I'm not naive enough to believe we have eliminated racism--hardly. In fact, I suppose if we got rid of racism, there are quite a few folks out there who would have to find another way to make a living. (No doubt you know of whom I speak.)
But, like many things, I often wonder about "racism." What exactly is it? Who can be a "racist?" Is it justiciable? I even wonder about "hate crimes," if they should be punished more severely than the same crime without the "hate."
Now, though, I take exception to cries of "racism" in two recent matters. One is the offer of the state of Michigan to take over Belle Isle from the city of Detroit. The transaction wouldn't be permanent and would, in fact, merely be a "loan" of sorts. The state would beautify the island--clean it up!--and maintain and operate it. Detroit would be free of all that expense, which it can hardly afford, and, when the lease is up, will get a cleaner Belle Isle back. (Please, Please don't call me a "racist" for using the word "cleaner.") Yet, the city council balked, delaying matters so long that the state withdrew its offer. And what did I hear the other day on the radio? Yep, one of the council members accusing the state of "racism" for the offer. How is that "racism?" For Detroit, it seems to me to be a win-win situation. And, as a caller to a radio station, one who identified himself as black, noted, the $10 state park fee shouldn't be a burden to many, if any, folks. He noted these people regularly go to Metropolitan Beach, Kensington MetroPark, other state facilities and pay money. He also pointed to the zoo, professional and college sports, etc. which charge for admission.
And, I guess VW has a Super Bowl ad that is "racist." I watched the video, looking for the "racism" that had introduced the ad. Some advertising "expert" began her criticism with that charge, "racism." I will admit, she sounded much the fool to me, one of those arrogant elitists who lives to tell us what we can't think for ourselves. (That's just my first impression of her, the one I got from her short evaluation. She might be a nice lady for all I know.) The "racism" stems from using a white guy to talk like a Jamaican (or some other Caribbean native). It's part of the them of "Don't Worry, Be Happy," you know, that popular song from a few years back. By the end of the ad, a car-load of folks are talking, conveying the sense of happiness from driving a VW. "Racist?" Why aren't white gangsta rappers, then, "racists?" How about some of those comedians? Hey, I've heard the President use the vernacular! For that matter, why aren't there criticisms of television shows and movies who depict mobsters with heavy Italian accents?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Purpose of Education?
I suppose before we can fix what's wrong with education, we have to decide what it is we want from it. What is the purpose of education, especially higher education?
Increasingly, I've heard more and more about education being the pathway to jobs. That is, the purpose of education to prepare one for a job. Well, OK, I guess. But I'm not sure I like the take that most people have on that.
Are colleges and universities supposed to be training grounds for jobs, in essence, trade schools? There's nothing, not a thing, wrong with vocational education. But I think the purposes of a trade school, of vocational education, runs counter to the more traditional education.
Of course jobs are important. People need jobs and need the abilities to do those jobs. Especially for skilled trades, vocational education--in schools or on-the-job--is vital.
But I've been troubled by the views of some folks. I listened to a broadcast the other day, on Bill Bennett's radio show. (Bennett, for my money, has the best nationally-syndicated show, by far!) I don't know who his guest was, a governor from some state in the South, but they were discussing educational reform. OK, this immediately sends up my antennas. Who are these reformers? I become leery, even frightened, if I discover they are politicians or educationists/school administrators or experts. I've blogged about both before and, to summarize, think very few of them really know much about quality education and how to implement/achieve it.
Anyway, this guest wanted to emphasize "preparing for jobs" in our schools. Well, yes and no. It's as if most people think a traditional liberal arts education is practically worthless, not much good for anything, especially not for getting a job. I think that's hooey and reflects the mistaken views that "most people" have of liberal arts education.
A liberal arts education should teach students to question, to think, to problem-solve (yes, I find that term grating, too, but....). What job wouldn't want someone who could question, think, and (grate, grate) problem-solve? I think having those attributes would make for a better employee. Specialized training can come, too, but likely isn't required for most jobs. Employers, now armed with new hires who can question, think, solve problems, should easily be able to train them. I think of my college mates who were fine arts majors, but went to med school and on to long, successful careers as doctors. I think of my college mates who majored in English or Psychology who became successful in business and the law.
By limiting education to job-preparation--or emphasizing that--we diminish the wider benefits of all of those years of schooling. We make citizens who are less civic-minded, who don't understand or participate in government affairs. What was it Pericles said? " We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all."
I was disappointed to hear Bill Bennett's responses to some of this. Bennett went to Williams, I believe. I would like to ask him if he knew, if he could identify his good teachers and his not-so-good ones. Of course he could. And could he also identify the qualities that made those good ones so easily identifiable? Of course he could. Then, why all this hand-wringing about bad teachers, about unions, about schools? (Now, we need to be honest about this. We have to differentiate between good teachers and favorite or nice teachers. They may be mutual, but they may not be, also.) With his liberal arts education, Bennett should have challenged his guess about the exclusivity of education for jobs. Usually Bennett is much better than that.
A related news story also piqued my interest. I guess the Michigan Superintendent of Schools called for "six-figure salaries" for teachers. Oh, that's $100,000 for science and math teachers. Again, this is very, very narrow-minded. Of course we need better science and math teachers. (I might well argue that the $100,000 salaries likely wouldn't improve science and math teacher, but that's a time for a later blog.) But once again, ignorant people diminish the importance of the social studies and humanities. These people ignore the significance of having citizens--employees and otherwise--who can think, who know about their culture, who can express themselves. I am reminded of the doctors my father had. Oh, they might well have been good technicians. (And how I am to know how good they were? He died.) But I do know they were pretty lousy at communicating. How many stories do we hear of rotten bedside manners? I think of the many businessmen who have few or no ethics, but are loaded up with the MBAs and other business degrees. (I won't consider today if today's businessmen are more or less ethical than those of the past. I would suggest, though, that they are just as "greedy" and that there are far more of them, dipping down into what is called "mid-level management.")
It's yet another example of how those involved in education think so little of history, civics, etc. Perhaps that's a major factor in our current societal malaise, the problems we have--we don't know our history, our government/civics, etc.
Increasingly, I've heard more and more about education being the pathway to jobs. That is, the purpose of education to prepare one for a job. Well, OK, I guess. But I'm not sure I like the take that most people have on that.
Are colleges and universities supposed to be training grounds for jobs, in essence, trade schools? There's nothing, not a thing, wrong with vocational education. But I think the purposes of a trade school, of vocational education, runs counter to the more traditional education.
Of course jobs are important. People need jobs and need the abilities to do those jobs. Especially for skilled trades, vocational education--in schools or on-the-job--is vital.
But I've been troubled by the views of some folks. I listened to a broadcast the other day, on Bill Bennett's radio show. (Bennett, for my money, has the best nationally-syndicated show, by far!) I don't know who his guest was, a governor from some state in the South, but they were discussing educational reform. OK, this immediately sends up my antennas. Who are these reformers? I become leery, even frightened, if I discover they are politicians or educationists/school administrators or experts. I've blogged about both before and, to summarize, think very few of them really know much about quality education and how to implement/achieve it.
Anyway, this guest wanted to emphasize "preparing for jobs" in our schools. Well, yes and no. It's as if most people think a traditional liberal arts education is practically worthless, not much good for anything, especially not for getting a job. I think that's hooey and reflects the mistaken views that "most people" have of liberal arts education.
A liberal arts education should teach students to question, to think, to problem-solve (yes, I find that term grating, too, but....). What job wouldn't want someone who could question, think, and (grate, grate) problem-solve? I think having those attributes would make for a better employee. Specialized training can come, too, but likely isn't required for most jobs. Employers, now armed with new hires who can question, think, solve problems, should easily be able to train them. I think of my college mates who were fine arts majors, but went to med school and on to long, successful careers as doctors. I think of my college mates who majored in English or Psychology who became successful in business and the law.
By limiting education to job-preparation--or emphasizing that--we diminish the wider benefits of all of those years of schooling. We make citizens who are less civic-minded, who don't understand or participate in government affairs. What was it Pericles said? " We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all."
I was disappointed to hear Bill Bennett's responses to some of this. Bennett went to Williams, I believe. I would like to ask him if he knew, if he could identify his good teachers and his not-so-good ones. Of course he could. And could he also identify the qualities that made those good ones so easily identifiable? Of course he could. Then, why all this hand-wringing about bad teachers, about unions, about schools? (Now, we need to be honest about this. We have to differentiate between good teachers and favorite or nice teachers. They may be mutual, but they may not be, also.) With his liberal arts education, Bennett should have challenged his guess about the exclusivity of education for jobs. Usually Bennett is much better than that.
A related news story also piqued my interest. I guess the Michigan Superintendent of Schools called for "six-figure salaries" for teachers. Oh, that's $100,000 for science and math teachers. Again, this is very, very narrow-minded. Of course we need better science and math teachers. (I might well argue that the $100,000 salaries likely wouldn't improve science and math teacher, but that's a time for a later blog.) But once again, ignorant people diminish the importance of the social studies and humanities. These people ignore the significance of having citizens--employees and otherwise--who can think, who know about their culture, who can express themselves. I am reminded of the doctors my father had. Oh, they might well have been good technicians. (And how I am to know how good they were? He died.) But I do know they were pretty lousy at communicating. How many stories do we hear of rotten bedside manners? I think of the many businessmen who have few or no ethics, but are loaded up with the MBAs and other business degrees. (I won't consider today if today's businessmen are more or less ethical than those of the past. I would suggest, though, that they are just as "greedy" and that there are far more of them, dipping down into what is called "mid-level management.")
It's yet another example of how those involved in education think so little of history, civics, etc. Perhaps that's a major factor in our current societal malaise, the problems we have--we don't know our history, our government/civics, etc.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Mon AM
Bounding down the stairs, somewhat agitated, came Bopper. He doesn't like being late to school. In fact, he begins to simmer if he's not there 15 or more minutes before he needs to be. I quickly defused his agitation, "No school today, Bopp. Snow day!" His demeanor quickly reversed itself with a fist-pumping, "Yes!" Ah, is there any thing more joyful to a kid than the words, "Snow Day?" Of course, K and C were also pumped up for it, calling for the "Snow Day Dance" yesterday. I won't go into the details, but it would be something I'd like to see, if only to watch neighbors' reactions. But, whatever it is, it worked. No word yet on the college closing. My guess is I still have class tonight, which is fine. I'd rather not miss.
And, thanks to this weekend, I finally think I know who's in this year's Super Bowl. I know two brothers, the Harbaughs, are coaching against each other. 49ers v Ravens. How odd it still seems to me to say anything other than "Baltimore Colts." When did that change happen?????? To be honest, I have no interest at all in the game, none. K and I are headed to a Super Bowl Party and that's my only interest. But, as someone noted over the weekend, why isn't the game played on Sat instead of Sun? Viewers would like it more. Business/Restaurants/Bars likely would, too. (More folks, I'd guess, would go out to see the game on Sat than on Sun, with work on Mon.) Regardless, with all the very serious stuff going on right now, I wonder about a people who can spend so much energy and time on a football game. (Perhaps it's a needed diversion; I don't know, but I don't think so.) I guess that's going to take me a step closer to being tossed out of the "Man Club." (Besides the NFL, I don't care for cars, fast boats, NCAA basketball or football--I received some strange looks this weekend when I noted I didn't watch the NCAA football championship game, which K confirmed--golf, or power tools.)
Do I ask too many questions? I know I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions. I think that harkens back to Socrates (or was it Plato or Plato citing Socrates?), "The unexamined life is not worth living." I do believe that is true, at least for me.
I am worked up about the governor's call for new taxes on the roads. Like anyone with a set of eyes, I realize that our roads are in terrible condition--always in terrible condition. But, more taxes to repair them? I don't think so, at least not yet. The governor (who I think is a wolf in sheep's clothing) needs to convince me of several things before I change my mind. First, my first pay check (for two weeks) of this year was $90 light (and I don't make a lot of money!). Of course, it wasn't all state taxes, but still it was $90 short of what I brought home in Dec's check. And, I haven't filed my 2012 state (or federal) income taxes yet. By most media accounts, those will be higher, too, with increase taxes and fewer deductions/credits. So, then, what is the government doing with my extra money, money they've stolen, er, taken from me? I'd also like to know if businesses are also going to be nailed. Perhaps they will, at the gas pump and with registration. I don't know yet. Will they be exempted? Beats me. But it seems that businesses use the roads a lot more than I do and, an important "and," they also tear up the roads a lot more than I do. I believe Michigan has the highest weight limit for trucks in the entire US. That needs to be addressed before I think that higher taxes are necessary. And, where are the constuction guarantees? Will the road repairers (is that a word?) guarantee that their work will last? This can't be a perpetual cycle.
I think I saw an article this weekend, buried back in the middle pages of the newspaper, that the state unemployment rate has gone up. Hmmmmm...... And, I'd guess, there are lots of folks who aren't looking for jobs anymore, frustration taking root. So, is the rate even higher than that reported? I thought the business tax cut pushed through by the governor was going to fix all that. Of course, the tax cut came without any conditions. Pay fewer taxes, but you don't have to hire more people or even lower prices.
I'm not sure the governor can do anything these last couple of years to persuade me to vote for him. And, I don't think I can vote for a Democrat. I guess it's write-in or third party--again.
I've asked here and in public, with all the crap being done to teachers (and remember, I think many of them deserve it), why would anyone of any competence ever want to be a teacher in this climate? So, these ding-a-lings who think they know how to make schools better (After all, they went to school, so.... It's sort of like, "I played little league baseball so I can manage in the big leagues." Their main efforts at reform are more testing, more testing, more testing....) are going to do so by attracting less competent people? I wonder why their business models don't apply here; to attract the best managers, requisite high pay is required. How interesting that they are selective in what business "best practices" (isn't that a grating, grating term?) to employ? Anyway, one guy this weekend asked, of public sector employees in general, but teachers specifically, why those outside of those jobs are so adamant in asking the teachers to work for 1990s pay. And, that's true. K now, even exclusive of cost of living increases, has the disposable income of about 12 or 15 years ago. I realize some folks have had it tough, some have lost jobs, taken lesser-paying jobs, have had hours cut, etc. But....
And, thanks to this weekend, I finally think I know who's in this year's Super Bowl. I know two brothers, the Harbaughs, are coaching against each other. 49ers v Ravens. How odd it still seems to me to say anything other than "Baltimore Colts." When did that change happen?????? To be honest, I have no interest at all in the game, none. K and I are headed to a Super Bowl Party and that's my only interest. But, as someone noted over the weekend, why isn't the game played on Sat instead of Sun? Viewers would like it more. Business/Restaurants/Bars likely would, too. (More folks, I'd guess, would go out to see the game on Sat than on Sun, with work on Mon.) Regardless, with all the very serious stuff going on right now, I wonder about a people who can spend so much energy and time on a football game. (Perhaps it's a needed diversion; I don't know, but I don't think so.) I guess that's going to take me a step closer to being tossed out of the "Man Club." (Besides the NFL, I don't care for cars, fast boats, NCAA basketball or football--I received some strange looks this weekend when I noted I didn't watch the NCAA football championship game, which K confirmed--golf, or power tools.)
Do I ask too many questions? I know I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions. I think that harkens back to Socrates (or was it Plato or Plato citing Socrates?), "The unexamined life is not worth living." I do believe that is true, at least for me.
I am worked up about the governor's call for new taxes on the roads. Like anyone with a set of eyes, I realize that our roads are in terrible condition--always in terrible condition. But, more taxes to repair them? I don't think so, at least not yet. The governor (who I think is a wolf in sheep's clothing) needs to convince me of several things before I change my mind. First, my first pay check (for two weeks) of this year was $90 light (and I don't make a lot of money!). Of course, it wasn't all state taxes, but still it was $90 short of what I brought home in Dec's check. And, I haven't filed my 2012 state (or federal) income taxes yet. By most media accounts, those will be higher, too, with increase taxes and fewer deductions/credits. So, then, what is the government doing with my extra money, money they've stolen, er, taken from me? I'd also like to know if businesses are also going to be nailed. Perhaps they will, at the gas pump and with registration. I don't know yet. Will they be exempted? Beats me. But it seems that businesses use the roads a lot more than I do and, an important "and," they also tear up the roads a lot more than I do. I believe Michigan has the highest weight limit for trucks in the entire US. That needs to be addressed before I think that higher taxes are necessary. And, where are the constuction guarantees? Will the road repairers (is that a word?) guarantee that their work will last? This can't be a perpetual cycle.
I think I saw an article this weekend, buried back in the middle pages of the newspaper, that the state unemployment rate has gone up. Hmmmmm...... And, I'd guess, there are lots of folks who aren't looking for jobs anymore, frustration taking root. So, is the rate even higher than that reported? I thought the business tax cut pushed through by the governor was going to fix all that. Of course, the tax cut came without any conditions. Pay fewer taxes, but you don't have to hire more people or even lower prices.
I'm not sure the governor can do anything these last couple of years to persuade me to vote for him. And, I don't think I can vote for a Democrat. I guess it's write-in or third party--again.
I've asked here and in public, with all the crap being done to teachers (and remember, I think many of them deserve it), why would anyone of any competence ever want to be a teacher in this climate? So, these ding-a-lings who think they know how to make schools better (After all, they went to school, so.... It's sort of like, "I played little league baseball so I can manage in the big leagues." Their main efforts at reform are more testing, more testing, more testing....) are going to do so by attracting less competent people? I wonder why their business models don't apply here; to attract the best managers, requisite high pay is required. How interesting that they are selective in what business "best practices" (isn't that a grating, grating term?) to employ? Anyway, one guy this weekend asked, of public sector employees in general, but teachers specifically, why those outside of those jobs are so adamant in asking the teachers to work for 1990s pay. And, that's true. K now, even exclusive of cost of living increases, has the disposable income of about 12 or 15 years ago. I realize some folks have had it tough, some have lost jobs, taken lesser-paying jobs, have had hours cut, etc. But....
Friday, January 25, 2013
Outta My Mind on a Fri AM...
...oh, it's Fri afternoon already? Where did Fri morning go? I did sleep in today, all the way to 5:54 AM, but still......
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the instrumental version of an old Motown song. I know I don't care for what goes for "music" today--or even most of the past 30 years. But listening to this classic Detroit melody led me to several thought, none particularly new. Those old songs, at least many of them, could stand on their own, vocally and instrumentally. Aretha can sing; so can Smokey. The list goes on: The Temptations, Marvin, Martha Reeves (and the Umbrellas), Levi Stubbs and even non-Motown Detroiters (many of whom still recorded at the Motown Studio) such as Jackie Wilson, Deon Jackson, and Jerome Anthony ("Little Anthony"). Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke had great bands; I used to buy their instrumental albums. I don't think many songs of today can do that. I'm not sure, though, since I don't listen much to more modern music. But, some, such as "head-banger" and "gangsta rap" can't stand on either the vocals or the instrumentals.
I read an article the other day about Profiles in Courage. The author, supposedly an educated guy, kept talking about how John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that in his book. I kept thinking, "Hey, doesn't this guy know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage??????" Who was the wag who suggested this was the only Pulitzer Prize won by an author who didn't write the prize-winning book? Oh, the book was JFK's idea, but he didn't do much, if any, of the work. It was a team effort, with Ted Sorenson doing most of the writing. Let's put it this way, if JFK had turning this book in as his own work in my class, he'd get an F. I'm still wondering, though, how this columnist doesn't know that Kennedy didn't really write Profiles in Courage. It's been common knowledge for a long time.
So it's to be women in combat now? Hmmm...... This might well be a case to be careful what you wish for/want. Why would women want to be in combat? Combat results in deaths, injuries, maiming. Men don't want to be in combat, at least those who've been there. And, is it so, that women will be able to opt out of combat? If so, wait a minute. It's one thing to demand "equality." It's a far different thing to want "selective equality."
This isn't a slam at the Obama Administration, well, not one exclusively aimed at it. This is a bi-partisan slam, which is likely to be the closest I will ever come to "bi-partisanship." (It's hard for me to even write the word!) Democrats/Republicans--Republicans/Democrats, it makes no difference.
Are we nuts?!?!?! Why do we give foreign aid to practically anyone? Do Americans know that between 1995 and 2009 (yes, as recently as 2009!), we gave $1.3 billion (that's with a "b") to North Korea? Hey, isn't that country run by that nutcase? Yep, it is. Granted, we haven't given any money to NK since, but it's not like North Korea was in 2011 what it wasn't in 2009. Oh, North Korea is now practicing launching its missiles at the US. This one is up-to-date. We are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets! Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are behind all this madness. Are they stupid or crazy or both?
Speaking of foreign policy, how about Hillary Clinton saying before a Congressional committee, "What difference does it make?" how the attack on our embassy in Benghazi started? I thought she was smarter than that. How could anyone in her position make such a stupid comment? And, she also said, "I take full responsibility...." What the heck does that mean? More pointedly, so what? What consequences will Clinton face? Apparently none. Of course any of these politicians who so courageously (yes, I'm being quite facetious) "accept responsibility" really don't in that there are no consequences. Are they fired? Do they face courts-martial or civilian judicial proceedings for dereliction of duty, for fraud, or whatnot? Of course not. "Taking full responsibility" is enough, even though there is no real accountability. After all, her boss (and you know he was lockstep with all the malfeasant policies that led to this) was just re-elected by an ill-informed electorate, a compliant and malfeasant (I seem to like that word today) media, and other feel- and doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). "I accept full responsibility...." What hooey!
In light of the above, I also wonder how John Kerry can be a nominee for anything. What I remember most about Kerry is his use of the word "gravitas." He intended to use it as a weapon against his political rival, as in, "My opponent lacks gravitas.'" You know, John Kerry is the epitome of false gravitas. And, he's also a big hypocrite. I can explain if needed. Here's what real gravitas is.
When Thurgood Marshall would walk into a room, a hush would gather over it. People would whisper, in awe, "There's Thurgood!" or "Thurgood's here!" Marshall's presence exuded gravitas, something Kerry has never experienced except in his own mind, I guess.
I was reminded this week of some words all of us should know. Pericles once said, in one form or another, "Courage is the anatomy of democracy [freedom]." We seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?
Out to grade papers......and ponder gravitas.
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the instrumental version of an old Motown song. I know I don't care for what goes for "music" today--or even most of the past 30 years. But listening to this classic Detroit melody led me to several thought, none particularly new. Those old songs, at least many of them, could stand on their own, vocally and instrumentally. Aretha can sing; so can Smokey. The list goes on: The Temptations, Marvin, Martha Reeves (and the Umbrellas), Levi Stubbs and even non-Motown Detroiters (many of whom still recorded at the Motown Studio) such as Jackie Wilson, Deon Jackson, and Jerome Anthony ("Little Anthony"). Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke had great bands; I used to buy their instrumental albums. I don't think many songs of today can do that. I'm not sure, though, since I don't listen much to more modern music. But, some, such as "head-banger" and "gangsta rap" can't stand on either the vocals or the instrumentals.
I read an article the other day about Profiles in Courage. The author, supposedly an educated guy, kept talking about how John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that in his book. I kept thinking, "Hey, doesn't this guy know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage??????" Who was the wag who suggested this was the only Pulitzer Prize won by an author who didn't write the prize-winning book? Oh, the book was JFK's idea, but he didn't do much, if any, of the work. It was a team effort, with Ted Sorenson doing most of the writing. Let's put it this way, if JFK had turning this book in as his own work in my class, he'd get an F. I'm still wondering, though, how this columnist doesn't know that Kennedy didn't really write Profiles in Courage. It's been common knowledge for a long time.
So it's to be women in combat now? Hmmm...... This might well be a case to be careful what you wish for/want. Why would women want to be in combat? Combat results in deaths, injuries, maiming. Men don't want to be in combat, at least those who've been there. And, is it so, that women will be able to opt out of combat? If so, wait a minute. It's one thing to demand "equality." It's a far different thing to want "selective equality."
This isn't a slam at the Obama Administration, well, not one exclusively aimed at it. This is a bi-partisan slam, which is likely to be the closest I will ever come to "bi-partisanship." (It's hard for me to even write the word!) Democrats/Republicans--Republicans/Democrats, it makes no difference.
Are we nuts?!?!?! Why do we give foreign aid to practically anyone? Do Americans know that between 1995 and 2009 (yes, as recently as 2009!), we gave $1.3 billion (that's with a "b") to North Korea? Hey, isn't that country run by that nutcase? Yep, it is. Granted, we haven't given any money to NK since, but it's not like North Korea was in 2011 what it wasn't in 2009. Oh, North Korea is now practicing launching its missiles at the US. This one is up-to-date. We are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets! Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are behind all this madness. Are they stupid or crazy or both?
Speaking of foreign policy, how about Hillary Clinton saying before a Congressional committee, "What difference does it make?" how the attack on our embassy in Benghazi started? I thought she was smarter than that. How could anyone in her position make such a stupid comment? And, she also said, "I take full responsibility...." What the heck does that mean? More pointedly, so what? What consequences will Clinton face? Apparently none. Of course any of these politicians who so courageously (yes, I'm being quite facetious) "accept responsibility" really don't in that there are no consequences. Are they fired? Do they face courts-martial or civilian judicial proceedings for dereliction of duty, for fraud, or whatnot? Of course not. "Taking full responsibility" is enough, even though there is no real accountability. After all, her boss (and you know he was lockstep with all the malfeasant policies that led to this) was just re-elected by an ill-informed electorate, a compliant and malfeasant (I seem to like that word today) media, and other feel- and doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). "I accept full responsibility...." What hooey!
In light of the above, I also wonder how John Kerry can be a nominee for anything. What I remember most about Kerry is his use of the word "gravitas." He intended to use it as a weapon against his political rival, as in, "My opponent lacks gravitas.'" You know, John Kerry is the epitome of false gravitas. And, he's also a big hypocrite. I can explain if needed. Here's what real gravitas is.
When Thurgood Marshall would walk into a room, a hush would gather over it. People would whisper, in awe, "There's Thurgood!" or "Thurgood's here!" Marshall's presence exuded gravitas, something Kerry has never experienced except in his own mind, I guess.
I was reminded this week of some words all of us should know. Pericles once said, in one form or another, "Courage is the anatomy of democracy [freedom]." We seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?
Out to grade papers......and ponder gravitas.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Individual Drive?
Before my main thrust, I just want to know who cares, who really cares!, if that singer lip-synched the National Anthem at the Inauguration?????? C'mon, the government is spending millions of dollar it doesn't have every minute. Kids are getting shot in every major city every day. Politicans of both parties lie like hell to us, all in the name of knowing what's best for us better than we do. Despite the deceptive reports, the unemployment/underemployment rate in this country is still near 20%. Public education is a shambles, thanks to lousy teachers and administrators and, now, arrogant politicians who think they know what quality education is because, after all, we can run our schools like businesses. And we're worried about some lip-synching and some college football player's online girlfriend.... Surely the Apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Yesterday, on my long drive to class, I wondered about what we've done and where we're headed. Are we, I thought, losing our competitive drive, our individual initiative, replacing it with the "give me my free stuff [from the government] now?" Hmmm.... It sure seems like it.
It's not just individuals' fault. I think we have fostered such a change with our, sometimes well-meaning, but ultimately destructive policies. In trying to help, we have done just the opposite. We haven't really helped people by giving them things, for free, and we have harmed a lot of others in doing so.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville (reading him in History 11 42 years ago at Amherst, I never would have thought I'd be citing him now!) cautioned against this "softening" of our individual initiative, our competitive drive.
Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats everywhere.... It seems like there are more and more regulations (you can read that as "laws") that are created merely to justify bureaucratic jobs. How dampening of the spirit to find some pencil-neck writing regulations that kill a good idea!
Why should we take any initiative when the government will take care of us, in fact, will take care of everything? Government gets bigger and bigger and the laws/rules/regulations get sillier and sillier (note a few months back my story of the rigamarole of picking up a new car).
The auto companies, the banks, etc., we were told, were "too big to fail." (Gee, why didn't that hold for the break-up of Standard Oil? Wasn't that pretty big? It didn't fail; in fact, it was quite efficient. But it was destroyed anyway, by government. Hmmm......) Now, we expect government to make everything nice for us. How silly! Government has become too big to succeed.
Yesterday, on my long drive to class, I wondered about what we've done and where we're headed. Are we, I thought, losing our competitive drive, our individual initiative, replacing it with the "give me my free stuff [from the government] now?" Hmmm.... It sure seems like it.
It's not just individuals' fault. I think we have fostered such a change with our, sometimes well-meaning, but ultimately destructive policies. In trying to help, we have done just the opposite. We haven't really helped people by giving them things, for free, and we have harmed a lot of others in doing so.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville (reading him in History 11 42 years ago at Amherst, I never would have thought I'd be citing him now!) cautioned against this "softening" of our individual initiative, our competitive drive.
Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats everywhere.... It seems like there are more and more regulations (you can read that as "laws") that are created merely to justify bureaucratic jobs. How dampening of the spirit to find some pencil-neck writing regulations that kill a good idea!
Why should we take any initiative when the government will take care of us, in fact, will take care of everything? Government gets bigger and bigger and the laws/rules/regulations get sillier and sillier (note a few months back my story of the rigamarole of picking up a new car).
The auto companies, the banks, etc., we were told, were "too big to fail." (Gee, why didn't that hold for the break-up of Standard Oil? Wasn't that pretty big? It didn't fail; in fact, it was quite efficient. But it was destroyed anyway, by government. Hmmm......) Now, we expect government to make everything nice for us. How silly! Government has become too big to succeed.
Monday, January 21, 2013
A "Disconnect?"
Isn't that the rather trendy word, "disconnect?" It's when, I guess, things don't quite match up, don't quite follow from each other. Maybe it's a step or two short of hypocrisy?
There seems to be a "disconnect" between what we think about Congress and how we react to its members. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (reputable, I guess) revealed that Congress had a 9% approval rating. Members of Congress, as a whole, rated below Brussels sprouts (Hey, I like Brussels sprouts!), head lice, NFL replacement officials, used car salesmen, traffic jams, and even cockroaches, root canals, and colonsocopies. That's quite a list!
On the positive side (and you know me, always positive!), Congress scored better than telemarketers (They were below Brussels sprouts? The survey must be flawed.), North Korea, Linday Lohan (whoever that is), the Kardashians (I've heard to them), meth labs, and gonorrhea. Well, at least members of Congress "have that goin' for 'em."
OK, maybe respondents were just having some fun, but there are a couple of questions that are immediately brought to mind, my mind at least. First, aren't these Congressmen/women and Senators embarrassed? Aren't they ashamed? (Of course, I've answered my own question many times. No, they aren't "embarrassed" because they are arrogantly elitist. What do they care what the hoi polloi think? No, they aren't "ashamed" because they, quite obviously, have no sense of shame. Just look at what they do, what they say....) I know, to this day, I am very reluctant to admit I was a teacher; well, I guess I still am. (See below for further explanation.) I've made no secret about my reluctance and the reasons behind it.
But, and I guess this is at the heart of my "disconnect," why do Congressmen/women and Senators get re-elected at rates of 90% or higher? If we hold them in such low regard--and, the survey notwithstanding, I think most of us do--why do we vote for them (or others of their ilk as chosen by the pox-deserving parties) again and again? C'mon, John Dingell was first elected in '55! He admitted, although claiming to have written the ObamaCare bill, that he didn't read it. Huh? John Conyers blew a gasket when asked about reading that. "We don't have time to read" that stuff! I wonder. Are we stupid? Do we blindly follow the parties or our unions and their endorsements? Have we given up on making things better? I laugh at those suburbanites who claim Detroiters would re-elect Kwame Kilpatrick if he was running again. Oh, how they scorn Detroiters! Yet, these same folks continue on their own merry ways, re-electing the same old, rotten Congressmen/women and Senators. Remember, they re-elected W. Bush and Obama. Enough said....and not too flattering, either.
I know a little bit of history and realize Congress hasn't always been a paragon of leadership, virtue, and so on. But it seems to me today is much worse. I think it has nothing to do with partisanship, nothing at all.
There was another article I read about teachers "cheating." Oh, I read with interest and more than a few "tsk, tsks" about cheating on student standardized test scores. Of course, some will--there is far too much emphasis on test scores. And, as I've noted in the past, teachers have nobody to blame for that except themselves, for a variety of reasons. What concerned me even more was that teachers were paying others to take their accreditation tests, the ones states impose to get a teaching credential or certificate. I read a few of the questions: "Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million a) 40,000 b) 250,000 c) 2,500,000 d) 1/4,000,000 e) 4/1,000,000?" Pick out the error in this sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." No doubt, some will say, "Why does a history teacher need to know that stuff?" In fact, I can think of more than one I worked with who would say that or something like it. Anyone who asks that question shouldn't be a teacher. And, I worked with teachers who couldn't tell the answers to these two questions. Oh, the stories I could (and sometimes do) tell.
Stan Musial died this weekend. I am saddened. He always seemed like such a class act. I know "class act" is tossed around pretty loosely these days, but that was Stan Musial. I didn't realize that he held 55 hitting records--55 of them! Musial was 92...which seems like a nice age to me now.
There seems to be a "disconnect" between what we think about Congress and how we react to its members. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (reputable, I guess) revealed that Congress had a 9% approval rating. Members of Congress, as a whole, rated below Brussels sprouts (Hey, I like Brussels sprouts!), head lice, NFL replacement officials, used car salesmen, traffic jams, and even cockroaches, root canals, and colonsocopies. That's quite a list!
On the positive side (and you know me, always positive!), Congress scored better than telemarketers (They were below Brussels sprouts? The survey must be flawed.), North Korea, Linday Lohan (whoever that is), the Kardashians (I've heard to them), meth labs, and gonorrhea. Well, at least members of Congress "have that goin' for 'em."
OK, maybe respondents were just having some fun, but there are a couple of questions that are immediately brought to mind, my mind at least. First, aren't these Congressmen/women and Senators embarrassed? Aren't they ashamed? (Of course, I've answered my own question many times. No, they aren't "embarrassed" because they are arrogantly elitist. What do they care what the hoi polloi think? No, they aren't "ashamed" because they, quite obviously, have no sense of shame. Just look at what they do, what they say....) I know, to this day, I am very reluctant to admit I was a teacher; well, I guess I still am. (See below for further explanation.) I've made no secret about my reluctance and the reasons behind it.
But, and I guess this is at the heart of my "disconnect," why do Congressmen/women and Senators get re-elected at rates of 90% or higher? If we hold them in such low regard--and, the survey notwithstanding, I think most of us do--why do we vote for them (or others of their ilk as chosen by the pox-deserving parties) again and again? C'mon, John Dingell was first elected in '55! He admitted, although claiming to have written the ObamaCare bill, that he didn't read it. Huh? John Conyers blew a gasket when asked about reading that. "We don't have time to read" that stuff! I wonder. Are we stupid? Do we blindly follow the parties or our unions and their endorsements? Have we given up on making things better? I laugh at those suburbanites who claim Detroiters would re-elect Kwame Kilpatrick if he was running again. Oh, how they scorn Detroiters! Yet, these same folks continue on their own merry ways, re-electing the same old, rotten Congressmen/women and Senators. Remember, they re-elected W. Bush and Obama. Enough said....and not too flattering, either.
I know a little bit of history and realize Congress hasn't always been a paragon of leadership, virtue, and so on. But it seems to me today is much worse. I think it has nothing to do with partisanship, nothing at all.
There was another article I read about teachers "cheating." Oh, I read with interest and more than a few "tsk, tsks" about cheating on student standardized test scores. Of course, some will--there is far too much emphasis on test scores. And, as I've noted in the past, teachers have nobody to blame for that except themselves, for a variety of reasons. What concerned me even more was that teachers were paying others to take their accreditation tests, the ones states impose to get a teaching credential or certificate. I read a few of the questions: "Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million a) 40,000 b) 250,000 c) 2,500,000 d) 1/4,000,000 e) 4/1,000,000?" Pick out the error in this sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." No doubt, some will say, "Why does a history teacher need to know that stuff?" In fact, I can think of more than one I worked with who would say that or something like it. Anyone who asks that question shouldn't be a teacher. And, I worked with teachers who couldn't tell the answers to these two questions. Oh, the stories I could (and sometimes do) tell.
Stan Musial died this weekend. I am saddened. He always seemed like such a class act. I know "class act" is tossed around pretty loosely these days, but that was Stan Musial. I didn't realize that he held 55 hitting records--55 of them! Musial was 92...which seems like a nice age to me now.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
That Mark Twain had a way with words, didn't he? (My favorite of his, though, remains, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yep. I had that one on my classroom bulletin board, there for one and all to see, for years and years and years.)
How is one to make a determination of the extent of gun violence in this country with so many different lies, er, statistics about fire-arm related deaths? I noted this in two op-ed pieces running side by side in this AM's newspaper. One claimed "31,000" and the other "12,664." That's a pretty big variance, isn't it? Are these numbers reflective of murders? Is only one of them the number of murders with guns? Does that mean the majority were "accidents?"
Curious, I checked several online sources, fairly reputable I think. Yep, I found as many as more than 31,000 and as few as 11,000--and quite a few in-between.
And, could someone at least be honest about what are being called "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons?" Most aren't, actually showing an ignorance of what these weapons really are.
Notice, too, I haven't yet begun to sound off on the assault on Constitutional rights. And, no, I don't own a single gun and haven't fired one in maybe 45 years or so.
How is one to make a determination of the extent of gun violence in this country with so many different lies, er, statistics about fire-arm related deaths? I noted this in two op-ed pieces running side by side in this AM's newspaper. One claimed "31,000" and the other "12,664." That's a pretty big variance, isn't it? Are these numbers reflective of murders? Is only one of them the number of murders with guns? Does that mean the majority were "accidents?"
Curious, I checked several online sources, fairly reputable I think. Yep, I found as many as more than 31,000 and as few as 11,000--and quite a few in-between.
And, could someone at least be honest about what are being called "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons?" Most aren't, actually showing an ignorance of what these weapons really are.
Notice, too, I haven't yet begun to sound off on the assault on Constitutional rights. And, no, I don't own a single gun and haven't fired one in maybe 45 years or so.
Roads?
So, the governor wants a tax increase for "infrastructure," name roads, improvement. Hmmm...... It will "only" be about $120 more a person plus whatever higher registration fees ($60 or $80 per car?)are included in the deal. Ah, "only dollars," once again.
Before I give these Bozos any more money, I'd like some questions answered. First, where is all that increased state revenue from the big tax cut businesses received? You remember that one, don't you? Businesses had a nice tax cut with no conditions--"Hey, pay fewer dollars in taxes, but you don't have to lower prices and you don't have to hire more people." Why don't we pay for the road fixes with the increased revenues from the business tax decrease?
Second, why can't we cut other areas to pay for roads? I see we still provide money for people to engage in bad/undesirable conduct--for instance, payments for women to keep having babies after babies after babies with no fathers around. And, as I've noted here in the past, there are many other such wasteful programs that promote behaviors we shouldn't be promoting.
Third, a spokesman (from the governor's office?) on the radio kept talking about fixing the roads for safety's sake. The guy said two or three times that "the leading cause" of fatal accidents is bad roads. "More than half the [road] fatalities" come from the lousy conditions of our roads. Wait a minute! I'm confused. I thought drunk driving was the leading cause, hence the ridiculous 0.08 blood-alcohol content standard for drunk driving. No, I thought it was "Speed Kills." Gee, I'm confused. Which is it?
But I keep thinking back to "only dollars." So, as this spokesman said, it will only cost someone about $200 more bucks to improve the roads, bridges, etc. "Certainly that's a small price to pay...." Maybe so. Apparently, he forgot about the $400 more I'll pay in state income taxes this year--thanks to the governor's initiative. And, I haven't done my taxes yet, so who knows? It might be even more than that with all the exemptions, deductions, credits that have been eliminated. Oh, and I haven't even touched the $1200 or more the federal government will be getting from me this year. Yeah, buddy, "only dollars." Here's a novel idea--why don't you just use the extra money you're already stealing, er, taking, from me this year??????
Before I give these Bozos any more money, I'd like some questions answered. First, where is all that increased state revenue from the big tax cut businesses received? You remember that one, don't you? Businesses had a nice tax cut with no conditions--"Hey, pay fewer dollars in taxes, but you don't have to lower prices and you don't have to hire more people." Why don't we pay for the road fixes with the increased revenues from the business tax decrease?
Second, why can't we cut other areas to pay for roads? I see we still provide money for people to engage in bad/undesirable conduct--for instance, payments for women to keep having babies after babies after babies with no fathers around. And, as I've noted here in the past, there are many other such wasteful programs that promote behaviors we shouldn't be promoting.
Third, a spokesman (from the governor's office?) on the radio kept talking about fixing the roads for safety's sake. The guy said two or three times that "the leading cause" of fatal accidents is bad roads. "More than half the [road] fatalities" come from the lousy conditions of our roads. Wait a minute! I'm confused. I thought drunk driving was the leading cause, hence the ridiculous 0.08 blood-alcohol content standard for drunk driving. No, I thought it was "Speed Kills." Gee, I'm confused. Which is it?
But I keep thinking back to "only dollars." So, as this spokesman said, it will only cost someone about $200 more bucks to improve the roads, bridges, etc. "Certainly that's a small price to pay...." Maybe so. Apparently, he forgot about the $400 more I'll pay in state income taxes this year--thanks to the governor's initiative. And, I haven't done my taxes yet, so who knows? It might be even more than that with all the exemptions, deductions, credits that have been eliminated. Oh, and I haven't even touched the $1200 or more the federal government will be getting from me this year. Yeah, buddy, "only dollars." Here's a novel idea--why don't you just use the extra money you're already stealing, er, taking, from me this year??????
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Smelly "Cliff"
The more I read about this "cliff" deal, the smellier it gets. The income tax hikes on "the wealthy" will raise about $22-23 billion dollars in 2013, that is, more than if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to continue. Yet....
At the President's insistence, the deal allows tax credits to energy and business interests (such as GE...hmmmm) that will reduce tax revenues by more than $66 billion. Another one of the industries getting a nod in this is Hollywood; now there's a big surprise. Film and television producers will get a lower tax bill in 2013, to the tune of $266 million. Of course, if anyone needs a tax break, it has to be Hollywood. Rum producers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico will have a reduced bill, too--about $200 million less.
I know Big Oil is subsidized, but I would guess all but the most close-minded zealots would agree that, if tax breaks/subsidies are to be handed out at all, something a little more vital than television, movies, and rum should get them.
And an enlightening article in the newspaper this AM, too. Many Michigan tax-payers will be in for a rude awakening when filing their state income taxes this year. Surprise, they will be paying more!
George Will had a good piece in today's paper. It concerns the deficit and its nature. Prior deficit spending by the federal government was used to benefit the present and the future. For instance, the deficits of the 1940s helped to win WW2 and create the Interstate Highway System, which, again I'd say most people would agree, helped future generations of Americans as well as contemporaries. Today's deficits are for our own aggrandizements, be they corporate or individual welfare, other grand schemes or policies--yet the payments will not come from us, but from our children and grandchildren. Of course, that is if the US continues as it has for two hundred years and doesn't take the increasingly likely road of Greece, Spain, etc.
Will has two other things I liked. One was a term, "connoisseurs of democratic decadence." The other is a quotation from Churchill, "The gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought." Will directed the Churchillian gem toward Obama, but there are many out there today to which it can apply.
I was thinking today and I'm not sure it has to do with anything. When I started teaching, I took a sizable pay cut to do so. It was my choice; so I'm not grumbling. But my take-home pay that first year (and maybe the next couple as well) would not have been enough to cover my final year's room, board, and tuition bill at Amherst. I visibly shook my head--I could have just had my paycheck sent to AC and I would have still owed more! That strikes me. And how is it, again, that these business-minded experts on education want to improve it? By making teaching more attractive through lower salaries, fewer benefits, and more idiotic testing. Great, just great. It's wonderful to see those like our governor spout off about "best practices," as employed in businesses, but not really apply them to teachers/teaching. Gee, isn't business (at least those who get the big bucks!) always telling us how necessary those big bucks are to attract the best talent for management? It didn't seem to be working there for the auto industry, banks, investments, and more of the big shooters, did it? Wasn't it Peter Drucker, another guru cited by the business community, who said if a company is having problems, it isn't the workers, it isn't the management, it's the guys at the top? Ah, once again, being selective has its advantages. Of course, I've already gone on record about my views of the quality of teachers. There are some very, very outstanding ones. Others are workable, just fine (not everyone can be a superstar). But far too many teachers (and administrators) should be nowhere near a classroom or school. That's not my point here. Or maybe it is.... Maybe cutting pay and benefits will ensure even more lousy teachers.
And, speaking of those early days, I remembered Karen and I had for dinner two or three times a week Chunky Soup on rice, and generic rice it was, not Minute Rice. Meat every night? No, that didn't happen. That's what we could afford, so that's what we ate. I wonder if we insisted welfare recipients had the same diet how many howls there would be??????
At the President's insistence, the deal allows tax credits to energy and business interests (such as GE...hmmmm) that will reduce tax revenues by more than $66 billion. Another one of the industries getting a nod in this is Hollywood; now there's a big surprise. Film and television producers will get a lower tax bill in 2013, to the tune of $266 million. Of course, if anyone needs a tax break, it has to be Hollywood. Rum producers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico will have a reduced bill, too--about $200 million less.
I know Big Oil is subsidized, but I would guess all but the most close-minded zealots would agree that, if tax breaks/subsidies are to be handed out at all, something a little more vital than television, movies, and rum should get them.
And an enlightening article in the newspaper this AM, too. Many Michigan tax-payers will be in for a rude awakening when filing their state income taxes this year. Surprise, they will be paying more!
George Will had a good piece in today's paper. It concerns the deficit and its nature. Prior deficit spending by the federal government was used to benefit the present and the future. For instance, the deficits of the 1940s helped to win WW2 and create the Interstate Highway System, which, again I'd say most people would agree, helped future generations of Americans as well as contemporaries. Today's deficits are for our own aggrandizements, be they corporate or individual welfare, other grand schemes or policies--yet the payments will not come from us, but from our children and grandchildren. Of course, that is if the US continues as it has for two hundred years and doesn't take the increasingly likely road of Greece, Spain, etc.
Will has two other things I liked. One was a term, "connoisseurs of democratic decadence." The other is a quotation from Churchill, "The gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought." Will directed the Churchillian gem toward Obama, but there are many out there today to which it can apply.
I was thinking today and I'm not sure it has to do with anything. When I started teaching, I took a sizable pay cut to do so. It was my choice; so I'm not grumbling. But my take-home pay that first year (and maybe the next couple as well) would not have been enough to cover my final year's room, board, and tuition bill at Amherst. I visibly shook my head--I could have just had my paycheck sent to AC and I would have still owed more! That strikes me. And how is it, again, that these business-minded experts on education want to improve it? By making teaching more attractive through lower salaries, fewer benefits, and more idiotic testing. Great, just great. It's wonderful to see those like our governor spout off about "best practices," as employed in businesses, but not really apply them to teachers/teaching. Gee, isn't business (at least those who get the big bucks!) always telling us how necessary those big bucks are to attract the best talent for management? It didn't seem to be working there for the auto industry, banks, investments, and more of the big shooters, did it? Wasn't it Peter Drucker, another guru cited by the business community, who said if a company is having problems, it isn't the workers, it isn't the management, it's the guys at the top? Ah, once again, being selective has its advantages. Of course, I've already gone on record about my views of the quality of teachers. There are some very, very outstanding ones. Others are workable, just fine (not everyone can be a superstar). But far too many teachers (and administrators) should be nowhere near a classroom or school. That's not my point here. Or maybe it is.... Maybe cutting pay and benefits will ensure even more lousy teachers.
And, speaking of those early days, I remembered Karen and I had for dinner two or three times a week Chunky Soup on rice, and generic rice it was, not Minute Rice. Meat every night? No, that didn't happen. That's what we could afford, so that's what we ate. I wonder if we insisted welfare recipients had the same diet how many howls there would be??????
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Running and Racing?
I really enjoy reading editor Scott Sullivan's "Notes" and columnists Scott Hubbard and Tom Henderson in Michigan Runner. They combine wit, insight, knowledge, and new ideas. Hey, sometimes they are even controversial!
In the Jan/Feb issue of MR, Hubbard writes of a local DDS who has cheated in numerous races, in state and out. The guy was featured, as a cheat, in The New Yorker. I guess my questions, which will likely never be answered are, "Why do these guys cheat? What do they get out of false times? Are they so delusional they believe they ran that fast?" It's not as if this guy and others like him are setting world records, are making big bucks, qualifying for the Olympics. I suppose, reprehensible as it is, cheating to win prize money is one thing. But this DDS wasn't winning the big bucks. It even sounds like his own friends knew he wasn't running nearly as fast as he claimed. Is it a mental illness, fooling yourself in such a manner? Is it dangerous? I don't know. I don't get as worked up over it as Scott does, but it is perplexing and I understand the anger it provokes.
Henderson writes, as he has in the past, of the lack of fast runners in today's races. Oh, world records are being set by the elites, at all distances. But at our local races, times are much, much slower than they used to be. He decries that--and I understand it. I still do OK in most races, at least in my age-group. But, I joke, that's because there aren't many runners left in my age-group! And, besides the laughs, there's a lot of truth to that. Way back when, though, I tried to run fast, at least faster. I trained and worked hard, aiming at certain races. That's what Henderson wants, others, like in year's past, to run and train for faster races. Hmmmm.... I understand what he is saying and, in fact, note that I used to do just that, at least try to do that. It was the competitive nature in me. Now, though, I think I understand those who just run, not race, even in racing events.
I am reminded of my father, who was quite competitive and expected me to be that way, too. If I got a couple hits in a ball game, his comment was, "Why didn't you get three?" If I brought home five As and an A-, it was, "What's with the A-?" With his grandson, Matt, after scoring three TDs and rushing for a couple hundred yards in a high school game, Grandpa focused on this, "Why'd you fumble?" Some years back, I talked him into walking a local run/walk event. He walked it, conversationally, with an uncle. But, ten feet from the finish, my dad sprinted ahead to "win." That was his mien. I always remember at one of Matt's junior high cross country meets (cross country was the only sport the school district offered), one of his buddies just sort of loped along, finishing last by a considerable margin. My dad's comment was something like this, "Why does he bother?" The message was, of course, if you aren't going to try to win, why do it? I was upset by the comment and retorted, "What? Should he just stay home and play video games or watch movies?" Not at all taken aback by my reaction, he just shrugged, almost as if to say, "Yes." I don't think so and guess never have. It's much better to participate in something like running (or other physical activities/sports) than to sit.
I like to see lots of folks at races, even if the vast majority are not there to win or even to run fast/hard/their best. They are out there at least. My last two races confirmed that and reenlightened me. At the Big Bird 10K, I ran my slowest time ever, by maybe 6 or 7 minutes, maybe more. I was at least 5 minutes behind my time of just last year and about 15 or 16 minutes behind my PR, set on this course. Part of my slower run was by design, not wanting to aggravate an injury that was close to completely healed. Part of it was I wasn't really trained to run what I had in the past, largely due to the injury, which precluded any hard running all summer. At the start of the race, I ran with Darrell McKee for a mile or so. Darrell is in his mid-70s and has run each of the Big Birds, every one of them. He was running at about a 14-minute a mile pace and I really enjoyed running and yakking with him. He's quite a character and has a lot of good stories. Then I met up with another running friend, Jerry Mittman. Jerry has run oodles and oodles of marathons and half marathons. I ran with him for a couple of miles, about an 8:30 pace I'd guess, talking away. I did that with several other runners, too, ones I see at races. One even admonished me, "Get up there where you belong." I laughed, but remember thinking, "I am where I belong" or at least where I wanted to be. At the end, I wasn't at all gassed or even fatigued, but had one of my best Big Bird times, just not by the clock. Two nights later, I went to the Wayne County Light Fest 8K on Hines Park. It's an 8K/five mile run/walk through the Christmas and other holiday decorations of Hines Drive. I've run every one of these beautiful evening events, most often parking at the finish, running to the start to get my tee shirt, and then running back to the finish--about 10 miles or a little more. Most years I've done the Light Fest with my good running buddy Bob Drapal. Of course, we stop for eats afterward. (At first it was White Castles; then we had the good sense to stop at De Luca's for its great pizza!) The last couple of years, Karen and some other friends have joined Bob and me, for the Light Fest and for pizza. Karen and our friends would walk and Bob and I ran. This year, Bob opted to walk with Karen, Michelle, and Russ. Carrie wanted "more of a challenge" and asked me to walk and run it with her. So, I ran and walked, hardly a fast time and not my fastest Light Fest, but a good time nevertheless, with Carrie. In fact, like the Big Bird, I had one of my favorite Light Fests. De Luca's pizza was great, too!
I think there's a place for all kinds of runners, including in races. Guys who can't make the major leagues still play softball. Gals who don't make the Olympics still go skiing. They aren't necessarily racing, but they are out there.
If there's one thing I am sure of it's that we need to be more active. The obesity epidemic is going to swallow us. Anything that keeps us active is OK with me. And if some folks (including me when I shake this heel problem) want to work to run faster, great!
In the Jan/Feb issue of MR, Hubbard writes of a local DDS who has cheated in numerous races, in state and out. The guy was featured, as a cheat, in The New Yorker. I guess my questions, which will likely never be answered are, "Why do these guys cheat? What do they get out of false times? Are they so delusional they believe they ran that fast?" It's not as if this guy and others like him are setting world records, are making big bucks, qualifying for the Olympics. I suppose, reprehensible as it is, cheating to win prize money is one thing. But this DDS wasn't winning the big bucks. It even sounds like his own friends knew he wasn't running nearly as fast as he claimed. Is it a mental illness, fooling yourself in such a manner? Is it dangerous? I don't know. I don't get as worked up over it as Scott does, but it is perplexing and I understand the anger it provokes.
Henderson writes, as he has in the past, of the lack of fast runners in today's races. Oh, world records are being set by the elites, at all distances. But at our local races, times are much, much slower than they used to be. He decries that--and I understand it. I still do OK in most races, at least in my age-group. But, I joke, that's because there aren't many runners left in my age-group! And, besides the laughs, there's a lot of truth to that. Way back when, though, I tried to run fast, at least faster. I trained and worked hard, aiming at certain races. That's what Henderson wants, others, like in year's past, to run and train for faster races. Hmmmm.... I understand what he is saying and, in fact, note that I used to do just that, at least try to do that. It was the competitive nature in me. Now, though, I think I understand those who just run, not race, even in racing events.
I am reminded of my father, who was quite competitive and expected me to be that way, too. If I got a couple hits in a ball game, his comment was, "Why didn't you get three?" If I brought home five As and an A-, it was, "What's with the A-?" With his grandson, Matt, after scoring three TDs and rushing for a couple hundred yards in a high school game, Grandpa focused on this, "Why'd you fumble?" Some years back, I talked him into walking a local run/walk event. He walked it, conversationally, with an uncle. But, ten feet from the finish, my dad sprinted ahead to "win." That was his mien. I always remember at one of Matt's junior high cross country meets (cross country was the only sport the school district offered), one of his buddies just sort of loped along, finishing last by a considerable margin. My dad's comment was something like this, "Why does he bother?" The message was, of course, if you aren't going to try to win, why do it? I was upset by the comment and retorted, "What? Should he just stay home and play video games or watch movies?" Not at all taken aback by my reaction, he just shrugged, almost as if to say, "Yes." I don't think so and guess never have. It's much better to participate in something like running (or other physical activities/sports) than to sit.
I like to see lots of folks at races, even if the vast majority are not there to win or even to run fast/hard/their best. They are out there at least. My last two races confirmed that and reenlightened me. At the Big Bird 10K, I ran my slowest time ever, by maybe 6 or 7 minutes, maybe more. I was at least 5 minutes behind my time of just last year and about 15 or 16 minutes behind my PR, set on this course. Part of my slower run was by design, not wanting to aggravate an injury that was close to completely healed. Part of it was I wasn't really trained to run what I had in the past, largely due to the injury, which precluded any hard running all summer. At the start of the race, I ran with Darrell McKee for a mile or so. Darrell is in his mid-70s and has run each of the Big Birds, every one of them. He was running at about a 14-minute a mile pace and I really enjoyed running and yakking with him. He's quite a character and has a lot of good stories. Then I met up with another running friend, Jerry Mittman. Jerry has run oodles and oodles of marathons and half marathons. I ran with him for a couple of miles, about an 8:30 pace I'd guess, talking away. I did that with several other runners, too, ones I see at races. One even admonished me, "Get up there where you belong." I laughed, but remember thinking, "I am where I belong" or at least where I wanted to be. At the end, I wasn't at all gassed or even fatigued, but had one of my best Big Bird times, just not by the clock. Two nights later, I went to the Wayne County Light Fest 8K on Hines Park. It's an 8K/five mile run/walk through the Christmas and other holiday decorations of Hines Drive. I've run every one of these beautiful evening events, most often parking at the finish, running to the start to get my tee shirt, and then running back to the finish--about 10 miles or a little more. Most years I've done the Light Fest with my good running buddy Bob Drapal. Of course, we stop for eats afterward. (At first it was White Castles; then we had the good sense to stop at De Luca's for its great pizza!) The last couple of years, Karen and some other friends have joined Bob and me, for the Light Fest and for pizza. Karen and our friends would walk and Bob and I ran. This year, Bob opted to walk with Karen, Michelle, and Russ. Carrie wanted "more of a challenge" and asked me to walk and run it with her. So, I ran and walked, hardly a fast time and not my fastest Light Fest, but a good time nevertheless, with Carrie. In fact, like the Big Bird, I had one of my favorite Light Fests. De Luca's pizza was great, too!
I think there's a place for all kinds of runners, including in races. Guys who can't make the major leagues still play softball. Gals who don't make the Olympics still go skiing. They aren't necessarily racing, but they are out there.
If there's one thing I am sure of it's that we need to be more active. The obesity epidemic is going to swallow us. Anything that keeps us active is OK with me. And if some folks (including me when I shake this heel problem) want to work to run faster, great!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Hold on to Your Hats!
Bill Clinton was named the “Father of the Year” by the National Father’s Day Council this week. I looked to see if this was from The Onion or The Ottster, but apparently it's legit! Obama and Algore "win" Nobel Peace Prizes.... Sometimes I just wonder.
And the Transportation Dept is considering a new tax, this one of mileage. I'm not sure--and I 'm sure the TD isn't either!--how it will work. But, preliminary talks are talking about keeping track of individuals' mileage and basing taxes on that. With the federally-mandated (or soon-to-be?) tracking (GPS) devices, well, you better keep your bicycle tires pumped up for that trip to the grocery store. BTW, how many lights does Algore have on in his mansion right now??????
In Michigan, several hundred business owners/corporate heads rated the possibility of the state's return to prosperity in '13 at 62 of 100, a 62% if my calculator is correct. That's a D-. Hmmmm.... I guess they aren't very optimistic about the coming year. They cited, mostly, coming taxes and bog-down government regulations. I keep reading about "the recovery," but I also keep seeing businesses shutting their doors. Just last night, taking Ashley to Girl Scouts, I saw two empty store fronts on M-59 that weren't empty last week.
Maybe I'm a bit picky, but I get a kick out of seeing cars in driveways with green bumper stickers, for instance, the "Co-Exist" ones. Well, it's not the bumper stickers, but what I see at the driveways. This AM out running, I noted several of these cars idling in the dark (I run out-and-back on these streets quite frequently) while owners wait for them to heat up inside. And invariably these same driveways are cleared, not by shovels, but snowblowers. And, once again, my all-time favorite was the huge SUV barreling down I 696 at 80 or more mph bearing the bumper sticker, "No Blood for Oil."
And the Transportation Dept is considering a new tax, this one of mileage. I'm not sure--and I 'm sure the TD isn't either!--how it will work. But, preliminary talks are talking about keeping track of individuals' mileage and basing taxes on that. With the federally-mandated (or soon-to-be?) tracking (GPS) devices, well, you better keep your bicycle tires pumped up for that trip to the grocery store. BTW, how many lights does Algore have on in his mansion right now??????
In Michigan, several hundred business owners/corporate heads rated the possibility of the state's return to prosperity in '13 at 62 of 100, a 62% if my calculator is correct. That's a D-. Hmmmm.... I guess they aren't very optimistic about the coming year. They cited, mostly, coming taxes and bog-down government regulations. I keep reading about "the recovery," but I also keep seeing businesses shutting their doors. Just last night, taking Ashley to Girl Scouts, I saw two empty store fronts on M-59 that weren't empty last week.
Maybe I'm a bit picky, but I get a kick out of seeing cars in driveways with green bumper stickers, for instance, the "Co-Exist" ones. Well, it's not the bumper stickers, but what I see at the driveways. This AM out running, I noted several of these cars idling in the dark (I run out-and-back on these streets quite frequently) while owners wait for them to heat up inside. And invariably these same driveways are cleared, not by shovels, but snowblowers. And, once again, my all-time favorite was the huge SUV barreling down I 696 at 80 or more mph bearing the bumper sticker, "No Blood for Oil."
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Enlightenment
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Some people are beginning to realize that "We" does not include everyone. "We" are Americans, in particular. I was reminded of this in an article I read this AM.
Many times I've posted that much of the problem with the Muslim world, but also much of the rest of it outside of the West, lies in that they've never embraced the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Perhaps in our own exuberance to share or spread these ideas and ideals we blindly believe that all people seek them. This is especially true of our intellectual elites.
Much of the world hasn't accepted the concept of individual freedoms. Women are treated much differently, in deleterious ways, than men. Rape is a crime that punishes the female victime. Women cannot be doctors, lawyers, or even drive automobiles. Freedom of religion/worship is nonexistent in much of the world. In fact, many (Islamists) think that not only is their religion best, it should be the only one; death to nonbelievers. Voting, free expression, property rights...they are Western values.
We make two mistakes. One, so poignantly pointed out by Lech Walesa, is that Americans take their rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, for granted. He, personally, knows how precious freedom is. And, in fact, he endured prison, physical beatings, and death threats to his family and himself (real death threats by commie agencies) in his quest to secure what Americans take for granted. Two, we erroneously assume that, given the opportunity, all people all over the world will strive to have what we have.
Again, we ignore our history and, indeed, the history of the world. The United States was a unique experiment. It was founded on a set of ideas and ideals, unlike other countries founded on ethnicity, religion, dynasties, etc. (Granted, as an experiment, we've made sometimes too slow progress in spreading our freedoms to our own Americans, but we've steadily moved forward.) We don't realize how tenuous the prospect of success/survival was. Few people in the world, even the West, expected the US to make it. As late as the Civil War, there were some nodding European heads, "See, we told you. It took longer than we thought, but the US is crumbling."
But equality can't be forced on people, not even here. We can provide, here, equality of opportunity, making the playing field as level as we can. (And, remember, "If men were angels....) But, as President Obama seems wont to do, we can't reward sloth, lack of skills or ability, etc. in the name of equality. Sometimes, we should think about what the ideas and ideals upon which this nation were founded really mean. We have strayed from them and we have misunderstood much of the rest of the world.
Some people are beginning to realize that "We" does not include everyone. "We" are Americans, in particular. I was reminded of this in an article I read this AM.
Many times I've posted that much of the problem with the Muslim world, but also much of the rest of it outside of the West, lies in that they've never embraced the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Perhaps in our own exuberance to share or spread these ideas and ideals we blindly believe that all people seek them. This is especially true of our intellectual elites.
Much of the world hasn't accepted the concept of individual freedoms. Women are treated much differently, in deleterious ways, than men. Rape is a crime that punishes the female victime. Women cannot be doctors, lawyers, or even drive automobiles. Freedom of religion/worship is nonexistent in much of the world. In fact, many (Islamists) think that not only is their religion best, it should be the only one; death to nonbelievers. Voting, free expression, property rights...they are Western values.
We make two mistakes. One, so poignantly pointed out by Lech Walesa, is that Americans take their rights, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, for granted. He, personally, knows how precious freedom is. And, in fact, he endured prison, physical beatings, and death threats to his family and himself (real death threats by commie agencies) in his quest to secure what Americans take for granted. Two, we erroneously assume that, given the opportunity, all people all over the world will strive to have what we have.
Again, we ignore our history and, indeed, the history of the world. The United States was a unique experiment. It was founded on a set of ideas and ideals, unlike other countries founded on ethnicity, religion, dynasties, etc. (Granted, as an experiment, we've made sometimes too slow progress in spreading our freedoms to our own Americans, but we've steadily moved forward.) We don't realize how tenuous the prospect of success/survival was. Few people in the world, even the West, expected the US to make it. As late as the Civil War, there were some nodding European heads, "See, we told you. It took longer than we thought, but the US is crumbling."
But equality can't be forced on people, not even here. We can provide, here, equality of opportunity, making the playing field as level as we can. (And, remember, "If men were angels....) But, as President Obama seems wont to do, we can't reward sloth, lack of skills or ability, etc. in the name of equality. Sometimes, we should think about what the ideas and ideals upon which this nation were founded really mean. We have strayed from them and we have misunderstood much of the rest of the world.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Ignoring Reality
I know I posted about this some time ago, likely when the NCAA penalties against Penn State were revealed. But it seems to me to be more than just a little bit of posturing to fine the university $60,000,000. First, what gives the NCAA such authority? Second, who's going to pay that money, any of the perpetrators of the pedophilia or the cover-up? Third, who will really be penalized? I guess the NCAA is making a statement. "Boy, look how tough we are! We're really cracking down!" Of course, the whole episode of pedophilia is revolting, sickening. Those involved, from Sandusky to all those who looked the other way, deserve what they get and more (I won't reveal my punishments for them). But c'mon.... Where is the NCAA on all of the things that it should be concerned with, not the pedophilia that should remain firmly in the hands of the legal system? Why doesn't the NCAA deal with illegal payments to so-called "amateur athletes?" Note the recent revelations of a former Ohio State football player that he "was living the NFL life" in college, "getting more money" then than he did as a professional. Where is the NCAA on assuring these so-called "student-athletes" are attending classes, doing the same work other students do? Again, let's point to an Ohio State football player who asked, in one of the social media sites, "Why should I gave to go to class? I came here to play football. I didn't come here to play school." Where are the NCAA investigations into those? How about drug usage and alcohol abuse? What about the crimes, including rape, that apparently are swept under the carpet? The NCAA permits the institutions to police themselves, sort of like letting the fox rule the henhouse. Of course, we know what is at the bottom of all of this: MONEY! And the self-important, but hypocritical folks at the NCAA should be ashamed. They aren't because look at all the money they are helping to bring in....
I have seen a number of articles and even cartoons applauding the success of the federal stimulus packages. Hmmmm...... Many point to the resurgence of the auto companies. Maybe, maybe not. Is unemployment really lower? The federal definition of "unemployment" makes it difficult to know. One ploy used is not counting people who quite looking for jobs because they are so frustrated and discouraged by seeking jobs that don't exist. One term that is used by some is "underemployment," that is, people who are now working part-time, some very part-time, who were formerly employed full-time. According to one Maryland economist, the actual unemployment/underemployment rate is far close to 15% than the 8% that is reported by the LameStreams. And, note the auto industry's jobs. Many of the new hires are now making a fraction of what auto workers used to make. (I'm not arguing for or against that, just stating what is.) And, it's likely that the US taxpayer is on the hook for about $30 billion dollars of that stimulus money, money that won't be paid back.
In the same vein, did John Boehner really express surprise that Barrack Obama told him, "We don't have a spending problem?" If so, how did this guy get to be Speaker of the House?
And, of taxing the wealthy at higher rates, note what is happening in France, where the wealthiest of folks are facing tax rates of 75%. Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries are reaping the benefits of the French tax increases. The wealthiest of the French are moving, out of France. Many French companies are also relocating. And, French companies remaining in France are hiring top executives/management from Amsterdam, Brussels, etc. because those who make the big bucks won't live in France. I guess some French actor, who is famous but I never heard of him, not only moved out of France with his fortune, but became a citizen of Russia. Apparently, after six months of Russian citizenship, he will be taxed at 13%. Hmmmmm....you steal, er tax, 75% of my money or I keep 87% of it?????? I know history isn't important, but look at the Depression years in the US, when federal tax rates were similarly high. Note what happened to investment money or, more accurately, what didn't happen. When, before the Second World War, tax rates were higher than 70%, unemployment skyrocketed back up to more than 20%, not too far off the earliest years of the Depression. After the war, after FDR and his tax, tax, and tax some more policies died, tax rates were cut, cut by a lot--almost 1/3 less. And by 1947, unemployment was under 4%. Hmmmm......
I have seen a number of articles and even cartoons applauding the success of the federal stimulus packages. Hmmmm...... Many point to the resurgence of the auto companies. Maybe, maybe not. Is unemployment really lower? The federal definition of "unemployment" makes it difficult to know. One ploy used is not counting people who quite looking for jobs because they are so frustrated and discouraged by seeking jobs that don't exist. One term that is used by some is "underemployment," that is, people who are now working part-time, some very part-time, who were formerly employed full-time. According to one Maryland economist, the actual unemployment/underemployment rate is far close to 15% than the 8% that is reported by the LameStreams. And, note the auto industry's jobs. Many of the new hires are now making a fraction of what auto workers used to make. (I'm not arguing for or against that, just stating what is.) And, it's likely that the US taxpayer is on the hook for about $30 billion dollars of that stimulus money, money that won't be paid back.
In the same vein, did John Boehner really express surprise that Barrack Obama told him, "We don't have a spending problem?" If so, how did this guy get to be Speaker of the House?
And, of taxing the wealthy at higher rates, note what is happening in France, where the wealthiest of folks are facing tax rates of 75%. Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries are reaping the benefits of the French tax increases. The wealthiest of the French are moving, out of France. Many French companies are also relocating. And, French companies remaining in France are hiring top executives/management from Amsterdam, Brussels, etc. because those who make the big bucks won't live in France. I guess some French actor, who is famous but I never heard of him, not only moved out of France with his fortune, but became a citizen of Russia. Apparently, after six months of Russian citizenship, he will be taxed at 13%. Hmmmmm....you steal, er tax, 75% of my money or I keep 87% of it?????? I know history isn't important, but look at the Depression years in the US, when federal tax rates were similarly high. Note what happened to investment money or, more accurately, what didn't happen. When, before the Second World War, tax rates were higher than 70%, unemployment skyrocketed back up to more than 20%, not too far off the earliest years of the Depression. After the war, after FDR and his tax, tax, and tax some more policies died, tax rates were cut, cut by a lot--almost 1/3 less. And by 1947, unemployment was under 4%. Hmmmm......
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Columnists
Years and years ago, a YMCA basketball playing buddy remarked to me that he still read, every once in a while, a celebrated Detroit sportswriter's column. He did that, he said, "to make sure he's as bad as usual." I never cared for this particular writer, either, wondering how he made some "hall of fame" or another, how he so often just lifted columns from the Sporting News, and why he was considered so good. I never saw it.
Clarence Page writes for the Chicago Tribune, his column syndicated throughout the nation. I don't always agree with Page, but I always respect his opinion. He's thoughtful, insightful, and, I think, well worth reading. Again, years ago, I believe Page was the one who strongly suggested that, along with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other black heroes, Black History Month should include Harry Truman. How insightful! Last week, Page had another thoughtful column, playing upon the 150 anniversary of The Emancipation Proclamation and the recently-released movie, Lincoln. Page correctly assesses the vast significance of Lincoln's document, "which gave a human rights mission to the Civil War," that is, changed the nature of the war and, indeed, of the grand experiment in liberty called the United States. It also led to the 13th Amendment, which, of course, Constitutionally abolished slavery. Both points are often missed in current US History textbooks and teachers, often due to a misinterpretation and misreading of The Emancipation Proclamation by Richard Hofstadter about 100 years ago. And, that misunderstanding of the importance of Lincoln's document has continued unabated until recently, the last few decades. Page asks, "Lincoln freed us for...this?" And then he points to "poverty culture," mostly affecting blacks. The immediate target of his column is some reality show (and I still can't figure out how and why these things are called "reality shows") that "glorifies...a newer form of slavery that we impose on ourselves." I guess the show focuses on some hippy-rock/rap singer (I use that term loosely here) who lives with the ten women with whom he has fathered eleven kids. No, marriage isn't in the picture. He takes the TV network to task for "shamelessly promoting a harem-like lifestyle as if it were a practical childrearing option." Of course, Page shows concern for the children. But he adds more. He notes that figures from 2009, more than 40% of children are born out of wedlock, that the number rises to more than 50% for women under 30 years old who give birth. For black women under 30, about two of every three babies are born to women without husbands. Page notes that having a traditional marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee success in childrearing, but it increases the odds manyfold. Yet, what sort of lifestyle is glorified?
I also read a column by E.J. Dionne. I usually skip him, not wanting to waste my time. For me, he falls into the category of my YMCA basketball friend. And, this time, Dionne didn't disappoint, either. It's the same old stuff with the guy. He wrote of the "fiscal cliff" deal, how it can be a possible starting point for fixing the federal government's financial mess. Yet, all he seemingly wrote about was raising revenues, that is, taxes. Oh, the increase must come from the wealthy. He ignores a lot of statistics that come from, well, the federal government's own accounting office. But, that's OK with many of these writers/columnists. They can just ignore facts when they get in the way of our politics and policies.
On another note, from last month, how interesting that the Republicans in Lansing ramrodded through several pieces of legislation during the state legislature's lame duck session. Oh, they used closed door meetings and deals and late night/early AM votes...you know, all the things the Republicans criticized about passage of ObamaCare. Again, I say, "a pox on all their houses/parties."
Clarence Page writes for the Chicago Tribune, his column syndicated throughout the nation. I don't always agree with Page, but I always respect his opinion. He's thoughtful, insightful, and, I think, well worth reading. Again, years ago, I believe Page was the one who strongly suggested that, along with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and other black heroes, Black History Month should include Harry Truman. How insightful! Last week, Page had another thoughtful column, playing upon the 150 anniversary of The Emancipation Proclamation and the recently-released movie, Lincoln. Page correctly assesses the vast significance of Lincoln's document, "which gave a human rights mission to the Civil War," that is, changed the nature of the war and, indeed, of the grand experiment in liberty called the United States. It also led to the 13th Amendment, which, of course, Constitutionally abolished slavery. Both points are often missed in current US History textbooks and teachers, often due to a misinterpretation and misreading of The Emancipation Proclamation by Richard Hofstadter about 100 years ago. And, that misunderstanding of the importance of Lincoln's document has continued unabated until recently, the last few decades. Page asks, "Lincoln freed us for...this?" And then he points to "poverty culture," mostly affecting blacks. The immediate target of his column is some reality show (and I still can't figure out how and why these things are called "reality shows") that "glorifies...a newer form of slavery that we impose on ourselves." I guess the show focuses on some hippy-rock/rap singer (I use that term loosely here) who lives with the ten women with whom he has fathered eleven kids. No, marriage isn't in the picture. He takes the TV network to task for "shamelessly promoting a harem-like lifestyle as if it were a practical childrearing option." Of course, Page shows concern for the children. But he adds more. He notes that figures from 2009, more than 40% of children are born out of wedlock, that the number rises to more than 50% for women under 30 years old who give birth. For black women under 30, about two of every three babies are born to women without husbands. Page notes that having a traditional marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee success in childrearing, but it increases the odds manyfold. Yet, what sort of lifestyle is glorified?
I also read a column by E.J. Dionne. I usually skip him, not wanting to waste my time. For me, he falls into the category of my YMCA basketball friend. And, this time, Dionne didn't disappoint, either. It's the same old stuff with the guy. He wrote of the "fiscal cliff" deal, how it can be a possible starting point for fixing the federal government's financial mess. Yet, all he seemingly wrote about was raising revenues, that is, taxes. Oh, the increase must come from the wealthy. He ignores a lot of statistics that come from, well, the federal government's own accounting office. But, that's OK with many of these writers/columnists. They can just ignore facts when they get in the way of our politics and policies.
On another note, from last month, how interesting that the Republicans in Lansing ramrodded through several pieces of legislation during the state legislature's lame duck session. Oh, they used closed door meetings and deals and late night/early AM votes...you know, all the things the Republicans criticized about passage of ObamaCare. Again, I say, "a pox on all their houses/parties."
Friday, January 4, 2013
Respect?
Detroit mayor Dave Bing came close to nailing it yesterday at a news conference. Referring to the city's 386 murders, the most since the 1980s and, with the population losses, a more staggering murder rate than the 714 in 1974, Bing said, "We've just lost respect for each other. We've lost respect for life."
I think we've lost respect for other people's lives. Sure, there have been lots of murder/suicides. Most murders are not, though. It's OK to kill the other guy.
I wonder, too, how accurate those numbers are. How many other murders have taken place, but we don't know about them? Homeless people, transients, drug deals, etc. I'd think the number is significant, but don't know for certain.
I believe an Amherst mate from Chicago noted the Windy City had well over 500 murders in 2012, including about 25% of them kids. "Who," he asked, "is mourning them?" I don't think he is at all trivializing Newtown or any other mass shooting. I guess he's echoing, in other words, what I've asked before: How "outraged" do we need to become to actually do something?
But I realize that's easier said than done. In fact, I don't know what needs to be done. There are smarter people than I am who can figure that out. But, I do have some random ideas.
I still think there's a direct connection between the violence of video games, movies, and television shows and the "loss of respect for life." The message is sent and effectively; note the effectiveness of advertising. And, increasingly, the message is received by our younger citizens, those who are more into video games, movies, etc. It seems more and more of our murders are perpetrated by young people.
There's no sense of public shame any longer. Responsibility? Accountability? There is none. Note, for instance, our athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy-rock singers, and their ilk. Many of them, to a far greater percentage than the general population it seems, do the most outrageous and hideous things. But, because they can score TDs, make popular movies, sell a lot of CDs, the outrageous and hideous behavior is ignored. In fact, perhaps its glorified, in a sense. Why wouldn't a young person emulate the new "heroes?" How many of the Detroit Lions had serious brushes with the law in the past year? I'm not sure since I don't follow them very closely, but I think every home game was a sellout. Now, not all of the Lions are thugs; of course not. But the aura of thuggery exists and, perhaps, can be seen on the field with numerous silly penalties. Shame? Maybe we should just get rid of the word since it doesn't seem to have any meaning.
Some might say this is a stretch, but "respect for life" could well tie in to our liberal abortion laws. It's OK to just dispose of a baby because a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. (That, too, I assume includes shooting her body up with drugs or using it as a sex money maker.) I know, I know.... But I've never, ever heard a pregnant woman say she was carrying a "fetus," talk about her "fetus." No, it's her "baby." But how casually we end these young lives, before they've even started. "Respect for life?"
We've created a society/culture in which people expect to get things, to be given things, regardless of whether they've earned them. There's no sense of accomplishment or pride in being given things without any effort. Accomplishment and pride are, perhaps, ingredients toward respect. "It's mine. I want it, even if I haven't earned it or deserve it. If you get in my way, I'll blow you away to get it."
You know, how many thousands of troops do we have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever? I wonder, but just wonder, if they could be better deployed elsewhere, perhaps on our own streets. I know that's a very, very slippery slope, but how "outraged" are we, really?
There's more: guns, punishment, mental illness.... But "respect" must be earned. Earning means doing something to deserve.... Yet, too many people have this sense of entitlement. I once saw a tee shirt that read, "I'm somebody because God didn't make no junk." I would beg to differ.
I think we've lost respect for other people's lives. Sure, there have been lots of murder/suicides. Most murders are not, though. It's OK to kill the other guy.
I wonder, too, how accurate those numbers are. How many other murders have taken place, but we don't know about them? Homeless people, transients, drug deals, etc. I'd think the number is significant, but don't know for certain.
I believe an Amherst mate from Chicago noted the Windy City had well over 500 murders in 2012, including about 25% of them kids. "Who," he asked, "is mourning them?" I don't think he is at all trivializing Newtown or any other mass shooting. I guess he's echoing, in other words, what I've asked before: How "outraged" do we need to become to actually do something?
But I realize that's easier said than done. In fact, I don't know what needs to be done. There are smarter people than I am who can figure that out. But, I do have some random ideas.
I still think there's a direct connection between the violence of video games, movies, and television shows and the "loss of respect for life." The message is sent and effectively; note the effectiveness of advertising. And, increasingly, the message is received by our younger citizens, those who are more into video games, movies, etc. It seems more and more of our murders are perpetrated by young people.
There's no sense of public shame any longer. Responsibility? Accountability? There is none. Note, for instance, our athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy-rock singers, and their ilk. Many of them, to a far greater percentage than the general population it seems, do the most outrageous and hideous things. But, because they can score TDs, make popular movies, sell a lot of CDs, the outrageous and hideous behavior is ignored. In fact, perhaps its glorified, in a sense. Why wouldn't a young person emulate the new "heroes?" How many of the Detroit Lions had serious brushes with the law in the past year? I'm not sure since I don't follow them very closely, but I think every home game was a sellout. Now, not all of the Lions are thugs; of course not. But the aura of thuggery exists and, perhaps, can be seen on the field with numerous silly penalties. Shame? Maybe we should just get rid of the word since it doesn't seem to have any meaning.
Some might say this is a stretch, but "respect for life" could well tie in to our liberal abortion laws. It's OK to just dispose of a baby because a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. (That, too, I assume includes shooting her body up with drugs or using it as a sex money maker.) I know, I know.... But I've never, ever heard a pregnant woman say she was carrying a "fetus," talk about her "fetus." No, it's her "baby." But how casually we end these young lives, before they've even started. "Respect for life?"
We've created a society/culture in which people expect to get things, to be given things, regardless of whether they've earned them. There's no sense of accomplishment or pride in being given things without any effort. Accomplishment and pride are, perhaps, ingredients toward respect. "It's mine. I want it, even if I haven't earned it or deserve it. If you get in my way, I'll blow you away to get it."
You know, how many thousands of troops do we have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever? I wonder, but just wonder, if they could be better deployed elsewhere, perhaps on our own streets. I know that's a very, very slippery slope, but how "outraged" are we, really?
There's more: guns, punishment, mental illness.... But "respect" must be earned. Earning means doing something to deserve.... Yet, too many people have this sense of entitlement. I once saw a tee shirt that read, "I'm somebody because God didn't make no junk." I would beg to differ.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
"Deal?"
"Fiscal Cliff Deal?"
The whole thing will start over again before we know, perhaps in a couple of weeks. And Obama and the Democrats must be laughing their bejabbers off. "Deal?" Boehner and the Republicans, at least those who voted for the "deal," sold out again.
Where are any spending cuts? Oh, they're coming. I'm not going to hold my breath. As long as we have the same people in Washington who find it easy to spend other people's money, there won't be much in the way of spending cuts.
Of course, who didn't see this one coming? The sellouts have been occurring for quite some time now, all in the name of "bipartisanship" and "compromise." Yeah, right...... Who, exactly "compromised?" What, exactly, was it that the Democrats (con)ceded? Frankly, nothing. Again, one side caved, almost completely, while the other pretty much got what it wanted.
I do question the new definition of "middle class." Apparently, earning $250,000 a year--or thereabouts--is "middle class." Whoa! Then where does that put me? In my book, a quarter of a million bucks a year is a fortune. I think I'm pretty comfortable and I am nowhere near, not even close, to this new definition of $250,000. Of course, maybe we are now defining lifestyles, not income. I'd guess $250,000 is needed for a 3,000 or 4,000 square foot house, a place Up North, a couple of SUVs to drive, Disney World or a cruise every year, some huge high-def boob tubes, and all the latest "i" gadgetry (gotta have those, you know).
I had a discussion with a guy last week about this. He thinks "the wealthy should pay their fair share." OK, I asked him, "What's the limit?" Actually, I meant that in two ways. First, what limit delineates "the wealthy?" I would submit this guy is pretty darn wealthy, although he would deny it. But it became clear it's the other "wealthy guy" who should pay more. Certainly he shouldn't. He's not wealthy; just ask him. Second, how much more is "their fair share?" 40%? 50%? 60%? I guess I told him I think everyone should pay something in federal income taxes, however slight. Each person should have a stake, no matter how small, in the game. Hey, if I went to Las Vegas and gambled at the casino with no risk of losing my own money, I'd be stupid not to gamble until I hit the jackpot.
What was it George Bernard Shaw, I think, said about this? ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Or something like that.
The whole thing will start over again before we know, perhaps in a couple of weeks. And Obama and the Democrats must be laughing their bejabbers off. "Deal?" Boehner and the Republicans, at least those who voted for the "deal," sold out again.
Where are any spending cuts? Oh, they're coming. I'm not going to hold my breath. As long as we have the same people in Washington who find it easy to spend other people's money, there won't be much in the way of spending cuts.
Of course, who didn't see this one coming? The sellouts have been occurring for quite some time now, all in the name of "bipartisanship" and "compromise." Yeah, right...... Who, exactly "compromised?" What, exactly, was it that the Democrats (con)ceded? Frankly, nothing. Again, one side caved, almost completely, while the other pretty much got what it wanted.
I do question the new definition of "middle class." Apparently, earning $250,000 a year--or thereabouts--is "middle class." Whoa! Then where does that put me? In my book, a quarter of a million bucks a year is a fortune. I think I'm pretty comfortable and I am nowhere near, not even close, to this new definition of $250,000. Of course, maybe we are now defining lifestyles, not income. I'd guess $250,000 is needed for a 3,000 or 4,000 square foot house, a place Up North, a couple of SUVs to drive, Disney World or a cruise every year, some huge high-def boob tubes, and all the latest "i" gadgetry (gotta have those, you know).
I had a discussion with a guy last week about this. He thinks "the wealthy should pay their fair share." OK, I asked him, "What's the limit?" Actually, I meant that in two ways. First, what limit delineates "the wealthy?" I would submit this guy is pretty darn wealthy, although he would deny it. But it became clear it's the other "wealthy guy" who should pay more. Certainly he shouldn't. He's not wealthy; just ask him. Second, how much more is "their fair share?" 40%? 50%? 60%? I guess I told him I think everyone should pay something in federal income taxes, however slight. Each person should have a stake, no matter how small, in the game. Hey, if I went to Las Vegas and gambled at the casino with no risk of losing my own money, I'd be stupid not to gamble until I hit the jackpot.
What was it George Bernard Shaw, I think, said about this? ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
