Mon AM

Many on the Left in this country decry the partisanship shown, particularly by their opponents.  But they don't see it in themselves.  Yesterday's newspaper included an editorial with these:  "tea-party conspirists" and "charter school zealots."  What is so conspiratorial about the Tea Partiers?  They are pretty open on what they believe and want.  And, for that matter, what is it that the Tea Partiers believe and want that is so bad?  They want government to get out of their lives.  I don't think they want to completely do so, but do in a lot of personal matters.  I'm no charter school supporter, but to give a blanket claim that those who do support them are "zealots" seems to be over the top.  I fully understand many people's dissatisfaction with the public schools.  They want better things for their children.  What's wrong with that?  Not all of the charter school folks are there for the money-making possibilities; for that matter, note all those who have taken advantage of the public schools to make money!  Using such epithets in an editorial, which I understand is by definition is opinionated, cedes any semblance of credibility.

And speaking of government in our lives:  The latest uproar has to do with legislation that intends to make it so transgenders are no longer "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed" or even "feeling unsafe" when using public restrooms.  But what about others, the 99% (or what ever the number) who identify themselves as traditional (or whatever the new term is; surely it will soon become a loaded word that will imply bigotry)?  What about them?  What if seeing a man in a women's bathroom makes any of them "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed?"  What if they "feel unsafe?"  Is it just "Too bad for you?"  I understand the concept of tyranny by the majority, but I don't at all think this issue fits into that category.  I don't care what restroom an adult man or woman uses, if nobody else is in there.  If my granddaughter or wife are using a public restroom, I'm not going to allow a man to walk in there, law or no law.  If mine aren't in there, I couldn't care who uses it.

I've had occasion several times this spring to be reminded of one of the things that made A. Lincoln so great.  He, throughout his life, grew as a person.  He, in the words of W.E.B. Dubois, "became Abraham Lincoln."  (Those words still stir me, no matter how many times I read or cite them!)  This was esp true when Lincoln was President.  Yet, how many times this spring have I found people locked into/onto ideas, views, actions that, despite evidence to the contrary, are never changed?  Often, such advantages to changing are very obvious, yet......  I am reminded of what some of the construction workers on my job of nearly 50 years ago used to say, of the bosses (and not in a complimentary manner), "This is the way we've always done it and, right or wrong, we're going to keep doing it."  Or something like that......

Several administrators of higher education, maybe they were the presidents or deans, had an op-ed about "Recommitting to higher education."  I think that's well and good.  I firmly believe in education and "higher education."  I think its very important to a democratic society, not necessarily to prepare people for jobs.  So, what can the schools themselves do to "recommit?"  Maybe they can lower costs, instead of continuing on the upward rise of tuition year after year.  Perhaps they can cut down on the number of administrators, require the full-time instructors to actually teach full-time.  I don't see any of the common sense approaches happening.  Too many people have too much invested in themselves to be really concerned with "recommitting to higher education."  Of these university administrators, what are their salaries?  Surely well over half a million bucks, easily.  (That some football and basketball coaches make more is also deplorable, but a different matter.)  If these college administrators are so concerned, why don't they, at least symbolically, take less money?  Don't wait fo that to happen.  It's easier to make speeches and write columns in newspapers. This op-ed was, I think, another example of lip-service.

The Michigan state treasury announced that projected revenues have fallen below predictions.  It appear that the sales tax and corporate tax are generating far less income than forecast.  And those numbers, less revenue than projected, are predicted for the next three years.  (Of course, we just saw what happens with gov't predictions, didn't we?)  So, if as we keep hearing, Michigan has rebounded from the economic recession, with all these jobs, why aren't people spending more?  Why aren't companies producing more to handle the increased demand?  I think as I have suspected.  There is a recovery, but only for some folks.  Many of us are still stuck.  Oh, some may have jobs now, but they are making less, far less, or are working fewer hours.  I know this has hit our household, for more than 10 years.  Remember Mark Twain--"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."  And who can manipulate statistics more dishonestly than government?

There was another "feel-good" letter-to-the-editor, too.  The writer was calling on the US gov't to cut back on nuclear weapons.  I'm not sure what world this guy lives in--probably some college campus!  Maybe he doesn't realize that rogue nations and extremist groups are developing nukes.  With that happening, are we supposed to cut back?  Maybe we should just give Iran, North Korea, and the radicals a monopoly on nuclear weapons.  Or, maybe we should just give the people of those places jobs (as an Obama administration spokesman said a few years ago) and they would be happy and leave the rest of the world alone.  I wonder if such folks enjoy those so-called "reality television" shows?  Maybe that's what "reality" is to them.

Mitch Albom had a great column on the airlines gouging us.  He made some wonderful points and asked some very poignant questions.  But, I'll save comments on that for later in the week.