"This is nothing out of the ordinary". This was a reported quote on Channel 6 news tonight... not from a weatherman talking about rain in September... not a reporter reporting that there is a scummy election shaping up over the next month and half... nor even from a sports caster telling that the Yankees are close to being in the playoffs.
No, this ordinary thing is a manhole cover becoming airborne because of some bad wiring underground. It's sort of like saying it happens all the time. And Reportedly, a National Grid spokesperson calls this ordinary. It happened three or four times in the Albany-Troy area during the past week. Of course it's ordinary. Just like the leaves change in fall, the robins return in spring, and yes even a blue moon.
Now I go back in my mind and remember fondly all those other times in my life when we were treated to such a display of pyrotechnics from beneath the earth. Volcanoes come to mind, but no where near where I live. I can't think of a single incident where this "ordinary" phenomenon of a manhole cover hurtling through the air took place.
So I will try to think of the "ordinariness" of these incidents. Okay, sometimes wires get crossed. There are thousands of strands in some of the cables they lay. Maybe a pink one got switched to a light pink wire, and bam! the manhole blows. Or red to black. It happens all the time! Right?
I guess I do wonder why it doesn't happen more often. There are lots of wires, lots of colors, and very few in my opinion, of flying manhole covers (I understand they weigh over 200 pounds each-falling to earth like the autumn leaves). I am thankful for a wonderful group of technicians who know how to do their job.
I hope National Grid does not take this as ordinary, and figure out what the heck is going on. If this is old infrastructure that is worn, or out dated, it probably will be ordinary, and we are in deep trouble without a real commitment to fix these things. And our rates will rise, problem solved or not... watch!
Friday, September 28, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Blame the Referees!!!
Because the NFL professional refs are locked out, there has been a lot of blame put on the poor refs from other venues, non-professional part-timers, who have taken over temporarily. These guys and gals (that is important to note) step onto the field prowled by giants (literally) and are expected to keep order, forcing these often uncontrollable behemoths to play according to the rules. The refs do what they can under the circumstances, and the big guys are usually very respectful, despite, I am sure, many temptations to tell the refs where to get off, or simply tear them apart. Fortunately, there is some locus of control in the players who for the most part are accepting of the situation.
Then comes the hard part. A disputed call on the final play of the game, where two players from the opposing teems appear to have caught the same ball in the end zone, and it is either a winning touchdown or a game ending interception. Whatever happens here, it is the refs fault. The call is a touchdown, the review is a touchdown (or not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.) And it is the refs fault that one team lost and the other team won. Some one said: "The Packers got screwed!"
Now I ask you, is that fair. These teams are good. But they play a somewhat mediocre game for almost three hours counting time outs and intermissions. (These are important because strategy is developed during these times, so what is a time out is actually important to the way the game is played.) If they really put a full effort into it throughout (maybe they did, and then I am mistaken when I call them good teams) it would not be the referee who makes the final judgment call. (It is hard to argue that a team put in its best effort when a franchise quarterback gets sacked 8 times, or when they give up the ball with 51 seconds remaining.)The winner would be apparent. The refs who are probably in it over their heads are not really the final arbiters on a field where all the players and coaches are raking in millions of dollars each. It is the players themselves who hold their own destiny, and who ultimately decide who wins and who loses.
Certainly, since they get paid enough, they can and should do their job, and lay off the substitute refs who are trying their best to do theirs.
Then comes the hard part. A disputed call on the final play of the game, where two players from the opposing teems appear to have caught the same ball in the end zone, and it is either a winning touchdown or a game ending interception. Whatever happens here, it is the refs fault. The call is a touchdown, the review is a touchdown (or not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.) And it is the refs fault that one team lost and the other team won. Some one said: "The Packers got screwed!"
Now I ask you, is that fair. These teams are good. But they play a somewhat mediocre game for almost three hours counting time outs and intermissions. (These are important because strategy is developed during these times, so what is a time out is actually important to the way the game is played.) If they really put a full effort into it throughout (maybe they did, and then I am mistaken when I call them good teams) it would not be the referee who makes the final judgment call. (It is hard to argue that a team put in its best effort when a franchise quarterback gets sacked 8 times, or when they give up the ball with 51 seconds remaining.)The winner would be apparent. The refs who are probably in it over their heads are not really the final arbiters on a field where all the players and coaches are raking in millions of dollars each. It is the players themselves who hold their own destiny, and who ultimately decide who wins and who loses.
Certainly, since they get paid enough, they can and should do their job, and lay off the substitute refs who are trying their best to do theirs.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Jesus Married?
The report today is that they have found a fragment of ancient writing indicating Jesus had a wife. Of course the question arises, "does this change anything for you?" as asked by one CNN newsroom personality. And my answer is, "You betcha!"
I should get a crowd to go to that University professor's house and we would picket, yell obscenities, yes, even crucify him and his colleagues over this disregard to our faith. We should find out the professor's ethnicity and smear his name and origins. We should tear up his library, burn his car, and a few tires on the front lawn. The news would cover it and testify that thousands of us were there, and that all Christians around the world are furious over his little piece of parchment enshrined in a little glass slide. He will never get away with this kind of heresy. The outrage will spread.
The pope will speak for all Christendom as the pope spoke out in favor of the earth centered universe that was under attack by Galileo and his intellectual cohorts back in the 1600s. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest, and there is no reason why this hot shot Harvard guy shouldn't do the same for shattering my bliss and the millions of Christians.
Whoa! Isn't that a bit extreme? Not really when you consider we like to be extreme in our society. If you are not extreme, you are no where. A wuss. A middle of the road squirrel who will get run over. You have to stick to your guns, no matter what the scholars and men of reason might say. Science, archaeology, whatever, is only there to mess you up. They solve problems that are not there, and get us all upset.
Okay, okay! Let's look at this more objectively. We have a piece of writing from around the year 200 that refers to Jesus' wife. That's about the same time frame that the New Testament was deemed to have been completed with the book of the Apocalypse. There have been discoveries over the years of thousands of documents relating to Christianity dating from before that time which were not included in the Bible, but which tell history as it was lived at the time, and which have historical facts, or traditions that shed light on the Christian community and lived faith of the people of that time. (We should look for truth and embrace it wherever it may be.)
Did Jesus have a wife? The research on this one fragment indicates a yes answer. Before I agree, I would like to see some corroboration from another source. That may come. If there is further proof, then we may have to change some things. (Maybe they will change anyway.)
A no-brainer would be the idea of celibacy for priests. Perhaps also the place of marriage in the Christian culture, maybe elevate that higher than the priesthood. Maybe the place of women in society, since it would appear that Jesus is an egalitarian who actually, physically and emotionally, loved one.
Some discussion questions: What does it mean to have a person whom we call God actually marrying one of us earthlings? What would that say about his title? What is faith anyway that made Christians put Jesus so far beyond the human pale that we stopped seeing him as human at all? Why do some people think they have to solve God's problems by rioting and killing in his name? (As a note here: the actual number of people who protested outside American embassies around the world may have been a few thousand or less. Most of the 1.7 billion or so Muslims were carrying on their regular schedules of work, school, child care, etc. like we were doing here in America- except for Chicago.)
I should get a crowd to go to that University professor's house and we would picket, yell obscenities, yes, even crucify him and his colleagues over this disregard to our faith. We should find out the professor's ethnicity and smear his name and origins. We should tear up his library, burn his car, and a few tires on the front lawn. The news would cover it and testify that thousands of us were there, and that all Christians around the world are furious over his little piece of parchment enshrined in a little glass slide. He will never get away with this kind of heresy. The outrage will spread.
The pope will speak for all Christendom as the pope spoke out in favor of the earth centered universe that was under attack by Galileo and his intellectual cohorts back in the 1600s. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest, and there is no reason why this hot shot Harvard guy shouldn't do the same for shattering my bliss and the millions of Christians.
Whoa! Isn't that a bit extreme? Not really when you consider we like to be extreme in our society. If you are not extreme, you are no where. A wuss. A middle of the road squirrel who will get run over. You have to stick to your guns, no matter what the scholars and men of reason might say. Science, archaeology, whatever, is only there to mess you up. They solve problems that are not there, and get us all upset.
Okay, okay! Let's look at this more objectively. We have a piece of writing from around the year 200 that refers to Jesus' wife. That's about the same time frame that the New Testament was deemed to have been completed with the book of the Apocalypse. There have been discoveries over the years of thousands of documents relating to Christianity dating from before that time which were not included in the Bible, but which tell history as it was lived at the time, and which have historical facts, or traditions that shed light on the Christian community and lived faith of the people of that time. (We should look for truth and embrace it wherever it may be.)
Did Jesus have a wife? The research on this one fragment indicates a yes answer. Before I agree, I would like to see some corroboration from another source. That may come. If there is further proof, then we may have to change some things. (Maybe they will change anyway.)
A no-brainer would be the idea of celibacy for priests. Perhaps also the place of marriage in the Christian culture, maybe elevate that higher than the priesthood. Maybe the place of women in society, since it would appear that Jesus is an egalitarian who actually, physically and emotionally, loved one.
Some discussion questions: What does it mean to have a person whom we call God actually marrying one of us earthlings? What would that say about his title? What is faith anyway that made Christians put Jesus so far beyond the human pale that we stopped seeing him as human at all? Why do some people think they have to solve God's problems by rioting and killing in his name? (As a note here: the actual number of people who protested outside American embassies around the world may have been a few thousand or less. Most of the 1.7 billion or so Muslims were carrying on their regular schedules of work, school, child care, etc. like we were doing here in America- except for Chicago.)
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Long Haul Politics
I was born after the Great Depression which began in 1929 and ended in the early 1940s. That was a real bad time. Up to 25% unemployment. FDR did some things, early in his presidency, and nothing seemed to happen. About midway through his second term, the federal deficit turned into a surplus, and unemployment continued to be about 18%, and it wasn't until 1942 that the country returned to "full employment." http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Steindl.GD.Recovery
As I read through the above cited article, I realized one thing, how complicated it is to solve the problems of a nation, that is in a world of other nations. And then I listen to the current arguments that presidential candidates, representatives, and senators offer up to get our current economy moving again. Actually, there is very little out there that hasn't been tried. Except perhaps co-operation, patience, and time.
One solution offered today is to lower taxes, cut spending, get the deficit under control, and voila, all the problems will be solved. Full employment, great government (fewer employees, fire fighters, cops, teachers, etc.) but somehow there will be more jobs. I don't get this. Maybe it is too simple an answer to a complicated problem.
The other solution has to do with raising revenue, make government more efficient by enforcing rules and regulations that would stifle fraud, create jobs with a building program that would leave a viable infrastructure for our grandchildren (as opposed to reducing taxes on us now ignoring the infrastructure and leaving our grandchildren with a pile of rubble, and letting them build what they want to and pay for it themselves.) I am glad that someone thought about our generation and left us an interstate road system, some decent bridges, nice parks, and so on. They also made us a fairly safe and secure country with decent educational opportunities.
This was all done with bi-partisan support, over time.
I know if a politician says truthfully that it is complicated, and there is no definite solution, but some things can be (have been ) put in place, and it is necessary to hunker down for the long haul, that person would not be elected to anything, but maybe should be. I also know that anyone who offers a simple solution is naive, just like me, and that person is probably playing to my fears.
As I read through the above cited article, I realized one thing, how complicated it is to solve the problems of a nation, that is in a world of other nations. And then I listen to the current arguments that presidential candidates, representatives, and senators offer up to get our current economy moving again. Actually, there is very little out there that hasn't been tried. Except perhaps co-operation, patience, and time.
One solution offered today is to lower taxes, cut spending, get the deficit under control, and voila, all the problems will be solved. Full employment, great government (fewer employees, fire fighters, cops, teachers, etc.) but somehow there will be more jobs. I don't get this. Maybe it is too simple an answer to a complicated problem.
The other solution has to do with raising revenue, make government more efficient by enforcing rules and regulations that would stifle fraud, create jobs with a building program that would leave a viable infrastructure for our grandchildren (as opposed to reducing taxes on us now ignoring the infrastructure and leaving our grandchildren with a pile of rubble, and letting them build what they want to and pay for it themselves.) I am glad that someone thought about our generation and left us an interstate road system, some decent bridges, nice parks, and so on. They also made us a fairly safe and secure country with decent educational opportunities.
This was all done with bi-partisan support, over time.
I know if a politician says truthfully that it is complicated, and there is no definite solution, but some things can be (have been ) put in place, and it is necessary to hunker down for the long haul, that person would not be elected to anything, but maybe should be. I also know that anyone who offers a simple solution is naive, just like me, and that person is probably playing to my fears.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Empty the Swamp- Drain the Stress
Lately, I have made it my business to become an expert on stress, mostly handling all the factors that come my way, sort of stress from inside out; or how you can empty the swamp when you are up to your a#$ in alligators.
And that is exactly what is important, knowing the problem. Alligators really can put a crimp in your stride. Know this, and you can adjust. Not know this and you are severely hobbled, even dead.
Another important thing is to know your swamp. Parts of it are deeper than others, and instead of your a#$, you are in over your head. This can happen in an instant, or over time. Either way, it is bad.
So these are two lessons from the swamp that relate to stress. I could probably go on, and lamely link other swamp things like bugs and muskrats to the analogy, but I won't.
My best advice on dealing with stress, after you know you have a problem and are dealing with it satisfactorily, check again and make sure you are seeing it correctly, and dealing with the problem in a reasonable way. Friends, people who care about you all can be a big help in improving your perspective. Sometimes you want to reject any and all suggestions out of hand, but remember, people are trying to help. And you have to welcome the help or your stress level will rise, and panic can set in. Bottom line, after listening, you decide on the action to be taken, and you call up that old virtue of fortitude (the habit of making decisions with out regret) and move forward.
It is good to remember that you are never really alone as you face life's decisions, even though you are the only one who is responsible to make them. Talking with people helps to reinforce the decision, and in this reinforcement, there is a reduction in negative stress. It really works.
Reaching out to others is one of the best remedies to reduce stress. Often, we like to go it alone. (No one needs to help, no one needs to know the problems, I can handle it.) This may work for a while, but it will take its toll on you in many ways, emotionally, mentally and physically. Talk about the issues that confront you. Open the door for alternative thinking. Keep up a lively social life that can be a support in difficult times. (Sometimes it is not good to be too liberal with bad news. You can make a lot of other people unhappy by one trip to the supermarket.) It helps to be sure the network that you have built is strong and positive.
Most of all, in any stressful period (or better yet, all the time) remember that you are number one. Take care of yourself, eat well, and exercise. Walk. Go miles a day. Share the walk, add talk and conversation. Do a workout at a gym where there are people on different journeys through life, and have some fun.
And the swamp is drained and the alligators are gone!
And that is exactly what is important, knowing the problem. Alligators really can put a crimp in your stride. Know this, and you can adjust. Not know this and you are severely hobbled, even dead.
Another important thing is to know your swamp. Parts of it are deeper than others, and instead of your a#$, you are in over your head. This can happen in an instant, or over time. Either way, it is bad.
So these are two lessons from the swamp that relate to stress. I could probably go on, and lamely link other swamp things like bugs and muskrats to the analogy, but I won't.
My best advice on dealing with stress, after you know you have a problem and are dealing with it satisfactorily, check again and make sure you are seeing it correctly, and dealing with the problem in a reasonable way. Friends, people who care about you all can be a big help in improving your perspective. Sometimes you want to reject any and all suggestions out of hand, but remember, people are trying to help. And you have to welcome the help or your stress level will rise, and panic can set in. Bottom line, after listening, you decide on the action to be taken, and you call up that old virtue of fortitude (the habit of making decisions with out regret) and move forward.
It is good to remember that you are never really alone as you face life's decisions, even though you are the only one who is responsible to make them. Talking with people helps to reinforce the decision, and in this reinforcement, there is a reduction in negative stress. It really works.
Reaching out to others is one of the best remedies to reduce stress. Often, we like to go it alone. (No one needs to help, no one needs to know the problems, I can handle it.) This may work for a while, but it will take its toll on you in many ways, emotionally, mentally and physically. Talk about the issues that confront you. Open the door for alternative thinking. Keep up a lively social life that can be a support in difficult times. (Sometimes it is not good to be too liberal with bad news. You can make a lot of other people unhappy by one trip to the supermarket.) It helps to be sure the network that you have built is strong and positive.
Most of all, in any stressful period (or better yet, all the time) remember that you are number one. Take care of yourself, eat well, and exercise. Walk. Go miles a day. Share the walk, add talk and conversation. Do a workout at a gym where there are people on different journeys through life, and have some fun.
And the swamp is drained and the alligators are gone!
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Learning about art
On this beautiful late summer day with a light breeze and glaring sun, I walked the half mile to Old Austerlitz where an art workshop was taking place. five or six participants were deep into the second day of the program, adding oil paint color to the brownish hued base acrylic painting they had done the day before. The artists were deep into their work attempting to get the exact colors of the sun soaked landscapes and buildings, and the appropriate shadows. It was fascinating to see.
This was another of my "where has this been all my life" experiences. I went to catholic schools when I was young. Art was not on the daily agenda for most of us, unless making mother's day cards with a rosary as the border around it, or pasting construction paper together to make some strange silhouette of the nativity, is considered art. My time in high school was spent on the important things like math, language, literature, history. There was no time for art. Some kids did manage to take some art classes, and I must say I admire that now.
Some aspects of it still confound me though. I remember going to the National Gallery of Art in the early 1960s to an exhibition of contemporary art. One piece that I will always remember was a totally black canvas entitled "Nine shades of black." As I gazed at this work which I thought took a lot of guts to hang up, I began to notice the different shades, and there were nine carefully drawn squares (3 X 3) with the nine different shades. I had to study it a long time before I could be sure there were nine different shades of black, and none of them were a dark shade of brown. It didn't grab me like some of the other paintings did at the time, but of all of them, this one I remember.
And this painting brings me back to the workshop. When I went there on the first day, after the artists had done a lot of work in acrylics in the searing sun or buggy shade, they were discussing some of the points of painting which are probably elementary, but were news to me. They talked about paintings that were content rich, color rich, or line rich, and if you didn't have content, then the other two are very important. For some reason, the "Nine shades of black" didn't measure up in any of the three categories, at least in my view. Yet it made it to the National Gallery of art. My guess is the artist was famous and this was a curious study that he put into the collection.
I hope to take a course in art one of these years. Maybe even do the workshop if it is offered again. My grandchildren should be able to brag about the grandfather who started painting when he was very old, and not only will he have a lot of silly blogs on the library shelf, but some "art work" to store in the closet.
This was another of my "where has this been all my life" experiences. I went to catholic schools when I was young. Art was not on the daily agenda for most of us, unless making mother's day cards with a rosary as the border around it, or pasting construction paper together to make some strange silhouette of the nativity, is considered art. My time in high school was spent on the important things like math, language, literature, history. There was no time for art. Some kids did manage to take some art classes, and I must say I admire that now.
Some aspects of it still confound me though. I remember going to the National Gallery of Art in the early 1960s to an exhibition of contemporary art. One piece that I will always remember was a totally black canvas entitled "Nine shades of black." As I gazed at this work which I thought took a lot of guts to hang up, I began to notice the different shades, and there were nine carefully drawn squares (3 X 3) with the nine different shades. I had to study it a long time before I could be sure there were nine different shades of black, and none of them were a dark shade of brown. It didn't grab me like some of the other paintings did at the time, but of all of them, this one I remember.
Abstract Painting contains three distinct shades of black, which become visible only after prolonged looking. Reinhardt was intensely sensitive to such subtle variations. He explained, “There is a black which is old and a black which is fresh. Lustrous black and dull black, black in sunlight and black in shadow.” When Reinhardt’s black paintings were first exhibited at MoMA, in 1963, their reductive imagery and stark palette shocked visitors, prompting at least one Museum membership cancellation in protest.
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78976
And this painting brings me back to the workshop. When I went there on the first day, after the artists had done a lot of work in acrylics in the searing sun or buggy shade, they were discussing some of the points of painting which are probably elementary, but were news to me. They talked about paintings that were content rich, color rich, or line rich, and if you didn't have content, then the other two are very important. For some reason, the "Nine shades of black" didn't measure up in any of the three categories, at least in my view. Yet it made it to the National Gallery of art. My guess is the artist was famous and this was a curious study that he put into the collection.
I hope to take a course in art one of these years. Maybe even do the workshop if it is offered again. My grandchildren should be able to brag about the grandfather who started painting when he was very old, and not only will he have a lot of silly blogs on the library shelf, but some "art work" to store in the closet.
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Once in a life time
"I can still feel the roar of the trucks. The monster tractors of past years
were much better though."- Al.
Last night I had the opportunity of a lifetime. For the first time in my 70 years or so, I witnessed a "tractor" pull at the Chatham Fair. Only they didn't use tractors, as indicated by Al's statement above. Retrofitted high powered pick up trucks with terrifying names painted on them like "Hell's Vengeance" or "Dragon Fire" replaced the magnificent tractors of yesteryear. It was not your father's pickup. These monsters must have had about 24 cylinders in them.
And they did roar. Deafening. And the ground shook. And I wanted to run. But there is something transfixing about the scene of one of these over sized, beefed up trucks pulling a huge apparatus the size of an 18 wheeler about the length of a football field in several seconds. The towed apparatus slowly applied pressure to its braking system until the pick up could no longer tow, usually because the front end of the truck was too high off the ground for the driver to manage the vehicle.
The trucks roared and so did the fans, and some one was declared a winner. I am not sure what constituted a win- perhaps distance, with time an additional factor. I joined in the applause at the end. Someone did a good job.
All in all, you could smell the fuel burning up, rubber on the track, brakes heating up, transmissions being over worked. Between pulls, a grounds crew using rollers, graders and other machines similar to a Zamboni, manicured the track.
The spectacle gives one huge macho jolt, enough for many years for me. Where has this sport been all my life, and why have I avoided it so assiduously? Well, I still have my hearing, and I still prefer baseball which "ain't over til it's over" (Yogi Berra), to any timed sport like football or basketball and of course soccer with its weird timing, or even the "tractor" pull with trucks on steroids. Call me a "citiot."
Note from Johnnie Carrier:
Johnnie wrote: "Phil I worked the tractor pulls at Schaghticoke Fair where my brother in law is fair president. My duties were to tow the monsters back back to the pits with a real tractor. Mostly they use Allison air craft engines. And the winner is the one who pulls the most weight the farthest. Nice piece for a ciitot ."
Last night I had the opportunity of a lifetime. For the first time in my 70 years or so, I witnessed a "tractor" pull at the Chatham Fair. Only they didn't use tractors, as indicated by Al's statement above. Retrofitted high powered pick up trucks with terrifying names painted on them like "Hell's Vengeance" or "Dragon Fire" replaced the magnificent tractors of yesteryear. It was not your father's pickup. These monsters must have had about 24 cylinders in them.
And they did roar. Deafening. And the ground shook. And I wanted to run. But there is something transfixing about the scene of one of these over sized, beefed up trucks pulling a huge apparatus the size of an 18 wheeler about the length of a football field in several seconds. The towed apparatus slowly applied pressure to its braking system until the pick up could no longer tow, usually because the front end of the truck was too high off the ground for the driver to manage the vehicle.
The trucks roared and so did the fans, and some one was declared a winner. I am not sure what constituted a win- perhaps distance, with time an additional factor. I joined in the applause at the end. Someone did a good job.
All in all, you could smell the fuel burning up, rubber on the track, brakes heating up, transmissions being over worked. Between pulls, a grounds crew using rollers, graders and other machines similar to a Zamboni, manicured the track.
The spectacle gives one huge macho jolt, enough for many years for me. Where has this sport been all my life, and why have I avoided it so assiduously? Well, I still have my hearing, and I still prefer baseball which "ain't over til it's over" (Yogi Berra), to any timed sport like football or basketball and of course soccer with its weird timing, or even the "tractor" pull with trucks on steroids. Call me a "citiot."
Note from Johnnie Carrier:
Johnnie wrote: "Phil I worked the tractor pulls at Schaghticoke Fair where my brother in law is fair president. My duties were to tow the monsters back back to the pits with a real tractor. Mostly they use Allison air craft engines. And the winner is the one who pulls the most weight the farthest. Nice piece for a ciitot ."
Thursday, August 23, 2012
A Game for All Ages-Stone the Grate
From now on, when someone "Googles" "stone the grate" or "can the grate" their search will be productive. You will not get leads to "great stones" or "great beer in cans". You will get this blog and find that "stone or can the grate" is or was a game that kids played before there was Wii, Nintendo, even clue or monopoly. It is a game our great uncle Joe from Detroit taught us when he came to visit our grandmother when we were in grammar school.
Why now? Why talk about this? Well, I started thinking about the game today when my wife and I were having a soda in the screen house. We emptied the can, and for some crazy reason, I proceeded to demonstrate the idea of the game. I placed a soda can on a stone, drew a wide circle, and stood behind the circle to try to knock the can off the stone with a can that I had. I missed with the throw which meant that I had to retrieve my can and get back across the line without being tagged by the person who was it. There were no other participants today, so I had to play all roles, moving back and forth trying to be it and not it at the same time. I was able to cross into the circle, pick up my can, quickly knock the "it" person's can off the grate (large stone), and retreat behind the line before the it person could replace his can on the grate and tag me. If that can had been on the grate, then I could have been tagged while I was getting my can back over the line, so that's why I had to knock it off. I explained all this to my patient wife, and she knew one thing for sure... I was crazy.
It is a simple game that is virtually unknown today, yet it is something that can be played anywhere, especially after emptying a lot of cans at a picnic, and any time of the year.
When Uncle Joe from Detroit (I emphasize that he was from Detroit because we had two other uncles Joe) taught us this game, we used rocks instead of cans. After we had smashed our fingers enough times with the rocks, we ventured across the street to a greasy gas station and picked up a bunch of empty oil cans. These were real tin cans, and they made the game really fun. They were lighter than rocks, less dangerous (except for minor oil fumes), and they made a lot of noise.
We played the game a lot in our backyard one summer. And then the neighbors started complaining, the noise, the happy sounds of us playing and shouting, arguing over whether the line was crossed or the can was on or off the grate. And mom decided to help us out by making bean bags from some old denim trousers, as a substitute for the cans. It eliminated the clanking, but not the fun, and the arguments to solve the problems of the great game where there were no umpires or referees.There were no tremendous skills involved. and so a very level playing field.
Uncle Joe from Detroit was in his 60s when he showed us how to play, so probably he had played this in the late 1800s.
Thinking about these things gets us back to our roots, where we have come from as individuals, as families and as a consumer nation. We are glad for where we have been, and like to pass on some of the fun to future generations. If the power goes off, and there is no Wii, then we can still have some fun. We should not forget the games of our youth.
We should also like to leave the future generations a land where there is clean air, a level playing field, and a decent infrastructure so the lights won't go out. These too are things that we have grown up with and we owe to the future generations.
Why now? Why talk about this? Well, I started thinking about the game today when my wife and I were having a soda in the screen house. We emptied the can, and for some crazy reason, I proceeded to demonstrate the idea of the game. I placed a soda can on a stone, drew a wide circle, and stood behind the circle to try to knock the can off the stone with a can that I had. I missed with the throw which meant that I had to retrieve my can and get back across the line without being tagged by the person who was it. There were no other participants today, so I had to play all roles, moving back and forth trying to be it and not it at the same time. I was able to cross into the circle, pick up my can, quickly knock the "it" person's can off the grate (large stone), and retreat behind the line before the it person could replace his can on the grate and tag me. If that can had been on the grate, then I could have been tagged while I was getting my can back over the line, so that's why I had to knock it off. I explained all this to my patient wife, and she knew one thing for sure... I was crazy.
It is a simple game that is virtually unknown today, yet it is something that can be played anywhere, especially after emptying a lot of cans at a picnic, and any time of the year.
When Uncle Joe from Detroit (I emphasize that he was from Detroit because we had two other uncles Joe) taught us this game, we used rocks instead of cans. After we had smashed our fingers enough times with the rocks, we ventured across the street to a greasy gas station and picked up a bunch of empty oil cans. These were real tin cans, and they made the game really fun. They were lighter than rocks, less dangerous (except for minor oil fumes), and they made a lot of noise.
We played the game a lot in our backyard one summer. And then the neighbors started complaining, the noise, the happy sounds of us playing and shouting, arguing over whether the line was crossed or the can was on or off the grate. And mom decided to help us out by making bean bags from some old denim trousers, as a substitute for the cans. It eliminated the clanking, but not the fun, and the arguments to solve the problems of the great game where there were no umpires or referees.There were no tremendous skills involved. and so a very level playing field.
Uncle Joe from Detroit was in his 60s when he showed us how to play, so probably he had played this in the late 1800s.
Thinking about these things gets us back to our roots, where we have come from as individuals, as families and as a consumer nation. We are glad for where we have been, and like to pass on some of the fun to future generations. If the power goes off, and there is no Wii, then we can still have some fun. We should not forget the games of our youth.
We should also like to leave the future generations a land where there is clean air, a level playing field, and a decent infrastructure so the lights won't go out. These too are things that we have grown up with and we owe to the future generations.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Fitness
About three weeks ago, I joined a health club. It gives me a destination in town, and a place where I am able to meet people and have a little fun, not to mention the possibility of getting into shape. I don't know why it took me so long to join a club.
Throughout the winter and spring months, I stayed in relatively good condition by walking almost every day, gradually lengthening the walks up to a regular of 3 miles, 3 or 4 times a week. I also included a couple of 5 mile ventures, and one into the unknown forest to the fire tower, and down the other side of that "hill" for a total round trip of about 6-7 miles. It was fun doing the walks, and on the off days from the club, I will continue to do them.
The problem with the walks are many. Most of the time was spent along a busy highway with trucks flying by at 60 mph. I injured myself one day when a truck's wind blew my hat off, and as I reached over my head to grab it, I jammed my left middle finger against my right hand. Ouch! It throbbed for the next two miles. Just walking a mile and a half one day, a total of 12 18-wheelers rolled by. So the road is hazardous. If I venture into the forest, like the fire tower trail, there are supposedly all sorts of wild animals waiting to get you. No matter where you walk, there is no cell phone service.
So I am glad to have joined the health club. There is a trainer who developed a plan for me, and showed me the machines. Start out slow he said. then he proceeded to show me a machine for my upper back, set it at 50 pounds, and had me do 15 reps. A piece of cake. We proceeded to the next machine for chest muscles. I almost fell over trying to get into the seat. He set it at 60, and told me to do 15 reps. Not bad! Next, to a machine for the biceps, where the weight was set at 20 for 15 reps, and this hurt a little. Finally, he brought me to a fourth machine, set it to 85 and I did 15 reps there. I thanked him profusely for showing me the secrets of the machines, and said I could do this. I was about to leave, and he said, "No, do it again on each machine 15 times." I thought to myself, I am starting slow, but he wants me to do this so I better. I struggled through the second set of exercises. He told me I was doing well, and now I had to do it again. I drew the line. "If I do this again today, I will probably have tight and sore muscles all over my upper body, and especially in my chest. I will think I am having a heart attack. I can't do that today. Next time." I was happy that he was so reasonable, saw my point, and let me off the hook.
I went back again after a couple of days, did the whole routine, and now I feel comfortable there. I raised the weight on all machines today, and look forward to continued progress into the triple digits of weight on some machines.
The real benefits of the club... air conditioning, bug free, sun free, and some good camaraderie among the people who go there and the trainers who do care about you, and also fitness.
Throughout the winter and spring months, I stayed in relatively good condition by walking almost every day, gradually lengthening the walks up to a regular of 3 miles, 3 or 4 times a week. I also included a couple of 5 mile ventures, and one into the unknown forest to the fire tower, and down the other side of that "hill" for a total round trip of about 6-7 miles. It was fun doing the walks, and on the off days from the club, I will continue to do them.
The problem with the walks are many. Most of the time was spent along a busy highway with trucks flying by at 60 mph. I injured myself one day when a truck's wind blew my hat off, and as I reached over my head to grab it, I jammed my left middle finger against my right hand. Ouch! It throbbed for the next two miles. Just walking a mile and a half one day, a total of 12 18-wheelers rolled by. So the road is hazardous. If I venture into the forest, like the fire tower trail, there are supposedly all sorts of wild animals waiting to get you. No matter where you walk, there is no cell phone service.
So I am glad to have joined the health club. There is a trainer who developed a plan for me, and showed me the machines. Start out slow he said. then he proceeded to show me a machine for my upper back, set it at 50 pounds, and had me do 15 reps. A piece of cake. We proceeded to the next machine for chest muscles. I almost fell over trying to get into the seat. He set it at 60, and told me to do 15 reps. Not bad! Next, to a machine for the biceps, where the weight was set at 20 for 15 reps, and this hurt a little. Finally, he brought me to a fourth machine, set it to 85 and I did 15 reps there. I thanked him profusely for showing me the secrets of the machines, and said I could do this. I was about to leave, and he said, "No, do it again on each machine 15 times." I thought to myself, I am starting slow, but he wants me to do this so I better. I struggled through the second set of exercises. He told me I was doing well, and now I had to do it again. I drew the line. "If I do this again today, I will probably have tight and sore muscles all over my upper body, and especially in my chest. I will think I am having a heart attack. I can't do that today. Next time." I was happy that he was so reasonable, saw my point, and let me off the hook.
I went back again after a couple of days, did the whole routine, and now I feel comfortable there. I raised the weight on all machines today, and look forward to continued progress into the triple digits of weight on some machines.
The real benefits of the club... air conditioning, bug free, sun free, and some good camaraderie among the people who go there and the trainers who do care about you, and also fitness.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
A Plea for Honesty and Integrity
I had the opportunity to meet with my congressional representative at the Blueberry Festival a few weeks ago. He came up to me quickly with a big guy by his side, whom I presumed was a friend of his, but who was never introduced to me. Only afterward did I realize that this big guy was watching my every move, and also scanning the crowd to make sure none of the folks at the festival were getting too close or aggressive, and therefore, since I was very close and very upset, could have been in grave danger..
Be that as it may, I expressed some important concerns: about the importance of health care for everybody, and that the ACA must be supported, and if there are problems, then amend the act; about the attitude in congress- "my way or the highway"- was not a way to make progress; that congress should do its job, instead of just running for office continually. There are other points I wish I could have made, but I wanted him to hear my plea for health care that works for America.
His only retort, between his smiling teeth was: "Did you read the health care act?", to which I proudly responded, yes, and he said something about $44,000 being a cut off for health care. That was not something that I understood was there. And so I Googled that figure and the affordable care act. and I came upon this link:
http://www.aje-dc.org/programs/dchic/affordable-care-act-2
I found it a helpful description of the ACA, and an antidote to the poisonous misinformation that comes about in debates over the health care act. $44,000 is significant, true, but it is not a deal buster. After that salary, some wrinkles to health care insurance costs do kick in, but not entirely unmanageable, and probably represents a fair approach to funding our insurance.
Most politicians give only a smattering of the law so they can argue a few points that may help them out. (My bet would be that most of them have not read the law, but have assumed the talking points of certain influential people who have an agenda that is not necessarily great for all of America.) They assume ignorance or blind allegiance from their constituents, and favor the constituency of the monied and the lobbies.And there are a lot of both of these who would like to "repeal" the ACA to the detriment of real progress on health care to benefit all citizens. I think almost everyone agrees that something must be done to assure coverage and to bring down health care costs.
To add to the confusion of all this, you have a company like Papa John's Pizza which I probably will never buy again, stating that they are raising the cost of pizzas by 14 cents a pie. Pure rubbish (the concept...the pizzas aren't bad). The honchos at Papa John's ought to read the link that I posted above, and be honest about why they are raising the price....to make more money; perhaps to contribute to the political cacophony, to confuse people, to take advantage of the gullible and the gluttonous. (An odd aside here is that Bain Capital used its skills to put Domino's Pizza, a rival of Papa John's,on a profitable footing.)
I just wish we could understand all of it in simpler terms, aside from the rhetoric, apart from our appetites. I would like truth, in real rather than fabricated context. I would like to see actual pluses and minuses, and how the minuses might be less of a problem. I would like our statesmen to work together to make America better as the compromisers of other times did to move forward. And most of all our elected officials should stop running for office long enough to do the people's business.
Monday, August 06, 2012
Right to Vote-Right to Bear Arms
The other day, one piece of mail came that intrigued me, especially in light of the efforts of states like Pennsylvania and Florida, and others to lay down new laws to prevent voter fraud in their repsctive states, thus requiring proof of identity and citizenship of all those who intend to vote.
The piece of mail was an invitation to me to join the NRA (National Rifle Association.) Perhaps my catalog subscription to Sportsman's Guide put me on their radar. The flyer said this is my "Final Notice" that time is running out unless I act now " (my) second amendment rights are certain to be dismantled and destroyed." (Underlining was in the text.) They ask me to write a check to preserve my second amendment rights. "Because your firearm freedoms and your hunting and shooting traditions are under attack.
This comes after a crazy shooting in Aurora, CO, and I am writing this after another near Milwaukee. WI.
And then comes a new effort to make VOTING more difficult in Ohio, on top of efforts towards establishment of new ID requirements in Pennsylvania, and to purge the rolls of phony voters in Florida. Voting is as much of a right as bearing arms. And there are more voters than NRA members. It has not produced any harm to anyone, unless you count assassinations of some of our leaders down through history. The amount of voter frauds is negligible in the opinion of almost all those who monitor the elections in this country. And this is the right that is being targeted by legislators in the various states. ( I wonder how many legislators in the states actually said they were going to change the election laws when they were campaigning.) Laws are being proposed to limit this right which is indeed being destroyed and dismantled by state governments throughout our land.
And guns? Almost every state has a provision in its State constitution similar to the second amendment. Most states do not require a permit to purchase gun. Most states do not require registration of a gun. Most states do not require a license for a gun. Only a few states have banned assault weapons. It is hard to believe that the second amendment is under assault and the right to vote is not.
I believe this strange mix up of values comes down to one very simple thing. Power versus the powerless. Guns are loud, they scare people, and they hurt. Votes, not so loud all the time, not so scary, not so hurtful. Maybe it is not power... perhaps bullying is a better word.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Open letter to Congressman Gibson
A letter to my congressman...
Dear Congressman Gibson:
I was one of the people who met you at the Blueberry Festival in Austerlitz last Sunday. I was glad you came, however I was a bit saddened to see how politics has changed from earlier times. There was only one person with you. In other years, candidates would come to events with an entourage, composed mostly of friends and other local politicians, eager to be in the shadow of the congressman or senator. I detected that you are on a lonely road with just one "friend" as a companion, and only later did I realize that this man was probably a security person. He made no effort to be friendly or engage in conversation, and he was always looking away, and occasionally at me. I guess that is part of modern politics, and innocence has been lost.
The other way that politics has changed is even more disturbing. There was a time when lobbyists worked the corridors of congress and tried to influence the outcome of legislation for the benefit of the people they worked for... railroads, pipelines, unions, health associations and so on. Usually congressman did not, dared not tell anyone which constituent was influencing his vote. Congressmen were there to do the people's business, and what was right for the country. They were able to make compromises to get laws passed and business done.
I noticed that you are listed as one who has signed a pledge not to raise taxes. You are in the pocket of the self described lobbying group known as Americans for Tax Reform. Your pledge is kept in a vault to be trotted out when your strings need to be pulled. How can you responsibly join a lobbying group and still be an independent voice for all the people you represent? You can't. You should run from this group, disavow the pledge, and stand up to do what is right for the district and the country.
I would also suggest that you gather a group of congressional leaders to investigate the ethics of joining a lobbying group and then saying that it is the people whom they are serving. It is impossible to be independent and also have given your vote to a lobbying group like ATR.
ATR is a 501,c,4 non-profit organization that does not have to pay taxes, and people who contribute to them cannot claim a deduction for their contribution. But, according to the ATR website, there is an ATR Foundation that is 501,c,3 organization which is both non-profit and allows for contributions to be deducted. The goal of the foundation is for "research and educational organization." ALMOST EVERY TOPIC LISTED UNDER THE FOUNDATION IS POLITICAL. I would think that the ATR Foundations should lose its 501,c,3 status.
To me, and many of my friends, these are important issues. I would like you to investigate and get back to me about them. Most of all, I would like you to put ATR behind you and be free to work for the people.
Sincerely,
Phil
Friday, July 20, 2012
Aurora, CO. - a reflection
Like the rest of Americans, and all world citizens, I have paused prayerfully out of respect for the victims and families affected by the massacre in Aurora, CO. It happens too often, and is there nothing able to be done?
I get a catalog called Sportsman's Guide. There are a lot of bargains in the catalog, on shoes, boots, tents, hunting equipment, ammo; even a gatling gun kit that allows a person to convert a .22 into a weapon that will shoot 4 bullets a second (I think that's correct.) It's the concept that is the problem. I asked myself, "Where can that be used?" Maybe if attacked by a herd of deer! or bears! Rabbits!
Lots of cross bows in the catalog too, and air rifles ala Red Ryder, and pellet guns. So I can get all this stuff, online, mailed to my home. And this company has some great buys on ordinary things like shorts, shirts and socks.
There are some places in the USA where I will not travel, a self restriction, because you never know who has a weapon, and sooner or later there will be a victim, often shot "inadvertently."
One congressman from Texas was surprised that no one in the theater had a weapon to confront the killer. Right! Compound the situation.
Is there really nothing that can be done about the violence in our land?
I get a catalog called Sportsman's Guide. There are a lot of bargains in the catalog, on shoes, boots, tents, hunting equipment, ammo; even a gatling gun kit that allows a person to convert a .22 into a weapon that will shoot 4 bullets a second (I think that's correct.) It's the concept that is the problem. I asked myself, "Where can that be used?" Maybe if attacked by a herd of deer! or bears! Rabbits!
Lots of cross bows in the catalog too, and air rifles ala Red Ryder, and pellet guns. So I can get all this stuff, online, mailed to my home. And this company has some great buys on ordinary things like shorts, shirts and socks.
There are some places in the USA where I will not travel, a self restriction, because you never know who has a weapon, and sooner or later there will be a victim, often shot "inadvertently."
One congressman from Texas was surprised that no one in the theater had a weapon to confront the killer. Right! Compound the situation.
Is there really nothing that can be done about the violence in our land?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Buying a car the easy way
Business is not my thing at all, and I usually feel hustled whenever I go to a car dealer showroom, no matter how prepared I am. Yesterday, I got a new car, practically for free. A year and a half ago, after two hours of wrangling, threatening to walk out, pleading for mercy, I did buy the car I just traded for a price that was okay, not what they promised, but I got what I asked for my old one.
So, Tuesday of this week, the salesman from the dealership called me up. "Do you still have that 2011 Accord?" "Yes," I replied, thinking they wanted me to get it in for the pending recall before it went up in flames. " We will take your car, pay off the principal, and give you a 2012 on a payment schedule less than you are paying now." "Right!" I replied, and he must have anticipated a click. So he said, "Really...we are looking for pre-owned cars. Would you like a red one as you have now, or some other color." "Blue, would be nice!" and that was tantamount to saying yes to his offer in his mind. "I think we have one blue one out there, I'll go check and get back to you." Right! You do that."
He did get back to me. He had a blue Accord, and he could lower my payments by $20 per month. I, still skeptical, said, "What about mud guards, can you throw those in?" (I remembered the negotiation a year and a half ago when mud guards came up after almost everything was finalized, except the payments. "They are $100 extra, and your car will look like a piece of crap with out them. You don't want to leave here without them.") This time, after the guy talked to the boss (they do this all the time... go to the back room to see what the boss thinks just to throw you off your game), the answer was "Sure, "We can do that." And the deal was sealed, or was it. "You have to bring in your car today to finalize everything-bring your license, registration, title, insurance card... this is a today only deal."
I gave it some thought after we had hung up. A today only deal. I have things to do today, and sitting around signing a bunch of papers after driving 35 miles was not on the list. I called back, left a message that I would not be coming in. It was too complicated for me to do it today.
Shortly thereafter, the boss called me. In his Italian way, he said "I thought we had a deal. I gave you everything you asked for!" "I can't get there until Thursday at 3 p.m.; will the deal hold until then?" "Sure, we want your car." "Why?" I questioned, "Is it valuable?" He explained that he could sell my car for $2 to $3000 more than my payoff, and he already had a buyer. The car I would be getting would be the dealer cost or thereabouts, which was considerably less than the suggested retail price of the car. We set up the Thursday exchange.
I woke up on Wednesday, and called the boss. I wanted to be sure about the terms of the deal, the trim of the car "It had to have the moon roof!" "How about the 17 inch wheels?" (I have come a long way from looking for the basics- wheels, motor, seats, steering wheel and stick shift.)
And so, Thursday, I had my new blue car, with 7 miles on it. I never knew I needed one. It was just too simple, and I made a lot of people happy, the boss, the salesman, the buyer (who probably overpaid) and of course me. Happy Birthday!
So, Tuesday of this week, the salesman from the dealership called me up. "Do you still have that 2011 Accord?" "Yes," I replied, thinking they wanted me to get it in for the pending recall before it went up in flames. " We will take your car, pay off the principal, and give you a 2012 on a payment schedule less than you are paying now." "Right!" I replied, and he must have anticipated a click. So he said, "Really...we are looking for pre-owned cars. Would you like a red one as you have now, or some other color." "Blue, would be nice!" and that was tantamount to saying yes to his offer in his mind. "I think we have one blue one out there, I'll go check and get back to you." Right! You do that."
He did get back to me. He had a blue Accord, and he could lower my payments by $20 per month. I, still skeptical, said, "What about mud guards, can you throw those in?" (I remembered the negotiation a year and a half ago when mud guards came up after almost everything was finalized, except the payments. "They are $100 extra, and your car will look like a piece of crap with out them. You don't want to leave here without them.") This time, after the guy talked to the boss (they do this all the time... go to the back room to see what the boss thinks just to throw you off your game), the answer was "Sure, "We can do that." And the deal was sealed, or was it. "You have to bring in your car today to finalize everything-bring your license, registration, title, insurance card... this is a today only deal."
I gave it some thought after we had hung up. A today only deal. I have things to do today, and sitting around signing a bunch of papers after driving 35 miles was not on the list. I called back, left a message that I would not be coming in. It was too complicated for me to do it today.
Shortly thereafter, the boss called me. In his Italian way, he said "I thought we had a deal. I gave you everything you asked for!" "I can't get there until Thursday at 3 p.m.; will the deal hold until then?" "Sure, we want your car." "Why?" I questioned, "Is it valuable?" He explained that he could sell my car for $2 to $3000 more than my payoff, and he already had a buyer. The car I would be getting would be the dealer cost or thereabouts, which was considerably less than the suggested retail price of the car. We set up the Thursday exchange.
I woke up on Wednesday, and called the boss. I wanted to be sure about the terms of the deal, the trim of the car "It had to have the moon roof!" "How about the 17 inch wheels?" (I have come a long way from looking for the basics- wheels, motor, seats, steering wheel and stick shift.)
And so, Thursday, I had my new blue car, with 7 miles on it. I never knew I needed one. It was just too simple, and I made a lot of people happy, the boss, the salesman, the buyer (who probably overpaid) and of course me. Happy Birthday!
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Justice John Roberts, a voice of reason
Justice John Roberts split the hairs and made a decision that confounded all the experts as he found reason to decree with four other judges that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. Whether or not you agree with the result of the supreme court decision, somehow this man set aside partisan politics and ruled in favor of the "liberal" agenda. But wait, he sided with the conservatives in declaring that the ACA's mandate for people to secure health insurance did not meet the constitution's commerce requirements. It did fit in under the broad powers of the federal government to tax. He tried not to say anything about the merits or wisdom of the law. Such a fine line, such an aberration from the conservative cause.
Justice Roberts is a breath of fresh air, a voice of reason above the din in a political climate that has been putrefied by serious animosity between parties and among extremists. He did his job as a judge, not encumbered by partisanship, to find a way to declare the law constitutional, after the lawmakers had spent years and months of toil on a rather prodigious piece of legislation. He did not cave to pressure on one side or the other. He worked it out.
Isn't this what governing is about... working it out...what congressional representatives ought to be doing...what the American people want to happen? It's the opposite of what has been happening for the last 20 or so years in congress and in the country. It takes us by surprise, when a person actually looks objectively at things, and gives an honest answer instead of the party line. Hip, hip, hooray for Justice John Roberts, who making an analogy to a baseball umpire, said during his confirmation hearing: "[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."[18] John Roberts had the courage to do his job as a judge rather than a partisan, and he deserves high praise, not second guessing for his action.
Justice Roberts is a breath of fresh air, a voice of reason above the din in a political climate that has been putrefied by serious animosity between parties and among extremists. He did his job as a judge, not encumbered by partisanship, to find a way to declare the law constitutional, after the lawmakers had spent years and months of toil on a rather prodigious piece of legislation. He did not cave to pressure on one side or the other. He worked it out.
Isn't this what governing is about... working it out...what congressional representatives ought to be doing...what the American people want to happen? It's the opposite of what has been happening for the last 20 or so years in congress and in the country. It takes us by surprise, when a person actually looks objectively at things, and gives an honest answer instead of the party line. Hip, hip, hooray for Justice John Roberts, who making an analogy to a baseball umpire, said during his confirmation hearing: "[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."[18] John Roberts had the courage to do his job as a judge rather than a partisan, and he deserves high praise, not second guessing for his action.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Pirates, Ahoy- A business model for...
"Pirates fall from first place!" This was the caption on my Toshiba Sport news about two weeks ago, and I was dumbfounded. "They were in first place?" This lowly excuse for a major league team was actually doing something this year, making a run for a pennant at this stage of the season. Usually by now, this team, nurtured in one of the best minor league systems in baseball, a team that probably is the lowest paid in the majors was actually doing something to make their fans smile and cheer.The Pirates have had 18 losing seasons in a row, and Pirate fans with long memories know this team could be bound for greatness.
I go back to the late fifties, when the Giants (my team) and the Dodgers were moving West. I followed the statistics closely on the loser Pirates and decided that they would be my team. They had accumulated some good hitters. The team with Dick Groat, Bill Virdon, Roberto Clemente, and Bill Mazeroski were beginning to come together. The team started to lead the league in hitting. The pitching staff was starting to jell also, especially when Harvey Haddix was added to Vernon Law, Bob Friend and Elroy Face. (Haddix pitched a perfect game for 12 innings in 1959, only to lose,1- 0 in the 13th...read about it...it's a great story http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1155946/1/index.htm) At any rate, the perennial cellar dweller Pirates eventually made it to the World Series against the Yankees and became world champions again in 1960, and more "recently" in 1971 and 1979. Then they faded.
You would think that the tale as this franchise would be very sad with a few glimmers of success. But, the Pittsburgh Pirates are actually one of the most successful franchises in baseball. The business makes money, like their net worth is $300,000,000. They do this by grooming good players in their farm, giving them some battle testing in the "bigs", and then trading or selling them before they have to pay big bucks for star quality athletes. Jose Bautisa, a former Pirate plays for the Toronto team, and has led the league in homers. There are others like him. http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2010/08/pittsburgh_pirates_thriftiness.html
The team could have been winning long ago if that was the aim of the owners. They chose rather to run a successful business, cutting costs, lowering overhead, taking money from the revenue sharing fund that supposedly helps teams in small markets compete with the teams in the larger markets like NY and LA. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2010/08/the_pittsburgh_paradox.html
So this is a successful business. It has nothing to do with winning, or fans, just making money. Now when did you last hear a Pirate fan yelling "We got a a great business, yea team!" I don't think you will ever hear that. The fans want a winner.
So what has this all got to do with anything. Slip into politics for a minute. Should government be run as a business? If so, what model should be used? What would be the criterion for success? Make/save money and screw the fans. Hmmm!
I go back to the late fifties, when the Giants (my team) and the Dodgers were moving West. I followed the statistics closely on the loser Pirates and decided that they would be my team. They had accumulated some good hitters. The team with Dick Groat, Bill Virdon, Roberto Clemente, and Bill Mazeroski were beginning to come together. The team started to lead the league in hitting. The pitching staff was starting to jell also, especially when Harvey Haddix was added to Vernon Law, Bob Friend and Elroy Face. (Haddix pitched a perfect game for 12 innings in 1959, only to lose,1- 0 in the 13th...read about it...it's a great story http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1155946/1/index.htm) At any rate, the perennial cellar dweller Pirates eventually made it to the World Series against the Yankees and became world champions again in 1960, and more "recently" in 1971 and 1979. Then they faded.
You would think that the tale as this franchise would be very sad with a few glimmers of success. But, the Pittsburgh Pirates are actually one of the most successful franchises in baseball. The business makes money, like their net worth is $300,000,000. They do this by grooming good players in their farm, giving them some battle testing in the "bigs", and then trading or selling them before they have to pay big bucks for star quality athletes. Jose Bautisa, a former Pirate plays for the Toronto team, and has led the league in homers. There are others like him. http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2010/08/pittsburgh_pirates_thriftiness.html
The team could have been winning long ago if that was the aim of the owners. They chose rather to run a successful business, cutting costs, lowering overhead, taking money from the revenue sharing fund that supposedly helps teams in small markets compete with the teams in the larger markets like NY and LA. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2010/08/the_pittsburgh_paradox.html
So this is a successful business. It has nothing to do with winning, or fans, just making money. Now when did you last hear a Pirate fan yelling "We got a a great business, yea team!" I don't think you will ever hear that. The fans want a winner.
So what has this all got to do with anything. Slip into politics for a minute. Should government be run as a business? If so, what model should be used? What would be the criterion for success? Make/save money and screw the fans. Hmmm!
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Celebrating Elizabeth II
60 years is a long time. I remember when Elizabeth II ascended the throne in 1952. I was in 6th grade, and we watched the ceremony on a 12 inch black and white TV in my grandmothers house downstairs from us. It was an impressive ceremony, awesome in contemporary parlance. It was interesting to see such a beautiful young woman being crowned head of state. Now they celebrate for four days in a British way.
There were no big speeches, no grand moments. Just ordinary stuff, put together, made up as it were to celebrate. Millions of Brits lined the boat and parade routes. Does anybody work in Britain? Thousands of boats floated along the Thames on Sunday, powered by human energy or even coal. The royal philharmonic played through a rain storm and when they played a hokey tune that I remember from “Pirates of Penzance” people including the Queen, Prince Philip , and other members of the royal family, and some of the crowd, “danced.” Now this was difficult to see. It wasn’t a jitterbug or rumba or waltz, just people bobbing up and down for several seconds. Discreetly restrained.
And for me, that’s the way the celebration continued. Very orderly. They played “My country tis of thee”…oops! “God save the Queen’” dozens of time. They cheered the Queen, “Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray!” twice that I noticed. One cheer was led by Prince Charles, the man who has lived in his mother’s shadow for 60 years, waiting patiently for his turn at the throne. And then there is the wave of the royal family, all schooled in the etiquette of waving, hands always within the shoulders, and not higher than the head. It was so, so restrained.
About the only thing that wasn’t perfect was the horse dung. They had hundreds of horses in the parades, and I guess horses rule parades. No one swept up the dung like they do in the Macy’s Thanksgiving parade or the Rose parade. No! The drum major led the bands right through the mess. Now that’s discipline!
All in all, it was a great tribute to the Queen, who in a way has been the only Queen I have ever known to exist. I know she does a lot of things, and continues to do her job as a public servant. She is kind and gentle. Accepts all the adulation with a smile. Probably is very humble. She seems to like her job…why not? I did feel sorry for her today as she had to face these celebrations without her life partner, Philip, by her side. He has always been there, and “Hip, hip, hooray!” for him.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Why I Hate the NBA
I just looked up and saw Manu Ginobili being introduced in game 5 of the NBA Western Conference playoffs. I know somebody, if not everybody out there is saying "I hate the NBA!", and rightly so. It is boring and usually predictable. The rules favor the scorers they say. One case in point is the rule on "travelling" or "steps" or "walking". That rule has actually been changed in the NBA to allow a player to take two steps before take off for a shot. I think they probably take more than two steps most of the time, but the refs let it go, and the rule will change to allow it. How else can a person travel from the 3-point arc to the basket? Two steps! Really?
Ginoboli has a distinctive charge when he is driving for the hoop. It looks like rugby. He puts the ball under his left arm, takes his two steps with his right arm brushing away the defenders, and then moves the ball to shooting position in his left hand while in the air to complete the play. It is astounding to watch this weird combination of sports in what used to be a non-contact sport (as opposed to contact sports such as rugby, football and boxing). I just don't want to be in Ginobili's way, ever.
Metta World Peace provides a real reason why people should hate the NBA (and maybe the NHL). His name change did not change him. Why would that break the habit of a lifetime, to crunch his opponents and those who jeer him? His pugilistic style of play, and reactions to the crowd, if tolerated in the NBA, as is Ginobili's, will eventually create an NBA that is indistinguishable from the NHL.
Now I have to see a little more of the Thunder whipping the Spurs, before they finally throw the game to the Spurs in the final seconds. It is predictable.
Ginoboli has a distinctive charge when he is driving for the hoop. It looks like rugby. He puts the ball under his left arm, takes his two steps with his right arm brushing away the defenders, and then moves the ball to shooting position in his left hand while in the air to complete the play. It is astounding to watch this weird combination of sports in what used to be a non-contact sport (as opposed to contact sports such as rugby, football and boxing). I just don't want to be in Ginobili's way, ever.
Metta World Peace provides a real reason why people should hate the NBA (and maybe the NHL). His name change did not change him. Why would that break the habit of a lifetime, to crunch his opponents and those who jeer him? His pugilistic style of play, and reactions to the crowd, if tolerated in the NBA, as is Ginobili's, will eventually create an NBA that is indistinguishable from the NHL.
Now I have to see a little more of the Thunder whipping the Spurs, before they finally throw the game to the Spurs in the final seconds. It is predictable.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Down size Soda size
How large should a drink of soda be? NYC wants to limit the size of sodas sold in some establishments.
I remember when I was younger, we would go to the corner store, or the one in the middle of the block, and buy a soda in the bottle. They were usually 12 oz. bottles, although some drinks like Tru-Ade and 7up came in 6 or 8oz. bottles. We drank what made us happy on any particular day before or after delivering our newspapers. Size didn’t usually matter; the taste of the moment did. All of the beverages contained a hefty amount of sugar; this was before saccharine and Splenda. We didn’t die, nor did we gain weight. We were active, and in reasonable shape. We did share, even the smaller bottles. "Can I have a sip?" worked until Eddie H. begged for a sip, and downed a whole bottle in a single gulp. Eddie did put on weight. Pepsi and Coca-Cola both came out with 16 oz. containers for individual consumption. We never bought that unless we were taking it home to share.
Uncle Bud had a soda fountain in the 50s. You could order 2 sizes of sodas, small or large. A small coke (soda) was 6 oz. and cost 5 cents. Large (12 oz.) was 10 cents. The neat thing about the fountain sodas was that they were mixed on the spot, with a dash of coke syrup or other flavoring added to carbonated water. For a few cents extra, another flavor like cherry could be added, and voila- the cherry coke. These things were done way before the canned product came out. The drinks were drunk at the counter or table, not take out. Two straws was a common and romantic way to share. It was simple, and not that bad on your health. However, the containers did remain the same size, and price went up a penny every so often until they doubled, and then the soda fountain closed.
Over the years is size of a soft drink has managed to increase the size of the containers. They became portable. And so it seems soft drinks are the only things that increase the size of the container and the price simultaneously.
Check out what used to be a pound of coffee in the supermarket. The same nice looking aluminum package went from one pound to 14 oz, to 12, to 11.5, and the price went up.
How about ice cream in the frozen food section. What looks like the old half gallon container is now a quart and a half, at a price similar to the half gallon price.
Snickers will discontinue the jumbo sized bar that sold for about $2, which probably was about the size of a regular snickers a decade or so ago. And so it offers a downsized version of snickers for about a buck. This Snickers thing is interesting. Actually they plan to package two bars together which will amount to slightly fewer calories in both bars than in the jumbo one, and they are trying to encourage us to share the second bar. Right! I don’t think that will happen, nor will the second bar be saved for later. There is nothing like a fresh Snickers.
Tropicana Orange Juice went from 64 oz. to 59 oz. supposedly because of the orange shortage last year. The container is the same size as the old one, just less juice, and the same price as the old volume. You can bet that you will never see 64 oz. of juice in that container again.
But back to the soft drinks, and the controversy in NYC to limit the size of the drinks. Why shouldn’t folks be able to buy any size soft drink they want. Why can’t the consumer determine his or her needs on this? A 32 oz. soda is a lot of sugar. It is a lot of lots of things which are not banned substances. People like to waste money, and it is their prerogative.
On a personal level, I would encourage fast food chains to do a couple of things to reduce the national waist. Maybe they should only include smaller sized drinks in advertising and as part of the meal deals they offer. Perhaps, too, they could take a page from the Mars Company that makes Snickers and offer two or three cups and straws with enormous drinks.
I remember when I was younger, we would go to the corner store, or the one in the middle of the block, and buy a soda in the bottle. They were usually 12 oz. bottles, although some drinks like Tru-Ade and 7up came in 6 or 8oz. bottles. We drank what made us happy on any particular day before or after delivering our newspapers. Size didn’t usually matter; the taste of the moment did. All of the beverages contained a hefty amount of sugar; this was before saccharine and Splenda. We didn’t die, nor did we gain weight. We were active, and in reasonable shape. We did share, even the smaller bottles. "Can I have a sip?" worked until Eddie H. begged for a sip, and downed a whole bottle in a single gulp. Eddie did put on weight. Pepsi and Coca-Cola both came out with 16 oz. containers for individual consumption. We never bought that unless we were taking it home to share.
Uncle Bud had a soda fountain in the 50s. You could order 2 sizes of sodas, small or large. A small coke (soda) was 6 oz. and cost 5 cents. Large (12 oz.) was 10 cents. The neat thing about the fountain sodas was that they were mixed on the spot, with a dash of coke syrup or other flavoring added to carbonated water. For a few cents extra, another flavor like cherry could be added, and voila- the cherry coke. These things were done way before the canned product came out. The drinks were drunk at the counter or table, not take out. Two straws was a common and romantic way to share. It was simple, and not that bad on your health. However, the containers did remain the same size, and price went up a penny every so often until they doubled, and then the soda fountain closed.
Over the years is size of a soft drink has managed to increase the size of the containers. They became portable. And so it seems soft drinks are the only things that increase the size of the container and the price simultaneously.
Check out what used to be a pound of coffee in the supermarket. The same nice looking aluminum package went from one pound to 14 oz, to 12, to 11.5, and the price went up.
How about ice cream in the frozen food section. What looks like the old half gallon container is now a quart and a half, at a price similar to the half gallon price.
Snickers will discontinue the jumbo sized bar that sold for about $2, which probably was about the size of a regular snickers a decade or so ago. And so it offers a downsized version of snickers for about a buck. This Snickers thing is interesting. Actually they plan to package two bars together which will amount to slightly fewer calories in both bars than in the jumbo one, and they are trying to encourage us to share the second bar. Right! I don’t think that will happen, nor will the second bar be saved for later. There is nothing like a fresh Snickers.
Tropicana Orange Juice went from 64 oz. to 59 oz. supposedly because of the orange shortage last year. The container is the same size as the old one, just less juice, and the same price as the old volume. You can bet that you will never see 64 oz. of juice in that container again.
But back to the soft drinks, and the controversy in NYC to limit the size of the drinks. Why shouldn’t folks be able to buy any size soft drink they want. Why can’t the consumer determine his or her needs on this? A 32 oz. soda is a lot of sugar. It is a lot of lots of things which are not banned substances. People like to waste money, and it is their prerogative.
On a personal level, I would encourage fast food chains to do a couple of things to reduce the national waist. Maybe they should only include smaller sized drinks in advertising and as part of the meal deals they offer. Perhaps, too, they could take a page from the Mars Company that makes Snickers and offer two or three cups and straws with enormous drinks.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Making of a President
One of the latest idiotic things that Mitt Romney is proposing is a requirement for all candidates for president to have at least 3 years of business experience so the people of the USA know they are getting an experienced business man at the helm to steer through the muddy waters of the business of this country. Probably, he is one of the few ex-CEOs that has ever run for president. Somehow, I think he has got this wrong. The business of the president involves business, yes, but so much more.
One business man who was president in my lifetime was Harry Truman. This haberdasher from Missouri has several enormous accomplishments which certainly did not derive from his experience as a businessman. His business went bankrupt after a few years. Nice looking store though. The photo is from his museum in Independence, Mo.
The Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WW2 certainly was beyond the ken of his original business plan. It was a remarkable success. He also integrated the armed forces by executive order, a bold move in those times. And he approved the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan when the war was about over? (What a business sense!)
Another business man was Jimmy Carter. He was a farmer from Georgia. He also did a lot of good things, most notably was getting some kind of peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, again a great bold accomplishment for those times, and one which has not been equaled in negotiations since by other presidents. Was this his business acumen at work in these negotiations? I wonder. He was also famous for wearing a sweater in the White House, and turning down the heat to save energy, and of course it was his fault for having the US embassy captured by Iranian radicals.
Two other businessman made it to the presidency, both named Bush. They were into oil, and that didn’t seem to help, other than to get us into two wars to preserve our oil interests in Iraq or Kuwait. I have difficulty understanding how a businessman, W., who ran a baseball team (Texas Rangers), who traded away Sammy Sosa to the Cubs after only a few games with the Rangers (averaged 42 homeruns per season through out 18 years in the majors and was MVP 9 times) , how does running this business qualify him to be president?
So that covers the businessmen who have been president since I was a kid. (For the record, Warren Harding and Herbert Hoover were very successful businessmen before they entered office, but they were before my time.) Of the others, 5 were (are) lawyers; there was a general, an actor, and a teacher.
FDR was probably the greatest and most influential. He brought the country out of depression and through WW2. He inspired people with his rhetoric and gave American and the world a hopeful message. Being a business man probably would have curtailed his vision and hampered his instincts to lead rather than follow the old paths.
Dwight Eisenhower was a general. He presided over 8 years of peace. He warned us about business- the military-industrial complex.
John Kennedy inspired everyone at that time with his rhetoric “What can you do for your country?” and his plan to put a man on the moon. No businessman would have thought of that.
Lyndon Johnson, the teacher, who eventually entangled us in the Vietnam War, did some good things with medicare and civil rights reform.
Even that “crook” (I am not a crook) Richard Nixon, an attorney, opened the doors to trade with China. I think he sent a ping-pong team over there to soften them up. (Or did he exchange pandas.) No businessman would have thought of these things.
And of course there was the actor Ronald Reagan who somehow managed to cut and raise taxes at the same time, and is a saint in some circles for the way he managed the government, and solved international problems (Tear down this wall).
And more recently, our two attorneys, Clinton and Obama, both getting in trouble- Clinton with personal issues and being impeached, and Obama with all sorts of lawsuits over the constitutionality of his the ACA. But both of these men inspire Americans in some way by laying out a vision that is fair and just for all.
So, back to the proposal by Romney to require presidents to have 3 years of business experience. It’s a non starter. Give me inspiration, creative genius, compassion, complex reasoning, lifelong learners, and that will be my choice for president.
One business man who was president in my lifetime was Harry Truman. This haberdasher from Missouri has several enormous accomplishments which certainly did not derive from his experience as a businessman. His business went bankrupt after a few years. Nice looking store though. The photo is from his museum in Independence, Mo.
The Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WW2 certainly was beyond the ken of his original business plan. It was a remarkable success. He also integrated the armed forces by executive order, a bold move in those times. And he approved the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan when the war was about over? (What a business sense!)
Another business man was Jimmy Carter. He was a farmer from Georgia. He also did a lot of good things, most notably was getting some kind of peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, again a great bold accomplishment for those times, and one which has not been equaled in negotiations since by other presidents. Was this his business acumen at work in these negotiations? I wonder. He was also famous for wearing a sweater in the White House, and turning down the heat to save energy, and of course it was his fault for having the US embassy captured by Iranian radicals.
Two other businessman made it to the presidency, both named Bush. They were into oil, and that didn’t seem to help, other than to get us into two wars to preserve our oil interests in Iraq or Kuwait. I have difficulty understanding how a businessman, W., who ran a baseball team (Texas Rangers), who traded away Sammy Sosa to the Cubs after only a few games with the Rangers (averaged 42 homeruns per season through out 18 years in the majors and was MVP 9 times) , how does running this business qualify him to be president?
So that covers the businessmen who have been president since I was a kid. (For the record, Warren Harding and Herbert Hoover were very successful businessmen before they entered office, but they were before my time.) Of the others, 5 were (are) lawyers; there was a general, an actor, and a teacher.
FDR was probably the greatest and most influential. He brought the country out of depression and through WW2. He inspired people with his rhetoric and gave American and the world a hopeful message. Being a business man probably would have curtailed his vision and hampered his instincts to lead rather than follow the old paths.
Dwight Eisenhower was a general. He presided over 8 years of peace. He warned us about business- the military-industrial complex.
John Kennedy inspired everyone at that time with his rhetoric “What can you do for your country?” and his plan to put a man on the moon. No businessman would have thought of that.
Lyndon Johnson, the teacher, who eventually entangled us in the Vietnam War, did some good things with medicare and civil rights reform.
Even that “crook” (I am not a crook) Richard Nixon, an attorney, opened the doors to trade with China. I think he sent a ping-pong team over there to soften them up. (Or did he exchange pandas.) No businessman would have thought of these things.
And of course there was the actor Ronald Reagan who somehow managed to cut and raise taxes at the same time, and is a saint in some circles for the way he managed the government, and solved international problems (Tear down this wall).
And more recently, our two attorneys, Clinton and Obama, both getting in trouble- Clinton with personal issues and being impeached, and Obama with all sorts of lawsuits over the constitutionality of his the ACA. But both of these men inspire Americans in some way by laying out a vision that is fair and just for all.
So, back to the proposal by Romney to require presidents to have 3 years of business experience. It’s a non starter. Give me inspiration, creative genius, compassion, complex reasoning, lifelong learners, and that will be my choice for president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)