A few months ago, I re-read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. I enjoyed it and recalled some of it, but also had some new perspectives. I recently finished My Name Is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok. I was surprised that, even though I read it 40+ years ago, I remember very, very little, if any of it. Wow! But it was well worth reading--again, almost like for the first time.
Re-reading books, as a classmate of mine wrote, some years later is "a good thing." It does allow one's life experiences to give new perspectives. I read Asher Lev again because I came across its title and remembered it being a very thought-provoking and enlightening book. Although it's been decades, I'm pretty sure that I didn't have the same reactions to Asher Lev that I had last week. And I wasn't disappointed, not at all.
Potok's novel, My Name Is Asher Lev, is the story of an Orthodox Jewish boy, who practices Hasidic Judaism faithfully, in Brooklyn. Asher becomes an artist, a world-renown artist who is frequently conflicted between his art and what drives him to create and his religion and even loved ones, his family and community. The conflicts, at least to me, are also ones I experienced. How do I take this artist Asher Lev? Caught between the inner monster of creativity and the love he has for his mother and father, Asher often catches me the same ways--cheering for him and, often soon after, giving him the raspberries. Yes, Asher, live your dreams, follow the inner voices! No, Asher, how can you do this to those you love?
The novel is very well written as are all of Potok's books (I've just started to re-read The Chosen, which I remember better than Asher Lev), passionately written about passions. To me it was a page-tuner and each time there was an introduction of sorts and the words "My name is Asher Lev" appeared I was excited! There's a sequel, The Gift of Asher Lev, which I have read and plan to put on my summer reading list.
I am considering other "re-reads," too. I have wondered what Catcher in the Rye will now read like. I might, too, re-read all of Joe Ellis' bios of the Founding Fathers, esp Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, but esp Washington. I did try Hermann Hesse's Glass Bead Game (also known as Magister Ludi) which I remember as an all-time favorite. I barely reached 50 pages and had to put it down. Maybe that needs to be tried again, maybe. I wonder, too, how Kurt Vonnegut's novels would read to someone other than a starry-eyed man in his early 20s.
I also read my dissertation. It was not a re-read, since I don't think I ever really read it except to proof it. I'd give it a passing mark, but not what my professors/committee gave me/it. To them, it led to my induction to the graduate Phi Beta Kappa, whatever the Greek letters for it were. I'm not sure I'd elevate it to that status. It was lengthy (268 pp.) and heavily researched and documented, which surprised me. I remember doing a great deal of work on it, spending more time than I needed. (My adviser told me the typical thesis length was 75 to 100 pages. Hmmm......) Again, I don't remember the specifics other than my "defense" of it. The committee sat there waiting and my lead adviser merely said, "You obviously know more about this than we do. What do you want to talk about?" Nope, there was no "defense." After my grueling (and that's not at all indicative of what they were) oral comprehensives at Amherst, I was expecting an academic Siberia of sorts. Nope. Whew!
I did get a kick out of hearing one of the members of the House of Representatives urging the chairman of the House Intelligence (?) Committee to step down because he "has lost integrity." Wait a minute! What member of the US Congress has the nerve to accuse another member of the US Congress of a loss of integrity?????? Comedy......
And the headline the other day read, "Russian protesters take to the streets in show of defiance." Further reading led to the reason for the protests, that Russian government leaders had profited, quite handsomely indeed, from their political offices. I laughed again. Where have these Russians been hiding all these years? After leaving your job, could you afford a $5.3 million home? Heck, the guy who cries the loudest about "the greedy rich" has three houses, all of which are worth more than my single home and, yet, his tax bracket is half of mine, despite making about three or four times more.
Oh for good measure...... I had a student this week question me about the pages of reading not matching up with our topics in class. Hmmm...... I had him explain or at least try to explain. I asked to see his book to show him how the reading list/syllabus works. I noticed, he had the wrong book! Yes, the wrong book. It was the text for the later half of US History, not the early half--Vol. 2, not Vol 1. I told him that, meeting with a blank look. Then I had a question. "What took you nine weeks to figure all that out?" Again, blank look......
Sometimes we just have to laugh.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Monday, March 27, 2017
Good Guys
Sometimes the good guys actually win. I'm writing here of Clarkston's boys' basketball team winning the state Class A title under long-time coach Dan Fife. Fife has been the coach there for more than 30 years. He's been recognized as one of the top coaches in the state, winning numerous league, district, and regional titles. But the state crown had eluded him, until Sat.
I normally don't follow sports much these days, at any level, unless my kids are playing. But I picked up on Clarkston early in the state tournament, hoping that maybe this was the year for Fife. It was. From all I have read, heard, and seen, he's done wonders for the community of Clarkston.
I played baseball with Fife, oh about 50 years ago, on the sandlots of Detroit. He seems to be the same unassuming guy he was then, confident but friendly. It was nice to see one of the good guys win.
One thing that still stuck with me in reading several of the articles about this were references to "not winning a state title," despite all the other titles, great teams and players, etc. Those references reminded me of all the talk of the Minnesota Vikings back in the '70s, getting to the Super Bowl, but never winning it, as if that was a big blot on the team's greatness. I have found that, for the most part, such talk comes from people who didn't play the game(s), at least not at a high level. They just don't know how hard it is to perform and achieve like, well, like the Vikings did. No, getting to the Super Bowl as often as they did, win or lose, was a great achievement.
I think the term "bridesmaids" is often used, pejoratively, for the continued runners-up. I find nothing wrong with bridesmaids! I first really met my wife when she was "a bridesmaid" and that turned out just fine.
Like Swampcare/Trumpcare/Ryancare/Obamacare Lite or not, the fiasco last week was very telling in more ways than one. Like "repeal" or not, that's what the President and many members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, were elected on. The proposed Republican bill last week did nothing of the sort, was not a repeal. Wasn't that their promise? So, while they passed repeal legislation (not exactly, but close) while there was no chance of it withstanding an Obama veto, now that there was the strong likelihood of a Presidential signature, they showed their true colors--both dishonesty and lack of courage.
It was humorous to read one former House Freedom Caucus member, who resigned from the caucus citing the failure of Swampcare, say, "Leading is hard, but that is what we were elected to do." The man needs to look at what they really "were elected to do," to repeal Obamacare and then do it. If you don't really plan to do something, quit lying about it during campaigns. He then added that all sides have "to come together," something that always produces a chuckle. Why is it that one side always is forced "to come together," "to reach across the aisle," "to be biparisan," "to compromise," etc., while the other side isn't? We haven't seen this from "the other side" since Bill Clinton, have we? Maybe we have and I just don't remember.
It is also humorous to see how many are citing figures from the Congressional Budget Office. With its track record of inaccuracies, why would anyone consult it or accept its estimates? George Will had a great comment regarding that. Citing a 19th Century religious skeptic who scrawled on the doors of a church, Will wrote "Important if true."
I normally don't follow sports much these days, at any level, unless my kids are playing. But I picked up on Clarkston early in the state tournament, hoping that maybe this was the year for Fife. It was. From all I have read, heard, and seen, he's done wonders for the community of Clarkston.
I played baseball with Fife, oh about 50 years ago, on the sandlots of Detroit. He seems to be the same unassuming guy he was then, confident but friendly. It was nice to see one of the good guys win.
One thing that still stuck with me in reading several of the articles about this were references to "not winning a state title," despite all the other titles, great teams and players, etc. Those references reminded me of all the talk of the Minnesota Vikings back in the '70s, getting to the Super Bowl, but never winning it, as if that was a big blot on the team's greatness. I have found that, for the most part, such talk comes from people who didn't play the game(s), at least not at a high level. They just don't know how hard it is to perform and achieve like, well, like the Vikings did. No, getting to the Super Bowl as often as they did, win or lose, was a great achievement.
I think the term "bridesmaids" is often used, pejoratively, for the continued runners-up. I find nothing wrong with bridesmaids! I first really met my wife when she was "a bridesmaid" and that turned out just fine.
Like Swampcare/Trumpcare/Ryancare/Obamacare Lite or not, the fiasco last week was very telling in more ways than one. Like "repeal" or not, that's what the President and many members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, were elected on. The proposed Republican bill last week did nothing of the sort, was not a repeal. Wasn't that their promise? So, while they passed repeal legislation (not exactly, but close) while there was no chance of it withstanding an Obama veto, now that there was the strong likelihood of a Presidential signature, they showed their true colors--both dishonesty and lack of courage.
It was humorous to read one former House Freedom Caucus member, who resigned from the caucus citing the failure of Swampcare, say, "Leading is hard, but that is what we were elected to do." The man needs to look at what they really "were elected to do," to repeal Obamacare and then do it. If you don't really plan to do something, quit lying about it during campaigns. He then added that all sides have "to come together," something that always produces a chuckle. Why is it that one side always is forced "to come together," "to reach across the aisle," "to be biparisan," "to compromise," etc., while the other side isn't? We haven't seen this from "the other side" since Bill Clinton, have we? Maybe we have and I just don't remember.
It is also humorous to see how many are citing figures from the Congressional Budget Office. With its track record of inaccuracies, why would anyone consult it or accept its estimates? George Will had a great comment regarding that. Citing a 19th Century religious skeptic who scrawled on the doors of a church, Will wrote "Important if true."
Monday, March 13, 2017
DST
Daylight Savings Time.
Last week I had the wonderful thought that my running in the dark was over, at least until next November or December. Ah...... No more flashlight and/or headlamp. No more, even with the illumination, stepping in pot holes or on ruts on the shoulders--well at least not as often.
Nope. I forgot about Daylight Savings Time. How disappointing, Sun AM, to think about heading out to run at 7:30 and it's still dark out! Oh, no...... On the AMs I work, I am usually out there by 5:30, if not before. The past few weeks I finished up on those days in an hour of daylight. I'll have to wait a few more weeks for that again.
I think Ben Franklin, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, proposed it back in the mid-1700s. I have my doubts about that, mostly because time was not at all standard back then; it was a local matter due to transportation and communications of the day. The US enacted some DST during the First World War, in an attempt to help the war effort. This was the rationale, too, in the 1960s when Congress passed The Uniform Time Act (?) and later tweaks in the '70s--to help save energy.
The argument that farmers benefit was shot down, I think, in the '70s. One farmer said it doesn't affect him one way or the other. "I start to plow when the sun comes up and I stop when the sun goes down."
I think some studies have shown this is not necessarily so, but I don't know for sure. I know I'm not a big fan of it, unless...... There are some studies that show increased physical problems, such as more heart attacks the first couple of days after it goes into effect, circadian rhythms that run amok for a few weeks, interruptions of sleep, etc. I have no idea if these are true, partially or otherwise.
I think when Indiana enacted DST about a decade ago, energy usage actually increased. I'm not sure if that is so or, even if it is, if the enactment of DST was the cause. (How do they determine that, the specificity?) There is some evidence that auto accidents increase significantly the day or two after DST goes into effect; I guess people, from lack of sleep, are more tired behind the wheel?
Once it kicks in, there are more daylight hours at the end of the day and fewer at the beginning. I noted how this affects my early AM running, but only to April or so. The argument goes that now people can better use the outside time. Maybe......
I don't know if this is feasible, but maybe the solution would be to have DST year-round; but then would it be "DST" or not, just regular time? And would our circadian rhythms be continually fouled?
I figure some folks somewhere must be making money off of this.
Last week I had the wonderful thought that my running in the dark was over, at least until next November or December. Ah...... No more flashlight and/or headlamp. No more, even with the illumination, stepping in pot holes or on ruts on the shoulders--well at least not as often.
Nope. I forgot about Daylight Savings Time. How disappointing, Sun AM, to think about heading out to run at 7:30 and it's still dark out! Oh, no...... On the AMs I work, I am usually out there by 5:30, if not before. The past few weeks I finished up on those days in an hour of daylight. I'll have to wait a few more weeks for that again.
I think Ben Franklin, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, proposed it back in the mid-1700s. I have my doubts about that, mostly because time was not at all standard back then; it was a local matter due to transportation and communications of the day. The US enacted some DST during the First World War, in an attempt to help the war effort. This was the rationale, too, in the 1960s when Congress passed The Uniform Time Act (?) and later tweaks in the '70s--to help save energy.
The argument that farmers benefit was shot down, I think, in the '70s. One farmer said it doesn't affect him one way or the other. "I start to plow when the sun comes up and I stop when the sun goes down."
I think some studies have shown this is not necessarily so, but I don't know for sure. I know I'm not a big fan of it, unless...... There are some studies that show increased physical problems, such as more heart attacks the first couple of days after it goes into effect, circadian rhythms that run amok for a few weeks, interruptions of sleep, etc. I have no idea if these are true, partially or otherwise.
I think when Indiana enacted DST about a decade ago, energy usage actually increased. I'm not sure if that is so or, even if it is, if the enactment of DST was the cause. (How do they determine that, the specificity?) There is some evidence that auto accidents increase significantly the day or two after DST goes into effect; I guess people, from lack of sleep, are more tired behind the wheel?
Once it kicks in, there are more daylight hours at the end of the day and fewer at the beginning. I noted how this affects my early AM running, but only to April or so. The argument goes that now people can better use the outside time. Maybe......
I don't know if this is feasible, but maybe the solution would be to have DST year-round; but then would it be "DST" or not, just regular time? And would our circadian rhythms be continually fouled?
I figure some folks somewhere must be making money off of this.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
"Almighty Wind"
Lou Rawls once sang about living on "Dead End Street," where "There was nothing to blick or buffer the wind, the elements, to keep them from knocking my pad down, Jim! I mean really socking it to me." Of course, he was talking about Chicago, the "Windy City," which supposedly picked up that nickname from "windy" politicians more than Mother Nature. But that's not clear......
We had our own winds here this week. Wow! One utility CEO claimed they were "near hurricane-force winds." I don't know why he used the term "hurricane" instead of "tornado," given that we are far, far more likely to experience tornadoes than hurricanes. But his point was made. I read that there were readings of 70 mph winds! I don't know how "near" those are to anything, but they sure were strong.
The utilities said this was the largest emergency/loss of power in the state's history. That is astounding, in two ways. One, there was just wind and I don't mean that lightly. That is, there was no ice or snow or rain or thunder/lightning. It was just wind, albeit very strong wind. Two, I guess more than a million utility customers were without power. I don't know if that means "people" or "households" and includes "businesses." Regardless of that, it sure is a lot of people. Top it off with the deep freeze returning. (My blind buddy called last night to cancel our run this AM. Temperatures were to dip to 10 degrees or lower and he said, "It's too cold!") Some folks have been told their power wouldn't be returned until Sunday eve, from Wed during the day. Yeow! That's a long time and that's pretty cold.
There are pockets of outages around us. We had some considerable flickering of lights, etc. on Wed, all day and night long. And I don't remember if it was during the night on Wed or Thur that we lost power, for just a bit, though. It wasn't long, just enough to cause all of the clocks to require resetting. We were lucky.
While running and walking, there were considerable number of twigs, branches, and limbs down on the streets and roads and bike path. Across the street, there was a very sizable evergreen that had fallen. Right next to our neighbors' porch, it fell across the front yard and covered the entire street. Two days later, yellow tape still prohibited passage. Neighbors were parking at the ends of the block.
Farther down, to the north, a very big tree went down, blocking a dirt road, completely. No one could get through on Wed or Thur and finally I saw a removal crew cutting it up on Fri. It was quite big, maybe three or four feet in diameter.
And Einstein was right about "relativity." It's all about "frames of reference." The wind was very strong still on Thur and even Fri AM. Compared to Wed though, it was a light breeze--but not really. And last night, on our run, the wind had picked up considerably again. Running on the side with no trees to "buffer" it, we were afflicted with "brain freeze." (Yes we kept running and did our four laps--or was it five?)
Often around here we are reminded of Mother Nature's power only in photographs, videos, etc. from other parts of the country. This time, although not of the proportions of some hurricanes, flooding/rains, wildfires, etc., we faced first-hand the effects that are out of our control.
We had our own winds here this week. Wow! One utility CEO claimed they were "near hurricane-force winds." I don't know why he used the term "hurricane" instead of "tornado," given that we are far, far more likely to experience tornadoes than hurricanes. But his point was made. I read that there were readings of 70 mph winds! I don't know how "near" those are to anything, but they sure were strong.
The utilities said this was the largest emergency/loss of power in the state's history. That is astounding, in two ways. One, there was just wind and I don't mean that lightly. That is, there was no ice or snow or rain or thunder/lightning. It was just wind, albeit very strong wind. Two, I guess more than a million utility customers were without power. I don't know if that means "people" or "households" and includes "businesses." Regardless of that, it sure is a lot of people. Top it off with the deep freeze returning. (My blind buddy called last night to cancel our run this AM. Temperatures were to dip to 10 degrees or lower and he said, "It's too cold!") Some folks have been told their power wouldn't be returned until Sunday eve, from Wed during the day. Yeow! That's a long time and that's pretty cold.
There are pockets of outages around us. We had some considerable flickering of lights, etc. on Wed, all day and night long. And I don't remember if it was during the night on Wed or Thur that we lost power, for just a bit, though. It wasn't long, just enough to cause all of the clocks to require resetting. We were lucky.
While running and walking, there were considerable number of twigs, branches, and limbs down on the streets and roads and bike path. Across the street, there was a very sizable evergreen that had fallen. Right next to our neighbors' porch, it fell across the front yard and covered the entire street. Two days later, yellow tape still prohibited passage. Neighbors were parking at the ends of the block.
Farther down, to the north, a very big tree went down, blocking a dirt road, completely. No one could get through on Wed or Thur and finally I saw a removal crew cutting it up on Fri. It was quite big, maybe three or four feet in diameter.
And Einstein was right about "relativity." It's all about "frames of reference." The wind was very strong still on Thur and even Fri AM. Compared to Wed though, it was a light breeze--but not really. And last night, on our run, the wind had picked up considerably again. Running on the side with no trees to "buffer" it, we were afflicted with "brain freeze." (Yes we kept running and did our four laps--or was it five?)
Often around here we are reminded of Mother Nature's power only in photographs, videos, etc. from other parts of the country. This time, although not of the proportions of some hurricanes, flooding/rains, wildfires, etc., we faced first-hand the effects that are out of our control.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Mon AM
In more ways than one, it was a tough weekend.
I know it was the right thing to do, and Karen and I probably waited far too long, but we finalized our "living trust," along with our estate plan, last will and testament, etc. It's all necessary, but it's very sobering to consider our own mortality. I found the entire process very educational and enlightening; our lawyer was very, very good. But it was hardly a cheery experience.
And I turned my ankle, if only slightly, again this weekend out running on the increasingly rutty roads. The weather cold and wet and warm and cold and...... It's not been a winter conducive to good running, at least not for me. It's been a winter of sprained ankle, recovery, sprained ankle, recovery...... But it was really really great to get out on my bike for most of last week--gee, a week's worth of bike rides in the middle of February.
There's more, but......
I didn't watch the Oscars and had no intention of doing so. I really don't do movies and likely would not have recalled the names of 90+% of those films and people on the show. I am not at all interested in what dress so-and-so is wearing and don't find many of the jokes funny, esp the insider ones that require some knowledge of Hollywood. If some folks want to watch all this, that's fine with me. I prefer not to.
But Karen was watching her AM television show and there were clips after clips of the host, the presenters, and the recipients of giving their seemingly obligatory condemnations of the current administration. (More about that in a second.) It's as if the Hollywood-types must make some sort of anti-Trump comment or they'll be drummed out of the business. It must be trendy. "Oh, your anti-Trump diatribe was so, so, so......" Give us a break. Most of Middle America doesn't care what the Hollywood-types think. Most of them live lives we could only dream about. They have no idea, or have forgotten, what it's like to struggle with the storms and stresses of everyday life here in the Middle. Again, I question their commitments; I think many of them are hypocrites. Gee, if they had given up half, only half, of their incomes, lived in houses not quite so lavish, etc. maybe they could have bought health insurance policies for all those they claimed were "uninsured."
And, I repeat, where are the Establishment Republicans in repealing Obamacare. Oh, they were big talkers and maybe even doers when their repeal bills were doomed from the start by the inevitable prospect of an Obama veto. Now, without the safety net of a veto, they have really backed off. Is it all right if I call that political cowardice? How about selective indignation?
Many are decrying that repeal of Obamacare will cause millions to lose their coverage. First, I hardly think that will happen. There are safety nets all over. If those don't work, a repeal can include more safety nets. I don't often hear anyone (OK, well I do, but few from the Establishment.) express much concern over the high costs--premiums, deductibles, co-pays, worse coverage--of health insurance to those in the Middle. Did I recently read that the average cost of health insurance for a family exceeds $10,000? We're not quite that high, but could have been very close had we not opted to change policies, gambling, I guess, on our health and accepting higher deductibles and co-pays.
"Empowerment." I have never liked that word, esp not in the context it's been used over the past few decades. But I was reminded of it the other AM, when, of all things, passing a pick-up truck with a "Trump" bumper sticker on it. It seems, like so many things, "empowerment" is only "good" if a certain agenda is concerned. Women can be "empowered." Blacks can be "empowered." College students can be "empowered." And more "power" to them. Aren't many folks selective in this, thpough? The man I saw driving the pick-up surely felt "empowered" by Trump's victory. I'm guessing, but don't know, he wasn't really enamored, not deep down, with Trump. But it was his way of sticking it to the Establishment, one that has thumbed its collective nose at him and his Middle for years and years. Instead of celebrating his "empowerment," he is derided as "a deplorable," as "ignorant," "stupid," "racist," "bigoted." Maybe if the Establishment hadn't ignored and marginalized the concerns, the lives of the Middle there'd have been no Trump?????? There really is a divide in this country.
Speaking of Trump, when is he going to grow up? I suspect never. I keep waiting for some adults to come into the room, but so far they haven't shown. Is there not enough work for Trump to do as President? He keeps that tweeting or twittering or whatever it's called. Grow up, man! Why is he going after the LameStreams? That isn't necessary. He won; they (and Clinton) lost. Most of America doesn't believe the LameStreams anyway; they have lost our trust and deservedly so. I keep waking up thinking, when I hear "President Trump," I'm still deep into a bad dream. (And remember, always remember, I think I'd have the same nightmare with Clinton!) This is rapidly turning into a Clown Show. I thought I'd only be able to use "Clown Show" in regard to our local school board and administration. I guess not.
I know it was the right thing to do, and Karen and I probably waited far too long, but we finalized our "living trust," along with our estate plan, last will and testament, etc. It's all necessary, but it's very sobering to consider our own mortality. I found the entire process very educational and enlightening; our lawyer was very, very good. But it was hardly a cheery experience.
And I turned my ankle, if only slightly, again this weekend out running on the increasingly rutty roads. The weather cold and wet and warm and cold and...... It's not been a winter conducive to good running, at least not for me. It's been a winter of sprained ankle, recovery, sprained ankle, recovery...... But it was really really great to get out on my bike for most of last week--gee, a week's worth of bike rides in the middle of February.
There's more, but......
I didn't watch the Oscars and had no intention of doing so. I really don't do movies and likely would not have recalled the names of 90+% of those films and people on the show. I am not at all interested in what dress so-and-so is wearing and don't find many of the jokes funny, esp the insider ones that require some knowledge of Hollywood. If some folks want to watch all this, that's fine with me. I prefer not to.
But Karen was watching her AM television show and there were clips after clips of the host, the presenters, and the recipients of giving their seemingly obligatory condemnations of the current administration. (More about that in a second.) It's as if the Hollywood-types must make some sort of anti-Trump comment or they'll be drummed out of the business. It must be trendy. "Oh, your anti-Trump diatribe was so, so, so......" Give us a break. Most of Middle America doesn't care what the Hollywood-types think. Most of them live lives we could only dream about. They have no idea, or have forgotten, what it's like to struggle with the storms and stresses of everyday life here in the Middle. Again, I question their commitments; I think many of them are hypocrites. Gee, if they had given up half, only half, of their incomes, lived in houses not quite so lavish, etc. maybe they could have bought health insurance policies for all those they claimed were "uninsured."
And, I repeat, where are the Establishment Republicans in repealing Obamacare. Oh, they were big talkers and maybe even doers when their repeal bills were doomed from the start by the inevitable prospect of an Obama veto. Now, without the safety net of a veto, they have really backed off. Is it all right if I call that political cowardice? How about selective indignation?
Many are decrying that repeal of Obamacare will cause millions to lose their coverage. First, I hardly think that will happen. There are safety nets all over. If those don't work, a repeal can include more safety nets. I don't often hear anyone (OK, well I do, but few from the Establishment.) express much concern over the high costs--premiums, deductibles, co-pays, worse coverage--of health insurance to those in the Middle. Did I recently read that the average cost of health insurance for a family exceeds $10,000? We're not quite that high, but could have been very close had we not opted to change policies, gambling, I guess, on our health and accepting higher deductibles and co-pays.
"Empowerment." I have never liked that word, esp not in the context it's been used over the past few decades. But I was reminded of it the other AM, when, of all things, passing a pick-up truck with a "Trump" bumper sticker on it. It seems, like so many things, "empowerment" is only "good" if a certain agenda is concerned. Women can be "empowered." Blacks can be "empowered." College students can be "empowered." And more "power" to them. Aren't many folks selective in this, thpough? The man I saw driving the pick-up surely felt "empowered" by Trump's victory. I'm guessing, but don't know, he wasn't really enamored, not deep down, with Trump. But it was his way of sticking it to the Establishment, one that has thumbed its collective nose at him and his Middle for years and years. Instead of celebrating his "empowerment," he is derided as "a deplorable," as "ignorant," "stupid," "racist," "bigoted." Maybe if the Establishment hadn't ignored and marginalized the concerns, the lives of the Middle there'd have been no Trump?????? There really is a divide in this country.
Speaking of Trump, when is he going to grow up? I suspect never. I keep waiting for some adults to come into the room, but so far they haven't shown. Is there not enough work for Trump to do as President? He keeps that tweeting or twittering or whatever it's called. Grow up, man! Why is he going after the LameStreams? That isn't necessary. He won; they (and Clinton) lost. Most of America doesn't believe the LameStreams anyway; they have lost our trust and deservedly so. I keep waking up thinking, when I hear "President Trump," I'm still deep into a bad dream. (And remember, always remember, I think I'd have the same nightmare with Clinton!) This is rapidly turning into a Clown Show. I thought I'd only be able to use "Clown Show" in regard to our local school board and administration. I guess not.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Under My Government......
I used to enjoy reading Judd Arnett's column in the Detroit Free Press, way back when. (I know, I know...... The Free Press?) Once in a while he'd offer his opinions on how to run things, under the heading "Under My Government." It was always thought-provoking.
I thought of that today when I was considering Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. If I were in her position, today, I think I'd start out this way. I would invite, perhaps together, perhaps separately, the presidents of the two national teachers' unions to lunch. I'd only ask questions. "What do you see as the major problem with American education today?" "What other major problems are there that need to be addressed?" "What is the role of teachers' unions," namely the AFT and NEA? And so on. I would just listen, making sure that my lunch partners realized I was listening, really listening.
Now, I would also hope I wouldn't get the stock/standard teachers' union answers to my questions. I might have to be a bit more probing. And I wouldn't be dismissive of any of their concerns. There may or may not be common ground, but how are we to know if we don't talk--and listen?
Next, I'd go to people I trusted and ask them to identify their best teachers, not their favorite ones. I wouldn't automatically go to the "teacher-of-the-year" winners. Some of them might well be among the list I would compile, but from my experiences, I'm very leery of recipients of these types of awards. Then I'd make a point of talking with them, too, in groups or individually, mostly asking questions--and listening. The conversations would be confidential, encouraging an open dialogue with no fear of any retribution or repercussions.
I read an op-ed from a former state superintendent of schools. He called for "urgency" in efforts to improve schools. One thing I am pretty sure I'd avoid is talking to many administrators, including superintendents, on ways to bolster education. Why would anyone consult those who have been the captains of a sinking ship? I know I wouldn't.
This is how I would start my tenure as Secretary of Education. And I would move on from there, with luck bolstered with some good ideas from my listening.
I'd also, "under my government," question the Establishment Republicans, esp those in the US House of Representatives. Remember the tough talk they had when four or five times they passed bills calling for the repeal of Obamacare? Of course, there was no chance of any repeal. If the Senate actually passed a similar bill, Obama's veto pen was at the ready. So, now, with majorities in both houses of Congress, with a President ready to sign a repeal, where is the Establishment Republican action? Talk about gutless! It's easy to do something when it means nothing. To do something of substance takes courage. Former Speaker John Boehner said the other day the House wouldn't repeal it. Do these fools still not see why Trump was nominated and elected?????? Are they that arrogantly blind or just plain stupid? Is it a fruitless question to ask when the wishes and needs of the people will be addressed? I fear it is.
I had two good laughs last week. One was a quote from some Hollywood-type. I don't remember his name; I didn't recognize his name. He said something like, maybe not the exact words, but pretty close, "The Oscars still matter." Heh Heh. To whom do they "still matter?" Maybe I have it all wrong and a lot a folks still pay attention. I don't know. It would be nice to see the ratings for the awards show, if the numbers can be trusted.
I read several articles last week about the newspaper industry or at least some influential (at least in their own minds?) newspapers. They finally (?) have recognized that they are in trouble. Among other things, they are hurting financially. Again, I don't remember the exact words, but coming from several of these journalism-types was this, "Trust us. Who else are you going to trust?" I'm assuming that was said with a straight face. But my face wasn't straight when I read that.
Also in the department of hilarity was this, from Major League Baseball. Apparently the MLB wants to "speed up games" by giving automatic intentional walks instead of making pitchers deliberately throw four balls. There are several things with that, but let's focus on "speed up the games." What is this proposed new rule going to cut, 30 seconds, maybe a minute from a game? How many intentional passes are given in a typical game? I think I read somewhere that there are .2 free passes per team per game. That means a team will issue an intentional walk once every five games. If the league is really concerned about the length of games, I don't think this will make much difference. And it will take away potentially exciting miscues.
I thought of that today when I was considering Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. If I were in her position, today, I think I'd start out this way. I would invite, perhaps together, perhaps separately, the presidents of the two national teachers' unions to lunch. I'd only ask questions. "What do you see as the major problem with American education today?" "What other major problems are there that need to be addressed?" "What is the role of teachers' unions," namely the AFT and NEA? And so on. I would just listen, making sure that my lunch partners realized I was listening, really listening.
Now, I would also hope I wouldn't get the stock/standard teachers' union answers to my questions. I might have to be a bit more probing. And I wouldn't be dismissive of any of their concerns. There may or may not be common ground, but how are we to know if we don't talk--and listen?
Next, I'd go to people I trusted and ask them to identify their best teachers, not their favorite ones. I wouldn't automatically go to the "teacher-of-the-year" winners. Some of them might well be among the list I would compile, but from my experiences, I'm very leery of recipients of these types of awards. Then I'd make a point of talking with them, too, in groups or individually, mostly asking questions--and listening. The conversations would be confidential, encouraging an open dialogue with no fear of any retribution or repercussions.
I read an op-ed from a former state superintendent of schools. He called for "urgency" in efforts to improve schools. One thing I am pretty sure I'd avoid is talking to many administrators, including superintendents, on ways to bolster education. Why would anyone consult those who have been the captains of a sinking ship? I know I wouldn't.
This is how I would start my tenure as Secretary of Education. And I would move on from there, with luck bolstered with some good ideas from my listening.
I'd also, "under my government," question the Establishment Republicans, esp those in the US House of Representatives. Remember the tough talk they had when four or five times they passed bills calling for the repeal of Obamacare? Of course, there was no chance of any repeal. If the Senate actually passed a similar bill, Obama's veto pen was at the ready. So, now, with majorities in both houses of Congress, with a President ready to sign a repeal, where is the Establishment Republican action? Talk about gutless! It's easy to do something when it means nothing. To do something of substance takes courage. Former Speaker John Boehner said the other day the House wouldn't repeal it. Do these fools still not see why Trump was nominated and elected?????? Are they that arrogantly blind or just plain stupid? Is it a fruitless question to ask when the wishes and needs of the people will be addressed? I fear it is.
I had two good laughs last week. One was a quote from some Hollywood-type. I don't remember his name; I didn't recognize his name. He said something like, maybe not the exact words, but pretty close, "The Oscars still matter." Heh Heh. To whom do they "still matter?" Maybe I have it all wrong and a lot a folks still pay attention. I don't know. It would be nice to see the ratings for the awards show, if the numbers can be trusted.
I read several articles last week about the newspaper industry or at least some influential (at least in their own minds?) newspapers. They finally (?) have recognized that they are in trouble. Among other things, they are hurting financially. Again, I don't remember the exact words, but coming from several of these journalism-types was this, "Trust us. Who else are you going to trust?" I'm assuming that was said with a straight face. But my face wasn't straight when I read that.
Also in the department of hilarity was this, from Major League Baseball. Apparently the MLB wants to "speed up games" by giving automatic intentional walks instead of making pitchers deliberately throw four balls. There are several things with that, but let's focus on "speed up the games." What is this proposed new rule going to cut, 30 seconds, maybe a minute from a game? How many intentional passes are given in a typical game? I think I read somewhere that there are .2 free passes per team per game. That means a team will issue an intentional walk once every five games. If the league is really concerned about the length of games, I don't think this will make much difference. And it will take away potentially exciting miscues.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
George Washington
Happy George Washington's Birthday!
With the amorphous "President's Day," sometimes it's good to remember individual Presidents who were great, ones who defined and sculpted the path of the US. Washington was certainly one of those.
C-Span, I believe, came out with a recent ranking of Presidents. That Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were rated numbers one and two gives the ranking some credibility. I like a number of other places (Eisenhower and Truman, for instance), too; they are often underappreciated and underrated Presidents. Some, though, lead me to question the legitimacy of the rankings. Lyndon Johnson at # 10 and, esp, Barack Obama at # 12 seem way off-base and inaccurate to me, reflecting, perhaps, the bias of those involved. But back to Washington.
His birthday, the 22nd of February, is an interesting story. He was actually born on the 11th, in 1732. (BTW, how do you remember the square roots of 3 and 2 respectively? They are easy. The square root of 3 is 1.732, the year Washington was born. The square root of 2 is 1.414, the year Columbus wasn't born.) Britain at the time hadn't yet adopted the Gregorian calendar, which sought to correct the discrepancies of the old Julian calendar, namely how dates were straying from the seasons. For instance, to keep up with the seasons, the Gregorian calendar added 10 days to the year in 1582. That is, January 1st was followed by January 11th. (It wasn't quite that simple, but you get the idea.) Since the Gregorian calendar was a Catholic calendar (Pope Gregory XIII), not all countries adopted it. (Some Orthodox European nations such as Russia/Soviet Union and Greece,didn't until the 20th Century.) Because, in part, of the Protestant Reformation, Britain didn't come around until 1750 (the colonies, I believe, in 1752), adding 11 days then to conform. Hence, Washington opted to celebrate his birthday on the 22nd to match up with the calendar change. (I hope that makes a little sense.)
BTW, he didn't have wooden false teeth. Oh, he had several sets of false choppers, made of ivory and animal (cow and sheep) teeth and even his own older teeth which had fallen out or been extracted. And the springs that held some of them together seem as if they belonged in a torture chamber. (Maybe that's why none of his portraits show him smiling?) But there were no wooden teeth. And I hate to shatter illusions, but he didn't chop down the cherry tree. (I often feel like spilling the beans about Santa and the Easter Bunny when I reveal these.)
Of course Washington was a great President. Almost by sheer dint of his personality, his reputation, he forged the new government of the US under the Constitution. I don't think we, today, realize the opposition, the skepticism many Americans had in 1789. The Constitution was not a universally accepted, let alone revered document. Far from it. It was almost, despite the questioning, "Things will be all right. General Washington is on board." It was expected, assumed that the first President would be George Washington.
It was more than him setting precedents--the first Cabinet appointments, vetoes, executive orders and agreements, dealing with Congress, setting policies both domestic and foreign. There were a number of potential fatal events that he had to defuse: the Whiskey Rebellion, Jay's Treaty, and many more. Failure of the Republic was a real possibility, both from within and without. Without George Washington what is today the US would look a lot different, if there even was a US.
Two things, I think, tell us much of what we need to know about the man. When in London at the end of the war, portrait artist Benjamin West was asked by King George III "What will your General Washington" do now, having won the war for independence, with the victorious army at his beck and call? The assumption, by the king at least, was that the same path as history had always taken would follow: Caesar and others in the past, Napoleon in the near future; a victorious general would take the reins of power, as king, dictator, emperor. West replied that he assumed Washington would return to Mt. Vernon, to his love of his farm/plantation and farming. George III, perhaps not believing that, said, "If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world." (I've also read/heard "...the greatest man since Jesus.") And that's just what Washington did.
Remember, too, he could well have run for a third term and been easily elected, but he didn't, He, once again, voluntarily, gave up power to return to his farm, like the Roman Cincinnatus. He established the precedent of two terms for Presidents, which was honored by all subsequent Presidents until the egocentric, power-hungry Franklin Roosevelt.
Joseph Ellis (who apparently wasn't asked to rank the Presidents in this poll; nor was David McCullough) wrote, "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior...the Foundingest Father of them all."
With the amorphous "President's Day," sometimes it's good to remember individual Presidents who were great, ones who defined and sculpted the path of the US. Washington was certainly one of those.
C-Span, I believe, came out with a recent ranking of Presidents. That Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were rated numbers one and two gives the ranking some credibility. I like a number of other places (Eisenhower and Truman, for instance), too; they are often underappreciated and underrated Presidents. Some, though, lead me to question the legitimacy of the rankings. Lyndon Johnson at # 10 and, esp, Barack Obama at # 12 seem way off-base and inaccurate to me, reflecting, perhaps, the bias of those involved. But back to Washington.
His birthday, the 22nd of February, is an interesting story. He was actually born on the 11th, in 1732. (BTW, how do you remember the square roots of 3 and 2 respectively? They are easy. The square root of 3 is 1.732, the year Washington was born. The square root of 2 is 1.414, the year Columbus wasn't born.) Britain at the time hadn't yet adopted the Gregorian calendar, which sought to correct the discrepancies of the old Julian calendar, namely how dates were straying from the seasons. For instance, to keep up with the seasons, the Gregorian calendar added 10 days to the year in 1582. That is, January 1st was followed by January 11th. (It wasn't quite that simple, but you get the idea.) Since the Gregorian calendar was a Catholic calendar (Pope Gregory XIII), not all countries adopted it. (Some Orthodox European nations such as Russia/Soviet Union and Greece,didn't until the 20th Century.) Because, in part, of the Protestant Reformation, Britain didn't come around until 1750 (the colonies, I believe, in 1752), adding 11 days then to conform. Hence, Washington opted to celebrate his birthday on the 22nd to match up with the calendar change. (I hope that makes a little sense.)
BTW, he didn't have wooden false teeth. Oh, he had several sets of false choppers, made of ivory and animal (cow and sheep) teeth and even his own older teeth which had fallen out or been extracted. And the springs that held some of them together seem as if they belonged in a torture chamber. (Maybe that's why none of his portraits show him smiling?) But there were no wooden teeth. And I hate to shatter illusions, but he didn't chop down the cherry tree. (I often feel like spilling the beans about Santa and the Easter Bunny when I reveal these.)
Of course Washington was a great President. Almost by sheer dint of his personality, his reputation, he forged the new government of the US under the Constitution. I don't think we, today, realize the opposition, the skepticism many Americans had in 1789. The Constitution was not a universally accepted, let alone revered document. Far from it. It was almost, despite the questioning, "Things will be all right. General Washington is on board." It was expected, assumed that the first President would be George Washington.
It was more than him setting precedents--the first Cabinet appointments, vetoes, executive orders and agreements, dealing with Congress, setting policies both domestic and foreign. There were a number of potential fatal events that he had to defuse: the Whiskey Rebellion, Jay's Treaty, and many more. Failure of the Republic was a real possibility, both from within and without. Without George Washington what is today the US would look a lot different, if there even was a US.
Two things, I think, tell us much of what we need to know about the man. When in London at the end of the war, portrait artist Benjamin West was asked by King George III "What will your General Washington" do now, having won the war for independence, with the victorious army at his beck and call? The assumption, by the king at least, was that the same path as history had always taken would follow: Caesar and others in the past, Napoleon in the near future; a victorious general would take the reins of power, as king, dictator, emperor. West replied that he assumed Washington would return to Mt. Vernon, to his love of his farm/plantation and farming. George III, perhaps not believing that, said, "If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world." (I've also read/heard "...the greatest man since Jesus.") And that's just what Washington did.
Remember, too, he could well have run for a third term and been easily elected, but he didn't, He, once again, voluntarily, gave up power to return to his farm, like the Roman Cincinnatus. He established the precedent of two terms for Presidents, which was honored by all subsequent Presidents until the egocentric, power-hungry Franklin Roosevelt.
Joseph Ellis (who apparently wasn't asked to rank the Presidents in this poll; nor was David McCullough) wrote, "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior...the Foundingest Father of them all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
