Days of Our Lives Chatter

Years ago, in my Panama tour (mid-80s)....for some odd reason, I got into soap operas.....namely, 'Days of Our Lives'.  This is when video-tape rentals were big and you could show up on a Friday after work, and rent an entire week's worth of the show to watch over Saturday and Sunday. 

At the end of that tour....I quit the habit, and frankly didn't care what happened to 'Patch' and 'Kayla'. 

I noticed in today's news that Days of Our Lives had this little meeting with the contract folks, and they basically released ALL of the cast (probably up to around 30 people in the primary group, and another twenty who would occasionally show up for some storyline).

Yep....the contracts ended. 

So what the business side says is that they have canned episodes to actually carry the show up to mid-summer 2020.  Normally, they'd restart the shooting around Feb/Mar timeframe, but they aren't saying much.  The bosses say.....they'd really like to continue, but the idea is....the cast would have to come in and talk over their contracts. 

My humble guess is that the production folks would like to cut the contracts by some magic amount (maybe 20-percent).  My other humble guess is that at least one-third of the cast will walk away and refuse to work for less. 

Some folks (journalists who chat over the show).....suggest that maybe the entire cast would walk away, and they'd just go hire 30 new people off the street, and reset the whole storyline.  Could they even reset the city of 'Salem'?   Maybe.

I often wondered why you had to do the series in Hollywood.  You could have picked some southern town, and just set up a production warehouse, and hire forty-odd wannabe-actors for various roles.  You could have cut the costs by fifty-percent. 

So, bold new world coming to Days of Our Lives.....or maybe even the end of the series entirely. 

The Whistle-Blower Problem

For at least two months now, folks are consumed....24 hours a day.....with this topic of the whistler-blower, and the 'mystery' that it entails.

So folks are hyped up....especially journalists, on getting the identity a secret.  Twenty years ago?  The name would have been out in the public in less than 72 hours.  So this is rather odd....how this game is being played.

Would I be in trouble if I released the name?  Yeah, probably.  But this brings up the question....how would I know? 

In fact, there's 99.999 percent of the public who have no idea who the whistle-blower is.  Unless you sat on the committee in the House.....you should have no idea. 

So when this journalist stands up on Fox News and says 'X' is the whistle-blower.....how does she know?  Did someone in the House leak it?  More than likely. 

It's a funny history drama because in the 1990s....over forty different news organizations, and newspapers....would have detailed reporters, and found out the name in a short-period of time.  Today?  Virtually nothing.  It's like they fired all the investigative journalists and just stopped that whole process.  The original guys from 60 Minutes?  They have to be flipping over in their graves....nothing gets reported unless it's bless by political agenda experts. 

Where Has This Guy Been?

"A society, a democracy, can die of too many lies — and we’re getting close to that terminal moment unless we reverse the obsession with lies that are being fed around the country.”

-- Bill Moyers

Well, here's the problem....he should have made this statement back in the 1990s.....when the lying business started up and people were questioning all the hype by journalists and strategy groups.

Maybe Moyers just woke up in the past two years, but this whole 'game' has been on turbo for roughly 30 to 40 years. 

Today?  It's reached the stage where most newspapers and news magazines are worthless.  CNN?  Their audience has dwindled down to almost nothing.  NPR and AP?  People actually laugh at the current emphasis of their news production. 

I'd Like to Save the World

Around a decade ago, the Japanese national airline....Nippon....started this short-lived effort to save on carbon emissions.

Their idea....while you were lining up to board the plane....they wanted you to go over to the bathroom, and try hard to discharge urine.

The idea was, with empty bladders....there would be lighter passengers onboard, and it'd save on fuel and carbon usage.

It was not exactly something that captivated the public.  If you did the math and figured 250-odd people on the plane....maybe you'd save around 40 to 50 pounds of urine. 

If you studied the concept, it would provoke other thoughts. Like for example....before you board a ferry....should you dump your load of pee?  Or if you were on the ground-floor of a building....shouldn't you pee before entering an elevator? 

What about city buses?  Shouldn't you go behind the waiting point (into the bushes) and pee there....before boarding the bus, thus saving carbon there?  What about the trip via your car to four grocery stops....shouldn't you pee before entering the car for each part of the trouble? 

I figure in a 365-day 'year', if I aggressively peed when necessary....it might make a world of difference on fuel usage.  I'd just call it....'peeing to save the world'. 

Bloomberg in the Mix

What's been said now....papers have been filed in Alabama (Super-Tuesday event) for Bloomberg to be on the ballot.  No one says anything about Iowa's caucuses, or the primaries in Nevada, South Carolina or New Hampshire (the first primary states).

So he's participating, but in a different sense.

Skipping the first four?  This sounds like the Jeb Bush strategy and how he was going to prevent a sure-fire winner before the convention, and the convention would end up making a decision on it's own.

Looking at Super-Tuesday....some things stand out.

Alabama:  Right now, from the present group.....no one is standing out, although Warren might get up around 25-to-30 percent.  Bloomberg?  I don't think he can do much in the state.

Arkansas: Pretty much the same story.

California: Bloomberg could win in this state.

Colorado:  Mayor Pete win likely.

Massachusetts: Likely win for Bloomberg.

Minnesota: Biden win.

North Carolina: Biden win.

Oklahoma: Biden win.

Tennessee: Biden win.

Texas: Biden win.

Utah: Biden win.

Vermont: Likely win for Bloomberg.

Virginia: Very likely a win for Bloomberg.

So with four potential wins on this day, it's not anything remarkable, and simply setting up the stage for a convention 'pick' situation.

The real question is.....if the convention picks Bloomberg, and he selects Warren as the VP.....what the odds now?

Bloomberg won't discuss the Medicare for all business.  There's no real theme to attract black voters.  And there's the age factor (he's 78 in Feb of next year).  The best odds that I'd give him is that he'd win the same twenty states that Hillary won in 2016, and maybe Florida.  So it might be slightly closer this time around.

I will say this....it's too bad he didn't run in 2016.  That would have made the election more interesting, and he might have been able to beat Trump in that race.

Bring on Kanye

It came up late yesterday....that Kanye West is talking about running for President in 2024.

He's not saying as a Democrat or Republican....which is kinda interesting.

So lets dive into the odds here and the strategy.

If I were Kanye....I'd make it a public situation, and work like Trump to get donations via the general public.  He might be willing to throw 20-million of his money into this, and maybe get 100-million via the public in the first initial wave. 

Running in primaries?  No, don't declare for either party, and just stay away from debates.

Running a fifty-state election?  No....he really only needs to run a 10 to 12 state elections (Hawaii, Cal, Oregon, Washington, with four southern states, and maybe Michigan, Maryland, and Illinois). 

His intention should be getting black votes, and angry Republican/Democrat votes.  Just in California alone, I think he could win the state.  The rest are all fifty-fifty chance opportunities.  But by just taking three states (particularly California)....neither of the other two will have the 270 votes needed to win.

A crazy scenario?  Oh yes, but here's the thing....the news media and social media have made us this crazy.  A growing number of people are just fed up with the comical storylines that we are fed each day.  So Kanye will be this response to the frustration. 

In this scenario, the Electoral College will fail to deliver a President, and the House will be handed the election....to find itself deeply divided and unable to reach any true conclusion.   At that point, you will realize that the system is truly broke.  President Kanye will never happen, but he'll demonstrate just how screwed up the whole political spectrum has become. 

Tucson and Sanctuary City Status

Well, the election occurred yesterday, and this proposition was on the ballot.

Against - 79 percent.  For - 21 percent.

A strong signal?  Here's the big factor, this was a mayor and city council election.....without state officials or the Presidency on the ballot.  So a lot of people just said it was not worth showing up.  Who did show up?  I would go and suggest that more than half of the voters were mostly over the age of 50.  If this had been done in November 2020's election?  I think it would have been closer to 50-50.

But Tucson has a unique situation in that a large amount of the population is 55 or older.  Sanctuary status isn't exactly something that thrills that particular population. 

In most cities, I suspect if you allowed public voting to occur....Sanctuary status would be voted down.  The negative holding it back?  It means you are holding the local police to a standard, and saying that that state or federal laws don't matter.  It's a bad habit to start, and you can't be sure where it'd end.