Wed AM

Getting up at 5 AM (or earlier), as I most often do, is a great way to get things done.  I relish the quiet.  I even like going out to get the newspaper so early, seeing the early AM sky and all of the stars and planets that sometimes seem so close I can reach out and touch them.  Venus has become a good friend and I often greet Orion.  I still enjoy finding the Big Dipper and locating the North Star from it.  Sometimes I have to consult a star map for that AM/Day to identify other stars and planets--they move!

I don't really watch the Lions play, but does this Suh guy really play "dirty?"  If so, why does the league put up with it?  If so, where are the opposing players, who often "fix" things with dirty play?  If so, why do the fans still root for the Lions?  Is it that important to win?  Why did the Pistons' fans of the '80s root so hard the "Bad Boys?"  Weren't they "dirty?"  Was it that they won?  I guess in the same vein, why is there all of this recent talk of paying college athletes, esp football and basketball players?  Isn't the college education enough?  Is "generating income" all that important, all-important even?  How about just cutting all the garbage, since my inclination is to believe most of them really aren't "student-athletes," and create a new level of athletics?  Let the colleges continue with their programs, but have a minor league for football and basketball players who have professional aspirations?  Then, the athletes can be paid and we don't have to continue with the sham of "student-athletes."  And, then, by merit, we can see who really deserves to be paid.  BTW, I think banning players from selling their own memorabilia is ridiculous.  To prohibit a team from bowl games and rankings because their players sold their own property is stupid and, dare I say, hypocritical.  (At least that's my understanding of the Ohio State episode.  I could be wrong since, like professional sports, I lost interest in major college athletics years ago.)  The argument is that the "student-athletes" (it pains me to write that!) shouldn't be able to take advantage of things other students don't have.  Yeah, right......  Gee, what dorms do they have?  What about their training tables?  How about the tutors?  Did I mention the training facilities?  I'm sure "other students" can walk into the football weight room to work out any time they want.  I'll bet "other students" can sit down and have the steaks provided at the "training tables."  Do any of these people ever look in the mirror?  Oh, I forgot.  It's all about winning and the money, so of course they can look in the mirror.  I still get a kick out of the alumni of these colleges, those whose degrees are maligned and diminished, who see nothing wrong with all of this.  In fact, they remain the biggest boosters.  Wouldn't they also root for their teams if real "student-athletes" competed?

Why does everything today have to be about sex?  OK, not everything is.  But watch some of those TV shows, esp the dancing and singing ones.  Can women wear skimpier clothes?  Little is left to the imagination.  Why do the guys have to rip off their shirts?  I see the kid who starred in that "Two Gentlemen and a Boy" or whatever it's called said the show is "filth."  Gee, after how many years, what took him so long to realize it?  The paychecks?  "Filth?"  Perhaps, since I guess the kid was not yet an adolescent when he/the show began, it might be called "child pornography" or, at the least, "child abuse" or "endangerment?"  Maybe not, but I refused to ever watch the show.  But enough people did, people who would be appalled if I suggested that they were watching "kiddie pornography."  And is there a comedian out there who doesn't do the same, even one who doesn't swear up and down?  You know, "F-bombs" aren't inherently funny.

I also noted that Barack Obama and his wife took advantage of a tax loophole to avoid paying some taxes.  I think, but I won't swear to it, that each gave "$48,000" to each of their two daughters.  Some White House lackey explained it was to pay for the girl's college educations.  I don't have a problem with taking advantage of the loopholes--it's the law and is fine with me.  If we don't want the loopholes, change the laws.  But isn't it Obama who's the one always talking about "the rich have to pay more?"  Yep, it's the same guy.  One would think (that is, if one is thinking) that he'd be more than willing to pay more in taxes, that is, not take advantage of the loopholes.  He could set an example for the rich.  (Gee, I wonder if Warren Buffet, instead of hypocritically telling people his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does, takes advantage of loopholes?  And, don't forget, his secretary earns about five or six times what I do.)  And, if Obama's government programs and policies are so good, are so worthy of funding, why isn't he thrilled to pay more in taxes?  I know why and so do you.  By the way, wouldn't one think that $800,000 a year (about what the Obama's made this year, not to mention the book deals and speaking engagements once he leaves office) could pay for their daughters' college educations?  How the heck did I manage to put a kid through college??????

"Why don't we buy electric cars?" a newspaper headline asks.  How about the price tags on them?  (And, why do taxpayers have to pay $7500 for somebody to buy one?)  How about the inconvenience?  What if one doesn't have a garage?  What about the limited mileage and speed?  Why is the federal government so concerned for us to buy electric cars?  (Well, why does it--and local and state governments--also mandate what kind of televisions, toilets, light bulbs, fried foods, etc. we can have?)

I can't stand the emergency manager law(s)?  It/They reek(s) of elitism, of arrogance.  I know history isn't important, but if there's anything it teaches it's that the elitists who gain control of government far more often mess things up than make things better.