The Great Cheez Ball Conflict

We watched as a woman walked on the beach towards the water.  She was carrying a plastic bag and heading towards a flock of about a dozen seagulls and other sea birds.  The woman reached into the bag, and then threw a handful of something towards the birds, which the birds eagerly pounced upon and started consuming.  It was Cheez balls.  The woman eventually simply dumped the remaining Cheez balls on the sand, and walked back away from the water, towards the building where she was staying.  The birds ate some of the Cheez balls, but there were still a significant amount of Cheez balls remaining in more or less a pile on the beach, with a bird pecking at the Cheeze balls every now and then.  My thought was that the birds had their fill for the moment.

About three minutes later, another woman who had been walking along the beach came by and stopped at the pile of Cheez balls.  From my vantage point, it appeared as though this woman was doing something with her foot along the lines of putting the Cheez balls into a tighter pile.  But as she continued working with her foot, it became apparent to me that this woman was trying to cover up the Cheez balls with sand. She completed the task in a couple of minutes, leaving what appeared to be a non-descript pile of sand.  She stood next to that sand pile for a couple of minutes, during which time several birds started pecking at that pile.  This woman then walked about 30 feet away from the pile, a little bit towards the water, and began speaking to another person.

A couple of minutes later, the first woman re-appeared on the beach, walking determinedly from the building towards the sand pile.  Woman number 2 started slowly walking away from the person with whom she'd been speaking and towards woman number 1, obviously saying something to woman number 1.  Woman number 1 continued her determined-looking walk towards the sand pile, looked directly at woman number 2 and gave woman number 2 the finger, as well as saying something to woman number 2.  I wish I would have been able to hear what was being said between the two women, but even though I was likely less than 100 feet away, the beautiful sounds of the surf crashing against the sand was all I could hear.

The battle apparently wasn't over.  Woman number 1 had something else in her hand. She threw it towards the birds, and the birds again rushed to get something more to eat.  By now, woman number 2 had her cell phone out and appeared to be taking pitures or videos.  Neither woman touched the other, but it was evident that they were exchanging words.  At one point woman number 1 got a sarcastic-looking smile on her face and waved at the camera.  After about another minute, woman number 1 stomped off back towards the building, and woman number 2 stayed on the beach for a while, talking to other people.

As I am composing this, about 5 hours has passed since the "Great Cheez Ball Conflict," and that little, non-descript sand pile is still there. The only thing that seems to call attention to the pile is the small sea birds that continue to go back and peck at the pile.

And I keep thinking about the fact that within another several hours, the tide will likely move up as high as the sand pile, thereby exposing the Cheez balls once again as the sand gets washed away...

The Selfish Way To Raise Money? Taxes!

Some may wonder if they misread that title.  Can that taxation really be the selfish way to raise money?  How can that be when taxes are supposedly the way to spread the expense among the largest number or people in order to make the amount paid by any one person as low as possible?

On the surface, taxes may seem the most fair and equitable way, but in reality, there is another side to the story.  The truth is that taxation has become the de facto easiest way to fund things.  And I believe it is very likely the most selfish way to fund things.  Here's why.

Say a person or group of people--often absolutely well-intentioned and well-meaning--decide that there is something good for an entity (for the purposes of this writing, please note that the word "entity" can be anything from a village/town/city, to a school district, a county, a state, or even a country). The idea is that the people of the entity would benefit from "whatever it is" (let the reader decide what "whatever it it" is).  That "whatever it is" costs money, and so funding needs to be in place in order for the project to move forward.  So a person or group of people--again, often well-intentioned and well-meaning--decide that since this will be a benefit to the entity as a whole, a tax should be levied so that the "whatever it is" will be paid for by everyone in the entity.

While this may sound fair and right, I really must say that it is not necessarily so.  What if someone from the entity does not think that the "whatever it is" would be such a good idea, or would be something that might be nice, but that the entity could get along without--especially if getting the "whatever it is" would cost the person money for which the person would have a different use such as funding his or her own more important or immediate needs?

So, the levy is put on the ballot, and let's say it passes.  Then taxes are assessed, and the project is (at least theoretically) funded (I won't get into things such as cost overruns here).  The majority of those voting have decided that this "whatever it is" should be paid for by everyone within the entity, in one way or another (through income taxes, property taxes, etc...).

The result?  The majority of those voting will pay what they agreed to pay towards the "whatever it is".  The rest of the people will be forced to pay for the "whatever it is" even though they did not agree with it being funded through the entity.

What if the levy would have failed?  Then the majority of the voters would have decided that the entity could do without the "whatever it is" (at least until the next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, when the people convinced that the entity cannot do without the "whatever it is" have to keep asking the people of the entity to fund it).

But are those the only two options?  Here's what I suggest. If people of an entity are so convinced that the entity needs "whatever it is" but a majority of the voters don't approve a tax for it, then the people who were in favor of funding the "whatever it is" are still free to donate a similar amount of money as they would have been taxed by the entity had the levy passed.  Maybe the "whatever it is" wouldn't be fully funded if only those who supported a levy would donate an amount equivalent to what they would have paid in taxes to fund the "whatever it is", but it wouldn't hurt to get partial funding.  Who knows, perhaps other funding could be derived from other sources, without forcing every person within the entity to contribute to it, whether or not they wanted the "whatever it is."

I have a challenge for people who are planning to support voting for any tax levies: agree to donate the money to the "whatever it is" equivalent to the amount you would have been assessed had the levy passed.

"Can You Please Hold?"

As I was working at the counter of the pro shop at the golf course, two customers walked in and needed me to process their transactions. Just then, the phone rang.  The other two staff people were in a meeting, so I answered the phone while trying to process the transaction of the first customer.  The person on the phone wanted to schedule tee-times.  Then the second phone line into the golf course rang.  I knew that I could only speak on one phone line at a time, so I answered the second line with the golf course name and said, "Can you please hold for a moment?" expecting the normal "Sure," or "OK" that I will usually hear when I have to answer the phone in similar circumstances.  Instead, I heard, "Well, this is [the electric company]*, so I prefer not." Well, since I was not the person who would have to speak with them, I said so, and had to put them on hold anyway.

Ironic, isn't it?  Maybe next time I call [the electric company]* and someone asks me (of course, only after navigating the seemingly endless numbers of recorded prompts in order to actually speak to a real person) if I can hold, I should say, "Well this is one of your customers, so I prefer not."

* text in brackets replaces the name of the actual electric company

Education and Academia

There is a difference between education and Academia. 

Education is the process and art of teaching and learning; Academia is the worshiping of education and educational accomplishments.

We need to focus more on true education and less on trying to attain the goals of Academia.

Presidential Vulgarity

Vulgarity by Presidents is not new. President Truman was lambasted by many for things he said, but often applauded by others for stating his mind (the band Chicago came out with a song in the 1970's called "Harry Truman" which extolled the former President's ways, including that he would "call a spade a spade").  The press even published what were considered by many at the time to be risque photographs of Mr. Truman (during the short time he served as Vice-President) posing at a piano with movie star Lauren Bacall.

Many people were shocked by the vulgarity that went on in President Nixon's White House when the recordings that became part of the Watergate scandal were released. Then it was discovered that President Lyndon Johnson also had recordings from his days in the White House, and his vulgarities were arguably worse. It has been reported that he even displayed his private parts during a White House meeting while declaring that those private parts were something that the communists would never get.

One big difference these days seems to be that anything that President Trump says in meetings somehow gets to the press. Also, he often seems to not care what people say about what he says. He also seems to purposely push the envelope knowing that he'll get reactions--positive reactions from some people and negative ones from other people with the same comments.

Personally, I don't see the need for the vulgarity. I generally do not use it, because I generally don't think it is necessary, and I feel I can express myself just fine without it. I wish the the President of the United States would refrain from that type of language, but the reality is that history shows us that the current President is not the first one who has used it.

A Life-Long Cub Fan's Perspective Half-Way Through The 2017 Season

Just past the half-way point in this season, it's time for some historical perspective.

We should all try to remember that as much as 2016 was a magical year for the Cubs in that they finally won the World Series after a 108-year drought, the regular season was pretty special, too. No Cub team in most Cub fans' lifetimes won as many games as did the 2016 Cubs. So just for a moment, let's take the 2016 season out of the mix.

In 2014, after 82 games, the Cubs were in last place in their division, 13.5 games out of first place.

In 2015, after 83 games (game numbers 82 and 83 were part of a double header, so I'm using the end of the day standings), the Cubs were in third place, 7.5 games out of first in their division.

And in 2015 at that point in the season, Cub fans were generally deliriously happy with the team's prospects of making the playoffs (albeit most likely through a wildcard spot), and even having a chance to go to the World Series.

Now at the same point of the 2017 season, the Cubs are in second place,  just 2.5 games out of first in their division. Winning the division would give them a better shot at advancing in the playoffs than did singe wildcard "play-in" game in 2015, where anything can happen to change the outcome of that lone game.

Yet it seems as though many Cub fans are down about this season. Granted, the 2017 team has not played nearly as well as the 2016 team did, but the truth is that throughout Major League Baseball history, only a very, very small percentage of teams played as well as (i.e., played to a better record than) the 2016 Chicago Cubs.

2016 was a magical season for many reasons. The Cubs got a lot of good breaks. Other then the nearly season-long injury to Kyle Schwarber and the several weeks that Dexter Fowler was out with a mid-season injury, there really was no significant amount of time lost to injury by the key players. Most teams will not have seasons that injury-free, and also will not have a season where a team gets so many other breaks that go predominantly in that team's favor.

So here in 2017, the Cubs have not thus far had the same type of magical season. Simply looking at things injury-wise, we can see that three key players--Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, and Kyle Hendricks--have all been on the disabled list at the same time. Three regulars on the DL at once is generally going to be a blow to any ball club.

Breaks have been going against the Cubs more in 2017 than they did in 2016. For instance, while Schwarber's hitting woes and subsequent demotion have been caused by many things, my observation is that many of his problems began when he was victimized numerous times by bad calls on balls and strikes. He has a great batting eye, and a few too many pitches that were actually out of the strike zone were called strikes on him. The natural consequence of this would be for him to lose confidence in his batting eye and expand his strike zone. Then when things start to go wrong because of those consequences, the natural tendency is to start pressing, and that brings about even more bad results.

The 2017 Cubs are not the same team as were the 2016 Cubs. The 2017 Cubs especially miss Fowler, David Ross, and Aroldis Chapman. Albert Almora Jr. and John Jay do not bring as much to the team as Fowler did. The recently departed Miguel Montero did not bring as much to the team as a backup catcher and clubhouse leader as Ross did. Wade Davis does not bring as much spark to the closer's role as Chapman did.

And yet, here the 2017 Cubs stand at just 2.5 games out of the division lead just past the half-way point of the season. I hope that people will take a step back and remember just how special the 2016 season was for the Chicago Cubs, and just how unusual it was for any team--including the Cubs--to do as well during the regular season as did the 2016 Cubs.

Then take time to remember that 2017 is an entirely different season, and had it not been for the magical year of 2016, Cub fans would be very happy to see their team only 2.5 games out of first place at this point in the season, and very hopeful that a division championship (and hopefully a playoff run leading to a World Championship) would be in the offing.

There's still a lot of baseball left to be played in 2017. Let's enjoy it.

Time To Quit The Name-calling

As I write this, as of the most recent information I have heard, Congressman Scalise is still in critical condition after having been shot yesterday.  First and foremost, we should all hope and pray for his recovery.

Some people have begun to call for a gentler tone when it comes to political talk.  A great example is this commentary by Scott Pelley of CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-scott-pelley-attack-foreseeable-predictable-self-inflicted/

Mr. Pelley makes some very good points.  But part of the problem is that each "side" tends to think that the other "side" is worse.

There's nothing wrong with debating policy, goals, and possible avenues to reach those goals.  In fact, good debate is a positive thing.  However, the reality is that both "sides" are guilty of straying from the merits (and/or lack thereof) of various policies and into the realm of verbal attacks and name-calling against the people who hold opposing views.

Beginning nearly two years ago--well prior to the determination of the nominees for President during the 2016 campaign--I started keeping track for a while of some of the different verbal name-calling that I was seeing on Facebook. I made note of name-calling in posts that might be deemed political, keeping track of when liberals used the name-calling tactic and when conservatives used the name-calling tactic.  Here's what I found:

Conservatives said of liberals:

…This is an evil man

…this idiot

…these creeps

…a distraction from the other traitor

…Libtard

…douchebag

…Dumb A** (edited by me)

…nut case

 Liberals said of conservatives:
…poor dumb SOB’s;

...ignorant white dudes

…a very crafty greedy evil man

…Knuckleheads

…These people are stupid beyond belief

…lunatics

…he’s just so….icky!

…moron…blathering idiot…unelectable turkey…

…angry misanthrope

…idiots

…such a buffoon

…Ludicrous, cheap, uninformed, and sleazy

…F****** sociopath (edited by me)

…this turd

…the idiot

Basically, both "sides" have been guilty.

 I hope that Americans will continue to debate ideas and philosophies.  I also hope that we will cease to resort to name-calling and verbal attacks against those with whom we may disagree.