I see Stevie Wonder has said he won't perform in any state that has a "stand your ground" law. That's fine and it's good to see him get involved. I don't know anything about his other involvement, if any, or his financial activities--I know nothing of his personal life.
But I wonder (no pun intended) if will also refuse to perform in states or cities that have other undesirable (depending on one's views) laws or conditions. For instance, will he refuse to perform in states which continue to encourage fatherless families by providing financial assistance to families abandoned by fathers instead of hunting down the deadbeats? Will he refuse to perform in cities where schools do disservice to students? Will he refuse to perform in cities with corrupt politicians whose actions and greed lead to poorer lives for citizens?
Yep, there's a lot more that can be done. Why stop at "stand your ground?"
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Technology
We've had some computer problems this past week. What is it that is said about technology? "Can't live with it; can't live without it." Or, something like that.
I still dislike much of what technology leads people to do. For instance, I think technology will diminish learning and teaching. Online and virtual courses can't and won't measure up to face-to-face encounters with teachers. And, if education is so much more important and vital than it used to be, why are we watering it down thus? I can't stand seeing everyone, well almost everyone, on cell phones, yakking away at any and every place--grocery stores, restaurants, art fairs, even on lonely trails out in the woods. And, if seems, if they aren't yakking, they are texting. In my car, on my bike, out running, I am frequently endangered by people driving while they are talking on their cell phones or texting. I received an e-mail last week with something I hadn't seen for a while. It was Einstein's lament, "I fear the day when technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots." I'm not convinced he ever said or wrote that (but it's on the Internet!). And I don't completely subscribe to it, but......
Still, technology has it's place and provides comfort and what have become necessities. I know technology has saved lives, with medical advances, more and better information, phone calls, etc. Certainly that's a good thing. Being able to find one's way when lost is a plus. It's said technology has made businesses more efficient, although I wonder how many man-hours are lost while people "play" on their computers instead of working.
It's the loss of "our humanity" that concerns me. Was it Marshall McLuhan who said, "The medium is the message?"
This certainly isn't true in all cases, but consider what happened when doctors became specialists instead of the family doctors/general practitioners of the past. Many of them, the new doctors, lost their abilities to communicate, to empathize with their patients. They may be more skilled and maybe more knowledgeable, but they aren't better with people.
In education, I can't imagine any technology--films, videos, virtual whatevers--coming close to replicating most of the professors I had at Amherst. Also consider the claims made by colleges and universities, made possible by technology, to "earn a four-year degree in a year and a half" or other such claims. That can't be good, can it? Who wants to be treated by a nurse who received four years of training in six months??????
That said, this past week I was lost for a few days without my computer and access to the Internet. Fortunately, the kids had me going, there was the Ann Arbor Art Fair (Whew! It was hot, 95 degrees, with humididity to match!), some appointments, and a lot of yardwork that had gone untended (I finally got my mower running again).
I still dislike much of what technology leads people to do. For instance, I think technology will diminish learning and teaching. Online and virtual courses can't and won't measure up to face-to-face encounters with teachers. And, if education is so much more important and vital than it used to be, why are we watering it down thus? I can't stand seeing everyone, well almost everyone, on cell phones, yakking away at any and every place--grocery stores, restaurants, art fairs, even on lonely trails out in the woods. And, if seems, if they aren't yakking, they are texting. In my car, on my bike, out running, I am frequently endangered by people driving while they are talking on their cell phones or texting. I received an e-mail last week with something I hadn't seen for a while. It was Einstein's lament, "I fear the day when technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots." I'm not convinced he ever said or wrote that (but it's on the Internet!). And I don't completely subscribe to it, but......
Still, technology has it's place and provides comfort and what have become necessities. I know technology has saved lives, with medical advances, more and better information, phone calls, etc. Certainly that's a good thing. Being able to find one's way when lost is a plus. It's said technology has made businesses more efficient, although I wonder how many man-hours are lost while people "play" on their computers instead of working.
It's the loss of "our humanity" that concerns me. Was it Marshall McLuhan who said, "The medium is the message?"
This certainly isn't true in all cases, but consider what happened when doctors became specialists instead of the family doctors/general practitioners of the past. Many of them, the new doctors, lost their abilities to communicate, to empathize with their patients. They may be more skilled and maybe more knowledgeable, but they aren't better with people.
In education, I can't imagine any technology--films, videos, virtual whatevers--coming close to replicating most of the professors I had at Amherst. Also consider the claims made by colleges and universities, made possible by technology, to "earn a four-year degree in a year and a half" or other such claims. That can't be good, can it? Who wants to be treated by a nurse who received four years of training in six months??????
That said, this past week I was lost for a few days without my computer and access to the Internet. Fortunately, the kids had me going, there was the Ann Arbor Art Fair (Whew! It was hot, 95 degrees, with humididity to match!), some appointments, and a lot of yardwork that had gone untended (I finally got my mower running again).
Monday, July 15, 2013
To Consider
There's a reason I don't read the Detroit Free Press, unless necessary. For instance, on Sundays, it's the only game in town (other than The Oakland Press, whose editorial section is quite weak). I often disagreed with former editorial page editor Ron Dzwonkowski. But he was thoughtful and reasoned. One could disagree with him, yet still understand and respect his views.
(And here's a slam at the Detroit News. (I guess I'm an equal opportunity critic?) Always, it is opposing unions. It was one of the biggest supporters of right-to-work. That's fine; the News is entitled to its opinion. But, gee, such collaboration/organization wasn't such a bad thing a couple decades ago with the Joint Operating Agreement--a successful attempt to bypass anti-monopoly laws. That's why the FP is the only game in town on Sunday.)
Something's changed, though. Again, harkening (another great word!) back to the recent FP editorial supporting President Obama's opinion article on climate change, both pieces lack any credibility whatsoever. Anyone who buys into either is, as they say, "drinking the Kool-Aid."
First, "the scientific community speaks with one voice" is a blatant dishonesty. No, it doesn't. In fact, some who at one time supported "global warming" fears have since rescinded their views. There's a reason "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change." And that's because the scientific evidence doesn't support the "warming" fears or, at least, the man-made warming.
For another thing, the FP states, "Obama's willingness to circumnavigate Congress is a regrettable necessity." Oh, really? So, what other parts of the Constitution can be "willingly circumnavigated" as "regrettable necessities?" How about the First Amendment, specifically the clause dealing with freedom of the press? When newspapers print as "facts" things that aren't true (see above), perhaps they should lose their freedom? No, I don't believe that, but apparently the FP does when it applies to others.
"Not gonna happen?" Hmmm...... Tell that to the groups targeted by the IRS, NSA, Justice and Homeland Security departments. Align that with Valerie Jarrett's infamous, "We won the election and we're coming after our opponents" comments.
It's a political, more than an environmental, issue. The administration's environmental policies are tied with the, so far, failed renewable energy sources. Note the billions of our tax dollars that have been wasted on solar and wind energy programs. Yet, the arrogant elitists in DC know more than we do. Besides, it's not their money. Their money goes for parties, trips, golfing, big mansions, etc. BTW, I can't believe that the departing Homeland Security Secretary, as inept as she proved to be there, is getting a job that pays her about three times as much. And what is particularly grating is that her job is in education and I've written much about how too many people in education who make decisions shouldn't be allowed to make decisions. The beat goes on......
And how naive can Obama be?!?!?! The US has drastically cut its carbon emissions over the past dozen or more years. Yet, where are the most emissions/pollution now originating? China, India, and other burgeoning industrial nations. Gee, do you think they'll switch over to wind and sun power because Obama thinks they should? After all, he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (OK, I'm being facetious.) Yeah, right...I'm pretty sure they mock him, laugh at him.
The folks at the FP must also be naive. They still, after all the erroneous information and outright lies coming out of the Obama administration, take everything he says as the Gospel truth.
As I've written before, it's a very dangerous precedent to accept "the ends justify the means." Once it has been set, where's the limit?
(And here's a slam at the Detroit News. (I guess I'm an equal opportunity critic?) Always, it is opposing unions. It was one of the biggest supporters of right-to-work. That's fine; the News is entitled to its opinion. But, gee, such collaboration/organization wasn't such a bad thing a couple decades ago with the Joint Operating Agreement--a successful attempt to bypass anti-monopoly laws. That's why the FP is the only game in town on Sunday.)
Something's changed, though. Again, harkening (another great word!) back to the recent FP editorial supporting President Obama's opinion article on climate change, both pieces lack any credibility whatsoever. Anyone who buys into either is, as they say, "drinking the Kool-Aid."
First, "the scientific community speaks with one voice" is a blatant dishonesty. No, it doesn't. In fact, some who at one time supported "global warming" fears have since rescinded their views. There's a reason "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change." And that's because the scientific evidence doesn't support the "warming" fears or, at least, the man-made warming.
For another thing, the FP states, "Obama's willingness to circumnavigate Congress is a regrettable necessity." Oh, really? So, what other parts of the Constitution can be "willingly circumnavigated" as "regrettable necessities?" How about the First Amendment, specifically the clause dealing with freedom of the press? When newspapers print as "facts" things that aren't true (see above), perhaps they should lose their freedom? No, I don't believe that, but apparently the FP does when it applies to others.
"Not gonna happen?" Hmmm...... Tell that to the groups targeted by the IRS, NSA, Justice and Homeland Security departments. Align that with Valerie Jarrett's infamous, "We won the election and we're coming after our opponents" comments.
It's a political, more than an environmental, issue. The administration's environmental policies are tied with the, so far, failed renewable energy sources. Note the billions of our tax dollars that have been wasted on solar and wind energy programs. Yet, the arrogant elitists in DC know more than we do. Besides, it's not their money. Their money goes for parties, trips, golfing, big mansions, etc. BTW, I can't believe that the departing Homeland Security Secretary, as inept as she proved to be there, is getting a job that pays her about three times as much. And what is particularly grating is that her job is in education and I've written much about how too many people in education who make decisions shouldn't be allowed to make decisions. The beat goes on......
And how naive can Obama be?!?!?! The US has drastically cut its carbon emissions over the past dozen or more years. Yet, where are the most emissions/pollution now originating? China, India, and other burgeoning industrial nations. Gee, do you think they'll switch over to wind and sun power because Obama thinks they should? After all, he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (OK, I'm being facetious.) Yeah, right...I'm pretty sure they mock him, laugh at him.
The folks at the FP must also be naive. They still, after all the erroneous information and outright lies coming out of the Obama administration, take everything he says as the Gospel truth.
As I've written before, it's a very dangerous precedent to accept "the ends justify the means." Once it has been set, where's the limit?
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Bean Balls
I'm not a fan of the NBA, for a variety of reasons. One, from years back, was the favored treatment given the superstars. Such favoritism--no fouls called on them, touch fouls called against them, no traveling or other violations, etc.--was blatant. I don't watch now, but assume its the same now. I understand, in a sense. Fans come to see the stars--they need to be able to do their things, avoid fouling out, etc. But I guess I say, if these guys are genuine superstars, then they should be able to play without fouling out, with other players guarding them properly, without taking extra steps, etc. But I see what the NBA is trying to do.
I don't know for certain, but from what I've read and what some folks have told me, other teams seem to be throwing at Tiger batters, at least brushing them back. Apparently a big brouhaha broke out the other day and, if the Det News Tiger beat writer was right, the umpires were wrong in that brush-back incident. But I guess there's another angle, one that smacks of what I don't like about the NBA. Perhaps MLB needs to "protect" its superstars, not by giving them extra breaks, but coming down hard with penalties for throwing at batters. I think it's sometimes a touchy thing, determining if a pitcher is deliberately throwing at a hitter. But......
I have tickets for several games coming up, planning on taking Matt and Bopper to some games. I will enjoy the time with them. But, if, say, Miguel Cabrera is hit with a pitch and is injured, forced to miss one of the games I attend, I won't be happy, not at all. (Bopper is watching the Tigers now and two of them hit back-to-back HRs, but Cabrera's lineout to CF was hit harder than either HR!) I go to the games, other than to be with my son and grandson, to see Cabrera hit. If he's not in the line-up, I am very disappointed. Pitches close to Miggy' head need to be addressed.
I don't know for certain, but from what I've read and what some folks have told me, other teams seem to be throwing at Tiger batters, at least brushing them back. Apparently a big brouhaha broke out the other day and, if the Det News Tiger beat writer was right, the umpires were wrong in that brush-back incident. But I guess there's another angle, one that smacks of what I don't like about the NBA. Perhaps MLB needs to "protect" its superstars, not by giving them extra breaks, but coming down hard with penalties for throwing at batters. I think it's sometimes a touchy thing, determining if a pitcher is deliberately throwing at a hitter. But......
I have tickets for several games coming up, planning on taking Matt and Bopper to some games. I will enjoy the time with them. But, if, say, Miguel Cabrera is hit with a pitch and is injured, forced to miss one of the games I attend, I won't be happy, not at all. (Bopper is watching the Tigers now and two of them hit back-to-back HRs, but Cabrera's lineout to CF was hit harder than either HR!) I go to the games, other than to be with my son and grandson, to see Cabrera hit. If he's not in the line-up, I am very disappointed. Pitches close to Miggy' head need to be addressed.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Neopolitan
Janet Napolitano is leaving Homeland Security. She's taking a job as head of the University of California system, a pay increase of triple. Several thoughts......
Is this another instance of the rats jumping the sinking ship? Several US Senators and Congressmen have already decided not to run for re-election. Hillary Clinton bailed out, after her incredibly stupid comment, "What difference does it make?" in reference to the Benghazi deaths. Who's next?
Napolitano headed an incredibly inept Homeland Security Dept. She showed why people questioned her qualifications for the job. In fact, she demonstrated why she should never have been appointed in the first place--or any place.
Let's see, the scandals are mounting. How many lie at her feet? Get out while the gettin's good?
Great...... Another instance where "anybody can do education." What experience does Napolitano have in the schools, in education--any at all? Well, she presumably went to school, so she must know all there is to know about education, right? Isn't that the prevailing attitude among the public at large, not to mention our politicians and businessmen: anyone can teach?
How typical of our system! Do a lousy job, demonstrate dishonesty or incompetence, and then get rewarded with a job that pays even more, a job coming from taxpayers' monies at that! Ah, what a country!
I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Is this another instance of the rats jumping the sinking ship? Several US Senators and Congressmen have already decided not to run for re-election. Hillary Clinton bailed out, after her incredibly stupid comment, "What difference does it make?" in reference to the Benghazi deaths. Who's next?
Napolitano headed an incredibly inept Homeland Security Dept. She showed why people questioned her qualifications for the job. In fact, she demonstrated why she should never have been appointed in the first place--or any place.
Let's see, the scandals are mounting. How many lie at her feet? Get out while the gettin's good?
Great...... Another instance where "anybody can do education." What experience does Napolitano have in the schools, in education--any at all? Well, she presumably went to school, so she must know all there is to know about education, right? Isn't that the prevailing attitude among the public at large, not to mention our politicians and businessmen: anyone can teach?
How typical of our system! Do a lousy job, demonstrate dishonesty or incompetence, and then get rewarded with a job that pays even more, a job coming from taxpayers' monies at that! Ah, what a country!
I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Now what?
Gasoline prices are up again--more than 30 cents in the past week in our area. What's the deal this time? The most recent increase a few weeks ago was some refinery problems in Ohio or Indiana or somewhere. Now the story is instability in the Middle East. Huh? When in the past half century has there been stability in the Middle East? Didn't the Temptations sing about that more than 40 years ago? So, now, the excuse is instability in the Mideast?????? Yeah, right......
I would prefer the oil companies just admit that they want to make more money. I wouldn't begrudge them that, well, at least not as much. I can't stand the lying--like my former employer/school district always lying about finances at bargaining time. Does that make Big Oil greedy? Maybe. But what does that make the little league concession stand that buys 24 bottles of GatorAde or Powerade for $5 (about 20 cents a bottle) and then sell it for $1.50? What does it make the tree trimming company that gave us an $800 estimate that another company did (and did just fine) for $150? What does that make Wendy's when it increased the price of one of its 99-cent burgs to $1.69? What does it make the guy who has three cars (all high-end) with only two drivers in the house, a pool with a deck that has more square footage than my house, takes more than half a dozen vacations each year, drinks $20 bottles of wine without a second thought, etc.? "Greed." It's all relative.
I don't know if that Zimmerman guy (I don't recall his first name) is guilty or not, if he deserves punishment, etc. That Trayvon guy (I don't know his first name either) didn't deserve to die. It shouldn't have happened. But what is the federal government doing messing around in that case? News is out that the Justice Dept spent money to organize and promote anti-Zimmerman rallies. Wait! Don't we believe in due process in this country? Don't we believe in fairness? What kind of fair trial is this guy going to get?
I would prefer the oil companies just admit that they want to make more money. I wouldn't begrudge them that, well, at least not as much. I can't stand the lying--like my former employer/school district always lying about finances at bargaining time. Does that make Big Oil greedy? Maybe. But what does that make the little league concession stand that buys 24 bottles of GatorAde or Powerade for $5 (about 20 cents a bottle) and then sell it for $1.50? What does it make the tree trimming company that gave us an $800 estimate that another company did (and did just fine) for $150? What does that make Wendy's when it increased the price of one of its 99-cent burgs to $1.69? What does it make the guy who has three cars (all high-end) with only two drivers in the house, a pool with a deck that has more square footage than my house, takes more than half a dozen vacations each year, drinks $20 bottles of wine without a second thought, etc.? "Greed." It's all relative.
I don't know if that Zimmerman guy (I don't recall his first name) is guilty or not, if he deserves punishment, etc. That Trayvon guy (I don't know his first name either) didn't deserve to die. It shouldn't have happened. But what is the federal government doing messing around in that case? News is out that the Justice Dept spent money to organize and promote anti-Zimmerman rallies. Wait! Don't we believe in due process in this country? Don't we believe in fairness? What kind of fair trial is this guy going to get?
Words
I love words! No, I don't read dictionaries for fun, although I might try it. Some words just sound great, almost rolling off the tongue. They are musical. Others have meanings so precise that they can't be replaced.
I subscribe to "Word of the Day," from www.dictionary.com. Daily, then, I receive a new word. Some are not particularly interesting. Others seem made-up, not real words. But most are really cool. I even try to use them in my writing and speaking, everyday conversations, too. I share many words with Karen and Carrie, a first-grade teacher. Some she shares with her students, as I intend, although many of the words are beyond them. When I use the words in everyday conversations with them, usually they just shake their heads. But some, such as "sycophant," have become buzzwords for us, always bringing smiles to our faces.
Now, some words have become so trite, so overused or used in the wrong sense, that, at least to me, have become meaningless. At least, I no longer use them. "Absolutely" is one of them. "Bizarre" is another. Can any word have acquired less meaning that "totally?" And I'm not fond of "boring," either. Most people just toss it out, not really meaning "boring," but something else, such as "not liking," "time-consuming," etc. For the most part, I don't say these words and I certainly don't write with them.
But there are lots of cool words out there. People don't use them and, I suppose, using them might seem a bit affectatious. Now there's a cool word, "affectatious." So are "sycophant, " "debacle," "sisyphean," and "solypcism." Add in "abstemious," which has the added feature of all the vowels in proper order.
Words......
I subscribe to "Word of the Day," from www.dictionary.com. Daily, then, I receive a new word. Some are not particularly interesting. Others seem made-up, not real words. But most are really cool. I even try to use them in my writing and speaking, everyday conversations, too. I share many words with Karen and Carrie, a first-grade teacher. Some she shares with her students, as I intend, although many of the words are beyond them. When I use the words in everyday conversations with them, usually they just shake their heads. But some, such as "sycophant," have become buzzwords for us, always bringing smiles to our faces.
Now, some words have become so trite, so overused or used in the wrong sense, that, at least to me, have become meaningless. At least, I no longer use them. "Absolutely" is one of them. "Bizarre" is another. Can any word have acquired less meaning that "totally?" And I'm not fond of "boring," either. Most people just toss it out, not really meaning "boring," but something else, such as "not liking," "time-consuming," etc. For the most part, I don't say these words and I certainly don't write with them.
But there are lots of cool words out there. People don't use them and, I suppose, using them might seem a bit affectatious. Now there's a cool word, "affectatious." So are "sycophant, " "debacle," "sisyphean," and "solypcism." Add in "abstemious," which has the added feature of all the vowels in proper order.
Words......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
