Hendrick can’t lose; Penske can win

Posted on by
Reply

(NASCAR)—Make it four in a row for Hendrick Motorsports driver Kyle Larson, including the non-points All-Star race.  Next week he’ll try to join eight other drivers since 1972 to win four points races in a row. Five of those eight drivers went on to win the season championship.

Larson has dominated the three points races he’s won, leading 264 of the 300 laps at Nashville Sunday and running his total to 648 laps led of the 772 laps in those three races.  He has not finished lower than second in his last seven races, including the All-Star race.

Larson attributes much of his success to his crew but he also thinks his peripatetic racing schedule has been a factor.  Larson left Nashville after his win Sunday planning to run a series of open-wheel races during the week before resuming his NASCAR seat next weekend at Pocono.

The win is the fifth straight points victory for Hendrick Motorsports.  Alex Bowman and Chase Elliott won races before Larson started his streak.

(INDYCAR)—INDYCAR powerhouse Team Penske is in its longest dry spell in more than two decades.  The team is still looking for its first win of the year. The last time it went this deep into the season without a win was 1991, a disastrous year in which no Penske driver sat in victory lane.

Josef Newgarden thought he had broken through at Road America this weekend, starting from the pole and leading a race-high 32 laps.  But his transmission betrayed him two laps from the end and left him limping around the track for the final two laps as Alex Palou raced ahead for his second win this year.

The win gave Palou a 28-point lead over Pato O’Ward in the series standings and made him the first Chip Ganassi Racing driver to win more than once since Dario Franchitti did it in 2011.

Newgarden finished 21st, the second straight disappointing week for the two-time series champion. Last week, he was leading the second race of the twin bill at Detroit when O’Ward got past him with three laps left.  Newgarden led the first 67 laps.

The third Penske driver, Will Power, was in position to win the first of the Detroit doubleheader races when the race was stopped because of a crash with only a few laps remaining.  His car wouldn’t re-fire when racing resumed, clearing the way for a win by O’Ward.

(FORMULA 1)—It is increasingly clear that Lewis Hamilton’s bid for a record eighth Formula 1 championship will not be easy.  Red Bull’s Max Verstappen, behind by three seconds after his last pit stop, chased down Hamilton and passed him on the next to last lap of the Spanish Grand Prix, and picked up his third win of the year.  His win total equals Hamilton’s and gives him a 12-point lead over the defending F1 champion.

Hamilton’s second place finish left him with a three-race winless streak for the first time since 2019.

Every starter finished the race, a rarity in F1. It’s only the tenth time in all of Formula 1 history that all cars were running at the end.

(Photo credit: Hendrick Motorsports)

 

Our contentious era

Posted on by
Reply

(Twenty years ago or more, when party control of the Missouri legislature changed, one of the leaders of the new minority theorized that his party could reclaim its former position if it just made the new majority look bad enough.  Pretty obviously, that was a wrong-headed idea.  But it pervades the thinking of our state and national politics today worse than ever and a public tired of the many who would rather fight than to work for the people’s best interests might utter, as Shakespeare’s Mercutio did, “A plague on both your houses.”   Dr. Frank Crane could have been speaking of our contentious times a century ago when he wrote about—-)

THE ETHICS OF CONTROVERSY

Everything is disputable. I am willing to entertain arguments in support of any proposition whatsoever.

If you want to defend theft, mayhem, adultery, or murder, state your case, bring on your reasons; for in endeavoring to prove an indefensible thing you discover for yourself how foolish is your thesis.

But it is essential to any controversy, if it is to be of any use, first, that the issue be clearly understood by both sides.

Most contentions amount merely to a difference of definition. Agree, therefore, exactly upon what it is you are discussing. If possible, set down your statements in writing.

127

Most argument is a wandering from the subject, a confusion of the question, an increasing divergence from the point. Stick to the matter in hand.

When your adversary brings in subjects not relevant, do not attempt to answer them. Ignore them, lest you both go astray and drift into empty vituperation.

For instance, President Wilson, in the “Lusitania” incident, called Germany’s attention to the fact that her submarines had destroyed a merchant ship upon the high seas, the whole point being that this had been done without challenge or search and without giving non-combatant citizens of a neutral country a chance for their lives. Germany’s reply discussed points that had no bearing upon this issue, such as various acts of England. Mr. Wilson, in his reply, wisely refused to discuss these irrelevant 128things, an example of intelligent controversy.

Keep cool. The worse your case, the louder your voice.

Be courteous. Avoid epithets. Do not use language calculated to anger or offend your opponent. Such terms weaken the strength of your position.

A controversy is a conflict of reasons, not of passions. The more heat the less sense.

Keep down your ego. Do not boast. Do not emphasize what you think, what you believe, and what you feel; but try to put forth such statements as will induce your opponent to think, believe, and feel rationally.

Wait. Give your adversary all the time he wants to vent his views. Let him talk himself out. Wait your turn, and begin only when he is through.

Agree with him as far as you can. Give 129due weight, and a little more, to his opinions. It was the art of Socrates, the greatest of controversialists, to let a man run the length of his rope, that is, to talk until he had himself seen the absurdity of his contention.

Most men argue simply to air their convictions. Give them room. Often when they have fully exhausted their notions they will come gently back to where you want them. They are best convinced when they convince themselves.

Avoid tricks, catches, and the like. Do not take advantage of your opponent’s slip of the tongue. Let him have the impression that you are treating him fairly.

Do not get into any discussion unless you can make it a sincere effort to discover the truth, and not to overcome, out-talk, or humiliate your opponent.

Do not discuss at all with one who has his 130mind made up beforehand. It is usually profitless to argue upon religion, because as a rule men’s opinions here are reached not by reason but by feeling or by custom. Nothing is more interesting and profitable, however, than to discuss religion with an open-minded person, yet such a one is a very rare bird.

If you meet a man full of egotism or prejudices, do not argue with him. Let him have his say, agree with him as you can, and for the rest—smile.

Controversy may be made a most friendly and helpful exercise, if it be undertaken by two well-tempered and courteous minds.

Vain contention, on the contrary, is of no use except to deepen enmity.

Controversy is a game for strong minds; contention is a game for the weak and undisciplined.

 

The Pandemic re-defines work

Posted on by
Reply

Most of us probably have pondered what kind of permanent changes will remain in our society when the Coronavirus pandemic is finally considered vanquished.  With variants emerging and some of them appearing to be causing a bump up in our health statistics this month, we might not be learning the answer to that question for a while yet.

Clearly, the idea of “work” has been altered by this pandemic.  What will “work” look like when this finally blows over?   A few days ago, National Public Radio ran a story focusing on how the pandemic has changed, is changing, or will change the workplace.  Audie Cornish, the host on the afternoon news show, “All Things Considered,” interviewed three people, one in particular.  NPR was good enough to provide a transcript of that interview on its webpage. We thought the discussion worthy of passing it along to those who might have missed the broadcast or who don’t listen to National Public Radio.

CORNISH: Why and how to bring employees back into the office – those are the kinds of decisions company leaders are having to make. And they’re thinking about how to give employees flexibility, how the pandemic has impacted innovation and company culture. We spoke to a variety of CEOs – Christina Seelye, CEO and founder of video game publisher Maximum Games in California, was one of them.

CHRISTINA SEELYE: Innovation’s a big one. I think that innovation – I haven’t seen the technology yet that replicates what it’s like to be in a room with people and bounce off of each other.

CORNISH: And Dan Rootenberg, CEO of SPEAR Physical Therapy Company in New York.

DAN ROOTENBERG: I do believe that people learn from each other more. There’s more collaboration. There’s Zoom fatigue. I mean, I’m on so many Zoom meetings. It’s, you know, it’s really exhausting after a while. And so there’s a totally different feeling when you get together.

CORNISH: Those at the C-suite level, they turn to experts at places like McKinsey & Company.

SUSAN LUND: So we’re getting calls from executives and chief human resource officers to say, OK, we’ve now gotten used to everybody remote. But how do we bring people back? When do we bring them back? What protocols do we need?

CORNISH: I spoke with Susan Lund, a partner at McKinsey & Company and leader of the McKinsey Global Institute. They put out a report in 2020 that was updated this year looking at the lasting impact of the pandemic on the workforce.

LUND: If you had told any business leader a year and a half ago that we were going to send the whole workforce home – at least the ones who could work from home – home for more than a year, they would say this is going to be a disaster. And, in fact, it’s worked out quite well.

CORNISH: But brass tacks, were we all more or less productive when it comes to remote work? What did your research find?

LUND: So what we find is that in the short term, people are definitely as productive, that it looks like they’re spending more time at work, in part because they don’t have the commute. They don’t have to go out necessarily to get lunch. They don’t even have the office chit-chat. So on one level, it looks like the number of hours that people are working is actually up. But long term, there are questions about innovation and new products and new ideas are going to be as forthcoming because of the remote work setup.

CORNISH: I want to dig into this data more. But first, who do we mean when we say we? Who’s been able to work from home? What portion of the workforce are we talking about?

LUND: It’s really office-based workers who are able to work from home. Overall, we found that 60% of the U.S. workforce doesn’t have any opportunity to work from home because they’re either working with people directly, like doctors and nurses or hair cutters, or they’re working with specialized machinery in a factory or in a laboratory. So it is a minority of people who even have this option. But overall, so 40% of the U.S. workforce could, in theory, work from home one day a week or more. And about a quarter of people could spend the majority of their time – three to five days a week – working from home.

CORNISH: When we talk about that 40% of people who do computer or office-based work, now a large number of them have had the experience of remote work. With that experience in mind, what are people learning about what a post-pandemic scenario could be for them?

LUND: So when you look at employee surveys, you typically find that the majority of people say, going forward, when we’re vaccinated, when it’s safe to return to the office, they still would like the flexibility to work from home a few days a week. So that’s a hybrid model. But then you do have a segment of people, maybe a quarter, who say I want to be in the office full time. Now, maybe they don’t have a good home working setup. It’s often young people in their 20s who are starting out in their careers. They want the mentorship and the camaraderie. And then you have another small portion who say I would like to work remote 100% of the time and work from anywhere.

CORNISH: There have been CEOs out there quoted here and they’re saying things like, well, we’re going to know who’s really committed to the job.

LUND: Yeah. So there is a lot of issues. So for companies going down this hybrid approach, there are a lot of pitfalls to watch out for. And one is that you end up with a two-tier workforce, that the people – it’s always the same people in the room making the decisions and other people are on Zoom or video conference, and that those on video conference end up being passed over for promotion, not considered for different opportunities because they’re not there. So companies are being thoughtful. The ones who are pursuing some kind of hybrid approach are thinking through these issues. And how do we avoid that to keep a level playing field?

CORNISH: We’ve been talking about this idea of who comes back, whose decision it is, that sort of thing. Legally, what do we know? Can employers force employees to come back? Can employers gently encourage employees to be vaccinated? What have you learned so far?

LUND: Well, it’s a complicated question. So on vaccination, it looks like it’s a bit of a gray area, but it looks like under federal law, yes, companies can require employees to be vaccinated if it impacts the health and safety of their workforce. On coming back to the office, I think it’s a little bit more clear. Companies can require people to work on site – right? – as a part of the employment contract. But what they risk, especially for talented professionals, is that people will go to other companies that do allow more flexibility on some remote work or work from home.

CORNISH: When people look back at this time, will it be considered a reset in some ways when it comes to work, or are we going to be back to where we were in 2019?

LUND: Well, my crystal ball is broken, but I think it will be a reset. I don’t think that we will go back to the same pattern of working. I think that the forced pause for everyone to spend more time at home with family and friends has really caused many people to rethink. I think that this really has been a reset.

Incidentally, Audie admitted that she was conducting this interview from a temporary studio in the attic of her house.

If you’d like to listen to the entire piece, including comments from others, go to:

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004862350/-why-do-we-have-to-go-back-to-the-office-employees-are-divided-about-returning

 

To a friend thinking of public office;

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about this topic with you.  Or perhaps we never have. This note is addressed to no one in particular in this season of domino-candidacies triggered by the pending retirement of Senator Roy Blunt.

You’ve thought about running for public office someday.  Your business has been successful enough that you can step away from the fulltime obligations. You are motivated to help other people.  You see problems that you think you can help solve.  You’ve been discussed by people in the political party with which you seem to be identified.

Your member of Congress has decided not to seek re-election next year, perhaps to run for Blunt’s seat in the U.S. Senate. Perhaps your state representative or state senator has decided to run for Congress. This is the perfect time to become a member of the U. S. House of Representatives and you have the name recognition and would have party identification on your side to compete, too.  And once you’re in the House, there might be doors to greater opportunities.

If you don’t go now, you’ll have to challenge the new incumbent or wait several years for that person to step aside.

You will be courted, cajoled, urged, and begged to get into a race.  But it won’t be because of what you might bring to the House; it’s because you’re well-known, can attract campaign donations, can pass the litmus test(s) of the party.  Your ideas are secondary.

Be wary of becoming a figurehead, and an empty one, because your party thinks your name is all it needs in its search for power.  Consider if the party’s quest for power is more important than your desire for service.  If service is secondary, have the integrity to say, “No.”

And what are your ideas?  Are they yours or are they ideas—-and you are intelligent enough to know the ones that are flawed and sometimes dishonest ideas—advocated by a figure who seems to have—or claims to have—life or death power over potential candidates?

Do you really know the issues you will face or are you just willing to go with the party flow?

Frankly, we don’t need people like you if that’s the kind of candidate and Congress-person you will be.

What we need in these troubled times is candidates who know themselves, who trust themselves, and who have the courage to BE themselves in working through the problems of our state and nation.  Cookie-cutter candidates incapable of seeing beyond party orthodoxy, dictates, and dogma cannot be servants to the public—the general public rather than the narrower public that you hope will cast the most votes for you.

Are you ready to think your own thoughts? Have you studied issues from a variety of viewpoints so you understand that answers to major problems are seldom simple because problems affect people and people come in more varieties than you can count?  Will you have backbone enough to reject the narrow, the prejudicial, the inhumane solutions you will be asked by party and well-oiled interests to support.

Remember you are not alone if you undertake this candidacy.  Remember your family because your family comes with you, spiritually if not in person.  Remember that anything you stand for, anything you say, anything you do can bring questions to your school-age children from classmates, or comments to your spouse from some stranger standing in line at a check-out counter.

What makes you think you can go from private citizen to Congress is one big leap?  Or from private citizen to the state legislature in one smaller leap?

What do you know about representing large numbers of people, each person with his or her own morals, ethics, social and economic needs, hopes, dreams, and fears?  What do you know about high-stakes discussions with others that result in policies you and all of those other people will have to follow?  How can you interact with them, take their pulse, act in their best interests if you’ve never held a public position of any kind?

I’m not saying, ‘Stay out of it.”  But I am saying, “Know what your responsibilities will be and know to whom you REALLY are responsible and respect them.  There will be dozens, maybe hundreds of people between you and your constituents if you are elected.  How prepared are you to deal with those in-between people while keeping in mind the people at home?”

What do you really know about the Constitution?  If you think reading it and doing what it says is the answer to the nation’s problems, you are woefully ignorant.  If you think the Bill of Rights is absolute, you don’t know your own rights.

Study. Study. Study.  Read and talk to people outside your partisan circle.  You are allowed to agree with them.  Not on everything, but it’s not a sin (despite the apparent political climate) to understand the other side and see that sometimes it has a better ideas.

Know history.  Not just the cleansed history this or that segment finds most beneficial to itself.  Understand that our history has warts.  Recognize them but do not tolerate them no matter how they are disguised. Think of George Santayana’s comment, “We respect the past; it was all that was humanly possible.” But that past might not be “humanly possible” or “humanly human” today. You will not erase the past by correcting its flaws that remain with us. Your public service must be focused on a future that abandons those flaws.

Congress?   The Missouri General Assembly?  The U. S. Senate?  Give serious thought to whether it’s right for you, your neighbors, and your family to go from zero to 100 mph all at once.

Maybe at your age you don’t think you can afford to wait. But there is virtue in patience and in learning.  There is a reason many of those in the offices being dangled in front of you started as members of a city council, a school board, a county commission.  They learned whether they liked to campaign.  They learned how to relate to constituents not just during the campaign but later while service those constituents in elective office.  They learned how to support and oppose ideas on their merits, how to argue with an opponent today who they need as an ally tomorrow, how to support something that is for a greater good rather than carry out the wishes of their particular constituency.  They felt the pressures of those who expected favorable votes, sometimes on unfavorable issues. They learned that personal community visibility has nothing to do with the gritty business of establishing broad community policy.

For some, the city council is satisfaction enough. For others, it just whets their desire to greater service—because they have learned how a system can work and how to make it work well.

If you have a young family, think of local office before you think of something higher.  You’ll learn politics and public service and you’ll spend you nights with your family in your own home. As you grow in understanding how things work, your family will grow in understanding them too, and will grow in understanding how your public service affects their daily lives.

Jump into the shark tank if you wish. Just don’t kid yourself or let others flatter you into thinking the jump is easy or can be painless.

Perhaps you might refresh your memory with the first eight verses of the Bible’s book of Ecclesiastes, one of the Old Testament’s “Wisdom Books,” which it says, in part:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven… 6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak…

Be wise in making your decision.  Better yet, should you win, be wise in your actions—

—-for wisdom, now so profoundly lacking in our national dialogue, is critical to our future.

 

Disappointments for Racing Veterans; Next-Gen Stars Assert Themselves.

Posted on by
Reply

Three big wins for a younger generation in INDYCAR and NASCAR during the weekend came at the expense of major disappointments for three established stars in the two series.

(NASCAR)—-Kyle Larson moved from exile to millionaire All-Star champion at the Texas Speedway by pulling past veteran Brad Keselowski, NASCAR’s 2012 champion, with eight laps to go and beating Keselowski to the checkered flag by two-tenths of a second.

Keselowski had gotten ahead of Larson in a three-wide pass of leader Chase Elliott with nine laps left.  He led just one lap before Larson whipped past him easily and pulled away to the win. “It feels like running second to the Hendrick cars right now is an accomplishment. They are just stupid fast.  I had (him) off turn 4 but…he just motored right back by me,” Keselowski said after the race.

Larson, 28, wasn’t in the All-Star race last year because he’d been suspended indefinitely for using a racial slur about another driver in a computer-generated race while NASCAR was shut down in regular competition in the early days of the pandemic.  But owner Rick Hendrick offered him a ride for 2021 after Larson was reinstated and Larson has responded with three wins and the All-Star race victory.

(INDYCAR)—The two races at Detroit’s Bell Isle Park were big wins for 30-year old Marcus Ericsson and 22-year old Pato O’Ward but were bitter pills for veterans Will Power and Josef Newgarden.

Power, the 2018 Indianapolis 500 winner and the 2014 INDYCAR series champion, appeared to have Saturday’s race well in hand when a red flag came out because of a Romain Grosjean crash with eight laps left.  But his engine would not re-start, apparently because of the failure of part of the car’s computerized fuel system, and he was left in the pits when the green flag started the final laps.

Ericsson pulled away from youngster Rinus VeeKay in the final three laps and won by 1.8 seconds. His win was the seventh win by seven different drivers to start the INDYCAR season. That last happened four years ago and has happened only five other times in a century of INDYCAR racing.  He became the fourth driver this year to get his first win in the series, following Alex Palou, Pato O’Ward, and VeeKay.

Two time series champion Josef Newgarden was on the way to making it eight different winners in eight races when 22-year old Pato O’Ward passed him with three laps left and became the first two-time winner this year.  Newgarden, 30, won the series championship in 2017 and 2019.

But it’s O’Ward who has emerged from the Detroit double-header with the season points lead. He’s just one point up on Alex Palou, 24.  Defending national champion Scott Dixon has slipped to 36 points behind O’Ward and to third place in the standings. Newgarden is fourth, fifteen points behind Dixon. Rinus VeeKay, another young star of the series is fifth.  Palou, Dixon and VeeKay each have one win this year, as does Ericsson, who has risen to seventh in the points, and Brian Herta, who is running ninth in the points standings.

(HELIO)—Helio Castroneves became the first Indianapolis 500 winner in several years not to compete in the next INDYCAR race.   His deal with Meyer-Shank racing did not include Detroit.  He will be racing however. He’s one of the senior drivers who has signed to be part of Tony Stewart’s Superstar Racing Experience, which involves older driver (most of them retired) racing one another on dirt.  Stewart will be racing in his own series.

The series ran its first race last weekend at Stafford Connecticut. New England driver Doug finished ahead of retired NASCR Cup drivers Greg Biffle and Stewart.  Castoneves finished fourth, ahead of former NASCAR champion Bobby Labonte.

(BASEBALL)—-We plan to have things on stick and ball sports on this new page, too.  But when both of our major league baseball teams seem to be in a race to the bottom, we’re not very inspired to say much.  We faithfully await a turnaround.

I beg your pardon

Posted on by
Reply

Ming the Merciless came to mind the other day.  The villain in countless Flash Gordon comics, movie serials, motion pictures, television shows and series programs, Ming presided over the Kingdom of Mongo and Flash was his nemesis.

Ming and Mike Parson have nothing in common. But word association kicked in when I noticed the latest word that Governor Parson issued 36 more pardons to imprisoned Missourians a few days ago.  By our count, that raises his total to 105 pardons in the last six months along with four reductions in sentences—commutations.  And I thought, “Mike the Merciful.”  And that led to the next thought, Ming. Odd how the mind works sometimes.

We haven’t combed the records of all of our previous governors but we suspect Governor Parson might already have set a record for pardons. Certainly he will have a chance to set one if he has not set it by now.

But it is unlikely that any previous governor has had the chance Mike Parson has had to take these actions.  It seems that his predecessors, we don’t know how many, did not act on about 3,700 clemency petitions.  His office says he has made a slight dent in that total by dispensing with about 500 of them.  Obviously, he’s not in the mood to rubber-stamp anything.

These circumstances might surprise some people.  He’s a conservative for one thing and conservatives are sometimes stereotyped as “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” people.  He sure isn’t a liberal who stereotypically would open prison doors to release all kinds of bad folks.

He’s a former sheriff and we’ve heard some law enforcement people complain that they work hard to put people away only to see some stereotypically soft-hearted judge let them go.

And here we have conservative Mike Parson, former sheriff, letting more than 100 people (so far) out of prison early.

If we were still an active reporter at the Capitol, we’d want to interview him about this issue. It’s one of the things we miss about not being an active reporter anymore—access to explore issues such as this with people such as Governor Parson.  So we’ve suggested to some colleagues they do it.

Just think of it as an old fire horse who thinks he hears the fire bell ringing again every now and then.

Without trying to read the governor’s mind, might we suggest a couple of things?

First, because he’s a former sheriff, maybe he understands that the justice system isn’t always fair to the people law enforcement officers spend a lot of time arresting.  Mandatory sentencing isn’t particularly fair all the time.  And not all of those going to prison are by nature bad people who deserve the stiff penalties they’re given whether under mandatory standards or otherwise.

Second, people change.  They earn a second chance and no good results from denying it to them.

Third, the accumulation of clemency requests not acted upon by predecessors is just plain wrong.  Justice delayed is Justice denied, we’re told.  Justice can be served in a lot of ways, and continuing to hold a redeemed soul behind bars isn’t justice. Or, at least, it hasn’t been for more than 100 people in the last six months.

From what we’ve seen, the bar is pretty high to merit a Parson pardon or a commutation. The folks to whom he’s giving clemency have not earned it by just doing time; they’ve earned it by what they have done with their time.

Last December, when he announced his first batch of pardons, he said he chose those who have “demonstrated a changed lifestyle and desire to move on from past behaviors.”

“If we are to be a society that believes in forgiveness and second chances, then it is the next chapter in these individuals’ lives that will matter the most. We are encouraged and hopeful these individuals will take full advantage of this opportunity.” 

He has told his legal team—less than a handful of people if we read the latest Blue Book staff list correctly—-to keep reviewing the files.  That’s a lot of reading and follow-up questioning for that small number of people to do. But they’re chipping away at it.

He said in December that he wants it clearly known that he’s not “soft” on lawbreakers. “There must be serious consequences for criminal behavior,” he said. “But when individuals demonstrate a changed lifestyle and a commitment to abandoning the ways of their past, they should be able to redeem themselves in the eyes of the law.”

It’s a clear message—-Lock ‘em up.

But remember where the key is.

And WHAT it is.   And what it is, is the inmate.

 

-0-

 

 

 

The Forty-Something State, Again, Still

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s have a show of hands.

How many of you, when you think of people who have had the most influence on your lives put at least one teacher in your top ten?   I have at least three.

A lot of people in a lot of roles in our society do not deserve our praise; they deserve our awe.  As schools begin classes in whatever form, teachers join first responders of all stripes and health and mental health workers of all kinds, public safety employees, and men and women in uniform who “provide for the common defense” on the platform of heroes.

When it comes to recognizing all of these folks at the most basic level, however, we talk a good game but we don’t play a good game. We saw a recent survey by Business Insider that should bother all of us.  A lot.

Since then we’ve seen a report from the state auditor that buttresses what BI told us.

Business Insider is a German-owned website that focuses on business and economic issues.

The folks at BI have looked at figures from the U. S. Department of Education and the census bureau for the school year 2018-19, the most recent year for which data is available. It finds the average Missouri teacher was paid $50,064 that year.

The national average was $61,730.

Missouri ranked 44th.  The lowest-ranking went to Mississippi, which paid its teachers $45,574. West Virginia is 49th at $47,681.

The only thing that keeps Missouri from being West Virginia in the rankings is that our average teacher salary is a whole $46 a week more than the teachers there.

$46.

What’s worse is that when our average teacher salary is measured against inflation, our teachers have lost more than six percent of their purchasing power because of inflation in the last twenty years.

This isn’t news to our much-praised but barely-raised teachers.   But it should be disturbing to those who expect so much of them.

Spare me the excuse that you can’t solve a problem by throwing money at it.  The problem is the money. We need to throw $11,000 a year at our teachers just to get them to the national average.

This is a matter of recognizing the important role people play in building or maintaining our society. And in times like these when we are asking—and when some are DEMANDING—that these good people face the possibility that they are stepping into harm’s way every day they open their classroom door, recognizing how far below the national average they are in pay and doing nothing about it is demeaning.

Then when their school district doesn’t have enough money to provide their classrooms with enough basic things such as paper and pencils, we expect them to guy their own.

Now we have a virus threatening their well-being and the well-being of their students that has led to terrible cuts in state funding for education in this fiscal year. Legislation is being introduced in the General Assembly this year that will undermine state support for our schools and our teachers even more.

What is an appropriate salary for our teachers?  Don’t look to this otherwise all-knowing oracle for an answer.  We had two children in our house for about eighteen years. We can’t imagine having twenty or thirty children in one room for six or eight hours every day of the week—children who bring multitudinous health and personal issues with them from home.

We pat our hometown public servants on the head and tell them they’re doing good.  But we don’t appreciate them enough to pay them salaries that at least keeps up with inflation.

Such is the lot for anyone who sees public service—teachers, police and firemen, healthcare workers, sewage plant operators, government employees—you name it.  “What’s in it for them?” you might ask.  If you have to ask you’ll never understand the answer.

Sometimes being a low-tax state is nothing to brag about.

If you want to see how the states stack up in the teacher salary study, go to:

https://www.businessinsider.com/teacher-salary-in-every-state-2018-4#38-indiana-14

A month or so ago, State Auditor Nicole Galloway announced a study by her staff confirmed Missouri’s abysmal standing in education funding. She confirms Missouri ranks 49th in state support of elementary and secondary education. The report comes just two years after the auditor’s staff found more than two-thirds of local school districts have put increased financial burdens on local taxpayers in the last decade because the state (i.e., the governors and legislatures) budget for education has not kept pace with education’s costs.

We’ve cited before one of the favorite jokes of long-dead comedian Myron Cohen about the man who found a naked man in his wife’s closet one day and asked him, “What are you doing in there?’  And the man said, “Well, everybody has to be somewhere.”

Missouri is somewhere when it comes to funding for education, one of the things that is often spoken of as a key to the state’s economic health.  But Misouri’s “somewhere” in this case, as in so many others, is nothing to be proud of.

Seven is a serious number

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe even a sacred one in auto sports—-

—-because many have hoped to reach eight and haven’t made it.

The road has suddenly turned uphill for Scott Dixon, the reigning INDYCAR champion who hopes to get to seven and for Lewis Hamilton, the reigning champion of Formula 1, who wants to get beyond it.

Dixon hopes to equal A. J. Foyt’s seven championships in INDYCAR. Hamilton wants to break his tie with Michael Schumacher and become the first eight-time champion in Formula 1.

Early trouble for Dixon in the Indianapolis 500 left him 17th at the end in a double-points race and dropped him out of the series point lead to 36 points behind young Alex Palou, who was second at Indianapolis.  Dixon is only one point up on another fast-developing  youngster, Pato O’Ward.  All three have one victory so far this year.

Dixon has a chance to re-establish himself this weekend when IndyCar races twice at Belle Isle Park in Detroit, on Saturday and on Sunday.  Those will be races seven and eight on the INDYCAR on the 16-race INDYCAR schedule. One will be Saturday, August 28 at Gateway International (Worldwide Technology Raceway), just across the river from St. Louis.

Hamilton had lost the points lead at Monaco to Max Verstappen and was in danger of falling 15 points behind him as the laps wound down last weekend at the Grand Prix of Azerbaijan when Verstappen blew a left rear tire and went into the wall.  Hamilton was running second at the time with an excellent chance to take the lead when the race was restarted.  But Formula One cars have a switch that cars in many other series don’t have and Hamilton used it, causing him to crash, too.

The switch turned off the brakes on his car, forcing Hamilton to take an escape road while the rest of the field roared past him. The switch is used to change the balance of the brakes on grand prix cars.  Hamilton wound up 16th, failing to score a point in a race for the first time in 54 events, a record.

Hamilton has plenty of time to recover.  The Azerbaijan race was only the sixth in a 23-race schedule. He’ll have his first chance to regain his dominance on June 20 at the Grand Prix of France.

Only a few drivers either in INDYCAR, NASCAR, or Formula 1 have claimed seven championships.  The eighth has been elusive.   Richard Petty won his seventh NASCAR title in 1979.  He raced until 1992 but was never higher in the standings than fourth.

Dale Earnhardt, Sr., was the second NASCAR driver to claim seven titles. He won his seventh in 1994 but finished second in 1995 and 2000.  He was looking for that eighth crown when he was killed in the season-opening race at Daytona in 2001.

Jimmie Johnson became the third NASCAR driver to win the title seven times. He won five titles in a row, 2006-2010, with single titles in ’13 and ’16.  He retired after four more years with a best finish of tenth in the standings.

  1. J. Foyt won his seventh INDYCAR crown in 1979, the same year Petty reached seven. He stepped out of his car for the last time in 1995, never finishing higher than fourth in the standings after his seventh title.

Michael Schumacher reached seven by winning five Formula 1 titles in a row, the last coming in 2004. He raced through 2012, finishing third in ’05 and second in ’06. A skiing accident late in 2013 left him with severe head injuries. His condition has been closely-guarded by his family.

Here are some others who never got to seven or never got past it:

Jack Nicklaus won six Masters Tournaments.

Tom Brady has quarterbacked six Super Bowl champion teams.

Roger Clemens won the Cy Young Award seven times.

Barry Bonds won seven Most Valuable Player awards.

Michael Jordan won the NBA MVP only five times, one more time than LeBron James has won it. Nobody has reached six.

However, Wayne Gretzky won NINE NHL MVPs, including eight in a row. There’s always an exception, isn’t there?

 

The Daily Gift

Posted on by
Reply

(We were reminded this week by the death of a former colleague at the age of 44 that life and death are not predictable, not even for those imprisoned and facing capital punishment.  And what if it were?  Dr. Frank Crane ponders—–)

THE UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE

“There goes a man,” said the physician, “who is under sentence of death.”

“What to you mean?’

“He is in the secondary stages of a disease for which there is no known cure.  He is as sure to be dead or to lose his mind, which amounts to the same thing, as far as the victim himself is concerned, and one of these calamities is bound to occur within six months as the sun is certain to rise tomorrow.”

“Yet he seems cheerful. Why?”

“Because he does not know it.”

There you have the secret of contentment. For you and I, and every man, is under the sentence of death, as well as those marked by a mortal malady or sentenced by court-criminal our court-martial…

Every sunset, every clock-stroke brings us mechanically near the drop. And we know it. And we are cheerful. Why?

Simply because we do not know the date!

IF we knew that it would deaden our days and darken our minds. Just one fact of the future, if its time of happening were to be revealed to us, would paralyze life.

And so you see the falseness of another common notion, that the uncertainty of life is a bad thing. On the contrary, the uncertainty of life is its chiefest charm.

Heaven, which prescribes death, gives us death’s antidote, which is ignorance of death’s time. The sentenced world laughs and plays, drinks deep of dear human love, is busy with business—in fact the whole human comedy is interesting, amusing, and worthwhile just because the time of the certain fall is concealed.

 

Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

If this is the best we can get, the best we can hope for, God help us.

“America is in crisis. Our country is at a critical point in its history.”

“The Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists. Our Republican leaders don’t stand up for truth and …they don’t put the good of our country over their own political ambitions.”

“(The Democratic Party) is endangering our security, bankrupting our nation, killing our jobs, fueling inflation, harming our children, defunding our police, shredding our freedoms, and rewriting our history.  (The Republican Party is promoting) dangerous conspiracy theories and attempts to overturn the election helped lead to a deadly insurrection, and (party leaders are) too weak to speak out.”

“They are destroying the country you and I love, and they must be stopped. (We need people) who promote truth, not conspiracy theories. And equality, not hate.”

I’ve come across some campaign statements from people on both sides who want to replace Roy Blunt.  Each of the above paragraphs takes statements from the Republican Party side and from the Democrat Party side.

There is no doubt our country is in trouble.  On any number of matters.

But neither side seems to have anything useful to say.  As an old joke says, it’s just BS, MS, and PhD.

We pray for candidates who will offer us more, who can do more than mouth standard partisan verbiage. It would be such a relief to hear people on both sides of the aisle discuss our crisis, our critical point, with a degree of intelligence that doesn’t degenerate into hackneyed descriptions of the other party.

Unfortunately, gut politics seems to appeal to a public whose expectations have been lowered so far that thinkers cannot be heard above the rumblings of political bowels.

With more than a year to go before voting, does anyone feel good about what is likely to be before us?