Very Random Thoughts - February 2020

• Don't believe pro athletes when they say they don't play for the money. 
• It appears to me that you have to be overly hyperactive to be a college basketball coach. 
• I think Congress should spend time repealing or modifying laws, not just passing new ones. Same at the state and local level. 
• "Straight in a row" is redundant.
• The speaker gives a speech. English is confusing. 
• Several years ago when my Mom, after she and dad were retired, used to say she didn't have time to do ..., I rolled my eyes. You're retired, you have all day every day. Now, I think I realize what she meant. She didn't have enough time to get to all the things she wanted to do. I don't have enough time either. 
• Can singers who need numerous backup singers, a troop of dancers, and auto-tune turned up to max really be considered a solo act? 
• Being a critic of someone or something does not mean negative criticism. Siskel & Ebert were famous movie critics and sometimes they gave a movie or performer two thumbs up. 

• Maybe a way to reduce texting and driving. Eliminate automatic transmissions. Stick shifts require both hands and both feet. 
• Why do TV weather people spend half of their segment telling us about today's weather that has already happened? I want to know what's coming. 
• It seems that if something is done by more than three people, it is labeled an epidemic.
• Why do high school and college female sports teams still use "Lady" in front or "ettes" at the end of the mascot names? It is 2020 folks. 
• As soon as a self-driving car has a fender bender, everyone is outraged and the testing is shut down. Yet, we're OK with over 35K US highway fatalities a year caused by human drivers. 
• Hey folks, you didn't lose any money in your 401K or the stock market because of the recent coronavirus market downturn. You also didn't really make any money on the recent market runups. You only actually make or lose money when you cash out. So, chill. 
• Wash your hands. The coronavirus is not a Democratic host, it is real. 

wjh

Fashion

Probably one of the last things you expected to see on this blog is a post on fashion. I promise that I will not be competing with Vogue or Women's Wear Daily or GQ. This will be just mostly incoherent blabbering about some styles and fashions I've seen over the years. Maybe some snide comments too. I will also not comment much on female fashion. I don't understand it and I don't remember much of it. OK, I do remember mini-skirts.

First off let me say that many of the styles I've seen have been repeated, sometimes several times. Of course the young think they discovered it.

Let me give you a prime example. When I was in high school and college we had the preppy look and the surfer look. They existed together. In my private (Catholic) school we were mostly preppy. We wore oxford cloth button-down dress shirts, slacks, and loafers. Admittedly our school was a little different in that we had to wear a white dress shirt, tie, grey dress pants, and dress shoes. Even so, that's what our generation also wore outside of school, less the tie and maybe the shirt was colored and khakis in place of the grey slacks. When my youngest son, who is 45 years younger than I am, got dressed up during his high school and college days, he wore oxford button-down shirts, khakis, loafers or boat shoes. The tie and sports jacket would come out on special occasions. So, preppy made a comeback. I'm fairly certain that if the young folks of today knew that most of that look was popular in the 1960s they would be horrified. 

The hairstyles now have become freer. I mostly had short hair during my early school years including a flattop and butch wax phase. In the early '60s, we all tried to get away with the long hair look of the Beach Boys. This was a problem because some parents opposed this look and our school did not allow the swept bang style or hair touching your collar. We grew our hair long, especially in the front but kept it combed back during school hours. My crowd never really embraced the Beatles' hairstyle or clothing. The Beach Boys and other surf music groups had more of an advantage in Florida over British guys. If you look back at old Beach Boys or Beatles photos, when they started, you will see that their hair was not very long or radical. They were also well dressed. 

The length of pants has gone from short, to flood, to very long, even dragging on the ground. Neither is very attractive but the extra-long is also impractical. Stepping on your pants legs causes trips, dirt, and fraying. I think my first exposure to extra-long pant legs was during the bell-bottoms of the 1970s. 

Shoes have gone through a few revolutions too. During my high school days, you had to wear Bass Weejun loafers to be stylish. When the overly long and overly flared pants were the thing to wear, we had those ridiculous platform shoes. Those were actually good for me as a vertically challenged guy but they were ugly and impractical. Now, tennis shoes/sneakers/athletic shoes are acceptable almost everywhere. 

I'm old enough to have gone through several style changes in men's dress suits. We have gone from skinny lapels and ties to extra-wide ties and lapels then back again. Vests have been in and out of favor. Two-button, three-button, double-breasted jackets have all had their time. Suspenders (braces) or belts or neither? Pant cuffs or cuffless? Tie tacks, bars, chains or nothing? One or two slits in the back of the jacket? Pleated or flat front pants? You get the idea. All have been in and out of favor over the last 50 years. Right now it seems extra tight suits are the fashion du jour. Just wait, that suit you have in the closet will be in style again. And then it won't.

Almost every generation thinks their styles are unique and very cool. Those generations will eventually realize that much of their fashion is recycled and very well may be embarrassing when the pictures show up in future years.

I am not usually ashamed or embarrassed by the preppy or even the surfer styles of the '60s. I can not say the same about what we wore in the '70s. Those years were ugly. Wild colors and patterns. Terrible polyester materials. Even some conservative old guys went wild. Look at the golf outfits of the time. 

What gets me are the fashions that are completely impractical or stupid. Although it has subsided somewhat, the pants waist/belt below the ass with boxers on display is stupid. You can not do any movement without holding up your pants. It is hard to walk and impossible to run. The extra-long and baggy shorts are also beginning to go out of style. Some were within an inch or two from being long pants. Hey, those extra short tight shorts of the past were not great looking either. Artificially ripped, worn, and torn pants don't make much sense either, especially when you consider that it costs more to pre-mutilate the garments. Hoodies are another style of today. I understand a hood on a sweatshirt or a jacket. I'm at a loss as to why we need hooded t-shirts. 

Some recent styles have made it more difficult for me to buy clothes off the rack. I'm short so when styles dictate longer pant legs, shorts wind up a few inches below my knees and long pants drag the ground. Now some of that can also be attributed to the fact that people are bigger today than they were in the olden days when I grew up. There are way fewer small and medium-size choices these days. Lots more large, x-large, xx-large, even xxx-large sizes. But I digress. 

I'm sure you have some favorite fashions and styles even if they are out of vogue. You probably also have styles you hate regardless of how popular they are. Let's be honest, most fashion has no rhyme or reason and changes are made mostly to make us buy a new wardrobe every few years. It is primarily a first-world issue. 

As a retired guy, I don't have to follow any fashion trends. If it's comfortable and washable, it's in style for me. Suits are only for weddings and funerals. Look in your closet, how much is out of style but still perfectly good? How many things haven't you worn in months or years? 

These fashion observations may be completely foreign to you depending on your age and geographical location. Regardless, you have been through fashion cycles.

Fashion, the older you get the less important it becomes. 

wjh

TV Drama Plots

Over the years there have been many dramas on TV. Some were westerns, some were police or private investigator shows, some were medical dramas, some were about lawyers. There may be a few other genres. Regardless, there are several standard plotlines that are recycled over and over. Sometimes they have to be slightly modified to fit the genres or era but they are very recognizable. Listed below are some of those plots. 

• The star, (a cop, sheriff, PI, doctor), is falsely accused of a major crime. Sometimes they are even convicted before miraculously finding the real culprit in the last five minutes. This usually involves escaping from custody to get the real bad guy.
• The main character or guest star has a twin or someone who looks exactly like them. Of course, one is good and one is evil. Usually, the bad one pretends to be the good one. Sometimes the good guy uses the identical appearance to infiltrate the evil gang. Somehow, they can even fool spouses or lovers.
• The cattlemen vs the homesteaders, sodbusters, farmers, or sheep ranchers. A goodhearted hired gun changes sides and fights for the farmers. Barbed wire is usually involved.
• Every TV private eye was hired by a precocious kid who offered a couple of bucks to solve some easy case. The case always leads to something much bigger involving real bad guys. 
• The fake and corrupt prophet/healer/preacher/cult leader was always good for an episode or two. 
• The psycho killer who was put away by the star (cop or PI) is freed, paroled, or escapes from prison or mental hospital. He then stalks the star to seek revenge. Often involves loved ones of the star being taken hostage. 
• In westerns, there was always the prejudiced army colonel or major or cattle rancher or settlers who have a grudge against the Indians. A past massacre is often involved. The star, the only voice of reason, finally gets the two sides together and they all live happily ever after. This was basically the entire premise for every episode of the old TV show Broken Arrow. 

  

  Broken Arrow

• We often have a brilliant doctor who is an alcoholic. The doctor turned to booze, or drugs when they couldn't save a loved one. He/she usually recovers to perform an almost impossible procedure and miraculously saves someone in the last part of the show. 
• The cop/private investigator star or his best friend is accused of murder. One shady witness is enough to convict them despite years of exemplary service. It's touch and go for most of the episode, but the star and/or his buddy is always cleared eventually.
• It's not an official private eye episode unless the star gets hit over the head. No concussion protocol was needed. 
• The star goes undercover, is almost exposed but talks his way out of it. When his cover is finally blow in the last five minutes, it's too late for the bad guys. 
• A once brilliant lawyer due to alcohol and/or some family tragedy becomes useless and maybe broke. Some underdog persuades him to take a hopeless case against the richest person or corporation in the area. This broken-down lawyer with a staff of one part-time person defeats the huge rich law firm and their rich powerful client.

This is certainly not a comprehensive list of the overly pat recycled plots. I'm sure you all have your examples. Plots you recognize within the first three minutes of the show and can almost quote the dialog that will follow. There are even some of these plots that are recycled over and over again in the same series. How many truly distinct storylines did Gunsmoke have?

wjh

But It's an Election Year

Lately, the GOP seems to think that election years are special and the government should pretty much shut down. Actually, they think it is a valid excuse to shut down the opposition.

A few years ago, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said that a vacant Supreme Court justice position could not be filled because it was an election year. There was no need to even interview a justice nominee by what he called a "lame-duck" president. Just an aside, a president is not a lame-duck during an entire election year. The lame-duck period is only the time between election day and the inauguration. That would be early November until January 20th. Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016. A full 11 months before the end of President Obama's term. Judge Merrick Garland, considered a moderate, was nominated for the vacant justice position on March 16, 2016. A full 10 months before the end of Obama's term and almost eight months before the November 8, 2016, general elections. That is eight months before Obama became a lame-duck. McConnell said that the new president should get to fill that Supreme Court vacancy. That was a gamble on his part since if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election, she might have nominated someone more liberal and younger than Garland. He won that bet but it was still wrong. Presidents are elected to four-year terms, not two years and 11 months. Of course, the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell was proven when he was asked what he would do if a Supreme Court vacancy came up in 2020, an election year. He said unequivocally that the Republicans would fill it. Now if you take McConnell's original argument that you can not fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year then I propose that the Republicans can not fill any federal judicial vacancies this year. Fair is fair. Oh wait, Mitch doesn't play fair or even pretend to. 

This election year magic came up again during the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Many Republican politicians and Trump's lawyers have repeatedly said you can't impeach a president in an election year. You have to let the people decide at the polls. That means a president can only be impeached during that same two-year 11-month window. Now, in this case, Trump's alleged crimes took place in 2019, before the 2020 election year. So, I guess that means it's not the time of the crimes but when the Senate trial takes place. even if that trial is in January. This logic means that presidents can run amuck during election years and there is no immediate remedy. We have to wait until the election. What about the actual lame-duck period between November and January? Is a president completely unencumbered by any laws during that period? The oath of office is for the full term, not just three years or even three years and nine months. 

I'm not sure if this magic aura around an election year only applies to the presidential four-year cycle. Let's remember, all members of the House and ⅓ of the Senate is up for election every two years. Does that mean government business can only be done during odd number years? I contend that the Senate impeachment trial votes are invalid because ⅓ of the Senators are up for election in 2020. I guess the House impeachment was OK since the articles were voted on in 2019, a non-magic year. We need a ruling from Mitch McConnell on this.

I don't know about you but I think that our government and elected officials should function every year. I'm not willing to halt anything meaningful ¼ or ½ of the years. There may be some valid reasons for a slow down between election day and the seating of a new Congress or the inauguration of a new president. That is two or three months, not a full year.

Let's stop this magic year BS.

wjh

Very Random Thoughts - January 2020

• A new year and decade but still very random.
• It is now the trend for good college football players to skip bowl games unless they are part of the championship playoffs. Afraid of injury prior to a big NFL signing. 
• I wonder how generals and admirals get so many ribbons and medals to wear on their uniforms. They haven't been on any front line in years. 
• Sometimes a word looks more correct when it is misspelled. 
• It's probably time to check all those subscriptions you have. Netflix, the digital newspaper, magazines, Hulu, etc. Most are $5 to $20 per month and easy to lose track of. Did any of those free trials automatically turn into monthly charges?
• Remember to pace yourself. MMXX is a leap year so there is an extra day to navigate. 
• I saw several ads for Flirty Dancing on Fox during football games. Is there really a big audience crossover for a reality/dating/dance show for those who watch football?
• Just like sports teams, God and Jesus are not on the "side" of any one country. It's people, not geographical or political boundaries that are important.
• How much would it cost to stream everything on TV worth watching? Local channels, basic cable, expanded cable, sports, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO/Max, Showtime, Starz, Apple TV+, Disney+, CBS All Access, etc. More are coming. They all have at least a program or two worth watching. It was so much easier and cheaper when there were only three over the air channels.
• I just realized that people born in 1970 will be 50 years old in 2020. 
• If you are going to commit a crime, make sure it is a white-collar crime. You can steal millions and get off with probation or minimal jail time. 
• It seems the new food buzzword is plant-based. It may displace gluten-free, which has had a good run. 
• Extinct species: liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats. Moderates on both sides are endangered. Our country is worse off for this. 
• Wouldn't it be great if the music and commercials on TV programs weren't 30 decibels louder than the dialogue?
• Halfway between the truth and a lie is still a lie. 
• Those who say the Iraq war was the worst foreign policy mistake in modern history may be forgetting the Vietnam War. They are both worst. Many American casualties in each one. Many dollars spent.
• Global warming seems to be becoming global hotting. 
• To be a politician, one must perfect fake indignation. 
• They also have to be able to change your beliefs 180° at the drop of a hat. 
• I just saw an advertisement for a backpack. One of the selling points is it is ANTI-THEFT PROOF. I don't think I want one. English is hard. 
• It's amazing how often a headline or TV tease is completely misleading. You gotta dig deeper.  

wjh

Hyperbole Gone Too Far

Every politician stretches the truth. Sometimes it is using selective facts and statistics. Sometimes it is a slight exaggeration, sometimes a gross exaggeration or an outright lie. It may be a lack of knowledge or a mistake or on purpose. 

We have become numb and immune to the normal hyperbole of most politicians. Words like most, best, biggest, first, worst, and other superlatives have mostly lost any real meaning. Unfortunately, the current rounds of political speech have gone too far. Politicians, pundits, reporters bandy about words like traitor, treason, lynch, unAmerican, unpatriotic, fake news, an enemy of the people, hate the US, soviet style behavior, for anyone they disagree with. 

There has also been the use of derogatory personal slurs for those on the other side of the aisle. It's a favorite tactic of Trump. He labels all those who are not in 100% agreement with him. There is Nervous Nancy, Crazy Chuck, Pencil Neck Schiff or Shifty Schiff, Lying Ted, Little Marco, etc. Trump is like that big bully in junior high. 

There are many examples of this completely unacceptable oratory. 

After Democrats questioned the wisdom of assassinating Soleimani in Iraq, certain Republicans said that Dems loved terrorists. That they cared more about Soleimani than gold star parents. What complete bullshit. Trump was the one some months ago who badmouthed a gold star family and former POW John McCain. Not a single Democrat questioned Soleimani's character as a bad guy. They were questioning the administration's decision to kill him at that time in that manner in that location based on less than clear reasons. Amazingly GOP House member Doug Collins apologized for his comments on Fox news. Kellyanne Conway and Nikki Haley didn't feel the need to apologize for their inappropriate comments. I hope everyone remembers their out of bounds slurs. I will.

How about people in both parties just say that they disagree with those on the other side of the aisle. Maybe say that they are completely wrong, uninformed/misinformed, ignorant, have ulterior motives, etc. Do not question their patriotism. Being patriotic does not mean agreeing with everything our government does.

Neither political party has a monopoly on patriotism or dedication to our country. Let's dial back the rhetoric.

wjh

My Top 2020 Election Issues

In our diverse country, we each have political issues that are important to us and others that we barely care about. Those issues differ based on political party, age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, economic status, job, geographical location, and a thousand other things. In fact, the important issues change for individuals throughout life as our circumstances change. Listed below are some of the issues before us as a country for the 2020 presidential election. These issues are not absolutes. Differing definitions blur the exact meaning of each. Some are so intertwined that they can not be separated. None of them are single binary issues and they can not be addressed with a single solution. They are somewhat in my order of importance here going into the 2020 elections. The order may change as domestic and international events occur but they will all still be important. 

1. Climate and environmental change.
2. Health care reform.
3. Immigration reform.
4. Human rights. Including reproductive and gender identity rights.
5. Gun legislation.
6. Tax reform, particularly for corporations and the rich.
7. Campaign finance reform. 
8. The retaking of Congressional authority ceded to the President over the years. That's regardless of which party wins the White House.  
9. A more fiscally responsible budget.
10. Repairing our foreign alliances including trade.
11. Domestic terrorist crackdown.
12. Government corruption.

The top few are somewhat interchangeable depending on the latest news and current events. They are all vitally important. Climate change is both important and very time-sensitive. Inaction could be irreversible and deadly. 

I have no litmus test issues. If a candidate is aligned with me on most issues, she has a chance to get my support and vote. I think we should take every candidate as a whole. I did not agree with Obama on every issue in 2008 or 2012 but overall I thought he was the best candidate for the Democratic party and then in the general election. Likewise, although less so with Hillary Clinton in 2016. I also have optimism that my candidate will come around to the right view on an issue over time. An example is that I have for years been in favor of same-sex marriage, Obama was not. He eventually came around and supported it. I doubt McCain or Romney, Obama's Republican opponents, would have changed their minds.  

I think being a single-issue voter is dangerous to our democracy. That appears to be what happened with Trump. Evangelicals latched on to Trump because he allegedly was anti-abortion and promised to appoint judges that agreed with that stance. He has followed through on that promise, one of the very few he has fulfilled. Those evangelicals also got an immoral president who has committed a plethora of anti-Christian acts, statements, and policies. Trump was also formally a pro-choice advocate until he decided to run for president as a Republican. Always look at the candidate's entire policy, their life, and more importantly, their character. 

I believe most of the Democratic presidential candidates check off my issue boxes in general. The exact plans and implementations vary. I like some more than others. 

It is still early in the campaign and things will change. I hope our citizens pay attention and in November vote with their brains, not with their emotions. Make up your own minds, not what some TV network, newspaper, talk radio personality, or even a political party says to do. 

Decision 2020 is important. Treat it that way.

wjh