I worked with a guy two decades ago who went back to the US on a vacation with his wife, to visit her relatives for a full two weeks. Upon returning to base, we got into a light discussion, and he described the woeful experience of fishing with his father-in-law. I should note that he'd never fished in his life.
This all-day fishing expedition had been discussed for three or four days in advance....hyped up to the maximum. They would arise at near 4:00....have a full-up breakfast, and be on the road by 5 AM. The boat would launch near 6 AM.
My associate went through the pre-plan, the loading of gear, and the various items which had to be fully prepared and placed upon the boat. This was one of those mid-range river fishing boats, with the bells and whistles.
Mid-summer, the heat reached near 95-degrees by noon. It was hot, humid and miserable.
The chatter on the boat went on and on....about past fishing trips....fishing with such-and-such lures....the best bait....personal habits of trout versus catfish, and long discussions about such-and-such friend who'd fallen into misfortune with his wife or girlfriend.
Around mid-afternoon, they returned to the dock....loaded the truck back up, and proceed home. Their entire take for the day were three measly fish.
It was referred to as a trip with high expectations, and in the end....it really wasn't worth discussing. I asked if he'd ever return for a second fishing trip, and the answer was an absolute 'no'.
In a way, this chatter and hyped-up sense about impeachment runs the same route. When you reach some stage where you think it might go into second-gear, I think reality will set in when people realize that there just won't be enough Senators to carry this 'limp fish expedition' to the dock.
Some folks will stand there and ask....how did they ever go and get so convinced of something of a marginal or non-existent quality.....then gaze back over to the journalists and realize that they were a bit fraudulent.
The ability of the news media to carry this any further in a negative way? No. At that point, the chatter basically ends, and everyone has a good laugh over the bias nature of things.
Saturday, 25 August 2018
Nine Weeks Until The Election
My ten observations:
1. There is NO blue wave coming. At best, I would suggest that three GOP House seats and one Senate seat are taken by the Democrats. But I would go and suggest at least one Democratic House seat to be taken, and maybe five Democratic Senate seats to be taken by the Republicans.
2. McCain will pass from this Earth within the next four weeks. The AZ governor, I suspect, will select himself to be the replacement. I know some folks are thinking McCain's wife will be picked, but I just don't see that happening.
3. I think the two big shocks will be: Missouri's McCaskill and Michigan's Stabenow. Both will be edged out. No one would have predicted that two years ago.
4. CNN and MSNBC will be sitting there on 7 November, and trying to explain how the GOP won the seats (potentially in the Senate, there might be ten Democratic seats won).
5. A Democratic meeting will be held in the month after the election, and the realization that they've expended a tremendous amount of 'talk' and gotten nowhere.
6. Black votes will matter in this election, and a shift of 25-percent of the votes will go to the GOP. In some states, it won't matter. In states like Missouri and Michigan....it'll matter.
7. If the Republicans are in the 60-range of Senate seats in January, you can anticipate a long list of things to be laid out for goals in 2019.
8. Where are the Russians? Where is the meddling?
9. The 2020 effect? It's a race in the Senate with most of the races being Republican-held seats. The odds are heavily in favor of them holding those seats, and even competing heavily in seven-plus races where the Democrats hold the Senate seats. Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to face a real candidate, and he can't show much on accomplishments to retain the seat.
10. The Democrats need a total rebuild, and I doubt if they have the bold leadership to accomplish that.
1. There is NO blue wave coming. At best, I would suggest that three GOP House seats and one Senate seat are taken by the Democrats. But I would go and suggest at least one Democratic House seat to be taken, and maybe five Democratic Senate seats to be taken by the Republicans.
2. McCain will pass from this Earth within the next four weeks. The AZ governor, I suspect, will select himself to be the replacement. I know some folks are thinking McCain's wife will be picked, but I just don't see that happening.
3. I think the two big shocks will be: Missouri's McCaskill and Michigan's Stabenow. Both will be edged out. No one would have predicted that two years ago.
4. CNN and MSNBC will be sitting there on 7 November, and trying to explain how the GOP won the seats (potentially in the Senate, there might be ten Democratic seats won).
5. A Democratic meeting will be held in the month after the election, and the realization that they've expended a tremendous amount of 'talk' and gotten nowhere.
6. Black votes will matter in this election, and a shift of 25-percent of the votes will go to the GOP. In some states, it won't matter. In states like Missouri and Michigan....it'll matter.
7. If the Republicans are in the 60-range of Senate seats in January, you can anticipate a long list of things to be laid out for goals in 2019.
8. Where are the Russians? Where is the meddling?
9. The 2020 effect? It's a race in the Senate with most of the races being Republican-held seats. The odds are heavily in favor of them holding those seats, and even competing heavily in seven-plus races where the Democrats hold the Senate seats. Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to face a real candidate, and he can't show much on accomplishments to retain the seat.
10. The Democrats need a total rebuild, and I doubt if they have the bold leadership to accomplish that.
Friday, 24 August 2018
Selling Socialism
I had a political professor once (remember, I only attended night school where you got some of the unusual professors)....who got onto the topic of socialism and suggested there were three layers. There was absolute socialism (which never flourishes or exists in reality). Then you had hybrid-socialism (which was mostly capitalism, with enough taxation to gift out socialism things to people). And then you had fake hybrid-socialism where you taxed enough to gift out socialism things, but you corrupted the system enough that only special people got the gifts.
It was one of those evenings where you left class and spent an hour pondering over what was said.
I see a lot of salesmanship going on with socialism today, and folks trying hype up the 'gift-giving' business to the extent that everyone could be happy. It's like some newly blended ice cream that folks never ask about the ingredients, or the nutritional value.
Throughout the 1800s....on several occasions in America....plain and absolute socialism was attempted. In one case, tons of money was poured into the foundation to jump-start the system, and the belief was that once things got going....the money business could be halted and the system would sustain itself. Well....in each and every case (even the episode with tons of money).....each came to a clear end. Some took well over a decade, but none could sustain themselves.
The general failure? Generally, it was a human condition that we'd call 'expectations'. When people walk into a deal like this.....they have this idea in their head. It's like when you walk into a Hooters-joint. You expect booby-gals, fatty food, great taste to the food, and a particular cost level. If the food failed, or the beer was awful, or the bill added up to three times what you expected.....then Hooters would not work.
So the general method to making hybrid-socialism work? You have to allow capitalism to function for the most part, with a few controls to suggest that you are in charge or maintaining the 'system'. You tax virtually everything, and as the money flows back into the pot.....you have some 'Larry-guy' standing there with a list of things that make people happy. Naturally, you can't have free-beer, free-muffins, or free-vacations. But you can have money poured into poverty-projects, bridges, tram-lines that have zero return value, and fund spacious airports in the middle of nowhere.
The fake-hybrid-socialism system? The chief place today where you see it is Venezuela. The problem in this case is that you micromanaged the capitalistic system so much....that you can't even rely upon the local grocery to have toilet paper, ketchup, or watermelons. So when people come to you, and kinda expect your fake system to deploy to full capability, your response is that it's on full-turbo power, and it won't get much better.
As for the college kids who hyped-up and enthusiastic about socialism? They seem to be stuck on some fantasy-world that professor so-and-so describes but no one has actually been there or seen that. It's like that Star Trek series where people talk about Kilo-9 or the dark-planet (a fictional place), but they talking like it's potentially there.
In their mind, socialism is kind of an image of Disneyland, and it's all wonderful, free, and abundant in nature.
It was one of those evenings where you left class and spent an hour pondering over what was said.
I see a lot of salesmanship going on with socialism today, and folks trying hype up the 'gift-giving' business to the extent that everyone could be happy. It's like some newly blended ice cream that folks never ask about the ingredients, or the nutritional value.
Throughout the 1800s....on several occasions in America....plain and absolute socialism was attempted. In one case, tons of money was poured into the foundation to jump-start the system, and the belief was that once things got going....the money business could be halted and the system would sustain itself. Well....in each and every case (even the episode with tons of money).....each came to a clear end. Some took well over a decade, but none could sustain themselves.
The general failure? Generally, it was a human condition that we'd call 'expectations'. When people walk into a deal like this.....they have this idea in their head. It's like when you walk into a Hooters-joint. You expect booby-gals, fatty food, great taste to the food, and a particular cost level. If the food failed, or the beer was awful, or the bill added up to three times what you expected.....then Hooters would not work.
So the general method to making hybrid-socialism work? You have to allow capitalism to function for the most part, with a few controls to suggest that you are in charge or maintaining the 'system'. You tax virtually everything, and as the money flows back into the pot.....you have some 'Larry-guy' standing there with a list of things that make people happy. Naturally, you can't have free-beer, free-muffins, or free-vacations. But you can have money poured into poverty-projects, bridges, tram-lines that have zero return value, and fund spacious airports in the middle of nowhere.
The fake-hybrid-socialism system? The chief place today where you see it is Venezuela. The problem in this case is that you micromanaged the capitalistic system so much....that you can't even rely upon the local grocery to have toilet paper, ketchup, or watermelons. So when people come to you, and kinda expect your fake system to deploy to full capability, your response is that it's on full-turbo power, and it won't get much better.
As for the college kids who hyped-up and enthusiastic about socialism? They seem to be stuck on some fantasy-world that professor so-and-so describes but no one has actually been there or seen that. It's like that Star Trek series where people talk about Kilo-9 or the dark-planet (a fictional place), but they talking like it's potentially there.
In their mind, socialism is kind of an image of Disneyland, and it's all wonderful, free, and abundant in nature.
The 'Poop' Job
There's a piece off 'Hotair' that I read today....discussing San Francisco and the 'crap' on the streets. Someone did the research and found that the city funds a fairly large group of street cleaners with a special mission to do the 'poop' clean-up business of the homeless crowd.
The pay-level? That's what interested me.
They actually pay near $72,000 a year, for each person on the patrol. Then you get medical benefits, retirement, etc. All total? The city says near $185,000 per person.
It's an amazing amount of money. Course, you have to wear the bio-hazard gear.....tote around various hoses all day (it's probably sweaty work), and you have the potential to get into some stinky business. But here's the thing....you can probably retire by age fifty and collect at least $40,000 a year. Off that, in Tennessee.....you could live a pretty decent retirement.....having cleaned up 'crap' your entire life.
The pay-level? That's what interested me.
They actually pay near $72,000 a year, for each person on the patrol. Then you get medical benefits, retirement, etc. All total? The city says near $185,000 per person.
It's an amazing amount of money. Course, you have to wear the bio-hazard gear.....tote around various hoses all day (it's probably sweaty work), and you have the potential to get into some stinky business. But here's the thing....you can probably retire by age fifty and collect at least $40,000 a year. Off that, in Tennessee.....you could live a pretty decent retirement.....having cleaned up 'crap' your entire life.
Thursday, 23 August 2018
KKK, Then and Now
I'm often amused how journalists get wrapped up on the KKK-topic and they want you to put this topic in your top hundred things to worry about. So this is one of those historical essays I write....to establish some true basis of understanding.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
Watergate?
I sat there today and watched through about 60 minutes of news coverage over the past three days.....where the term 'Watergate was mentioned at least twenty times. Watergate-this, and Watergate-that.
I admit I am nearing 60 years old and have some memory of the period, the activity, the characters, and downfall of Nixon.
But here's the thing. I suspect that two-thirds of the nation has virtually NO MEMORY of Watergate, and this hype? It'd doing absolutely nothing.
Some folks are probably sitting there and thinking Watergate was some dam structure which collapsed in 1913 in Arkansas, or it was a Detroit car model that was made for one brief year, or that it was a blonde gal from Tulsa who went by the name 'Henny' Watergate and she did some wild topless dancing in the 1970s.
The use of these 1970s journalists? Being dragged out and propped up for some twelve-minute lecture about something that no one really remembers? Well....that's the problem. They might as well be Detroit Lion coaches, Seattle city council members, or famous Mexican comedians.
By the middle of next week...some intellectual guy will meet up with the CNN, NPR, and CBS crowd.....discussing the discovery that the term 'Watergate' really is a mystery to two-thirds of the nation and maybe there needs to be another angle to destroying Trump (maybe connecting him to a UFO theorist group or a Swedish opera singer with Russian family connections).
Here's the funny thing.....more people can name women 'loved' on by Bill Clinton.....than Republican guys who 'fell' during the Watergate era. That ought to worry the Democrats greatly.
I admit I am nearing 60 years old and have some memory of the period, the activity, the characters, and downfall of Nixon.
But here's the thing. I suspect that two-thirds of the nation has virtually NO MEMORY of Watergate, and this hype? It'd doing absolutely nothing.
Some folks are probably sitting there and thinking Watergate was some dam structure which collapsed in 1913 in Arkansas, or it was a Detroit car model that was made for one brief year, or that it was a blonde gal from Tulsa who went by the name 'Henny' Watergate and she did some wild topless dancing in the 1970s.
The use of these 1970s journalists? Being dragged out and propped up for some twelve-minute lecture about something that no one really remembers? Well....that's the problem. They might as well be Detroit Lion coaches, Seattle city council members, or famous Mexican comedians.
By the middle of next week...some intellectual guy will meet up with the CNN, NPR, and CBS crowd.....discussing the discovery that the term 'Watergate' really is a mystery to two-thirds of the nation and maybe there needs to be another angle to destroying Trump (maybe connecting him to a UFO theorist group or a Swedish opera singer with Russian family connections).
Here's the funny thing.....more people can name women 'loved' on by Bill Clinton.....than Republican guys who 'fell' during the Watergate era. That ought to worry the Democrats greatly.
NFL
I should note, I just don't care much for the NFL, and have been that way for a couple of years. The kneeling business simply wrapped up the last bit of enthusiasm I had.
I noticed today that teams are a bit worried over fan numbers and filling seats as the season starts up, and they've gone to a new tactic.....heavily discounting beer and food prices. Course, this cuts into profits but the desperation is starting to show.
If the attendance or viewing numbers don't return to a norm? Most journalists were trying to tell a story in the late fall of 2017 that this was a temp thing, and it would return to normal. Why they choose that wording? Unknown.
The brand? It's in a freefall type situation and no one that you can readily identify for blame. If you were a owner of a billion-dollar club, and your profits were 20-percent off the norm....you'd be upset. You'd like to fire someone. But in this case.....you can't.
The camera guys? They likely have orders to avoid any camera display of empty seats. So every image will be selected carefully and the majority of camera footage will be of the field itself. The fact that 10,000 seats might be empty? It won't be discussed.
Bars that used to make big money off Monday night football? They would likely be looking for an alternate angle now.
At the bottom of this whole thing are college kids looking at the pay-dynamics and realizing that somewhere in the next year or two....there's going to be some shift in pay, and it won't be positive.
I noticed today that teams are a bit worried over fan numbers and filling seats as the season starts up, and they've gone to a new tactic.....heavily discounting beer and food prices. Course, this cuts into profits but the desperation is starting to show.
If the attendance or viewing numbers don't return to a norm? Most journalists were trying to tell a story in the late fall of 2017 that this was a temp thing, and it would return to normal. Why they choose that wording? Unknown.
The brand? It's in a freefall type situation and no one that you can readily identify for blame. If you were a owner of a billion-dollar club, and your profits were 20-percent off the norm....you'd be upset. You'd like to fire someone. But in this case.....you can't.
The camera guys? They likely have orders to avoid any camera display of empty seats. So every image will be selected carefully and the majority of camera footage will be of the field itself. The fact that 10,000 seats might be empty? It won't be discussed.
Bars that used to make big money off Monday night football? They would likely be looking for an alternate angle now.
At the bottom of this whole thing are college kids looking at the pay-dynamics and realizing that somewhere in the next year or two....there's going to be some shift in pay, and it won't be positive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)