A few weeks ago, in a heated discussion (an in person discussion no less), someone called me a great big blowhard. My response was to point out that this was worse than the pot calling the kettle black, it was more like a really dark black pot calling a kettle black.
Now an equivalent situation has come up in the Republican presidential campaign. During the GOP debate this past week, Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz castigated Donald Trump for failing to release his income tax returns.
Now the two senators have claimed to release their tax returns, but they really haven't. The 2014 tax return for Senator Cruz is only the Form 1040 itself. None of the supporting schedules or forms. Where is the Schedule C? Where is the Schedule A, so we can see just how Senator Cruz's charitable contributions were directed, if any? The Schedule H on which the Cruz family paid nearly $39,000 in household employee taxes would be highly interesting.
Also interesting is the fact that Hillary Clinton has released full income tax returns, not just the two page Form 1040. Mitt Romney did take his own sweet time releasing his tax returns during the 2012 presidential campaign, but when he did he released hundreds of pages of documents. Every single page of each tax return. However we can conclude from the limited Cruz tax forms release that he doesn't quite tithe as he discusses on the campaign trail.
To be fair, Senator Rubio also released only the two page Form 1040s for 2010 through 2014. He and Senator Cruz need to release their entire tax returns or shut up about what Donald Trump has and hasn't released.
In a thread on a friend's FB timeline, there is a thread about the dangers that Donald Trump represents to our nation's future. One poster wrote some things that demand a response, but the required response will be too long for FB. So I'm going to post his words here and then respond:
"What's
truly "scary" is how many people read and believe the biased left media
propaganda rather than truly learning and understanding the real issues
that will actually effect our future generations. That is clear in the
responses to this post. Not a single republican candidate wants to "wage war around the globe", "reverse Roe vs. Wade", or "eliminate gay marriage"..."
Later in that post, that writer made reference to "unlimited giveaway programs" provided by the Obama Administration and when asked to give examples, posted this:
"...here
are a few example but don't look to see it covered by the leftist media
anytime soon. Foodstamps grew from $23B to $90B under Obama in 7 short
years and he would like to grow it more (look it up). Interesting when
it was $0 in 1960 that we now need to
spend $90B a year, don't you think?. Disability giveaways are at an all
time high now, robbing the social security trust and our seniors
future. Personally I've paid close to $400K in social security and paid
income taxes on all of that, and will likely not see it in old age.
People are moving off of unemployment and onto permanent disability for
things like "anxiety, stress, obesity." Both programs are rampant with
fraud and freeloaders, but the dems love it and make the access easier
and easier. If a republican tries to "trim" foodstamp expenditures back
by $5M, the dems scream "racism and trying to balance the budget on the
backs of the poor", and Obama vetoes it. I know, I know....it's "the
economy" and Bush caused it. It's really not worth having the
discussion with liberals. Fiscal conservatives and liberals just think
very differently. Self reliance, or the lack there of, is the main
philosophical difference." Let's start with "...rather than truly learning and understanding..." and talk about the reference to SNAP spending growing from $23B to $90B under President Obama in 7 short years. That's a distortion of the facts. SNAP spending in FY 2008 (which ended in September of 2008, just a few months before President Obama was inaugurated) was actually $39 billion. That's a 50% understatement of the reality by this poster. In FY 2013, five year later, SNAP spending peaked at $80 billion, not $90 billion. It has been falling since. So rather than nearly quadrupling as this writer wants you to believe, it had more than doubled. Considering the things that happened to our nation's economy following the collapse of the housing market, that isn't surprising. It also wasn't just that more people had need because of the recession. It was that more of the eligible population began using the benefits. In a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-profit think-tank, we learn that only 69% of the 37 million eligible for SNAP in 2007 were taking advantage of the program. At the peak in 2013, there were 51 million eligible for SNAP and the participation level had risen to 85%. What that says about the Obama Administration is that it went out and educated people so they could take advantage of a program they were entitled to. Entitlement is used by people like this writer as a pejorative label. It isn't. It merely means that someone is receiving something that are legally eligible to receive. My mother gets her Social Security retirement benefits because she earned them by working for all of her adult life. At 77 she is still working because those benefits aren't quite enough to live on and major medical expenses not covered by Medicare or private insurance have drained her retirement savings. Now let's deal with the other major falsehood promulgated by this writer. "Disability giveaways are at an all
time high now, robbing the social security trust and our seniors
future. Personally I've paid close to $400K in social security and paid
income taxes on all of that, and will likely not see it in old age."
Disability is not a giveaway. It is an entitlement. It isn't robbing the "Social Security Trust Fund" when one learns that the reality is there are two separate trust funds in the U. S. Treasury. One to cover Old Age (retirement) benefits and a separate one to cover Disability benefits. This writer claims to have personally paid almost $400,000 into Social Security. I find that very difficult to believe. If a person began in 1966, earned the maximum income subject to FICA and counted both the employee and employer halves of the maximum FICA contribution, they'd have only contributed $325,472 over those 50 years of working. Do you want to modify that claim of yours, sir? The Disability claim system does have fraud. So do the Medicare, Income Tax and just about every other system of government payments. You don't stop a program completely because of the fraud, you address the fraud. In short, these claims aren't just misleading, they're outright lies.
On the GOP debate stage on Thursday evening, Donald J. Trump said he will release his tax returns eventually, but since several of the years of his returns are currently being audited, he cannot release them.
Balderdash. I'm in my 23rd year of work as a professional tax preparer and I am aware of no reason why anyone cannot choose to release their own tax returns. The IRS can't release them. But the taxpayer can. Anytime they choose to do so.
Not to mention there isn't a single good reason for Mr. Trump to refuse to release tax returns for the years that are not the subject of a current audit.
It is very ironic that Mitt Romney, whose refusal to release his own tax returns during his 2012 presidential bid until the last moment cost him dearly, has called Mr. Trump out on this subject. Actually the irony is that Trump criticized Romney for doing what Trump is doing now. Is there a bombshell in those Trump tax returns as Mr. Romney claims there is?
The moment those Trump tax returns are released, the first thing people should look at, after seeing the income on page 1 of Form 1040, is Schedule A. It will show how much, if anything, Mr. Trump claimed as charitable donations.
The 2009 tax return for President and Mrs. Obama is very interesting. When Mr. Trump says tax returns tell us nothing, he's demonstrating his utter lack of expertise in yet another area where he claims to know everything. The $13,473 in taxable interest income on line 8a tells us that the Obama's had somewhere between $300,000 and $1 million in accounts that paid interest that year. The $49,000 that the President put into his SEP-IRA was the maximum amount allowed that year. We learn that the President's work as an author earned him gross revenues of $5.6 million in 2009 (the net from his Schedule C was $5.17 million).
But if you have some experience with tax returns, there is something quite puzzling about this 2009 tax return. It shows an IRA distribution of $48,732 which should have been subjected to an Early Distribution penalty of $4,873. But that penalty doesn't show up. There isn't a Form 5329 showing which of the allowable exceptions to the early distribution penalty would have applied. So did the IRS catch this? Was it really a mistake?
If you have nothing to fear, Donald Trump, release the returns that aren't under audit NOW. I'd love to dissect them.
An employee of Yelp wrote an open letter on Medium.com and was subsequently fired. Here are some excerpts from that letter with my thoughts in italics:
I
left college, having majored in English literature, with a dream to
work in media. It was either that or go to law school. Or become a
teacher. But I didn’t want to become a cliche or drown in student loans,
see. I also desperately needed to leave where I was living — I could
get into the details of why, but to sum up: I wanted to die every single
day of my life and it took me several years to realize it was because
of the environment I was in. Dreams of leaving a bad environment are normal but they don't make you entitled to anything above anyone else.
So, I picked the next best place: somewhere
close to my dad, since we’ve never gotten to have much of a
relationship and I like the weather up here. I found a job (I was hired
the same day as my interview, in fact) and I put a bunch of debt on a
shiny new credit card to afford the move. So you borrowed money you didn't have to get a new start. Not necessarily a bad move. But recognition of the risks involved should have been part of the process of making this decision. Youth doesn't excuse every bad decision.
Coming
out of college without much more than freelancing and tutoring under my
belt, I felt it was fair that I start out working in the customer
support section of Yelp/Eat24 before I’d be qualified to transfer to
media. Then, after I had moved and got firmly stuck in this apartment
with this debt, I was told I’d have to work in support for an entire year
before I would be able to move to a different department. Just how long did you think it would take before other opportunities you were more interested would become available? Did you believe that in only a few weeks those doors would magically open?
A whole year
answering calls and talking to customers just for the hope that someday
I’d be able to make memes and twitter jokes about food. If you follow me
on twitter,
which you don’t, you’d know that these are things I already do. Wow. Because you do something on twitter on your own, you believe you're qualified to get a job to be paid to do what you like? Seriously? A year of having to do a job you accepted, at a salary you accepted shouldn't sound like the prison term you've made it sound like.
So
here I am, 25-years old, balancing all sorts of debt and trying to pave a
life for myself that doesn’t involve crying in the bathtub every week.
Every single one of my coworkers is struggling. They’re taking side
jobs, they’re living at home. Meaning that they are doing what they need to do to make life work. That's life. You adapt. You improvise. You overcome. It isn't anyone else's fault you chose to live and work in the Bay Area.
Another guy who
got hired, and ultimately let go, was undoubtedly homeless. He brought a
big bag with him and stocked up on all those snacks you make sure are
on every floor (except on the weekends when the customer support team is
working, because we’re what makes Eat24 24-hours, 7 days a week but the
team who comes to stock up those snacks in the early hours during my
shift are only there Mondays through Fridays, excluding holidays. They
get holidays and weekends off! Can you imagine?). Did they fail to mention that working weekends was a requirement when you scored the job in that first interview? If not, your commentary about weekends is nothing more than petulant whining.
Bread is a luxury to me, even though you’ve got a whole fridge full of
it on the 8th floor. But we’re not allowed to take any of that home
because it’s for at-work eating. Of which I do a lot. Because 80 percent
of my income goes to paying my rent. Isn’t that ironic? Your employee
for your food delivery app that you spent $300 million to buy can’t
afford to buy food. That’s gotta be a little ironic, right? Please sir, may I have some more?
Let’s
talk about those benefits, though. They’re great. I’ve got vision,
dental, the normal health insurance stuff — and as far as I can tell, I
don’t have to pay for any of it! Except the copays. $20 to see a doctor
or get an eye exam or see a therapist or get medication. Twenty bucks
each is pretty neat, if spending twenty dollars didn’t determine whether
or not you could afford to get to work the next week. So not only do you want healthcare where you aren't paying for the coverage, you want it to cover 100% of all costs of care? Should it also pay for the parking at doctor's appointments and maybe the car wash while you wait an hour to be seen, even though you have an appointment?
Will
you pay my phone bill for me? I just got a text from T-Mobile telling
me my bill is due. I got paid yesterday ($733.24, bi-weekly) but I have
to save as much of that as possible to pay my rent ($1245) for my
apartment that’s 30 miles away from work because it was the cheapest
place I could find that had access to the train, which costs me $5.65
one way to get to work. That’s $11.30 a day, by the way. I make $8.15 an
hour after taxes. I also have to pay my gas and electric bill. Last
month it was $120. According to the infograph on PG&E’s website,
that cost was because I used my heater. I’ve since stopped using my
heater. Have you ever slept fully clothed under several blankets just so
you don’t get a cold and have to miss work? Have you ever drank a liter
of water before going to bed so you could fall asleep without waking up
a few hours later with stomach pains because the last time you ate was
at work? I woke up today with stomach pains. I made myself a bowl of
rice.
Look,
I’ll make you a deal. You don’t have to pay my phone bill. I’ll just
disconnect my phone. And I’ll disconnect my home internet, too, even
though it’s the only way I can do work for my freelance gig that I
haven’t been able to do since I moved here because I’m constantly too
stressed to focus on anything but going to sleep as soon as I’m not at
work. Should I sell my car? It’s not my car, actually, it’s my
grandpa’s. But the back left tire is flat and the front right headlight
is out and the registration is due to be renewed in April and I already
know I can’t afford any of that. I haven’t even gotten an oil change
since I started this job (in August). But maybe I could find someone on
Craigslist who won’t mind all of that because they’ll look at the dark
circles under my eyes and realize I need the cash more than they do. How much of this is because you made the choice to live in an area you couldn't afford just to escape your circumstances? I'm not unsympathetic to your plight, been there done that. What I'm saying is that where in all of this complaining do you accept responsibility for at least some part in creating this situation?
I
did notice — and maybe this was just a fluke — that Yelp has stopped
stocking up on those awful flavored coconut waters. Was that Mike’s
suggestion? Because I did include, half-facetiously, in that email he
and Patty so politely rejected that Yelp could save about $24,000 in two
months if the company stopped restocking flavored coconut waters since
no one drinks them (because they taste like the bitter remorse of accepting a job that can’t pay a living wage
and everyone kept falling over into the fetal position and
hyperventilating about their life’s worth. It really cut into the
productivity that all those new hires are so prolific at avoiding). I
wonder what it would be like if I made $24,000 more annually. I could
probably get the headlight fixed on my car. And the flat tire. And maybe
even get the oil change and renewed registration — but I don’t want to
dream too extravagantly. Maybe
you could cut out all the coconut waters altogether? You could probably
cut back on a lot of the drinks and snacks that are stocked on every
single floor. I mean, I could handle losing out on pistachio nuts if I
was getting paid enough to afford groceries. No one really eats the
pistachios anyway — have you ever tried answering the phone fifty times
an hour while eating pistachios? Those hard shells really get in the way
of talking to hundreds of customers and restaurants a day.
Anyway,
those are my thoughts. I know they’re not worth your time — did you
know that the average American earns enough money that the time they
would spend picking up a penny costs more than the penny’s worth? I pick
up every penny I see, which I think explains why sharing these thoughts
is worth my time, even if it’s not worth yours. Bitter, party of one. Bitter, party of one. Your table is ready.
UPDATE:
As of 5:43pm PST, I have been officially let go from the company. This
was entirely unplanned (but I guess not completely unexpected?) but any
help until I find new employment would be extremely appreciated. My
PayPal is paypal.me/taliajane, my Venmo is taliajane (no hyphen). Square Cash is cash.me/$TaliaJane. Thank you so much for helping my story be heard.
* * *
So this woman wrote this letter and then lost her job. Yelp is claiming the two are unrelated, citing privacy issues involving employment decisions. While I don't believe her open letter and her termination are not related, Yelp has a valid point. I suggest the author of that diatribe sign a release form, authorizing Yelp to publicly discuss the reasons for her termination. Then we could learn the truth.
Which I believe to be that she wrote an angry missive and the employer reacted by firing her. What did she expect? That the CEO of Yelp would swoop in after seeing such a gracious note, and write her a check to pay off her debt?
This isn't a free speech issue. Government isn't infringing her right to speak. Her former employer has every right to impose a consequence for her words. Open letters to people who can fire you are probably never a good idea.
Apple's big boss, Tim Cook put out the following letter to customers of the company. The comments in italics are mine:
A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that
Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our
customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the
legal case at hand.
Reasonable, not unexpected and well within the company's rights.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
100% accurate
The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our
lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal
information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music,
our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and
health data, even where we have been and where we are going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and
criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our
knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology
companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal
information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their
data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can
ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has
become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our
customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep
their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach,
because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our
business.
Again, entirely reasonable and prudent.
The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in
San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice
for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in
the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the
government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy
for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we
have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search
warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple
engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas
on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we
believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done
everything that is both within our power and within the law to help
them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply
do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They
have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the
iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security
features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the
investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist
today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s
physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make
no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way
would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue
that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee
such control.
Not true. It would be a Herculean effort but the "backdoor" could be created in a controlled environment. Used once and then destroyed. The Federal government should be required to pay the costs for this project.
You can guarantee that the backdoor won't fall into the wrong hands by ensuring neither Apple nor the FBI is ever in sole possession of the backdoor. You can guarantee it can't be hacked by using only one computer for this project that is not connected to the net, or to any other network. It could be located inside of a facility that is TEMPEST certified. Such facilities already exist.
The Threat to Data Security
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is
a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital
security and the significance of what the government is demanding in
this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a
piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as
the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to
bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone
with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on
one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could
be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical
world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening
hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and
homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
Again, the answer isn't that difficult. Build the master key once. Destroy it immediately afterward.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and
undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers —
including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated
hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong
encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be
ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to
expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years,
cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against
weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and
law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their
data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are
readily available to them.
A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the
FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to
justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add
new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be
input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by
“brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the
speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If
the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock
your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to
capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy
and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your
messages, access your health records or financial data, track your
location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your
knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we
must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S.
government.
There is no denying that the potential for a very dangerous "slippery slope" is present in this situation.
There is also no denying that the need for this information by the FBI and other agencies involved in preventing terrorists from striking is time-sensitive. There isn't time to pass a new law requiring Apple to create a backdoor, and that very action seems more likely to result in that backdoor becoming more of a risk to all of us.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect
for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be
in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the
implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be
wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our
products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the
very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
Tim Cook
This is a tough one. Our security against attack versus our need for the protection of the security of our personal information. I say no. Even though what the FBI wants is possible, the risk is too great when measured against the remote possibility of there being information of such value being on this phone. It just isn't worth the risks.
The thrill of victory and of course, the agony of defeat
While this blog entry is all about playing a certain trivia game, the video above is very appropriate. The reason is that the issue is competition in playing this game. Plus I love watching this video knowing that the man who spent years as the face of defeat is named Vinko Bogataj.
The game in question is an interactive trivia game played in bars and restaurants all over the U. S. run by NTN Buzztime. Buzztime, formerly the NTN network offers live trivia for most of the afternoon and late into the evening. Each weeknight has at least one "premium" game. Tuesdays is Showdown. Fridays is Spotlight.
Many people who play Buzztime choose to gather in groups (teams if you prefer) and combine their efforts, especially in these premium games, to post the best bar score. At the end of each game, the rankings show the top 20 location scores (average of the top five boxes) and the top 20 individual scores. So one person playing at a location by themselves is at a disadvantage in competing on the individual score board because the team efforts usually result in better scores on the individual as well as location rankings. I give you this background so you'll better understand an exchange going on, on the Buzztime FB page. Individual names have been removed
* * *
OP - Can we designate "team" places versus "individual" places? People that
share answers make it unfortunately unpleasant for those of us who play
alone.
As others have explained, this is a longstanding problem. I've been playing NTN for nearly 30 years now. This is not a problem Buzztime can easily solve. Nor is there a major clamoring for a solution. I've known Responder1 and Responder3 for more than two decades. All of us have played solo and on teams. Premium games are frequently a team game. It is also worth noting that just because a group teamed up to share answers, that doesn't necessarily mean your individual score will be better than that of any individual on that team, had they played alone. This is one reason why designating locations as "team spots" is impractical. I've seen situations where a group of people playing together were defeated by one individual in the same location, playing alone.
* * *
Responder1 - With
all due respect, IMO there is nothing that can or should be done about
this. FWIW, I play both as an individual and as part of various teams
depending on where I am at that time. The ability to do both has been
an integral part of these games.
* * * Responder2 - Why
is it so unpleasant? just don't listen to them. You might have the
right answer and they don't. I've played both individual and with teams
for my entire 8+ year NTN "career," and team play doesn't necessarily
guarantee victory.
* * * OP - It's
not a matter of hearing them, it's that a solo player tries to do their
best and be able to look back at a to score later on the top board and
enjoy the accomplishment. When a team plays against you, even if one of
the players only tops you by one point, it's like your score never
existed. It's disappointing. Sorry that you don't understand that.
Your score doesn't cease to exist. You simply didn't have the top individual score. On nights where team play is frequent, the fact your score was topped by another cannot be seen by you at the moment as resulting from another individual besting you, or from a team effort. You have to look at the comprehensive results that are only visible on the Buzztime website to make an accurate conclusion about this.
* * *
Brian MilinskyPerhaps
trivia played using a national network where most players gather in
bars in groups isn't the right choice for you. Especially if this
bothers you so much.
What I was attempting to communicate here, albeit ineffectively, is that when you know teams are combining efforts and you don't like having to face the handicap of playing on your own against them, perhaps you need to change your perspective. The system isn't going to change. So accept this, gripe about it good-naturedly and enjoy yourself as you play.
* * *
BuzztimeAll opinions are welcome, but please play nice
* * *
Brian MilinskyBuzztime
so you're saying it isn't nice to suggest that maybe playing a game
where there is, has been and probably always will be "team" play is not
the best game for someone who is bothered by such play?
* * *
OP - No,
I think what Buzz is trying to say is that suggesting that if I don't
like it, that I should leave is not the only answer. There may not be
an answer, but I'm sure they would be disappointed to lose a player that
had been making use of the game for well over 20 years since the NTN
tan box days.
* * *
Responder1 - Wondering
if the Buzztime site where the OP plays is the only one in that area.
If not, then maybe playing at a site that doesn't have teams playing
might work.
* * * Responder1 - Understood.
Apparently there are choices there. Other than to suggest trying to
figure out where those teams play and then try not to play where they
are, there seems to be no other solution. Best of luck to you; while it
may not sound like the other posters in this thread have understood
your situation, turns out that I am familiar with all of them and
believe me, they and I do.
* * *
Brian MilinskyLet
me draw an analogy to make what I was trying to say clearer. We are
all playing golf. The courses are identical. The difficulty is
identical. But the rules allow those who choose to team up to play in
best-ball format. Meaning that the five players who are teaming up each tee off, but only the best shot counts.
The USGA says that best ball is allowed, even though there are competitors involved who refuse to team up.
The
rules aren't going to change. The choices for the solo player are to
continue to compete and just do their best, take up a different version
of the game, where team play isn't allowed or...
Unless the people who make the rules are open to/able to make changes in those rules, is there a third choice?
* * *
Responder3 - I'm
not aware of any location where team play is in effect at all times.
Usually teams meet at a specific time on a specific day or days; they
meet to play some of the premium games. It is relatively easy to find a
time of day when there is no team play
even if it is a well-known "team play" location. The bottom line is
that it shouldn't be difficult to find a location or time when
individual play is the norm. Your issue seems to be with the monthly
location scoreboard where team and individual high scores are mixed and
not identified as such. That isn't going to change.
* * *
OP -Here's
another analogy. You've got a mountain. Five climbers are attempting
to reach the summit. Maybe all are of average ability, but four are
helping each other to reach the top. The fifth struggles, but manages
to reach the top just after the four.
The catch is that there is no recognition for the fifth that put more
effort into the task, only for the the first of the four to reach the
top. They all congratulate that person who finished first for how well
they did. Of course the mountain won't change, but the team ethos still
alienates the individual. - - - Everyone likes to see their scores in
the listings that are carried day to day, or month to month. Teams help
to remove that possibility for individuals.
Sorry, but your analogy misses the point. People don't climb mountains to see who can achieve the summit in the shortest amount of time. Well, they do, but individuals don't enter competitions where team play is allowed and expect to be able to compete against those team players successfully.
Therein lies the problem. Buzztime is a game designed for both team and individual play. The owners of the game have been confronting this problem for decades, without resolution.
* * *
Responder1 - To add to what Responder3 said, Buzztime (or as some us still remember them, NTN) has been well
aware of this issue for, say, twenty years or so. They seem to have
concluded that there is nothing they can do about this. Even if Buzztime
were to require that players identify themselves as team or individual
before games start, there is no guarantee that all players will do so.
* * *
OP - Simply
because a system can't change, doesn't mean that one cannot relate it's
frustration with how some use it. Thanks for all your empathy
everyone. Have fun alienating the individuals. Pat yourselves on the
back a few times for me, would you?
Your original post didn't appear to be an attempt to find empathy. You posed a question and made a complaint. People responded to your post and empathized with the problem. Pointed out it has been around for a long time and probably won't go away. Pointed out that they've dealt with this problem themselves for some time.
* * *
Responder1 - OP,
most if not all of us are very familiar with your situation. None of
us seem to have even implied that you cannot express your frustration.
However, the reality is that this situation can be overcome (though, of
course, not easily). Some, including myself, don't let that situation
overwhelm them. In my case, there have been plenty of times in my 20+
years of banging away at these games when my solo score was higher than
that of a group (which, to say the least, frustrated them plenty).
* * *
This is an age old issue and there isn't any advice better than you get from Responder1 and Responder3. Legends of the game.
Could not agree more regarding Responders 1 and 3. They true legends of the game and their responses were attempts to commiserate and offer advice and solace. You describe them, perhaps because of my first post, as lacking empathy Fair enough.
* * * * *
My additional comments are in italics in response to those of the other posters to this thread. Let me supplement those comments with the following. Years ago NTN had an annual Oscar trivia game. One year I teamed up with three friends to play this game. We wound up with the highest bar score. I happened to be a bit faster on one question out of the entire game, causing my individual score to be the highest. I did enjoy having the high score, mostly because it meant a month or so of seeing the PPlus handle FDAVTV appearing regularly on the boards.
DAVETV was an amazingly obnoxious individual player. But nowhere near as disturbing as one who used the handle POMOJO. This assclown would go to a bar, reset the game to the East Coast feed, write down the answers and then go play that game again on the West Coast feed. I created a FPMOJO handle and gave out the password. Within a few months, that handle had over 2 million P+ points. That's how universally loathed he was.
I've played the game solo. I've played the game in a team setting. Sometimes just me and one other player, trying frantically to get the right answer onto all six or seven boxes we were playing.
I do empathize. I just don't understand why this is so important. It's great to be #1. But if I'm #2 and I lost out to a #1 that resulted from team play, it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game and the effort. Buzztime shouldn't be considered subject to the Vince Lombardi dictum that second place is just first loser. It's for fun.
The following is a draft speech for the President to deliver to the American people in the wake of the passing of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
My fellow Americans, we mourn the passing of a man who sat on the bench of this nation's highest court for nearly three full decades. Many agree with his opinions and many disagree with them, but this is a moment to celebrate his service to our nation. In describing the work of Justice Scalia perhaps words from Vice President Biden are best. Then Senator Biden remarked after Justice Scalia had been on the Supreme Court for some time that he wished he had opposed Scalia's nomination because "...he was so damn effective."
Some Senate Republicans and other candidates for the nomination of that party are saying that they will not allow confirmation of anyone I nominate to take the seat on our highest court that was left vacant by Justice Scalia's untimely passing. I will pay no attention to these and other comments along those lines. My term as President does not end until the day my successor takes the oath of office in January of next year. There are far too many pressing issues that the Supreme Court is considering to allow the stagnation of progress. Indeed, the intransigent obstructive nature of the Republicans in the House and Senate is holding this nation back from dealing with the critical issues of the day. Therefore I will submit a nominee to replace Justice Scalia as soon as I have completed my selection process.
I also have a warning for the Republican senators who are threatening to prevent confirmation of any nominee I submit for consideration. I will not make a recess appointment. Instead I will veto every single piece of legislation that lands on my desk that was introduced by any Senate Republican. I will become just as powerful a proponent of gridlock as these men and woman have been over the past seven years. I will bring the process to a grinding halt.
Petulant? Perhaps. But if the members of the United States Senate choose to ignore their responsibility to provide nothing more than advise and consent of any nominee I submit, I will have no other choice. It is my sworn duty to uphold and defend our Constitution. That document mandates that I nominate someone to take this seat and provide the Supreme Court with full membership. I will carry out that duty.
God bless you and God bless the United States of America.
“This should be a decision for the people. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win this election,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday.
Senator Cruz, I have a message for you. The people made their decision you partisan pusillanimous prick. They elected President Obama. Twice. There is no text in our nation's Constitution where the president loses his or her authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court when we enter a presidential election year.
You're so freaking clueless that you prattle on about how no justice was confirmed in an election year for eight decades. Considering that Justice Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, either your math or your knowledge of history is woefully inadequate.
It was a Republican president, Dwight David Eisenhower, who appointed Justice Brennan in 1956, shortly before the election that year. He did so in a blatant attempt to garner support among the electorate. So what you're doing 60 years later is even worse.
The role of the Senate is to "advise and consent" and yet for the last seven plus years you and your fellow Republicans have done nothing but obstruct.
In point of fact, you and the other less than qualified candidates for the Republican nomination have a golden opportunity here. To prove that you are more interested in solutions than in obstruction. Be a force FOR hearings and confirmation of whoever President Obama nominates. Engage in an objective process of advise and consent. Then vote your conscience. If you have one.
In trying to counter the claims that Hillary Clinton has never "done" anything, the following list was compiled by one of her supporters. The comments in italics are mine.
"Gave the first
student commencement address at Wellesley College in 1969 after being chosen by
her peers and was Senior Class President - interesting and impressive but not a qualification for the presidency.
President of the
Wellesley Young Republicans - so she was involved in politics during her undergrad time. Big deal.
Intern at the
House Republican Conference - this is impressive
After listening to
Martin Luther King Jr. speak when she was younger and meeting him, she became
inspired to live a life of service. She later became a Democrat in 1968 knowing
that was her best path forward for a life of serving others. - a life of service she gave up to become a highly paid speaker for the very corporations she claims she will better regulate.
Volunteered for
Democrat Eugene McCarthy’s presidential campaign at the age of 21 when the
Civil Rights movement as well as anti-war movements were tempestuous - I volunteered for the 1972 McGovern campaign. Does that qualify me for elective office?
Graduate of Yale
Law School with honors - If we can mock Bush Jr. for his graduate degree, what is the big deal about this?
Editorial board of
the Yale Review of Law and Social Action - Interesting and impressive.
Worked on Senator
Walter Mondale’s Subcommittee researching migrant labor - For how many weeks during her tenure at law school?
Helped found
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a group dedicated to the
betterment of children’s lives by advocating for their health, well-being, and
education. - Demonstrative of her commitment to children's issues.
Attorney at the
Children’s Defense Fund leveling the playing field for children - Also demonstrative of her commitment to kids. She became chair of the organization's board.
Professor at the
University of Arkansas School of Law- nice
Director of Legal
Aid Clinic at the University of Arkansas School of Law - nice
First female chair
of the Legal Services Corporation which helps ensure everyone has equal access
to justice under the law, despite whether you can afford it - yawn
First female
partner at Rose Law Firm - breaking a glass ceiling is an accomplishment.
Former civil
litigation attorney - not a qualification for political office
Listed as one of
the hundred most influential lawyers in America by The National Law Journal
Former First Lady
of Arkansas - not a qualification for political office
Arkansas Woman of
the Year in 1983 - award given by one local newspaper
First Chair of the
American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession
Created Arkansas’s
Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth because she saw a need for
educating young children. Bringing HIPPY to Arkansas enabled parents to be
their child’s first teacher and prepare them for a life of learning.
Appointed leader
of task force that reformed Arkansas’s education system - appointed by her husband when he was governor and the sources trumpeting this are all her supporters, and her specific accomplishments aren't referenced.
As the wife of the
Governor of Arkansas, and with her background in law, she sat on the Board of
Directors of Wal-Mart for six years as it was one of the largest employers in
the state and central to the state’s economy - Member of the Board of Directors of a gigantic employer best known for screwing its employees.
Instrumental in
making sure the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP now CHIP) was
passed and implemented so that all children have access to healthcare no matter
the income level.
Promoted
nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses
Played a leading
role in creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care
Independence Act - depends on who you ask. This is an excerpt from a NYT article on the 2000 NY Senate campaign: Neither candidate has taken a visible position on
the most pressing antipoverty measures, like the revamping of welfare,
said Deepak Bhargava, director of public policy at the Center for
Community Change, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington.
Instead, he said, they have worked on more marginal items.''Neither of them can be called a staunch defender of antipoverty programs,'' he said.
Successfully
sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at
the National Institutes of Health
Helped investigate
the affects of Gulf War Syndrome of the Veterans afflicted - one of many "accomplishments referenced in the source of this list that come from a puff-piece op-ed written by a Clinton supporter.
Helped initiate
the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice
Initiated and
helped guide the Adoption and Safe Families Act helping in children in foster
care move faster in to permanent homes - since the author listed this twice...depends on who you ask. This is an excerpt from a NYT article on the 2000 NY Senate campaign:
Neither candidate has taken a visible position on
the most pressing antipoverty measures, like the revamping of welfare,
said Deepak Bhargava, director of public policy at the Center for
Community Change, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington.
Instead, he said, they have worked on more marginal items.''Neither of
them can be called a staunch defender of antipoverty programs,'' he
said.
First FLOTUS in
the United States to hold a postgraduate degree - yawn
Declared to the
United Nations that “women’s rights are human rights” which at the time she
said it, was a very big deal - actually this was a conference on women held by the UN's Commission on Women, and not to the actual UN General Assembly.
Helped lead the
charge in expanding healthcare access for the military, including an expansion
to the Family and Medical Leave Act which was necessary for those wounded in
service - a link to the final FMLA rules on the DOL site that doesn't mention the candidate's name proves nothing. I see nothing involving any amendment she introduced to the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which is where the FMLA was updated to include military personnel. Seems overstated or misleading to me.
Traveled to over
70 countries during time as First Lady - couldn't resist the opportunity to include this:
Helped establish,
alongside former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Vital Voices, whose
mission is “to identify, invest in and bring visibility to extraordinary women
around the world by unleashing their leadership potential to transform lives
and accelerate peace and prosperity in their communities”
United States
Senator from the state of New York for nearly two terms
First former
FLOTUS to be elected as a United States Senator (twice) - yawn
Served on five
Senate committees: - yawn. lots of Senators serve on four committees and one special committee
– Committee on
Budget (2001–2002)
– Committee on
Armed Services (2003–2009)
– Committee on
Environment and Public Works (2001–2009)
– Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009)
– Special
Committee on Aging
Commissioner on
the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Instrumental in
securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s redevelopment
alongside fellow New York Senator Chuck Schumer (D)
Had leading role
in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing
United States
Secretary of State serving under President Obama
Brokered a
ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.
Lobbied for the
first-ever U.N. Human Rights Council resolution on human rights declaring “gay
rights are human rights”
Part of the the
advisory team that led to President Obama’s decision to kill Osama bin Laden
Was a leading
voice that helped open the door to the historic Iran Nuclear Deal
Most traveled
Secretary of State during tenure as top U.S. diplomat - while some of the nations Secretary Clinton visited weren't formed when Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State, it isn't enough to call this claim into question.
Senate Stats, Legislation Sponsored or Cosponsored, and
Voting Record:
As you can see the list is long, the list is extensive, and
the list is quite impressive, so the next time someone asks you “What has
Hillary Clinton done?” now you know, and knowing is half the battle."
I could make an equally long list of the questionable things Secretary Clinton has been involved with, but they'd be dismissed as Republican propaganda.
