:-)
Monday, February 29, 2016
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Spend You Tax Time Wisely
Time spent can never be recovered. Spend it doing something useful and gratifying - unless you're in the middle of tax season, in which case you should spend your time doing something useless and not at all gratifying.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
Filing your taxes won't be enjoyable, and it seems like a big waste of time. But look on the bright side - if you don't muck it up too badly, it might help to keep you out of prison.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Trump Momentum
The Trump campaign is a media phenomenon. It plays like the grotesque injury from last night's football game. Regardless of how shocking or hideous it gets, no one can stop talking about it.
"Did you hear what Trump said?" "Now, Trump is angry with X." "People are saying X about Trump."
To the media, Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. Even the other candidates can't stop talking about him.
Trump has momentum. His popularity has never waned, and people are becoming numb to his shocking comments and questionable ideas. It's as though a Trump tide is rolling onto American shores, an irresistible force that pushes everything else out of its way.
The last candidate with similar (but not matching) momentum was Ronald Reagan in 1980. People feared the idea of a Reagan presidency. He seemed too extreme. He was blunt and uncompromising and determined to change things as he saw fit.
But many voters saw Reagan as a savior. He hammered the idea that a weak, tentative Democratic administration had left the country in bad shape. That message resonated with voters who were hungry for change.
Supporters were convinced that Reagan's bold style and aggressive policies would get the country back on track. "Let's Make America Great Again." That was Reagan's campaign slogan. Does it sound familiar?
In the general election, Reagan ran against two candidates: a knowledgeable but polarizing Democrat with whom the country had grown weary, and an idealistic Independent with glasses and white hair. Does any of THAT sound familiar?
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
"Did you hear what Trump said?" "Now, Trump is angry with X." "People are saying X about Trump."
To the media, Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. Even the other candidates can't stop talking about him.
Trump has momentum. His popularity has never waned, and people are becoming numb to his shocking comments and questionable ideas. It's as though a Trump tide is rolling onto American shores, an irresistible force that pushes everything else out of its way.
The last candidate with similar (but not matching) momentum was Ronald Reagan in 1980. People feared the idea of a Reagan presidency. He seemed too extreme. He was blunt and uncompromising and determined to change things as he saw fit.
But many voters saw Reagan as a savior. He hammered the idea that a weak, tentative Democratic administration had left the country in bad shape. That message resonated with voters who were hungry for change.
Supporters were convinced that Reagan's bold style and aggressive policies would get the country back on track. "Let's Make America Great Again." That was Reagan's campaign slogan. Does it sound familiar?
In the general election, Reagan ran against two candidates: a knowledgeable but polarizing Democrat with whom the country had grown weary, and an idealistic Independent with glasses and white hair. Does any of THAT sound familiar?
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Happy Birthday Son
This week, my 'little boy' turns 31. I remember the the roller coaster adventure at the hospital as though it just happened a couple of weeks ago. I remember bringing him home, changing him, rocking him to sleep. I remember the middle of the night feedings. I remember watching him play in his play pen, learning to sit up, to crawl, to walk.
I remember Christmas when he was two-and-half. I remember watching his excitement build with each successive present.
I remember afternoons together at the park, trips to the video arcade at the mall, and going to Toys R Us to see if there were any new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles figures. I remember the movies that we enjoyed together and the ball games that we invented. (Home plate!)
I remember our travels and adventures by car and by plane. I remember watching him become a young man - and then a grown man, a man who got up every morning without complaint, rose to every challenge, and worked hard at anything that he put his mind to accomplishing.
On one of the best days of my life, my no-longer-little boy stood beside me as the best man at my wedding.
True happiness, as they say, is knowing that you have raised nice children.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Monday, February 22, 2016
Sanders Gets More Votes Than Trump
Political thought of the day: Bernie Sanders is getting more votes (and a larger percentage of the vote) than Donald Trump. Trump is winning primaries because the opposing votes are being split among a number of candidates. Sanders has to contend with one very strong opponent in his party.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Sunday, February 21, 2016
The Kalamazoo Uber Killer
Gun nut Uber driver shoots nine and kills six during a seven-hour murder spree in Kalamazoo. In between the apparently random shootings, the guy picked up fares. (Maybe he needed money for more bullets.) Stranger than fiction!
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Jeb Bush
I may not agree with all of his political positions, but I believe that in his heart of hearts, John Ellis Bush is a good man. His campaign never stooped to xenophobic hysteria. Bush is a better man than some of those who remain in the race for the Presidency. A better man by a good measure.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Harper Lee
When I hear the phrase "great American novel," I think of "To Kill A Mockingbird."
Sorry, Mark Twain! Sorry, Edgar Allan Poe! Sorry, Herman Melville! Sorry, William Faulkner! Sorry F. Scott Fitzgerald!
To me, no work of fiction describes the highs and low of the American experience than the story of Scout, her brother Tom, her friend Dill (Truman Capote in real life), and her heroic father, Atticus Finch, Attorney at Law.
The movie was great. It won three Academy Awards. The book was even better.
Harper Lee was the ultimate one-hit wonder of literature. (Melville is a close second.) She was a private person who shunned the spotlight. She refused to give interviews - who wouldn't have wanted to land THAT scoop?
Today, we mourn the passing of the lady who bewtowed upon us the quintessential American novel, a story of childhood innocence in the Deep South, an innocence that was shaken and nearly shattered by a confrontation with unspeakable evil. In the story, the villain is more than a human being. The real villain is a stubborn and widespread system of institutional racism, and the communities of "nice" people for whom it had become acceptable.
It is indeed a sin to kill a mockingbird. We lost one today.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Music Awards
The looks on their faces told the tale.
The Grammy audience applauded politely when the award for "Best Rock Album" was presented to what appeared to be a garage band from an Appalachian trailer park.
(I apologize if that description didn't sound good; the music sounded worse.)
Moments later, Alice Cooper, Joe Perry, Johnny Depp, and Duff McKagan performed a high wattage tribute to the late Lemmy Kilmister of Motörhead.
The Grammy audience looked confused, shocked. "Oh, my goodness! It's real rock music. Run for your lives!"
The presenters called the evening "the biggest night in music." It should have been called "the biggest night in pop." Pop music. Pop country. Pop hip hop.
The performances - most of them, anyway - were brilliant. There were a lot of talented people in that theater. Demi Lovato is astounding.
It was a big, spectacular celebration of pop music.
--
Rock music deserves its own awards show.
As does Blues.
As does R&B.
As does Classical.
As does jazz. Real, straight ahead jazz.
The only real jazz performed all night was an exhibition by an amazing twelve-year-old piano prodigy. His performance was probably the most memorable one of the evening. But he wasn't even there promoting jazz. The Grammy people used him as a prop to ask for fair payment for people working in the music industry. It's an important topic in the age of unlimited free downloads, but it's a business topic, not a music topic.
The Grammys are about pop music, and that's okay. It's the pop Super Bowl. And it's fine for what it is. But it overlooks a lot of great music, music by people who aren't chasing stardom or a big house in Malibu, people who aren't rocketing up the charts and posting hashtags.
Those people need their own awards show, an awards show open to all genres of music. Except pop music. Pop music already has its show.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
The Grammy audience applauded politely when the award for "Best Rock Album" was presented to what appeared to be a garage band from an Appalachian trailer park.
(I apologize if that description didn't sound good; the music sounded worse.)
Moments later, Alice Cooper, Joe Perry, Johnny Depp, and Duff McKagan performed a high wattage tribute to the late Lemmy Kilmister of Motörhead.
The Grammy audience looked confused, shocked. "Oh, my goodness! It's real rock music. Run for your lives!"
The presenters called the evening "the biggest night in music." It should have been called "the biggest night in pop." Pop music. Pop country. Pop hip hop.
The performances - most of them, anyway - were brilliant. There were a lot of talented people in that theater. Demi Lovato is astounding.
It was a big, spectacular celebration of pop music.
--
Rock music deserves its own awards show.
As does Blues.
As does R&B.
As does Classical.
As does jazz. Real, straight ahead jazz.
The only real jazz performed all night was an exhibition by an amazing twelve-year-old piano prodigy. His performance was probably the most memorable one of the evening. But he wasn't even there promoting jazz. The Grammy people used him as a prop to ask for fair payment for people working in the music industry. It's an important topic in the age of unlimited free downloads, but it's a business topic, not a music topic.
The Grammys are about pop music, and that's okay. It's the pop Super Bowl. And it's fine for what it is. But it overlooks a lot of great music, music by people who aren't chasing stardom or a big house in Malibu, people who aren't rocketing up the charts and posting hashtags.
Those people need their own awards show, an awards show open to all genres of music. Except pop music. Pop music already has its show.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Partisanship on the US Supreme Court
I remember a time when Supreme Court Justices were thought of as impartial interpreters of the law and the Constitution.
The all seemed to change when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987. The objection to Bork's nomination was ferocious, and his nomination was eventually defeated by a vote of 58-42 in the Senate.
Justice Antonin Scalia, a long-serving champion of right-wing policy, was appointed to the Supreme Court a year before Bork was nominated. Scalia's nomination was not as fiercely contested. Bork was seen as a step too far to the Right.
After the Bork defeat, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed without much drama or fanfare.
President George H. W. Bush followed up with two staunch right-wing appointments to the court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito couple have been replaced by a couple of rubber stamps. There's no gray area with these two. Any law that benefits the Right receives their unquestioned and immediate approval.
President Obama has nominated some Left-leaning Justices to the court. I have to wonder whether Obama, a constitutional scholar, might have nominated more middle-of-the-road justices had he not felt the need to offset the pure partisanship of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Once Reagan and Bush opened up the Pandora's box of judicial partisanship, the damage was done. The opposition needed to counter with partisan Justices of their own.
With the country entrenched in a profound partisan divide, it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court ever again being viewed as neutral. That, or course, is a shame and a bit of an embarrassment. The court was meant to serve the good of the country, not to favor the objectives of one political party over another.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
The all seemed to change when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987. The objection to Bork's nomination was ferocious, and his nomination was eventually defeated by a vote of 58-42 in the Senate.
Justice Antonin Scalia, a long-serving champion of right-wing policy, was appointed to the Supreme Court a year before Bork was nominated. Scalia's nomination was not as fiercely contested. Bork was seen as a step too far to the Right.
After the Bork defeat, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed without much drama or fanfare.
President George H. W. Bush followed up with two staunch right-wing appointments to the court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito couple have been replaced by a couple of rubber stamps. There's no gray area with these two. Any law that benefits the Right receives their unquestioned and immediate approval.
President Obama has nominated some Left-leaning Justices to the court. I have to wonder whether Obama, a constitutional scholar, might have nominated more middle-of-the-road justices had he not felt the need to offset the pure partisanship of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Once Reagan and Bush opened up the Pandora's box of judicial partisanship, the damage was done. The opposition needed to counter with partisan Justices of their own.
With the country entrenched in a profound partisan divide, it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court ever again being viewed as neutral. That, or course, is a shame and a bit of an embarrassment. The court was meant to serve the good of the country, not to favor the objectives of one political party over another.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Redefining the Republican Party
It's fascinating to watch the Republican Party (USA) as it struggles to redefine itself.
I remember spending countless hours discussing the Iraq War with Republicans, both before and after the invasion was launched.
Republicans argued fiercely that invading Iraq was the right course of action in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Their battle cry was that "we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."
They insisted that Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. If we didn't act now, they claimed, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would unleash a wave of nuclear terror in the region and beyond.
I argued that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and that it would send a bad precedent to invade a sovereign nation based on dubious intelligence reports. That position was not well-received.
"Traitor!" That was one of the many colorful accusations hurdled in my direction. "Terrorist sympathizer! Why do you hate America? Why do you hate the troops?" I endured this rabid invective for years simply by trying to bring a voice of reason to casual conversations about public policy.
--
My, how things have changed!
Last night, Donald Trump, media darling and the leading Republican candidate for President, gave his brutal assessment of the Iraq war. "It was a big, fat mistake."
Clearly, Trump was trying to hammer John Ellis Bush, fellow candidate and favorite Trump whipping boy. Trump could not have been more blunt in disparaging the Presidential record of Bush's brother.
"There were no weapons of mass destruction. They lied about it."
Wow! What I would have given to hear a Republican say those words eight or ten or twelve years ago! (To be fair, Ron Paul said the same thing in the 2008 debates. He was booed mercilessly.)
Trump, on the other hand, isn't a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. He's the front runner and has been since he announced his candidacy last June. This tells me that a considerable portion of the Republican electorate no longer buys into the Bush-Cheney version of Middle Eastern history - or their rush to war based on widely-disputed premises.
Establishment Republicans, like Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, still stand steadfastly behind the Bushes. But things are changing in this country. There is a stark philosophical divide in the Republican party between the traditional platform (business deregulation, interventionist policies with huge military budgets) and the more socially conservative, isolationist policies of the Tea Party.
Look for more sparks to fly up to the point where the party names a nominee - and beyond.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
I remember spending countless hours discussing the Iraq War with Republicans, both before and after the invasion was launched.
Republicans argued fiercely that invading Iraq was the right course of action in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Their battle cry was that "we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."
They insisted that Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. If we didn't act now, they claimed, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would unleash a wave of nuclear terror in the region and beyond.
I argued that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and that it would send a bad precedent to invade a sovereign nation based on dubious intelligence reports. That position was not well-received.
"Traitor!" That was one of the many colorful accusations hurdled in my direction. "Terrorist sympathizer! Why do you hate America? Why do you hate the troops?" I endured this rabid invective for years simply by trying to bring a voice of reason to casual conversations about public policy.
--
My, how things have changed!
Last night, Donald Trump, media darling and the leading Republican candidate for President, gave his brutal assessment of the Iraq war. "It was a big, fat mistake."
Clearly, Trump was trying to hammer John Ellis Bush, fellow candidate and favorite Trump whipping boy. Trump could not have been more blunt in disparaging the Presidential record of Bush's brother.
"There were no weapons of mass destruction. They lied about it."
Wow! What I would have given to hear a Republican say those words eight or ten or twelve years ago! (To be fair, Ron Paul said the same thing in the 2008 debates. He was booed mercilessly.)
Trump, on the other hand, isn't a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. He's the front runner and has been since he announced his candidacy last June. This tells me that a considerable portion of the Republican electorate no longer buys into the Bush-Cheney version of Middle Eastern history - or their rush to war based on widely-disputed premises.
Establishment Republicans, like Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, still stand steadfastly behind the Bushes. But things are changing in this country. There is a stark philosophical divide in the Republican party between the traditional platform (business deregulation, interventionist policies with huge military budgets) and the more socially conservative, isolationist policies of the Tea Party.
Look for more sparks to fly up to the point where the party names a nominee - and beyond.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Tasteless Jokes
My brain has been in a very strange state today.
I'm having trouble remembering things. I did some risky jaywalking moves that normally I would have avoided (dashing across the path of speeding cars and trucks). And I thought up a couple of jokes.
It's not unusual for me to have humorous ideas. What's different in this case is that the jokes are decidedly tasteless. I'm a little shocked that I even thought of these things. They're so far outside of my normal, harmlessly silly sense of humor.
So, what should I do with these shockingly offensive jokes? Forget that I ever thought of them? Where's the fun in that?
No, against my better judgment, I have decided to share the jokes with the world. (Maybe you can have some fun deciding which one is more offensive.)
--
If you don't want to be offended, please stop reading now, or don't blame me later. You have been forewarned! ;-)
Last chance!
Stop reading now! :-)
Tasteless Joke Number One
Your boss tells you that he has some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you're getting a bonus this year. The bad news is that it's from Ron Jeremy.
Tasteless Joke Number Two
Vote for Clinton. She won't suck.
Ah, yes! I know! Disgusting, aren't they? Brain, what the devil have you been up to?
Did you notice that they're both penis jokes? And that both jokes have a celebrity angle? - I'm so anti-celebrity. I can't believe that I thought these up. What's wrong with me?
Yes, my brain seems to be malfunctioning. It's out of whack. It's gone off the reservation (note the tasteless reference to Native Americans).
Okay, that's it! I'm fried. I need to eat something.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
I'm having trouble remembering things. I did some risky jaywalking moves that normally I would have avoided (dashing across the path of speeding cars and trucks). And I thought up a couple of jokes.
It's not unusual for me to have humorous ideas. What's different in this case is that the jokes are decidedly tasteless. I'm a little shocked that I even thought of these things. They're so far outside of my normal, harmlessly silly sense of humor.
So, what should I do with these shockingly offensive jokes? Forget that I ever thought of them? Where's the fun in that?
No, against my better judgment, I have decided to share the jokes with the world. (Maybe you can have some fun deciding which one is more offensive.)
--
If you don't want to be offended, please stop reading now, or don't blame me later. You have been forewarned! ;-)
Last chance!
Stop reading now! :-)
Tasteless Joke Number One
Your boss tells you that he has some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you're getting a bonus this year. The bad news is that it's from Ron Jeremy.
Tasteless Joke Number Two
Vote for Clinton. She won't suck.
Ah, yes! I know! Disgusting, aren't they? Brain, what the devil have you been up to?
Did you notice that they're both penis jokes? And that both jokes have a celebrity angle? - I'm so anti-celebrity. I can't believe that I thought these up. What's wrong with me?
Yes, my brain seems to be malfunctioning. It's out of whack. It's gone off the reservation (note the tasteless reference to Native Americans).
Okay, that's it! I'm fried. I need to eat something.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Monday, February 8, 2016
Super Bowl 50 Report Card
Super Bowl 50 - Report Card
The Game (B-)
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
The Game (B-)
Everyone enjoys a high-scoring game. It's fun to watch two teams rack up touchdown after touchdown. That said, it's fascinating to watch a defense clamp down on an offense and frustrate their ability to move the ball. It's like watching a jujitsu master nullify his or her opponent's striking ability. (I find this especially satisfying when the offense is used to putting up a lot of points.)
My admiration for defense comes honestly. I am, after all, a Pittsburgh Steelers fan. Strong defense has been a hallmark of Steelers football since their dominant championship run in the 1970's.
What I don't enjoy watching is sloppy execution. Both teams committed unforced errors. I can't recall seeing that many penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct in a Super Bowl. Peyton Manning's interception was shocking for a player of his stature.
But the Panthers seemed particularly out of sync, putting on an inept display that included sloppy handoffs, overthrown passes, an assumption of a fair catch where there wasn't one, a missed field goal from a moderate distance, and six penalties for illegal procedure or delay of game. Everyone from the coaches on down bears responsibility for that mess.
Still, it was an exciting game. The score was close until the last few minutes (although Denver never trailed). The defensive play was admirable. And it turned out to be a fairy tale swan song for Manning's distinguished, record-setting career.
Commercials (C-)
Kevin Hart was laugh out loud funny as the overprotective father. That ad was the standout hit,in my opinion. A few other spots were enjoyable, but most were forgettable or worse.
The coffee ad that was awarded to a small company by Intuit Quickbooks was ridiculous and ineffective. Do you remember that company's name? I don't.
Jeff Goldblum's apartment search ad was a prime example of a bad idea with a big budget behind it.
The "Super Bowl babies" spots seemed like pointless (and tasteless) filler for minutes where the network failed to sell time for legitimate ads. The premise is preposterous. The ad would have us believe that guys who spend hours cheering, shouting, arguing, and fist pumping while guzzling beer and stuffing their faces with bratwurst and chicken wings are going to run home and make babies with wives who have been forced to take refuge with the Hallmark Channel. Unlikely.
The kids in the ads aren't even real Super Bowl babies, if such people actually exist. They're actors who won their roles based on their visual appeal, not their birth dates.
Even more tasteless was the Expedia ad featuring video of kissing couples and urging people to get a room. Suddenly, the Trivago Guy seems like the classiest dude in advertising.
Halftime Show (D)
I adore Bruno Mars and his retro funk sound. But Bruno Mars performed at the Super Bowl at the Meadowlands in 2014. Did he need to come back again so soon?
Beyoncé is one of the world's biggest pop stars. But Beyoncé performed at the Super Bowl in New Orleans in 2013. Did she need to come back again so soon?
I thought that the headliner Coldplay sounded fine for the three songs that they actually played. Why didn't they just play for a full set? Why did they need to add special guests?
Did the league feel pressure to include artists of different styles and cultural backgrounds? ("Wow! These Coldplay guys are really white! We'd better mix things up so we don't get in trouble like the Oscars.")
If that's what happened, so be it. I'm all for multiculturalism. But can't you put on a multicultural show without recycling talent? Why not bring in the astounding Kendrick Lamar? Or Pitbull? Or Arianna Grande? Or dozens of other up and coming performers?
The big ensemble number at the end was an utter disaster. The lyrics we unintelligible, and video from past performances made the whole thing even more confusing.
Next year, just hire a good act and let them sing their best songs. Remove the clutter and the over production. Make the Super Bowl Halftime Show "super" again by understanding that more is not always better.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Ted Cruz and Richard Nixon
Ted Cruz reminds me of Richard Nixon, a cunning and fiercely-driven political hatchet man who lives to make enemies, a calculating electoral survivalist who outperforms opponents in spite of a shifty appearance and a famously insufferable personality. Could this be 1968 all over again?
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
Monday, February 1, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)