Wondering???

Just wondering....

I know I had wonderful college professors. They had immense knowledge of their specific subjects. The more I learn now, the more in awe I am of what they know/knew. But, I am wondering, are/were they specialists? That is, did my US History profs know enough (care enough?) to teach world or European history? Would my Russian or British history profs be able to effectively teach US history? Hmmm. Could the "specialists" (thanks to one of my students for coming up with that, "specialists," as opposed to generalists) run a course on, say, the classical ancient civilizations, Greece and Rome? Hmmmm.... My guess? Yep, they could.

I heard some shill for the Dems on the radio this AM. He masquerades as an impartial political reporter, but reading his stuff in the newspaper and listening to him unmasks him pretty easily. He was running down McC's choice of VP nominee. Now, granted, I don't know a whole lot about this choice. Likely, outside of Alaska, nobody knows much about her. But, this guy was rambling like an idiot. He said she has "no experience" running government, having been gov of Alaska for less than a full term. Wait a minute!?!? What "experience" does BO have at running anything? This isn't a stab at BO--I've already explained why he isn't getting my vote for President (and, likely, neither is McC). But if this Alaska gov is to be criticized because she is inexperienced and isn't likely to be able to run the government if something happens to McC, why is BO not equally criticized? And, nothing needs to happen to someone else for him to try to run the gov't--he, if elected (and, unfortunately for the US, I think he will be--of course, if McC is elected I think it's unfortunate for the US), will be Pres. Then this shill of a reporter remarked something else. He thinks McC is wrong to believe women will vote for his ticket merely because there's a woman on it. Wait a minute! Why were many women supporting HRC? It's not like she has accomplished anything other than getting elected as a carpetbagger in NY. What are 90% of blacks voting for BO, despite his dearth of specific ideas? Could it be women supported HRC because she is a woman???? Could it be blacks support BO because he is black???? I'm not denigrated such support out of hand. I don't necessarily identify with it because I think so very, very little of either HRC or BO, but it must be a powerful feeling for women to nearly get a woman nominee and for blacks to actually get a black nominee.

I read somewhere that a union official claims racism will cause whites to vote against BO. I don't doubt there are still some who will vote against him for that reason. But I resent anyone who thinks I won't vote for him because he is black. I won't vote for BO because he shouldn't be President!

Bill Clinton is a marvelous speaker. But, just wondering, is that what's become of Democrats (did you hear the ovation!?!?) that Slick Willy is their ideal? As the recent book The Leaders We Deserved notes, character does matter in the quality of a President. Clinton had/has no shred of it. Objective history (emphasis on "objective") will record him as a very mediocre if not worse President. One of the reasons for James Buchanan's poor record and ranking/rating as President was that he feel asleep on the job. He allowed things to happened that exacerbated future events. WJC, again, if history views him objectively, did the same thing. And, to keep with the theme of the current election, I think very little of the character of either of the two major party candidates. Our nation and, especially, our children and grandchildren will suffer because we were too busy watching Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, rooting for our teams, etc. to care, to pay attention. Shame on us....

Out to put Ashley down for a nap.