I am almost, not quite, but almost an absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression/speech. To be sure, protections should guard us from government restrictions and mostly should include political speech. There are, in our personal lives, much more opportunities for limitations, including slander and libel, pornography, etc. But that we can say or write something doesn't mean we should say or write it.
The shootings of the Republican party ballplayers can serve as a backdrop. It appears they were targeted solely because they are Republicans. The blame for the shooting remains with the shooter, nobody else. I know some folks are going to jump all over the liberals/Democrats, esp the Trump haters, saying the vitriol of their writing and speech encouraged and led to the shootings. Not me.
More than once, other shootings have been blamed by the Left on the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, and others. Their rhetoric spawned the hatred that inspired (?) the shootings. Nope......
Just because one side is wrong and uses these episodes for political capital doesn't make it right. The temptation is to give it right back to them, but that temptation is wrong. Again, the one responsible for the wounded Republicans lies with the shooter.
That said, the rights of free expression and free speech come with responsibilities. Where are the condemnations of what we see going on right now? OK, there was some blowback against that comedienne (I don't know her name, having never heard of her.) who held up an effigy of Don Trump's head--the result of beheading. But unless I'm mistaken, Palin and the Tea Partiers were targeted much more for violence that occurred by other deranged individuals.
And what's with that Shakespeare in the Park in Central Park, NYC? I heard the reproduction of Julius Caesar has a Trump look-alike being stabbed by the Roman Senators. It bothers me that someone actually considers that art, but freedoms...... What is most disturbing is that the audience actually cheered, at least according to reports. Even if that isn't so, that they didn't cheer (I don't know for certain.), why didn't the crowd hoot and boo or, better yet, walk out? Where is our sense of decency??????
So, the vitriol spewed by one side leads to shootings, but the vitriol by the other side gets a free pass? Do I have that right? Rights come with responsibilities. If those exercising their rights don't act responsibly, maybe other citizens should act for them--boycotting, walking out, booing, etc. Is Shakespeare in the Park funded by corporate donations? Again, I don't know. But if it is, where are the withdrawals of donations by those corporations? Oh, they pulled out fast enough in North Carolina and other places when laws were passed that made it legal for, say, adult men to use the same bathrooms as little girls. I guess it's OK to act irresponsibly and to overlook or even condone others' irresponsible actions in some instances, but not others, if those instances are politically correct ones. (Boy, I don't like using that term.)
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Monday, June 5, 2017
The World Turned Upside Down
I've referred to this before. Purportedly the British army, in surrendering to the Americans (and French) under General Washington at Yorktown, played the popular tune, "The World Turned Upside Down." How could the great British army under General Lord Cornwallis lose to the rag-tag army of Washington?
Sometimes that's what I feel like today. According to newspaper reports around here, the ACLU is defending the Detroit-area doctor who performed female genital mutilation on young girls. The ACLU is also opposing efforts in Maine to criminalize FGM. Huh? The rights group bases its opinion on the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause. Yet, the ACLU defends the right to have abortions? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. It's OK to mutilate young girls, but not OK to protect unborn children from death?
Toss in this one, too. Religious freedom grants the right to perform mutilations, but not the right to refuse to allow gay marriages on one's own private property? I, for one, would willingly host any gay or lesbian marriages--if I ran such an establishment and the payment was forthcoming. But many Christians see this as an abrogation of their religion. Why can't these Christians have their freedom of religion like Muslim doctors and parents mutilating their kids?
And unless I'm way out in left field (which might well be likely), what is the big deal about pulling out of the Paris Accords? Americans have, voluntarily I might add, decreased their "carbon footprints," pollution, etc. more than just about any other country. Despite signing the Accords, both India and China, with the two largest populations in the world, haven't taken any real steps in such reductions. What is it, their promise kicks in in 2030? And who believes anything the commies in China say? It seems much ado about nothing. BTW, I'd bet all those protesters of the pull-out either haven't lost their jobs or aren't in danger of losing them due to the Accords. Just a guess......
While the mobs protest Paris, the beat goes on in the cities of the US. Over the weekend, there were more murders in Detroit. Oh, there might be a vigil or two, but where are the protests over killing so many people?
If you've been following some of the stuff coming out of the Ivy League colleges lately, I don't need to explain. I just hope the students and even the professors (!) have been quoted out of context on some of the things they've said. If not, well, the Ivies have lowered their standards a great deal since I was there.
I'm just curious as to how Major League umpires can be so inconsistent on calling balls and strikes? I have seen pitches nowhere close to the plate called strikes and others that take big chunks of the plate called balls. Yesterday, Miguel Cabrera was called out on a pitch about halfway between his feet and knees, yes, his knees, the low point for a strike. Even when the catcher pulled up the pitch about half a foot, the ball was low. I turned off the game...... How can an umpire call out the best hitter in the game on such a terrible pitch? If they can, I don't have to watch.
My US History class this spring is really fun to teach! The class is loaded, with 30-some students. I haven't counted recently, since drops and adds. There's a strong nucleus which asks some very good questions--thoughtful and relevant. Some of the students are even translating what we learned from some events to other events that happened later. The mid-term is tomorrow and I'm betting many of the exams will be good. I doubt any of these students will come to class to take an exam without bringing paper and pen/pencil--as happened several times during the winter term.
Sometimes that's what I feel like today. According to newspaper reports around here, the ACLU is defending the Detroit-area doctor who performed female genital mutilation on young girls. The ACLU is also opposing efforts in Maine to criminalize FGM. Huh? The rights group bases its opinion on the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause. Yet, the ACLU defends the right to have abortions? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. It's OK to mutilate young girls, but not OK to protect unborn children from death?
Toss in this one, too. Religious freedom grants the right to perform mutilations, but not the right to refuse to allow gay marriages on one's own private property? I, for one, would willingly host any gay or lesbian marriages--if I ran such an establishment and the payment was forthcoming. But many Christians see this as an abrogation of their religion. Why can't these Christians have their freedom of religion like Muslim doctors and parents mutilating their kids?
And unless I'm way out in left field (which might well be likely), what is the big deal about pulling out of the Paris Accords? Americans have, voluntarily I might add, decreased their "carbon footprints," pollution, etc. more than just about any other country. Despite signing the Accords, both India and China, with the two largest populations in the world, haven't taken any real steps in such reductions. What is it, their promise kicks in in 2030? And who believes anything the commies in China say? It seems much ado about nothing. BTW, I'd bet all those protesters of the pull-out either haven't lost their jobs or aren't in danger of losing them due to the Accords. Just a guess......
While the mobs protest Paris, the beat goes on in the cities of the US. Over the weekend, there were more murders in Detroit. Oh, there might be a vigil or two, but where are the protests over killing so many people?
If you've been following some of the stuff coming out of the Ivy League colleges lately, I don't need to explain. I just hope the students and even the professors (!) have been quoted out of context on some of the things they've said. If not, well, the Ivies have lowered their standards a great deal since I was there.
I'm just curious as to how Major League umpires can be so inconsistent on calling balls and strikes? I have seen pitches nowhere close to the plate called strikes and others that take big chunks of the plate called balls. Yesterday, Miguel Cabrera was called out on a pitch about halfway between his feet and knees, yes, his knees, the low point for a strike. Even when the catcher pulled up the pitch about half a foot, the ball was low. I turned off the game...... How can an umpire call out the best hitter in the game on such a terrible pitch? If they can, I don't have to watch.
My US History class this spring is really fun to teach! The class is loaded, with 30-some students. I haven't counted recently, since drops and adds. There's a strong nucleus which asks some very good questions--thoughtful and relevant. Some of the students are even translating what we learned from some events to other events that happened later. The mid-term is tomorrow and I'm betting many of the exams will be good. I doubt any of these students will come to class to take an exam without bringing paper and pen/pencil--as happened several times during the winter term.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Education
It sure seems education is in the news more than usual around here. From the Betsy DeVos appointment to teacher pensions, there have been many articles, editorials, op-eds, letters about education, from teachers to school choice to testing.
I was a public school teacher for 33+ years. I have been teaching college history for more than 20 years, at public colleges. I believe in public education. But, and this might surprise folks, I don't oppose charter schools, school choice, vouchers, and the like. I say, "Bring them on!" I don't mind competition. And, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to say otherwise. I went to a private college and I can't imagine receiving a better education elsewhere. One of my two kids was a school of choice student and we sent all three of our grandchildren to schools outside of their attendance area. I do insist upon fairness in comparisons, though. That said...... How to reform education?
First, is education in need of reform? I suppose except for the most diehard, that's a question that has already been answered. Of course it does; there is a lot wrong with schools, public and private. I will, however, focus on the public schools, at least for today. Much of what I will write I've already written and said. Some will scoff at it and some will say I'm all wet. I will admit that much of what I propose will be very difficult to attain, for many reasons. And I also assume nobody will pay any attention.
A problem is that we say one thing and do another. We claim to value education, but we don't show it. For instance, how many colleges and universities award honorary degrees to teachers? Not many that I know. And if by chance some college or university professor is granted such an honorary degree, it's far more likely that the explanation will note what book she has published or what scientific advance he has made. There will be little, if any, mention of the teaching. And yes, my college, which purports to value teaching above all from its faculty, doesn't honor teachers in this way either.
There are too many administrators and too many of them are paid far more than they deserve. I know, I know. "But we need our principals and......" No, we don't. They are not as vital as many folks think. Remember, too, today's administrators are not like the ones of 50 and 60 years ago. Many don't lead, but follow. Many don't garner (or deserve) respect from those who are closely acquainted with what they do or don't do. Many won't believe me. Take a walk down to your local elementary building for several random days. Ask to see, not necessarily talk, to the principal. My guess is that a good portion of the time he or she won't be in the building. At least that's the case around here. So, if the schools run fairly well without principals a good percentage of the time, why do we need them? Or, if that seems a bit harsh, why not combine principals and buildings, say one principal for two buildings? After all, if they aren't there half of the time...... One time, at a staff meeting, our principal told us one of the assistant principals "would be back next week." Overwhelmingly the reaction was, "He was gone?" Few knew he'd been away for two weeks on some exchange program. He wasn't at all missed. Now some might think that is good, that the building ran smoothly without him due to the organization, discipline, etc. the assistant principal had instilled. Some would think wrong!
And there's no reason for administrators to be paid sometimes almost twice as much, if not more, than teachers. I see no reason at all. Around here the excuse has always been, "To attract top administrators we need to pay them top dollar." First of all, that didn't work and I'd submit it's not worked in many places. If it has, it's been pure luck. Second, why doesn't that also apply to attracting "top" teachers? Those in the private sector should think about that one, too.
Get politicians out of education! Oh, they all went to school, so they know all about learning and teaching, don't they? They want testing, testing, and more testing. Well, that's wrong. They, particularly the Republicans, also want to get rid of the teachers' unions. If they think teachers' unions are the primary source of problems in education, they are daft.
Find better teachers. I know that's far easier said than done. I understand. It's often hard to ascertain who is good and who isn't. Not everyone can be a "Miguel Cabrera" of teaching. But schools need and can use the "Andrew Romines," too. There's nothing wrong with that. Identifying good is not as easy as it seems. Test results are a lousy way to determine quality of teaching, esp results from standardized tests created by people three time zones away. There's far more to learning than test results.
To attract better teachers we have to agree to pay them more. We can't take away the few benefits they have. I know people were very upset when teachers had good pensions and health insurances. I wonder how many of those same upset folks would have traded their salaries and benefits for teachers benefits--and salaries. Nah, I don't wonder; I know their answers. I had to laugh at the Lt. Governor of Michigan jumping on the bandwagon for a part-time state legislature. He advocates a 90-day session (18 weeks) and, get this, "pay them what teachers earn." Wait a minute! They'll still work less than half of the time teachers work, but get the same pay? I don't know if that says more about how dismally we pay our teachers or how politicians still want to take care of politicians. As one of my teaching friends has said, esp regarding more and more attempts to take teachers' pensions, "I'm tired of having to beg for my money." I saw a recent article that claimed no teacher who teaches in San Francisco can afford to by a home on the market in that city. Wow! Imagine have a bachelors degree and finding a teaching job that pays about $33,000 a year--that's the starting average around here. I think it's a bit lower state-wide.
A big problem here--and I don't know how to solve it--is that some teachers aren't worth even the measly $33,000.
Get rid of schools of education and student teaching. They are scams that were perpetrated on the public years ago. OK, we need to keep some of the courses offered by the education departments in the colleges and universities, but not many. Perhaps one covering the increasing and detrimental paperwork that is required can be helpful; we can toss in record-keeping, grading, maybe lesson planning, etc. in that course. A specialized course in, say, teaching reading might also be kept. I wonder how many of my Amherst professors took courses from the education departments at their schools. No, I think I have a pretty good idea that the answer is close to "none." Rather than requiring the often useless education courses, let there be competition. Individual seminars could be offered to keep teachers abreast of new and innovative (Are those redundant?) methods, etc. The seminars could come from the private sector or from the colleges and universities to reach out. Teachers and schools/school districts could then determine what is most valuable and important to them.
Instead of student teaching, require a full year of substitute teaching. The scam continues with some colleges now requiring a full year of student teaching; some school districts play along and give more consideration to students with a full year of student teaching. Some not willing to completely abandon student teaching might be appeased with a shorter term of it, say a month. A substitute teaching requirement would do much. It would save some students a year's tuition! That is, they'd have less student debt upon graduation. In fact, instead of paying to teach, they'd be getting paid to teach. At the same time they'd gain valuable experience. Anyone who has substitute taught knows the challenges, esp regarding student behavior. All over the US school districts are facing shortages of substitute teachers; this would also help alleviate that problem.
Here's a final thing to think about. Again, all over the country, there are shortages of teachers in many disciplines, especially math, science, and special education; in some areas the shortages have reached the social studies and English departments. But look around. If your local districts aren't advertising for substitute teachers, bus drivers, playground and other aides, etc., it's probably lucky (or pays a lot higher than surrounding areas). I've never seen an ad or article citing a shortage of administrators. Have you?
I was a public school teacher for 33+ years. I have been teaching college history for more than 20 years, at public colleges. I believe in public education. But, and this might surprise folks, I don't oppose charter schools, school choice, vouchers, and the like. I say, "Bring them on!" I don't mind competition. And, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to say otherwise. I went to a private college and I can't imagine receiving a better education elsewhere. One of my two kids was a school of choice student and we sent all three of our grandchildren to schools outside of their attendance area. I do insist upon fairness in comparisons, though. That said...... How to reform education?
First, is education in need of reform? I suppose except for the most diehard, that's a question that has already been answered. Of course it does; there is a lot wrong with schools, public and private. I will, however, focus on the public schools, at least for today. Much of what I will write I've already written and said. Some will scoff at it and some will say I'm all wet. I will admit that much of what I propose will be very difficult to attain, for many reasons. And I also assume nobody will pay any attention.
A problem is that we say one thing and do another. We claim to value education, but we don't show it. For instance, how many colleges and universities award honorary degrees to teachers? Not many that I know. And if by chance some college or university professor is granted such an honorary degree, it's far more likely that the explanation will note what book she has published or what scientific advance he has made. There will be little, if any, mention of the teaching. And yes, my college, which purports to value teaching above all from its faculty, doesn't honor teachers in this way either.
There are too many administrators and too many of them are paid far more than they deserve. I know, I know. "But we need our principals and......" No, we don't. They are not as vital as many folks think. Remember, too, today's administrators are not like the ones of 50 and 60 years ago. Many don't lead, but follow. Many don't garner (or deserve) respect from those who are closely acquainted with what they do or don't do. Many won't believe me. Take a walk down to your local elementary building for several random days. Ask to see, not necessarily talk, to the principal. My guess is that a good portion of the time he or she won't be in the building. At least that's the case around here. So, if the schools run fairly well without principals a good percentage of the time, why do we need them? Or, if that seems a bit harsh, why not combine principals and buildings, say one principal for two buildings? After all, if they aren't there half of the time...... One time, at a staff meeting, our principal told us one of the assistant principals "would be back next week." Overwhelmingly the reaction was, "He was gone?" Few knew he'd been away for two weeks on some exchange program. He wasn't at all missed. Now some might think that is good, that the building ran smoothly without him due to the organization, discipline, etc. the assistant principal had instilled. Some would think wrong!
And there's no reason for administrators to be paid sometimes almost twice as much, if not more, than teachers. I see no reason at all. Around here the excuse has always been, "To attract top administrators we need to pay them top dollar." First of all, that didn't work and I'd submit it's not worked in many places. If it has, it's been pure luck. Second, why doesn't that also apply to attracting "top" teachers? Those in the private sector should think about that one, too.
Get politicians out of education! Oh, they all went to school, so they know all about learning and teaching, don't they? They want testing, testing, and more testing. Well, that's wrong. They, particularly the Republicans, also want to get rid of the teachers' unions. If they think teachers' unions are the primary source of problems in education, they are daft.
Find better teachers. I know that's far easier said than done. I understand. It's often hard to ascertain who is good and who isn't. Not everyone can be a "Miguel Cabrera" of teaching. But schools need and can use the "Andrew Romines," too. There's nothing wrong with that. Identifying good is not as easy as it seems. Test results are a lousy way to determine quality of teaching, esp results from standardized tests created by people three time zones away. There's far more to learning than test results.
To attract better teachers we have to agree to pay them more. We can't take away the few benefits they have. I know people were very upset when teachers had good pensions and health insurances. I wonder how many of those same upset folks would have traded their salaries and benefits for teachers benefits--and salaries. Nah, I don't wonder; I know their answers. I had to laugh at the Lt. Governor of Michigan jumping on the bandwagon for a part-time state legislature. He advocates a 90-day session (18 weeks) and, get this, "pay them what teachers earn." Wait a minute! They'll still work less than half of the time teachers work, but get the same pay? I don't know if that says more about how dismally we pay our teachers or how politicians still want to take care of politicians. As one of my teaching friends has said, esp regarding more and more attempts to take teachers' pensions, "I'm tired of having to beg for my money." I saw a recent article that claimed no teacher who teaches in San Francisco can afford to by a home on the market in that city. Wow! Imagine have a bachelors degree and finding a teaching job that pays about $33,000 a year--that's the starting average around here. I think it's a bit lower state-wide.
A big problem here--and I don't know how to solve it--is that some teachers aren't worth even the measly $33,000.
Get rid of schools of education and student teaching. They are scams that were perpetrated on the public years ago. OK, we need to keep some of the courses offered by the education departments in the colleges and universities, but not many. Perhaps one covering the increasing and detrimental paperwork that is required can be helpful; we can toss in record-keeping, grading, maybe lesson planning, etc. in that course. A specialized course in, say, teaching reading might also be kept. I wonder how many of my Amherst professors took courses from the education departments at their schools. No, I think I have a pretty good idea that the answer is close to "none." Rather than requiring the often useless education courses, let there be competition. Individual seminars could be offered to keep teachers abreast of new and innovative (Are those redundant?) methods, etc. The seminars could come from the private sector or from the colleges and universities to reach out. Teachers and schools/school districts could then determine what is most valuable and important to them.
Instead of student teaching, require a full year of substitute teaching. The scam continues with some colleges now requiring a full year of student teaching; some school districts play along and give more consideration to students with a full year of student teaching. Some not willing to completely abandon student teaching might be appeased with a shorter term of it, say a month. A substitute teaching requirement would do much. It would save some students a year's tuition! That is, they'd have less student debt upon graduation. In fact, instead of paying to teach, they'd be getting paid to teach. At the same time they'd gain valuable experience. Anyone who has substitute taught knows the challenges, esp regarding student behavior. All over the US school districts are facing shortages of substitute teachers; this would also help alleviate that problem.
Here's a final thing to think about. Again, all over the country, there are shortages of teachers in many disciplines, especially math, science, and special education; in some areas the shortages have reached the social studies and English departments. But look around. If your local districts aren't advertising for substitute teachers, bus drivers, playground and other aides, etc., it's probably lucky (or pays a lot higher than surrounding areas). I've never seen an ad or article citing a shortage of administrators. Have you?
Monday, May 15, 2017
May 15, Already?
Where is this month, this year, this life going? Time just flies. A guy I spoke with the other day was either lamenting or was astonished that his 50th class reunion is coming up. (Join the club, buddy!) He almost stuttered, "50 years!" while shaking his head. Einstein was right about relativity; reality, or perception of it, relies upon frames of reference.
What adolescent thinks of, say, reaching 60 or 70 years? I know I didn't and I'll bet few, if any, others do. What's a wasted hour of one's life at age 15 or 22 or even 36? But at age 70, that wasted hour takes on a completely different meaning. Maybe you'll have to take my word for it, at least for now.
Sometimes the little things that go right help to make up for the big things that go bad. It was just a flag football game for 7- and 8-year olds. It was fun to watch the little ones, even some girls were playing, running around enjoying themselves. Nobody, other than some of the parents, seemed to care who was ahead or behind or won or lost. Catching a pass or scoring a touchdown made the moment fun. No, I'm not talking about participation trophies; I can't stand them. But I can't see anything at all wrong with kids enjoying success, even with something as trivial as a Sunday afternoon flag football game.
That my grandson scored his first touchdown wasn't at all important to me. That he was so excited and happy was very important to me. With luck and some guidance, maybe he'll be able to use that experience, that some practice (hard work?) leads to success and enjoyment.
On the other hand, a couple of kids from the other team were a handful. More than once these teammates were not involved in the play(s) or even the game. They were chasing each other around, even kicking at each other--during the game action! Initially I felt sorry for their coaches (having been in similar youth coaching situations) and then realized what their teachers had to endure! I don't want to tell others how to raise their kids (I'm certainly no expert and, even now, am still learning about this "parenting" thing, all over again.), but it would have been nice to see Mom and/or Dad come down to speak to their kids.
Speaking of sports, my Michael this year is playing lacrosse for the high school(s) united JV team. He has ever played before, just picking up a lacrosse stick for the first time the day before his first practice. I guess I wasn't surprised that some of his teammates have been playing the game for 10 years or even more. He likes the game, although he is behind in some of the skills--hey, he's been at it less than 2 months vs 10 years! But, of the 40-minute games, he usually plays more than 10 minutes. In several of the games, when the team was a bit short-handed, he even played more than 30 minutes! Yep, he was very tired. We were talking about it last night, coming home from taking Grandma out to dinner for Mother's Day (Michael's idea!), lacrosse being different from his other sports. In the others, he said, football, basketball, and of course baseball, "There's always time to rest. In lacrosse, I'm always running somewhere." Yes, he is. It's an interesting game to watch and I am still picking up on some of the rules and nuances.
And, speaking of schools, I read an interesting fact (Of course, is it really a "fact?" Who can tell nowadays, with so many distortions, untruths, and outright lies passing as "facts?" I certainly can't and have fallen victim to them just like everyone else seems to have.) about the best private high schools. (I believe the article called them "elite private secondary schools," but would have to double check.) Tuition, the author claimed, at these "elite" schools was "from $30,000 to $40,000." Whoa! That's far more than public colleges/universities! What makes them "elite?" I don't know for sure. Is it results, particularly compared to public schools? Locally, our district schools get about $7,000 to $8,000 per student. I don't think I need my calculator to recognize that's a far cry from "$40,000." I know there are other expenses involved, but $30,000+ per student per year? It's probably strange hearing from one who taught in the public schools say he isn't opposed to private schools or school choice, but I'm not. After all, we have "choice" in picking our colleges and universities to attend. And I went to a private college. Competition between the public and private schools? Bring it on, I say. I've never shied away from competition in anything. I do say, let's play by the same rules and I would suggest that many of the comparisons being made do not involves schools and results that play by the same rules. Trump, DeVos, et al should know that and, if they don't, should be made aware and questioned about "the rules."
Last week a local columnist wrote about the pitfalls of "repealing Obamacare," which I fear will not happen. What he wrote might well have been true. He based his entire article, supporting the results of Obamacare and critical of the more recent attempts to pass new health care legislation, on a single example. He might well have been able to cite more examples, but he didn't. Among what he said, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, was that, without Obamacare, this person cited wouldn't have been able to access a doctor and the medications she needed. They were beyond her financial means. Yep, I don't doubt that. But what this columnist (and both of my Democrat US Senators) fails to realize (or accept?) that it's now not just those who were without coverage who have been affected. (And according this this writer, the woman was positively affected). Does anyone consider those, under Obamacare, whose premiums have shot through the roof, whose co-pays and deductibles for care and prescriptions have put them beyond their financial reach? I'll use a personal example. With my former coverage, before Obamacare, I had co-pays that were reasonable. I didn't like them; after all, who doesn't want free stuff, esp medicine? But they were reasonable. After a fairly serious eye injury last summer, I was given four prescriptions by a specialist. Before leaving, I inquired as to their relative cost and absolute necessity. With my new (after Obamacare) coverage, I could afford two of the prescriptions. OK, I could have afforded all of them, but the chunks out of our budget would have been dire. Just like the columnist surely could have found others to make his point, that Obamacare has helped them, I'm certainly not the only one whose higher costs have precluded visits to doctors, forgoing medications, etc. It's just something to consider.
Yesterday, on this same topic, a local editor broached the subject of paying for health coverage. Of course, he admitted, it is very desirable for all Americans to have health insurance. Who can argue otherwise? After all, some would say, European nations have provided it for years. But hold on a minute. (Again, are the figures he tosses around accurate? Who knows today? I have no reason to dispute them. I could likely find sources to support and sources to refute them. Such is today's world.) The average American taxpayer now pays about 20% of his income to the federal government. With my taxes last month, that's about right on the money. Now, that doesn't include local taxes--state, county, township, and school. It doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, and even state and city income taxes, all of which we pay. If all of those local taxes are added up, I'll bet I pay more than 25% in total taxes. And that seems to be right; I remember reading 28% somewhere is the norm, but I'm hazy on when and where I read that. Still, that's not the point. The editor points out that, in those European nations which have "free" health insurance, tax rates, the average real tax rate, in the European union is 45%. Obviously not all of the increase can be attributed to health care bills, but in other social spending, too. But in the European nations with the highest social spending, the average tax rates are also the highest. Imagine Sweden, paying a tax rate of 47%, Germany, 52%, and Belgium 57%. France comes in with an average tax rate of 57.5%. I guess that's not bad--if it's "the other guy" who is paying that much. But it isn't. In that same Belgium, a married couple with two kids pays almost 40% in taxes. In the US, a similar family pays less than half that. Again, it's OK if "the other guy" foots the bill. Will this fairly "average" or "typical" American family be willing to pay double the taxes it already does? My guess is not.
Consider how Americans live and whether they would be willing to give up their lifestyles. In the US, according to the figures presented by this editor, the average American (It's not clear if he means family or person, but likely person) lives in a home of 1000 square feet. In Europe, the average housing space is 400 square feet (again, it's not clear if that means family or person, although I suspect person). We have more than 1000 square for our family and do not complain. We are very comfortable. But we also have the house with the smallest square footage in our entire subdivision. How about our cars, most notably our pick-ups and SUVs? Are Americans going to willing drive the popcorn machines of Europe in order to pay more taxes?
Of course the United States can afford health care for everyone. The question is really whether they will. What politician (at least openly!) would suggest doubling taxes? And taxing the 1% or 10% or 20% won't do it. Most European nations tax their wealthiest citizens at extraordinarily high rates; how much blood can be squeezed from a turnip or beet (or whatever it is)? There's no doubt that the middle class here would have to be hit with higher rates.
Oh, I think I'll save the rest for later in the week......
What adolescent thinks of, say, reaching 60 or 70 years? I know I didn't and I'll bet few, if any, others do. What's a wasted hour of one's life at age 15 or 22 or even 36? But at age 70, that wasted hour takes on a completely different meaning. Maybe you'll have to take my word for it, at least for now.
Sometimes the little things that go right help to make up for the big things that go bad. It was just a flag football game for 7- and 8-year olds. It was fun to watch the little ones, even some girls were playing, running around enjoying themselves. Nobody, other than some of the parents, seemed to care who was ahead or behind or won or lost. Catching a pass or scoring a touchdown made the moment fun. No, I'm not talking about participation trophies; I can't stand them. But I can't see anything at all wrong with kids enjoying success, even with something as trivial as a Sunday afternoon flag football game.
That my grandson scored his first touchdown wasn't at all important to me. That he was so excited and happy was very important to me. With luck and some guidance, maybe he'll be able to use that experience, that some practice (hard work?) leads to success and enjoyment.
On the other hand, a couple of kids from the other team were a handful. More than once these teammates were not involved in the play(s) or even the game. They were chasing each other around, even kicking at each other--during the game action! Initially I felt sorry for their coaches (having been in similar youth coaching situations) and then realized what their teachers had to endure! I don't want to tell others how to raise their kids (I'm certainly no expert and, even now, am still learning about this "parenting" thing, all over again.), but it would have been nice to see Mom and/or Dad come down to speak to their kids.
Speaking of sports, my Michael this year is playing lacrosse for the high school(s) united JV team. He has ever played before, just picking up a lacrosse stick for the first time the day before his first practice. I guess I wasn't surprised that some of his teammates have been playing the game for 10 years or even more. He likes the game, although he is behind in some of the skills--hey, he's been at it less than 2 months vs 10 years! But, of the 40-minute games, he usually plays more than 10 minutes. In several of the games, when the team was a bit short-handed, he even played more than 30 minutes! Yep, he was very tired. We were talking about it last night, coming home from taking Grandma out to dinner for Mother's Day (Michael's idea!), lacrosse being different from his other sports. In the others, he said, football, basketball, and of course baseball, "There's always time to rest. In lacrosse, I'm always running somewhere." Yes, he is. It's an interesting game to watch and I am still picking up on some of the rules and nuances.
And, speaking of schools, I read an interesting fact (Of course, is it really a "fact?" Who can tell nowadays, with so many distortions, untruths, and outright lies passing as "facts?" I certainly can't and have fallen victim to them just like everyone else seems to have.) about the best private high schools. (I believe the article called them "elite private secondary schools," but would have to double check.) Tuition, the author claimed, at these "elite" schools was "from $30,000 to $40,000." Whoa! That's far more than public colleges/universities! What makes them "elite?" I don't know for sure. Is it results, particularly compared to public schools? Locally, our district schools get about $7,000 to $8,000 per student. I don't think I need my calculator to recognize that's a far cry from "$40,000." I know there are other expenses involved, but $30,000+ per student per year? It's probably strange hearing from one who taught in the public schools say he isn't opposed to private schools or school choice, but I'm not. After all, we have "choice" in picking our colleges and universities to attend. And I went to a private college. Competition between the public and private schools? Bring it on, I say. I've never shied away from competition in anything. I do say, let's play by the same rules and I would suggest that many of the comparisons being made do not involves schools and results that play by the same rules. Trump, DeVos, et al should know that and, if they don't, should be made aware and questioned about "the rules."
Last week a local columnist wrote about the pitfalls of "repealing Obamacare," which I fear will not happen. What he wrote might well have been true. He based his entire article, supporting the results of Obamacare and critical of the more recent attempts to pass new health care legislation, on a single example. He might well have been able to cite more examples, but he didn't. Among what he said, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, was that, without Obamacare, this person cited wouldn't have been able to access a doctor and the medications she needed. They were beyond her financial means. Yep, I don't doubt that. But what this columnist (and both of my Democrat US Senators) fails to realize (or accept?) that it's now not just those who were without coverage who have been affected. (And according this this writer, the woman was positively affected). Does anyone consider those, under Obamacare, whose premiums have shot through the roof, whose co-pays and deductibles for care and prescriptions have put them beyond their financial reach? I'll use a personal example. With my former coverage, before Obamacare, I had co-pays that were reasonable. I didn't like them; after all, who doesn't want free stuff, esp medicine? But they were reasonable. After a fairly serious eye injury last summer, I was given four prescriptions by a specialist. Before leaving, I inquired as to their relative cost and absolute necessity. With my new (after Obamacare) coverage, I could afford two of the prescriptions. OK, I could have afforded all of them, but the chunks out of our budget would have been dire. Just like the columnist surely could have found others to make his point, that Obamacare has helped them, I'm certainly not the only one whose higher costs have precluded visits to doctors, forgoing medications, etc. It's just something to consider.
Yesterday, on this same topic, a local editor broached the subject of paying for health coverage. Of course, he admitted, it is very desirable for all Americans to have health insurance. Who can argue otherwise? After all, some would say, European nations have provided it for years. But hold on a minute. (Again, are the figures he tosses around accurate? Who knows today? I have no reason to dispute them. I could likely find sources to support and sources to refute them. Such is today's world.) The average American taxpayer now pays about 20% of his income to the federal government. With my taxes last month, that's about right on the money. Now, that doesn't include local taxes--state, county, township, and school. It doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, and even state and city income taxes, all of which we pay. If all of those local taxes are added up, I'll bet I pay more than 25% in total taxes. And that seems to be right; I remember reading 28% somewhere is the norm, but I'm hazy on when and where I read that. Still, that's not the point. The editor points out that, in those European nations which have "free" health insurance, tax rates, the average real tax rate, in the European union is 45%. Obviously not all of the increase can be attributed to health care bills, but in other social spending, too. But in the European nations with the highest social spending, the average tax rates are also the highest. Imagine Sweden, paying a tax rate of 47%, Germany, 52%, and Belgium 57%. France comes in with an average tax rate of 57.5%. I guess that's not bad--if it's "the other guy" who is paying that much. But it isn't. In that same Belgium, a married couple with two kids pays almost 40% in taxes. In the US, a similar family pays less than half that. Again, it's OK if "the other guy" foots the bill. Will this fairly "average" or "typical" American family be willing to pay double the taxes it already does? My guess is not.
Consider how Americans live and whether they would be willing to give up their lifestyles. In the US, according to the figures presented by this editor, the average American (It's not clear if he means family or person, but likely person) lives in a home of 1000 square feet. In Europe, the average housing space is 400 square feet (again, it's not clear if that means family or person, although I suspect person). We have more than 1000 square for our family and do not complain. We are very comfortable. But we also have the house with the smallest square footage in our entire subdivision. How about our cars, most notably our pick-ups and SUVs? Are Americans going to willing drive the popcorn machines of Europe in order to pay more taxes?
Of course the United States can afford health care for everyone. The question is really whether they will. What politician (at least openly!) would suggest doubling taxes? And taxing the 1% or 10% or 20% won't do it. Most European nations tax their wealthiest citizens at extraordinarily high rates; how much blood can be squeezed from a turnip or beet (or whatever it is)? There's no doubt that the middle class here would have to be hit with higher rates.
Oh, I think I'll save the rest for later in the week......
Friday, May 5, 2017
A Good Question
I don't remember where I heard or saw this the other day, but it is worth considering. "Why bother voting for Republicans?" I most often don't vote for Republicans (or Democrats for that matter); I didn't vote for Trump (nor Clinton) and didn't vote for Snyder either time (nor his Democrat opponents). I'm not arguing policy or philosophy here (Well, maybe I am?), but rather realities.
The Republicans have been given, nationally, control of Congress and the White House. Yet, the headlines the other day blared, "Spending deal shows Dems' clout." Huh? What "clout?" The Democrats lost the election in November, were hammered. What "clout?"
What's with this "reaching across the aisle?" "bipartisanship?" "compromise?" I don't recall much of that coming from the Democrats the previous eight years. Perhaps it's a one-way street. Voters didn't vote for Republicans to "reach across the aisle."
Take that budget. Why is there still funding for Planned Parenthood, although there might have been a cut? (Who can go through the multi-paged monstrosities Congress passes? Members of Congress themselves can't go through those bills.) Why the money still going to "sanctuary cities," who openly defy the law? (Why can't you and I openly break the law, say, not pay our income taxes and get away with it?) Where were the Republicans who campaigned against "PP" and "sanctuary?" Why didn't the President veto the bill?
And not to discuss the merits of the new House bill on health care, but what happened to "We're going to repeal Obamacare?" Oh, the Establishment Republicans were rough and tough in passing, what?, 50-some bills to repeal it when there was no chance of Obama signing any of them into law. Yep, they were very courageous then. Now, with a President to pledged to do the same thing, "repeal," they bail. Of course, who knows what this President would do--veto?
Congress created this mess, yet it wants to kick the can to the states? Members of Congress don't want to be the bad guys, but are willing to see if the state legislators will? From the actions of the states in the aftermath of Obamacare (well, at least Michigan), there's little chance of that happening.
Again I ask, why can't these politicians be sued for fraud? They make promises on the campaign trails, apparently with no intention of keeping them. When elected, the liars break those promises that got them elected. And those few who stand up for what they said are marginalized and penalized by their own Establishment parties. Of course, it's futile to expect any of these liars to be shamed; there is no sense of shame any longer. (Instead of crawling into a hole to hide, a former President who had sex in the Oval Office, then lied to the American people about it, and was impeached, now commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and is looked upon by his party as an elder spokesman.) Shame? What's that?
Around here, it's been a particularly nasty week. A seven-year old girl was shot in the head/neck when someone(s) opened fire on the house in which she was sleeping. Five men sitting in a van in a gas station were shot up (one or two died). A police officer was shot in the head by a guy who opened fire on him; the guy was himself shot and killed. There were shootings in some of the suburbs, too. Where does this attitude derive? Why do people think they can just start shooting other people? It's yet another of life's mysteries to me.
The story just seems to get recycled. A "pit bull mix" mauled two other people. The dog was the pet (?) of a man who lived with his mother. Both his mother and a friend were in intensive care at area hospitals. "It's not my fault," said the dog's owner. This was after the dog reportedly had attacked the mother before, resulting in 30+ stitches. "It's not my fault."
I joked, but only a bit, with some folks last week about some students showing up to take their final exams--without bringing paper or any writing utensils, no pencils, no pens. I can't imagine that, esp going back to my student days (The Stone Ages). Then, again yesterday, it happened again. In handing out the exam, a student asked, "Do you have a pencil?" And she had no paper, either. Maybe she was going to write her essays on the table/desk, but her finger ran out of ink?
I bought a book of New York Times Sunday Crosswords. Some are 70 and 80 years old! The first couple appeared before Pearl Harbor. And, they used to be a whole lot more difficult than they are now. They are very hard. It's not just that some of the clues are from the '30s and '40s. I think some of the words have fallen out of usage. Some of the popular names/places aren't so popular 70 and 80 years later. But they are fun and I am enjoying them.
Apparently there is a widespread scam going on regarding the IRS. People are getting phone calls that the IRS has "issued an arrest warrant" for failure to pay back taxes. "Immediately" call such-and-such a number for help and "to avoid arrest." I rec'd such a call. I checked the phone number online and found numerous others who have reported the same scam. First, the IRS was going to "arrest" me for $128? (K paid it, against my wishes.) Second, the IRS has enough resources to come after me for $128, but such phone scams aren't worth investigation or "arresting" the perpetrators?
It was great to listen to one of our local radio personalities be his usual obsequious self to a politician guest. But when the guest pointed out the mistakes the governor and his office made regarding the Flint water crisis, the host started mumbling and bumbling. "Well, er, uh......" finally adding, "There are other factors......" Yeah, right.
The Republicans have been given, nationally, control of Congress and the White House. Yet, the headlines the other day blared, "Spending deal shows Dems' clout." Huh? What "clout?" The Democrats lost the election in November, were hammered. What "clout?"
What's with this "reaching across the aisle?" "bipartisanship?" "compromise?" I don't recall much of that coming from the Democrats the previous eight years. Perhaps it's a one-way street. Voters didn't vote for Republicans to "reach across the aisle."
Take that budget. Why is there still funding for Planned Parenthood, although there might have been a cut? (Who can go through the multi-paged monstrosities Congress passes? Members of Congress themselves can't go through those bills.) Why the money still going to "sanctuary cities," who openly defy the law? (Why can't you and I openly break the law, say, not pay our income taxes and get away with it?) Where were the Republicans who campaigned against "PP" and "sanctuary?" Why didn't the President veto the bill?
And not to discuss the merits of the new House bill on health care, but what happened to "We're going to repeal Obamacare?" Oh, the Establishment Republicans were rough and tough in passing, what?, 50-some bills to repeal it when there was no chance of Obama signing any of them into law. Yep, they were very courageous then. Now, with a President to pledged to do the same thing, "repeal," they bail. Of course, who knows what this President would do--veto?
Congress created this mess, yet it wants to kick the can to the states? Members of Congress don't want to be the bad guys, but are willing to see if the state legislators will? From the actions of the states in the aftermath of Obamacare (well, at least Michigan), there's little chance of that happening.
Again I ask, why can't these politicians be sued for fraud? They make promises on the campaign trails, apparently with no intention of keeping them. When elected, the liars break those promises that got them elected. And those few who stand up for what they said are marginalized and penalized by their own Establishment parties. Of course, it's futile to expect any of these liars to be shamed; there is no sense of shame any longer. (Instead of crawling into a hole to hide, a former President who had sex in the Oval Office, then lied to the American people about it, and was impeached, now commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and is looked upon by his party as an elder spokesman.) Shame? What's that?
Around here, it's been a particularly nasty week. A seven-year old girl was shot in the head/neck when someone(s) opened fire on the house in which she was sleeping. Five men sitting in a van in a gas station were shot up (one or two died). A police officer was shot in the head by a guy who opened fire on him; the guy was himself shot and killed. There were shootings in some of the suburbs, too. Where does this attitude derive? Why do people think they can just start shooting other people? It's yet another of life's mysteries to me.
The story just seems to get recycled. A "pit bull mix" mauled two other people. The dog was the pet (?) of a man who lived with his mother. Both his mother and a friend were in intensive care at area hospitals. "It's not my fault," said the dog's owner. This was after the dog reportedly had attacked the mother before, resulting in 30+ stitches. "It's not my fault."
I joked, but only a bit, with some folks last week about some students showing up to take their final exams--without bringing paper or any writing utensils, no pencils, no pens. I can't imagine that, esp going back to my student days (The Stone Ages). Then, again yesterday, it happened again. In handing out the exam, a student asked, "Do you have a pencil?" And she had no paper, either. Maybe she was going to write her essays on the table/desk, but her finger ran out of ink?
I bought a book of New York Times Sunday Crosswords. Some are 70 and 80 years old! The first couple appeared before Pearl Harbor. And, they used to be a whole lot more difficult than they are now. They are very hard. It's not just that some of the clues are from the '30s and '40s. I think some of the words have fallen out of usage. Some of the popular names/places aren't so popular 70 and 80 years later. But they are fun and I am enjoying them.
Apparently there is a widespread scam going on regarding the IRS. People are getting phone calls that the IRS has "issued an arrest warrant" for failure to pay back taxes. "Immediately" call such-and-such a number for help and "to avoid arrest." I rec'd such a call. I checked the phone number online and found numerous others who have reported the same scam. First, the IRS was going to "arrest" me for $128? (K paid it, against my wishes.) Second, the IRS has enough resources to come after me for $128, but such phone scams aren't worth investigation or "arresting" the perpetrators?
It was great to listen to one of our local radio personalities be his usual obsequious self to a politician guest. But when the guest pointed out the mistakes the governor and his office made regarding the Flint water crisis, the host started mumbling and bumbling. "Well, er, uh......" finally adding, "There are other factors......" Yeah, right.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
The Lawn and other Musings
Last year I used a weed and feed on our lawn. The bag read, "Kills More than 200 Different Weeds." I may have mentioned then that I think I found 5 or 6 that it didn't kill. So this year I tried a different brand. Both were national brands and this year's switch didn't turn out any better. Oh, they both were OK on dandelions, but only OK. I still had to dig out half a dozen yellows yesterday. The grass itself, though, is green and looks nice--if we ignore the weeds. I wonder if those companies like Tru-Green work any better. Hmmm...... Maybe it's time to try.
And I finally was able to get most, not all but most, of the backyard mowed this AM. Michael does the front yard. (Is "backyard" one word and "front yard" two words?") There are still some patches that are a bit too swampy to get mowed/mown. I slopped through some areas, too. But it was so tall, well over ankle-length in most places and thick. It's supposed to rain, heavy rain, tonight and tomorrow into Mon AM. So I figured it was today or...or when?
I know it sounds crazy, but I enjoy mowing, usually. It's like winter snow shoveling for me. I get to be outside. I get to do something physical. And I like what I see when I am done. Ask me if I still enjoy it when the temperatures reach the 80s and 90s! Heh Heh.
Sometimes those old white males have things to teach us. Plato once wrote, "Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." I think I have spoken to/written about that several times in a slightly different context. I was reminded of Plato a while ago when someone asked me, "What are you going to do?" in the face of a situation. I said, "Nothing." "How can you do nothing?" I was asked with some incredulity. I replied, "What should I do? Tell me." This time I was met with silence. Right. I could think of nothing to do to alleviate the situation, so I opted to do nothing. So far, doing nothing is working. During the Obamacare debacle in Congress, I remember the Wall Street Journal advising Congress, "Don't do something, just stand there." It was a great take-off of "Don't just stand there, do something."
Very few people I know like to engage in conversations like the following. OK, I do have some friends (Yes, I know that surprises a lot of people, but the emphasis is on some.) Are kindness and greatness two very different qualities? That is, would you put your life or the life of a loved one in the hands of a doctor who is a cruel person? Would you assent to having a man like Picasso, hardly a candidate for sainthood, be your king? These are some of the questions I am taking away from my re-readings of Chaim Potok's Asher Lev novels. Maybe I'm flighty, but I think they are questions well worth pondering and discussing. I think I will next week on some of my runs.
In the same vein, to extrapolate those types of ideas to reality--that is, to make them relevant (and doesn't everything we learn have to be relevant or at least on the state tests?)--does character matter? Do we or should we separate behavior from accomplishments? In studying and teaching history, I am confronted with this frequently. Let me take two recent examples: John Kennedy and Bill Clinton (perhaps two men cut from the same mold--or mould!). I happen to think that character does matter, that it should be counted in evaluations. Perhaps, though, I am old-fashioned. I guess I am willing to concede that.
How frustrating it is to see efforts, if not in vain, at least in danger of being in vain. Trying to teach right from wrong is not always easy. There are so many forces out there getting in the way. But, still, working to demonstrate, to teach, etc. what is good and what is not good and then seeing the tottering of that...... I know each person is individually responsible for such determinations and then must also be held accountable (although many people are not held accountable) for subsequent actions based on those determinations. But sometimes, when we are wavering or others are wavering with what we've tried to teach, it's not pleasant. Do we then question our own values and principles? Maybe.
I'm not one at all upset that Obama has given a Wall Street speech in return for $400,000. More power to him! I wish someone would give me $4,000 for a speech! If he can get $500,000, go get it I say. My only hang-up is what he says and what he does are two different things. But perhaps we can't all be consistent all of the time. Perhaps......
And I finally was able to get most, not all but most, of the backyard mowed this AM. Michael does the front yard. (Is "backyard" one word and "front yard" two words?") There are still some patches that are a bit too swampy to get mowed/mown. I slopped through some areas, too. But it was so tall, well over ankle-length in most places and thick. It's supposed to rain, heavy rain, tonight and tomorrow into Mon AM. So I figured it was today or...or when?
I know it sounds crazy, but I enjoy mowing, usually. It's like winter snow shoveling for me. I get to be outside. I get to do something physical. And I like what I see when I am done. Ask me if I still enjoy it when the temperatures reach the 80s and 90s! Heh Heh.
Sometimes those old white males have things to teach us. Plato once wrote, "Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." I think I have spoken to/written about that several times in a slightly different context. I was reminded of Plato a while ago when someone asked me, "What are you going to do?" in the face of a situation. I said, "Nothing." "How can you do nothing?" I was asked with some incredulity. I replied, "What should I do? Tell me." This time I was met with silence. Right. I could think of nothing to do to alleviate the situation, so I opted to do nothing. So far, doing nothing is working. During the Obamacare debacle in Congress, I remember the Wall Street Journal advising Congress, "Don't do something, just stand there." It was a great take-off of "Don't just stand there, do something."
Very few people I know like to engage in conversations like the following. OK, I do have some friends (Yes, I know that surprises a lot of people, but the emphasis is on some.) Are kindness and greatness two very different qualities? That is, would you put your life or the life of a loved one in the hands of a doctor who is a cruel person? Would you assent to having a man like Picasso, hardly a candidate for sainthood, be your king? These are some of the questions I am taking away from my re-readings of Chaim Potok's Asher Lev novels. Maybe I'm flighty, but I think they are questions well worth pondering and discussing. I think I will next week on some of my runs.
In the same vein, to extrapolate those types of ideas to reality--that is, to make them relevant (and doesn't everything we learn have to be relevant or at least on the state tests?)--does character matter? Do we or should we separate behavior from accomplishments? In studying and teaching history, I am confronted with this frequently. Let me take two recent examples: John Kennedy and Bill Clinton (perhaps two men cut from the same mold--or mould!). I happen to think that character does matter, that it should be counted in evaluations. Perhaps, though, I am old-fashioned. I guess I am willing to concede that.
How frustrating it is to see efforts, if not in vain, at least in danger of being in vain. Trying to teach right from wrong is not always easy. There are so many forces out there getting in the way. But, still, working to demonstrate, to teach, etc. what is good and what is not good and then seeing the tottering of that...... I know each person is individually responsible for such determinations and then must also be held accountable (although many people are not held accountable) for subsequent actions based on those determinations. But sometimes, when we are wavering or others are wavering with what we've tried to teach, it's not pleasant. Do we then question our own values and principles? Maybe.
I'm not one at all upset that Obama has given a Wall Street speech in return for $400,000. More power to him! I wish someone would give me $4,000 for a speech! If he can get $500,000, go get it I say. My only hang-up is what he says and what he does are two different things. But perhaps we can't all be consistent all of the time. Perhaps......
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Wednesday Mind Wanderings
The other day, a couple of miles down the road, I was startled during my run by a herd of 11 or 12 deer. (Why is the plural of deer deer, not deers? The plural of bear isn't bear, but bears, of dog not dog, but dogs, etc.) I've seen large herds of them around here before, namely a dozen or so swimming across the Huron River in a nearby park, oh, about 20 or more years ago. But I haven't seen that many so close to home, not in a pack. We've had a half dozen or so romp in the backyard or between houses, but...... For this city-slicker, the herd was pretty cool to see.
I've really enjoyed the Chaim Potok novels I've been re-reading. I didn't remember much of My Name Is Asher Lev, but recalled some of The Chosen and The Promise. But The Gift of Asher Lev, yes a sequel, doesn't seem to ring any bells for me. Still, I'm learning a lot, being entertained, and challenged to do some thinking. What else can one ask from a well-written novel?
I got a bit of a chuckle out of some newspapers' grousing about Supreme Gorsuch and his siding with the other four conservative justices in the recent challenge to a scheduled Arkansas execution. First and foremost, I have no sympathy for the two men who were executed, none at all. Nobody asked them to murder other people. Perhaps a bit of a contradiction, although I still waver (or is it "waiver?") sometimes, I think I oppose the death penalty. I know there are a lot of scumballs who likely deserve to be executed. But I have some problems. Namely, I don't like giving the state power over life and death, power to kill people. The state (meaning government) has far too much power over our lives now. This is the ultimate power, isn't it? And how many innocent folks have been executed over the years, that we know of? How many have been executed on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which we know is hardly 100% reliable? Courts and juries don't always get it right. If anything, is there a way to determine a test of "strength of evidence" to perhaps come closer to ensuring we aren't executing innocent people? I don't know. Perhaps I'm naive in this, but isn't there still a possibility that a person can turn around his/her life, if even still in prison? Don't we have to afford the opportunities to repent? Otherwise, where is the end of the cycle of hate, revenge, and suffering? Also, and this is the second point, why this outcry (from three different national media sources who support abortion) for the lives of convicted murders (see my views above), yet not a peep to save the lives of unborn babies? The murderers have committed heinous crimes; the babies haven't done anything wrong. To add, Gorsuch's vote did nothing but uphold Arkansas state law, which has never been ruled unconstitutional nor, except in "special circumstances," have any state laws regarding capital punishment. Perhaps I missed one or two, but I don't think so. Again, I repeat, I think I oppose the death penalty, but still...... And had Gorsuch not been confirmed, the 4-4 vote of the Supremes would have resulted in the decision of the next highest court as the ruling--and it upheld the executions. Too, Arkansas law holds that if a convict is to be executed, but lethal injection is not available (as in the lethal drugs having expired, no pun intended), the "dead men walking" get the electric chair.
This game of lacrosse is sometimes puzzling. Michael is playing it for the first time, on the high school JV team. I'm often puzzled by the rules. Why does a team that shoots the ball at the goal only to have it leave the field of play get to retain possession, while a team that passes the ball out of bounds loses it? Why can a defender club an offensive player with his stick only if his hands are together, but is penalized if his hands are apart? As least that is what I've gathered from calls by the officials after a few weeks. Is it that there's less leverage/force if the hands are together? I'm still trying to figure out the call that looks like "traveling" in basketball, but haven't yet. But I'm learning, I hope. And the kids seem to really enjoy playing the game. Michael's other grandparents were at the last game and wondered if this is a relatively "new game." No, I noted. The Indians were playing this game, or a version of it called "baggataway," hundreds of years ago. In fact, they used it as a ploy to take the British fort at Mackinac in 1763.
Speaking of sports, baseball remains a funny, funny game. That's not "ha-ha" funny, but peculiar. Last week Miguel Cabrera, who started the season very slowly, but raised his BA about 200 points in a week and a half, hit four balls in a game right the button. I didn't see the game, but the last time up the radio announcers noted that "He's squared up all four balls, but doesn't have a thing to show for it." That is, he hammered four balls, but didn't get a hit. The next game, the baseball gods evened up things, well, as much as they do. (I don't believe that well hit balls that are caught are balanced by what we called "bleeders.") Miggy got three hits, a flair to left, a pop-up that managed to find the grass just between three charging fielders, and a seeing-eye bounder (not particularly well hit) up the middle. Funny game......
I'm still not sure many folks appreciate the important of good defensive play in the outfield. I think they certainly do on the infield, esp at shortstop. But in the outfield.....? Oh, the guys on the radio or boob tube will ooh and aah at the great catches, but I wonder if they realize more ordinary plays are often made "ordinary" by great defense or that many balls that fall and look like legitimate hits could be caught with some better defense. I'm not at all saying outfield defense is easy; it's not. There's a lot that goes into outstanding defensive play in the OF; it takes a lot of work. I'd guess most spectator don't realize that. I think that goes back to little league where the worst players get stuck in the outfield. That is eventually outgrown, but maybe in the backs of people's minds, that thought is still there: the worst. People probably can tell how many games, say, Al Kaline or Ken Griffey have won with their bats. I wonder how many can tell how many games they've won with their gloves. I don't know if they have or not, but had I been running the Tigers, Kaline would have been working with all of the outfielders on a consistent basis. Here's a tip: if a centerfielder rarely makes a great catch, either he's terrible or, more likely, he's great and makes hard catches look routine.
I've really enjoyed the Chaim Potok novels I've been re-reading. I didn't remember much of My Name Is Asher Lev, but recalled some of The Chosen and The Promise. But The Gift of Asher Lev, yes a sequel, doesn't seem to ring any bells for me. Still, I'm learning a lot, being entertained, and challenged to do some thinking. What else can one ask from a well-written novel?
I got a bit of a chuckle out of some newspapers' grousing about Supreme Gorsuch and his siding with the other four conservative justices in the recent challenge to a scheduled Arkansas execution. First and foremost, I have no sympathy for the two men who were executed, none at all. Nobody asked them to murder other people. Perhaps a bit of a contradiction, although I still waver (or is it "waiver?") sometimes, I think I oppose the death penalty. I know there are a lot of scumballs who likely deserve to be executed. But I have some problems. Namely, I don't like giving the state power over life and death, power to kill people. The state (meaning government) has far too much power over our lives now. This is the ultimate power, isn't it? And how many innocent folks have been executed over the years, that we know of? How many have been executed on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which we know is hardly 100% reliable? Courts and juries don't always get it right. If anything, is there a way to determine a test of "strength of evidence" to perhaps come closer to ensuring we aren't executing innocent people? I don't know. Perhaps I'm naive in this, but isn't there still a possibility that a person can turn around his/her life, if even still in prison? Don't we have to afford the opportunities to repent? Otherwise, where is the end of the cycle of hate, revenge, and suffering? Also, and this is the second point, why this outcry (from three different national media sources who support abortion) for the lives of convicted murders (see my views above), yet not a peep to save the lives of unborn babies? The murderers have committed heinous crimes; the babies haven't done anything wrong. To add, Gorsuch's vote did nothing but uphold Arkansas state law, which has never been ruled unconstitutional nor, except in "special circumstances," have any state laws regarding capital punishment. Perhaps I missed one or two, but I don't think so. Again, I repeat, I think I oppose the death penalty, but still...... And had Gorsuch not been confirmed, the 4-4 vote of the Supremes would have resulted in the decision of the next highest court as the ruling--and it upheld the executions. Too, Arkansas law holds that if a convict is to be executed, but lethal injection is not available (as in the lethal drugs having expired, no pun intended), the "dead men walking" get the electric chair.
This game of lacrosse is sometimes puzzling. Michael is playing it for the first time, on the high school JV team. I'm often puzzled by the rules. Why does a team that shoots the ball at the goal only to have it leave the field of play get to retain possession, while a team that passes the ball out of bounds loses it? Why can a defender club an offensive player with his stick only if his hands are together, but is penalized if his hands are apart? As least that is what I've gathered from calls by the officials after a few weeks. Is it that there's less leverage/force if the hands are together? I'm still trying to figure out the call that looks like "traveling" in basketball, but haven't yet. But I'm learning, I hope. And the kids seem to really enjoy playing the game. Michael's other grandparents were at the last game and wondered if this is a relatively "new game." No, I noted. The Indians were playing this game, or a version of it called "baggataway," hundreds of years ago. In fact, they used it as a ploy to take the British fort at Mackinac in 1763.
Speaking of sports, baseball remains a funny, funny game. That's not "ha-ha" funny, but peculiar. Last week Miguel Cabrera, who started the season very slowly, but raised his BA about 200 points in a week and a half, hit four balls in a game right the button. I didn't see the game, but the last time up the radio announcers noted that "He's squared up all four balls, but doesn't have a thing to show for it." That is, he hammered four balls, but didn't get a hit. The next game, the baseball gods evened up things, well, as much as they do. (I don't believe that well hit balls that are caught are balanced by what we called "bleeders.") Miggy got three hits, a flair to left, a pop-up that managed to find the grass just between three charging fielders, and a seeing-eye bounder (not particularly well hit) up the middle. Funny game......
I'm still not sure many folks appreciate the important of good defensive play in the outfield. I think they certainly do on the infield, esp at shortstop. But in the outfield.....? Oh, the guys on the radio or boob tube will ooh and aah at the great catches, but I wonder if they realize more ordinary plays are often made "ordinary" by great defense or that many balls that fall and look like legitimate hits could be caught with some better defense. I'm not at all saying outfield defense is easy; it's not. There's a lot that goes into outstanding defensive play in the OF; it takes a lot of work. I'd guess most spectator don't realize that. I think that goes back to little league where the worst players get stuck in the outfield. That is eventually outgrown, but maybe in the backs of people's minds, that thought is still there: the worst. People probably can tell how many games, say, Al Kaline or Ken Griffey have won with their bats. I wonder how many can tell how many games they've won with their gloves. I don't know if they have or not, but had I been running the Tigers, Kaline would have been working with all of the outfielders on a consistent basis. Here's a tip: if a centerfielder rarely makes a great catch, either he's terrible or, more likely, he's great and makes hard catches look routine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
