Crazy, crazy Michigan! Two weeks ago today we had single-digit temperatures and last Sunday the temps reached the mid-50s. Today, it's snow, if only half an inch or an inch. But I surely prefer the snow and current temperatures to the rain we've been having.
So, the state wants to close two or three dozen "underperforming" schools in Detroit? Just last fall, the Detroit Public Schools were turned back over to the newly elected school board. The state, though, still wants to close the schools. The "underperforming" occurred, not under the Detroit School Board's leadership, but, you guessed it, that of the state. And a Free Press editorial calls for the state to fix the schools. What has the state been doing for five years? It certainly wasn't taking care of the water in Flint.
And hundreds of families have faced bankruptcy when a state agency accused them of unemployment fraud. It appears the accusations were in error. Many people lost tax refunds, personal property, etc., not to mention having their lives made much more difficult.
Gee, can we get just a little more government to control our lives?
Nolan Finley had a good editorial in today's Det News. He echoed (Hey, who reads this blog anyway?) what I've been saying for a couple of months now. The Establishment, esp the LameStream Media, "still don't get Trump voters." I have discovered this time after time. It's so easy to characterize them as "racists," "bigots," and "stupid people." I didn't vote for Trump (as regulars know), but recognized that, as Finley notes, "Trump voters have been furious and frightened for years." Nobody paid attention to them, certainly not the arrogant elitists of the Establishment, the politicians and media. Remember when Hillary Clinton called the Trump supporters "deplorable?" I know she tried to back away from it, but I think she really meant what she said. She also reflected the views of a lot her supporters, the arrogant elitists.
People were angry at a Presidential administration and entire political party that laughed at them, made fun of their values and morals. No matter how unethical and immoral the Establishment, including Obama, not the common folks, it claimed "moral high ground." And think of the irony of that, of the corruption and dishonesty that have been exposed, the broken promises that were never intended to be kept in the first place--by both parties!
Two things come to mind when thinking about the Establishment's failure to comprehend what happened. Hey, maybe it's willful blindness. A couple of terms back a local man ran for the US House of Representatives. Yes, the fact that he was on the ballot in the first place was a miscue. But he was continually referred to as "a reindeer farmer" who "played Santa Claus at Christmas." What? Are those things bad, really "deplorable?" Are they worse than, say, a career politician who has continually fed at the public trough, coming away with more money than you will ever earn in our entire lifetimes? And think of the arrogance of these name-callers. Maybe I'm not very smart, but I still don't see what's so bad about one being "a reindeer farmer" who "played Santa Clause at Christmas." The man may or may not have been qualified for the House, but how he was characterized by the Establishment is symptomatic of Trump voters' anger and frustration.
The other I noted a couple of weeks ago, when a caller to a local radio show responded to requests for view of Trump's Inaugural Address. He said he "choked up" at the speech, only to be met with chuckles from the radio hosts. Then he blurted, probably before anyone could hang up on him!, "Hey, I don't have a cushy job making the big bucks like you two......" Yep. In a nutshell, those two episodes explain the Trump voters and the failure of the arrogant elitists to understand what happened, not only in November, but the entire nomination and election campaigns.
I wonder if they will ever "get it."
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Higher Ed, Part 2
I am concerned with "critical thinking." It's the phrase I dislike; it's an education-type term. I approve of the concept. I think our college courses at Amherst, "Problems of Inquiry," introductory courses of sorts, addressed this. They were interesting, very much so, but unlike anything I had experienced in college. And they weren't easy! For instance, Problems of Inquiry Social Studies (PISS?), studied totalitarianism of the 20th Century by comparing Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia/Soviet Union. We had a dozen books (I remember counting.) and a number of other monographs to read. Examination of the topic was made through the eyes of history, economics (a Marxian view), psychology, political science, etc. There were a lot of papers, 3 to 5 pages, one due each Monday. Mondays were lecture days, while Wednesdays and Fridays were seminars of about 10 students.
I wonder, though, if such courses, which actually engage in critical thinking fit in with the "safe spaces" today's campuses promote. These courses, which challenge one's thoughts, might be out of place. Maybe; maybe not.
Another thing that is troublesome, too, is the dearth of apparent concern over knowledge. It seems facts, actually knowing things, are out of style. But how is one to thing critically without knowing something? I would think that knowledge is the basis for this. Or are we still in "feelings" mode?
Let's return to "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Back in another lifetime, I had very few things on my classroom bulletin boards. I tended to just take down and put up the same stuff from year to year. One was a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Another was an ad, a fake one that looked very real, for "Vegie Pops," popsicles that had flavors such as "peas," "onions," "carrots," etc. Yummy. Maybe my favorite was the one asking "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
I have always been somewhat disturbed that more and more, a college education is seen mostly as a step to getting a job, a quality job that pays a lot. Even students, as well as the universities themselves, see the primary goal of education as procuring "good-paying jobs." I would think, though, that a quality education would prepare a student for any job. Some of my college mates exemplified this. One majored in fine arts, his senior thesis a sculpting. He went to medical school. Another psychology major ended up managing literally millions of dollars of properties for various companies over his career. A math major became a college athletic director. And so on. There's nothing wrong, nothing at all, at preparing a student for the marketplace of careers. I don't think a basic, but strong, liberal arts curriculum precludes that; no, it doesn't. Yet so many, esp the corporate-types and even many politicians, decry such degrees in liberal arts as wasteful, having little value in that they don't prepare students for jobs. (That's one reason the corporate-types have favored the Common Core. They have the schools do their work of training employees. And, of course, a multi-billion dollar industry to supply Common Core curricula has emerged.)
In the same vein as viewing students as customers/clients, schools compete for customers/clients, er, students. No doubt they have always done this. But prior to recent decades, the selling points were strong academic standards, different programs, etc. (I won't stray into the business of college sports.) Such competition might still be based, at least somewhat, on academic excellence. But listen to or read the advertising--yes, colleges are now spending money on ads. I suppose these are all in the name of survival. Students find schools touting their dorms or food. But mostly I find grating the ease of requirements. I still am not sold on the increasing number of online courses. I've had one who teaches them tell me, when I asked about their rigor in comparison to traditional courses, "Oh, lord no!" Maybe; maybe not. Does even a cursory examination of this not result in the relative ease of online courses? Don't some ads even show students still in their pajamas going to class, in their rooms on the computers? And what about the boasts of colleges that students can satisfy four-year degree requirements in one year? How rigorous can those programs be?
This leads us full circle. Is a college degree today the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago? The costs of a college degree, I think it's a relevant question.
I wonder, though, if such courses, which actually engage in critical thinking fit in with the "safe spaces" today's campuses promote. These courses, which challenge one's thoughts, might be out of place. Maybe; maybe not.
Another thing that is troublesome, too, is the dearth of apparent concern over knowledge. It seems facts, actually knowing things, are out of style. But how is one to thing critically without knowing something? I would think that knowledge is the basis for this. Or are we still in "feelings" mode?
Let's return to "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Back in another lifetime, I had very few things on my classroom bulletin boards. I tended to just take down and put up the same stuff from year to year. One was a quotation from Mark Twain, "In the first place God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Another was an ad, a fake one that looked very real, for "Vegie Pops," popsicles that had flavors such as "peas," "onions," "carrots," etc. Yummy. Maybe my favorite was the one asking "Is love of learning no longer enough?"
I have always been somewhat disturbed that more and more, a college education is seen mostly as a step to getting a job, a quality job that pays a lot. Even students, as well as the universities themselves, see the primary goal of education as procuring "good-paying jobs." I would think, though, that a quality education would prepare a student for any job. Some of my college mates exemplified this. One majored in fine arts, his senior thesis a sculpting. He went to medical school. Another psychology major ended up managing literally millions of dollars of properties for various companies over his career. A math major became a college athletic director. And so on. There's nothing wrong, nothing at all, at preparing a student for the marketplace of careers. I don't think a basic, but strong, liberal arts curriculum precludes that; no, it doesn't. Yet so many, esp the corporate-types and even many politicians, decry such degrees in liberal arts as wasteful, having little value in that they don't prepare students for jobs. (That's one reason the corporate-types have favored the Common Core. They have the schools do their work of training employees. And, of course, a multi-billion dollar industry to supply Common Core curricula has emerged.)
In the same vein as viewing students as customers/clients, schools compete for customers/clients, er, students. No doubt they have always done this. But prior to recent decades, the selling points were strong academic standards, different programs, etc. (I won't stray into the business of college sports.) Such competition might still be based, at least somewhat, on academic excellence. But listen to or read the advertising--yes, colleges are now spending money on ads. I suppose these are all in the name of survival. Students find schools touting their dorms or food. But mostly I find grating the ease of requirements. I still am not sold on the increasing number of online courses. I've had one who teaches them tell me, when I asked about their rigor in comparison to traditional courses, "Oh, lord no!" Maybe; maybe not. Does even a cursory examination of this not result in the relative ease of online courses? Don't some ads even show students still in their pajamas going to class, in their rooms on the computers? And what about the boasts of colleges that students can satisfy four-year degree requirements in one year? How rigorous can those programs be?
This leads us full circle. Is a college degree today the equivalent of a high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago? The costs of a college degree, I think it's a relevant question.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Higher Education
Before the main topic, I heard these two on the radio this week. One was an ad for one of those new drugs on the market. It concluded with a warning about "possible side effects." And it added, "If you experience death or severe pain immediately call......" I'm waiting to hear that commercial again to see if I heard it right.
On a local radio show, a guest was berating the governor for his role in the Flint water crisis. The host, a toady for the governor, tried to defend him. Boy, the guest just then ripped the host to shreds, using the governor's own admissions for ammunition. It was great to hear!
A couple of weeks ago I read an article that said the lifetime income gap between workers with high school diplomas and college degrees is the widest it's ever been. I'm somewhat surprised. The article came at about the same time I was finished a book on higher education, which the book claims is "academically adrift."
I've wondered, but have no concrete proof, that a college education of today is the equivalent of a high school education--and the diplomas and degrees associated with each--of four or five decades ago. I suspect that it is..
I really don't think my classes are burdensome with the quantity of work. The reading isn't particularly heavy. I give no term-paper length assignments. In my 15 week courses, I usually assign 9 or 10 papers, one every week and a half or so (accounting for the first and last weeks). Some aren't very difficult, e.g., the maps. I know I probably shouldn't assign maps, but I am concerned about how little students know about places, where they are, how their geographical relationships are relevant and causative, and so on. Most of the assignments are about three-quarters of a page to a page in length. So I make no claims of burden when it comes to the amount of work. I do think, though, that I demand quite a bit of quality. In my usual classes of 30 to 37, rarely are there more than a handful, 3 or 4, of As. Usually, my individual class GPAs are a few ticks under 2.0/C. I demand proper spelling, the use of complete sentences and correct punctuation, etc. and grade for those, although they do not carry the most weight; content does. With all of that in mind......
For the most part, today, I don't think most colleges demand much of students; that is, they don't have to work very hard to get good grades. I'd guess most students don't prioritize their academic effort. Studying, at least hard and a lot, is not the primary focus of students. Oh, I make no "back when I was a kid" claims here. I, no doubt, was the same. Other things, at least to me, be they my athletics or social life, were more important than my studies. The difference, I think, was that my professors made me give the effort I wasn't likely to give on my own. They pushed me. The results might not have shown up at Amherst for me, but they certainly did later on at the three graduate universities I attended.
Many (most?) institutions confer degrees based upon credentials that do not reflect substantive scholarly or, at least, academic achievement. That is, they award "fake degrees."
In that light, this book holds that fewer and fewer professors are devoted to teaching. They don't see their primary job as teaching. Research and publication are often more in focus. And schools, which profess to emphasize teaching (and, therefore, learning), speak out of both sides of their mouths as they pressure professors to do research, to "publish or perish." They emphasize those to gain tenure, to move up the teaching ladders (from lecturer to assistant professor to associate professor to full professor). More and better teaching is not often rewarded; success or failure in other areas of academia is met with significant rewards or penalties.
At a certain point all teachers are compensated equally--except for what is published or comes from research. Hmmm...... Good teaching and bad teaching is rewarded the same. The lazy teacher gets the same pay as the one who, well, is still revising and reorganizing classes after 46 years. I know, I know. How do we identify "good" from "bad?" Sometimes it's easy, very easy. Other times it's quite difficult.
There are some professors who are quoted in this book. One said, "I have learned that people who call the shots," administrators, "do not value teaching." Should these people, then, be the ones to determine "good" from "bad" teachers, hence, pay? Another added, citing "messages...about being a teacher? It's really settling for a lesser thing." It is college, which I suspect is true for many others, What is the saying, "Those who can do; those who can't teach." (No, I don't believe it. I'm just citing an old adage.) "Learning is peripheral." Yet the degrees are still awarded.
For years I have enjoyed this, "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Of course it isn't. And I don't presume students, like me once, will buy into that--at least not yet. The goal, I think, is for professors to emphasize that, over and over, in their courses, in their assignments, etc., so that some day this will "click." Students, long past their student days, will finally "get it."
It is disturbing to read that some universities at least partially base tenure and other upward movement on student satisfaction surveys. At some schools, those are the primary measure. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this would inevitably lead: entertainment vs. actual teaching (although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, not necessarily), lighter work loads, and better grades. What better ways to make students happy? And, of course, this is a way to determine "good" and "bad" teachers, hence more or less compensation. Another major problem with that is that it sometimes takes a while, years in fact, for education "to click," for students "to get it." I know it did for me, about 5 or 6 years. I suspect I am not alone or unique in that.
Much of that stems from the fact that universities, no matter their public claims, view students as, well, consumers or clients. If the consumers aren't happy......
As to the commitment of colleges and universities to teaching and, therefore, learning, this book notes that in the year 2000, almost half (47%) were not faculty, that is, not involved in direct teaching. And according to many studies the number of administrators at colleges has increased by about one-third and other "support personnel" by half. I see that frequently, with announcements of the creation of a new this administrator or that administrator. And, let it be known, it's not just the colleges and universities that are doing this. It has permeated all of education.
To be continued......maybe.
On a local radio show, a guest was berating the governor for his role in the Flint water crisis. The host, a toady for the governor, tried to defend him. Boy, the guest just then ripped the host to shreds, using the governor's own admissions for ammunition. It was great to hear!
A couple of weeks ago I read an article that said the lifetime income gap between workers with high school diplomas and college degrees is the widest it's ever been. I'm somewhat surprised. The article came at about the same time I was finished a book on higher education, which the book claims is "academically adrift."
I've wondered, but have no concrete proof, that a college education of today is the equivalent of a high school education--and the diplomas and degrees associated with each--of four or five decades ago. I suspect that it is..
I really don't think my classes are burdensome with the quantity of work. The reading isn't particularly heavy. I give no term-paper length assignments. In my 15 week courses, I usually assign 9 or 10 papers, one every week and a half or so (accounting for the first and last weeks). Some aren't very difficult, e.g., the maps. I know I probably shouldn't assign maps, but I am concerned about how little students know about places, where they are, how their geographical relationships are relevant and causative, and so on. Most of the assignments are about three-quarters of a page to a page in length. So I make no claims of burden when it comes to the amount of work. I do think, though, that I demand quite a bit of quality. In my usual classes of 30 to 37, rarely are there more than a handful, 3 or 4, of As. Usually, my individual class GPAs are a few ticks under 2.0/C. I demand proper spelling, the use of complete sentences and correct punctuation, etc. and grade for those, although they do not carry the most weight; content does. With all of that in mind......
For the most part, today, I don't think most colleges demand much of students; that is, they don't have to work very hard to get good grades. I'd guess most students don't prioritize their academic effort. Studying, at least hard and a lot, is not the primary focus of students. Oh, I make no "back when I was a kid" claims here. I, no doubt, was the same. Other things, at least to me, be they my athletics or social life, were more important than my studies. The difference, I think, was that my professors made me give the effort I wasn't likely to give on my own. They pushed me. The results might not have shown up at Amherst for me, but they certainly did later on at the three graduate universities I attended.
Many (most?) institutions confer degrees based upon credentials that do not reflect substantive scholarly or, at least, academic achievement. That is, they award "fake degrees."
In that light, this book holds that fewer and fewer professors are devoted to teaching. They don't see their primary job as teaching. Research and publication are often more in focus. And schools, which profess to emphasize teaching (and, therefore, learning), speak out of both sides of their mouths as they pressure professors to do research, to "publish or perish." They emphasize those to gain tenure, to move up the teaching ladders (from lecturer to assistant professor to associate professor to full professor). More and better teaching is not often rewarded; success or failure in other areas of academia is met with significant rewards or penalties.
At a certain point all teachers are compensated equally--except for what is published or comes from research. Hmmm...... Good teaching and bad teaching is rewarded the same. The lazy teacher gets the same pay as the one who, well, is still revising and reorganizing classes after 46 years. I know, I know. How do we identify "good" from "bad?" Sometimes it's easy, very easy. Other times it's quite difficult.
There are some professors who are quoted in this book. One said, "I have learned that people who call the shots," administrators, "do not value teaching." Should these people, then, be the ones to determine "good" from "bad" teachers, hence, pay? Another added, citing "messages...about being a teacher? It's really settling for a lesser thing." It is college, which I suspect is true for many others, What is the saying, "Those who can do; those who can't teach." (No, I don't believe it. I'm just citing an old adage.) "Learning is peripheral." Yet the degrees are still awarded.
For years I have enjoyed this, "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Of course it isn't. And I don't presume students, like me once, will buy into that--at least not yet. The goal, I think, is for professors to emphasize that, over and over, in their courses, in their assignments, etc., so that some day this will "click." Students, long past their student days, will finally "get it."
It is disturbing to read that some universities at least partially base tenure and other upward movement on student satisfaction surveys. At some schools, those are the primary measure. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this would inevitably lead: entertainment vs. actual teaching (although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, not necessarily), lighter work loads, and better grades. What better ways to make students happy? And, of course, this is a way to determine "good" and "bad" teachers, hence more or less compensation. Another major problem with that is that it sometimes takes a while, years in fact, for education "to click," for students "to get it." I know it did for me, about 5 or 6 years. I suspect I am not alone or unique in that.
Much of that stems from the fact that universities, no matter their public claims, view students as, well, consumers or clients. If the consumers aren't happy......
As to the commitment of colleges and universities to teaching and, therefore, learning, this book notes that in the year 2000, almost half (47%) were not faculty, that is, not involved in direct teaching. And according to many studies the number of administrators at colleges has increased by about one-third and other "support personnel" by half. I see that frequently, with announcements of the creation of a new this administrator or that administrator. And, let it be known, it's not just the colleges and universities that are doing this. It has permeated all of education.
To be continued......maybe.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Hmmm......
I always have a lot of questions. I don't always or even often have the answers.
Why, for instance, out on my run this AM, from out of nowhere, did the name "Doug Finsterwald" come into mind? It was followed by "Cary Middlecoff." These guys were golfers back in the '50s. I wasn't a golf fan then (nor now), but I knew and apparently still know the names. Now, why did these names crop up? When I thought "Gene Littler," I forced myself to stop thinking......
I went to donate blood and what's happened far more often than not in the past 5 or 6 years occurred again. I walked in and said, "I'm here to donate." "Do you have an appointment?" "No, I don't." (I don't make appointments because of my hectic schedule; I often don't know what I'm doing--in more ways that one!) "Then I'm sorry," the worker politely said, "but we can't take you today." I looked around, at the empty chairs (The drive was open for another hour or so.) in front of me. Nobody was waiting. I saw five or six empty cots/beds, nobody donating on them. Hmmm...... "OK, thanks," and I walked out and returned home.
As I noted, this has happened frequently, but just over the past five or six years. I understand if others have appointments and there are waiting lines, but almost always there are no people in front of me, no people waiting, and there are empty cots. It's not just one place, but four or five places I've tried. I know the workers are volunteers and are only doing what they've been told to do, but who is telling them that?
What is particularly upsetting is that I get at least five or six phone calls a week asking me to donate because "There's a critical shortage of your blood type." I must get an equal number of e-mails, too, urging me to donate "to save up to three lives with one pint of blood." Hmmm...... Perhaps the "shortage" isn't so "critical?" I have addressed this to phone callers, who again are likely volunteers who can't really answer my questions or effectuate change, and in e-mails to the Red Cross. Still, no change in this policy.
Why are some people left out of the Baseball Hall of Fame? One sportswriter this AM opined on the possible nominees for 2017, the newly eligible names and those holdovers from recent years who've not yet gained enough votes. I can't really argue one way or the other on many of the players, since I don't know much about them. But, esp considering some who've made it in recent years, it's a mystery as to who others haven't. I am thinking of Alan Trammell, Ted Simmons, and Thurman Munson as definites. Strong candidates, but maybe not locks include Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris. Can it really be, as some have suggested, that where players play has an influence? Does playing in a major market play a role? If so, it shouldn't. Don't take my word for these players' merit; as Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up."
Why, for instance, out on my run this AM, from out of nowhere, did the name "Doug Finsterwald" come into mind? It was followed by "Cary Middlecoff." These guys were golfers back in the '50s. I wasn't a golf fan then (nor now), but I knew and apparently still know the names. Now, why did these names crop up? When I thought "Gene Littler," I forced myself to stop thinking......
I went to donate blood and what's happened far more often than not in the past 5 or 6 years occurred again. I walked in and said, "I'm here to donate." "Do you have an appointment?" "No, I don't." (I don't make appointments because of my hectic schedule; I often don't know what I'm doing--in more ways that one!) "Then I'm sorry," the worker politely said, "but we can't take you today." I looked around, at the empty chairs (The drive was open for another hour or so.) in front of me. Nobody was waiting. I saw five or six empty cots/beds, nobody donating on them. Hmmm...... "OK, thanks," and I walked out and returned home.
As I noted, this has happened frequently, but just over the past five or six years. I understand if others have appointments and there are waiting lines, but almost always there are no people in front of me, no people waiting, and there are empty cots. It's not just one place, but four or five places I've tried. I know the workers are volunteers and are only doing what they've been told to do, but who is telling them that?
What is particularly upsetting is that I get at least five or six phone calls a week asking me to donate because "There's a critical shortage of your blood type." I must get an equal number of e-mails, too, urging me to donate "to save up to three lives with one pint of blood." Hmmm...... Perhaps the "shortage" isn't so "critical?" I have addressed this to phone callers, who again are likely volunteers who can't really answer my questions or effectuate change, and in e-mails to the Red Cross. Still, no change in this policy.
Why are some people left out of the Baseball Hall of Fame? One sportswriter this AM opined on the possible nominees for 2017, the newly eligible names and those holdovers from recent years who've not yet gained enough votes. I can't really argue one way or the other on many of the players, since I don't know much about them. But, esp considering some who've made it in recent years, it's a mystery as to who others haven't. I am thinking of Alan Trammell, Ted Simmons, and Thurman Munson as definites. Strong candidates, but maybe not locks include Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris. Can it really be, as some have suggested, that where players play has an influence? Does playing in a major market play a role? If so, it shouldn't. Don't take my word for these players' merit; as Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up."
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Post Inauguration Thoughts
I still think it's a bad dream, a nightmare, but I will gladly say I'm wrong if I'm wrong on the next four years. It would be great if I have to make such an admission.
It made my night to hear a radio show caller. The host was asking folks to call in for their comments and impressions of the Inaugural Address. After the obligatory rants and raves of the anti-Trumpers, a guy called in saying, "I got choked up." The host and his sidekick laughed, the snickering evident. I wonder if they laughed at that national newsman who said of Obama's election, "I felt a trickle going up and down my leg?" Why do I doubt that? Anyway, this caller wasn't done and continued, after hearing the chuckles. "Hey, not everybody has a cushy job making the big bucks like you guys do. Some of us have to work for a living. You are the reason we voted for Trump." Well, the host and sidekick backed off a little, trying to worm their way out of it by asking for "specifics" of the address that "choked up" the caller. But the damage was done.
The arrogant elitists don't get it, don't get it at all. I'll repeat what I said months ago. It wasn't about Trump, although it is now. It was about anyone who wasn't the Establishment, anyone who looked like he/she would no longer ignore Middle America.
An op-ed in today's Detroit News confirmed that. (I sometimes wonder who reads this blog; the number is a whole lot more than I figure.) The editors talked about Trump delivering his speech "to the bars, barns and bowling alleys of America, speaking to the people who have felt so long ignored." Later, they added, "...the discontent and disconnect felt by the country's middle and their weariness with the elitists who control their fate yet have no clue about how they live." (Now I'm convinced a lot more folks read my blog!) "They may not understand what's he's [Trump] is talking about on the coasts, but they sure do in the flyover country."
Trump himself said, "Today we are transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the people." To which the editors wrote, "A few of those on the steps (the elitists on the steps of the Capitol) seemed to be looking around for the guillotines." Now that's a great line--as good as that radio caller.
And both the newspaper and online sources cited the "protests" and "demonstrations." There were photographs, esp a vivid one of a burning limousine. First, let's call these people what they are, felons. Then let's identify them, round them up (more than 200 already arrested; let's not let them off of the hook), prosecute them, and both lock them up and make them pay for the damage they've inflicted. The President probably should stick his nose into what is local law enforcement (although that didn't seem to stop the Obama Administration), perhaps he could apply a little executive pressure......
Hundreds of thousands, mostly women, are marching in protest in DC today. I understand. Trump's language has been caddy/catty. I think there can be serious questions about his treatment of women, although I have no direct proof, only questions. I understand the protests/demonstrations. (Keep them nonviolent!) Yet I still wonder in matters like this where similar protests were before, say, while Bill Clinton was President. Selective anger and protest leads to diminished credibility.
I'm still behind on my ideas on higher education, which I had planned to post a couple of days ago. I think I am too busy for a retired guy! I'll try to get to those later next week.
It made my night to hear a radio show caller. The host was asking folks to call in for their comments and impressions of the Inaugural Address. After the obligatory rants and raves of the anti-Trumpers, a guy called in saying, "I got choked up." The host and his sidekick laughed, the snickering evident. I wonder if they laughed at that national newsman who said of Obama's election, "I felt a trickle going up and down my leg?" Why do I doubt that? Anyway, this caller wasn't done and continued, after hearing the chuckles. "Hey, not everybody has a cushy job making the big bucks like you guys do. Some of us have to work for a living. You are the reason we voted for Trump." Well, the host and sidekick backed off a little, trying to worm their way out of it by asking for "specifics" of the address that "choked up" the caller. But the damage was done.
The arrogant elitists don't get it, don't get it at all. I'll repeat what I said months ago. It wasn't about Trump, although it is now. It was about anyone who wasn't the Establishment, anyone who looked like he/she would no longer ignore Middle America.
An op-ed in today's Detroit News confirmed that. (I sometimes wonder who reads this blog; the number is a whole lot more than I figure.) The editors talked about Trump delivering his speech "to the bars, barns and bowling alleys of America, speaking to the people who have felt so long ignored." Later, they added, "...the discontent and disconnect felt by the country's middle and their weariness with the elitists who control their fate yet have no clue about how they live." (Now I'm convinced a lot more folks read my blog!) "They may not understand what's he's [Trump] is talking about on the coasts, but they sure do in the flyover country."
Trump himself said, "Today we are transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the people." To which the editors wrote, "A few of those on the steps (the elitists on the steps of the Capitol) seemed to be looking around for the guillotines." Now that's a great line--as good as that radio caller.
And both the newspaper and online sources cited the "protests" and "demonstrations." There were photographs, esp a vivid one of a burning limousine. First, let's call these people what they are, felons. Then let's identify them, round them up (more than 200 already arrested; let's not let them off of the hook), prosecute them, and both lock them up and make them pay for the damage they've inflicted. The President probably should stick his nose into what is local law enforcement (although that didn't seem to stop the Obama Administration), perhaps he could apply a little executive pressure......
Hundreds of thousands, mostly women, are marching in protest in DC today. I understand. Trump's language has been caddy/catty. I think there can be serious questions about his treatment of women, although I have no direct proof, only questions. I understand the protests/demonstrations. (Keep them nonviolent!) Yet I still wonder in matters like this where similar protests were before, say, while Bill Clinton was President. Selective anger and protest leads to diminished credibility.
I'm still behind on my ideas on higher education, which I had planned to post a couple of days ago. I think I am too busy for a retired guy! I'll try to get to those later next week.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Inauguration Day
How is it correctly pronounced, "inaugyooration" or "inaugeration?" I've heard both and even one reporter, in the same report, say "inaugerate" and the "unaugyooration." I think I say "inaugyooration," but the more I think about it, self-consciously, I am not so sure. Hmmm......
Regardless, I have some thoughts on this Jan 20. I wonder how many folks know that the original Inauguration Day was Mar 4, so designated by the Constitution. It was only changed to Jan 20 with the passage of the 20th Amendment, ratified in '33. George Washington didn't take the oath of office until the end of April, getting a late start to NYC (then the capital) and also being held up on the way there by towns wanting to honor him with festivities. In 1849, Mar 4 fell on a Sun, so the pious Zachary Taylor wasn't sworn in until Mon, to keep the Sabbath holy. Outgoing Pres James Polk's term expired at noon on the 4th; that has led to some folks calling David Rice Atchison, the Sen Pres Pro-Tem at the time, a President for 24 hours. Actually, I think his term as US Sen had also expired and wasn't sworn in until Mar 5, too. Most historians and Atchison himself pooh-poohed the idea. A couple of other Presidents were sworn in on the 5th, at least publicly, but had taken the oath in private ceremonies on the 4th. The first President to be sworn in on Jan 20 was FDR. It was so cold that day the President sat on a hot water bottle (or maybe it an electric heating pad?) to keep his bejabbers warm! The night before JFK's Inauguration Day, DC was blanketed by a heavy show, 11-12 inches of the white stuff. Of course, Washington drivers are notorious for not being able to handle any snow, but almost a foot of it? Many of them left their cars, stranded, on Pennsylvania Ave, the parade route, and had to be towed before festivities began. The army had to be called out to help clear the route in time.
The first President to be sworn in in Washington, DC was Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Actually, it was nip and tuck whether he'd make it in time. The Electoral vote was a tie between TJ and Aaron Burr, the designated VP candidate of the Republican Party. But he refused to concede the Presidency to Jefferson (and I'm not sure that was Constitutionally viable anyway) and the US House was called upon to select the President. With so many Federalists (the opposition party) disliking Jefferson, only on the 36th ballot, with some helpful persuasion of the anti-Jefferson Alexander Hamilton, did the House finally settle on TJ over Burr.
Having Donald Trump as President of the US is, to me, an embarrassment. Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I'd also be embarrassed to have had Clinton as President. I was embarrassed to have her husband, after "L'Affaire Lewinsky," be the President. For that matter if I were a resident of Minnesota, I'd have the same embarrassed feeling to have Al Franken as one of my two US Senators.
I'm not embarrassed that W. Bush or Obama were Presidents. I was very disappointed in both and think both of them were bad Presidents, but that's different from being embarrassed.
I heard a great term for the Inaugural festivity boycotters today; "morons" they were called. I think, without much doubt, the boycotters are trying to draw attention to themselves more than anything. Oh, they might not admit it, but I think it's "Hey, look how cool I am! I'm boycotting the Trump Inauguration." Maybe not, but I think so. Can you imagine the names any boycotters would have been called in '12? Note I didn't include '08, for a reason. Obama, like Trump should be now, should have been given a chance. He was given that chance and turned into a lousy President, doing a lot of harmful things. So, why not a boycott to protest Obamacare, the disastrous foreign policy, the divisive politics he fostered? Nope, you know the names......
As much as I dislike Trump, a man much wiser than I told me something the other day. He noted some folks were hoping Trump would fail, hoping that the country would be harmed because of Trump's policies. "Why in the world," he said (or something like that), "would anyone wish the country to get worse?" If Trump can make the country better (I'll give him his chance, but I have strong doubts; I'm very willing to admit I was wrong if......), who wouldn't want that? Well, I think we all know some folks who wouldn't.
Happy Inauguration Day! Let's hope for the very best......
Regardless, I have some thoughts on this Jan 20. I wonder how many folks know that the original Inauguration Day was Mar 4, so designated by the Constitution. It was only changed to Jan 20 with the passage of the 20th Amendment, ratified in '33. George Washington didn't take the oath of office until the end of April, getting a late start to NYC (then the capital) and also being held up on the way there by towns wanting to honor him with festivities. In 1849, Mar 4 fell on a Sun, so the pious Zachary Taylor wasn't sworn in until Mon, to keep the Sabbath holy. Outgoing Pres James Polk's term expired at noon on the 4th; that has led to some folks calling David Rice Atchison, the Sen Pres Pro-Tem at the time, a President for 24 hours. Actually, I think his term as US Sen had also expired and wasn't sworn in until Mar 5, too. Most historians and Atchison himself pooh-poohed the idea. A couple of other Presidents were sworn in on the 5th, at least publicly, but had taken the oath in private ceremonies on the 4th. The first President to be sworn in on Jan 20 was FDR. It was so cold that day the President sat on a hot water bottle (or maybe it an electric heating pad?) to keep his bejabbers warm! The night before JFK's Inauguration Day, DC was blanketed by a heavy show, 11-12 inches of the white stuff. Of course, Washington drivers are notorious for not being able to handle any snow, but almost a foot of it? Many of them left their cars, stranded, on Pennsylvania Ave, the parade route, and had to be towed before festivities began. The army had to be called out to help clear the route in time.
The first President to be sworn in in Washington, DC was Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Actually, it was nip and tuck whether he'd make it in time. The Electoral vote was a tie between TJ and Aaron Burr, the designated VP candidate of the Republican Party. But he refused to concede the Presidency to Jefferson (and I'm not sure that was Constitutionally viable anyway) and the US House was called upon to select the President. With so many Federalists (the opposition party) disliking Jefferson, only on the 36th ballot, with some helpful persuasion of the anti-Jefferson Alexander Hamilton, did the House finally settle on TJ over Burr.
Having Donald Trump as President of the US is, to me, an embarrassment. Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I'd also be embarrassed to have had Clinton as President. I was embarrassed to have her husband, after "L'Affaire Lewinsky," be the President. For that matter if I were a resident of Minnesota, I'd have the same embarrassed feeling to have Al Franken as one of my two US Senators.
I'm not embarrassed that W. Bush or Obama were Presidents. I was very disappointed in both and think both of them were bad Presidents, but that's different from being embarrassed.
I heard a great term for the Inaugural festivity boycotters today; "morons" they were called. I think, without much doubt, the boycotters are trying to draw attention to themselves more than anything. Oh, they might not admit it, but I think it's "Hey, look how cool I am! I'm boycotting the Trump Inauguration." Maybe not, but I think so. Can you imagine the names any boycotters would have been called in '12? Note I didn't include '08, for a reason. Obama, like Trump should be now, should have been given a chance. He was given that chance and turned into a lousy President, doing a lot of harmful things. So, why not a boycott to protest Obamacare, the disastrous foreign policy, the divisive politics he fostered? Nope, you know the names......
As much as I dislike Trump, a man much wiser than I told me something the other day. He noted some folks were hoping Trump would fail, hoping that the country would be harmed because of Trump's policies. "Why in the world," he said (or something like that), "would anyone wish the country to get worse?" If Trump can make the country better (I'll give him his chance, but I have strong doubts; I'm very willing to admit I was wrong if......), who wouldn't want that? Well, I think we all know some folks who wouldn't.
Happy Inauguration Day! Let's hope for the very best......
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Health Care
I know I've ranted and raved about the ridiculous increases we've had to pay in our health insurance since Obamacare was enacted. (I refuse to call it "The Affordable......because it isn't affordable any longer for millions of Americans.) Besides the increased premiums, our coverage is worse. We had a new plan that my primary physician wouldn't accept. We are considering consulting a specialist, but are finding a similar problem, a pulmonologist within a reasonable distance who is either approved or will accept our second new plan. Both plans we've had to get since Obamacare went into effect also have increased, far higher, co-pays and deductibles. I guess I'd be willing to say we aren't playing the game properly, but from all the reports, there are millions of others who are in the same boat--far higher premiums with worse coverage.
One thing those who support Obamacare cite is "pre-existing conditions." In fact, many who favor replacing Obamacare are determined to take care of "pre-existing conditions." I guess I have a question about that. What is a "pre-existing condition?" Is it discovering a disease or ailment before purchasing insurance and then buy it to expect the insurance company to pay for it? (Insurance companies should be prohibited from canceling policyholders who contract such diseases and ailments; if premiums have been paid, regardless of the expensive or extensive treatment, insurers should have to pay.) If someone has been too needy, really needed to purchase insurance before contracting a illness or condition, that's likely a special situation that requires special treatment. I'm not heartless.
But I don't think that's what most people mean when they think or say "pre-existing conditions." At least that's not what I hear when I talk to people. It strikes me as illogical to force insurers to cover "pre-existing conditions" if the afflicted just didn't want to purchase insurance. Why, then, can't we use this "pre-existing conditions" for other types of insurance? Why should I buy automobile insurance? Shouldn't I be able to wait if I have an accident and they buy it to have the accident covered? Perhaps a bit eerier, what about life insurance? Why shouldn't Karen wait until I die before purchasing a life insurance policy on me? Wouldn't my death be, in that instance, "pre-existing?"
And, I suppose, we could extend that to other things in life. I guessing Las Vegas wouldn't like it if bets made after a game still had to be paid. Vis a Vis such a late bet, the game itself is "pre-existing," right? OK, maybe that's off the wall, but......
If that's all wrong, I'd like it to be explained to me.
Pretty cool, I thought, as I read the headline in the newspaper the other day. Social Security pay-outs will increase in 2017. Great! Hooray! Then came the downer. For most SS recipients, the increases will be offset by increases in Medicare payments. In fact, many SS recipients will see smaller checks due to the Medicare increases. Boy, they always get us, don't they?
I'm not in favor of Betsy DeVos as the head of the Dept of Ed. There are a lot of reasons and I think I've noted some. I don't like her blanket criticism of teachers' unions, her desire to get rid of them. It smacks of elitism and an ignorance of the role of teachers' unions. (Of course I recognize the bad things that unions have done, such as protecting lousy teachers. Rather, they don't protect lousy teachders; they merely make it harder to get rid of them.) Her support for the Common Core is also troublesome. That she prefers allowing states to enact CC rather than making it a national imperative doesn't absolve her from supporting something detrimental to education. Maybe her support is to be expected, in that much of CC is to benefit, not education, but businesses. I hope someone on the Senate Committee on Education, at her confirmation hearings, asks her if her "schools of choice," "voucher system," and "charter schools" include all students, including poor and disruptive students, those with learning disabilities, etc. Maybe they do, but I won't believe it until I hear it and, if needed, see it.
But my original point is this. Some have argued that she deserves confirmation by the Senate merely because Trump has appointed/nominated her and he has the right to appoint/nominate Cabinet members. I'd like to see how many who take that position opposed, say, Loretta Lynch, when nominated as Attorney-General by Obama. Would they say, "Oh, that was different," as if that's a valid argument/rationale? Even more significant, if Trump has the right, the US Senate also has a right, to confirm or not confirm/reject his appointees/nominees.
One thing those who support Obamacare cite is "pre-existing conditions." In fact, many who favor replacing Obamacare are determined to take care of "pre-existing conditions." I guess I have a question about that. What is a "pre-existing condition?" Is it discovering a disease or ailment before purchasing insurance and then buy it to expect the insurance company to pay for it? (Insurance companies should be prohibited from canceling policyholders who contract such diseases and ailments; if premiums have been paid, regardless of the expensive or extensive treatment, insurers should have to pay.) If someone has been too needy, really needed to purchase insurance before contracting a illness or condition, that's likely a special situation that requires special treatment. I'm not heartless.
But I don't think that's what most people mean when they think or say "pre-existing conditions." At least that's not what I hear when I talk to people. It strikes me as illogical to force insurers to cover "pre-existing conditions" if the afflicted just didn't want to purchase insurance. Why, then, can't we use this "pre-existing conditions" for other types of insurance? Why should I buy automobile insurance? Shouldn't I be able to wait if I have an accident and they buy it to have the accident covered? Perhaps a bit eerier, what about life insurance? Why shouldn't Karen wait until I die before purchasing a life insurance policy on me? Wouldn't my death be, in that instance, "pre-existing?"
And, I suppose, we could extend that to other things in life. I guessing Las Vegas wouldn't like it if bets made after a game still had to be paid. Vis a Vis such a late bet, the game itself is "pre-existing," right? OK, maybe that's off the wall, but......
If that's all wrong, I'd like it to be explained to me.
Pretty cool, I thought, as I read the headline in the newspaper the other day. Social Security pay-outs will increase in 2017. Great! Hooray! Then came the downer. For most SS recipients, the increases will be offset by increases in Medicare payments. In fact, many SS recipients will see smaller checks due to the Medicare increases. Boy, they always get us, don't they?
I'm not in favor of Betsy DeVos as the head of the Dept of Ed. There are a lot of reasons and I think I've noted some. I don't like her blanket criticism of teachers' unions, her desire to get rid of them. It smacks of elitism and an ignorance of the role of teachers' unions. (Of course I recognize the bad things that unions have done, such as protecting lousy teachers. Rather, they don't protect lousy teachders; they merely make it harder to get rid of them.) Her support for the Common Core is also troublesome. That she prefers allowing states to enact CC rather than making it a national imperative doesn't absolve her from supporting something detrimental to education. Maybe her support is to be expected, in that much of CC is to benefit, not education, but businesses. I hope someone on the Senate Committee on Education, at her confirmation hearings, asks her if her "schools of choice," "voucher system," and "charter schools" include all students, including poor and disruptive students, those with learning disabilities, etc. Maybe they do, but I won't believe it until I hear it and, if needed, see it.
But my original point is this. Some have argued that she deserves confirmation by the Senate merely because Trump has appointed/nominated her and he has the right to appoint/nominate Cabinet members. I'd like to see how many who take that position opposed, say, Loretta Lynch, when nominated as Attorney-General by Obama. Would they say, "Oh, that was different," as if that's a valid argument/rationale? Even more significant, if Trump has the right, the US Senate also has a right, to confirm or not confirm/reject his appointees/nominees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
