Make Mine Neat (No ICE)

 As a freshman, along with my c/o 1970-classmates at Hamilton College, I took a vocational interest/aptitude test (Strong Interest Inventory), designed to offer at least some direction to the clueless (where I was eminently qualified) about our future life/career directions and choices. 

The results for potentially successful, or even suitable, career paths were clearly unclear. My highest scores* were at best fuzzy "Maybe?"s. On the flip side, however, there were three career paths that definitively fell into the "For the love of all that is holy, NO!!! Run away, run away fast!!!" 

Not only were those scores low, they mirrored the stock market line graph on a bad day, red lines in solidly negative territory. Compared with my friends, only I had even one negative score, much less three. The highest of the lowest was Industrial Arts teacher, where I would have been not only manifestly incompetent, but a danger to myself and others. (Kind of like arming me with a gun in my classroom.) Moving literally down the scale was Pastor, so my later thoughts about opening Bob's Church & Taco Stand were obviously a goof.**

My worst score, though, was reserved for police officer, accurately predicting my casual, at best, relationship with both rules and their enforcement. Although I was undoubtedly not a good fit in law enforcement, I nevertheless respected the men (and, much, much later, women) who served their communities in that role, doing a necessary job that I could never have performed at any level of competence, not even in radar trap towns like Bella Villa, Marlboro, or their north county cousins. I do have several friends and formers who took on those un(der) appreciated tasks, though, and I thank and respect them.

But this current crop of ICE agents, hired to fill a number quota*** established only because it sounded big and ended with 4 zeroes? Honestly, I couldn’t even look at myself in the mirror (which the aging process and fading faculties already make problematic) if that had been where I ended up. Maybe there are some ICE agents with sufficient levels of competence and compassion to earn my respect, who do not need to mask their identities, but what I’m seeing, generally, are men not qualified for even small squad police work, undertrained bullies with xenophobic axes to grind and brick-sized chips on their unimpressive shoulders (meeting a baseline recruitment standard that seems to be: breathing male {preferably white}, no DEI worries here), unfit both physically and attitudinally, encouraged by what so poorly passes for leadership in the current administration to indiscriminately**** throw their (often literal) weight around.

*       Author, Journalist, Lawyer, not necessarily in that order 

**     The one time I tried to join a church, the pastor kindly, but firmly, said, "Oh, Bob, that's a lovely thought, but, really, you need to stay away from organized religion."

***   Quotas are good things now?

**** Net fishing for tuna scoops up dolphins, too.

No Fan of Big Buts

I’m not a fan of big buts, because “but” contradicts the initial premise. Have you ever heard, or perhaps even said:

• I’m not prejudiced but …

• I’m not a racist but …

• I’m not sexist but …

• I don’t want to hurt your feelings but …

• No offense but …

• I don’t have anything against gays but …

• I believe in freedom of religion but …

But… Wait for it …. You are now going to hear (or say) something prejudicial, racist, sexist, hurtful, offensive, homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc. So, in fact, whoever starts with that phrase is, in fact, what they just said they’re not.

The “Big But” is an easy trap to fall into, trying to deny reality when it’s inconvenient. We’ve all done it, although I hope not in exactly the ways described above. A disturbing number of people have used, and continue to use, the “easy way out” by sharing, liking, retweeting, etc. to express racist views. Most would, of course, deny being prejudiced; after all, they’re just nodding at or reposting something someone else said. 

Sorry, not sorry: if you endorse a position you are also, by extension, endorsing the person(s), for better or worse, who offered the opinion. You can’t take a single quote from Adolf Hitler (or Vladimir Putin) and pretend that nothing else he said or did matters.

Charlottesville is my Rubicon. I’ve tried hard, really hard, to give people the benefit of the doubt for the last year and a half. No more. Put me in coach, I’m ready to play. Appropriating an appropriate phrase, “Never again.” Because, when you say, “I’m not defending the Nazis but….” and it’s followed by deflecting to another group or minimizing criticism of those hateful people and groups, wait for it, YOU ARE DEFENDING NAZIS. No, there are no good Nazis, there are no good people who accept or associate with Nazis. Those who defend Nazis are Nazi collaborators and no better than Nazis themselves.

I’ll go even further. I will never again use the phrase “alt-right,” because it’s nothing more than a euphemism to sanitize evil. Instead I’m going for the more accurate phrase: “fucking Nazis.” Because that is what the alt-right is.

If you, in any way, defend the the bullies of the so-called alt-right, you dishonor my father who fought them in World War II and was wounded working to defeat that evil. You threaten people whom I hold dear and are part of my soul. You threaten society as we know it. If you defend, or rationalize, or mitigate evil, you, too, are evil and stained in the same way.

I will, tepidly, and fighting back nausea, defend your first amendment rights (as well as those who use those same rights trying to block or counter the hatred you spew – and should you show up in St. Louis, I will be there with them), but know this: you are a despicable human being and I won’t bat at an eye or lift a finger when karma pays you a biting visit. There is no big but. I’m done.

I'll Vouch for This: DeVos Deserves Denial

A Toast to Middle and Upper Class Welfare

I want to thank those of you who are supporting (by not opposing) Betsy DeVos’s confirmation as Secretary of Education. If she gets her way, my granddaughter and her family will get a nice bump from the vouchers you seem to want her to have. My granddaughter already attends an independent school. Her parents choose to pay the hefty tuition bill that comes with it because they think it’s the best fit for her and because they can afford it – without government help.

If Ms. DeVos’s voucher system is put in place, every family in every district would be offered a voucher for $x (the figure I’ve seen quoted is just north of $2,000, which I assume is some kind of average). That money, of course, would come from the financial support public districts receive from the state and national governments.

How much tuition will that $2,000 offset? In the religious school at which I taught, that figure would have amounted to less than 15% of the tuition bill of 4 years ago, and that doesn’t count parent association dues, fees, the multiple fundraisers, the annual gala, etc. That’s probably in the neighborhood of $500-$1000. If you think that the religious and independent schools are going to discount 80% of their tuition so they can fill their classes to the brim, you’re naïve.

JBS ($26,000+), MICDS, SLUH, SJA, and the like, who already have healthy rejection rates, are not going to throw open their doors to more students because there’s a pool of families with an extra check. New schools are not going to suddenly spring up to take elite school rejects. There is probably room at DuBourg, with a list price tuition of $14,000 and a subsidized rate of $10,000 (plus the above mentioned fees). Does that $4,000 put the cost in range? And even if a family decides to make the sacrifice, they will still need to factor in transportation costs.

Let me be blunt. Your kid is not going to start attending some expensive private elementary or high school because you get a voucher for $2,000 or even $4,000. Your public school, however, WILL lose that funding from those students who already attend private, parochial, or independent schools, plus those very few who will now make the shift.

I spent most of my career at a public school where the average parents had below average incomes. Even the DuBourg option of say, $7,000 (with a voucher) instead of $10,000, was out of reach. Ironically, those “poor” public schools won’t be impacted that much because they won’t lose many students or have that many already enrolled on the private side. But the schools in more affluent districts, schools that are generally acknowledged to be doing a good job, those schools that already have a high population of independent school students, will get hit hard, very hard. Think about what $2,000 per student time 100 students would mean them.

I’m a public school guy but I can do that math. It’s $200,000 a year for students already not attending the schools and I guarantee you that 100 is a low number of students within Webster’s borders that attend independent or parochial schools. The same would hold true in Kirkwood or Mehlville or Lindbergh or Rockwood or Hazelwood. To quote the President, the loss of income would be “Yuge” to schools that are already struggling with their budgets because the state of Missouri has been underfunding them for years.

You know what else will probably happen? Following the Law of Unintended Consequences, tuitions at those independent schools will rise, because they will reason, “Well, our parents are getting these vouchers, so….” If you doubt that, track the rate of increase in college tuition along with increase of federal aid and student loans. One of the reasons tuitions rose so quickly was because there was more money available for students to borrow. Of course, it’s not like student debt is a problem. Oh, wait….

There will be less incentive to keep tuitions down because there will be more money available, which means the percentage of the tuition offset by vouchers will decline. And all this from the same people who want to get the government out of the education business. As those same conservatives so frequently remind us, there is no such thing as free money; it always comes with strings attached. Why should we think voucher money will be an exception?

Who will benefit from vouchers? The affluent or almost affluent. Just what this country needs, another middle class welfare program. But I’m sure my daughter, her husband, and granddaughter will enjoy the money, so thank you for supporting Betsy DeVos and vouchers. The check that you can’t spend (unless your student is already out of the public system) is in the mail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.79ee4154d020

How We Lost Out to the Cubs -- A Theory

Controversy Alert (non political variety)

What follows is pure speculation, based more on a nagging feeling (and perhaps bias) than actual evidence. But hey, this is America. As is abundantly clear on both the campaign trail and talk media, there is no requirement to actually know what you’re talking about to voice an opinion.

Oh, and this has no real social significance because it deals with my theory trying to explain how the Cardinals lost out to the Cubs on both John Lackey and Jason Heyward. If Saint Louis is really baseball heaven, why depart for Chicago? I am suggesting here that perhaps it wasn’t JUST money and/or length of contract.

I’m not a huge fan of Mike Matheny, especially in terms of Xs & Os, strategy stuff. Hey, it’s baseball, and all fans second guess and feel like we could make better strategic and personnel decisions. That may or may not be true. In any case, he has clearly demonstrated that he IS a good manager of men, a strong motivator. He is an embodiment of the “Cardinal Way,” a true believer who has successfully conveyed those principles to his team. He is also authentic, true to himself, a dedicated Christian, strong in his faith. Admirable. Nothing to criticize there.

But therein may lie the problem. If you think of Matheny’s favorites, they seem to be almost universally “super Christians.” I wonder, however, if that kind of atmosphere, the relentless Christianity and moral superiority at least implied by both Matheny and the Cardinal Way, is a comfortable fit for every player. I don’t pretend to know either John Lackey or Jason Heyward (or any other player) but might the more secular (if, in fact, he is) Joe Maddon be a more attractive leader, at least for some players, than the (seemingly) self-righteous, holier than thou Mike Matheny? If true, it’s not a criticism that a player would be likely to share publicly, or even in the clubhouse, but one that might skew a player's decision in a direction other than what we fans might have preferred. It would for me.

Just a thought or two….  & see Rule #31 in the header above.