Greedy Bastards

I can add nothing to this …

Walmart offers Thanksgiving workers measly discount in place of holiday pay

 

EXCEPT that the family that owns Walmart, the Waltons, are ranked the wealthiest in the world with an estimated net worth of over $190bn

And Now For Some Comic Relief

Do you read the daily newspaper comics? You know the ones I’m talking about … Peanuts, Dilbert, Dagwood, Garfield, The Born Loser, etc., etc.

I think many of us do. It’s a nice change from all the “bad news” that so often dominates the headlines (and everywhere else you look).

Anyway, I thought it might be fun to share our favorites. I’ve listed the strips that our local paper carries — yours may be different.

  • Frazz
  • Pickles
  • Frank and Ernest
  • Peanuts
  • Dilbert
  • Sally Forth
  • For Better of For Worse
  • Garfield
  • Blondie
  • The Born Loser
  • Lola
  • Get Fuzzy
  • Pearls Before Swine
  • Luann
  • Non Sequitur
  • Beetle Bailey
  • Phoebe and Her Unicorn
  • Zits
  • Hagar the Horrible
  • Dennis the Menace
  • B.C.
  • The Family Circus
  • Doonsbury

My #1 Favorite is Pickles. Probably because it frequently represents things that occur in our household.

My other “daily reads” are Zits, Beetle Bailey, Peanuts, Garfield, Dilbert, Blondie. I also like Hagar the Horrible, but it’s only printed on Sundays.

Some of the older strips I used to like — Popeye, Nancy, Archie, Flintstones — seem to have disappeared. At least they aren’t included in our local paper. (Am I dating myself?)

BTW, I’ve been rather disappointed in Garfield lately. Not sure what it is, but to me  Jim Davis is losing his edge. Any of you feel the same?

Anyway — it’s time to share! Tell us about YOUR favorites — as well as the ones you never read.

P.S. Of course this post is based on the assumption some or all of you still subscribe to and read print newspapers. 🙂

Will History Repeat Itself?

In 2016, when it was time to elect a new President of the United States, a man named Donald J. Trump entered the race. While he had no political experience, many of the wannabes of America were enthralled with the fact he was included on the Forbes list of the richest individuals in the world. Surely, they said, this wealthy man has the business acumen and smarts to put plans into place that will help those of us who struggle to pay bills and put food on the table.

So they voted him into the office of POTUS.

What many of the voters either did not know about Trump (or didn’t care) was that he gained his riches through some rather nefarious means. Further, his wealthy status tended to be irregular due to a number of failed endeavors.

As it turned out, none of this mattered. All his supporters could see was a “successful businessman” who was going to put money in their pockets as well. (At least that’s what he promised.)

As we now approach the end of Trump’s third year in office, some of us cannot help but ask … has it happened? Has the income of the poor and struggling increased? Have the promised new jobs appeared? Has America become greater?

I’ll let my readers be the judge.

In any event, the year 2020 is almost upon us and by next year’s end, we will be voting to either elect a new POTUS … or keep the one we have.

While many of us have strong resistance to keeping Trump in office, we are also not that enthralled with the several candidates who have expressed a desire to step into the Oval Office. We have our “favorites,” but admit they each have their failings.

Enter Michael Bloomberg. A Billionaire … AND … a Democrat!

Hmmm. It seems the question now becomes … do Riches and Votes have anything in common?

A little history on how Bloomberg made his billions — after 15 years at Salomon Brothers, a Wall Street firm, he was let go with a $10 million severance package. He then used these funds to found Bloomberg, LP, a media and financial data services company, which has made him (at this writing) the 9th richest man in the world on the Forbes list of billionaires.

It’s important to also mention that Bloomberg is a genuine philanthropist (not a self-proclaimed one). In fact, he is a member of The Giving Pledge, whereby billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their wealth. (To date, Bloomberg has given away $8.2 billion, including a $1.8 billion gift in November 2018 to John Hopkins financial aid program. He’s also made significant contributions towards fighting climate change.)

A rather startling fact is that Mr. Bloomberg has pledged he will fully support his own campaign. That is, he will not accept any sort of political donations — nor will he take any presidential salary if elected. He has further declared he is willing to spend “whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump.”

Please Note: I am not writing this post as an endorsement for Michael Bloomberg. I’m simply curious to know if his wealth is going to influence the voters who believed Trump’s wealth would better their position in life. If so, perhaps we’ll end up with a rich Democrat in the Oval Office.

*******************************
P.S. I’m well aware of the distaste that many feel about “the rich” running this country. But this post is not about that. Rather, it’s about what really matters to certain voters. Do they want to keep a “wealthy” man who doesn’t have a clue about running this country to remain in office? Or will they consider a man who not only has riches, but has proven his ability to run a successful company AND hold a political office?

Or must political affiliation always be the ruling factor?

Fact? Or Opinion?

From NYTimes Morning Briefing, 11/18/19 (via email):

“Now more than ever, the lines between fact-based reporting and opinionated commentary seem blurred for people,” said Evette Alexander, research director at a journalism foundation. “That means they trust what they are seeing less. They are feeling less informed.”

Details: According to one recent poll, 47 percent of Americans believe it’s difficult to know whether the information they encounter is true. About 60 percent say they regularly see conflicting reports about the same set of facts from different sources.

I think this is a very real problem in today’s political news environment. Unless people take the time — and make the effort — to read or listen to more than one source (even if it’s contrary to personal leanings), they are going to “swear” that what they’ve read or heard is 100% true and accurate.

And I daresay, nearly all of us are guilty. We tend to believe (and agree with) the sources that go along with our personal perspectives.

I admit it’s difficult to enter into the world of diametric information. It can often raise the blood pressure a notch or two. But if we truly want to judge a situation (or individual) without prejudice, it’s important to look at all sides.

As many have expressed, the news sources of today are greatly influenced by corporate dollars, which means they often focus on the events and happenings that will draw in the most readers/listeners. This is all the more reason why we need to consider all sources … even those with “low” ratings.

In one of my recent postings, I encouraged researching various news sources to determine how biased your favorite is. While you’re at it, take a look at the ones you find at the other end of the spectrum from yours. Most likely you won’t agree with their reporting, but it will help you to see and understand why your neighbors/friends/work associates disagree with your political views. And it just might open up an opportunity to share something they weren’t aware of. Perhaps you might even change their viewpoint!

Loving Darkness

Courtesy of Stockvault.net

Even though I long ago stopped believing in the fairy tales that define Christianity, there are a few lines from the “The Book” that have stuck with me over the years.

One in particular has repeatedly come to mind as I read and listen to all the events, circumstances, actions, etc. surrounding the current POTUS …

Men love darkness rather than light
because their deeds are evil

(For veracity’s sake, the actual scripture (John 3:19, KJV) is as follows: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.)

Naturally believers will insist this scripture be read in context and will adamantly point out that John was talking about Salvation (printed in red for obvious reasons) through J.C.

However, I think most would agree that believers have been known to “cherry-pick” scriptures now and again to support their cause.

I’m just doing the same. 😎

But back to the saying.

Anyone following the Twitter King is continuously and diarrhetically reminded by him that every and all claims of malfeasance on his part are LIES, LIES, LIES!! (All generated by the Democrats, of course). Yet any requests for him to provide documentation, witnesses, phone records, TAX records, etc. to support and validate his position are immediately (and vehemently) DENIED. In fact, he has even attempted to utilize “the law” to protect his (many) secrets.

Now why do you think that is? Why do you think it’s so important for Donald J. Trump to keep some things in the dark??

Hmmm.