Been more than a month since I posted . . .
1. Football.
Bengals = bleh.
UC Bearcats = best season ever! Are the Bearcats bowl-bound? If they win Saturday against Syracuse, you can almost guarantee it.
Elder Panthers = in the state championship game this Saturday against Cleveland St. I. Unlike the Elder state championships in '02 and '03 I actually saw two Elder games this year of their (potentially) state championship team.
2. Family (Sarah's folks) here for most of November. Taking everyone over to the Lammers on Thursday for Turkey Day.
3. Sarah = awesome as always. Kids doing great, too. Fiona is becoming quite the swimmer (taking winter swimming lessons at an indoor pool, by and large is getting mostly individual instruction). Fiona takes to the water easily. Meanwhile Jack is train-city! Always loves playing with trains (his Thomas wooden railway set is in almost constant use). Awesome.
Promise to post more soon!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
In memory of Alex Fensel (1970-2008)
You made a unique impression on my life that will live with me forever. You had that influence on everyone. You made a difference.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
A better way to blog?
I've been spending quite a lot of time on Facebook lately.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.
But it's surprisingly addictive. Look me up on it!
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.
But it's surprisingly addictive. Look me up on it!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Oh for six on predictions
Can't help but make one more post on the Reds . . .
Last year, when Dusty Baker was hired, I wrote:
"Dusty Baker makes sense: GM Krivsky is in the last year of his contract, Reds fans have run out of patience with owner Castellini, and Baker needs to redeem himself and prove that the 2006 Cubs season wasn't a fluke. It all combines for an atmosphere where the Reds MUST reach the playoffs in 2008 if Krivsky wants to keep his job, Castellini wants to keep the fans happy, and Baker ever wants to manage again anywhere else. I hear that Baker, as a 'player's manager' might be able to woo top players that other managers might not. On to 2008!"
None of it has panned out, I'm afraid.
Reds fans have NOT run out of patience with Castellini, despite sub-par team.
Baker HAS proved that his impact on Cubs was overrated (Cubs have been better without him, actually)
The Reds WON'T make the playoffs this year
Krivsky HAS already been fired
Baker WON'T be managing anywhere else after he's ultimately fired this year or next
Baker HASN'T been able to woo any top players that we wouldn't have gotten elsewhere
In short: egad!
Last year, when Dusty Baker was hired, I wrote:
"Dusty Baker makes sense: GM Krivsky is in the last year of his contract, Reds fans have run out of patience with owner Castellini, and Baker needs to redeem himself and prove that the 2006 Cubs season wasn't a fluke. It all combines for an atmosphere where the Reds MUST reach the playoffs in 2008 if Krivsky wants to keep his job, Castellini wants to keep the fans happy, and Baker ever wants to manage again anywhere else. I hear that Baker, as a 'player's manager' might be able to woo top players that other managers might not. On to 2008!"
None of it has panned out, I'm afraid.
Reds fans have NOT run out of patience with Castellini, despite sub-par team.
Baker HAS proved that his impact on Cubs was overrated (Cubs have been better without him, actually)
The Reds WON'T make the playoffs this year
Krivsky HAS already been fired
Baker WON'T be managing anywhere else after he's ultimately fired this year or next
Baker HASN'T been able to woo any top players that we wouldn't have gotten elsewhere
In short: egad!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friends and Neighbors
This week saw the Ten Year reunion of the Baseball on Broadway Commons committee. I'll spare you the details, but basically this was a Cincinnati volunteer organization which 10 years ago tried to get the new Reds baseball stadium built on the north side of downtown, rather than on the river. I heavily participated in this committee and was among its most active members. We held a reunion this week: Good to see everyone again (Jim Tarbell, Mike, Ed, Charlie, Tom, Jeff, etc. etc.) and remind ourselves what a great cause it was (we were named CityBeat's People of the Year in 1998, even).
Learned many of these guys live close by: nearer than I thought. Might have to have a cookout at my house or something.
On a somewhat different note, forgot to mention that over the past month that one of my long-time college friends, Matt M., and his wife moved to Texas a few weeks ago. Sad that they are moving away, but understand you sometimes go where you need to for work.
Learned many of these guys live close by: nearer than I thought. Might have to have a cookout at my house or something.
On a somewhat different note, forgot to mention that over the past month that one of my long-time college friends, Matt M., and his wife moved to Texas a few weeks ago. Sad that they are moving away, but understand you sometimes go where you need to for work.
Road Trips and Summer
Looks like we're getting into the 'summer road trip' season at the Halloran household. In the past month we've taken day trips to Young's Jersey Dairy (Yellow Springs, OH), Athens (Ohio), and Columbus (COSI). We have a trip to St. Louis (MO) coming up, and probably will take another day trip (Kentucky? Indiana?) before the summer is out.
Hope everyone is having a fantastic summer, too!
Hope everyone is having a fantastic summer, too!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Straight Dope on Tax Burdens
The following is from the Straight Dope (www.straightdope.com) and is one of the best overviews of this country's tax burdens (Do the Rich Pay Very Little Tax?) that I've ever seen. Now I don't pretend that America's tax system is 100% fair (what is?), but any alternative would likely be worse. So, the next person that tells me "wealthy Americans" (whomever they are) pay too little tax, I'll politely send them this article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Cecil:
We ran across the enclosed item in Marilyn Vos Savant's column in Parade magazine and were astounded by her reply. Our first thought was, we should ask Cecil the same question. However, we're equally interested in your response to her answer. --Claire and Harold, San Rafael, California
Cecil replies:
Here's the question from Marilyn's column:
Q: Is it true that the rich pay very little tax?
A: No, and this is the myth, more than any other, that has created the unwarranted and destructive dissension among the so-called economic classes in this country. The wealthy pay a truly stunning amount of tax, and there are virtually no exceptions. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been misguided.
Regarding Marilyn's answer, I'll just say that when you make sweeping claims like this you might want to back them up with a little detail. She's not wrong, though. As a general proposition, the wealthiest Americans do pay the bulk of the individual income taxes collected in the U.S. That's a point worth making, since the belief that the rich pay zip while the little guy gets slugged is the impetus behind the "flat tax" proposal, the stupidest idea to come down the pike since pet rocks.
Here are the numbers for 1992 from the Statistical Abstract of the United States:
The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes.
People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who's mopping floors. But let's work our way up the income scale:
The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.
The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes.
The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more--and Tom Wolfe's little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody's going to tell me those guys aren't rich--paid 10 percent of the taxes. That's a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece.
OK, but what about Marilyn's second point, namely that the rich pay big with "virtually no exceptions"? In their entertaining 1994 book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele note that the number of filers reporting incomes of $200,000-plus who paid no tax, presumably through outrageous but legal tax dodges, has risen steadily, from 155 in 1966 to 1,081 in 1989, despite numerous attempts to plug the loopholes. That sounds pretty bad, but let's put it in perspective: the number of people making $200,000-plus shot up dramatically during the same time, from 13,000 in 1966 to 787,000 in 1989. The proportion of rich tax dodgers has dwindled from 1 percent of the $200,000-plus class to one-tenth of 1 percent in recent years.
The purpose of this exercise is not to make you feel sorry for the poor rich people. Quite the contrary. Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. Some reform.
The flat-tax scam is more of the same. Nobody's sure what the actual flat-tax rate would be, but let's suppose it was 20 percent. Based on the 1992 returns, if this inane proposal were implemented, taxes on everybody making $200,000-plus will go down and those on everybody else will go up. Malcolm Forbes Jr., one of the richest men in America, was the leading backer of the flat tax during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now do you see why?
FLAT LINERS FOR THE FLAT TAX
Dear Cecil:
Re your column on taxes, I was curious about some of your conclusions. You say "people making $50,000 to $75,000 . . . paid $7.6 billion more" [after the 1986 tax reform]. What was the average increase per person? Or was there an increase in the number of people in this bracket, which would have increased the total collected? How much was the tax increase on these people as a percentage of income? You don't say.
In your conclusion you start with a supposition of a flat 20 percent rate (higher than any I've heard proposed) without any mention of the automatic exemption of the first $20,000 to $30,000, which would result in the poor paying no tax at all. I assume this was a lapse and not an act of deliberate mendacity.
Yes, Forbes wants his taxes to go down. I want mine to go down too. Under every flat tax proposal I've heard (except yours), mine would go down dramatically. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Forbes, but right now I find him more honest than you.
Can you explain why we should have a graduated tax system in the first place? Is it to make sure that everybody ends up with the same amount, regardless of effort? Isn't that called socialism?
Following this logic, shouldn't rich people also pay more for everything else? Why not a sliding scale for bus fare, Big Macs, movie tickets, etc.? After all, the rich can afford more.
Why do we need an income tax in the first place? Why don't you consider the merits of the "Liberty Amendment," which would abolish the IRS? --Jim MacQuarrie, via the Internet
Cecil replies:
Way to go, Jim, defend the rights of the rich! Shows you what a great country we've got here. Also shows you that whereas left-wingers are jerks, right-wingers are nuts. To be fair, though, the flat tax is like a date with Julio Iglesias. It takes you a while to realize you've been screwed.
Let me explain. Following the 1986 tax reform, the average income tax paid by somebody in the $50,000-$75,000 bracket indeed went down, and I mean way down--$1,100. The total tax take for that bracket went up $7.6 billion because there were many more taxpayers in that range in 1987.
Ha, you say, Cecil was using statistics to lie! Uh-uh. Fact is, taxes for virtually all tax brackets went down. Yet the total tax collected went up. How was this miracle accomplished? By eliminating many popular tax deductions. This forced millions of Americans into higher brackets, so they paid more tax. Example: elimination of the IRA deduction. If you and your spouse (a) both worked, (b) made a total of more than $50,000, and (c) had previously both taken the maximum IRA deduction, in 1987 your taxable income increased $4,000 even if your real income stayed the same. Assuming two kids, $53,000 in joint income, and $9,000 in deductions in both '86 and '87, your taxes went up $862.
Taxes went up for most affluent Americans. In 1987 they reported an additional $300 billion in income, of which maybe two-thirds stemmed from closed loopholes. As a result, people making from $50,000 to $1 million paid an extra $24 billion in tax. OK, nobody's bleeding for a $500,000-a-year lawyer. But look who paid less tax: those making under $50K (average tax cut: $5 to $867) and those making $1 million and up (average cut: $214,000). Like I say, some reform. Other points:
(1) Forbes claims his flat tax rate will be 17 percent. Most knowledgeable observers say if that happens the government will go broke. The real flat tax rate will have to be at least 20 percent. The working poor will get screwed because they will lose the earned-income credit, which lets them collect a tax "refund" greater than the amount of taxes withheld. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if taxes for the Forbes crowd go down, they have to go up for somebody else.
(2) The income tax is progressive for several reasons, the cynical one being that there are a lot more poor voters than rich ones. The practical reason is that a progressive income tax overcomes the regressivity of the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the poor, and the property tax, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels.
(3) No income tax at all? Fine. When the guys in the military come looking for their pay, we'll tell them to see you.
--CECIL ADAMS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Cecil:
We ran across the enclosed item in Marilyn Vos Savant's column in Parade magazine and were astounded by her reply. Our first thought was, we should ask Cecil the same question. However, we're equally interested in your response to her answer. --Claire and Harold, San Rafael, California
Cecil replies:
Here's the question from Marilyn's column:
Q: Is it true that the rich pay very little tax?
A: No, and this is the myth, more than any other, that has created the unwarranted and destructive dissension among the so-called economic classes in this country. The wealthy pay a truly stunning amount of tax, and there are virtually no exceptions. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been misguided.
Regarding Marilyn's answer, I'll just say that when you make sweeping claims like this you might want to back them up with a little detail. She's not wrong, though. As a general proposition, the wealthiest Americans do pay the bulk of the individual income taxes collected in the U.S. That's a point worth making, since the belief that the rich pay zip while the little guy gets slugged is the impetus behind the "flat tax" proposal, the stupidest idea to come down the pike since pet rocks.
Here are the numbers for 1992 from the Statistical Abstract of the United States:
The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes.
People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who's mopping floors. But let's work our way up the income scale:
The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.
The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes.
The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more--and Tom Wolfe's little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody's going to tell me those guys aren't rich--paid 10 percent of the taxes. That's a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece.
OK, but what about Marilyn's second point, namely that the rich pay big with "virtually no exceptions"? In their entertaining 1994 book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele note that the number of filers reporting incomes of $200,000-plus who paid no tax, presumably through outrageous but legal tax dodges, has risen steadily, from 155 in 1966 to 1,081 in 1989, despite numerous attempts to plug the loopholes. That sounds pretty bad, but let's put it in perspective: the number of people making $200,000-plus shot up dramatically during the same time, from 13,000 in 1966 to 787,000 in 1989. The proportion of rich tax dodgers has dwindled from 1 percent of the $200,000-plus class to one-tenth of 1 percent in recent years.
The purpose of this exercise is not to make you feel sorry for the poor rich people. Quite the contrary. Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. Some reform.
The flat-tax scam is more of the same. Nobody's sure what the actual flat-tax rate would be, but let's suppose it was 20 percent. Based on the 1992 returns, if this inane proposal were implemented, taxes on everybody making $200,000-plus will go down and those on everybody else will go up. Malcolm Forbes Jr., one of the richest men in America, was the leading backer of the flat tax during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now do you see why?
FLAT LINERS FOR THE FLAT TAX
Dear Cecil:
Re your column on taxes, I was curious about some of your conclusions. You say "people making $50,000 to $75,000 . . . paid $7.6 billion more" [after the 1986 tax reform]. What was the average increase per person? Or was there an increase in the number of people in this bracket, which would have increased the total collected? How much was the tax increase on these people as a percentage of income? You don't say.
In your conclusion you start with a supposition of a flat 20 percent rate (higher than any I've heard proposed) without any mention of the automatic exemption of the first $20,000 to $30,000, which would result in the poor paying no tax at all. I assume this was a lapse and not an act of deliberate mendacity.
Yes, Forbes wants his taxes to go down. I want mine to go down too. Under every flat tax proposal I've heard (except yours), mine would go down dramatically. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Forbes, but right now I find him more honest than you.
Can you explain why we should have a graduated tax system in the first place? Is it to make sure that everybody ends up with the same amount, regardless of effort? Isn't that called socialism?
Following this logic, shouldn't rich people also pay more for everything else? Why not a sliding scale for bus fare, Big Macs, movie tickets, etc.? After all, the rich can afford more.
Why do we need an income tax in the first place? Why don't you consider the merits of the "Liberty Amendment," which would abolish the IRS? --Jim MacQuarrie, via the Internet
Cecil replies:
Way to go, Jim, defend the rights of the rich! Shows you what a great country we've got here. Also shows you that whereas left-wingers are jerks, right-wingers are nuts. To be fair, though, the flat tax is like a date with Julio Iglesias. It takes you a while to realize you've been screwed.
Let me explain. Following the 1986 tax reform, the average income tax paid by somebody in the $50,000-$75,000 bracket indeed went down, and I mean way down--$1,100. The total tax take for that bracket went up $7.6 billion because there were many more taxpayers in that range in 1987.
Ha, you say, Cecil was using statistics to lie! Uh-uh. Fact is, taxes for virtually all tax brackets went down. Yet the total tax collected went up. How was this miracle accomplished? By eliminating many popular tax deductions. This forced millions of Americans into higher brackets, so they paid more tax. Example: elimination of the IRA deduction. If you and your spouse (a) both worked, (b) made a total of more than $50,000, and (c) had previously both taken the maximum IRA deduction, in 1987 your taxable income increased $4,000 even if your real income stayed the same. Assuming two kids, $53,000 in joint income, and $9,000 in deductions in both '86 and '87, your taxes went up $862.
Taxes went up for most affluent Americans. In 1987 they reported an additional $300 billion in income, of which maybe two-thirds stemmed from closed loopholes. As a result, people making from $50,000 to $1 million paid an extra $24 billion in tax. OK, nobody's bleeding for a $500,000-a-year lawyer. But look who paid less tax: those making under $50K (average tax cut: $5 to $867) and those making $1 million and up (average cut: $214,000). Like I say, some reform. Other points:
(1) Forbes claims his flat tax rate will be 17 percent. Most knowledgeable observers say if that happens the government will go broke. The real flat tax rate will have to be at least 20 percent. The working poor will get screwed because they will lose the earned-income credit, which lets them collect a tax "refund" greater than the amount of taxes withheld. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if taxes for the Forbes crowd go down, they have to go up for somebody else.
(2) The income tax is progressive for several reasons, the cynical one being that there are a lot more poor voters than rich ones. The practical reason is that a progressive income tax overcomes the regressivity of the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the poor, and the property tax, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels.
(3) No income tax at all? Fine. When the guys in the military come looking for their pay, we'll tell them to see you.
--CECIL ADAMS
Friday, June 27, 2008
Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Ruth
Grandpa Dahlenburg shared with me this story the summer of 2006. It’s a typical “Dahlenburg” story on so many exciting levels, and also hints at the nature of the relationship of Charles and Ruth Dahlenburg.
“Did you hear about our kangaroo?” begins Charles Dahlenburg.
“I was sitting on the porch a few weeks ago, when I looked out the window and saw something moving around outside in the yard. When I got a better look at it, do you know what I saw? A kangaroo! There, outside in our yard! It was standing there at the edge of the woods, looking around.
“Of course I called for Ruth (“Ruth!”) to come see it before the animal ran away. But by the time she got to the porch, the kangaroo had disappeared into the woods.”
Grandpa then describes to Ruth what he thinks he saw: An animal, about the size of a dog, sitting upright, with tiny front legs, a long stiff tail, and a head like a mouse, only without whiskers.
“What size was this thing?” Grandma Dahlenburg asks, not really believing his story but pressing him for details. To see if the story holds up to cross-examination.
“Well, the size of a small dog,” Grandpa answers. “Like a terrier, or even a puppy.”
“Oh Charles,” she says. “That wouldn’t be a kangaroo; that sounds more like a wallaby. A wallaby is like a kangaroo, only smaller. And besides, there aren’t any around here. It was probably a badger or something.”
“No Ruth, not a badger: a kangaroo!”
“Wallaby!” Ruth said, proud to correct Charles about miniscule details, as always.
A few days went by, and Grandpa again found himself sitting on the porch, alone. When all of the sudden, that same animal appeared.
“Ruth! Come here quick! It’s the kangaroo.”
“I’m coming,” said Ruth, racing to the porch. “But quit calling it a kangaroo. You mean wallaby! Not that you see one, anyway.”
Sure enough, by the time Ruth got to the porch, the animal had vanished.
“Kangaroo,” reports Charles.
“Wallaby,” retorts Ruth, though she didn’t see whatever-it-was, anyway.
This goes on for another week or so, with Grandpa Dahlenburg being the only person to see it:
“Ruth! The kangaroo!” Grandpa would proclaim.
And Grandma Ruth would always being in the basement, or otherwise preoccupied, so she was conveniently never around to see whatever-it-was that Grandpa was seeing.
“No kangaroo; wallaby!” she would snap, as it was her own way of telling Grandpa she thought he was making the whole thing up, anyway.
Charles would tell the tale of the lawn kanagroo with others, but Ruth always would interrupt him mid-story to correct her husband:
Charles: “And as I was saying, Margot, this kangaroo . . . ”
Ruth from the next room: “Wallaby!”
Charles: "Katie, I want to tell you about a kangaroo . . ."
Ruth: "WALLABY! . . ."
On it went. Grandpa was determined to have someone else see the animal, besides himself. And if nobody could see it, he would at least talk about it.
Finally, one day, the animal appeared before Charles again, and of course Ruth wasn’t around to see it. So instead, Charles this time got on the telephone to a neighbor:
“Yes, this is Charles Dahlenburg next door. A kangaroo in my front yard! Look out your window! Do you see it? Kangaroo! Kangaroo!”
“My God, Charles,” the neighbor said slowly. “That’s not a kangaroo . . . it's a WALLABY!”
Epilogue: It was, in fact, a wallaby that Grandpa Dahlenburg saw, after all. Apparently, it is well known that owners of exotic animals in Northern Kentucky often use Devou Park as the place to abandon their pets once the animal has grown too cumbersome to care for. Rather than face state and federal criminal action for owning an exotic species, these owners ditch their pets in the woods near the park. On this occasion, it was later determined that an owner had done such a thing with a wallaby; the one that grandpa saw. The wallaby was later recovered by authorities, and now lives on only in this story.
“Did you hear about our kangaroo?” begins Charles Dahlenburg.
“I was sitting on the porch a few weeks ago, when I looked out the window and saw something moving around outside in the yard. When I got a better look at it, do you know what I saw? A kangaroo! There, outside in our yard! It was standing there at the edge of the woods, looking around.
“Of course I called for Ruth (“Ruth!”) to come see it before the animal ran away. But by the time she got to the porch, the kangaroo had disappeared into the woods.”
Grandpa then describes to Ruth what he thinks he saw: An animal, about the size of a dog, sitting upright, with tiny front legs, a long stiff tail, and a head like a mouse, only without whiskers.
“What size was this thing?” Grandma Dahlenburg asks, not really believing his story but pressing him for details. To see if the story holds up to cross-examination.
“Well, the size of a small dog,” Grandpa answers. “Like a terrier, or even a puppy.”
“Oh Charles,” she says. “That wouldn’t be a kangaroo; that sounds more like a wallaby. A wallaby is like a kangaroo, only smaller. And besides, there aren’t any around here. It was probably a badger or something.”
“No Ruth, not a badger: a kangaroo!”
“Wallaby!” Ruth said, proud to correct Charles about miniscule details, as always.
A few days went by, and Grandpa again found himself sitting on the porch, alone. When all of the sudden, that same animal appeared.
“Ruth! Come here quick! It’s the kangaroo.”
“I’m coming,” said Ruth, racing to the porch. “But quit calling it a kangaroo. You mean wallaby! Not that you see one, anyway.”
Sure enough, by the time Ruth got to the porch, the animal had vanished.
“Kangaroo,” reports Charles.
“Wallaby,” retorts Ruth, though she didn’t see whatever-it-was, anyway.
This goes on for another week or so, with Grandpa Dahlenburg being the only person to see it:
“Ruth! The kangaroo!” Grandpa would proclaim.
And Grandma Ruth would always being in the basement, or otherwise preoccupied, so she was conveniently never around to see whatever-it-was that Grandpa was seeing.
“No kangaroo; wallaby!” she would snap, as it was her own way of telling Grandpa she thought he was making the whole thing up, anyway.
Charles would tell the tale of the lawn kanagroo with others, but Ruth always would interrupt him mid-story to correct her husband:
Charles: “And as I was saying, Margot, this kangaroo . . . ”
Ruth from the next room: “Wallaby!”
Charles: "Katie, I want to tell you about a kangaroo . . ."
Ruth: "WALLABY! . . ."
On it went. Grandpa was determined to have someone else see the animal, besides himself. And if nobody could see it, he would at least talk about it.
Finally, one day, the animal appeared before Charles again, and of course Ruth wasn’t around to see it. So instead, Charles this time got on the telephone to a neighbor:
“Yes, this is Charles Dahlenburg next door. A kangaroo in my front yard! Look out your window! Do you see it? Kangaroo! Kangaroo!”
“My God, Charles,” the neighbor said slowly. “That’s not a kangaroo . . . it's a WALLABY!”
Epilogue: It was, in fact, a wallaby that Grandpa Dahlenburg saw, after all. Apparently, it is well known that owners of exotic animals in Northern Kentucky often use Devou Park as the place to abandon their pets once the animal has grown too cumbersome to care for. Rather than face state and federal criminal action for owning an exotic species, these owners ditch their pets in the woods near the park. On this occasion, it was later determined that an owner had done such a thing with a wallaby; the one that grandpa saw. The wallaby was later recovered by authorities, and now lives on only in this story.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Summer
Entering high summer now 2008. Random thoughts:
+ I am now Managing Director of my company. Baptism by fire, really, with the unorthodox challenges I've had to face in the first three weeks in my new position (I'll spare you the details).
+ Fiona and Jack are out for the summer. A nanny/sitter named Laura (college girl) is watching them at our house over the summer. Costly, but cheaper than many of the alternatives. Can't wait for school to be back in session! Fiona is taking swimming lessons and ballet lessons, doing good in both (especially swimming; she's a natural swimmer!) Jack is well, Jack. Everything a 3-and-a-half year old should be. We really haven't pushed it nor steered it, but it appears that he might be left handed, and for a 3-year-old he has a very hard throwing arm. Future LH baseball pitcher? Outfielder? Lord knows that with our genes, he won't have the build of a football player. We'll get him set up for T-ball and see what happens.
+ God bless Sarah. Going to the gym every single morning early before the kids get up. She's in shape and quite a hottie; I'm not.
+ House projects still yet to be done: Downspout, more fencing, probably some painting needed, shelving in the LR, and the list goes on and on . . .
+ The Reds are terrible. Again. I still have many of my season voucher tickets left, will likely use a few in the next week or so with Sarah's parents in town.
+ I am now Managing Director of my company. Baptism by fire, really, with the unorthodox challenges I've had to face in the first three weeks in my new position (I'll spare you the details).
+ Fiona and Jack are out for the summer. A nanny/sitter named Laura (college girl) is watching them at our house over the summer. Costly, but cheaper than many of the alternatives. Can't wait for school to be back in session! Fiona is taking swimming lessons and ballet lessons, doing good in both (especially swimming; she's a natural swimmer!) Jack is well, Jack. Everything a 3-and-a-half year old should be. We really haven't pushed it nor steered it, but it appears that he might be left handed, and for a 3-year-old he has a very hard throwing arm. Future LH baseball pitcher? Outfielder? Lord knows that with our genes, he won't have the build of a football player. We'll get him set up for T-ball and see what happens.
+ God bless Sarah. Going to the gym every single morning early before the kids get up. She's in shape and quite a hottie; I'm not.
+ House projects still yet to be done: Downspout, more fencing, probably some painting needed, shelving in the LR, and the list goes on and on . . .
+ The Reds are terrible. Again. I still have many of my season voucher tickets left, will likely use a few in the next week or so with Sarah's parents in town.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Reds Out of the Gate, part II
Jinx!
No sooner did I make the post above than the season turned south in a hurry. It's really, really bad folks (as of May 5 now). Krivsky's been fired, new GM Jocketty won't turn the boat around this soon, and the team is more or less apathetic about winning, it seems. NEW grades for each category as of May 15:
Overall season so far: F+
Offense: C+ (Dunn, Griffey: D)
Defense: C (Dunn: F; Griffey: D)
Starting Pitching: D+ (Arroyo: F; Fogg: D; Harang: A; Volquez: A; Cueto: B; Beleisle: C)
Releif pitching: B+ Still a remarkable improvement over last year.
Clutch hitting: F (This is what is killing the Reds this year: No hitting with RISP (runners in scoring position)
Fundamentals: C
Dunn by himself: F-
Selected individual players: Harang (A+); Arroyo (F); Fogg (D); Cueto (B); Volquez (A); Cordero (A+); Lincoln (B); Bako (A); Valentin (incomplete); Votto (B); Hatteburg (B); Phillips (A); EE (D-); Keppinger (A); Dunn (F-); Griffey Jr (C-).
Baker: C. This is the future manager of the Reds? Doesn't seem to have made an impact at all.
No sooner did I make the post above than the season turned south in a hurry. It's really, really bad folks (as of May 5 now). Krivsky's been fired, new GM Jocketty won't turn the boat around this soon, and the team is more or less apathetic about winning, it seems. NEW grades for each category as of May 15:
Overall season so far: F+
Offense: C+ (Dunn, Griffey: D)
Defense: C (Dunn: F; Griffey: D)
Starting Pitching: D+ (Arroyo: F; Fogg: D; Harang: A; Volquez: A; Cueto: B; Beleisle: C)
Releif pitching: B+ Still a remarkable improvement over last year.
Clutch hitting: F (This is what is killing the Reds this year: No hitting with RISP (runners in scoring position)
Fundamentals: C
Dunn by himself: F-
Selected individual players: Harang (A+); Arroyo (F); Fogg (D); Cueto (B); Volquez (A); Cordero (A+); Lincoln (B); Bako (A); Valentin (incomplete); Votto (B); Hatteburg (B); Phillips (A); EE (D-); Keppinger (A); Dunn (F-); Griffey Jr (C-).
Baker: C. This is the future manager of the Reds? Doesn't seem to have made an impact at all.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Reds out of the gate
Some good, some bad some ugly with the Reds season so far (as of April 14). I've been to a game already and have followed the stats pretty thoroughly. Grading each category:
Offense: C+
Defense: C
Starting Pitching: B+ (Arroyo has been surprisingly dissapointing, Cueto and Volquez are nice surprises. Harang is still the ace).
Releif pitching: B+ A remarkable improvement over last year.
Clutch hitting: C-
Fundamentals: C+
Selected individual players: Harang (A+); Arroyo (C); Fogg (C); Cueto (A); Volquez (A-); Cordero (A+); Lincoln (B); Bako (A); Valentin (incomplete); Votto (B); Hatteburg (B); Phillips (A); EE (D-); Keppinger (A); Dunn (D-); Griffey Jr (B).
Offense: C+
Defense: C
Starting Pitching: B+ (Arroyo has been surprisingly dissapointing, Cueto and Volquez are nice surprises. Harang is still the ace).
Releif pitching: B+ A remarkable improvement over last year.
Clutch hitting: C-
Fundamentals: C+
Selected individual players: Harang (A+); Arroyo (C); Fogg (C); Cueto (A); Volquez (A-); Cordero (A+); Lincoln (B); Bako (A); Valentin (incomplete); Votto (B); Hatteburg (B); Phillips (A); EE (D-); Keppinger (A); Dunn (D-); Griffey Jr (B).
Thursday, March 20, 2008
March 2008 Update
Whew! Has it really been two months since I posted? Gotta fix that.
Lot has happened in two months, let me see here:
+ I've been promoted to Managing Director of my company
+ I just returned from San Francisco for an industry conference
+ Sarah is kicking butt in her job, too
+ My daughter had tubes put in her ears (should help keep down infections, etc)
+ My son got glasses (farsighted). Seems he obtained the same bad eyesight as either my sister or Sarah's brother.
Too much else. But here's a fun sight a friend recently keyed me in on: If you're in to statistics and baseball, you'll love it.
http://www.flotsam-media.com/2007/12/flotsam-data-special-tangiblizing.html
Lot has happened in two months, let me see here:
+ I've been promoted to Managing Director of my company
+ I just returned from San Francisco for an industry conference
+ Sarah is kicking butt in her job, too
+ My daughter had tubes put in her ears (should help keep down infections, etc)
+ My son got glasses (farsighted). Seems he obtained the same bad eyesight as either my sister or Sarah's brother.
Too much else. But here's a fun sight a friend recently keyed me in on: If you're in to statistics and baseball, you'll love it.
http://www.flotsam-media.com/2007/12/flotsam-data-special-tangiblizing.html
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Reds Season Tickets
I did it.
After years of talking about it and never doing it, well this time I actually did it.
I bought Reds season tickets for 2008!
I actually purchased the 'FlexPlan' ticket package vouchers for red reserve seats (infield box). 20 vouchers in all. Meaning I that I can take myself and 19 of my best friends to any single game and I'm done for the year, or I can go to 20 seperate games by myself, or break them up in any combination I want (use up 4 of the vouchers and take the whole family to one game, use one voucher just for myself the next, etc). It's actually a great plan for me, as I never know which games I'll be wanting to go to nor how many people I'm going to to with at the time. But no matter when I go, I'll have among the best seats in the house! One of the downsides is that I'll never know game-to-game exactly which seats I will get specifically, but I am guaranteed that they will always be infield box seats, basically lower level either along third base or along first base. Awesome seats in either case!
Obviously I'm pretty excited about this year. Here's to games into October!
After years of talking about it and never doing it, well this time I actually did it.
I bought Reds season tickets for 2008!
I actually purchased the 'FlexPlan' ticket package vouchers for red reserve seats (infield box). 20 vouchers in all. Meaning I that I can take myself and 19 of my best friends to any single game and I'm done for the year, or I can go to 20 seperate games by myself, or break them up in any combination I want (use up 4 of the vouchers and take the whole family to one game, use one voucher just for myself the next, etc). It's actually a great plan for me, as I never know which games I'll be wanting to go to nor how many people I'm going to to with at the time. But no matter when I go, I'll have among the best seats in the house! One of the downsides is that I'll never know game-to-game exactly which seats I will get specifically, but I am guaranteed that they will always be infield box seats, basically lower level either along third base or along first base. Awesome seats in either case!
Obviously I'm pretty excited about this year. Here's to games into October!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
