Sun Thoughts

Ha Ha.  I had to laugh at myself a bit as I read the first line of my last blog post.  Here I am, ripping on technology when I play on the computer two or three hours a day--researching, reading, and writing.  I fell victim to one of my own pet peeves.  I didn't completely explain myself.  Yes, I was sloppy in my thinking and writing.

I love my computer.  To find out new things all of the time fascinates me.  I really enjoy being on several of my college list serves.  It's good to keep up to date with people, to share ideas, and to engage in meaningful dialogue.  (More about that one later.)  I am still amazed that I can write a letter and almost instantaneously it can be sent and received in Massachusetts and Connecticut, in Florida and California, and in points in between.  I can even send e-mails to a college friend who lives some of the time in Sydney, Australia!  Maybe it's my age that leads me to such wonder.

Still, I think what I really meant ("Say what you mean, Ron!!!!!!") could be inferred, I think.

At my reunion a couple of weeks ago (I wrote some of my reunion buddies yesterday, starting with "I can't believe it's been a whole week since we all had breakfast together."  Then I realized that the breakfast with my teammates was two weeks ago!) I spoke with a classmate about the controversy surrounding the college's nickname/mascot, Lord Jeff, after, of course, Lord Jeffery Amherst.  The college, with the overwhelming support of the student body and faculty, has distanced itself from "Lord Jeff" and it is no longer used.  My classmate is a lawyer and he insisted that none of the "evidence" used to "indict" Lord Jeffery Amherst of selling/giving smallpox-infested blankets during the French and Indian War would hold up in court.  (I've noted, in past blogs, that the historical evidence is also sketchy and that in war, killing is killing, regardless of smallpox, cannons, scalping, etc.  And some of the so-called "targets" of the smallpox were themselves murderers, rapists, and slave traders.  But my arguments, of course, are of no avail.  I'm on the wrong side of political correctness.  Facts be damned.)  And that's what my lawyer classmate insisted, "Facts be damned."  In a court, Amherst would not at all be convicted.  There isn't any direct evidence.  There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "a preponderance of evidence."

So, that has led me to wonder if the place has changed, at least academically.  Back when, we'd have never been able to get away with such sloppy thinking.  We were always challenged (even with poor grades!) to think clearly, to use facts to support our arguments and theses.  It seems that Amherst has strayed from so challenging students.  Has critical thinking (Oh, how I hesitate to use that co-opted and corrupted phrase!) has been replaced by jumping on the latest diversity bandwagon?  It was always stunning to me that, at least according to official college sources, a huge majority of students supported getting rid of Lord Jeff because of the smallpox-infested blankets.  But there isn't any concrete evidence to indict, let alone, convict Amherst.  So then, why such a huge majority?  Where are the naysayers, those who might at least raise a voice against the railroad job?  Are they intimidated into silence?  Or, are there few if any naysayers?  Has everyone bought into the "dump Lord Jeff" bandwagon?  This is more than just a mascot, as much as I prefer to keep it.  It's the thought that the college has become a different place, one no longer devoted to rigorous thinking.  I really hope I am wrong, but my classmate lawyer presented a pretty good argument that I'm not.

I've seen the ads and newspaper articles.  Hillary Clinton's nomination is historic.  OK, I'll get this off my mind right away.  Is she really the first major party nominee to be the subject of an ongoing Justice Department criminal probe?  Oops!  Nah, that's not what I'm focused on here.  How pathetic it is that the first woman Presidential nominee of a major party is someone like Hillary Clinton!  I would think decent women, well men too, would be appalled at this.  (I am often reminded of the depression to which George Bush Daddy succumbed after losing in '92.  It wasn't that he lost the election, but that he lost it to a person like Bill Clinton.  Indeed......)  Is there any way to save ourselves from Clinton?  No, Don Trump won't save us, but I've made my point very clearly on his nomination/candidacy, too.  When given a choice between two evils, choose neither.  When will American voters stand up and finally say, to both political parties, "NO!  We refuse to accept the garbage you keep giving us!"  I fear never.