It costs (between fees, tuition, room, board, meals, beer money, gas money, clothing, etc) around $32,000 a year to attend the University of Tennessee. So you look at the kid, at age 18, and even if you were devoted to your son/daughter.....the idea of funding them for $130,000 over four years? It'd drive you nuts.
If there came any hint of boozing up, missing classes, or some whacked-out relationship ruining their attitude about school, most folks would blow-up and get highly frustrated over the situation.
This is one of the little issues that never get discussed.
What if the kid wasn't all that enthusiastic over their degree choice, or felt 'lost' after twelve months of college? What if the kid was consuming two cases of beer weekly by the end of the first semester? What if the kid had picked a class with some nutcase professor, and almost a thousand dollars was wasted on knowledge material that was worthless? What if the kid went through some dramatic break-up with some honky-tonk gal, and lost all desire to finish up the degree?
A lot has changed since the 1970s, and this one issue....the current cost of a college degree, has reached the level where you have to stand there with 'Junior' and ask forty questions over their choice of a college, and sixty questions over their choice of a degree, then every month you have to ask about partying, boozing, and attendance in class. It's become like buying a $90,000 BMW sports car, or spending $30,000 for a championship horse.
Thursday, 18 April 2019
The Marginalized Time
I don't read Time magazine anymore. It's been fifteen years since I last picked it up (at an airport), and if you go back over 25 years....I've read less than six editions. As a kid, I probably picked it up at least once or twice a month. My take is that it basically ran out of 'value' somewhere in the late 1990s, and people started to quote or talk about their articles....less and less. Part of this problem was the arrival of CNN, and part of it due to articles being written in a way to 'bait' you.
I would take a guess that you could go into a small southern town of 2,000 folks, and find fewer than twenty subscriptions today from the residents. It's virtually guaranteed that the doctor or dentist of the town will subscribe, and the local high school will be getting a copy. Beyond that, it's of limited value.
I noted some news source from today quoted up the newest Time 'article'....they'd gone and selected their one-hundred folks from around the globe who are the most influential. Curiously,Justice Kavanaugh made it on the list, and the gal who accused him of rape/sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, also made it on the list.
You could throw the picture of Kavaugh and Ford up on the wall with 98 others, and ask folks to identify it. I doubt if you could get more than 5-percent of people who identify both of them. If you asked folks if they were 'influential'? I suspect the vast majority would start laughing and question how you'd make up such a list. In the minds of most, their local pharmacy guy, or car-mechanic guy are more influential than Ford or Kavanaugh.
Was the 'deck' stacked when this influential list was cranked out? One might suspect that. But does it even matter? Are there even any readers consumed with knowing the influential hundred, or for that matter reading Time on a regular basis? I have my doubts. Maybe it is still the number one magazine for dental waiting rooms, or tire shops....but beyond that, does anyone quote them anymore?
I would take a guess that you could go into a small southern town of 2,000 folks, and find fewer than twenty subscriptions today from the residents. It's virtually guaranteed that the doctor or dentist of the town will subscribe, and the local high school will be getting a copy. Beyond that, it's of limited value.
I noted some news source from today quoted up the newest Time 'article'....they'd gone and selected their one-hundred folks from around the globe who are the most influential. Curiously,Justice Kavanaugh made it on the list, and the gal who accused him of rape/sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, also made it on the list.
You could throw the picture of Kavaugh and Ford up on the wall with 98 others, and ask folks to identify it. I doubt if you could get more than 5-percent of people who identify both of them. If you asked folks if they were 'influential'? I suspect the vast majority would start laughing and question how you'd make up such a list. In the minds of most, their local pharmacy guy, or car-mechanic guy are more influential than Ford or Kavanaugh.
Was the 'deck' stacked when this influential list was cranked out? One might suspect that. But does it even matter? Are there even any readers consumed with knowing the influential hundred, or for that matter reading Time on a regular basis? I have my doubts. Maybe it is still the number one magazine for dental waiting rooms, or tire shops....but beyond that, does anyone quote them anymore?
Tuesday, 16 April 2019
Did President Obama's Team Spying on Trump Matter?
No. This is the sad and simple truth.
There is no doubt that various wiretap warrants were accomplished and hundreds of man-hours spent on collection of information. And in the end, it really didn't matter....they couldn't figure out how to rig the system, with the data collected.
This is the comical side of President Obama's team....so much capability, and nothing to hinder voters in the end. Even the idea of using this to take him down in 2017 or 2018? That was a joke.
If you sit and think about this long enough, it really demonstrates the junior league capability of the team around President Obama, and their willingness to do stupid things, that had no value in the end. You'd almost equate them as being at the same level as some Bolivian secret-spy ring....spying on Chile.
There is no doubt that various wiretap warrants were accomplished and hundreds of man-hours spent on collection of information. And in the end, it really didn't matter....they couldn't figure out how to rig the system, with the data collected.
This is the comical side of President Obama's team....so much capability, and nothing to hinder voters in the end. Even the idea of using this to take him down in 2017 or 2018? That was a joke.
If you sit and think about this long enough, it really demonstrates the junior league capability of the team around President Obama, and their willingness to do stupid things, that had no value in the end. You'd almost equate them as being at the same level as some Bolivian secret-spy ring....spying on Chile.
On Victimhood
Victimhood came up yesterday....mostly because of a reaction by my brother over the various ways that victims are counted today.
I sat and pondered upon victimhood. When I was a kid (1976), I viewed victimhood as version 1.0. This meant I knew of four versions. The first was anybody who'd been in a car accident and toted-off to the hospital (if you limped away, it wasn't real victimhood). The second was any family who'd allow their nephew or cousin to do electrical wiring, and their house had burned down. The third was any gal who'd married off to Army guy in the 1969-to-1972 period, and he didn't make it back from Nam. The final category was any guy who'd fallen off the loft of a barn and broke up some ribs or bones from the impact, or been chased down by a bull and been stomped upon.
I came to version 2.0 of victimhood after a decade in the Air Force. Here, I found more versions. The first was any guy or gal who'd spouse had gone off 'whoring', and gotten divorced. The second was any individual who'd bought a Chrysler K-Car (which was worthless from the minute you drove it off the lot). The third was folks who'd gotten in serious alcohol consumption, and couldn't make it more than eight hours without a drink. The fourth included folks who'd been encouraged to get an operation, and found that it made their health situation worse than when they started out.
Along about 2005, I came to version 3.0 of victimhood. This included four groups. The first was guys who'd gotten tick-bit, and spent months in some recovery phase. The second was women I worked with who'd gone and lost 75 pounds to please their husband....then found that the husband left them for a hefty new girlfriend. The third included guys who'd spent $75k for a degree that was utterly worthless. The fourth included folks who'd financially gotten themselves into some $200,000 debt situation.
Around 2012, I came to version 4.0 of victimhood. The new victims were any black (successful or otherwise), any Latino (successful or otherwise), any trans-person (successful or otherwise), any fat person (successful or otherwise), anyone who suffered from the 2016 election, any college kid having a panic attack or anxiety event, etc.
Potentially, after 2012...one out of every six people that I bumped into while walking around America, was a victim. Some people didn't even know they were victims, and even if you told them they were victims....they just didn't portray the correct behavior.
The best way of resolving this? Make everyone a victim....farmers, Mennonites, used-car salesmen, professional wrestlers, shrimp fishermen, mailmen, magicians, meth-addicted folks, millionaires, etc.
Somewhere out there today....is the victim-President-to-be, waiting for his or her chance....to assume the post of President-of-the-victims.
I sat and pondered upon victimhood. When I was a kid (1976), I viewed victimhood as version 1.0. This meant I knew of four versions. The first was anybody who'd been in a car accident and toted-off to the hospital (if you limped away, it wasn't real victimhood). The second was any family who'd allow their nephew or cousin to do electrical wiring, and their house had burned down. The third was any gal who'd married off to Army guy in the 1969-to-1972 period, and he didn't make it back from Nam. The final category was any guy who'd fallen off the loft of a barn and broke up some ribs or bones from the impact, or been chased down by a bull and been stomped upon.
I came to version 2.0 of victimhood after a decade in the Air Force. Here, I found more versions. The first was any guy or gal who'd spouse had gone off 'whoring', and gotten divorced. The second was any individual who'd bought a Chrysler K-Car (which was worthless from the minute you drove it off the lot). The third was folks who'd gotten in serious alcohol consumption, and couldn't make it more than eight hours without a drink. The fourth included folks who'd been encouraged to get an operation, and found that it made their health situation worse than when they started out.
Along about 2005, I came to version 3.0 of victimhood. This included four groups. The first was guys who'd gotten tick-bit, and spent months in some recovery phase. The second was women I worked with who'd gone and lost 75 pounds to please their husband....then found that the husband left them for a hefty new girlfriend. The third included guys who'd spent $75k for a degree that was utterly worthless. The fourth included folks who'd financially gotten themselves into some $200,000 debt situation.
Around 2012, I came to version 4.0 of victimhood. The new victims were any black (successful or otherwise), any Latino (successful or otherwise), any trans-person (successful or otherwise), any fat person (successful or otherwise), anyone who suffered from the 2016 election, any college kid having a panic attack or anxiety event, etc.
Potentially, after 2012...one out of every six people that I bumped into while walking around America, was a victim. Some people didn't even know they were victims, and even if you told them they were victims....they just didn't portray the correct behavior.
The best way of resolving this? Make everyone a victim....farmers, Mennonites, used-car salesmen, professional wrestlers, shrimp fishermen, mailmen, magicians, meth-addicted folks, millionaires, etc.
Somewhere out there today....is the victim-President-to-be, waiting for his or her chance....to assume the post of President-of-the-victims.
Sunday, 14 April 2019
Signing Up to be a Sanctuary City
At some point around 1985, San Francisco became the first city in America to 'sign up' and transform itself into a Sanctuary City. Basically, it was like a contract situation....they more or less promised....to stand by and protect asylum seekers and migrants. It was a proud brand situation....at least in the minds of the city officials. Cost? Well....that's the curious thing. You can go back to 1985 and between the signs, the public advertisements, and I doubt that the city spent more than $100,000 for the privilege of being a Sanctuary City.
Today, if you go and view the landscape, there are at least one-hundred cities, counties, or regions....which identify with the brand....Sanctuary City.
Average cost? It's fairly cheap because you aren't doing that much to convey the message. Yes, it's mostly talk.
Sanctuary Cities in the south? I don't think there are more than four in the general dozen southern states....the most widely identified city is Austin, TX.
So, you need to ask yourself....if Trump's team did go and dump 3,000 illegals into San Francisco, 8,000 illegals into Austin, or 1,500 illegals into Seattle....would the cost factor then change? The simple and short answer? Yes. They'd have to react, and police over-time pay, along with creating temporary residences....would all start to get into the $10-million per quarter range or more. The lack of new jobs to support the illegals? That would very quickly become a discussed topic. You really do need welders, carpenters, and HVAC technicians.....but these folks coming in....are mostly burger-flipper types.
This whole thing has become like a poker game where some guy has not just doubled down on faking people out....but actually tripled or quadrupled-down. Those other folks at the table (the Sanctuary City folks) just never thought about the end-result to their game.
What this does for 2019? Well, if you were living in these cities affected and suddenly realized the stupidity of your leadership.....how would you react in the election period of 2020? Would you fire your mayor or city council?
For the past four decades, no one ever asked the right questions about branding yourself a Sanctuary City. They just felt it sounded really bold and 'strong'. Now? Well, it's not so bold, and you actually create a false reality by accepting this brand.
Today, if you go and view the landscape, there are at least one-hundred cities, counties, or regions....which identify with the brand....Sanctuary City.
Average cost? It's fairly cheap because you aren't doing that much to convey the message. Yes, it's mostly talk.
Sanctuary Cities in the south? I don't think there are more than four in the general dozen southern states....the most widely identified city is Austin, TX.
So, you need to ask yourself....if Trump's team did go and dump 3,000 illegals into San Francisco, 8,000 illegals into Austin, or 1,500 illegals into Seattle....would the cost factor then change? The simple and short answer? Yes. They'd have to react, and police over-time pay, along with creating temporary residences....would all start to get into the $10-million per quarter range or more. The lack of new jobs to support the illegals? That would very quickly become a discussed topic. You really do need welders, carpenters, and HVAC technicians.....but these folks coming in....are mostly burger-flipper types.
This whole thing has become like a poker game where some guy has not just doubled down on faking people out....but actually tripled or quadrupled-down. Those other folks at the table (the Sanctuary City folks) just never thought about the end-result to their game.
What this does for 2019? Well, if you were living in these cities affected and suddenly realized the stupidity of your leadership.....how would you react in the election period of 2020? Would you fire your mayor or city council?
For the past four decades, no one ever asked the right questions about branding yourself a Sanctuary City. They just felt it sounded really bold and 'strong'. Now? Well, it's not so bold, and you actually create a false reality by accepting this brand.
Saturday, 13 April 2019
Discussing 'Dumping'
This past week, it came out that the Trump team had discussed this idea of releasing illegals who'd entered the country.....into San Francisco (a sanctuary city). Who released it? Unknown. Had they discussed the idea? Yes, apparently so. So seven observations over this:
1. It's not illegal. You can dump them into virtually any state or city. Maybe some Democrats would like to write a law to prevent that, but I'm guessing they'd prefer this story disappear rather quickly.
2. What if you did dump 300 illegals every other day into San Francisco? Who says that the city isn't already, without Trump's help....receiving 4,500 illegals every month?
3. As long as they were Latinos, does anyone care? What if the tendency changed, and 3,000 Nigerians found their way to Honduras, and crossed the border weekly, and they were shipped into west coast sanctuary cities? Would folks get upset or peeved? What if 200 Libyans wanted to move weekly into Mobile, Alabama?
4. How would you 'dump' them? Buy and give them Greyhound tickets (the $49 one-way special)?
5. Can CNN even discuss this matter, without triggering a backlash from Democrats from west coast?
6. Once these people got to San Francisco.....then what? Is there even housing or jobs there for them?
7. What if we dig into this and find that President Obama's team did this into Alabama or Georgia? Is admitting this type of discussion takes place.....a bigger problem, and we need a law to state controls over migrants and immigrants?
1. It's not illegal. You can dump them into virtually any state or city. Maybe some Democrats would like to write a law to prevent that, but I'm guessing they'd prefer this story disappear rather quickly.
2. What if you did dump 300 illegals every other day into San Francisco? Who says that the city isn't already, without Trump's help....receiving 4,500 illegals every month?
3. As long as they were Latinos, does anyone care? What if the tendency changed, and 3,000 Nigerians found their way to Honduras, and crossed the border weekly, and they were shipped into west coast sanctuary cities? Would folks get upset or peeved? What if 200 Libyans wanted to move weekly into Mobile, Alabama?
4. How would you 'dump' them? Buy and give them Greyhound tickets (the $49 one-way special)?
5. Can CNN even discuss this matter, without triggering a backlash from Democrats from west coast?
6. Once these people got to San Francisco.....then what? Is there even housing or jobs there for them?
7. What if we dig into this and find that President Obama's team did this into Alabama or Georgia? Is admitting this type of discussion takes place.....a bigger problem, and we need a law to state controls over migrants and immigrants?
Explaining Assange's Rape Episode
If you notice, virtually no news outlet has gone back to tell this story, and it's probably worth understanding.
Back in the early part of 2010....Julian Assange labeled himself as a target of the US government, and felt that he was going to get grabbed 'sooner or later', and sent to the US to face charges. So Julian started this 'secret-agent' game....traveling around Europe (beyond the UK), and staying hidden.
For the most part, a number of pro-WikiLeaks groups were finding accomodations for Julian, and he was moving every couple of days. So in the June/July timeframe of 2010, he ended up in Sweden. There, the pro-WikiLeaks crowd advertised around and found a Swedish gal who was supportive, and Julian moved in with her for several days and nights.
No one says if there was wine or some cannabis in the mix, but somehow....this first gal slept with Julian. No, Julian apparently didn't use condoms.
Then Julian moves onto the next hiding place, the apartment of another Swedish woman. The same thing repeats with Julian sleeping with her. Again, you can't be sure of the entire story.
After Julian leaves house number two.....somehow, these two women find each other, and discuss the matter. For the record, the two believed after the episode....that they were used by Julian. They went to the cops.
What the two wanted was to force Julian to go in and take a test for sexually transmitted diseases. Cops were open about this....the law didn't give them that ability to force him to these tests. So the ladies went the next step....saying that they did not give their consent for sex. Well, that's different....the cops could write up that report, and the prosecution could handle that.
Julian now woke up to realize that this could be a rape case in a Swedish court. So he ran back to the UK, and hid for roughy eight years in a embassy.
The rape charges? They eventually got dropped, but in the last couple of days....it's been discussed that they might be brought back. The max of jail-time if convicted? If there had been violence or threats? You could be talking over several years in prison. But just plain rape, without any violence or threat? Less than two years.
The two women involved? My impression is that they felt used after the episode, and that Julian's 'game' was mostly theatrical in nature. They might have been naive to be volunteers to house Julian, but both were over the age of 21.
It is a legit case, and I suspect that he deserves some type of punishment, but he's been in some embassy hiding 'hole' for more than eight years. That might be viewed as prison in some way.
Back in the early part of 2010....Julian Assange labeled himself as a target of the US government, and felt that he was going to get grabbed 'sooner or later', and sent to the US to face charges. So Julian started this 'secret-agent' game....traveling around Europe (beyond the UK), and staying hidden.
For the most part, a number of pro-WikiLeaks groups were finding accomodations for Julian, and he was moving every couple of days. So in the June/July timeframe of 2010, he ended up in Sweden. There, the pro-WikiLeaks crowd advertised around and found a Swedish gal who was supportive, and Julian moved in with her for several days and nights.
No one says if there was wine or some cannabis in the mix, but somehow....this first gal slept with Julian. No, Julian apparently didn't use condoms.
Then Julian moves onto the next hiding place, the apartment of another Swedish woman. The same thing repeats with Julian sleeping with her. Again, you can't be sure of the entire story.
After Julian leaves house number two.....somehow, these two women find each other, and discuss the matter. For the record, the two believed after the episode....that they were used by Julian. They went to the cops.
What the two wanted was to force Julian to go in and take a test for sexually transmitted diseases. Cops were open about this....the law didn't give them that ability to force him to these tests. So the ladies went the next step....saying that they did not give their consent for sex. Well, that's different....the cops could write up that report, and the prosecution could handle that.
Julian now woke up to realize that this could be a rape case in a Swedish court. So he ran back to the UK, and hid for roughy eight years in a embassy.
The rape charges? They eventually got dropped, but in the last couple of days....it's been discussed that they might be brought back. The max of jail-time if convicted? If there had been violence or threats? You could be talking over several years in prison. But just plain rape, without any violence or threat? Less than two years.
The two women involved? My impression is that they felt used after the episode, and that Julian's 'game' was mostly theatrical in nature. They might have been naive to be volunteers to house Julian, but both were over the age of 21.
It is a legit case, and I suspect that he deserves some type of punishment, but he's been in some embassy hiding 'hole' for more than eight years. That might be viewed as prison in some way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)