Bounding down the stairs, somewhat agitated, came Bopper. He doesn't like being late to school. In fact, he begins to simmer if he's not there 15 or more minutes before he needs to be. I quickly defused his agitation, "No school today, Bopp. Snow day!" His demeanor quickly reversed itself with a fist-pumping, "Yes!" Ah, is there any thing more joyful to a kid than the words, "Snow Day?" Of course, K and C were also pumped up for it, calling for the "Snow Day Dance" yesterday. I won't go into the details, but it would be something I'd like to see, if only to watch neighbors' reactions. But, whatever it is, it worked. No word yet on the college closing. My guess is I still have class tonight, which is fine. I'd rather not miss.
And, thanks to this weekend, I finally think I know who's in this year's Super Bowl. I know two brothers, the Harbaughs, are coaching against each other. 49ers v Ravens. How odd it still seems to me to say anything other than "Baltimore Colts." When did that change happen?????? To be honest, I have no interest at all in the game, none. K and I are headed to a Super Bowl Party and that's my only interest. But, as someone noted over the weekend, why isn't the game played on Sat instead of Sun? Viewers would like it more. Business/Restaurants/Bars likely would, too. (More folks, I'd guess, would go out to see the game on Sat than on Sun, with work on Mon.) Regardless, with all the very serious stuff going on right now, I wonder about a people who can spend so much energy and time on a football game. (Perhaps it's a needed diversion; I don't know, but I don't think so.) I guess that's going to take me a step closer to being tossed out of the "Man Club." (Besides the NFL, I don't care for cars, fast boats, NCAA basketball or football--I received some strange looks this weekend when I noted I didn't watch the NCAA football championship game, which K confirmed--golf, or power tools.)
Do I ask too many questions? I know I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions. I think that harkens back to Socrates (or was it Plato or Plato citing Socrates?), "The unexamined life is not worth living." I do believe that is true, at least for me.
I am worked up about the governor's call for new taxes on the roads. Like anyone with a set of eyes, I realize that our roads are in terrible condition--always in terrible condition. But, more taxes to repair them? I don't think so, at least not yet. The governor (who I think is a wolf in sheep's clothing) needs to convince me of several things before I change my mind. First, my first pay check (for two weeks) of this year was $90 light (and I don't make a lot of money!). Of course, it wasn't all state taxes, but still it was $90 short of what I brought home in Dec's check. And, I haven't filed my 2012 state (or federal) income taxes yet. By most media accounts, those will be higher, too, with increase taxes and fewer deductions/credits. So, then, what is the government doing with my extra money, money they've stolen, er, taken from me? I'd also like to know if businesses are also going to be nailed. Perhaps they will, at the gas pump and with registration. I don't know yet. Will they be exempted? Beats me. But it seems that businesses use the roads a lot more than I do and, an important "and," they also tear up the roads a lot more than I do. I believe Michigan has the highest weight limit for trucks in the entire US. That needs to be addressed before I think that higher taxes are necessary. And, where are the constuction guarantees? Will the road repairers (is that a word?) guarantee that their work will last? This can't be a perpetual cycle.
I think I saw an article this weekend, buried back in the middle pages of the newspaper, that the state unemployment rate has gone up. Hmmmmm...... And, I'd guess, there are lots of folks who aren't looking for jobs anymore, frustration taking root. So, is the rate even higher than that reported? I thought the business tax cut pushed through by the governor was going to fix all that. Of course, the tax cut came without any conditions. Pay fewer taxes, but you don't have to hire more people or even lower prices.
I'm not sure the governor can do anything these last couple of years to persuade me to vote for him. And, I don't think I can vote for a Democrat. I guess it's write-in or third party--again.
I've asked here and in public, with all the crap being done to teachers (and remember, I think many of them deserve it), why would anyone of any competence ever want to be a teacher in this climate? So, these ding-a-lings who think they know how to make schools better (After all, they went to school, so.... It's sort of like, "I played little league baseball so I can manage in the big leagues." Their main efforts at reform are more testing, more testing, more testing....) are going to do so by attracting less competent people? I wonder why their business models don't apply here; to attract the best managers, requisite high pay is required. How interesting that they are selective in what business "best practices" (isn't that a grating, grating term?) to employ? Anyway, one guy this weekend asked, of public sector employees in general, but teachers specifically, why those outside of those jobs are so adamant in asking the teachers to work for 1990s pay. And, that's true. K now, even exclusive of cost of living increases, has the disposable income of about 12 or 15 years ago. I realize some folks have had it tough, some have lost jobs, taken lesser-paying jobs, have had hours cut, etc. But....
Monday, January 28, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Outta My Mind on a Fri AM...
...oh, it's Fri afternoon already? Where did Fri morning go? I did sleep in today, all the way to 5:54 AM, but still......
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the instrumental version of an old Motown song. I know I don't care for what goes for "music" today--or even most of the past 30 years. But listening to this classic Detroit melody led me to several thought, none particularly new. Those old songs, at least many of them, could stand on their own, vocally and instrumentally. Aretha can sing; so can Smokey. The list goes on: The Temptations, Marvin, Martha Reeves (and the Umbrellas), Levi Stubbs and even non-Motown Detroiters (many of whom still recorded at the Motown Studio) such as Jackie Wilson, Deon Jackson, and Jerome Anthony ("Little Anthony"). Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke had great bands; I used to buy their instrumental albums. I don't think many songs of today can do that. I'm not sure, though, since I don't listen much to more modern music. But, some, such as "head-banger" and "gangsta rap" can't stand on either the vocals or the instrumentals.
I read an article the other day about Profiles in Courage. The author, supposedly an educated guy, kept talking about how John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that in his book. I kept thinking, "Hey, doesn't this guy know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage??????" Who was the wag who suggested this was the only Pulitzer Prize won by an author who didn't write the prize-winning book? Oh, the book was JFK's idea, but he didn't do much, if any, of the work. It was a team effort, with Ted Sorenson doing most of the writing. Let's put it this way, if JFK had turning this book in as his own work in my class, he'd get an F. I'm still wondering, though, how this columnist doesn't know that Kennedy didn't really write Profiles in Courage. It's been common knowledge for a long time.
So it's to be women in combat now? Hmmm...... This might well be a case to be careful what you wish for/want. Why would women want to be in combat? Combat results in deaths, injuries, maiming. Men don't want to be in combat, at least those who've been there. And, is it so, that women will be able to opt out of combat? If so, wait a minute. It's one thing to demand "equality." It's a far different thing to want "selective equality."
This isn't a slam at the Obama Administration, well, not one exclusively aimed at it. This is a bi-partisan slam, which is likely to be the closest I will ever come to "bi-partisanship." (It's hard for me to even write the word!) Democrats/Republicans--Republicans/Democrats, it makes no difference.
Are we nuts?!?!?! Why do we give foreign aid to practically anyone? Do Americans know that between 1995 and 2009 (yes, as recently as 2009!), we gave $1.3 billion (that's with a "b") to North Korea? Hey, isn't that country run by that nutcase? Yep, it is. Granted, we haven't given any money to NK since, but it's not like North Korea was in 2011 what it wasn't in 2009. Oh, North Korea is now practicing launching its missiles at the US. This one is up-to-date. We are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets! Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are behind all this madness. Are they stupid or crazy or both?
Speaking of foreign policy, how about Hillary Clinton saying before a Congressional committee, "What difference does it make?" how the attack on our embassy in Benghazi started? I thought she was smarter than that. How could anyone in her position make such a stupid comment? And, she also said, "I take full responsibility...." What the heck does that mean? More pointedly, so what? What consequences will Clinton face? Apparently none. Of course any of these politicians who so courageously (yes, I'm being quite facetious) "accept responsibility" really don't in that there are no consequences. Are they fired? Do they face courts-martial or civilian judicial proceedings for dereliction of duty, for fraud, or whatnot? Of course not. "Taking full responsibility" is enough, even though there is no real accountability. After all, her boss (and you know he was lockstep with all the malfeasant policies that led to this) was just re-elected by an ill-informed electorate, a compliant and malfeasant (I seem to like that word today) media, and other feel- and doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). "I accept full responsibility...." What hooey!
In light of the above, I also wonder how John Kerry can be a nominee for anything. What I remember most about Kerry is his use of the word "gravitas." He intended to use it as a weapon against his political rival, as in, "My opponent lacks gravitas.'" You know, John Kerry is the epitome of false gravitas. And, he's also a big hypocrite. I can explain if needed. Here's what real gravitas is.
When Thurgood Marshall would walk into a room, a hush would gather over it. People would whisper, in awe, "There's Thurgood!" or "Thurgood's here!" Marshall's presence exuded gravitas, something Kerry has never experienced except in his own mind, I guess.
I was reminded this week of some words all of us should know. Pericles once said, in one form or another, "Courage is the anatomy of democracy [freedom]." We seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?
Out to grade papers......and ponder gravitas.
I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the instrumental version of an old Motown song. I know I don't care for what goes for "music" today--or even most of the past 30 years. But listening to this classic Detroit melody led me to several thought, none particularly new. Those old songs, at least many of them, could stand on their own, vocally and instrumentally. Aretha can sing; so can Smokey. The list goes on: The Temptations, Marvin, Martha Reeves (and the Umbrellas), Levi Stubbs and even non-Motown Detroiters (many of whom still recorded at the Motown Studio) such as Jackie Wilson, Deon Jackson, and Jerome Anthony ("Little Anthony"). Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke had great bands; I used to buy their instrumental albums. I don't think many songs of today can do that. I'm not sure, though, since I don't listen much to more modern music. But, some, such as "head-banger" and "gangsta rap" can't stand on either the vocals or the instrumentals.
I read an article the other day about Profiles in Courage. The author, supposedly an educated guy, kept talking about how John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that in his book. I kept thinking, "Hey, doesn't this guy know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage??????" Who was the wag who suggested this was the only Pulitzer Prize won by an author who didn't write the prize-winning book? Oh, the book was JFK's idea, but he didn't do much, if any, of the work. It was a team effort, with Ted Sorenson doing most of the writing. Let's put it this way, if JFK had turning this book in as his own work in my class, he'd get an F. I'm still wondering, though, how this columnist doesn't know that Kennedy didn't really write Profiles in Courage. It's been common knowledge for a long time.
So it's to be women in combat now? Hmmm...... This might well be a case to be careful what you wish for/want. Why would women want to be in combat? Combat results in deaths, injuries, maiming. Men don't want to be in combat, at least those who've been there. And, is it so, that women will be able to opt out of combat? If so, wait a minute. It's one thing to demand "equality." It's a far different thing to want "selective equality."
This isn't a slam at the Obama Administration, well, not one exclusively aimed at it. This is a bi-partisan slam, which is likely to be the closest I will ever come to "bi-partisanship." (It's hard for me to even write the word!) Democrats/Republicans--Republicans/Democrats, it makes no difference.
Are we nuts?!?!?! Why do we give foreign aid to practically anyone? Do Americans know that between 1995 and 2009 (yes, as recently as 2009!), we gave $1.3 billion (that's with a "b") to North Korea? Hey, isn't that country run by that nutcase? Yep, it is. Granted, we haven't given any money to NK since, but it's not like North Korea was in 2011 what it wasn't in 2009. Oh, North Korea is now practicing launching its missiles at the US. This one is up-to-date. We are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets! Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are behind all this madness. Are they stupid or crazy or both?
Speaking of foreign policy, how about Hillary Clinton saying before a Congressional committee, "What difference does it make?" how the attack on our embassy in Benghazi started? I thought she was smarter than that. How could anyone in her position make such a stupid comment? And, she also said, "I take full responsibility...." What the heck does that mean? More pointedly, so what? What consequences will Clinton face? Apparently none. Of course any of these politicians who so courageously (yes, I'm being quite facetious) "accept responsibility" really don't in that there are no consequences. Are they fired? Do they face courts-martial or civilian judicial proceedings for dereliction of duty, for fraud, or whatnot? Of course not. "Taking full responsibility" is enough, even though there is no real accountability. After all, her boss (and you know he was lockstep with all the malfeasant policies that led to this) was just re-elected by an ill-informed electorate, a compliant and malfeasant (I seem to like that word today) media, and other feel- and doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). "I accept full responsibility...." What hooey!
In light of the above, I also wonder how John Kerry can be a nominee for anything. What I remember most about Kerry is his use of the word "gravitas." He intended to use it as a weapon against his political rival, as in, "My opponent lacks gravitas.'" You know, John Kerry is the epitome of false gravitas. And, he's also a big hypocrite. I can explain if needed. Here's what real gravitas is.
When Thurgood Marshall would walk into a room, a hush would gather over it. People would whisper, in awe, "There's Thurgood!" or "Thurgood's here!" Marshall's presence exuded gravitas, something Kerry has never experienced except in his own mind, I guess.
I was reminded this week of some words all of us should know. Pericles once said, in one form or another, "Courage is the anatomy of democracy [freedom]." We seem to have forgotten that, haven't we?
Out to grade papers......and ponder gravitas.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Individual Drive?
Before my main thrust, I just want to know who cares, who really cares!, if that singer lip-synched the National Anthem at the Inauguration?????? C'mon, the government is spending millions of dollar it doesn't have every minute. Kids are getting shot in every major city every day. Politicans of both parties lie like hell to us, all in the name of knowing what's best for us better than we do. Despite the deceptive reports, the unemployment/underemployment rate in this country is still near 20%. Public education is a shambles, thanks to lousy teachers and administrators and, now, arrogant politicians who think they know what quality education is because, after all, we can run our schools like businesses. And we're worried about some lip-synching and some college football player's online girlfriend.... Surely the Apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Yesterday, on my long drive to class, I wondered about what we've done and where we're headed. Are we, I thought, losing our competitive drive, our individual initiative, replacing it with the "give me my free stuff [from the government] now?" Hmmm.... It sure seems like it.
It's not just individuals' fault. I think we have fostered such a change with our, sometimes well-meaning, but ultimately destructive policies. In trying to help, we have done just the opposite. We haven't really helped people by giving them things, for free, and we have harmed a lot of others in doing so.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville (reading him in History 11 42 years ago at Amherst, I never would have thought I'd be citing him now!) cautioned against this "softening" of our individual initiative, our competitive drive.
Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats everywhere.... It seems like there are more and more regulations (you can read that as "laws") that are created merely to justify bureaucratic jobs. How dampening of the spirit to find some pencil-neck writing regulations that kill a good idea!
Why should we take any initiative when the government will take care of us, in fact, will take care of everything? Government gets bigger and bigger and the laws/rules/regulations get sillier and sillier (note a few months back my story of the rigamarole of picking up a new car).
The auto companies, the banks, etc., we were told, were "too big to fail." (Gee, why didn't that hold for the break-up of Standard Oil? Wasn't that pretty big? It didn't fail; in fact, it was quite efficient. But it was destroyed anyway, by government. Hmmm......) Now, we expect government to make everything nice for us. How silly! Government has become too big to succeed.
Yesterday, on my long drive to class, I wondered about what we've done and where we're headed. Are we, I thought, losing our competitive drive, our individual initiative, replacing it with the "give me my free stuff [from the government] now?" Hmmm.... It sure seems like it.
It's not just individuals' fault. I think we have fostered such a change with our, sometimes well-meaning, but ultimately destructive policies. In trying to help, we have done just the opposite. We haven't really helped people by giving them things, for free, and we have harmed a lot of others in doing so.
I think Alexis de Tocqueville (reading him in History 11 42 years ago at Amherst, I never would have thought I'd be citing him now!) cautioned against this "softening" of our individual initiative, our competitive drive.
Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats everywhere.... It seems like there are more and more regulations (you can read that as "laws") that are created merely to justify bureaucratic jobs. How dampening of the spirit to find some pencil-neck writing regulations that kill a good idea!
Why should we take any initiative when the government will take care of us, in fact, will take care of everything? Government gets bigger and bigger and the laws/rules/regulations get sillier and sillier (note a few months back my story of the rigamarole of picking up a new car).
The auto companies, the banks, etc., we were told, were "too big to fail." (Gee, why didn't that hold for the break-up of Standard Oil? Wasn't that pretty big? It didn't fail; in fact, it was quite efficient. But it was destroyed anyway, by government. Hmmm......) Now, we expect government to make everything nice for us. How silly! Government has become too big to succeed.
Monday, January 21, 2013
A "Disconnect?"
Isn't that the rather trendy word, "disconnect?" It's when, I guess, things don't quite match up, don't quite follow from each other. Maybe it's a step or two short of hypocrisy?
There seems to be a "disconnect" between what we think about Congress and how we react to its members. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (reputable, I guess) revealed that Congress had a 9% approval rating. Members of Congress, as a whole, rated below Brussels sprouts (Hey, I like Brussels sprouts!), head lice, NFL replacement officials, used car salesmen, traffic jams, and even cockroaches, root canals, and colonsocopies. That's quite a list!
On the positive side (and you know me, always positive!), Congress scored better than telemarketers (They were below Brussels sprouts? The survey must be flawed.), North Korea, Linday Lohan (whoever that is), the Kardashians (I've heard to them), meth labs, and gonorrhea. Well, at least members of Congress "have that goin' for 'em."
OK, maybe respondents were just having some fun, but there are a couple of questions that are immediately brought to mind, my mind at least. First, aren't these Congressmen/women and Senators embarrassed? Aren't they ashamed? (Of course, I've answered my own question many times. No, they aren't "embarrassed" because they are arrogantly elitist. What do they care what the hoi polloi think? No, they aren't "ashamed" because they, quite obviously, have no sense of shame. Just look at what they do, what they say....) I know, to this day, I am very reluctant to admit I was a teacher; well, I guess I still am. (See below for further explanation.) I've made no secret about my reluctance and the reasons behind it.
But, and I guess this is at the heart of my "disconnect," why do Congressmen/women and Senators get re-elected at rates of 90% or higher? If we hold them in such low regard--and, the survey notwithstanding, I think most of us do--why do we vote for them (or others of their ilk as chosen by the pox-deserving parties) again and again? C'mon, John Dingell was first elected in '55! He admitted, although claiming to have written the ObamaCare bill, that he didn't read it. Huh? John Conyers blew a gasket when asked about reading that. "We don't have time to read" that stuff! I wonder. Are we stupid? Do we blindly follow the parties or our unions and their endorsements? Have we given up on making things better? I laugh at those suburbanites who claim Detroiters would re-elect Kwame Kilpatrick if he was running again. Oh, how they scorn Detroiters! Yet, these same folks continue on their own merry ways, re-electing the same old, rotten Congressmen/women and Senators. Remember, they re-elected W. Bush and Obama. Enough said....and not too flattering, either.
I know a little bit of history and realize Congress hasn't always been a paragon of leadership, virtue, and so on. But it seems to me today is much worse. I think it has nothing to do with partisanship, nothing at all.
There was another article I read about teachers "cheating." Oh, I read with interest and more than a few "tsk, tsks" about cheating on student standardized test scores. Of course, some will--there is far too much emphasis on test scores. And, as I've noted in the past, teachers have nobody to blame for that except themselves, for a variety of reasons. What concerned me even more was that teachers were paying others to take their accreditation tests, the ones states impose to get a teaching credential or certificate. I read a few of the questions: "Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million a) 40,000 b) 250,000 c) 2,500,000 d) 1/4,000,000 e) 4/1,000,000?" Pick out the error in this sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." No doubt, some will say, "Why does a history teacher need to know that stuff?" In fact, I can think of more than one I worked with who would say that or something like it. Anyone who asks that question shouldn't be a teacher. And, I worked with teachers who couldn't tell the answers to these two questions. Oh, the stories I could (and sometimes do) tell.
Stan Musial died this weekend. I am saddened. He always seemed like such a class act. I know "class act" is tossed around pretty loosely these days, but that was Stan Musial. I didn't realize that he held 55 hitting records--55 of them! Musial was 92...which seems like a nice age to me now.
There seems to be a "disconnect" between what we think about Congress and how we react to its members. A recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (reputable, I guess) revealed that Congress had a 9% approval rating. Members of Congress, as a whole, rated below Brussels sprouts (Hey, I like Brussels sprouts!), head lice, NFL replacement officials, used car salesmen, traffic jams, and even cockroaches, root canals, and colonsocopies. That's quite a list!
On the positive side (and you know me, always positive!), Congress scored better than telemarketers (They were below Brussels sprouts? The survey must be flawed.), North Korea, Linday Lohan (whoever that is), the Kardashians (I've heard to them), meth labs, and gonorrhea. Well, at least members of Congress "have that goin' for 'em."
OK, maybe respondents were just having some fun, but there are a couple of questions that are immediately brought to mind, my mind at least. First, aren't these Congressmen/women and Senators embarrassed? Aren't they ashamed? (Of course, I've answered my own question many times. No, they aren't "embarrassed" because they are arrogantly elitist. What do they care what the hoi polloi think? No, they aren't "ashamed" because they, quite obviously, have no sense of shame. Just look at what they do, what they say....) I know, to this day, I am very reluctant to admit I was a teacher; well, I guess I still am. (See below for further explanation.) I've made no secret about my reluctance and the reasons behind it.
But, and I guess this is at the heart of my "disconnect," why do Congressmen/women and Senators get re-elected at rates of 90% or higher? If we hold them in such low regard--and, the survey notwithstanding, I think most of us do--why do we vote for them (or others of their ilk as chosen by the pox-deserving parties) again and again? C'mon, John Dingell was first elected in '55! He admitted, although claiming to have written the ObamaCare bill, that he didn't read it. Huh? John Conyers blew a gasket when asked about reading that. "We don't have time to read" that stuff! I wonder. Are we stupid? Do we blindly follow the parties or our unions and their endorsements? Have we given up on making things better? I laugh at those suburbanites who claim Detroiters would re-elect Kwame Kilpatrick if he was running again. Oh, how they scorn Detroiters! Yet, these same folks continue on their own merry ways, re-electing the same old, rotten Congressmen/women and Senators. Remember, they re-elected W. Bush and Obama. Enough said....and not too flattering, either.
I know a little bit of history and realize Congress hasn't always been a paragon of leadership, virtue, and so on. But it seems to me today is much worse. I think it has nothing to do with partisanship, nothing at all.
There was another article I read about teachers "cheating." Oh, I read with interest and more than a few "tsk, tsks" about cheating on student standardized test scores. Of course, some will--there is far too much emphasis on test scores. And, as I've noted in the past, teachers have nobody to blame for that except themselves, for a variety of reasons. What concerned me even more was that teachers were paying others to take their accreditation tests, the ones states impose to get a teaching credential or certificate. I read a few of the questions: "Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million a) 40,000 b) 250,000 c) 2,500,000 d) 1/4,000,000 e) 4/1,000,000?" Pick out the error in this sentence: "The club members agreed that each would contribute ten days of voluntary work annually each year at the local hospital." No doubt, some will say, "Why does a history teacher need to know that stuff?" In fact, I can think of more than one I worked with who would say that or something like it. Anyone who asks that question shouldn't be a teacher. And, I worked with teachers who couldn't tell the answers to these two questions. Oh, the stories I could (and sometimes do) tell.
Stan Musial died this weekend. I am saddened. He always seemed like such a class act. I know "class act" is tossed around pretty loosely these days, but that was Stan Musial. I didn't realize that he held 55 hitting records--55 of them! Musial was 92...which seems like a nice age to me now.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
That Mark Twain had a way with words, didn't he? (My favorite of his, though, remains, "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Yep. I had that one on my classroom bulletin board, there for one and all to see, for years and years and years.)
How is one to make a determination of the extent of gun violence in this country with so many different lies, er, statistics about fire-arm related deaths? I noted this in two op-ed pieces running side by side in this AM's newspaper. One claimed "31,000" and the other "12,664." That's a pretty big variance, isn't it? Are these numbers reflective of murders? Is only one of them the number of murders with guns? Does that mean the majority were "accidents?"
Curious, I checked several online sources, fairly reputable I think. Yep, I found as many as more than 31,000 and as few as 11,000--and quite a few in-between.
And, could someone at least be honest about what are being called "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons?" Most aren't, actually showing an ignorance of what these weapons really are.
Notice, too, I haven't yet begun to sound off on the assault on Constitutional rights. And, no, I don't own a single gun and haven't fired one in maybe 45 years or so.
How is one to make a determination of the extent of gun violence in this country with so many different lies, er, statistics about fire-arm related deaths? I noted this in two op-ed pieces running side by side in this AM's newspaper. One claimed "31,000" and the other "12,664." That's a pretty big variance, isn't it? Are these numbers reflective of murders? Is only one of them the number of murders with guns? Does that mean the majority were "accidents?"
Curious, I checked several online sources, fairly reputable I think. Yep, I found as many as more than 31,000 and as few as 11,000--and quite a few in-between.
And, could someone at least be honest about what are being called "assault weapons" and "automatic weapons?" Most aren't, actually showing an ignorance of what these weapons really are.
Notice, too, I haven't yet begun to sound off on the assault on Constitutional rights. And, no, I don't own a single gun and haven't fired one in maybe 45 years or so.
Roads?
So, the governor wants a tax increase for "infrastructure," name roads, improvement. Hmmm...... It will "only" be about $120 more a person plus whatever higher registration fees ($60 or $80 per car?)are included in the deal. Ah, "only dollars," once again.
Before I give these Bozos any more money, I'd like some questions answered. First, where is all that increased state revenue from the big tax cut businesses received? You remember that one, don't you? Businesses had a nice tax cut with no conditions--"Hey, pay fewer dollars in taxes, but you don't have to lower prices and you don't have to hire more people." Why don't we pay for the road fixes with the increased revenues from the business tax decrease?
Second, why can't we cut other areas to pay for roads? I see we still provide money for people to engage in bad/undesirable conduct--for instance, payments for women to keep having babies after babies after babies with no fathers around. And, as I've noted here in the past, there are many other such wasteful programs that promote behaviors we shouldn't be promoting.
Third, a spokesman (from the governor's office?) on the radio kept talking about fixing the roads for safety's sake. The guy said two or three times that "the leading cause" of fatal accidents is bad roads. "More than half the [road] fatalities" come from the lousy conditions of our roads. Wait a minute! I'm confused. I thought drunk driving was the leading cause, hence the ridiculous 0.08 blood-alcohol content standard for drunk driving. No, I thought it was "Speed Kills." Gee, I'm confused. Which is it?
But I keep thinking back to "only dollars." So, as this spokesman said, it will only cost someone about $200 more bucks to improve the roads, bridges, etc. "Certainly that's a small price to pay...." Maybe so. Apparently, he forgot about the $400 more I'll pay in state income taxes this year--thanks to the governor's initiative. And, I haven't done my taxes yet, so who knows? It might be even more than that with all the exemptions, deductions, credits that have been eliminated. Oh, and I haven't even touched the $1200 or more the federal government will be getting from me this year. Yeah, buddy, "only dollars." Here's a novel idea--why don't you just use the extra money you're already stealing, er, taking, from me this year??????
Before I give these Bozos any more money, I'd like some questions answered. First, where is all that increased state revenue from the big tax cut businesses received? You remember that one, don't you? Businesses had a nice tax cut with no conditions--"Hey, pay fewer dollars in taxes, but you don't have to lower prices and you don't have to hire more people." Why don't we pay for the road fixes with the increased revenues from the business tax decrease?
Second, why can't we cut other areas to pay for roads? I see we still provide money for people to engage in bad/undesirable conduct--for instance, payments for women to keep having babies after babies after babies with no fathers around. And, as I've noted here in the past, there are many other such wasteful programs that promote behaviors we shouldn't be promoting.
Third, a spokesman (from the governor's office?) on the radio kept talking about fixing the roads for safety's sake. The guy said two or three times that "the leading cause" of fatal accidents is bad roads. "More than half the [road] fatalities" come from the lousy conditions of our roads. Wait a minute! I'm confused. I thought drunk driving was the leading cause, hence the ridiculous 0.08 blood-alcohol content standard for drunk driving. No, I thought it was "Speed Kills." Gee, I'm confused. Which is it?
But I keep thinking back to "only dollars." So, as this spokesman said, it will only cost someone about $200 more bucks to improve the roads, bridges, etc. "Certainly that's a small price to pay...." Maybe so. Apparently, he forgot about the $400 more I'll pay in state income taxes this year--thanks to the governor's initiative. And, I haven't done my taxes yet, so who knows? It might be even more than that with all the exemptions, deductions, credits that have been eliminated. Oh, and I haven't even touched the $1200 or more the federal government will be getting from me this year. Yeah, buddy, "only dollars." Here's a novel idea--why don't you just use the extra money you're already stealing, er, taking, from me this year??????
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Smelly "Cliff"
The more I read about this "cliff" deal, the smellier it gets. The income tax hikes on "the wealthy" will raise about $22-23 billion dollars in 2013, that is, more than if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to continue. Yet....
At the President's insistence, the deal allows tax credits to energy and business interests (such as GE...hmmmm) that will reduce tax revenues by more than $66 billion. Another one of the industries getting a nod in this is Hollywood; now there's a big surprise. Film and television producers will get a lower tax bill in 2013, to the tune of $266 million. Of course, if anyone needs a tax break, it has to be Hollywood. Rum producers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico will have a reduced bill, too--about $200 million less.
I know Big Oil is subsidized, but I would guess all but the most close-minded zealots would agree that, if tax breaks/subsidies are to be handed out at all, something a little more vital than television, movies, and rum should get them.
And an enlightening article in the newspaper this AM, too. Many Michigan tax-payers will be in for a rude awakening when filing their state income taxes this year. Surprise, they will be paying more!
George Will had a good piece in today's paper. It concerns the deficit and its nature. Prior deficit spending by the federal government was used to benefit the present and the future. For instance, the deficits of the 1940s helped to win WW2 and create the Interstate Highway System, which, again I'd say most people would agree, helped future generations of Americans as well as contemporaries. Today's deficits are for our own aggrandizements, be they corporate or individual welfare, other grand schemes or policies--yet the payments will not come from us, but from our children and grandchildren. Of course, that is if the US continues as it has for two hundred years and doesn't take the increasingly likely road of Greece, Spain, etc.
Will has two other things I liked. One was a term, "connoisseurs of democratic decadence." The other is a quotation from Churchill, "The gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought." Will directed the Churchillian gem toward Obama, but there are many out there today to which it can apply.
I was thinking today and I'm not sure it has to do with anything. When I started teaching, I took a sizable pay cut to do so. It was my choice; so I'm not grumbling. But my take-home pay that first year (and maybe the next couple as well) would not have been enough to cover my final year's room, board, and tuition bill at Amherst. I visibly shook my head--I could have just had my paycheck sent to AC and I would have still owed more! That strikes me. And how is it, again, that these business-minded experts on education want to improve it? By making teaching more attractive through lower salaries, fewer benefits, and more idiotic testing. Great, just great. It's wonderful to see those like our governor spout off about "best practices," as employed in businesses, but not really apply them to teachers/teaching. Gee, isn't business (at least those who get the big bucks!) always telling us how necessary those big bucks are to attract the best talent for management? It didn't seem to be working there for the auto industry, banks, investments, and more of the big shooters, did it? Wasn't it Peter Drucker, another guru cited by the business community, who said if a company is having problems, it isn't the workers, it isn't the management, it's the guys at the top? Ah, once again, being selective has its advantages. Of course, I've already gone on record about my views of the quality of teachers. There are some very, very outstanding ones. Others are workable, just fine (not everyone can be a superstar). But far too many teachers (and administrators) should be nowhere near a classroom or school. That's not my point here. Or maybe it is.... Maybe cutting pay and benefits will ensure even more lousy teachers.
And, speaking of those early days, I remembered Karen and I had for dinner two or three times a week Chunky Soup on rice, and generic rice it was, not Minute Rice. Meat every night? No, that didn't happen. That's what we could afford, so that's what we ate. I wonder if we insisted welfare recipients had the same diet how many howls there would be??????
At the President's insistence, the deal allows tax credits to energy and business interests (such as GE...hmmmm) that will reduce tax revenues by more than $66 billion. Another one of the industries getting a nod in this is Hollywood; now there's a big surprise. Film and television producers will get a lower tax bill in 2013, to the tune of $266 million. Of course, if anyone needs a tax break, it has to be Hollywood. Rum producers in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico will have a reduced bill, too--about $200 million less.
I know Big Oil is subsidized, but I would guess all but the most close-minded zealots would agree that, if tax breaks/subsidies are to be handed out at all, something a little more vital than television, movies, and rum should get them.
And an enlightening article in the newspaper this AM, too. Many Michigan tax-payers will be in for a rude awakening when filing their state income taxes this year. Surprise, they will be paying more!
George Will had a good piece in today's paper. It concerns the deficit and its nature. Prior deficit spending by the federal government was used to benefit the present and the future. For instance, the deficits of the 1940s helped to win WW2 and create the Interstate Highway System, which, again I'd say most people would agree, helped future generations of Americans as well as contemporaries. Today's deficits are for our own aggrandizements, be they corporate or individual welfare, other grand schemes or policies--yet the payments will not come from us, but from our children and grandchildren. Of course, that is if the US continues as it has for two hundred years and doesn't take the increasingly likely road of Greece, Spain, etc.
Will has two other things I liked. One was a term, "connoisseurs of democratic decadence." The other is a quotation from Churchill, "The gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought." Will directed the Churchillian gem toward Obama, but there are many out there today to which it can apply.
I was thinking today and I'm not sure it has to do with anything. When I started teaching, I took a sizable pay cut to do so. It was my choice; so I'm not grumbling. But my take-home pay that first year (and maybe the next couple as well) would not have been enough to cover my final year's room, board, and tuition bill at Amherst. I visibly shook my head--I could have just had my paycheck sent to AC and I would have still owed more! That strikes me. And how is it, again, that these business-minded experts on education want to improve it? By making teaching more attractive through lower salaries, fewer benefits, and more idiotic testing. Great, just great. It's wonderful to see those like our governor spout off about "best practices," as employed in businesses, but not really apply them to teachers/teaching. Gee, isn't business (at least those who get the big bucks!) always telling us how necessary those big bucks are to attract the best talent for management? It didn't seem to be working there for the auto industry, banks, investments, and more of the big shooters, did it? Wasn't it Peter Drucker, another guru cited by the business community, who said if a company is having problems, it isn't the workers, it isn't the management, it's the guys at the top? Ah, once again, being selective has its advantages. Of course, I've already gone on record about my views of the quality of teachers. There are some very, very outstanding ones. Others are workable, just fine (not everyone can be a superstar). But far too many teachers (and administrators) should be nowhere near a classroom or school. That's not my point here. Or maybe it is.... Maybe cutting pay and benefits will ensure even more lousy teachers.
And, speaking of those early days, I remembered Karen and I had for dinner two or three times a week Chunky Soup on rice, and generic rice it was, not Minute Rice. Meat every night? No, that didn't happen. That's what we could afford, so that's what we ate. I wonder if we insisted welfare recipients had the same diet how many howls there would be??????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
