Category: Uncategorized

By on

Because government programs like SNAP and Medicaid are paid for by the government, the government qualifies and monitors the people. who receive these benefits in order to ensure they aren’t buying liquor and cigarettes. There are legitimate arguments on whether this type of costly monitoring is necessary, however, I am willing to go along with them because if some people, in order to maintain programs that help the poor, need this kind of information in order to have them, I am all in. Qualify and monitor. These are the type of compromises that make governing in a politically diverse country possible.

What is annoying is the same oversight is not given to people who receive tax breaks. They just get the money and can do whatever they want with it including buying liquor and cigarettes. Now the notion here is that these good people are going to spend the money they received in tax breaks in investing money in their businesses thus creating more jobs however they are under no obligation to prove this. They could be spending the money on call centers located overseas and spa vacations for all we know. But no one asks them to show how they are spending these breaks on creating jobs here in America.

Here in lies the problem I have with tax breaks. They are unmonitored and given without nary a thought on how these windfalls are actually spent. So what, you might ask. Even if the jobs are created for call centers located in India and European vacations — this money eventually gets put back into the economy for the good of all. Right?

Well, yes but then very same thing can be said for giving money to the poor. Buying liquor and cigarettes at the local convenience store juices the American economy too. In fact, giving money to the poor is more likely to juice the American economy because the poor stay locally while the rich might wander off to Tahiti or Bali to spend their money.

Some people would argue that tax breaks are allowing the rich to keep their money and they should do anything they want with it. I would argue that it isn’t their money. The American people have a tax rate, whether you like that tax rate or not — it is the law. The tax obligation is the amount owed before tax breaks are calculated. The tax breaks then become government benefits — like Medicaid or SNAP.

If government benefits for the poor need to rigorously monitored then the same idea applies to tax breaks for the rich. I would like to see more tangible evidence that the rich are using their money wisely.

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

The Huffington Post headline reads: Kim Carnes Seemingly Shades JoJo Siwa over her “Bette Davis Eyes” cover. Oh my, how horrible. Now everyone is talking about it.

Seemingly is the most important word in this headline. Huffington Post hedged its bets — they can’t positively say for sure that Carnes was shading JoJo Siwa. On the other hand, there is enough ambiguity here for them to speculate. What’s the harm in a little speculation, right?

Kim Carnes and JoJo Siwa were getting along fine or, more likely, completely unaware of the other person’s existence. Then some reporter comes along and speculates. It is a slow news days. Why not stir the pot a little and see what pseudo controversy can be created that will grab readers attention. This will go on for a few days. With both parties being asked what they think of the other’s increasingly vitriolic statements until the reporter tires of the feud and creates a new one.

This formula for creating pseudo controversies is the bread and butter of the new business these days — particularly when celebrities are involved. And everyone seems to be on board with this. Celebrities love headlines. Newspapers love reporting gossip. It is what you call a win/win relationship.

It is also a terrible diet for people needing information. Feeding people bon bon after bon bon without a vegetable or a piece of fruit in sight. Now, I get that controversies sell newspapers but there needs to be something more substantive on the menu so while I can enjoy my bon bon, I need to eat my broccoli as well.

This terrible strategy has spilled over to political reporting which now boils down to people reacting to whatever nonsense comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth. It is all about one upping the other person and the press is there breathlessly reporting responses to each new outrageous comment. What does this mean? How will they respond? Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But it is hardly substantive reporting about what ails the country.

By on

There is a debate going on right now on how fictional characters might have voted in the 2024 elections. Some people have speculated that Ron Swanson, a character on the television show Parks and Recreation, would have voted for Trump. Nick Offerman, the actor who played Ron Swanson, disagrees. A debate is now raging.

My only thought on the matter is who cares? Why are people getting so worked up over how a fictional character might have voted? They aren’t real people so they couldn’t have voted in the first place. More importantly, and I can’t stress this enough, is why are news organizations reporting on this incredibly irrelevant matter.

The media is jumping on this ginned up controversy because that is what makes the news business money — ginned up controversies. People want to see action and emotion. Controversies are the bread and butter of television. On the other hand, People don’t watch television to see reasonable people talking calmly about their opinions and then working towards a solution. This means that television executives exploit any controversy that might get people’s hackles rising.

Though, debating about Ron Swanson’s voting decision seems to be near the bottom of the ginned up controversies barrel. There is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. The person doesn’t exist. He can’t really have an opinion on the matter because of that. Still, despite this very important fact, people are getting worked up about this and actually to and froing about it like it matters. Such is the state of the American free press.

For the record, in case you are wondering, which I am sure you are because everybody in the civilized world is, I don’t care who Ron Swanson voted for.

By on

Trader Joe’s Lavender Hand Soap is making my life a little less brighter for one very simple reason — it is frustratingly difficult to open. All you are supposed to do is twist the nozzle and, at some point, the nozzle should spring open and then let you push down on the nozzle so that soap is dispensed.

Except that the nozzle, at least for Bob and I, never springs open. At least not easily. It turns and turns and turns and never springs open despite twisting it for minutes at a time, chewing on the nozzle, banging it against the table, pulling the nozzle up with great force, or using a knife to shimmy the nozzle open. Nothing seems to work until it mysteriously springs open usually at the exact moment that I declare it is impossible to open and I am giving up. It opens.

I don’t know how I did it. So, instead of moving onto a new product, and because Trader Joe’s is a frequent stop in our shopping, I try it again thinking that the previous container was somehow defective. It wasn’t.

This makes me relive the previous frustrating experience where I struggle to open the spring using every bit of muscle and brain I can muster. Nothing works and, then, somehow after frustrating minutes trying to open the damn thing, the spring activates. But why is still a mystery.

I am convinced that it is a simple solution and, because I am determined and thick skulled, I keep buying it in hopes of discovering the mystery of the Trader Joe’s Lavender Hand Soap spring. One day my friend. One day, I swear it.

By on

One of the advantages of living in San Diego is that you hardly ever have to use air conditioning or the heater. This is pretty much the environment I have been living in for the past 30 years. I write this as a way of explaining why I had such trouble when my fire alarm went off in my new smart apartment. Bob was cooking and apparently a minuscule amount of smoke got into the fire alarm setting it off. I could neither see nor smell any smoke but who am I to argue with a screaming fire alarm.

Bob turned on the stove fans. Alarm continued to blare. I opened the patio doors. Alarm still continued to blare. Bob told me to turn on the fan in the apartment. This seemed like a simple task and I gladly expected the challenge. In the good old days, you would just move the dial to fan, the fan would go on and the smoke would disappear.

The smart thermostats, however, are different. There is no moveable switch that can turn the fan on. The smart thermostat is a touch screen with icons. None of the icons look remotely like a fan. So I did would anybody would do in this situation, I begin to randomly hit the icons in the hope that one of those icons controlled the fan. Mind you, the alarm is screaming in my smart apartment. Scaring me, Bob, the cats and all of neighbors on the third floor.

The icons do bring up menus. Unfortunately the menu items are crammed onto a screen about the size of a baseball. I am unable to read them with or without glasses. So I was back to the tried and true method of randomly picking menu items in the hopes one of them turns on the fan. Finally after a few minutes something occurs and the fan goes on and the indecipherable amount of smoke clears the room.

Greatly relieved but also a little concerned that I can’t easily turn on the fan which also leaves Bob worried about cooking again. If the alarm is going to go off every time the oven is turned on we needed to learn how it worked. It was time for me to learn more about the thermostat. I thought since the alarm had been silenced I could calmly look at the thermostat and figure it all out. Wrong. There was still the same unrecognizable icons, the same small print, and I again found myself randomly picking an icon in slim hopes that it will be the one to tell me how to turn off the fan.

Bob suggested finding a Youtube video explaining how to use this thermostat. This annoys me because instead of being easy to use, which is how the apartment bills it, I have to watch a video on how to use this most excellent tool. I fight the urge and continue to randomly pick icons. This has become slightly more important in that I have managed to turn on the fan but now I can’t turn off the fan. After going through numerous menus and not seeing, and I mean not seeing in every sense of the word, I surrender. I go to Youtube.

This is a revelation. I thought there would be one or two videos of how to use the system. But there were numerous 5 to 10 minute videos about a variety of topics — how to set a temperature range to automatically turn on the air conditioner, how to set a temperature range to turn on the heater, how to set the temperature range for mornings and evenings, and so on and so forth. None however specifically were for how to turn the fan on and off.

I did find one that had the word fan and managed to get enough information to turn off the fan. Success. We were on the road to fully use all the great tools our smart apartment had to offer.

The problem with my lesson is that by the next day when Bob asked me how to turn the fan on and off. I couldn’t explain how it was done because it required going to the right menu options and, for the life of me, I have no memory of how I did it. Indeed, I had to watch the Youtube video again to explain how I turned off the fan. The fan I had turned off just last night. That is how easy it is to use the smart thermostat.

I guess what I am saying is that the apartment might be smart but the users are definitely stuck in the remedial class on how to work it.

By on

The past few weeks businesses involved in meat packing, farming, travel and leisure are complaining that they are losing workers due to ICE raids. This would cause me to break out the handkerchief and shed a tear if it weren’t for the fact that these businesses are breaking the law and they don’t seem terribly worried about talking about it. Farm AID believes that 40% of farm laborers are undocumented. This means an awful lot of farmers aren’t checking their worker’s documents.

If immigrants illegally crossing the borders is about getting law breakers, then the same strategy should be used with the businesses breaking the laws regarding hiring undocumented employees. Both parties are breaking the law, why focus on the person looking for work and not the person hiring them? ICE agents in baklavas should be taking away business owners who, apparently quite openly, are flouting the law. They should be afraid to come into work each day instead they are complaining that they no longer have access to cheap labor because ICE is taking their employees.

The problem here is cheap labor. American Businesses want employees that are willing to do backbreaking labor for pennies. Americans refused to break their backs for pennies. They also want benefits for their work — like vacation pay, health benefits, and sick pay. Immigrants are willing to risk death to come here to do backbreaking labor for pennies and no benefits because it is still better than what they get at home.

So, round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows. But I am pretty sure it won’t be higher wages.

By on

I remember when a lot of liberals thought George McGovern was going to be president because he was winning all of the Democratic primaries in 1972. I was also devastated when Richard Nixon crushed him the general election. Liberals, based on absolutely no real evidence, think that all the Democrats have to do is become even more liberal than they are presently are. And when the more liberal candidate got beaten, money was the problem.

There just wasn’t enough money to win. If liberals only had enough money, the people would vote sensibly. Donald Trump has proven the money theory wrong. It is about noise and media attention. Trump used very little of his own money instead he created a media feeding frenzy in which he made headlines every day saying outlandish things and the press would slavishly report them.

Zohran Mamdani, the new Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, may have the right stuff to get elected but I am yet to be convinced that he is the answer to the Democratic Party’s problem getting elected. I have been burned too many times — George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson while more conservative Democrats seem to do better – think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There is a perception problem that liberals fail to see. Liberals see a young energetic well polished candidate. Other people might else sees a Muslim Communist.

This is why I am being cautious in my enthusiasm:

  1. New York City has a fundamentally different electorate. It is a different group than what one would find in Missouri or Ohio. Test driving well in New York, doesn’t mean he will test drive well in the rest of the country. Just because the most liberal candidate won in New York doesn’t mean this translates to the rest of the country.
  2. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s main opponent, was a severely wounded candidate. He had to resign his last post because of credible reports of sexual harassing his employees. There is also growing evidence that he mishandled the AIDS crisis in his state. A lot of people didn’t like him and weren’t going to vote for him.
  3. In first round voting, Mamdani’s opponents got 57 percent of the vote. So even with a more liberal electorate than the rest of the United States, an awful lot of people voted for other candidates.
  4. Now that he is the Democratic candidate, the knives are out for Mamdani. His socialism becomes communism. His support of the Palestinians becomes his support of terrorism. People thought Obama was a Muslim without any evidence whatsoever what can the Republicans do with an actual Muslim.
  5. Making fun of establishment Democrats might be a lot of fun now but, in order to win, the Democrats need to keep everyone on board. There might be two former Democrats in the general election — Adams and Cuomo. Plausible alternates for people who might be afraid of Socialism. Gloating about your win is unseemly and irritating. A better use of Mamdani’s time, particularly now, would be reaching out to Cuomo and his supporters.

I wish Zohran Mamdani all the luck in the world. Right now, I am thinking he can win but a lot of work needs to be done to make that happen. Assuming Mamdani is going to win just because he is the Democrat in an overwhelming Democratic town is short sighted (see Guiliani, Rudy).

By on

I generally support Israel. I want to continue to do so but the behavior of the Netanyahu government is troubling.

Here is what I am grappling with:

The Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the map. Or, at least, remove them from their present location. This is impossible. There are close to 10 million Israelis who don’t want to be moved. The Palestinians believe the 1948 partition of Palestine was wrong. The problem is it did happen. Israel is now a fact of life. Removing 10 million people isn’t going to be easy or peaceful so the Palestinians who oppose Israel are at choice here.

Sadly, they have chosen terribly. They are still trying to scare the Israelis out of the region. It isn’t working. Everything they have done has caused the Palestinians to loose more lives, to loose more land, and to loose more autonomy. They are worse off now than they were in 1948, 1967, 1971, and will you get the point. They keep coming out of each confrontation with Israel in worse shape. The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Killing Israelis is clearly not working to change the dynamics in Palestine. The only thing that has occurred is a growing list of Palestinian martyrs to a seemingly hopeless cause.

Israel doesn’t care about world opinion. Or, at least, they care more about their own survival than world opinion. And the world doesn’t appear inclined to help the Palestinians much more than utter some rather meek criticisms of Israeli actions. Israel continues to bomb away while Palestinians continue to die. The world is standing by, waiting to see what happens but don’t count on much more.

The side getting the shit kicked out of them normally surrenders their army and their weapons in order to stop their children from being killed. Hamas isn’t willing to do this so Israelis continue to bomb the shit out of Gaza. The sad fact is Hamas is more than willing to let these children die rather than surrender. Killing children will not change anyone’s mind (see Sandy Hook shooting).

Why Israel continues their campaign is beyond me. The idea that they will eliminate every bit of Palestinian resistance is just as foolish as the Palestinians believing that sacrificing their children to Israeli will somehow change World Public opinion. It just isn’t going to happen. Adding extra Hamas hit men to an already high body count has reached a point of no return, Israel has won all that it can win and they continue to hold the upper hand in the region. Yes there is a danger of Hamas regrouping and staging another attack. But then that is always going to be a danger, given the animus Palestinians hold against Israel. They are as safe from Hamas as they possibly can be, why not see what diplomacy can do now.

By on

The last time I rented an apartment was in the 1992. A lot has changed since then. For starters, back in the good old days, I signed a few pages of a contract, I would say about 3 pages at most, and was handed a key. As long as nothing broke down in the apartment, I never had a reason to talk with the building management and since I paid on the first of the month, there was no reason for them to talk to me. No contact whatsoever. In my eyes, the perfect landlord/ tenant relationship.

Some 30 years later much has changed. I should have gotten the hint when we signed the rental agreement. The sales person pestered us to sign the contract almost immediately after we agreed to rent the unit. All set up automatically through the portal. The portal would send us messages every day reminding us to sign our agreement. We would have gladly driven after to their office and done so, but signing a contract in this day and age isn’t such a simple matter.

The portal is the most important tool of a smart apartment. All communication must first come through the portal. Talking to anyone who works in the building is insufficient. Anyone who has ever put an app on their computer know this could be easy one two process or a descent into Hell. This was more of a descent into Hell — a half hour struggle to create a user ID, complete our personal details and finding the link to the contract. Whew.

Not terribly onerous but a little annoying and, honestly, driving up and signing the contract would have been faster because signing through the portal took a good hour. The biggest problem was that the document was 120 pages long and each page had to initialed. EVERY SINGLE PAGE (capital letters so you know I mean business here)

Bob was cooking dinner when he started the process. He thought he could complete the task while waiting for the water to boil and the pasta to be cooked. Boy was he wrong. He would glance at page, initial, send to computer and then wait for the system to complete the process. Some pages went through like a rocket into space, other pages resembled a glacier moving an inch over the course of a thousand years.

A lot of the 120 pages were in Spanish. These pages were duplicates of the English language pages. Now I realize property management were covering their asses, and this is necessary in these litigious time but I would think it could have been handle with a quick question at the beginning — do you want to see the contract in Spanish or in English — this is particularly helpful in eliminating needless time staring at a frozen computer screen. I get waiting endlessly for a screen to change for the English pages but why do I have to stare at a computer screen endlessly waiting for the Spanish language pages to change. I would call that user unfriendly.

Back to Bob and the pasta boiling. The pasta was ready and Bob wasn’t even close to finishing initialing the contract. He had to stop and concentrate on the meal but then he had this concern that will the app save all the pages he already initialed so he could come back later and complete the task or would he lose everything — always a concern when using apps. He opted not to risk losing all his work and convinced me to finish initialing the contract while he completed making the meal.

At this point, he had initialed 60 pages so neither of us could imagine there being many more pages to initial. Boy were we wrong. There were 60 more pages. I realize I was supposed to be reading the pages and understanding the contact before initialing. But 60 pages of paging through a legal document and looking at a twirling hourglass is boring enough, reading it was way too much to ask. Particularly when I realized I would have to complete the same task later for myself.

I decided to just rub my lucky rabbit’s foot, did a quick sign of the cross, filled my glass of wine and initialed away. I am hoping I haven’t agreed to indentured servitude. So far so good.