Traffic School = Sucks

I had to attend traffic school today and it was as uncerimonious as I remembered it to be. I think next time I'll just choose to either do it from home by ordering the video or just blow it off altogether and take the hit on my insurance. But, I take pride in the fact that I "graduated" with honors (Cum Laude, thank you very much).

Nothing makes you feel like a dirty rotten scoundrel quite like traffic school. I suppose alcohol class might suck worse but I haven't had that privledge and I hope I never do. I only know that the only time I felt like such a societal bottom feeder was when I had to go to city hall to actually pay my ticket. I had to shower just get the stink off of that place. The people that populate city hall on a daily basis looking to resolve their debt to society are a rather scandilous bunch to say the least - certainly not people I'd want to rub shoulders with frequently - ever really.

But back to traffic school...

I suspect the majority of people that were in attendence (39 of us) where there as a result of speeding. However, the directive is no doubt to subject attendees to a program seemingly more fit for a felon. I understand the reasoning, the concept and the scare tactics - it just sucks.

The videos that you have to watch are very graphic and unsettling. They are graphic re-enactments of wrecks that have to do with not wearing a seatbelt, speeding or driving under the influence. It basically made me want to (a.) get a Hans device and a helmet (b.) drive 15 miles per hour and (c.) never have a drink and get behind the wheel in the same week, let alone day - not a bad thing actually.

If the government made 16-year olds take this course BEFORE going to get their permit, I would venture to say that a number of kids would say, "you know what, I'm gonna sit this year out and reapply at a later date." Hell, it almost me made turn in my license afterward. It makes me cringe to think that one day I will have to entrust my kids with the responsibility of driving. I think I'm going to get them a bus.

Nonetheless, I think for the foreseeable future I'm going to take a more conservative approach to driving. Not that I was ever wreckless necessarily but being that the consequences of taking certain chances are rather fresh in my mind after sitting through several hours of traffic school is a genuinely scary reality. I guess me walking away with that mentality makes the program effective and a good reality check for my otherwise invincible self (joking).

One other thing that it was good for is that it made me realize that my license has been expired for the past 10 days. Since I was already at the government licensing division it made it very easy for me to walk down the hall and get it renewed - my old license didn't look much like me anymore anyway - less hair now!

So, now that I have paid my debt to society, renewed my license and adopted a more responsible approach to driving, I can say that I'm back in good standing with the state and, theoretically, a better person. Self-esteem needs a little repair but that should come back in due time.

Now, I just need to go hop in the shower and wash off the "dirt-ball" label I left traffic school with.

Ian Baker-Douchebag

Ian Baker-Finch is my new nemesis. Why he is so prevelent in CBS' golf coverage, I don't know. Supposedly he's assigned to a certain hole but for some reason he takes over the telecast at times.

His accent is, at best, tough to bare. It's more annoying the more he talks and he says things that lack true golf insight - it's more of a rambling contradiction in most cases.

I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment.

Here is one recent exchange between CBS color analyst David Feherety and Baker-Finch after a replay of Tiger Woods holed a pitch shot behind the 11th green at The Memorial golf tournament that featured a one-handed finish by Woods:

Baker-Finch: That's how you play a soft shot. Keep the left hand going. Keep the club face open. Take the right hand off so you don't get too much effort.

Feherey: That's fundamentally not right.

Baker-Finch: Remember the shot that he holed from similar rough at the back of 14 a fews years ago in his three victories in a row.

Feherety: Who doesn't.

Really? That's how you play a shot? One-handed?

First of all, only the follow-through was one-handed. But Baker-Finch wasn't going to let that formality stand in the way of his sensationalism of the analysis. And to suggest that's how you, Joe Weekend Hacker, are supposed to play the shot is ludacrious.

The truth of the matter was that Tiger happend to take his right hand off of the club which was, in my opinion, probably to add a little drama to the shot as opposed to, as Baker-Finch suggests, how it's done correctly.

If you read between the lines, Feherety's two responses were essentially: "No it's not" and "You're an idiot"

Here is another comment from Baker-Finch after Jim Furyk hit a good shot out of a green-side bunker:

"It's so hard from these bunkers isn't it David because there's not a lot of play in that sand. It's very thick and heavy - almost a wet crusty feel."

Is it wet and crusty or thick and heavy? Thick and heavy? Maybe so. Wet and crusty? Well, since the course hadn't received any rain during the four days of play - probably not. As well, if a bunker is thick and heavy, it's most likely dry and there's a lot of "play" in it. If it's wet and crusty, not so much. What a moron.

A lot of golf announcers are guilty of over-dramatizing the circustances or the difficulty of certain shots but, for the most part, that comes with the territory. I mean, it's golf, which is to most people very boring to watch. Therefore, the analysts have to spice it up a litte bit but IBF has recently gotten to be a real bur in my saddle with his brutal input.

Moving onward...

Given the fact that a golf telecast takes on the same persnickity nature of the game itself, I would love to see a casual fan in the booth to give a little more of a hacker's point-of-view. Preferably someone that's not necessarily a Tiger fan and doesn't look to stroke him off at turn - God knows there's plenty of that going on already. I know Ferehety plays that role to some extent for CBS but I'm looking for someone a little more raw. Johnny Miller (NBC) is more of a realist in the way I like to hear golf commentated but I'd like to hear someone a little less educated in certain circumstances and more critical in others. CBS' crew just has way too much of a PGA love-fest going on. I feel like CBS' crew is a group of jovial tight-wads that need a no-nonsence critic that isn't afraid to always paint such a rosy picture.

New Tax Structure - Makes Sense To Me!

I heard an idea recently on the radio that made a lot of sense that I have yet to find much of a flaw with. The concept is to do away with the personal income tax and switch to a uniform increase in sales tax that will accomplish the same principle, yet to a greater and more all-encompassing magnitude. The main advantage to this concept is that it incorporates 100% of the US population versus the, roughly (and conservatively), 50% that currently report and pay personal income taxes.

As I see it, this structure would be a uniform, proportionate and non-discriminating structure that would alleviate the painful, time-consuming and expensive process by which most law-abiding citizens currently go through come April of each year. It almost seems way too simple. This probably explains why I'm either way off-base or the government is evidently resistant to the idea.

To simply do away with the personal income tax filing method in favor of a increased sales tax, no one is exempt. The rich can't search for loopholes or other tactics by which to avoid paying the piper. The middle-class chips in in the same blue-collar way they most likely currently do. The poor aren't exempt because of failing to file personal income taxes altogether or other entitlements that might be extended by the government. The illegal immigrants pay into the system regardless of their green card status. Men, women, children alike share in the responsibilty. No dependents. Your kid buys a pack of baseball cards, they're in - just like everyone else.

The basis is simple: You live here, you pay your share. You buy something, you contribute - whether you like it or not. If you can afford it (or should I say, even if you can't), you are carrying your weight with society. Want a cell phone? Pay the price - plus, say, 15% - 20%. Want to get your nails done? It's no longer $30.00 - it's $36.00. Seems nominal doesn't it?

What we would lose in the revenue generated from 50% of people paying their personal income tax would be more than made up for by 100% of the people paying an increased sales tax. No? I think so.

Now, we currently have a sales tax structure in place (6%) that serves this purpose to some extent. However, it's hardly enough to cover our national spending budget. In these times, when we're bailing out GM, Citi, AIG and the like, 6% is not only not enough but it still doesn't alleviate the need for the government to collect from responsible citizens. And even THAT still isn't enough. Seems like change is needed in this battle.

The fact is, the current system is set up for the rich to contribute the most (I think the stat is something like 1% of the population contributes 80% of the revenue generated by the personal income tax) and as the income level decreases, so does the obligation - the more you make, the more they take! Hardly reasonable or motivation to go knock it out of the park. As well, this won't necessarily go away by increasing the sales tax in lieu of ridding ourselves of the personal income tax. After all, the rich can afford more "stuff" and they buy more "stuff." Therefore, they will continue to pay in more to the system than anyone else. However, the playing field is level for everyone and your contribution is only determined by what you can afford - or choose to spend. No more of the guy that has a cell phone, a kick-ass stereo, 24" rims, low-profile tires and an iPod but evidently doesn't make enough to pay income taxes.

Corporations would adhere to the same policy. Buy inventory, pay as you go. Buy a machine, pay as you go. Buy a building, pay as you go. No loopholes. No need to pay quarterly or speculate and save for the end of the year only to find out that you're short. Pay as you go. Simple math that applies across the board.

Where is this unfair?

You make $45,000 and buy $30,000 worth of goods, you pay in $6,000. You make $2,500,00 and buy $1,000,000 worth of goods, you pay in $200,000. Seems perfectly proportionate to me. As well, unless you steal in order to avoid the consequences of paying the increased sales tax, it's a self-monitoring system. No longer would the IRS have to perform countless hours auditing individuals and companies to get to the bottom of how they might be sheltering income through shell corporations, LLC's or off-shore accounts.

There is a minor downfall with adopting this system as it would seemingly come at the expense of a number of jobs. The IRS wouldn't need the same number of employees to process the paperwork. Accountants and CPA's would, by-and-large, be put out of business. However, the people that hold these positions are bright-minded people. They're resourcesful. They have options. It's not like they are specially trained to weld or hang drywall with no other tools. Their knowledge and business accumen would surely be in demand in some other area of business commerce. Hell, now that the government is collecting from 100% of the population, they could even afford to give these people a severence package to cover them for a certain period of their pending unemployment while they seek alternative employment.

The positives sure seem to outweigh the negatives as I see it. You?

Try it for a year, see what happens. I have to think we would like the result.

But what do I know?