I've read a couple of pretty good history books recently. I enjoyed them and learned some new things. I also gained some different perspectives. But......
I found some errors in both books. These weren't typographical errors. Nor were they numerous, just a handful. Neither were they egregious mistakes. They were errors, though.
To make sure it wasn't my reading/error, I double checked each of them and the books were wrong. Again, the mistakes didn't detract from my enjoyment or learning.
But it led me to questions. When we find errors in books, namely nonfiction, however trivial, does that cast doubt on the rest of the book? Hmmm. In these instances, I have no reason to believe the books were completely off base. Quite the contrary. Still.......
I was reminded of a history textbook we were required to use when I taught in the high school. I didn't choose the book; others in the history/social studies department did. Perhaps shame on me for refusing to be involved in the selection. (I wanted to get paid for my work; the district thought I should work for free.) Perhaps. But really shame on the teachers who chose this book instead of others, including the one we were already using (which was top flight).
This book had a number of errors in it, historical errors. How these mistakes were entered in the first place, I don't know. How they escaped the editors and proofreaders, I don't know. (I have proofread several textbooks before final publication.)
Here are two that I remember. (This was 30 or more years ago, so I don't recall all of them.) This textbook had Italy fighting on the wrong side in the First World War. (I joked, "Well, no wonder the Italian army did so poorly. It didn't know what side it was on." In WWI, the reality is that it wasn't the Italian soldier who necessarily performed poorly; the poor performances came from the Italian leaders, military and political.) There was a photograph in a chapter about ancient China. The picture was of a Buddhist temple and the caption read something like, "This Buddhist temple in China......" The problem was that the temple was actually in India. I didn't catch this, but another teacher who did some overseas study in India did. He even had his own slides of the temple, taken by him when he was in India, not China. And, to be certain, I double checked and it is in India, not China. This was a lousy textbook. I suppose, in reality, who knew it? Certainly the teachers in my department who selected it didn't.
Why did they choose it? I don't remember, but have suspicions. First, in the central office/administration, the thought was to change textbooks every five or six years. That can have advantages, but caution was never taken not to make change for the sake of change. Second, it was cheaper than other books. Third, the teachers really had no sense of history, really weren't historians or even history teachers. And I'll repeat, I didn't take part because I refused to do extra work for free.
That leads me to another idea, one that has bothered me for years. Teachers complain about their pay, how they are treated, the inane paperwork and procedures than must be followed, etc. Someone told me the other day that the average teacher spends about five or six years teaching and then moves on to something else. I have no reason to disbelieve that. I was sent an article recently bemoaning the many good teachers who are leaving the field for the reasons listed above. I would add this, how many potentially good teachers don't become educators for those reasons? I won't go into teacher salaries, but they are ridiculously low. (Remember, though, I think many teachers are so bad they don't even deserve that.)
OK, teachers grumble and grouse. But, especially the elementary teachers, they continue to work for free. They go in two or three weeks before school starts and work. The attend the ice cream socials, voluntarily. They sign up for committee work. (In my view, this is not only stupid for teachers to do, that is, work for free, it is deleterious. Most committee work produces bad things.) I know, I know. This shows how "dedicated" they are. Baloney/Bologna. They are doing it "for the kids." Baloney/Bologna. (By fostering an atmosphere of working for free, that is, keeping teacher pay low, they are discouraging many good teachers from staying and others from even becoming educators. How does that help the kids? But I understand the premise. I just don't agree with it, especially considering the long run.)
Regardless, they complain. Yet they refuse to do much about it. Do they ever show their anger and dissatisfaction, their frustrations? How angry, frustrated, and dissatisfied can they be if they continue to work for free? How many don't work in their classrooms, leaving the bulletin boards bare? How many go home for dinner with their families instead of staying for an extra two or three hours for the "Welcome Back Ice Cream Socials?" How many tell administrators, "No, I won't serve on that textbook selection committee?" Yet, they complain at how poorly they are treated, how little they are paid, etc.
This past week I threw this Martin Luther King quotation out at several teachers, all of whom grouse but went in to their classrooms the first day they were opened. "Freedom was never voluntarily granted by the oppressor; it had to be demanded by the oppressed." OK, I realize the difference, esp in magnitude. But isn't the principle the same?
To finish, I was very saddened by the passing of Aretha Franklin. What a singer! She was one of my favorites. Michael asked me, "Grandpa, is it true she was the best singer ever in Detroit?" I smiled, thinking of the Kid Rock and M & Ms fans, and replied, "Yes, she was." I do have some other candidates for that sobriquet, "Best Singer Ever in Detroit," but I can't really say any topped her. Let's put it this way. There were some of her songs I didn't particularly like. But I rarely stopped listening or changed stations because her voice was so mesmerizing.
One of my all-time favorite tunes is Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I love it for several reasons, never tiring of hearing it. But I'd be hard pressed to subjugate Aretha's version of that song. It is just terrific! I can often pick my favorite two or three songs from my favorite groups and singers. I'm not sure I can limit my Aretha favorites to two or three.
The Aretha stories are legion. This is one of my favorites. Some years ago, at the Grammy Awards, Luciano Pavarotti canceled due to illness--about 30 minutes before the big doin's. Aretha was tapped as a fill-in and was asked what she'd like to sing. Without missing a beat, she asked what song Pavarotti was planning to do. She was told "Nessun Dorma," an aria from Puccini's opera Turandot. Uh...... She did it and just nailed it. You can find a version online. Prepare to have your socks knocked off!
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Constitution and Presidents
I recently finished a book, Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It was interesting. I agreed with some of the author's assessments, but questioned some as well. Regardless, it was worth reading to once again challenge some of my beliefs.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Thoughts on the Road......
Karen and I just returned from a whirlwind trip to West Virginia to pick up our kids, who will be with us for several weeks. A bit fewer than six hours each way--ugh! I don't like to drive. (There's another step toward losing my "Man Card.")
Against my better judgment, both for safety purposes and morally, for most of the drive(s) I set the cruise control at 75 mph, five over the limit. Yet, how many cars and trucks passed me on the left? What were they doing--80 or 85? I always find that upsetting. So, these speeders have some place to go, to be somewhere at a specific time. What, do they think that other drivers also don't have places to be? More upsetting is the dangers they pose to others, namely, to me and mine! How arrogant they are! It's been long established that "speed kills." I guess their own situations allow them to put others' lives in danger. And that's OK because "It's all about me!"
When driving, most often I don't listen to the radio or tunes. Sometimes I listen to talk radio. But mostly I like it quiet. I'm not afraid of being alone with my own thoughts. Not Karen, though. There has to be noise--music. So, with all that time in the car, I had time to do some analyses. I know I'll be criticized by some, but......
Many performers just can't sing very well. To them, the musical scale is not "Do, Re, Mi......" It's "loud" and "louder." This I ascertained esp about those who are decent with instruments. Oh, they are talented with them; they're really good. But somehow that translates that they can sing. That is, they can play instruments really well, therefore they can sing really well, too. They can't. And, although I received quite a few critical notes the last time I panned some pretty popular performers (note I didn't call them "singers"), some of the most popular ones are just terrible. Karen was listening to some satellite station that was promoting the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame (which I think has become a Hall of Pretty Good according to the names identified as members). The DJs played hits from Hall members and often I just cringed. I like lyrics that complement the music. It makes for better listening. But many of the lyrics are nonsense. Maybe they make sense to people smoking banana peels, but not to anyone really listening for meaning. I really don't care, though. I don't get my ideas from most music and, besides, if the lyrics go along with the music, that's great for me. Again, some of those from R 'n' R Hall members were/are laughable.
Of course, I must admit I am one of the worst singers the world has ever seen/heard. I often scare myself at how bad I am. But like dancing, I don't care. If I enjoy it......
I saw a considerable number of billboards in Ohio condemning "Right-to-Work." There must be a movement there. I didn't like the recent Supremes' ruling and don't like Michigan's law, both as written and as interpreted. I don't think workers should be compelled to join unions to be employed. At the same time, they shouldn't get the same pay and benefits the union members worked and sacrificed for. If they want the same, then they shouldn't be allowed to freeload. Funny, perhaps, that many of those who oppose welfare programs as "freebies," that welfare recipients are "leeches," "spongers," etc., support "Right-to-Work" for less. Why aren't those who don't pay union dues, but benefit from union activities such as negotiations and job security also bloodsuckers and scrounges? Now, having unions use some of the dues money to support political candidates, well, that's more problematic for me. Maybe I'll address this later in a separate blog post.
And last week, taking the kids down to a Tiger game, there were several billboards comparing insurance rates in Metro Detroit to other metropolitan areas in the US. (I remember Phoenix, AZ and Milwaukee, WI as two of them.) If accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Michigan rates are about double the rest of the country. And, why is that? Could it be the footsies the insurance companies play with the legislators? Just sayin'...... (And I am still not sure I know what that, "Just sayin,'" means.)
We had a claim last winter. When our new premium came, the insurance company recouped the entire cost of the claim--with the first year's increase! When we called our agent, he merely said, "I wish you had called me first. I'd have told you to pay out of your own pocket [for the repairs]. It would have been cheaper." Great, just great. Then why have insurance? Gee, is it because the state legislators made it a law to have it? Well, not all the folks in Detroit have it. According to a Detroit newspaper article, as many as 2/3 of the drivers there don't have insurance. I can testify that at least one doesn't. On her cell phone, she rammed into our rear (with all three kids!) on Christmas Eve. She not only didn't have insurance, but no license either. And she insisted she didn't hit us, with her car jammed up our...... We were fortunate that a police car happened by; but the officers let her go--no insurance, no licence, talking on the cell phone, smashing our car and she was permitted to drive off. I guess with a murder a day in Detroit, this women didn't do all that much that was bad.
I wonder how many anti-Trump folks who have rejected this and rejected that, who have "resisted" this and "resisted" that, also refused to accept the savings they received on the tax cut? After all, if it was part of Trump's agenda...... And, for that matter, I wonder how many folks who've found jobs as part of Trump's agenda have quit them (or refused to accept them). After all, if the jobs were created as part of Trump's agenda...... (We can discuss who is responsible, but that's for another post.) Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Against my better judgment, both for safety purposes and morally, for most of the drive(s) I set the cruise control at 75 mph, five over the limit. Yet, how many cars and trucks passed me on the left? What were they doing--80 or 85? I always find that upsetting. So, these speeders have some place to go, to be somewhere at a specific time. What, do they think that other drivers also don't have places to be? More upsetting is the dangers they pose to others, namely, to me and mine! How arrogant they are! It's been long established that "speed kills." I guess their own situations allow them to put others' lives in danger. And that's OK because "It's all about me!"
When driving, most often I don't listen to the radio or tunes. Sometimes I listen to talk radio. But mostly I like it quiet. I'm not afraid of being alone with my own thoughts. Not Karen, though. There has to be noise--music. So, with all that time in the car, I had time to do some analyses. I know I'll be criticized by some, but......
Many performers just can't sing very well. To them, the musical scale is not "Do, Re, Mi......" It's "loud" and "louder." This I ascertained esp about those who are decent with instruments. Oh, they are talented with them; they're really good. But somehow that translates that they can sing. That is, they can play instruments really well, therefore they can sing really well, too. They can't. And, although I received quite a few critical notes the last time I panned some pretty popular performers (note I didn't call them "singers"), some of the most popular ones are just terrible. Karen was listening to some satellite station that was promoting the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame (which I think has become a Hall of Pretty Good according to the names identified as members). The DJs played hits from Hall members and often I just cringed. I like lyrics that complement the music. It makes for better listening. But many of the lyrics are nonsense. Maybe they make sense to people smoking banana peels, but not to anyone really listening for meaning. I really don't care, though. I don't get my ideas from most music and, besides, if the lyrics go along with the music, that's great for me. Again, some of those from R 'n' R Hall members were/are laughable.
Of course, I must admit I am one of the worst singers the world has ever seen/heard. I often scare myself at how bad I am. But like dancing, I don't care. If I enjoy it......
I saw a considerable number of billboards in Ohio condemning "Right-to-Work." There must be a movement there. I didn't like the recent Supremes' ruling and don't like Michigan's law, both as written and as interpreted. I don't think workers should be compelled to join unions to be employed. At the same time, they shouldn't get the same pay and benefits the union members worked and sacrificed for. If they want the same, then they shouldn't be allowed to freeload. Funny, perhaps, that many of those who oppose welfare programs as "freebies," that welfare recipients are "leeches," "spongers," etc., support "Right-to-Work" for less. Why aren't those who don't pay union dues, but benefit from union activities such as negotiations and job security also bloodsuckers and scrounges? Now, having unions use some of the dues money to support political candidates, well, that's more problematic for me. Maybe I'll address this later in a separate blog post.
And last week, taking the kids down to a Tiger game, there were several billboards comparing insurance rates in Metro Detroit to other metropolitan areas in the US. (I remember Phoenix, AZ and Milwaukee, WI as two of them.) If accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Michigan rates are about double the rest of the country. And, why is that? Could it be the footsies the insurance companies play with the legislators? Just sayin'...... (And I am still not sure I know what that, "Just sayin,'" means.)
We had a claim last winter. When our new premium came, the insurance company recouped the entire cost of the claim--with the first year's increase! When we called our agent, he merely said, "I wish you had called me first. I'd have told you to pay out of your own pocket [for the repairs]. It would have been cheaper." Great, just great. Then why have insurance? Gee, is it because the state legislators made it a law to have it? Well, not all the folks in Detroit have it. According to a Detroit newspaper article, as many as 2/3 of the drivers there don't have insurance. I can testify that at least one doesn't. On her cell phone, she rammed into our rear (with all three kids!) on Christmas Eve. She not only didn't have insurance, but no license either. And she insisted she didn't hit us, with her car jammed up our...... We were fortunate that a police car happened by; but the officers let her go--no insurance, no licence, talking on the cell phone, smashing our car and she was permitted to drive off. I guess with a murder a day in Detroit, this women didn't do all that much that was bad.
I wonder how many anti-Trump folks who have rejected this and rejected that, who have "resisted" this and "resisted" that, also refused to accept the savings they received on the tax cut? After all, if it was part of Trump's agenda...... And, for that matter, I wonder how many folks who've found jobs as part of Trump's agenda have quit them (or refused to accept them). After all, if the jobs were created as part of Trump's agenda...... (We can discuss who is responsible, but that's for another post.) Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
"Yeah, but....."
There was a relevant editorial in last Sunday's Detroit News. Nolan Finley correctly noted how every conversation, every dialogue today seems to be met with "Yeah, but......" How can there be serious discussion when, if a point is made, the other side counters with "Yeah, but.....?"
For instance, try to be critical of, say, Maxine Waters' idiotic diatribes and one is likely to be met with, "Yeah, but Trump is a fascist" or "racist" or whatever. If one questions the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it will be countered with "Yeah, but the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland." And, as Finley noted, this goes two ways. If Trump is criticized for not being hard-line with the Russians, the Trumpsters will respond with something about Obama sending billions of dollars to Iran. It's a good op-ed.
Related, perhaps, is another conversation-ender I've encountered in recent years. It's, "But that's different." If I point out that some folks live rather extravagantly, while they themselves criticize others for being "greedy," I'll be met with "But that's different." I question the local school district's defense of paying its administrators good money; the defense is top dollar is required to attract and retain good administrators, which I think is oxymoronic--good administrators?????? C'mon! OK, if I accept that (and I don't), but if I do, why isn't the same logic applied to teacher salaries? The local teachers are, if not the lowest in the county, very close to it and have been for five decades. "But that's different." Each of us can come up with countless examples of "But that's different." Of course it is.
"Historical illiteracy." I've heard or read that term several times recently and it concerns me. It doesn't take much effort to read or hear someone liken Trump and his policies to "Fascists" and/or "Nazis." Similarly, "concentration camps," "the Holocaust," including specifics such as "Krystallnacht," and the like are tossed out in comparison with the Trump administration actions. So cavalierly such comparisons are employed! It makes me wonder what is being taught in history courses, at whatever levels, to have supposedly educated people (e.g., reporters and columnists) make such analogies. Realize that I write all this knowing most people think that history isn't important.
There are several problems with this, this "historical illiteracy." First, it trivializes the Holocaust. Are people going to go through their lives thinking that what the Trump administration is doing now was what Hitler and the Nazis did in the Holocaust!?!?!? For example, can anyone explicitly show anything the Trump administration has done that compares with Krystallnacht? Of course, if one doesn't know what Krystallnacht was...... Second, it leads to hysteria. To compare anything to the Holocaust would do that. And ignorant people are easily led, falling victim to the false analogies. Yet, it whips them into furies.
How can we have any meaningful conversations/discussions when such false comparisons are so routinely made? And, with so many folks historically illiterate.....
There he goes with that history stuff again. Everyone but him knows history isn't important.
Not exactly the same is something I've been thinking about for a few weeks, with the primary elections soon upon us. I recall the 2016 Presidential election. I voted for neither major party candidate. And from the looks of things, that will also be the case in 2020. I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Nope, I won't do it. Far too many people do that and the result is we continually get "evils," lousy candidates from which to choose. Why bother working to get solid candidates for President when voters will invariably choose the one who is the "lesser of two evils?" Of course, that makes mud-slinging ever more important. Each party must dirty the other party's candidate more, to make him/her the greater of two evils.
I know. I know. People have many times told me, "You elected Trump." or "You wasted your vote." or some other such nonsense. No, I didn't do either. What I did was refuse to accept the junk that was thrown my way. If more people did that, perhaps we wouldn't be bombarded with junk. In fact, I think that by voting for junk (Clinton or Trump), people wasted their votes. There! My vote, to me, is much more valuable than junk.
I'm reading a book now that is challenging my values. It is Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It's interesting reading and does, indeed, cause me to think and rethink. I'm about half way through it and agree with much of the author's contentions. I don't agree with some of his claims, though. But the good thing is I have to think to come back to my own conclusions. I understand the author's concern with the growing power of the President, authority that was never intended by the Founders and isn't supported by the Constitution. I guess that makes much of what Presidents do and have done for 100 years or more unconstitutional.
But here's something really cool--and lambaste me if you will. When he is critical of one President and his policies and then criticizes another in the same light, I think, "But that's different." Ha ha ha. The reality is, though, there are differences. Some Presidents acted with some disregard toward the Constitution in far, far different circumstances than others. I don't think the actions can rightly compare. For instance, were the times of, say, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt as dire as those faced by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War? The Civil War was life-threatening for the US, the others not quite so. The author apparently doesn't accept that premise. It's as if he is writing from the premise of "cetera paribus," that is, "everything being equal," when everything wasn't equal. (I knew economics courses in college would eventually come in handy!)
I suppose the several factual errors I have found in the book are trivial, but they make me question other things I read that I didn't know. For instance, the vote of Congress to declare war on Japan on December 8, 1941 was not "unanimous." Again, perhaps that's trivial and I am being my picayunish self. But it does lead me to doubts.
The last four chapters are of four Presidents "who tried to save America." I've not yet come to them, but note that one of them has to do with Calvin Coolidge. I'm glad to see him in with that group and look forward to reading that chapter. I believe Coolidge has been given a bum deal in rankings and in the textbooks and teachers history courses.
I'm too tired to proofread. Please forgive any errors......
For instance, try to be critical of, say, Maxine Waters' idiotic diatribes and one is likely to be met with, "Yeah, but Trump is a fascist" or "racist" or whatever. If one questions the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it will be countered with "Yeah, but the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland." And, as Finley noted, this goes two ways. If Trump is criticized for not being hard-line with the Russians, the Trumpsters will respond with something about Obama sending billions of dollars to Iran. It's a good op-ed.
Related, perhaps, is another conversation-ender I've encountered in recent years. It's, "But that's different." If I point out that some folks live rather extravagantly, while they themselves criticize others for being "greedy," I'll be met with "But that's different." I question the local school district's defense of paying its administrators good money; the defense is top dollar is required to attract and retain good administrators, which I think is oxymoronic--good administrators?????? C'mon! OK, if I accept that (and I don't), but if I do, why isn't the same logic applied to teacher salaries? The local teachers are, if not the lowest in the county, very close to it and have been for five decades. "But that's different." Each of us can come up with countless examples of "But that's different." Of course it is.
"Historical illiteracy." I've heard or read that term several times recently and it concerns me. It doesn't take much effort to read or hear someone liken Trump and his policies to "Fascists" and/or "Nazis." Similarly, "concentration camps," "the Holocaust," including specifics such as "Krystallnacht," and the like are tossed out in comparison with the Trump administration actions. So cavalierly such comparisons are employed! It makes me wonder what is being taught in history courses, at whatever levels, to have supposedly educated people (e.g., reporters and columnists) make such analogies. Realize that I write all this knowing most people think that history isn't important.
There are several problems with this, this "historical illiteracy." First, it trivializes the Holocaust. Are people going to go through their lives thinking that what the Trump administration is doing now was what Hitler and the Nazis did in the Holocaust!?!?!? For example, can anyone explicitly show anything the Trump administration has done that compares with Krystallnacht? Of course, if one doesn't know what Krystallnacht was...... Second, it leads to hysteria. To compare anything to the Holocaust would do that. And ignorant people are easily led, falling victim to the false analogies. Yet, it whips them into furies.
How can we have any meaningful conversations/discussions when such false comparisons are so routinely made? And, with so many folks historically illiterate.....
There he goes with that history stuff again. Everyone but him knows history isn't important.
Not exactly the same is something I've been thinking about for a few weeks, with the primary elections soon upon us. I recall the 2016 Presidential election. I voted for neither major party candidate. And from the looks of things, that will also be the case in 2020. I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." Nope, I won't do it. Far too many people do that and the result is we continually get "evils," lousy candidates from which to choose. Why bother working to get solid candidates for President when voters will invariably choose the one who is the "lesser of two evils?" Of course, that makes mud-slinging ever more important. Each party must dirty the other party's candidate more, to make him/her the greater of two evils.
I know. I know. People have many times told me, "You elected Trump." or "You wasted your vote." or some other such nonsense. No, I didn't do either. What I did was refuse to accept the junk that was thrown my way. If more people did that, perhaps we wouldn't be bombarded with junk. In fact, I think that by voting for junk (Clinton or Trump), people wasted their votes. There! My vote, to me, is much more valuable than junk.
I'm reading a book now that is challenging my values. It is Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It's interesting reading and does, indeed, cause me to think and rethink. I'm about half way through it and agree with much of the author's contentions. I don't agree with some of his claims, though. But the good thing is I have to think to come back to my own conclusions. I understand the author's concern with the growing power of the President, authority that was never intended by the Founders and isn't supported by the Constitution. I guess that makes much of what Presidents do and have done for 100 years or more unconstitutional.
But here's something really cool--and lambaste me if you will. When he is critical of one President and his policies and then criticizes another in the same light, I think, "But that's different." Ha ha ha. The reality is, though, there are differences. Some Presidents acted with some disregard toward the Constitution in far, far different circumstances than others. I don't think the actions can rightly compare. For instance, were the times of, say, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt as dire as those faced by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War? The Civil War was life-threatening for the US, the others not quite so. The author apparently doesn't accept that premise. It's as if he is writing from the premise of "cetera paribus," that is, "everything being equal," when everything wasn't equal. (I knew economics courses in college would eventually come in handy!)
I suppose the several factual errors I have found in the book are trivial, but they make me question other things I read that I didn't know. For instance, the vote of Congress to declare war on Japan on December 8, 1941 was not "unanimous." Again, perhaps that's trivial and I am being my picayunish self. But it does lead me to doubts.
The last four chapters are of four Presidents "who tried to save America." I've not yet come to them, but note that one of them has to do with Calvin Coolidge. I'm glad to see him in with that group and look forward to reading that chapter. I believe Coolidge has been given a bum deal in rankings and in the textbooks and teachers history courses.
I'm too tired to proofread. Please forgive any errors......
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Democracy v Republic?
A Michigan state legislator, whose name I don't remember, has made some proposals about the teaching of history in state K-12 schools. I heard him briefly on the radio this AM where he was explaining/defending his proposals which were in this AM's newspaper. I haven't read the article and only heard his proposal to remove "democracy" as a descriptor of the US form of government.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Where Does It End?
Apparently a kid who was born a boy and now claims to be transgender was allowed to compete in the Connecticut state high school track meet--as a girl. Is it a surprise he won his events, by sizable margins?
The kid admits he was born as a boy, but she identifies as a girl. In rare circumstances only, can elite women compete with men. Compare marathon times. What person would put a woman at offensive tackle vs some NFL defensive lineman? In an interview I heard, one guy said that if the UConn women's basketball team was put on the court with the UConn men's team, "the men might lose." Maybe so, but I doubt it, really doubt it.
So, what happens when guys not good enough to make the NBA or the PGA Tour declare they "identify as women" and proceed to the WNBA and LPGA? Is that far behind? Will those doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) support the lost opportunities (think money!) for women?
I'm not taking an anti-transgender position. In fact, I just finished a book about transgenders. I do think, though, that someone with a male body, regardless of how he/she identifies, has a distinct advantage over most athletes with female bodies. Consider strength, speed, etc.
I wonder about the whole thing. How did the winner (and the transgender who finished second) really feel about the victory? He/She appeared excited, but, deep down? How did the girls (and their parents and coaches) feel about this, losing to someone with male physical abilities? What about the boys'/girls' parents? For that matter, how does this differ from the doping, esp the Soviet and Eastern European, scandals of the Olympics, the taking of male hormones by women athletes? The state high school officials claim their hands were tied, that they had to permit the competition due to state law. If, say, transgenders can use either rest room, they can compete in either meet, boys or girls.
Perhaps some boys, honestly or otherwise, should claim to be transgender and insist on competing in girls' meets/events.
If a person biologically a male, claims to be/identifies as a female, can he/she get, say, a college scholarship for the women's basketball team? Would a coach even consider it?
I don't know anything of the NoKo deal. But I find it very entertaining that those who criticized Obama over Iran are now lauding Trump over North Korea. And, vice versa, those supporters of Obama's deal are critical of Trump. That was probably predictable.
Some Hollywood-type (I, as usual, never heard of the guy.) made some comments about the Supremes' decision in the Colorado baker case. The baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding--or something like that. The baker was sued and lost in the state courts, but the Supremes overturned the state ruling. (I hope I have that right. It's so hard to keep things straight nowadays!) This Hollywood-type, who is smarter than you and I, disagreed and made some public comments that the baker should have to bake the cake when a gay wedding is held. OK, I don't have a problem with this, if...... If this Hollywood-type agrees to make a commercial touting the bakery and the baker's religious beliefs. Oh, the Hollywood-type doesn't agree with the baker, but thinks the baker should have to go against his beliefs. So, then turn-around is fair play. If the baker can be forced to go against his beliefs by others, so should the Hollywood-type in making the ad extolling the baker's religious beliefs. Maybe not......
I listened intently the other day. The person was saying something I didn't know; I realized I could learn from her. So, I tried to drink in as much as I could. So, then, why do so many people refuse to recognize others might, just might, know more than they do? Why are they so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to listening, to at least considering others' suggestions? Just because somebody played little league and watches games on the boob tube does not at all mean that person really knows baseball. I think far too many don't realize that. And it goes beyond baseball and other sports. I am willing to concede, too, that sometimes this describes me. I was glad the person the other night grabbed my attention. I not only learned some new things and gained some different perspectives, but also was reminded of learning from others in general. Now, can I remember that?
The kid admits he was born as a boy, but she identifies as a girl. In rare circumstances only, can elite women compete with men. Compare marathon times. What person would put a woman at offensive tackle vs some NFL defensive lineman? In an interview I heard, one guy said that if the UConn women's basketball team was put on the court with the UConn men's team, "the men might lose." Maybe so, but I doubt it, really doubt it.
So, what happens when guys not good enough to make the NBA or the PGA Tour declare they "identify as women" and proceed to the WNBA and LPGA? Is that far behind? Will those doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) support the lost opportunities (think money!) for women?
I'm not taking an anti-transgender position. In fact, I just finished a book about transgenders. I do think, though, that someone with a male body, regardless of how he/she identifies, has a distinct advantage over most athletes with female bodies. Consider strength, speed, etc.
I wonder about the whole thing. How did the winner (and the transgender who finished second) really feel about the victory? He/She appeared excited, but, deep down? How did the girls (and their parents and coaches) feel about this, losing to someone with male physical abilities? What about the boys'/girls' parents? For that matter, how does this differ from the doping, esp the Soviet and Eastern European, scandals of the Olympics, the taking of male hormones by women athletes? The state high school officials claim their hands were tied, that they had to permit the competition due to state law. If, say, transgenders can use either rest room, they can compete in either meet, boys or girls.
Perhaps some boys, honestly or otherwise, should claim to be transgender and insist on competing in girls' meets/events.
If a person biologically a male, claims to be/identifies as a female, can he/she get, say, a college scholarship for the women's basketball team? Would a coach even consider it?
I don't know anything of the NoKo deal. But I find it very entertaining that those who criticized Obama over Iran are now lauding Trump over North Korea. And, vice versa, those supporters of Obama's deal are critical of Trump. That was probably predictable.
Some Hollywood-type (I, as usual, never heard of the guy.) made some comments about the Supremes' decision in the Colorado baker case. The baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding--or something like that. The baker was sued and lost in the state courts, but the Supremes overturned the state ruling. (I hope I have that right. It's so hard to keep things straight nowadays!) This Hollywood-type, who is smarter than you and I, disagreed and made some public comments that the baker should have to bake the cake when a gay wedding is held. OK, I don't have a problem with this, if...... If this Hollywood-type agrees to make a commercial touting the bakery and the baker's religious beliefs. Oh, the Hollywood-type doesn't agree with the baker, but thinks the baker should have to go against his beliefs. So, then turn-around is fair play. If the baker can be forced to go against his beliefs by others, so should the Hollywood-type in making the ad extolling the baker's religious beliefs. Maybe not......
I listened intently the other day. The person was saying something I didn't know; I realized I could learn from her. So, I tried to drink in as much as I could. So, then, why do so many people refuse to recognize others might, just might, know more than they do? Why are they so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to listening, to at least considering others' suggestions? Just because somebody played little league and watches games on the boob tube does not at all mean that person really knows baseball. I think far too many don't realize that. And it goes beyond baseball and other sports. I am willing to concede, too, that sometimes this describes me. I was glad the person the other night grabbed my attention. I not only learned some new things and gained some different perspectives, but also was reminded of learning from others in general. Now, can I remember that?
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Hypocrisy, "Worth it," etc.
Following up on my "celebrity" post from a few weeks ago, I had to laugh at an e-mail/newsletter I received. The title of an article in it was "57 Celebrities Who Have Run Marathons." On a lark I looked through it, chuckling when I recognized about a dozen of the names, that's all. "Celebrities?" I guess not in my book.
I normally don't follow much in the way of the sports world. But one recent story intrigued me. Apparently the University of Michigan basketball coach is being considered for and is considering the Detroit Pistons coaching position. Hmmm..... I wonder why. There has been speculation, a number of theories. One is that he's positioning for more money from U of M. Maybe. He's getting about $4 million now. To me, how much more does one need? That's more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetimes, let alone one year. Maybe the lure of double that annually is strong. Another is that he might be eager to challenge himself on the highest level, the NBA. Hmmm. I wonder. Is the NBA "the highest level?" Surely it is pay-wise. But who is to say it's the epitome of coaching levels? Is coaching a Division I college team somehow "higher" than one in Division II or III? Is, for instance, teaching at the high school or even college level something "higher" than say, teaching kindergarten or first grade? I don't think so in either case. Besides, and this might well just be me and my value and views, I can't imagine a better coaching job than at a small Division III school. Maybe it's ego, the allure of bigger bucks, being on "the big or bigger stage" (celebrity?), etc. Still, I think it's a thoughtful issue.
I found myself acting hypocritically the other day. I guess I realized it at the time, but didn't change my behavior/plans. The specifics are not relevant and it was nothing major. It was not a question of good or bad, but more of better and not better. Nevertheless, I chose poorly.
It seems we are surrounded by hypocrisy today. I know people are not perfect; they make mistakes. And I also realize that it's not always easy to live completely principled lives all of the time or maybe even most of the time. Still, the hypocrisy hangs from the trees. I don't know if it's good that I recognize when I am a hypocrite. But it seems to me most folks don't--or don't care if they are.
I think those who tick me off the most are the ones who constantly or at least often call others "greedy" or "mean-spirited." Yet, it frequently, in fact as often as not, turns out these same name-callers spend tons of money--on lavish vacations that last for weeks, on expensive cars (often many of them, sometimes more cars than there are drivers in the household), golf/country club memberships, $40 and $50 bottles of wine for everyday dinner, etc. Yet in their own eyes, they aren't the greedy ones; it's always the other guys who are. I don't care how people spend their money; that's the key with me: it's their money! I have no business telling others how to spend their own earned money. And neither do these hypocrites, unless......
Unless they stop spending on these vacations, drop their country/golf club memberships, buy cars more in tune with what most folks buy, give up their pools that have decks with more square footage than my house, etc. (OK, they don't have to resort to Boone's Farm or Paisano, but how about good wines that cost half or less of what they now spend?) Again, I have no problem with how people spend their money; it's theirs. What irks me is those who live one way while preaching another message. They want to spend their own money how they want, but also want to tell others how to spend, too. I would be far less critical if they cut back on their own spending and donated more to charity or, ahem, voluntarily paid more in taxes.
And that leads to something else I came across recently, something I hear regularly. I think the first time I heard this was decades ago, maybe the L'Oreal television commercial that claimed, "...because you're worth it." Similarly, somebody last week said, "...because I deserve it." Well, maybe he/she does; maybe not. What makes people think they "deserve" something or are "worth it?" Now, if someone has worked toward a goal or an achievement, "deserve" and "worth" certainly are in the picture. But, just 'cuz? I don't think so, Tim. It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw on a kid maybe 30 or more years ago. It read, "I'm Somebody Because God Didn't Make No Junk." (Yes, I know......) I hope nobody believes that because there is a lot of "junk" out there among us.
In the same light, we can work hard, save, etc. so that we really "deserve" something. But that doesn't ensure we will be rewarded. That, of course, can be sad. But it can also be a situation where we can learn a few hard facts of life. And it can also be a time where we realize that the journey can be worth as much as the destination.
I normally don't follow much in the way of the sports world. But one recent story intrigued me. Apparently the University of Michigan basketball coach is being considered for and is considering the Detroit Pistons coaching position. Hmmm..... I wonder why. There has been speculation, a number of theories. One is that he's positioning for more money from U of M. Maybe. He's getting about $4 million now. To me, how much more does one need? That's more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetimes, let alone one year. Maybe the lure of double that annually is strong. Another is that he might be eager to challenge himself on the highest level, the NBA. Hmmm. I wonder. Is the NBA "the highest level?" Surely it is pay-wise. But who is to say it's the epitome of coaching levels? Is coaching a Division I college team somehow "higher" than one in Division II or III? Is, for instance, teaching at the high school or even college level something "higher" than say, teaching kindergarten or first grade? I don't think so in either case. Besides, and this might well just be me and my value and views, I can't imagine a better coaching job than at a small Division III school. Maybe it's ego, the allure of bigger bucks, being on "the big or bigger stage" (celebrity?), etc. Still, I think it's a thoughtful issue.
I found myself acting hypocritically the other day. I guess I realized it at the time, but didn't change my behavior/plans. The specifics are not relevant and it was nothing major. It was not a question of good or bad, but more of better and not better. Nevertheless, I chose poorly.
It seems we are surrounded by hypocrisy today. I know people are not perfect; they make mistakes. And I also realize that it's not always easy to live completely principled lives all of the time or maybe even most of the time. Still, the hypocrisy hangs from the trees. I don't know if it's good that I recognize when I am a hypocrite. But it seems to me most folks don't--or don't care if they are.
I think those who tick me off the most are the ones who constantly or at least often call others "greedy" or "mean-spirited." Yet, it frequently, in fact as often as not, turns out these same name-callers spend tons of money--on lavish vacations that last for weeks, on expensive cars (often many of them, sometimes more cars than there are drivers in the household), golf/country club memberships, $40 and $50 bottles of wine for everyday dinner, etc. Yet in their own eyes, they aren't the greedy ones; it's always the other guys who are. I don't care how people spend their money; that's the key with me: it's their money! I have no business telling others how to spend their own earned money. And neither do these hypocrites, unless......
Unless they stop spending on these vacations, drop their country/golf club memberships, buy cars more in tune with what most folks buy, give up their pools that have decks with more square footage than my house, etc. (OK, they don't have to resort to Boone's Farm or Paisano, but how about good wines that cost half or less of what they now spend?) Again, I have no problem with how people spend their money; it's theirs. What irks me is those who live one way while preaching another message. They want to spend their own money how they want, but also want to tell others how to spend, too. I would be far less critical if they cut back on their own spending and donated more to charity or, ahem, voluntarily paid more in taxes.
And that leads to something else I came across recently, something I hear regularly. I think the first time I heard this was decades ago, maybe the L'Oreal television commercial that claimed, "...because you're worth it." Similarly, somebody last week said, "...because I deserve it." Well, maybe he/she does; maybe not. What makes people think they "deserve" something or are "worth it?" Now, if someone has worked toward a goal or an achievement, "deserve" and "worth" certainly are in the picture. But, just 'cuz? I don't think so, Tim. It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw on a kid maybe 30 or more years ago. It read, "I'm Somebody Because God Didn't Make No Junk." (Yes, I know......) I hope nobody believes that because there is a lot of "junk" out there among us.
In the same light, we can work hard, save, etc. so that we really "deserve" something. But that doesn't ensure we will be rewarded. That, of course, can be sad. But it can also be a situation where we can learn a few hard facts of life. And it can also be a time where we realize that the journey can be worth as much as the destination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
