Dr. B's Notes

187 Altruism & Politics

10/7/2020

The last couple of posts have been quite heavily politically oriented.  I didn't intend this one to be political, although it seems to have become so as I was writing it.  It's true that it WAS stimulated by a political incident, although I'd intended it to be more philosophical.

Like a lot of people, I watched a good deal of the Democratic National Convention when it was broadcast a while back.  As I did this, I was particularly taken by the speech Jill Biden made about her husband, Joe.  Now one would expect a wife to be supportive of her husband's ambitions, so most of what she said seemed to me to be well-handled, but unsurprising.  However, I was taken by the section where she said, “Four days after Beau’s funeral, I watched Joe shave and put on his suit.  I saw him steel himself in the mirror, take a breath, put his shoulders back, and walk out into a world empty of our son.  He went back to work.  That’s just who he is.”  I must confess that I could identify with Joe at least a little in that description.  While I've never faced anything that devastating, there have been times when I felt I had to force myself to go "back to work."

Dr. Biden went on to describe a number of things she has seen Joe do to help others in their time of trouble and finished by saying she understood why he did such things.  She said, "He does it for you."  This set me back a bit because I didn't believe it.  You see, I really don't believe in what is called "altruism."  That's not to say that I don't understand the idea, or think it would be great if it existed, but I am unable to convince myself that real altruism actually exists.

Now, the dictionary says:

Please do not misunderstand me.  I believe that people sometimes do things which others may consider to be altruistic, I just believe that they do those things, largely, because it gives them a sense of personal satisfaction and accomplishment.  Therefore, they don't do it "for others," they, ultimately, do it for themselves.

I rather like Joe Biden, not because he is "selfless," but because he has made efforts to do things which he felt were for the common good.  I don't expect anyone in politics to do something "for" me, but to do things because they are in a position to make a contribution towards achieving some good, and are willing to expend their time, energy and resources to help accomplish it.  If I benefit from it (whatever it is) that's nice for me.  If not, maybe someone else will benefit more.

In The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein says, "Beware of altruism.  It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."  What I think he meant by that was that people do things because they want to do them, not because they are against their own self-interest, although it is possible that some of these things may, at least, appear to be so.  I would like to think that it might be because they see themselves as a part of a greater whole and they feel that they will achieve some sense of personal satisfaction by helping to see that certain things get accomplished for the good of everyone.

It comes to my mind that the multi-billionaire, Warren Buffett, has commented that it is ridiculous that he can pay less in taxes than his secretary, due to the way the tax code is written, and he would not be opposed to a revised tax code which required him to pay his "fair share" because he can certainly afford it.  I don't think that's "altruism," so much as an awareness that "fair is fair" and a fair tax code isn't going to make him suffer very much.  My suspicion is that his great emphasis on charitable contributions is, at least in part, based on his recognition that he benefits from an unfair tax code which hurts others., so he can afford to try to do something for others.  Altruism?  Perhaps.  But I'll bet it makes him feel good, too.

While thinking about this, I have done a bit of looking around to see what others have said about altruism and discovered that I am, apparently, not alone in my ideas.  Sri Aurobindo, the Indian philosopher, has been quoted as saying, " Very usually, altruism is only the sublimest form of selfishness."  I think that may capsulize this idea rather well.

Another way of saying what I think is much the same idea comes from Of Human Bondage by W. Somerset Maugham.

I, myself, have done things which some might say were altruistic in their nature.  I remember, back in my very early days at Western, not being overjoyed as I climbed into the old light booth in the Niggli Theatre to run lights for our production of Marat/Sade with a fever of 101 degrees.  I was not happy about being sick, nor about being at work.  But there was no one else available who knew the cues and the show because I had been running the lights for rehearsals and I knew that there wasn't anyone else available to do that job.  And I got a sense of satisfaction in knowing that I had done what I could to make that production a success.

Later in my career, there were many evenings and weekends spent grading Theatre History or Dramatic Lit. papers and tests, or working on editing BFA theses not because I really enjoyed doing that, but because I got some satisfaction from returning the work to the students involved promptly and with my honest evaluation and commentary about the work they had done.  While it rarely was what I would call fun, I felt it was necessary and important, so I made efforts to respond promptly.  And it satisfied my sense of professionalism to do so to the best of my ability.
I could probably come up with other examples, but that isn't the point. The point is that I didn't really do it for my students, I did it because I expected high standards from my students, and I felt they had the right to expect me to hold myself to equally high standards in my evaluation/critique of their work.  If it was important enough for them to do it, it was important enough for me to respond to it promptly and thoroughly.

I am thankful that whatever "sacrifices" I may have made to meet those standards were not, ultimately, all that significant.  Yes, there were occasions when I was unable to do things I might have preferred to do with my family and/or friends, but I knew I wouldn't be happy doing them until I could do them without feeling guilty because I was not getting my job done.  In fact, I probably enjoyed them more when I could relax and do so.

There are, of course, many reasons why political leaders do the various things which they do.  I suspect that a common reason may be because it demonstrates that they are in a position of power and are, therefore, more important than other people.  In simplest terms, it feeds their ego.  I believe that I could come up with many examples of that in the current political situation, but I really don't wish to get into that sort of thing.  The disgrace of the so-called First Presidential Debate has demonstrated what an infantile egomaniac looks like quite well.  We cannot be a nation of "law and order" unless everyone agrees to make at least some effort to abide by the laws, even if we don't like them.  A refusal to offer even a pretense of reasonably civilized behavior along the previously agreed guidelines, as we saw displayed during the first debate, suggests that civilization as we know it is in danger.  And for what?  Because Donald's ego is at stake and he refuses to accept that he isn't entitled to be king?  I can think of no other conclusion.

I don't think that Joe Biden wants to be king.  I believe that he wants to preside over a country which needs renewal, and that he thinks he can contribute to that renewal.  I respect that.  He isn't the total answer and I think he is aware of that.  But, I believe that he will go to work to do what is possible to rebuild our country back into something of which we can be proud again.  To steal a phrase, I think that it's possible that he actually could start to "Make America Great Again!"  Not because it's the "biggest, baddest" bully on the block, but because it's making an effort to reestablish civil relationships with other countries (especially our allies); it's paying attention to the dangers to the climate from unregulated waste and pollution; it's seeing that the United States returns to showing the rest of the world that democracy IS possible and that fascistic dictatorship is NOT the solution; it's being a force for peace throughout the world; and, it's being a force for fairness for all in our society.  I doubt that Joe can accomplish this in a single term, or even two.  But I think that if we let him "go to work," progress will be made.

I'm through.  I know how I'm voting.  My ballot is sitting on my desk right now and it may well be in the hands of my county election commission by the time you read this.  I will not tell you how to vote.  But I WILL encourage you to consider the FACTS, consider your VALUES, and VOTE accordingly!

LLAP

Dr. B

P.S.      Next time I'll get back to my more usual frivolity.  I promise.

P.P.S.   Just to prove that I AM still capable of being frivolous and in honor of my rapidly approaching birthday, I offer this picture.

It was taken on the occasion of my birthday sometime about 2000, or 2001, when my Shop Assistants (Sarah, Serenity, Joe, and Scott [I think it was]) got together with Bonnie and cooked up a delivery of "birthday surprise" cookies which showed up in the scene shop next to the Niggli in middle of the afternoon of the appropriate day. Because of the occasion, I was "required," (by them) to wear this hat and mask (which they got from Susan) to celebrate. (Note: those really ARE my glasses [from the time] which I am wearing over the mask so I could actually see to find the candles.) See, I'm still not too old to be silly, when the situation warrants it!

0 Comments

186 Politics 2

9/23/2020

0 Comments

In my last post, I said that I found some of Mr. Trump's behaviors to make him the less desirable candidate for President in the upcoming election.  This time, I wish to share some additional thoughts relating to the upcoming election.  First, I should point out that I don't believe that Mr. Biden, if elected, would, quickly and easily, resolve all of our difficulties and create the "more perfect union" which we might desire.  But I DO think he might be able to start some movement in that direction.

So, why do I say that?  Do I think that Mr. Biden has all of the answers and will be able to wave some sort of magic wand and resolve all of the differences and difficulties which our country faces?  I don't think so.  Could it be because I'm so committed to the Democratic Party that I believe that only the Democrats can restore America to greatness?  No!  In fact, I suspect that Will Rogers had it right when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party.  I am a Democrat."  It's also true that I really don't buy into the idea which the Republicans have been so anxious to spread that the US has "fallen" from greatness and still has to be "made" great again, by them.  (An obvious admission of their failure to do so in the past four years, which their reigning VP, Mike Pence actually suggested, but that's not the point, either.)

Be that as it may, I think what Will said is true, that it is hard to think of the Democratic Party as being particularly well-organized, so why would I want to be a part of that disorganization?  To be honest, precisely because it IS disorganized!  To me that suggests that the Democrats DON'T all agree with each other and move in some sort of lock step towards a defined utopian future where everyone agrees on everything and we are all likely to die of boredom because we are all just cookie cutter copies of the same sort of thinking.

I LIKE the idea that it's just possible that democracy isn't supposed to be a situation of conformity to the wishes of some sort of "supreme leadership council" (or, Heaven forbid, a "supreme leader") who will lead us to the "glorious future" of world envy, and/or domination.  I find it very hard to accept that much of what has been preached by the current crop of "Trumpublicans" is really what the Founding Fathers intended, or even the Republican Party of the not too distant past envisioned as the destiny of our nation.

Now, the Republicans I remember from a few years ago tended to fit into the general category of what is called "Conservative."  They tended to be anti-union, pro-business, against taxes, for "small" government (keep the government out of my personal business; also known as personal freedom), and (to go back a few years further) to believe that, if there were social problems in the country, the solution was to provide the wealthy with greater wealth and that they would allow/encourage that wealth to work its way down to those of us who might not be as well off.  This was, generally, referred to as "trickle down economics."  They also, generally, supported a policy of not getting the government involved in any form of "social engineering" as school integration, health care, employment, environmental concerns, job safety practices, etc.

Then things started to change.  In order to attract traditionally white southern conservatives to the Republican Party, they created a "Southern Strategy," of attracting southern whites away from the Democrats, in large part by seeking to make laws which were anti-black, and which would appeal to religiously "conservative" ideas.  So, limiting black voter's rights and being anti-choice was good, although the death penalty was still a good idea.  Protecting the "right" of the white "Christian" Church to have significant influence on the political scene was also a part of this strategy, as it provided an excuse to be pro-segregation and to keep those "uppity" folks in their "proper" place.  And, of course, in the process, they were protecting white, male supremacy by attacking efforts to grant women the right to equal pay, fair employment practices, etc.

Still, having lived through those years, I don't remember the changes which the Republicans seemed to desire actually having too much impact.  In fact, the lot of a fair part of the middle and lower classes actually seemed to improve, although mostly in those periods when Democrats were in charge.  (Check the records.)  But even so, I also remember that most of those Republicans did, in fact, seem to think that the political system of argue, debate, and compromise worked reasonably well.  It's true that nobody ever really got everything they wanted (which isn't, necessarily a bad thing) but solutions were reached which did seem to work reasonably well and we did, overall, move in the general direction of resolving some of the issues of civil rights, greater equality, and a general sense that the country was becoming fairer to all than it had been, say, 20-50 years earlier and it seemed that this sort of advancement, while slow, might continue.

Then something changed.  I think the first big change was the Roe v Wade decision.  All of a sudden, the, mostly white, male, politicians (very few of them with a medical background) felt they had lost control over "theirwomenfolk."  After all, if a woman could actually CHOOSE not to have a baby (thereby making them unsuitable for employment outside the home) then men had lost some of their ability to dominate them.  They might actually want jobs and equal pay for equal work and men might have to compete with women and prove the just being male didn't automatically make them better qualified for whatever job they wanted.  So, they started all sorts of actions to say, "Okay, the Courts gave you that right,  but we are going to do all we can to minimize your ability to exercise it."  And they went and tried, and they are still doing so.

Then, to make matters worse, a BLACK guy named Barack Obama was elected to be President, and, with a tiny margin, the Democrats had control of the Congress and were able to start considering social legislation which was, generally, opposed by many "Conservatives."  This led, a couple of years later to a Republican dominated Senate and the expressed desire of Majority leader Mitch McConnell that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  (I certainly can't prove it, but I have always suspected that this attitude had a lot to do with the fact that Obama was an African American.)  I find it quite likely that some folks simply wanted to make sure that no "uppity N*****" was able to succeed as President, especially considering more recent developments.

Most of the next six years were dominated by attempts to "repeal and replace" the healthcare reforms which, in fact, had been legally made law and were, generally, approved of by most Americans.  It is noteworthy, I think, that the Republicans, while anxious to repeal, never actually got around to offering up any sort of replacement.  They still haven't done so, despite many promises to do so.  In fact, I don't think it would be too much to say that, other than trying to abolish the gains of the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans really didn't do much of anything for about six years except to try to stall/defeat ANY action by the Congress, or the President.

Mitch, and the boys, even went so far as to refuse to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court for over a year because they couldn't stand the idea that they might even consider a person selected by a President not of their Party, "so close to the election."  I think it was at that time that the Republican Party lost me completely, and I think I am justified in my belief that this was not just a political, but a racist action.  It's worth noting that Mitch made a statement within hours of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg that "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate" in spite of the fact that the election will be in six weeks.  And, of course, Donald desires a Senate vote "without delay" proving that neither he nor Mitch are honorable men.  Julius Caesar III,2,52 ff comes immediately to mind to me.

Since I retired, I have been able to follow politics more closely than I had while I was working, and I must say that I have been appalled.  Up until the past few years, while I often didn't agree with the Republican (Conservative) position on many issues, I frequently thought that the points they emphasized were worthy of consideration and were, often, of some value in preventing the Democratic positions (generally more Liberal) from becoming too dominate, which MIGHT be a good thing.

[An aside: When did "liberal" become a pejorative?  I always thought it suggested open-mindedness, tolerance, etc.  Now, many people use it like a curse word.  I've even heard of folks objecting to the idea of a "liberal education." This seems sad to me.

And, by the way, the opposite of "radical," a word Trumpublicans use interchangeably with "liberal," is "reactionary."  "Radical" and "Reactionary" are extremes, as opposed to more "middling" positions of liberality or conservativism.]

To continue, while current Republicans say that they are "Conservative," it seems to me that many of their actions tend more towards "Reactionary" than traditional "conservative" values.  Okay, I understand nostalgia for the "good old days," but I'm afraid that the days of "Leave It to Beaver," "Ozzie and Harriet," or even "Happy Days" are gone and never really existed except on TV.  I don't think that most American women really want to return to the days when they were expected to spend their lives as housewives and mothers, with little opportunity to ever hold a job, except, possibly, as a nurse, schoolteacher, secretary, or waitress.  Even then, of course, the REAL goal, for a woman, was ALWAYS assumed to be marriage and family and taking care of (being dependent on) the "hubby." Anything else, of course made them a "failure as a woman."

I don't think that Black and Brown Americans are likely to be willing to return to segregation and the other, more obvious forms of racism.  There's still plenty of racism around that hasn't been addressed in any meaningful way.  I also doubt that the LGBTQ community is going to happily go back in the "closet."  Nor do I think that many people would be happy to back to a "males only" "Selective Service" process to feed the need of the military.  Do we really want to return to street corner abortions, or "duck and cover" drills in elementary schools?

Whether we like it, or not, the world has changed, and we really can't go back to those days even if we wanted to.  I, for one, don't wish to do so.  Yes, change is hard, but it is a FACT.  Suggesting that we can reestablish those, "wonderful(?)," old days is, in reality, an "alternative fact," that is, an UNtruth.

In the current political climate, we seem to have two, conflicting points of view.  One, represented by a group which claims to be Republicans, but which often displays behaviors and attitudes which tend towards exalting nationalism (and probably race) above the individual; that seems to stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader; and appears to advocate a fairly high degree of economic and social regimentation by an elite class; and the forcible suppression of opposition.  It pains me to point out that these are the definitional characteristics of a political system known as Fascism.  Which leads me to note that it is popular in "Trumpublican" circles to blame demonstrations (even when they can't be stirred up into riots, so that they can be suppressed more authoritatively), as being led by Antifa, which seems to be the current name for them to call anyone who protests anything they don't support.

As I understand it, after some brief research, there is NO specific organization which can be called "Antifa," because it isn't really that organized, as it's even less organized than the Democrats.  About all it seems to stand for is "Anti-Fascism."  Does that mean that the "Trumpublicans," who say they are anti-Antifa (therefore anti-anti-fascist) are actually PRO-fascist?  The use of a double negative in English is usually considered to resolve into a positive.  Oh, well.

To get to the real point of this post.  I've watch Mr. Trump for over four years now as he has lied, name-called, bullied, bragged, ducked responsibility, etc.  I find little to respect there.  On the other hand, I've been aware of Mr. Biden for quite a while, certainly since he ran for Vice President, but even before that, during his tenure in the Senate, which began in 1973 and lasted until 2009.  I didn't know a lot about him, but I did, occasionally hear about something he had done, or a position he supported.  I've recently learned that he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English, and, later, obtained a Law degree from Syracuse University.  (Remember, Trump's only education culminated with a B.S. degree in Economics.)  I admit to a certain prejudice towards B.A. degrees, but a double major WITH a minor, and then a degree in Law as well.  I find that moderately impressive.  All things considered Joe's educational record seems more impressive than Donald's.

I confess that I have been impressed by Joe's having largely overcome the stutter he had as a child, which I know is a challenge.  I find that making fun of it when it occasionally shows up, as Donald has done, to be offensive and certainly not becoming anyone who wishes to be thought of as a leader.  I never had such a challenge, but I have studied such things just a bit, and have a very modest insight into how challenging it can be.

Joe has also overcome the personal challenge of dealing with the death of his first wife and their daughter shortly after being elected to the Senate and proceeding to serve effectively enough to be reelected multiple times while also raising his two motherless sons.  I find those actions to be signs of strong character, dedication to dealing with adversity, and a willingness to face the future in spite of difficulties.

While I don't agree with everything that Joe has done in his career in the Senate and as Vice President, that doesn't surprise me.  In fact, if I did, it would really surprise me.  What his record tells me, however, is that he is a man who has a record of doing the people's business in a fashion which was good enough to get him reelected six times by his constituents in Delaware.  I doubt that all of those voters always agreed with everything he did, but they trusted him to represent them at least most of the time.

Then, as Vice President, he, apparently, served Mr. Obama well enough to be kept around for a second term and was entrusted with a number of specific tasks for the Obama Administration in addition to his other duties. Perhaps the most valuable insight I have heard about Joe actually comes from President Obama, "The best thing about Joe is that when we get everybody together, he really forces people to think and defend their positions, to look at things from every angle, and that is very valuable for me."  I think that's a great quality for a Vice President, and I think it would be valuable in a President, as well.

So, do I think Joe Biden is perfect?  No!  But we are dealing with a binary choice here.  After all, there may be various other candidates on the ballot, but the Presidency is going to come down to one of two people.  I think my choice is pretty obvious.  I trust Joe Biden to consider the options and make a decision based on the best information available from a variety of sources, especially from those who actually know what they are talking about.  I have enough academic and scientific training to think that it's generally wise to trust the opinions of those who have thoroughly studied whatever problem is under consideration.  I don't think that "trusting your gut" because "I'm so smart" is likely to produce the best possible choices.  Nor is relying on TV pundits instead of seasoned, qualified professionals.

If Biden is elected, do I suspect that I will agree with all of his decisions?  No, but I think he is likely to try to get the best information available, make his decisions based on the advice of knowledgeable people, and give each matter careful thought.  If (when) he makes a mistake, I expect he will admit it and try to rectify the problem he created.  I don't think he will refuse to accept responsibility for it and blame others.  I'm pretty sure that we really can't ask much more of any President.  Except, of course, not to lie to us, because, in his opinion, we "...can't handle the truth."  I think we can handle the truth just fine, it's the lies which we can't (and shouldn't) handle, but I won't go there.

Register & Vote!  Vote EARLY, if possible!  It's important!  It's the essence of democracy.

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

185 Six Years of Blogging - Politics 1

9/9/2020

0 Comments

I realized the other day that it's been six years since we moved to Omaha.  I had retired at the end of the academic year 2013-14 and Bonnie retired from the Honors College later that summer.  That September, having moved and, mostly, settled in, I decided I would create this blog and the website which supports it as a bit of a lark and to do something that I thought I would enjoy.

Now, six years later, I find I am still enjoying finding things to think/talk/write about, although I will admit that some entries are more successful than others.  I really had no idea that this would become such a part of my life, although it is by no means the only thing I do.  Still, it gives me an excuse to spend some of my time doing something which might be construed as being "productive."  I don't know if it's my Puritan roots, or what, but I enjoy being "productive," although I prefer mental productivity to something like digging ditches.  That's probably my academic training and heritage coming through.  So, I intend to keep on blogging, at least as long as I can find something to say and to do the research necessary to satisfy myself that I have some idea as to what I am writing about.  Since my sources of amusing signs, jokes, comic strips, etc., don't appear likely to disappear any time soon, I suppose that I can keep on with these posts without too much difficulty.

I have, mostly, avoided getting into political topics in these postings.  There are a lot of reasons for that.  I have always felt it was important not to let political opinion intrude into my classroom.  I was not teaching political science.  Yes, many plays can have political content and I have never tried to avoid discussing those facts or including such content in productions where I had significant influence on interpretation, but I always made serious attempts not to allow my personal, political ideas invade my work in the classroom.  I felt that my job was to assist students to acquire the best, most accurate information available and to help them develop the skills to assess that information based on reasonable judgement and sound thinking.  It was NOT my job to tell people WHAT to think.  And, I tried to follow that in my classroom.

The situation has now changed.  I am no longer in a classroom and, while I still don't think it's my place to tell people what they should think, I do not have the ethical requirements of the teaching profession to prevent me from expressing my own opinions with a bit more candor than I felt appropriate in an academic setting.   So, this blog, in the future, may, at least from time to time, have some greater emphasis on specifically political content than it has had in the past.

If that disappoints or upsets some readers, I'm sorry.  But I'm not going to shy away from expressing what I believe.  Politics is too important.  I acknowledge that my ideas are only that.  You are welcome to disagree with me.  However, I would like to believe that I don't get far enough into an idea as to write about it without putting some thought and effort towards getting information about that idea from sources which seem likely to be reasonably well informed.  I don't consider myself a "prime" source of most things political.  I try to pay some attention to the news, so I believe that I have some handle on the facts.  I also think I am enough of a scholar that I am hesitant to draw conclusions without at least some supporting evidence.  I think I am willing to listen to others who can produce arguments which contradict my ideas, provided they are based on reasonable evidence, not just emotion.   So, consider yourselves warned.  I have thoughts and I've not afraid to use them.

After watching the news fairly closely for the past few years, I have come to believe that Donald John Trump is a danger to our country.  I don't believe this because of a specific political philosophy which he has espoused.  There have been many of our leaders with whom I disagreed on various issues.  No, I'm concerned about Mr. Trump mostly because I have never heard him espouse any political philosophy except that he is the "savior" of the country; that he is the one to save us  from all of those other people who aren't "real" Americans like him and who are, at least to hear him tell it, are clearly inferior sorts of people who should be ignored and distrusted.  More specifically, however, it's because of a number of specific actions I have observed him engage in over the last four, or five, years.  Let me provide some examples.

First, I find it hard to have faith in the leadership of a person who seems to have no ability to espouse reasons/explanations for many of his actions, except to indicate that, "I know what is best because I'm so smart; and the proof of my great intelligence is my great wealth."  Okay, he appears to be rich, but he has left a long string of corporate bankruptcies; accusations of, at best, quasi-legal business shenanigans; documented fraud (Trump "University"); and other questionable activities (including racist practices and accounting gimmicks) in the record of his business career.  This career, by the way, certainly appears to have been based on money which he was "loaned" or inherited from his father, not built from his own efforts.  So, I find it hard to accept his much-touted record of great deal-making, especially when he refuses to reveal his tax or business records and requires "Non-disclosure Agreements" from, apparently all of his business associates, so that his record is almost completely unverifiable.

Second, he told us in his campaign that he "...knew all the best people" and would place them in appropriate positions of authority within his administration.  His record in this area has been one of a constant flow of people into and out of various offices in his administration.  People brought into office as "perfect" examples of the best our country has to offer are then quickly replaced with comments that they are examples of complete incompetence and stupidity whom we should be glad he fired.  This gives me little confidence in his judgement.  This is especially true since the firings all seem to occur shortly after these appointees displease him in some fashion, suggesting different motivations.

Third, it's easy to see many examples of a pattern of Trump trusting his "gut" over expert advice because, he says, his "great intelligence" proves that he "knows more than the generals," highly experienced public health officials, or, apparently anyone else about almost everything.  Personally, I haven't seen what I would consider much evidence of Mr. Trump's great intelligence, especially since we are told that he doesn't read, often does not pay attention to briefings, etc., and seems more responsive to his supporters on Fox News than to the information from the country's intelligence services and other, qualified, experts, but that's beside the point.  A more provable point is that his claim of "superior" intelligence does not seem to be borne out by his educational accomplishments, which consist of a B.S. in Economics from The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968.

Now, Trump frequently brags about Wharton (notice he never says "UPenn) being the "best" school and has often spoken of his place near the top of his class.  Yet, he threatened to sue Penn if it released his specific records (grades, etc.), which, according to the information I was given as a Faculty member at Western, are NOT publicly available without permission of the student, so they couldn't be released without his permission, in any event. (As an aside, I was told that, as a faculty member, I could not, under Federal law, release grade-related information even to a student's parents without the student's permission.)  Apparently, he is not familiar with these laws.  Clearly, however, Mr. Trump would prefer that the public not know the details of his academic record.

On the other hand, commencement programs ARE publicly available.  The program for the University of Pennsylvania's 212th Commencement Ceremony, held on May 20, 1968 is available @ https://archives.upenn.edu/digitized-resources/docs-pubs/commencement-programs/program-1968.  It shows that Donald John Trump graduated with a B.S. degree in Economics, just as he states.  However, in the section of that program where "Academic Honors" are indicated, the same Donald John Trump is NOT indicated as graduating "Cum Laude," "Magna Cum Laude," or "Summa Cum Laude."

Now, speaking from my experience in attending many commencement exercises over 43 years of teaching, universities are ALWAYS proud of their "Honors" graduates.  They ALWAYS want to celebrate those students who have achieved the "best" academic records.  If Trump had, as he has suggested, graduated near the top of his class, it seems likely that he would have received some sort of recognition of that fact by the university on this occasion.  After all, twenty-some others DID receive such recognition.  I do not wish to denigrate Wharton, nor any of its graduates, but I find it hard to accept that a fifty-year old non-Honors B. S. degree in Economics and a questionable business career qualifies one with the knowledge and ability to know more about military matters than all the generals, more about international relations than seasoned State Dept. professionals, and more about medicine and public health than those with advanced degrees and many years of experience in dealing with such matters.

What this, and more, seems to add up to, at least to me, is that here we have an individual who appears so insecure in his own abilities; so insistent that his ideas are the only ones which matter; and, so concerned about proving his own importance that he is dangerous.   Just my limited knowledge of psychology from Psych 101 & 102, suggests that one who constantly brags of his own superiority, belittles anyone who disagrees with him, and bullies almost everyone frequently, has a desperate need to convince others that he is THE "man."  I think one could reasonably suggest that this comes from a high degree of insecurity regarding his confidence in his own abilities, but I am not a trained psychologist.

However, his constant need, as President,  to "rule by decree" and tweet; his inability (or unwillingness) to assume any responsibility for even his own actions; his constant belittling and name-calling of any who disagree with any of his ideas; his pattern of labelling reports of his own changes of opinion as "fake news"; his paranoic obsession with polls and ratings, (which are "wrong" when they don't support him it spite of the proven objectivity of such measures); and his constant appeal to the tactics of contemporary "strong men" leaders and the application of methodologies which are strangely similar to those used in the 1930's by Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler and more recently by Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin are all disturbing.

His insistence on personal loyalty to himself as leader, and his encouragement of armed "militias" and efforts to make the Dept. of State, the Dept. of Justice, the organs of public Health and the intelligence agencies arms of his political ambitions are frightening.

I cannot support a "leader" who declares a "National Emergency" based on the emergence of a new strain of virus. (quoted below):

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020

and then proceeds to tell the Governors of the various states that they must assume the responsibility for the citizens of their states because declaring such a national state of emergency should not be taken to imply anyresponsibility on the part of the national government to actually DO anything, except, perhaps, to "help you out when you can't handle it yourselves."  I come to this conclusion based on the established fact that Trump, to this day, refuses to accept any responsibility for the fact that we have no national strategy for preventing the spread of this virus in spite of millions of cases and close to 200,000 deaths.  And growing.

The national strategy for developing a vaccine, such as it is, seems to be to throw billions of dollars at any drug company which has developed a candidate vaccine so that they will go into production of millions of doses of unproven treatments in the hope that something (ANYTHING) might actually work.  Now we see statements that we should be prepared to "miraculously" have a vaccine JUST before the election, thus proving that Donald is the "savior of the country."  If that idea doesn't smell of political desperation and attempting to manipulate public health policy for personal, political ends, I don't know what does, especially when the recognized medical and public health authorities strongly suggest that adequate testing of a candidate vaccine can't possibly have been accomplished within that time frame.  These are NOT "alternative" facts, they are just news reports from what Trump usually describes as the "fake" news.  Personally, I will take my medical advice and opinions from licensed doctors and practitioners, not someone with a mediocre record in finance and business.

I also find Trump's constant harping on the "great success" of the economy disturbing.  Just because the stock market is doing well (which it has been), does not mean the economy, overall, is in good shape.  I am not an economist, but it IS true that the government has been spending trillions of dollars which it doesn't have and won't get because big business is enjoying great tax relief and relaxation of anything resembling regulation.  But real people have lost jobs and retail sales are down, in spite of the fact that Trump's nemesis, Amazon, is doing okay; government services (the Postal Service) are in decline, apparently because Trump considers voting by mail to be bad, in spite of the fact that he does it; evictions are up; food banks are empty; COVID-19 is running rampant; etc.  All things considered, it doesn't seem to me that the overall economy is doing all that well; and is unlikely to do so at least as long as we can't resume "normal" activities without being concerned about dying of COVID-19.

And, even then I believe that the "new" normal will be quite different from the old.  I would suggest that the concentrated business centers of big cities are doomed as the COVID crisis has demonstrated that a lot of business is capable of being conducted without assembling the workforce in common workplaces and that much work can, in fact, be accomplished remotely.  I do think that education will return to a more traditional model, mostly because the social skills of group activity have considerable value for society.  But "downtown," as a center of business, appears doomed in large measure, along with the shops and restaurants which have supported it.  Factories will continue to exist, but they will be increasingly robotic and require fewer workers.  No, it's too bad, but the "new" normal is unlikely to be the same as the "old" one, but I digress.

To return to my previous thread, to top off the other concerns, Donald seems to believe that he, personally, can be the one to judge whether, or not, the upcoming election has been "fair" and "correct”; and, if he decides it hasn't been, he has the right to refuse to give up the office when the Constitution says a new President's term would begin.  Now, it is possible that Trump could be reelected, although it's fairly obvious that I don't believe that he should be.  But, if he is not, his suggested unwillingness to leave office at the appropriate time could, I'm afraid, touch off a second civil war, testing whether any nation "... conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...." can long endure.

I believe that Trump's actions have made it quite clear that he is dedicated to the creation of a nation which is ruled, not "...by, for, and of the people;" but by and for Trump.  His actions in exerting personal influence over our systems of justice, foreign affairs, public health, etc., strongly suggest that he is less interested in being President and more interested in being a "strong man" dictator like those he so admires.

Some may suggest that I simply hate Trump, but I believe them to be wrong.  I pity him.  His inadequacies have apparently been carefully honed by those whose love he desperately sought.  I hope that he will someday find the peace to accept his own, frequently revealed mediocrity.  Those who have profited from his pitiful failings, and I believe that there are many of them, should be punished to the full extent of the law.  Their abuses, not only of this poor man, but of our country, are acts as heinous as those of the Holocaust, if on a somewhat smaller scale.  Rather than assisting Trump to acquire the assistance he so obviously needs; they have continued to use and abuse this pitiable figure for their own ends.  Their guilt is unforgivable.

I would urge others not to vote for Trump, not just because I find little to admire in this sad, little man, but because I find much to admire in the U. S. Constitution which he clearly sees as an impediment to his achieving what he wishes to believe should be his personal destiny.  Do I think that the Constitution establishes a way of life which is perfect?  No.  However, I am unable to conceive of a better basis upon which to establish a government.  It even has a process of amending itself in order to provide for needed changes, a process which has been used numerous times.  Even with the imperfections which I see in our system, though, I can't accept that the crowning of some sort of all-powerful "Leader" is likely to lead to the establishment of the "more perfect Union" which our Founder's hoped to be starting.

What this suggests is that voting is the lifeblood of our country.  We can vote in elections, or we can vote with our lives, but voting is how we achieve a better nation.  Be informed.  Take care.  Vote as if your life depended on it.  It probably does.

Next time I plan to make some comments relating to Mr. Trump's opponent, Mr. Biden.  I'm not convinced that he is going to be the "Savior" of our country, either.  Of course, I'm not convinced that's really what he wants to be.  Nor am I convinced that a "Savior" is what we should be seeking.

LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

184 Awards, Award Shows, etc.

8/26/2020

0 Comments

I see that the nominations for this year's Emmy Awards were announced in late July, immediately creating controversy over the small number of Latinx people who were nominated for an award this year.  I'm sorry if I seem to lack sensitivity, but I think this "outrage" is stupid!  I have previously made some comments as to how I feel about "awards" for theatrical work (onstage and in the wings) as well as in motion pictures and television in posts #32 & #143 in the archives of this blog, so I will try not to rehash those ideas too much.  Still, I am moved to comment about this sort of controversy because I suspect that it is exactly what such awards were actually intended to create.  After all, controversy breeds interest; and interest sells tickets.  And selling tickets (in whatever form) is what the entertainment BUSINESS is all about.

Now I'm not going to just pick on the Emmys.  I think that that same basic motivations, and the yearly controversies over which individuals or groups got the "correct" number of nominations in the "correct" categories is true of all the major entertainment awards. The award presentations are then followed by the yearly controversies over who was "properly" given the award after the usually rather dreary ceremonials which consist, mostly, of  "I'm so surprised...." speeches which have, in most cases, been carefully written out in advance and consist mostly of "thanking" everyone in sight.  Apparently, nobody is supposed to pick up on the idea that the recipient is suggesting that they had no real responsibility for the work being rewarded.  Of course, given the "team" nature of theatre, television, motion pictures, etc., it is, in fact true that the best individual work is unlikely to be recognized as outstanding without appropriate support from the rest of the cast and the crew.

But we insist on having individual awards for the "BEST" this or that, despite the somewhat legendary (and seemingly quite true) situation that winning an individual award (especially for acting) may be quite damaging to one's career as it is immediately assumed that a winner will immediately demand greater payment than they would have prior to the award, making them too expensive to even consider for other work.  I'm told that that isn't always the case, as even winners need/wish/want to continue working, but the belief in its truth remains.

I think one should recognize that these awards really serve, primarily, as marketing tools.  Many projects are timed so that they are likely to have just been widely seen right before the nominations for the various awards are made, and so that they can enjoy an additional burst of box office sales by getting nominated, and then another such burst if the project actually gains awards.  One doesn't have to be a Wharton graduate to see that being an "award-winning" anything is highly desirable from a marketing perspective.

Then, there's the problem of choosing the nominees and, ultimately, the winners.  Each sort of award has its own process for accomplishing this and all seem to make efforts to be fair and open as to the methodology used.  But, at least in recent years, every year there is controversy because some group expresses some dismay because THEIR group didn't get its "proper" share of nominations and/or awards.  I'd suggest that this is a fundamental flaw in the basic idea of such awards and will continue until we, as a society, either 1.) accept that such activities are unlikely to be viewed as "fair" to all in every case on every occasion; or 2.) that some sort of quota system will have to be established so that the "right percentage of the "right people are assured of winning.  This idea, of course, will also prove unsatisfactory to virtually everyone unless every possible category is recognized, and all quotas are fulfilled.  Then we can argue about how the quotas are "unfair."

I am reminded a bit of the problem of the assignment of grades, which I see as a somewhat similarly difficult process.

Grades, except in the case of multiple-choice and True-False questions (probably the least valuable sort of information in the long run) almost always come down to a matter of opinion, just as awards in the arts do. Most teachers who I have known are aware of that and try very hard to be as fair and unbiased as possible. Still, if we are honest, complete objectivity is unlikely to be possible. That really shouldn't be surprising. Human beings do have emotional responses and a "good" discussion of an essay/discussion question or problem which is well-written, straightforward and easy to follow may very well get a better grade than a "better" factual treatment which is poorly spelled, ungrammatical, and difficult to follow simply because the former is more pleasing than the latter. I will admit that I may have been guilty of this, because when you have 30 papers to grade, it's a relief to find one which is a pleasure to read, so it's likely to be rewarded, perhaps more highly that it might have been under other circumstances.

Of course, there's also the question of "grade inflation", something administrators often say they deplore. Then we see things like this ad I ran across in the local paper around graduation time this year.

Okay. So, Creighton University ran an ad to congratulate its new alums. Big deal. But, did you notice the little section at the bottom of the ad?

Now unless they have an unusual grading system, if The Class of 2020 had a 3.5 GPA, then the "average grade" was a "B+."  My sense is that they are trying to argue that their university is a bit like Lake Wobegon where "... all the children are above average."

Creighton IS a fully accredited, nationally known university which is tied for 104th rank among "National Universities" by U.S. News.  One would guess that admission is pretty competitive.  So, it's not unreasonable to assume the Creighton students are more talented, dedicated, etc., than the run-of-the-mill average across the country.  Given that, I would suggest that one could reasonably expect that the Creighton faculty might well expect a higher standard from their students than might be expected from those who attend Blankenty State.  In fact, I would suggest that, if grades must be assigned, they, like awards, should be assigned based on the quality of the work presented given the competition present.

It's a little like the situation I observed with some frequency in the Theatre program at Western.  The incoming freshman actor might have been used to playing lead roles in his/her local theatre at home, but that didn't mean that they could expect to successfully compete with more advanced students at Western immediately.  Director's should cast the person they feel is the best qualified to play the role from the talent and skill level available.  For those new students, the competition had changed, and they had to demonstrate that they could hold their own under these, changed circumstances.  The same thing happened to our students when they graduated.  The competition changed when they tried to work somewhere else (grad school or professional work), so they had to demonstrate that they could compete successfully in these new groups.

Grades are a bit like that.  I would assume that a "B+" from a school like Creighton probably should suggest a higher standard of work than the same grade from, say, Western, or many other schools.  Bragging that a 3.5 GPA is the "average" only suggests that our grading system is inflated because "Our" students are superior to the peons at other schools.  I would argue that that also suggests a degree of arrogance which I find in poor taste and suggests a sort of complacent stupidity which I find aggravating and amusing, but all too common among college/university administrative personnel.

An example of such administrative arrogance shows up in the picture below, which I discovered on the home page of Western's website a few years back.

Now I know that Western's web PR folks thought they had an interesting picture to help promote the then newly created School of Stage and Screen.  And, I assume they thought the accompanying text would provide motivation for prospective students to be attracted to it.

However, having spent a considerable time working with stage lights, I do not find the idea of showing a bare-handed technician working on obviously illuminated lighting fixtures with the suggestion that one should "Grab" a "white-hot spotlight" to suggest any real understanding of the nature of stage technology, at least at the time this picture was taken.  If the line had been rewritten to say, for example: "The white-hot spotlight: Take your place in its light on stage in WCU's new School of Stage and Screen" along with a picture of someone standing onstage in a pool of light while "performing," I wouldn't have a problem with it.  However, the picture is, obviously likely to appeal most to "techies" and I doubt that suggesting that lighting technicians should "grab white-hot spotlights" with their bare hands is likely to attract the sort of prospective "techies" that I would want in my program.  Needless to say, my opinion regarding the use of this picture and text was not consulted before its use.  I confess that I found this embarrassing, but I'm quite sure that administrative folk thought it quite clever.

As many of my students know, I was never very fond of Western's tradition of having student "awards" paralleling those used for Broadway and/or motion pictures.  I don't believe that the educational experience is about awards.  I believe that such things almost always degenerate into "who has the most friends" and "what category can we put 'so-and-so' in because she/he needs an award" awards.  If educational theatres are going to have awards, I believe that they should be based on who has contributed the most, who has grown the most as a performer/technician/student, etc.

One of my own proudest achievements was being awarded the "Outstanding Freshman" award and then, later in my undergraduate career, a "Theatre Award Scholarship" by the Faculty of the theatre program at Indiana during my undergraduate years there,  These awards weren't a plaque or trophy, just a very modest "scholarship" towards my tuition for the next year.  I think, maybe it was $100.  But I was singled out for "doing good" by people I respected who had the entire body of undergraduate Theatre students to pick from.

Oh, well, awards will be given, tickets will be sold based on them and people will complain about how this or that person or group was not given their "fair share" of nominations and awards.  I find the whole thing a bit distasteful and further proof that most of these awards are valued, primarily, for their commercial importance.  I think that's too bad.  To me,
Schroeder has it right.

The arts are worthwhile because they give us joy and, hopefully, also give it to others. Awards, it seems to me, are really beside the point (although they can help sell tickets).

See you in a couple of weeks.

LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

183 COVID Could Be Worse -- Remember Salem

8/12/2020

0 Comments

Each year when August rolls around, I am reminded of how bad things really can get within a society.  This is because, 328 years ago this month, a bunch of people in Salem, Massachusetts, decided that an ancestor of mine (along with a number of other people) was guilty of "witchcraft" and that the "correct" thing to do was to hang her "by the neck until dead."  Which they then went out and did on August 19, 1692.  To me, this provides us with a picture of how low human society can get.  Yes, I deplore slavery, anti-Semitism, and any other form of discrimination which one can think of.  And, certainly Americans have been guilty of many, many varieties of these sorts of behavior focused on whichever group(s) our society had decided to pick on at that particular moment.

I think this is why I have a problem with those who feel that some economic and personal sacrifice is too much to pay for the health of us all.  After all, I would argue, what about the wide variety of laws and regulations which have been adopted in an effort to "...promote the General Welfare,"?  These would include: “No Shirt; no Shoes; no Service“ laws; speed limits and other traffics restrictions; airport security restrictions; "Blue" laws and other regulations restricting business hours and practices; laws REQUIRING the removal of snow from sidewalks (which are on our, personal property!); etc.  Certainly, such laws inhibit one's freedom to behave as they might wish.  Yet I don't see many people demanding the "right" to some sort of "absolute" personal freedom in those situations.  Yet, requiring a mask and/or social distancing is said to be an offense against "Constitutionally protected rights," according to some people.  Read the Preamble, people.  It says that the Constitution was written to establish a government "... to promote the general Welfare...."  It seems to me that that could be construed to allow requiring masks to help keep citizens alive.

I confess a certain desire to suggest to some of the "never maskers" that if it's YOUR "right" to endanger me, is it not MY "right" to apply a Second Amendment solution to protect me from your actions?  Somehow, I see some logic here, although I really don't favor that as a wise course of action.

I'm not happy to be mask-wearing, isolating, "social distancing," etc., but I accept that my rights end where they interfere with yours.  If I have a "right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," so do I.  If you wish to endanger me by refusing to engage in a bit of preventive social action, I have the right (established in the Declaration of Independence) to suggest that the government should enact laws to protect me from you.

It does NOT include, in my opinion, the right of political leaders to force us to conform to THEIR ideas of desirable behavior through the use of the military, however.  I'm dating myself, but I remember the Kent State University massacre when National Guard troops fired on civilians protesting the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and managed to kill some people who were just walking across the campus to go to class.  Violence as a part of protest is not good, but neither is it acceptable as a means of stopping/preventing legitimate protest, especially by the military.  But enough of this political philosophy.

Strangely enough, there IS the possibility of some humor in the current pandemic.  To me, this is what separates the current situation from what happened in Salem.  I can't find any humor in that situation, which was a REAL witch-hunt, as was the McCarthy era.

As some of my lighting design students may remember, I sometimes used Edward Hopper's Nighthawks as an example for them to figure out how to create lighting effects.  I'd tell them to, "Turn the picture into a floorplan, then make that a light plot for the purpose of recreating the picture."  Most found it a challenge.  I thought it a valuable exercise.  If you don't know the picture I'm referring to, here it is from the Art Institute of Chicago website:

My brother-in-law shared this version from The New Yorker by Jason Adam Katzenstein, who adapted the painting for masks and "social distancing."

Or, a bit more grimly, there's this version which I saw in The Economist.

One of the more interesting developments of surviving the pandemic, at least to me, has been my discovery that we can, in fact, "socialize" on a wider scale than email. No, I still do not do Facebook or Twitter. My experience with this has been via Zoom meetings of the Omaha Sherlockian Society. I gather that there are other, similar apps available, but Zoom seems to be what people are talking (and cartooning) about.

On the other hand, Thatababy pointed out that one can TRY to cheat on Zoom business meetings, but it IS possible to get caught,

Between Friends, on the other hand, was, I felt, quite eloquent about the rules for appropriate dress, etc. while "Zooming."

The possibilities are endless, and amusing, at least to me.

I, obviously, find the whole "anti-mask" thing a demonstration of the fact that one should "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." After all, if it is true that following the advice of public health experts to wear a mask is certain to kill these people because "they can't breathe!"; I am forced to wonder how is it that the medical staff who routinely wear such devices during (sometimes lengthy) surgery, etc., manage to survive to operate again? It does make me wonder if some of these "anti-maskers" are just selfish jerks who don't want to have to worry about having any social responsibility. After all, "If you get sick, what do I care? And if I get sick, you'll take care of me, won't you?"

I know it won't be done (nor should it be) but I am tempted to suggest that, if people who refuse to wear masks, social distance, etc. get sick; then they should be denied medical treatment because they have purposely engaged in behavior which is dangerous to society as a whole, not just to themselves. After all, we put people who engage in other endangering behaviors in prison, perhaps they all should just be allowed to "... decrease the surplus population," since they have demonstrated their unwillingness to participate in responsible social behavior. Even this, however, can be approached with a modicum of humor, from the just amusing, to the somewhat serious.

Non Sequitur seems to take the idea of "masking up" with a degree of seriousness.

On the other hand, Mike Luckovich, the cartoonist, has used the current situation to suggest that education may need to take a hand in resolving this situation, at least for the future.

I will admit, however, that for many people, this staying at least semi-isolated can be something of a concern. Personally, I have done a LOT of reading (and re-reading) from my all-too-extensive library of all sorts of stuff, but I will admit that it IS getting tiring. My library, however, has helped me survive the "vast wasteland" which still makes up a large amount of television. Somehow, having a couple of hundred channels providing a greater amount of the same sort of junk that we use to get on fewer than a dozen (yes, I AM dating myself!) really isn't a vast improvement. I still find it easier to "escape" into a good book, although that has been hampered by tight restrictions on the local public libraries. Thank heaven for my shelves full of books.

Remember, it still COULD be worse:

Or, for those of you who watch television:

Eventually, of course, this too will pass, as did the "trials" in Salem.  There have already been many more deaths from COVID-19 than there were in Salem, but at least we aren't pretending that COVID deaths are some form of "justice."  At least, not yet.

If we think that heroism only occurs on the battlefield, we should save some thoughts for those who leave their homes, families and safety every day to go off to risk their lives to fight this disease and to provide essential services for the rest of us.  Real courage is going out every day knowing that you are endangering your own life in order to prevent others from dying.  Those who won't put up with some inconvenience because they insist that "I'm not going to get sick, so I don't have to worry about spreading it to others." are NOT worthy of being part of "We, the People...."

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S.   Wear a mask, practice social distancing, respect the lives of others, be informed, register, VOTE!  If you don't accept the responsibilities of citizenship, you don't deserve the privilege of being a citizen.

0 Comments

182 Signs Seen Along the Way 4

7/29/2020

0 Comments

Having a lot of time on my hands, I've spent some of it just poking around among the stuff I've collected for possible use in these ramblings. Among other things, I've run across some more signs, or pictures of signs, which I've collected because they intrigue and/or amuse me. So, I thought I'd share a few of them as I have done occasionally in the past. I think this is the fourth time I've done this, but I keep finding these great signs.... Anyway, here are some more which struck me as entertaining or thought-provoking.

I don't know where this was from, but I found it on the Internet a while ago. It's, obviously, a couple of years old, but, given the reality of Uber and Lyft, it does seem to suggest that time, and perspective, can change attitudes and ideas, at least for some. I do have to confess, however, that I'm not overly fond of the whole "Uber/Lyft/gig" economy. It just doesn't strike me as particularly safe, or wise, for either party, even when we don't have a pandemic to worry about.

This is, perhaps a bit more a sign of the times, but I found it amusing:

"Big Box stores," as we all know, desire to sell one everything that he/she might need for any occasion. They seem to want to an entire mall under one roof. Apparently, this sometimes leads to difficulties and/or awkwardnesses, however, which show up in the signage ....

Perhaps it's also a sign of the times that this one makes a lot of sense:

While driving down the street a few weeks ago, I saw this decal on the back window of a car...

So, when I got home, I looked it up and discovered that it is, apparently, a "thing." Who knew?

Then, just the other day, I saw this on the back of a car at a stoplight.

So, I looked it up when I got home and discovered there are a number of variations of this out there. Unfortunately, I don't think Obi-Wan is eligible as he is not "native born," coming as he does from "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." That seems too bad.

As we live in Omaha, we are used to having some sort of wind blowing at, virtually, all times. (There are occasions when I am reminded of Oklahoma! "... where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.") That's probably why I was much pleased by the idea that some unknown weather person at some Channel 12 located somewhere had developed a wind gauge system which seemed to make sense for those of us who live on the Great Plains. Check it out...

Hey, it works for me.

Sometimes, I "discover" a sign which was clearly totally unplanned, and which occurred through some sort of freak of nature. I'm reasonably sure that this is the case with this next one, but it struck me as one which was just too wonderful not to include. I think it qualifies for a second look, even in Hollywood. I didn't take this picture, but I wish I had. I LOVE it!

My most recent example from the "Did that sign REALLY say that?" folder is ...

One wonders what the sign makers were thinking (or IF they were). Oh, well...

Our older daughter, Kate, sent me this not long ago and I could NOT resist including it as a "sign of the times." I don't know that it was really a sign, in the technical sense, but it DOES make you think, doesn't it?

This isn't a sign, but a Pearls Before Swine cartoon. Still, it struck me as a sort of "sign of the times...." Or, perhaps I just like old Abbott and Costello routines.

Oh, well, even this will, eventually, pass, I suppose (hope).

LLAP

Dr. B

P.S. See you in August

0 Comments

<<Previous

187 Altruism & Politics

186 Politics 2

185 Six Years of Blogging - Politics 1

184 Awards, Award Shows, etc.

183 COVID Could Be Worse -- Remember Salem

182 Signs Seen Along the Way 4

Archives

Categories