Rambler

Sports credentials

sdb121@aol.com — Mon, 13 Oct 08 15:13:00 UT

There's a show on Chicago sports talk radio hosted by Mark Silverman and ex-Bears receiver Tom Waddle where, if you call, they ask you to recite your "sports credentials". Callers' credentials are mostly that they played (fill in the position) for the (select level or region) championship (select sport) team from (select high school, or grade school), but every once in a while there is a funny one - like someone got in a car accident with a member of the Cubs, or their dog won the spaniel races at the county fair, or something like that.

Whenever I hear it, I think about what I would say if I called the show. (I like to discuss sports, as you might note from this journal, and often THINK about calling in, but I never do...)

Here's my credential. Starting 2nd baseman for the B league intramural championship 16 inch softball team at Loyola University Chicago for the 1984-85 school year!

I wasn't supposed to be on the team. It was our floor's "A" team, and no one thought I was good enough to play on it. So they put me on the "B" team, and put a freshman who was quite good on the "A" team. But I could make almost no games for the "B" team, and could make ALL the games for the "A" team, so they switched me and the freshman (Mike Walsh), and the rest is history.

I was a bad hitter when I played organized baseball, but a good fielder. 16 inch was different. It was HARD to hit the ball very far unless you were pretty darned strong, and I wasn't strong. I found this toothpick of a bat, and used it. As it happened, my usual swing with this light bat was enough to send the big ball over the heads of the infielders but not quite as far as the outfielder. I dumped hit after hit into the gap between IF and OF. I guess in real baseball you'd call them "Texas Leaguers". Or bloop hits. I must have hit about .600 that year.

And we had one of those guys who COULD hit the ball a mile. Mark wasn't a really tall guy but he was a body builder and had incredible upper body strength. Other teams wouldn't even pitch to him after his first at bat. They'd roll the ball to him to walk him, because he hit a few over the fence with intentionally way outside pitches where he'd just jump across the plate and whack them anyway. I was on base for a whole bunch of his home runs.

And the guy behind him could also hit the ball over the fence. He wasn't a body builder or anything but he had a good swing and some extra weight behind his swing, so pitching around Mark to get to Jeff just as often led to runs on the board for us.

We won the final game by a score of 21 to 12 (the title of a popular album by Rush - that record was playing in our wing that night as we celebrated our win). We beat a team of psyche grad students. Both of our teams probably should have played in "A" league, but we didn't know how good we'd be. (I think they knew they were going to be good, and were sandbagging it trying to win the championship.)

I think they were glad they switched me to the "A" team.

Oh, and I still played nearly flawless defense at second base.

So, there we go. Those would be my sports credentials if I ever do call into the Waddle and Silvy show. The rest of my sports "career" is somewhere between pathetic and non-descript!

Rich Dad, Poor Dad

sdb121@aol.com — Thu, 9 Oct 08 11:48:00 UT

You've probably heard of this book, or seen Robert Kiyosaki on PBS, talking about his ideas on personal finance and wealth building.

I found a book called RICH DAD'S PROPHECY on the bargain shelves, and read it, and then started rereading this one. For some reason I'm currently NOT in a fiction mood, but that could change tomorrow...(probably will).

Anyway, the titular "Prophecy" is that the stock market is going to have a big crash, and that this crash is due to ERISA legislation passed in the 1980s (I think). The book argues that when ERISA introduced several retirement savings vehicles, like 401K's and 403b's and others, they turned the common saver into an investor. The problem was that the law change neglected to educate these new "investors" in the fundamentals of investing. And the other problem was that it allowed companies to shift their pension plan (defined benefit) obligations onto the employee, with the employee becoming responsible for contributing to their plans.

He states that we have already seen what greed and crooks can do to a company sponsored 401k with Enron, where employees were encouraged to buy stocks in Enron with their 401k contributions, even as those greedy executives were selling their own stock at huge profits.

He further states that when people depend on something they really don't understand, ie, the stock market, when the time comes to safeguard that money, they're going to get out, and put their money in something they do understand and feel comfortable with - cash.

"Rich Dad" says that in 2016, when the majority of the baby boomers start pulling money out of the market instead of pouring it into the market (via mutual funds), the value of said market will fall, maybe even the biggest collapse in history. That's 8 years away. Seeing as how we're in a bit of a downturn now (I'm perhaps underestimating this situation), we've got 8 years for the market to come back up, and then to start getting out and into something else for retirement.

The initial book, RICH DAD,POOR DAD, deals more with becoming a knowledgable investor, which requires that we understand the difference between assets and liabilities. Kiyosaki sorts people into four basic groups: Employees, Self-employed/small business owners, Big Business owners, and Investors (his so called EBSI quadrants). He says that the difference between these groups is that the E's and S's tend to work for their money, while the B's and I's have their money work for them.

The E's and S's work for paychecks. I fall into this category myself. The B's and I's purchase assets that create cash flow. Those assets can be businesses, stocks, real estates, mutual funds, or intellectual property. (If you WORK at your business, like I do, you don't qualify as a B.)

It's an interesting way to reconsider your financial situation. A house? Most of the time, it's a liability. I've always sort of felt this, even though it can be claimed as an asset for the purposes of collateral. If you think about it, a house does not produce income. It produces expenses. Mortgage payments, taxes, maintenance, utilities...these are all outflows of cash, not inflows. The house doesn't produce any INCOME for you, unless you sell it.

We all need basic necessities, and shelter is one of them. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it's an asset, says Kiyosaki. A real asset produces income for you. The key, then, is to acquire real assets and eventually become financially secure to the point where you don't NEED a paycheck to live.

I'm certainly not at this point. I don't know if I ever will be, but as a dentist, I stand a better chance of it than a lot of people.

It requires a change in mindset.

Anyway, as I was reading this stuff, I was thinking that it was worth a journal entry. So here it is...

Candidates are avoiding the reality of America's budget problems...

sdb121@aol.com — Wed, 8 Oct 08 12:57:00 UT

Okay, I'm over my Cubs angst, I think.

I watched a little of the debate. I don't want to get into too many of the issues here, suffice it to say I like Obama's positions more than McCain's. (I'm not satisfied with where this country is today, and I think McCain represents a continuation of the policies that got us here, and isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing and expecting different results?) I would have watched more but I had to run out and pick up a prescription that was ready at the pharmacy before bedtime.

I was getting a kick out of some of (both of) their pronouncements. Does this make any sense to anyone? Specifically, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and other public entitlements make up about 40% of federal spending TODAY. (That percentage is certain to go up in the future.) Then there is national defense. I think that makes up another 40%, if I recall the percentages mentioned in Money Magazine. That leaves 20%. That's EVERYTHING ELSE. Fix roads? Infrastructure repairs and renovations and new projects? Education? Foreign aid? Public aid and unemployment insurance? National parks? Forest Service? It all comes out of that 20%.

Then there's "pork". I hate pork as much as the next person. There is no reason that our tax dollars should be going to pay for Alaska's bridge to nowhere (I know, it's killed...but a lot of pork went there for the preparatory work before it got killed), or for the Lawrence Welk Museum, or even for that projector at Chicago's Adler Planetarium (a museum that McCain clearly knows nothing about, and of which I am a member). Not to mention peanut and sugar cane subsidies, and whatever else agricultural pork is out there.

But it's 18 billion dollars that McCain and Palin keep harping about. Now that's a lot to you and me, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the federal expenditures. Heck, it's dwarved by the amount they are giving to AIG. What is cutting that really going to do for federal expenditures?

Answer: Not a thing!

So when either of them talk about cutting waste in government, it's just talk. Neither one of them is going to be able to cut expenses AT ALL, really, without addressing Social Security and Medicare, and defense. Not in any meaningful way at least.

There are two ways to narrow the gap between spending and revenues. Lower spending, or raise revenues. That means either making serious cuts to social entitlements or raising taxes. Or a combination of both. Yet every time either one of these candidates talks, the main words out of their mouths are "tax cuts". And then they spend time ripping on the other about who's cutting taxes and who's raising them, and both of them claim to be cutting taxes. So how do they expect to get us out of this mess? Neither really has any answers.

Disappointed yet again - Cubs '08

sdb121@aol.com — Mon, 6 Oct 08 09:42:00 UT

And so it goes.

Everyone's talking about 100 years like it is some sort of milestone, and I guess it is - but to me, the significant thing is that the Cubs haven't been to a World Series in MY lifetime. That's my measuring stick. So - 48 years and counting.

I am not a professional athlete, but I am a professional. And I know that sometimes pressure gets the better of you, no matter how good you are at your job. For me, it's often an unpleasant patient, someone with some complaint about how we do things. I dread going in to work on them sometimes. It affects my work. When I'm relaxed, I feel I do much better work.

I would guess that this also applies to professional athletes. They tighten up, they press, they start doubting their own abilities. It shows in bad control (nibbling at the corners, lots of walks, see Dempster, Ryan, in game one), bad strike zone judgement (see Soriano, Alfonso et al), and poor defense (see Derosa, Mark in game 2, and Lee, Derrick, also in game 2). Unforced mental errors.

100 years of expectations (or a lifetime, at least) weigh heavily. Are they not going to continue to weigh heavily, with the national media talking about it, and the local media pounding it to death? With the fans thinking about it, talking about it? No matter how much you tell yourself it doesn't matter, there's nothing to it, there is. If this is the case, the Cubs are doomed to being eternal also-rans in the postseason.

I really think that Zambrano is one of the only Cubs who is immune to this pressure - mostly because he's so self centered. The pressure Zambrano feels is self inflicted, not inflicted by the media and by history. His performances show it. He's somewhat erratic, but he's incredibly talented, and I don't think he cares an iota about whether the Cubs go 100 years between World Series wins, or World Series appearances (that would be 2045, in case anyone's counting). He does, however, care about how the team does in HIS starts, and consequently he can dominate in the regular season and in the postseason. Unfortunately, it takes a team to win, not one single pitcher. But I'll take that pitcher as a good start.

How do they beat this pressure? You got me. Ballplayers, like everyone else, are human, and susceptible to stress just like the rest of us. Maybe a superstar at every position?

Oh well...wait'll next year...

Cubs: 2003 all over again

sdb121@aol.com — Fri, 3 Oct 08 09:10:00 UT

They're not 5 outs away from the World Series, and there has been no Steve Bartmann to lay the blame on for their own failings, but this so reminds me of the 2003 collapse. Was that Alex Gonzalez out there, or was it Mark DeRosa? Was that Leon Durham at first base, or was it Derrick Lee? ((Okay, that's a reference to the 1984 collapse.) I couldn't quite tell anymore.

Everyone was saying that this was the best Cubs team they could ever remember seeing. I didn't really see it, and I wasn't getting over the top excited during the regular season. Going into the season I thought they needed another starting pitcher. Not another of the Jason Marquis mold, but one of the Johan Santana mold - a top of the rotation talent.

When they got a guy with that sort of talent in Rich Harden, I started to buy in. I can't remember a team with 4 better starters than Zambrano, Dempster (the way he performed in the regular season, that is), Lilly and now Harden. I thought, this is a rotation built to go deep into the playoffs where pitching and defense are key.

Well, pitching let us fans down in game 1, with a poor performance from Dempster. And though I felt Zambrano pitched quite well last night, it was a usually stellar defense that let us down, leading to a five run second when Big Z should have gotten out of it un-scored upon. Grrr.

But you can't win a game if you can't score any runs. The score in these two games so far is Dodgers 17, Cubs 5. And 3 of those runs were in "garbage time", more or less, when the game was out of reach. Their hitters, to a man, look overmatched. I watched the Dodgers' hitters stroke balls for hard hit grounders and line drives, with beautiful swings, and I watched the Cubs' hitters fish for balls low and outside. Soriano is especially bad, but Lee hasn't been a ton better. At least Jim Edmunds makes contact. And DeRosa tries - he's the one guy who seems to be stroking the ball (though not early in last night's game).

They look tighter than an overwound wrist watch. I don't believe in curses, but this team looks like they believe it. Or, more accurately, they look like they feel the weight of one hundred years of postseason futility on them. No matter WHAT they say, they have to feel it. It's all around them. It's in the fans, in the media, in that park. We ALL feel it.

I went to bed after the fourth inning last night. Score was 6-0. I told myself, I'll watch this inning, see if the Cubs do anything that makes it look like they might come back. Because the deeper they get into this game, the less likely it is that they'll score enough runs to overcome the deficit. 6-3 looks a whole lot better and less intimidating than 6-0. But they went down, if not 1-2-3, it was still without much of a bang. No hard hit balls. No good swings. No good batting eyes, making the pitcher work much on any hitter. A patient team in the regular season (at the plate) has become a team seeing far fewer pitches per at bat (or so it looks to me) than they need to do in the playoffs.

I woke up at 1 am, and couldn't stop wondering what had happened. Finally, after almost an hour of trying to get back to sleep without any success, I went down to the computer, trying not to wake anyone (including the dog). Final score - 10-3. Ouch.

I am not going to watch any more this year, unless by some miracle, they get past the Dodgers and into round two. Then I'll start believing again. But otherwise, I'm already thinking about what I'd do in the offseason (were I GM) to change this club. As if it will matter.

Cubs vs Dodgers

sdb121@aol.com — Thu, 2 Oct 08 11:14:00 UT

Okay. Here goes.

Dodgers 7. Cubs 2.

I didn't get to see the whole game. I tuned in on the radio in the 5th inning, apparently right after LA first baseman James Loney hit a grand slam to put the Cubs down 4 to 2. I thought, lots of time. But then I realized that the Cubs just weren't hitting.

They've gone through several stretches this year where the bats went quiet, and more toward the end of the year. Usually the results in these stretches were less than stellar. They've lived and died with their starting pitching, and when the bats are quiet and the pitcher stinks up the joint, as Ryan Dempster apparently did last night with 7 walks, the odds aren't good for them.

I could NOT for the life of me figure out Lou's batting order. Okay, most of it was adequate and expected, but come on! Fukudome batting 2nd? I was actually good with playing him in RF because he's so good defensively, but for gosh sakes, bat him 8th!

But tonight, I wouldn't have him in the lineup. I'd put DeRosa in right if his calf will allow it (or Reed Johnson if his calf won't) and put Fontenot at second. You need DeRosa's bat in the lineup, and hopefully it can be as a right fielder. I would NOT put Felix Pie as a starter in RF. The Cubs need bats.

Zambrano is an ace, and tonight, we need him to pitch like one. He needs to keep the Cubs in this game whether their bats are quiet or not. Treat it like game 7 of the WS. All in. If the game is on the line in the 5th inning, tonight, save the game with Marmol! One criticism I've heard a lot today of last night is that Lou shouldn't have let Dempster face Loney the way he was pitching. I didn't see it so I'm not sure what his thinking was, but I have heard Lou say that sometimes you have to "save" the game in the 6th or 7th, and I suggest that he do that tonight. He's got two studs in the BP, and I'd bring Marmol in at the drop of a hat. Now is not the time to save his arm in case you need him in the 7th, or 8th.

And throw strikes! I heard Bruce Miles say on ESPN 1000 this morning that the home plate ump had an "interesting" strike zone last night. I agree. It looked to me like he was giving them the low strike and giving the pitchers (at least the Dodgers' pitchers) the outside edges. It did not look to me like the Cubs' pitchers were taking advantage of that.

And bats! Wake Up! This is it! Derrick Lee better start stroking the ball with a little authority. Soriano can NOT go 0-4 again, with key strikeouts. This guy is making 136M over the life of his 8 year contract, and he NEEDS to hit in this playoff series.

Nothing less than a trip to the World Series can be considered a success, in my view.

I don't know if I can even bring myself to watch this game tonight...but I will...and I should be home in time. I suppose it's either the game or the VP debate...game should win out, since nothing Sarah Palin could say would make me feel any better about her...

September Reading List!

sdb121@aol.com — Tue, 30 Sep 08 13:46:00 UT

Here's my list. I had a pretty good month of reading.

1. TH1RTE3N, Richard K. Morgan. A dark dystopian SF novel in a future where genetic engineering is mated with the beginnings of human expansion through the solar system, mostly Mars. 13's are genetic throwbacks to a time when humanity was more of a "look out for me" sort of species, before cooperation was "bred" into the human race. They're good soldiers and great at being resourceful and living in harsh environments. Most of them have been more or less quarantined on Mars. But every once in a while one gets to come back to Earth, legally or illegally. It's when the illegal ones get back that Carl Marsalis, a 13 himself, gets into action, as a hunter of renegade 13's. In this book Carl has to unravel a plot that centers around a 13 coming back from Mars on a shuttle. This guy was "woken" up early, and he got hungry - and the only food on board were the other (hibernating) passengers. It was a long book, one of those that made me want to find out what was happening, but where I didn't much like it. I kept reading, and it was worth it, I think. It's well written and it tells an original and compelling story. I didn't like it enough to give it an 8, though...probably more like a 7.5

2. THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, Barack Obama. I finally finished this one, too, after starting it months ago. It's didactic, sort of reading a text book (Obama was a constitutional law prof at Univ. of Chicago Law School), and unlike some fiction, every word matters. It outlines his beliefs and his thoughts on problems facing the next generations and his ideas about how they might be solved. Even if you don't agree with him (I found myself agreeing more than I expected to, mainly because he presents both sides of the issues fairly and with clarity, and I understood how he came to his position), you have to be impressed by the man's ability to write and to THINK. I miss presidents who can think. We see so little evidence of a candidate's intellect in the campaign process, I think we all just figure that they aren't very bright. This book opened my eyes on Obama. NR

3. RUNNING BLIND

4. THE HARD WAY, Lee Child. Both good additions to the Reacher story. I'm not quite doing them in order, because I didn't have all of them, and I read the ones I got off bargain shelves and such, first. I don't remember specifics of either plot at the moment, but remember that both were "can't put down" type of books. I have more Child in the queue. 8.5

5. FEARLESS FOURTEEN, Janet Evanovich. This was a solid addition to the Stephanie Plum series, but not as good as the last one. Not enough Grandma Mazur. Still, I liked it. 8

6. CHASING DARKNESS, Robert Crais. Another "can't put it down" book for me. The latest Elvis Cole story finds Cole investigating an old case because he cleared the perp (with solid evidence) and now they've decided that the perp did it, anyway. And they've got even harder evidence. Cole is getting in the way of some pretty big boys with his own thorough investigation. But in the end, there are plenty of twists and turns, and a satisfying ending. 8.5-9

7. SCAVENGER, David Morrell. A sequel to CREEPERS, in this one Balenger and the girl he rescued from the Parago Hotel (Amanda) are invited to a lecture about time capsules, something Balenger has always had an interest in. The lecture progresses, then suddenly Balenger wakes up and he's again by the Paragon Hotel. And Amanda is again missing. It turns out that they are being forced into a game of sorts, by someone calling himself the Game Master. Frank has to find Amanda and reach the goals of the game, and Amanda is with several other people, all snatched from parties or situations, as she was. Their goal is to locate a time capsule, known as the "Sepulchre of Worldly Desires". And the penalty for losing is death. This was a good, taut thriller that kept me reading with interesting characters and lots of cool background information. 8

That was my month! Have a great week all!

Story post on Friendly Fiction!

sdb121@aol.com — Mon, 29 Sep 08 12:10:00 UT

I sent a story in to Friendly Fiction and lo and behold, here it is! It wasn't exactly new; I wrote it a few years ago and just polished up a few lines, but it was fun, and really cool to see it up somewhere!

I have two stories that I posted here on my own journal - also older short stories, but two that I liked a bunch.

Read THE MOMENT here, and...

Read GRANDPA here.

Thanks!

Single Payer Health Care System

sdb121@aol.com — Thu, 25 Sep 08 10:51:00 UT

Someone on a message board I read suggested that government sponsored health care is "socialist". I don't think this has to be true.

It seems to me that the opposite of "socialist" is "market driven". Is health care "market driven" right now? Health INSURANCE purchases might be market driven. You or your employer look at a particular plan, then you look at the cost, then you decide if this works for you. I know when I review my own health insurance plan (that I pay for out of my business, but essentially out of my pocket) I look at a spreadsheet of plans with their copays, their percentages, their deductible, their prescription coverage, and finally their prices (at the bottom of each column). Then I make a decision: stick with what I have and pay the somewhat elevated premium, or switch to another plan, where I may have to jump through some hoops to get coverage because of what they might consider to be pre-existing conditions. That, to me, is "market driven". They're ALL expensive, but I pick the one that's the best bang for the buck.

But health care itself: You go to the doctor, they do something for you, you pay a copay of 5 or 10 or 30 or maybe 50 bucks, then you leave, and they bill your insurance for the rest. Is that "market driven"?

HMO's have nothing to do with being market driven. I'm not terribly familiar with medical HMO's, but in a dental HMO, they usually set the fees very low and you are required to take them. I believe that most HMO's reward physicians for NOT treating you. You get money whether the patients on your list come in or not, then maybe you get some token fee if they come in and have something done. You are NOT required to join one in the first place, and you CAN quit at certain intervals, and in dentistry, most of us do quit. They just aren't profitable in a quality driven business model.

PPO's are a little better. You agree to a discounted fee in return for getting patients filtered through your door. If you can live with 80% of usual and customary fees in your area (or 70%, or 60%, or whatever level of benefits they're negotiating) you join and you take the money. And patients might pick you based on your participation in said plan foremost, then whether they think you are the best, the most convenient, the most caring, etc etc. At least there is a "market based" component to this particular thing.

Then there's "fee for service". Patient comes in. Patient gets service. Patient pays bill. Sorta like going to the grocery store. Or Macy's. Or getting your hair done, or nails, or visiting a tanning spa. The only difference between those things and paying for your medical care out of pocket is that medical care is way more expensive. But so is a car, and tons of us can figure out a way to buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV. Or even a 10 thousand dollar used SUV.

The difference is, most of those other services are "wants", and medical care is a "need". Oh, not always - but often enough.

So, what is so different between the way we do things today and having a single, government-sponsored, health care payer? I submit that the answer is "not much". It certainly isn't socialism, any more than getting a PPO health plan through your employer is. But it isn't exactly capitalism either!

I journaled here about a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune from an MD back in December of 2007. In it I quoted a statistic given by that MD that 54% of the health care in this country is already paid by a "single payer", the Government. This includes at varying levels Medicare, Medicaid, VA Benefits and various other public health initiatives (and there are a bunch of them).

I also journaled here and here about the reimbursement levels, and cautioned that any government sponsored health care plan better take into consideration the people providing the care. Right now, programs like Medicaid don't pay enough to cover overhead expenses. And Medicare reimbursements are low enough that some MD's complain that they lose money at their rates. VA is different: Those are government employed physicians and health care providers working in government facilities and treating veterans. There will be a LOT of veterans coming into that system now, what with the Bush family running our country for 12 of the last 20 years. Perhaps THAT is the model to work with, and not single payer initiatives at all. I'd guess that a lot of those other types of public health programs, like the medical care given to Native Americans, would fall into this model. Pay your providers well, indemnify them against malpractice to a large degree, and staff government facilities that can be used at low cost to lower income Americans. They might not be the Cadillac care that some of us get now, but they could be Chevy care...perfectly adequate and better than what's available now.

I've said a bunch of times that people need to consider just WHO they want providing their care. You don't want overworked, underpaid people who are going to burn out early once their idealism fades in the face of real life's demands on them, and quit for something more relaxing and more lucrative. You want the best and the brightest. I don't believe we are always getting that now, with other fields being so much more lucrative and less stressful than medicine.

Sorry for the long entry, but there are a lot of thoughts in there, I think.

Money Magazine, Soc Sec/Medicare, and Obama/McCain

sdb121@aol.com — Thu, 18 Sep 08 15:03:00 UT

In the latest Money magazine, there is an article about another "lost" issue: the fate of the two major entitlement/social programs, Medicare and Social Security.

According to the article, in 2010, these two programs will take up about 9% of income tax revenues. In 2030, that percentage will have risen to 51%, and in 2050, by which time I'll likely be dead and gone, they will take 76% of the income tax revenues. Obviously, these are projections based on the projected number of workers, the number of retirees being supported, and the condition of the economy, but they're sort of scary. We're talking major dollars right NOW - what does that mean when it's over 50% of the revenue?

Also according to the article (in fact, this is the subtitle of the article), there are only two cures: Higher taxes or lower benefits.

What do lower benefits mean with respect to Medicare? Can it get much worse? At a time when there should be a national discussion about health care and what goals we should even HAVE for this nation on this issue, the one attempt we have at a form of universal, single payer coverage, is slowly going broke.

Neither candidate is saying much about either of these programs. The article states, in a box, that on the Social Security front, Obama has signaled that "he'd prefer to hike taxes rather than cut benefits." "McCain has gone on record as saying he wants to 'fix the system without raising taxes'. Translation: benefit cuts."

As for Medicare, both have been vague about how they might solve the problems here, and Money says that it is ironic since Medicare is "by far the larger and more urgent problem." Both say they want to "make the system more efficient, cut waste, and rein in galloping cost increases". No specifics.

This issue is a loser, I think, with the voting public. These are very popular entitlements which benefit a wide range of people, wealthy and middle class and working poor alike. No one wants to hear about cuts to their benefits, and no one wants to pay more. Everyone seems to want something for nothing.

Personally I'm planning for my own retirement as if Social Security won't be there. I am hoping that they do something to fix Medicare, because otherwise I'll probably be like a lot of others, getting my major care from the emergency room. I don't think anyone can save enough to get them through a health catastrophe, and how do you buy health care coverage when you're not really earning any money, and living on your own hard earned savings?

I think we can resign ourselves to higher payroll taxes in the near future, at least on the Medicare side of the equation...

New CD from Jeff Boyle

sdb121@aol.com — Wed, 17 Sep 08 17:47:00 UT

I thought I'd drop a quick note to mention that Jeff Boyle, who at last sighting was playing drums and guitar at our little jam session, has released his latest CD, titled DOWNTOWN.

You can check on the website here... I haven't heard any of it yet, but I'm sure it will be solid, and good.

Fun at the old ballpark!

sdb121@aol.com — Mon, 15 Sep 08 13:16:00 UT

If you're a Cubs fan, that is...

The Cubs faced the Astros in a game that was moved from hurricane ravaged Houston to Milwaukee, and Carlos Zambrano, returning from a 12 game layoff, threw the first Cubs' no-hitter in over 30 years. He was hitting 98 on the gun, apparently.

And the Cubs have apparently increased their division lead to about 7 or 7 1/2 games. That's comfy.

If Zambrano and Harden are both healthy for the postseason, I'd have to think the Cubs are the team to beat in the NL, their recent play notwithstanding.

Book Review (?) THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

sdb121@aol.com — Wed, 10 Sep 08 14:59:00 UT

I put the question mark in the subject line of this entry because I don't know if this is really a "review"...maybe just more of a commentary.

I finally finished this book by presidential candidate Barack Obama and I have to say I enjoyed it. It's a hard read, because every word and every paragraph matters and my usual speed reading techniques for the mystery and science fiction I usually read don't work as well on this type of work.

It's a good look at Obama's thoughts on important issues, put on paper before he was a candidate for president. He covers tons of issues in this book, with several important issues falling under the topic of a single chapter. The chapters in this book are as follows:

1. Republicans and Democrats
2. Values
3. Our Constitution
4. Politics
5. Opportunity
6. Faith
7. Race
8. The World Beyond Our Borders
9. Family

It also contains a prologue and an epilogue.

I don't want to go into everything the book says, because for one, it would be way too long, and for two, it would be too much of a rehash of Obama's campaign issue statements perhaps. But suffice it to say, I was impressed by Obama's ability to THINK - he shows an excellent knowledge of history and and solid grasp of current events on his way to discussing issues such as education, health care, security, foreign affairs, and domestic policy.

I'm not sure what "experience" has to do with being president. Some would say it has everything to do with it. (But then how could one vote for McCain/Palin, since Palin has virtually no experience, her governorship of a state with a population less than many big cities notwithstanding?) But for me, the ability to THINK, to reason, to discuss, to see both sides of an issue, these are more important things to look for in a leader.

I was impressed with Obama's willingness to give credence to viewpoints that oppose his own, to understand where the holders of those views are coming from, and to take them into account as he makes his arguments for his ideas about all these important issues.

Anyone who is feeling unsure about Obama or scared about him should read this book - it comes straight from the candidate's mouth, and it is not one of those election-time tomes where it's basically just campaign propaganda.

Have at it!

Tax Cuts

sdb121@aol.com — Fri, 5 Sep 08 12:32:00 UT

Say the magic words "Tax Cuts" and get elected!!!

Hey, I'm ALL for tax cuts. I'd love to keep more of my money in my pocket. It's one of the reasons I probably should usually vote Republican: I pay a lot of taxes and I grit my teeth every paycheck when I look at the amount going to federal taxes.

But it seems today that all a politician has to say is "I'll cut taxes" and no one asks any further questions. Like, for who? And how much does this mean for me on payday?

Fact is, most of the taxes are paid by the wealthy. I've read stats that are all over the place as far as the percentage, but let's say for argument's sake that 90% of the taxes are paid by the top 5% of the earners. So doesn't it follow that the beneficiaries of any substantial cut in taxes will be those same top 5%?

And do they need it? I mean, after that first million in income, how much more do you really need?

On the other hand, why work hard and earn more if the lion's share of that money is going to the feds? "One for you, nineteen for me..." (Who can name the song that comes from?)

But I digress - that really wasn't why I was journaling about this today. The average Joe likes to hear the words "Tax Cut" come out of a politician's mouth, because they think they might get enough extra in their paycheck to go buy that sixpack next pay period. Meanwhile, when you spread that 6 dollars a pay period over millions of wage earners, and over 26 pay periods a year, it adds up in lost revenues to the government. Does Joe Sixpack want less money coming back to his community in the form of, oh, say, funding for roadwork? For his kids' school?

If I were a politician, I would definitely want to cut taxes. But I'd want to cut them for people who need those cuts.

Which of these two candidates is cutting taxes in that manner? Are either of them? I've heard the buzz words come out of both of their mouths. But I suspect McCain's cuts are more aimed at that top 5% and businesses (even as he berates Obama for being a party to legislation that he characterized as corporate welfare) than at Joe Sixpack, because when he talks about them, he talks about those cuts stimulating job growth and such. Cutting Joe's taxes doesn't increase a single job, I don't think. Whereas Obama talks about putting money in the pockets of people who need it via his own tax cuts.

I like the idea of cutting the bottom level of taxes. That cuts taxes for me, just the same as cutting the top level does. We all pay our taxes in tiers. The first x amount of dollars we pay taxes on at the lowest rate, then it graduates upward from there. (We don't pay taxes on ALL of our income at one rate - if you're in the 28% tax bracket you only get taxed 28% on the amount that is above the threshold for the 15% bracket.) (Not sure of the exact tax bracket percentages today. I'd have to look them up.) Raising up the amount of income on EVERYONE that goes untaxed, via exemptions or deductions, lowers taxes on everyone, but as a percentage, it probably favors the lower wage earners.

I think everyone should look at just how each of these candidates proposes to cut taxes. And then consider if their cuts help YOU.

And consider the things that are worth paying the government to do for us. Defense, sure. Education? Infrastructure? Are those things better done on the state or local level? Health care? Social Security? Are these things better done privately?

If the answer FOR YOU is no, and you want the federal government to do this stuff, then why the heck are you worrying about tax cuts anyway? Vote accordingly, not just for the guy who says "Tax Cuts! the loudest...

Here's a link to an article discussing the candidates' plans for tax cuts: Money.CNN.com

August reading

sdb121@aol.com — Thu, 4 Sep 08 17:35:00 UT

Here's my reading list for August.

1. ONE FOR SORROW, Eric Mayer and Mary Reed. A historical mystery, featuring John, Lord Chamberlain to the Emperor Justinian. He is also an eunuch, as many lord chamberlains are. In this one, John is investigating the death of a member of the court, as well as a personal friend. His investigation is ordered by the Emperor himself. The investigation leads in interesting directions, and involves interesting characters, including a former lover and her daughter, who also turns out to be his daughter, and a knight of the Round Table, who is searching for the Grail in Constantinople. This was a very good read that makes me want to read the rest of the series. The next is called TWO FOR JOY. 8.5 but maybe closer to a 9.

2. DIE TRYING

3. TRIPWIRE

4. ONE SHOT

5. PERSUADER, all by Lee Child. All Jack Reacher novels. I got started and couldn't quit. I had DIE TRYING, ONE SHOT and PERSUADER on my shelves for a long time, then I got into it enough that I went out and bought TRIPWIRE. Anyway, these are good, fun, tense stories that take some rather unbelievable situations and characters and make them real and fun to read. Jack Reacher is an ex-MP who has sort of gone off the books; he's a drifter with no drivers license and who doesn't file tax returns...no real address (until TRIPWIRE, but since I've read out of order I know that it must not last) and a bad guy to have against you. But he's one of the good guys, and he acts on his own moral code. I'm not going to go into details on these books, you can go to Lee Child's website and read synopses if you're interested, but I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed these novels and intend to read the rest of the series. (I have two others in the queue now.) 8 of 10

6. VEIL OF ROSES, Laura Fitzgerald. My wife, who doesn't read much, read this one and then kept making not-so-subtle suggestions that I should read it too. So I did. It's a very interesting, touching story of an Iranian girl who comes to the US on a tourist visa and has three months to find a husband so she can stay here. She comes from a culture where arranged marriages are still practiced today, and so her family here (sister and husband) begin trying to find an Iranian suitor. But she's in America, and things get complicated, first by the characters in her ESL class, then by the handsome American young man who works at the Starbucks and who seems smitten with her. It was a very fast read and made me laugh and even want to cry at times. It is not my usual type of novel, but I'm glad I read it. 8.5

I usually don't get through that many books, but the Reacher books sort of grabbed me and I flew through them. Looking forward to more of the John books and to the rest of the Reacher series.