Month: March 2024

By on

Griffin Dunne answering the question we have all been asking — who took Carrie Fisher’s virginity. Let me tell you I was way off on my speculations. I would never have guessed Griffin Dunne. It is a relief to be able to move on to different concerns as it has been keeping me up at night. Plus I was able to pass on the hot gossip while seemingly disdaining the mindless interest of people in such a private topic. Win Win.

By on

Bob and I recently stayed at a hotel in Hollywood. By and large, it was a good experience. The bill, however, was irritating because the rate changed by $100 based on resort fees and parking fees. I understand why the parking fees might be separate as there are some guests who don’t bring a car.

But resort fees are 100% deception. There is no good reason for them. The guest has to pay them regardless if they used the gym or the pool or whatever amenity the hotel decides to put into the resort fee. So whether you used the resort amenities or not, you are on the hook for paying for them. What is the point of causing all this confusion at checkout? Bob remembers standing in a checkout line where the four people that proceeded him were arguing about the resort fees. Why not just include the resort fee in the hotel rate thus avoiding this problem for both guests and staff at the end of the stay?

I really thought the must be a good reason but, as of yet, the only thing I can find is deception. The resort fee hides a portion of the room rate to the customer. The guest thinks that they are paying $200 for their room but when they depart they are actually paying $250 after the resort fee is added. Many customers don’t discover this until they are leaving the hotel. So why do hotels risk pissing off their customers with this silly trick while also taxing their staff with explaining the bill to angry guests? Why not just include it in the rate?

Because it brings in revenue. In 2015, resort fees brought in 2.47 billion dollars. What is worse, as I looked into resort fees, it is even more deceptive than tricky customers into booking at a low rate and charging a higher one at check out. It is also a way to avoid paying taxes. Hotel occupancy taxes are usually higher than the regular sales tax. The quoted rate is charged the occupancy tax while the resort fee is given the lower sales tax. If the hotel is particularly crafty, they then can charge the higher tax on the resort fee while only being charged the sales tax by the government. The hotel then pockets the difference. The guest is screwed and the government is screwed. Who checks their bill for the correct tax being charged? Who would even know that a difference tax should be charged? Who even knows what the local tax rate should be? I wouldn’t until now.

Furthermore, the hotel only has to pay commission to travel professionals who book their hotels on the room rate and not the resort fee. I don’t know what else to say about this. They are ripping off their travel partners. If I were Kayak, Expedia or Priceline, it would make me a little leery of the hotels that use this practice. Where else are they being shifty about? It doesn’t exactly give one confidence in the veracity of the hotel.

The most irritating thing about resort fees is there is no justifiable reason to have them other than deception. Hotels are being deceitful to their guests and to travel professionals. They are making their staff defend a deceptive practice and they might even be engaging in a little tax evasion. Why is such a clearly deceptive practice still legal?

By on

The people who get into an uproar about things, have a new thing to get into an uproar about. Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein pal and sex trafficker, was transferred to a cushier section of her prison. The concern here is she getting special treatment because she is well-connected and rich. This is probably true and is concerning. Why should rich prisoners get better digs than their poorer cell mates? The story is she is being rewarded for good behavior. Nice. I am assuming that the less heeled inmates have this same opportunity.

Although using her influence to get a leg up is troubling, it isn’t as troubling as the indifference to her fellow inmates safety. The Daily Mail describes her new environment as being similar to what Maxwell “experienced when she attended boarding school as a young girl,” This is much better than her present home which is called the “Snake Pit” because inmates in the Snake Pit have a greater risk of experiencing violence. I get that this is the honor section of the prison and that inmates lucky enough to get in have a bit more freedom and possibly comforts. But this is altogether a different problem here. Personal safety should be about the same throughout the prison. Yes, some prisoners will experience violence, it is inevitable. But, come on, anything called the Snake Pit must have an incredible level of violence. This is inherently unfair to the poor and unconnected.

Defenders of the system will say that it is behavior, and only behavior, that matters. Money or influence has nothing to do with it. I don’t think anyone believes that, but OK a perception of fairness has to be presented so the public will think that some effort was made to be fair. It is difficult to create fair processes when some people come from money. Money always gives people an advantage. These people can have lawyers working for them to get better deals, filling out the proper paper work, and do everything to make sure that their client is getting the best deal possible. Being raised in British boarding schools gives Maxwell insight into the type of behavior that is rewarded and the behavior that is punished. She knows how the game is played and has the resources to play it.

Honestly, if personal safety wasn’t involved, I could live with the perks of the honor system and the questionable selection process that unfairly gives the richer inmate a better chance of rewards than the poorer inmate. It is unfair and wrong but you got to choose your battles and, right now, nobody’s much interested in taking the money advantage away from the rich. But there is a difference between a nicer living accommodation and personal safety. Why should one sexual trafficker get a better chance of surviving prison than another sexual trafficker?

This points to a bigger problem than the rich and powerful getting better treatment. Being beat up or raped or killed is not a part of a person’s sentence nor should it be. But it seems to be largely accepted that violence exists in prisons and that if you wind up in one, you are at risk of experiencing it and, as a society, we are largely OK with that. Indeed, the threat of prison rape for men is seen as a possible determent for young men who might be thinking of straying from the straight and narrow. The general public isn’t particularly interested in stopping it and there is some general benefit seen from the threat of it and, really, who wants to pay additional tax money so that prison inmates are safer. We live in a country where Governors turn down federal money to feed poor school children because they don’t believe in the Welfare State. If poor children can’t get money, you can be sure that it is hopeless for prisoners.

In the meantime, congratulations to Maxwell who is now a little safer from violence. She might be a person who could shed some light on this problem and do some good with the rest of her life. But, somehow, I don’t see that happening.

By on

“I don’t care what they call me as long as they mention my name.”

George M. Cohan

“There is no such thing as bad publicity. “

P.T. Barnum

Missouri state Senator Bill Eigel worries that the vague writing of an Abortion Bill would allow one year olds to get abortions. Why he is worried is a bit of a mystery. One year olds are incapable of pregnancy, so their need for abortions isn’t really an issue here. It won’t happen so it is nothing to be worried about. But, anyway, when has that stopped politicians from making an issue out of nothing.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a one year old girl needing an abortion. She is unable to give her consent in the first place, so she was raped. the very people who would be protected by passage of the bill — victims of incest and rape. Furthermore, and the most important point to consider here, it is impossible for a one year old girl to carry a full term pregnancy to birth. She would need an abortion to save her life. So, if anyone should get an abortion, a pregnant one year old absolutely should.

If it were biologically possible which it isn’t.

On the other hand, Eigel generated a lot of pro-Life points fighting the scourge of one year olds seeking abortions. He also was able to get it without really having to take a stand on anything important. There won’t be any stories about one year olds dying from botched abortions or doctors debating whether to give a one year old an abortion because it will never happen. This, however important it is to you and me, is irrelevant to Eigel and his supporters. Eigel still gets pro-Life points for opposing abortion and, particularly important, defending babies from abortion clinics who would think nothing of aborting non-existent fetuses from one year olds.

The press dutifully reported Eigel’s concerns. The press will report any outrageous statement from any elected official because it might tempt shocked readers into reading their paper. Who wants to read about actual mature women needing an abortion when they can debate endlessly about one year old who will never need one. The only thing that happened here was Eigel got his name in the paper an his reputation enhanced with his voters.

You will all be relieved to know, pro-Choice or pro-Life, that one year olds will not have access to legal abortion. Absolutely nothing was learned from this nor was any debate furthered in discussing it. Why this was a newsworthy event is still a mystery but I am certain that the press would only use their limited space to report on truly important issues. Right?

By on

Robin Hansen worries that the worldwide population decline is driving the human species to extinction. His concern is shared by growing number of conservative thinkers. You would think in a world with 7 billion plus people that this could be put on the back burner. Apparently, I am wrong. Hanse believes it requires immediate attention. There becomes a point, are so Hansen thinks, that declining population becomes irreversible and that this point could come soon unless we change our ways. Don’t be fooled by the expected growth of population continuing and is expected to reach somewhere in the region of 10 billion by 2100. This is an urgent problem.

Hansen views our population cutting ways as similar to an addiction. People live in big cities where there are more things to do. People want to have some adventures before they settle into family life. They need to educate themselves for the complex modern world which requires quite a bit of training expense which, then, entails a bit of time to repay the money borrowed to obtain that training and education. They want to live a well rounded life. They use birth control to ensure they can have these experiences. They see themselves as something more than breeders. These all seem like reasonable things to want but they also are stopping people from having children, hence the crisis.

Hansen, then, wonders what can we do to make child rearing more attractive so people will stop enjoying their childless lives and start repopulating the planet. This is where things get dicey. Having children is both expensive and time consuming. People have to be willing to make this sacrifice. How do you get people to trade in leisurely Saturday mornings for transporting three kids in three different directions? As Hansen even admits, there are no easily solutions to this problem. Hansen lamely tosses out paying couples to have babies. Who exactly does he think will pay for this? Certainly not the American taxpayer.

This leaves the unspoken hint of coercion. Women will have to subordinate their ambitions and desires to repopulate the planet. It is worrisome that this is being framed as an existential crisis because, then, more drastic measures become acceptable. If the world needs babies, then the world better make sure women are having babies. While Hansen avoids suggesting the subordination of women, other conservative thinkers are not so cautious. There are conservative thinkers who want to do away with votes for women, who want to create a Christian Nationalists state where men are in control, and who want to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion even if her health is at stake.

What makes this concern irksome is that Conservatives are also panicking about immigration which would be a solution to the declining population problem. Many western countries now are below replacement population fertility. These are the very countries that poor immigrants want to go so why not just welcome these immigrants as the solution to our problem. I mean there are hordes at the Mexican border. Those hordes are largely young and fertile. Win Win, right.

Not exactly. These immigrants are criminals and/or have different values than us. OK, criminals I get and I support keeping those immigrants out. But the vast majority of immigrants are just looking for an opportunity for a better life which seems in alignment to the American Dream. Additionally, the vast majority of them come from Central America where Christianity is the most popular religion. Since some form of Christianity is the religion most Americans practice, this seems another point where the values of the immigrants align with the American people. This, to me, suggests we have a lot in common with the immigrants at the border, so why all the fuss about immigration?

This is why I don’t buy that this is a crisis worthy of my attention. Particularly when Conservatives get all wanky when Environmental groups talk about Global Warming. If global warming is a hoax based on extrapolating present temperature data into the future even though I can actually see the problems of a warming world — with more extreme weather, more fires and a warming ocean then why should I believe in declining population problem while sitting in traffic jams and searching for open parking spaces at crowded shopping malls.

This is all about controlling women’s fertility and getting the right women (read white middle class here) to have children. It would be far more encouraging if conservatives genuinely supported an agenda that supported families, but they don’t. They don’t want to spend any money on helping anyone, so the only tool they have in their tool kit is coercion which will only work if they take power away from women. And I think Conservatives will have a difficult time, even from Conservative women, if they try to take this power.

By on

J.K. Rowling is in a bit of trouble for misgendering India Willoughby. In a nutshell, Rowling called Willoughby a man because he was born as a boy, then transitioned into a woman. A bit of to and fro had been going on between the two about trans women being men because they were born male. There are strong feelings on both sides of this argument. Rowling thinks that there is still an argument and feels like she is free to put her two cents in; Willoughby believes that the matter is settled and that Rowling should fall in line and, if she won’t come willingly, then the police will make her.

Willoughby is wrong. Challenging Rowling in this way isn’t the answer because Willoughby has jumped the gun. The matter isn’t settled. If it had been settled people like J.K. Rowling wouldn’t be disagreeing. Rowling’s position seems quite reasonable. Rowling will defend Trans people’s rights and thinks they should be treated with dignity and respect. What she does disagree about is that someone born male has a biological structure different from someone born female and that difference matters. I am not sure why this is even a controversy because many trans women alter their born bodies in order to obtain a body more in line with their desires. Why would you need medical intervention if your body wasn’t different?

Rowling could throw Willoughby a bone and call her a woman.Willoughby’s mind is set in stone so there really is no point in talking to her about it. It would certainly make Rowling’s life easier. But Rowling, who feels harassed by Willoughby, has reached the end of her patience and has just said fuck it. If she wants to fuck with me, I am going to fuck with her back. Whether this was a good decision on Rowling’s part is beside the point. Rowling has a right to state her opinion. Willoughby may not like being called a man but Rowling has some evidence to support her contention and has every right to speak on the matter.

I would have more sympathy for Willoughby if Rowling was following her around and calling her a man publicly just to embarrass Willoughby. But Willoughby is engaging Rowling in a debate. She is keeping the dialogue going. Indeed, she is calling Rowling a bigot. If you are calling someone names, you need to be prepared to be called something back in return. If you want to stop Rowling from calling you a man, Willoughby might consider stopping her campaign against Rowling. I’m pretty sure Rowling would then stop calling her a man. But if you continue to throw punches, you should expect people to punch back.

At any rate, calling the cops is an incredibly weak response. It suggests that she is losing the argument with Rowling and that the only way for her to win is to call in the law. She is assuming the law will side with her. She may be correct. But from where I am sitting, Rowling looks more assured. She certainly is confident enough in her position to keep this argument between the two of them and not call in the cops for back up.

By on

Democracy is at stake or so we are told. America’s two largest political parties are going to nominate aging unpopular candidates as their nominees. The Republicans because they think they were cheated and want revenge and the Democrats because, well, I don’t know why. I am told there is no one better. For many voters, this means, it could come down to flip of the coin which is frightening when you consider the very close races that decided the elections in both 2016 and 2020.

But not to worry, Trump will be a convicted felon by election day. Or not. I don’t know why people think the courts would save the day. Have these people ever dealt with courts? I know it has been loads of fun watching Trump getting frustrated by these court appearances but this is the type of ordeal that Trump was made for.

Trump has been using the courts his entire adult life to gain advantage and he understands the key to winning is delay. He knows how to wear people down until his nemesis surrenders and makes a deal. Now Trump has even a better option than a deal. If he delays long enough and wins the presidency, he can pardon himself.

The Democrats argue that the best response to Trump is Joe Biden. I wish I shared their confidence because Biden trails Trump in the polls. Biden is in trouble because many people think he is too old to be president. This could be handled easily by putting the old boy out there on the campaign trail. But someone is keeping him off and this would be fine if it helped. But it doesn’t. It’s a no win position. If Biden makes public appearances he looks old and if he doesn’t make appearances people think he is hiding because he is too old.

Don’t worry. Joe is saving it for the Fall. I am not sure why Biden will be better in the Fall because his problem is a perception of being old. He isn’t recovering from an illness and can expect to be in better shape after a short rest, he will, in fact, be even older in the Fall. Unfortunately, while Biden is comfortably resting,Trump is grabbing all the press — good, bad, or indifferent. Trump may be crazy but he is certainly visible and Trump likes being visible. He thrives on it. So, perhaps the Democrats nominating a candidate who has to save it for the fall isn’t the appropriate choice for such a rigorous undertaking as running for president.

People are saying that Trump is cornered now and has nowhere to run. This seems to be wishful thinking by the powers that be and a continual mistake that people make when dealing with Trump. In 2016, the Republican Establishment assured us that there is no way Trump could be nominated. Well, he was. The Democrats gave us Hillary Clinton who they assured us was the candidate who could defeat Trump. She wasn’t. Trump was impeached once. He laughed that one off. He slyly instigated violence on January 6. He denied everything and told us that we got it all wrong and began rewriting the history of the day. His supporters backed him. He was impeached again. Almost the entire Republican party got in line to say that nothing actually happened despite what they said to the contrary on January 6.

Trump has survived some very heavy fire and is relatively unscathed. At this point, I have more confidence that Trump has a better understanding about what is going on than the doyens in the press and government. Trump is constantly being underestimated which is sad for a man so dangerous. Just because they think a man is an uncouth idiot doesn’t mean everyone else agrees with them. This continual confidence that Trump is finally on the ropes displays a stunning amnesia of recent history. Trump has beaten his betters time and again and they don’t seem to realize it. Which is more than a little disconcerting.

By on

Missouri Governor Mike Parson reduced the time for the son of Kansas City Chief coach Andy Reid DUI sentence. Parson said that Britt Reid had already exceeded the average DUI sentence which is his explanation for his action. My big question here was he looking at all DUI sentences or all DUI sentences which involved a collision and injury. Reid’s DUI involved a badly injured child which rightfully might have added to his final sentence. This clarification would be helpful in assessing Parson’s actions.

Regardless, Parson’s pardon of Reid annoys me. Britt Reid is well connected and wealthy. He may be worthy of sentence reduction but it looks terrible. How many deserving but less connected people failed to get a pardon for the DUI conviction?

It may not be fishy but it certainly looks fishy. Even if Reid was serving more time than the usual DUI perp, appearances matter. It looks unfair when someone with connections gets a lighter sentence because everyone knows then that the rich and the connected get breaks that the rest of us don’t. It isn’t a good look for the law.

Parson can deny that connections had anything to do with it but it would be a lie. Reid got brought to his attention because Reid’s father was Andy Reid. Reid could pay for lawyers to do all the right things to get their client off the hook. Even if everything Parson did was above board, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, there is a perception problem about justice in this country and this just confirms that it is unfair.

By on

I am afraid the US is about to abandon the Ukraine. I would love for the Ukrainians to win but I don’t have much confidence in that happening. What they need costs too much money for the US to provide. So, people here in the United States, are rightfully asking why are we paying money on a losing cause. The bloom is off this particular flower.

Trump feels shit like this in his bones, Biden and his crew have to talk about our moral responsibility to Europe which highlights the big difference between the two positions. Biden has to explain his position and Trump is stating the obvious. Why spend billions of dollars for the Russians to win any way or, at least, grab big chunks of the Ukraine. If bad things are going to happen, you might as well get it over with. It isn’t nice but it is understandable while Biden’s position sounds like a waste of money. Billions of dollars to not exactly win but to not exactly loose either. So, the taxpayer reasonably asks, what am I paying for?

And when you try to bring up things like moral responsibility, Biden and his fellow Ukraine supporters are heading into choppy waters because well, it isn’t really a moral problem if all you are doing is giving money. The truth is we would like for the Ukrainians to win because they were invaded and their position better fits our understanding of how the world should operate. Big powerful countries shouldn’t invade smaller less powerful countries. But it isn’t so important that we should send troops. Once you put it like that, the moral calculation looses a little of its oomph. This ceases to be a moral calculation and becomes simply a preference. This a money moral problem not a troops morale problem. A big difference which the American tax payer can see without looking terribly hard. No explanation is needed.

Which means the best case scenario is the Ukraine will be cut up a little to satisfy Putin’s blood thirst and people will pat Zelenskyy on the back and say nice try and better luck next time. So, really, nothing moral about it. The Ukraine/Russian war became too expensive and there is no solution that allows both parties to come out with their dignity in tact. So Putin retains his, at least publicly, while Zelenskyy gets to eat the shit sandwich.

It is all sad but predictable. The Ukrainians will have to be satisfied with a stalemate. They proved their mettle which is a good thing for the world and for the Ukraine, they will come out of this with something tangible if not everything they deserved. The Russians couldn’t win either which is far more embarrassing. Hopefully there is some Russian intrigue going on behind Putin’s back. He wasted a lot of Russian troops, money and the world’s public standing while gaining little in return. He gets pretty much what he came into the war with, so his Russian pals might have their swords out looking for him. I suppose that is something to look forward to. Yeah, well, right?