20 Year Old Mega Millions Winner

WHEN I READ ABOUT SHANE MISSLER, THE FLORIDA MAN WHO WON THE MOST REECENT MEGA MILLIONS JACKPOT, THE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS HOW OLD HE IS.

He's just 20 years old! He chose to take the lump sum which amounted to about $282 million. 

But there you have it. You just never know who is going to win or where, and it matters little how long they have been playing, and in the case of many lottery winners, whether they play at all until they hit the big one.

How many times have you heard a winner say, "I never played before, but something told me to buy a ticket this time."

UGH. I HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR YEARS AND HALF THE TIME I AM LUCKY IF I EVEN GET MY WAGER BACK!

Still, and I know it's as cliché as clichés come, somebody has to win. As I am a realist by nature, just based on the odds, I am practical in my thinking that perhaps no matter how often I play, or where I buy my tickets—I will probably never see a jackpot.

It's funny little mind games you play sometimes too. For example, I travel into several other states for my job. And so I can buy tickets in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Kansas quite often. Sometimes I think to myself, "Wow, this kind of increases my odds." In fact, about a year ago or so I had to travel to Fort Wayne, Indiana on business, and the jackpot of whichever multi-state lottery was kind of up there, and one of the town I passed through and did buy a ticket wound up being where the thing was won...

ONE WEEK AFTER I HAD BEEN THERE.

Granted, the store where the ticket was bought was also a different store, so while it was close, in reality it really wasn't. But in my mind? There was the chance.

I am happy for Shane Missler. From what he has said he is doing to manage the money, and what he wants to do with the money, maybe he will come out as one of the ones who didn't squander it all away in short time. That is always the tragedy of big lottery wins—sometimes the winners lose it all.

Either way, both the PowerBall and the Mega Millions have essentially reset. I will still play. I can't help myself. And hopefully one day I can be posting about my own big win. Only time will tell. 

Convenience And Luxury: Know the Difference

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT. LUXURY AND CONVENIENCE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Whatever do I mean? Look, there are so many people I know who confuse these two things, and it costs them an enormous amount of money.

You decide to go out and do some shopping for the day. You leave the house and somewhere in the process of shopping you decide you are thirsty. You stop at the local gas station and buy a bottle of Coke to satiate your thirst..

IS THIS LUXURY OR CONVENIENCE?

You might argue that you make enough money, and that you have enough money, and due to that fact alone, being able to buy that bottle of Coke while your out shopping is part of the luxury of having a supportive income.

But it is NOT a luxury. It is a convenience.

LET'S PUT THIS ANOTHER WAY. You go on a road trip and you know you are going to want to buy some bottled water somewhere along the way. You leave the house with 24 bottles of water in the refrigerator, but take none with you on the trip. You stop to fill up for gas and buy a bottle of water.

Is this luxury or convenience? IT IS CONVENIENCE.

Why is it convenience? In part because you decided to leave behind perfectly good and already bought and paid for water to avoid having to take it along. It is convenient that in the event you want that water despite that, someone will have it readily available.

In a way you could equate the logic to going on a vacation out of town. Do you opt to pack clothes you already have for the trip? Or do you opt to just buy those clothes as you need them while on the trip?

Let's put this yet ANOTHER way.

You get home from work and you simply do not feel like cooking dinner. You decide either to order out or go out to a restaurant. It's not that you do not have food available to cook in the cupboard or freezer. And it's not like you don't have the time or the ability to cook dinner. You just don't feel like it. This is a convenience.

So when is it a luxury if you decide to eat out or order in? When you decide to treat yourself to something special.

The long and short of it all is that when you start to break things down, the more you opt for convenience, the less you will be able to afford for luxury. Convenience costs the most even if luxuries are expensive since luxuries are partaken of, theoretically, less often than conveniences.

Drink cheap coffee Monday through Friday, and you may find you will have no problem treating yourself to something special on Saturday and Sunday. And because you have played your money right doing so, affording the luxury of doing so will not cost you as much.

I scrimp on the less important things so I can better afford the more important things.

What makes things worse for a good many people is they opt for both convenience and luxury. And at the end of the day when they look at their bank account what they find is...

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REAL MONEY...

And more often than not, they have debt which they have created as a result, and a lack of savings to speak of. It's really a conundrum. But one that, when  you know what the difference is, is entirely avoidable...

And who wants to splurge on an easy bottle of Coke when you can do so much more if you didn't?

Jack-In-The-Box Goes to Pot

YOU HAD TO KNOW IT WOULD EVENTUALLY COME. That is, someone was going to eventually capitalize, or aim to capitalize, on the growing legalization of pot. Currently three states allow recreational marijuana use; Colorado, Washington, and California.

I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE MORE TO FOLLOW.

Enter Jack-In-The-Box who will now enter the busting out of the seams pot industry, albeit on the back-end. Starting in mid-January the fast food chain will try out it's Jack's Munchie Meals at certain locations in the Long Beach, California market.

My suspicion is that most other fast food companies are already getting a boost from hungry pot heads looking for something to fulfill their munchie cravings—although none of them to date have actually tried to directly reach out with a menu catering to them.

So, what's in the munchie meal? Supposedly a couple of tacos, some chicken strips, five mini churros, onion rings, fries, and a drink.

That actually sounds like a nice little snack for anyone. But to go one step further with the whole thing, Jack-In-The-Box will also price it's munchie meal at just $4.20, capitalizing on what is apparently a code term, 420, that pot heads use for marijuana consumption.

As for whether or not this will boost sales for the fast food giant is up for debate. Even with growing acceptance of pot consumption by the general public, one wonders what customers may opt out of eating at Jack-In-The-Box simply fearing that they might be surrounded by a bunch of high customers—and who knows what antics that might entail.

Then again, if you ever frequent a Denny's at 3 o'clock in the morning, it can be a rather entertaining meal in and of itself...

Provided you aren't the source of entertainment.

You may be all right though in the end. One wonders if there may not be a few police officers eating there, or hanging out there to see who might be getting a munchie meal. The consumption of pot may well be legal in the state, even if it is still illegal at the federal level, but one thing that is definitely illegal is driving under the influence of something.

If you get that munchie meal to go, you might want to consider having a driver along who hasn't toked.

Still Long Ford Motor Company

THE TRUTH IS, I HAVE OWNED FORD STOCK OFF AND ON FOR SO MANY YEARS I HAVE LOST COUNT. But each time I have reached a point to get out, I am usually very well invested in the company. That simply means I am a "constant buyer" of Ford Motor Company stock. And currently where I hold those shares, I also have my dividends reinvested, and anyone who has spent any time in the markets surely understands and appreciates the power of compounding.

I won't bore you with the details of how compounding works, or the benefits of it. But you can surely look it up if you want to know what it is, and how it works FOR your investment.

I have to admit for at least the past two years I have questioned my position in Ford. I mean, the whole point to owning shares of any company is to make money, right. Not just in terms of those compounded dividends mind you. But you want to see gains as well on the underlying shares themselves.

But anyone watching Ford Motor Company stock over at least the past year knows all too well that at best, the stock has performed rather sideways. And, in my humble opinion, Ford stock has actually UNDERPERFORMED. For whatever reason it has just had difficulty getting a good footing in the stock market, and was extremely underlooked.

BUT, in many ways that also presents a bit of an opportunity. Why? Simply put, to some extent simply because the stock has been so neglected by investors, it seems apparent (and the math seems to suggest it) that based on the actual performance of the company itself, the stock has actually been—and for a terribly long time—UNDERBOUGHT.

That just simply means that if you are indeed buying shares during this period, you are getting shares at a relatively good price compared to what the real underlying value of the shares happens to be. They're just not trading there because either no one is paying attention, or no one cares.

Okay, there has been STILL some lingering trepidation from the whole bailout thing of days past that befell the auto industry in America. BUT, YOU WILL REMEMBER FORD MOTOR COMPANY NEVER GOT BAILED OUT unlike ALL others in the U.S. auto business.

GM, on the other hand, did in fact take the money offered to them in the bailout, but as far as stock performance goes they really never did suffer the same woes Ford has ever since. But that's for another day.

So why I am still long Ford even after considering selling my shares several times over the past three or four months?

I just KNOW what the stock is worth, and I tend to think that eventually so will the rest of the market. The fact is that Ford is still very low on the debt side, they have cash to spend, and they are still largely benefiting from the Mullaly days, AND from the downsizing they did, along with the renegotiations they conducted with the unions and so on and so forth.

But what was it that sealed it for me today to decide to continue to be long Ford for at least a while longer?

It was just recently announced that Ford remains the #1 seller of pickup trucks in America. The F-150 is simply, according to the buyers, the best truck on the road and the sales prove this year over year over year DESPITE THE JOKES. No truck outperforms a Ford truck. Simple as that. Otherwise, someone else in the pickup truck portion of the market would be fast on their heels. It's simply not the case, and so jokes be damned, Ford trucks are #1. Still.

But did you also know that for FOUR YEARS IN A ROW Ford is also the leader in auto sales among U.S. carmakers? It's true. They have the lead four years running. Granted, they may not have the best selling car in America. But for the past four years they have outsold in total volume the other U.S. car manufacturers.

That's not really a small deal, folks.

What's more, they have been in an ongoing effort to make their luxury line of Lincoln cars more of an experience, and they have been succeeding in doing that. Moreover, the styling of Lincoln cars is vastly improving. Although I do feel they still have some work to do here to overtake Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes, and let's not forget that MANY higher luxury lines have begun to make more strides in the marketplace to get their cars into the hands of more buyers who otherwise might not have been able to afford them.

Aston Martin for example. Certainly Mazerati and Jaguar have been doing this. Jaguar, by the way, used to be owned by Ford.

And the stock has had a recent amping up of share price. So FINALLY, after quite a long time the shares are starting to show some signs of life. Granted, that can be short lived as has been proven in the past when shares ran up to nearly $18 a share and then dropped significantly back down into the $9-$12 territory and stayed there.

But here's something else that strikes me. That's the recent passing of the new Trump tax law. Look, NO ONE else in the U.S. auto industry is better poised to take advantage of the tax breaks, and since they already have the best selling truck in America, and are the best selling U.S. car maker in America, with more and more Americans who will invariably have more money in their pockets to spend on cars, OF COURSE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS GOING TO BE A STRONG BENEFICIARY OF THIS.

Bottom line is that I don't think Ford is out of the woods. Nor is their stock for that matter. This is a short term boost to their share price and I am not going to get ahead of myself thinking, "This is it. Now we go to the moon." But do I think Ford stock is headed for a newfound happy place? I do, and in full disclosure I am long Ford AND I intend to buy more shares within the next week.

I will be watching my Ford Motor Company stock very closely. But right now, based on what I know behind the scenes (all the math I won't bore you with), I see ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO SELL FORD MOTOR COMPANY shares right now. In fact, I'd BUY MORE.

Okay, okay...for those who want NUMBERS! I know you are out there. By 2nd quarter 2018 I see Ford's shares being traded for just under $16 per share. So for those who AREN'T privy to the quarters, that means that I predict Ford shares will be trading at just under $16 per share by the time my 45th birthday rolls around.

THAT'S JUNE 1ST FOLKS, AND I DO TAKE PAYPAL IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEND ME A PRESENT. 

Fear not. You can use some of your proceeds from Ford's rising valuation to send me a gift.

"I'm Drunk And I'm Driving."

If you heard someone telling you a story like this you'd probably think, "My God. That's a really tall tale." That is, a man spends his whole day drinking, and even somewhere along the line decided to swallow some methamphetamine as well, gets in his car drunk as a skunk, and then...

Wait for it...

Calls 911 to report himself drunk driving. Yes my friends, you have it right. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Florida resident Michael Lester did exactly this on New Year's Eve, calling into 911 to report that he was drunk driving. When the operator asked him for his location he basically stated he had no idea. He was too drunk to know. 

Not that he was really out to look after public safety from himself and his poor decision making. It appears that the man has a rather long rap sheet which includes previous DUI offenses, along with other crimes like hit and run, drugs, and battery. In fact, he actually at one point during the call told the 911 operator that he was driving around trying to get pulled over, even driving on the wrong side of the road several times.

Either way, he was off the street at least for the night, and it made for a pretty good story to boot. The cops who arrested him and the 911 operator who took the call will be telling this one for years to come at many a gathering.

A New Fox News?

PERHAPS THERE DOES INDEED NEED TO BE A "NEW" FOX NEWS IN THE NEWS MARKET. I thought I would never have said it, since Fox News has been a long-running, and quite frankly refreshing addition—in my opinion—the the news media. Especially when you consider that reporting has gone out the window, and most other "news" networks have become nothing more than the LIBERAL RAGS that their paper counterparts have become.

Think Washington Post, the New York Times, and of course there are local fare I am personally familiar with like the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

I will grant you that it has been more difficult to watch Fox News for me since the departure of Bill 

O'Reilly. But Hannity remains, and he is a force to be sure. I'll be honest with you, I had my reservations at first about Tucker Carlson, but lately I tend to think he's holding his own and doing actually what I consider to be A DAMN GOOD JOB.

Fox & Friends is, of course, still standing as the #1 rated morning show in America, and that happens to be a good thing.

Thank you to Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade for keeping it real. 'Nuff said!

But here's the thing. Unless you have been parked under a rock somewhere, there HAS been talk that Disney is in talks to BUY FOX NEWS. Now, when you think of Disney what is the first liberal thought that comes to mind.

ESPN.

Now, you mean to tell me with a straight face that if Disney does in fact buy Fox News that somehow the ideology of Disney, and what they've turned ESPN into won't trickle into Fox news reporting, programming, and the CULTURE of people they'll put on the air?

I say this despite the obvious FAILURE of other liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, and ESPN notwithstanding and my sense of business that why would you want to take a highly successful business model and highly profitable network into the realm of low ratings and low profits and falling viewership?

Well, it MAY WELL sound like a bit of conspiracy theory...but if they can silence the conservative voice of Fox News, they can make the other liberal networks more "relevant."

Arrive on scene Peter Thiel, a strong supporter of President Trump, and a co-founder of the PayPal empire. Not only does he feel that there is market for it, but all suggestions seem to indicate he also feels there is a need for it even if he has not come right out and said so.

Reportedly, Peter Thiel is looking into launching his own conservative network to compete with, and perhaps to rival behemoth Fox News.

What makes the whole thing more real? We have now learned that Thiel had some concerns earlier on, and was actually beginning to talk to former Fox guy, and now dead, Roger Ailes about the possibility, and even was suggesting they could pull over guys like O'Reilly and Hannity to the new network. Based on the "conversations," and the planned meeting that was to occur to occur just before Ailes died at 77, there is some indication that Ailes may have even been slated to head the thing.

What makes the whole story more interesting recently are the revelations about Steve Bannon, and the Mercers, who FUNDED Breitbart, and who are also supporters of Trump, who have now broken financial ties with Bannon based on his recent association with Michael Wolff who is publishing a Trump disparaging book with Bannon practically at the helm of it all. The Mercers are tied to Thiel.

Either way, I do have some serious concerns about Disney taking over Fox, and if they do, I think it may be just the right time to launch something to at least serve as a secondary source. But if Fox falls victim to liberalism as so many networks have under control of what is obviously a liberal company...

We can't get a new, conservative network up and running fast enough.

Massive Money In Online Ad Fraud

A FEW DAYS AGO I wrote about the annoying trend of websites who force you to click from page to page to page just to get through to the end of the article, and about all of those ads that load on each page...

AND THE JUMPITY, SCROLLY THING in the programming of the website that seems to want to force an accidental click of one of those ads.

You can read that commentary here if you wish to.

Because those websites invariably get paid for any of those clicks. Part of my suggestion was that advertisers must be going beserk because of all of these shenanigans since ideally they are paying for advertising, and CLICKS because what they are hoping for are ACTUAL BUYERS OF THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES.

Makes sense, right? Why else would you want to pay someone to share your wares unless you SHARE THEIR DOUGH.

wanted those who are being shared the wares to have some interest in what they are sharing, and

When I wrote the commentary I had completely forgotten about another aspect of the Internet. Click bots. Even better than causing an accidental click, why not just let a bot do the work for you? And that's what a ton of websites apparently happen to be doing.

Again, the question of why is a no-brainer. THEY ARE MAKING A TON OF MONEY DOING IT.

But did you know that there is actually a number placed on HOW MUCH MONEY is actually lost by marketers from online ad fraud caused by these actions? There actually is a number, and the amount might surprise you. It certainly surprised me!

DRUM ROLL PLEASE!

A marketing services company, WPP, did some study on this issue and found that the amount of money wasted on online fraud globally is somewhere around $16.4 billion. 

HW MUCH MONEY DOES $16.4 BILLION ADD UP TO? I thought I would do a fun little comparison since sometimes when you put a number into words, even with the word billion attached to end of it, it doesn't slam you in the gut quite as hard as if you put it into some kind of a comparison.

Stated well enough, at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, with $16.4 billion you could employ 1,087,533 workers for a year full time. Yep. Put into words that's a staggering 1.08 million workers.

Is the practice illegal? That I don't know for sure. I would assume that it may well be. But let's not forget one detail about the Internet that lets so many people get away with so much using it for nefarious purposes.

It is harder to track people, easier to mask locations, and a lot of this activity is even done overseas—sometimes even in third world countries where even if you knew who these people were, the likelihood you would catch up to them and put them into handcuffs is highly unlikely.

In SOME instances it is even suggested that rogue governments like North Korea may even be involved in these sorts of activities. Where there is money to be had, you can bet a lot of people are going to try to get away with whatever they can.

Biden Can Win 'Overwhelmingly' Against Trump in 2020?

OKAY, SO OLD UNCLE JOE IS A LIKEABLE GUY. Albeit, based on a number of pictures that have made their course across the Internet, he's also a bit of a creepy old guy. In other words, as horrible as it may sound, keep him away from the kids and the damsels in general.

But, the question is can he win the presidency?

According to ex-DNC chair Ed Rendell, he seems to think so. In his words, "Biden is just the guy the country is looking for."

WHILE I APPLAUD ED RENDELL on his analysis, and while I do also believe that BIDEN WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN A MUCH BETTER CHOICE THAN HILARY CLINTON AS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY in the last election, and MAY have even given Trump less of an edge, the fact remains that despite what the polls suggest, President Trump is still highly popular after one year into his presidency.

Add in the fact that despite what the lamestream news media will tell you, things are actually getting done, and Biden loses handily in 2020. 

And let's face it folks. The news is only going to get better. The fact is that you cannot argue with something very fundamental in the hearts and minds of the American people, and most importantly the AMERICAN VOTER. 

That's their pocketbooks and wallets if you want to know.

FOR ONE THING, THE NEW TAX LAW WILL BEGIN TO SHOW IT'S IMPACT AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY. That is, that's when the withholding tables are changed to reflect the recently passed new republican tax law. People are going to see a boost in their bottom lines come February, and if you think that won't be noticeable you are living on another planet.

Along with that, nobody can deny that so many economic standards are in territories that have not been seen for at least a decade, and I'd argue not in two of them, people HAVE TO ALREADY BE TAKING NOTICE THAT THE ECONOMY IS IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT EVER WAS DURING THE OBAMA TERMS.

GDP is up, Hispanic unemployment is at historical lows, and so is the black unemployment rate. Consumer confidence is up. Jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector are making a bit of a comeback, and there are now more incentives than there have been in a very long time not only for American manufacturers to keep their shops open, but ADD OR REINTRODUCE SHOPS, and for some foreign companies, to LOCATE shops here.

Foxconn, which will be breaking ground in the near future in Wisconsin that will employ better than 13,000 people making over $50,000 a year on average, is a prime example of what's to come. They have never operated in the United States before. So this is quite an amazing development to say the least.

AND REALLY FOLKS, THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBURG. The fact is that there are going to be many more stories like that now that the corporate tax rate has been lowered to much favorable rates. Add in the reduction in costs for things like transporting those goods across oceans and you have a recipe well poised for success. And believe me, JOBS will follow, and Americans WILL take notice of the increased availability of not just jobs. But good ones that support families in terms of wages.

Furthermore then, what does Joe Biden have to run on? How is he going to support what will be the ever more clear failed economic policies of an administration he was part of, downplay what will be ever more clear SUCCESSFUL POLICIES in economic terms under Trump, and position himself as a strong contender better suited for the White House?

UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY BAD HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND 2020, I think the only rightful conclusion for Joe Biden's viability in 2020, and for Ed Rendell's analysis is wishful thinking.

But it also highlights a continuing disconnect, in my opinion, of the democrat party from reality. They are still unable to acknowledge the real reasons Clinton lost, and they continue to disregard what are real accomplishments and achievements of the Trump administration. They are really disillusioned. They are living in a fantasy world.

Look. Do I think Biden would make a bad president? I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that I think what we are going to see after the first four years is said and done with Trump in the White House is a highly successful presidency with undeniable and provable results that even the most staunch liberals in the lamestream media are not going to be able to deny, much less cover up or slant in their usual way.

Can Biden win against Trump overwhelmingly in 2020? If I am basing the idea on anything current, the answer is a resounding no. Trump will serve two terms. And those two terms are going to be a successful presidency that will mimic former successes like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and okay...I'll give you Bill Clinton. You can't deny he was a successful president too.

BEYOND ALL THAT, I think based on his age alone, Biden will be a nominee if he decides to run, and I think he just might. But he will never be in the White House again. Trump's going to be too successful, and the clock is not on Biden's side. Just saying.

There Is No History on History

SO, ONE MIGHT ASK WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THE HISTORY CHANNEL ISN'T REALLY ABOUT HISTORY? Well, perhaps it is no different than what has happened to so many other "niche" cable channels before it, and presumably that will also come after it.

The Discovery Channel is far removed from what it originally was. So is TLC for that matter. And probably one of the first of the cable channels I can remember who made their mark that left their old purpose and format was none other than MTV.

DID YOU KNOW THAT AT ONE TIME MTV, ALSO KNOWN AS MUSIC TELEVISION, ACTUALLY AIRED MUSIC?

Yeah. MTV got its start doing 24 hours of music video presentation. So did VH1. Neither of those channels even compares to their former selves. They ditched that old programming what seems like a decade or more ago.

I am SURE it all has to do with ratings. Or, perhaps stated better, the lack of any. Maybe there is indeed another reason behind the changes these channels make to their lineups. But as republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put it once on Twitter, "Again no history. Change name of channel to 'Et Cetera.'"

AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO CARES RIGHT?

Yeah. I'll admit. There is some truth to that. Life is full of many more important things to get our panties in a bunch over. If nothing else, when you tune into The History Channel or Discovery or MTV, you ALREADY KNOW you're not going to get what the channel's name suggests as far as programming is concerned.

But I also think, despite the dollars and cents and the grab for ratings, why can't we simply have some channels in our cable choices that cater to smaller audiences who want specifically what those channels are offering? I mean, all of us certainly PAY ENOUGH to the satellite and dish and cable companies for all of those channels. 

Why do all 300 channels have to have the same, "most popular" content? Why do they all have to follow each other and all do the same thing? How is that choice? How is that better than what we had before? How does this differentiate one channel from the other? And then, if they are all going to have the same content, why have all the channels?

I really DON'T CARE AT THE END OF THE DAY what any of these channels decide to do with their programming. I generally narrow my choices down anyway. But one thing it DOES say to me is that eventually what it will do is push people more and more away from cable companies, and pave the way for either channels to individually compete on a separate basis, or will pave the way for alternative companies to set up shop and let people pay for the exact programming they are interested in watching. 

RIGHT NOW THESE CHANNELS GET PAID WHETHER YOU WATCH OR NOT. If things go a different direction and people pay for individualized content, channels like these won't be able to command as much from advertisers, and they will have to cater to very specific audiences with programming that matters pertinent to what they call themselves.

Roseanne Barr's Show Revival Will Crash and Burn

SOME THINGS ARE BETTER SIMPLY LEFT UNDONE. Like say, a revival of Roseanne. Despite my dislike for all things that Roseanne, a committed liberal, believes in outside of the show she did, I cannot deny that the show was a good one. I'd even go as far as to say it was iconic. 

Certainly one of the successes of the show was that it simply was a typical all-American family struggling through life as so many Americans do.

Simply put, it resonated resoundingly with typical everyday people like you and I.

FOR OTHER REASONS I think there were a lot of shows that had their day, and were profoundly successful for so many reasons it would be impossible to break it all down. Surely one such show that comes to mind is the Carol Burnett Show. The antics and the chemistry of that team of talented comedians was a force to be reckoned with to be sure.

For a long time I have even held, and do to this day, that the Carol Burnett Show was even perhaps one of the BEST COMEDIES ON TELEVISION ever. And while I'd love to see what's left of the cast come back and try it again...

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DO IT LIKE THAT AGAIN!

I remember a long time ago reading an article that asked Jim Carey why he never did a third PET DETECTIVE movie. His answer?

Jim Carey thought that by the time he'd jump into character for Pet Detective a third time around, he'd not be original anymore. He'd simply be doing an impersonation of the character he created and it wouldn't be funny anymore. Or good.

And so that was the end of Pet Detective. And I think he was right in his way of thinking to be honest.

Carol Burnett cannot come back and copy what she did with her show and be successful in doing that. Take another show that I think would fall under the same frame of thought.

SEINFELD!

Granted, here you have a cast who all are alive and well and quite frankly still funny. And they've mostly all gone on to have successful careers post-Seinfeld. But even if this team, and even the writers, all got back together to revive the show and hope to have a newly found success similar to the one they enjoyed before, they'd all be kidding themselves.

Seinfeld was funny for the show that it was. But it was also funny because it was fresh and everyone involved was having the time of their lives. Anyone would be a fool to think that they could do that again and have a successful show.

So, why does Roseanne think her show will be different? I really have no idea. Besides the idea that she essentially killed the show when her and Dan ultimately won the lottery. It was so far removed from the entire concept of the show that it just fell flat.

DO THEY COME BACK POOR AGAIN AFTER HAVING LIVED THE GOOD LIFE? AND DIDN'T HER AND DAN GET DIVORCED EVENTUALLY? 

I didn't do the research for this as I don't feel it is necessary, and honestly don't remember. Either way I don't it matters one iota.

Roseanne would do well do leave her show in the annals of history. There is even some thought that comes to mind that trying to revive the show may keep newer audiences from having any interest in tuning into any reruns of the old show.

IF THE NEW SHOW IS LOUSY, and I happen to think it will be, IT IS THE NEW SHOW AUDIENCES WILL REMEMBER.

In a nutshell, don't ruin a good thing is what I say. Of course, my advice is not really advise. It's just an opinion. And no one in Hollywood, and certainly not Roseanne Barr herself, will be reading this commentary and be persuaded to change her mind.

THAT ALL ASIDE, you do have some actors and personalities in their later years, their careers essentially dried up, who go on to pawn off their talents to skin creams, pain ointments, and dietary supplements. Maybe they need the money. Maybe Roseanne needs the money.

Or maybe she really has something up her sleeve that she can pull off her show's revival. I doubt it. But only time will tell. Will I tune in? Probably. Just because I am curious. But I think once the curiosity is done and my opinion is confirmed to be fact...

I'LL JUST MOVE ON LIKE I THINK SHE PROBABLY SHOULD...HAVE.

Sioux City Bee Farmer Loses All

FOR A BEE FARMER in Sioux City, Iowa, it turned out to be a terribly devastating tragedy when he discovered that vandals had knocked over and destroyed his beehives, leaving about 500,000 dead bees in the carnage.

For owner Justin Engelhardt this surely is NO WAY TO START OFF THE NEW YEAR as he told a local reporter that the vandals pretty much wiped out his entire business and he sees no way of recovering from the incident.

Certainly it is my opinion that the vandals be found as quickly as possible and swiftly brought to justice.

And the penalties should be stiff too. This is vandalism on a grand scale as it is probably not just the fact that these tools trespassed and destroyed a man's livelihood, but THEY ESSENTIALLY PUT THE MAN OUT OF BUSINESS!

I cannot imagine what the penalty would be for me if I were to walk into, say, a flower shop and destroy every flower or plant in the store.

Besides the fact that the act is totally uncalled for, it is also terribly pointless. What goes through the minds of some people? That's my question. Granted, as I often say in light of instances such as these, the fact that I CANNOT UNDERSTAND the mindset gives me comfort. 

I do wonder, however, whether this bee keeper at least had insurance? It doesn't seem to be the case if it is suggested that he will not be able to recover from this act. But it can serve as a lesson, perhaps, to other business owners who may have a similar type of business that perhaps they better make sure that they do in fact have some insurance...

JUST IN CASE!

Restoring The Springboard 2015

My blog here has become a bit muddled, befuddled, and I will readily admit, off topic. Not sure where that trend started. But this blog was supposed to be about money, politics, and the random thought. The random thought seems to have overrun my recent posts.

So, there are a couple changes I intend to make going into 2015.

1) I am going to post here more often. The old saying goes that the more updated a site is the more traffic it generates. Since WebAnswers stopped being a big money maker, my Google AdSense earnings have fallen off dramatically.

2) I am going to restore my blog to its original intention for content. I will write about money, politics, and still include the random thought. But I will have much less random thoughts  thrown into the mix.

3) I will promote The Springboard more, along with my Bubblews posts and now Elitevisitors posts.

All in all I want to see 2015 be a good year for The Springboard. I thought about starting a new blog, something that would mimic what I did on Bubblews and call it something like Chatterbox or something like that. And I may still try something like that out. But for the most part I just want to restore at least this blog to some of it's "roots."

The rest of my 2014 posts will just be to get back into the habit of posting regularly. But after January 1st, it's back to business. Time to get The Springboard back on track. Onward and upward and I shall see you all on the other side.

Never Easy To Say Goodbye

Sneaky Bop

This morning I had to bury our dear friend and companion, Sneakers, affectionately known as Sneaky Bop, The Bop, The Bopster, and just simply Sneaky. It is never an easy thing to lose a family pet. After all, being with us every day and night, day in and day out, it is easy for them to carve out a very special place in one's heart, and make an indelible impression.

She was 16 years old, and while her passing still comes way too soon for us, we feel happy that she had a great and full life. She was very much loved, and will be very much missed.

I used to get irritated when she would sit beside me and beg as I ate. Now I will long to have that little set of green eyes staring up at me wantingly, her sweet meow, and when I wasn't offering some food, a few taps of her paw on the side of my leg.

Rest in peace Sneaky. We will miss you dearly.

SPRINGBOARD ELSEWHERE

RIP Sneaky Bop
Bubbles Inside A Bubble

HubPages Makes a Breakfastpop Pop Out

Don't get me wrong when I say that HubPages over the past couple of years has taken on far too much editorial control at their site, and it has irked more than just a few writers. I was one of them a while back as I wrote my farewell hub to my faithful readers, Goodbye HubPages sometime back in October of 2011.

HubPages is not a bad site to write for. It's just not as easy as it used to be to write content that you want without a lot of added scrutiny by the site moderators.

A couple of things that stood out for me were simple references that I made to the Boston Beer Company as I was simply saying that it was the last real American company left to brew beer. That hub it turned out was cited as promoting drinking. Another hub was simply an anecdote about the prospects of winning the lottery, and was primarily meant to be somewhat humurous in nature. This hub was cited as promoting gambling.

Neither of which were true in the context of my hubs. I eventually reposted the latter hub here on the Springboard, Winning the Lottery: The Dream of the Big Win.

If the moderators would have actually read the hubs, the fact that neither were really promoting anything would have been all too clear. Even after I wrote them citing my concerns, it was clear that they did not bother to read a word of what I'd posted. Worst of all I got a nasty bit of a response back from them which I talked about in a follow-up hub titled, On HubPages—October 21, 2011, wherein they said, "Like most websites, there are many topics which are protected under free speech that are not permitted on websites like HubPages. Please feel free to publish any content that violates HubPages Terms of Use elsewhere. Let us know if you have any questions."

That was the real stab, and those words hung on me like weighted chains hooked to my nipples. Please feel free to publish any content that violates HubPages Terms of Use elsewhere. Thanks for nothing, guys. Really?

To date my hubs have received over 72,000 views, and these figures do not count any hubs I deleted which became irrelevant due to time decay of the material. It doesn't make me the Stephen King of HubPages, but I am sure my 72,000 plus views certainly helped the site to make a few bucks over the years.

Which brings me to Breakfastpop who is, for all intents and purposes, a conservative blogger at HubPages. To date she has written around 913 hubs, and has earned the following of somewhere around 762 other hubbers, and who also gets read by many people outside the site who are not even members. Her blogs, as I would classify them, always get quite a few comments, and I would think her total views would blow mine clear out of the water.

And despite that, she recently announced she will be reducing her activity on the site citing mainly that HubPages has "institued changes that seem to be anti-writer." And she is spot on when she makes this comment. When I wrote Goodbye HubPages I said, "If we are to truly call ourselves writers then no writer I have ever spoken to has ever been for censorship in any form. This is censorship if you ask me." Breakfastpop went on to say, "This site is no longer a haven for writers who wish to express themselves freely and creatively."

This becomes especially true when one takes into consideration that the site touts itself as a site for writers, and is essentially a means to self publish your work. I understand why any site of this nature would want to be careful about some of its content simply because any content that might be negative could impact their entire site overall. But there is a big difference between inappropriate content and simple creative and free thinking by writers who provide it. And again, if the site wants to run itself more like a magazine and filter some of the content, then they must take the time to actually read the content that is deemed to be objectionable, substandard, or the quality of the content simply be determined by "word requirements, graphs, charts and polls" as Breakfastpop also rightly pointed out.

It is also true that many quality writers have left the site for the very reasons that I stated, along with Breakfastpop's statements as to her reasoning for slowing down her activity. What will they have left if the good writer's go is the question I have posed more than once? When you drive away those who actually make a positive contribution to the site, what is left? What's more, many times HubPages has said that they are simply going along with the TOS of Google Adsense. Yet not once have I ever had any notices of violating Adsense's TOS, even when I have published exactly the same material which was deemed a violation of HubPages TOS on one of my blogs, all of which are directly owned by Google.

One thing I have long said in looking into the actions of the moderators and owners of what is supposed to be a site for writers, is that none of these moderators or owners have a clue about the importance of freedom of speech that is inherent in anyone who actually considers themselves to be a writer, and as being a former editor involved in the publishing of an online monthly fiction horror magazine, editor of a horror fiction anthology, and having associations with other editors and writers like Mort Castle, Richard Chizmar of Cemetery Dance, T.M. Wright, Peter Straub, Michael Laimo (who recently had one of his books turned into a movie on Chiller), and former Dorchester Publishing Leisure Horror books editor Don D'Auria, I know what it means to have editorial control over content. Nothing was published, nor rejected, without first reading the material. That's how you deal with writers. No programming algorithm can ever replace that, and non writers/editors should not have a thing to do with editorial control. Instead this task should be delegated to those who know what they are doing.