opinion

Fact check

Posted on by backuphill

black and white laptop

Photo by Prateek Katyal on Pexels.com

“Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”

The rise of fact checkers has never been more needed. We need to make sure our politicians are being truthful (because we all know their not, no matter what side their on). “The spin” is always in play and, quite frankly, can be rather disgusting when it gets right down to it.

So, I appreciate that we have people and organizations who do some fact checking. BUT, they are not exactly infallible. While they purport to be “unbiased,” they are not. We still need to watch for bias and we still need to be aware of leanings. Sure, they may not be as obvious in their bias as some media outlets, but it is still there. Example: simply by choosing what and what not to fact check and then report it could display bias.

Factcheck.org is one of my go to places for fact checking. It’s comprehensive and it appears to have little bias. However, there is still a problem. I’ll use the 2020 State of the Union Address from last night as a demonstration of what I was saying in the last paragraph. The linked article above only covers issues that the president got wrong or embellished. There is nothing in the article that points to where he was correct or telling the truth.

To me, that isn’t a balanced fact check. If you’re gonna do the job, do the whole job – line by line and tell us what is correct and what isn’t. Support it good research. Fact check it all. Once the speech is published in its entirety, fact check the whole thing. Don’t pick and choose what and what not to check.

So, if you are looking for more info, you can also check other places. Get a well rounded view of what is going on and what happened. Get info from every perspective, including from places deemed to have little bias. You can, again, use the president’s address from last night as an introduction to the site. The site is Allsides.org.

I know I have talked about these websites before. But I can’t help but make sure you have a place (or places) you can go to get information that is tainted as little as possible with bias. With a flood of information from anywhere and everywhere on the internet, you need to make sure that what you are consuming is as accurate as possible.

We can’t afford to be ignorant. We must be well informed.

Do your due diligence.

Becoming rather taxing

Posted on by backuphill

accounting analytics balance black and white

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The state I live in, Washington, has no income tax. It’s against the law.

What you’ll read in this article is that our legislature is trying apply a tax on businesses with employees who are paid more than $150k a year. All in the name of battling homelessness.

Sounds great does’t it? Not so fast.

The Seattle City Counsel passed a “head tax” on Seattle business last year (you’ll also read that in the article too). That tax was aimed at large corporations whom they feel are exploiting workers and causing the housing costs to go up. So, they would tax these companies X number of dollars per employee, over a certain number of employees. If I remember correctly, it was $550/per employee for really large corporations and $250/per employee for smaller ones. Small business were exempt, supposedly. The counsel soon rescinded that because they did it illegally by holding secret meetings, behind closed doors, etc etc etc.

Now, instead of the local group trying to unfairly tax corporations, the state legislature is taking up the issue and calling it an “excise tax”. As one person interviewed in the article calls it, “New coat of paint on a bad idea.”

The City of Seattle, King County, and others have tried to pass an income tax on high earners ($400K+) several different times.  It has consistently been voted down by citizens and the courts as illegal and against the state constitution.

This new effort by the state legislature is essentially moving the high income earners tax from the earner to the employer. Thus, it is an income tax, they have just prettied of the terminology to try and disguise what it actually is.

Our Democrat friends, who constantly like to have their hands in our pockets are at it again. Our Democrat friends are now also playing a different game at every level of politics – if you don’t like the definition of a word, give it a different one and shame everyone who disagrees with you. (I use the word “friend” very loosely.)

This issue is no different. They want their hands in our pockets again….and they don’t like the definition of “income tax” so they just keep renaming it in the hope that no one is paying attention.

 

 

Astounded

Posted on by backuphill

opened mouth black haired boy in gray full zip jacket standing on grass field taking selfie

Photo by Film Bros on Pexels.com

So, at the end of next month I’ll be attending Spring Training in Arizona for the first time. It’s a trip I have long looked forward to and, honestly, I can’t wait to get away from everything right now and just inhale baseball (even though I am irritated with the sport right now). I just like to sport too much to not have a good time.

Anyway, as I am prepping for the trip I am going to be adding some team attire to my wardrobe. Just general team attire, nothing with an athlete’s name on it. I don’t really believe in wearing someone else’s name on my back (though I would probably do it if it were free or a gift, but I definitely wouldn’t buy it for myself).

So, as I am scrolling through the selections I can’t help but be astounded that teams are still charging full (or very near full) price for shirts/jerseys that have the names of players who are no longer on the team. Traded, retired, disgraced, dead…doesn’t matter who they are, they still want a near premium for the clothing. Astounding.

Why do people spend money on team attire for a player who is no longer playing on the team? Are they in the Hall of Fame? Might be justifiable. That’s the only reason I can fathom at the moment. Great player, or one of the greatest for the team? Possibly, but not really a reason to pay near full price.

I just don’t get it. But then, I don’t really get wearing someone else’s name on your back either.

Guess I don’t buy into that sort of propaganda.

 

Unpopular

Posted on by backuphill

man sitting on black leather padded chair

Photo by Jason Appleton on Pexels.com

I probably will catch flak from all over the internet for this, but I feel the need to throw myself under the bus anyway. Who doesn’t need a good, self-imposed, beat down every now and then?

Today’s post: an unpopular opinion.

I didn’t like Disney’s “The Mandalorian” all that much.

I put off watching the show because I am a Star Wars fan. I wouldn’t call myself a super-fan, but it pretty much has been a thing all my life, so there’s that. I have introduced my children (and others) to the saga and they all love it too. So, I do appreciate the story more than others, I am sure of that.

Now that the Star Wars saga “is over,” at least as I know it, I was kind of looking forward to seeing how Disney was going to move forward with it but also not real excited about it either. I realize it is a cash cow, a “force” if you will, so they aren’t going to just let it end (or die) with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

I won’t spend a bunch of time reviewing the show and I won’t spend a bunch of time spoiling it for others who might not have seen it (I watched and finished it last week).

But here is my take:

  1. Baby Yoda is cute. Maybe, just maybe, the only redeeming factor of the show.
  2. The acting isn’t great. It isn’t horrible, but it definitely could be improved.
  3. The special effects, as always, are really good.
  4. The story isn’t all that compelling. It’s actually kind of boring. I didn’t find myself wanting to binge watch and get all eight episodes done in one sitting.
  5. The episodes themselves are kinda short. Not much story telling crammed into those little things.
  6. The artwork (story boards, maybe?) in the credits of the show is almost better than the show.
  7. It felt as though they were trying to force (no pun intended) us to care about the characters, which I didn’t think they achieved.
  8. Carl Weathers brought the cheese factor to a new level.
  9. Nick Nolte’s character should have been used more and more developed.

There are probably other things that bothered me about the show, but I can’t think of them right now.

I don’t know. It just didn’t settle with me. Maybe season two will be better?