Lunar Eclipse/Sunrise

The penumbra is clearly visible now, with the lunar/full moon eclipse.  The peak is schedule in about an hour and a half, so I am monitoring it.  And, a double treat, right about then we are on the cusp of being able to see the full eclipse and the sunrise at the same time.  Astronomers have said that's a pretty rare occurrence.

Recently, with deaths and illnesses of so-called "celebrities," I realized once again that we throw around terms like "legend," "classic," "icon," "idol," etc. far too frequently.  Not everyone merits such a description and to use it so freely diminishes it when it is really deserved.  I won't mention any names, but if you've been following the news in the past month or so, you'll know of whom I write.

And, speaking of honors, I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize committee is having second thoughts on awarding its prize to President Obama.  Nah, I don't think so.  He didn't deserve it in the first place, so now ordering the air strikes on ISIS/ISIL won't affect their thinking.  Still, considering the previous paragraph, does this affect the legacy of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and others who really did deserve the Nobel?

Speaking of ISIS/ISIL and the bombings, are these attacks doing any good?  Apparently the Islamofascists are on the verge of  taking a Kurdish city near the Syrian border.  They've had to attack across the open desert, with no anti-aircraft capabilities.  How can that be?  If they are out there in the open, why aren't our planes bombing them to "extinction?"  It seems, with our capabilities and the millions of dollars of bombs being dropped (somewhere?), ISIS/ISIL could be decimated out in the open, unless......

I see, flying under the radar, that more people are losing health insurance due to ObamaCare.  Of course, some would dismiss that as not true.  (Have we become so cynical, so unable to face what we don't like to hear, that we label such information as "lies?")  I read, maybe on the MSNBC Web site?, that there are several million fewer people with health insurance today than two years ago.  Hmmm.  Maybe there are fewer Americans?  I do know that, personally, my premiums have gone up more than $1,000 a year, almost $1,500 ($140 a month).  A recent op-ed revealed an interesting phenomenon occurring with doctors.  Many are now opting out of accepting patients covered by any government plan, including Medicare/Medicaid.  Some even refuse to accept private insurance patients.  They are going to patient-pay or even a sort of retainer system, where, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, patients pay a monthly/annual amount to a doctor and then can see the doctor when needed, if needed.  Doctors who are now employing this say they have more time to devote to patients, with less red-tape, government regulations to handle.  No doubt, some folks are very happy with ObamaCare.  Those are the people touted by the federal government, at least the backers of ObamaCare, and the LameStream media.  My guess, and I'm only making a reasoned guess, is that there are far more people not happy with it.  I see Wal-Mart is cutting health coverage for its part-time employees.  There have been recently articles in the local newspapers and the WSJ citing small businesses who are also dropping health plans for their employees.  Now, one might call these employers "greedy."  But are they any greedier than those who embraced Hillary Clinton's "You shouldn't have to have a job you don't like just to be able to take care of your family.  You shouldn't be forced to abandon your dreams."  (OK, I'm paraphrasing.)  Nope,  The responsibility of caring for one's family should take a backseat to what I want--me!  me!  me!  Nope, that's not selfish or "greedy."

I saw another article the other day that caused me to laugh right out loud.  Bill Clinton either gave a speech or wrote an article on "principles and values."   I'm still chuckling.

The minimum/living wage folks are still at it.  Although some are settling as a matter of reality at the $10.50 an hour rate, many are still insisting on $15 an hour.  It's, of course, a political issue, plain and simple.  The evidence is clear.  Raising the minimum wage that much will cost jobs, many jobs, esp those of the workers who are supposed to be helped by the increase.  Again, as I have noted before, a minority of, say, fast-food workers are actually raising a family on their pay.  More than 50% of them are 24 or younger, and more than half of them are still in their teens.  What families are they raising?  And, if they are, that leads to other questions.  (Well, I suppose we're not supposed to ask them, are we?)  How many are senior citizens supplementing Social Security or pensions, not really raising families?  And, of course, who's going to pay for the increase?  My guess is not many Big Macs or Whoppers are going to be sold at $10 a pop.  (In fact, to lure more traffic, both McD's and Whopper's) are lowering prices on items such as chicken nuggets.  What will higher prices do to "traffic?")  And, I submit, $15 an hour?  For what?  Again I say, my wife runs an elementary school.  (Anyone familiar with public education knows that the secretaries run the elementary schools.)  She barely makes the demanded minimum wage per hour.  I mentioned this to someone a while back and met with, "Well, that's ridiculous.  She should be paid more."  I, of course, agreed, but asked, "Are you willing to pay more taxes so she can?"  The silence told me all I needed to know.  Similarly, I've asked some proponents of the higher minimum wage if they, when going to fast-food restaurants, leave tips of 15-20% for the workers.  Of course they don't.

OK, out to check on the current stage of the eclipse.