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

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

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

2020 New Year Resolutions

I don't usually even attempt to make New Year's resolutions. They seem to be artificial, mostly unrealistic and almost always forgotten in just a few days. That being said, I do have a couple of changes I would like to make going forward. Call them resolutions, goals, targets, behavior modifications, new habits, etc. It doesn't really matter. So, here we go in no particular order.

• Read 60 minutes or 100 pages a day. That means books, short stories, or long-form articles. It does not mean daily news or social media.
• Clean up a backlog of unfinished blog posts. I have about 40 unfinished posts. I need to either finish or discard them. Some are time-sensitive and no longer relevant, others need additional research, and still, others just need to be completed and edited. 
• Be more consistent in my physical activities. Overall, I do OK with cycling and walking but sometimes the activity comes in spurts. I may overdo it for a few days and then mostly lump around for a few. I'd rather do something almost every day. That can be a challenge in the winter.
• Cook more consistently. Same story as above. I've been known to buy and cook enough food for a couple of armies. Then, I may go for a few days with just opening cans, jars, and prepackaged stuff and relying on the microwave. 
• Be careful about overdoing the multi-tasking. I sometimes have three sports programs on at the same time. I put them all on mute and simultaneously listen to music or podcasts and do stuff on my PC. That's too much. Chill Bill.  
• I also plan on going to museums more in 2020 even if I have to go alone. I love museums plus they remind me of my Mom who also loved them. DFW has world-class museums and I need to visit them more often. Maybe some other cultural events too.

I'm lucky that I don't have to resolve to lose x number of pounds or go to the gym. I don't have to give up sweets or cigarettes or coffee.

Wish me luck. I'm not sure whether I'll report back on my success or failure. Happy New Year!

wjh

Beyond Burger

Fake, or should I say plant-based, burgers and meat are all the rage these days. Several restaurants are heavily advertising these alternatives to beef. I've also read a few articles that compare plant-based to real. Most of them are quite complementary to the plants. Livestock of all types seems to be the newest enemy in our environmental battles for a variety of reasons including cow farts and burps. 

So I tried to be environmentally correct last tonight. I cooked one of those plant-based burgers. It was a Beyond Burger from the Beyond Meat Company. Spoiler alert, this did not turn out well. 

See that nice pink patty in the above picture. My patties were closer to grey. I cooked the patty in a skillet on the stovetop. I even followed the recommended cooking instructions which were four minutes per side over medium-high heat. This "meat" does not smell that great raw and was even worse during cooking. Not a rancid smell, but not pleasant. It also tended to burn a little, the second side worse than the first. There was almost no juice exuded during the cooking. On the bright side, there were no grease splatters to clean up.

Now for the taste test. The short story, after two bites I threw the patty out. The longer story, it was rather dry and the texture was strange. It even seemed to have some gristle. Do they add artificial gristle for more realism? There was no pink center. In fact, there was no color variation except for the burnt spots on the top and bottom. 

The package states "previously frozen". The ones I bought were not frozen and were in the regular meat case. They are supposed to be eaten within three days of thawing. I did eat it by the "use by" sticker on the package although I have no idea when the store actually thawed the package. These plant burgers are no bargain either. The two ¼ lb. patties, a ½ lb total, cost $5.99. That makes this "meat" about $12/lb. That would buy some mighty special ground beef, more expensive than Wagyu beef.

I did some research and it seems these plant burgers are really no healthier than real beef. It depends on what you are most sensitive to or need in your diet. 

4 oz Beyond Burger →

Calories: 250

Total fat: 18 g

Saturated fat: 6 g

Cholesterol: 0 mg

Sodium: 390 mg

Carbohydrate: 3 g

Fiber: 2 g

Protein: 20 g

4 oz Grass-fed beef burger →

Calories: 224

Total fat: 14 g

Saturated fat: 6 g

Cholesterol: 70 mg

Sodium: 77 mg

Carbohydrate: 0 g

Fiber: 0 g

Protein: 22 g

Another issue for me is the ingredient list. Beyond Burgers are truly a man-made manufactured product. Real beef contains one ingredient: cow. A Beyond Burger, however, includes 18 ingredients: water, pea protein isolate, expeller-pressed canola oil, refined coconut oil, rice protein, natural flavors, cocoa butter, mung bean protein, methylcellulose, potato starch, apple extract, salt, potassium chloride, vinegar, lemon juice concentrate, sunflower lecithin, pomegranate fruit powder, and beet juice extract (the beet juice gives the burger its meat-like “blood”). I did not detect any "blood". 

Beyond Burgers might be fine for some people, vegetarians or vegans for example. As for me, I'm going to wait for science to get a little better at imitating a cow. 

wjh

Sad, Angry, & Pissed

I held off publishing this post until after the Thanksgiving holiday. I was certainly not thankful for this incident. 

This post is partly a vent and a rant. As the title says, I am sad, angry, and pissed off. 

A few days ago I got a text from my son. He was informing me that one of his friends and softball teammates had been shot and killed. This friend, Jared, was also a friend of mine. I have known him for a few years through the softball team. 

The best way I can describe Jared is that he was a good soul. He was almost always in a good mood despite any problems he was having. He seemed to enjoy life. I never once heard a cross word from him. He was funny and fun to be around. From what I know, he was conscientious and hard-working. Everybody liked Jared. Well everybody but maybe the shooter. 

From the news stories and what I have gathered, Jared was shot by his half brother. The original story to the police by the shooter was that Jared was going into the half brother's house through a window. This house is also Jared's mother's house. The cops were suspicious and a couple of days later filed murder charges. I won't go into the specifics since they really don't matter at this point. The bottom line is that a 30-year-old good man is dead and his 19-year-old half brother is charged with his murder. In addition to the tragic death, that family is now doubly devastated. Unless the shooter confesses, we may never know what actually happened. It has all the makings of a family argument. Jared was shot multiple times, like the kind of shootings that occur during a rage. 

Besides being a good soul, Jared leaves behind a wife and two young boys. From all accounts, he was a very devoted father. He was also a gifted athlete so while his boys may inherit his genes, they will be denied his teaching, coaching, and encouragement in their athletic endeavors not to mention their journey through life. 

The last time several of us saw Jared was on October 16th. The last softball game of the fall season. The Broncos had just won the league championship. It was a fun night. 

Broncos Softball - Jared back row right

My son and I attended the visitation and funeral. Both made me more sad and angry. Hearing from those who knew Jared and seeing the photos and videos of his life reinforced my impressions of him. The funeral was a very nice service with a large crowd. Jared had a big family and many friends. Very nice services and big crowds will not bring Jared back or heal the hole in all our hearts and lives. 

Jared Moore 2016

Now the rant part. While I have no knowledge of whether the gun involved in this tragic incident was legally purchased or the shooter was the owner. That doesn't matter to me. The fact is that a loaded lethal weapon was within easy reach when this situation occurred. That made it deadly instead of maybe a pushing match or a fistfight. That might have resulted in some injuries but probably no deaths. There are way too damn many guns in our society. It is estimated that there are more guns than people in the US. I know several people who have no guns, so some folks have a lot of guns. Why do we need all these guns? About 99.99% of the folks in this country don't need to hunt and shoot for their next meal. Many folks don't live in particularly dangerous areas. The neighborhood where this incident took place is middle-class suburban residential. I know the stock phrases like "guns don't kill, people kill". Well, bullshit. People without guns don't shoot and kill. The fact that a gun is within reach when a family or domestic argument occurs instantly makes that event potentially deadly. 

I have no simple solution but I do know that we need fewer deadly weapons in the public domain. Let's make it harder to buy and own a gun. Let's make it easier to take a gun from those who shouldn't have them. Let's fund more and better mental health services. Let's change focus to saving lives rather than maximizing the profits of gun manufacturers. Let's worry about the gun victims and their families instead of NRA head Wayne LaPierre and politician's war chests. At least, let's pass the gun restriction laws that the majority of Americans support like universal background checks and red flag laws.  

Every time I think of this tragic incident, I get a tear in my eye and very angry. 

RIP Jared. We will all miss you. This didn't need to happen. 

Jared's obituary.

wjh

The Irishman

I watched The Irishman on Netflix. It was originally released in the theaters for a couple of weeks before being available on Netflix. I'm glad I waited to watch it at home. The movie is about 3½ hours long. A movie that long requires a pause button for kitchen and bathroom breaks, not to mention a stretch or two. 

No surprise that the cast was good. Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, and Harvey Keitel play guys in or involved with the mob. It is directed by Martin Scorsese. I think those guys have some experience with this genre.

The movie is the story of Frank Sheeran (De Niro), a WWII veteran who is a Teamster and generally shady character who does some low-level jobs for some Philadelphia mob guys. He comes to the attention of Russell Bufalino (Pesci), one of the mob bosses in Philly. Although Sheeran is Irish, he speaks Italian and they hit it off. Sheeran becomes a confidant, enforcer, and hitman for Bufalino who introduces him to Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino). Sheeran does some dirty work in Detroit for Hoffa and they become fast friends too. 

Sheeran continues to work for Bufalino and at the same time rises in the Teamster union ranks thanks to Hoffa. He becomes one of the main conduits between Hoffa and the mob. Sometimes working for Hoffa and the union and sometimes working for Bufalino and the mob. Eventually, those two factions get sideways with each other. What will Frank do?

This is one of those time-shifting movies. It is Frank as an old man in a nursing home remembering his past. Scorsese chose to use CGI tricks to depict the players as younger men. This was done instead of hiring different actors to play the younger years. For the most part, the CGI young De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci were believable. There were a few scenes when one or more of the actors' makeup/CGI was a little off. I'm not sure if they used CGI or just makeup for the guys when they got old. Most of the main actors are already in their 70s so making them old is less of a stretch. 

The flashbacks were sometimes confusing as to exactly when they took place. It also made it harder to sort out all the relationships, especially for the peripheral characters. For those of us who were around in the '50s, '60s, and '70s it is fun to see the old cars and other signs of the time. Remember Stuckey's and Howard Johnson's? They did a good job recreating the times. There were also some good tunes in the soundtrack.  

This movie is far from the best work for any of the leads. Still, 75% to 80% of De Niro or Pacino is pretty good.

If you subscribe to Netflix, watching this movie is a no brainer. It's a theater-quality production. The 3½ length also makes home viewing the right choice. 

I'm going to rate this movie a B+. Everybody in it has done better work and it is a little disjointed at times. Definitely worth a look though. 

wjh

The Good Liar

We went to see The Good Liar the other night. It turned out to be a good choice. It stars Helen Mirren and Ian McKellen so we were pretty sure the acting would be good regardless of the script. Turned out the story was OK too. 

On the surface, this is the story of a grifter, Ian McKellen, who preys on older vulnerable women among his other scams. The vulnerable woman, in this case, is Helen Mirren. She is a widow with a substantial bank account. There are a few supporting characters like Helen's grandson and Ian's partner but this is primarily a dance between the two leads. They are more than up to the task.

No spoiler alerts, but all is not as it may first appear. You may figure out some of the plot twists but I'm guessing you won't figure it all out. That is unless you read the novel by the same name. 

This is a very satisfying movie. Those of us of a certain age may enjoy it more than the younger folks. Those watching with us were considerably older than those running around the cinema complex to see Frozen.

The movie is rated R for violence, language, and brief nudity. I found the violence and language to be very minor. The brief nudity was very brief and not part of a sexual nature. 

I rate this movie a B+. Maybe not the best movie of the year but certainly worth the time. 

wjh

Echoes of Laurel Canyon

Echoes of Laurel Canyon is a 2018 documentary about the musicians of the 1960s who congregated in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood of the Hollywood Hills. It is now streaming on Netflix. 

This was the time of The Byrds, The Mommas and the Poppas, The Beach Boys, Buffalo Springfield, CSN, and many others.

Jakob Dylan conducts interviews with several of the original musicians from that era and some contemporaries influenced by them. These are mixed with archival footage. There are also some redos of the old songs by Jakob and others mixed in. 

It comes through that there was a lot of cross-pollination and influences among the groups. The fact that many of these folks were neighbors facilitated that. Musicians also moved from one group to another.

One interesting factoid relayed by Brian Wilson is that Rubber Soul begat Pet Sounds. The Beatles say that Pet Sounds begat Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Each pushing the other.  This confirms what I had heard before and have always thought. Three pretty good albums.

This is far from a perfect documentary. Some early influencers and neighbors like Joni Mitchell are completely ignored. The revivals of the old songs by Jakob Dylan and company are not always very good. That opinion may be because I grew up with the originals and they are hard to improve on. I would have preferred more original music and in-depth interviews with those who inhabited Laurel Canyon back in the day. 

Still, if you are a fan of this music, it is a worthwhile look. You will probably learn something plus there is some good music. I rate this documentary a B. 

wjh

Seth Meyers - Lobby Baby

Seth Meyers is the host of the late-night talk show Late Night with Seth Meyers on NBC. He was formally the head writer and Weekend Update anchor for Saturday Night Live. He is a funny, smart, and articulate guy. I'm a fan and usually watch at least the monologue of his nightly show. 

Seth has a new comedy special on Netflix. Although he is very political and critical of Trump in his normal monologues, this special is primarily about his personal life as a husband and father of two young children. The title refers to the fact that his second child was actually born in the lobby of his apartment building. 

There is a rather short section of political jokes in the middle. The twist is that Netflix provides an on-screen button that allows you to skip the political joke segment. That way both Always Trumpers and Never Trumpers can watch and enjoy the program. 

The rest of the special primarily recounts the rather unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of Alexi and Seth's two children plus some other marital challenges. 

Seth usually presents his nightly monologue seated at a desk, Weekend Update style. I can remember when he first started hosting Late Night and did a standup monologue. He was pretty bad. Awkward, uncomfortable, and mostly lost. He has improved tremendously. He certainly doesn't command the stage like a Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, or Robin Williams (who does), but he is certainly adequate.

The material is pretty funny and self-deprecating. It is also mostly non-political. 

I rate this special a B+. Give it a look. Now streaming on Netflix. 

wjh

The Democratic Debates

I have watched all three Democratic debates. I'll watch the fourth and any subsequent debates. If the Republicans have a debate I'll watch that. After the nominees are chosen, I'll watch the general election debates. That's what I do. I consume a large amount of news and the debates are news. All that being said, I hate the political debates, especially the primary debates. Here are some of my suggestions for improving these debates to make them more informative. 

First, never have 10 or 12 candidates on the same debate stage. No one gets enough time to expound on their answers or policies. There are also too many interruptions and overruns of the allotted answer time. A few candidates get a lot of face time, some get almost no time. 

Limit each debate to one or two topics. One on healthcare, one on foreign policy, one on the environment, etc. Besides allowing for more in-depth answers, the candidates and questioners could also better prepare for the subject matter.

Limiting the topics would fix one problem we have had this election cycle. The moderators insist on asking healthcare questions. In fact, they insist on asking the same healthcare questions. Will your Medicare for all require raising taxes on the middle class? Will your plan force people who like their current insurance to change? Then if the questioner doesn't like the answer, they ask it again. Those same questions were asked in all the previous debates. It is as if healthcare is the only important topic. Another tactic would be for the candidates to refuse to answer questions that they have been asked, often dozens of times. Steer the topic to those not yet covered. Refuse to answer the gotcha questions that the media is so enamored with. There is no useful or informative answer to these types of questions. (Do you still beat your spouse?) 

The DNC could require the networks and questioners to stick to the agreed-upon topics. Failure to comply and the network and/or questioner is banned from future debates. 

Find some way to give each candidate close to equal time. That may mean restricting the time of those who don't abide by the rules. Maybe turn off their microphone. Real debates have real rules that are enforced. These political debates are more consequential than a high school debate. 

The DNC, media, and candidates owe it to the public to make these debates or forums meaningful, informative, and factual. I don't hold out much hope that any of these changes will be implemented. Both parties and all media outlets seem to be invested in the current very flawed format. We can only hope.  

wjh

More Information, Less Informed

In this age of the internet and numerous cable news networks, we have an abundance of information at our fingertips. We should all be far better informed. Yet, unless we are diligent, we only get that information in short segments. Very few deep dives where we get all the facts and context rather than just the headline. 

The cable news equivalent of the newspaper headline or extra addition is the breaking news graphic, announcement, chime, or the large blinking TV crawl (chyron). 

We also have many news outlets that are highly curated to give a specific slant and bias to the news they disseminate. Some have no regard for facts and spread conspiracy theories. There is also a blurring between news content and opinion or editorial content. We should all realize that Fox News is slanted toward the Trump/GOP agenda. MSNBC is slanted toward a more Democratic view. Neither of these networks has actual news programs during primetime. They are opinion/commentary shows. The same is also true for most of the daytime programs. 

As slanted as those two networks may be, they are "fair and balanced" compared to many media outlets. There are websites, podcasts, YouTube and Facebook Live shows, email newsletters, etc. that are at the extremes. You can find some outlet that will feed you what you believe is the truth and what want to hear. Of course, that is dangerous. We all tend to agree with the news that most mirrors our beliefs and views. We also tend to dismiss news we don't agree with regardless of the facts. 

I would encourage you to flip the channel, go to another website, subscribe to a different newspaper or newsletter. I would also encourage you to regularly skip the opinion shows. Watch the network and local newscasts around 6:00 each evening. Read your local paper and a couple of national publications. Give a peak to an international TV news program like the BBC or even Al Jazeera. See what the rest of the world thinks about what is happening and what they think about the US.  As time goes by, if you have an open mind, you will learn which publications, programs, reporters, anchors, websites can be trusted. None are infallible, but some are mostly factual. The good ones quickly admit their errors and correct the reporting. The bad ones simply forget the story or dig in and repeat the erroneous stories. Two different sources are better than one. Three are better than two. 

Find out who you can trust then curate your own opinions based on those facts. Even then, everyone will not agree. Facts are facts but they can be interpreted differently. Religious, ethnic, racial, gender, geographical, political, professional, etc. differences play into our interpretations of those facts. 

It's our country. It is our duty to vote and if we plan to vote, it is our duty to be informed. 

wjh

Goliath - Season 3

Goliath is an Amazon Prime TV series that stars Billy Bob Thornton as maverick and brilliant lawyer Billy McBride. A once big-time lawyer, he has forsaken all that and descended into an often drunken very small practice. Yet, he takes the down and out underdogs cases against the big corporate bad guys. He, of course, wins in the end against all odds. I thoroughly enjoyed the first two seasons. They are still available to watch on Amazon.  

In this third season, Billy is up against a family that controls all the water and commerce in a rural California agricultural area. Many farms, businesses, and residences have no water. The farms and businesses owned or in cahoots with the controlling family have all the water they want. 

Dennis Quad is the main bad guy for season 3. He plays Wade Blackwell, the top guy in Blackwell County. There are a few other big stars in the cast. 

The first few episodes of season three find Billy and several others in a hallucinogenic stupor fostered by Blackwell and his henchmen. These episodes were disjointed. Many characters came and went for no apparent reason. For a brilliant lawyer, Billy was extremely dumb and slow on the uptake. There was some bad, and over-acting by several of the characters. The whole script is filled with one dimensional, unbelievable, and over the top characters. 

Finally, midway through episode five, Billy figured out he was being drugged and actually began to act like a brilliant lawyer again. 

As usual, Billy won the case with some luck, investigative work, and legal maneuvering. The ending is also somewhat disjointed. It will be interesting to see if there is a fourth season and if so, how they put things back together. 

This was by far the worst of the three seasons. I can't really recommend this season, but it isn't terrible. The last three episodes are far better than the first four. 

I rate this a C overall for an uneven season.  The first two seasons are far better. 

wjh

Our Last Visit to The Temple

Globe Life Park

On a warm evening, September 12, 2019, my youngest son Matt and I made our last trip to Globe Life Park to see a Texas Rangers baseball game. It turned out to be a very enjoyable evening. One of the great joys of being a father is going to a ballpark with a son who is also a baseball fan. There are no bad visits regardless of the game outcome, the weather, the seat location, the traffic, or anything else.

A little history. I am a big baseball fan. When very young, I was a New York Giants fan. We lived in the metro New York City area until I was about 6½ years old. I remember watching their games on an old black & white TV. Willie Mays was and is my all-time favorite baseball player. We then moved to Florida and there was no local or even near MLB team so I still rooted for the Giants but hardly ever got to see them play. After college, I moved to Atlanta and the Braves had also recently moved to town. I had the chance to go to several games back when Hank Aaron was their star. I even got to see Willie Mays on the few occasions that the now San Francisco Giants and New York Mets came to town. I became an Atlanta Braves fan. Even when I moved to south Georgia I could keep up because their games were televised on WTBS and carried on cable TV. Then in the mid-'80s, I moved to the DFW Texas area. The Texas Rangers were the local MLB team. I knew little about them since they were an American League team and were never contenders. Nevertheless, I decided to latch on to them as my new team. It was difficult. The team was mostly terrible and the ballpark was even worse. Still, Arlington Stadium could be fun. Admission and concessions were cheap and there was no problem getting good seats at the last minute. We all got used to mediocre at best baseball and facilities. 

Then in the '90s, the team started to get better. Not great but respectable. They had some young studs and signed Nolan Ryan. They also got new ownership that finally had some money. They planned and financed a new stadium along with the city of Arlington. It was just across a parking lot from the old stadium. 

I was lucky enough to go to the opening day of the new stadium and then the next night to the first night game. They were nosebleed seats down the right-field line but still great. It was amazing. It was a particularly striking contrast from the dump that was the old stadium. It was big, not cramped. It was shiny and green, not faded blue and rust. There were dozens of concession stands and restrooms, not just a couple of often flooded locations. There were big electronic scoreboards and TV monitors. It was beautiful. In fact, it was the best ballpark I had ever been in. Not the most iconic or historic but the best. I had been to (old) Yankee Stadium, Shea, Wrigley, Fenway, Dodgers, Anaheim, Candlestick, and several others. It was beautiful. The first time you emerge from the concourses to the field of any ballpark is special. This was extra special because I was one of the first 40,000 people to experience that Opening Day and the Rangers were my adopted team. That Opening Day was in 1994. Now in 2019, 26 years later, the stadium is apparently worn out. 

This ballpark will always hold a special place in my heart. Besides being there for Opening Day, I also had the opportunity to take my stepson to that first opening night game. I went to many games with friends and colleagues in those first few years. Finally, probably around 1997 or '98, it was time to take my youngest son to a ballgame. He was five or six by then and already a baseball fan and old enough to know what was going on at the game. He was a huge Pudge Rodríguez fan at the time. I still remember as we made our way to our seats, we passed a big poster of Pudge. Then we turned the corner and he saw the field. It was a magical moment for both of us. I have no memory of who the Rangers played or who won the game. It didn't matter. At that game and several others, Matt would drink Dr. Pepper, eat a hot dog, maybe ice cream in a little batting helmet. Dad had a couple of beers and maybe a dog. 

We also went to a couple of fan days during the off-season when we could tour the clubhouse, indoor batting cages, the dugout, and the field. Matt got to take batting practice, run the bases and slide into home. Special times. 

The Rangers continued to improve after they moved to the new ballpark. It was originally named The Ballpark in Arlington. It then became Ameriquest Field. Unfortunately, Ameriquest went out of business with the mortgage crash in 2007. The stadium went back to Rangers Ballpark. In 2014 it became Globe Life Park. The new stadium will be named Globe Life Field. 

Starting in the mid-'90s, the Rangers began winning division titles. They peaked in 2010 and 2011. By 2015 and '16, they made the playoffs again. Matt and I went to those playoff games. By then, he was joining me in drinking cold beers. We now go to games every season. It is always a joy. We splurge for good seats, pay attention to the game, and have a few beers. We once stayed through the end of an 18 inning game. 

Our last trip to Globe Life Park was almost perfect. It was a Thursday night game against the Tampa Bay Rays. We headed that way around 5:30. We parked across the street from the stadium and right next to Texas Live, the new eat, drink, entertainment venue. We had a good early dinner. Better food, a real table, a server, and less expensive than the ballpark. We then matriculated across the street to the stadium. While standing in the security/ticket line, we heard the national anthem. Into the concourse and we grabbed a beer because we had to walk about halfway around the field to our seats. We stopped at our aisle to talk to our favorite beer vendor. Then walked to our seats just in time for the first pitch. No waste, no haste. They were good seats, row nine between home and the third-base dugout. The beer vendor in that section is a friend so we were well taken care of. It was warm but not oppressive and the Rangers won the game. Most importantly, I was with my son at a ballgame. What more can you ask?

The new ballpark opens next season. I'm sure it will be nice. It will have a retractable roof so there will be no more 100° days or rainouts. Comfortable, but it will never replace the current stadium or even the previous old dump. My youngest son will never see his first MLB game at the new field. I will never have to stand in ankle-deep water for a beer or piss in the trough of old Arlington Stadium restrooms. Matt and I for sure will go to games at the new Globe Life Field. Maybe someday there will be a son/daughter and grandchild we can go see a game with. That will make the new venue really special.

A local sports radio guy early on named the ballpark The Temple. It was an apt name and has stuck. I don't know if the new Globe Life Field will get a nickname but it will never be The Temple. RIP old friend. 

wjh