"Cursive?"

We used to call it "penmanship" or merely "handwriting."  Now it's referred to as "cursive." Regardless, it's not "printing."  And, apparently, "cursive" is no longer taught in the schools, at least most of them.  I understand why it isn't--"cursive" isn't on the test.  And that's a shame, both for what we lose without cursive and what it says about the test and the people who mandate them.  (It doesn't say much good about them.)

Studies have shown that using cursive writing stimulates the brain, improves the thinking process, and develops fine motor skills.  (Of course, what to automatons being groomed for the workplace need with thinking or fine motor skills?)  But that's not even my point here.

I have had several occasions recently that highlighted our misdirected educational system regarding cursive handwriting.  First, my grandson had to sign, with a written not printed signature, a document for sports.  He asked if he could print his name.  Nope!  So he largely printed and just connected the letters with lines.  OK, I guess.  The other had to do with a legal document I signed.  "No printing" was allowed.  If one couldn't handwrite one's signature, "An X" would suffice--if a witness who could handwrite counter-signed.  And, I handed out in class a handwritten copy of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in his handwriting.  Many students just gave it a blank stare, until I pointed out there was a printed version on the reverse side.

And we let these people run our schools?!?!?!

I notice, too, that when I typed "handwrite," as now, it comes up as an error, needing correction.   Yet when I typed "handwritten" or "handwriting," each was fine.  Hmmm......  It was like my friend who sent directions via a text or whatever it's called.  She typed in "Allegan Street" in Lansing.  The text auto-corrected "Allegan" to "Allegiance."  That sent the fellow traveler to a completely different location, about 15 minutes away.  So, maybe technology still has some big flaws......

I have discovered the novels of Daniel Silva.  I think he's terrific, a wonderful writer.  As one of my intelligent friends (far more intelligent than I) once said of another author/novelist, "If only 10% of what he writes is true......"  Of Silva, "if only 10% of what he writes is true" about the Palestinian conflict, about Europeans and their misguided paths, there is bigger and bigger trouble than anyone imagines.  It reflects what Lenin wrote more than a century ago, "useful idiots."  And what was it Stalin said, "When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope."  Yep......  ("There he goes with that history stuff again.  History ain't on the test either.")

I didn't read the article, but the headlline attracted my attention.  "April Fools......"  I immediately thought, "Hey, is that referring to the primary voters, the ones voting for Clinton or Sanders or Trump?"  Since it was a political rant, it might well have been just that; I'll have to go back to read it.

The amount of dishonesty in this world, all over, astounds me.  I'm talking about the little piddling stuff as well as the whoppers our political leaders tell.  It's not just the blatant lies, but the distortions and obfuscations.  And none of it seems to bother anyone.  "Pathological liars" (as the Free Press called Trump and Clinton) are not called to task very often, certainly not by the LameStream media, and, if by some slim chance they are, they are not at all embarrassed by being caught in lies.  "Lies" are often explained away with such euphemisms as "misspeaking."  Such dishonesty undermines trust. Who can trust anyone?  Who can believe anyone?  If a democracy can succeed only with an enlightened people (so held Jefferson and other Founders), how are we to succeed when we are peppered with untruths?  I know lies have been with us forever and today's politicians didn't invent them.  But I wonder if the pervasiveness of dishonesty really took an upward tick with the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode.  After all, the President on national television looked us in our collective eye and lied, deliberately and overtly--and he paid no price at all.  No, the impeachment wasn't a penalty.  The guy is a hero to Democrats, women, minorities, etc.  He goes out and makes millions for speeches.  Instead of finding a rock to crawl under, to hide his shame, there is no shame--he just makes more and more money.  After all, if the President can lie so blatantly without recourse......