Dr. B's Notes

233 Accepting Getting Older #1

6/22/2022

More and more frequently I find myself having to accept the fact that I’m getting older. Most of the time I still feel like I’m as alert, awake, and aware as I ever was, although I know that’s probably not really true. There’s also the fact that I don’t seem to have either the desire, or the energy, to just go full tilt all day and into the night, like I once did. And, I have to admit that there are the general aches and pains which remind me that the human body, remarkable piece of engineering that it is, wasn’t designed (nor built) to last forever. Hence, I have one “rebuilt” knee and (given the advanced arthritis in the other one) I’ll probably need my “mechanic” to rebuild the other one before too many years. And, there are other signs of age which I COULD complain about, but I won’t because it wouldn’t get me anywhere, anyhow.

This “Funky Winkerbean” comic a while ago really hit me hard.

Mind you, I’m not really complaining, I think I’ve had a pretty good life, all things considered, and I have no plans not to have it continue a good while yet. There is the fact, though that I am more aware of getting older than I used to be, all of which is just a long-winded way of getting around to the fact that this post is going to include some of the stuff I have collected which seems to relate to the idea of getting older. I find much of it a little ironic, but mostly amusing, and I hope you will, too.

Society, generally, loves to make fun of us “olders.” Our health, our memories, and the fact that many of us (myself included) aren’t considered to be really “with it” in terms of “modern” trends, seems to be a constant source of amusement to “youngers” (who are getting older every day). (Revenge is SO sweet!) Anyway, here’s a few things which relate to the fact of aging which I actually enjoyed.

Yes, I identify with that as I can remember being referred to as a “Hippy” back in the day because of my “long” hair. Of course, I would never have been described as such by those who actually were…. And, of course, it’s certainly not a problem now.

Of course, a major difference between MY generation and the current one was the lack of “social media.” The more I think about it, though, the more I doubt that we ever felt the loss.

Social media is, of course, a product of the ABSOLUTE NEED for INSTANT CONNECTION to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, brought to us by the “magic” of the cell phone. Am I the only one who isn’t convinced that this is not necessarily a positive trend? After all, there’s a good deal of truth in THIS picture!

Go ahead. Call me “old-fashioned,” but I don’t go into a rest room to listen to your phone call and I’d really rather that you conduct your “phone business” someplace else!

I don’t think of myself as a complete Luddite, but I also don’t think that something is automatically better just because it’s new(er). I DO have (and actually use) a GPS device in my car(s), although I have to admit that I sometimes find it unnerving in it’s vocal comments. For example, I ran across this statement somewhere not long ago: “I felt uncomfortable driving into the cemetery. The GPS blurted out ‘You have reached you final destination.’”

Perhaps it’s just the choice of phrasing, but I think the GPS makers MIGHT be able to find a better way to have their devices phrase this.
Then there’s also the fact that I can do (at least have done a good many times) things which those who want to hold my age against me are apparently not able to do. Witness THIS sign, for example.

How can you claim to be even remotely competent to serve as a valet parking attendant if you have no ability to drive a stick shift? I realize that there are fewer of them on the road today than there used to be, but really.

Oh, well, I know I’m getting old, and I’m TRYING to accept it with some amount of grace, but it’s not always easy. Life has a habit of sneaking up on you when you don’t expect it. I mean, this (below) is what they say is supposed to happen, but it hasn’t worked for me yet, at least not reliably…

I do have to admit that, whether you believe him or not, Dumbledore did understand one thing about growing older.

After all, “One can never have enough socks.”

There’s also the fact that, like many “olders,” I do (on occasion) catch myself (as I do something foolish) wondering…

Still,

I’ll be back…. And, I’ll probably do this again sometime.

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
— Nelson Mandela
“Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” ― Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

0 Comments

232 I’m Angry!

6/8/2022

0 Comments

Okay, so what’s my beef now? Mostly, I’m extremely annoyed at the fact that my blood pressure is up, the “stupidity meter” is pegging the high end of the scale, and the only way I know of to try to contribute to resolving the problem at hand is to spend the time I usually enjoy working on this blog, researching and writing about things I find interesting and/or amusing, is to spend my time and emotional energy trying to deal with the insanity of the USA’s obsession with mass shootings.

On June 3 of this year, as I was trying to avoid thinking about this stuff, ABC’s “Good Morning America” reported that there have been 233 “mass shootings” (that’s four, or more, dead) so far this year. Since June 3 falls during week #23 of the calendar year, if that is the correct number, it means that we are averaging better than TEN such incidents a week! Wow, there’s a record we can all be proud of! Of course, unless we live where one of these happens, the odds are we won’t even hear about any individual case. Yeah, we might hear about a “big” deal, lots of dead, a big school shooting, a well-known church, a concert or movie theatre, but probably not just a run-of-the-mill mass casualty “incident.” I’m tired of such things.

What’s been stirring things up lately, of course, is mostly the school shooting in Texas where nineteen kids (aged 9, 10 & 11) and two teachers got killed and, a week later the police still can’t figure out how and/or why their response was so badly handled. There’s no reason to believe, of course, that, if they had actually followed the standard operating procedure any of the victims would have been saved, but it seems pretty likely that the “Keystone Kop” approach that appears to have been used did NOT contribute to saving any lives. Nor does one inadequate/improper response explain or excuse the other incidents of the recent past.

What it DOES provide, obviously, is yet another chance for too many politicians to offer their “thoughts and prayers” for these dead, while refusing to do anything about the problem. Yes, it does look like some, few, steps might be proposed, but it seems VERY unlikely that they will actually even be voted on, let alone accomplish anything. After all, the Constitution (please note that it WASN’T God) grants all citizens the right to “… keep and bear arms…”. Of course, even the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions to this “right,” including certain types of weapons (strangely enough, there once WAS a time when even assault rifles, larger magazines, etc., which seem to be the weapons of choice in mass shootings) and for certain individuals (convicted felons, the mentally incompetent, children, etc.). So, I CAN’T go out and buy a surplus tank or a bazooka for my personal protection even if I have the resources and the desire.

But, apparently, the National Rifle Association, a group which has never had more than about six million members out of the 330+ million in the US population, thinks that even acknowledged “weapons of war” should be available to anyone who wants to buy them. And, since the NRA has the backing of the arms industry, they can provide us with the best politicians that their money can buy. (Those politicians who vote as the NRA leadership desires.) I confess that it seems highly unlikely, at least to me, that the six million NRA individual members actually have donated the sizable amounts of money that the NRA has already spent on political campaigns in 2022. If I am correct, logically, that money must be coming from arms makers, for who else would see this as being to their advantage, Russia?

In any case, apparently, the NRA has bought enough politicians to make it impossible for Congress to recognize that the very open-ended “right to bear arms,” which was probably reasonable and sane when applied to expensive, muzzle-loading, single-shot flintlock rifles, or similarly loaded and fired smooth-bore muskets, may not apply equally sensibly to high powered, semi-automatic rifles firing thirty (or more) cartridges in a matter of seconds when our military is well-funded every year as a matter of course. The result of this situation is that we have the situation shown in the map below:

I think that the chart says it all: Three hundred twenty-eight dead in the sixteen worse “incidents” in the past decade. Not mentioned, of course, are the hundreds of “not worst” ones which have occurred during the same period. One can, of course, quibble about the exact data, but the fact is clear that this is a situation which is a great distance from the situation in ANY other advanced country. The most common explanation for this situation by supportive politicians is that “the problem ISN’T guns, it’s mental health.”

Of course it’s a “mental health” problem. Anyone who obtains a weapon (Note: that weapon is usually one specifically designed for the purpose of killing the largest number of people possible in the shortest amount of time) and uses it to invade a school, church, synagogue, store, mosque, nightclub, or other gathering place, is clearly and obviously mentally disturbed. We have DEFINED this to be a form of insanity. Therefore, of course it’s a “mental health issue.” We have DEFINED it to be so, apparently in order to not blame “the gun.”

By the way, strangely enough, I DO support the idea that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It is a fact that a gun, left alone, untouched will rust away to uselessness without some form of human interaction. If such a gun isn’t cocked beforehand, it seems quite improbable that it would ever fire itself. A person has to load and cock a gun for it to do anything. But, one could suggest, that, under those circumstances, it isn’t really a weapon, it’s just a chunk of metal. But, back to the “mental health” issue.

Citizens of OTHER countries are also subject to “mental health issues,” but ONLY in the USA is it so easy for any person to OBTAIN the commonly chosen type of weapon as well as the magazines and ammunition to engage in “mass shooting” behavior. This seems relatively obvious when someone can LEGALLY obtain such a weapon, etc., today and have it simply sitting around until that person, or someone else, decides to use it for whatever purpose he/she desires. (Note: mass shooters seem to be almost exclusively young males.) I would think it obvious that these do NOT seem to be appropriate weapons for hunting, or other (normal) uses, due to the damage they are designed to do when they strike a soft target, like flesh.

Even if it were legal, which I don’t think it is, anyone who needs a semi-automatic rife with multiple 30 round magazines and, perhaps a telescopic sight to hunt legal game seems a poor candidate for a hunting license. Such a rig MIGHT be appropriate to hunt a group of grizzlies by yourself, but that suggests a mental “challenge” of a different sort, at least to me. Our Founding Fathers granted the right to “… keep and bear arms…” in the day of single-shot, muzzle-loading flintlocks and made NO provision for a permanent “standing army.” Applying the same rules for access to modern assault rifles with high capacity magazines is NOT constitutional “originalism,” it’s more of a “mental health” issue than the resulting mass shooting incidents. It’s time that SANE people stepped up and proposed ideas and actions which might actually help solve the problem. Playing word games with definitions doesn’t seem to be doing much good.

I’m not opposed to allowing people to have reasonable access to guns for personal protection, hunting and other, reasonable and regulated uses, provided that the owner takes complete responsibility for that firearm. I do think that it’s not unreasonable to require some amount of regulation for gun ownership and use. After all, currently, you have to get a license to go hunting, but you don’t need one to own the gun you use to hunt with! Does THAT make much sense to anyone? I tend to agree with the late Isaac Asimov when he said, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.” I think he is correct in implying that facts and logic make more sense than ignorance, and are more likely to enhance democracy.

I wish I had a solution to offer which people might accept, but I think some people simply don’t want the problem solved. Apparently, they have bought into the classic American mythos that guns can, and do, SOLVE problems. After all, the myth of the “American frontiersman” is based on the idea of the “noble American” taking his gun and “solving” whatever problem is at hand through the use of force, whether the problem is a lack of food (kill some animal) or danger from another human (kill the “bad” guy, the “Indian,” or somebody else). Often, the “solution” also involves “solving” the problem at hand by forcing others to accept that they should all do what some, elite, few want. Of course, that’s NOT anything resembling democracy, it’s actually Fascism (read the definition of that term), which can be on the “Left,” or the “Right.” Personally, I tend to agree with Jason McCullough (in “Support Your Local Sheriff”) that throwing rocks is preferable to “throwing lead.” The difficulty with that, as Forrest Gump pointed out is that “Sometimes, I guess there just aren’t enough rocks.”

I’m tired of politicians’ insincere “thoughts and prayers.” I’d like to see Congress actually take the words if the Preamble to the Constitution to heart and actually “… promote the general Welfare…” of the nation. I’m tired of being the laughingstock of the civilized world. It’s time to do something constructive while we haven’t yet killed, scarred, or just scared all of our children. I really don’t care which political party anyone belongs to. I’d just like to see our “leaders” actually lead. I don’t think leadership is based on public opinion polls and who gave my campaign the most money. I can’t think of anything more important than protecting our citizens from gun violence. Yes, look into mental health issues, but, perhaps, keeping military weapons out of the hands of average citizens has its place, as well.

Or, maybe you think that “thoughts and prayers” will solve our problems. I encourage Senators and Members of Congress to consider that I, and I hope many others, will be voting, now and forever, based, not on what they say, but on their actual behavior. I suggest they give THAT some thought because some of them may not have a prayer after all the votes are counted.

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
   — Nelson Mandela
“Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.”                                                                       ― Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

0 Comments

231 Is a College Degree Worth the Cost?

5/26/2022

0 Comments

I was watching “Sunday Morning” on CBS (as Bonnie and I usually do) not long ago, when they had a “Cover Story” relating to the high cost of a college education today and the amount of debt with which many students graduate, etc., etc., etc. Having spent my career in higher eduction, I am quite aware of the “student debt controversy” and the concerns expressed by many people over the cost of a college degree, which is viewed by many people to being an absolute requirement for a successful career. (Note: I strongly suspect that what defines a “successful” career for many, perhaps most, people is that it is one from which a person can make a lot of money.) Personally, I’m far from sure that this is, or should be, a valid, let alone the only, criteria, but it does seem to rank high in discussions of “success.” Besides, the subject of “success” is a topic for another time.

Okay, student debt is something of a crisis. About 43 million Americans owe a total of something like $1.7 trillion dollars in this type of debt, which, it is claimed at least, is due to the high cost of an education. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that so many more students go to college now, as opposed to the past. I have seen figures which suggest that, at present, about 14.66 million folks attend public colleges and about 5.15 million go to private ones; meaning about 19.81 million students total. In 1966, about the time Bonnie and I graduated, 4.35 million attended public institutions and 2.04 million went to private ones; or about 6.39 million total. That’s more that three times as many are now students as were then. Like it or not, that’s going to increase costs because three times the students need to be provided with classrooms, housing, faculty, etc.

In the same period, I know, based on information I received while I was Chair of the Faculty at Western, that many (I was led to believe MOST) of the states who own the vast majority of public universities, tended to reduce their per student support for their state schools. The best information I have at present is somewhat limited, but “State appropriations per full-time student have fallen from an inflation-adjusted $8,489 in 2007 to $7,642 in 2017, the last period for which the figures are available, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, or SHEEO.” That means that, “State” schools must engage with an increasing number of students with fewer resources. That puts a greater burden on the student and, of course, his/her family. On the other hand, college was NEVER free, except under the most unusual circumstances affecting VERY few students.

The major example used in the “Sunday Morning” story I saw was a twenty-eight-year-old woman who now works for “the government,” lives in a basement apartment with her boyfriend and owes “around $280,000.” The story said that, “She followed the classic recipe for success, by graduating from Penn State. But now, she's facing down decades' worth of debt.” That seems pretty obvious. $280,000 is a lot of money to owe.

Of course, there is a great deal we don’t know (and CBS didn’t tell us) which could have had at least some impact on this situation. Penn State is, of course, a STATE university. Was this student from “in-state” or “out-of-state?” That DOES make a difference, frequently, quite a substantial one. Anyway, I looked up the current estimated costs on the Penn State web site and this is what I found. An in-state student should expect tuition and fees to cost about $34,500 for two semesters, while an out-of-state student should expect to pay about $52,000 for the same period. Penn suggests that the costs of travel, personal expenses, texts and supplies can vary from about $1800 to about $5,000 per year, which seems to allow for a lot of variation, but it’s what they quoted. Apparently, at least some of that variation depends on the program/major/discipline. Room and board (on campus housing and meals in dining halls) are the same cost for all at about $12,000.

As I figure it, an in-state student in a low-cost discipline would pay about $34,500 for tuition, $1800 for expenses, and $12,000 for housing and board. That’s a total of about $48,300 for one academic year (two semesters). Now, an out-of-state student in a high cost discipline would pay $52,000 for tuition, perhaps $5000 for expenses, and $12000 for housing. That’s a total of $69,000 for the same academic year. A difference of $20,700 per year.

Assuming 4 years (eight semesters) to graduation, our mythical in-state student will spend about $193,200 total, while that mythical out-of-state student will have spent $276,000 for his/her degree.

Okay, these ARE CURRENT estimates (which I would suggest means that they are probably on the low side, but are likely higher than these costs were ten years ago). BUT, they ARE the figures available to work with and while there HAS been some inflation, it does appear quite possible (considering the costs of loans) that this student’s $280,000 debt isn’t all that surprising, if essentially ALL of her funding was borrowed.

Personally, I would fault CBS for not giving us the specific information we need to actually understand the example they have provided. Was this young lady a resident of Pennsylvania, or a student who went to Penn State from say, San Francisco, where she currently resides? Did she seek any scholarship support to assist in paying her costs? Did she work while in school to help support herself (as many students do)? Did her parents contribute towards paying for her education? NONE of these questions were asked, nor answered.

It was said that she now “works for the government.” What does that mean? What does she do? Did she major in something which was related to what she does, or in something which has little bearing on her employment? It was also stated that she “…lives in San Francisco.” I looked it up and salary.com says that the cost of living in San Francisco is more than 86% higher than the national average. Perhaps she could pay down her debt a bit faster, if she lived somewhere with lower costs? Even if she had to commute.

I also found it noteworthy that she was quoted, when speaking about the effect her debt was having on her life, as saying, "We can't go out as much as we used to for dinners, and we can't take as much trips as we want to unless it's in our budget. So, it does affect us.” When asked if college was worth it for her, she said, "I mean, I had fun in college. It was a great experience. But for the lifetime of debt I'm gonna be living with … (sighs) That's so hard. That's such a difficult question.” Perhaps the possibility of educational debt is a question which she should have considered prior to going to college?

Okay, I will admit to some (perhaps a lot of) prejudice here and it is true that things have changed a good bit since the mid-1960s when I graduated from undergraduate school. And, I have to acknowledge that I was fortunate enough to have parents who could (and did) finance the vast majority of my undergraduate education, although they were NOT rich. I didn’t have a car of my own until I was in my Junior year and it was a 1954 Plymouth sedan which ran, but was certainly neither new or fancy. Like all Freshmen, I lived in the dorm and ate in the cafeteria. Later, I lived in a room in a rooming house, and I was always on a pretty strict budget, so I didn’t go out to eat or to movies, etc., much. Of course, I was pretty busy working on, or being in, theatre productions and I could (and did) usher to get a free seat to those productions I wasn’t directly involved with. I had a good time, but my life was more than somewhat spartan.

I, basically, put myself through grad school by getting a “fellowship” as a member of the part-time, semi-professional, touring Indiana Theatre Company (which came with free tuition for my MA classes) and a small stipend, which was most of my financial support. When Bonnie and I got married, it was “on the cheap.” I couldn’t buy her a diamond ring to be engaged, we got married in her grandfather’s church, she bought her bridal dress on sale, and our reception was in the church basement meeting room with a cake and punch. We lived in a used 10x50’ mobile home in Bloomington with an 8x12’ roll-out” expansion of the living room which Bonnie got her folks (not rich either) to buy for us with the provision that we pay them back (which we did) while Bonnie supported herself working retail in a local department store (where I ended up working while I finished my MA thesis after 2 years of part-time classes thanks to the ITC. Much of that time, we drove my ’54 Plymouth.

After I finished my Master’s degree, I got a job with Theatre 65 - The Children’s Theatre of Evanston as Technical Director and sharing Scenic and Lighting Design responsibilities, while Bonnie worked for Washington National Insurance Company because my income couldn’t support us and Bonnie wanted something to do anyway, as opposed to staying in our one-bedroom apartment while I was working on productions all day, many nights and a fair number of weekends. And, we needed the money. Then, the local school district closed the theatre after I had been there two years, so I had to (quickly) look elsewhere, ending up at WCU, where Bonnie found part-time work until Kate was born.

The first few years at Western weren’t a whole lot less busy, but we did manage to get a few dollars ahead so that I could do my PhD class work at The University of Georgia because it was close to Cullowhee (which came in VERY handy after completing my classwork while I was writing my dissertation) and I got a good assistantship managing the Fine Arts Auditorium on the UGA campus, which gave me free tuition and a small stipend so that we could afford (barely) to live in married student housing and survive on our few savings while Kate was a wee babe.

Much of this, of course may sound like sour grapes, but it isn’t intended to be such. We were (relatively speaking) poor, but we got along. However, we knew the difference between luxuries and necessities, so for a good many years, we didn’t go out to dinner or take many trips because we couldn’t afford it. My job kept me busy and Bonnie raised the girls, kept the house running, and built up a fair craft business and, eventually, part-time employment with Dogwood Crafters in Dillsboro. A busy life, hard at times, but we managed and I don’t think we suffered, even if we didn’t make a lot of “vacation” trips except to see (and stay with) family. We didn’t really miss going out to dinner with great frequency because there weren’t many options for doing that in Sylva (Hardee’s really didn’t count) and my theatre schedule didn’t give us too many opportunities, in any event. Later, we DID go out for lunch in Asheville every 4-6 weeks, or so, when we’d go up there to go shopping, as Sylva didn’t even have a Wal-Mart in those days. Eventually, when the girls got older, Bonnie worked at Western in various jobs, ending as Secretary to the Honors College. But, I’m getting distracted by my annoyance at someone who seems to feel that her education is much less important than enjoying the “entitled” life style she seems to think she deserves.

Towards the end of my career, from 2006 to 2010, I served as Chair of the Faculty of Western which meant I was President of the Faculty Senate. As such, I had fairly frequent meetings with several of the highest administrators and learned (or had reinforced) a lot of the truth about “higher education” in the US. That was a while ago, but I suspect that it really hasn’t changed that the “average” student (whatever THAT means) changes major more than once during their college career. (Actually the number I remember was 2.3 times, but that always seemed a little high to me and I couldn’t source it.) According to Peter Cappelli, an acclaimed expert in employment trends, the workforce, and education, only 40% of full-time college students — less than half — graduate in four years. This seems plausible to me considering the numbers I heard from the administrators I met with frequently. In fact, as I remember it, it was the five-year graduation rate that was most commonly discussed in academic circles, potentially adding an additional 25% to the total cost. Of course, at Western, there were MANY students who were the first generation of their families to go to college at all, which also poses challenges.

Because student numerical growth is quite frequently used as a measure for a university’s institutional success, many schools have, certainly in the last twenty years, emphasized the idea of education as job training. I know I have seen billboards, etc., advertising many schools as producing graduates who are “Job ready on day one!”, or some such catch phrase. The idea, of course is that college prepares you for the workforce, an idea which actually goes back to the 1950s and 60s. As Cappelli, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, points out, only about 8% of Americans had a college degree in the early 1960s. "And now it's getting close to 40%. So, it's a big difference. You were pretty special in the 1960s if you had a college degree.” What he doesn’t say (or at least isn’t quoted as saying) is that that is no longer true. College graduates are, really, not all that ”special.” And, I would suggest, that wasn’t REALLY true back “in the day.”

I don’t know how many times I heard it said, back in “those” days, but it was a common saying (and belief) that business and industry wanted liberal arts graduates for higher management positions because those people could learn how the company did things. They didn’t want people who would try to do things “by the book,” they wanted people who had proven that they could learn. In fact, it was widely stated that businesses didn’t want College of Business graduates for top-level positions, they wanted people who could “think and communicate,” which was said to mean liberal arts majors. Business majors would end up in “middle” management, and engineers might be hired to create new stuff, but the “people who ran the business” needed different (liberal arts) skills and could learn how “we do it.”

So, as the number of people wanting to go to college increased, universities started and continued the expansion of “Colleges” of every sort of thing you can think of. In almost all cases, these “colleges” have some sort of requirements which reflect the idea (which dates from the Renaissance or earlier) that a college degree is supposed to encourage what is referred to as a “liberal” education. But, most people don’t consider THOSE courses to be of much real importance and they are frequently minimized and deemphasized. Still, it might be a good idea to consider what “liberal education” means!

The Association of American Colleges and Universities says, “A liberal education is a system or course of education suitable for the cultivation of a free (Latin: liber) human being. It is based on the medieval concept of the liberal arts or, more commonly now, the liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment." It has been described as “a philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge and transferable skills, and a stronger sense of values, ethics, and civic engagement ... characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than a specific course or field of study.”

Personally, I prefer the definition of The American Association for the Advancement of Science which describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds.” Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities.

Of course, these days, many right-wing politicians will argue, like the grandfather of one prospective Western student, that he didn’t know about this “liberal” education idea because he was a conservative and didn’t care for “liberalism.” Well, if being a “conservative” means that we should try to maintain, or recreate, the world of the past, then I’m going to disagree quite strongly. I would also suggest that it has been, for a VERY long time, considered that the fundamental purpose of education is education.

Certainly I have no major objections to one acquiring skills which can be related to employment along the way, but if what we want is “job training,” there is relatively little need for most people to be truly educated. In fact, one can earn quite a good living, I am told, by being a plumber, carpenter, electrician, welder, etc., without any real need for much actual education. Training, yes, but a lot of education doesn’t seem to be necessary. Perhaps we, as a society, should recognize that we have redefined the “Middle Class” solely on the basis of income instead of including the other traditional factors of occupation, education and social status. On the basis of the most recent census, you would be considered “middle class” if your income was between ≈$45,000 and ≈$135,000 a year. I think it’s worth noting that these limits exclude many of the professionals (doctors, lawyers, managers, politicians, etc.) which used to define the “middle class.” Apparently, they are now the “upper” class of our “everybody’s equal” society. Of course, they don’t think they are, but, when you include, two, or more, cars, the boat, the lake “cottage,” the cruises, the RV, etc., one does start to wonder….

I would suggest that we, as a group, need to engage in some serious thinking about what we really desire from our educational system. If what we want is “job training” and sports teams, there are probably better, cheaper ways to accomplish that. If we want research institutions (which is, in fact, where MANY universities put their real emphasis), it probably isn’t necessary that so many states sponsor so many of them. But, if what we want are self-aware people who have a relatively broad knowledge base and “… are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds,” then we need to figure out a way to achieve that which is both affordable and accessible to more people. Perhaps we should even go back to making it a major priority of our various governments! If we want an educated public, perhaps we need to do more to support public education.

After all, if what we wish is for EDUCATED people, then all those “General Ed” courses aren’t “frills,” but an important part of the process of education. They AREN’T “throwaway” courses just added to the major which aren’t really of much real use, they are the center of one’s education. The major exists as a means to achieve a greater depth of knowledge in some specific facet of learning. It’s a PART of an education, not its sole point.

Convincing ourselves of this truth will not be easy. First, we have to accept the idea that this is what we want/need. Then, we have to take on the difficult task of providing an educational process which will allow the American Experiment in democracy to succeed against the forces which would have us all just “shut up and do as we are told!” Success in this endeavor will not be easy, but I think it is possible, if we decide to do it and are willing to pay the price to make it happen, but we NEED to make that decision. What we currently have isn’t really accomplishing either of these options all that successfully. I know which option I prefer, but I also know that I can’t resolve this issue by myself.

As to the “Sunday Morning” interviewee who started me on this rant; it’s hard to decide if her degree was worth the cost without any idea as to whether it has had any impact on her career. Apparently it’s not supporting her as she would wish, but we don’t know if that had any bearing on her choice of institution, major, job prospects, or interests. My guess is that she may well have really been seeking an “Mrs” degree, which she hasn’t received yet. If that’s the case, the actual degree probably wasn’t worth the cost, but it almost certainly wouldn’t have been in any case.

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B
“Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” ―Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

0 Comments

230 Signs of the Times #1

5/11/2022

0 Comments

The national (and international) news is too annoying and depressing, so I thought I would open up my collection of “sign” pictures and see what I could find which amused me a bit. Since most of these pictures are fairly recent, a lot of them, but certainly not all, touch on our recent (and on-going) pandemic. However, even that doesn’t mean that they still aren’t worth a second look. So, anyway, here you go! I hope you enjoy them.

When I saw THIS sign picture, I thought that it just MIGHT be the perfect, all-occasion sign for any and all yards. After further thought, I’ve decided that it probably isn’t quite perfect, but it’s real, damn good! I especially like the fifth one down!

As I was thinking about this post, my dim, old memory came up with an image of a sign which I know I saw probably 40 some years ago. I’m quite sure it was sometime in the 1980’s. I have a clear recollection that Bonnie, the girls, and I had gone somewhere (Tryon, NC, I think, but I won’t swear to that) for some sort of regional Girl Scout thing one fall weekend. While driving around town, we ran across a perfectly proper, legal, official “No Parking” sign along a street which said, “No Parking Between This Point” with the arrow below the printing pointing in BOTH directions and NO other signs in sight! That incident MAY have been the start of my fascination with signs. I have no recollection of having taken a picture of this sign, but I remember the sign clearly, as does Bonnie, so I DIDN’T make it up! I HAVE looked through our old photo files, but I can’t find a picture. Still, I remember it clearly as one of the most amusing things I have ever encountered.

Anyway, that MIGHT explain my love of odd signs, so here’s a few more examples from my collection. This one I like because it’s so obvious and suggests that we don’t always REALLY mean what we say; although, perhaps, we should.

One of the most frequent complaints which I have heard in relation to the recent “health concerns” of the nation (I’ve heard that it’s not “politically correct” to call it a pandemic, since it’s really a Chinese/Democrat plot) is how this “fake”illness has impacted employment and how NO one wants to work anymore at all of those “high-paying, service jobs” which require constant close contact with the public, but only get one a small salary since the “tips” are SO good. I suspect that this situation is what produces signs like this:

The numbers say that unemployment claims are down, but the demand for low-wage workers IS definitely up. In some cases, employers have become SO desperate that they have had to really lower their expectations for hiring, since people are so “unwilling to work.” This has led to occasional moves which can only be described as extreme:

Actually, I sympathize with both the businesspeople who just want to get back to having a functioning business AND the people who would like to get back to being employed (in spite of the fact that there are all too many jobs which do NOT allow one to actually earn a LIVING). Still, I’ve been hearing, and witnessing, the fact that there ARE cases, especially in retail, where it’s not easy to find employees who are trainable, reliable and willing to recognize that their job is to ASSIST the customer, not annoy them by being too “hovering,” nor to wait until the customer DEMANDS attention prior to offering it for the pittance retailers pay. I’ve worked retail, I KNOW it’s not always easy, and the pay is, usually, not much, but it is the job you agreed to do when you accepted it. Then, there’s the boss’s desire for competent employees. Competence is not reinforced when one encounters signs like this:

It IS amusing, of course, (at least it can be) when people misunderstand each other, but, while I enjoy the chuckle, it does make me wonder about the effectiveness of our parenting and educational structures when I see signs like this, (even though I THINK it was intended to be humorous):

On the other hand, then I see something like THIS,

and I’m not quite as sure that things are really as funny as all that.

Oh, well, I suppose that the human race will continue to survive in spite of itself. I hope so, after all, the alternative isn’t very appealing. We HAVE had an interesting last couple of years, though, and I’m far from sure that it’s anywhere near over, in spite of what the “elect ME and things will be wonderful!” politicians insist. I confess that, given what they say about each other, at least during primary season, I am forced to wonder why any of these “upstanding, GOOD people” (just ask them) would want to have any association with “those people” (their opponents, even in THEIR own party).

Maybe, we’re just caught in some sort of nightmare and we’ll soon wake up and everything will be rosy. That would let THIS sign be a truth!

I’m still thinking about this, but I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, still trying to keep it light and bright (like a good lighting design for the comedy of life).

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B
“Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” ―Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

0 Comments

229 Graduation/Commencement 2022

4/27/2022

0 Comments

It occurred to me the other day, that it’s getting to be “graduation/commencement season on high school and university campuses all over the world, or at least the country! That is, of course, a time which is looked forward to by both students AND faculty, as a time of considerable joy, as well as some sadness. Then, it occurred to me that the reason for part of that confusion might just lie in the name of the occasion. After all, “Graduation” implies COMPLETION, as in finishing something; getting to the end of something; usually thought of in an academic context. On the other hand, “Commencement” seems to suggest STARTING something; moving on; a new beginning; something potentially scary; or at least different. While these ideas are not really incompatible, it’s not surprising (at least to me) that they tend to lead to some conflicting emotions and reactions all around.

I had a good deal of experience with the ceremonies which accompany this sort of occasion at Western. Faculty were expected/required to attend at least once a year and, while I was Chair of the Faculty for four years, I had to attend every Commencement ceremony during my tenure in that position. While I rarely found these to be especially exciting, personally, I confess that I, generally, found them mostly enjoyable, in spite of many of them following the pattern of having essentially identical, elderly, white men providing the graduating class with the identical advice that the road to success was to “dare to be different!” Still, Western was probably no worse than many schools and I do think fondly of the many students on whom I would like to think I may have had some (modest) influence which was of some benefit to them. I know they had a significant influence on me. The leading characters in Wicked say it best, perhaps: “Who can say if I’ve been changed for the better? But, because I knew you, I have been changed for good.” Like them, my experiences trying to be an educator have, definitely, changed my life.

But enough of such “weepy” stuff. I had a lot of good times and would like to think that I still have a few pieces of advice which might be worth passing along. No, I’m not going to suggest that you “dare to be different.” Most of my students, at least to my way of thinking, had little problem with that. But there are a couple of things which MIGHT be worth thinking about.

For example; “Do you know the difference between education and experience? Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don’t.” That’s a quote from Pete Seeger, probably one of the most important influences on the American Folk Music scene from sometime in the 1940s until into the 2000s. Much of what little I know (knew) about performance came from studying his performances, as did at least some of my understanding of American history. Studs Terkel is supposed to have called him “America’s tuning fork.” Well, he was mine for a long time.

In thinking about teaching and graduation stuff, I am also reminded of the wisdom of Yoda, the Jedi Master. He understood the nature of a teacher’s existence better than many when he said: “We are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters.” I think the fondest moments of my teaching career occurred on those occasions when one of my students, in a paper; or a question in class; or in discussing a design idea; or a solution to a construction or painting problem in the shop, said something, did something, accomplished something, thought something which made me stop and think, “I wish I’d thought of that!” I’ve always felt that was what education was really all about and I’m glad I have had some of those moments.

For much of my later career, of course, my major educational foci were theatre history and dramatic literature. As I hope I made clear to all of my students, while one CAN deal, primarily, with the historical facts related to theatrical endeavors (including at least some major emphasis on the literature [drama] which is the backbone of the bulk of theatrical work), it is ALMOST impossible to actually separate developments in a society’s theatre from developments in virtually everything else in that society. That means that virtually EVERYTHING that goes on in a society can (and probably does) have some impact on that society’s theatre. Therefore, one really must spend SOME time, examining what’s going on in the society, generally (socially, politically, religiously, etc.) if one is really going to have much insight into that society’s theatre.

Somewhat related to that, a while ago, I ran across a piece online entitled “Why Americans are NUTS!” It made me stop and think a bit about how one MIGHT explain some things about American theatre and drama, if not a lot of aspects of American society. It says, “The USA is made up of people who wanted to go somewhere else, to be with other people and do new things in new ways without leaving their culture, family, jobs, and habits behind. No wonder we’re a bit mental.” I don’t know that this explains everything about American theatre (or American culture, generally), but it does seem to offer an idea which just might be worth considering. I don’t know, have we discovered a new “Lesson from History?” Perhaps, I suppose, but that’s enough “teaching” for today.

Now I should probably admit that, like students everywhere, teachers (at ALL school levels) do tend to look forward to the end of the school year and to the changes that school being OUT of session will bring during the summer. The best expression of that feeling that I could find comes from an elementary school, but I can assure anyone that it applies to ALL teachers from pre-K through Graduate school.

Everything good has a price to pay, however, so teachers can never quite completely forget that their students are enjoying being out of school at least as much as they are. And, while it doesn’t happen immediately; before the summer’s out, at least some students, like Non Sequitur’s Danae, will achieve their goal for the summer.

Perhaps that’s why it’s easy to confuse graduation and commencement. Something HAS ended, but there’s all too little time before something ELSE begins…

Oh, well, whether you, or someone you love, is graduating or commencing, I hope the season brings mostly happiness.

I’ll be back…

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

"Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

0 Comments

228 Thoughts on Easter & Politicians

4/13/2022

0 Comments

This post is scheduled to go up during what Christians call “Holy Week,” (the week between Palm Sunday and Easter) so, since I was raised in that tradition, I must admit that I am/was certainly influenced by those ideas. Of course I am also aware of the fact that “Holy Week” and “Easter” fit into the widespread tradition of festivals celebrating the coming of spring, which are a part of many spiritual systems. In many parts of the US, of course, the spring season is also the beginning of the election cycle every couple of years, and (this being one of those years) our TV is currently being inundated with primary election advertising at every conceivable opportunity. Some of these ads are from specific candidates, of course, but many are from various PACs, all of which seem to have innocuous, but vaguely patriotic sounding, names implying that WE are the “good” guys and everyone else is not as truly patriotic and “AMERICAN” as we are!

Nebraska being, primarily, a “red” (Republican) state, almost all of these ads are for various Republican candidates, each of whom would like to claim that THEY are the “real deal,” the died in the wool, patriotic, AMERICAN true believers, who are for everything good, unlike those OTHER people who are in favor of killing babies, taking away our guns, raising taxes, letting all those “bad” people into our country, and for making sure that our elections are unfair so that they can put people into office who don’t deserve it, like happened last time.

Now, I admit to being advanced in age, but I know I remember when Republicans would “rather be dead, than red,” but very few Republicans oppose that label today, it would seem. And, I am also sure that those tremors in central Illinois really aren’t from Lincoln (or even Reagan) rolling over in his grave due to the antics of some who claim membership in his party.

I realize that I am violating my usual policy of avoiding discussion of politics and politicians in these postings and I have no intention of naming names, or advocating that readers vote for any specific candidates. That is, and should be, the reader’s choice. Unfortunately, in recent years, our politicians have become so preoccupied with grabbing and holding political power and using it for their own purposes that, in all too many cases, I’m afraid, they have distorted politics, and, seemingly, even their expressions of religion into something which approaches being unrecognizable as either.

Now, “Politics” is defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary as, “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power…” There are further definitions, of course, but that’s the general idea. To me, this implies that the idea of politics involves debate and discussion between individuals and/or groups over the specific activities in which a government will engage. That’s a pretty loose definition, I know, but I think it may serve.

The first clause of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I take this to suggest that specifically religious ideas are not supposed to be written into law because they are religious. That is, religious beliefs MAY agree with laws, but the laws are not supposed to be established BECAUSE one, or more, religion(s) support them. I think one should also note that Article IV of the US Constitution reads, in part, “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This seems pretty straightforward to me in establishing that one’s religious beliefs are NOT a part of one’s qualifications for any “Office or public Trust.” (And certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should know that.)

I suspect that the thinking behind this Article IV statement is because, for all of our fabled belief that the American colonies were founded on the principle of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, the facts are that, while attendance at worship services was pretty high, church membership during colonial times was relatively low--rarely higher than a third of adult New Englanders and as low as five percent of adults in the South. It’s also true that EVERY one of the thirteen colonies was, at least in part, founded to support a specific denomination (or group of denominations) and that there are almost universal examples of those who did not conform to the dominant religious practice within a specific colony being persecuted by the members of that colony.

As I post this, as I previously stated, it is almost Easter for Christians and we are well into the “season” for primary elections. Here in Nebraska, most of the action is in the Republican Gubernatorial primary. And it is the actions of these candidates which spurred me into thinking about the (unfortunate) relationship between religion and politics, but I suspect that my concerns are not limited either to just Nebraska, nor just to gubernatorial primaries. In Nebraska, a lot of emphasis seems to be on a candidate being a “Christian,” as that, apparently, defines him or her, as one of the “good” guys. I suspect that this is the case in much of the US. But saying that you are a Christian is not relevant to holding office (see above), nor does saying it make it a fact.

I mean, I was taught that Jesus wanted us to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That seems simple enough, as does the idea of “rendering unto Caesar (the government) the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s,” which I took to suggest that government’s job is to take steps to maintain the safety, defense, health, and so on of the country’s citizens (read The Preamble), and religion’s business has to do with the state of one’s soul, etc. (not a governmental issue). I would suggest that this actually supports the idea of the separation of church and state, although a great many people (apparently acting on the common assumption that their religious beliefs trump everybody else’s) would like nothing more that to establish an official US religion, ignoring the fact that the colonies which eventually became the US were (in several cases) founded by followers of a specific version of Christianity and were quite adamant about not wanting “others” allowed in their communities, even passing laws against such trespass, in some cases. Logically, this explains the forbidding of a “official” religion and forbidding restriction on the practice of religion in the First Amendment.

That doesn’t seem to give many of our politicians pause, however, suggesting that R. A. Heinlein was correct in asserting that EVERY religion would be happy (and DOES desire) to establish the beliefs IT supports as law, as ALL religions claim to be the sole authority of essential truth. This, of course, is where I have a problem, as I have yet to discover an “organized” belief system which does not want me to sacrifice my own thinking to their “leadership.” I find that hard to do.

But, to get back to politics and politicians. One of the most common features of the ads for ALL of the candidates is that OUR candidate is “a good Christian” who is 100% pro-life, stands strongly for the 2nd Amendment, opposes the teaching of Critical Race Theory in our public schools, is against illegal immigrants and, most of all, is anxious to make sure that only legal votes are counted in our elections (unlike last time when there was “massive” election fraud leading to the wrong person being declared the winner and requiring armed ‘patriots’ to storm the Capital building in a ‘patriotic’ act of “legitimate political discourse” to try to prevent this incredible act of impropriety from happening). Of course, the change of power was made, more or less, peacefully as the Constitution requires, but that’s beside the point, as we “got our say” against those “bad” people.

So, let’s look at each of these ideas in turn. I have no problem with any candidate being a “good” Christian, but I was taught to believe that Christianity was something that was demonstrated through one’s actions. It was not a badge you wore in public to prove that you were better than other people. I have little use for what people say about their religious beliefs, (as did Jesus if you read the first part of Matthew, Chap 6). I’m much more concerned about how they behave. (see doing unto others, etc., above) Of course, being a “Christian” is popular, so claiming to be one might attract a few votes. I think there’s a name for people who think like that. I think that name is “hypocrite.”

Of course, if you are a Republican (as these candidates are), you have to be anti-abortion, but you can’t say it that way, because that sounds negative. No, you have to be “Pro-Life.” Now, I have never heard of ANYONE who said they were “pro-abortion.” I’ve never met anyone who ever suggested that abortion was a desirable thing. But, I’ve met many who have suggested that it’s not the government’s business to eliminate the possibility of someone making a personal, medical choice for personal reasons. So, in fact, the choice is between being anti-abortion or being pro-choice. It doesn’t take much effort to find out that abortions occurred prior to the Roe v Wade decision, and that repealing that decision is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to stop abortions from happening in the future. Nor does it seem completely rational that one can really be “Pro-Life,” if he/she is avidly for the death penalty, as I have noticed many of these candidates are. Nor have I seen any significant support by the “pro-lifers” for Pacifism, which has to be considered a “pro-life” position.

This strikes me as rather like the people who have no problems with the numerous vaccines they (and their children) take to protect themselves from many well-known diseases (often REQUIRED BY LAW to be able to attend school, etc.) but argue that the COVID vaccine (or wearing a mask) is somehow a violation of their “God-given, individual freedom.” (Note: the Constitution says that IT provides your freedoms, not some Deity. That’s why we don’t have an official religion, but that’s another issue.) Of course, the “Pro-Lifers” also, apparently feel that lawyers and politicians are better able to make medical decisions than doctors and/or epidemiologists who have studied these matters all their lives, but again, perhaps being “Pro-Life” will attract some voters. I think people who behave like this are often called “prejudiced.”

Related to all of this is the fact that only a woman can have an abortion. Therefore, regulations restricting abortion are, apparently, intended to “protect” a woman from the ability to make a choice regarding her own medical care. And, to make matters worse, the chosen enforcement mechanism, in the most recent cases, is to create a system of paid vigilantes who apparently “know in my heart that she didn’t have a miscarriage, so she must have had an abortion, because a miscarriage would be an act of God and that could never happen.” Having known women who have suffered a miscarriage, this seems to me to be poor medicine. But it seems blatantly both bad religion and bad law, as it appears to, essentially, rely on the discredited sort of “spectral evidence” which was the basis of the most of the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Of course, the whole idea is also blatantly sexist, since it is impossible for a male to become pregnant and have either an abortion, a miscarriage, or a baby. I wonder how the idea of banning Viagra as a stimulant for rape would be received? After all, it’s of no use to females and males only need it to have erections for sex. But, votes is votes, even if I have to be a Sexist to get them!

Another popular Republican campaign idea, especially these days, is that “those people” want to “take away your guns!” “Those people,” of course, are their opponents. The reason that we allow private gun ownership in this country is, obviously, the Second Amendment, which says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This, according to some, means that if I wish to own an AK-47 or an M16 with a 20 or 30 round magazine, I should have the right to do so, correct? I’m not so sure that was the original idea. In the late 1700s, when the Constitution was written, I don’t believe that ANY “arms” fired more than a single shot without reloading, with the possible exception of double-barreled shotguns which were used for hunting (birds, primarily, I believe) and short-range defense. In fact, I think I’m correct that virtually all “arms” were loaded with powder, wadding and shot separately, as cartridges did not yet exist. Thus, the idea of rapid, multiple shots, (let alone automatic fire) was not even a possible consideration for the Constitution’s authors as magazines to allow for automatic, sequential loading of cartridges did (obviously) not exist, either. There is also no provision for a permanent, standing army in the Constitution. Funds to support an army had to be specifically designated every two years, requiring the need for a civilian Militia to be prepared to become an army at need. Now, a standing navy was authorized as, apparently, the Founding Fathers considered a navy necessary to protect trade, but a standing army apparently was viewed to pose a potential threat to the government, and so could pose a danger to the nation. (See the history of the English Civil War, etc.)

But things have changed. The courts have (apparently) decided that there is no need for one to belong to an established, organized, “well regulated” Militia (defined as “a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.”) in order to “keep and bear Arms.” My guess is that this was also due to the fact that hunting for food was important in early times, as was the need for personal protection, especially on the frontier. However, there are now MANY restrictions on the sorts of “arms” one can (is legally supposed to) “keep or bear.” You can’t own a tank, you can’t own a bazooka, you can’t own a Nuc, and there are many other limitations, including many laws regarding “concealed carry.” While I support such restrictions, even I will admit that certainly sounds like “infringement” to me, but few people seem too upset about such things.

But they are VERY upset about being denied the right to “hunt” or “defend” oneself with weapons and ammunition which were clearly designed solely for offensive military purposes. And the idea that gun ownership might be licensed, or regulated, in some fashion is outrageous! That’s just a ploy to keep us from our rights! We can, of course, require age restrictions, training, licensing, insurance and safety inspections for automobiles (and FEES for each of these) because their use is a “privilege,” but firearms are a right! Of course it’s a right which is, in fact, restricted as juveniles, convicted felons, people adjudicated as mentally incompetent, and some other categories of people are not supposed to be allowed to “keep and bear Arms.” And, I believe that there are restrictions as to what sorts of weapons and/or ammunition can be legally used for hunting, although that varies from state to state. So, apparently SOME restrictions on this right are okay, but we don’t want to talk about them.

At this point there are more guns in the US than there are people (about 400 million vs a total population of about 330 million including children) and the vast majority (estimates as high as 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands. It is reported that a significant majority of gun owners own more than one gun. I won’t extend this point, but I get quite nervous when political figures run campaign ads featuring their candidate in hunting garb holding a shotgun and talking about supporting “American values” and being opposed to the “liberal, transgender agenda” followed by pumping the action of their shotgun. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that this sort of image was what the Founders really intended in political discourse. I think it’s fair to suggest that ignoring the idea that situations change with technology and the passage of time isn’t “conservative,” it’s “reactionary.” And it gets votes!

It’s also become VERY popular among our political candidates to be opposed to (and accuse their opponent of being in favor of) the teaching of “Critical Race Theory” in the Public Schools. I find this somewhat amusing since I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a case of that being attempted, let alone done. I have heard of this idea being discussed in law schools, but that’s hardly the same thing, is it? This whole notion has, somehow, gotten rolled in with the idea that “little white kids” are going to be taught to be ashamed of their elders and ancestors who supported slavery, bias against immigrants generally, bias against practitioners of “other” religions, bias against people of color, maltreatment (in the form of broken treaties, etc.) with indigenous peoples, etc. Well, I’m NOT a “little white kid.” I’m a somewhat elderly, White adult and I’m quite ashamed of many of the actions my forefathers have taken in relation to those people whom they considered their “inferiors,” which included, collectively, ALL of those groups. The Constitution allowed for slavery and counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Women were not citizens and were denied the vote until about 100 years ago. Segregation and “Jim Crow” laws were common in many areas, as were other race-based discriminations, and subtler forms of racial bias have (and do) exist virtually everywhere. Indigenous people were driven from their lands without compensation and attempts were made to destroy many aspects of their culture! These are FACTS! They are well documented and provable in law. They were and are inexcusable, but many saw plenty of excuses for that sort of thing. After all, “those” people weren’t really people; they didn’t count; they weren’t important; they weren’t like us. This sort of thing goes back at least as far as the colonies when some European monarchs felt it was within their power to claim “unsettled” lands for the use of people who would uphold their monarchies, ignoring the existence of the then current residents. That means that this practice goes back even further than the American colonies. And, such things continue to the present.

I’ve said before that, as far as I know, many of my ancestors settled first in New England, but they were no more free of engaging in these evil acts than people elsewhere. Picking on the “other” seems to be as old as humanity, but that doesn’t make it right and hiding the truth from our children doesn’t do them, or us, any good in the long run. I believe that facing up to the truth of our American heritage will benefit us in the long run, so learn the truth and “The Truth Will Make You Free.” Lying about our history is, IMHO, worse than the truth, especially when we are lying to our kids about their history. The whole purpose of studying history is to better understand what HAS happened, so that we can learn from it to help us make better decisions in the future. Teaching our children lies about how “fair and wonderful we are and always have been” does not seem likely to provide a reliable path to a better future, if for no other reason than the fact that we HAVEN’T always been so “fair and wonderful.” Being proud of our country is one thing, lying about it may get us votes, but it’s still lying.

I am not in favor of “illegal” immigration, but our immigration system is so flawed that it’s hard to know how far back to place the blame. We have been importing seasonal labor from Mexico, etc. without excessive concern about whether it was legal, or not, pretty much since slavery was (officially) abolished, if not before. The Woody Guthrie poem/song “Deportee” dates to 1948, so one really can’t suggest that it’s even that recent a thing. It’s beyond me how anyone thinks they can make an ≈2000 mile border (through rough country, much of it privately owned) completely secure. I’d like to see it happen, but I wonder how serious some of our politicians are when I hear calls to “open the borders to refugees from Ukraine” while demanding that we keep those “Messicans” out. Does that sound like racism to you? It certainly does to me. After all, Ukrainians are “white.” But, it MIGHT get some votes!

Then, finally, we have the BIG one. We have to solve the “massive fraud problem” of the last election. Let’s see, on November 3, 2020, we had an election. If what I have seen reported in many sources is true, as I believe it to be, there was the largest number of voters in the history of the republic. And, there were fewer difficulties in conducting this election than has usually been the case. Still, when the Republican Presidential candidate was announced to have lost, there were immediate protests of “MASSIVE” voter fraud and election irregularities. This led to numerous recounts, audits, court challenges, etc. which continued for months. (I think some may still be going on in some places.) In NO case was actual evidence produced which even suggested that there had been significant irregularities and every case of voter fraud reported (which was an absurdly small number) the indications were that it had been at least primarily engaged in by Republican voters. Still, the idea is being advanced that we have to make sure that elections are controlled by biased political figures instead of non-partisan professionals in order to be fair! (I am reminded of the “pro-life” folks who want lawyers and politicians to make your medical decisions, instead of trained, licensed medical professionals, but I’ve already been there.)

Of course, since we have just had a census, state legislature majorities have been gerrymandering voting districts as much as they can get away with to reduce the impact of people who don’t vote “their” way. In addition, while they are at it, they are acting to make sure that they (the legislators) can reject the popular vote and install whomever they want in office, apparently because politics is a “zero sum” game and the purpose is to win. It really doesn’t matter what the voters desire, what matters is that WE control. I think this is, properly, referred to as Fascism “…a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition….” I’m quite certain it is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Speaking of voter fraud, has anyone else noticed that there were apparently NO election challenges regarding anything but the Presidential race in 2020? Does everyone simply assume that the Democrats could get away with “massive voter fraud” in the Presidential race, but couldn’t arrange to pick up a few more seats in the House and/or the Senate? That’s either reasoning on a level WAY above my head, or it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. After all, Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate, as well as Governorships and seats in state legislatures.

To wrap this up, I find it hard to accept that our politics has stooped to the level where some Republican candidates seem to be battling as to who can gain the greatest support as the most hypocritical, prejudiced, sexist, reactionary, lying, racist, fascist. I’d bet that the Founding Fathers really didn’t have that sort of thing in mind when they started the whole thing.

I guess that, like constipation, this too shall pass. At least I hope so.

Happy Easter for those to who that applies!

🖖🏼 LLAP,

Dr. B

P. S. I really don’t enjoy writing diatribes like this, but sometimes things bother me so much that I simply HAVE to find some way to release my frustration at the stupidity I find more often than I like in our society. Thanks to any readers who got this far for allowing me to use this forum to help restore what’s left of my sanity.

“Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic; capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” ―Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

0 Comments

<<Previous

233 Accepting Getting Older #1

232 I’m Angry!

231 Is a College Degree Worth the Cost?

230 Signs of the Times #1

229 Graduation/Commencement 2022

228 Thoughts on Easter & Politicians

Archives

Categories

233 Accepting Getting Older #1

232 I’m Angry!

231 Is a College Degree Worth the Cost?

230 Signs of the Times #1

229 Graduation/Commencement 2022

​228 Thoughts on Easter & Politicians

Archives

Categories

228 Thoughts on Easter & Politicians