Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs

I passed a sign outside a church the other day.  It read, "Someday, it will all make sense."  I hope so and I hope it "makes sense" quickly.

John Dingell is "celebrating," along with many others I guess, his 57 years in the US House of Representatives.  That's the longest tenure in Congressional history, surpassing Robert Byrd of WVa, I think.  Dingell already held the record for longevity in the House.  57 years......  I wonder, is that worth "celebrating?"  After all, as one of my college professors told me when he retired after 49 years of teaching (in response to my query, "Why not go another year to make it 5o years?"), "It's only a number."  And, it represents a guy who's lived at the public trough for almost six decades.  Yet, when a candidate for the House last year was identified, it was always as "a reindeer farmer" or "one who plays Santa Claus at Christmas," as if one who earns his money is less noble than one who is so good at spending other people's money.  Such a lengthy stay seems to fly in the face of one the Democratic Party's (of which Dingell is a member) icons, Andrew Jackson. He believed in the Spoils System.  Of course, he wanted to reward supporters and loyal party members with government jobs, but he also thought it would allow more citizens to become active in their government.  (There I go again, forgetting that history isn't important.)  Why, in certain cases, do we disparage one who is "a career politician," yet, in this case in particular, "celebrate" him?  Note, I have raised any questions as to the harm Dingell might have done in those 57 years.  Remember, he's the one who so proudly claimed to be an author of ObamaCare, but never ever saw anything wrong with later admitting he didn't know what was in it.  Remember, he's the one whose campaign successful disparaged as filthy rich, not worthy of being a representative of the people, one of his election opponents who happened to be "rich" because he was a very successful cardiologist.  Gee, a cardiologist?  Isn't that a guy who saves people's lives?  So, it was a bad thing that this guy earned a lot of money by saving almost a thousand lives?  And I wonder how many times in those almost 60 years Dingell has voted for a pay raise for himself.  It all reminds me of "celebrating," say, a coach who's won a lot of games, but in a lot of years.

I heard on the radio the other day that Obama's approval rating has dropped to 42%.  Huh?  How can it possibly be that high?  I know, I know, "But Bush lied...."

Can anyone believe that none of these scandals breaking in DC, surrounding the Obama administration, didn't reach the White House?  Apparently a lot of people do believe that.  Of course, Obama can't be touched for a variety of reasons.  But there's always the throwback, "They all did it."  "They," of course, refers to Presidents (or politicians in general) and "it" refers to illegal or immoral activities.  That works, too, esp for certain favored politicians.  It did for Bill Clinton--and, of course, as usual, "They all did it" is a lie.  But what's a little dishonesty among friends?  And, to cite Alcie Hastings, in a different context, "Hey, we're tryin' to do something here!"

Why is there no "outrage" (a completely overused word, one that has become trite, almost void of its meaning) over gasoline prices?  As I noted to one last night, one in the industry who cited the problems at a refinery in Indiana, "Isn't it the government that won't allow new refineries to be built?"  Yeah, there's your John Dingell and his ilk for you.  Let's "celebrate" that, restrictions on refineries, drilling, pipelines, etc. so that gas is "outrageously" expensive.  (And let's not forgot all the US dollars going to the Arab nations, Venezuela, and our other oil-producing friends.)

So the Emergency Manager in Detroit is entertaining the idea of selling off artwork at the DIA to pay Detroit's creditors?  And there is talk of privatizing Belle Isle to build condos, hotels, etc. for the same reason.  Now, I'm all in favor of Detroit paying its debts, all in favor of people getting money that's owed to them.  But to use the DIA and Belle Isle, and what else?, to do so seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, in other words, not just sacreligious, but stupid.  Can the EM be serious or is he just posturing, perhaps intending to intimidate or threaten?  Of course, to a numbers guy like Governor Snyder, it's likely, "Hey, what's the big deal?"

I think politics, like teaching, involves both art and science.  A good teacher must know his/her subject.  (And, as I've pointed out many times, there are far too many teachers out there who don't know their subjects.)  But, good teaching also involves communication, standards, etc.  (And my views on the current state of teaching, as I've also noted, are similar to above.)  Todays' politicians lack art and science or both. 

So, it is firmly established that the most important factor in quality education is a good teachers.  Both left and right agree on that one.  Then why the big deal over the Core Curriculum and the standards it involves?  The Core does nothing about acquiring good teachers.  I found it interesting, but also disheartening to hear a radio host have on a guest who said the key to improving education is to attract "really smart people."  I agree with that and, at least at the time, the host did, too.  Yet, subsequently, in the past couple of months, he's been all abou the Core, forgetting (perhaps willfully?) about "really smart people."

What's with this baseball thing, "pitch count?"  How many games have been lost because MLB managers blindly adhere to "pitch count?"  OK, with the million dollar contracts, care must be taken with pitchers.  But don't these guys train year-round now?  Don't they have personal trainers as well as team trainers, strength coaches, etc.?  Aren't they bigger and strong, better athletes than in the past?  Aren't they in better shape?  Then why can't they throw more pitches?  I suppose it would be one thing if a team has a Mariano Rivera (sp?) to bring in at the end of a one- or two-run game.  But if some guy has just retired 17 in a row, if Justin Verlander is throwing, etc., why take out that guy for someone just as likely to blow the lead as hold it?  I'm pretty sure, for instance, a batter would be sighing a great deal of relief, thanking the Tiger manager for removing Scherzer or Verlander or one of the other starters who has slammed the door the whole game and bringing in a bullpen guy.  If the starter is visibly tired, has lost his stuff, is getting hit, that's another thing entirely.  But "pitch count?"  How did the overweight, out-of-shape Mickey Lolich (among others) throw 150 and even 200 pitches a game--for 20 seasons?

Yep, there's far too much out there that doesn't make sense to me.