Fri Thoughts

Today's newspaper has some good op-eds.

Several of them deal with the state legislature's solution to fixing the roads--a May election for a tax increase.  The general consensus is that the legislators, esp in the Republican-controlled House, demonstrated a great deal of "cowardice," in "kicking the can down the road" and letting someone else (voters) make the decision.

Now, on the one hand, this is probably at the essence of democracy, letting people decide directly.  Yet, we all know that money has become a primary, if not the primary, influence on elections.  Boy, how deep do you think some interest groups' pockets are?  The Chamber of Commerce?  The MEA? (Yep, there are some crumbs tossed the MEA's way to garner the support of teachers, although what this has to do with fixing roads seems a stretch at best--pandering, I guess.)  Road construction firms?

Yep, all-in-all this seems like a bad deal.  There's plenty of money out there, in the state coffers.  Taxes don't need to be raised.  Funds from other boondoggles, wasted programs, etc. should be found to pay for the roads.

Apparently some U of M professor wrote an article in which she states, "I hate Republicans."  OK, I'll bet she does, seeing as she teaches at U of M.  Isn't that a condition of employment there, being a card-carrying liberal (or at least masquerading as one until tenure)?  Of of several minds about this, esp about the criticism being leveled at her.

First, I think what she writes shows not merely a lack of tolerance/toleration, but an ignorance a college instructor shouldn't have.  That she believes "psychological and historical research" support her claims is incredibly ignorant.  But I'm not surprised at her stance or opinions, not at all.

But I still believe that she should be accorded the right to express her opinions, ignorant or otherwise.  As I have said in the past, "People have a right to be stupid in this country."  No--absolutely none- actions should be taken by the U of M to censure/discipline her.  (Now, as if the thoroughly indoctrinated place would actually take any such actions......)  That is, as long as she is never shown to punish students who hold opposing views, that is, perhaps, such as thinking fetuses are "persons" not to be killed at the whim of a woman who doesn't want to be burdened with motherhood.  If she is shown to discriminate against those with, well, conservative views, then she should be terminated.   Otherwise, let her express her views openly.  Leave her alone unless it affects her classes and students.

It was pretty well known my professors were liberals, most of them anyway.  But they kept their politics out of the classroom.  I think it's clear in my classes I'm not a liberal, although I think I could dispute any conservative label that might be placed on me, too.  I make it pretty clear that I'm not a big fan of FDR--and I explain why and also that my view is in a distinct minority.  That is, I point out that students' textbooks, other teachers, and even the instructors in my dept likely don't agree with me.  And, I tell them, they can think what they want--if they back what they are saying.  For instance, if they write in a paper or on an exam that FDR and the New Deal were wonderful because they pulled the US out of the Depression, I question that.  There must be some evidence.  Exactly why do students say this?  How did FDR and the New Deal pull us out of the Depression?  (Remember, Hitler diminished unemployment in Germany far more effectively that FDR/the New Deal.  Of course, I'm not advocating any Hitler- or Nazi-tactics here or anywhere.  But......)

Just a little note, although it should have been highlighted, came from a review of Walter Williams' "dim view of Detroit."  He spoke in Detroit a few weeks ago and noted that, to succeed, to bounce back, Detroit must make some serious changes, including changes in culture.  He noted that there are more people in Detroit who use city services than pay for city services.  That is unsustainable, esp with the dwindled economic base.  He also pointed to poor education (not completely the fault of the schools and teachers, my comment) and high crime rates.  But the biggest obstacle to any renaissance for Detroit is, Williams said, the welfare system.  "The welfare state is an equal opportunity destroyer," said.  It is the cause of the breakdown of black families.  BTW, Williams came from a poor, disadvantaged background.  His columns can be googled.  Of course, the professional civil rights activists and doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") have written him off as a sell-out.