Sun Ramblings

Talk about cheek!  The former emergency manager of Flint, at the onset of the water crisis, is billing the city for his legal fees, esp regarding his testimony in DC.  Wow!!!!!!  Already three underlings have been charged.  I wonder if any of the top dogs, although they surely will disavow any knowledge of malfeasance, their own or otherwise, will be charged.  I think my money is on---no.

And this one really gets me, too.  The politicians are debating when to retain students, that is, keep them, say, in third grade for another year.  Some of the know-it-alls think that if students can't read at grade level, they shouldn't be promoted.  And, on the face of it, who can argue with that?  Of course, you know who--me!  First, if we've learned anything in recent years, one thing is that politicians don't know very much.  They do too much and, often, do the wrong things.  Second, who says that they, now, are the experts in education?  Well, they do.  They went to school, didn't they?  They remind me of the guys who played little league and watch ball games on television--and now know more baseball than major league managers.  Third, and this one is problematic, who should be determining promotion or retention, some politician miles and miles away from the scene or a teacher right there in the classroom?  The answer also appears, at least superficially and rationally, to be obvious.  But I know too many teachers who shouldn't be making those decisions either.  My views on teachers and teaching are well known.  Many teachers are not "great" or even good and should be nowhere near classrooms; a handful are really top-flight and should be retained at all costs (and I mean all costs!) and, esp, should be consulted again and again; likely the majority of teachers are workman-like or mediocre and that's OK, as long as they have good leadership, which isn't the case today.

Someone suggested that the Republicans, the Establishment Republicans, will need a drubbing to rethink their party, what it's become and where it's headed.  Trump and a defeat by Clinton (I don't think Trump, if nominated, can beat her.) will bring them to their senses.  The argument is that it's worth a loss in Nov, if Trump is the nominee, because Clinton can't be worse than Obama.  I don't know; it would be tough to trump Obama, but she just might be able to do it.  I find this a very specious argument.  If the Establishment Republicans haven't realized that losses to Obama with such candidates as McCain and Romney require a major make-over, what makes them think a Trump defeat would?  For that matter, the Establishment-types still don't realize the anger and frustration many people feel at the devastating work of McConnell and Boehner, their lies and deception and stabs-in-the-back.

The other night someone was trying to talk me into realizing "how great" Prince was.  I think I admitted that others think of him that way, but that I wasn't a big fan, really enjoying just a few of his songs.  I accepted the argument the other night, not wanting to waste time on a debate/discussion, but not without asking if this person owned any Prince albums, CDs, etc.  The answer was "No, but......"  Again, many folks thought/think of him as, well, greater than I thought/think of him.  And, that's fine.  I am, as usual, chagrined at the coverage--another two-page tribute in today's paper, after a whole page the other day; my ISP continuing on with the surroundings of Prince's death.

Sometimes I watch games and maybe see too much.  I think I know baseball better than I know history.  OK, maybe I'm not as up to date on the very latest technology or, esp, recent players and stats.  But I know my strategies and I know the game pretty well.  I wondered the other day if the local high school coach noticed when his catcher ran to first base to get in the queue for a run-down or if he noticed a left fielder covering third base when the third baseman was, well, I don't know where he was except it wasn't covering his bag.  I wonder, when leading by half a dozen runs with two out in the last inning and opposing runners on first and third, if he realized it was worth the gamble of throwing to second on the obvious upcoming steal attempt; that is, if he recognized the runner on third and his potential run meant nothing to the outcome of the game.  And, if the kid on first lollygags into second and is thrown out because he doesn't expect a throw, the runner on third doesn't even score.  Their lead-offs, all of the teams, are all wrong.  Other than getting thrown out a few times due to lousy lead-offs and breaks, there have been no downsides to the poor baserunning.  Maybe there won't ever be any, although one would think as players move up their poor techniques would become more detrimental.  I don't know--maybe there a lots of Dairy Queen League coaches out there who are also moving up.  And I don't disparage the DQ coaches; at least they are giving of their time!  Most, though, really don't see very much.