Tag Archives: USA Today

Bad Ideas

When was the last time you heard a good idea? Probably not too recent unless Shark Tank is part of your Must See TV. It seems there are plenty of bad ideas floating around out there especially politically. Dismantling the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and the Green New Deal (as proposed) are bad ideas. I think President Trump’s U.S. Space Force is a bad idea. The additional military service branch is not needed and undoubtedly will be very costly. Any consideration of paying slavery reparations is also a bad idea (I’m looking at you Kamala, Cory, Elizabeth, and Julian).

There are numerous non-political ideas that have come, or are coming, to fruition in which many people are pleased with, but I still think they are bad ideas. A great deal of those are in regards to technological advances. I am opposed to self-ordering kiosks in restaurants, supermarkets offering scan & go, digital downloads in lieu of coupons, and self-driving vehicles. I’m not going to do so well with all this artificial intelligence (AI) I keep hearing about either. I’m not even a fan of online banking.

I’m well aware online banking now appears to be the norm, but to me that’s simply one more avenue toward possible identity theft or worse. I also believe banking via the internet can convey a distorted sense of the reality of one’s actual finances, with the tangibles (billing statements and cash) being out of sight and therefore out of mind. I just think online banking can more easily lead to fraudulent activity and irresponsible spending habits. I certainly know I’m in the minority on this one, but I’m in no hurry whatsoever to live in a paperless society.

I profusely pray that I am not in the minority when it comes to dismissing a new trend taking shape concerning working parents raising their children. “Busy” parents are being offered ways to outsource the basic tasks of parenthood to others deemed as pros. Bad idea. Yes, there’s no need to waste your time potty-training your own flesh and blood when someone else is willing to do it for a substantial fee. You just can’t make this stuff up. The story was in USA TODAY (5/13/19). The mother of a former toilet-illiterate girl said, “I love working with an expert, and I didn’t have the time. My husband and I both work. I’m an expert in basically what I’m paid to do, which is my profession. Why wouldn’t I go to someone who understands?”

Another mother lets a subscription clothing service choose the outfits for her two children, ages 3 and 18 months, to wear. She said, “I’ve got more life demands. I don’t have the time, and I want my kids to look good. It takes the work out of it for me.” Hey ladies. Here’a a little friendly advice: If you don’t have the time or the energy for the fundamentals of child-rearing then maybe DO NOT have children. I’ve intentionally withheld the names of these two women, whom I find to be selfish and maternally-challenged, for their own protection. I’ve come to my conclusions about them based on their own words.

I think we should all know by now that coming to a conclusion prematurely is a bad idea. If we haven’t learned this by now, after the whole Jussie Smollett debacle and the fiasco involving the Native American “versus” students donning “Make America Great Again” gear, then we most-likely never will. I warned of a New York Times journalist possibly coming to conclusions prematurely, just last month in my piece titled “Just The Facts, Ma’am”. The writer decided for us that President Trump’s newly enacted tax breaks were a bust. Well, the facts are in. “Americans were left with more money in their paychecks this year, ” and “more people got refunds, with the IRS issuing 95.7 million, up from 95.4 million a year ago” as was recently reported by USA TODAY (4/29/19) after this year’s income tax filing deadline.

I think it is an extremely bad idea for 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls to continuously mention President Trump’s August 15th, 2017 statement regarding the skirmish between white supremacists and counter protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia (I’m looking at you Joe). Among a plethora of other things voiced during his August speech, Trump said, “but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.” To me, that popular but tiresome soundbite absolutely rings true. I think (know) an individual can be an overall good person regardless of his or her sorely misguided view on race superiority, although the media and numerous Democrats would have us believe otherwise. In the same manner, I believe an individual can be an overall bad person even though he or she is not a racist.

Can an alcoholic or drug addict be a good person? An abortion-rights activist? What about an atheist? Isn’t it possible for a racially ignorant human being to be a loving family man, a loyal employee, good friend, or a philanthropist? Or does a significant flaw in one’s life constitute an individuals entire identity? I think it’s quite possible there were very fine people indeed on both sides of the Charlottesville clash.

Even more shameful than promoting the aforementioned soundbite as racism is the insinuation by some of the 2020 hopefuls that those who are not disgusted with Trump’s statement must be racist as well. Harping on this issue is a very bad idea for the Dems – unless of course their aim is to alienate Independent voters and help steer President Trump to a second term as our commander in chief. (As of now, I think it will take a miracle of sorts anyway, for Trump not to be re-elected.) For the sanity of our great nation, making everything political is a bad idea.


Baby, It’s Old Outside

By now, I’m sure we’ve all heard about the great, catastrophic controversy surrounding the joyous season’s classic duet, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.” Supposedly, the Christmastime standard is nothing other than a date rape song and should no longer be celebrated or given any airplay on radio stations – if one is so inclined to believe what a few folks have been spewing as of late. Gerard Baker, editor-at-large of The Wall Street Journal, recently penned, “It is literally a cheerful, line by line, singalong guide to date rape, amusingly checking off all the devices that manipulative predators deploy to trap their female prey: excessive flattery, lies, guilt and a spiked drink.” Really? Is that what the song’s about?

As is usually the case in today’s world, there tends to be an equally extreme view in opposition to one’s radical take on any given subject. Marney White, an associate professor at Yale’s School of Public Health, seemingly counters Gerard Baker’s given stance within the pages of USA Today (12/14/18). She sees the holiday song as more of a feminist anthem. The professor states, “Our heroine is not saying ‘no’ to an aggressive man. She is saying, ‘I know I should say no, but really, I want to stay.'” Ms. White also contends, “At no point does she say, ‘I don’t want this.'” The Yale professor concludes her unique take on the matter with, “‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ is a song ahead of its time, and it celebrates a feminist taking control of her own sexual choices.” I don’t know about that. I think both Ms. White and Mr. Baker are reading way too much into Frank Loesser’s seasonal song.

It is my understanding Mr. Loesser wrote the now controversial Christmas song in 1944, and he originally performed it with his wife at parties. The line “Say, what’s in this drink?” may appear to be a bit suspect in these times, but to my knowledge “roofies” and other date rape drugs did not exist back in the 1940s. Common sense dictates the female companion was simply expressing that she was beginning to feel the (most-likely desired) effects of her alcoholic drink. And nothing more. The recent attacks on “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” have surely been launched by no one but your committed instigators of the world yearning to promote more divisiveness in this country. And to think – at a time when the majority of us are desiring peace on earth, good will toward men.

“Baby, It’s Cold Outside” can be found on several of my extensive collection of Christmas CDs. I’m fairly certain neither Amy Grant, Kelly Clarkson, Vanessa Williams, nor Barry Manilow envisioned their versions of the song as glorifying rape. I personally do not care for Frank Loesser’s Academy Award-winning song. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Christmas classic offends the #MeToo movement clan. Maybe it’s my limited mental capacity, or maybe it’s because I’m getting up there in years, but I have one heckuva time even understanding what is actually being sung. The duet’s overlapping lyrics are just too distracting for me to decipher, especially when I only hear them a handful of times every twelfth month of the year. So why bother?

Regardless of my distaste for the holiday duet, I can’t find anything legitimately wrong, lyrically at least, with the song. Frankly, I’m appalled by how sensitive and easily offended we’ve become as a nation. How a presumably innocent, flirtatious holiday tune, written nearly three quarters of a century ago, can become even remotely controversial today is beyond the pale. I’ve grown extremely tired of all the political correctness engulfing our society. Inside my festive household, it’s quite nice and warm. But out there – baby, it’s quite old outside.