Daylight Savings Time Reimagined

A few weeks back, we in almost all of America said goodbye to the 2024 iteration of Daylight Savings Time, that curious artifact of government-mandated time control that provides more daylight later in the evenings, at the expense of daylight in the early hours of the day.

Naturally, there were outcries -- these are annual complaints, mind you -- both about the unpleasant, sudden adjustment to a different clock for the day, and the loss of evening hours of daylight, to where a gloomy depression sets in for weeks after the fall time change back to Standard Time.

The "solution", such as it has always been proposed, has been to eliminate the change of time, and simply have Daylight Savings Time all year.  Or Standard Time all year. One of the two, I forget which.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has been a consistent forth-putter of a law that would do one or the other, I forget which, but the bill has never gone anywhere.

"Why it has never gone anywhere" is part of the issue. 

I would contend that a solution has not been generated, not because a lack of perception of the problem but because of lack of definition of the problem.  

I've lost count of the number of times I've written here, about all manner of situations, that you have to decide what you are trying to accomplish, or else all pathways are equally valid -- or invalid.  In this case, much like with global warming, you need to define an acceptable end state.

In this case, the end state has to be defined in terms of the shortest date of the year for daylight (i.e., the winter solstice, December 21), and then where we want to "place" sunrise and sunset.  In other words, whatever we do needs to be grounded on the placement of daylight, with a start time and end time for the light of day.

I'm going to make an assumption for the sake of argument.  Obviously, deciding what that time is, is something that can be worked out.  

Where I live (latitude about 33 degrees north), on December 21, the shortest-daylight day of the year has about nine hours and 50-55 minutes between actual sunrise and sunset.  Let's say "ten hours of daylight" for argument's sake, and there are maybe 25 minutes on either side where there is usable daylight, before sunrise and after sunset.

So let us assume that we want to center the ten hours between sunrise and sunset on the shortest day of the year as being between 7 AM and 5 PM.  That would leave some kind of daylight from about 6:30 AM to about 5:30 PM.  That would seem reasonable to me.

OK?  Good, that's the goal, and remember that we want to have a time system for the United States (we don't really care about the rest of the world, they can figure out their own problems) that never changes, no Standard Time or Daylight Savings Time, just Regular, Ordinary, All-Year Time.

Now let's factor in the other thing that causes all manner of problems in the whole time-change issue.

Time zones.

At the Equator, the earth is about 24,900 miles around. It takes 24 or so hours for one rotation, so on average, each time zone should be about 1,000 miles wide at the equator.  At the 33rd parallel, which is only about 20,000 miles around, time zones average around 800 miles wide -- enough for maybe three and a half time zones across the continental US.  

If you look at the four current time zones our lower 48 states fit into, you'll see that the lines are pretty erratic, as if the people who decided where the boundaries are, used a combination of state lines and splitting states where they had to, in the most rural areas possible.

As a result, we have oddities like Terre Haute, Indiana and Eastport, Maine, 1,350 miles apart, being in the same time zone, even though the sun rises and sets an hour and five minutes later in Terre Haute than in Eastport.  So I guarantee you that there is nothing magical about where the time zones are located -- the sun doesn't rise until 8:00 AM in Terre Haute at the shortest day of the year, and that's nowhere near our target.

Think about the solution -- if our goal is to do the best possible shot at the "7-to-5 daylight on the shortest day of the year" goal, then the actual center of the time zone should be where that spread falls, not at one end or the other.

And that, friends, will be how we arrive at a solution -- move the time zones.

Unfortunately for our purposes, the sun doesn't really care where people actually live and create cities, so we have to center our time zone in wherever the 7-to-5 sun pattern on December 21 is, and extend roughly 30 minutes for sunrise and sunset, east and west of that.  

In the Eastern Time Zone, for example, that center is around Worcester, Massachusetts.  That means that the rough western border of such a time zone would be around Wheeling, West Virginia -- just west of Pittsburgh -- not western Indiana or anywhere close to it,

If you have followed all this, I really don't need to explain a whole lot more.  Based on actual sunrise and sunset times, and with the goal of centering the shortest days of the year in a reasonable window relative to daily lives, again, here is the solution:

Relocate the time zones according to the sunrise/sunset schedule!

This is the most logical solution.  You figure out the longitude where the sunrise and sunset are that 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM window, and determine an eastern and western border -- the longitude where the sunrise is a half-hour east of that, and a half-hour west -- and voila, you have a time zone.

Obviously, you're not going to use a straight longitudinal line for those borders.  For example, you have to make allowances for cities, such that their suburban areas are in the same zone, and would likely want to run the borders of the zone through the least-populated areas.  And if you can follow state borders, that works really well too.

Here's how it works -- the new Eastern Time Zone (remember, "Standard" and "Daylight Savings" go away since you never change time) is based on its center being roughly the vertical line going through Worcester, MA. So all of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, they fit right into Eastern Time.

But instead of extending all the way to western Indiana as it does now, the new Eastern Time Zone would only go as far as about Wheeling, WV to the west.  In fact, given the borders, it makes sense for all of Ohio to be in the new Central Time Zone (stay with me) and, if you look at a map, for Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan, which currently are all or mostly on Eastern Time, to move to the new Central Time Zone.  

In such a line, the states of West Virginia and North Carolina would be split, with Charleston and the western half of West Virginia moving to Central Time, along with mountain North Carolina west of Charlotte.  The western tip of Virginia would also be Central Time, west of the greater Roanoke area.  South Carolina could be entirely in the Eastern Time Zone but, better, the portion west of the SC-side suburbs of Charlotte, NC probably ought to be moved to Central Time, including the Greenville/Spartanburg area. Then the area of the state west of greater Columbia would move as well.

I could obviously project this to define the western border of each remaining time zone all the way out to the Pacific coast, now that you've seen the logic.  

But there's nothing magic about those lines.  What is important is that we could achieve the two end goals -- (1) logical time zones relative to the daylight hours, and (2) no need to change times twice a year -- simply by adjusting the time zones to make sense based on daytime.

If you read this and have some influence with your congressman or senator, I urge you to forward a link to this piece.  Politicians have been proposing the end of Daylight Savings Time, or universal Daylight Savings Time, forever.

This plan accomplishes the goals with the least intrusion -- figure out the logical borders, reset the time zones accordingly, and you never have to change time again.

Feel free to call it the "Sutton Time Zone Plan."  I'm happy to take credit.

 Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.

Saying the Quiet Part about Kamala Quietly

I believe that after the election Tuesday, the Wednesday morning episode of The View may have been its highest-rated one ever.  I know my Best Girl and I watched it, the only time we ever have, out of the sheer entertainment value of watching the "ladies" of The View melt down on national television.

They said a lot of things. Most of it, of course, was to assign blame for the loss of Kamala Harris in the election, a terrible defeat for her that included losing, as it appears now, every single one of the so-called swing states that were going to decide the election.

Blame.  Blame given to racism.  Blame to sexism and misogyny.  Blame to "not getting the message out."  Blame to Trump, oh, Lord, so much blame to Trump and his awful supporters    .  Blame -- and this is hysterical -- on the timing, that Kamala simply didn't have enough time to mount an effective campaign because she was "put in the race" so late, after Joe Biden stepped away from the campaign.

Ah, so much to say.  First, let us not put all this on The View; it is the Friday after the election as I write this, and the airwaves are redolent of Democrats all blaming all manner of reasons for the outcome, mostly blaming the electorate as being too stupid to vote the way they wanted them to vote, but with plenty of attacks on each other.

Then, let us not let them get away with the "she was put in too late" argument. It assumes that she was "put in" by some third party, totally ignoring the fact that (A) she was an active participant in pushing Biden out; (B) Joe Biden endorsed her almost as soon as he announced he was stepping down; and (C) she was the only potential candidate who would have been allowed to use the $200 million or more that was in the Biden campaign's accounts.

It was none of that.

I've listened to a lot of the hand-wringing and internecine warfare among Democrats the past few days, and heard about all their arguments for why she lost.  Blame this, blame that.  All of it was wrong.  The answer is very simple:

Kamala Harris was probably the worst major-party presidential candidate in the history of the country. 

What do we want and need in a presidential candidate?  That's actually a pretty easy question, and it applies no matter whether you are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, no matter your race, creed, religion or planetary origin.

An excellent candidate, very simply, would have a set of principles that covered all of the issues of the day in a cohesive manner (that is, the moral foundation for the principle in one area would be consistent with the moral foundation of any other principle).  The candidate would have a plan to implement the solutions to those issues in a way that is likely to work because the solutions had worked before.  And such a candidate would have the ability to communicate those solutions, fluidly and in a compelling manner.

That's not hard, to understand, right?  The candidate simply needs to have a moral compass, an understanding of the issues, a good handle on successful solutions, and, most critically, the ability to explain to the public all of those things.

I need to tell you that I wrote those last three paragraphs without thinking about Kamala Harris. Yes, I planned to explain why she was a putrid candidate, but I wanted to clear my head and think only about what I wanted in a candidate first, so my further argument would be compelling and, frankly, if it hadn't worked I'd have deleted this column.

So I'm thinking about Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and Kamala Harris.

Ronald Reagan, aka "The Great Communicator", was a splendid candidate by those criteria.  He was an extremely principled man, famous for appointing people, letting them know his guidance, and then letting them do their job with little interference. He had an unparalleled ability to get his points across with intelligence, persuasion and humor. And he won big when he ran.

Donald Trump is a unicorn among unicorns.  Yes, he has principles -- small government, peace through strength, individual freedom, sure.  One very unusual thing about him is that, when considering what has worked before (to address an issue), he reaches back not into a government solution, but into his long business career. 

Of course, that is his medium, business, but on top of that, he believes from his background that solutions which leverage logic and people's basic financial motivations are likely to work best, and those are almost never government solutions. He is an entertainer, so he can certainly communicate, although it is the M.O. of an entertainer vs. that of a politician. But you know what he's saying, and on top of that, he will answer any question, anytime, with a very facile ability to answer those questions. He loves sparring with the media.

And then, ah, Kamala.

Thinking on why she was a terrible candidate, I go straight back to my criteria for what makes a good one -- there are foundational principles for why you do things, those principles underpin your proposed solutions, and you can explain that to the public.

None of those apply to her.

We are three days past the election, and still none of us knows what she believes. She believes ... let's see ... "Trump is a threat to democracy."   Pretty sure of that. Should we be a strong world policeman or not?  Don't really know. Do tax cuts stimulate the economy in her view? Nope, no idea. Should the border be -- oh, never mind, she ran the border for three years and pretty much never went there.

With no principles articulated, nothing she proposed could be defended. It should be easy -- "We'll do X, Y, and Z because doing so will accomplish A, B and C, all of which are worth doing and, by the way, X, Y, and Z worked when it was done over here."  But with no principles, she couldn't come up with solutions that reflected them.  Instead, she tossed out pap -- the "opportunity economy", for example -- that no one could wrap their head around, since they lacked either an underlying principle or any substantive description.

And finally, she could not communicate, well, anything.  It was patently obvious throughout the campaign, if not throughout her tenure at VP, that she and the English language were not the closest of friends.

She held exactly zero press conferences during the entire campaign.  With three months' worth of opportunities to explain to the nation who she was and what she would do, by answering unscripted questions from the assembled press, she declined all of them. She held exactly one interview that was not "friendly media", that being with Fox News's Bret Baier, and answered every question by bringing Donald Trump into the answer and explaining that he was a threat to democracy.

Bret Baier: "How are you feeling today?"
Kamala Harris: "Donald Trump is a threat to democracy!"

She had an opportunity to go on the Joe Rogan podcast -- listened to by tens of millions of people and not necessarily a hostile situation -- but she insisted on limiting the 3-hour standard session that Trump had already done and done well -- and that Rogan come to her (Trump had gone to him in Texas, knowing what a huge exposure opportunity it was).  Rogan, who needed her far less than she needed him, said "no thanks", and she lost that massive opportunity to reach voters.

We all asked ourselves why she would insist on only one hour rather than three, when the opportunity was so great, and didn't like the obvious answer -- that she simply was incapable of a three-hour conversation; she didn't know the issues well enough to talk about them for any length of time. Moreover, she couldn't seemingly carry on a conversation for any length of time, let alone three hours.

She couldn't convey her views, partly because she was unable to convey views on anything for any length of time, and partly because she seemingly had no views on anything, only politically-based positions that she may or may not have even believed.

Had she been able to communicate, she would never have offended millions of Catholics by skipping the Al Smith Dinner during the campaign, and certainly not letting it come out that skipping it was because she was afraid of seeming to support the faith with a strict doctrine opposing abortion on demand.

No, Kamala Harris was as bad a presidential candidate as we've ever seen. 

It is telling that the Democrats in the chattering class are saying all manner of things about why they lost the election.  It was Biden's fault, or racism, or xenophobia, or the stupidity of the electorate.  It was everything except the actual reason.

Kamala Harris.  She was the reason the Democrats lost.

And as long as they refuse to acknowledge that, they will continue to lose elections.

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.

What's the Perfect Climate?

Surprisingly, this late in the 2024 campaign, the issue of global warming (dba "climate change"), has been effectively a no-show in the election.  No one talks about it, and even when the moderators of one of the debates brought it up, the candidates didn't do very much with it and it was not discussed in any postmortem the next day.

However ... that didn't mean it didn't make me think about the topic.  Obviously, I've written about it in this site more than once, but I feel that there is a point I haven't made, or at least haven't written about loudly enough.

The climate-change folks have always appeared suspect to me.  They scream at you for not taking them seriously, and let's just say the obnoxious screaming Swedish teenager with Asperger's hasn't done anything to help the cause.  Their actions and loud warnings are 100% consistent with what they would do if their only purpose were to stop all progress.  Obviously if they really wanted clean energy, they'd be fast-tracking nuclear power plants like crazy which, of course, they're not.

And I've said all that.  A few times.

But there is one argument that I haven't really expressed as a core point, as well as a core indictment of the climate-change people and their purpose.  It has nothing to do with interpretation of data that the polar ice caps are or are not melting, or pictures of harbors from the 1920s that show sea levels exactly as they are now.

It's really a tenet that I go to religiously when someone passionate about something asks me to pay for something, or give up something, or in some way change my daily life.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Doesn't that seem simple?  What is the goal of any proposed action, we have to ask, so that we can rationalize if the sacrifice, payment or change is actually worth it.

The problem is that, when you ask that question, you have to be careful what kind of answer you're willing to accept.  For example, if I were in discussion with little Greta, I would ask her my own version of the "What are you trying to accomplish?" question.  She would answer the original with something like "We're trying to stop the earth from warming up and destroying life!"

And that answer I would not accept.  It's too simple, and leads to follow-up questions which, of course, the left does not like.  But I love follow-up questions.

Like for example this one, the very basic challenge.

"'Hey, Greta ... we all know that the earth has had a couple peaks and valleys in temperature in the last 1,000 years.  Leif Erikson called Canada "Vinland" because it reminded him of grape-growing areas back in Greenland, Norway and Iceland, where grapes no longer grew 500 years later when the climate was markedly cooler.

"There has been, just in the last millennium, a wide range of temperature patterns that predate any possible influence of human activity.  So what specific pattern do you regard as ideal, to the point that any action we take for the purpose of affecting the climate would be to move toward that specific pattern, whether up or down?

"And, by the way, why is that pattern better than any other?" 

No one, not at all, ever asks that question.  God knows no one ever answers that question.  And there's a good reason.  The left doesn't care a bit about climate change per se, and whether or not the earth warms or cools a degree is not their concern.  Remember that their goal is to seize and retain power, and enlarge government to the point that it controls everything, so if they can control a huge entrenched government, they hold absolute power.

No, what the left gets from arguing climate change is to justify further enlargement of government, not to fix a temperature pattern.  So for them to agree that a specific pattern is optimal would be to say that if we were to achieve it, the apparatus that got us there could be dismantled.  And the left does not dismantle government agencies.  Ever.

That's why you have to challenge climate fanatics with that question all the time -- what is the perfect temperature profile across the earth, and why is that the one?  We know, for example, that approximately four times as many people worldwide die from cold-related illnesses or problems than heat-related ones (what -- you didn't know that?). So why, Greta, are we more concerned about the temperatures going up than falling?  Is it because none of this is really about the climate?

You'll never get a good answer (if you do, please tell me).  To the climate crazies, it's about control, not climate.  They won't answer the question because they've never even once asked themselves that, and that's because to them it's not a problem whose solution can be defined.

It's a problem from which they can argue for more power.  As it always is.

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.

Election Security? I'm Still Worried

It is only three months until the 2024 general election.  I am still worried about the voting process, and I don't think it is paranoia.

Remember 2020?  I certainly do.  I remember that the vote-counting was summarily halted in multiple states -- all swing states -- around the same time, and magically when the counting resumed, Joe Biden somehow reversed what were almost insurmountable leads.  He got 81 million votes, despite the fact that he did not campaign, stayed in his basement the whole election season, and generated virtually no enthusiasm.

I remember in around December of 2020, watching the live televised hearings by the state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (and which are still on YouTube).  Each hearing was about eight hours long, and each one had a series of election workers testifying,  They had all provided sworn statements under penalty of perjury, and then testified to the content of their statements.

Worker after worker testified how Democrats in the counting stations refused to let Republican poll-watchers near the counting stations to observe, or were abusive and obstructive.  They testified to trucks with cases of ballots being brought in (in the case of Philadelphia, they were arriving from out of state somehow) and counted.  

Ballots that were supposedly absentee or mail-in votes were scanned even though the ballots had no creases in them like actual mailed ballots would have to be, were clearly machine-filled out, and all had only the Presidential race box filled in -- all for Biden.

Counting machines that were not supposed to have even the capability to connect to the Internet were, magically, connected to the Internet where their totals were accessible.  

In Georgia, the counting center in Atlanta was in a hotel that had its own video surveillance, giving us a nice view of what was happening.  A halt was called to the counting in the middle of the night, and the observers were taken out of the room -- but at least one counter was blithely shoving ballots into the machine with no one watching (except the camera recording all this) -- and periodically putting the same ballot in multiple times, where it was recorded repeatedly.  A plastic tub of ballots was dragged out from its hiding place under a long curtained table and was being counted -- again, with no observers.

All this and way more was testified to in those hearings.  The various legislative committees before which the testimony was taken expressed their shock -- we're shocked, I tell you! -- and then did ... well, I don't know what they did, because outside of some prosecutions for fraud in various states that didn't appear to have arisen from the hearings, the silence since has been deafening.

I've not understood it, to be honest.  I can't imagine that anyone is very comfortable with the idea that our elections are not on the up and up, and yet I cannot point to a single individual, save perhaps the filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza -- and certainly no one in politics -- who has even referenced those hearings, let alone made an issue of what was testified to.

I'll grant you this -- the left has an uncanny skill at pushing narratives.  You remember the so-called "big lie" that they promoted, the lie that was actually the truth, that the 2020 election was corrupt in at least five states?  How difficult did they make it to claim that the election wasn't on the square with that "big lie" narrative?  Who was willing to make a big deal out of it, except the very brave D'Souza?

Well, folks, it is 90 days from the election.  If the RNC isn't using a ton of that $40 million a month that Elon Musk is providing, to jump all over election integrity, then they don't have much of an argument if come January there is a Cackler-in-Chief.

And they'll have only themselves to blame.  Fix it -- now!

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.

Well, THAT Was a Lot of Fun!

Regular readers of this column who know I play golf may recall almost four years ago when I surprisingly shot a nine-hole score of 33 and documented it here for my own edification and memory, rather than to inform the world.  After all, I had hundreds of other articles for the hopeful good of the reader; I could afford one or two for my own fading memory.

So it is with that foresight that a month or two from now, this particular memory will fade, that I record the incident here, far more for me, but if you enjoy this, I will definitely not be complaining.

A week or so ago, I did something that golfers aspire to.  I shot my age.

If you're not a golfer, you just have to think about it to realize why golfers consider it a feat worth aspiring to.  Even par on a course is typically about 72, and most everyone I play with, guys who are mostly 65-85 years old, have never sniffed an even-par round.  Obviously in that age range, your skills are fading, and while the"age target" gets easier each year, the game gets harder.

Golfers my age (73) have to play a fair amount, and have to have started from a reasonable level, to break 80, given that our old-man muscles need to rely on memory that we don't all have.  I was lucky; I had played for my teams in high school and college, so I did get the opportunity to develop a halfway decent swing, but I'm a very small guy, and could only hit so far.

In college, in four years with the team I only shot as low as 75 -- once.  In med school I had a 76 -- once.  Both were four over par on those courses.  In the community where I live, there are four courses, each a par 72, and in the eight years I'd lived here I'd had a 75 once, and a few 76s.  Never had I been within less than three strokes of even par.  An most of my scores started with an "8."

Those other good rounds, though, were all characterized (as was the nine-hole 33) by making a bunch of long putts.  That's plot material.  More plot material is that the course that I was playing, the Founders Club, was (to me) the hardest of the four, and was the last of the four on which I broke 80, two years after starting to play it.

My round that day started at 7:00am, leaving a modest warm-up time at the range.  I noticed that my short irons seemed to be going straight, but a couple degrees right of where I thought I was aiming.  So I tried adjusting my aim to the left a bit, and just going with it. 

Hole #1 is a fairly short par 4.  I'd hit a drive up the right center, leaving a wedge shot to a pin in the right rear on a green that doesn't hold well.  Remembering the lesson from the range, and with bunkers right off the green to the right, I moved my aim to the left, and dropped the shot a bit left of the pin, about ten feet short.  The birdie putt was makeable, but the greens weren't breaking as much as you read them, and I left it a few inches left for par.

There are three holes at Founders that are particularly difficult, all in the sense that they are a bit long to get your second shot on the green.  They're all on the front -- #2, 7, and 9.  Hole #2 needs a long drive with a bit of fade, but mine was left of where I wanted it, and still had about 180 yards to the green, which has a bunker in the way on the left.  I hit a hybrid shot next to that trap, in a slightly thicker rough.  The chip from 30 feet popped out, rolling way too fast, but it hit the flagstick square, jumped up and stopped two inches from the cup.  Even par after two.

The third is a fairly short par-3, with the traps left.  So it took a bit more nerve to play the shot a bit left of where I thought I should, but it had seemed to have worked, and the shot landed about seven feet left of the pin.  The lesson about putts not breaking as much had evidently not "taken", though, because what looked like a one-foot breaker to the right only broke about six inches.  No birdie.  Even par.

There are four par-5 holes at Founders, and three of them are reachable in two including #4.  It isn't easy, mind you -- there is a large hilly, heavily trapped area 120-150 yards from the green on the right, and water up and down the left, leaving a very narrow area of fairway to play to.  But if you get your drive out there long enough, you can play a fairway wood or long hybrid into the green, trying to avoid a bunker positioned front right..

I got a drive out there pretty good, long enough to take a long hybrid, a shot that tends to draw hard if I swing even a bit too hard.  This one I played out to the right, and it drew across, right to left but with the visual impediment, I couldn't see over the hills to see where it went.  It had gone off the left side of the green, and I pitched up about 12 feet short of the pin.  The putt was level, and in what would be the only putt I'd make over seven feet all day, I had the birdie.  One under.

Hole #5 is a par-3, with a wide, right-sloping green but one very narrow front to back, so you really needed to dial in the distance, especially given the wide bunker covering much of the front of the green.  My drive landed about 20 feet left and above the pin, for a fairly straightforward two-putt par.

The sixth is a short par-4 but uphill; a long drive can reach the green as long as you avoid the large trap that covers the front right of the green.  I drove about 20 yards short on the left side, with a fairly easy pitch up to the pin for a tap-in birdie to go to two under. At this point I joked with my playing partner that I'd been two under after six on that course before, and it hadn't ended all that well.  The next three holes were going to be a serious challenge.

The 7th his a par-4 that is of medium length -- except you can't hit driver; there is a swamp crossing the whole fairway from about 185 yards out to about 235 yards -- and if I didn't mention, this is a coastal course with a prevailing wind that is in your face starting with the sixth hole, so you're not flying that swamp with a driver at age 73.

A good drive leaves you a 7-iron at best to the very elevated green, unless the wind is dead (or with you).  My fairway wood off the tee was not, however, a "good drive."  It was in the fairway but a good bit to the right, leaving me a hybrid to try to reach.  I hit it pretty well, but just a bit short, and it rolled back down the hill.  My pitch up to the pin all the way at the back was about ten feet to the right, and once again I missed left for my first bogey of the day.  One under.

No. 8 is a fairly long par-5 where the drive is paramount -- there is a huge sprawling tree whose trunk is on the right edge of the fairway 220 yards out, and the fairway slopes to the right to put the otherwise good tee shot more to the right, where the branches make it hard to hit a second shot.  The green is quite elevated all around. My drive went up the middle and rolled a bit to the right center, but was out long enough to where I could play a 3-wood on my back foot and keep it under the lowest branches.  I got it another 200 yards up the right side of the fairway, and dropped a lucky wedge two feet from the pin for a kick-in birdie and back to two under.

The ninth is the hardest hole on the course -- a very long par-4 slightly doglegged left, and with a pond just off the green to the right.  You are forever hitting into the wind, so you're just as likely to hit a 3-wood second as anything else.  I hit a good drive but still had a hybrid in, which I left 20 yards short of the green.  My pitch was about ten feet away, far enough to reliably miss it for a bogey and to finish the nine one under at 35.  

Having survived the last three holes with no pars but just one over, I thought there might be a decent round here, if at least I could keep the back nine at 38 I'd shoot my age.  I had two bogeys to give away.

The tenth hole is a tricky par-4, not long but curiously shaped.  The fairway is straight until the end, with the green located off to the left, very elevated, and guarded by a huge bunker in front as you look from the fairway, but to the left as you hit your approach if you get your drive far out there.  I was hitting my drives pretty well at this point, and just had a wedge in, which I got to within 15 feet and, as I would do all day, missed the putt.

I love the 11th hole, a reachable par-5 (I've reached it twice ever) that bends a bit right, but has water on the right the last 100 yards, and a fairway that rolls toward it.  A good drive is one up the right center, setting you up to fade a fairway wood toward the green without threatening the pond.  I did both of those things, but the wind suppressed distance on both, leaving me 15 yards short of the green.  The pitch was too short, though, and didn't quite reach the horizontal dip to run down to the pin, leaving me a two-putt par on a birdie hole.

The 12th is a practically 90-degree dogleg left; using driver would take you through the fairway and risk rolling into a long pond that runs up the right side after the bend of the dogleg. But not enough club risks a big ol' fairway bunker up the left side that leaves no productive shot to the green. My hybrid innately draws, so I hit that off the tee, right up the middle and it drew into a good position in the hilly fairway. My approach was just short of the green but the pin was up front, so I could putt and indeed two-putted for a par.  Three straight pars to start the back nine, and I was still one under overall.

The par-3 13th is totally dependent on pin placement.  The elevated green is closer on the right side, but on this day the pin was in the back left, 25 yards further back than a typical placement on the right.  I hit 6-iron but got it up into the wind that was now with us, and it rolled off the back center and a bit down a hill.  I had to hit a flop shot, which I got within 10 feet -- not my putting range this day, though, and the two-putt bogey got me back to even par with only one stroke left to give away.

Still no birdies on the back nine, and I sure could have used one. The 14th is an interesting par-5 -- very wide fairway to drive into, but even if you pound a drive, the shape of the hole prevents going for the green in two.  There is a large set of bunkered hills up the left side of your second shot, forcing you to approach up the right side -- but the green is actually up the left side after a bit of a turn left, and there is a huge lake just off the green on the right.  The best play is a layup just in front of the lake and a wedge in.

That was pretty much my play; my drive was up the left side, and a 7-iron second  to about 100 yards from the pin, which was on the right, dangerous since the whole green slopes right, toward the water.  I wanted to be safe with the wedge, so while I had the distance, I pulled it a bit and left a scary 35-footer downhill.  One of my playing partners was before me and behind me.  Of course he stroked his putt too hard and it rolled to the fringe.  I then naturally left mine about seven feet short with a fun little breaker for par.  I'd made exactly one putt as long all day, but got the par putt to drop.  Still even par with one stroke to give away to shoot my age.

No. 15 is the last really challenging hole on the course.  It's a pretty long par-4 with a really, really narrow window for your drive.  There is water on the right starting at about 185 yards.  The whole fairway slopes toward the water.  At about 200 yards, there is a trap right center of the fairway; it's not huge but a lot of otherwise good drives kick right and catch it.

The optimal drive is up the left side -- not left-center, but left, almost to the cart path -- enough to roll past the trap on the left side and leave maybe an 8-iron to a severely elevated green.  I was able to get my drive up that path, and survived the hole with an 8-iron to 40 feet and a two-putt par.

Then I blew the 16th badly.  It is an easy, short par-3, just a wedge or 9-iron, but with water all the way to the front and full on the left of the green.  The breeze was right to left, and the pin back left, so it was just a matter of aiming center rear and letting the wind do its thing.  But apparently I helped it a bit too much, and it landed on the left fringe and started rolling toward the water.  Thank God it didn't actually reach the pond, but it left an awkward pitch back up to the pin.  Two putts, bogey.  A couple par-4s left and no room to play with; I needed to pars for 73 and my age.

Unless the wind is strong against me, I use a fairway wood off the tee on #17, as a driver hit well would reach a swamp area, and it's better to be safe and lay up short of it.  I had a 9-iron in, and although I didn't hit it squarely and it had a lower trajectory than I wanted, it landed in front of the green and rolled on for a short two-putt par.  Just needed to par #18 for a 73.

The closing hole at Founders is a really interesting par-4, a slight bend to the right.  There's a swamp in front for the first 100 yards, so it's not a factor, but up the right side until about 180 yards is a set of large bunkers in a slightly hilly area.  Your best drive is a slight fade over the left edge of the bunker area, with enough juice to be sure to clear them.  The ball should then roll out down a slight descent toward the green.  A drive too far left, though, encounters a pond just left of the cart path.

I had two shots left to execute.  The drive was a bit left of where I wanted it, but it did fade and rolled to where, with the pin in the front, I had a full sand wedge in, and the number was right there for that shot distance.  Just get it on the green, and two putts would do it.  Concentrate ...

The other guys certainly knew what was going on, and were watching, but I wasn't nearly as crushed with stage fright as I might otherwise have been.  I caught the shot clean, and launched it way up in the air, where it was just a matter of distance.  It took forever to come down, and I was just hoping it would land on the green ... which finally it did -- 18 inches from the pin!  I dropped the wedge, raised my arms reflexively in triumph and screamed.

I tapped the putt in for the only birdie I'd have the back nine, and an even par 72.  It was a stroke less than my age, and three strokes lower than the best round I'd ever had before.  Yet it was practically unremarkable; I made one putt of seven feet (the par on #14) and one of ten feet (the birdie on #4), and otherwise did not make  a putt over three feet the whole day.  I hit twelve greens in regulation, eight pars and four birdies, and only made two pars from off the green.

As I wrote to start this, this piece is really only for me to record something that was an accomplishment for myself, so I wouldn't forget the details.  If you enjoyed it (somehow), all the better, and thank you, but that's just a bonus.  Strangely enough, two weeks later I did it again, a 73 this time at the Players Club; I needed to birdie the 18th to shoot my age, and just missed a 15-foot eagle putt on 18 that would have been another 72.

Thanks for reading.  We'll see if this is a permanent improvement 😊

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.

The Democrats and the Piggy Bank

Funny thing about piggy banks.  We've all had one in our remote youth, or at the very least we know exactly what they are.  They are ceramic pigs with a slot in the top through which a child can drop a coin.  The idea, of course, is that children will learn to save, rather than running around spending their change on candy.

But it isn't really the "saving" part of it that is relevant.  It is that the ancient versions of the piggy bank did not have a hole at the bottom through which the child could remove the cover and retrieve its "savings."  There was one way to get the coins, and that was to hit the pig with a hammer until it broke, and then pick up the treasure among the ceramic dust and shards.

Back in the day, that was the lesson -- that savings wasn't just a wallet; it was money you literally had to break the bank to get access to.  It was "put away" for a reason. Since you had to break something permanently to get at the money, you had to be really sure you needed it -- not just want, but need.

So Democrats.

Only the fools and self-deluded TDS types believed that there was an actual case to be made against former President Trump in the recently-concluded show trial in New York on the accusation of him having ... well, even after the verdict, no one really knows what he was charged with.

But the Democrats, from whoever tells Joe Biden what to do and say, all the way down to a corrupt prosecutor and corrupt, conflicted "judge" in New York, had to make a calculation.  They are the core of the Deep State, and there is no threat to the Deep State any bigger than Donald J. Trump.  In their eyes, he had to be gotten rid of one way or the other.

The question, of course, is what they were willing to do in order to make that happen.  And here is where the piggy bank analogy comes into play.

The essence of the piggy bank is the act of destroying it permanently to get what you want. Are you, the child, willing to kill the bank permanently to get what you want, or does the impermanence of the pretty pink pig encourage you not to take drastic steps.

The actions of the child are easily explicable -- if you haven't read this marvelous piece (http://uberthoughtsusa.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-cubbyhole-theory-of-maturity.html), you'll realize that children have no capacity to see the consequences of their actions past the next hour and a half.

The Democrats are acting like children, and not in the good way.

But it is how they always act.  Do they care about the impact on the country or the economy of letting 15 million totally unvetted illegal immigrants into the USA?  No, of course not -- to them, the immediacy of millions of illegal voters mostly, in their eyes, voting Democrat is the same as the coins in the piggy bank.  Sure, break the nation into shards, as long as they can grab and hold power.

Worse ... do they care about the destruction of the American legal system as long as they "get" Trump in 2024?  Of course not; there is no bigger threat to their institutional choke-hold, and it's worth it to set insanely contemptible legal precedents to do so.  Those legal precedents could be turned around in Republican states and used against the criminal Hillary Clintons and Joe Bidens of the world, but they are but sacrificial lambs if it happens, and besides, the Democrats assume that Republicans would never do such a thing.

Was I overboard in claiming that the Trump prosecution risks the destruction of the American legal system?  Of course not.  

Think about it ... the judge in that case committed a textbook worth of reversible errors.  In a neutral state, the judgment would be thrown out on its ear in five minutes, and he would be disrobed, disbarred, and never allowed near a courtroom again. But he knew there would be no consequences, so he just barred defense witnesses, gag-ordered the defendant, sustained every prosecution objection while overruling every defense objection, all while his daughter raked in millions in consulting fees to politicians trying to destroy Trump.  Conflicted?  Naahhhh.

The judge, like the Democrats, did not care about the long-term consequences of his actions, partly because he knew that in New York there wouldn't be any to him, but more because the importance of the moment -- "getting" Trump -- outweighed any damage to the institution of American jurisprudence.

The Democrats are exactly the same.  A piggy bank is of no permanence to them; the "now" is the thing and their future is controllable if only they can overwhelm the electoral system with illegal voters, xerox-copied votes, corrupt counters, and anything else to ensure their long-term stranglehold on power.

The November election is incredibly crucial.  And you can bet your piggy bank on it.

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Caitlin Clark, Mr. Supply and Mrs. Demand

Through an insane set of circumstances, and the exponential instance of the Peter Principle, Kamala Harris is actually the Vice President of the United States as I write this. There is indeed a God, so that is not likely to be the case after next January, but it's true for the moment.

The people who tell Joe Biden what to do and to (try to) say have given her a few assignments over her tenure as VP, none of which she has attended to, enough to have accomplished anything. As I write this, the biggest news item is the rioting on college campuses by pro-Hamas protesters, but the puppeteers can't let Kamala near that one, because her husband is Jewish, and that wouldn't work.

So she has been given the Caitlin Clark "situation" to try to address, which really isn't any kind of problem, but putting Kamala in charge of it will keep her from cackling about something actually important.

So here is the "situation." Miss Clark was, until recently, a female college basketball player for the University of Iowa.  Her well-deserved claim to fame was as a great scorer, lots of three-point shots, that sort of thing. Although her team failed to win the women's NCAA basketball championship, she was excellent and, as a result got a lot of people to watch the tournament -- and was drafted first in the WNBA's amateur draft, by the WNBA's Indiana team.

Should she sign with Indiana, which she may have already, she will be paid either $75,000 or $85,000 a year (I'm not sure), which is the maximum salary for a first-year player in the WNBA.  While lots of Americans would be really happy to make either of those figures each year, as Miss Clark is one of the best in her field, some think that figure is very low, and that is the issue that Kamala has been assigned to cackle about.

The reason, of course, that the almighty "some" think the figure is low, is that in the male version of the WNBA (the actual NBA, which I haven't watched for years), ten-figure annual salaries are routine.  The guarantees for the stars in that league, like, you know, that guy, and that other one, are well over $100 million. Each.

So Kamala, being Kamala, is starting from the idea that the difference in salary structures is because in one league the players are women, and, you know, patriarchy, and all that.  The two leagues, after all, are both basketball, and therefore by simple economics should pay the same.

[OK, actually Kamala is starting from the idea "Wait, this is what you want me to take up as a cause in an election year?  This is the best you've got?"]

But I digress.

First, let us note that Miss Clark will not starve.  Nike, that paragon of virtue and Chinese child-labor sweat shops, has signed her to a huge ten-figure contract to endorse sneakers. This whole issue is not about what size mansion the young star will be able to afford.  She is getting paid. The reason for the seemingly insane disparity in pay between the men's and women's leagues is pretty simple.  

People actually watch the men.

The interest in the NBA is sufficient that they actually sell tickets, which is an upwards of 20,000 per-game average for the most successful teams, and still over 16,000 for even the least popular ones.  Of the 12 WNBA teams, by contrast, not a single one averaged even 10,000 tickets, and four of the 12 averaged fewer than 5,000 per game.

More importantly, that attendance disparity was enough to where there is no real television contract of any size to pour revenues into the women's league.  Ticket sales are nice, but TV is where the buckos come.  Without those buckos, there is no money to pay NBA-level salaries.  And without sufficient eyeballs to sell commercial time, no TV network is going to want to air their games.

Kamala, who has no capacity whatsoever to argue a point, is going to try to contend that the reason for the disparity is some kind of sexism at play. Well, I suppose it has to do with the fact that one league is women and one is men, but only in the sense that the women's game has not shown itself to be interesting enough for sufficient numbers of people to want to watch it.

The laws of supply and demand are immutable in a free society.  The price of something is established by its availability (supply) and market (demand).  If no one wants the product, the price goes down; likewise, if there is some increase desire for the product (demand), the price goes up, and vice versa for both.

The salaries in the WNBA are what they are (i.e., comparably low) because the product (the women's professional game) has failed to attract an audience (demand) sufficient to where people will either buy tickets or watch on TV -- either of which would generate revenues.

The teams themselves are businesses -- they exist to make profit, meaning to generate more in revenue than the amount of their expenses.  If the demand for the products (in this case, the entertainment of a basketball game) is steady, the revenues from tickets, concessions, etc., will be a certain consistent amount each year.  If that amount is only enough for a salary budget of, say, $1.2 million a year, then across a 12-player roster, that averages about $100,000 per player, which is pretty much the WNBA average salary.

Why, you ask, might that salary budget be so much lower than that of the NBA?  Kamala, of course, won't bother to ask the question (she already claims she knows the answer, which by the way is wrong).  The answer she wants to believe is that it is all about prejudice against female athletes and patriarchy and privilege and that crap.

The correct answer, unfortunately for her, is in the numbers themselves.  Specifically, the number at issue is the revenues of the two leagues.  The WNBA, across all teams, generates about $60 million per season, or about $5 million per team.  The NBA, on the other hand, the men's league, generates about $10 billion per year (yes, with a "b").

In other words, they pay a lot more in salaries because they actually bring in a lot more cash to be able to pay their players with.

While I find neither league's games interesting enough to watch on TV, let alone pay for a ticket, it's clear that across the 350 million or so Americans, there is plenty of interest in the men's game, and little to none for the women's game -- less than one percent of what the men's game brings in, going by revenues generated.

I believe that Kamala will jump all over the fact that the viewership for the recently-completed NCAA women's tournament championship game was actually higher than that for the men's championship, which was won by I forget whom. 

What I do know, though, is that the women's game was at 3:00pm EDT on a Sunday afternoon, while the men's game started at 9:20pm on a Monday -- meaning that the only TV audience for the men's game were the alumni of the two teams and a bunch of insomniac gamblers.  There were no casual watchers, since you have to stay up until like midnight on a work night to see the end of the game (yes, the NCAA can be immensely stupid).  I don't know how much of a factor that was in the disparate TV audience, but it sure had an effect in my home.

I can hear it now from the Vice-Cackler-in-Chief.  "Now people are going to start watching the WNBA in record numbers, and the players should be paid what the NBA players are paid!"  Yes, she will say that, because she thinks that way.

First, if the WNBA players were paid even half what the NBA players are paid, the league would fold in a heartbeat, because there wouldn't be enough revenue to pay a single player per team, and the game is even less interesting without any players.

Second, and more important, is Americans' habits.

Let me remind you about another uninteresting sport -- soccer.  And I'll further remind you that every four years (or so) there is this event called the "World Cup" where, after some arcane qualification system, teams representing a couple dozen countries play every once in a while and eventually one of them wins.

Once in a while -- and remember, this is only played every four years (or so) -- the USA men's or women's teams qualifies for the tournament, and whips up some temporary interest in the game on this side of the pond.  ESPN and the other globalist media whoop and holler and declare that now Americans will be forever interested in soccer, which not coincidentally is broadcast by ESPN and other globalist media.

But it never happens!

I don't care how well one of the USA teams does; within three hours and 27 minutes of the USA's last game, Americans all turn to something else, and completely forget about soccer until the next World Cup, three or four years (or so) later.  The game has failed to engage Americans for decades and clearly never will.  Fun to play, dull as sin to watch.

This is exactly what will happen with the WNBA, and for exactly the same reason.  People don't watch because the women's pro game hasn't made itself sufficiently appealing to where it can draw an audience, any more than soccer has.

Good for Caitlin Clark; she has developed a skill to its highest level and is going to get paid boatloads (albeit by Nike, not the WNBA).  It just isn't enough to have any lasting impact on America's perception of the attraction of women's pro basketball. After her first couple of pro games (which, mind you, will not have the drama of an NCAA final), audiences will go back to doing what they did before they ever heard of Caitlin, and Nike will be very lucky to recoup its investment.

And Kamala will be off cackling in the distance, having failed to come close to recognizing the immutable pairing of Mr. Supply and Mrs. Demand.

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton.  Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Hong Kong, I Love You, Too

Well, I think I do.

Hong Kong, which we somehow allowed to get turned over to the Chinese Communist Party some years ago, has become #1 in a fascinating statistic.

You're probably aware that this column, after four-plus years of a new submission every day, has been in a sort of "visiting column" status, where I write something new when the urge strikes but don't feel a specific obligation.

But there are well over 1,000 columns out there and I have no intention of taking them down.  A column on, say, July 14, 2016, reflects what I was thinking on July 14, 2016, and it would be rewriting history, which is why I don't go back and change the substance of anything out there in UberThoughtsland.  

So when I see a demographic shift in the readership -- and, thank you, there are still hundreds of reads of all different columns every day -- I have to ask why.

And that came about when I did a periodic check of the readership, only to discover that lately, on a given day, there are about a thousand reads from, of all places, Hong Kong (!).

So from the bottom of my heart, thank you, I think.  Given that Hong Kong is now governed by the CCP, I have no idea whether it is the ordinary, freedom-loving Hong Kong residents, or officials of the Party in charge, who are reading my columns.

There seems to be no real logic to which ones are being read; they don't cover any consistent topic but seem more from a particular era, as if the reader picked a month and started reading.  Neither approach is an indicator to me as to whether I should be flattered or frightened.

So this is a polite inquiry -- if you are in Hong Kong and enjoying these columns, please reach out to me and let me know how you found the column and whether you'd like some more frequent pieces (or less frequent).  I am actually quite interested.

Thank you!  I look forward to hearing from you. And by the way, I looked it up -- here is the actual column from July 14, 2016.  Enjoy: 

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com and, after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton

Be Really Careful What You Ask For

As I write this, jury selection is going on in the kangaroo court in New York City that is to be hearing the "case" against former President Trump.  The case, such as it purports to be, is based on the accusation of misstating a payment made in conjunction with a non-disclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels, the porn star.

That particular offense under state law is actually a misdemeanor, not a felony, and under the law the statute of limitations is two years, meaning that the charges for the particular offense expired years ago.  However, Alvin Bragg, the alleged District Attorney, has managed to get this case into court by contorting it into a felony.

How'd he do that?  By trying to show that the NDA declaration was done in connection with some sort of campaign expense fraud. Such a connection makes the original offense a felony, not a misdemeanor, which extends the statute of limitations.  The problem there, which would have gotten the case laughed out of any court in the USA not in NYC or LA, is that the "campaign expense fraud" that was supposed crime to which the misdemeanor was "linked", was already investigated by the hyper-Trump-hating Southern District of New York, and the state could not come up with evidence to file charges.

Work with me here ... Bragg had to try to turn a misdemeanor into a felony, and the only way that Bragg could do that was to tie it to a second "crime", which according to its previous investigation, didn't happen and couldn't be prosecuted.  That there is indeed a judge who hasn't already belly-laughed the case out of court long ago is an astonishing indictment of the justice system in New York.

I had not paid much attention to the case, figuring that, if and when it had gotten to trial, I would pay attention to it then.  So I wasn't very aware of the circumstances until very recently, and was pretty astonished to hear how tortured the logic of the prosecution had to be to get to the point where even a New York judge would take it on.

Naturally, I started to think about how a jury would handle that tortured logic, and whether the idiotic pathway taken by Bragg would be seen by at least a few of them as an idiotic pathway, one that they would prefer never be used in the justice system ever again. I really would have wanted to have gotten on that jury.  Really.

That thought process was had over my morning coffee before starting work, as the news was on the TV and I was watching.  Yeah, I'd really like to get on that jury ... as long as I didn't have to live in Manhattan, or go to Manhattan, or get within 400 miles of Manhattan.  Yeah, I'd like to be on that jury.

Literally, 15 minutes later, I checked my emails from the night before.

Included in the emails was one from the United States Postal Service which, like many Americans, I get first thing in the morning to tell me what mail will be delivered in my mailbox today.  It's a nice service, since we don't actually have a mailbox but, rather, a cluster box a ten-minute walk from our house.  If there's nothing of note to be delivered that day, I don't have to bother going to the mail kiosk that day.

I'm not lying.  Today, 15 minutes after expressing a silent wish to be on the jury for an absurd case that shouldn't even have gotten to the impaneling of a jury, my morning mail notice included a letter from the United States District Court, from Raleigh, NC.  I had to bust out laughing -- no question that letter is a summons for jury duty.

No, they won't be hauling me up to New York to sit as a venireman for the Trump trial.  But I'll be back again as one here, over 40 years after serving on the jury for a murder trial -- https://uberthoughtsusa.blogspot.com/2017/12/remembering-my-murder-panel.html for those of you who missed that piece from 2017.

Be careful, very careful, what you ask for.

Copyright 2024 by Robert Sutton Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton