Tue Moanin'

Full credit to the late Free Press columnist Bob Talbert.

That all reminds me of days of yore, reading the Free Press when it was still a real newspaper.  Mon was Talbert's column, "Out of My Mind on a Monday Moanin'."  Tue I looked forward to Sidney Harris' "Things I Learned Looking Up Other Things," a nifty trivia column each week.  Wed had coupons, but no longer. Thur was Judd Arnett's best, either "Under My Government" or "The Old Curmudgeon," or something like those.  Fri was, well, it was the end of the week.  Now I esp look forward to Sat newspapers and their crosswords.  They are more challenging than the Sun NY Times crossword and that makes them more fun.

Is it true, as both Detroit newspaper and the WSJ suggested last week, that US Senators and Congressmen and -women and much of their staffs are exempt from ObamaCare?  According to the articles, the President authorized the Office of Personnel Management to allow members of Congress an exemption.  If this is true, I guess my question is "Why?"  Why would members of Congress want an exemption?  After all, ObamaCare was passed by them, against the wishes of a majority of Americans.  And, as they so often point out to us, they are smarter than we are, knowing what's best for us better than we do.  So, if ObamaCare is so good for us, why isn't it good for them?  What is it that they now know, what they discovered since passing the bill without reading it or knowing what was in it?  If it's as Senator Reid says, a potential cause of "brain drain" in the legislative branch (apparently the lousy ObamaCare coverage will drive the best and brightest away from DC?), then why doesn't such logic apply to other areas/fields, such as teaching/education?  Once again, ObamaCare and its implementation don't pass the smell test.

A good article about how to improve the 2013-14 school year appeared in, of all places, Parade Magazine. There were, I think, seven "tips."  I liked several of them.  First, "More Recess" sounds good.  In fact, I think we should extend that to include more physical education.  Instead, schools are getting away from physical activities.  They make it harder to play sports, with pay-to-play extracurriculars, reduced phys ed classes and times, year-round emphasis on a single sport, etc.  As much as I value my college education, I also am very grateful for my athletic opportunities--varsity sports and otherwise.  Of course, today schools and administrators know physical education and recess aren't "on the tests."  And, as we know, tests have become the gods of education, much to its detriment.  That was a second "tip" of the article--less testing and more learning and thinking.  Several experts (I know I'm treading dangerously here!), including Diane Ravitch, were cited as acknowledging the bad effects of so much testing and so much emphasis on it.  It's interesting because Ravitch has evolved on this issue.  There was also a "tip" about more art, music, drama, etc.  That's good, too.  But, of course, they aren't "on the tests."  And we've let people who don't value learning for learning's sake--the foundation of education--call the shots.  I disagree with the idea presented of lengthening the school day and/or school year.  I believe we should let kids be kids as long as possible.  Let them play instead of adding hours to a school day.  Let them enjoy their summers instead of being in classrooms.  If we need more time, I think it's a better idea to add another school year, say a Grade 13--that is, if it's needed.  And I question the use of technology to bring "the best lecturers" into the classroom.  Why let, the article asked, poor lecturers give lectures when technology can improve them?  I guess I'd ask why those teachers are "poor lecturers" or seminar leaders or...and, then, why they are still teachers.  And I recall the television lectures we received back in the '50s and early '60s from so-called "experts" in math and foreign languages from Detroit-area colleges.  I don't remember them as being so hot.  And, what constitutes the "best" in this regard?  I frequently watch the C-Span channels on weekends for the history they have.  Often there are lectures from college classrooms.  Some of them are very, very good--others are quite mediocre, at best.  And if these mediocre lecturers are being chosen for television......

Another interesting article outlined how Detroit could have avoided bankruptcy.  The suggestions were very sensible.  (Is "sensical" a word?  "Nonsensical" is.)  I was particularly drawn by the statement that pensions are not a major problem and really have little to do with the financial problems.  In fact, the author outlines a way to provide pensions without adding to the mess.  Yet, the EM has targeted pensions seemingly from day one.  The story continues......

Wow!  If he keeps this up, I may have to reconsider my assessment.  I have held that Ted Williams was the best hitter I ever saw play.  That includes Mantle, Musial, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, and others.  But I have thought Miguel Cabrera was right after Williams.  With the way he's hitting this year (and reviewing the past couple of years), maybe Miggy will move up...maybe.  BTW, Matt met someone who knows one of my favorite hitters to watch, Paul Molitar.  Boy, he used to hit those long, low line drives that were pure hitting artistry.  They were great to see.

A Detroit writer made a good argument for former Tigers Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, and Jack Morris to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  I agree, at least with Trammell and Morris, and probably Whitaker.  That's especially so if we start comparing their statistics with others who've been inducted.  But, a very good point and the brunt of the article, a good start to consideration of these three for inclusion into Cooperstown would be for the Tigers to retire their numbers.  After all, there's a statue of Ernie Harwell in the outfield and he wasn't a player (and, for my money, wasn't the best announcer the Tigers have had).  The Tigers should retire their numbers and retire them soon--they each deserve it.

And, while I'm at it, Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall of Fame.  Again I point to statistics of his that are very favorable or even superior to others' who are in the Hall.  I don't know why he isn't in there. Besides, I can tell many stories of Ted's exploits on the sandlots, some quite extraordinary and even unbelievable.  I have played with or against upwards of 30 players who made the Majors (even if only for a cup of coffee) and too many to count who played professionally, but Ted would be the only one in Cooperstown.  He should be there.