What is our fascination with celebrity? I understand that we are not necessarily unique in this, but I still don't understand the fascination.
Oh, I'm sure for a long time people have turned out to see kings and queens, etc. Folks have sought autographs and other memorabilia. Look at Beatlemania and even the bobby soxers with Frank Sinatra before that. That's all fine and good for some people. I admit to saving a handful of baseball cards and even an autograph or two, but only of two players with whom I have a personal connection. But I'm not sure I could find them without a lengthy search.
More to my point is why does it seem people think the opinions of celebrities matter more than any other person's opinions? Look at the television shows, the talk shows. And how often do the Hollywood-types and hippy rock stars make the headlines for their views? I don't begrudge them their opinions. I just wonder why someone could think an entertainer of whatever sort has an opinion more worthy than anybody else's--just because he/she is an entertainer. In fact, I sometimes hear or read of one of them and just shake my head. Of course, they, like everyone, are entitled to opinions. That doesn't necessarily make it a good one or even a valid one.
In the same vein, I received an e-mail the other day (joking I hope!) about a possible Oprah Winfrey run at the Presidency. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion why couldn't she be nominated and, perhaps, even elected? I certainly wouldn't vote for her, but I think a lot of people just might. Why? It has to do with celebrity I think far more than her accomplishments, which are many. Would most who might support her think of what she has achieved rather than merely, "It's Oprah?"
An old Jewish proverb goes, "Opportunities neglected can never be recovered." Although "never" is a word that should be used with caution, I frequently think of "missed opportunities." Some of those thoughts reflect what an Amherst buddy asked me 50 years ago. "What if you'd gone to the University of Michigan instead of Amherst?" It wasn't a rhetorical question and it sparked some interesting discussions back when. And I've thought of that many times since. I don't regret and never have regretted going to Amherst. It was, although it took me more than a few years to figure it out, the formative experience of my life.
I thought of this when I was reading Dennis Prager's chapter on Exodus, from his book The Rational Bible. He brings the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, to life and demonstrates their relevance to today. Perhaps some of the lessons can form the basis of a future blog. My immediate thought was of "opportunities neglected."
More than once over the years I have regretted not taking one or two religion courses at Amherst, The Old Testament and The New Testament. I don't remember why I didn't take them. I took a number of courses from the religion department--two on Islam, one each on Buddhism, the Western Tradition, and the introductory course, among a couple of others. But I shied away from the OT and NT. I wish I hadn't and Prager's writing reminds me of that.
Perhaps it/they would have done me more good than, say, the sociology course or education course at UMass (What a waste! Although I didn't mind at the time that there was little if any work.) I took. In the long run, the OT or NT course or both would have served me better. "Opportunities neglected......"
The world is a changing place. Of course, as history shows us, the world is always changing, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. Perhaps this is the sentiment of one who (or is it the pretentious "whom?") Karen calls "an old curmudgeon," but I don't like many of them. Some I just don't understand and never will. Several sources, including Prager, reported that a Cornell University student presented her honors thesis in her underwear! Some honor! Yep. It's a convoluted story, but apparently she opted to give her dry run in short shorts and a beach-wear top. Her adviser suggested that clothing was not appropriate. So, the student, in her formal presentation, showed up in the same or similar clothes, but while presenting, proceeded to strip down to her bra and panties. Apparently there is some You Tube video of this. (There's probably a You Tube video of me while grocery shopping!) This was a formal thesis presentation!!!!!! I'm not sure of her point, maybe that "I'm more than what I wear?" Who knows? I'm as disturbed over the reaction as much as this student's grossly inappropriate behavior. First, her thesis adviser apologized! For what?!?!?! Second, of the several dozen students at the presentation, a majority stood and applauded her strip show. Third, her thesis advisory committee didn't walk out. I, for one, had I been on the evaluation board, would have left. I'm assuming, but could be wrong, that a full committee would be required for a passing grade. I'd have said, "Come back dressed appropriately and I'll listen." So, why didn't these professors walk out? Their behavior condoned her behavior. Why did the students rise and clap? Did they know what she was doing and approve? Or were they just enjoying the strip show? This student showed a great deal of disrespect toward her professors, toward the process, and toward academia, not to mention her own thesis (whatever its topic). Oh, no doubt she, like the students who applauded, thought she was cool and making a dramatic statement. Yep, "It's all about me!" I wonder, if indeed this episode is on You Tube, what her parents thought of it, seeing her daughter strip down in front of others. Imagine if they, too, were in the audience! I'm sure they were proud......
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Sun Thoughts
This AM's newspapers carried several stories that attracted my attention. First, "61 people shot in Chicago since Monday." "61?" At least 15 of them were hit with bullets from Friday evening to early Saturday morning. The police chief said "We have to get some common sense gun control laws in this country......" He added, "...not just this city, not just this state, but this country to stop this from happening." Hmmm...... He might be right; who knows? But if I have read correctly, Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. It seems to me Chicago doesn't have a gun problem, but a people problem. Too many folks have no value for human lives, except perhaps for their own. I know I've asked this before, but what leads a person to believe he can just pull out a gun and shoot someone for his car or shoes or jacket, or because he was "dissed," or for whatever reason? What kind of animal randomly shoots into a house no knowing who is sitting in the living room just watching the boob tube, doing homework, etc.? Ninety-nine percent of the gun owners in the US don't shoot people. Maybe someone ought to point that out to the police chief and suggest he look at the Chicago people who do. Maybe......
Second, Cal Thomas wrote a column that reads like a number of blogs and e-mails I've written in the distant and not-so-distant past. Sometimes Thomas is a bit too far out there for me, but not this day. "Vulgar goes mainstream." He cited that unfunny comedienne at the White House Correspondents' Dinner--her vile words and lack of civility. I thought I was reading my own words. Thomas asked why people didn't walk out. He noted more examples, too. Language that used to be found only in the locker room has made it to movies, television, newspapers, video games, and more. It seems nobody is shocked to hear such talk, "blue language" my college coach called it as he didn't permit it. Nobody is ashamed to use it. I chuckled at Thomas's "...having his mouth washed out with soap." My mother used to put soap on a wash rag and then clean out my filthy mouth. Oh, she didn't have to do it often and as bad as that was, it was better than her telling my dad when he got home from work. How can we punish kids for language that parents accept as normal on prime time television, in popular movies (even the kids' cartoons!), etc.? I know, I know...... "They're only words." Yeah, right.
I'm still not a fan of Don Trump, not at all. He shouldn't be President, at least in my view. If he's the best we can do, we are pathetic. That's not an endorsement of Obama or Clinton or anyone else. I find them equally disgusting. Another article, I think one day last week in the Wall Street Journal, wrote of Trump's accomplishments, that, because of them, we should ignore everything else he does. I remember what people said of Mussolini, of his accomplishments in Italy. "He makes the trains run on time." (Now, he really didn't, but that's not my point.) Because he "made the trains run on time," everything else he did could be overlooked. And, because I know a little bit about Hitler and his early days as the Fuhrer in Germany, I could make some other comparisons. (I know, I know...... He who resorts to "Hitler" in an argument loses by default.) But from 1933 on to when the tides of war turned against Germany, he was very popular. He turned the economy around. He created jobs. He made it so Germany was feared again. He made Germany great again, after the humiliation of the loss of the First World War and the "diktat," the Treaty of Versailles. (Now, not all of that is so, but it was the general perception.) Things were, as they always are, a bit different. In Germany, opposition was silenced and people were imprisoned and even disappeared. Almost immediately Jews were targeted. But as long as the economy began to boom and the massive unemployment of the Depression dissipated, these things were ignored or, at least, overlooked. I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler or even Mussolini, not at all. I am concerned that Trump's accomplishments (and I think they are underrated by his opponents and overrated by his supporters) lead many to overlook and ignore what shouldn't be overlooked and ignored. (And I could cite more examples/comparisons.) As usual, I concede that I might be all wrong on this.
Second, Cal Thomas wrote a column that reads like a number of blogs and e-mails I've written in the distant and not-so-distant past. Sometimes Thomas is a bit too far out there for me, but not this day. "Vulgar goes mainstream." He cited that unfunny comedienne at the White House Correspondents' Dinner--her vile words and lack of civility. I thought I was reading my own words. Thomas asked why people didn't walk out. He noted more examples, too. Language that used to be found only in the locker room has made it to movies, television, newspapers, video games, and more. It seems nobody is shocked to hear such talk, "blue language" my college coach called it as he didn't permit it. Nobody is ashamed to use it. I chuckled at Thomas's "...having his mouth washed out with soap." My mother used to put soap on a wash rag and then clean out my filthy mouth. Oh, she didn't have to do it often and as bad as that was, it was better than her telling my dad when he got home from work. How can we punish kids for language that parents accept as normal on prime time television, in popular movies (even the kids' cartoons!), etc.? I know, I know...... "They're only words." Yeah, right.
I'm still not a fan of Don Trump, not at all. He shouldn't be President, at least in my view. If he's the best we can do, we are pathetic. That's not an endorsement of Obama or Clinton or anyone else. I find them equally disgusting. Another article, I think one day last week in the Wall Street Journal, wrote of Trump's accomplishments, that, because of them, we should ignore everything else he does. I remember what people said of Mussolini, of his accomplishments in Italy. "He makes the trains run on time." (Now, he really didn't, but that's not my point.) Because he "made the trains run on time," everything else he did could be overlooked. And, because I know a little bit about Hitler and his early days as the Fuhrer in Germany, I could make some other comparisons. (I know, I know...... He who resorts to "Hitler" in an argument loses by default.) But from 1933 on to when the tides of war turned against Germany, he was very popular. He turned the economy around. He created jobs. He made it so Germany was feared again. He made Germany great again, after the humiliation of the loss of the First World War and the "diktat," the Treaty of Versailles. (Now, not all of that is so, but it was the general perception.) Things were, as they always are, a bit different. In Germany, opposition was silenced and people were imprisoned and even disappeared. Almost immediately Jews were targeted. But as long as the economy began to boom and the massive unemployment of the Depression dissipated, these things were ignored or, at least, overlooked. I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler or even Mussolini, not at all. I am concerned that Trump's accomplishments (and I think they are underrated by his opponents and overrated by his supporters) lead many to overlook and ignore what shouldn't be overlooked and ignored. (And I could cite more examples/comparisons.) As usual, I concede that I might be all wrong on this.
Friday, May 4, 2018
How Deep Is......
Wasn't it the Bee Gees or some such group that sang, "How deep is the Swamp," er "your love?" I was reminded of that, the deepness of the Swamp in DC this week with the announcement from Paul Ryan that he wouldn't seek re-election.
My initial reaction was, "Good! Let's get rid of another one of those guys who stabbed his constituents in the back." But I took a measure of my reaction and have a different, somewhat different, take on this. Again, I might be wrong, but......
I think Ryan is a good man, a decent guy who intended to do what's right. No doubt he made some difference. For instance, it was Ryan not Trump who brought about the recent tax cuts. (My mind is still not made up about that one. I see many folks and businesses who have apparently profited from the coming tax cuts. So far I don't appear to be one of them. I'll know more this time next year.) Ryan's plans (beginning in 2011) to balance the federal budget were well-thought, if not universally popular.
Paul Ryan is a smart guy, very intelligent. But I think he was caught in the wrong place--that is the Swamp. Ryan is an idea guy, a policy wonk. But, esp in his position as Speaker, he was required to forgo his strengths and become, well, a politician. He began to try to form consensus, coalitions, etc. Those terms resurfaced, "reach across the aisle," "bipartisanship," etc. It remained, though, that such efforts were incumbent on just one of the two parties, not the other.
So Ryan, as Speaker, was forced to abandon his strengths. A good man, a bright one, was swallowed up by the Swamp and became a liability, a detriment.
Do I buy his reasons for resigning? Maybe. Surely life as a Congressman is not particularly conducive to family life. It's even less so as Speaker. I understand Ryan's explanation. But I also think he realizes, although he'll never admit it, that he became part of the Swamp. And he found that to be very troublesome. (Of course, I'm speculating. I have no pipeline to Ryan's innermost thoughts.) It's as if he asked himself, "What have I become?" and he didn't like the answer. There is also some talk that he also knows the mess that has been created, in part by him, and he doesn't want to be around when it really hits the fan. Maybe. Perhaps, too, he doesn't want to be associated with a political party which has as its nominal head one such as Don Trump. Again, I'm speculating.
But the lesson is this. The DC Swamp is deep. We have allowed it to become so. There's nobody "draining" it. I'm not sure at this point if it can be drained. Ryan's exit tells me that he sees neither party willing to try to get rid of the morass. And the Swamp has swallowed a good man in Paul Ryan.
When are people going to get tired of being lied to? I was sent a clip from the movie Network (which I've never seen) in which some newscaster on air pleads with viewers to go to their windows and doors and scream, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." I wonder when people today will, if ever, reach that point with all of the lies they are told. We are bombarded with lies, from politicians and other government-types, from the media, from corporations. The lies come on a grand scale, the national level, and on lesser, state and local, levels. I wonder if some of the liars realize they are lying or if they are just following the script/agenda they are told to follow. But some of them are bold enough to admit they lie, but, of course, for a greater good, at least greater in their eyes. It's not just the morality of lying (If our leaders lie, lie, lie, what sort of role-modeling is that for others, esp our young? "Hey, our President(s) lie(s). Why can't I?"), but the detriment of no longer knowing who and what to believe. I suppose the liars have learned as long as people get their "stuff," what the Romans provided as "bread and circuses," the lies can continue.
I never heard of that so-called comedienne who ripped on the President's press secretary at the recent dinner for the press corps. She was certainly out of order and, if the little bit I heard is representative, I wonder how she makes a living in comedy. In my view, when she started in on that, it was time for everyone to walk out. That few if any did tells me a lot about that press corps, esp the big-names. Perhaps I expect too much, integrity from people. After all, shame has disappeared for many, if not most, people. What I also found interesting was that the people who seemed to be most upset at all of this are Trumpsters! Ha Ha Ha......
That Fresno State professor who made those cruel and nasty comments about Barbara Bush upon her death should be fired--post haste! No, tenure doesn't and shouldn't protect her. Some ding-a-ling from the U of M had a letter-to-the-editor defending the twits/tweets as an extension of tenure. He is all wet. Tenure protects--and should protect--professors in the classroom, not their personal rants. I've read about professors on some college campuses who are conservatives and even voted for Trump, but are leery, if not afraid, to publicly admit it. They fear shunning, ostracism from their colleagues. How interesting that this loon from California is defended, not shunned and ostracized, by fellow professors. Like the press corps that didn't walk out, they tell me a lot about themselves. I can't believe they would want to have someone like her in their profession. We live in strange times.
When are people going to get tired of being lied to? I was sent a clip from the movie Network (which I've never seen) in which some newscaster on air pleads with viewers to go to their windows and doors and scream, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." I wonder when people today will, if ever, reach that point with all of the lies they are told. We are bombarded with lies, from politicians and other government-types, from the media, from corporations. The lies come on a grand scale, the national level, and on lesser, state and local, levels. I wonder if some of the liars realize they are lying or if they are just following the script/agenda they are told to follow. But some of them are bold enough to admit they lie, but, of course, for a greater good, at least greater in their eyes. It's not just the morality of lying (If our leaders lie, lie, lie, what sort of role-modeling is that for others, esp our young? "Hey, our President(s) lie(s). Why can't I?"), but the detriment of no longer knowing who and what to believe. I suppose the liars have learned as long as people get their "stuff," what the Romans provided as "bread and circuses," the lies can continue.
I never heard of that so-called comedienne who ripped on the President's press secretary at the recent dinner for the press corps. She was certainly out of order and, if the little bit I heard is representative, I wonder how she makes a living in comedy. In my view, when she started in on that, it was time for everyone to walk out. That few if any did tells me a lot about that press corps, esp the big-names. Perhaps I expect too much, integrity from people. After all, shame has disappeared for many, if not most, people. What I also found interesting was that the people who seemed to be most upset at all of this are Trumpsters! Ha Ha Ha......
That Fresno State professor who made those cruel and nasty comments about Barbara Bush upon her death should be fired--post haste! No, tenure doesn't and shouldn't protect her. Some ding-a-ling from the U of M had a letter-to-the-editor defending the twits/tweets as an extension of tenure. He is all wet. Tenure protects--and should protect--professors in the classroom, not their personal rants. I've read about professors on some college campuses who are conservatives and even voted for Trump, but are leery, if not afraid, to publicly admit it. They fear shunning, ostracism from their colleagues. How interesting that this loon from California is defended, not shunned and ostracized, by fellow professors. Like the press corps that didn't walk out, they tell me a lot about themselves. I can't believe they would want to have someone like her in their profession. We live in strange times.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Leaders and Flaws
"What kind of a people do they think we are? Can it be they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?" Later, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." (I'm doing these from memory; I might have a word or two wrong.)
Some of you may recognize these as coming from Winston Churchill. The first was part of a speech to the US Congress after American entry into the Second World War. The second comes from his Iron Curtain Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, MO.
The British have voted Churchill the "greatest Briton," with full discount that he was far more well-known that other Brits of the long past. Even some American historians, at the turn of the 20th Century, chose him as "The Man of the Century." Whether, due to his role in World War 2, he "saved Western Civilization" may be a bit much. All of these are debatable.
But he was also an elitist and a bigot. He was an imperialist and anti-Semite (but pro-Zionist!). But this isn't about Churchill, per se. Check, for instance, his views on Indians and Arabs. For all of his greatness, he had flaws, many of them deep.
How, then, do we evaluate our leaders (heroes even)? I've written about how I think character and morality matter, particularly in light of recent and present public figures/politicians. Yet, I am reminded that many people I've admired, including Churchill, were flawed, some deeply so. How then to wrestle with their "greatness?"
I was and have been critical of Bill Clinton, Don Trump, and others for their dishonesty, infidelity, and more. I still think that morality and character matter.
Last week there was a special section of the newspaper on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. The many quotations scattered throughout the section were reminders, as if I needed any, of the greatness of the man. One that has always struck me is this: "Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle......" That is a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten, but frequently is. Another: "A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right." Like Churchill, King had flaws, maybe some deep. He did plagiarize some of his dissertation at Boston U, not enough to have a committee that reviewed it posthumously to revoke his degree. It did recognize the plagiarism. (Imagine the pressure on such a committee!) It's also pretty well known that King had, as Ralph Abernathy wrote, "a weakness for women."
Neither of these men, Churchill and King, were heroes to me, not in the normal sense of the word. But I greatly admire each. I suppose the closest I have to a hero is Abraham Lincoln, as demonstrated by my several Lincoln ties, socks, tee shirts, a bobble head, and even underwear! I am aware of his flaws, as I think he was. I think what really separates him from others was the observation of W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP, made in a letter/essay ("Again, Lincoln," 1922) more than 50 years after Lincoln's assassination. I've written it before, from memory, but it bears repeating here: "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century...... I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. This world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet became Abraham Lincoln." No, he was not perfect, but, I think consciously, worked toward perfection.
Others, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (slaveowners), Woodrow Wilson (elitist and racist), Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy (deceitful and philanderers) all are held up as, if not heroes, as great men. (Rightly or wrongly, in some I think very wrong, but that's not my point here, to discuss their "greatness.") How do we evaluate them?
Are we sometimes blinded by myopia, that is, short-term successes while not seeing the bigger picture, say, longer-term detriments, things which may not appear for years afterward? Are there no real heroes? Is that relevant? Can we still admire men, if not their characters, at least their accomplishments?
Is it even a discussion worth having, instead of, say, drywall?
Some of you may recognize these as coming from Winston Churchill. The first was part of a speech to the US Congress after American entry into the Second World War. The second comes from his Iron Curtain Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, MO.
The British have voted Churchill the "greatest Briton," with full discount that he was far more well-known that other Brits of the long past. Even some American historians, at the turn of the 20th Century, chose him as "The Man of the Century." Whether, due to his role in World War 2, he "saved Western Civilization" may be a bit much. All of these are debatable.
But he was also an elitist and a bigot. He was an imperialist and anti-Semite (but pro-Zionist!). But this isn't about Churchill, per se. Check, for instance, his views on Indians and Arabs. For all of his greatness, he had flaws, many of them deep.
How, then, do we evaluate our leaders (heroes even)? I've written about how I think character and morality matter, particularly in light of recent and present public figures/politicians. Yet, I am reminded that many people I've admired, including Churchill, were flawed, some deeply so. How then to wrestle with their "greatness?"
I was and have been critical of Bill Clinton, Don Trump, and others for their dishonesty, infidelity, and more. I still think that morality and character matter.
Last week there was a special section of the newspaper on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. The many quotations scattered throughout the section were reminders, as if I needed any, of the greatness of the man. One that has always struck me is this: "Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle......" That is a lesson that shouldn't be forgotten, but frequently is. Another: "A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right." Like Churchill, King had flaws, maybe some deep. He did plagiarize some of his dissertation at Boston U, not enough to have a committee that reviewed it posthumously to revoke his degree. It did recognize the plagiarism. (Imagine the pressure on such a committee!) It's also pretty well known that King had, as Ralph Abernathy wrote, "a weakness for women."
Neither of these men, Churchill and King, were heroes to me, not in the normal sense of the word. But I greatly admire each. I suppose the closest I have to a hero is Abraham Lincoln, as demonstrated by my several Lincoln ties, socks, tee shirts, a bobble head, and even underwear! I am aware of his flaws, as I think he was. I think what really separates him from others was the observation of W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP, made in a letter/essay ("Again, Lincoln," 1922) more than 50 years after Lincoln's assassination. I've written it before, from memory, but it bears repeating here: "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century...... I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. This world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet became Abraham Lincoln." No, he was not perfect, but, I think consciously, worked toward perfection.
Others, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (slaveowners), Woodrow Wilson (elitist and racist), Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy (deceitful and philanderers) all are held up as, if not heroes, as great men. (Rightly or wrongly, in some I think very wrong, but that's not my point here, to discuss their "greatness.") How do we evaluate them?
Are we sometimes blinded by myopia, that is, short-term successes while not seeing the bigger picture, say, longer-term detriments, things which may not appear for years afterward? Are there no real heroes? Is that relevant? Can we still admire men, if not their characters, at least their accomplishments?
Is it even a discussion worth having, instead of, say, drywall?
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Big Government
"Big Government" doesn't just apply to DC and the massive federal apparatus. It's in many of the states and local governments, too. A recent Detroit News op-ed detailed some egregious examples.
I've seen some of these before, but they bear remembering. In Michigan, an auto mechanic can take a 6-hour course to become state certified. That's fine. According to federal regulations, a commercial airplane pilot requires 1,500 hours of instruction. That's fine, too, esp when I'm up in a metal tube, 36,000 feet in the sky, traveling at 600 mph! To get a license, Michigan requires barbers to have 1,800 hours of classes/instruction to cut hair.
There are certain rules that govern cosmetology students' ability to shampoo clients' hair. I don't know about Michigan's regulations, but there's a Supreme Court case now challenging Tennessee's (?) requirement of 300 hours of instruction "on the theory and practice of shampooing." Silly me. I thought it was "Apply. Lather. Rinse." At least that's what's on the bottle in our shower stall.
Of course, the rationale is always that such onerous rules and regulations are to protect the public. OK, I understand the pilots' requirements. The health care and child care fields? OK. I admit that there is a public safety issue in regulating electricians and the like, too.
But what about florists, like some states do? Or tree trimmers? In California, a woman was fined $10,000 for trimming, by request, some branches from her neighbor's oak tree. She didn't have a license. Toss in hair-braiders, tour guides, and yoga instructors. In a number of states, they must be licensed. Why? For instance, if my yoga instructor is rotten (none of them are; they are very good), I can stop going, find another place, etc. Wisconsin regulated sign language interpreters. An Oregon engineer with engineering degrees from Cornell and MIT, was fined $500 for not being "a registered engineer," that is, "registered" with the state. I've written many times about how I think student teaching for prospective teachers is a scam.
This isn't just about government overreach, this attitude that somehow government knows more and better than we do and must stick its hand in more and more aspects of our lives. There is a good deal of economic evidence that the excessive regulation costs jobs and depresses pay.
Two articles in the latest issue of the Amherst Alumni Magazine are worthy of note. One, telling the life of Harold Wade, Jr., was compelling--and I don't toss that word around blithely. He was a black student from NYC, a senior when I was a freshman, but I didn't know him and don't at all remember him. I wish I had. (But that, me taking advantage of a wider range of students, was still a couple of years off. As I recently told one of my professors, "I was struggling to keep my head above water" academically and otherwise.) The author of Black Men of Amherst (now out of print) , Wade tragically drowned just a few years after graduation. From a memorable article, I keep returning to this from Wade, "This college is moving [forward in the area of civil rights] and does not have to disown its past to do so." I think we can consider that in much of our current evaluations of the past, particularly in light of the Civil War and slavery.
Related, perhaps only tangentially (I used that word frequently and was pleased to hear one of my students this AM use it!), was another article which chronicled a number of recent Amherst graduates who are "making their mark in China." They have become entrepreneurs there. I didn't read much of the article, but was still a bit perplexed. Why are these Americans doing their work in China, Commie China? Aren't the Chinese among the most repressed people in the world? Aren't they ruled by the ham-handed commie party? What rights do they have? (Heh Heh.) Yet more, don't the Chinese lead the world (or are at least close) in stealing others' ideas in technology, military secrets, and intellectual property? So, why are these people helping the Chinese? I guess, if had read the article, the answer might be they are seeking to help the Chinese people, not the Chinese government. Hmmm...... Haven't there been movements in the US to go after companies and individuals who profited from dealing with Hitler and the Nazis and companies and families who built the foundations of their fortunes on slavery before the Civil War? What's the difference? I never liked that the Michigan governors, the last two at least, courted trade with China. The commies in China, Nazis, slaveholders?????? I guess when it boils down to it, it's all about money.
I've seen some of these before, but they bear remembering. In Michigan, an auto mechanic can take a 6-hour course to become state certified. That's fine. According to federal regulations, a commercial airplane pilot requires 1,500 hours of instruction. That's fine, too, esp when I'm up in a metal tube, 36,000 feet in the sky, traveling at 600 mph! To get a license, Michigan requires barbers to have 1,800 hours of classes/instruction to cut hair.
There are certain rules that govern cosmetology students' ability to shampoo clients' hair. I don't know about Michigan's regulations, but there's a Supreme Court case now challenging Tennessee's (?) requirement of 300 hours of instruction "on the theory and practice of shampooing." Silly me. I thought it was "Apply. Lather. Rinse." At least that's what's on the bottle in our shower stall.
Of course, the rationale is always that such onerous rules and regulations are to protect the public. OK, I understand the pilots' requirements. The health care and child care fields? OK. I admit that there is a public safety issue in regulating electricians and the like, too.
But what about florists, like some states do? Or tree trimmers? In California, a woman was fined $10,000 for trimming, by request, some branches from her neighbor's oak tree. She didn't have a license. Toss in hair-braiders, tour guides, and yoga instructors. In a number of states, they must be licensed. Why? For instance, if my yoga instructor is rotten (none of them are; they are very good), I can stop going, find another place, etc. Wisconsin regulated sign language interpreters. An Oregon engineer with engineering degrees from Cornell and MIT, was fined $500 for not being "a registered engineer," that is, "registered" with the state. I've written many times about how I think student teaching for prospective teachers is a scam.
This isn't just about government overreach, this attitude that somehow government knows more and better than we do and must stick its hand in more and more aspects of our lives. There is a good deal of economic evidence that the excessive regulation costs jobs and depresses pay.
Two articles in the latest issue of the Amherst Alumni Magazine are worthy of note. One, telling the life of Harold Wade, Jr., was compelling--and I don't toss that word around blithely. He was a black student from NYC, a senior when I was a freshman, but I didn't know him and don't at all remember him. I wish I had. (But that, me taking advantage of a wider range of students, was still a couple of years off. As I recently told one of my professors, "I was struggling to keep my head above water" academically and otherwise.) The author of Black Men of Amherst (now out of print) , Wade tragically drowned just a few years after graduation. From a memorable article, I keep returning to this from Wade, "This college is moving [forward in the area of civil rights] and does not have to disown its past to do so." I think we can consider that in much of our current evaluations of the past, particularly in light of the Civil War and slavery.
Related, perhaps only tangentially (I used that word frequently and was pleased to hear one of my students this AM use it!), was another article which chronicled a number of recent Amherst graduates who are "making their mark in China." They have become entrepreneurs there. I didn't read much of the article, but was still a bit perplexed. Why are these Americans doing their work in China, Commie China? Aren't the Chinese among the most repressed people in the world? Aren't they ruled by the ham-handed commie party? What rights do they have? (Heh Heh.) Yet more, don't the Chinese lead the world (or are at least close) in stealing others' ideas in technology, military secrets, and intellectual property? So, why are these people helping the Chinese? I guess, if had read the article, the answer might be they are seeking to help the Chinese people, not the Chinese government. Hmmm...... Haven't there been movements in the US to go after companies and individuals who profited from dealing with Hitler and the Nazis and companies and families who built the foundations of their fortunes on slavery before the Civil War? What's the difference? I never liked that the Michigan governors, the last two at least, courted trade with China. The commies in China, Nazis, slaveholders?????? I guess when it boils down to it, it's all about money.
Friday, March 30, 2018
March Madness
Gotcha, didn't I? No, not that "March madness." I really couldn't care much less about the NCAA basketball tournament, even if Michigan is in the Final Four. I don't plan to watch the game(s), although I might have had MSU still been in it. I did follow some of the high school tournament games, but not many. And, the Amherst women's basketball team (I'll bet they really appreciate being called, "The Mammoths!") repeated as the Division III champions--and I'll bet they actually have to go to class and do the work.
In the debate over guns and gun violence, who knows what to believe? We are told there have been more guns sales over the past two years than before. We are told gun sales have increased, but does that mean we have more or fewer guns than the past? I'd assume more, but how many of the sales were replacements? Yet, the number of families with guns in their households has decreased. So, are individuals stocking up? Plus, didn't Remington file for bankruptcy in the last week or so? A Money magazine article cited "a plunge in demand that has dragged down the [gun] industry." So, then, why the Remington bankruptcy? How can we have a serious dialogue when we have such seemingly contradictory "facts" or, at least, trends?
I see Walter Williams, for whom I have a great deal of respect, wrote a column with his views on the spike in gun violence. His ideas, which include a loss of respect for authority, are likely to attract as much attention has those I wrote a week or two ago. I think he has a point worth discussing. It's not just police and other law enforcement officers. What about teachers, parents, etc.? And that certainly ties in to what I wrote before.
This one always gets me, always. I just finished our taxes last weekend. Once again, we feel as if we had been assaulted. Yet, there are ads on the radio and I'd assume television, too, that tell people who owe a lot of taxes to come to this company or that company and their tax liability will be reduced. Wait a minute! Why do some people, who owe a lot, get to pay fewer taxes just because some company is working on their behalf? Why do I have to pay all of my taxes?
For that matter, why don't other people who owe more than $1000 (after withholding!) get the demands from the IRS to pay quarterly? I know a good number of folks who don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about and, from what they've told me, they owe a lot more in April than we ever did. In fact, we received our annual IRS envelopes today, the ones in which our quarterly payments are expected. Again, why were we singled out and, the first year when we didn't pay despite the envelopes, then fined, with interest, for failure to do so, even though we paid every last cent we owed by April 15?
While I'm at it, why are our taxes going to the Palestinian Liberation Authority (to the tune of $600,000,000 in last week's omnibus bill) and Planned Parenthood ($500,000,000), among others? I know, I know...... "Those are just 'drops in the bucket.'" As the late Senator Everett Dirksen once adroitly said of government spending 50 or more years ago, "A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money."
And aren't there other companies claiming to help people to avoid completely paying off their debts? How does that happen? Don't you and I have to pay our bills? To again cite in the past, Herbert Hoover, in a little different context, asked of debtors who sought not to repay their debts incurred n the First World War, "They hired the money, didn't they?" Make them pay.
I find this humorous, but not ha ha. It seems that many of the same people who are very concerned that the Russians meddle(d) in our election(s), also favor voting by illegal aliens from Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, etc. So it's bad that some foreigners might influence American voters, but it's not bad that other foreigners are OK to actually vote. Huh??????
What's so bad about requiring affirmation of US citizenship on census forms? I see lots of problems with not asking for proof of citizenship. For instance, are Congressional and other legislative districts apportioned on the basis of number of citizens or total population, including non-citizens? Likewise, is federal money allocated on the basis of number of citizens or total population, including non-citizens? Why do federal programs follow not just citizens or even legal aliens, but illegal aliens as well?
I just finished reviewing a soon-to-be-published college textbook. Among other things, I was struck by this. Very short shrift was given to the Renaissance, particularly the Italian Renaissance. If I recall, the names Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Raphael were mentioned once each, with only Raphael's "School of Athens" depicted. Yet more pages and attention were given to art in other cultures, in other parts of the world at different times. More depictions of that art were provided, art which was in essence not much more than stick people. I exaggerate, but only slightly. This is what has grown out of the diversity movement, that "all people and all cultures are deserving of respect and acceptance." Well, this might be so, although I think human sacrifice and slavery, among other things are not going to get my respect. Not all people and not all people and cultures deserve respect and acceptance. I'm not saying we shouldn't study them. But when a preponderance of a textbook is devoted to non-western civilizations (13 of 17 chapters), I think we are skewing history and distorting it and its relevance to how we arrived to today.
In the debate over guns and gun violence, who knows what to believe? We are told there have been more guns sales over the past two years than before. We are told gun sales have increased, but does that mean we have more or fewer guns than the past? I'd assume more, but how many of the sales were replacements? Yet, the number of families with guns in their households has decreased. So, are individuals stocking up? Plus, didn't Remington file for bankruptcy in the last week or so? A Money magazine article cited "a plunge in demand that has dragged down the [gun] industry." So, then, why the Remington bankruptcy? How can we have a serious dialogue when we have such seemingly contradictory "facts" or, at least, trends?
I see Walter Williams, for whom I have a great deal of respect, wrote a column with his views on the spike in gun violence. His ideas, which include a loss of respect for authority, are likely to attract as much attention has those I wrote a week or two ago. I think he has a point worth discussing. It's not just police and other law enforcement officers. What about teachers, parents, etc.? And that certainly ties in to what I wrote before.
This one always gets me, always. I just finished our taxes last weekend. Once again, we feel as if we had been assaulted. Yet, there are ads on the radio and I'd assume television, too, that tell people who owe a lot of taxes to come to this company or that company and their tax liability will be reduced. Wait a minute! Why do some people, who owe a lot, get to pay fewer taxes just because some company is working on their behalf? Why do I have to pay all of my taxes?
For that matter, why don't other people who owe more than $1000 (after withholding!) get the demands from the IRS to pay quarterly? I know a good number of folks who don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about and, from what they've told me, they owe a lot more in April than we ever did. In fact, we received our annual IRS envelopes today, the ones in which our quarterly payments are expected. Again, why were we singled out and, the first year when we didn't pay despite the envelopes, then fined, with interest, for failure to do so, even though we paid every last cent we owed by April 15?
While I'm at it, why are our taxes going to the Palestinian Liberation Authority (to the tune of $600,000,000 in last week's omnibus bill) and Planned Parenthood ($500,000,000), among others? I know, I know...... "Those are just 'drops in the bucket.'" As the late Senator Everett Dirksen once adroitly said of government spending 50 or more years ago, "A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money."
And aren't there other companies claiming to help people to avoid completely paying off their debts? How does that happen? Don't you and I have to pay our bills? To again cite in the past, Herbert Hoover, in a little different context, asked of debtors who sought not to repay their debts incurred n the First World War, "They hired the money, didn't they?" Make them pay.
I find this humorous, but not ha ha. It seems that many of the same people who are very concerned that the Russians meddle(d) in our election(s), also favor voting by illegal aliens from Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, etc. So it's bad that some foreigners might influence American voters, but it's not bad that other foreigners are OK to actually vote. Huh??????
What's so bad about requiring affirmation of US citizenship on census forms? I see lots of problems with not asking for proof of citizenship. For instance, are Congressional and other legislative districts apportioned on the basis of number of citizens or total population, including non-citizens? Likewise, is federal money allocated on the basis of number of citizens or total population, including non-citizens? Why do federal programs follow not just citizens or even legal aliens, but illegal aliens as well?
I just finished reviewing a soon-to-be-published college textbook. Among other things, I was struck by this. Very short shrift was given to the Renaissance, particularly the Italian Renaissance. If I recall, the names Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Raphael were mentioned once each, with only Raphael's "School of Athens" depicted. Yet more pages and attention were given to art in other cultures, in other parts of the world at different times. More depictions of that art were provided, art which was in essence not much more than stick people. I exaggerate, but only slightly. This is what has grown out of the diversity movement, that "all people and all cultures are deserving of respect and acceptance." Well, this might be so, although I think human sacrifice and slavery, among other things are not going to get my respect. Not all people and not all people and cultures deserve respect and acceptance. I'm not saying we shouldn't study them. But when a preponderance of a textbook is devoted to non-western civilizations (13 of 17 chapters), I think we are skewing history and distorting it and its relevance to how we arrived to today.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Time Flies!
Can it be late March already? I made my last post about two weeks ago. Where did St. Patrick's Day go? It has all become so fleeting.
"Stabbed in the back." That's what I heard it called. "It" is the Congressional budget bill, the 2173 page monstrosity. I understand one opponent of it in the House piled a copy of the bill on his desk and it was almost a foot high! The President, who should have shown some leadership and vetoed the bill, kept defending it by saying, "record" amounts of money for the military and for this and that...... That's not good! That's not something of which to be proud. What does this bill include--$1.2 or $1.3 trillion dollars of spending. ($1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion? What's $100 billion among friends? Esp when it's not their money they are spending.) Not counting unfunded liabilities, the federal gov't's debt is approaching $22 trillion!
Doesn't logic tell us that sooner or later this has to end? We--no Congress and the Presidents--can't keep spending money we don't have. I don't see any courage to stop the ravenous appetites to spend, spend, spend. After all, as I've noted many times, Nobelist Milton Friedman once wrote, "It's easy to spend other people's money." (I think he should have received a second Nobel for that single sentence!) If they don't stop, won't things just collapse? Who knows for sure? Will, eventually, the federal government default on its debt? Look at Venezuela and Greece. Closer to home, how about Puerto Rico? They were all "bailed out," but who will "bail out" the United States? My guess is nobody.
I will raise this point again. Can't these politicians be prosecuted for fraud? If not, why not? The definition of "fraud" is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Can it be any clearer? How many members of Congress, even the President, campaigned on the lies, er, promises of more fiscal responsibility? "Oh, that's different......" Yep, it always is, isn't it?
Seeing and hearing the glee from Pelosi and Schumer (and the newsletters) from my Michigan Senators and Congressman should have been a warning, should have been a clear sign to the President to veto this thing. But he didn't.
I know a lot of folks will disagree with me, but I think Trump is part of "The Swamp." He has and had no intention of "draining it." It was just a sound-bite, one that caught on with many people. And I understand. I, too, want to get rid of the clown show. But Trump is and has been part of the Establishment for years and years.
And we are trusting, at least the executive and administrative parts, our federal spending/budget to a guy who made a lot of money off of six bankruptcies? I know, I know. It was all "legal." But in the US, abortion is also "legal." It doesn't make it right.
So, what are we to do? We have little recourse. The system is rigged. Lying (fraud?) is rewarded. Sometimes I feel like Diogenes, looking for an honest man. Maybe there's nothing to do except enjoy the "bread and circuses" we are provided, enjoy them to the collapse.
When is "15" not "15?" It's when it is "21." A recent school district program was sold to teachers and parents alike with, among other things, a class-size of 15. "15?" Yes, but consider that those students are 4-year olds, with no aides in the classroom. But the number crept upward, now to 21 because "that's the contract." Gee, a school administrator (or administrators) who were deceptive ad deceitful? I can't believe it! BTW, imagine giving standardized tests to these 4-year olds?????? I don't think I need to write any more. And people think I am too harsh on those who run the schools.
I listened to a California teacher who was suspended, er, "placed on administrative leave" for asking if her school/school district, which supported and encouraged the student walkout over the Florida shooting, would also be supportive and encouraging of, say, a walkout over abortions. She didn't, at least according to her, advocate such a walkout. She wasn't planning one for students. She just asked the question, a legitimate one. What "issues" are OK for walkouts and which aren't? In condoning the walkout over the Florida shooting (and I'm not arguing there should or shouldn't have been one, not here), haven't school districts and administrators opened a can of worms? What if some students want to walk out to support, say, transgender rights or the fate of illegal immigrants? Would a school district/administrators allow that? OK, then, what about, as this teacher asked, students who wanted to walk out over abortions? Different issues/circumstances? Maybe, maybe not.
OK, it's early and I'm not going to proofread this. Forgive any typos, etc.
"Stabbed in the back." That's what I heard it called. "It" is the Congressional budget bill, the 2173 page monstrosity. I understand one opponent of it in the House piled a copy of the bill on his desk and it was almost a foot high! The President, who should have shown some leadership and vetoed the bill, kept defending it by saying, "record" amounts of money for the military and for this and that...... That's not good! That's not something of which to be proud. What does this bill include--$1.2 or $1.3 trillion dollars of spending. ($1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion? What's $100 billion among friends? Esp when it's not their money they are spending.) Not counting unfunded liabilities, the federal gov't's debt is approaching $22 trillion!
Doesn't logic tell us that sooner or later this has to end? We--no Congress and the Presidents--can't keep spending money we don't have. I don't see any courage to stop the ravenous appetites to spend, spend, spend. After all, as I've noted many times, Nobelist Milton Friedman once wrote, "It's easy to spend other people's money." (I think he should have received a second Nobel for that single sentence!) If they don't stop, won't things just collapse? Who knows for sure? Will, eventually, the federal government default on its debt? Look at Venezuela and Greece. Closer to home, how about Puerto Rico? They were all "bailed out," but who will "bail out" the United States? My guess is nobody.
I will raise this point again. Can't these politicians be prosecuted for fraud? If not, why not? The definition of "fraud" is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Can it be any clearer? How many members of Congress, even the President, campaigned on the lies, er, promises of more fiscal responsibility? "Oh, that's different......" Yep, it always is, isn't it?
Seeing and hearing the glee from Pelosi and Schumer (and the newsletters) from my Michigan Senators and Congressman should have been a warning, should have been a clear sign to the President to veto this thing. But he didn't.
I know a lot of folks will disagree with me, but I think Trump is part of "The Swamp." He has and had no intention of "draining it." It was just a sound-bite, one that caught on with many people. And I understand. I, too, want to get rid of the clown show. But Trump is and has been part of the Establishment for years and years.
And we are trusting, at least the executive and administrative parts, our federal spending/budget to a guy who made a lot of money off of six bankruptcies? I know, I know. It was all "legal." But in the US, abortion is also "legal." It doesn't make it right.
So, what are we to do? We have little recourse. The system is rigged. Lying (fraud?) is rewarded. Sometimes I feel like Diogenes, looking for an honest man. Maybe there's nothing to do except enjoy the "bread and circuses" we are provided, enjoy them to the collapse.
When is "15" not "15?" It's when it is "21." A recent school district program was sold to teachers and parents alike with, among other things, a class-size of 15. "15?" Yes, but consider that those students are 4-year olds, with no aides in the classroom. But the number crept upward, now to 21 because "that's the contract." Gee, a school administrator (or administrators) who were deceptive ad deceitful? I can't believe it! BTW, imagine giving standardized tests to these 4-year olds?????? I don't think I need to write any more. And people think I am too harsh on those who run the schools.
I listened to a California teacher who was suspended, er, "placed on administrative leave" for asking if her school/school district, which supported and encouraged the student walkout over the Florida shooting, would also be supportive and encouraging of, say, a walkout over abortions. She didn't, at least according to her, advocate such a walkout. She wasn't planning one for students. She just asked the question, a legitimate one. What "issues" are OK for walkouts and which aren't? In condoning the walkout over the Florida shooting (and I'm not arguing there should or shouldn't have been one, not here), haven't school districts and administrators opened a can of worms? What if some students want to walk out to support, say, transgender rights or the fate of illegal immigrants? Would a school district/administrators allow that? OK, then, what about, as this teacher asked, students who wanted to walk out over abortions? Different issues/circumstances? Maybe, maybe not.
OK, it's early and I'm not going to proofread this. Forgive any typos, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
