...becoming or have already become?
I think I noted that on November 22, I saw nary an article on the Kennedy assassination, not a single one. Well, OK......
But on the way to class this AM, two different radio stations had something like "On this date in history." Both, as the lead, was "Frosty the Snowman first appeared on CBS" or whatever network it was. Neither mentioned, not a word at all, that this is the 76th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Maybe our entry into the Second World War isn't as important as Frosty, maybe. Maybe not everyone is high on history like I am. But maybe we've reached the abyss??????
I sometimes wonder who reads this blog. I generally get 50 or so hits/views, sometimes more than that. I think my highest was last summer with one post getting more than 100. Good. I also wonder why some of my posts show up on radio shows or in newspaper editorials/op-eds a week or two afterward.
Last weekend I posted about history and the dangers of not knowing it. This AM on one of the radio talk shows, a guest whose name I don't remember, talked of the current use of language. It was, I think, akin to my suggestions as to the use (misuse or abuse?) of history. Just as not knowing our history allows others to co-opt it, to define our history and therefore us, language can be co-opted, too. If terms are allowed to be used in ways that are dishonest or, at least, disingenuous, debates and discussions are one-sided. Take a term that is bandied about far too often, "fascist." It's become de rigueur among many to call names. If one disagrees with, say college students, that one is labeled a "fascist." I wonder if many of these students even know what a fascist is/was? Since when is disagreement an invitation to use the term "fascist?" Were then either Hamilton or Jefferson, depending on one's view, a fascist? After all, they disagreed and vehemently so.
Perhaps less dire, though, is our haphazard use of terms like "icon" and "classic." I heard someone say that of a moderately popular television show of some years ago. Maybe the person talking really liked the program; that doesn't necessarily make it a "classic." For that matter, is John Conyers, among others, really an "icon" of the civil rights movement? I guess that depends on one's definition. Surely he was an integral individual in civil rights. He played an important role. But when I think of "icons" of the civil rights movement I immediately think of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. That doesn't mean others, even nameless folks who did unrecorded deeds, haven't also been instrumental. I think tossing around words like "classic" and "icon" so willy-nilly cheapens the concepts. Not everything that a lot of people liked is a classic and not everyone involved in a movement, regardless of roles, is an icon.
Sort of funny, to me at least, was this, perhaps in the same vein. I walked into a school where I formerly taught and was greeted by a former colleague. He addressed me as "the venerable......" I smiled and later wondered if he knows what the word means. I've also been into that same place and been called "the legend." But I'm not sure if that is complimentary or not! I guess there are worse things to be called.
Yesterday, I had a nice enough run in the AM. I am combating some piriformis/sciatic problems, but they appear to be, however slowly, improving. Then, last night I went out for an evening run. I was a bit tired and maybe concerned about my piriformis/sciatic difficulties. But I was committed and off I went. By the time we finished, it was dark. (Fortunately, the trail we ran is smooth, hilly but smooth, so the dangers of tripping and falling were minimal.) It was a great run. It was so pretty out there, with no real pain either! And this AM, again in the dark before class, I had another beautiful run, this time for a little different reason. It snowed today. Nothing stuck, but the flakes were like big feathers, soft and floating in the air. Neither time did the cold bother me/us at all.
BTW, how do you get down off an elephant? You don't; you get down off a duck.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Friday, December 1, 2017
Teachers
I'm in my 47th year of teaching. I know that seems like a long time, but I don't see anything on the horizon to cause me to completely retire. I still enjoy it, as I noted in a lengthy e-mail regarding history and its teaching last week.
All these years and I still think of my own teachers, from way back. From the perspective of 47 years of teaching, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the good ones and the not-so-good ones.
I think I have written a number of times about my college professors at Amherst. Oh, I had some dogs there, but most were very good and some just brilliant. I have called them "The Gods." And, to me, they are. I am grateful for them and their teaching and feel honored to still be in contact with several of them.
But I want to go farther back than college. I think I remember almost every one of my elementary teachers and most of my junior high and high school teachers. Some I thought were pretty lousy back then and still think so. Others I thought were pretty good, some of them even growing in stature as I try to figure out this teaching stuff. (Yep, after 47 years, I'm still trying to figure it out!)
Most of my elementary teachers were very good. Oh, all but one or two were strict, quite so. That never bothered me, other than join in with others to say "How mean" or whatever one of them was. I learned a lot from them, including some self-discipline. Despite their strictness, at least to me, their caring always seemed apparent. If not always or even sometimes nurturing (Isn't that a buzz word now?), they did want us to learn and demanded it. If we didn't, due to our laziness or refusal, they jumped all over us.
In junior high, I had a much more mixed bag of teachers. One English teacher, I thought then and still think today, was very good. Oh, many of the students found him to be harsh, even mean. Hey, if a student was caught chewing gum in his class, he would say, "You are caught!" and then make the sinner stand in front of the class with the gum on his/her nose. It was quite the deterrent. Rumors were he was once a professional wrestler, although I never bought into it. He was a stickler for grammar, in speaking and in writing, and did his best to drill that into us. I always respected him and thought even more highly of him as a moved along with my own teaching. Obversely, another of my junior high teachers was the nicest, quietest woman one could imagine. Oh, she was smart. One would think with her demur stature, with her almost shy personality, she'd have trouble with classroom management, with discipline. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There were never any problems in her classes. She was a master!
One of my math teachers was also very, very good, but just one of them. I think a couple of the others were outside of their subject areas and it's almost as if the best students taught themselves with the text book. Another was highly regarded, even by my father, but I didn't think much of him, not compared to the math teacher I had before him. This one was very quiet, almost nerdy, but not quite. I suppose I wouldn't have been surprised to see him walking around with a slide rule hanging from his belt loops. I think, though, that he did have a plastic pocket liner! But he was really good at explaining math concepts, esp how they were used in story problems. (Are they still called that, "story problems?") And, any thought of "nerdiness" was erased when he came down to the gym after school and showed how to play basketball!
I really enjoyed my phys ed teacher, too. He was my football and swimming coach. For the longest time I wanted to be a phys ed teacher, to be just like him. He was far more than, "OK, this unit is volleyball" or "basketball" or whatever. He took time to show an interest, at least with me he did. I would bet a lot of others would say that, too. And, in the same vein, our assistant principal was just outstanding, too! He seemed to be everywhere at all times. And we were terrified of him--he was many of our parents' coach at one time or another and, back then, coaches were gods. How many times was I on the verge, when, from out of nowhere he'd emerge, saying, "Marinucci, do I have to call your old man--at work?" "NO!!!!!!" Any thought of wrong doing disappeared. Oh, by the way, I was on the receiving end of their paddles more than once--"more than once" shows how stupid I was. But this assistant principal was always there, always. In the gym, he'd be watching. Sometimes he'd challenge us to a game of "21," shooting free-throws. He shot them the very old-fashioned way, even then, underhanded like Wilt Chamberlain sometimes did. Except, I don't think he ever missed, ever lost to us. Sometimes he'd even beat us while he was blindfolded! And, to make things interesting, he (and my phys ed teacher) would play us for "Cokes." But neither ever made us pay up; I think they knew we had no money.
In high school, four of my math teachers were just outstanding. I went to Amherst toying with the idea of majoring in math. (Freshman calculus ended that thought!) They all had the same easy-going style, rarely showing any anger, always having the class(es) under control, and patiently teaching. I don't know if it is ironic or stereotypical or......but the only bad math teacher I had was a football coach. My two chemistry teachers were good, the advanced chem teacher outstanding, really really good. I remember he crammed the "required" material into one card marking period and used the last two for experiments. I remember some of them. He'd mix a solution and then give us a vial of it. We had to determine what the "ingredients" were. We'd do "dry labs" on paper, using all of the formulas, and then the actual experiments. If the experiments didn't come out the ways the dry labs suggested, we had to go through both and explain why they didn't.
I guess I'm not surprised it took a good long while for me to really learn to write. I credit that to two things. One, at Amherst that's all we did, well, other than read millions of pages. We had, in many classes, a 3-5 page paper due every Monday; going in there, I thought 3-5 pages was a term paper, not one for every Monday. Two, after graduation, my friends were all over the country, none here in Michigan. Long before e-mail and toll-free long distance calls, we wrote letters, often three and four and five pages, even longer. But back to high school. I had some mediocre English teachers. A couple were brand new, right out of college (and teachers have to start somewhere; I think it takes time to forget all that crap the schools of education try to teach) and another was out of her discipline. One taught me a lot, but I'm not sure it helped my writing at all. He didn't like the curriculum and rushed through the required grammar book; we had two or three hours of grammar homework a night to get through it. I'm sure he never graded the homework, a black mark on him, but...... He was very tough, making us do research papers and, most important to him, give oral reports on them. We dreaded that because he would try to tear us apart while presenting. But, he did teach us how to think, if only a bit (our fault, not his!), to be thorough, and to be able to back up what we wrote or said (or he'd tear us apart!).
It was kind of cool, my senior year in baseball, this tough English teacher and the second chemistry teacher would come to ball games. After we outfielders threw to bases, these two guys would alternative hitting me fly balls until the game(s) started. My buddies, players and otherwise, could scarcely believe their eyes! These were two hard cases, yet...... I think I had trouble believing it, too.
Oddly, throughout my junior high and high school times, I really didn't have a history (or social studies) teacher who I thought was very good, then and now. So, how did I become a history major? I think my Amherst professors were outstanding and that is why. But, again I digress. In junior high, I'll bet most of the students thought one of the teachers of history was great. I didn't then and think even less of him now. Perhaps ironically, he had a first-rate mind, at least in asking questions. (I think he was pretty close-minded, though). But he didn't work very hard at it and really didn't teach me anything. I think it was more a case of just going through the school year than anything. It's too bad; I think he had a lot to offer. (This teacher also frequently raved about an English teacher at the high school. He had her back when and told us how great she was and how lucky we'd be if we also had her when we got there. Well, I did and I found her to be mediocre, at best. I still remember one assignment we did that demonstrated she wasn't very good, couldn't really think.)
In high school, I had one social studies teacher I thought was very brilliant, had great ideas, and led wonderful classroom discussions. I learned from that. But I think he was lazy and what little work we had to do, he never graded, but had us do it in class. He could have been great. But my geography teacher was outstanding. When I took the class, it was the first time it was offered and, obviously, taught by him. He was really, really good. He had a wonderful personality and sense of humor and a great way of presenting material that wasn't always stuff that grabbed us. (It didn't hurt that he sat me next to a girl I eventually dated and took to the prom! She was great.) I later had him for a graduate statistics course in college. He had earned his PhD, but insisted that I continue to call him, not "Dr.," but "Mr.," just like in high school.
I supposed I could remember more, but now, I have to head off to class!!!!!! I'm looking forward to three hours on the civil rights movement. I bet students will be surprise at how much time we'll spend on Jackie Robinson!
All these years and I still think of my own teachers, from way back. From the perspective of 47 years of teaching, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the good ones and the not-so-good ones.
I think I have written a number of times about my college professors at Amherst. Oh, I had some dogs there, but most were very good and some just brilliant. I have called them "The Gods." And, to me, they are. I am grateful for them and their teaching and feel honored to still be in contact with several of them.
But I want to go farther back than college. I think I remember almost every one of my elementary teachers and most of my junior high and high school teachers. Some I thought were pretty lousy back then and still think so. Others I thought were pretty good, some of them even growing in stature as I try to figure out this teaching stuff. (Yep, after 47 years, I'm still trying to figure it out!)
Most of my elementary teachers were very good. Oh, all but one or two were strict, quite so. That never bothered me, other than join in with others to say "How mean" or whatever one of them was. I learned a lot from them, including some self-discipline. Despite their strictness, at least to me, their caring always seemed apparent. If not always or even sometimes nurturing (Isn't that a buzz word now?), they did want us to learn and demanded it. If we didn't, due to our laziness or refusal, they jumped all over us.
In junior high, I had a much more mixed bag of teachers. One English teacher, I thought then and still think today, was very good. Oh, many of the students found him to be harsh, even mean. Hey, if a student was caught chewing gum in his class, he would say, "You are caught!" and then make the sinner stand in front of the class with the gum on his/her nose. It was quite the deterrent. Rumors were he was once a professional wrestler, although I never bought into it. He was a stickler for grammar, in speaking and in writing, and did his best to drill that into us. I always respected him and thought even more highly of him as a moved along with my own teaching. Obversely, another of my junior high teachers was the nicest, quietest woman one could imagine. Oh, she was smart. One would think with her demur stature, with her almost shy personality, she'd have trouble with classroom management, with discipline. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There were never any problems in her classes. She was a master!
One of my math teachers was also very, very good, but just one of them. I think a couple of the others were outside of their subject areas and it's almost as if the best students taught themselves with the text book. Another was highly regarded, even by my father, but I didn't think much of him, not compared to the math teacher I had before him. This one was very quiet, almost nerdy, but not quite. I suppose I wouldn't have been surprised to see him walking around with a slide rule hanging from his belt loops. I think, though, that he did have a plastic pocket liner! But he was really good at explaining math concepts, esp how they were used in story problems. (Are they still called that, "story problems?") And, any thought of "nerdiness" was erased when he came down to the gym after school and showed how to play basketball!
I really enjoyed my phys ed teacher, too. He was my football and swimming coach. For the longest time I wanted to be a phys ed teacher, to be just like him. He was far more than, "OK, this unit is volleyball" or "basketball" or whatever. He took time to show an interest, at least with me he did. I would bet a lot of others would say that, too. And, in the same vein, our assistant principal was just outstanding, too! He seemed to be everywhere at all times. And we were terrified of him--he was many of our parents' coach at one time or another and, back then, coaches were gods. How many times was I on the verge, when, from out of nowhere he'd emerge, saying, "Marinucci, do I have to call your old man--at work?" "NO!!!!!!" Any thought of wrong doing disappeared. Oh, by the way, I was on the receiving end of their paddles more than once--"more than once" shows how stupid I was. But this assistant principal was always there, always. In the gym, he'd be watching. Sometimes he'd challenge us to a game of "21," shooting free-throws. He shot them the very old-fashioned way, even then, underhanded like Wilt Chamberlain sometimes did. Except, I don't think he ever missed, ever lost to us. Sometimes he'd even beat us while he was blindfolded! And, to make things interesting, he (and my phys ed teacher) would play us for "Cokes." But neither ever made us pay up; I think they knew we had no money.
In high school, four of my math teachers were just outstanding. I went to Amherst toying with the idea of majoring in math. (Freshman calculus ended that thought!) They all had the same easy-going style, rarely showing any anger, always having the class(es) under control, and patiently teaching. I don't know if it is ironic or stereotypical or......but the only bad math teacher I had was a football coach. My two chemistry teachers were good, the advanced chem teacher outstanding, really really good. I remember he crammed the "required" material into one card marking period and used the last two for experiments. I remember some of them. He'd mix a solution and then give us a vial of it. We had to determine what the "ingredients" were. We'd do "dry labs" on paper, using all of the formulas, and then the actual experiments. If the experiments didn't come out the ways the dry labs suggested, we had to go through both and explain why they didn't.
I guess I'm not surprised it took a good long while for me to really learn to write. I credit that to two things. One, at Amherst that's all we did, well, other than read millions of pages. We had, in many classes, a 3-5 page paper due every Monday; going in there, I thought 3-5 pages was a term paper, not one for every Monday. Two, after graduation, my friends were all over the country, none here in Michigan. Long before e-mail and toll-free long distance calls, we wrote letters, often three and four and five pages, even longer. But back to high school. I had some mediocre English teachers. A couple were brand new, right out of college (and teachers have to start somewhere; I think it takes time to forget all that crap the schools of education try to teach) and another was out of her discipline. One taught me a lot, but I'm not sure it helped my writing at all. He didn't like the curriculum and rushed through the required grammar book; we had two or three hours of grammar homework a night to get through it. I'm sure he never graded the homework, a black mark on him, but...... He was very tough, making us do research papers and, most important to him, give oral reports on them. We dreaded that because he would try to tear us apart while presenting. But, he did teach us how to think, if only a bit (our fault, not his!), to be thorough, and to be able to back up what we wrote or said (or he'd tear us apart!).
It was kind of cool, my senior year in baseball, this tough English teacher and the second chemistry teacher would come to ball games. After we outfielders threw to bases, these two guys would alternative hitting me fly balls until the game(s) started. My buddies, players and otherwise, could scarcely believe their eyes! These were two hard cases, yet...... I think I had trouble believing it, too.
Oddly, throughout my junior high and high school times, I really didn't have a history (or social studies) teacher who I thought was very good, then and now. So, how did I become a history major? I think my Amherst professors were outstanding and that is why. But, again I digress. In junior high, I'll bet most of the students thought one of the teachers of history was great. I didn't then and think even less of him now. Perhaps ironically, he had a first-rate mind, at least in asking questions. (I think he was pretty close-minded, though). But he didn't work very hard at it and really didn't teach me anything. I think it was more a case of just going through the school year than anything. It's too bad; I think he had a lot to offer. (This teacher also frequently raved about an English teacher at the high school. He had her back when and told us how great she was and how lucky we'd be if we also had her when we got there. Well, I did and I found her to be mediocre, at best. I still remember one assignment we did that demonstrated she wasn't very good, couldn't really think.)
In high school, I had one social studies teacher I thought was very brilliant, had great ideas, and led wonderful classroom discussions. I learned from that. But I think he was lazy and what little work we had to do, he never graded, but had us do it in class. He could have been great. But my geography teacher was outstanding. When I took the class, it was the first time it was offered and, obviously, taught by him. He was really, really good. He had a wonderful personality and sense of humor and a great way of presenting material that wasn't always stuff that grabbed us. (It didn't hurt that he sat me next to a girl I eventually dated and took to the prom! She was great.) I later had him for a graduate statistics course in college. He had earned his PhD, but insisted that I continue to call him, not "Dr.," but "Mr.," just like in high school.
I supposed I could remember more, but now, I have to head off to class!!!!!! I'm looking forward to three hours on the civil rights movement. I bet students will be surprise at how much time we'll spend on Jackie Robinson!
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Hmmm......
Now, it's John Conyers. He's apparently denying, "vehemently," all charges of sexual harassment that have been alleged by a number of women. (That number seems to be growing by the day.) I have a couple of thoughts about this latest outrage.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
I've been around a long time. I remember John Conyers being the first black auto dealer owner
(Conyers Ford) in Michigan, if not the US. I recall his efforts to subdue the early mobs of the Detroit race riots. One thing I don't remember is that he is "a civil right icon." Maybe I missed some things. Maybe I have a different definition of "icon." (It, "icon," is tossed around far too liberally, as is "classic.") Yes, he's the longest-serving Member of Congress right now and the longest-serving black Congressman in history. Does longevity create an "icon?" Again, I understand that I could be wrong about Conyers, but......
Several members of the Congressional black caucus have urged him to step down, to resign from the House. That leads me to wonder. What do they know? Why aren't they pushing him to fight the charges, to demand proof (if there can ever be any in cases like these), to confront the accusers, etc.? I just keep thinking that these folks know this has been going on for a long time, that only the accusations are recent. Maybe not; again I might be wrong. But why wouldn't they back their "icon" and fight along side of him on this?
And, if what I suggested above is true, what does that say about members of the Congressional black caucus (among others)? So, I guess, they thought such behavior is OK as long as nobody really knows about it, as long as nobody complains publicly? Is this yet another example where the real crime is not the sexual harassment, but making that public?
Sort of in the same vein, I keep thinking about the Hollywood-types, the women, who have come forward. (I see another actress made another claim in today's newspaper.) By opening up now, instead of 20 or 30 years ago, what does that say? OK, I understand that careers and livelihoods were likely on the line; they could be crushed. But, on the other hand, was being groped or harassed or molested or even raped not as bad as long as "I got the role?" Why didn't these women speak out then? Why didn't they scream and run away from the rapist jerks? Why did they submit? Were they physically prevented from doing so? If not.....? Was the role/job, then at least, worth the harassment, groping, etc.? Were the roles/jobs that important? No, I'm not condoning the behavior of these men. I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if statutes of limitations don't apply. Even if there are restriction relative to time, these men should become social pariahs. How about boycotting their works? We seem to want to boycott so many other "wrongs" in society.
I see that Murder She Wrote actress, whose name I can't remember, spoke up about this. She didn't blame women for being attacked, like some knee-jerk reactions claimed. She did say, though, that women should be careful with their own behavior. For instance, she asked about how and why women dressed the way they do. Again, she did not say someone who dresses like a slut should be raped; she didn't say that at all. She did ask women to question how they dress. Why do women try to make themselves attractive? There's nothing wrong with that. Clothes, hair styles, accessories...... Of course women dress to make themselves look better. So do men! But do women think they have have their boobs hanging half out to look attractive? No, they don't. Yet, take some time out to watch the boob tube. That dancing competition show that Karen watches. Do the dancers think that baring more skin than wearing clothes makes their dances better? (For that matter, what very little I've watched, why do the male dancers, too, sometimes take off their shirts or even start without them?)
For too many decades our cultures has stressed "if it feels good, do it." We've engaged in moral relativism, situational ethics. We've covered for obvious indiscretions, even criminal behavior, by some people, but not others. (And why, say, Martha Steward went to prison, but Bill Clinton did not, well, explain that one to me!) So now, year later, after people (men) "did it because it felt good," like they were told, after they saw others in positions of power and influence get away with blatantly bad behavior, society wants to crush them? (I think they should be crushed. I just asking why, when "if it feels good, do it" was the mantra, the norm, suddenly "it" is being lambasted.)
All this is very confusing to me. Things that I was brought up to believe were wrong, suddenly were not "wrong." And now they are "wrong" again.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The Tax Plan
I'm not sure what to make of this Republican tax bill. I tried one of those online calculators for what was termed the Trump tax cuts for my taxes and I don't think we'll make out real well on it. It's hard to tell, since I used 2016 income figures 2017 will be a bit different, somewhat less. I didn't have as many classes, so I made less. With K's retirement, we lost three months of her income, her social security not kicking in until December. And I made a little less money from writing in '17. So, I used last year's numbers.
I know there is an increase of $12,000 in the standard deduction, to $24,000. But the proposal, at least one of them, eliminates the individual exemptions, $4,100 (or so) a person. So the three of us will lose more than $12,000. So much for the help from the standard deduction. The child credit, for Michael? One proposal is for a credit of $1,600 per child; the other is only $1,000. Depending on the credit for children, we'll either come out a wee bit ahead/break even or a wee bit behind.
I'd assume there are a lot of other folks in my position, too. Where is this promised income tax reform that will give us guys in the middle, still struggling, a bit of relief? So, where is this tax cut?
I think if I was a member of Congress, I'd vote "no" because it doesn't give any real relief to a lot of folks, those in the middle.
Also, it seems to me small businesses should not pay a higher tax rate than larger corporation. And, according to some tax expert on the radio, that's what will happen. I believe small businesses employ more than the larger ones. So, the idea that a cut in the corporate tax will result in more hiring doesn't apply to a similar cut for smaller companies, ones who employ more? So, Salvatore's Pizza will still pay a higher rate than GE? Of course, I know why and so do you. Sal can't afford the big donations or to hire lobbyists.
What I really liked today was Trump saying the only thing Democrats favor is more taxes. Well, that's not exactly true, but does have a large element of truth. And didn't Schumer and Pelosi look like real jackasses in their meeting with Trump today? Oh, wait...... They didn't show! But inviting in the media with the two empty chairs was great!
Go back and check You Tube speeches of Democrats clamoring for relief for the little guy, for small business owners, for those inheriting those small businesses, etc. Then why are they, to a person, opposing the current tax plan? It surely couldn't be that they are against it only because it's a Republican plan, could it? Nah.....
Maybe it's that they see what I saw a few paragraphs above. But I doubt it. It's not as if they were scrambling to cut our taxes on their own, ever.
There is some concern that the tax cut (for some) will not generate enough in new government revenue, that the deficit will increase. There's even talk of building in safety nets, to raise taxes automatically if not enough revenue is created through growth. But it's the same old story, never any talk of cutting spending. Wasn't last year's government intake the largest in history? Yet the deficit increased yet again. Like Ron Reagan said, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Indeed we do......
I know there is an increase of $12,000 in the standard deduction, to $24,000. But the proposal, at least one of them, eliminates the individual exemptions, $4,100 (or so) a person. So the three of us will lose more than $12,000. So much for the help from the standard deduction. The child credit, for Michael? One proposal is for a credit of $1,600 per child; the other is only $1,000. Depending on the credit for children, we'll either come out a wee bit ahead/break even or a wee bit behind.
I'd assume there are a lot of other folks in my position, too. Where is this promised income tax reform that will give us guys in the middle, still struggling, a bit of relief? So, where is this tax cut?
I think if I was a member of Congress, I'd vote "no" because it doesn't give any real relief to a lot of folks, those in the middle.
Also, it seems to me small businesses should not pay a higher tax rate than larger corporation. And, according to some tax expert on the radio, that's what will happen. I believe small businesses employ more than the larger ones. So, the idea that a cut in the corporate tax will result in more hiring doesn't apply to a similar cut for smaller companies, ones who employ more? So, Salvatore's Pizza will still pay a higher rate than GE? Of course, I know why and so do you. Sal can't afford the big donations or to hire lobbyists.
What I really liked today was Trump saying the only thing Democrats favor is more taxes. Well, that's not exactly true, but does have a large element of truth. And didn't Schumer and Pelosi look like real jackasses in their meeting with Trump today? Oh, wait...... They didn't show! But inviting in the media with the two empty chairs was great!
Go back and check You Tube speeches of Democrats clamoring for relief for the little guy, for small business owners, for those inheriting those small businesses, etc. Then why are they, to a person, opposing the current tax plan? It surely couldn't be that they are against it only because it's a Republican plan, could it? Nah.....
Maybe it's that they see what I saw a few paragraphs above. But I doubt it. It's not as if they were scrambling to cut our taxes on their own, ever.
There is some concern that the tax cut (for some) will not generate enough in new government revenue, that the deficit will increase. There's even talk of building in safety nets, to raise taxes automatically if not enough revenue is created through growth. But it's the same old story, never any talk of cutting spending. Wasn't last year's government intake the largest in history? Yet the deficit increased yet again. Like Ron Reagan said, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Indeed we do......
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
The Groper of the Moment?
It's become dizzying, all these claims and charges of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape. How are we to keep any of it straight? It's reaches the highest levels of the political, entertainment, and communications industries, if not others.
I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges. I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave. Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.
Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges? OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases. After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before? If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court? I think, though, that number is very small. The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.
Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever. Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there. Perhaps it's because of "social media." (Oh, I still dislike that term!) People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.
Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them. As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.
Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s. "If it feels good, do it!" So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?" I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality. Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence). Remember the cry, "Free sex!?" Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance. I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."
This is not to condone or accept any of this. It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it. And I'm having a difficult time doing that.
One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere. So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side. Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives." Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights." Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?
Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc. Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language. I can't stand it. Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me. In a larger crowd, I don't like it. But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear. And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it. Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?" I think it's more a matter of "sameness." I don't think the sexes are the same. Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing. Women still don't get the Three Stooges. Men still don't get tear-jerker movies. That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.
On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil." No kidding! OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil." I don't particularly share it, but I understand. But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured." It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.
Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena. I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place. It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts. I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there. But it, LCA, still irks me. What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena. I think it came to about 40%. Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?
I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges. I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave. Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.
Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges? OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases. After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before? If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court? I think, though, that number is very small. The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.
Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever. Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there. Perhaps it's because of "social media." (Oh, I still dislike that term!) People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.
Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them. As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.
Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s. "If it feels good, do it!" So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?" I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality. Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence). Remember the cry, "Free sex!?" Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance. I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."
This is not to condone or accept any of this. It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it. And I'm having a difficult time doing that.
One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere. So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side. Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives." Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights." Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?
Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc. Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language. I can't stand it. Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me. In a larger crowd, I don't like it. But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear. And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it. Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?" I think it's more a matter of "sameness." I don't think the sexes are the same. Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing. Women still don't get the Three Stooges. Men still don't get tear-jerker movies. That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.
On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil." No kidding! OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil." I don't particularly share it, but I understand. But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured." It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.
Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena. I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place. It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts. I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there. But it, LCA, still irks me. What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena. I think it came to about 40%. Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?
Monday, November 13, 2017
Once Again...
...we "deplorables" are targeted, unwittingly this time.
In the newspaper this weekend, an op-ed from a Democratic Congressmen lamented "the Republican tax plan" because it "doesn't help the middle class." Excuse me for not laughing (although I did, but not in a funny way). Since when do the Democrats care about giving anyone tax cuts, let alone the middle class, you know, we who the Democratic candidate for President last year called "deplorables." (Yes, I know what she and her supporters said she meant, but I don't buy it, not for an instant.)
Oh, this righteous (self-righteous?) Congressman spouts all the right talking points, "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations," "a scam for the working people," "hard working Michiganians need tax relief," etc. Again I ask, when was the last time the Democrats offered a tax cut for anyone, let alone the middle class? (Hey, I'm not excusing the Establishment Republicans either. They've come to enjoy spending other people's money, too.)
Maybe there has been a tax cut and I just have forgotten about it--or didn't hear about it.
Then, on the radio this AM, I heard a Democrat from Michigan's Congressional delegation on "the Republican tax cut," too. I don't know if it was our US Senator or a local Congresswoman; I never heard her identified and don't know voices. Oh, woe are we! This Bozo was concerned, oh I could tell from her voice over the radio how concerned, was about "increasing the deficit," further burdening our children and grandchildren. I guess it was nice that this was radio; I can't imagine a Democrat keeping a straight face when talking about "increasing the deficit."
Why is the deficit such a big deal--now? Remember the threats to "shut down government" because of threats to slow government spending? (Again, let's not let the Establishment Republicans off the hook either.) Oh, seniors will lose their Social Security (the funds of which they have raided and raided) and Medicare. Those in need will lose their Medicaid. Oh, everyone will lose everything!! We can't cut spending to cut the deficit. Well, apparently now that the Republicans are tendering a tax bill, we or rather they can at least complain about the deficit.
BTW, the toady radio host had a wonderful opportunity for a meaningful question. All he had to do was ask, "Why is an increase to the deficit important now? It never was to you before?" But no, the sycophant let her off the inviting hook, "scot free."
BTW, from what I've read of the bill, I think it stinks. Of course, with so much flying around, who knows what it looks like today? A lot of middle class folks will jump at the sizable increase in the standard deductions. They'll not notice, at least not right away, that they personal and dependent exemptions disappear. The savings, at least at face value, will be lost to the vanishing exemptions. It's probably too early to really figure out savings, but from the summaries I saw last week, once again people like me will get the short end. And, are these Bozos really going to eliminate deductions for charitable giving? At the least, such deductions should be added so they can be taken even by folks using the short form. But let's wait and see......
I received a couple of sarcastic e-mails noting "the eloquence" of some of Don Trump's tweets. I likely don't have to repeat I am no fan of Trump. But I did have to laugh at this. I suspect that these same e-mailers never were sarcastic in describing the "eloquent" Obama. Remember his "eloquence?" "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Other than the grating use of "got," it sort of reminds us of Lincoln and Jefferson, right? How about this "eloquence?" "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I know, I know. But how "eloquent!" I'll refrain from asking where the gun control folks were on this one. "Oh, but he didn't mean that......" Again, I know, I know.
"This isn't how it should be...... You should be able to walk around the neighborhood without worrying about being shot or fighting or getting jumped by other kids." This came from a 12-year old living in Detroit. The article is about the culture of violence in Detroit neighborhoods. It cited a study that showed 87% of Detroit school kids "knew someone who had been killed, wounded, or disabled by gun violence." That should make us want to vomit! I won't minimize any of the other tragedies we've faced in this country recently, but when are we going to start addressing this? When will the NFL players kneel over this culture of violence in their cities? I don't understand.
I was reminded of Coach Rick Wilson over the weekend. I was glad I had an opportunity to explain the huge influence he had on my life to another Amherst alumnus who didn't know him. Coach Wilson was the renowned college basketball coach at AC. He received numerous awards. I was not a basketball player, hardly. But he was my freshman baseball coach. (I'm so old, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports back then!) He had a lot of old-fashioned ideas and he had us follow them. And he and I butted heads, at least once. From that major confrontation, which he won, deservedly so, he became a man I admired. We struck up, if not exactly a friendship, at least a relationship from which I benefited a great deal. My last three years, I'd see Coach Wilson in the gym, around the athletic facilities. In season or not, he'd stop and inquire about things; he didn't just ask, blithely, "How are things going?" He asked about my classes, how they were going, what I was doing with them, if I was keeping up--BTW, how did he know what classes I was taking?????? Not often, but sometimes, I'd stop by his office, just to say "Hi." He really seemed to enjoy that and then would start with is questions. Occasionally, he'd stop by a varsity practice or game, too, and made me feel important. He's dead now, but I remember him fondly. After graduation, I only returned to campus once for about 35 years. But that one time I did make sure I stopped by to see him. About eight years ago, at a reunion, I had a talk with one of his best players, one who made the last cut with the Lakers when they had Wilt, Hazzard, Goodrich, etc. (Dave has since died, too, hit by a car while riding his bike.) Our talk centered around the gruff Coach Wilson and butting heads with him, Dave far, far more often than I, obviously. But we both ended up agreeing that he was a great man, one who was important to each of us. I missed Dave at the last reunion, if only to renew our conversation about Rick Wilson.
In the newspaper this weekend, an op-ed from a Democratic Congressmen lamented "the Republican tax plan" because it "doesn't help the middle class." Excuse me for not laughing (although I did, but not in a funny way). Since when do the Democrats care about giving anyone tax cuts, let alone the middle class, you know, we who the Democratic candidate for President last year called "deplorables." (Yes, I know what she and her supporters said she meant, but I don't buy it, not for an instant.)
Oh, this righteous (self-righteous?) Congressman spouts all the right talking points, "tax cuts for the rich and big corporations," "a scam for the working people," "hard working Michiganians need tax relief," etc. Again I ask, when was the last time the Democrats offered a tax cut for anyone, let alone the middle class? (Hey, I'm not excusing the Establishment Republicans either. They've come to enjoy spending other people's money, too.)
Maybe there has been a tax cut and I just have forgotten about it--or didn't hear about it.
Then, on the radio this AM, I heard a Democrat from Michigan's Congressional delegation on "the Republican tax cut," too. I don't know if it was our US Senator or a local Congresswoman; I never heard her identified and don't know voices. Oh, woe are we! This Bozo was concerned, oh I could tell from her voice over the radio how concerned, was about "increasing the deficit," further burdening our children and grandchildren. I guess it was nice that this was radio; I can't imagine a Democrat keeping a straight face when talking about "increasing the deficit."
Why is the deficit such a big deal--now? Remember the threats to "shut down government" because of threats to slow government spending? (Again, let's not let the Establishment Republicans off the hook either.) Oh, seniors will lose their Social Security (the funds of which they have raided and raided) and Medicare. Those in need will lose their Medicaid. Oh, everyone will lose everything!! We can't cut spending to cut the deficit. Well, apparently now that the Republicans are tendering a tax bill, we or rather they can at least complain about the deficit.
BTW, the toady radio host had a wonderful opportunity for a meaningful question. All he had to do was ask, "Why is an increase to the deficit important now? It never was to you before?" But no, the sycophant let her off the inviting hook, "scot free."
BTW, from what I've read of the bill, I think it stinks. Of course, with so much flying around, who knows what it looks like today? A lot of middle class folks will jump at the sizable increase in the standard deductions. They'll not notice, at least not right away, that they personal and dependent exemptions disappear. The savings, at least at face value, will be lost to the vanishing exemptions. It's probably too early to really figure out savings, but from the summaries I saw last week, once again people like me will get the short end. And, are these Bozos really going to eliminate deductions for charitable giving? At the least, such deductions should be added so they can be taken even by folks using the short form. But let's wait and see......
I received a couple of sarcastic e-mails noting "the eloquence" of some of Don Trump's tweets. I likely don't have to repeat I am no fan of Trump. But I did have to laugh at this. I suspect that these same e-mailers never were sarcastic in describing the "eloquent" Obama. Remember his "eloquence?" "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Other than the grating use of "got," it sort of reminds us of Lincoln and Jefferson, right? How about this "eloquence?" "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I know, I know. But how "eloquent!" I'll refrain from asking where the gun control folks were on this one. "Oh, but he didn't mean that......" Again, I know, I know.
"This isn't how it should be...... You should be able to walk around the neighborhood without worrying about being shot or fighting or getting jumped by other kids." This came from a 12-year old living in Detroit. The article is about the culture of violence in Detroit neighborhoods. It cited a study that showed 87% of Detroit school kids "knew someone who had been killed, wounded, or disabled by gun violence." That should make us want to vomit! I won't minimize any of the other tragedies we've faced in this country recently, but when are we going to start addressing this? When will the NFL players kneel over this culture of violence in their cities? I don't understand.
I was reminded of Coach Rick Wilson over the weekend. I was glad I had an opportunity to explain the huge influence he had on my life to another Amherst alumnus who didn't know him. Coach Wilson was the renowned college basketball coach at AC. He received numerous awards. I was not a basketball player, hardly. But he was my freshman baseball coach. (I'm so old, freshmen couldn't play varsity sports back then!) He had a lot of old-fashioned ideas and he had us follow them. And he and I butted heads, at least once. From that major confrontation, which he won, deservedly so, he became a man I admired. We struck up, if not exactly a friendship, at least a relationship from which I benefited a great deal. My last three years, I'd see Coach Wilson in the gym, around the athletic facilities. In season or not, he'd stop and inquire about things; he didn't just ask, blithely, "How are things going?" He asked about my classes, how they were going, what I was doing with them, if I was keeping up--BTW, how did he know what classes I was taking?????? Not often, but sometimes, I'd stop by his office, just to say "Hi." He really seemed to enjoy that and then would start with is questions. Occasionally, he'd stop by a varsity practice or game, too, and made me feel important. He's dead now, but I remember him fondly. After graduation, I only returned to campus once for about 35 years. But that one time I did make sure I stopped by to see him. About eight years ago, at a reunion, I had a talk with one of his best players, one who made the last cut with the Lakers when they had Wilt, Hazzard, Goodrich, etc. (Dave has since died, too, hit by a car while riding his bike.) Our talk centered around the gruff Coach Wilson and butting heads with him, Dave far, far more often than I, obviously. But we both ended up agreeing that he was a great man, one who was important to each of us. I missed Dave at the last reunion, if only to renew our conversation about Rick Wilson.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
"Normal People......" Drivers Music
I read an article this AM about the church shooting in Texas. A psychiatrist was interviewed, saying among other things, "Normal people don't shoot people." Hmmm......
Are we really to the point that we need someone with a license to tell us what is "normal?"
That raises all sorts of questions. What is "normal?" How is that identified? What "normalcy" (a term, I believe that stems from Warren Harding's 1920 Presidential campaign) is, well, normal? What abnormality is dangerous and how do we identify it? Doesn't everyone have little quirks and quiddities, well, everyone except me? (Ha Ha Ha. Ask Karen about that one!)
So, if we accept that, except in some situations such as self-defense or the defense of others, "normal people don't shoot people," how do we explain, not killings such as that in Texas or even terrorist attacks, but the wanton murders that go on in our cities every day? Are those thugs who shoot up others' houses trying to kill someone who "dissed" them "normal?" What about the animals (Yeah, that might offend some folks, but too bad!) who robbed the auto parts store last week and, after having been given the money they sought, stopped to shoot the worker in the head before they left? "Normal?" The list goes on. Have the "experts" even tried to explain these murderers as not "normal people?"
That's a serious question that needs to be addressed. What is it in our major cities that leads to so many murders without any sense of remorse or guilt? To far too many people, such shootings and murders are badges of honor. Look at the faces of those accused and convicted of murders. When sentenced most of them have smirks or "I'm really a tough guy" looks on their faces.
So, who will be the first "expert" to label these city murderers "not normal people?"
I was listening to the radio this AM on the way to and from a race. One station claims, "We Play Anything." I don't know if that's true, but I heard a variety of plays from different decades. I'm sure I can ID some folks of the '80s (but maybe not later than that) who could really sing, with good voices. But it seems to me that the songs of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (maybe with the exception of Bob Dylan--OK, pile on me for that one.) at least had people who could carry a tune. This station appeared to confirm that. The later "music" was just noise, someone shouting into a microphone I guess. Some of the instrumental playing was pretty good, other than the banging and pounding, but the voices weren't good at all. Oh, I enjoy some of the '80s and '90s music; some of it I like, but still hesitate to call it real "music." To each his/her own and I concede I might be wrong, that the screeching and banging and pounding are really music.
A few weeks ago some speaker on the radio claimed that in large cities like Detroit, as many as 60% of the drivers don't have licenses or insurance or both. Can that be right? What leads people to believe they can get away with this? If they are in accidents, it's all about them--why should they or their insurance companies pay someone else? When we were rear-ended in Detroit a year ago, the woman--on her cell phone when smacking into us--didn't have a license and didn't have insurance. The police who arrived told us that. And, they didn't arrest her, didn't give her a citation, didn't do anything except let her drive away (in another's car). I suppose with two or three or more murders a day, driving without a license or insurance isn't such a big deal? Still......
Are we really to the point that we need someone with a license to tell us what is "normal?"
That raises all sorts of questions. What is "normal?" How is that identified? What "normalcy" (a term, I believe that stems from Warren Harding's 1920 Presidential campaign) is, well, normal? What abnormality is dangerous and how do we identify it? Doesn't everyone have little quirks and quiddities, well, everyone except me? (Ha Ha Ha. Ask Karen about that one!)
So, if we accept that, except in some situations such as self-defense or the defense of others, "normal people don't shoot people," how do we explain, not killings such as that in Texas or even terrorist attacks, but the wanton murders that go on in our cities every day? Are those thugs who shoot up others' houses trying to kill someone who "dissed" them "normal?" What about the animals (Yeah, that might offend some folks, but too bad!) who robbed the auto parts store last week and, after having been given the money they sought, stopped to shoot the worker in the head before they left? "Normal?" The list goes on. Have the "experts" even tried to explain these murderers as not "normal people?"
That's a serious question that needs to be addressed. What is it in our major cities that leads to so many murders without any sense of remorse or guilt? To far too many people, such shootings and murders are badges of honor. Look at the faces of those accused and convicted of murders. When sentenced most of them have smirks or "I'm really a tough guy" looks on their faces.
So, who will be the first "expert" to label these city murderers "not normal people?"
I was listening to the radio this AM on the way to and from a race. One station claims, "We Play Anything." I don't know if that's true, but I heard a variety of plays from different decades. I'm sure I can ID some folks of the '80s (but maybe not later than that) who could really sing, with good voices. But it seems to me that the songs of the '50s, '60s, and '70s (maybe with the exception of Bob Dylan--OK, pile on me for that one.) at least had people who could carry a tune. This station appeared to confirm that. The later "music" was just noise, someone shouting into a microphone I guess. Some of the instrumental playing was pretty good, other than the banging and pounding, but the voices weren't good at all. Oh, I enjoy some of the '80s and '90s music; some of it I like, but still hesitate to call it real "music." To each his/her own and I concede I might be wrong, that the screeching and banging and pounding are really music.
A few weeks ago some speaker on the radio claimed that in large cities like Detroit, as many as 60% of the drivers don't have licenses or insurance or both. Can that be right? What leads people to believe they can get away with this? If they are in accidents, it's all about them--why should they or their insurance companies pay someone else? When we were rear-ended in Detroit a year ago, the woman--on her cell phone when smacking into us--didn't have a license and didn't have insurance. The police who arrived told us that. And, they didn't arrest her, didn't give her a citation, didn't do anything except let her drive away (in another's car). I suppose with two or three or more murders a day, driving without a license or insurance isn't such a big deal? Still......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
