My brother brought up part of this story, and I sat down to spend several hours last night looking over this curious piece of California history.
So, once upon a time.....there was this election for mayor coming up in San Francisco....4 November 1975.
Two individuals running. Democrat George Moscone (state senator and lawyer). Republican John Barbagelata (real estate guy and on the city council).
Most people in the summer of 1975...gave Barbagelata the edge.
For some odd reason, never to be explained in public....Moscone went and had some meeting with a guy by the name of Michael Prokes. He was in his late 20's.....a journalism student for the most part but hooked up to various social groups and in particularly with the People's Temple.
Yeah, that's the Jim Jones crowd....if you were curious.
No one can say for sure what came out of this Moscone and Prokes meeting, but after this....Prokes has a lot of hyped up enthusiasm to get his people....the People's Temple religious crowd....into the canvasing for Moscone.
What most suggest is that the People's Temple crowd did cover a couple of neighborhoods (certainly NOT all of the city), and they were picky about the choice of the neighborhoods. They just wanted a mass group of people to show up on 4 November from those selected neighborhoods.
What occurred on 4 November? Moscone won by 1-percent (4,400 votes roughly).
The end? No. Barbagelata felt that a fair number of votes were simply bused into the city and were not legit. Proof? None really. There is a strong suggestion which came out of a NY Times piece in 1978....that busloads of folks were carried from Redwood Valley. That's 123 miles outside of the city limits. But again, it's not substantial proof. The comment by a Jone's member that Jones directed them on how to vote? Maybe, but that's not illegal.
Could you have bussed in 4,400 folks to make the difference? Well....you figure sixty folks per bus, and the answer ought to be no. But then they did canvas the neighborhoods and got people to show up and vote. That might have made the difference.
What happened to Prokes (the guy to arrange this situation)? Well.....18 November 1978....three years later....he dies in Jonestown.
Moscone? Well, this is an interesting twist or two. He was way ahead on the gay trend business, and really hyped up on liberal agendas.
Well....eight days prior to the Jonestown business...this odd event occurred in San Francisco.
There was an odd group developing and one of the city council guys was Dan White (former US Army), and tied to a conservative part of town. Over the two years prior, White had gotten into frequent arguments with the developing left-base of the city council (in particular, with Harvey Milk, another city council guy....and gay).
On 10 November 1978, Dan White finally had enough....the trend of the city council was becoming more and more frustrating. So he resigned. Part of this issue revolved around the fact that he could not work for the city as a fire-fighter/cop....receiving a salary as such....while being a city council guy. No one states the pay-scale, but I'm guessing that city council duty paid half of what a cop or fire-fighter made.
Four days go by, and Dan now realizes....that was a big mistake to quit as city council member. He went back to Mayor Moscone and asked to be reappointed.
Well....Moscone says no.
On 27 November 1978....Dan goes into the city hall area and shoots the mayor, and Harvey Milk....dead.
Dan says in his defense....his mental conditions triggered this. Oddly, the judge says fine....giving him seven years in prison for killing the two guys. Yep....seven years for killing two guys. He's paroled in January of 1984....so he doesn't even get the full sentence. Roughly a year later, he commits suicide.
Looking back at Mayor Moscone? Within six to eight years....he would have gone onto running for the US senate, and been in DC. Somewhere by the late 1980s...he would have run for President, around age 60. The odds are....instead of Bill Clinton....you would have had President Moscone (my humble guess).
The Jonestown thing fitting into this? It's the odd piece and you have to wonder about how this all worked out, and this young guy....Micheal Prokes, if he hadn't died there in Jonestown.
Tuesday, 27 February 2018
How Did Prohibition Fail?
If you went and looked, through most countries in the 1880s-1890s....there was an anti-alcohol movement in a busy state of activity.
In the US....this movement reached the stage where they decided that only by writing this into the Constitution.....making it the only text without freedom (yeah, an odd thing). In both 1913 and 1915, attempts were made in Congress to bring to a closure and pass the prohibition idea. So it came up in 1917, and it passed.
As January of 1920 rolled around, it was to occur. You could still drink alcohol after X-day, but only until your stock was extinguished. By spring of 1920....people were attempting to live without alcohol. And within weeks....various people were distilling their own whiskey, or bringing in booze via some neighboring country.
Capone and crime? Well....they found a lucrative market.
Bars couldn't be public places? Fine, they'd be quietly constructed and hidden.
Women? Well, in this new era....Honky-Tonks were social places and guys could bring their dates or girlfriends. Dancing and boozing became popular. Women accepted the idea of alcohol.
In roughly four years, the whole idea of prohibition had become a joke.
We were a nation of hypocrites....joking about it in public, and trying hard to admit that the law could be enforced....when it could not.
So come 5 December 1933....it was undone and written out of the Constitution.
The saloon-like atmosphere that had been popular before prohibition? For the most part.....it didn't come back. We had been introduced to cocktails in this 13-year period, and liked that more than beer. It was a fresh perspective that we'd gained.
Would any type of modification to the Constitution over guns come to the same fate? Yes. We would revert back to the nation of hypocrites, and likely not observe the law. And the nation would gain some fresh new perspective.
In the US....this movement reached the stage where they decided that only by writing this into the Constitution.....making it the only text without freedom (yeah, an odd thing). In both 1913 and 1915, attempts were made in Congress to bring to a closure and pass the prohibition idea. So it came up in 1917, and it passed.
As January of 1920 rolled around, it was to occur. You could still drink alcohol after X-day, but only until your stock was extinguished. By spring of 1920....people were attempting to live without alcohol. And within weeks....various people were distilling their own whiskey, or bringing in booze via some neighboring country.
Capone and crime? Well....they found a lucrative market.
Bars couldn't be public places? Fine, they'd be quietly constructed and hidden.
Women? Well, in this new era....Honky-Tonks were social places and guys could bring their dates or girlfriends. Dancing and boozing became popular. Women accepted the idea of alcohol.
In roughly four years, the whole idea of prohibition had become a joke.
We were a nation of hypocrites....joking about it in public, and trying hard to admit that the law could be enforced....when it could not.
So come 5 December 1933....it was undone and written out of the Constitution.
The saloon-like atmosphere that had been popular before prohibition? For the most part.....it didn't come back. We had been introduced to cocktails in this 13-year period, and liked that more than beer. It was a fresh perspective that we'd gained.
Would any type of modification to the Constitution over guns come to the same fate? Yes. We would revert back to the nation of hypocrites, and likely not observe the law. And the nation would gain some fresh new perspective.
Monday, 26 February 2018
This List of Changes?
There are probably twenty-odd problems with his concept for a solution.
1. The only guns to be home-owned...would be a pistol or shotgun. Rifles that fit into the category of hunting weapon, would be allowed to be home-owned, but only with certain weapon-sights.
Hunters would laugh over the weapon-sight rule.
2. What happens to all weapons already in the homes? Oddly, he skips that comment. You'd have to go and confiscate them, and that probably won't be something that cops favor.
3. The idea of illegal sights existing? You would see some kind of blackmarket start up and guys buying up dozens to sell later.
4. When going on a hunt, you would have to register with local authorities. Hunting on your own property? He managed to avoid discussing that topic. The fact that you could load the local gaming commission with non-hunter enthusiasts and squash all hunting in an entire region? Well....he didn't bring that up either. Various fees tied to each single request for hunting? Well, he didn't mention that either.
5. "Any other weapon that person wants to own that is currently legal, may still be owned but must be kept at a secure firing range." Well, there are thousands of regions throughout the US which have no secure firing range. Who would manage the firing range? Why are they special?
6. Firing would only be limited to the firing range. This works fine if you live in some urban area. If you live 300 miles west of Tucson...there will be no such range. Who would run these ranges? What federal and state rules would exist?
7. A limited number of bullets to be issued with the purchase of the gun, period. I sat and read over that piece, and kinda wondered how you were going to really enforce this. It sounds like you'd have to account for every single bullet and have some county agency monitoring your bullet inventory.
8. No private production of rounds. Right now, I'd take a guess that well over 10,000 individuals across the US are capable of producing their own rounds. They'd laugh at your non-production rule.
9. Gun owners would have to licensed. An interesting concept and some might go along with this. But then the suggestion accompanied the idea of insurance required. What company will handle that? What if they felt it was too risky? Would pistol owners be given a lesser amount of insurance?
10. No concealed carry....simply open-carry. That means you'd walk into your grocery store with this shotgun over your shoulder. I don't see people agreeing to this.
11. The problem of the Constitution....well, yeah. Right off the bat....virtually nothing from this group would easily slide through the Constitution. It was like you totally avoided that subject and pretended it didn't exist. A lot of people back in the 1890s to 1920 era....felt that prohibition would work easily, and they guessed wrong. Convincing folks to accept this type of change that he suggests? No, it just won't happen.
Sunday, 25 February 2018
The Neanderthal Story
This past week, a number of PhD folks in Europe decided to go ahead and agree that ancient cave paintings that were found in Spain a number of years ago with 'art'....were drawn by Neanderthal folks....approximately 64,000 or more years ago.
It's been a problem to admit this because they had this image of the Neanderthal folks as.....well....not quiet intellectual enough to draw fancy art like this, in this period 64,000 or more years ago.
The thing is....we aren't talking about vast numbers of paintings, which would lay out to 4,000 different Neanderthal folks over a period of time.
When you go and look at the different caves involved.....it's not that many. So you come to this moment of pondering. With a caveman group of forty-odd members, it's possible that you had only one single guy in some period of time, who seemed to be showing some flair for art. Maybe as he matured and got ready to pass on....some Neanderthal kid took up the art idea and continued on....drawing on another wall of the cave.
As time passed, maybe two less than accomplished guys.....Joe and Marty....talked at length one afternoon about the stout nature of some wild cattle in the region, and each felt the muscular dimensions were something worth admiring. Eventually, they retreated into the cave....took some fire along to light the way, and spent an hour drawing up their image. After that evening....each of the cave group would come by at various times and admire the art.....comparing Joe's rendition against Marty's rendition. Joe's art probably was criticized a bit, while Marty's art was viewed as 'modern' and looking more like the intended subject. This probably set off a feud between Joe and Marty.....with one knocking the front teeth out of the other guy.
The thing is.....I doubt if Joe, Marty, or the sixty-other odd artists ever thought much over future admiring of their art. The idea that 10,000 PhD guys now look daily over the art and render judgements would probably make Joe, Marty and rest a bit dazed of the admiration.
The other curious thing which you eventually start to think about.....this is simply the caves found so far. There could be another thousand caves existing....where Joe and Marty drew nude pieces with Wanda and DeeDee....rather than animal pictures.
It's been a problem to admit this because they had this image of the Neanderthal folks as.....well....not quiet intellectual enough to draw fancy art like this, in this period 64,000 or more years ago.
The thing is....we aren't talking about vast numbers of paintings, which would lay out to 4,000 different Neanderthal folks over a period of time.
When you go and look at the different caves involved.....it's not that many. So you come to this moment of pondering. With a caveman group of forty-odd members, it's possible that you had only one single guy in some period of time, who seemed to be showing some flair for art. Maybe as he matured and got ready to pass on....some Neanderthal kid took up the art idea and continued on....drawing on another wall of the cave.
As time passed, maybe two less than accomplished guys.....Joe and Marty....talked at length one afternoon about the stout nature of some wild cattle in the region, and each felt the muscular dimensions were something worth admiring. Eventually, they retreated into the cave....took some fire along to light the way, and spent an hour drawing up their image. After that evening....each of the cave group would come by at various times and admire the art.....comparing Joe's rendition against Marty's rendition. Joe's art probably was criticized a bit, while Marty's art was viewed as 'modern' and looking more like the intended subject. This probably set off a feud between Joe and Marty.....with one knocking the front teeth out of the other guy.
The thing is.....I doubt if Joe, Marty, or the sixty-other odd artists ever thought much over future admiring of their art. The idea that 10,000 PhD guys now look daily over the art and render judgements would probably make Joe, Marty and rest a bit dazed of the admiration.
The other curious thing which you eventually start to think about.....this is simply the caves found so far. There could be another thousand caves existing....where Joe and Marty drew nude pieces with Wanda and DeeDee....rather than animal pictures.
Talk over Guns and Stuff
Prior to 1965....for a five-year period....there were between 600 and 700 murders a year in California. In 1965...the numbers jumped 10-percent. By 1970, they were up to 1,376 murders per year. By 1980....3,411 murders per year. By 1990, there were just over 3,500 murders per year. In 1993, they finally peaked out just over 4,000 murders a year. In 2016, they finally slipped back down to around 1,930 murders per year.
Why? No one really discusses much on the trend line going up, or the trend line going down. There's a fifty-year trend at work.
Part of the 1965 story could be GI's returning from Vietnam with drug issues and simply more prevalent drug use in California.
Why did the 1993 number peak out and drop by half in a twenty-year period? Again, no one says much. My humble guess is that prison sentences went to the extent that you took a fair number of guys and removed them from the system. Yes, oddly....the three-strikes rule started in 1994. Journalists probably hate to admit that the law had that much affect but it does appear to represent part of the trend.
I came to this one odd topic in my reading today....a fair number of journalists want to use the term 'gun-death' when talking about individual states. They often want to put out low gun-death in states like California and New York....attributing their low numbers to strong gun laws.
But you sit there and start to ponder.....if you had five-hundred assault-minded or threat-mined criminals who approached some house....attempted to enter or threaten harm.....and the five-hundred were shot dead....they fall onto this gun-death routine. But obviously, they pretty much eliminated their desire to live by attempting a threat or harm to the innocent home-owner. Does the gun-death statistic take that into consideration? No. That's an odd feature of this statistic.
In the words of my brother on one moment of farm logic....some folks are just destined to die because of stupidity or bad behavior. I would offer to that logic....we ought not be collecting statistics over such folks because it really won't lead to anything.
Why? No one really discusses much on the trend line going up, or the trend line going down. There's a fifty-year trend at work.
Part of the 1965 story could be GI's returning from Vietnam with drug issues and simply more prevalent drug use in California.
Why did the 1993 number peak out and drop by half in a twenty-year period? Again, no one says much. My humble guess is that prison sentences went to the extent that you took a fair number of guys and removed them from the system. Yes, oddly....the three-strikes rule started in 1994. Journalists probably hate to admit that the law had that much affect but it does appear to represent part of the trend.
I came to this one odd topic in my reading today....a fair number of journalists want to use the term 'gun-death' when talking about individual states. They often want to put out low gun-death in states like California and New York....attributing their low numbers to strong gun laws.
But you sit there and start to ponder.....if you had five-hundred assault-minded or threat-mined criminals who approached some house....attempted to enter or threaten harm.....and the five-hundred were shot dead....they fall onto this gun-death routine. But obviously, they pretty much eliminated their desire to live by attempting a threat or harm to the innocent home-owner. Does the gun-death statistic take that into consideration? No. That's an odd feature of this statistic.
In the words of my brother on one moment of farm logic....some folks are just destined to die because of stupidity or bad behavior. I would offer to that logic....we ought not be collecting statistics over such folks because it really won't lead to anything.
Gone and Disappeared
It's a case which interests me.
Highly educated black guy....PhD in the medical field. Works for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention out of Atlanta. Promoted last year to 'commander'. Thirty-five years old.
He felt sick....apparently leaving in the middle of the day around 12 Feb. Then? He disappears.
It's been two weeks. Timothy J. Cunningham.
His parents flew down from the northeast to Atlanta. He did drive home after stating the sick excuse for leaving, and parked the car in front of the house. No evidence of a fight or such in the house. Dog is sitting there. Billfold is there. Smartphone is there. Keys here. Car is out front.
Other than that....nothing else.
No notes. No suggestion of leaving the house. Most dog owners would be dedicated to their pet and not leave the dog like this. Same with walking out of the house without your keys....it just doesn't happen to most guys.
Cops? They've put out pictures of the guy. That's about it. You would think phone calls would be checked and reviewed over the twenty-four hours before he disappeared.
My guess? I would suspect that some neighbor took him in when he had a serious bout with the flu, and has quietly been nursing the guy back to health. But you would be wondering about the dog, and the lack of keys. Several things about this story don't fit. It's like he stepped out the front door and just kept walking. One other odd part to the story? There are two windows in the open position as the family members arrived to check on his status. This being winter, that makes it awful suspicious.
Highly educated black guy....PhD in the medical field. Works for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention out of Atlanta. Promoted last year to 'commander'. Thirty-five years old.
He felt sick....apparently leaving in the middle of the day around 12 Feb. Then? He disappears.
It's been two weeks. Timothy J. Cunningham.
His parents flew down from the northeast to Atlanta. He did drive home after stating the sick excuse for leaving, and parked the car in front of the house. No evidence of a fight or such in the house. Dog is sitting there. Billfold is there. Smartphone is there. Keys here. Car is out front.
Other than that....nothing else.
No notes. No suggestion of leaving the house. Most dog owners would be dedicated to their pet and not leave the dog like this. Same with walking out of the house without your keys....it just doesn't happen to most guys.
Cops? They've put out pictures of the guy. That's about it. You would think phone calls would be checked and reviewed over the twenty-four hours before he disappeared.
My guess? I would suspect that some neighbor took him in when he had a serious bout with the flu, and has quietly been nursing the guy back to health. But you would be wondering about the dog, and the lack of keys. Several things about this story don't fit. It's like he stepped out the front door and just kept walking. One other odd part to the story? There are two windows in the open position as the family members arrived to check on his status. This being winter, that makes it awful suspicious.
Saturday, 24 February 2018
The Lack or Loss of Maturity
One of the top ten all-time water-cooler discussions that I ever got into....occurred around 1998. I was still in the Air Force and had some NCO visit from another base, and we were sitting in my office where he was explaining problem X, Y and Z with a particular airman that was in his office.
In roughly six months, this young airman (probably in the age range of 19 to 20) had arrived and gotten himself into twenty-odd issues. This was a kid who'd been through basic training, done a minimum of five months in some technical training school, and spent a year at some base in the US, before arriving in Germany.
Everything had to be debated. The kid felt discipline or standards were intolerable. The kid couldn't accept directions. The kid felt the world was against him. A simple job required continual oversight.
The weight of this entire argument was that the maturity level you'd expect out of a nineteen-year-old guy, did not exist. At best, this was a 12-year-old kid pretending to be an adult. I went over five or six of the points that this guest of mine had brought up, and each readily demonstrated 'kid-like' values. This was all stuff that you would have left in the fifth-grade, and progressed onto the next three or four levels of life. Since the kid wasn't improving, my suggestion was to dump him out of the Air Force as quickly as possible.
A couple of days passed by and my guest called and said that he didn't even have a chance to discuss my advice with the Commander....the Commander had already decided to move the kid to discharge-status. It'd normally take a month or two to achieve this type of event. The Commander had the paperwork finished by the end of the 4th duty day, and the kid was put on a plane back to the US by the fifth day of decision.
I've often wondered what happened to the kid after that. He'd be approaching forty years old by this point. He's probably stocking shelves at some grocery, or cutting grass for the local city parks department.
Over the past two or three years, I've approached the attitude that there are a heck of a lot of 12-year-old kids now pretending to be older teens, college-level kids, and even adults themselves. I'd hate to assess the number but it's probably near ten-percent of the US population now that are immature and unable to act as adults.
They've lost respect. They've lost dignity. They've lost courtesy.
Some are affected by legit drug usage. Some are affected by just bad behavior. Some want to impress you with their fifth-grade logic. Some want to cite logic, while using illogic. Some want to challenge your respect by denying you any respect. And some are some great crusade for social justice....mostly heading in the opposite way, and away from actual social justice.
It's not a good society versus bad society thing. It's just that theses kids never grew up and they've still got the fifth-grade view of life. There are so many of them, that you have to interact with them at least a couple of times each week. In fact, you might have been stupid enough at some point to actually marry one of them...waking up now to realize Wanda or Micky (your spouse) is obviously a fifth-grade mentality and it's just about impossible to exit this marriage without a mess.
At some point, in my mind....something has to change. It's just the question of how you grow the 'kid' into an adult.
In roughly six months, this young airman (probably in the age range of 19 to 20) had arrived and gotten himself into twenty-odd issues. This was a kid who'd been through basic training, done a minimum of five months in some technical training school, and spent a year at some base in the US, before arriving in Germany.
Everything had to be debated. The kid felt discipline or standards were intolerable. The kid couldn't accept directions. The kid felt the world was against him. A simple job required continual oversight.
The weight of this entire argument was that the maturity level you'd expect out of a nineteen-year-old guy, did not exist. At best, this was a 12-year-old kid pretending to be an adult. I went over five or six of the points that this guest of mine had brought up, and each readily demonstrated 'kid-like' values. This was all stuff that you would have left in the fifth-grade, and progressed onto the next three or four levels of life. Since the kid wasn't improving, my suggestion was to dump him out of the Air Force as quickly as possible.
A couple of days passed by and my guest called and said that he didn't even have a chance to discuss my advice with the Commander....the Commander had already decided to move the kid to discharge-status. It'd normally take a month or two to achieve this type of event. The Commander had the paperwork finished by the end of the 4th duty day, and the kid was put on a plane back to the US by the fifth day of decision.
I've often wondered what happened to the kid after that. He'd be approaching forty years old by this point. He's probably stocking shelves at some grocery, or cutting grass for the local city parks department.
Over the past two or three years, I've approached the attitude that there are a heck of a lot of 12-year-old kids now pretending to be older teens, college-level kids, and even adults themselves. I'd hate to assess the number but it's probably near ten-percent of the US population now that are immature and unable to act as adults.
They've lost respect. They've lost dignity. They've lost courtesy.
Some are affected by legit drug usage. Some are affected by just bad behavior. Some want to impress you with their fifth-grade logic. Some want to cite logic, while using illogic. Some want to challenge your respect by denying you any respect. And some are some great crusade for social justice....mostly heading in the opposite way, and away from actual social justice.
It's not a good society versus bad society thing. It's just that theses kids never grew up and they've still got the fifth-grade view of life. There are so many of them, that you have to interact with them at least a couple of times each week. In fact, you might have been stupid enough at some point to actually marry one of them...waking up now to realize Wanda or Micky (your spouse) is obviously a fifth-grade mentality and it's just about impossible to exit this marriage without a mess.
At some point, in my mind....something has to change. It's just the question of how you grow the 'kid' into an adult.
Baseball Chat
On rare occasions, I essay on sports, and the business-world that has developed. So today, it's onto the topic of free-agents and baseball.
In the mid-1970s....baseball was forced into accepting the idea of free agency. It meant you signed a guy for a period of time, and when the contract ended....the guy could leave. It also meant that you could find several players, to build up a winning team....at a particular cost.
Over the past twenty years in baseball...there's this odd trend that started to get noticed. Players (and their agents) were pursuing deals where it was a multiple-year situation. Not just three years, but onto five, or six, or even seven years. What developed was this problem that after three years....the product level of the player sometimes became marginal....the guy developed an attitude problem...and the team was trying to give the guy away (thus having to pay another team to take him off your hands). So you were paying a guy a hefty check, for marginal production, and then paying a second time to get another team to take the loser off your team.
Anger and frustration occurred on various teams. Part of the problem goes back to the agents, and the manipulation they used to convince teams to use longer contracts.
So in the past six months....teams across both leagues did this odd thing. No one says it's a league policy, or that it's a secret philosophy from baseball....but they all started to shy away from free agents.
If you had a listing as the 2017 season ended of all free agents (players with no contract)....fewer than 25-percent have been signed at this point. For some players, getting into early March, with no contract is now a frightening thing. The agents are furious, if you follow public commentary.
The business now likely to occur? By the end of March, I expect about half of the free agents to be signed....but mostly for a one-year or two-year type deal. Pay escalations? No....these are guys who will make the same amount as they did last year.
The remainder? I think they are finished. These are mostly marginal players over the age of thirty, or three-star-type players approaching their mid-thirties. I think a number of minor-league players are going to be given a chance to move up and assume roles in the major leagues for 2018.
It's a bold new world. The real losers here? Well....the agents. All of them are going to take pay-cuts for the future.
In the mid-1970s....baseball was forced into accepting the idea of free agency. It meant you signed a guy for a period of time, and when the contract ended....the guy could leave. It also meant that you could find several players, to build up a winning team....at a particular cost.
Over the past twenty years in baseball...there's this odd trend that started to get noticed. Players (and their agents) were pursuing deals where it was a multiple-year situation. Not just three years, but onto five, or six, or even seven years. What developed was this problem that after three years....the product level of the player sometimes became marginal....the guy developed an attitude problem...and the team was trying to give the guy away (thus having to pay another team to take him off your hands). So you were paying a guy a hefty check, for marginal production, and then paying a second time to get another team to take the loser off your team.
Anger and frustration occurred on various teams. Part of the problem goes back to the agents, and the manipulation they used to convince teams to use longer contracts.
So in the past six months....teams across both leagues did this odd thing. No one says it's a league policy, or that it's a secret philosophy from baseball....but they all started to shy away from free agents.
If you had a listing as the 2017 season ended of all free agents (players with no contract)....fewer than 25-percent have been signed at this point. For some players, getting into early March, with no contract is now a frightening thing. The agents are furious, if you follow public commentary.
The business now likely to occur? By the end of March, I expect about half of the free agents to be signed....but mostly for a one-year or two-year type deal. Pay escalations? No....these are guys who will make the same amount as they did last year.
The remainder? I think they are finished. These are mostly marginal players over the age of thirty, or three-star-type players approaching their mid-thirties. I think a number of minor-league players are going to be given a chance to move up and assume roles in the major leagues for 2018.
It's a bold new world. The real losers here? Well....the agents. All of them are going to take pay-cuts for the future.
Friday, 23 February 2018
CNN and MTV
Back in the early 1980s....I admired M-TV a good bit. In a normal week, I probably watched six hours of music videos. My attraction was mostly over the fact that you could take a two to four minute tune....run some great story video in the background, and it was like a sales-job over clothing, cars, lusty women, or Miami.
Over the past decade, I've come to view news networks (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc) as having gravitated over to having an effort with a text to attract your attention, and some video-type background that keeps your attention. All of this....leads to a comparison to M-TV's videos.
Oddly, each of these are built in the same way....three to ten minutes in length. They've even gone to having actors step in and be occasional fake witnesses to an event....give it that professional image and the right text of words to fill the agenda.
They can sell something....in the same way that M-TV sold clothing, cars, lusty women, or Miami.
Course, I won't be critical of this....it's their right to be a sort of fake news outlet, and sell 'something'. The problem here is that as M-TV matured, and audiences moved on....the sales-pitch became tougher each year and a lot of people simply laughed over the images in the end. It's today to sell clothing, cars, lusty women or Miami.
So I gaze over at CNN and kinda wonder....at which point will they fail or start to lose viewers? Well....they already admit their viewer-count is down, and profits are starting to be marginalized.
I sat this week and watched some of the anti-gun CNN pieces, and realized that it fell into the same path.....clothing, cars, lusty women, Miami, and now anti-gun. Maybe it'll sell for a couple of weeks....at least until the public tires of it, and then it'll just be another theme piece forgotten.
Over the past decade, I've come to view news networks (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc) as having gravitated over to having an effort with a text to attract your attention, and some video-type background that keeps your attention. All of this....leads to a comparison to M-TV's videos.
Oddly, each of these are built in the same way....three to ten minutes in length. They've even gone to having actors step in and be occasional fake witnesses to an event....give it that professional image and the right text of words to fill the agenda.
They can sell something....in the same way that M-TV sold clothing, cars, lusty women, or Miami.
Course, I won't be critical of this....it's their right to be a sort of fake news outlet, and sell 'something'. The problem here is that as M-TV matured, and audiences moved on....the sales-pitch became tougher each year and a lot of people simply laughed over the images in the end. It's today to sell clothing, cars, lusty women or Miami.
So I gaze over at CNN and kinda wonder....at which point will they fail or start to lose viewers? Well....they already admit their viewer-count is down, and profits are starting to be marginalized.
I sat this week and watched some of the anti-gun CNN pieces, and realized that it fell into the same path.....clothing, cars, lusty women, Miami, and now anti-gun. Maybe it'll sell for a couple of weeks....at least until the public tires of it, and then it'll just be another theme piece forgotten.
The Cop Story
As the story unfolds from this school in Florida with the shooter....we kinda find today that the school-asset-officer (whatever that means) stayed out of the shooting zone for three minutes. He never engaged the shooter, and basically did nothing. It's an older guy.....been with the county police for thirty-odd years, making $75,000 basic pay a year.
I've read a fair bit over the guy, and have come to four basic conclusions:
1. In terms of being a policeman, or officer, or security guy.....no, he was there as some liaison guy who was supposed to talk to kids, and parents. Beyond that, I don't think he really had the background or training. Maybe they gave him a gun, and made sure he showed up twice a year to practice shooting it, but I don't think he was really a policeman. If they meant for him to be there to protect kids.....I don't think they trained him to really be that kind of guy.
2. The $75,000 a year? Well....being some kind of liaison-guy for that kind of salary.....is a joke. They could have gotten someone fresh out of college for maybe $35k to $45k for this type of work. The cops were wasting the guy there, for that kind of money.
3. Is this the kind of guy you have at every school in Florida....for security? If so, you got a bigger problem.
4. Finally, I come to necessity of having cops at schools. I grew up in another era....where the one and only town cop usually showed up at the football games to ensure no fights broke out. If you got an issue to exist where you need cops on the campus.....all the time? Well, you need them to be able to arrest and detain kids very easily. You don't see them giving that kind of authority to the cops in that school.
This guy now? He'll retire....draw a pension, and quietly move away from Florida. Sad deal for a guy who was probably a year or two away from retirement.
I've read a fair bit over the guy, and have come to four basic conclusions:
1. In terms of being a policeman, or officer, or security guy.....no, he was there as some liaison guy who was supposed to talk to kids, and parents. Beyond that, I don't think he really had the background or training. Maybe they gave him a gun, and made sure he showed up twice a year to practice shooting it, but I don't think he was really a policeman. If they meant for him to be there to protect kids.....I don't think they trained him to really be that kind of guy.
2. The $75,000 a year? Well....being some kind of liaison-guy for that kind of salary.....is a joke. They could have gotten someone fresh out of college for maybe $35k to $45k for this type of work. The cops were wasting the guy there, for that kind of money.
3. Is this the kind of guy you have at every school in Florida....for security? If so, you got a bigger problem.
4. Finally, I come to necessity of having cops at schools. I grew up in another era....where the one and only town cop usually showed up at the football games to ensure no fights broke out. If you got an issue to exist where you need cops on the campus.....all the time? Well, you need them to be able to arrest and detain kids very easily. You don't see them giving that kind of authority to the cops in that school.
This guy now? He'll retire....draw a pension, and quietly move away from Florida. Sad deal for a guy who was probably a year or two away from retirement.
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Travels With Charley
In 1962, Travels with Charley was published. For John Steinbeck, it was the last significant work. He was in a retirement state of mind and this was supposed to be some literary piece describing some trip across the nation. People liked the storyline, the travel agenda, and the characters mentioned.
For me, of the 3000-odd books I've read in my life....I consider it one of the ten best books I ever read.
All this said and done....I've kinda noted over the years various discussions with the book, and how actual events and travels mentioned....didn't really fit well together. Some folks have gone onto discussing the idea that Steinbeck didn't really make the trip, or that he staged two or three of the stops, and just filled in the rest of it with fictional words and descriptions.
A Steinbeck-enthusiast would be shaking their and defend their hero, but then you'd have to imagine this trip, and having discussions with various people along the way.
My humble guess? I think he basically drove the truck out to some Oregon coastal area, and just quietly sat at some cabin writing up the story while gazing at some map and travel books. Six weeks later, he wraps up the piece and mails it off. I don't think it's a terrible thing but it's an odd thing we are stuck with and wondering about.
For me, of the 3000-odd books I've read in my life....I consider it one of the ten best books I ever read.
All this said and done....I've kinda noted over the years various discussions with the book, and how actual events and travels mentioned....didn't really fit well together. Some folks have gone onto discussing the idea that Steinbeck didn't really make the trip, or that he staged two or three of the stops, and just filled in the rest of it with fictional words and descriptions.
A Steinbeck-enthusiast would be shaking their and defend their hero, but then you'd have to imagine this trip, and having discussions with various people along the way.
My humble guess? I think he basically drove the truck out to some Oregon coastal area, and just quietly sat at some cabin writing up the story while gazing at some map and travel books. Six weeks later, he wraps up the piece and mails it off. I don't think it's a terrible thing but it's an odd thing we are stuck with and wondering about.
Monday, 19 February 2018
Florida and the Remainder of the Year
For the remainder of 2018, here is how the school shooting plays out;
1. The kid. I'm guessing about 48 hours after the shooting....most of his drugs have worn off, and he's sitting in the jail without any gaming 'set'....maybe for the first time in ten years. His reality is starting to return, and he is contemplating all the screw-ups. On a suicide watch? Yeah, probably. Zero chance he'll ever walk free, and about a 50-percent chance for a death sentence. He probably doesn't remember much and says he was in a daze.
2. The schools. Well, for the remainder of this school-year, it'll be a hyped-up mess....sixty-percent of kids all anti-gun and social-meddling this to the ninth degree. The opposite group....the kids who always oppose stuff, and the pro-gun kids....will be picked on. With two weeks, some pro-gun parents will demand face-to-face teacher meetings and principal meetings. Some teachers will bluntly push back and say they are anti-gun teachers. This will set off a new mess that the school boards can't handle. Ability to accomplish anything for classes? No, don't go and anticipate anything getting done for the next four months. Some teachers will be on a list to fire (the pro-gun folks as well as the anti-gun folks). Various fights will occur and blame will be tossed onto both groups.
3. The 17 House members from Florida who are Republican? They run in November's election and they are screwed. The kids will go against them and the wave will be very negative. At least half of these seats are now permanently lost.
4. Adjacent states? Social media will carry this anti-gun wave across to other states and trigger in-house fights....the pro-crowd versus the anti-crowd.
1. The kid. I'm guessing about 48 hours after the shooting....most of his drugs have worn off, and he's sitting in the jail without any gaming 'set'....maybe for the first time in ten years. His reality is starting to return, and he is contemplating all the screw-ups. On a suicide watch? Yeah, probably. Zero chance he'll ever walk free, and about a 50-percent chance for a death sentence. He probably doesn't remember much and says he was in a daze.
2. The schools. Well, for the remainder of this school-year, it'll be a hyped-up mess....sixty-percent of kids all anti-gun and social-meddling this to the ninth degree. The opposite group....the kids who always oppose stuff, and the pro-gun kids....will be picked on. With two weeks, some pro-gun parents will demand face-to-face teacher meetings and principal meetings. Some teachers will bluntly push back and say they are anti-gun teachers. This will set off a new mess that the school boards can't handle. Ability to accomplish anything for classes? No, don't go and anticipate anything getting done for the next four months. Some teachers will be on a list to fire (the pro-gun folks as well as the anti-gun folks). Various fights will occur and blame will be tossed onto both groups.
3. The 17 House members from Florida who are Republican? They run in November's election and they are screwed. The kids will go against them and the wave will be very negative. At least half of these seats are now permanently lost.
4. Adjacent states? Social media will carry this anti-gun wave across to other states and trigger in-house fights....the pro-crowd versus the anti-crowd.
When You Don't Have School Discipline
As a kid in rural Alabama, I don't remember the topic of suspending or dismissing a kid from school until probably the 10th grade. To be honest, you just didn't have 'drama-types' who needed the suspensions.
With all of this Florida-shooting hype, someone sat down and dug out the Broward County School Discipline Agreement.
It's an odd piece...signed by local city/county judges, the state attorney general, and the Sheriff. The school system has to comply with this local document.
So in the midst of this agreement, there is a list of things that you will NOT be suspended or expelled upon....if they were to occur. In these cases, you get a warning, a lecture, and possibly detention (meaning a couple of hours per week in study hall).
The list: all student misbehavior, disrupting or interfering with class or school functions, fighting in hallways or classrooms, theft of less than $300, vandalism (if less than $1,000), disorderly conduct (against other students, or teachers), trespassing, criminal mischief (unclear what the heck this means), gambling, loitering, prowling, harassment, alcohol use or drunkenness, any possession of Cannabis or drug paraphernalia, threats, obstructing justice with or without violence.
In most companies, the hint of any of these acts....would be enough for HR to bring you in and fire you on the spot.
In the school? Totally acceptable. The worse that you might get is extra study hall. You could show up daily after consuming half-a-bottle of whiskey....no problem. You could start a fight every other day.....no problem. You could disrupt your science class daily....no problem.
So I just look at this accepted behavior deal and can judge the school system as a failure. The fact that judges and the sheriff signed off on it? They are just as much part of the failed system. They are themselves a failure.
You can draw up a long list of failures that brought this idiot kid to the event of last week. The FBI failed. The local cops failed. The school discipline failed.
With all of this Florida-shooting hype, someone sat down and dug out the Broward County School Discipline Agreement.
It's an odd piece...signed by local city/county judges, the state attorney general, and the Sheriff. The school system has to comply with this local document.
So in the midst of this agreement, there is a list of things that you will NOT be suspended or expelled upon....if they were to occur. In these cases, you get a warning, a lecture, and possibly detention (meaning a couple of hours per week in study hall).
The list: all student misbehavior, disrupting or interfering with class or school functions, fighting in hallways or classrooms, theft of less than $300, vandalism (if less than $1,000), disorderly conduct (against other students, or teachers), trespassing, criminal mischief (unclear what the heck this means), gambling, loitering, prowling, harassment, alcohol use or drunkenness, any possession of Cannabis or drug paraphernalia, threats, obstructing justice with or without violence.
In most companies, the hint of any of these acts....would be enough for HR to bring you in and fire you on the spot.
In the school? Totally acceptable. The worse that you might get is extra study hall. You could show up daily after consuming half-a-bottle of whiskey....no problem. You could start a fight every other day.....no problem. You could disrupt your science class daily....no problem.
So I just look at this accepted behavior deal and can judge the school system as a failure. The fact that judges and the sheriff signed off on it? They are just as much part of the failed system. They are themselves a failure.
You can draw up a long list of failures that brought this idiot kid to the event of last week. The FBI failed. The local cops failed. The school discipline failed.
Sunday, 18 February 2018
Just Ten Suggestions
After reading a fair bit over mass shootings and pondering over things....I have ten suggestions:
1. Dump all disciplinary issues that pop up in any school over to the cops and the local judge. Let the parents, and the trouble-making kids, get used to direct court action and the police. Let teachers do the only thing they should be doing...teach.
2. Got any kid who displays attitude problems in school or can't respect teachers or fellow-students? Bring them in for Saturday sand-bagging. Give them the job of filling five-hundred sandbags. You screw up a second time? One-thousand sandbags. You screw up a third time? Two-thousand sandbags.
3. Raise the gun purchase age to 21, along with the voting age, the age for buying alcohol, the age for getting a credit card, and the age to buy cigarettes. You want to join the military and are still under 21? Go get your parent's signature.
4. You make any threat to harm anyone....cops get called and they are mandated to arrest you and hold you for a minimum of forty-eight hours. Judges get called and you have to face some court activity before you get a chance to go back to school.
5. Give the school system an opportunity to let kids test out, and leave by the end of the 10th grade.
6. Unannounced drug tests on students and teachers....minimum of two tests per year. You fail as a student, you get two weeks of suspension. As a teacher, you get a month off without pay.
7. Cellphones forbidden in all schools.
8. Showing disciplinary issues? Let the judge retain your social media account and prevent your use of any social media for 90 days.
9. Fights at school? Call the cops, let them sort it out.
10. Fights on a bus? Call the cops and let them sort it out.
1. Dump all disciplinary issues that pop up in any school over to the cops and the local judge. Let the parents, and the trouble-making kids, get used to direct court action and the police. Let teachers do the only thing they should be doing...teach.
2. Got any kid who displays attitude problems in school or can't respect teachers or fellow-students? Bring them in for Saturday sand-bagging. Give them the job of filling five-hundred sandbags. You screw up a second time? One-thousand sandbags. You screw up a third time? Two-thousand sandbags.
3. Raise the gun purchase age to 21, along with the voting age, the age for buying alcohol, the age for getting a credit card, and the age to buy cigarettes. You want to join the military and are still under 21? Go get your parent's signature.
4. You make any threat to harm anyone....cops get called and they are mandated to arrest you and hold you for a minimum of forty-eight hours. Judges get called and you have to face some court activity before you get a chance to go back to school.
5. Give the school system an opportunity to let kids test out, and leave by the end of the 10th grade.
6. Unannounced drug tests on students and teachers....minimum of two tests per year. You fail as a student, you get two weeks of suspension. As a teacher, you get a month off without pay.
7. Cellphones forbidden in all schools.
8. Showing disciplinary issues? Let the judge retain your social media account and prevent your use of any social media for 90 days.
9. Fights at school? Call the cops, let them sort it out.
10. Fights on a bus? Call the cops and let them sort it out.
Saturday, 17 February 2018
The Russian Meddling Story
As the smoke clears over the 13 Russians indicted for campaign 'meddling'....you have to ask yourself....what exactly happened?
In 2014, some Russian authorities (no one says Putin) decided to send a couple of Russians into the US, on a vacation....to gather information (intelligence). They weren't interested in US missile silos, rockets, or even troop strength. No....their interest was public usage of social media, and how social media was used.
It's probably the weirdest collection mission ever attempted by the Russians. A couple of guys driving around....asking stupid questions over social media....how social media really works....and how to create fake news.
Over a period (probably two years), they devised this plan to 'meddle' in the US election. They would use social media. They would plant reports and stories.
No one....not Mueller, or Congress, or any media system....can cite what real affect this led to. Maybe it influenced 10,000 voters.....maybe 100,000 voters....maybe one-million voters. But you can't cite this as a fact.
In various ways, they planted stories or news that made Bernie Sanders look better than Hillary. They planted stories that made Trump look good. They might even planted stories that made McCain look brilliant, or Jeb Bush look like an idiot. They had public events where they sponsored groups.
Prior to the November election, they used one tactic of suggesting to blacks not to bother voting. To be honest, you can't cite the true effect of this. Maybe 10,000 blacks did take the advice and just stayed home. Maybe 100,000. Maybe even one-million. And if they did stay home....were they honest-Hillary-voters or honest-Trump-voters? Again, there are no facts.
Then after the election, they funneled money to leftist groups to show up for anti-Trump rallies. No, these were not the Hillary-supported, or Soros-supported, or DNC-supported anti-Trump rallies....these were the Russian-supported anti-Trump efforts. The fact that one anti-Trump rally would occur in X-city and be Russian-supported, but two states away was another anti-Trump rally but supported by Soros? Well....let's not bring that up.
Where this goes now? You bring the 13 Russians into a court and try to have some jury case worked up. The problem I see is that the Russians might show up with the KGB experts and documented evidence from November 2011, and January/February 2012 Russian elections.....where US social media (you know, Goggle, Facebook, and Twitter) showed up and influenced the anti-Putin group and harmed the Putin campaign. If you were on the jury, you would sit there and eventually ask the judge....if the American 'idiots' from the Obama Administration started this whole thing in 2011....shouldn't those Americans be dragged into a Russian court and be charged with election meddling as well? Were the Russians only returning the favor?
Oh. Yeah.
But here's the bigger question, with all the Russian work done....is it possible that they really only affected 10,000 votes across the entire US? This is the bigger mystery to the whole story.
In 2014, some Russian authorities (no one says Putin) decided to send a couple of Russians into the US, on a vacation....to gather information (intelligence). They weren't interested in US missile silos, rockets, or even troop strength. No....their interest was public usage of social media, and how social media was used.
It's probably the weirdest collection mission ever attempted by the Russians. A couple of guys driving around....asking stupid questions over social media....how social media really works....and how to create fake news.
Over a period (probably two years), they devised this plan to 'meddle' in the US election. They would use social media. They would plant reports and stories.
No one....not Mueller, or Congress, or any media system....can cite what real affect this led to. Maybe it influenced 10,000 voters.....maybe 100,000 voters....maybe one-million voters. But you can't cite this as a fact.
In various ways, they planted stories or news that made Bernie Sanders look better than Hillary. They planted stories that made Trump look good. They might even planted stories that made McCain look brilliant, or Jeb Bush look like an idiot. They had public events where they sponsored groups.
Prior to the November election, they used one tactic of suggesting to blacks not to bother voting. To be honest, you can't cite the true effect of this. Maybe 10,000 blacks did take the advice and just stayed home. Maybe 100,000. Maybe even one-million. And if they did stay home....were they honest-Hillary-voters or honest-Trump-voters? Again, there are no facts.
Then after the election, they funneled money to leftist groups to show up for anti-Trump rallies. No, these were not the Hillary-supported, or Soros-supported, or DNC-supported anti-Trump rallies....these were the Russian-supported anti-Trump efforts. The fact that one anti-Trump rally would occur in X-city and be Russian-supported, but two states away was another anti-Trump rally but supported by Soros? Well....let's not bring that up.
Where this goes now? You bring the 13 Russians into a court and try to have some jury case worked up. The problem I see is that the Russians might show up with the KGB experts and documented evidence from November 2011, and January/February 2012 Russian elections.....where US social media (you know, Goggle, Facebook, and Twitter) showed up and influenced the anti-Putin group and harmed the Putin campaign. If you were on the jury, you would sit there and eventually ask the judge....if the American 'idiots' from the Obama Administration started this whole thing in 2011....shouldn't those Americans be dragged into a Russian court and be charged with election meddling as well? Were the Russians only returning the favor?
Oh. Yeah.
But here's the bigger question, with all the Russian work done....is it possible that they really only affected 10,000 votes across the entire US? This is the bigger mystery to the whole story.
Friday, 16 February 2018
MIlitary Story
It came up in Pentagon news today that they are looking at this rule change that says that if you are non-deployable for over one year....they will release you (friendly way of saying you will be kicked out). How many are we talking about? The Pentagon suggests that it's near 300,000 total from the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force (active duty and reserve/guard).
How this comes up? Someone must have centered in on statistical data that showed in some professions....it might one out of twenty folks who are on a year or two years of some ailment/health issue...and that it's a growing trend.
I sat there in the 1990s, and began to notice various trends which were falling into this category.
First, you had those sports-obsessive folks who were having serious sports injuries....the type where you are on limited or marginal physical profiles for a minimum of six months.
I worked with one guy who had an Achilles Tendon injury, which never healed right after the original episode, and this guy was on a profile for fifteen months. In the early 1990s, this wasn't a big deal....you'd cross the guy's name off the deployment list and you just went on. But these days, you might find two or three guys in a 120-man unit....with long-term injuries and this turns into a worry-fest for the commander to deploy people.
In one unit that I was associated with....they had a female in her early 30's with back issues. For six years, she was on a medical profile....no deployments possible. Course, they couldn't bring themselves to just medically discharge her. So she stayed on....reaching retirement at the 20-year point.
Second, you reached a level in the 1990s where people had mental or stress issues....and the doctors were favorable to start profiles on the individual. That would have been fine if this was a six-week episode and the guy needed alcohol rehab or he needed four months to get over the death of some family member. But I sat and watched the Air Force keep some nutcase around who was emotionally unable to handle any kind of stress. They wrote some profile which had nothing to do with physical health....just mental health. It took them near five years to admit the guy should not be in the military and to refuse to allow them to re-enlist. All the time in that five-year period? Deployable.
So what's going to happen here? You will start to see people argue with the military health profession and refuse profiles. If it's just a thirty-day profile for a pulled muscle or a 90-day profile for a knee operation...fine. But I suspect that most everyone is going to get hyper and tell the medical folks to just stop handing out the long-term profiles. At some point, the medical folks are going to argue about this, and it'll become some Congressional mess.
It's in a way....like the NFL. If you got two players on a team that can only play five games out of the season, and it's that way for several years....what value are the two guys? Zero.
How this comes up? Someone must have centered in on statistical data that showed in some professions....it might one out of twenty folks who are on a year or two years of some ailment/health issue...and that it's a growing trend.
I sat there in the 1990s, and began to notice various trends which were falling into this category.
First, you had those sports-obsessive folks who were having serious sports injuries....the type where you are on limited or marginal physical profiles for a minimum of six months.
I worked with one guy who had an Achilles Tendon injury, which never healed right after the original episode, and this guy was on a profile for fifteen months. In the early 1990s, this wasn't a big deal....you'd cross the guy's name off the deployment list and you just went on. But these days, you might find two or three guys in a 120-man unit....with long-term injuries and this turns into a worry-fest for the commander to deploy people.
In one unit that I was associated with....they had a female in her early 30's with back issues. For six years, she was on a medical profile....no deployments possible. Course, they couldn't bring themselves to just medically discharge her. So she stayed on....reaching retirement at the 20-year point.
Second, you reached a level in the 1990s where people had mental or stress issues....and the doctors were favorable to start profiles on the individual. That would have been fine if this was a six-week episode and the guy needed alcohol rehab or he needed four months to get over the death of some family member. But I sat and watched the Air Force keep some nutcase around who was emotionally unable to handle any kind of stress. They wrote some profile which had nothing to do with physical health....just mental health. It took them near five years to admit the guy should not be in the military and to refuse to allow them to re-enlist. All the time in that five-year period? Deployable.
So what's going to happen here? You will start to see people argue with the military health profession and refuse profiles. If it's just a thirty-day profile for a pulled muscle or a 90-day profile for a knee operation...fine. But I suspect that most everyone is going to get hyper and tell the medical folks to just stop handing out the long-term profiles. At some point, the medical folks are going to argue about this, and it'll become some Congressional mess.
It's in a way....like the NFL. If you got two players on a team that can only play five games out of the season, and it's that way for several years....what value are the two guys? Zero.
Thursday, 15 February 2018
Talking Over the Gun Episode in Florida
About a decade ago, while visiting the farm....my dad made an observation that concerned the late 1930s in Alabama.
In those days....a relative could write up a letter detailing how so-and-so relative was crazy....then two local folks would 'swear' (full oath in front of judge), and then some judge would order the county sheriff to bring in so-and-so for a face-to-face meeting. The judge would assess the threat-level, and then make the decision to confirm that guy or gal to a real mental facility.
As my dad discussed the matter....he noted with a grin that most young folks took this as a humorous moment and joked about having such-and-such relative sent off. For folks over forty, it wasn't joked about much.
I look at the Florida shooting episode, and this punk kid, with some descriptions given of him and his behavior....and in the 1930s era, he would have been packed up at age 13/14....and likely sent off to be evaluated for a couple of months. Maybe he would have learned to grasp reality and earn his way out.....or maybe he would have stayed permanently in such a place.
In the 1950s and 1960s....everyone decided that the mental institutions were not good places, and they more or less went away. If places exist today....it's more or less a place where you go for a couple of months until they figure out the right drugs to give you.
The plain truth is....there's probably over 3,000 folks just in the state of Alabama today....who ought to be in a mental institution. If you count up folks who have made violent threats to relatives....maybe another 20,000.
Across the entire US? You could be talking about locking up 300,000 people very easily. I just don't see the public accepting that.
In those days....a relative could write up a letter detailing how so-and-so relative was crazy....then two local folks would 'swear' (full oath in front of judge), and then some judge would order the county sheriff to bring in so-and-so for a face-to-face meeting. The judge would assess the threat-level, and then make the decision to confirm that guy or gal to a real mental facility.
As my dad discussed the matter....he noted with a grin that most young folks took this as a humorous moment and joked about having such-and-such relative sent off. For folks over forty, it wasn't joked about much.
I look at the Florida shooting episode, and this punk kid, with some descriptions given of him and his behavior....and in the 1930s era, he would have been packed up at age 13/14....and likely sent off to be evaluated for a couple of months. Maybe he would have learned to grasp reality and earn his way out.....or maybe he would have stayed permanently in such a place.
In the 1950s and 1960s....everyone decided that the mental institutions were not good places, and they more or less went away. If places exist today....it's more or less a place where you go for a couple of months until they figure out the right drugs to give you.
The plain truth is....there's probably over 3,000 folks just in the state of Alabama today....who ought to be in a mental institution. If you count up folks who have made violent threats to relatives....maybe another 20,000.
Across the entire US? You could be talking about locking up 300,000 people very easily. I just don't see the public accepting that.
Saturday, 10 February 2018
The 333 Story
There is this one small detail of this story revolving now over FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page. They are both page one news, and have been so for several months.
In the texts that have been recovered and reviewed....there's this one interesting number that pops up.
The two of them....on a daily basis....averaged 333 texts total.
It means from wake-up each day (remember, they are married, but to other folks)....to evening....about every five minutes, one is sending a text to the other. Throughout the work-day, at lunch, walking between buildings or offices, etc.
You have to figure in a eight-hour day that they owed the government for their monthly pay-check....they were involved in typing a text collection for at least 90 minutes each and everyday. If you subtract lunch, coffee breaks, and the text episodes....they were basically working for four hours a day. That's it.
Each was likely making $100k a year as a GS-employee....for four hours a day of work.
Around eight years ago, I got into a discussion with a co-worker over the effect of email and automation, and we came to the conclusion (or agreement) that automation really hasn't improved the quality of work or the amount of work over the past thirty years. If anything, we seem to do less work now.
If I supervised either individual? After looking over their past behavior....I'd do everything possible to limit their access to systems and actually herd them toward productive work.
The question to ask....of the hundred-thousand folks in DC....how many of them are in a 333 text per day mentality? That's what ought to worry a lot of people
In the texts that have been recovered and reviewed....there's this one interesting number that pops up.
The two of them....on a daily basis....averaged 333 texts total.
It means from wake-up each day (remember, they are married, but to other folks)....to evening....about every five minutes, one is sending a text to the other. Throughout the work-day, at lunch, walking between buildings or offices, etc.
You have to figure in a eight-hour day that they owed the government for their monthly pay-check....they were involved in typing a text collection for at least 90 minutes each and everyday. If you subtract lunch, coffee breaks, and the text episodes....they were basically working for four hours a day. That's it.
Each was likely making $100k a year as a GS-employee....for four hours a day of work.
Around eight years ago, I got into a discussion with a co-worker over the effect of email and automation, and we came to the conclusion (or agreement) that automation really hasn't improved the quality of work or the amount of work over the past thirty years. If anything, we seem to do less work now.
If I supervised either individual? After looking over their past behavior....I'd do everything possible to limit their access to systems and actually herd them toward productive work.
The question to ask....of the hundred-thousand folks in DC....how many of them are in a 333 text per day mentality? That's what ought to worry a lot of people
Sunday, 4 February 2018
Measuring Financial Success/Failure
There are two significant factors (in my humble opinion) that tell you the story of a good year, and a bad year. They also tell you of a bad decade. Listed below are the first the CD rates since 1965, and then the GDP percentage since 1965. A lot of people have no memory of how great the GDP was in the 1970s and 1980s., nor do they realize at various times....we had CDs running at more than 8-percent.:
Year, CD, GDP
1965, 4.88-percent, 6.5-percent
1966, 6.14-percent, 6.6-percent
1967, 5.95-percent, 2.7-percent
1968, 6.39-percent, 4.9-percent
1969, 8.95-percent, 3.1-percent
1970, 9.06-percent, .2-percent
1971, 6.06-percent, 3.3-percent
1972, 5.65-percent, 5.2-percent
1973, 10.71-percent, 5.6-percent
1974, 12.06-percent, minus .5-percent
1975, 7.89-percent, minus .2-percent
1976, 6.31-percent, 5.4-percent
1977, 6.96-percent, 4.6-percent
1978, 11.28-percent, 5.6-percent
1979, 13.97-percent, 3.2-percent
1980, 17.74-percent, minus .2-percent
1981, 17.98-percent, 2.6-percent
1982, 15.12-percent, minus 1.9 percent
1983, 10.17-percent, 4.6-percent
1984, 12.08-percent, 7.3-percent
1985, 9.6-percent, 4.2-percent
1986, 7.83-percent, 3.5-percent
1987, 8.19-percent, 3.5-percent (Black Friday Year)
1988, 9.28-percent, 4.2-percent
1989, 10.40-percent, 3.7-percent
1990, 8.57-percent, 1.9-percent
1991, 7.17-percent, minus .1-percent
1992, 4.42-percent, 3.6-percent
1993, 3.39-percent, 2.7-percent
1994, 6.78-percent, 4.0-percent
1995, 6.71-percent, 2.7-percent
1996, 5.75-percent, 3.8-percent,
1997, 5.90-percent, 4.5-percent
1998, 5.67-percent, 4.5-percent
1999, 6.07-percent, 4.7-percent
2000, 6.94-percent, 4.1-percent
2001, 5.45-percent, 1.0-percent
2002, 2.16-percent, 1.8-percent
2003, 1.30-percent, 2.8-percent
2004, 2.66-percent, 3.8-percent
2005, 4.62-percent, 3.3-percent
2006, 5.54-percent, 2.7-percent
2007, 5.40-percent, 1.8-percent
2008, 4.37-percent, minus .3-percent
2009, 1.76-percent, minus 2.8 percent
2010, .75-percent, 2.5-percent
2011, .67-percent, 1.6-percent
2012, .58-percent, 2.2-percent
2013, .29-percent, 1.7-percent
2014, .13-percent, 2.6-percent
2015, .14-percent, 2.9-percent
2016, .15-percent, 1.5-percent
CD-wise, it's been crap for a decade now. The days when CDs were a minimum of 8-percent haven't been seen since 1990. The days of a four-percent or more GDP? That hasn't been seen since 2000. The GDP over a decade being four-percent or more in seven of the ten years? Well....that hasn't been seen since the late 1970s. You can dish out a lot of crap over both the Bush and Obama Administrations with the damage done.
Year, CD, GDP
1965, 4.88-percent, 6.5-percent
1966, 6.14-percent, 6.6-percent
1967, 5.95-percent, 2.7-percent
1968, 6.39-percent, 4.9-percent
1969, 8.95-percent, 3.1-percent
1970, 9.06-percent, .2-percent
1971, 6.06-percent, 3.3-percent
1972, 5.65-percent, 5.2-percent
1973, 10.71-percent, 5.6-percent
1974, 12.06-percent, minus .5-percent
1975, 7.89-percent, minus .2-percent
1976, 6.31-percent, 5.4-percent
1977, 6.96-percent, 4.6-percent
1978, 11.28-percent, 5.6-percent
1979, 13.97-percent, 3.2-percent
1980, 17.74-percent, minus .2-percent
1981, 17.98-percent, 2.6-percent
1982, 15.12-percent, minus 1.9 percent
1983, 10.17-percent, 4.6-percent
1984, 12.08-percent, 7.3-percent
1985, 9.6-percent, 4.2-percent
1986, 7.83-percent, 3.5-percent
1987, 8.19-percent, 3.5-percent (Black Friday Year)
1988, 9.28-percent, 4.2-percent
1989, 10.40-percent, 3.7-percent
1990, 8.57-percent, 1.9-percent
1991, 7.17-percent, minus .1-percent
1992, 4.42-percent, 3.6-percent
1993, 3.39-percent, 2.7-percent
1994, 6.78-percent, 4.0-percent
1995, 6.71-percent, 2.7-percent
1996, 5.75-percent, 3.8-percent,
1997, 5.90-percent, 4.5-percent
1998, 5.67-percent, 4.5-percent
1999, 6.07-percent, 4.7-percent
2000, 6.94-percent, 4.1-percent
2001, 5.45-percent, 1.0-percent
2002, 2.16-percent, 1.8-percent
2003, 1.30-percent, 2.8-percent
2004, 2.66-percent, 3.8-percent
2005, 4.62-percent, 3.3-percent
2006, 5.54-percent, 2.7-percent
2007, 5.40-percent, 1.8-percent
2008, 4.37-percent, minus .3-percent
2009, 1.76-percent, minus 2.8 percent
2010, .75-percent, 2.5-percent
2011, .67-percent, 1.6-percent
2012, .58-percent, 2.2-percent
2013, .29-percent, 1.7-percent
2014, .13-percent, 2.6-percent
2015, .14-percent, 2.9-percent
2016, .15-percent, 1.5-percent
CD-wise, it's been crap for a decade now. The days when CDs were a minimum of 8-percent haven't been seen since 1990. The days of a four-percent or more GDP? That hasn't been seen since 2000. The GDP over a decade being four-percent or more in seven of the ten years? Well....that hasn't been seen since the late 1970s. You can dish out a lot of crap over both the Bush and Obama Administrations with the damage done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)