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.
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?
Nepo kids, a perfect term by the way, are the children of famous people who, supposedly of their own accord, also obtain a modicum of success in some famous person profession. There is some, not totally unwarranted, suspicion that these kids had a leg up in their climb to success. Well, the Huffington Post recently highlighted the struggles that many of these Nepo kids had when they matured. Many were financially abandoned by their parents and forced to get jobs. You heard that right jobs. Think about it. Just remember to have a hanky near you as the stories of their travails are heart rendering. Just in case you missed the link here it is again — Nepo kids. (Hint, please read the link)
I found myself laughing over this pathetic attempt to make these people stories even remotely like a real person’s struggle. The first story shows how really difficult these kids have it. Dakota Johnson had to ask her mother for money instead of her father after he cut her off financially. That was her big problem. I mean it sounds like Hell, I know. I am not sure how the poor thing survived.
Then there is the story of Jamie Lee Curtis. She was cut out of her father’s will which was pretty shabby if you were a 18 year old girl but she was 52 years old when her father died. I think she had plenty of time to milk her parent’s fame and fortune in her rise to the top. Tori Spelling also had will problems. Her take was only $800,000. What an insult, if I would have been her I wouldn’t even have bothered to collect it.
Then they talk about Prince Harry and this is when I started laughing uncontrollably. They are trying to say that that idiot’s climb to corporate power and a luxury home in one of the poshest, if not the poshest, towns in Southern California is the result of his talent and not that his father is the King of England. I mean isn’t the whole structure of the monarchy based in nepotism? I mean if anyone deserves to be called a Nepo kid, Prince Harry is the definition.
But Kourtney Kardashian gives away the game when she said her Dad told her he would help her find a job. Well, yes, there it is — the leg up. You got a break that a normal person wouldn’t get. Their stories are clearly different to the struggles of less connected and wealthy people. Their complaints are incomprehensible to me.
This points to a bigger problem which is a blindness to what is actually happening to the rest of the world who aren’t as fortunate. It is disheartening and more than a little disingenuous. Some of these people might be genuinely talented and deserve their success. OK. But the world is full of talented people. Most of them don’t have the connections these people have and it matters.
I don’t blame them for using these advantages. I would have used them too if I were in their position. But, a little humility about your good fortune would help. To be helped by your parents is not a terrible thing. People do understand it and most people accept that people will use these connections to get ahead. Just say yeah I did have leg up and put your fucking struggles into perspective before opening your mouth.
I try to ignore the Trump family as much as humanly possible but they just are too difficult to ignore. They are always out there doing something, saying things and making people crazy. Sometimes you just have to break down and comment on what they are doing, knowing full well that they love every moment of attention they are getting. Good or bad, attention is attention and, for some reason, the Trump family love getting it and I apologize now for giving it to them. Forgive me but I must comment about something Trumpish.
The Trump men love to appraise women’s looks and then give their usually unflattering appraisal particularly if the woman is a political opponent (see Donald Trumps thoughts on Rosie O’Donnell and Carly Fiorina if you need some examples). Trump’s namesake Donald jr. got into the act recently with his unkind comparison of Michelle Obama to a football linebacker.
Oddly, he comments that this is a joke which was a lame way of trying to protect himself from criticism that he knew would be heading his way. He was joking. Ha ha. Right. Got it. Though I have to wonder would if his wife or sister would think it was funny to be compared to a linebacker? If he is just being funny that is. I am sure they would get the joke, right? They know his sense of humor best after all.
It’s the type of joke you would expect from a 12 year old boy trying to impress his friends by making fun of the smartest girl in the class. It is mean-spirited joke. The interesting thing for me, is that it was more important for Donald jr. to amuse his juvenile friends than to be a decent human being. He relishes in the hurtful nature of the joke.
You would think that the son of man who is running for president would understand this and not post this type of joke on social media. Of course, he is free to post whatever he damn well pleases, that he can’t discern what is appropriate and inappropriate is the problem. In Donald jr.’s mind, it is perfectly OK to publicly demean a woman’s looks.
That neither Trump seems worried about that is concerning.
The two parties seem intent on nominating incredibly unpopular people as their candidates for president. For the Trump Republicans, this is at least understandable. They want revenge and there is some passion there to get it. The Democrats, on the other hand, just can’t be bothered to come up with someone better than Biden. It’s too dangerous. Let’s stick with a known winner. Don’t rock the boat, everything is fine. Shut up and get in line seems to be the campaign slogan.
It’s not even that I dislike Biden. I don’t. I just don’t think he is the leader for this particular moment and, to say, we don’t have anything better is depressing. In this whole vast country of 330 million plus people, we can’t come up with an alternate to Joe Biden? If this is true, then the Democrats are in deep trouble. If all you got is Joe Biden, then well, the future is rather bleak.
And, I really hate to have to say this, because it should be obvious but, for some reason, no one seems to care, Biden is polling badly against Trump. Let’s think about this for a moment. Between two very unpopular candidates, Biden is getting out polled by Donald Trump. Millions of people, forced with a terrible choice between two candidates they don’t like, are choosing Trump. Trump the insurrectionist, the serial liar, the hawker of tennis shoes, the butt of comedians jokes for all the stupid things he says, this man is out polling Joe Biden.
If Biden was polling better against Trump, I would say right Joe is the answer. But he isn’t. Then I think, who am I to argue with the experts who gave us President Hillary Clinton. They have a proven record of success, maybe they are seeing something that I just can’t see. I should just relax, leave it to the experts. They know what they are doing. Right?
I am about to confess something horrible about myself. I am warning you in case you want to opt out of further reading. I totally understand. Nobody likes to hear people’s confessions. Oh you think it will be fun at first, hearing people’s deepest darkest secrets but I am pretty sure it turns in to repetitive stories about self abuse on lonely Saturday nights and deliberately not ringing up an item at the self check out at the grocery store. So, believe me I understand.
Any way my confession. Bob and I are looking into pre-paying our funerals because, well, I am told it is the right thing to do. I agree in principle but I am finding myself really reluctant to commit. It isn’t fear about talking about death either which would be a legitimate reason for avoiding the purchase. I, in fact, researched the costs with three different companies and talked in more depth with one woman.
No, it isn’t fear. It is greed. Every time I think about paying for my funeral I think why I am paying for this? Shouldn’t my heirs? I mean I am giving them money, the least they can do is pay for my funeral. I would much rather they take it out of their cut from my will than for me to give up the money now when I can be buying expensive cocktails at overpriced restaurants.
Furthermore, what do I care about disposing of my body. I mean. Shit. I am dead. Do I have to do everything? Do what ever you want with my body but really why should I spend the precious time I have left figuring that out. Fuck it. All I can say is – if you can have some fun with my dead body, have at it as nothing would please me more than knowing that my body came in handy for a few practical jokes. Otherwise, who cares and why should I be the one to do something about it? What are they going do about if I don’t, I will be dead.
I can’t get the proper motivation to do anything about it. I know this sounds terrible. The reoccurring explanation for pre-planning is do you want your loved ones, who are in mourning, to figure this all out during this really sad, possibly traumatic, moment in their life and, again, I am sorry to say, yeah why not. I mean their day has already been ruined with my death. Why should I ruin my day too by paying for it. Besides, planning my funeral might give them an opportunity to take their minds off the large empty void my absence will cause in their lives and focus on something really important — getting me in the ground so they can go out and spend whatever is left of my 401K. And, since I am already making confessions and this make me even a worse person, I am genuinely planning to have no money left when I leave this mortal coil. So I will be sticking my heirs with the full funeral costs out of their pocket book. Sorry heirs.
My nickname among my friends in high school was Space King which was due to the likely experience of finding me high anytime you encountered me. I am surprised that I even graduated given the minimal amount of time I put into my studies. My parents were confused too as my fairly poor grades did not reflect all the time I put in at the public library. I think it was their sly way of letting me know they knew what was really going on. I really think my mother was deliberately trying to annoy when she asked me return her library books because that meant I had to actually go to the library.
Despite fully embracing drug taking, I never wanted to be known as a drug dealer. I avoided crossing this particular line. I might sell a joint or two as a friendly gesture but a joint or two was not a drug dealer. I never got into the habit of buying large quantities of pot so that I could sell the excess. Anyone who sold large quantities pretty quickly slipped into paranoia about who they were selling to. This was a different time and if the cops found even a joint on you, they could send you to prison for a long long time. Good friends could narc you out, particularly if the cops had found any drugs on them. The extra money never seemed worth the trouble to me.
But mostly I was interested in my reputation. I had political ambitions in my youth. If I sold dope, I knew some asshole would remember my ill-spent youth and put the kibosh on my political career. I don’t know why I thought that this would protect my image. I mean people didn’t call me Space King for nothing.
Any way, I kind of reformed when I went to college. I reduce my drug taking to an occasional puff of marijuana and I began to study because I realized that being a pot head was going to limit my options. I was a new man. Unfortunately my reputation preceded me. I was seating in the college library actually studying for an exam when a woman I went to high school with approached me. This was a woman who I barely knew. I don’t think we said two words together the whole four years of high school. I thought it was odd but maybe she thought we attended a small high school and we were at a large university now, maybe she was looking for a friendly face. Boy was I wrong. She pretty quickly explained she had a big test tomorrow and needed some speed and wanted to know if could sell her some.
I was devastated. All that time I sacrificed making extra money was for nothing. Despite everything, I still had a reputation of being a dealer. I tried to be mad at her but I just ended up laughing. She explained that everyone knew I was big dope taker in high school and she just assumed that I would still know how to get them. She told me she would cross me off her list as possible speed suppliers. I was eternally grateful for her consideration but I fear the damage was done. I guess you can take the Space King out of the opium den but you can’t take the opium den out of the Space King. That is also is when I decided my political career was finished. The Democratic Party has never recovered from this loss but I did save them the awkward press conference when I would admit to being Space King.
Tom Cotton repeatedly asked TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew whether he was Chinese and/or a Chinese Commie. Chew should be complimented for his remarkable restraint when faced with such monumental stupidity and/or rudeness. Mr. Chew told Cotten numerous times that he was from Singapore, not China and not a Communist.
When someone repeatedly asks something, there is a suspicion that the Senator is setting a trap for the person. Giving his prey several chances to admit the truth and when he doesn’t, springing into action with evidence that Chew was both Chinese and a Commie. This did not happen, so all Cotton discovered was that Chew was from Singapore and not a Communist. All facts that were known before Chew sat down for the hearing.
I first thought what an idiot but, after viewing the video, I realized Cotton was trying to connect Chew and TikTok to China and Communism without having to actually provide any facts that proves his point. Cotton will say he was just asking questions, that he in no way was saying that Chew was a Chinese Communist, he was just verifying whether this was indeed true. So without actually saying that Chew was a Chinese Commie, Cotton gets to paint Chew as a Chinese Communist because why would a US Senator ask about that unless Chew was a Chinese Commie. Cotton’s mission accomplished.
Cotton then highlighted how Chew’s views on Chinese political issues didn’t match Cotton’s which then, especially if the person is Asian, makes that person a potential Chinese Commie even if that person is a Singaporean businessman. Now I am not saying that Chew’s position are particularly brave but remember he is a businessman doing business with China. He needs to be careful how he addresses these issues. I doubt that Chew’s position on these issues are that different from any other Western business person working in China. Indeed, I would expect that Cotton would pursue this line of questioning anytime he had an opportunity to question someone.
So what did we learn from Cotton’s aggressive grilling of Chew — that Chew is not a Chinese Communist and the Chinese government is a dictatorship that Chew won’t criticize in a manner that would make Cotton happy. None of this is exactly new information but thank you Sen Cotton for confirming what we already knew while also subtly undermining Chew’s reputation in the process.
This is sad because there were legitimate questions about China and TikTok. Maybe Cotton’s colleagues addressed them with Chew in their questioning. But, of course, none of that was reported on because the exciting news was Cotton trying to get Chew to admit being a Chinese Commie.
I can’t help but to be reminded of Joe McCarthy badgering his witnesses about being Commies. For most Americans this is a bad look but, unfortunately, for ambitious Republicans it is a way to get seen by the constituencies that matter in the GOP. They want to see people who will take on the Chinese Communists head on so Cotton did everything he needed to show them he is their man and that is all that matters.
Tom Knighton explained why the above CEO Salaries are in line even though they are disproportionately higher than the average employee. It has, you guessed it, something to do with capitalism.
First, Knighton rightly points out that the excess money that these CEOs makes, if confiscated from the CEO’s and divided among the average employee, wouldn’t make a difference in a lower paid employees paycheck. Well, yeah, one executive’s salary wouldn’t make much of a difference but what about the other executives’ compensation. Most companies have VP and executive VPs coming out the ying yang who are also grossly overpaid. Throw those salaries in and I imagine you would have a much bigger kitty to distribute.
Then CEO’s have a responsible position. If they make mistakes, they could endanger other people’s jobs. Spare me. If CEOs are doing their job right, they could be eliminating jobs, so it doesn’t much matter much to the average employee. Let’s face it the average employee’s job is always under threat whether it be automation, elimination or outsourcing. The idea that the CEO is protecting his employees jobs is laughable, at best. If the shareholders and top executives are making money, there is little concern about the lower paid employees. Indeed, the average employee might be in more danger from a good CEO than a bad CEO. Besides the CEO has a team of executives working with him. If he makes a decision, it is being vetted by Board of Directors and other Executives, he rarely, if ever, makes an important decision alone. The risk is low of something disastrous.
Finally, and most importantly for Capitalism, Knighton believes you can find lower paid employees anywhere, it is difficult to find someone who can be a CEO. Knighton might look into the meat packing industry who are trying to find workers to operate dangerous machinery. Slaughter houses are having such a difficult time hiring people for these positions that they are breaking the law and hiring minors. They are also lobbying state legislatures to lower the age to work in these slaughter houses. As opposed to say, raising wages significantly in order to attract adults willing to risk life and limb to operate these machines. Why doesn’t the same philosophy of higher wages attracting the best people used to attract the best machine operators? If it works for CEO’s, it just might work for average employees as well.
As far as CEO pay is concerned it would be interesting to see if a lower pay was offered to smart ambitious young people who have yet to prove themselves what the results would be. What’s the worse that could happen? It’s not like the CEO would lose his life if he made a mistake, not like the teenagers working in a slaughter house. And, if they succeed, a lower wage for CEO would then bring more revenue into the business. Which is a win win right. I mean isn’t keep wages low one of the primary goals of a CEO? Why shouldn’t the CEO’s salary be included in this consideration. I am pretty sure you could find someone willing to do the job for less and I am betting that a good number of them could do a job. On the other hand, I know for a fact that slaughter houses can’t attract the right people to work in their establishments. Who, then, is more important and deserving of higher salaries?
Laura Perrins is complaining about the end of our meritocracy. A common worry among Conservative thinkers everywhere. Diversity is ruining our institutions which now disregard talent and ability for skin color and gender. She remembers a day when only the best got their positions through their efforts, talents and intelligence.
Wait. Perrins believes that we had a meritocracy. Really. Think about it. There was a time when people didn’t consider race and gender and only made decisions based on who was the best person for the job. The trouble is, as I cast my mind back in history in order to understand her point, I couldn’t find much evidence to support her contention. When exactly did the Western World have a meritocracy?
Never is the answer if you are having trouble coming up with a response despite what conservative thinkers are saying. It pains me to have to point this out but in the good old days, both gender and race were a very important consideration on who got the job. People of color and women were eliminated from consideration from the start. How this can be considered a meritocracy is beyond me.
Mind Stewing, Fingers Typing 