Wednesday morning ponderings
Should welfare recipients continue to be able to draw welfare, if they win the lottery? Even if they win less than $5,000? Should the state be able to intercept the lottery winnings of a welfare recipient? All interesting questions that have been raised by a report that the State of Michigan has discovered that 3,544 people who won $1,000 or more in the state's lottery. Either they are still getting welfare, or they are living with someone who is.
Which in my mind raises a more interesting question. Should the income of the household be considered in determining who gets welfare and who doesn't? If someone who truly deserves welfare, say a single parent with three kids and no job; lives with another adult who earns a good living, should they still be able to receive welfare? Is the income of one person who is not married to another something that should be included in the calculation of "safety-net" benefits?
After all, if one person is able to pay the bills, why should taxpayers be subsidizing their 'partner'? Or their parent, if they are living at home? I don't have a good answer to this one. I see two sides to the equation. A parent, or an adult who is not the parent of another's children, and is not their legal spouse, has no legal obligation to support someone else. But if a welfare recipient is receiving life's necessities from another person, why should society be stepping in and providing them? What do you think?
Apparently Major League Baseball isn't very concerned about its players being involved in DUIs. The most recent case involves Yovanni Gallardo, who got caught behind the wheel and blew a .22 on the breathalyzer. Apparently in Wisconsin a first-offense DUI is not a criminal offense and the fine is $800 or less. So the problem doesn't start with MLB, it starts with a state that is way too easy on first-time offenders. But MLB needs to step-up and hold its players accountable for their off-field activities. If they can ban players for life for having gambled, or suspend them for months or years for associating with gamblers, they can take action against them for DUIs. These players serve as role models and they need to accept that responsibility willingly. Or let someone else take their spot in the majors. You earn the big bucks, you get the big headaches.
I saw the movie "42" yesterday. I will be writing a review of it within the next 24/48 hours, but I want to write a few things here that won't be in my review. First off, I understand why they re-wrote some of history in the film. Leo "The Lip" Durocher was the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 when the Dodgers brought Jackie Robinson up to the major league club just before the start of the season. And he was suspended from baseball for a year by Baseball Commissioner Happy Chandler. But the reason is not what was shown in the film. It was because of Durocher's association with and involvement in gambling. And they edited his famous locker room comments about him not caring about the color of Jackie Robinson's skin as long as he could help the team win. In fact, Durocher did say that. But he also said that he believed that by helping the club win, Jackie Robinson would help make Durocher and his players rich. His avaricious agenda was absent from the film and I understand why. It would have made his comments about Robinson seem less heroic.
But there is a re-write of history in the film that I do object to. Near the end of the film, the Dodgers are playing an away game in Pittsburgh against the Pirates. Jackie Robinson hit a home run in the top of the 9th inning of that game in the film, and the Dodgers radio broadcaster, Red Barber talked about how the home run clinched the pennant and the Dodgers were going to the World Series. But it was an away game. The Pirates would have had a chance to tie, and/or win the game in the bottom of the 9th. Barber wouldn't have said any of that stuff.
And, this ignores the fact that while the final score was 4-2 and Robinson's home run was the "game winning RBI", the fact is, he hit the home run in the top of the 4th inning with the Dodgers leading 1-0. The Pirates did score two runs later, but the drama created by the film wasn't real. And it wasn't necessary. Jackie Robinson is one of the greatest American heroes of the 20th Century. He doesn't need any artificiality injected into his story to make him more heroic, or to make his story more dramatic.
I lost my temper last night. I put myself into a position where it would be easy to lose my temper. Yes, I was provoked and yes the person who felt my verbal wrath probably deserved some response. But in the end, it was the wrong thing to do and I should have just ignored the provacateur. To ensure the situation doesn't repeat, I'm going to remove myself from that particular time/place, so I don't confront that person again. At least for several weeks.
I'm glad I don't pass on my blog's address to my clients, because some of them might be bothered by what I'm about to say. Please don't tell me you're going to give me, and/or my office, a positive review when you aren't. Just say you don't post reviews. It makes me think the quality of my service is not as good as I know it to be. So just be honest. It's like when a man asks a woman for her number, and she gives out a wrong number. Don't do that. Just be honest.
Five teen-aged boys in Oakland have been arrested in the murder of an off-duty paramedic. Two of them were just 14. The motive appears unclear. What is going on in Oakland? Journalists being robbed of their equipment and afraid to go out and cover the news. Something is really wrong there.
We may see a "Crocodile Dundee IV" in theaters (or direct to video) after all. Seems Paul Hogan is out $34 million, allegedly stolen from him by a financial advisor. Ouch.
It isn't just me thinking that the posters for the upcoming Tom Cruise film "Oblivion" look very similar in design to those of his 1986 blockbuster hit "Top Gun". Take a look for yourself.
This Date in History:
On this date in 1397, Geoffrey Chaucer first told the Canterbury Tales, at the court of Richard II.
On this date in 1492, Spain and Christopher Columbus sign the Capitulations of Santa Fe.
On this date in 1524, Giovanni da Verrazzano reaches New York Harbor.
On this date in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decides Locher v New York, a landmark case in contract/due process.
On this date in 1946, Syria gains independence from France.
On this date in 1964, Ford introduces the Mustang to North America.
On this date in 1969, Sirhan Sirhan is convicted of the assassination of RFK.
On this date in 1970, the damaged Apollo 13 spacecraft returns safely to Earth.
On this date in 1973, George Lucas begins writing the treatment for "Star Wars".
On this date in 1975, the Cambodian Civil War ends.
Famous Folk Born on this Date:
John Ford (Middle Ages English dramtist)
Collin McKinney
Senor Wences
Thornton Wilder
Gregor Piatigorsky
Nicolas Nabakov
William Holden
Don Kirshner
Olivia Hussey
"Rowdy" Roddy Piper
Michael Sembello (she's a maniac, a maniac...)
Jan Hammer
Bruce McNall
Nick Hornby
Sean Bean
Jennifer Garner
Rooney Mara
Which in my mind raises a more interesting question. Should the income of the household be considered in determining who gets welfare and who doesn't? If someone who truly deserves welfare, say a single parent with three kids and no job; lives with another adult who earns a good living, should they still be able to receive welfare? Is the income of one person who is not married to another something that should be included in the calculation of "safety-net" benefits?
After all, if one person is able to pay the bills, why should taxpayers be subsidizing their 'partner'? Or their parent, if they are living at home? I don't have a good answer to this one. I see two sides to the equation. A parent, or an adult who is not the parent of another's children, and is not their legal spouse, has no legal obligation to support someone else. But if a welfare recipient is receiving life's necessities from another person, why should society be stepping in and providing them? What do you think?
Apparently Major League Baseball isn't very concerned about its players being involved in DUIs. The most recent case involves Yovanni Gallardo, who got caught behind the wheel and blew a .22 on the breathalyzer. Apparently in Wisconsin a first-offense DUI is not a criminal offense and the fine is $800 or less. So the problem doesn't start with MLB, it starts with a state that is way too easy on first-time offenders. But MLB needs to step-up and hold its players accountable for their off-field activities. If they can ban players for life for having gambled, or suspend them for months or years for associating with gamblers, they can take action against them for DUIs. These players serve as role models and they need to accept that responsibility willingly. Or let someone else take their spot in the majors. You earn the big bucks, you get the big headaches.
I saw the movie "42" yesterday. I will be writing a review of it within the next 24/48 hours, but I want to write a few things here that won't be in my review. First off, I understand why they re-wrote some of history in the film. Leo "The Lip" Durocher was the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 when the Dodgers brought Jackie Robinson up to the major league club just before the start of the season. And he was suspended from baseball for a year by Baseball Commissioner Happy Chandler. But the reason is not what was shown in the film. It was because of Durocher's association with and involvement in gambling. And they edited his famous locker room comments about him not caring about the color of Jackie Robinson's skin as long as he could help the team win. In fact, Durocher did say that. But he also said that he believed that by helping the club win, Jackie Robinson would help make Durocher and his players rich. His avaricious agenda was absent from the film and I understand why. It would have made his comments about Robinson seem less heroic.
But there is a re-write of history in the film that I do object to. Near the end of the film, the Dodgers are playing an away game in Pittsburgh against the Pirates. Jackie Robinson hit a home run in the top of the 9th inning of that game in the film, and the Dodgers radio broadcaster, Red Barber talked about how the home run clinched the pennant and the Dodgers were going to the World Series. But it was an away game. The Pirates would have had a chance to tie, and/or win the game in the bottom of the 9th. Barber wouldn't have said any of that stuff.
And, this ignores the fact that while the final score was 4-2 and Robinson's home run was the "game winning RBI", the fact is, he hit the home run in the top of the 4th inning with the Dodgers leading 1-0. The Pirates did score two runs later, but the drama created by the film wasn't real. And it wasn't necessary. Jackie Robinson is one of the greatest American heroes of the 20th Century. He doesn't need any artificiality injected into his story to make him more heroic, or to make his story more dramatic.
I lost my temper last night. I put myself into a position where it would be easy to lose my temper. Yes, I was provoked and yes the person who felt my verbal wrath probably deserved some response. But in the end, it was the wrong thing to do and I should have just ignored the provacateur. To ensure the situation doesn't repeat, I'm going to remove myself from that particular time/place, so I don't confront that person again. At least for several weeks.
I'm glad I don't pass on my blog's address to my clients, because some of them might be bothered by what I'm about to say. Please don't tell me you're going to give me, and/or my office, a positive review when you aren't. Just say you don't post reviews. It makes me think the quality of my service is not as good as I know it to be. So just be honest. It's like when a man asks a woman for her number, and she gives out a wrong number. Don't do that. Just be honest.
Five teen-aged boys in Oakland have been arrested in the murder of an off-duty paramedic. Two of them were just 14. The motive appears unclear. What is going on in Oakland? Journalists being robbed of their equipment and afraid to go out and cover the news. Something is really wrong there.
We may see a "Crocodile Dundee IV" in theaters (or direct to video) after all. Seems Paul Hogan is out $34 million, allegedly stolen from him by a financial advisor. Ouch.
It isn't just me thinking that the posters for the upcoming Tom Cruise film "Oblivion" look very similar in design to those of his 1986 blockbuster hit "Top Gun". Take a look for yourself.
This Date in History:
On this date in 1397, Geoffrey Chaucer first told the Canterbury Tales, at the court of Richard II.
On this date in 1492, Spain and Christopher Columbus sign the Capitulations of Santa Fe.
On this date in 1524, Giovanni da Verrazzano reaches New York Harbor.
On this date in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decides Locher v New York, a landmark case in contract/due process.
On this date in 1946, Syria gains independence from France.
On this date in 1964, Ford introduces the Mustang to North America.
On this date in 1969, Sirhan Sirhan is convicted of the assassination of RFK.
On this date in 1970, the damaged Apollo 13 spacecraft returns safely to Earth.
On this date in 1973, George Lucas begins writing the treatment for "Star Wars".
On this date in 1975, the Cambodian Civil War ends.
Famous Folk Born on this Date:
John Ford (Middle Ages English dramtist)
Collin McKinney
Senor Wences
Thornton Wilder
Gregor Piatigorsky
Nicolas Nabakov
William Holden
Don Kirshner
Olivia Hussey
"Rowdy" Roddy Piper
Michael Sembello (she's a maniac, a maniac...)
Jan Hammer
Bruce McNall
Nick Hornby
Sean Bean
Jennifer Garner
Rooney Mara
posted by me at 7:52 AM
<< Home