Monday, September 25, 2017
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Money
I got a big kick out of this AM's newspaper, specifically an op-ed decrying all the money involved in politics. As might be expected of this newspaper, the targets of the spending spree were the Republicans. And that well, might be so. I do not identify as a Republican. But I'll have to re-read the column. It seems I missed any mention of Democrat Debbie Stabenow's war chest of millions of dollars, stored up for the 2018 campaign and election. Yeah,I must have missed any such mention.
Speaking of money in politics, here's a novel idea. Well, it's not novel; I have broached it before. There are still many cries against the Supremes decision in the Citizens United case. I am of two minds about it. One, I don't like limiting spending based on what government rules. Two, I'll believe a corporation is a person when one is sent to the electric chair. But that's all for another time. Maybe this would solve the problem of overspending. Why don't voters discover what candidate has raised the most money and then vote for the other guy? If both of the major candidates have raised nearly equal amounts, vote for a third party candidate. A few such successful messages might get the attention of those running for office.
Surely our election system is insanity personified. Why do our campaigns last months, years even? That must be a big reason why we spend obscene amounts on politics, in effect, establishing a "pay-to-play" system. How democratic is that? I wonder if it is constitutional to limit campaigns to weeks, maybe five or six or them. I'm not a big fan of doing something just because "other countries do it," but other countries do limit campaigns. What candidate cannot get his or her message out in five or six weeks? If he or she can't, then that should be a reason not to vote for him or her.
Talk about insanity...... Over the past few weeks, I have seen a number of articles on how to improve schools. Every single one of them came from an education-establishment writer. Now, how crazy is that? We turn for solutions to the very people who created the education mess in the first place! I'm sure nobody will try this approach. Decades ago, the US educational system was the envy of the entire world (well, outside of the commie world). Sometime, in the late '60s or early '70s, we lost our edge, our top position. We fell and, according to many of the claims, fell fast. Often, the US ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in the area of quality education. (I'm just citing what many claim.) Why don't we go back, year-by-year, and discover the first indications of failing. See what we did before and after, that is what worked well and what later didn't work so well. Then we can return to what really worked.
I know, I know...... "But students learn differently today!" I would argue maybe so, that the "difference" lies in that many of them don't learn much, if anything at all. Perhaps a return to what actually taught students should be explored.
Consider, too, that many of our institutions of higher learning remain the best in the world. Why don't we see what they do and adapt their practices to other levels?
I've never seen these proposals anywhere at any time. I heard some guy this weekend blaming "those teachers' unions" for the decline in education. If anyone still believes the teachers' unions are responsible for the demise of education they are either delusional or very ignorant. One article I read decried the calls for "More Money!" for schools. He cited evidence that the US spends more money on education than other countries, yet doesn't get much bang for the buck. Here's something to consider. I don't deny that we spend "more money," but I do want to ask this: If that's so, why are our teachers paid so little? (I recognize that many teachers aren't worth what little they get, but that's no reason at all to penalize the good ones with salaries that are insulting!)
I understand, but don't understand, the public perceptions and even animosity toward teachers. Recently, one guy noted that he made "$150,000 a year quite a few times." I noted that's more than two times what I ever was paid in a year for teaching. He wasn't deterred, "But I was working 50 and 60 hours a week......" First, I know no good teachers who worked only 40 hours a week. (When he was in high school, I once asked one of my sons what he wanted to do when he grew up. There was a lot of hesitation, so I offered, "What about teaching?" I barely got it out of my mouth when he spit out, "No!" I asked why not and he replied, "You work too much.") Second, apparently this guy isn't so hot at math. Even at 60 hours a week, he worked 50% more than I did, but was paid 200% or more than I was. In part thanks to the society/culture we have created where making more and more money to buy more and more things is the goal, what college student is going to spend all that money and time (including that wasted year of student teaching) to come earn $35,000 a year to start, with hopes of topping out in the $50,000 or $60,000 range? I suppose it's one thing that teachers in, say, Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills can't afford houses in their school districts, but young teachers here struggle to buy homes where they teach.
So, I guess a legitimate question to ask is where all this money is going?????? I know and, as I have told several local school board members, until they address my concerns I will refuse to vote for any millage increases or bond proposals--and I will urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. (I guess the board members/schools are lucky I don't have many friends.)
Baseball. I am very glad to see Justin Verlander doing so well in Houston. I hope he get to the World Series and wins a ring! I'm also sad to see Brad Ausmus let go. I know a lot of folks don't like him, think he was a bad manager, etc. I'm not one of them. He didn't give himself a lousy bullpen every year. He didn't give himself outfielders who can't catch. He didn't sign flop after flop the past few seasons. (Well, not every signee was a flop!) I disagreed with him at times, but never thought he didn't know the game; we just have different philosophies on how best to play the game. But, like so, much, everybody knows everything. After all, everyone played little league......
Speaking of money in politics, here's a novel idea. Well, it's not novel; I have broached it before. There are still many cries against the Supremes decision in the Citizens United case. I am of two minds about it. One, I don't like limiting spending based on what government rules. Two, I'll believe a corporation is a person when one is sent to the electric chair. But that's all for another time. Maybe this would solve the problem of overspending. Why don't voters discover what candidate has raised the most money and then vote for the other guy? If both of the major candidates have raised nearly equal amounts, vote for a third party candidate. A few such successful messages might get the attention of those running for office.
Surely our election system is insanity personified. Why do our campaigns last months, years even? That must be a big reason why we spend obscene amounts on politics, in effect, establishing a "pay-to-play" system. How democratic is that? I wonder if it is constitutional to limit campaigns to weeks, maybe five or six or them. I'm not a big fan of doing something just because "other countries do it," but other countries do limit campaigns. What candidate cannot get his or her message out in five or six weeks? If he or she can't, then that should be a reason not to vote for him or her.
Talk about insanity...... Over the past few weeks, I have seen a number of articles on how to improve schools. Every single one of them came from an education-establishment writer. Now, how crazy is that? We turn for solutions to the very people who created the education mess in the first place! I'm sure nobody will try this approach. Decades ago, the US educational system was the envy of the entire world (well, outside of the commie world). Sometime, in the late '60s or early '70s, we lost our edge, our top position. We fell and, according to many of the claims, fell fast. Often, the US ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in the area of quality education. (I'm just citing what many claim.) Why don't we go back, year-by-year, and discover the first indications of failing. See what we did before and after, that is what worked well and what later didn't work so well. Then we can return to what really worked.
I know, I know...... "But students learn differently today!" I would argue maybe so, that the "difference" lies in that many of them don't learn much, if anything at all. Perhaps a return to what actually taught students should be explored.
Consider, too, that many of our institutions of higher learning remain the best in the world. Why don't we see what they do and adapt their practices to other levels?
I've never seen these proposals anywhere at any time. I heard some guy this weekend blaming "those teachers' unions" for the decline in education. If anyone still believes the teachers' unions are responsible for the demise of education they are either delusional or very ignorant. One article I read decried the calls for "More Money!" for schools. He cited evidence that the US spends more money on education than other countries, yet doesn't get much bang for the buck. Here's something to consider. I don't deny that we spend "more money," but I do want to ask this: If that's so, why are our teachers paid so little? (I recognize that many teachers aren't worth what little they get, but that's no reason at all to penalize the good ones with salaries that are insulting!)
I understand, but don't understand, the public perceptions and even animosity toward teachers. Recently, one guy noted that he made "$150,000 a year quite a few times." I noted that's more than two times what I ever was paid in a year for teaching. He wasn't deterred, "But I was working 50 and 60 hours a week......" First, I know no good teachers who worked only 40 hours a week. (When he was in high school, I once asked one of my sons what he wanted to do when he grew up. There was a lot of hesitation, so I offered, "What about teaching?" I barely got it out of my mouth when he spit out, "No!" I asked why not and he replied, "You work too much.") Second, apparently this guy isn't so hot at math. Even at 60 hours a week, he worked 50% more than I did, but was paid 200% or more than I was. In part thanks to the society/culture we have created where making more and more money to buy more and more things is the goal, what college student is going to spend all that money and time (including that wasted year of student teaching) to come earn $35,000 a year to start, with hopes of topping out in the $50,000 or $60,000 range? I suppose it's one thing that teachers in, say, Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills can't afford houses in their school districts, but young teachers here struggle to buy homes where they teach.
So, I guess a legitimate question to ask is where all this money is going?????? I know and, as I have told several local school board members, until they address my concerns I will refuse to vote for any millage increases or bond proposals--and I will urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. (I guess the board members/schools are lucky I don't have many friends.)
Baseball. I am very glad to see Justin Verlander doing so well in Houston. I hope he get to the World Series and wins a ring! I'm also sad to see Brad Ausmus let go. I know a lot of folks don't like him, think he was a bad manager, etc. I'm not one of them. He didn't give himself a lousy bullpen every year. He didn't give himself outfielders who can't catch. He didn't sign flop after flop the past few seasons. (Well, not every signee was a flop!) I disagreed with him at times, but never thought he didn't know the game; we just have different philosophies on how best to play the game. But, like so, much, everybody knows everything. After all, everyone played little league......
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Monday Moanin'
My kid went to the UM-Air Force game on Sat. It is great to see the Ann Arbor liberals charging $7 for a hot dog and $5 for a bottle of water. Ah, those greedy Republicans! "Yeah, but that's different." Of course it is.
Last Sun or Mon AM, I ran with the temps at 37 degrees. This AM, a week later at the same time in the morning, it was 68, with a great deal of humididity. (The weather page on the computer read 100%!) Winter or summer?
Protesters have rioted again recently in St. Louis and at Georgia Tech. There's been quite a bit of damage with the looting, burning, etc. Police cars have been torched and businesses destroyed. One of the leaders of the protest insisted that the trouble, the violence is coming from "outside" agitators. Maybe, maybe not. But if so, the peaceful protesters then won't have any trouble identifying and turning into the police those who have just destroyed other people's property, including the police cars. Or are the prosecutors' offices really not interested in bringing charges against the thugs? After all, what if there are more protests? For that matter, why don't the people who have had their businesses, cars, homes, and even bodies damaged or destroyed start a protest against the self-identified "peaceful" protesters?
I heard a member of some school board member, some place within the state of Michigan, on the radio this AM. I think he is proof of the validity of Mark Twain's observation of school boards. He was insistent that, in the public schools, math and science teachers should receive higher salaries than English teachers. He specifically singled out "English" teachers, although I'm sure he meant history, art, phys ed, music, etc. teachers, too. After all, those subjects don't prepare one for a job, don't make graduates job-ready, don't make students more marketable! What a fool this man is! And the radio host (I have no idea of the guy's name; I was just "playing the radio.") agreed. People know I am not one to call all teachers "great" or even "good." There are far too many lousy ones out there. But to hear such ignorance of the value of a well-rounded education (or at least the teachers who help to provide a well-rounded education) from someone who sits on a school board is disturbing. I hope he was appointed and not elected!
I may have posted this before, but I just thought of it again this afternoon. If I were conducting interviews for prospective teachers, one of my questions would be "What did you do with your books from college?" I suppose that's a bit unorthodox, but I think it would help me determine the candidate's attitudes toward education. OK, if one is a history major, looking for a job in history, I can see tossing or selling physics books (although I kept them) or if a physics major, looking for a job in physics, tossing or selling the history books. Maybe the money was needed. But that could be part of the interviewees answer. I think the answer to this question would tell me more than the As and Bs on the transcript, since colleges give out nothing but As and Bs now.
Speaking of college books, I still have a good number of mine, along with my notebooks from many, if not most, courses. Some of the books I'd still have, but were damaged when our basement flooded many years ago. And, as I tell my students, I think I had textbooks in just two or three courses. We had other sorts of books. For instance, in my first history course, there were 12 books. I remember that clearly. In a course on the French Revolution and Napoleon, we had three books alone on the Napster; one was a brief bio and another a book of letters. A book of letters? Yep, a book of letters than the Napster wrote to others, letters others wrote to him, and still more letters others wrote to others about the Napster. And they weren't just for the courses. They formed the basis for my oral comprehensive exams, too.
Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us. I heard that one state (NJ?) football association is considering using replays to check officials' calls--in high school games! C'mon, high school football?!?!?! Well, last Fri the home team had a fourth and 6 and had to get across the 20-yard line for a first down. It went for it and was stopped well short of the 20, not really close. The two linesmen signaled "First Down" and play went on. I was silent for a while, until a dad sitting by us asked, "Am I just messed up? Were they given a first down and weren't even close? Others then chimed in, questioning, first, their own perceptions. As each came to realize, it became obvious a big mistake was made. Bitt then said, "Yeah, they had to get across the 20 and look where the ball is spotted now." Well, short of it. And the opponents didn't put up a stink and, in fact, didn't protest at all. I guess when a team is up four TDs in the 4th quarter, what difference does it make?
I see a Tiger pitcher was hit in the head with a line drive last night. That is frightening. Many balls leave the bats at faster speeds than pitches arrive. It's really surprising that more pitchers aren't hit and hurt badly. I am not pitching to Major League hitters, but when I throw BP, it's always with an L-screen. I remember being drilled above my eye just three or four years ago, when my reflexes were far greater than they are now; the ensuing gash required 7 stitches, my first and only ones in 60+ years of sports. I wonder if pitchers will soon be wearing equipment, face masks like softball pitchers wear?
Last Sun or Mon AM, I ran with the temps at 37 degrees. This AM, a week later at the same time in the morning, it was 68, with a great deal of humididity. (The weather page on the computer read 100%!) Winter or summer?
Protesters have rioted again recently in St. Louis and at Georgia Tech. There's been quite a bit of damage with the looting, burning, etc. Police cars have been torched and businesses destroyed. One of the leaders of the protest insisted that the trouble, the violence is coming from "outside" agitators. Maybe, maybe not. But if so, the peaceful protesters then won't have any trouble identifying and turning into the police those who have just destroyed other people's property, including the police cars. Or are the prosecutors' offices really not interested in bringing charges against the thugs? After all, what if there are more protests? For that matter, why don't the people who have had their businesses, cars, homes, and even bodies damaged or destroyed start a protest against the self-identified "peaceful" protesters?
I heard a member of some school board member, some place within the state of Michigan, on the radio this AM. I think he is proof of the validity of Mark Twain's observation of school boards. He was insistent that, in the public schools, math and science teachers should receive higher salaries than English teachers. He specifically singled out "English" teachers, although I'm sure he meant history, art, phys ed, music, etc. teachers, too. After all, those subjects don't prepare one for a job, don't make graduates job-ready, don't make students more marketable! What a fool this man is! And the radio host (I have no idea of the guy's name; I was just "playing the radio.") agreed. People know I am not one to call all teachers "great" or even "good." There are far too many lousy ones out there. But to hear such ignorance of the value of a well-rounded education (or at least the teachers who help to provide a well-rounded education) from someone who sits on a school board is disturbing. I hope he was appointed and not elected!
I may have posted this before, but I just thought of it again this afternoon. If I were conducting interviews for prospective teachers, one of my questions would be "What did you do with your books from college?" I suppose that's a bit unorthodox, but I think it would help me determine the candidate's attitudes toward education. OK, if one is a history major, looking for a job in history, I can see tossing or selling physics books (although I kept them) or if a physics major, looking for a job in physics, tossing or selling the history books. Maybe the money was needed. But that could be part of the interviewees answer. I think the answer to this question would tell me more than the As and Bs on the transcript, since colleges give out nothing but As and Bs now.
Speaking of college books, I still have a good number of mine, along with my notebooks from many, if not most, courses. Some of the books I'd still have, but were damaged when our basement flooded many years ago. And, as I tell my students, I think I had textbooks in just two or three courses. We had other sorts of books. For instance, in my first history course, there were 12 books. I remember that clearly. In a course on the French Revolution and Napoleon, we had three books alone on the Napster; one was a brief bio and another a book of letters. A book of letters? Yep, a book of letters than the Napster wrote to others, letters others wrote to him, and still more letters others wrote to others about the Napster. And they weren't just for the courses. They formed the basis for my oral comprehensive exams, too.
Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us. I heard that one state (NJ?) football association is considering using replays to check officials' calls--in high school games! C'mon, high school football?!?!?! Well, last Fri the home team had a fourth and 6 and had to get across the 20-yard line for a first down. It went for it and was stopped well short of the 20, not really close. The two linesmen signaled "First Down" and play went on. I was silent for a while, until a dad sitting by us asked, "Am I just messed up? Were they given a first down and weren't even close? Others then chimed in, questioning, first, their own perceptions. As each came to realize, it became obvious a big mistake was made. Bitt then said, "Yeah, they had to get across the 20 and look where the ball is spotted now." Well, short of it. And the opponents didn't put up a stink and, in fact, didn't protest at all. I guess when a team is up four TDs in the 4th quarter, what difference does it make?
I see a Tiger pitcher was hit in the head with a line drive last night. That is frightening. Many balls leave the bats at faster speeds than pitches arrive. It's really surprising that more pitchers aren't hit and hurt badly. I am not pitching to Major League hitters, but when I throw BP, it's always with an L-screen. I remember being drilled above my eye just three or four years ago, when my reflexes were far greater than they are now; the ensuing gash required 7 stitches, my first and only ones in 60+ years of sports. I wonder if pitchers will soon be wearing equipment, face masks like softball pitchers wear?
Sunday, September 10, 2017
September?
Was that frost I saw on the roof (the northern exposure) of the house across the street as I headed out to run at 6:30 AM or so? The temperature was 37 at that time, so maybe. Several of the last AMs have been in the upper 30s. Hey, isn't this early September? These temperatures are more suited to October, aren't they?
I've worn long pants/Levis to the football games. It seems to me that in the past, September ball games required shorts still. And I had on a sweatshirt and jacket on Friday. Maybe I'm just a big wimp.
I read an article in today's newspaper where a Michigan farmer from Charlotte has been banned from selling at the farmers' market in East Lansing. His offense? No, it's not bad produce or anything that serious. He posted on Facebook that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. And he also stated he wouldn't host a gay wedding at his farm. OK, right or wrong, this is an example of yet another time that Big Government has stepped on us. I know many people think I'm paranoid of this, "Big Government." But this isn't even the federal government; it's a local government, one that is supposedly in closer touch with the people. This guy hasn't actually turned down anyone at his farm; he just wrote he wouldn't host a gay marriage ceremony. He hasn't done anything. I used to think that the First Amendment read, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercises thereof or of speech or the press......" Has the First Amendment been repealed or changed? I think not. (I know it reads "Congress shall make no law.....," but the rights have been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty......" It's part of incorporation theory.) Plus, the Michigan state constitution, I think Sections 4 and 5 (?), do the same, protect our rights of freedom of religion and speech, even more directly. So, where is the state of Michigan on this? That is, where is Michigan's attorney general in protecting this farmer's Constitutional rights? Where is the outrage in East Lansing by citizens over this overreach of government authority? Oh, it doesn't directly affect them. I get it.
Here's another example. Some law professor at one of the eastern schools (I don't remember which) wrote this, about parents: ""The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws. That’s the State that is empowering parents to do anything with children—to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that." Isn't that the essence of statism? Now the state, that is, the government, is saying parents are parents only because the government allows them to be. It doesn't take long to find many examples of government overreach on this--home-schooling, vaccinations/immunizations, what can and can't be packed in kids' lunches, letting kids walk alone a couple of blocks to a local park, etc. I know, I know...... I keep forgetting. The arrogant elitists who operate the government are smarter than we are; they know what's best for us better than we do.
The Detroit News has dedicated a year in trying to get ideas on how to improve education in the state of Michigan. Apparently, in comparative state test scores, Michigan students place in the bottom 20% or worse in reading/writing, math...... First, I almost always take these test scores with a grain of salt. Maybe they are OK for a snapshot of the state of education. Second, I am skeptical of tests written to accommodate students all over the country. (Yes, I tested and still give tests in my classes. They weigh heavily in student final grades. But, my tests are tailored for each individual class. I give no "standardized" tests.) I could tell more horror stories, but I won't. As usual, I digress. The News claimed it would reach out for those ideas on how to improve education. I am, also as usual, skeptical. Who will the News ask? The same old people/administrators who led Michigan education into the abyss? Politicians who have no idea of what is required of teaching and learning? So-called "teachers-of-the-year" who from my experiences are far more often picked, not for their quality, but their popularity? (I do acknowledge some of the "TsOTY" are very deserving; they have my respect.) Corporate-types who are looking for already trained employees or for ways to boost their bottom lines by selling more and more useless "tools," like standardized tests, to the schools? Will the News listen to some very oddball ideas? Will it recognize that most of the people who have been running our schools shouldn't be running our schools? Will it accept that school administrators often do some really stupid things and that local school boards almost always merely "rubber stamp" what the administrators present? Will it recognize the wasteful monopoly of the schools of education and the certification process? Will it recognize that, yes Michigan spends more on education than most states, but that money isn't going to the single-most important and effective factor in quality education--teachers? (Teacher pay in Michigan is pathetic! I recognize that the many lousy teachers don't even deserve that, but why penalize the good ones? How are good ones going to be attracted?) Where is that money going? Will the News listen to the difference between "good teachers" and "popular/favorite teachers," recognizing that in some instances these are not mutually exclusive? Why do I think it won't listen at all, except to the people who created this mess of education in the first place? (Yes, I have tried writing to the editors, but there's not real response other than a perfunctory, "Thanks for your ideas.") Who's going to listen to some guy who writes, "Your schools are being operated by people who shouldn't be running them?" I really doubt I'll send in any ideas.
I've worn long pants/Levis to the football games. It seems to me that in the past, September ball games required shorts still. And I had on a sweatshirt and jacket on Friday. Maybe I'm just a big wimp.
I read an article in today's newspaper where a Michigan farmer from Charlotte has been banned from selling at the farmers' market in East Lansing. His offense? No, it's not bad produce or anything that serious. He posted on Facebook that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. And he also stated he wouldn't host a gay wedding at his farm. OK, right or wrong, this is an example of yet another time that Big Government has stepped on us. I know many people think I'm paranoid of this, "Big Government." But this isn't even the federal government; it's a local government, one that is supposedly in closer touch with the people. This guy hasn't actually turned down anyone at his farm; he just wrote he wouldn't host a gay marriage ceremony. He hasn't done anything. I used to think that the First Amendment read, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercises thereof or of speech or the press......" Has the First Amendment been repealed or changed? I think not. (I know it reads "Congress shall make no law.....," but the rights have been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty......" It's part of incorporation theory.) Plus, the Michigan state constitution, I think Sections 4 and 5 (?), do the same, protect our rights of freedom of religion and speech, even more directly. So, where is the state of Michigan on this? That is, where is Michigan's attorney general in protecting this farmer's Constitutional rights? Where is the outrage in East Lansing by citizens over this overreach of government authority? Oh, it doesn't directly affect them. I get it.
Here's another example. Some law professor at one of the eastern schools (I don't remember which) wrote this, about parents: ""The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws. That’s the State that is empowering parents to do anything with children—to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that." Isn't that the essence of statism? Now the state, that is, the government, is saying parents are parents only because the government allows them to be. It doesn't take long to find many examples of government overreach on this--home-schooling, vaccinations/immunizations, what can and can't be packed in kids' lunches, letting kids walk alone a couple of blocks to a local park, etc. I know, I know...... I keep forgetting. The arrogant elitists who operate the government are smarter than we are; they know what's best for us better than we do.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Some Thoughts
This week I received e-mails from two of The Gods, my Amherst professors. They congratulated me and wished me luck on the coming school year, my 47th. Of course I had some dogs for teachers in college. But these two were among the very best, really outstanding. It was also nice to hear how they are doing, their projects, etc. I still think the book, Teaching: What We Do, should be required reading for all prospective teachers. The 15 or so essays by Amherst professors, most of them mine, outline some of their lessons, how they are created/developed, etc.
I wonder why there was never any protest, never any media mention of the Che Guevara tee shirts that were sported by some of the $15/hour demonstrations. In the newspaper on Tue, a photograph has some idiot, front and center, wearing a Che shirt. I say "idiot" and mean it. This guy doesn't know that engaging in such a protest in Che's Cuba would have likely resulted in his execution. Che wasn't his given name; it was Ernesto Guevara. Let's not even touch his disdain for freedoms of speech and the press nor his utter hatred of the concept of legal rights. He was a blood-thirsty, cold-blooded murderer. He actually admitted that he liked the killings. How many tens of thousands did he have executed? How many did he enslave? How many did he slam into prisons for years and years? How many tens of thousands more Cubans died trying to escape his prisons, torture, and executions? And yet his shirt is worn. Nobody protests, not like Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis. And it's utterly amazing that many of the biogs, etc. are sympathetic toward Guevara, treating him as a hero. Heck, he initiated Castro's gulags. Which of the Lamestream media will be the first one to point out all this? They were quick to jump on Lee and Davis, rightly so. What about Che??????
Throughout the summer I watched people on their devices. At their kids ball games, parents can't even watch their kids--playing baseball or football. In restaurants, diners at the same table can often be found on their phones or I-whatevers, ignoring their fellows. Walking in the woods, on the trails, two or three can be seen looking not at nature, but on their devices. What a waste, for all of them? They can't watch their kids, something they will regret later; well, maybe they won't. Why bother going out to eat with others? Save the time of going to the woods.
But even more, what is this costing us? We don't engage in conversation. We don't talk to each other. If a question arises, everyone just turns to their devices to find the answer. Oh, they get the answer, but they lose out in the long run. Instead of wracking their brains, discussing and having dialogue, Google gives them the answer. What about the the process, the thought process, the searching through one's brain/memory? No wonder we have people still wearing tee shirts celebrating Che.
This week I was led to remember 45 or more years ago. As a beginning teacher and newlywed, two or three times a week Karen and I had Chunky Soup on rice, bulk rice at that, for dinner. One night a week it was the all-you-can-eat spaghetti at Little Caesars--oh, it was terrible, but cheap, 99 cents. It appears many teachers aren't doing much better in 2017.
From out of nowhere I remembered this one, too. Each winter the Detroit Tigers would host/sponsor our summer baseball team banquet. I think it was held at DiMambro's Italian Restaurant on Schaefer in Detroit. When saying a little something about each player, the Tiger scout who emceed said this about me, "He's the second-best centerfielder in Detroit..." I thought that was pretty cool. But others waited to hear the rest, trying to figure out who was the "best." Then he added, "...behind only Mickey Stanley." I thought that was even cooler! So did my date. (Yes, I actually had one. That's probably why she went to the prom with me!)
I have some thoughts again about the quest for a $15 an hour minimum wage. But I'm tired and will hold off on those until later in the week.
I wonder why there was never any protest, never any media mention of the Che Guevara tee shirts that were sported by some of the $15/hour demonstrations. In the newspaper on Tue, a photograph has some idiot, front and center, wearing a Che shirt. I say "idiot" and mean it. This guy doesn't know that engaging in such a protest in Che's Cuba would have likely resulted in his execution. Che wasn't his given name; it was Ernesto Guevara. Let's not even touch his disdain for freedoms of speech and the press nor his utter hatred of the concept of legal rights. He was a blood-thirsty, cold-blooded murderer. He actually admitted that he liked the killings. How many tens of thousands did he have executed? How many did he enslave? How many did he slam into prisons for years and years? How many tens of thousands more Cubans died trying to escape his prisons, torture, and executions? And yet his shirt is worn. Nobody protests, not like Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis. And it's utterly amazing that many of the biogs, etc. are sympathetic toward Guevara, treating him as a hero. Heck, he initiated Castro's gulags. Which of the Lamestream media will be the first one to point out all this? They were quick to jump on Lee and Davis, rightly so. What about Che??????
Throughout the summer I watched people on their devices. At their kids ball games, parents can't even watch their kids--playing baseball or football. In restaurants, diners at the same table can often be found on their phones or I-whatevers, ignoring their fellows. Walking in the woods, on the trails, two or three can be seen looking not at nature, but on their devices. What a waste, for all of them? They can't watch their kids, something they will regret later; well, maybe they won't. Why bother going out to eat with others? Save the time of going to the woods.
But even more, what is this costing us? We don't engage in conversation. We don't talk to each other. If a question arises, everyone just turns to their devices to find the answer. Oh, they get the answer, but they lose out in the long run. Instead of wracking their brains, discussing and having dialogue, Google gives them the answer. What about the the process, the thought process, the searching through one's brain/memory? No wonder we have people still wearing tee shirts celebrating Che.
This week I was led to remember 45 or more years ago. As a beginning teacher and newlywed, two or three times a week Karen and I had Chunky Soup on rice, bulk rice at that, for dinner. One night a week it was the all-you-can-eat spaghetti at Little Caesars--oh, it was terrible, but cheap, 99 cents. It appears many teachers aren't doing much better in 2017.
From out of nowhere I remembered this one, too. Each winter the Detroit Tigers would host/sponsor our summer baseball team banquet. I think it was held at DiMambro's Italian Restaurant on Schaefer in Detroit. When saying a little something about each player, the Tiger scout who emceed said this about me, "He's the second-best centerfielder in Detroit..." I thought that was pretty cool. But others waited to hear the rest, trying to figure out who was the "best." Then he added, "...behind only Mickey Stanley." I thought that was even cooler! So did my date. (Yes, I actually had one. That's probably why she went to the prom with me!)
I have some thoughts again about the quest for a $15 an hour minimum wage. But I'm tired and will hold off on those until later in the week.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Olio, not Butter
I hope you get the pun......
The slippery slope of monument destruction initiated or at least put on center stage by the Charlottesville tragedy keeps gnawing at me, leading to more and more thinking, esp as my history classes creep up, beginning this week.
First, did I hear this one correctly? There is now an outcry at the University of Southern California about the horse the school's cheerleaders use at football games. The loons want the horse dropped or at least have its name changed. It seems the horse's name is the same as Robert E. Lee's favorite horse, Traveler. Well, that certainly is a symbol that perpetuates the idea of white supremacy.
I appreciate the great article on "Mindless Iconoclasm" sent to me by Jerry O. It is articles like this that should form the basis for a discussion/dialogue on this issue. But I fear that "mindless" is taking firm root, as many of the protesters are acting out of ignorance.
Anyway, in response to an e-mail yesterday or the day before, I sent this, after some thought and research. (I doubt this is exactly what I sent, but it's close.) History shows us that abject evil, such as slavery, can appear to be perfectly normal to even good people depending on the time. Let's use Robert E. Lee as an example. By all accounts he was an honorable man, one who was respected far and wide. He was hard-working and achieved much. Hey, I think the man was the only West Point graduate to never had a demerit for bad conduct, etc. And he finished, academically, first in his class in getting his engineering degree. Yet......
This "good man" owned slaves. Some were his; some came from his wife and father-in-law. I'm not sure what went through his mind regarding the evilness of slavery. I do know he owned them, that when his father-in-law died, Lee could have freed his slaves immediately, but waiting five years to do so. When some of them, on the eve of the Civil War, tried to escape, they were captured, returned, and whipped mercilessly on the orders of Robert E. Lee. After the war, although he urged reconciliation, he never really advocated giving the now freedmen civil rights such as voting.
Yes, it is true he did free those slaves from his father-in-law. But that was just a short while before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. And Lincoln had announced months before that he was going to issue it on January 1, 1863. Why, then, didn't Lee free those slaves upon the death of his father-in-law or even the year before Lincoln announced the Emancipation?
But as I noted, he chose the wrong side of history. (I know that, too, is a slippery slope, "the wrong side of history," but it's my blog......) He opted to command armies that sought to retain the evil institution of slavery. Some might say he was merely holding true to "duty," the "duty of a soldier." I guess I might counter with "Where was Lee's sense of 'duty' to the United States? After all, he did attend the US Military Academy. He did serve in the US Army."
I digress some. If Lee was, by contemporary standards, an honorable man, one who gathered respect from most if not all, how could he abide slavery, taking an active part in the deplorable institution? At that time, it's not as if it were 100 or even 50 years earlier. By the 1850s there were many loud and intelligent voices and pens decrying the evils of slavery. He had to be aware, yet he chose, well, slavery.
So, how can such evil appear perfectly normal to such good people, like Robert E. Lee? I suppose one might say "Then he wasn't such a good person." Maybe, but that misses my point. And it's always dangerous to judge people of the past based upon contemporary values, isn't it? That's not at all to excuse or justify slavery, but consider today. Let's get away from beating up on those from our past and look in the contemporary mirror. Now this was my point at the start, before I was carried away.
Since 1973 (Roe v. Wade), in the US, our home nation, a thousand unborn children are killed (under the guise of euphemisms such as "abortion" or "reproductive rights," etc.) each day. And the organization that promotes and leads the way is not only protected by our government, but is funded by our tax dollars. Talk about "evil!" Others can play with the words all they want, but it's still evil. Lincoln once wrote of slavery, although it is appropriate here too, "Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon" or, in this instance, wantonly killed.
Gus has made some key points, too, well worth considering. How can we have meaningful discussions/dialogue if the first thing we do is call the other side names? We don't listen or seek to talk, but disparage those with differences. Perhaps I just did the same in my characterizations in the previous paragraph?
On another note, but still an important one, the lead headline in this AM's Detroit newspaper as about the Detroit Lion quarterback signing a five-year contract for $135 million dollars. Even without my calculator I know that's $27 a year. As I have written and said many times, I don't disparage any individuals or teams who agree to such contracts. If someone wants to pay, who am I to say, "No, don't take it!?" Who wouldn't take it? I would and my guess is you would, too.
Still I find it very dispiriting and disheartening. C'mon, these are sports, men playing kids' games. I, for one, know how very talented these athletes are and many of them have worked hard to get where they are. But, let me repeat, these are sports, men playing kids' games.
I think my views on the ineptitude of many teachers are no secrets. But good teachers are paid diddly-squat. Locally, it's rumored the teachers will get a 1/2% (That's one half percent!) raise on their contract, which will be more than offset at the beginning of the year by a huge, very huge, increase in the health care premiums they will pay. Yet, we give our athletes millions of dollars. It sort of makes a farce of always hearing about the importance of education, doesn't it?
The slippery slope of monument destruction initiated or at least put on center stage by the Charlottesville tragedy keeps gnawing at me, leading to more and more thinking, esp as my history classes creep up, beginning this week.
First, did I hear this one correctly? There is now an outcry at the University of Southern California about the horse the school's cheerleaders use at football games. The loons want the horse dropped or at least have its name changed. It seems the horse's name is the same as Robert E. Lee's favorite horse, Traveler. Well, that certainly is a symbol that perpetuates the idea of white supremacy.
I appreciate the great article on "Mindless Iconoclasm" sent to me by Jerry O. It is articles like this that should form the basis for a discussion/dialogue on this issue. But I fear that "mindless" is taking firm root, as many of the protesters are acting out of ignorance.
Anyway, in response to an e-mail yesterday or the day before, I sent this, after some thought and research. (I doubt this is exactly what I sent, but it's close.) History shows us that abject evil, such as slavery, can appear to be perfectly normal to even good people depending on the time. Let's use Robert E. Lee as an example. By all accounts he was an honorable man, one who was respected far and wide. He was hard-working and achieved much. Hey, I think the man was the only West Point graduate to never had a demerit for bad conduct, etc. And he finished, academically, first in his class in getting his engineering degree. Yet......
This "good man" owned slaves. Some were his; some came from his wife and father-in-law. I'm not sure what went through his mind regarding the evilness of slavery. I do know he owned them, that when his father-in-law died, Lee could have freed his slaves immediately, but waiting five years to do so. When some of them, on the eve of the Civil War, tried to escape, they were captured, returned, and whipped mercilessly on the orders of Robert E. Lee. After the war, although he urged reconciliation, he never really advocated giving the now freedmen civil rights such as voting.
Yes, it is true he did free those slaves from his father-in-law. But that was just a short while before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. And Lincoln had announced months before that he was going to issue it on January 1, 1863. Why, then, didn't Lee free those slaves upon the death of his father-in-law or even the year before Lincoln announced the Emancipation?
But as I noted, he chose the wrong side of history. (I know that, too, is a slippery slope, "the wrong side of history," but it's my blog......) He opted to command armies that sought to retain the evil institution of slavery. Some might say he was merely holding true to "duty," the "duty of a soldier." I guess I might counter with "Where was Lee's sense of 'duty' to the United States? After all, he did attend the US Military Academy. He did serve in the US Army."
I digress some. If Lee was, by contemporary standards, an honorable man, one who gathered respect from most if not all, how could he abide slavery, taking an active part in the deplorable institution? At that time, it's not as if it were 100 or even 50 years earlier. By the 1850s there were many loud and intelligent voices and pens decrying the evils of slavery. He had to be aware, yet he chose, well, slavery.
So, how can such evil appear perfectly normal to such good people, like Robert E. Lee? I suppose one might say "Then he wasn't such a good person." Maybe, but that misses my point. And it's always dangerous to judge people of the past based upon contemporary values, isn't it? That's not at all to excuse or justify slavery, but consider today. Let's get away from beating up on those from our past and look in the contemporary mirror. Now this was my point at the start, before I was carried away.
Since 1973 (Roe v. Wade), in the US, our home nation, a thousand unborn children are killed (under the guise of euphemisms such as "abortion" or "reproductive rights," etc.) each day. And the organization that promotes and leads the way is not only protected by our government, but is funded by our tax dollars. Talk about "evil!" Others can play with the words all they want, but it's still evil. Lincoln once wrote of slavery, although it is appropriate here too, "Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon" or, in this instance, wantonly killed.
Gus has made some key points, too, well worth considering. How can we have meaningful discussions/dialogue if the first thing we do is call the other side names? We don't listen or seek to talk, but disparage those with differences. Perhaps I just did the same in my characterizations in the previous paragraph?
On another note, but still an important one, the lead headline in this AM's Detroit newspaper as about the Detroit Lion quarterback signing a five-year contract for $135 million dollars. Even without my calculator I know that's $27 a year. As I have written and said many times, I don't disparage any individuals or teams who agree to such contracts. If someone wants to pay, who am I to say, "No, don't take it!?" Who wouldn't take it? I would and my guess is you would, too.
Still I find it very dispiriting and disheartening. C'mon, these are sports, men playing kids' games. I, for one, know how very talented these athletes are and many of them have worked hard to get where they are. But, let me repeat, these are sports, men playing kids' games.
I think my views on the ineptitude of many teachers are no secrets. But good teachers are paid diddly-squat. Locally, it's rumored the teachers will get a 1/2% (That's one half percent!) raise on their contract, which will be more than offset at the beginning of the year by a huge, very huge, increase in the health care premiums they will pay. Yet, we give our athletes millions of dollars. It sort of makes a farce of always hearing about the importance of education, doesn't it?
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Suspensions
Many of you have probably seen the brawl(s) the other day between the Detroit Tigers and New York Yankees. It started, it is claimed, weeks ago with the deliberate, so claim the Tigers, beaning of some of their players. I don't know about the intent of the pitchers back then or even a couple the other day, but throwing at players is serious business.
Being hit by pitches can put players out of action for weeks and even months, if not whole seasons. Just look at the number of players who have lost time after being hit. Sometimes careers can be ruined. Remember Tony Conigliaro? And Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch thrown by Carl Mays.
Regarding the past, some might say, "Yeah, but those players didn't wear helmets." That's true, but how many pitchers were throwing balls at 98 mph, too?
Even if not leading to serious injury, those pitches can hurt! I remember two instances of being hit. Both left imprints of the stitches of the ball on me--once my chin and the other my side. And these pitches weren't 90+ mph!
I guess it's always been part of the game, tossed in with a little macho behavior, maybe false teamwork, etc. You hit my teammate, so I'll hit yours. That players can be hurt, seriously hurt, well, that's the breaks, no pun intended.
The MLB response, that is, the suspensions, seems bad. The man who dished out the penalties, Joe Torre, is a hall-of-famer due to his managing years with......the Yankees. Why was he allowed to make the decisions? Even if the man is honest, and I have no reason to believe he isn't, the appearances are suspect.
OK, Miguel Cabrera received a seven-game suspension, I suppose for starting the whole thing. I don't claim to know for certain, but do batters who charge the mound, something Cabrera didn't do, get something equally severe?
Why did the Yankee catcher get so many days off? OK, he threw a couple of punches, but he was just trying to defend himself. If needed, suspend him for a game or two.
The Tiger manager was suspended for a game; the Yankee manager didn't receive one. Hmmm...... I wonder why. Isn't it, considering Torre's connection to the Yankees, a legitimate question? And from what I saw, the Yankee manager was far more animated and vocal than the Tiger manager.
What about the Yankee, whose name I don't remember, who is clearly seen sucker punching at least two Tigers at the bottom of the pile? They were cheap shots on players unable to defend themselves. That guy received about half the time off as Cabrera. They were blatant cheap shots! Hmmm...... Can I ask another question? Aren't the Yankees in a pennant race, with this cheap shot artist one of their key players? Again, perhaps that has nothing to do with anything, but the perception remains.
No doubt, at least in my mind, was the next Yankee pitcher throwing at the Tiger catcher's head. At least I hope not. But, he did hit him in the head, with a 98 mph pitch. These are major leaguers. A major league pitcher has to have some control over his pitches. He didn't mean it? OK, but that's not necessarily relevant. In the NHL, players are penalized for high-sticking regardless of intent; they, as NHL players, are expected to be able to control their sticks. Hmmm.....
And, almost laughable, a Tiger pitcher who said he deliberately hit the last of the hit batsmen was suspended, too. His "crime" seems to be telling the truth. I wonder if he hadn't said he did it on purpose if he'd have been suspended. Two Yankee pitchers who hit batters weren't suspended. I'm not sure either of them were deliberately doing it, but...... But the one tendered the excuse that "it slipped." Did you ever have a throw "slip" out of your hands/fingers? How much juice did you have on the throw? 98 mph?
I have already commented on how bad I think many of the MLB umpires are on balls and strikes, esp if those electronic boxes on the television screens are remotely accurate. I don't pay attention to the NBA, which the last time I watched it with any regularity it often resembled the WWF when it came to fouls and violations. (The stars rarely fouled, but, if they missed a shot or lost the ball, were always fouled. My contention is these guys are very good officials, so they must be getting orders to call games the way they do. Isn't that the WWF?) One of my buddies said on every single NFL play, a holding call could be made--and on some plays they are. But, then, why only on some? Of course, I rarely watch the NFL or even big-time college football either.
Hmmm...... Maybe I've stumbled on a reason why.
Being hit by pitches can put players out of action for weeks and even months, if not whole seasons. Just look at the number of players who have lost time after being hit. Sometimes careers can be ruined. Remember Tony Conigliaro? And Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch thrown by Carl Mays.
Regarding the past, some might say, "Yeah, but those players didn't wear helmets." That's true, but how many pitchers were throwing balls at 98 mph, too?
Even if not leading to serious injury, those pitches can hurt! I remember two instances of being hit. Both left imprints of the stitches of the ball on me--once my chin and the other my side. And these pitches weren't 90+ mph!
I guess it's always been part of the game, tossed in with a little macho behavior, maybe false teamwork, etc. You hit my teammate, so I'll hit yours. That players can be hurt, seriously hurt, well, that's the breaks, no pun intended.
The MLB response, that is, the suspensions, seems bad. The man who dished out the penalties, Joe Torre, is a hall-of-famer due to his managing years with......the Yankees. Why was he allowed to make the decisions? Even if the man is honest, and I have no reason to believe he isn't, the appearances are suspect.
OK, Miguel Cabrera received a seven-game suspension, I suppose for starting the whole thing. I don't claim to know for certain, but do batters who charge the mound, something Cabrera didn't do, get something equally severe?
Why did the Yankee catcher get so many days off? OK, he threw a couple of punches, but he was just trying to defend himself. If needed, suspend him for a game or two.
The Tiger manager was suspended for a game; the Yankee manager didn't receive one. Hmmm...... I wonder why. Isn't it, considering Torre's connection to the Yankees, a legitimate question? And from what I saw, the Yankee manager was far more animated and vocal than the Tiger manager.
What about the Yankee, whose name I don't remember, who is clearly seen sucker punching at least two Tigers at the bottom of the pile? They were cheap shots on players unable to defend themselves. That guy received about half the time off as Cabrera. They were blatant cheap shots! Hmmm...... Can I ask another question? Aren't the Yankees in a pennant race, with this cheap shot artist one of their key players? Again, perhaps that has nothing to do with anything, but the perception remains.
No doubt, at least in my mind, was the next Yankee pitcher throwing at the Tiger catcher's head. At least I hope not. But, he did hit him in the head, with a 98 mph pitch. These are major leaguers. A major league pitcher has to have some control over his pitches. He didn't mean it? OK, but that's not necessarily relevant. In the NHL, players are penalized for high-sticking regardless of intent; they, as NHL players, are expected to be able to control their sticks. Hmmm.....
And, almost laughable, a Tiger pitcher who said he deliberately hit the last of the hit batsmen was suspended, too. His "crime" seems to be telling the truth. I wonder if he hadn't said he did it on purpose if he'd have been suspended. Two Yankee pitchers who hit batters weren't suspended. I'm not sure either of them were deliberately doing it, but...... But the one tendered the excuse that "it slipped." Did you ever have a throw "slip" out of your hands/fingers? How much juice did you have on the throw? 98 mph?
I have already commented on how bad I think many of the MLB umpires are on balls and strikes, esp if those electronic boxes on the television screens are remotely accurate. I don't pay attention to the NBA, which the last time I watched it with any regularity it often resembled the WWF when it came to fouls and violations. (The stars rarely fouled, but, if they missed a shot or lost the ball, were always fouled. My contention is these guys are very good officials, so they must be getting orders to call games the way they do. Isn't that the WWF?) One of my buddies said on every single NFL play, a holding call could be made--and on some plays they are. But, then, why only on some? Of course, I rarely watch the NFL or even big-time college football either.
Hmmm...... Maybe I've stumbled on a reason why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
