Translation Below

I just read an article saying that ICE agents will be appearing at the Super Bowl.

Translation:  Gregory Bovino wants to watch the big game live, but doesn't have the clout, cash or connections to get his hands on a real ticket. 

We Need to Expand Our Vocabulary

Tragic... epic... owned... destroyed... unprecedented... heroic...

These are words I tend to see multiple times daily.  I'd like to point out the fact that these words are all considered superlatives when taken in context, and they're invariably used to grab the audience's attention.  Mass media and social media content generators alike love their dazzling headlines, and quite frankly, I'm over it.

To use a fictitious example, the death of a social media influencer's dog is not the same as 100 people dying in a train wreck that also somehow released a massive amount of toxic fluid into the local water supply, yet in both cases, the author of each article is likely to use the word tragic.  The dictionary definition of tragic is causing or characterized by extreme distress or sorrow.  While technically correct in both of these fictitious examples, the scale is radically different.  The passing of a canine companion can certainly be considered tragic to the owner, but it cannot realistically be compared to an event that causes massive ecologic damage and large-scale human death.

There's an old adage in business that says if everything is urgent, then nothing is urgent.  The idea behind this is that treating everything as an emergency dilutes all things critical, because we cannot categorize and prioritize.  The same core principle applies with over-utilizing extreme language in writing.  The end result is that the reader becomes desensitized, and the word loses impact.

I'm probably one of the few people who has noticed and publicly commented on this longstanding trend, and have incorporated this observation into my writing and speaking style.  While I know that I cannot single-handedly reverse this trend, I can do my part to correct things by avoiding sensationalistic language when possible.  As a result, I tend to use understatements in my writing, rather than overstatements.  I generally come across as a bit stoic*, which works for me, because when I do use high-impact words and phrases, they tend to have a bit more impact.  I wish more people did this.  We, as a society, need to expand our vocabulary.

*NOTE:  While I frequently speak using understated language, I will concede that I do overuse profanity when interacting face-to-face. 

Coldpocalypse Inbound

 A lot of the country is bracing for snow and/or freezing rain.  Not me.  I'm mentally preparing myself ready for bitter cold.  Over the course of the next week, it's supposed to get below zero every day except for one, and on one of those days, the high temp will be below zero.  It's supposed to get so cold that the news is warning about the possibility of exploding trees.  I will clarify that we're a little bit south of that $h!+, but still... once we hit this time of year, I have a hard time getting warm at all.  My hands and feet are virtually always cold.

Now that I've got the headline-grabbing sound bites out of the way, I should clarify that I really don't notice much of a difference between zero and -20.  Once the thermometer dips that low, it's all kind of the same... just cold.

I'll leave with a personal anecdote about the cold.  Back in the 90's I moved from the northern part of my state to the southern part.  There was a blizzard the weekend I was scheduled to move.  It was 50 below without the wind chill, and 90 below with it.  It was so cold that weekend that the antifreeze in one of my cars froze.  On top of that, we got a ton of snow.  Fortunately, I was able to leave the car behind for a week.  When I went back, it started right up, no damage.  The body sucked on that car, but that engine was unstoppable.

Farewell, Gilmour

I just put down my dog Gilmour. He was a frustrating, willful, fun, happy, energetic, smart dog, and I'm going to miss him tremendously.

I want to write more, but the words won't seem to come. 

My Experience with National General Insurance

 For those of you who don't know, I was in a gnarly car accident back in November.  The accident was 100% the other driver's fault.  After receiving the other driver's insurance information, I contacted their carrier and started the claim process.  I received a prompt response that they were taking full responsibility for the incident, and I went in hoping for a smooth experience.  Spoiler alert: The experience has not been pleasant.

Since I was injured in the collision, the other agent offered me some money for pain and suffering.  It wasn't a lot of money, but it was unexpected considering that my injuries did not require an immediate trip to the hospital, it was a pleasant surprise.

Once it was time to settle though, things took a turn for the worse.  A full week passed without hearing from National General Insurance regarding my vehicle.  I ended up filing with my carrier because of the radio silence.

I ended up seeking medical treatment a few days later, where I was diagnosed with a concussion and bruised ribs.  They told me they wouldn't pay until I signed a release.  The cost of the ER visit was about $1900, and the release said they'd pay up to $2000 for legitimate expenses.  If I'd signed the release, I'd have effectively capped out.

I went back and asked them to amend the release to $10k max, and give me a longer time frame to submit the expenses, in case additional medical issues popped up.  They agreed, but the release was worded in such a way that I'd have waived my claim to subrogation.  In case you're not aware, subrogation is the process that my insurance carrier will use to recover the cost of paying for my car.  In other words, the release said they'd pay my medical expenses, up to $10k, but I waived the right for my insurance company to recover their loss.  Nope.

So, I've had to go back to my carrier and submit my medical expenses to them, and I've had to contact the medical providers and ask them to submit the bills to my insurance company.  So much for a smooth experience.  On the good side, I've now experienced the benefit of carrying collision on a vehicle that's paid off.  My carrier is taking care of the problem, and they're not raising my rates because the accident was not my fault. 

There is no Line

 This is another post inspired by Sunny.  In a recent post, she said that she's dazed and confused (her words, not mine) over choices that people around her are making.  It's quite apparent that she sees poor outcomes in a few different situations, and she seems to be tying herself in knots over what to do.  She ends her post by observing "I think I might be worrying too much about other peoples problems and just making myself miserable in the process. But that's what you do when you care about someone, isn't it?" Well, yes and no.

I'm in a similar place with my family.  My ex lives with my older daughter, son-in-law and grandson, and there's a bit of drama in their world at the moment.  I'm not going to go into the specifics of the issue, but it is a real problem.  Unfortunately, nobody is tackling the issue head on.  Grandson is talking to wifey and me about it.  Ex is talking with my younger daughter about it.  Older daughter has no idea the problem exists.  Son-in-law caused the problem and grandson observed the problem.  Grandson came to wifey and me, and we said tell mom.  Instead he talked to ex.

This is going to turn into a bit of a shitstorm when everything comes out.  Am I concerned?  Yep.  Have people come to me for advice?  Yep.  Have they followed it?  Nope.  I see the problem.  I see there's gonna be a shitstorm.  Son-in-law is gonna be labeled a bad guy over it, but I kind of get where he's coming from.  It's just a bad scene where there is no good answer.

Yeah.  But unlike Sunny, I'm not going to spend a ton of time and energy worrying about or trying to control the situation, because at the end of the day... 1) I did not create the situation.  2) I am not involved in the situation.  3) I cannot predict, control or influence the behavior of anyone involved in the situation.  In other words, there is zero I can do.  If I were to try to insert myself into the situation, the most likely result is that I'd be the bad guy for butting in.

A lot of people would react to this by looking for that line where they should insert themselves into the situation vs. butting out.  They'll wonder where is the line?  The thing is, there's no cookie cutter answer.  It's the case here, and it's the case in most of life.  Over the years, I spent a lot of time and energy wondering this, and I finally discovered the answer.  There is no line.  It's only judgement and experience.

That same judgement and experience tells me that humans, by and large, tend to significantly overestimate the amount of influence they have over others.  We also tend to overestimate the extent to which our input is welcome.  As a result, I try to not provide input unless I'm asked.  If I'm compelled to give input without invitation, I have a general rule that I ask if the other person is interested in my take.  If they say yes, I will proceed.  However, any time I give advice -- even if explicitly asked -- I work with the understanding that most of the time, people are looking for someone to validate a conclusion they've already made.  This means that our advice and input is at best disregarded and at worst invokes anger, unless the advice matches what the other person already intends to do.

So, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, the older I get, the less frequently I give advice.  Instead, I try to serve as a sounding board.  I don't do this because I'm worried about crossing a line.  Like I said earlier, there is no line.  There's a fence, and we as humans are neighbors talking to one another over that fence.  Unless we're invited over, we need to stay on our side of the fence and support our neighbors.

I hope this wildly mixed bag of metaphors came out with some coherence.

Hard Pass!

I'm sure you've all heard that our illustrious leader has removed Venezuelan President Maduro from power.  This post is NOT designed to discuss the legal or ethical issues surrounding the removal itself.  No, today, I'm going to discuss the oil.  I'm sure you've heard that POTUS plans to, ummm, liberate the oil, and he's asked the oil industry to participate in the event.  When this story came out, the CEO of ExxonMobil said that the country's oil is "uninvestable."  Before I get into my commentary, I'd like to give you a little background.

To my understanding, Venezuela currently holds the world's largest proven oil reserves. Proven oil reserves are known quantities, using current economic conditions and current technology.  In other words, we know how much oil is there, and we know how much we'll profit by extracting it.

The thing is, Venezuela has a history of not playing nice with international oil conglomerates.  Their oil was state owned in the 70's.  The 80's and 90's brought economic hardship because oil prices crashed, and private companies were allowed to come invest.  In the late 90's and early 00's Venezuela changed their mind and re-nationalized their oil.  ExxonMobil's stake was expropriated in 2007.  Basically, Venezuela said to the oil companies "Hey dudes, we'll be generous and let you have minority stake in your companies, but you need to give us controlling interest."  Some companies, such as Chevron and BP agreed.  ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips didn't agree, so the country took control and kicked them out.  I'm going to refrain from judging the merits of this state takeover of private industry.  That's beyond the scope of this little post.  What I am trying to do is demonstrate that ExxonMobil has history with Venezuela.

Now that the historic story is shared, let me recap the recent events:  Trump invaded Venezuela and deposed Maduro.  Trump then invited oil companies to step in and help "liberate" the oil.  ExxonMobil has politely declined.  This makes sense.  If I worked with Joe Blow in the past and Joe ripped me off, I'd be hard pressed to re-engage, regardless of the circumstances.

But what's Trump's reply?  I'm inclined to exclude ExxonMobil from this offer.  From my perspective, that's kind of like me saying I'm having a party at venue XYZ.  And when I hear that John Smith isn't interested in attending my party, I say that I'm inclined to make sure that John Smith isn't invited to my party.  Meanwhile, John's real reason for not joining the party is because he knows the venue sucks.  There are too few bathrooms, it's in a crappy are of town, and the acoustics suck.  In other words, ExxonMobil is totally justified in saying "Hard Pass!"