There is talk among the "experts" that this year's World Series may re-kindle America's love of baseball. Social media has been abuzz the past week with exclamations of disbelief as nearly every game has seen huge scoring and momentum swings and late inning rallies--not to mention a record number of home runs. And yet here I am--a diehard baseball fan--and I am disgusted by what I have seen.
This has not been great baseball. What we have seen so far in the World Series is some combination of T-Ball, Home Run Derby and a video game set on a level that is too easy. A 13-12 score between what are supposed to be the two best teams in the sport in a championship series is embarrassing. Both managers have so badly-handled their pitching staffs that no starters can make it past the fourth inning--but no one coming in from the bullpen can get anyone out. Perhaps they have decided to over-strategize the pitching in these playoffs, since the only thing they have to worry about on the offensive side is who is going to hit the next three run home run.
Now buzz is building about this being the "Greatest World Series Ever"--which really makes me mad. The list of "Greatest World Series Ever" begins with the 1991 Twins-Braves classic and ends with the nearly as good 1975 tilt between Cincinnati and Boston. The 1991 Series will almost be impossible to beat as it featured five, 1-run games, three that went to extra innings, a dramatic walk off homer in game six by Kirby Puckett (cue Jack Buck "AND WE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT!!") and dominant pitching performances by John Smoltz for Atlanta and Jack Morris of Minnesota in Game 7--who pitched all ten innings to pick up the win. Because offense was at such a premium in that series, every pitch was gut-wrenching drama and just getting a runner into scoring position ramped that up even higher. And the thought that Morris or any of the great Braves pitchers were going to come out at the first sign of trouble after the third inning was absurd.
And as for 1975, the heroics performed by nine Hall of Famers on the two teams was the stuff of legend--featuring Carlton Fisk's 12th inning homer that he waved fair off the foul pole over the Green Monster to conclude the greatest baseball game ever played--and Joe Morgan's incredibly clutch performance in Game 7 to bring Cincinnati from behind in the 9th and continue the Curse of the Bambino for another 30-years.
Unfortunately, ratings for this World Series are up considerably--as Millenials alerted to the craziness unfolding that night tune in on all of their devices to check out a video game come alive (although nowhere near the numbers for the 1991 Series). And those ratings equal dollar signs to MLB owners, who are likely thinking of ways to make every regular season game starting next year 13-12 with 15 pitching changes--and five hour game times. Before you know it, pitchers will be throwing underhand--and there will be a keg out a second base.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Thank You For Your Service
The couple in the row ahead of us got up about an hour and 15-minutes into it Saturday night. I knew they weren't just going to the bathroom or going to get a refill on their drink--you don't take your coats with you if you plan on coming back. I'll be honest, I was tempted to go with them as what I had been seeing was flat out pissing me off--and I almost couldn't take it anymore. And I'm just talking about watching a movie here.
My wife and I went to see Thank You For Your Service--which is based on the true-life experiences of three Iraq War veterans that struggled to cope with their return to civilian life in 2007. If you think that this is a standard war movie where the Americans come out the heroes or die valiantly while trying to save freedom you are in for a big surprise. Instead, this is a dark portrayal of how we as a country have failed those who have fought for us since 2001.
Denial of psychological issues by military commanders, the overloaded and inefficient VA system and even the failures of support networks at home make you feel as frustrated as the characters on the screen who just want to get some help for the experiences that haunt them. And then they start taking these dark turns that make you feel even worse for them--and that give you some insight into why returning soldiers have such high rates of suicide.
Because the stars of this movie are unknowns to me, it felt more like they were the men they portrayed. If Adam Driver had been up there it would have seemed fake--"Hey, Kylo Ren fought in Iraq". And because the characters aren't famous military heroes, there was never that assurance of knowing how this is going to end.
I would like to think that Thank You For Your Service is going to serve as a turning point in our treatment of returning vets. But considering there were fewer than 20-people in the showing with my wife and me--and two of them left halfway through--I doubt it's going to capture much of the public's attention. There was a seventh Saw movie to see and fifty different combinations of superheroes to put into films throughout the holiday season that everyone would much rather see.
Nobody wants to be made uncomfortable anymore. Or made to think about what our priorities really should be. You know, the title is perfect as well--because "thank you for your service" has become the automatic response to finding out someone has served their country. But are we really showing them appreciation?
My wife and I went to see Thank You For Your Service--which is based on the true-life experiences of three Iraq War veterans that struggled to cope with their return to civilian life in 2007. If you think that this is a standard war movie where the Americans come out the heroes or die valiantly while trying to save freedom you are in for a big surprise. Instead, this is a dark portrayal of how we as a country have failed those who have fought for us since 2001.
Denial of psychological issues by military commanders, the overloaded and inefficient VA system and even the failures of support networks at home make you feel as frustrated as the characters on the screen who just want to get some help for the experiences that haunt them. And then they start taking these dark turns that make you feel even worse for them--and that give you some insight into why returning soldiers have such high rates of suicide.
Because the stars of this movie are unknowns to me, it felt more like they were the men they portrayed. If Adam Driver had been up there it would have seemed fake--"Hey, Kylo Ren fought in Iraq". And because the characters aren't famous military heroes, there was never that assurance of knowing how this is going to end.
I would like to think that Thank You For Your Service is going to serve as a turning point in our treatment of returning vets. But considering there were fewer than 20-people in the showing with my wife and me--and two of them left halfway through--I doubt it's going to capture much of the public's attention. There was a seventh Saw movie to see and fifty different combinations of superheroes to put into films throughout the holiday season that everyone would much rather see.
Nobody wants to be made uncomfortable anymore. Or made to think about what our priorities really should be. You know, the title is perfect as well--because "thank you for your service" has become the automatic response to finding out someone has served their country. But are we really showing them appreciation?
Friday, October 27, 2017
Bursting the Conspiracy Bubble
Researchers and production assistants at all of the major news outlets had probably better cancel their weekend plans. The National Archives are supposed to release all of the "secret files" the Government has been holding on the Kennedy assassination today. Those poor reporters will now have to spend the next 72-hours pouring over transcripts of questioning sessions conducted by federal investigators,typed reports of "tips" that came into law enforcement across the country, ballistics reports, witness statements, travel records, internal memos and phone records--all in search of "proof" that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy, and not an act of one idiot.
The release of the materials today is actually a direct result of Oliver Stone's movie JFK back in the 1990's--which led to a renewed interest in assassination conspiracy theories. He led millions of Americans to believe that the Government knew what really happened--and that because it would "threaten the power structure in Washington", evidence was being covered up. So to appease the masses, there was an agreement to release all archive documents in 2017.
So now it will be the job this weekend of those researchers and PA's to find that proof. To somehow link together a tip here, a plane ticket receipt there and a witness statement in another file to prove that the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, the mob, the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas Police Department and the nebulous "Military Industrial Complex" all colluded to kill President Kennedy for the combined reasons of blocking Soviet missles in Cuba, revenge for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, cracking down on organized crime, promoting civil rights and not wanting to step up military intervention in Vietnam. That was the reason that Oliver Stone and his conspiracy theorists wanted us to believe, right?
Here is what all of the documents that will be released today will show: that the Federal Government and other law enforcement wasted a whole lot of money, time and resources on a wild goose chase trying to support the cockamamie conspiracy theories. We will find out that entire departments at the FBI and CIA were dedicated to re-examining all communications between Moscow, Havana and Washington in the years before November of 1963 to see if there were any "hidden instructions" on carrying out the plot to kill Kennedy. We will probably learn a lot more about every single person that Lee Harvey Oswald ever met in his entire life, where he bought everything he owned, and where he had been every minute for the ten years before getting that job at the Texas Book Depository.
And once we finish up going through all of those records we will find that there is NO credible evidence at all to support a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But rather than finally put this to rest, all today's release of records will do is fuel a new demand to release "the real evidence that the Government is obviously still hiding".
The release of the materials today is actually a direct result of Oliver Stone's movie JFK back in the 1990's--which led to a renewed interest in assassination conspiracy theories. He led millions of Americans to believe that the Government knew what really happened--and that because it would "threaten the power structure in Washington", evidence was being covered up. So to appease the masses, there was an agreement to release all archive documents in 2017.
So now it will be the job this weekend of those researchers and PA's to find that proof. To somehow link together a tip here, a plane ticket receipt there and a witness statement in another file to prove that the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, the mob, the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas Police Department and the nebulous "Military Industrial Complex" all colluded to kill President Kennedy for the combined reasons of blocking Soviet missles in Cuba, revenge for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, cracking down on organized crime, promoting civil rights and not wanting to step up military intervention in Vietnam. That was the reason that Oliver Stone and his conspiracy theorists wanted us to believe, right?
Here is what all of the documents that will be released today will show: that the Federal Government and other law enforcement wasted a whole lot of money, time and resources on a wild goose chase trying to support the cockamamie conspiracy theories. We will find out that entire departments at the FBI and CIA were dedicated to re-examining all communications between Moscow, Havana and Washington in the years before November of 1963 to see if there were any "hidden instructions" on carrying out the plot to kill Kennedy. We will probably learn a lot more about every single person that Lee Harvey Oswald ever met in his entire life, where he bought everything he owned, and where he had been every minute for the ten years before getting that job at the Texas Book Depository.
And once we finish up going through all of those records we will find that there is NO credible evidence at all to support a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But rather than finally put this to rest, all today's release of records will do is fuel a new demand to release "the real evidence that the Government is obviously still hiding".
Thursday, October 26, 2017
If It's Brown, It's Down
What is it with Wisconsin and being in a hurry to establish a hunting season for every animal or bird that populates this state? Yesterday, the state Natural Resources Board gave the DNR permission to start drafting rules for an elk hunt--even though the elk population hasn't hit the goal for starting a hunting season.
When the state started buying elk from Kentucky to transplant in northwestern Wisconsin, they said that there would be no hunting until 300 elk were roaming the area. That was a protection for the species, as enough would be left after hunting season to re-populate. Right now, there are an estimated 240 elk in Wisconsin--or about twenty percent fewer than what the DNR said it was going to need to start hunting them. But now, the department can't wait that long and they want to start selling hunting licenses.
This mirrors the DNR's reaction to the removal--albeit temporary--of the gray wolf form the endangered species list. I think it took about two seconds from the Federal decision to be announced to the Department drafting rules to hunt wolves in Wisconsin. As someone who had the "endangered resources" wolf license plates on my Jeep for years, I was offended that the animals that my extra registration fee were going to protect, were now going to be fair game for every deer hunter harboring a grudge.
Are there not enough other hunting options in Wisconsin that as soon as there is one more animal than is necessary to guarantee the continuance of a species we need to have a new hunting season for it? We already have seasons for deer, bear, coyotes, rabbits, foxes, mink, weasles, beavers, muskrats, raccoons, opussum, skunks, ducks, geese, turkeys, morning doves, grouse and pheasants. There's even a couple more species you can shoot with a special permit if they become a nuisance on your property. And yet, the DNR feels it needs to start hunting elk before their pre-determined goal is even met.
A few days ago I talked about possible replacements for "America's Dairyland" on our license plates. I guess I forgot "If It's Brown, It's Down".
When the state started buying elk from Kentucky to transplant in northwestern Wisconsin, they said that there would be no hunting until 300 elk were roaming the area. That was a protection for the species, as enough would be left after hunting season to re-populate. Right now, there are an estimated 240 elk in Wisconsin--or about twenty percent fewer than what the DNR said it was going to need to start hunting them. But now, the department can't wait that long and they want to start selling hunting licenses.
This mirrors the DNR's reaction to the removal--albeit temporary--of the gray wolf form the endangered species list. I think it took about two seconds from the Federal decision to be announced to the Department drafting rules to hunt wolves in Wisconsin. As someone who had the "endangered resources" wolf license plates on my Jeep for years, I was offended that the animals that my extra registration fee were going to protect, were now going to be fair game for every deer hunter harboring a grudge.
Are there not enough other hunting options in Wisconsin that as soon as there is one more animal than is necessary to guarantee the continuance of a species we need to have a new hunting season for it? We already have seasons for deer, bear, coyotes, rabbits, foxes, mink, weasles, beavers, muskrats, raccoons, opussum, skunks, ducks, geese, turkeys, morning doves, grouse and pheasants. There's even a couple more species you can shoot with a special permit if they become a nuisance on your property. And yet, the DNR feels it needs to start hunting elk before their pre-determined goal is even met.
A few days ago I talked about possible replacements for "America's Dairyland" on our license plates. I guess I forgot "If It's Brown, It's Down".
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Not Quite What It Should Be
I know it will be nice to have professional basketball here in Oshkosh starting next month, but to me, the NBA G-League is still not what it should be. Just looking at the Wisconsin Herd roster, you see its filled with a couple of guys that we can expect to play with the Bucks for spot duty this year (in fact, Gary Payton, Junior has already been recalled to the big club due to an injury to Malcolm Brogdon) along with undrafted college guys and a few NBA training camp cuts.
What the G-League should be is the solution to the one-and-done corruption of college basketball. Currently, NBA rules prohibit drafting a player until he is one year past his high school graduation. Because those guys can't play in the G-League either, they end up attending the minimum number of classes required by the NCAA to remain eligible for the first semester at a college basketball power, then attend no classes the second semester and leave school completely after the NCAA Tournament to prepare for the draft. Their being considered "student-athletes" is a complete sham--and prestigious universities lower both their standards and their reputations bending over backwards to accommodate them just for the sake of athletic glory.
But if the NBA lifted its age requirement, those guys (along with other talented players without the academic acumen to even stay eligible for one semester in college) could be drafted--and if they aren't ready for the big time, they can work on their games in the G-League and get paid--by both the parent club and by the shoe companies (solving another pox upon college basketball). That way college hoops can return to teams made up of kids that actually want to be in school.
Would opening the G-League to all high school grads (or at least those who reach 18-years old--and may not have even bothered to graduate) reduce the talent level of college basketball? It probably would. But college teams that have been together for three or four years would play better ball than the McDonald's All American team of freshmen that Kentucky hoops has been putting out there the last decade. And keep in mind, college basketball fans won't care--because the name on the FRONT of the jersey is far more important to them than the names on the BACK of the jersey.
I don't know if the NBA would ever go that route, as higly-touted prospects would likely demand more money to play in the G-League than the retreads currently filling those rosters. It's far too convenient and cheap to use the NCAA as a free farm system for the top line young players. But it sure would fix a lot of problems plaguing the sport in the so-called "amateur ranks". Now if we could just get the NFL to part with a few million from its coffers to start a professional minor league too....
What the G-League should be is the solution to the one-and-done corruption of college basketball. Currently, NBA rules prohibit drafting a player until he is one year past his high school graduation. Because those guys can't play in the G-League either, they end up attending the minimum number of classes required by the NCAA to remain eligible for the first semester at a college basketball power, then attend no classes the second semester and leave school completely after the NCAA Tournament to prepare for the draft. Their being considered "student-athletes" is a complete sham--and prestigious universities lower both their standards and their reputations bending over backwards to accommodate them just for the sake of athletic glory.
But if the NBA lifted its age requirement, those guys (along with other talented players without the academic acumen to even stay eligible for one semester in college) could be drafted--and if they aren't ready for the big time, they can work on their games in the G-League and get paid--by both the parent club and by the shoe companies (solving another pox upon college basketball). That way college hoops can return to teams made up of kids that actually want to be in school.
Would opening the G-League to all high school grads (or at least those who reach 18-years old--and may not have even bothered to graduate) reduce the talent level of college basketball? It probably would. But college teams that have been together for three or four years would play better ball than the McDonald's All American team of freshmen that Kentucky hoops has been putting out there the last decade. And keep in mind, college basketball fans won't care--because the name on the FRONT of the jersey is far more important to them than the names on the BACK of the jersey.
I don't know if the NBA would ever go that route, as higly-touted prospects would likely demand more money to play in the G-League than the retreads currently filling those rosters. It's far too convenient and cheap to use the NCAA as a free farm system for the top line young players. But it sure would fix a lot of problems plaguing the sport in the so-called "amateur ranks". Now if we could just get the NFL to part with a few million from its coffers to start a professional minor league too....
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Violating the 11th Commandment
While running for Governor of California in the 1960's Ronald Reagan established the 11th Commandment of politics: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". For decades the GOP abided by that commandment--as it's presidential primaries were fairly cordial affairs compared to the ugliness that beset the Democratic Party . But in today's political climate, the order to keep all in-party squabbles out of the limelight has gone completely out the window.
The latest example of that here is Assembly Speaker Robin Vos calling three State Senators that demanded Governor Scott Walker veto certain items in the new state budget in order to guarantee their votes "terrorists" during an interview on Up Front With Mike Gousha. This was quite surprising coming from Vos--who considers himself to be a Reagan Republican--and who is noted for not only toeing the party line but working behind the scenes to keep everyone else in line. Of course, Vos backed away from those comments and apologized after it became a statewide new story yesterday.
The Vos incident is just the tip of the iceberg of very public Republican in-fighting. That starts right at the top--with President Donald Trump putting anyone that doesn't bow to his wishes or that criticizes his outrageous comments and twitter rants on full blast in all forms of the media. I would suggest the President be given a large plaque with Reagan's sage advice to hang where he can see it from his desk in the Oval Office--but I know he wouldn't abide by it because Trump doesn't accept good advice from anyone.
However, you have to wonder if the 11th Amendment even applies to the President. Reagan did say "fellow Republican"--and as he has proven since day one of his campaign (and 40-years before that), President Trump is not a Republican. Yes, he won the party's nomination in an over-crowded field that spread real party support too thin early in the process and allowed his traveling circus to gain momentum. Then the Democrats put up the worst possible candidate to oppose him and he ends up with back-door win in the general election. But since then he has repeatedly shown that there will be no allegiance with the party or its platform--Trump is in politics strictly for himself.
So let the leader of the Trump Party speak ill of actual Republicans all he wants. And let those that actually stand by the principals of the party fire right back. But don't let him turn us against each other. For as another wise Republican once said "A house divided cannot stand".
The latest example of that here is Assembly Speaker Robin Vos calling three State Senators that demanded Governor Scott Walker veto certain items in the new state budget in order to guarantee their votes "terrorists" during an interview on Up Front With Mike Gousha. This was quite surprising coming from Vos--who considers himself to be a Reagan Republican--and who is noted for not only toeing the party line but working behind the scenes to keep everyone else in line. Of course, Vos backed away from those comments and apologized after it became a statewide new story yesterday.
The Vos incident is just the tip of the iceberg of very public Republican in-fighting. That starts right at the top--with President Donald Trump putting anyone that doesn't bow to his wishes or that criticizes his outrageous comments and twitter rants on full blast in all forms of the media. I would suggest the President be given a large plaque with Reagan's sage advice to hang where he can see it from his desk in the Oval Office--but I know he wouldn't abide by it because Trump doesn't accept good advice from anyone.
However, you have to wonder if the 11th Amendment even applies to the President. Reagan did say "fellow Republican"--and as he has proven since day one of his campaign (and 40-years before that), President Trump is not a Republican. Yes, he won the party's nomination in an over-crowded field that spread real party support too thin early in the process and allowed his traveling circus to gain momentum. Then the Democrats put up the worst possible candidate to oppose him and he ends up with back-door win in the general election. But since then he has repeatedly shown that there will be no allegiance with the party or its platform--Trump is in politics strictly for himself.
So let the leader of the Trump Party speak ill of actual Republicans all he wants. And let those that actually stand by the principals of the party fire right back. But don't let him turn us against each other. For as another wise Republican once said "A house divided cannot stand".
Monday, October 23, 2017
The Savers Get Punished Again
I've always expected the Government to come for our retirement funds. There is a lot of money tied up in tax-sheltered accounts that every member of Congress could find multiple ways to spend. I just always assumed that Democrats that would take steps to take it away--not Republicans.
There would always be a Bernie Sanders-like liberal that would see no need for Americans to put away money for their retirement--because "the Government will always be there to take care of you". All we would need to do is trust Washington to actually hang on to that money until retirement time. But looking at how Social Security and Medicare are trending--all of that would be gone long before those of us in Generation X would need it.
But it surprises me that it is Republicans that are taking the first steps to take away the incentive to save for retirement. The GOP tax plan being touted by everyone includes a provision that would reduce the non-taxable amount that can go into regular Individual Retirement Accounts or employer-provided 401k accounts from $18-thousand to just about $2400. While I would like to think that this change will drive more people to contribute to tax-free growth accounts like Roth IRAs, it will more than likely push folks to just spend the extra money promised by the tax reform measure right away.
The greatest fear is that Congress will eventually change the Tax Code to do away with the tax-free distributions from Roth IRAs and Roth 401k accounts. My wife and I are taking advantage of that benefit the most--maxing out our Roth contributions with post-tax dollars now, to reap the benefits in our golden years. But as more Americans do that, Washington would see a lot of dollars flowing to retirees that they can't touch. And based on an inability to control Government spending, they are going to need that cash even more in the future than they do now.
Plus, to keep the Code consistent, the maximum Roth contribution would likely be reduced to match the standard IRA limit as well--even though we are depositing post-tax dollars, and Government has already been given their share. If that happens, you have to wonder how or why anyone will see the benefit of saving for the future. And in doing so, Republicans will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats that preach Government dependency.
There would always be a Bernie Sanders-like liberal that would see no need for Americans to put away money for their retirement--because "the Government will always be there to take care of you". All we would need to do is trust Washington to actually hang on to that money until retirement time. But looking at how Social Security and Medicare are trending--all of that would be gone long before those of us in Generation X would need it.
But it surprises me that it is Republicans that are taking the first steps to take away the incentive to save for retirement. The GOP tax plan being touted by everyone includes a provision that would reduce the non-taxable amount that can go into regular Individual Retirement Accounts or employer-provided 401k accounts from $18-thousand to just about $2400. While I would like to think that this change will drive more people to contribute to tax-free growth accounts like Roth IRAs, it will more than likely push folks to just spend the extra money promised by the tax reform measure right away.
The greatest fear is that Congress will eventually change the Tax Code to do away with the tax-free distributions from Roth IRAs and Roth 401k accounts. My wife and I are taking advantage of that benefit the most--maxing out our Roth contributions with post-tax dollars now, to reap the benefits in our golden years. But as more Americans do that, Washington would see a lot of dollars flowing to retirees that they can't touch. And based on an inability to control Government spending, they are going to need that cash even more in the future than they do now.
Plus, to keep the Code consistent, the maximum Roth contribution would likely be reduced to match the standard IRA limit as well--even though we are depositing post-tax dollars, and Government has already been given their share. If that happens, you have to wonder how or why anyone will see the benefit of saving for the future. And in doing so, Republicans will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats that preach Government dependency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)