Only one round of snow shoveling today, after four of them yesterday. About 4 to 5 inches from last night, early this AM. All tolled, the accumulation was probably close to 15". My neighbor, who was pretty much out there when I was, thought that was about right, too. "Oh, easily that...." Now, the deep freeze has moved in, dropping from 29 degrees yesterday afternoon to 5 degrees. Apparently, the low tonight will be 11 or 12 below zero and I believe it. The wind is whipping up, quite blustery at times.
My neighbor and I also did some of the elderly couple's driveway and esp the street in front of it and their mailbox. Bopper was with me until I sent him in to avoid any frostbite--teenagers don't want to appear to be whimps/wimps by wearing hats, gloves, etc. I did much of the street in front--it doesn't make much sense to clear out the driveway if we can't get out of the street. I feel surprisingly good today--not sore nor tired. Maybe I have a few years left in me after all......
The Det Free Press had a surprisingly good editorial yesterday. I normally find them lacking in logic or, at least, quite hypocritical. This one, by Stephen Henderson, was very worthwhile. He took the current governor of Michigan to task for dishonesty, in fact, using the word "liar" more than once. And, Henderson provided examples.
I know Rick Snyder has polarized many Michigan voters. Staunch Republicans and diehard Democrats see him in quite different terms. That seems to be the status quo for American politics right now; so be it.
But perhaps there's yet another angle, one that looks not necessarily at programs, policies, and achievements (good or bad), but at actions. That is, as Henderson notes, let's look at principles. "Snyder is no more trustworthy than any other politician I've dealt with. Given the hordes of political liars prowling this city--and this state--that's quite a distinction." Yes, it is and is something voters should strongly consider as they complain about politics, government, etc.
Republicans might not like this, but given all their criticism of the tactics of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other Democrats in Washington, they should certainly entertain another look at Snyder. Republicans claim dishonesty, deviousness, lies, etc. were all involved in passing ObamaCare and other planks of the Obama platform. Yes, they certainly were and deserve our scorn and disdain. Yet, they should, unless filled with hypocrisy, take a good long look at what the Snyder administration and his Republican cohorts in the state legislature have done. Just a few examples involve the right-to-work legislation, transparency (Henderson rightly calls this "laughable'), campaign contribution disclosures including the NERD slush fund, and the EAA. As Henderson notes, "If Snyder so willingly trashes ideals he claimed for himself, he simply can't be trusted." Indeed!
Here's another thing to ponder, from the editorial, "It's the rare politician who says what he means and does what he says. So only the uninitiated [the naive?]are shocked when a public official takes naturally to equivocation or tortured semantic gymnastics to go back on promises made." Isn't it pathetic that this can't really be debated?
Monday, January 6, 2014
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Round Two
Round two came a bit sooner than I anticipated. I figured it would be closer to 5 PM, but opted to go out at 2:00. Good option. We had another 2 1/2", according to Bopper's measurement. My neighbor, who I helped when done with ours, said "about 3"." So far, somewhere around 7" or so, maybe a bit more.
Yep, the Bopp helped, a bit. I had him do the close work, such as the walkway, between the car and lawn, etc. Ash, well, she was content to dig in a big pile. I may have talked her into making a bigger pile (I'm counting on at least two more rounds.) so we can build an igloo. She's all excited.
Round three not far off......
Yep, the Bopp helped, a bit. I had him do the close work, such as the walkway, between the car and lawn, etc. Ash, well, she was content to dig in a big pile. I may have talked her into making a bigger pile (I'm counting on at least two more rounds.) so we can build an igloo. She's all excited.
Round three not far off......
Round One
Those who enjoy shoveling snow will love today!
When is "one to three inches" not "one to three inches?" When the weatherman forecasts it. "One to three inches" this AM was far closer to five inches of snow. Now, what to believe? The forecast is now calling for a total accumulation (until 1 or 2 AM Mon) of up to 14 inches.
I was running this AM, not on a major street, but not a back road or subdivision street. It wasn't too bad. A guy in a pick-up slowed, rolled down his window, and said, "It isn't too smart to be walking in this stuff!" First, I thought, "'Walking?' Am I that slow?" Then, I chuckled. "How much smarter is it to be driving in it?" as the truck slipped and slid down the road.
I helped push two cars out of snow piles this AM, adding to my workout. Neither was stuck too badly.
I opened the garage to shovel the "one to three inches" (not) and one of my neighbors did the neighborly thing and brought over his snowblower. He did about half of the drive, not quite half, before I could stop him and say, "I can to the rest." It's not that I don't appreciate the thought. I enjoy shoveling and it was still light enough to push around. It's outside; it's exercise; and (without snowblowers to disrupt the peace and quiet) it's peaceful and quite--very pretty. I imagine I'll get another two or three rounds in before all is said and done. Bopper will be here soon and he'll help. I'll try to get Ash and the Codester out there, too, although the Code has a habit of taking the snow from the grass/lawn/yard and throwing it on the driveway. Ah, I can't get mad at the guy, though.
I finished about two hours ago, but it looks like another couple of inches have fallen. I don't want to wait too long, when the depth is a bit too much for me (us) to handle.
Now, if the weather guys can be wrong about the predicted string of three-day cold temperatures--lows dipping to 11 or 12 below and highs reaching zero, maybe. I guess that means no birthday dinner for me?
When is "one to three inches" not "one to three inches?" When the weatherman forecasts it. "One to three inches" this AM was far closer to five inches of snow. Now, what to believe? The forecast is now calling for a total accumulation (until 1 or 2 AM Mon) of up to 14 inches.
I was running this AM, not on a major street, but not a back road or subdivision street. It wasn't too bad. A guy in a pick-up slowed, rolled down his window, and said, "It isn't too smart to be walking in this stuff!" First, I thought, "'Walking?' Am I that slow?" Then, I chuckled. "How much smarter is it to be driving in it?" as the truck slipped and slid down the road.
I helped push two cars out of snow piles this AM, adding to my workout. Neither was stuck too badly.
I opened the garage to shovel the "one to three inches" (not) and one of my neighbors did the neighborly thing and brought over his snowblower. He did about half of the drive, not quite half, before I could stop him and say, "I can to the rest." It's not that I don't appreciate the thought. I enjoy shoveling and it was still light enough to push around. It's outside; it's exercise; and (without snowblowers to disrupt the peace and quiet) it's peaceful and quite--very pretty. I imagine I'll get another two or three rounds in before all is said and done. Bopper will be here soon and he'll help. I'll try to get Ash and the Codester out there, too, although the Code has a habit of taking the snow from the grass/lawn/yard and throwing it on the driveway. Ah, I can't get mad at the guy, though.
I finished about two hours ago, but it looks like another couple of inches have fallen. I don't want to wait too long, when the depth is a bit too much for me (us) to handle.
Now, if the weather guys can be wrong about the predicted string of three-day cold temperatures--lows dipping to 11 or 12 below and highs reaching zero, maybe. I guess that means no birthday dinner for me?
Saturday, January 4, 2014
2014
Happy New Year! I hope 2014 is happy, prosperous, and, especially, healthy for all.
I was greeted this new year by one of my favorite quotations from one of the most quotable people in history, Winston Churchill. (He's also provided us with numerous stories worth recounting again and again.)
George Will (I know, he's a conservative, so he's a bigot and a racist....) cited this Churchillian gem: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Alexander Hamilton, I'm sure, would agree with that one.
Yes, voters are ignorant, as Will notes. Only 42% of them can identify the three branches of government. (How do they get out of high school?) Fewer can name their own US Senators and Congressmen/women. I've noted, not all in jest, that more people are concerned with voting for American Idol or Dancing with the Stars than with the people who run our government.
Of course, this is frightening, that voters so ignorant choose who will determine how the rest of us (I'm assuming "us" are informed) have to live. That's not a gross overstatement, is it? Incandescent light bulbs, flush toilets, television sets, fast foods, large sodas, and more have been legislated on the federal or local levels to take personal choice out of our hands. Federally-mandated gasohol (less efficient than gasoline) has driven up the price not only of corn, but all products produced or including corn. (My grandson said he learned in school "That's everything, Grandpa.") How far behind are the mandates about electric cars? The feds already subsidize their purchase. I haven't even mentioned yet taxes and taxes and taxes, the mentality that "More taxes will solve everything" (credit to The Temptations). Yes, in far greater proportion than ever before in US history, government tells us how we must live.
Now, let me defend, in part, American voters. First, government is far too big. It is too removed from the imaginations of the people. Who can fathom billions and even trillions of dollars? Laws are now, not hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of pages long. The legislators don't even read them. When government was more local, Americans could more readily see the results/consequences of their votes, that is, of their elected politicians. Second, lying by politicians has almost become a requisite quality for election. It's not called "lying," but "misspeaking" and other euphemisms to mask the dishonesty. And, because we are so far removed from these liars, the euphemisms are more readily accepted. How are even informed voters supposed to cast an intelligent vote when candidates lie and lie and lie? I'm talking about members of both parties. They lied about ObamaCare. They lied about incandescent light bulbs. The list seems almost endless. And, the problem of dishonesty (or at least disingenuity) is so prevalent that voters throw up their hands and say, "What's the use? They all lie." Third, much of what we must do as federally-mandated, comes from unelected bureaucrats. These pencil-pushers have often been given a free hand by the election officials, spawning a growing regulatory nation. If the bureaucrats are not accountable to the electorate, then what's the use of being an informed electorate?
I also read an op-ed article by one who purports to be a lawyer (maybe he wasn't required to take any courses in Constitutional law?) chiming in on that Duck guy's issue. (I've never seen the show and have no intention of seeing it.) This supposed lawyer quotes from the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law...." Then he goes on to say that "if A & E or any other business suspends, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee" because of his/her speech, "that is an obvious violation of the First Amendment." He rightly then asks the obvious question, "Why?" But then he gives the wrong answer. It's not a "violation of the First Amendment" and he answers why, but doesn't know it. "...if A & e or any other business...." The First Amendment is pretty clear when it opens with "Congress shall make no law...." Even the Supremes had to wait until the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person....") to expand freedom of speech guarantees against state intrusions--and that took 57 years! There is no violation--legally or Constitutionally--by a private company/employer/person if the 1st Amendment's own words are taken to mean what they actually read. Law school must not be what it used to be.
BTW, speaking of lawyers, what's with the newly-elected mayor of NYC asking Bill Clinton to due the swearing-in ceremony? Wasn't Clinton disbarred? Hasn't Clinton shown again and again that an oath means nothing to him? Yet more evidence of the dumbing down of America and I'm not talking about education.
Perhaps there is a difference, but I don't see it. Someone recently brought up that a number of states have laws that supersede living wills/trust. That is, if a pregnant woman is on life support, being kept alive only by machines, her desire, as expressed in the living will/trust, is not followed. The argument is that allowing the woman to die, after removal from the machines, would also kill the fetus. Yep, I understand and favor saving/not killing the baby. That's what some folks call a no-brainer, at least to me. Don't kill the baby! OK, now, how is that different from an abortion? Many of the same people who agree with the above law also favor abortions. I don't understand. Unless botched, the abortion will keep the mother alive, but will kill the fetus/baby. What's the difference? If "a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes," (And we don't hold that to be a universal truth; note bans on drug use, prostitution, etc.) why can't she also decide she doesn't want to be kept alive on life support/machines? Is it because if she's allowed to die, the baby also dies? But if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, doesn't the baby die? There must be some nuance I don't quite comprehend.
I was greeted this new year by one of my favorite quotations from one of the most quotable people in history, Winston Churchill. (He's also provided us with numerous stories worth recounting again and again.)
George Will (I know, he's a conservative, so he's a bigot and a racist....) cited this Churchillian gem: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Alexander Hamilton, I'm sure, would agree with that one.
Yes, voters are ignorant, as Will notes. Only 42% of them can identify the three branches of government. (How do they get out of high school?) Fewer can name their own US Senators and Congressmen/women. I've noted, not all in jest, that more people are concerned with voting for American Idol or Dancing with the Stars than with the people who run our government.
Of course, this is frightening, that voters so ignorant choose who will determine how the rest of us (I'm assuming "us" are informed) have to live. That's not a gross overstatement, is it? Incandescent light bulbs, flush toilets, television sets, fast foods, large sodas, and more have been legislated on the federal or local levels to take personal choice out of our hands. Federally-mandated gasohol (less efficient than gasoline) has driven up the price not only of corn, but all products produced or including corn. (My grandson said he learned in school "That's everything, Grandpa.") How far behind are the mandates about electric cars? The feds already subsidize their purchase. I haven't even mentioned yet taxes and taxes and taxes, the mentality that "More taxes will solve everything" (credit to The Temptations). Yes, in far greater proportion than ever before in US history, government tells us how we must live.
Now, let me defend, in part, American voters. First, government is far too big. It is too removed from the imaginations of the people. Who can fathom billions and even trillions of dollars? Laws are now, not hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of pages long. The legislators don't even read them. When government was more local, Americans could more readily see the results/consequences of their votes, that is, of their elected politicians. Second, lying by politicians has almost become a requisite quality for election. It's not called "lying," but "misspeaking" and other euphemisms to mask the dishonesty. And, because we are so far removed from these liars, the euphemisms are more readily accepted. How are even informed voters supposed to cast an intelligent vote when candidates lie and lie and lie? I'm talking about members of both parties. They lied about ObamaCare. They lied about incandescent light bulbs. The list seems almost endless. And, the problem of dishonesty (or at least disingenuity) is so prevalent that voters throw up their hands and say, "What's the use? They all lie." Third, much of what we must do as federally-mandated, comes from unelected bureaucrats. These pencil-pushers have often been given a free hand by the election officials, spawning a growing regulatory nation. If the bureaucrats are not accountable to the electorate, then what's the use of being an informed electorate?
I also read an op-ed article by one who purports to be a lawyer (maybe he wasn't required to take any courses in Constitutional law?) chiming in on that Duck guy's issue. (I've never seen the show and have no intention of seeing it.) This supposed lawyer quotes from the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law...." Then he goes on to say that "if A & E or any other business suspends, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee" because of his/her speech, "that is an obvious violation of the First Amendment." He rightly then asks the obvious question, "Why?" But then he gives the wrong answer. It's not a "violation of the First Amendment" and he answers why, but doesn't know it. "...if A & e or any other business...." The First Amendment is pretty clear when it opens with "Congress shall make no law...." Even the Supremes had to wait until the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person....") to expand freedom of speech guarantees against state intrusions--and that took 57 years! There is no violation--legally or Constitutionally--by a private company/employer/person if the 1st Amendment's own words are taken to mean what they actually read. Law school must not be what it used to be.
BTW, speaking of lawyers, what's with the newly-elected mayor of NYC asking Bill Clinton to due the swearing-in ceremony? Wasn't Clinton disbarred? Hasn't Clinton shown again and again that an oath means nothing to him? Yet more evidence of the dumbing down of America and I'm not talking about education.
Perhaps there is a difference, but I don't see it. Someone recently brought up that a number of states have laws that supersede living wills/trust. That is, if a pregnant woman is on life support, being kept alive only by machines, her desire, as expressed in the living will/trust, is not followed. The argument is that allowing the woman to die, after removal from the machines, would also kill the fetus. Yep, I understand and favor saving/not killing the baby. That's what some folks call a no-brainer, at least to me. Don't kill the baby! OK, now, how is that different from an abortion? Many of the same people who agree with the above law also favor abortions. I don't understand. Unless botched, the abortion will keep the mother alive, but will kill the fetus/baby. What's the difference? If "a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes," (And we don't hold that to be a universal truth; note bans on drug use, prostitution, etc.) why can't she also decide she doesn't want to be kept alive on life support/machines? Is it because if she's allowed to die, the baby also dies? But if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, doesn't the baby die? There must be some nuance I don't quite comprehend.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
College Bowl Season
There are 35 college football bowls involving 70 (35 bowls times 2 teams per bowl; I used my calculator) Division 1 teams. According to a newspaper article I read today, only "8 or 10" teams will make money from their bowl games. In fact, a good number will lose millions of dollars. Hmmm......
So, who's raking in all that money? Why do teams--maybe 85% of more of them--play bowl games if it costs them big bucks?
No doubt, coaches will laud the extra practice time, four weeks or more, and the national exposure for their programs (not to mention any bowl-appearance bonus clauses in their contracts?). Some will note the reward for players, a "reward" for mediocrity in most instances. If there are 119 Division 1 teams, almost 60% of them go to bowls (I kept my calculator handy.). What kind of "excellence" is that?
No, I haven't seen any of the bowl games yet, although I know some have been played. And, as of now, I have no plans to watch any, although Michigan State might draw my attention on New Year's Day after the New Year's Eve gala. In fact, I chuckled to myself as I read the newspaper article. It mentioned "the national championship game." I don't know which bowl is hosting "the national championship game" and I can't remember which two teams are playing in it, if I ever knew.
Regarding professional football and the Detroit Lions, Karen was out shopping last Sunday afternoon, but had been listening to the game on her car radio. I wasn't watching here. She came in and put on the game, toward the end with the Lions winning, but not for long. She made a comment that the opposing team (I don't remember who it was) "shouldn't worry." And, she was right. The Lions lost in OT. But, to me, that's neither here nor there. I don't think I've watched any of the Lions' games in their entirety all season and maybe only parts of half a dozen of them. (I did watch much of the Philadelphia game only because Matt called from Las Vegas to tell me to put on the game--because of the snow storm. That was fun to watch!) My point is different. Karen and I attended four parties or large gatherings this Chris week or so, since last Sun. There were no, absolutely (and hasn't that become an overused word, bordering triteness?) none, conversations regarding the Lions--none good, none bad, none neutral. I find that interesting, more so than the games.
My Comcast home page had an article about the 48 "celebrities" who died in '13. On a lark, I went to it and counted up the names I knew or marginally recognized. I came up with 19! And, if I thought the name was familiar, I counted it. I wonder if I'm that far "out of it" or if we have dumbed down our definition of "celebrity." I don't discount either.
And, I'm just wondering, if President Obama can ignore enforcement (which is his Constitutional duty, with an oath taken to uphold that duty) of certain parts of "established law" (his words), can some future President ignore an entire law completely? And, in that same vein, can law enforcement officials/officers, if they don't like legislation, refuse to enforce it? I am reminded of two Presidents, one usually lauded by historians and the other given so-so marks, although usually with the proviso of being "a nice guy." When Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supremes made a ruling that Andrew Jackson didn't like, his comment was, "John Marshall has made his opinion. Now let's see him enforce it." When the Earl Warren Court handed down a decision that Dwight Eisenhower disapproved, he announced his disapproval, but also that it was the law of the land and he had a duty to enforce it, which he did. (Historians rank Jackson in the top half dozen or so and Eisenhower barely in the upper half of the pack. I disagree.) Regardless, such a practice, to selectively enforce or not enforce, sets a bad precedent.
Back to my biog of Frederick the Great, who, so far (more than a quarter of the way into the book--154 pages) is anything but "great."
So, who's raking in all that money? Why do teams--maybe 85% of more of them--play bowl games if it costs them big bucks?
No doubt, coaches will laud the extra practice time, four weeks or more, and the national exposure for their programs (not to mention any bowl-appearance bonus clauses in their contracts?). Some will note the reward for players, a "reward" for mediocrity in most instances. If there are 119 Division 1 teams, almost 60% of them go to bowls (I kept my calculator handy.). What kind of "excellence" is that?
No, I haven't seen any of the bowl games yet, although I know some have been played. And, as of now, I have no plans to watch any, although Michigan State might draw my attention on New Year's Day after the New Year's Eve gala. In fact, I chuckled to myself as I read the newspaper article. It mentioned "the national championship game." I don't know which bowl is hosting "the national championship game" and I can't remember which two teams are playing in it, if I ever knew.
Regarding professional football and the Detroit Lions, Karen was out shopping last Sunday afternoon, but had been listening to the game on her car radio. I wasn't watching here. She came in and put on the game, toward the end with the Lions winning, but not for long. She made a comment that the opposing team (I don't remember who it was) "shouldn't worry." And, she was right. The Lions lost in OT. But, to me, that's neither here nor there. I don't think I've watched any of the Lions' games in their entirety all season and maybe only parts of half a dozen of them. (I did watch much of the Philadelphia game only because Matt called from Las Vegas to tell me to put on the game--because of the snow storm. That was fun to watch!) My point is different. Karen and I attended four parties or large gatherings this Chris week or so, since last Sun. There were no, absolutely (and hasn't that become an overused word, bordering triteness?) none, conversations regarding the Lions--none good, none bad, none neutral. I find that interesting, more so than the games.
My Comcast home page had an article about the 48 "celebrities" who died in '13. On a lark, I went to it and counted up the names I knew or marginally recognized. I came up with 19! And, if I thought the name was familiar, I counted it. I wonder if I'm that far "out of it" or if we have dumbed down our definition of "celebrity." I don't discount either.
And, I'm just wondering, if President Obama can ignore enforcement (which is his Constitutional duty, with an oath taken to uphold that duty) of certain parts of "established law" (his words), can some future President ignore an entire law completely? And, in that same vein, can law enforcement officials/officers, if they don't like legislation, refuse to enforce it? I am reminded of two Presidents, one usually lauded by historians and the other given so-so marks, although usually with the proviso of being "a nice guy." When Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supremes made a ruling that Andrew Jackson didn't like, his comment was, "John Marshall has made his opinion. Now let's see him enforce it." When the Earl Warren Court handed down a decision that Dwight Eisenhower disapproved, he announced his disapproval, but also that it was the law of the land and he had a duty to enforce it, which he did. (Historians rank Jackson in the top half dozen or so and Eisenhower barely in the upper half of the pack. I disagree.) Regardless, such a practice, to selectively enforce or not enforce, sets a bad precedent.
Back to my biog of Frederick the Great, who, so far (more than a quarter of the way into the book--154 pages) is anything but "great."
Monday, December 23, 2013
Getting it right
The other day there was a letter-to-the-editor in a local newspaper that took a union leader (MEA?) to task for presenting an issue in contrast to the facts. The letter-writer pointed out the inaccuracies, factual not philosophical or political. That's fine; the truth is good.
Today the newspaper decided to turn the other cheek and allow a column by one attacking teachers' unions. They, that is, the unions should be held accountable for the low performances on international test scores by US students. Nobody has been as critical of many of today's teachers as I. There needs to be improvement in that area if education is to improve. And, I had my share of disagreements with both the local and state teachers' unions when I was a member here. But to accuse teachers' unions for the poor performances of US students on international tests is simplistic to the point of the ridiculous.
Of course, as has become de rigeur, critics always point to greater US spending on education and lower test scores, implying that teachers are overpaid--and many of them are, while many are vastly underpaid. What a silly argument, from this guy and from anyone who makes it. US automakers make more money than their foreign counterparts. US doctors and lawyers make more money than those in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. Let's go right down the list...... Sure, US teachers make more money than teachers in other countries. So do other American workers vis-a-vis foreign workers.
And, again so simplistically, no other factors are considered. Americans don't value education, not like they used to value it. Oh, students and their parents want good grades, but don't want to work to learn the things that earn good grades. It's as if the students are entitled to good grades. Look at our society and who gets the highest pay. I know, I know--there aren't many of the athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types who make the big bucks without a quality education. But that's not the point. The athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types are glorified, held up as models as if there can be many of them. Parents let their children engage in activities that shorten their attention spans. And quality education often requires lengthy periods of concentration.
Now part of this problem is directly related to educational practices of the past three or four decades. Teachers have reinforced the "entitlement" mentality. Opinions are as valid as facts. Feelings are more important than reasoning. Self-concept and self-image have replaced actual achievement. Instead of taking the lead in education, teachers and administrators have jumped on the "what's new today?" bandwagon, signing on to the latest and greatest trendy garbage.
And, this writer has it all wrong. Unions do not make it impossible to fire teachers, incompetent ones. And that's a good thing. Why should teachers be subject to dismissal by incompetent administrators, often lacking in integrity and the knowledge of what encompasses quality education? (The argument that, "Private sector workers can be fired..." is utterly ridiculous. That some people aren't protected from lousy bosses means all workers shouldn't be protected is stupidity to the nth degree.) Teachers can be fired. There's a process, cumbersome as it may be. It requires actual work, documentation, effort, etc.
Is it good that this same newspaper runs op-ed pieces from different sides? Yes, it is. Is it good that it runs these pieces--from diverse sides--even though they are lacking in accuracy or good sense??????
Today the newspaper decided to turn the other cheek and allow a column by one attacking teachers' unions. They, that is, the unions should be held accountable for the low performances on international test scores by US students. Nobody has been as critical of many of today's teachers as I. There needs to be improvement in that area if education is to improve. And, I had my share of disagreements with both the local and state teachers' unions when I was a member here. But to accuse teachers' unions for the poor performances of US students on international tests is simplistic to the point of the ridiculous.
Of course, as has become de rigeur, critics always point to greater US spending on education and lower test scores, implying that teachers are overpaid--and many of them are, while many are vastly underpaid. What a silly argument, from this guy and from anyone who makes it. US automakers make more money than their foreign counterparts. US doctors and lawyers make more money than those in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. Let's go right down the list...... Sure, US teachers make more money than teachers in other countries. So do other American workers vis-a-vis foreign workers.
And, again so simplistically, no other factors are considered. Americans don't value education, not like they used to value it. Oh, students and their parents want good grades, but don't want to work to learn the things that earn good grades. It's as if the students are entitled to good grades. Look at our society and who gets the highest pay. I know, I know--there aren't many of the athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types who make the big bucks without a quality education. But that's not the point. The athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types are glorified, held up as models as if there can be many of them. Parents let their children engage in activities that shorten their attention spans. And quality education often requires lengthy periods of concentration.
Now part of this problem is directly related to educational practices of the past three or four decades. Teachers have reinforced the "entitlement" mentality. Opinions are as valid as facts. Feelings are more important than reasoning. Self-concept and self-image have replaced actual achievement. Instead of taking the lead in education, teachers and administrators have jumped on the "what's new today?" bandwagon, signing on to the latest and greatest trendy garbage.
And, this writer has it all wrong. Unions do not make it impossible to fire teachers, incompetent ones. And that's a good thing. Why should teachers be subject to dismissal by incompetent administrators, often lacking in integrity and the knowledge of what encompasses quality education? (The argument that, "Private sector workers can be fired..." is utterly ridiculous. That some people aren't protected from lousy bosses means all workers shouldn't be protected is stupidity to the nth degree.) Teachers can be fired. There's a process, cumbersome as it may be. It requires actual work, documentation, effort, etc.
Is it good that this same newspaper runs op-ed pieces from different sides? Yes, it is. Is it good that it runs these pieces--from diverse sides--even though they are lacking in accuracy or good sense??????
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Random Thoughts...
...after a bowl of ice cream with the kids.
So the Ilitch family is getting a deal with Detroit for land for a new arena and other developments. It's quite a deal, too, from what I gather. A likely $84 million tax bill has been bargained down to $6. But, of course, the city and businessmen tout the economic benefits of such, frankly, corporate welfare. If the arena and surrounding development is such a good idea, that is, will bring a lot of money to the Ilitches, why don't the Ilitches finance it? Lord knows that they have enough money. But study after study, report after report, show that the net gain for such deals is minimal, if any net gain at all! If the deals for Joe Louis, Tiger Stadium, and where the Lions play (I forget the name) are so good for the city, where are the financial gains? That is, why is the city of Detroit still in such a hole? I guess it's another example of "Yell first and yell loudest!" I hope I'm wrong......
In eleven months we'll elect a governor, returning the incumbent or installing a new one. Talk about a Hobson's Choice! It's a choice, yet again, of a Republican I don't think should be governor and a Democrat who I don't think should be governor. The current governor, it will be claimed, has turned around the state of Michigan, with numbers outpacing those nationally. I think that's wrong and that the Republicans will misstate the results of the Snyder efforts. Michigan is better, marginally, than it was three years ago, but only marginally. And much of that economic success isn't due to the governor's programs, but to the auto makers rebates and low interest loans for buying and leasing. Of course, there is also the underhanded way much of the governor's agenda was passed by the Republicans in the state legislature. If any of the state Republicans were critical of the way, say, ObamaCare was passed by the Democrats in DC, then they'd better be equally critical of what happened in Lansing. But, perhaps hypocrisy in politics is the norm, hardly a characteristic of which to be ashamed, as if there's any sense of shame anywhere anyway. And the Democrat, Schauer, seems like a typical Democrat. He thinks the government is the answer to everything, that is, as the Temptations once sang, "More taxes will solve everything." I don't think I can vote for either one......
A columnist in the newspaper this AM announced that ObamaCare "is doomed." Now, this guy is a big, big supporter of Obama and ObamaCare. And he begins to take it apart, often correctly identifying the flaws inherent in the law. And, without being critical, he also notes how the President is breaking the law by allowing some people to disobey it--but, that's OK, it's Obama. Then the guy ends by blaming the whole disaster, not on the law, so hastily and blindly passed, so clumsily and ineptly authored, not on Obama and the Congressional Democrats who had no idea what was in it (At least I hope they had no idea because, if they did, they are far more stupid than I think they are.). No, he blames the failure on those who tried to subvert it from the go, although they had no real power to do so--the Republicans were outnumbered. Yep, it's the opponents of the law and their lack of effort to enact it which doomed the law. Nowhere does the guy mention that, always, a majority of Americans were opposed to it. Now that number is in excess of 70% against it. Nope, the problem wasn't the Democrats who passed it despite the unpopularity of the bill. And that they passed it under nefarious methods. Nope, it wasn't that it is logically unsustainable, dependent on forcing people who don't want or need the more expensive health care to buy it. If the young, healthy people don't pay the big premiums, ObamaCare falls flat on its face. The insurers can't afford to pay the bills of the chronically ill, of those who opt not to take care of themselves, to lead healthy lifestyles if the healthy people don't pay for the others. Nope, it wasn't that people are, unconstitutionally (regardless of the idiotic opinion of Justice Roberts and his colleagues), forced to buy a product they may or may not want. Nope it wasn't any of that. It was the opponents of all this stuff. Now, there's some great logic! It makes one wonder who picks these column writers.
And what's the deal with this Duck Dynasty guy? A lot of people are up in arms over his firing. At least I guess he was dismissed. Oh, what about this guy's freedom of speech, his freedom of religion? Hey, nobody stopped him from speaking--he spoke. And his speech had consequences. His network (and I don't know what it is because I've never seen the show and don't plan to see it) then exercised its freedom by firing the guy. Why does the Duck guy have freedoms, but the station/network doesn't? He can believe, he can say what he wants. Then he has to pay the consequences if there are any. I don't have to agree with what the guy says and believes and I don't. I, too, can exercise my freedoms by not watching, by boycotting the networks' sponsors, etc. That's how freedoms work.
So the Ilitch family is getting a deal with Detroit for land for a new arena and other developments. It's quite a deal, too, from what I gather. A likely $84 million tax bill has been bargained down to $6. But, of course, the city and businessmen tout the economic benefits of such, frankly, corporate welfare. If the arena and surrounding development is such a good idea, that is, will bring a lot of money to the Ilitches, why don't the Ilitches finance it? Lord knows that they have enough money. But study after study, report after report, show that the net gain for such deals is minimal, if any net gain at all! If the deals for Joe Louis, Tiger Stadium, and where the Lions play (I forget the name) are so good for the city, where are the financial gains? That is, why is the city of Detroit still in such a hole? I guess it's another example of "Yell first and yell loudest!" I hope I'm wrong......
In eleven months we'll elect a governor, returning the incumbent or installing a new one. Talk about a Hobson's Choice! It's a choice, yet again, of a Republican I don't think should be governor and a Democrat who I don't think should be governor. The current governor, it will be claimed, has turned around the state of Michigan, with numbers outpacing those nationally. I think that's wrong and that the Republicans will misstate the results of the Snyder efforts. Michigan is better, marginally, than it was three years ago, but only marginally. And much of that economic success isn't due to the governor's programs, but to the auto makers rebates and low interest loans for buying and leasing. Of course, there is also the underhanded way much of the governor's agenda was passed by the Republicans in the state legislature. If any of the state Republicans were critical of the way, say, ObamaCare was passed by the Democrats in DC, then they'd better be equally critical of what happened in Lansing. But, perhaps hypocrisy in politics is the norm, hardly a characteristic of which to be ashamed, as if there's any sense of shame anywhere anyway. And the Democrat, Schauer, seems like a typical Democrat. He thinks the government is the answer to everything, that is, as the Temptations once sang, "More taxes will solve everything." I don't think I can vote for either one......
A columnist in the newspaper this AM announced that ObamaCare "is doomed." Now, this guy is a big, big supporter of Obama and ObamaCare. And he begins to take it apart, often correctly identifying the flaws inherent in the law. And, without being critical, he also notes how the President is breaking the law by allowing some people to disobey it--but, that's OK, it's Obama. Then the guy ends by blaming the whole disaster, not on the law, so hastily and blindly passed, so clumsily and ineptly authored, not on Obama and the Congressional Democrats who had no idea what was in it (At least I hope they had no idea because, if they did, they are far more stupid than I think they are.). No, he blames the failure on those who tried to subvert it from the go, although they had no real power to do so--the Republicans were outnumbered. Yep, it's the opponents of the law and their lack of effort to enact it which doomed the law. Nowhere does the guy mention that, always, a majority of Americans were opposed to it. Now that number is in excess of 70% against it. Nope, the problem wasn't the Democrats who passed it despite the unpopularity of the bill. And that they passed it under nefarious methods. Nope, it wasn't that it is logically unsustainable, dependent on forcing people who don't want or need the more expensive health care to buy it. If the young, healthy people don't pay the big premiums, ObamaCare falls flat on its face. The insurers can't afford to pay the bills of the chronically ill, of those who opt not to take care of themselves, to lead healthy lifestyles if the healthy people don't pay for the others. Nope, it wasn't that people are, unconstitutionally (regardless of the idiotic opinion of Justice Roberts and his colleagues), forced to buy a product they may or may not want. Nope it wasn't any of that. It was the opponents of all this stuff. Now, there's some great logic! It makes one wonder who picks these column writers.
And what's the deal with this Duck Dynasty guy? A lot of people are up in arms over his firing. At least I guess he was dismissed. Oh, what about this guy's freedom of speech, his freedom of religion? Hey, nobody stopped him from speaking--he spoke. And his speech had consequences. His network (and I don't know what it is because I've never seen the show and don't plan to see it) then exercised its freedom by firing the guy. Why does the Duck guy have freedoms, but the station/network doesn't? He can believe, he can say what he wants. Then he has to pay the consequences if there are any. I don't have to agree with what the guy says and believes and I don't. I, too, can exercise my freedoms by not watching, by boycotting the networks' sponsors, etc. That's how freedoms work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
