Why do kids like pizza rolls, those frozen ones? Beats me. But fish sticks I understand; I like them, too. I'm very fond of peanut butter and jelly, maybe more than the kids are.
I still like Campbell's chicken noodle soup and the boxed kinds, too. I've sort of lost my liking for Chief [sic] Boy R Dee stuff.
In college, I started having spaghetti sprinkled with grated Parmesan cheese, just that. No butter, no anything else. It likely began because it was cheap and easy to make. But I really like it. Bopp does, too, and we just have our own "code" for it--"Angel hair." One of my friends likes spaghetti with garlic and olive oil, which my dad ate often, too. I'm not big on that--not the olive oil and not the garlic.
K would say it's hard to find a food I don't care for, but I know a few. I'm not fond of chili and any kind of peppers (green, red, etc.) I can do without. Vegies are mostly because they are good for me, not because I like them. In restaurants, when a choice of "Soup or Salad," almost everyone with whom we eat opts for the salad; I prefer soup. Salads are, to me, vastly overrated, esp if there are tomatoes in them.
I did have a local pizza last night that I though was very good--an oddity finding a good local pizza. It had real pepperoni, not the salami-style. And the sauce tasted like something more than ketchup. Unfortunately, Bopper and a friend who was spending the night liked it, too, as did K. So, I ended up with a single slice, which is probably OK. I'll get it again, though.
I am looking forward to next month's visit to Matt in Vegas. Of course, I want to see him--and Linda and Roscoe. But we always find good places to eat, some old favorites on the Strip and off, and often new places recommended by Matt and/or Linda (or her relatives). And, Bopper will be with me on this, the buffets are great!
Food--simple or otherwise, one of the great joys of life.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Sat Thoughts
I see Tom Watkins is at it again. "The Chinese are coming, The Chinese are coming" echoes many of his previous and incessant views that the Chinese are our "friends." Well, at least he talks about his "friends" the Chinese. I will admit I didn't finish the article--I couldn't. But I wonder why in the world would Americans trade, have any commercial relations with the Chinese?
Think of the glee US companies (think US carmakers) exhibit when they announce new factories in China. Think of the accolades our state governors have received for opening trade with the Chinese and Michigan. Money means more than anything. (I'm still glad it doesn't to me.)
OK, call me naive (I've been called worse, much worse, and likely deservedly so in some instances). I know it's about money. People make money by investing. People pay less for goods made in China, although the quality reflects the lower price in most cases. And, I'm sure I also buy, knowingly or not, Chinese goods.
Still, it rankles me to see Watkins shilling for his "friends." Don't the Chinese cheat? Don't they steal our ideas, industrial espionage or whatever it's called? Don't they hack into our computers, our commercial ones, our government/defense ones? Don't the Chinese have one of the worst records toward human rights? (As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Don't those nefarious actions mean anything? I know, I know...money.
Whatever happened to "the city on the hill?" What about "the last best hope of mankind?" OK, I guess I am naive for still thinking that ideas and principles still should mean something. How can anyone call "friends" those who treat their people the way China treats its people? Maybe there's a reason Watkins is a former state superintendent of schools, disregarding my disdain for anyone who has risen to such a position.
So, the President is defending, even justifying the telephone and e-mail surveillance the federal government has been conducting on us, US citizens. Where is the "outrage?" Oh, I forgot. When we claim to be "outraged," we are just kidding or, at most, "outraged" for only a few days. The government which has made nice with nations that sponsor and support Islamic terrorism is more worried about me and about my fellow Americans. Haven't Americans read Brave New World, 1984, It Can't Happen Here? No, those aren't video games.
I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Think of the glee US companies (think US carmakers) exhibit when they announce new factories in China. Think of the accolades our state governors have received for opening trade with the Chinese and Michigan. Money means more than anything. (I'm still glad it doesn't to me.)
OK, call me naive (I've been called worse, much worse, and likely deservedly so in some instances). I know it's about money. People make money by investing. People pay less for goods made in China, although the quality reflects the lower price in most cases. And, I'm sure I also buy, knowingly or not, Chinese goods.
Still, it rankles me to see Watkins shilling for his "friends." Don't the Chinese cheat? Don't they steal our ideas, industrial espionage or whatever it's called? Don't they hack into our computers, our commercial ones, our government/defense ones? Don't the Chinese have one of the worst records toward human rights? (As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Don't those nefarious actions mean anything? I know, I know...money.
Whatever happened to "the city on the hill?" What about "the last best hope of mankind?" OK, I guess I am naive for still thinking that ideas and principles still should mean something. How can anyone call "friends" those who treat their people the way China treats its people? Maybe there's a reason Watkins is a former state superintendent of schools, disregarding my disdain for anyone who has risen to such a position.
So, the President is defending, even justifying the telephone and e-mail surveillance the federal government has been conducting on us, US citizens. Where is the "outrage?" Oh, I forgot. When we claim to be "outraged," we are just kidding or, at most, "outraged" for only a few days. The government which has made nice with nations that sponsor and support Islamic terrorism is more worried about me and about my fellow Americans. Haven't Americans read Brave New World, 1984, It Can't Happen Here? No, those aren't video games.
I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs
I passed a sign outside a church the other day. It read, "Someday, it will all make sense." I hope so and I hope it "makes sense" quickly.
John Dingell is "celebrating," along with many others I guess, his 57 years in the US House of Representatives. That's the longest tenure in Congressional history, surpassing Robert Byrd of WVa, I think. Dingell already held the record for longevity in the House. 57 years...... I wonder, is that worth "celebrating?" After all, as one of my college professors told me when he retired after 49 years of teaching (in response to my query, "Why not go another year to make it 5o years?"), "It's only a number." And, it represents a guy who's lived at the public trough for almost six decades. Yet, when a candidate for the House last year was identified, it was always as "a reindeer farmer" or "one who plays Santa Claus at Christmas," as if one who earns his money is less noble than one who is so good at spending other people's money. Such a lengthy stay seems to fly in the face of one the Democratic Party's (of which Dingell is a member) icons, Andrew Jackson. He believed in the Spoils System. Of course, he wanted to reward supporters and loyal party members with government jobs, but he also thought it would allow more citizens to become active in their government. (There I go again, forgetting that history isn't important.) Why, in certain cases, do we disparage one who is "a career politician," yet, in this case in particular, "celebrate" him? Note, I have raised any questions as to the harm Dingell might have done in those 57 years. Remember, he's the one who so proudly claimed to be an author of ObamaCare, but never ever saw anything wrong with later admitting he didn't know what was in it. Remember, he's the one whose campaign successful disparaged as filthy rich, not worthy of being a representative of the people, one of his election opponents who happened to be "rich" because he was a very successful cardiologist. Gee, a cardiologist? Isn't that a guy who saves people's lives? So, it was a bad thing that this guy earned a lot of money by saving almost a thousand lives? And I wonder how many times in those almost 60 years Dingell has voted for a pay raise for himself. It all reminds me of "celebrating," say, a coach who's won a lot of games, but in a lot of years.
I heard on the radio the other day that Obama's approval rating has dropped to 42%. Huh? How can it possibly be that high? I know, I know, "But Bush lied...."
Can anyone believe that none of these scandals breaking in DC, surrounding the Obama administration, didn't reach the White House? Apparently a lot of people do believe that. Of course, Obama can't be touched for a variety of reasons. But there's always the throwback, "They all did it." "They," of course, refers to Presidents (or politicians in general) and "it" refers to illegal or immoral activities. That works, too, esp for certain favored politicians. It did for Bill Clinton--and, of course, as usual, "They all did it" is a lie. But what's a little dishonesty among friends? And, to cite Alcie Hastings, in a different context, "Hey, we're tryin' to do something here!"
Why is there no "outrage" (a completely overused word, one that has become trite, almost void of its meaning) over gasoline prices? As I noted to one last night, one in the industry who cited the problems at a refinery in Indiana, "Isn't it the government that won't allow new refineries to be built?" Yeah, there's your John Dingell and his ilk for you. Let's "celebrate" that, restrictions on refineries, drilling, pipelines, etc. so that gas is "outrageously" expensive. (And let's not forgot all the US dollars going to the Arab nations, Venezuela, and our other oil-producing friends.)
So the Emergency Manager in Detroit is entertaining the idea of selling off artwork at the DIA to pay Detroit's creditors? And there is talk of privatizing Belle Isle to build condos, hotels, etc. for the same reason. Now, I'm all in favor of Detroit paying its debts, all in favor of people getting money that's owed to them. But to use the DIA and Belle Isle, and what else?, to do so seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, in other words, not just sacreligious, but stupid. Can the EM be serious or is he just posturing, perhaps intending to intimidate or threaten? Of course, to a numbers guy like Governor Snyder, it's likely, "Hey, what's the big deal?"
I think politics, like teaching, involves both art and science. A good teacher must know his/her subject. (And, as I've pointed out many times, there are far too many teachers out there who don't know their subjects.) But, good teaching also involves communication, standards, etc. (And my views on the current state of teaching, as I've also noted, are similar to above.) Todays' politicians lack art and science or both.
So, it is firmly established that the most important factor in quality education is a good teachers. Both left and right agree on that one. Then why the big deal over the Core Curriculum and the standards it involves? The Core does nothing about acquiring good teachers. I found it interesting, but also disheartening to hear a radio host have on a guest who said the key to improving education is to attract "really smart people." I agree with that and, at least at the time, the host did, too. Yet, subsequently, in the past couple of months, he's been all abou the Core, forgetting (perhaps willfully?) about "really smart people."
What's with this baseball thing, "pitch count?" How many games have been lost because MLB managers blindly adhere to "pitch count?" OK, with the million dollar contracts, care must be taken with pitchers. But don't these guys train year-round now? Don't they have personal trainers as well as team trainers, strength coaches, etc.? Aren't they bigger and strong, better athletes than in the past? Aren't they in better shape? Then why can't they throw more pitches? I suppose it would be one thing if a team has a Mariano Rivera (sp?) to bring in at the end of a one- or two-run game. But if some guy has just retired 17 in a row, if Justin Verlander is throwing, etc., why take out that guy for someone just as likely to blow the lead as hold it? I'm pretty sure, for instance, a batter would be sighing a great deal of relief, thanking the Tiger manager for removing Scherzer or Verlander or one of the other starters who has slammed the door the whole game and bringing in a bullpen guy. If the starter is visibly tired, has lost his stuff, is getting hit, that's another thing entirely. But "pitch count?" How did the overweight, out-of-shape Mickey Lolich (among others) throw 150 and even 200 pitches a game--for 20 seasons?
Yep, there's far too much out there that doesn't make sense to me.
John Dingell is "celebrating," along with many others I guess, his 57 years in the US House of Representatives. That's the longest tenure in Congressional history, surpassing Robert Byrd of WVa, I think. Dingell already held the record for longevity in the House. 57 years...... I wonder, is that worth "celebrating?" After all, as one of my college professors told me when he retired after 49 years of teaching (in response to my query, "Why not go another year to make it 5o years?"), "It's only a number." And, it represents a guy who's lived at the public trough for almost six decades. Yet, when a candidate for the House last year was identified, it was always as "a reindeer farmer" or "one who plays Santa Claus at Christmas," as if one who earns his money is less noble than one who is so good at spending other people's money. Such a lengthy stay seems to fly in the face of one the Democratic Party's (of which Dingell is a member) icons, Andrew Jackson. He believed in the Spoils System. Of course, he wanted to reward supporters and loyal party members with government jobs, but he also thought it would allow more citizens to become active in their government. (There I go again, forgetting that history isn't important.) Why, in certain cases, do we disparage one who is "a career politician," yet, in this case in particular, "celebrate" him? Note, I have raised any questions as to the harm Dingell might have done in those 57 years. Remember, he's the one who so proudly claimed to be an author of ObamaCare, but never ever saw anything wrong with later admitting he didn't know what was in it. Remember, he's the one whose campaign successful disparaged as filthy rich, not worthy of being a representative of the people, one of his election opponents who happened to be "rich" because he was a very successful cardiologist. Gee, a cardiologist? Isn't that a guy who saves people's lives? So, it was a bad thing that this guy earned a lot of money by saving almost a thousand lives? And I wonder how many times in those almost 60 years Dingell has voted for a pay raise for himself. It all reminds me of "celebrating," say, a coach who's won a lot of games, but in a lot of years.
I heard on the radio the other day that Obama's approval rating has dropped to 42%. Huh? How can it possibly be that high? I know, I know, "But Bush lied...."
Can anyone believe that none of these scandals breaking in DC, surrounding the Obama administration, didn't reach the White House? Apparently a lot of people do believe that. Of course, Obama can't be touched for a variety of reasons. But there's always the throwback, "They all did it." "They," of course, refers to Presidents (or politicians in general) and "it" refers to illegal or immoral activities. That works, too, esp for certain favored politicians. It did for Bill Clinton--and, of course, as usual, "They all did it" is a lie. But what's a little dishonesty among friends? And, to cite Alcie Hastings, in a different context, "Hey, we're tryin' to do something here!"
Why is there no "outrage" (a completely overused word, one that has become trite, almost void of its meaning) over gasoline prices? As I noted to one last night, one in the industry who cited the problems at a refinery in Indiana, "Isn't it the government that won't allow new refineries to be built?" Yeah, there's your John Dingell and his ilk for you. Let's "celebrate" that, restrictions on refineries, drilling, pipelines, etc. so that gas is "outrageously" expensive. (And let's not forgot all the US dollars going to the Arab nations, Venezuela, and our other oil-producing friends.)
So the Emergency Manager in Detroit is entertaining the idea of selling off artwork at the DIA to pay Detroit's creditors? And there is talk of privatizing Belle Isle to build condos, hotels, etc. for the same reason. Now, I'm all in favor of Detroit paying its debts, all in favor of people getting money that's owed to them. But to use the DIA and Belle Isle, and what else?, to do so seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, in other words, not just sacreligious, but stupid. Can the EM be serious or is he just posturing, perhaps intending to intimidate or threaten? Of course, to a numbers guy like Governor Snyder, it's likely, "Hey, what's the big deal?"
I think politics, like teaching, involves both art and science. A good teacher must know his/her subject. (And, as I've pointed out many times, there are far too many teachers out there who don't know their subjects.) But, good teaching also involves communication, standards, etc. (And my views on the current state of teaching, as I've also noted, are similar to above.) Todays' politicians lack art and science or both.
So, it is firmly established that the most important factor in quality education is a good teachers. Both left and right agree on that one. Then why the big deal over the Core Curriculum and the standards it involves? The Core does nothing about acquiring good teachers. I found it interesting, but also disheartening to hear a radio host have on a guest who said the key to improving education is to attract "really smart people." I agree with that and, at least at the time, the host did, too. Yet, subsequently, in the past couple of months, he's been all abou the Core, forgetting (perhaps willfully?) about "really smart people."
What's with this baseball thing, "pitch count?" How many games have been lost because MLB managers blindly adhere to "pitch count?" OK, with the million dollar contracts, care must be taken with pitchers. But don't these guys train year-round now? Don't they have personal trainers as well as team trainers, strength coaches, etc.? Aren't they bigger and strong, better athletes than in the past? Aren't they in better shape? Then why can't they throw more pitches? I suppose it would be one thing if a team has a Mariano Rivera (sp?) to bring in at the end of a one- or two-run game. But if some guy has just retired 17 in a row, if Justin Verlander is throwing, etc., why take out that guy for someone just as likely to blow the lead as hold it? I'm pretty sure, for instance, a batter would be sighing a great deal of relief, thanking the Tiger manager for removing Scherzer or Verlander or one of the other starters who has slammed the door the whole game and bringing in a bullpen guy. If the starter is visibly tired, has lost his stuff, is getting hit, that's another thing entirely. But "pitch count?" How did the overweight, out-of-shape Mickey Lolich (among others) throw 150 and even 200 pitches a game--for 20 seasons?
Yep, there's far too much out there that doesn't make sense to me.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Outta My Mind on a Fri Moanin'
Hats off to the late Bob Talbert, quite a writer......
As I tossed my empty bag of weed 'n' feed in the trash--recyclables--yesterday, I had a good chuckle. Boldly printed across its front was "Kills More Than 250 Varieties of Weeds." I guess I found three or four "varieties" it doesn't kill. And, it's a brand name......
Is Cabrera on a tear? What's he had in the last 4 or 5 games, about 15 RBIs? I don't know for sure, but he is rocking the ball. Porcello, in today's newspaper, revealed that he's a pretty intelligent guy, saying, "I'd walk Cabrera every time up." Yep.
Has Apple Computers broken the law? Apparently, our pompous, know-everything US Senators is launching an investigation into why Apple pays little or no federal taxes. Hey, if Apple has broken the law, toss some folks in jail. If Apple is merely playing by the rules established by Congress and the US by legally taking deductions, exemptions, credits, leave Apple alone. Gee, I wonder how many jobs the sanctimonius, look-down-over-his-glasses Carl Levin has created. I wonder if Levin and his fellow Senators of arrogance take deductions, exemptions, credits when filing their taxes. And, I wonder why they aren't more concerned with the direction our federal government seems to be headed.
If there's any more reason to vote against Gary Peters in '14 for the US Senate than the endorsement of Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, I can't think of many. For good measure, toss in the fact that he's a current member of the House of Representatives, that is, yet another one responsible for the mess emanating from DC.
The Common Core standards are yet another wasted and misguided attempt at school reform. That private companies and their lobbyists are at the root of Common Core should be enough of a warning. After all, check most of the so-called innovations in education over the past three or four decades. Who has benefitted from them? Yep, private companies who have sold unwitting administrators, school boards, and government officials bills of goods after bills of goods. That's what happens when people, in the schools, who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions are allowed to make decisions. Instead of choosing from those who have experienced quality, rigorous education to lead, we select from the other end, those who have no idea that quality education requires rigor. I know I offend some people, but many of those education degrees are, to me, fake degrees. A number of studies and books have demonstrated how these are so. And some of my more forthwith former colleagues have fully agreed with that assessment, just about laughing all the way to the bank as the school district paid more money for taking these easy courses and fake degrees. I guess a tried-and-true dictum would be a wise one concerning Common Core, "Follow the money......"
Isn't Michigan great?!?!?! I know we grouse about the weather, but it's always interesting. Two weeks ago, I ran on a 28-degree AM. Two AMs later, it was 66 degrees. Last Mon eve, I tossed about 45 mins of BP when it was 92; Wed's BP of 30 mins was in the lower 80s. I ran yesterday AM and it was 67 and very, very humid--"schweaty" as Matt used to call it--while it was 44 when I picked up Bopper from school. This AM's run was in 38 degrees, with some frost on the cars. One think I have noticed is that it sure seems to have been windy around here, since about Thanks or Chris, maybe as windy as it's ever been, long-term. Matt says it's in the 90s in Las Vegas. By the time we get there in about a month or so, it'll be in the 100s, maybe pushing 110 or 112 or higher.
Busy day--out to do coups, grocery shop, grade papers, do attendance, mow the front, and, with luck, write a review that's due June 1.
As I tossed my empty bag of weed 'n' feed in the trash--recyclables--yesterday, I had a good chuckle. Boldly printed across its front was "Kills More Than 250 Varieties of Weeds." I guess I found three or four "varieties" it doesn't kill. And, it's a brand name......
Is Cabrera on a tear? What's he had in the last 4 or 5 games, about 15 RBIs? I don't know for sure, but he is rocking the ball. Porcello, in today's newspaper, revealed that he's a pretty intelligent guy, saying, "I'd walk Cabrera every time up." Yep.
Has Apple Computers broken the law? Apparently, our pompous, know-everything US Senators is launching an investigation into why Apple pays little or no federal taxes. Hey, if Apple has broken the law, toss some folks in jail. If Apple is merely playing by the rules established by Congress and the US by legally taking deductions, exemptions, credits, leave Apple alone. Gee, I wonder how many jobs the sanctimonius, look-down-over-his-glasses Carl Levin has created. I wonder if Levin and his fellow Senators of arrogance take deductions, exemptions, credits when filing their taxes. And, I wonder why they aren't more concerned with the direction our federal government seems to be headed.
If there's any more reason to vote against Gary Peters in '14 for the US Senate than the endorsement of Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, I can't think of many. For good measure, toss in the fact that he's a current member of the House of Representatives, that is, yet another one responsible for the mess emanating from DC.
The Common Core standards are yet another wasted and misguided attempt at school reform. That private companies and their lobbyists are at the root of Common Core should be enough of a warning. After all, check most of the so-called innovations in education over the past three or four decades. Who has benefitted from them? Yep, private companies who have sold unwitting administrators, school boards, and government officials bills of goods after bills of goods. That's what happens when people, in the schools, who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions are allowed to make decisions. Instead of choosing from those who have experienced quality, rigorous education to lead, we select from the other end, those who have no idea that quality education requires rigor. I know I offend some people, but many of those education degrees are, to me, fake degrees. A number of studies and books have demonstrated how these are so. And some of my more forthwith former colleagues have fully agreed with that assessment, just about laughing all the way to the bank as the school district paid more money for taking these easy courses and fake degrees. I guess a tried-and-true dictum would be a wise one concerning Common Core, "Follow the money......"
Isn't Michigan great?!?!?! I know we grouse about the weather, but it's always interesting. Two weeks ago, I ran on a 28-degree AM. Two AMs later, it was 66 degrees. Last Mon eve, I tossed about 45 mins of BP when it was 92; Wed's BP of 30 mins was in the lower 80s. I ran yesterday AM and it was 67 and very, very humid--"schweaty" as Matt used to call it--while it was 44 when I picked up Bopper from school. This AM's run was in 38 degrees, with some frost on the cars. One think I have noticed is that it sure seems to have been windy around here, since about Thanks or Chris, maybe as windy as it's ever been, long-term. Matt says it's in the 90s in Las Vegas. By the time we get there in about a month or so, it'll be in the 100s, maybe pushing 110 or 112 or higher.
Busy day--out to do coups, grocery shop, grade papers, do attendance, mow the front, and, with luck, write a review that's due June 1.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Two Quick Matters
First, (and remember I know "Bush lied!," although he really didn't) I can't imagine there isn't a greater outcry about the executive department bombshells--IRS, Justice Department, State Department. That our government has so behaved is, frankly, chilling, very chilling. I don't think that's a new strain of paranoia overcoming me.
Imagine the IRS targeting groups, then intimidating them by asking questions such as, "About what do you pray?" What business is that of government? Where, BTW, is our US Senator Carl Levin with this? I ask only because some have--quite erroneously--labeled him "the Conscience of the Senate." (As I've written before, Phil Hart must be spinning in his grave!) How about asking anti-abortion groups if they will promise not to demonstrate against Planned Parenthood? (See my previous post about "the low value we place on human lives." C'mon! That some in the Obama administration knew about such actions, but didn't tell him--yeah, I'm going to believe that. Even if I did, my next question would be, "Doesn't this guy have any control over his administration?" Of course, we can wait a few minutes and get a newer version, like the 15 or so that have come out about Benghazi.
Imagine, too, the IRS supervisor who was in charge while all this was going on is now going to run the IRS operations involving ObamaCare--yet another intrusive, unconstitutionl government power-grab. (Usually, I side with the Supremes, even when I disagree, but not this time.)
Not to make light of the multiple tragedies the US has experience over the past month or so, but perhaps it's fortuitous, for the Obama administration, that they occurred when they did. I know, I know, "But Bush lied!"
Equally troubling for me is the current thread going around, "Is college worth it?" "It," of course, is the cost of a college education. I'm not sure where this started, but Bill Bennett has co-authored a book of the same or similar title. Now, I shouldn't grouse since Amherst was one of the 43 colleges and, I think, only one of a dozen private schools to be deemed "worth it." (It's disappointing to me that Bennett would suggest this.) The implication, maybe even it's stronger than an implication, is that a college education is "worth it" only if it leads directly to a job. What a misguided idea!!!!!! Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton on the ability of people to rule themselves, but he had a caveat. People needed to be educated. (When Jefferson was asked what he wanted on his tombstone, his purported reply was that he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, that he wrote the Virginia religious freedom statutes, and that he was the founder of the University of Virginia. Note, he didn't mention being President of the US!) To be "worth it," a college education must be focused primarily on jobs. Again, what a misguided idea!!!!!! What about civic responsibility? What about quality of life? What about the ability to think, to engage in dialogue!?!?!? "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Now, I would agree that many, likely most jobs, do not require a college education. Therefore, if one believes college is merely to "get a job," then it might not be "worth it."
Perhaps I rely too much on my own experiences. They have influenced my life in more ways than I can imagine and I often discover new ways. I've written many times about that, so there's no reason to rehash it. Maybe I've just been very lucky/fortunate in having the college experience I've had. My next question then would be, "Why aren't others getting the same or a similar experience?"
Imagine the IRS targeting groups, then intimidating them by asking questions such as, "About what do you pray?" What business is that of government? Where, BTW, is our US Senator Carl Levin with this? I ask only because some have--quite erroneously--labeled him "the Conscience of the Senate." (As I've written before, Phil Hart must be spinning in his grave!) How about asking anti-abortion groups if they will promise not to demonstrate against Planned Parenthood? (See my previous post about "the low value we place on human lives." C'mon! That some in the Obama administration knew about such actions, but didn't tell him--yeah, I'm going to believe that. Even if I did, my next question would be, "Doesn't this guy have any control over his administration?" Of course, we can wait a few minutes and get a newer version, like the 15 or so that have come out about Benghazi.
Imagine, too, the IRS supervisor who was in charge while all this was going on is now going to run the IRS operations involving ObamaCare--yet another intrusive, unconstitutionl government power-grab. (Usually, I side with the Supremes, even when I disagree, but not this time.)
Not to make light of the multiple tragedies the US has experience over the past month or so, but perhaps it's fortuitous, for the Obama administration, that they occurred when they did. I know, I know, "But Bush lied!"
Equally troubling for me is the current thread going around, "Is college worth it?" "It," of course, is the cost of a college education. I'm not sure where this started, but Bill Bennett has co-authored a book of the same or similar title. Now, I shouldn't grouse since Amherst was one of the 43 colleges and, I think, only one of a dozen private schools to be deemed "worth it." (It's disappointing to me that Bennett would suggest this.) The implication, maybe even it's stronger than an implication, is that a college education is "worth it" only if it leads directly to a job. What a misguided idea!!!!!! Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton on the ability of people to rule themselves, but he had a caveat. People needed to be educated. (When Jefferson was asked what he wanted on his tombstone, his purported reply was that he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, that he wrote the Virginia religious freedom statutes, and that he was the founder of the University of Virginia. Note, he didn't mention being President of the US!) To be "worth it," a college education must be focused primarily on jobs. Again, what a misguided idea!!!!!! What about civic responsibility? What about quality of life? What about the ability to think, to engage in dialogue!?!?!? "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Now, I would agree that many, likely most jobs, do not require a college education. Therefore, if one believes college is merely to "get a job," then it might not be "worth it."
Perhaps I rely too much on my own experiences. They have influenced my life in more ways than I can imagine and I often discover new ways. I've written many times about that, so there's no reason to rehash it. Maybe I've just been very lucky/fortunate in having the college experience I've had. My next question then would be, "Why aren't others getting the same or a similar experience?"
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Punishing for Excellence
I noted the past week that maybe half a dozen MLB batters tried to bunt. Now, this is significant in that I really don't watch the Tigers very often. Some bunters were trying to sacrifice and others were trying to bunt for hits. I thought this was unusual in that I don't see Major League batters bunting very much. (I also see them play deep in the outfield, far too deep in my view. I have always been a believer in playing more shallow. More hits can be taken away by doing that than playing so darn deep. And, many of the balls hit over the outfielders' heads are over the fences anyway. But, perhaps they aren't very good defensively and certainly playing deeper does cover for defensive weaknesses.)
First, I was, as usual not at all surprised at the poor sacrifice bunt technique of MLB players. They, frankly, can't bunt very well. It's a shame because bunting is a useful tool and, when executed properly, fun to watch. It puts pressure on the defense and I wonder, if more teams were threats to bunt, if more batted balls would scoot through the infield with infielders just a couple of steps in.
Second, some of the batters, in fact all of them, who were trying to bunt for hits did it all wrong. Each one was thrown out, if they even got the ball down in fair territory. In large part that was because they had rotten technique. In most instances, they merely used sacrifice bunt techniques.
I guess a logical question is, Don't they practice this? My guess is they don't, at least not very much. If they do, I'll bet their hearts aren't in it. After all, who makes the big bucks, the bunter or the home run hitter? And managers seem to eschew bunting, likely harkening back to the Earl Weaver theory of offense--a couple of three-run homers will win the game.
Back when, we'd practice bunting much more religiously. Our coach would put his hat or a glove down the third base line, oh, maybe 40-50 down, about five feet inside the foul line. We'd aim for it. And, some of us never practiced sacrifice bunts, but bunting for hits. Even in games, sacrifice situations were, for a couple of us, bunt-for-hit situations. (I always thought that was a big, big mistake by MLB scorers, not giving a batter a sacrifice and no time-at-bat and hence not hurting his batting average who moved up a runner when he bunted for a hit instead of using the sacrifice technique. The logic, if it can be called that, is that the batter wasn't giving himself up, not sacrificing himself to move up the runner(s). But the other side of the coin is that these guys, bunting for hits in sacrifice situations, have perfected a more difficult technique. They have convinced their coaches/managers of their skill. So, by doing this--achieving, if not excellence, at least a higher degree of skill, they are punished by being given a time at bat. It seems quite foolish to me.)
OK, I could bunt for a hit pretty darn well. Yep, I could hit my coach's hat or glove more often than not. He once told me, "With my [his] wheels, if could have bunted like you I could have made the majors." Unfortunately, I had "wheels" like, well, me! I have frequently wondered what I might have batted--average-wise--my senior year had I bunted for hits a few more times. I was hitting clean-up and, well, clean-up hitters usually aren't in bunt situations. (Hey, isn't that a sacrifice, too? Nah, I'm kidding.) I didn't have a bunt hit all year, none that I remember, and don't remember even trying.
Bunting, a lost art......
First, I was, as usual not at all surprised at the poor sacrifice bunt technique of MLB players. They, frankly, can't bunt very well. It's a shame because bunting is a useful tool and, when executed properly, fun to watch. It puts pressure on the defense and I wonder, if more teams were threats to bunt, if more batted balls would scoot through the infield with infielders just a couple of steps in.
Second, some of the batters, in fact all of them, who were trying to bunt for hits did it all wrong. Each one was thrown out, if they even got the ball down in fair territory. In large part that was because they had rotten technique. In most instances, they merely used sacrifice bunt techniques.
I guess a logical question is, Don't they practice this? My guess is they don't, at least not very much. If they do, I'll bet their hearts aren't in it. After all, who makes the big bucks, the bunter or the home run hitter? And managers seem to eschew bunting, likely harkening back to the Earl Weaver theory of offense--a couple of three-run homers will win the game.
Back when, we'd practice bunting much more religiously. Our coach would put his hat or a glove down the third base line, oh, maybe 40-50 down, about five feet inside the foul line. We'd aim for it. And, some of us never practiced sacrifice bunts, but bunting for hits. Even in games, sacrifice situations were, for a couple of us, bunt-for-hit situations. (I always thought that was a big, big mistake by MLB scorers, not giving a batter a sacrifice and no time-at-bat and hence not hurting his batting average who moved up a runner when he bunted for a hit instead of using the sacrifice technique. The logic, if it can be called that, is that the batter wasn't giving himself up, not sacrificing himself to move up the runner(s). But the other side of the coin is that these guys, bunting for hits in sacrifice situations, have perfected a more difficult technique. They have convinced their coaches/managers of their skill. So, by doing this--achieving, if not excellence, at least a higher degree of skill, they are punished by being given a time at bat. It seems quite foolish to me.)
OK, I could bunt for a hit pretty darn well. Yep, I could hit my coach's hat or glove more often than not. He once told me, "With my [his] wheels, if could have bunted like you I could have made the majors." Unfortunately, I had "wheels" like, well, me! I have frequently wondered what I might have batted--average-wise--my senior year had I bunted for hits a few more times. I was hitting clean-up and, well, clean-up hitters usually aren't in bunt situations. (Hey, isn't that a sacrifice, too? Nah, I'm kidding.) I didn't have a bunt hit all year, none that I remember, and don't remember even trying.
Bunting, a lost art......
Friday, May 17, 2013
"...the low value we place on human life."
Grant, in a comment he made to one of my posts a couple weeks ago, had this insightful note, "...the low value we place on human life." Yep, he's nailed that one.
Can we pick up a daily newspaper and not see a story about yet another shooting, often resulting in a murder or murders? Imagine the society we've created where so many people think it's fine to pick up a gun and start shooting people?
And the Philadelphia case against the abortionist has highlighted how cavalierly (OK, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh) we kill our babies. I'm not saying that the decision to have an abortion is an easy one; not at all. Yet, far too often killing a baby takes precedence over career, other inconveniences in life, etc.
Perhaps in light of this, I can amend Grant's insight to this, the low value we place on human life of others.
Can we pick up a daily newspaper and not see a story about yet another shooting, often resulting in a murder or murders? Imagine the society we've created where so many people think it's fine to pick up a gun and start shooting people?
And the Philadelphia case against the abortionist has highlighted how cavalierly (OK, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh) we kill our babies. I'm not saying that the decision to have an abortion is an easy one; not at all. Yet, far too often killing a baby takes precedence over career, other inconveniences in life, etc.
Perhaps in light of this, I can amend Grant's insight to this, the low value we place on human life of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
