Democrat. Do we really need another four or eight years of the divisiveness of Obama, of the lies of Obama (I know, I know, "But Bush lied."), of the gov't intrusion of Obama, of the putrid economic growth of Obama, of the disastrous foreign policy of Obama, and the list is practically infinite.
OK, I know it's probably not PC to used "comedienne" for a female comedian. After all we can't use "actress" any longer. It's "actor," whether male or female. We can't use "stewardess" any longer, In fact, it's attendant. We can't use "chairwoman" any longer. It's "chairperson." (I remember long ago, when "chairman" and "chairwoman" first were frowned upon, I referred to an education-type as the "chairwoman." She was indignant, insisting on being called "chairperson." I asked why and she referred to the apparent insult of "-woman," demanding the neutral "person." I considered her wishes and conceded, henceforth referring to her as the "chairone." Isn't "one" a neutral pronoun?) But isn't there some boob tube show called "The Bachelorette?" (spelling?) If so, why isn't that a similar microaggression? Or is Hollywood enough of a safe place to get away with it?
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Tue Thoughts
On our run today, I was asked, "Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?" Thinking back to some of my comments, maybe I did. But maybe what's going on is a better explanation.
As a columnist in the newspaper today asked, why do some folks/groups get the book (legal book) thrown at them while others continue to skate away Scot-free? The auto companies, he pointed out, have rightly been nailed with tens of billions of dollars in fines for their dishonesty involving a smattering of issues, from recall cover-ups to mileage fraud to false sales figures. But how many bankers and Wall Street-types were similarly punished? The dishonesty, fraud, lying, etc. by these people caused the loss of jobs, savings, homes, and more. Yet where were the "high-profile prosecutions," let alone prison sentences?
Think the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us??????
For that matter, where is the prosecution for the bald-faced lying by politicians? They lie and they know they lie and we know they lie--deliberately. Of course we immediately think of Clinton (both of them), Obama, W Bush, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest. (Note I included both parties.) Think of the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us?????? Where is some watchdog to hold them accountable? Obviously, much of the electorate is too apathetic, trusting, preoccupied, or stupid to care. Those who do care and point out the lies, etc., are marginalized or ignored by and Establishment more concerned with itself than with constituents or the nation. And the Establishment is buttressed by a compliant LameStream media. BTW, where has been the prosecution and punishment of the LameStreams who have lied and distorted? Of course, they hide behind the shield of the First Amendment. But does the First Amendment protect against deliberate dishonesty? Not all Bill of Rights guarantees are absolute. Your right, it is said, to swing your fist wherever you desire stops at my nose.
And all the government bureaucrats who are about as duplicitous as those corporate types, where is the watchdog holding them accountable/responsible?
As the columnist pointed out, there is a "rigged system [with] two sets of rules." It's like the Clinton e-mail felony. You and I would have been prosecuted and likely with zeal long ago had we done what she did. That, as one of my classmates said in defending Clinton wrote, "We all mix our personal and business e-mails. It saves time.....," is not at all the same. Isn't there quite a bit of difference in work/personal e-mails and classified and top-secret information?????? If some can't see the difference, well, they just can't see the difference--if you know what I mean.
That's why so many folks are upset. There is a set of rules for "them" and another for "us."
And the Democratic Convention????? How can anyone belong to a group that, well, works to undermine its own people, works to negate the wishes of a large segment of its party? Note the DNC leaks about the Sanders campaign. Does anyone think the Clintons and their supporters weren't behind that? Well, anyone except the willfully blind?
And how can a party ask someone like Elizabeth Warren to speak? "Fauxchahontas?" What does that say about the morals/ethics/principles of the Democrats?
I am still astonished to see any "Clinton" tee-shirts, banners, etc. I don't understand. Regular (both of you) readers of One Man's Lonely Opinions know I won't be voting for the charlatan (or worse) Don Trump. But I can't at all imagine anyone voting for Clinton, either. A few weeks back, another columnist suggested we "deserve" better than Trump or Clinton. He did not at all explain exactly why we "deserve" better than than these two "pathological liars" (and, remember, those aren't my words, but those of national pundits!), but maybe those two completely rotten candidates are just what we "deserve." What is it that we have become?
More in a few days, if not sooner.
As a columnist in the newspaper today asked, why do some folks/groups get the book (legal book) thrown at them while others continue to skate away Scot-free? The auto companies, he pointed out, have rightly been nailed with tens of billions of dollars in fines for their dishonesty involving a smattering of issues, from recall cover-ups to mileage fraud to false sales figures. But how many bankers and Wall Street-types were similarly punished? The dishonesty, fraud, lying, etc. by these people caused the loss of jobs, savings, homes, and more. Yet where were the "high-profile prosecutions," let alone prison sentences?
Think the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us??????
For that matter, where is the prosecution for the bald-faced lying by politicians? They lie and they know they lie and we know they lie--deliberately. Of course we immediately think of Clinton (both of them), Obama, W Bush, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest. (Note I included both parties.) Think of the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us?????? Where is some watchdog to hold them accountable? Obviously, much of the electorate is too apathetic, trusting, preoccupied, or stupid to care. Those who do care and point out the lies, etc., are marginalized or ignored by and Establishment more concerned with itself than with constituents or the nation. And the Establishment is buttressed by a compliant LameStream media. BTW, where has been the prosecution and punishment of the LameStreams who have lied and distorted? Of course, they hide behind the shield of the First Amendment. But does the First Amendment protect against deliberate dishonesty? Not all Bill of Rights guarantees are absolute. Your right, it is said, to swing your fist wherever you desire stops at my nose.
And all the government bureaucrats who are about as duplicitous as those corporate types, where is the watchdog holding them accountable/responsible?
As the columnist pointed out, there is a "rigged system [with] two sets of rules." It's like the Clinton e-mail felony. You and I would have been prosecuted and likely with zeal long ago had we done what she did. That, as one of my classmates said in defending Clinton wrote, "We all mix our personal and business e-mails. It saves time.....," is not at all the same. Isn't there quite a bit of difference in work/personal e-mails and classified and top-secret information?????? If some can't see the difference, well, they just can't see the difference--if you know what I mean.
That's why so many folks are upset. There is a set of rules for "them" and another for "us."
And the Democratic Convention????? How can anyone belong to a group that, well, works to undermine its own people, works to negate the wishes of a large segment of its party? Note the DNC leaks about the Sanders campaign. Does anyone think the Clintons and their supporters weren't behind that? Well, anyone except the willfully blind?
And how can a party ask someone like Elizabeth Warren to speak? "Fauxchahontas?" What does that say about the morals/ethics/principles of the Democrats?
I am still astonished to see any "Clinton" tee-shirts, banners, etc. I don't understand. Regular (both of you) readers of One Man's Lonely Opinions know I won't be voting for the charlatan (or worse) Don Trump. But I can't at all imagine anyone voting for Clinton, either. A few weeks back, another columnist suggested we "deserve" better than Trump or Clinton. He did not at all explain exactly why we "deserve" better than than these two "pathological liars" (and, remember, those aren't my words, but those of national pundits!), but maybe those two completely rotten candidates are just what we "deserve." What is it that we have become?
More in a few days, if not sooner.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Steam Bath
The steam bath continues, with temps in the mid-90s and humididity to match. Matt, in from Las Vegas, hasn't commented yet. The sticky stuff is slated to be around for a while, so we'd better get used to it.
I've worked out early in the AM, with just a couple of hours of outside/yard work each day since about Wed. Boy, that heat and humididity just saps me. I am beaten by 9 or 10 PM.
Persnickety? That's a cool word and I wonder if it applies to me. I think similar words might well be fussy, eccentric, finicky, and even picky. I think I prefer, to all these words, at least in applying to me, the word "particular." I'm not sure if it or the others are official synonyms, but I like "particular."
I like, at least at home, to eat off of certain plates, with certain silverware. We, like most households I suppose, have several sets of plates and silverware. And I like to use just a handful of cups and glasses from which to drink. I am the same way with where I sit and, often, what I wear. I can't stand that the car automatically locks its doors. I disabled it in my car, but K's car still locks it. Someone once asked me what was wrong with that. I said, "Two things. One, if I want my car doors to be locked, I can do it, not the car. Two, I'm not lazy; I can lock my own doors." What led me to think about this a bit came the other day. Earlier in the AM, I took a tumble while running. I tripped over one of those frames used to post "Garage Sale" signs in the neighborhood. The sun hadn't risen yet and it was dusky (Can I used "dusky" for an early AM?). The frame was lying in the dust on the shoulder of the road and, obviously (at least I hope so), I didn't see it. Down I went. I was fine, with just a pretty nasty scrape on my wrist from my GPS watch. It hasn't really healed much since I rub it raw again while putting on my watch each day to run. Carrie suggested, "Why don't you wear your watch on your other wrist?" Whoa! I think my look told her why I couldn't. Yes, "particular" seems about right.
Is this one true? One of the cable news shows gave viewers a glimpse of some campaign bumper stickers. Before showing, "Hillary for Prison," the show gave a warning, "Some viewers may find the following offensive." (Surely Clinton would, but others?) Is this one true?????? If so, heaven help us all.
I know Ted Cruz has received a heap of criticism for his speech the other night in Cleveland. I didn't hear/watch it. (I was washing my hair that evening.) But it seems to me he was pretty courageous in giving it. He has watched his party sell out, the Establishment forsaking traditional Republican values. He has watched a charlatan somehow convince enough folks to get the Republican nomination. He has watched many of those same Establishment-types he ran against to gain his TX seat, first oppose Trump for being, well, not a Republican (as if the Establishment-types are!) and then endorsing/supporting him. To say what he said was not only courageous, but was the moral and ethical thing to do.
I was distressed this AM, although not particularly surprised, at the number of my college classmates who have jumped on the Clinton bandwagon. Their comments seemed to be those of enablers. A few suggested that they do the same thing Clinton did with the e-mails and servers at their places of employment. "It's just a way to save time," one wrote. Another said it was merely to keep all of her contacts in the same place. Huh?????? No, it's not the "same thing." And, if it is, maybe some folks deserve to be fired from their jobs. How many of their work e-mails contain "classified" and "top secret" documents and information? How many of them work in occupations that are essential to the security of the US and its citizens?
Did they completely ignore Comey's report? It was damning, both toward Clinton and toward Comey, although he's not running for President.
Most of them are right in their criticisms of Trump. But they seem far, far off base in supporting Clinton. As I have suggested many times, had you and I done what she did, I think not only would we be indicted, but convicted and in jail.
BTW, Trump apparently said something I agree with, but seems to have set off another firestorm among the elites. I guess he said the US shouldn't agree to come to the aid of NATO members if they don't fulfill their own obligations. One, I guess, is that they should fund NATO with at least 2% of their military budgets (or was it their entire budgets?). Regardless of the budgets, why shouldn't these nations pay their own way? Why should they get to freeload? They make stupid foreign policies and then expect the US to bail them out, but they don't fulfill their obligations?
I've worked out early in the AM, with just a couple of hours of outside/yard work each day since about Wed. Boy, that heat and humididity just saps me. I am beaten by 9 or 10 PM.
Persnickety? That's a cool word and I wonder if it applies to me. I think similar words might well be fussy, eccentric, finicky, and even picky. I think I prefer, to all these words, at least in applying to me, the word "particular." I'm not sure if it or the others are official synonyms, but I like "particular."
I like, at least at home, to eat off of certain plates, with certain silverware. We, like most households I suppose, have several sets of plates and silverware. And I like to use just a handful of cups and glasses from which to drink. I am the same way with where I sit and, often, what I wear. I can't stand that the car automatically locks its doors. I disabled it in my car, but K's car still locks it. Someone once asked me what was wrong with that. I said, "Two things. One, if I want my car doors to be locked, I can do it, not the car. Two, I'm not lazy; I can lock my own doors." What led me to think about this a bit came the other day. Earlier in the AM, I took a tumble while running. I tripped over one of those frames used to post "Garage Sale" signs in the neighborhood. The sun hadn't risen yet and it was dusky (Can I used "dusky" for an early AM?). The frame was lying in the dust on the shoulder of the road and, obviously (at least I hope so), I didn't see it. Down I went. I was fine, with just a pretty nasty scrape on my wrist from my GPS watch. It hasn't really healed much since I rub it raw again while putting on my watch each day to run. Carrie suggested, "Why don't you wear your watch on your other wrist?" Whoa! I think my look told her why I couldn't. Yes, "particular" seems about right.
Is this one true? One of the cable news shows gave viewers a glimpse of some campaign bumper stickers. Before showing, "Hillary for Prison," the show gave a warning, "Some viewers may find the following offensive." (Surely Clinton would, but others?) Is this one true?????? If so, heaven help us all.
I know Ted Cruz has received a heap of criticism for his speech the other night in Cleveland. I didn't hear/watch it. (I was washing my hair that evening.) But it seems to me he was pretty courageous in giving it. He has watched his party sell out, the Establishment forsaking traditional Republican values. He has watched a charlatan somehow convince enough folks to get the Republican nomination. He has watched many of those same Establishment-types he ran against to gain his TX seat, first oppose Trump for being, well, not a Republican (as if the Establishment-types are!) and then endorsing/supporting him. To say what he said was not only courageous, but was the moral and ethical thing to do.
I was distressed this AM, although not particularly surprised, at the number of my college classmates who have jumped on the Clinton bandwagon. Their comments seemed to be those of enablers. A few suggested that they do the same thing Clinton did with the e-mails and servers at their places of employment. "It's just a way to save time," one wrote. Another said it was merely to keep all of her contacts in the same place. Huh?????? No, it's not the "same thing." And, if it is, maybe some folks deserve to be fired from their jobs. How many of their work e-mails contain "classified" and "top secret" documents and information? How many of them work in occupations that are essential to the security of the US and its citizens?
Did they completely ignore Comey's report? It was damning, both toward Clinton and toward Comey, although he's not running for President.
Most of them are right in their criticisms of Trump. But they seem far, far off base in supporting Clinton. As I have suggested many times, had you and I done what she did, I think not only would we be indicted, but convicted and in jail.
BTW, Trump apparently said something I agree with, but seems to have set off another firestorm among the elites. I guess he said the US shouldn't agree to come to the aid of NATO members if they don't fulfill their own obligations. One, I guess, is that they should fund NATO with at least 2% of their military budgets (or was it their entire budgets?). Regardless of the budgets, why shouldn't these nations pay their own way? Why should they get to freeload? They make stupid foreign policies and then expect the US to bail them out, but they don't fulfill their obligations?
Friday, July 22, 2016
Send in the Clowns
This was a song by Judy Collins and maybe some others. I saw it somewhere in the last week describing the Republican Convention. I think it applies to more than that, the Republican Convention, the Democratic Convention, the whole sickening campaign. "The clowns......" So very fitting.
I saw in the newspaper this AM that former Michigan gov Jennifer Granholm "gets goosebumps" thinking about Hillary Clinton's nomination. Pathetic, yet not at all surprising. Granholm was a lousy governor. As one of her own Democrat colleagues, anonymously, said, Granholm "likes to play Governor. She doesn't want to be Governor." Don't forget, "Cool Cities!" and "Everybody Goes to College," as if those were going to fix everything. Democrats, Granholm and the others, have shown their true colors the past 20+ years, blatantly. There are no principles other than getting elected, having power, etc. They've sold out their constituencies, from blacks to you-name-it. Oh, they still sing the same lies, but the picture is clear. How, for instance, can women still support the Clintons, the womanizing/abusive Bill, or the enabling/vindictive Hillary? How can black voters continue to cast ballots for the likes of Obama? Their plight has not at all improved, but has declined under Obama's divisive 8 years. But, two things. It's the Democrats' meme (There, I have finally used that word, although I'm not sure what it means.) And it's Bush's fault.
Where is, as I've noted several times, the Democrats' equivalent of Never Trump? Why is there, with all of the evidence supporting one, a Never Clinton movement? Great Americans of the past, such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln, have insisted on taking the high moral ground, regardless of how unpopular that might be. I guess that tells us all we need to know about Democrats and morality.
And Republicans still don't get it, at least the Establishment still doesn't. Their constant lying to voters, that is, the voters' frustration and anger at the Establishment, seems to have escaped them. Their lack of vision and conservative values (or, like Democrats, any values other than getting elected and having political power) have made them a shadow, at best, of the party of Lincoln--if it had not already abandoned what had once made the party great.
A Trumpster had an op-ed in the newspaper trying to explain why Trump "resonates with voters." I still don't think he does, not Trump. It's not about Trump. Oh, no doubt there are some who like Trump for "You're Fired!" That's the kind of unfeeling, uncaring generation that we've created. It's "in your face" and the like that attracts many people. (That's too bad.) But on the whole it's not about Trump, but voters who are dissatisfied with the Establishment, Republican and Democrat. (I could also add Bernie Sanders here, but...... C'mon, Bernie Sanders?) And neither party seems to comprehend. Well, the Dems might, but they think they have bought the election(s) by having the LameSteam media in their pockets.
Out to pitch BP, in 95 degree heat, with high humididity.
I saw in the newspaper this AM that former Michigan gov Jennifer Granholm "gets goosebumps" thinking about Hillary Clinton's nomination. Pathetic, yet not at all surprising. Granholm was a lousy governor. As one of her own Democrat colleagues, anonymously, said, Granholm "likes to play Governor. She doesn't want to be Governor." Don't forget, "Cool Cities!" and "Everybody Goes to College," as if those were going to fix everything. Democrats, Granholm and the others, have shown their true colors the past 20+ years, blatantly. There are no principles other than getting elected, having power, etc. They've sold out their constituencies, from blacks to you-name-it. Oh, they still sing the same lies, but the picture is clear. How, for instance, can women still support the Clintons, the womanizing/abusive Bill, or the enabling/vindictive Hillary? How can black voters continue to cast ballots for the likes of Obama? Their plight has not at all improved, but has declined under Obama's divisive 8 years. But, two things. It's the Democrats' meme (There, I have finally used that word, although I'm not sure what it means.) And it's Bush's fault.
Where is, as I've noted several times, the Democrats' equivalent of Never Trump? Why is there, with all of the evidence supporting one, a Never Clinton movement? Great Americans of the past, such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln, have insisted on taking the high moral ground, regardless of how unpopular that might be. I guess that tells us all we need to know about Democrats and morality.
And Republicans still don't get it, at least the Establishment still doesn't. Their constant lying to voters, that is, the voters' frustration and anger at the Establishment, seems to have escaped them. Their lack of vision and conservative values (or, like Democrats, any values other than getting elected and having political power) have made them a shadow, at best, of the party of Lincoln--if it had not already abandoned what had once made the party great.
A Trumpster had an op-ed in the newspaper trying to explain why Trump "resonates with voters." I still don't think he does, not Trump. It's not about Trump. Oh, no doubt there are some who like Trump for "You're Fired!" That's the kind of unfeeling, uncaring generation that we've created. It's "in your face" and the like that attracts many people. (That's too bad.) But on the whole it's not about Trump, but voters who are dissatisfied with the Establishment, Republican and Democrat. (I could also add Bernie Sanders here, but...... C'mon, Bernie Sanders?) And neither party seems to comprehend. Well, the Dems might, but they think they have bought the election(s) by having the LameSteam media in their pockets.
Out to pitch BP, in 95 degree heat, with high humididity.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Baseball!
I admit that I don't follow baseball, at least Major League Baseball, the way I used to follow it. There are many reasons. That said, baseball is a great game. It really is.
I know other sports' fans can point to why other sports are their favorites. I understand, well, except for maybe soccer I understand. But I think baseball has so many unique features.
Just think about the distance between bases. Who came up with 90 feet? It was brilliant. How many bang-bang plays are there at first base? And each field, professional or sandlot, offers its own uniqueness.
A 450-foot home run is exciting. So is a 60 foot-bunt. How electric are squeeze plays? Have you ever seen a no-hitter going into the 9th inning? Isn't a hit-and-run a most beautiful play when executed well?
Last Sunday I took the boys to see the Tigers. Michael, of course, loves baseball. He understands the game pretty darn well and sees a lot, more, I think, than other 15-year olds. It was Cody's first big league game. ("This was the best day ever, Grandpa!" he told me. It was a good one for me, too.) I, unlike other, never say Major League managers are dumb or stupid. I may disagree with their strategies or tactics, but they aren't dumb or stupid. So, the Tigers take a 2-2 tie into the bottom of the 9th. (Both their runs were unusual, one on a wild pitch, the other on a walk.) Leading off is a .130 hitter and I am thinking--and saying!--"Pinch hit for this guy!" The manager doesn't. I think it's the wrong move. And the .130 hitter rips a single. OK, so I'm wrong. The next guy, a .200 hitter, has to bunt, doesn't he? At least I think and say so. Nope, he doesn't square at all. "C'mon, BUNT!" I yell. Nope. Instead, the .200 hitter drills one about 20 rows into the right field seats. So much for what I know!
And today, with two on and two out, score tied, V. Martinez drilled one to LC, only to have the LF snag it a foot or two from being a game-winning HR. It's a game of inches (or at least feet).
Mon night our 15-16 year olds had a game. We aren't so hot, but were playing a team with a record as bad as ours. The other team's kids, esp their starter, pitched very well. But our kids,including Bopper I proudly add, pitched just a little better. We fell behind and then caught them. We fell behind midway and then caught them. We fell behind in the top of the last inning, too. And won it in the bottom of the last inning.
Throughout, I'm getting all these visions in my head. Of course, our players can't do what I am envisioning as strategy and tactics. But I'm "formulating," as Karen would say. And that's what baseball allows. There were so many possibilities, at least in this game that was close. Our players aren't capable of doing some of the things I was "formulating." But Michael did one of them to tie the score and another kid did the same, scoring from 3rd with the tying run in the 7th. OK, we lucked out on the winning run, the catcher dropping the ball on an easy catch and tag.
Sometimes it gets frustrating, being unable to do much, but it's a mental game. And it's very rewarding to have "formulations" actually work.
I know other sports' fans can point to why other sports are their favorites. I understand, well, except for maybe soccer I understand. But I think baseball has so many unique features.
Just think about the distance between bases. Who came up with 90 feet? It was brilliant. How many bang-bang plays are there at first base? And each field, professional or sandlot, offers its own uniqueness.
A 450-foot home run is exciting. So is a 60 foot-bunt. How electric are squeeze plays? Have you ever seen a no-hitter going into the 9th inning? Isn't a hit-and-run a most beautiful play when executed well?
Last Sunday I took the boys to see the Tigers. Michael, of course, loves baseball. He understands the game pretty darn well and sees a lot, more, I think, than other 15-year olds. It was Cody's first big league game. ("This was the best day ever, Grandpa!" he told me. It was a good one for me, too.) I, unlike other, never say Major League managers are dumb or stupid. I may disagree with their strategies or tactics, but they aren't dumb or stupid. So, the Tigers take a 2-2 tie into the bottom of the 9th. (Both their runs were unusual, one on a wild pitch, the other on a walk.) Leading off is a .130 hitter and I am thinking--and saying!--"Pinch hit for this guy!" The manager doesn't. I think it's the wrong move. And the .130 hitter rips a single. OK, so I'm wrong. The next guy, a .200 hitter, has to bunt, doesn't he? At least I think and say so. Nope, he doesn't square at all. "C'mon, BUNT!" I yell. Nope. Instead, the .200 hitter drills one about 20 rows into the right field seats. So much for what I know!
And today, with two on and two out, score tied, V. Martinez drilled one to LC, only to have the LF snag it a foot or two from being a game-winning HR. It's a game of inches (or at least feet).
Mon night our 15-16 year olds had a game. We aren't so hot, but were playing a team with a record as bad as ours. The other team's kids, esp their starter, pitched very well. But our kids,including Bopper I proudly add, pitched just a little better. We fell behind and then caught them. We fell behind midway and then caught them. We fell behind in the top of the last inning, too. And won it in the bottom of the last inning.
Throughout, I'm getting all these visions in my head. Of course, our players can't do what I am envisioning as strategy and tactics. But I'm "formulating," as Karen would say. And that's what baseball allows. There were so many possibilities, at least in this game that was close. Our players aren't capable of doing some of the things I was "formulating." But Michael did one of them to tie the score and another kid did the same, scoring from 3rd with the tying run in the 7th. OK, we lucked out on the winning run, the catcher dropping the ball on an easy catch and tag.
Sometimes it gets frustrating, being unable to do much, but it's a mental game. And it's very rewarding to have "formulations" actually work.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Sat AM
I woke up to rain this AM. Hmmm...... Coming back from our game last night, I don't recall any mention of rain on the forecast, but raining it is. I went to the two Web sites I (foolishly?) use for my weather predictions. Both have "0% chance of precipitation right now." Maybe rain is no longer considered "precipitation."
I don't know who, if anyone, has claimed credit for the Nice bombing. But I wonder how long people will take this; that is, when will they really respond? With all of the vaunted intelligence agencies in the world, I would think someone somewhere would be able to track down the leadership of these radical groups. And I would also think that, in their communities, someone somewhere would think something weird is going on with these terrorists, immigrant or home-grown and turned.
And should we now ban trucks? Should we prohibit people who are on random "no-fly lists" from purchasing trucks? After all......
George Will and I go back a long way. No, I don't know him. But I've read him for years and years and years. Although mostly known as a political writer, I particularly liked two of his books about baseball, Men at Work and Bunts. Often I agree with his views; sometimes I don't, seeing him as a cog in the Establishment. I didn't care much for his column in this AM's newspaper, about teacher tenure. There is much in his article to commend; it's true. I've blogged about how many rotten teachers are out there, who don't deserve to be teaching. There are too many of them, no doubt. Do the tenure laws protect them? Yes and No. If administrators, or at least some of them, don't follow the laws, yes, bad teachers are protected. If administrators do follow them, it's not nearly as difficult to get rid of bad apples. Will completely misses this point, citing that false claim that it takes many years and much money to dismiss teachers who deserve to be dismissed. He ignores that many administrators fail at their jobs of evaluating teachers, either not recognizing bad ones or taking the easy ways out by approving of their performances. He also ignores the original purpose of tenure laws. They were not enacted to protect rotten teachers. They were there to protect teachers from wrongful dismissal. "Wrongful?" Of course. There might be personality conflicts. There might be some friend or relative who needs a teaching job and, if a position can be opened by dismissing an otherwise competent teacher...... (And if you don't believe that might happen, you don't know the history of pre-union labor in the US!) Even more, how easy to get rid of teachers who vocally oppose rotten administrative programs or policies. (And if you don't believe there are a lot of "rotten programs and policies," you might as well stop reading this paragraph right now.) It doesn't take much to find teachers who stood up for what was right, opposing administrators and politicians, not to mention bureaucrats and, yes, columnists like Will (who, because they went to school know all about teaching or can cite statistics without analyzing them), who were ignored, marginalized, and even punished. Is dismissal much farther removed? Without protection? Let me repeat that I acknowledge there are far too many lousy teachers out there. But getting rid of tenure laws or, as in Michigan, weakening them to effective impotence, is not the answer. How about making others, too, do their jobs?
Why did Mike Pence accept Trump's offer of the VP position on the Rep ticket? My admitted perfunctory view of Pence is that he's a good enough guy, did pretty well in Indiana. But he is a member of the Establishment, no Ted Cruz or Mike Lee. Why would anyone associate himself with the train wreck called "Trump?"
And now Clinton is talking "free college" for up to 80% of students. Will she stop at nothing to pander for votes? Tell me this one won't ring with the younger crowd, those facing a lifetime of student debt? And remember that this generation has been brought up on getting things for free or not working for them. ("Everybody gets a trophy!") Where she was critical of Sanders for this, she now embraces "free college?" See below, but does she not at all see the consequences of this, the monetary costs and beyond? I'm sure she does, but this is Clinton, remember?
BTW, I'm still waiting for a "Never Clinton" movement and all those upper level FBI agents to resign. I'll bet I wait a long time. Once again I wonder, "What is wrong with us?"
Is it human nature to want to control others' lives? I don't know. I have enough trouble controlling my own life, let alone others' lives. Why are there so many politicians and bureaucrats out there so intent on controlling us? No doubt some mean well, but are just misguided in their attempts. They don't see beyond their actions. That is, they don't realize the consequences of their actions. For instance, I see with the cities and states increasing the minimum wage this year, unemployment for youths, namely high school kids and others without training for anything other than entry level jobs, is up quite a bit. It makes for good copy, "a living wage." Who can, at face value, argue with that? Yet, I wonder if any of the proponents realize the consequences. Do they realize how many people will be laid off or not even hired, so we don't even know the real consequences of the "minimum wage?" How many are so arrogant and elitist they don't care about what we think? They know better than we do; consequences be damned. I wonder how many human lives have been saved since DDT was banned. I wonder how many mosquitoes lives have been saved and, in effect, how many human lives have been lost due to the malaria those saved mosquitoes carried? Again, we'll never really know, but......
I don't know who, if anyone, has claimed credit for the Nice bombing. But I wonder how long people will take this; that is, when will they really respond? With all of the vaunted intelligence agencies in the world, I would think someone somewhere would be able to track down the leadership of these radical groups. And I would also think that, in their communities, someone somewhere would think something weird is going on with these terrorists, immigrant or home-grown and turned.
And should we now ban trucks? Should we prohibit people who are on random "no-fly lists" from purchasing trucks? After all......
George Will and I go back a long way. No, I don't know him. But I've read him for years and years and years. Although mostly known as a political writer, I particularly liked two of his books about baseball, Men at Work and Bunts. Often I agree with his views; sometimes I don't, seeing him as a cog in the Establishment. I didn't care much for his column in this AM's newspaper, about teacher tenure. There is much in his article to commend; it's true. I've blogged about how many rotten teachers are out there, who don't deserve to be teaching. There are too many of them, no doubt. Do the tenure laws protect them? Yes and No. If administrators, or at least some of them, don't follow the laws, yes, bad teachers are protected. If administrators do follow them, it's not nearly as difficult to get rid of bad apples. Will completely misses this point, citing that false claim that it takes many years and much money to dismiss teachers who deserve to be dismissed. He ignores that many administrators fail at their jobs of evaluating teachers, either not recognizing bad ones or taking the easy ways out by approving of their performances. He also ignores the original purpose of tenure laws. They were not enacted to protect rotten teachers. They were there to protect teachers from wrongful dismissal. "Wrongful?" Of course. There might be personality conflicts. There might be some friend or relative who needs a teaching job and, if a position can be opened by dismissing an otherwise competent teacher...... (And if you don't believe that might happen, you don't know the history of pre-union labor in the US!) Even more, how easy to get rid of teachers who vocally oppose rotten administrative programs or policies. (And if you don't believe there are a lot of "rotten programs and policies," you might as well stop reading this paragraph right now.) It doesn't take much to find teachers who stood up for what was right, opposing administrators and politicians, not to mention bureaucrats and, yes, columnists like Will (who, because they went to school know all about teaching or can cite statistics without analyzing them), who were ignored, marginalized, and even punished. Is dismissal much farther removed? Without protection? Let me repeat that I acknowledge there are far too many lousy teachers out there. But getting rid of tenure laws or, as in Michigan, weakening them to effective impotence, is not the answer. How about making others, too, do their jobs?
Why did Mike Pence accept Trump's offer of the VP position on the Rep ticket? My admitted perfunctory view of Pence is that he's a good enough guy, did pretty well in Indiana. But he is a member of the Establishment, no Ted Cruz or Mike Lee. Why would anyone associate himself with the train wreck called "Trump?"
And now Clinton is talking "free college" for up to 80% of students. Will she stop at nothing to pander for votes? Tell me this one won't ring with the younger crowd, those facing a lifetime of student debt? And remember that this generation has been brought up on getting things for free or not working for them. ("Everybody gets a trophy!") Where she was critical of Sanders for this, she now embraces "free college?" See below, but does she not at all see the consequences of this, the monetary costs and beyond? I'm sure she does, but this is Clinton, remember?
BTW, I'm still waiting for a "Never Clinton" movement and all those upper level FBI agents to resign. I'll bet I wait a long time. Once again I wonder, "What is wrong with us?"
Is it human nature to want to control others' lives? I don't know. I have enough trouble controlling my own life, let alone others' lives. Why are there so many politicians and bureaucrats out there so intent on controlling us? No doubt some mean well, but are just misguided in their attempts. They don't see beyond their actions. That is, they don't realize the consequences of their actions. For instance, I see with the cities and states increasing the minimum wage this year, unemployment for youths, namely high school kids and others without training for anything other than entry level jobs, is up quite a bit. It makes for good copy, "a living wage." Who can, at face value, argue with that? Yet, I wonder if any of the proponents realize the consequences. Do they realize how many people will be laid off or not even hired, so we don't even know the real consequences of the "minimum wage?" How many are so arrogant and elitist they don't care about what we think? They know better than we do; consequences be damned. I wonder how many human lives have been saved since DDT was banned. I wonder how many mosquitoes lives have been saved and, in effect, how many human lives have been lost due to the malaria those saved mosquitoes carried? Again, we'll never really know, but......
Friday, July 15, 2016
Fri AM
It was just brought to my attention that Bernie Sanders received 12 million primary votes, Trump 13 million. Hmmm......
Hillary Clinton won about 7% more votes than Sanders. Trump won almost as many popular votes as the next three Republicans, while Clinton scored just under 4 million more than Sanders.
Trump, unless someone like Mike Lee turns the Republican convention on its head, will be that party's nominee. I repeat that I find that repulsive.
Sanders has been dismissed as not important, just some crotchety old Socialist with moonbeam ideas, if they can be called that.
Like Trump, though, Sanders isn't/wasn't about himself. Think of the results. Trump and Sanders, as terrible as they were/are as candidates, received 25 million votes. Unless I'm mistaken, that's just about half of the ballots cast in the primaries/caucuses. Think of those results.
Consider that many voters will vote for anyone or anything with the Establishment "D" or the Establishment "R" next to their names.
In a system dominated by the Establishment, whose goal is obviously the continued domination by the Establishment, people and country be damned, half the people said, "No!" Neither Sanders nor Trump are "unimportant." Many/Most(?) people have been pretty clear. They are sick and tired, frustrated, angry, fed up with the Establishment. 25 million is not an "unimportant" number. And it's not a small number.
A question might be, "What if those 25 million, after November, feel disenfranchised, marginalized or even ignored, yet again?" That is, in a system that seems rigged against most hard-working, middle or lower-middle class folks, will people just suck it up and go about with business as usual? Or, perhaps like petulant children (and I don't mean that pejoratively) seeking to get the attention of others, will they act out? After all, the "99%ers" and BLM have "acted out." But 25 million is a lot more than those groups.
I know a lot of folks and, esp, politicians, the academic elites, and even the LameStream media have touted the economic recovery. They cite, among other things, the rebound of the auto industry, new housing starts, [fudged] higher employment statistics, etc. They also ignore a lot. For instance, statistically, there is a lower percentage of Americans in the work force than there has been for decades. Anecdotally, there sure seems to be a lot of vacant houses out there, even here in Oakland County. And the next time you drive past strip malls, note how many vacant store fronts there are; just the other day I was startled by the vacancies at two of them.
Both parties talk about personal freedom. Bologna/Baloney! It's all blather! Both of them, elitist and arrogant, want to tell us how to live. One professes to take care of "the little guy," while the other looks after "the big guy." Hogwash! You can't watch the television you want. You have to use the light bulbs and toilets they want you to have. And more......
Who'd a thunk, maybe 50 years ago, all this government regulation would restrict our lives? That considered, who doesn't reasonably think that's just a start? What's next?
Perhaps worse, we can't even talk about anything. We don't have real dialogues or discussions. The Democrats won't talk. The Republicans at least might entertain discussions, but I don't think they are honest about them; that is, they lie in nodding, but have no intention of doing anything.
And what we are left with are Clinton and Trump in November. I'm sticking to my mantra......
Hillary Clinton won about 7% more votes than Sanders. Trump won almost as many popular votes as the next three Republicans, while Clinton scored just under 4 million more than Sanders.
Trump, unless someone like Mike Lee turns the Republican convention on its head, will be that party's nominee. I repeat that I find that repulsive.
Sanders has been dismissed as not important, just some crotchety old Socialist with moonbeam ideas, if they can be called that.
Like Trump, though, Sanders isn't/wasn't about himself. Think of the results. Trump and Sanders, as terrible as they were/are as candidates, received 25 million votes. Unless I'm mistaken, that's just about half of the ballots cast in the primaries/caucuses. Think of those results.
Consider that many voters will vote for anyone or anything with the Establishment "D" or the Establishment "R" next to their names.
In a system dominated by the Establishment, whose goal is obviously the continued domination by the Establishment, people and country be damned, half the people said, "No!" Neither Sanders nor Trump are "unimportant." Many/Most(?) people have been pretty clear. They are sick and tired, frustrated, angry, fed up with the Establishment. 25 million is not an "unimportant" number. And it's not a small number.
A question might be, "What if those 25 million, after November, feel disenfranchised, marginalized or even ignored, yet again?" That is, in a system that seems rigged against most hard-working, middle or lower-middle class folks, will people just suck it up and go about with business as usual? Or, perhaps like petulant children (and I don't mean that pejoratively) seeking to get the attention of others, will they act out? After all, the "99%ers" and BLM have "acted out." But 25 million is a lot more than those groups.
I know a lot of folks and, esp, politicians, the academic elites, and even the LameStream media have touted the economic recovery. They cite, among other things, the rebound of the auto industry, new housing starts, [fudged] higher employment statistics, etc. They also ignore a lot. For instance, statistically, there is a lower percentage of Americans in the work force than there has been for decades. Anecdotally, there sure seems to be a lot of vacant houses out there, even here in Oakland County. And the next time you drive past strip malls, note how many vacant store fronts there are; just the other day I was startled by the vacancies at two of them.
Both parties talk about personal freedom. Bologna/Baloney! It's all blather! Both of them, elitist and arrogant, want to tell us how to live. One professes to take care of "the little guy," while the other looks after "the big guy." Hogwash! You can't watch the television you want. You have to use the light bulbs and toilets they want you to have. And more......
Who'd a thunk, maybe 50 years ago, all this government regulation would restrict our lives? That considered, who doesn't reasonably think that's just a start? What's next?
Perhaps worse, we can't even talk about anything. We don't have real dialogues or discussions. The Democrats won't talk. The Republicans at least might entertain discussions, but I don't think they are honest about them; that is, they lie in nodding, but have no intention of doing anything.
And what we are left with are Clinton and Trump in November. I'm sticking to my mantra......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
