Where is this month, this year, this life going? Time just flies. A guy I spoke with the other day was either lamenting or was astonished that his 50th class reunion is coming up. (Join the club, buddy!) He almost stuttered, "50 years!" while shaking his head. Einstein was right about relativity; reality, or perception of it, relies upon frames of reference.
What adolescent thinks of, say, reaching 60 or 70 years? I know I didn't and I'll bet few, if any, others do. What's a wasted hour of one's life at age 15 or 22 or even 36? But at age 70, that wasted hour takes on a completely different meaning. Maybe you'll have to take my word for it, at least for now.
Sometimes the little things that go right help to make up for the big things that go bad. It was just a flag football game for 7- and 8-year olds. It was fun to watch the little ones, even some girls were playing, running around enjoying themselves. Nobody, other than some of the parents, seemed to care who was ahead or behind or won or lost. Catching a pass or scoring a touchdown made the moment fun. No, I'm not talking about participation trophies; I can't stand them. But I can't see anything at all wrong with kids enjoying success, even with something as trivial as a Sunday afternoon flag football game.
That my grandson scored his first touchdown wasn't at all important to me. That he was so excited and happy was very important to me. With luck and some guidance, maybe he'll be able to use that experience, that some practice (hard work?) leads to success and enjoyment.
On the other hand, a couple of kids from the other team were a handful. More than once these teammates were not involved in the play(s) or even the game. They were chasing each other around, even kicking at each other--during the game action! Initially I felt sorry for their coaches (having been in similar youth coaching situations) and then realized what their teachers had to endure! I don't want to tell others how to raise their kids (I'm certainly no expert and, even now, am still learning about this "parenting" thing, all over again.), but it would have been nice to see Mom and/or Dad come down to speak to their kids.
Speaking of sports, my Michael this year is playing lacrosse for the high school(s) united JV team. He has ever played before, just picking up a lacrosse stick for the first time the day before his first practice. I guess I wasn't surprised that some of his teammates have been playing the game for 10 years or even more. He likes the game, although he is behind in some of the skills--hey, he's been at it less than 2 months vs 10 years! But, of the 40-minute games, he usually plays more than 10 minutes. In several of the games, when the team was a bit short-handed, he even played more than 30 minutes! Yep, he was very tired. We were talking about it last night, coming home from taking Grandma out to dinner for Mother's Day (Michael's idea!), lacrosse being different from his other sports. In the others, he said, football, basketball, and of course baseball, "There's always time to rest. In lacrosse, I'm always running somewhere." Yes, he is. It's an interesting game to watch and I am still picking up on some of the rules and nuances.
And, speaking of schools, I read an interesting fact (Of course, is it really a "fact?" Who can tell nowadays, with so many distortions, untruths, and outright lies passing as "facts?" I certainly can't and have fallen victim to them just like everyone else seems to have.) about the best private high schools. (I believe the article called them "elite private secondary schools," but would have to double check.) Tuition, the author claimed, at these "elite" schools was "from $30,000 to $40,000." Whoa! That's far more than public colleges/universities! What makes them "elite?" I don't know for sure. Is it results, particularly compared to public schools? Locally, our district schools get about $7,000 to $8,000 per student. I don't think I need my calculator to recognize that's a far cry from "$40,000." I know there are other expenses involved, but $30,000+ per student per year? It's probably strange hearing from one who taught in the public schools say he isn't opposed to private schools or school choice, but I'm not. After all, we have "choice" in picking our colleges and universities to attend. And I went to a private college. Competition between the public and private schools? Bring it on, I say. I've never shied away from competition in anything. I do say, let's play by the same rules and I would suggest that many of the comparisons being made do not involves schools and results that play by the same rules. Trump, DeVos, et al should know that and, if they don't, should be made aware and questioned about "the rules."
Last week a local columnist wrote about the pitfalls of "repealing Obamacare," which I fear will not happen. What he wrote might well have been true. He based his entire article, supporting the results of Obamacare and critical of the more recent attempts to pass new health care legislation, on a single example. He might well have been able to cite more examples, but he didn't. Among what he said, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, was that, without Obamacare, this person cited wouldn't have been able to access a doctor and the medications she needed. They were beyond her financial means. Yep, I don't doubt that. But what this columnist (and both of my Democrat US Senators) fails to realize (or accept?) that it's now not just those who were without coverage who have been affected. (And according this this writer, the woman was positively affected). Does anyone consider those, under Obamacare, whose premiums have shot through the roof, whose co-pays and deductibles for care and prescriptions have put them beyond their financial reach? I'll use a personal example. With my former coverage, before Obamacare, I had co-pays that were reasonable. I didn't like them; after all, who doesn't want free stuff, esp medicine? But they were reasonable. After a fairly serious eye injury last summer, I was given four prescriptions by a specialist. Before leaving, I inquired as to their relative cost and absolute necessity. With my new (after Obamacare) coverage, I could afford two of the prescriptions. OK, I could have afforded all of them, but the chunks out of our budget would have been dire. Just like the columnist surely could have found others to make his point, that Obamacare has helped them, I'm certainly not the only one whose higher costs have precluded visits to doctors, forgoing medications, etc. It's just something to consider.
Yesterday, on this same topic, a local editor broached the subject of paying for health coverage. Of course, he admitted, it is very desirable for all Americans to have health insurance. Who can argue otherwise? After all, some would say, European nations have provided it for years. But hold on a minute. (Again, are the figures he tosses around accurate? Who knows today? I have no reason to dispute them. I could likely find sources to support and sources to refute them. Such is today's world.) The average American taxpayer now pays about 20% of his income to the federal government. With my taxes last month, that's about right on the money. Now, that doesn't include local taxes--state, county, township, and school. It doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, and even state and city income taxes, all of which we pay. If all of those local taxes are added up, I'll bet I pay more than 25% in total taxes. And that seems to be right; I remember reading 28% somewhere is the norm, but I'm hazy on when and where I read that. Still, that's not the point. The editor points out that, in those European nations which have "free" health insurance, tax rates, the average real tax rate, in the European union is 45%. Obviously not all of the increase can be attributed to health care bills, but in other social spending, too. But in the European nations with the highest social spending, the average tax rates are also the highest. Imagine Sweden, paying a tax rate of 47%, Germany, 52%, and Belgium 57%. France comes in with an average tax rate of 57.5%. I guess that's not bad--if it's "the other guy" who is paying that much. But it isn't. In that same Belgium, a married couple with two kids pays almost 40% in taxes. In the US, a similar family pays less than half that. Again, it's OK if "the other guy" foots the bill. Will this fairly "average" or "typical" American family be willing to pay double the taxes it already does? My guess is not.
Consider how Americans live and whether they would be willing to give up their lifestyles. In the US, according to the figures presented by this editor, the average American (It's not clear if he means family or person, but likely person) lives in a home of 1000 square feet. In Europe, the average housing space is 400 square feet (again, it's not clear if that means family or person, although I suspect person). We have more than 1000 square for our family and do not complain. We are very comfortable. But we also have the house with the smallest square footage in our entire subdivision. How about our cars, most notably our pick-ups and SUVs? Are Americans going to willing drive the popcorn machines of Europe in order to pay more taxes?
Of course the United States can afford health care for everyone. The question is really whether they will. What politician (at least openly!) would suggest doubling taxes? And taxing the 1% or 10% or 20% won't do it. Most European nations tax their wealthiest citizens at extraordinarily high rates; how much blood can be squeezed from a turnip or beet (or whatever it is)? There's no doubt that the middle class here would have to be hit with higher rates.
Oh, I think I'll save the rest for later in the week......
Monday, May 15, 2017
Friday, May 5, 2017
A Good Question
I don't remember where I heard or saw this the other day, but it is worth considering. "Why bother voting for Republicans?" I most often don't vote for Republicans (or Democrats for that matter); I didn't vote for Trump (nor Clinton) and didn't vote for Snyder either time (nor his Democrat opponents). I'm not arguing policy or philosophy here (Well, maybe I am?), but rather realities.
The Republicans have been given, nationally, control of Congress and the White House. Yet, the headlines the other day blared, "Spending deal shows Dems' clout." Huh? What "clout?" The Democrats lost the election in November, were hammered. What "clout?"
What's with this "reaching across the aisle?" "bipartisanship?" "compromise?" I don't recall much of that coming from the Democrats the previous eight years. Perhaps it's a one-way street. Voters didn't vote for Republicans to "reach across the aisle."
Take that budget. Why is there still funding for Planned Parenthood, although there might have been a cut? (Who can go through the multi-paged monstrosities Congress passes? Members of Congress themselves can't go through those bills.) Why the money still going to "sanctuary cities," who openly defy the law? (Why can't you and I openly break the law, say, not pay our income taxes and get away with it?) Where were the Republicans who campaigned against "PP" and "sanctuary?" Why didn't the President veto the bill?
And not to discuss the merits of the new House bill on health care, but what happened to "We're going to repeal Obamacare?" Oh, the Establishment Republicans were rough and tough in passing, what?, 50-some bills to repeal it when there was no chance of Obama signing any of them into law. Yep, they were very courageous then. Now, with a President to pledged to do the same thing, "repeal," they bail. Of course, who knows what this President would do--veto?
Congress created this mess, yet it wants to kick the can to the states? Members of Congress don't want to be the bad guys, but are willing to see if the state legislators will? From the actions of the states in the aftermath of Obamacare (well, at least Michigan), there's little chance of that happening.
Again I ask, why can't these politicians be sued for fraud? They make promises on the campaign trails, apparently with no intention of keeping them. When elected, the liars break those promises that got them elected. And those few who stand up for what they said are marginalized and penalized by their own Establishment parties. Of course, it's futile to expect any of these liars to be shamed; there is no sense of shame any longer. (Instead of crawling into a hole to hide, a former President who had sex in the Oval Office, then lied to the American people about it, and was impeached, now commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and is looked upon by his party as an elder spokesman.) Shame? What's that?
Around here, it's been a particularly nasty week. A seven-year old girl was shot in the head/neck when someone(s) opened fire on the house in which she was sleeping. Five men sitting in a van in a gas station were shot up (one or two died). A police officer was shot in the head by a guy who opened fire on him; the guy was himself shot and killed. There were shootings in some of the suburbs, too. Where does this attitude derive? Why do people think they can just start shooting other people? It's yet another of life's mysteries to me.
The story just seems to get recycled. A "pit bull mix" mauled two other people. The dog was the pet (?) of a man who lived with his mother. Both his mother and a friend were in intensive care at area hospitals. "It's not my fault," said the dog's owner. This was after the dog reportedly had attacked the mother before, resulting in 30+ stitches. "It's not my fault."
I joked, but only a bit, with some folks last week about some students showing up to take their final exams--without bringing paper or any writing utensils, no pencils, no pens. I can't imagine that, esp going back to my student days (The Stone Ages). Then, again yesterday, it happened again. In handing out the exam, a student asked, "Do you have a pencil?" And she had no paper, either. Maybe she was going to write her essays on the table/desk, but her finger ran out of ink?
I bought a book of New York Times Sunday Crosswords. Some are 70 and 80 years old! The first couple appeared before Pearl Harbor. And, they used to be a whole lot more difficult than they are now. They are very hard. It's not just that some of the clues are from the '30s and '40s. I think some of the words have fallen out of usage. Some of the popular names/places aren't so popular 70 and 80 years later. But they are fun and I am enjoying them.
Apparently there is a widespread scam going on regarding the IRS. People are getting phone calls that the IRS has "issued an arrest warrant" for failure to pay back taxes. "Immediately" call such-and-such a number for help and "to avoid arrest." I rec'd such a call. I checked the phone number online and found numerous others who have reported the same scam. First, the IRS was going to "arrest" me for $128? (K paid it, against my wishes.) Second, the IRS has enough resources to come after me for $128, but such phone scams aren't worth investigation or "arresting" the perpetrators?
It was great to listen to one of our local radio personalities be his usual obsequious self to a politician guest. But when the guest pointed out the mistakes the governor and his office made regarding the Flint water crisis, the host started mumbling and bumbling. "Well, er, uh......" finally adding, "There are other factors......" Yeah, right.
The Republicans have been given, nationally, control of Congress and the White House. Yet, the headlines the other day blared, "Spending deal shows Dems' clout." Huh? What "clout?" The Democrats lost the election in November, were hammered. What "clout?"
What's with this "reaching across the aisle?" "bipartisanship?" "compromise?" I don't recall much of that coming from the Democrats the previous eight years. Perhaps it's a one-way street. Voters didn't vote for Republicans to "reach across the aisle."
Take that budget. Why is there still funding for Planned Parenthood, although there might have been a cut? (Who can go through the multi-paged monstrosities Congress passes? Members of Congress themselves can't go through those bills.) Why the money still going to "sanctuary cities," who openly defy the law? (Why can't you and I openly break the law, say, not pay our income taxes and get away with it?) Where were the Republicans who campaigned against "PP" and "sanctuary?" Why didn't the President veto the bill?
And not to discuss the merits of the new House bill on health care, but what happened to "We're going to repeal Obamacare?" Oh, the Establishment Republicans were rough and tough in passing, what?, 50-some bills to repeal it when there was no chance of Obama signing any of them into law. Yep, they were very courageous then. Now, with a President to pledged to do the same thing, "repeal," they bail. Of course, who knows what this President would do--veto?
Congress created this mess, yet it wants to kick the can to the states? Members of Congress don't want to be the bad guys, but are willing to see if the state legislators will? From the actions of the states in the aftermath of Obamacare (well, at least Michigan), there's little chance of that happening.
Again I ask, why can't these politicians be sued for fraud? They make promises on the campaign trails, apparently with no intention of keeping them. When elected, the liars break those promises that got them elected. And those few who stand up for what they said are marginalized and penalized by their own Establishment parties. Of course, it's futile to expect any of these liars to be shamed; there is no sense of shame any longer. (Instead of crawling into a hole to hide, a former President who had sex in the Oval Office, then lied to the American people about it, and was impeached, now commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and is looked upon by his party as an elder spokesman.) Shame? What's that?
Around here, it's been a particularly nasty week. A seven-year old girl was shot in the head/neck when someone(s) opened fire on the house in which she was sleeping. Five men sitting in a van in a gas station were shot up (one or two died). A police officer was shot in the head by a guy who opened fire on him; the guy was himself shot and killed. There were shootings in some of the suburbs, too. Where does this attitude derive? Why do people think they can just start shooting other people? It's yet another of life's mysteries to me.
The story just seems to get recycled. A "pit bull mix" mauled two other people. The dog was the pet (?) of a man who lived with his mother. Both his mother and a friend were in intensive care at area hospitals. "It's not my fault," said the dog's owner. This was after the dog reportedly had attacked the mother before, resulting in 30+ stitches. "It's not my fault."
I joked, but only a bit, with some folks last week about some students showing up to take their final exams--without bringing paper or any writing utensils, no pencils, no pens. I can't imagine that, esp going back to my student days (The Stone Ages). Then, again yesterday, it happened again. In handing out the exam, a student asked, "Do you have a pencil?" And she had no paper, either. Maybe she was going to write her essays on the table/desk, but her finger ran out of ink?
I bought a book of New York Times Sunday Crosswords. Some are 70 and 80 years old! The first couple appeared before Pearl Harbor. And, they used to be a whole lot more difficult than they are now. They are very hard. It's not just that some of the clues are from the '30s and '40s. I think some of the words have fallen out of usage. Some of the popular names/places aren't so popular 70 and 80 years later. But they are fun and I am enjoying them.
Apparently there is a widespread scam going on regarding the IRS. People are getting phone calls that the IRS has "issued an arrest warrant" for failure to pay back taxes. "Immediately" call such-and-such a number for help and "to avoid arrest." I rec'd such a call. I checked the phone number online and found numerous others who have reported the same scam. First, the IRS was going to "arrest" me for $128? (K paid it, against my wishes.) Second, the IRS has enough resources to come after me for $128, but such phone scams aren't worth investigation or "arresting" the perpetrators?
It was great to listen to one of our local radio personalities be his usual obsequious self to a politician guest. But when the guest pointed out the mistakes the governor and his office made regarding the Flint water crisis, the host started mumbling and bumbling. "Well, er, uh......" finally adding, "There are other factors......" Yeah, right.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
The Lawn and other Musings
Last year I used a weed and feed on our lawn. The bag read, "Kills More than 200 Different Weeds." I may have mentioned then that I think I found 5 or 6 that it didn't kill. So this year I tried a different brand. Both were national brands and this year's switch didn't turn out any better. Oh, they both were OK on dandelions, but only OK. I still had to dig out half a dozen yellows yesterday. The grass itself, though, is green and looks nice--if we ignore the weeds. I wonder if those companies like Tru-Green work any better. Hmmm...... Maybe it's time to try.
And I finally was able to get most, not all but most, of the backyard mowed this AM. Michael does the front yard. (Is "backyard" one word and "front yard" two words?") There are still some patches that are a bit too swampy to get mowed/mown. I slopped through some areas, too. But it was so tall, well over ankle-length in most places and thick. It's supposed to rain, heavy rain, tonight and tomorrow into Mon AM. So I figured it was today or...or when?
I know it sounds crazy, but I enjoy mowing, usually. It's like winter snow shoveling for me. I get to be outside. I get to do something physical. And I like what I see when I am done. Ask me if I still enjoy it when the temperatures reach the 80s and 90s! Heh Heh.
Sometimes those old white males have things to teach us. Plato once wrote, "Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." I think I have spoken to/written about that several times in a slightly different context. I was reminded of Plato a while ago when someone asked me, "What are you going to do?" in the face of a situation. I said, "Nothing." "How can you do nothing?" I was asked with some incredulity. I replied, "What should I do? Tell me." This time I was met with silence. Right. I could think of nothing to do to alleviate the situation, so I opted to do nothing. So far, doing nothing is working. During the Obamacare debacle in Congress, I remember the Wall Street Journal advising Congress, "Don't do something, just stand there." It was a great take-off of "Don't just stand there, do something."
Very few people I know like to engage in conversations like the following. OK, I do have some friends (Yes, I know that surprises a lot of people, but the emphasis is on some.) Are kindness and greatness two very different qualities? That is, would you put your life or the life of a loved one in the hands of a doctor who is a cruel person? Would you assent to having a man like Picasso, hardly a candidate for sainthood, be your king? These are some of the questions I am taking away from my re-readings of Chaim Potok's Asher Lev novels. Maybe I'm flighty, but I think they are questions well worth pondering and discussing. I think I will next week on some of my runs.
In the same vein, to extrapolate those types of ideas to reality--that is, to make them relevant (and doesn't everything we learn have to be relevant or at least on the state tests?)--does character matter? Do we or should we separate behavior from accomplishments? In studying and teaching history, I am confronted with this frequently. Let me take two recent examples: John Kennedy and Bill Clinton (perhaps two men cut from the same mold--or mould!). I happen to think that character does matter, that it should be counted in evaluations. Perhaps, though, I am old-fashioned. I guess I am willing to concede that.
How frustrating it is to see efforts, if not in vain, at least in danger of being in vain. Trying to teach right from wrong is not always easy. There are so many forces out there getting in the way. But, still, working to demonstrate, to teach, etc. what is good and what is not good and then seeing the tottering of that...... I know each person is individually responsible for such determinations and then must also be held accountable (although many people are not held accountable) for subsequent actions based on those determinations. But sometimes, when we are wavering or others are wavering with what we've tried to teach, it's not pleasant. Do we then question our own values and principles? Maybe.
I'm not one at all upset that Obama has given a Wall Street speech in return for $400,000. More power to him! I wish someone would give me $4,000 for a speech! If he can get $500,000, go get it I say. My only hang-up is what he says and what he does are two different things. But perhaps we can't all be consistent all of the time. Perhaps......
And I finally was able to get most, not all but most, of the backyard mowed this AM. Michael does the front yard. (Is "backyard" one word and "front yard" two words?") There are still some patches that are a bit too swampy to get mowed/mown. I slopped through some areas, too. But it was so tall, well over ankle-length in most places and thick. It's supposed to rain, heavy rain, tonight and tomorrow into Mon AM. So I figured it was today or...or when?
I know it sounds crazy, but I enjoy mowing, usually. It's like winter snow shoveling for me. I get to be outside. I get to do something physical. And I like what I see when I am done. Ask me if I still enjoy it when the temperatures reach the 80s and 90s! Heh Heh.
Sometimes those old white males have things to teach us. Plato once wrote, "Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." I think I have spoken to/written about that several times in a slightly different context. I was reminded of Plato a while ago when someone asked me, "What are you going to do?" in the face of a situation. I said, "Nothing." "How can you do nothing?" I was asked with some incredulity. I replied, "What should I do? Tell me." This time I was met with silence. Right. I could think of nothing to do to alleviate the situation, so I opted to do nothing. So far, doing nothing is working. During the Obamacare debacle in Congress, I remember the Wall Street Journal advising Congress, "Don't do something, just stand there." It was a great take-off of "Don't just stand there, do something."
Very few people I know like to engage in conversations like the following. OK, I do have some friends (Yes, I know that surprises a lot of people, but the emphasis is on some.) Are kindness and greatness two very different qualities? That is, would you put your life or the life of a loved one in the hands of a doctor who is a cruel person? Would you assent to having a man like Picasso, hardly a candidate for sainthood, be your king? These are some of the questions I am taking away from my re-readings of Chaim Potok's Asher Lev novels. Maybe I'm flighty, but I think they are questions well worth pondering and discussing. I think I will next week on some of my runs.
In the same vein, to extrapolate those types of ideas to reality--that is, to make them relevant (and doesn't everything we learn have to be relevant or at least on the state tests?)--does character matter? Do we or should we separate behavior from accomplishments? In studying and teaching history, I am confronted with this frequently. Let me take two recent examples: John Kennedy and Bill Clinton (perhaps two men cut from the same mold--or mould!). I happen to think that character does matter, that it should be counted in evaluations. Perhaps, though, I am old-fashioned. I guess I am willing to concede that.
How frustrating it is to see efforts, if not in vain, at least in danger of being in vain. Trying to teach right from wrong is not always easy. There are so many forces out there getting in the way. But, still, working to demonstrate, to teach, etc. what is good and what is not good and then seeing the tottering of that...... I know each person is individually responsible for such determinations and then must also be held accountable (although many people are not held accountable) for subsequent actions based on those determinations. But sometimes, when we are wavering or others are wavering with what we've tried to teach, it's not pleasant. Do we then question our own values and principles? Maybe.
I'm not one at all upset that Obama has given a Wall Street speech in return for $400,000. More power to him! I wish someone would give me $4,000 for a speech! If he can get $500,000, go get it I say. My only hang-up is what he says and what he does are two different things. But perhaps we can't all be consistent all of the time. Perhaps......
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Wednesday Mind Wanderings
The other day, a couple of miles down the road, I was startled during my run by a herd of 11 or 12 deer. (Why is the plural of deer deer, not deers? The plural of bear isn't bear, but bears, of dog not dog, but dogs, etc.) I've seen large herds of them around here before, namely a dozen or so swimming across the Huron River in a nearby park, oh, about 20 or more years ago. But I haven't seen that many so close to home, not in a pack. We've had a half dozen or so romp in the backyard or between houses, but...... For this city-slicker, the herd was pretty cool to see.
I've really enjoyed the Chaim Potok novels I've been re-reading. I didn't remember much of My Name Is Asher Lev, but recalled some of The Chosen and The Promise. But The Gift of Asher Lev, yes a sequel, doesn't seem to ring any bells for me. Still, I'm learning a lot, being entertained, and challenged to do some thinking. What else can one ask from a well-written novel?
I got a bit of a chuckle out of some newspapers' grousing about Supreme Gorsuch and his siding with the other four conservative justices in the recent challenge to a scheduled Arkansas execution. First and foremost, I have no sympathy for the two men who were executed, none at all. Nobody asked them to murder other people. Perhaps a bit of a contradiction, although I still waver (or is it "waiver?") sometimes, I think I oppose the death penalty. I know there are a lot of scumballs who likely deserve to be executed. But I have some problems. Namely, I don't like giving the state power over life and death, power to kill people. The state (meaning government) has far too much power over our lives now. This is the ultimate power, isn't it? And how many innocent folks have been executed over the years, that we know of? How many have been executed on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which we know is hardly 100% reliable? Courts and juries don't always get it right. If anything, is there a way to determine a test of "strength of evidence" to perhaps come closer to ensuring we aren't executing innocent people? I don't know. Perhaps I'm naive in this, but isn't there still a possibility that a person can turn around his/her life, if even still in prison? Don't we have to afford the opportunities to repent? Otherwise, where is the end of the cycle of hate, revenge, and suffering? Also, and this is the second point, why this outcry (from three different national media sources who support abortion) for the lives of convicted murders (see my views above), yet not a peep to save the lives of unborn babies? The murderers have committed heinous crimes; the babies haven't done anything wrong. To add, Gorsuch's vote did nothing but uphold Arkansas state law, which has never been ruled unconstitutional nor, except in "special circumstances," have any state laws regarding capital punishment. Perhaps I missed one or two, but I don't think so. Again, I repeat, I think I oppose the death penalty, but still...... And had Gorsuch not been confirmed, the 4-4 vote of the Supremes would have resulted in the decision of the next highest court as the ruling--and it upheld the executions. Too, Arkansas law holds that if a convict is to be executed, but lethal injection is not available (as in the lethal drugs having expired, no pun intended), the "dead men walking" get the electric chair.
This game of lacrosse is sometimes puzzling. Michael is playing it for the first time, on the high school JV team. I'm often puzzled by the rules. Why does a team that shoots the ball at the goal only to have it leave the field of play get to retain possession, while a team that passes the ball out of bounds loses it? Why can a defender club an offensive player with his stick only if his hands are together, but is penalized if his hands are apart? As least that is what I've gathered from calls by the officials after a few weeks. Is it that there's less leverage/force if the hands are together? I'm still trying to figure out the call that looks like "traveling" in basketball, but haven't yet. But I'm learning, I hope. And the kids seem to really enjoy playing the game. Michael's other grandparents were at the last game and wondered if this is a relatively "new game." No, I noted. The Indians were playing this game, or a version of it called "baggataway," hundreds of years ago. In fact, they used it as a ploy to take the British fort at Mackinac in 1763.
Speaking of sports, baseball remains a funny, funny game. That's not "ha-ha" funny, but peculiar. Last week Miguel Cabrera, who started the season very slowly, but raised his BA about 200 points in a week and a half, hit four balls in a game right the button. I didn't see the game, but the last time up the radio announcers noted that "He's squared up all four balls, but doesn't have a thing to show for it." That is, he hammered four balls, but didn't get a hit. The next game, the baseball gods evened up things, well, as much as they do. (I don't believe that well hit balls that are caught are balanced by what we called "bleeders.") Miggy got three hits, a flair to left, a pop-up that managed to find the grass just between three charging fielders, and a seeing-eye bounder (not particularly well hit) up the middle. Funny game......
I'm still not sure many folks appreciate the important of good defensive play in the outfield. I think they certainly do on the infield, esp at shortstop. But in the outfield.....? Oh, the guys on the radio or boob tube will ooh and aah at the great catches, but I wonder if they realize more ordinary plays are often made "ordinary" by great defense or that many balls that fall and look like legitimate hits could be caught with some better defense. I'm not at all saying outfield defense is easy; it's not. There's a lot that goes into outstanding defensive play in the OF; it takes a lot of work. I'd guess most spectator don't realize that. I think that goes back to little league where the worst players get stuck in the outfield. That is eventually outgrown, but maybe in the backs of people's minds, that thought is still there: the worst. People probably can tell how many games, say, Al Kaline or Ken Griffey have won with their bats. I wonder how many can tell how many games they've won with their gloves. I don't know if they have or not, but had I been running the Tigers, Kaline would have been working with all of the outfielders on a consistent basis. Here's a tip: if a centerfielder rarely makes a great catch, either he's terrible or, more likely, he's great and makes hard catches look routine.
I've really enjoyed the Chaim Potok novels I've been re-reading. I didn't remember much of My Name Is Asher Lev, but recalled some of The Chosen and The Promise. But The Gift of Asher Lev, yes a sequel, doesn't seem to ring any bells for me. Still, I'm learning a lot, being entertained, and challenged to do some thinking. What else can one ask from a well-written novel?
I got a bit of a chuckle out of some newspapers' grousing about Supreme Gorsuch and his siding with the other four conservative justices in the recent challenge to a scheduled Arkansas execution. First and foremost, I have no sympathy for the two men who were executed, none at all. Nobody asked them to murder other people. Perhaps a bit of a contradiction, although I still waver (or is it "waiver?") sometimes, I think I oppose the death penalty. I know there are a lot of scumballs who likely deserve to be executed. But I have some problems. Namely, I don't like giving the state power over life and death, power to kill people. The state (meaning government) has far too much power over our lives now. This is the ultimate power, isn't it? And how many innocent folks have been executed over the years, that we know of? How many have been executed on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which we know is hardly 100% reliable? Courts and juries don't always get it right. If anything, is there a way to determine a test of "strength of evidence" to perhaps come closer to ensuring we aren't executing innocent people? I don't know. Perhaps I'm naive in this, but isn't there still a possibility that a person can turn around his/her life, if even still in prison? Don't we have to afford the opportunities to repent? Otherwise, where is the end of the cycle of hate, revenge, and suffering? Also, and this is the second point, why this outcry (from three different national media sources who support abortion) for the lives of convicted murders (see my views above), yet not a peep to save the lives of unborn babies? The murderers have committed heinous crimes; the babies haven't done anything wrong. To add, Gorsuch's vote did nothing but uphold Arkansas state law, which has never been ruled unconstitutional nor, except in "special circumstances," have any state laws regarding capital punishment. Perhaps I missed one or two, but I don't think so. Again, I repeat, I think I oppose the death penalty, but still...... And had Gorsuch not been confirmed, the 4-4 vote of the Supremes would have resulted in the decision of the next highest court as the ruling--and it upheld the executions. Too, Arkansas law holds that if a convict is to be executed, but lethal injection is not available (as in the lethal drugs having expired, no pun intended), the "dead men walking" get the electric chair.
This game of lacrosse is sometimes puzzling. Michael is playing it for the first time, on the high school JV team. I'm often puzzled by the rules. Why does a team that shoots the ball at the goal only to have it leave the field of play get to retain possession, while a team that passes the ball out of bounds loses it? Why can a defender club an offensive player with his stick only if his hands are together, but is penalized if his hands are apart? As least that is what I've gathered from calls by the officials after a few weeks. Is it that there's less leverage/force if the hands are together? I'm still trying to figure out the call that looks like "traveling" in basketball, but haven't yet. But I'm learning, I hope. And the kids seem to really enjoy playing the game. Michael's other grandparents were at the last game and wondered if this is a relatively "new game." No, I noted. The Indians were playing this game, or a version of it called "baggataway," hundreds of years ago. In fact, they used it as a ploy to take the British fort at Mackinac in 1763.
Speaking of sports, baseball remains a funny, funny game. That's not "ha-ha" funny, but peculiar. Last week Miguel Cabrera, who started the season very slowly, but raised his BA about 200 points in a week and a half, hit four balls in a game right the button. I didn't see the game, but the last time up the radio announcers noted that "He's squared up all four balls, but doesn't have a thing to show for it." That is, he hammered four balls, but didn't get a hit. The next game, the baseball gods evened up things, well, as much as they do. (I don't believe that well hit balls that are caught are balanced by what we called "bleeders.") Miggy got three hits, a flair to left, a pop-up that managed to find the grass just between three charging fielders, and a seeing-eye bounder (not particularly well hit) up the middle. Funny game......
I'm still not sure many folks appreciate the important of good defensive play in the outfield. I think they certainly do on the infield, esp at shortstop. But in the outfield.....? Oh, the guys on the radio or boob tube will ooh and aah at the great catches, but I wonder if they realize more ordinary plays are often made "ordinary" by great defense or that many balls that fall and look like legitimate hits could be caught with some better defense. I'm not at all saying outfield defense is easy; it's not. There's a lot that goes into outstanding defensive play in the OF; it takes a lot of work. I'd guess most spectator don't realize that. I think that goes back to little league where the worst players get stuck in the outfield. That is eventually outgrown, but maybe in the backs of people's minds, that thought is still there: the worst. People probably can tell how many games, say, Al Kaline or Ken Griffey have won with their bats. I wonder how many can tell how many games they've won with their gloves. I don't know if they have or not, but had I been running the Tigers, Kaline would have been working with all of the outfielders on a consistent basis. Here's a tip: if a centerfielder rarely makes a great catch, either he's terrible or, more likely, he's great and makes hard catches look routine.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Funny Stuff
Looking out of the front window, it was just raining cats and dogs, really coming down. It still is, although now not quite as heavily. I can easily see the big raindrops on the large puddles on the street. Yet, here near the back of the house, it is barely sprinkling. It's raining, yes, but not as hard as out front. Why is that?
Watching the Tigers last night, I was struck by a couple of things. Last week I complained that so few players, at any levels, including the MLB, actually know how to bunt for a hit. No, I'm not talking about sacrifice bunting. Even with nobody on it seems, those very few who attempt to bunt square around. It can't be a sacrifice since nobody is on base. One would think this would be a great offensive weapon. There'd be an occasional hit. It would stymie the increasingly popular shifts. It would force infielders to move in several steps, opening the possibility of sneaking ground balls or line drives past the shallower infielders. Then, last night while watching with Michael, a Tampa Bay Devil Rays' player dropped a perfect bunt for a hit. Indeed, it could be deemed a sacrifice, since there was a runner on second. But the batter didn't square around; rather he bunted for a hit. And it was perfectly placed, although the element of surprise didn't require perfection. It was great to see. The only downside was the replay only showed the ball staying fair as the Tiger fielders let it roll to see if it would go foul. I wanted to see the guy's technique again; it was a thing of beauty.
The Tiger outfielders messed up two or three fly balls, too. It may have been losing the balls in the roof--an indoor stadium. But it sure looked like miscommunication between players. In the end, the poor outfield play, along with the continued lousy relief pitching, cost the Tigers a win.
BTW, Miguel Cabrera has found his stroke. He hit a rocket--a smoking line drive--451 feet the other night. Last night he had three hits. Today the announcer (I wasn't watching.) said he "hit four balls sharply with nothing to show for it." He sure is fun to watch.
I admit if I'd be surprised if I watched that O'Reilly guy's show on Fox three times, if that. I don't remember ever watching it. I have no idea if the women's complaints against him are valid. If they are, throw the book at him. Don't try to defend him, not at all. If he's the cad that is claimed, he deserves nothing but scorn. Why did he get the millions of dollars in a buyout? Make him sue to get it so all this sordid stuff can become public. This may or may not be a different thing ("Oh, that's different......"), but why does Dollar Bill Clinton still get hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches? And, when he speaks, where are the women's groups who should be protesting? For that matter, why don't the women's groups protest Hillary Clinton for her aiding and abetting in trying to cover up her husband's escapades?
I'm back to reading books from 30 or so years ago. This one now is a sequel to My Name Is Asher Lev--The Gift of Asher Lev. I finished My Name a month or so ago and liked it as much as I remembered liking it. I even gave it, with high recommendations, to a friend to read. If I can recall that far back, I liked The Gift even more. This is the third Chaim Potok novel I've reread and I'm glad I have done so.
BTW, now it's raining equally hard front and back. Whew!
Watching the Tigers last night, I was struck by a couple of things. Last week I complained that so few players, at any levels, including the MLB, actually know how to bunt for a hit. No, I'm not talking about sacrifice bunting. Even with nobody on it seems, those very few who attempt to bunt square around. It can't be a sacrifice since nobody is on base. One would think this would be a great offensive weapon. There'd be an occasional hit. It would stymie the increasingly popular shifts. It would force infielders to move in several steps, opening the possibility of sneaking ground balls or line drives past the shallower infielders. Then, last night while watching with Michael, a Tampa Bay Devil Rays' player dropped a perfect bunt for a hit. Indeed, it could be deemed a sacrifice, since there was a runner on second. But the batter didn't square around; rather he bunted for a hit. And it was perfectly placed, although the element of surprise didn't require perfection. It was great to see. The only downside was the replay only showed the ball staying fair as the Tiger fielders let it roll to see if it would go foul. I wanted to see the guy's technique again; it was a thing of beauty.
The Tiger outfielders messed up two or three fly balls, too. It may have been losing the balls in the roof--an indoor stadium. But it sure looked like miscommunication between players. In the end, the poor outfield play, along with the continued lousy relief pitching, cost the Tigers a win.
BTW, Miguel Cabrera has found his stroke. He hit a rocket--a smoking line drive--451 feet the other night. Last night he had three hits. Today the announcer (I wasn't watching.) said he "hit four balls sharply with nothing to show for it." He sure is fun to watch.
I admit if I'd be surprised if I watched that O'Reilly guy's show on Fox three times, if that. I don't remember ever watching it. I have no idea if the women's complaints against him are valid. If they are, throw the book at him. Don't try to defend him, not at all. If he's the cad that is claimed, he deserves nothing but scorn. Why did he get the millions of dollars in a buyout? Make him sue to get it so all this sordid stuff can become public. This may or may not be a different thing ("Oh, that's different......"), but why does Dollar Bill Clinton still get hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches? And, when he speaks, where are the women's groups who should be protesting? For that matter, why don't the women's groups protest Hillary Clinton for her aiding and abetting in trying to cover up her husband's escapades?
I'm back to reading books from 30 or so years ago. This one now is a sequel to My Name Is Asher Lev--The Gift of Asher Lev. I finished My Name a month or so ago and liked it as much as I remembered liking it. I even gave it, with high recommendations, to a friend to read. If I can recall that far back, I liked The Gift even more. This is the third Chaim Potok novel I've reread and I'm glad I have done so.
BTW, now it's raining equally hard front and back. Whew!
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Delta and United and......
I am bemused and amused at the kerfuffle regarding the airlines over the past week. First, l'affaire United.
I really haven't followed this as closely as much of the rest of the nation apparently has, bur from what I've read.....
Why is there any sympathy for this guy who was hauled off the plane? OK, he was upset at having to give up his seat. He didn't want to take a later flight. The airline policy, like most corporate airline polices, was not endearing to consumers/customers. But the guy acted alike a jerk! He was belligerent and petulant, throwing a tantrum like a little kid. He refused to leave the plane. I'm sure the airline personnel on board were pleasant enough in trying to explain to him the reason(s). But, of course, like so many people today, to this guy it was all about him. He couldn't be inconvenienced. That hundreds of other people might be inconvenienced if the last-minute seating of the pilots and/or crew hadn't taken place is not important. His inconvenience is. And like a little kid, he forced the issue by requiring he be physically removed from the plane. I wonder, before he was carted off, if he stamped his feet and said, "No!" I hope he's put on a no-fly list......
That said, United doesn't get off Scot-free (Is that an ethnic slur? I don't know nowadays.) either. For a long time, airlines have overbooked. I don't know if this was such an instance or if it was the pilot/crew issue. Still, airlines overbook.
In the first place, why wasn't a bidding war started? Why didn't United offer, say, $500 for ceding a seat? OK, $500 doesn't work, try $600. Keep going up until people begin to bite. They will, eventually, and my guess it might be sooner than one would imagine.
I understand the overbooking. It's all about money. I'm not sure I've ever been on a flight when there weren't offers like this, to give up seats in return for money. OK, the airlines want to make money. But haven't they made record amounts of money in each of the past several years, esp since the price of fuel took a nosedive? They still need to overbook? What about customers?
And those who are "bumped" are not "bumped" on the basis of when they purchased their tickets. Nope. Those who paid more for their tickets, even if they bought them months after others did, are given seats.
Could the disregard for customers stem from the monopolistic/oligopolistic status of the industry? If so, aren't there regulations regarding that? If the free market has been curtailed, then......
Delta doesn't escape some criticism here, too. The storms in the Southeast last week played havoc with air schedules. But it seemed after a couple of days all of the airlines were pretty much back on track, well, all except Delta. And after last summer's computer debacle that threw Delta (or its consumers/customers) for a loop, one would think the corporate-types running the show would have learned a few lessons and have the company better prepared. One would think wrong(ly!). Karen's flight from Jacksonville, connecting to Columbus, was a horror of horrors. (Columbus, instead of Detroit because it was more than $500 cheaper!) She arrived home a day late, which might not have been too bad. But her luggage arrived her today, Wed. Sat to Wed for the luggage to be found and delivered.
Coincidentally, we were caught up in last August's mess, too, stranded at Detroit Metro for about eight hours--with all three kids! Our flight was delayed, delayed, and delayed again. First, there wasn't a pilot; then one arrived. Then there weren't enough crew members; by the time the crew was filled, the pilot had "timed out." When an off-duty crew member offered to work our flight, allowing our flight to take off only four hours late, he was rebuffed for some reason by his superiors--he tried at least! Three other regularly scheduled flights left on time--before ours! Instead of making us wait eight hours, why not bump and have just an hour or two (at most) of inconvenience for all of the customers? By the time we arrived in Las Vegas we had lost a whole day; landing left room for a meal for the kids and then bed time at the hotel. I must admit we did receive some "Sky Miles" for enduring the debacle, but I'd have preferred getting there on time.
Throughout, though, the personnel were very cordial, friendly, and understanding, in the face of some pretty hostile customers--esp when they discovered other Las Vegas flights were proceeding as scheduled while we waited and waited and waited. The only problem came when a supervisor arrived--who either refused to confront questions or didn't know the answers. Hey, he was a supervisor; shouldn't he know the answers?
Aren't their laws against "gouging?" Parking lots on opening day for the Tigers were gouging. Michael paid $40 for a parking spot in a lot that we normally pay $10. Of course, a slice of pizza runs more than $6 doesn't it, a single slice?!?!?!
Airline prices. Overbooking. Parking. Ball park eats. Once again the little guy seems to take hits.
I really haven't followed this as closely as much of the rest of the nation apparently has, bur from what I've read.....
Why is there any sympathy for this guy who was hauled off the plane? OK, he was upset at having to give up his seat. He didn't want to take a later flight. The airline policy, like most corporate airline polices, was not endearing to consumers/customers. But the guy acted alike a jerk! He was belligerent and petulant, throwing a tantrum like a little kid. He refused to leave the plane. I'm sure the airline personnel on board were pleasant enough in trying to explain to him the reason(s). But, of course, like so many people today, to this guy it was all about him. He couldn't be inconvenienced. That hundreds of other people might be inconvenienced if the last-minute seating of the pilots and/or crew hadn't taken place is not important. His inconvenience is. And like a little kid, he forced the issue by requiring he be physically removed from the plane. I wonder, before he was carted off, if he stamped his feet and said, "No!" I hope he's put on a no-fly list......
That said, United doesn't get off Scot-free (Is that an ethnic slur? I don't know nowadays.) either. For a long time, airlines have overbooked. I don't know if this was such an instance or if it was the pilot/crew issue. Still, airlines overbook.
In the first place, why wasn't a bidding war started? Why didn't United offer, say, $500 for ceding a seat? OK, $500 doesn't work, try $600. Keep going up until people begin to bite. They will, eventually, and my guess it might be sooner than one would imagine.
I understand the overbooking. It's all about money. I'm not sure I've ever been on a flight when there weren't offers like this, to give up seats in return for money. OK, the airlines want to make money. But haven't they made record amounts of money in each of the past several years, esp since the price of fuel took a nosedive? They still need to overbook? What about customers?
And those who are "bumped" are not "bumped" on the basis of when they purchased their tickets. Nope. Those who paid more for their tickets, even if they bought them months after others did, are given seats.
Could the disregard for customers stem from the monopolistic/oligopolistic status of the industry? If so, aren't there regulations regarding that? If the free market has been curtailed, then......
Delta doesn't escape some criticism here, too. The storms in the Southeast last week played havoc with air schedules. But it seemed after a couple of days all of the airlines were pretty much back on track, well, all except Delta. And after last summer's computer debacle that threw Delta (or its consumers/customers) for a loop, one would think the corporate-types running the show would have learned a few lessons and have the company better prepared. One would think wrong(ly!). Karen's flight from Jacksonville, connecting to Columbus, was a horror of horrors. (Columbus, instead of Detroit because it was more than $500 cheaper!) She arrived home a day late, which might not have been too bad. But her luggage arrived her today, Wed. Sat to Wed for the luggage to be found and delivered.
Coincidentally, we were caught up in last August's mess, too, stranded at Detroit Metro for about eight hours--with all three kids! Our flight was delayed, delayed, and delayed again. First, there wasn't a pilot; then one arrived. Then there weren't enough crew members; by the time the crew was filled, the pilot had "timed out." When an off-duty crew member offered to work our flight, allowing our flight to take off only four hours late, he was rebuffed for some reason by his superiors--he tried at least! Three other regularly scheduled flights left on time--before ours! Instead of making us wait eight hours, why not bump and have just an hour or two (at most) of inconvenience for all of the customers? By the time we arrived in Las Vegas we had lost a whole day; landing left room for a meal for the kids and then bed time at the hotel. I must admit we did receive some "Sky Miles" for enduring the debacle, but I'd have preferred getting there on time.
Throughout, though, the personnel were very cordial, friendly, and understanding, in the face of some pretty hostile customers--esp when they discovered other Las Vegas flights were proceeding as scheduled while we waited and waited and waited. The only problem came when a supervisor arrived--who either refused to confront questions or didn't know the answers. Hey, he was a supervisor; shouldn't he know the answers?
Aren't their laws against "gouging?" Parking lots on opening day for the Tigers were gouging. Michael paid $40 for a parking spot in a lot that we normally pay $10. Of course, a slice of pizza runs more than $6 doesn't it, a single slice?!?!?!
Airline prices. Overbooking. Parking. Ball park eats. Once again the little guy seems to take hits.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Friday Chuckles
After a couple of days earlier this week in the lower 60s, we had snow all day yesterday. Overnight, it kept snowing, about an inch of accumulation at daybreak. Tomorrow is slated to be in the mid-60s and Sun in the mid-70s. But today, opening day for the Tigers, it will still be cold, in the mid-40s with blustery wind. I know they have to get in their 162 games, with as few double headers as possible to make ever-more money, but have any of these schedulers played in this cold stuff? I suppose many of them have and money trumps all, but still. "Fond" is not a word I use to describe my memories of playing in the winter weather.
So, "50 advertisers have pulled their ads" from Fox News due to the alleged sexual harassment of Bill O'Reilly. (BTW, I was surprised to read it is the top-rated talk show on cable TV. I don't know if that's true; I can't remember ever watching it.) And some USA Today reporter "excoriated" a well-known professional golfer (I guess "well-known" to most folks; I never heard of him and can't recall his name--nor that of the reporter.) for golfing with Don Trump. It's his treatment of women or at least what he says about them, esp in light of the golfer's comments about country clubs that still exclude or minimize the number of women members. Yet, Bill Clinton still commands hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for short speeches. So does his wife. And, speaking of treatment of women--and common folks in general...... I wonder how many of those "50 advertisers" have paid either of the Clintons for speeches or, at the least, have CEOs who have attended their speeches.
A newspaper article this AM covered an attempt by local school districts to attract young males into teaching. It plays into several serious conversations I've had recently with quite a variety of folks. I think the first step those seeking to draw more youngsters into teaching would be to check how much teachers are paid. If I recall correctly, a couple weeks ago one of these fellow conversants said the average starting pay for a teacher in Michigan is $33,000. I checked online and that's pretty close to the actual figure (2015). At the same time, I checked our local district, which remains (as it has historically) one of the lowest paying districts around, not just in our country. The median teacher income is about $51,000. And very few new teachers are being hired since it is claimed student enrollment is declining and declining significantly. It really rankled me to hear a teacher tell me of a colleague who tried to rationalize the low pay with the trite and ridiculous, "But teachers have a great pension." No wonder teaching/education is in the state it's in. As I've said to many others for quite a few years, "How about paying me what teachers are worth and I'll take care of my own 'pension.?'" Nah, nobody takes that seriously, apparently not even other teachers. Another one of these guys I talked to claimed the average teacher gets out of education within five years. Is that true? I don't know, but I have no reason to doubt it. Yet the CEOs of the top two US auto-makers made more than $22 million in '16. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve it; somebody obviously thinks so. Let's just consider the comparison.
The President and his team are trying to unseat some members of the House Freedom Caucus. I'm no fan of Trump, not in the least. He's done little to change my mind that he belongs nowhere near the Presidency. And this attempt to get even with the no-voters on the deeply flawed recent health care bill is not only appalling, but revealing. For instance, I am not sure I'd vote for Justin Amash, the Michigan Congressman. He's not in my district and, besides, he's carrying some baggage I find disturbing. But for the guy who claimed he was going to "drain the Swamp," going after Amash (and other Freedom Caucus members) for actually living up to campaign promises he (and they) made to their constituents--that is, not deliberately lying!--is pathetic. Isn't it interesting that Trump has said he's going after the Democrats who opposed the bill?
The IRS has been mildly harassing us about a tax problem, a minor one at that. Let's just say, you probably spend more at the grocery store in a week that the amount over which we are scuffling. I have already used the IRS's own data to refute half of the claim. It is still "investigating." C'mon! It's not like were talking about big bucks here. Like I said, it's about $100 or so. Yet, I wonder, why doesn't the IRS go after the really big buck guys? It can't find some problems with all credits, deductions, etc, the loopholes supposedly allow them? Even more, we have rec'd several "urgent" phone calls claiming the IRS has "prepared to file a lawsuit against" us. We've had that call a number of times over the years. I did a reverse phone number check and found out this is a company pulling a scam. (Sometimes, to attract return calls, it uses "lottery winnings," "insurance benefits," etc.) So, if I can easily discover this is a scam, why isn't the IRS all over these folks?????? As I've said many times before, there is something seriously wrong when citizens (namely, my wife) are intimidated and filled with terror by their own government--at least one of its agencies. Yes, I'm sure she'll pay the $128, likely when I'm not paying attention.
It reminds me when, during Prohibition, the federal gov't ordered mercury and strychnine to be added to liquids people were drinking for their alcohol content. Oh, the liquids are revolting and disgusting, things such as auto anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, embalming fluid, and formaldehyde. Yet, to prevent US citizens from drinking their alcohol in this manner, poisons, lethal ones, were ordered added. An activity, that is drinking, that was legal just a year before, had been an accepted practice (in moderation) for centuries, and was legal in almost every other nation in the world now threatened the lives of US citizens. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.
So, "50 advertisers have pulled their ads" from Fox News due to the alleged sexual harassment of Bill O'Reilly. (BTW, I was surprised to read it is the top-rated talk show on cable TV. I don't know if that's true; I can't remember ever watching it.) And some USA Today reporter "excoriated" a well-known professional golfer (I guess "well-known" to most folks; I never heard of him and can't recall his name--nor that of the reporter.) for golfing with Don Trump. It's his treatment of women or at least what he says about them, esp in light of the golfer's comments about country clubs that still exclude or minimize the number of women members. Yet, Bill Clinton still commands hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for short speeches. So does his wife. And, speaking of treatment of women--and common folks in general...... I wonder how many of those "50 advertisers" have paid either of the Clintons for speeches or, at the least, have CEOs who have attended their speeches.
A newspaper article this AM covered an attempt by local school districts to attract young males into teaching. It plays into several serious conversations I've had recently with quite a variety of folks. I think the first step those seeking to draw more youngsters into teaching would be to check how much teachers are paid. If I recall correctly, a couple weeks ago one of these fellow conversants said the average starting pay for a teacher in Michigan is $33,000. I checked online and that's pretty close to the actual figure (2015). At the same time, I checked our local district, which remains (as it has historically) one of the lowest paying districts around, not just in our country. The median teacher income is about $51,000. And very few new teachers are being hired since it is claimed student enrollment is declining and declining significantly. It really rankled me to hear a teacher tell me of a colleague who tried to rationalize the low pay with the trite and ridiculous, "But teachers have a great pension." No wonder teaching/education is in the state it's in. As I've said to many others for quite a few years, "How about paying me what teachers are worth and I'll take care of my own 'pension.?'" Nah, nobody takes that seriously, apparently not even other teachers. Another one of these guys I talked to claimed the average teacher gets out of education within five years. Is that true? I don't know, but I have no reason to doubt it. Yet the CEOs of the top two US auto-makers made more than $22 million in '16. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve it; somebody obviously thinks so. Let's just consider the comparison.
The President and his team are trying to unseat some members of the House Freedom Caucus. I'm no fan of Trump, not in the least. He's done little to change my mind that he belongs nowhere near the Presidency. And this attempt to get even with the no-voters on the deeply flawed recent health care bill is not only appalling, but revealing. For instance, I am not sure I'd vote for Justin Amash, the Michigan Congressman. He's not in my district and, besides, he's carrying some baggage I find disturbing. But for the guy who claimed he was going to "drain the Swamp," going after Amash (and other Freedom Caucus members) for actually living up to campaign promises he (and they) made to their constituents--that is, not deliberately lying!--is pathetic. Isn't it interesting that Trump has said he's going after the Democrats who opposed the bill?
The IRS has been mildly harassing us about a tax problem, a minor one at that. Let's just say, you probably spend more at the grocery store in a week that the amount over which we are scuffling. I have already used the IRS's own data to refute half of the claim. It is still "investigating." C'mon! It's not like were talking about big bucks here. Like I said, it's about $100 or so. Yet, I wonder, why doesn't the IRS go after the really big buck guys? It can't find some problems with all credits, deductions, etc, the loopholes supposedly allow them? Even more, we have rec'd several "urgent" phone calls claiming the IRS has "prepared to file a lawsuit against" us. We've had that call a number of times over the years. I did a reverse phone number check and found out this is a company pulling a scam. (Sometimes, to attract return calls, it uses "lottery winnings," "insurance benefits," etc.) So, if I can easily discover this is a scam, why isn't the IRS all over these folks?????? As I've said many times before, there is something seriously wrong when citizens (namely, my wife) are intimidated and filled with terror by their own government--at least one of its agencies. Yes, I'm sure she'll pay the $128, likely when I'm not paying attention.
It reminds me when, during Prohibition, the federal gov't ordered mercury and strychnine to be added to liquids people were drinking for their alcohol content. Oh, the liquids are revolting and disgusting, things such as auto anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, embalming fluid, and formaldehyde. Yet, to prevent US citizens from drinking their alcohol in this manner, poisons, lethal ones, were ordered added. An activity, that is drinking, that was legal just a year before, had been an accepted practice (in moderation) for centuries, and was legal in almost every other nation in the world now threatened the lives of US citizens. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
