I believe it was Mr. Bumble, in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, who said, "If the law supposes that, the the law is a ass--a idiot." [sic]
I don't particularly like when the courts get involved with many matters outside of the criminal system. But I was hoping the legal avenue would right what I think is an egregious wrong in the instance of the local high school basketball player deemed ineligible by the state high school athletic association for transferring "for athletic purposes."
The kid, obviously, transferred from Macomb Dakota to Clarkston to play basketball. I don't know the exact motivation. The star All-State Clarkston player is a buddy of his. The Clarkston coach is outstanding. Clarkston is the defending state champion and will like be a strong contender again this March. But the claim he transferred for academics seems very far-fetched to me. Is Dakota that rotten?
But, I think, that is all irrelevant. Who cares why the kid transferred? Oh, I didn't mention that his parents moved (a condominium I think) into the Clarkston school district. Yep, they (including the kid) are now legal residents of the Clarkston school district. He is going to high school where he lives!
And yet the Michigan High School Athletic Association ruled him ineligible for 180 days, in effect the entire basketball season. That is wrong, very wrong, on many counts.
First, who is the MHSAA to say a legal resident of a school district can't participate in his/her school's programs? If the courts are there to right wrongs, the judge yesterday should have at least stayed the MHSAA ruling. I know even the kid's lawyers said she was "bound by case law." But, well, Mr. Bumble was right. "If the law supposes that......"
Second, Dakota apparently had a very similar situation in the recent past, where a star basketball player transferred there to play with one of his buddies, also a star. (I think they even went on to play in college together.) MHSAA rules state that the school from which the transfer is leaving must sign off on it. The other school signed off on the Dakota transfer. Dakota didn't sign off on the Clarkston transfer. I think this goes beyond the ruling and the law and I think you know what I mean! In fact, if real justice would be served, for being this way, other schools should call Dakota and refuse to play against them. Of course, that won't happen. Sports are far more important than principles.
Third, the MHSAA claimed the association wasn't "being selective" in its ruling on this case. I presume he tried to say it with a straight face. He cited a couple of other similar cases this year. Gee, in the whole state of Michigan three or four such cases? I hardly know where to start. Why is there no investigation and ruling on the many high schools that, say, annually end up with as many as 11 or 12 Division 1 college signees? (The instances are legion.) Why is there no investigation of, say, out-of-state transfers who miraculously end up at the same athletic powerhouse high schools? (Well, it's obviously for the academics, certainly not athletics!) I know the MHSAA said it can only investigate if there is a complaint. That's hooey of the first degree. So, if a known drug dealer is murdered, a prosecutor can't file charges against the perpetrator unless there is a complaint? I know there is a difference here, between criminal law and MHSAA rules. But I think the principle is the same.
Fourth, a kid is losing an entire year of his basketball life. No doubt he'll be fine, move on to MSU next year and everyone will forget it. But those of us who have played sports know those times, even a single year, are to be treasured throughout our lifetimes. And he's getting cheated out of it by petty adults--both at Dakota and the MHSAA. I suppose I could toss in the judge who refused to issue the injunction; case law be damned in this instance. If case law perpetrates wrong-doing, then get rid of it.
Fifth, where is the leash on the MHSAA? Again, it claims that it only enforces rules agreed upon by its member schools. Again, that's hooey. What other schools, other than Dakota, really care--or should care--if this kid plays at Clarkston? Are they afraid of losing? Then why don't they contact the MHSAA about the other high schools who have accumulated Division 1 talent? I know from personal experience that the MHSAA acts arrogantly, knowing apparently, there is no rein, no check on it. In the distant past, I have contacted it by maybe five or six letters (before computers/e-mails) about matters and didn't receive a peep from it.
In all, I think this is a travesty. Maybe it's all about the undue important and emphasis placed on athletics in high school. I'm willing to concede that, that sports have become, well, something that they shouldn't have become. That's not just a high school problem, though. I'm concerned here just about this instance, when a kid who has been wronged has not received the remedy to that wrong. I think the most important thing to remember is, academics or athletics--who cares?--the kid and his family are legal residents of the school district where he attends school.
Again, as usual, forgive any typos and misspellings. It's very early and I'm in a hurry to start my day.
Friday, January 12, 2018
Thursday, January 11, 2018
It's Almost Funny...
...almost. It happened again today. The trash collectors left our receptacles right in the middle of the driveway so no car could enter. Michael parked in the street and moved the can(s) out of the way. I can only assume that the guys do this on purpose--it happens so often and to many in our neighborhood. Maybe not, though.
After finishing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Allen Guelzo), I'm left with many impressions, most as one might guess, positive ones. I think Guelzo is even more of a Lincoln fan than I am! (I almost wrote "even more of a Lincoln apologist than I am." But I don't think Lincoln needs any apologists.) That was good to see/read. It was cool to read of Lincoln's somewhat uneven signature on the EP. Many have said it was because he was hesitant, almost losing his nerve at the last minute in issuing it. He had no intention on going back on his word. The unevenness of his signature, "Abraham Lincoln" which he rarely used in place of "A. Lincoln," was due to the January 1st handshakes for several hours at the White House. Some have suggested he shook hundreds of hands that day, maybe as many as 700. I think that might cause a hand to act up a bit. I was also very glad to see Michigan's own Zachariah Chandler figure so prominently or, at least, far more prominently than he is usually depicted. Chandler was a giant among the abolitionists, the Radical Republicans, but is most often ignored or subjugated to a lesser role than that of, say, Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, and Charles Sumner. (Chandler, a Detroit hardware store owner, was sued in the 1850s by one U.S. Grant, who was stationed there. Grant fell on the slippery walkway in front of then Mayor Chandler's house and won a judgment of $5 (?). Grant held no hard feelings apparently, as he appointed Chandler to his Cabinet in 1875.)
I was repeatedly struck by the irony of this: Southerners constantly argued that freedom included their right to own other people, their slaves. Abolition, then, was stealing freedom from white southern slave owners.
I'm not a big fan of George McClellan, the Union general. In fact, I'm no fan at all. One of my favorite Lincoln comments came in the face of McClellan's notorious reluctance to engage the enemy. "If you're not going to use the army, could I borrow it for a while?" I've always considered McClellan one who likely lengthened the Civil War, leading to more casualties. (Of course, it's hard to prove things that don't happen, but......) Guelzo paints him in an even darker light, almost a traitorous one. And he includes some of McClellan's staff. He cites threats of courts-martial and even some cashiering of officers. Hmmm......
For whatever reason, I've thought about something I've not thought about--maybe ever. Would I enjoy living in a city like New York or Boston? I think in many ways, urban life in either of those two places is different from, say, Detroit or Chicago. Living in the brownstones, able to walk through and shop the ethnic neighborhoods, etc., almost seemed compelling--almost. How different such a life would be from the suburban lifestyle!
Another article in an ongoing series about life in the neighborhoods of Detroit depicted a far different image of the city's so-called "rebound." Residents were interviewed and they cited the squatters and druggies living in abandoned houses, leading to robberies and shootings. "It's not safe." I know crime statistics, numerically, are down in Detroit. But although murders were the lowest there in about 40 years, the population is barely 1/3 of what it was then. As a percentage of population, the rate was way up. Perhaps getting the downtown and entertainment areas will soon allow the city to devote more attention and resources to the neighborhoods. I hope so. I remember a great, great Detroit, a wonderful city to grow up in and near.
One last thing, how does this happen? I am, I sheepishly admit, up about 10 pounds from my usual weight, even at this time of the year when it usually climbs a bit. Yet, my trousers all a looser around the waist?!?!?! In light of that, 10 pounds seems like a lot.
As usual, please forgive any typos and misspellings. I'm too tired to proofread today.
After finishing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Allen Guelzo), I'm left with many impressions, most as one might guess, positive ones. I think Guelzo is even more of a Lincoln fan than I am! (I almost wrote "even more of a Lincoln apologist than I am." But I don't think Lincoln needs any apologists.) That was good to see/read. It was cool to read of Lincoln's somewhat uneven signature on the EP. Many have said it was because he was hesitant, almost losing his nerve at the last minute in issuing it. He had no intention on going back on his word. The unevenness of his signature, "Abraham Lincoln" which he rarely used in place of "A. Lincoln," was due to the January 1st handshakes for several hours at the White House. Some have suggested he shook hundreds of hands that day, maybe as many as 700. I think that might cause a hand to act up a bit. I was also very glad to see Michigan's own Zachariah Chandler figure so prominently or, at least, far more prominently than he is usually depicted. Chandler was a giant among the abolitionists, the Radical Republicans, but is most often ignored or subjugated to a lesser role than that of, say, Thaddeus Stevens, Ben Wade, and Charles Sumner. (Chandler, a Detroit hardware store owner, was sued in the 1850s by one U.S. Grant, who was stationed there. Grant fell on the slippery walkway in front of then Mayor Chandler's house and won a judgment of $5 (?). Grant held no hard feelings apparently, as he appointed Chandler to his Cabinet in 1875.)
I was repeatedly struck by the irony of this: Southerners constantly argued that freedom included their right to own other people, their slaves. Abolition, then, was stealing freedom from white southern slave owners.
I'm not a big fan of George McClellan, the Union general. In fact, I'm no fan at all. One of my favorite Lincoln comments came in the face of McClellan's notorious reluctance to engage the enemy. "If you're not going to use the army, could I borrow it for a while?" I've always considered McClellan one who likely lengthened the Civil War, leading to more casualties. (Of course, it's hard to prove things that don't happen, but......) Guelzo paints him in an even darker light, almost a traitorous one. And he includes some of McClellan's staff. He cites threats of courts-martial and even some cashiering of officers. Hmmm......
For whatever reason, I've thought about something I've not thought about--maybe ever. Would I enjoy living in a city like New York or Boston? I think in many ways, urban life in either of those two places is different from, say, Detroit or Chicago. Living in the brownstones, able to walk through and shop the ethnic neighborhoods, etc., almost seemed compelling--almost. How different such a life would be from the suburban lifestyle!
Another article in an ongoing series about life in the neighborhoods of Detroit depicted a far different image of the city's so-called "rebound." Residents were interviewed and they cited the squatters and druggies living in abandoned houses, leading to robberies and shootings. "It's not safe." I know crime statistics, numerically, are down in Detroit. But although murders were the lowest there in about 40 years, the population is barely 1/3 of what it was then. As a percentage of population, the rate was way up. Perhaps getting the downtown and entertainment areas will soon allow the city to devote more attention and resources to the neighborhoods. I hope so. I remember a great, great Detroit, a wonderful city to grow up in and near.
One last thing, how does this happen? I am, I sheepishly admit, up about 10 pounds from my usual weight, even at this time of the year when it usually climbs a bit. Yet, my trousers all a looser around the waist?!?!?! In light of that, 10 pounds seems like a lot.
As usual, please forgive any typos and misspellings. I'm too tired to proofread today.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Reflections on...
...turning 69 years old. 69?!?!?! I am flooded with thoughts, some I likely won't reveal right now. Still, it's very odd to consider, 69. I suppose it's like 2018, as noted before.
I ran, despite the low temperatures (5-6 degrees, a veritable heat wave compared to other AMs this week!), 6.9 miles. I did it on purpose, but it also worked out with the strong winds that popped up overnight and another easy day/run while my injury is slowly, but surely healing. And, coming only from a runner, I'm actually looking forward to next year. Yep, 70 years old puts me in a new age-group for racing. But 69 pits me against those youngsters who are 65......
Nolan Finley had an interesting editorial in this AM's newspaper. It went beyond, I think, the apparent subject, Jeff Sessions as attorney-general and his stance in opposing states' approval of recreational marijuana. Finley questioned the attorney-general "...telling the states they can't exercise the constitutional authority assigned to them [under the principle of federalism] to adapt and enforce a system of laws regulating the activity of their citizens within their borders." Yes, I agree with Finley, except......
I am curious. Finley doesn't like that "...the states can't exercise the constitutional authority assigned to them to adapt and enforce a system of laws regulating the activity of their citizens within their borders." Hmmm......The Civil War notwithstanding, might that "system of laws regulating activity of their citizens within their borders" include protecting and perpetuating slavery? What about blocking civil rights?
I ran, despite the low temperatures (5-6 degrees, a veritable heat wave compared to other AMs this week!), 6.9 miles. I did it on purpose, but it also worked out with the strong winds that popped up overnight and another easy day/run while my injury is slowly, but surely healing. And, coming only from a runner, I'm actually looking forward to next year. Yep, 70 years old puts me in a new age-group for racing. But 69 pits me against those youngsters who are 65......
Nolan Finley had an interesting editorial in this AM's newspaper. It went beyond, I think, the apparent subject, Jeff Sessions as attorney-general and his stance in opposing states' approval of recreational marijuana. Finley questioned the attorney-general "...telling the states they can't exercise the constitutional authority assigned to them [under the principle of federalism] to adapt and enforce a system of laws regulating the activity of their citizens within their borders." Yes, I agree with Finley, except......
I am curious. Finley doesn't like that "...the states can't exercise the constitutional authority assigned to them to adapt and enforce a system of laws regulating the activity of their citizens within their borders." Hmmm......The Civil War notwithstanding, might that "system of laws regulating activity of their citizens within their borders" include protecting and perpetuating slavery? What about blocking civil rights?
Although I am opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana (even if by state actions), I agree with Finley regarding Sessions and his stance on the issue. Actually, I agree with Sessions on the legalization, but not his attempts to prohibit state actions. I believe in federalism and its principles, esp those which limit the power of the national government. Yet, the specter of the past, that is slavery, civil rights, etc., looms.
Of course I rationalize, if only to appease my self-acknowledged contradictions. It is mindful of the ruling in Brown v Board of Education. Legally and constitutionally, the Supremes' ruling was/is suspect. Yet, it was so clearly and inherently proper--and other/alternative paths to racial justice were just as clearly improbable or even impossible--that it was worth fracturing the Constitution. Or was it? Similarly, consider Lincoln's route to the Emancipation Proclamation and abolition. The questionable (perhaps I'm being generous here?) executive actions came only after all other avenues to freedom, short of winning the Civil War which wasn't at all a given, had been blocked. Both Brown and the EP fly in the face of my appreciation for federalism and my distaste for national government power, but......
That raises a difficult and dangerous question. Is a worthy and desired outcome, one that might be inherently and clearly decent, justification for torturing the Constitution? A "yes" answer puts one on a slippery slope indeed.
In reading a book on Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation last week, I came across a vignette that has stuck with me. Washington, DC, during the Civil War and even up to the Second World War, was essentially a southern city, much like Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA. Attitudes in DC toward slavery and blacks (free as well as slave) were those of the seceded South. (Two things to note. Exceptions were found in the abolitionists of both parties. And there were many people i the North who were equally racist.)
In the midst of this racism, the extremely negative light in which blacks were held in the nation's capital, it was disconcerting to read of DC denizens who flocked to a minstrel show, "...twenty-two white men in blackface strumming banjos and washboards, free men pretending to be slaves." I can't get that out of my head. "...pretending to be slaves."
Regarding Gus's comment to my last post. It's hard to argue the importance, good or bad, with the Kennedy family. The Roosevelts, esp if we consider different branches of the family--Oyster Bay/TR and Hyde Park/FDR. What about the Adams family, excluding Gomez (Addams), of course? There were John and John Quincy, both Presidents. Charles Francis Adams served the government in a long, distinguished career. Then there were Henry Adams and his brother Brooks, historians/authors. Let's not forget Abigail, too!!!!!! Maybe she should have been the first woman President! I think the different times lead us to the Kennedy family, though, for better or for worse.
And, thanks again, Joe! It is appreciated.
Forgive any typos and other errors. I don't have the time or inclination to proofread.
In reading a book on Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation last week, I came across a vignette that has stuck with me. Washington, DC, during the Civil War and even up to the Second World War, was essentially a southern city, much like Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA. Attitudes in DC toward slavery and blacks (free as well as slave) were those of the seceded South. (Two things to note. Exceptions were found in the abolitionists of both parties. And there were many people i the North who were equally racist.)
In the midst of this racism, the extremely negative light in which blacks were held in the nation's capital, it was disconcerting to read of DC denizens who flocked to a minstrel show, "...twenty-two white men in blackface strumming banjos and washboards, free men pretending to be slaves." I can't get that out of my head. "...pretending to be slaves."
Regarding Gus's comment to my last post. It's hard to argue the importance, good or bad, with the Kennedy family. The Roosevelts, esp if we consider different branches of the family--Oyster Bay/TR and Hyde Park/FDR. What about the Adams family, excluding Gomez (Addams), of course? There were John and John Quincy, both Presidents. Charles Francis Adams served the government in a long, distinguished career. Then there were Henry Adams and his brother Brooks, historians/authors. Let's not forget Abigail, too!!!!!! Maybe she should have been the first woman President! I think the different times lead us to the Kennedy family, though, for better or for worse.
And, thanks again, Joe! It is appreciated.
Forgive any typos and other errors. I don't have the time or inclination to proofread.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Happy New Year!
2018? That, as Karen said very early Mon AM, "sounds weird." Indeed it does. I wonder how many of us in my age bracket thought we'd ever say "2018." Well, we have and let's make the most of it.
There's so much to say/write, yet as I've pondered the past few weeks, there's nothing to say/write. I know, I know......
I can't believe it's been four weeks since my last post. But final exams, the kids, the holidays all added up. Like I noted, so much to say, nothing to say.
I did manage to read a bit over that time and one book was about the Christmas Truce of 1914, when soldiers from Germany (the Central Powers) and from Britain and France (the Allies) put down their weapons on the Western Front (No Man's Land it was coined) and celebrated. They traded "gifts," chocolate, cigarettes, scarves, hats, etc. There were even some "football" (soccer) games between sides, friendly games of course. All this reminded me of something I read years ago, a tee shirt or bumper sticker, something. "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came." Naive? Of course. But, at the same time, hopeful.
New Year's Resolutions? I'm not big on them. I have goals, but they aren't really tied to any one single new year. I would hope, though, that this year I pay more attention to what I read. That is, reading or hearing something is something I should check out, double check, before accepting it as fact or legitimate. I know it's easy to fall into that trap, of assuming something is so just because it's out there in print or the air waves--and then repeating it. I suppose that is one of the pitfalls of all this technology in communication and I, like many, fall for it, too. "But it's on the Internet." We laugh at this, but sometimes it's not funny.
Tying the previous two paragraphs, I am currently into a book about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. Even before all this social media (Oh, I dislike that term, but......), similar pitfalls have occurred. One of the most celebrated of US historians was Richard Hofstadter. His views on the Emancipation Proclamation became widespread, repeated in textbooks and lectures for decades without challenge. And those views are wrong. His claim that the EP had "all the eloquence of a bill of lading" was not just about the style of the document. Certainly he was right that it doesn't have the "eloquence" of the Gettysburg Address or Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. But his criticism wasn't just that or even primarily that. It was that the EP was a posturing of sorts, that it really didn't free any slaves. And that is demonstrably false. In issuing it, Lincoln not only opened the door for the abolition of slavery, but actually succeeded in freeing tens of thousands, if not more, slaves. Of course it was a wartime measure and Lincoln perceived it as such. It was also a political move. But it was also a legal document that had the force of law. Yet, how many textbooks, how many lessons have indicated that the EP was an empty gesture, when it clearly wasn't? Yet, because the noted Richard Hofstadter made such a claim, it was accepted.
I also discovered something I didn't realize. I've never been a big fan of John Kennedy. I cringe when I hear or read that people think he was a great president. No, he wasn't. But I have grudgingly gained more, at least a little bit more, respect for him due to his spoken words. He was a wonderful speaker, able to get/convince people to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do. I certainly give him points for that. Yet he refused to give a speech, in 1962 I think, at the Lincoln Memorial about the importance of the EP. JFK was afraid of alienating southern Democrats/voters in the face of what he perceived would be a difficult re-election campaign in '64. I'm not certain, but it might have been Truman, another Democrat, who said something about doing what's right and the rest will take care of itself.
There's so much to say/write, yet as I've pondered the past few weeks, there's nothing to say/write. I know, I know......
I can't believe it's been four weeks since my last post. But final exams, the kids, the holidays all added up. Like I noted, so much to say, nothing to say.
I did manage to read a bit over that time and one book was about the Christmas Truce of 1914, when soldiers from Germany (the Central Powers) and from Britain and France (the Allies) put down their weapons on the Western Front (No Man's Land it was coined) and celebrated. They traded "gifts," chocolate, cigarettes, scarves, hats, etc. There were even some "football" (soccer) games between sides, friendly games of course. All this reminded me of something I read years ago, a tee shirt or bumper sticker, something. "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came." Naive? Of course. But, at the same time, hopeful.
New Year's Resolutions? I'm not big on them. I have goals, but they aren't really tied to any one single new year. I would hope, though, that this year I pay more attention to what I read. That is, reading or hearing something is something I should check out, double check, before accepting it as fact or legitimate. I know it's easy to fall into that trap, of assuming something is so just because it's out there in print or the air waves--and then repeating it. I suppose that is one of the pitfalls of all this technology in communication and I, like many, fall for it, too. "But it's on the Internet." We laugh at this, but sometimes it's not funny.
Tying the previous two paragraphs, I am currently into a book about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. Even before all this social media (Oh, I dislike that term, but......), similar pitfalls have occurred. One of the most celebrated of US historians was Richard Hofstadter. His views on the Emancipation Proclamation became widespread, repeated in textbooks and lectures for decades without challenge. And those views are wrong. His claim that the EP had "all the eloquence of a bill of lading" was not just about the style of the document. Certainly he was right that it doesn't have the "eloquence" of the Gettysburg Address or Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. But his criticism wasn't just that or even primarily that. It was that the EP was a posturing of sorts, that it really didn't free any slaves. And that is demonstrably false. In issuing it, Lincoln not only opened the door for the abolition of slavery, but actually succeeded in freeing tens of thousands, if not more, slaves. Of course it was a wartime measure and Lincoln perceived it as such. It was also a political move. But it was also a legal document that had the force of law. Yet, how many textbooks, how many lessons have indicated that the EP was an empty gesture, when it clearly wasn't? Yet, because the noted Richard Hofstadter made such a claim, it was accepted.
I also discovered something I didn't realize. I've never been a big fan of John Kennedy. I cringe when I hear or read that people think he was a great president. No, he wasn't. But I have grudgingly gained more, at least a little bit more, respect for him due to his spoken words. He was a wonderful speaker, able to get/convince people to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do. I certainly give him points for that. Yet he refused to give a speech, in 1962 I think, at the Lincoln Memorial about the importance of the EP. JFK was afraid of alienating southern Democrats/voters in the face of what he perceived would be a difficult re-election campaign in '64. I'm not certain, but it might have been Truman, another Democrat, who said something about doing what's right and the rest will take care of itself.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
What Are We...
...becoming or have already become?
I think I noted that on November 22, I saw nary an article on the Kennedy assassination, not a single one. Well, OK......
But on the way to class this AM, two different radio stations had something like "On this date in history." Both, as the lead, was "Frosty the Snowman first appeared on CBS" or whatever network it was. Neither mentioned, not a word at all, that this is the 76th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Maybe our entry into the Second World War isn't as important as Frosty, maybe. Maybe not everyone is high on history like I am. But maybe we've reached the abyss??????
I sometimes wonder who reads this blog. I generally get 50 or so hits/views, sometimes more than that. I think my highest was last summer with one post getting more than 100. Good. I also wonder why some of my posts show up on radio shows or in newspaper editorials/op-eds a week or two afterward.
Last weekend I posted about history and the dangers of not knowing it. This AM on one of the radio talk shows, a guest whose name I don't remember, talked of the current use of language. It was, I think, akin to my suggestions as to the use (misuse or abuse?) of history. Just as not knowing our history allows others to co-opt it, to define our history and therefore us, language can be co-opted, too. If terms are allowed to be used in ways that are dishonest or, at least, disingenuous, debates and discussions are one-sided. Take a term that is bandied about far too often, "fascist." It's become de rigueur among many to call names. If one disagrees with, say college students, that one is labeled a "fascist." I wonder if many of these students even know what a fascist is/was? Since when is disagreement an invitation to use the term "fascist?" Were then either Hamilton or Jefferson, depending on one's view, a fascist? After all, they disagreed and vehemently so.
Perhaps less dire, though, is our haphazard use of terms like "icon" and "classic." I heard someone say that of a moderately popular television show of some years ago. Maybe the person talking really liked the program; that doesn't necessarily make it a "classic." For that matter, is John Conyers, among others, really an "icon" of the civil rights movement? I guess that depends on one's definition. Surely he was an integral individual in civil rights. He played an important role. But when I think of "icons" of the civil rights movement I immediately think of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. That doesn't mean others, even nameless folks who did unrecorded deeds, haven't also been instrumental. I think tossing around words like "classic" and "icon" so willy-nilly cheapens the concepts. Not everything that a lot of people liked is a classic and not everyone involved in a movement, regardless of roles, is an icon.
Sort of funny, to me at least, was this, perhaps in the same vein. I walked into a school where I formerly taught and was greeted by a former colleague. He addressed me as "the venerable......" I smiled and later wondered if he knows what the word means. I've also been into that same place and been called "the legend." But I'm not sure if that is complimentary or not! I guess there are worse things to be called.
Yesterday, I had a nice enough run in the AM. I am combating some piriformis/sciatic problems, but they appear to be, however slowly, improving. Then, last night I went out for an evening run. I was a bit tired and maybe concerned about my piriformis/sciatic difficulties. But I was committed and off I went. By the time we finished, it was dark. (Fortunately, the trail we ran is smooth, hilly but smooth, so the dangers of tripping and falling were minimal.) It was a great run. It was so pretty out there, with no real pain either! And this AM, again in the dark before class, I had another beautiful run, this time for a little different reason. It snowed today. Nothing stuck, but the flakes were like big feathers, soft and floating in the air. Neither time did the cold bother me/us at all.
BTW, how do you get down off an elephant? You don't; you get down off a duck.
I think I noted that on November 22, I saw nary an article on the Kennedy assassination, not a single one. Well, OK......
But on the way to class this AM, two different radio stations had something like "On this date in history." Both, as the lead, was "Frosty the Snowman first appeared on CBS" or whatever network it was. Neither mentioned, not a word at all, that this is the 76th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Maybe our entry into the Second World War isn't as important as Frosty, maybe. Maybe not everyone is high on history like I am. But maybe we've reached the abyss??????
I sometimes wonder who reads this blog. I generally get 50 or so hits/views, sometimes more than that. I think my highest was last summer with one post getting more than 100. Good. I also wonder why some of my posts show up on radio shows or in newspaper editorials/op-eds a week or two afterward.
Last weekend I posted about history and the dangers of not knowing it. This AM on one of the radio talk shows, a guest whose name I don't remember, talked of the current use of language. It was, I think, akin to my suggestions as to the use (misuse or abuse?) of history. Just as not knowing our history allows others to co-opt it, to define our history and therefore us, language can be co-opted, too. If terms are allowed to be used in ways that are dishonest or, at least, disingenuous, debates and discussions are one-sided. Take a term that is bandied about far too often, "fascist." It's become de rigueur among many to call names. If one disagrees with, say college students, that one is labeled a "fascist." I wonder if many of these students even know what a fascist is/was? Since when is disagreement an invitation to use the term "fascist?" Were then either Hamilton or Jefferson, depending on one's view, a fascist? After all, they disagreed and vehemently so.
Perhaps less dire, though, is our haphazard use of terms like "icon" and "classic." I heard someone say that of a moderately popular television show of some years ago. Maybe the person talking really liked the program; that doesn't necessarily make it a "classic." For that matter, is John Conyers, among others, really an "icon" of the civil rights movement? I guess that depends on one's definition. Surely he was an integral individual in civil rights. He played an important role. But when I think of "icons" of the civil rights movement I immediately think of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. That doesn't mean others, even nameless folks who did unrecorded deeds, haven't also been instrumental. I think tossing around words like "classic" and "icon" so willy-nilly cheapens the concepts. Not everything that a lot of people liked is a classic and not everyone involved in a movement, regardless of roles, is an icon.
Sort of funny, to me at least, was this, perhaps in the same vein. I walked into a school where I formerly taught and was greeted by a former colleague. He addressed me as "the venerable......" I smiled and later wondered if he knows what the word means. I've also been into that same place and been called "the legend." But I'm not sure if that is complimentary or not! I guess there are worse things to be called.
Yesterday, I had a nice enough run in the AM. I am combating some piriformis/sciatic problems, but they appear to be, however slowly, improving. Then, last night I went out for an evening run. I was a bit tired and maybe concerned about my piriformis/sciatic difficulties. But I was committed and off I went. By the time we finished, it was dark. (Fortunately, the trail we ran is smooth, hilly but smooth, so the dangers of tripping and falling were minimal.) It was a great run. It was so pretty out there, with no real pain either! And this AM, again in the dark before class, I had another beautiful run, this time for a little different reason. It snowed today. Nothing stuck, but the flakes were like big feathers, soft and floating in the air. Neither time did the cold bother me/us at all.
BTW, how do you get down off an elephant? You don't; you get down off a duck.
Friday, December 1, 2017
Teachers
I'm in my 47th year of teaching. I know that seems like a long time, but I don't see anything on the horizon to cause me to completely retire. I still enjoy it, as I noted in a lengthy e-mail regarding history and its teaching last week.
All these years and I still think of my own teachers, from way back. From the perspective of 47 years of teaching, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the good ones and the not-so-good ones.
I think I have written a number of times about my college professors at Amherst. Oh, I had some dogs there, but most were very good and some just brilliant. I have called them "The Gods." And, to me, they are. I am grateful for them and their teaching and feel honored to still be in contact with several of them.
But I want to go farther back than college. I think I remember almost every one of my elementary teachers and most of my junior high and high school teachers. Some I thought were pretty lousy back then and still think so. Others I thought were pretty good, some of them even growing in stature as I try to figure out this teaching stuff. (Yep, after 47 years, I'm still trying to figure it out!)
Most of my elementary teachers were very good. Oh, all but one or two were strict, quite so. That never bothered me, other than join in with others to say "How mean" or whatever one of them was. I learned a lot from them, including some self-discipline. Despite their strictness, at least to me, their caring always seemed apparent. If not always or even sometimes nurturing (Isn't that a buzz word now?), they did want us to learn and demanded it. If we didn't, due to our laziness or refusal, they jumped all over us.
In junior high, I had a much more mixed bag of teachers. One English teacher, I thought then and still think today, was very good. Oh, many of the students found him to be harsh, even mean. Hey, if a student was caught chewing gum in his class, he would say, "You are caught!" and then make the sinner stand in front of the class with the gum on his/her nose. It was quite the deterrent. Rumors were he was once a professional wrestler, although I never bought into it. He was a stickler for grammar, in speaking and in writing, and did his best to drill that into us. I always respected him and thought even more highly of him as a moved along with my own teaching. Obversely, another of my junior high teachers was the nicest, quietest woman one could imagine. Oh, she was smart. One would think with her demur stature, with her almost shy personality, she'd have trouble with classroom management, with discipline. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There were never any problems in her classes. She was a master!
One of my math teachers was also very, very good, but just one of them. I think a couple of the others were outside of their subject areas and it's almost as if the best students taught themselves with the text book. Another was highly regarded, even by my father, but I didn't think much of him, not compared to the math teacher I had before him. This one was very quiet, almost nerdy, but not quite. I suppose I wouldn't have been surprised to see him walking around with a slide rule hanging from his belt loops. I think, though, that he did have a plastic pocket liner! But he was really good at explaining math concepts, esp how they were used in story problems. (Are they still called that, "story problems?") And, any thought of "nerdiness" was erased when he came down to the gym after school and showed how to play basketball!
I really enjoyed my phys ed teacher, too. He was my football and swimming coach. For the longest time I wanted to be a phys ed teacher, to be just like him. He was far more than, "OK, this unit is volleyball" or "basketball" or whatever. He took time to show an interest, at least with me he did. I would bet a lot of others would say that, too. And, in the same vein, our assistant principal was just outstanding, too! He seemed to be everywhere at all times. And we were terrified of him--he was many of our parents' coach at one time or another and, back then, coaches were gods. How many times was I on the verge, when, from out of nowhere he'd emerge, saying, "Marinucci, do I have to call your old man--at work?" "NO!!!!!!" Any thought of wrong doing disappeared. Oh, by the way, I was on the receiving end of their paddles more than once--"more than once" shows how stupid I was. But this assistant principal was always there, always. In the gym, he'd be watching. Sometimes he'd challenge us to a game of "21," shooting free-throws. He shot them the very old-fashioned way, even then, underhanded like Wilt Chamberlain sometimes did. Except, I don't think he ever missed, ever lost to us. Sometimes he'd even beat us while he was blindfolded! And, to make things interesting, he (and my phys ed teacher) would play us for "Cokes." But neither ever made us pay up; I think they knew we had no money.
In high school, four of my math teachers were just outstanding. I went to Amherst toying with the idea of majoring in math. (Freshman calculus ended that thought!) They all had the same easy-going style, rarely showing any anger, always having the class(es) under control, and patiently teaching. I don't know if it is ironic or stereotypical or......but the only bad math teacher I had was a football coach. My two chemistry teachers were good, the advanced chem teacher outstanding, really really good. I remember he crammed the "required" material into one card marking period and used the last two for experiments. I remember some of them. He'd mix a solution and then give us a vial of it. We had to determine what the "ingredients" were. We'd do "dry labs" on paper, using all of the formulas, and then the actual experiments. If the experiments didn't come out the ways the dry labs suggested, we had to go through both and explain why they didn't.
I guess I'm not surprised it took a good long while for me to really learn to write. I credit that to two things. One, at Amherst that's all we did, well, other than read millions of pages. We had, in many classes, a 3-5 page paper due every Monday; going in there, I thought 3-5 pages was a term paper, not one for every Monday. Two, after graduation, my friends were all over the country, none here in Michigan. Long before e-mail and toll-free long distance calls, we wrote letters, often three and four and five pages, even longer. But back to high school. I had some mediocre English teachers. A couple were brand new, right out of college (and teachers have to start somewhere; I think it takes time to forget all that crap the schools of education try to teach) and another was out of her discipline. One taught me a lot, but I'm not sure it helped my writing at all. He didn't like the curriculum and rushed through the required grammar book; we had two or three hours of grammar homework a night to get through it. I'm sure he never graded the homework, a black mark on him, but...... He was very tough, making us do research papers and, most important to him, give oral reports on them. We dreaded that because he would try to tear us apart while presenting. But, he did teach us how to think, if only a bit (our fault, not his!), to be thorough, and to be able to back up what we wrote or said (or he'd tear us apart!).
It was kind of cool, my senior year in baseball, this tough English teacher and the second chemistry teacher would come to ball games. After we outfielders threw to bases, these two guys would alternative hitting me fly balls until the game(s) started. My buddies, players and otherwise, could scarcely believe their eyes! These were two hard cases, yet...... I think I had trouble believing it, too.
Oddly, throughout my junior high and high school times, I really didn't have a history (or social studies) teacher who I thought was very good, then and now. So, how did I become a history major? I think my Amherst professors were outstanding and that is why. But, again I digress. In junior high, I'll bet most of the students thought one of the teachers of history was great. I didn't then and think even less of him now. Perhaps ironically, he had a first-rate mind, at least in asking questions. (I think he was pretty close-minded, though). But he didn't work very hard at it and really didn't teach me anything. I think it was more a case of just going through the school year than anything. It's too bad; I think he had a lot to offer. (This teacher also frequently raved about an English teacher at the high school. He had her back when and told us how great she was and how lucky we'd be if we also had her when we got there. Well, I did and I found her to be mediocre, at best. I still remember one assignment we did that demonstrated she wasn't very good, couldn't really think.)
In high school, I had one social studies teacher I thought was very brilliant, had great ideas, and led wonderful classroom discussions. I learned from that. But I think he was lazy and what little work we had to do, he never graded, but had us do it in class. He could have been great. But my geography teacher was outstanding. When I took the class, it was the first time it was offered and, obviously, taught by him. He was really, really good. He had a wonderful personality and sense of humor and a great way of presenting material that wasn't always stuff that grabbed us. (It didn't hurt that he sat me next to a girl I eventually dated and took to the prom! She was great.) I later had him for a graduate statistics course in college. He had earned his PhD, but insisted that I continue to call him, not "Dr.," but "Mr.," just like in high school.
I supposed I could remember more, but now, I have to head off to class!!!!!! I'm looking forward to three hours on the civil rights movement. I bet students will be surprise at how much time we'll spend on Jackie Robinson!
All these years and I still think of my own teachers, from way back. From the perspective of 47 years of teaching, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the good ones and the not-so-good ones.
I think I have written a number of times about my college professors at Amherst. Oh, I had some dogs there, but most were very good and some just brilliant. I have called them "The Gods." And, to me, they are. I am grateful for them and their teaching and feel honored to still be in contact with several of them.
But I want to go farther back than college. I think I remember almost every one of my elementary teachers and most of my junior high and high school teachers. Some I thought were pretty lousy back then and still think so. Others I thought were pretty good, some of them even growing in stature as I try to figure out this teaching stuff. (Yep, after 47 years, I'm still trying to figure it out!)
Most of my elementary teachers were very good. Oh, all but one or two were strict, quite so. That never bothered me, other than join in with others to say "How mean" or whatever one of them was. I learned a lot from them, including some self-discipline. Despite their strictness, at least to me, their caring always seemed apparent. If not always or even sometimes nurturing (Isn't that a buzz word now?), they did want us to learn and demanded it. If we didn't, due to our laziness or refusal, they jumped all over us.
In junior high, I had a much more mixed bag of teachers. One English teacher, I thought then and still think today, was very good. Oh, many of the students found him to be harsh, even mean. Hey, if a student was caught chewing gum in his class, he would say, "You are caught!" and then make the sinner stand in front of the class with the gum on his/her nose. It was quite the deterrent. Rumors were he was once a professional wrestler, although I never bought into it. He was a stickler for grammar, in speaking and in writing, and did his best to drill that into us. I always respected him and thought even more highly of him as a moved along with my own teaching. Obversely, another of my junior high teachers was the nicest, quietest woman one could imagine. Oh, she was smart. One would think with her demur stature, with her almost shy personality, she'd have trouble with classroom management, with discipline. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There were never any problems in her classes. She was a master!
One of my math teachers was also very, very good, but just one of them. I think a couple of the others were outside of their subject areas and it's almost as if the best students taught themselves with the text book. Another was highly regarded, even by my father, but I didn't think much of him, not compared to the math teacher I had before him. This one was very quiet, almost nerdy, but not quite. I suppose I wouldn't have been surprised to see him walking around with a slide rule hanging from his belt loops. I think, though, that he did have a plastic pocket liner! But he was really good at explaining math concepts, esp how they were used in story problems. (Are they still called that, "story problems?") And, any thought of "nerdiness" was erased when he came down to the gym after school and showed how to play basketball!
I really enjoyed my phys ed teacher, too. He was my football and swimming coach. For the longest time I wanted to be a phys ed teacher, to be just like him. He was far more than, "OK, this unit is volleyball" or "basketball" or whatever. He took time to show an interest, at least with me he did. I would bet a lot of others would say that, too. And, in the same vein, our assistant principal was just outstanding, too! He seemed to be everywhere at all times. And we were terrified of him--he was many of our parents' coach at one time or another and, back then, coaches were gods. How many times was I on the verge, when, from out of nowhere he'd emerge, saying, "Marinucci, do I have to call your old man--at work?" "NO!!!!!!" Any thought of wrong doing disappeared. Oh, by the way, I was on the receiving end of their paddles more than once--"more than once" shows how stupid I was. But this assistant principal was always there, always. In the gym, he'd be watching. Sometimes he'd challenge us to a game of "21," shooting free-throws. He shot them the very old-fashioned way, even then, underhanded like Wilt Chamberlain sometimes did. Except, I don't think he ever missed, ever lost to us. Sometimes he'd even beat us while he was blindfolded! And, to make things interesting, he (and my phys ed teacher) would play us for "Cokes." But neither ever made us pay up; I think they knew we had no money.
In high school, four of my math teachers were just outstanding. I went to Amherst toying with the idea of majoring in math. (Freshman calculus ended that thought!) They all had the same easy-going style, rarely showing any anger, always having the class(es) under control, and patiently teaching. I don't know if it is ironic or stereotypical or......but the only bad math teacher I had was a football coach. My two chemistry teachers were good, the advanced chem teacher outstanding, really really good. I remember he crammed the "required" material into one card marking period and used the last two for experiments. I remember some of them. He'd mix a solution and then give us a vial of it. We had to determine what the "ingredients" were. We'd do "dry labs" on paper, using all of the formulas, and then the actual experiments. If the experiments didn't come out the ways the dry labs suggested, we had to go through both and explain why they didn't.
I guess I'm not surprised it took a good long while for me to really learn to write. I credit that to two things. One, at Amherst that's all we did, well, other than read millions of pages. We had, in many classes, a 3-5 page paper due every Monday; going in there, I thought 3-5 pages was a term paper, not one for every Monday. Two, after graduation, my friends were all over the country, none here in Michigan. Long before e-mail and toll-free long distance calls, we wrote letters, often three and four and five pages, even longer. But back to high school. I had some mediocre English teachers. A couple were brand new, right out of college (and teachers have to start somewhere; I think it takes time to forget all that crap the schools of education try to teach) and another was out of her discipline. One taught me a lot, but I'm not sure it helped my writing at all. He didn't like the curriculum and rushed through the required grammar book; we had two or three hours of grammar homework a night to get through it. I'm sure he never graded the homework, a black mark on him, but...... He was very tough, making us do research papers and, most important to him, give oral reports on them. We dreaded that because he would try to tear us apart while presenting. But, he did teach us how to think, if only a bit (our fault, not his!), to be thorough, and to be able to back up what we wrote or said (or he'd tear us apart!).
It was kind of cool, my senior year in baseball, this tough English teacher and the second chemistry teacher would come to ball games. After we outfielders threw to bases, these two guys would alternative hitting me fly balls until the game(s) started. My buddies, players and otherwise, could scarcely believe their eyes! These were two hard cases, yet...... I think I had trouble believing it, too.
Oddly, throughout my junior high and high school times, I really didn't have a history (or social studies) teacher who I thought was very good, then and now. So, how did I become a history major? I think my Amherst professors were outstanding and that is why. But, again I digress. In junior high, I'll bet most of the students thought one of the teachers of history was great. I didn't then and think even less of him now. Perhaps ironically, he had a first-rate mind, at least in asking questions. (I think he was pretty close-minded, though). But he didn't work very hard at it and really didn't teach me anything. I think it was more a case of just going through the school year than anything. It's too bad; I think he had a lot to offer. (This teacher also frequently raved about an English teacher at the high school. He had her back when and told us how great she was and how lucky we'd be if we also had her when we got there. Well, I did and I found her to be mediocre, at best. I still remember one assignment we did that demonstrated she wasn't very good, couldn't really think.)
In high school, I had one social studies teacher I thought was very brilliant, had great ideas, and led wonderful classroom discussions. I learned from that. But I think he was lazy and what little work we had to do, he never graded, but had us do it in class. He could have been great. But my geography teacher was outstanding. When I took the class, it was the first time it was offered and, obviously, taught by him. He was really, really good. He had a wonderful personality and sense of humor and a great way of presenting material that wasn't always stuff that grabbed us. (It didn't hurt that he sat me next to a girl I eventually dated and took to the prom! She was great.) I later had him for a graduate statistics course in college. He had earned his PhD, but insisted that I continue to call him, not "Dr.," but "Mr.," just like in high school.
I supposed I could remember more, but now, I have to head off to class!!!!!! I'm looking forward to three hours on the civil rights movement. I bet students will be surprise at how much time we'll spend on Jackie Robinson!
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Hmmm......
Now, it's John Conyers. He's apparently denying, "vehemently," all charges of sexual harassment that have been alleged by a number of women. (That number seems to be growing by the day.) I have a couple of thoughts about this latest outrage.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
