Ignorance is NOT Bliss

President Obama made a statement about ignorance last week in a commencement address at Rutgers, and many people thought it was all about Donald Trump (including Trump).  I’m not a mind reader, so I can’t tell you if that was the intended target or not, but as far as I’m concerned Obama could have been talking about a LOT of people.

First, here’s the quote:

“Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science – these are good things… In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not ‘keeping it real,’ or ‘telling it like it is.’ That’s not challenging ‘political correctness.’ That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about.”

Seems right.  Yes, Trump certainly has his share of “speak first, think later” moments, but frankly, we all do.  Of course, some do it more than others.  Some folks are…well, we use different terms for it.  Some say “stupid,” some “dumb,” others use “ignorant.”  They all mean slightly different things.

When dealing with political insights and opinions, I tend to think that most folks are not only ignorant, but willingly so.  That is, they really DO know the information needed to make a statement, form a belief, or voice an opinion, but because of something else, they “ignore” the facts to make a statement that flies in the face of those facts.

Here’s an illustration.  A Public Policy survey done earlier this year asked respondents,

“Do you think the stock market has gone up or down since Barack Obama became President?”

Note that it doesn’t ask about the overall economy, or how you personally are doing, or how’s the economy in your area.  We could have all sorts of debates about that.  No, the question is pretty cut and dried – is the stock market up or down since 1-20-09, when Obama took office?  And we have actual numbers for that. 

The most common measurement for the stock market is the Dow Industrial Average.  I suspect you could also look at the NASDAQ, or S&P 500.  But “the Dow” is the number most Americans recognize, the one number that gets reported most on the news, and is truly the bellwether measurement of the stock market.  Which was the question at hand.  For those of you who don’t follow the market, or watch the news, or whatever…here are the actual numbers:

  8,077.56 – Week ending 1-23-2009

17,520.87 – right now as I type this (10:30am on 5-20-16)

So the market is up.  Almost double since Obama took office.  Can’t argue with the numbers.  We can discuss the how and why until we’re blue in the face, but the answer to the question “Do you think the stock market has gone up or down since Barack Obama became President?”” is “UP.”

How did our survey respondents answer?

The stock market has gone up since Barack Obama became President	52%
The stock market has gone down since Barack Obama became President	32%
Not sure	16%

In short, only HALF of all respondents got this right.  That’s ignorant?  Maybe not, because I can imagine many types of individuals not knowing the correct answer.  Seniors (like my Mom) who now rely on CDs for their investments, never ever having been involved in the market.  Younger adults just starting out with no interest in investing at this time.  Folks who don’t watch/follow the news, or at least, tune out when boring economic news is presented. 

If you asked me about the US stock market, I could tell you many things because I am an active investor, and have been for many years.  If you asked me about the Japanese stock market (known as the NIKKEI), I would profess ignorance.  I know it exists, but whether it’s up or down, I would not have a clue.

I would guess than many in our survey would be in the same boat, and the results show that 16% actually said this.  But I would guess that many who did not know the answer answered anyway.  And answered incorrectly.

As to why they may have done so, one clue is the breakdown of responses by political preference, known in the research industry as “the crosstabs.”

	BASE	Voted for Obama ‘12	Voted for Romney ‘12
The stock market has gone up since Barack Obama became President	52%	74%	29%
The stock market has gone down since Barack Obama became President	32%	12%	56%
Not sure	16%	14%	15%

Hmmmm…I think I see a pattern here.

Notice the “not sure” percentage is about the same, which is reasonable (statistically).  What’s whack is that by an overwhelming margin, there’s a major difference in providing the correct answer depending on political party.

This should not be surprising.  Back in 2013, a survey of Louisiana residents showed that when it came to blame for the lack of response to Hurricane Katrina, Republicans blamed President Bush 28%, while blaming Obama 29% (44% were unsure who was more responsible).  Mind you, Katrina occurred in 2005, when Obama was a freshman Senator.

It’s one thing to have an opinion.  It’s another to state that opinion based on inaccurate information.  Naturally, I would blame media (and specific media at that) for fueling sentiment that causes people to lose sight of reality and do shit like this.

But it’s more than political opinion that gets screwed up because we believe what we want to believe, facts be damned.  Is there anyone of driving age who has NOT heard that driving while texting or talking on your handheld is dangerous and puts you at more risk?  Many states have laws against using phones while driving, and in my home state of Oregon it’s been illegal for THREE YEARS with a hefty $154 fine.  Yes, every damn day I see people on their phones talking or (worse) texting while driving.  And we constantly read or hear of “tragic” stories where an accident has occurred and, sure enough, the driver was texting or on their phone.

And yet, every damn day I see people on their phones.  That’s willful ignorance.

Now, getting back to Obama’s comments about ignorance.  I said that many thought it was a swipe against Trump, including Trump.  He responded to Obama’s speech as such:

 

Huh?  Wha?

Anyone want to tell me what, exactly, that means?   And is it ignorance, or just plain stupid?  

Rewriting America’s Wire Act?

This is not going where you think it is.

Over the past couple of weeks we in the iGaming/iPoker advocacy arena have been transfixed with a lot of activity that has promise or potential.  Bills and hearings in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and (yet again) California are moving forward, but very few hold out hope that we’ll see more than the same three states with iGaming (NJ, NV, and DE) by the end of the year.  Not so much because the cause is not just of the fight engaged, but because it’s an election year.  That’s a tough row to hoe.

There’s also new activity on the anti-iGaming front, as Sheldon Adelson’s deadly minion Lindsey “Back-Door” Graham has inserted some trickery into a must-pass Senate Appropriations Bill.  Shades of 2006’s UIGEA (no hearings, no votes, just insert here when no one is looking), this move appears to have about as much chance of occurring as California’s iPoker bill, which is to say not likely (thanks to increased diligence on the part of PPA and poker players everywhere – thank you).

And in DFS-land, Congress held a ho-hum hearing that moved the issue neither here nor there.  This is one online activity the AGA takes an interest in (only to ensure that broader sports-betting issues are included), and, of course, states are taking issue/license (no pun) with DFS as well.  Some are banning it, some are licensing it, and many are in discussion as what to do about it (more states involved with DFS than with traditional iGaming, sadly).

But there was one other bit of new legislation proposed recently that caught my eye favorably, received little attention, and yet…the more I think about it, the more troubling the whole thing became.  In Nevada, the Nevada Gaming Commission might consider changes to their mobile sports betting regulations that would have a PROFOUND (emphasis mine) effect on all of the above – iPoker, iGaming, DFS, and RAWA.

The article in question (here) caught my eye because of the phrase “Bettors in the 49 states outside of Nevada might be able to set up and fund mobile sports betting apps from Las Vegas casinos as early as this year (emphasis from the story).

ALL states?  Even my state (Oregon)?  Even Congressman Jason Chaffetz’s state (Utah)?

Yup.  Sports betting is growing by leaps and bounds in Nevada, and mobile sports betting is a big reason for it.  As I mentioned above, the AGA has shown a desire to push the envelope to start a dialogue to get people talking to

“…review the effectiveness of America’s 25-year-old federal sports betting ban in light of growing public acceptance of gaming in general, the soaring interest in sports betting in particular and the development of new technologies that can aid law enforcement in overseeing betting activities.”

They were referring specifically to PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act), not the wire act.  The new Nevada regs would still require (for now) the individual to actually travel (once) to Nevada to set up the account, and all wagering must still be done (for now) in Nevada.  But here’s where it gets interesting…

The new regs are being championed by CGTechnology.  If that name doesn’t ring a bell, I’ll remind you that they are a leading gaming technology company, specializing in sports book mobile sports-betting apps featured at several Nevada casinos. 

Including The Venetian and The Palazzo.  Owned by you-know-who.

What if Little Johnny gets ahold of Dad's tablet?  Oh, right...

Remember, the Wire Act was written way back in the 60’s to deal with sports betting.

Remember, Sheldon Adelson wants to “restore” the wire act so that ALL Internet gaming is prohibited – even that which is regulated by the states.

Remember, even if RAWA became a reality, it would still ALLOW some Internet wagering – horse racing (which last time I looked was still a sport), perhaps DFS, perhaps some lotteries…and maybe mobile sports betting?

Does Sheldon know that the technology for a “phone app for sports betting” and a “phone app for iPoker” use the SAME technology?

Are the new Nevada sports betting regs a “foot in the door” to expand further should Congress get a clue and decide to modify draconian gambling laws like PASPA and UIGEA?

Is this a case of Sheldon trying to have his cake and eat it, too?  To say “If I can’t ban it all I want to get in on it but on my terms because sports betting will be bigger than poker by 10-20 times” (and he’s probably right about that)?

I have to admit the desire to wager on sports from time to time.  There are days when I know the Lions can cover the spread and something I read in one of Nolan Dalla or Earl Burton’s columns makes me want to grab a sawbuck and go for it.  But I can’t, because I don’t live anywhere near Nevada.  An online/mobile sports betting app would be WONDERFUL, though I rather shit my pants in public or slide down a 45-foot razor blade than have an account with The Venetian.  But still…

So I am crazy to see this as something sinister and sneaky?  Or have I just been watching too much political news reporting?

What’s your thought on all of this? 

Hey, it could be worse.

Prince, Perry Como, and the Future of Online Gambling

Two things happened in the world of online gambling this week, and they flew in opposite directions.  I had no idea how to reconcile the news that

1. Michigan was on the radar for legalizing and regulating online poker and casino action (joining Pennsylvania, New York, and California), and in some minds, jumping to the top of the line.
2. The AGA debuted their “Stop Illegal Gambling” website, which comes at the one year anniversary of their movement of the same name that is designed to “…helping law enforcement, elected officials and the public at large better understand the scope of illegal gambling and its impact on our communities…” 

Yeah, one of these things is NOT like the other.  I wanted to write about both, but there seemed to be no common thread.  Then Prince died.

I was not a fan, but there is no doubt that he was a talented musician.  His passing was tragic in the sense that it happened by surprise (and too damn soon), and many of my friends (and former students who grew up when Prince reached his iconic status) were wall-to-wall about his life, his death, his music, and his influence.  The one thing that struck me (as the comment does no matter who or what it’s about) was when one fan gushed that, “We’d always listen to Prince’s music for the rest of forever.”

Nothing is forever.  What’s big now fades over time.  This is true for damn near everything, and it’s especially true in music.  Proof?  See that guy on the right?  He was like Prince – famous, iconic even.  A singer with 14 #1 hits, a television star, a pioneer in many venues, a success with several generations and widely respected for his standards of performance.

Yet you hardly ever hear any of Perry Como’s hits anymore.  I confess to remembering “Round and Round” and “Hot Diggity (Dog Ziggity Boom).”  But that’s all.  We move on.  Times change.  

Nowadays technology plays a role in those changes.  Which brings me to the “future of online gambling.”  It’s Michigan’s idea, not the AGA.  Michigan was one of the first states to go online with their lottery, and they also have a bustling keno game online.  More than 276,000 people have registered for accounts on the site, and they just recently added PayPal as a payment option.  They sell more than 300,000 instant tickets PER WEEK online.  They know that the future of gambling includes online activity, and with the recent announcement of “The Lawful Internet Gaming Act” (a bill to join NJ, NV, and DE in offering online poker and possibly other casino game), the state is moving FORWARD.

Now consider the AGA’s big news.  Here’s a (sad) representation of the gaming industry, rightfully concerned with illegal gambling, but wrongly going about how to deal with it.  It’s no wonder so many online poker activists look at the AGA with suspicion, as much of what they do and say sounds way too similar to Sheldon Adelson’s CSIG.  The difference is that the AGA goes out of its way (sort of) to state that it’s only ILLEGAL gambling it’s concerned about.  The problem is that they use many of the same scare tactics that Uncle Sheldon uses.  Like this:

AGA, through its “Stop Illegal Gambling – Play it Safe” initiative, is working with law enforcement and the private sector to distinguish the highly regulated, $240 billion legal gaming industry from illegal gambling and criminal enterprises that fund horrific crimes.

(The) “Stop Illegal Gambling – Play it Safe” initiative (goals are) to crack down on illegal gambling operations across the country that harm consumers, steal jobs and deprive state and local governments of revenues that pay for vital public services.

There’s lots of that on their website – illegal offshore sites that fund organized crime, lack of consumer protection, March Madness office pools, and cockfighting.  No, really. But the website (and the AGA) lack is WHAT THE FUCK TO DO ABOUT IT.  Awareness is great, and I am sure once Joe Gambler knows he’s on a site where the operators do not have AGA membership…I mean, are running an illegal operation, why he’ll just close his account and shuffle down to the closest land-based AGA approved casino and toss his money there, for America!

My ass.

Yeah, what’s missing is a solution to illegal gambling.  Like offering LEGAL gambling.  Yes, the AGA has lots of members with no interest in going the online route (Adelson, Wynn), but there are plenty others who not only DO want to tap into this Internet thing, they already ARE.  And after two years of success in three states, isn’t it about time that the AGA recognized that the “JUST SAY NO” approach DOES NOT WORK.

Give gamblers who want to gamble via the Internet a legal, regulated option.  Like the rest of the world.  Is this THAT difficult to understand??

In Michigan, no.  In Geoff Freeman’s AGA-land, sadly yes.

The Truth Lies Somewhere In the Middle (If the Truth Can Lie At All)

Today’s lesson in “words mean things” is all about multiple truths, so you know we’re gonna talk politics.  And before I go much further, let me make this declaration for those who either (a) have no idea where I stand or (b) forgot:  I favor Bernie over Hillary, but will vote for either of these two over whomever wins the GOP nomination.  Just so you know.

And with that, I’ve done something few others who write about politics have done – actually let you know where I stand.  So naturally, if I say something deraugatory about Clinton or Trump, you can (rightfully?) say, “well, that’s bullshit, because he’s a Bernie-bot.”  Of course, my being who and what I am doesn’t negate the truthiness of whatever it is I say, but, for the most part, we (and by “we” I mean most everyone) tend to think that it does.

Which is why few actually make declarations as to how they stand.  Which is why we see things the way we do.

OK, on to the lesson.  This is an in-party issue, Democrat vs. Democrat.  I mention this because once we get to past the primaries and start the actual two-part campaigns, it’s gonna get worse.  Far worse.  Which makes this particular issue illuminating.

Last week, a Greenpeace activist asked Clinton, “Will you act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?"  Clinton reportedly responded angrily, and the fun began. 

Answer this question:  Has Hillary Clinton taken money from the fossil fuel industry?

If you are a Clinton fan, you probably answered “no.” And you’d be right, as corporations cannot fund campaigns, and no fossil fuel industry has given money directly to Clinton’s campaign.  And many liberal websites and “news” agencies would agree with you.  Check these headlines:

• Blue Nation Review:  FACTCHECK: No, Hillary Did NOT Get Money from the ‘Fossil Fuel Industry’
• Addicting Info: Fact Checkers Clear Hillary of ‘Big Oil Bribes’

 However, if you are a Sanders fan, you probably answered, “yes.”  And you’d ALSO be right, as Clinton has received money from PEOPLE who work in the fossil fuel industry, and in fact, nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for her Democratic presidential campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.  And many liberal websites and “news” agencies would agree with you.  Check these headlines: 

• Huffpost Politics:  Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists
• Mother Jones: Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton

Of course, there are some sites that tried had a more “nuanced” approach:

• Vox:  Greenpeace is attacking Hillary Clinton's ties to fossil fuel donors — but it’s complicated
• NPR: FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton and Donations From Fossil Fuel Industries

Every day people get their undies in a bunch because Candidate A supposedly said something about Candidate B and IT’S NOT TRUE because something-something yargle bargle.  Because they read the headline in a blog (not a actual news source) that has a bias for their candidate and let me apologize right here and now to Curtis Stadtfeld, my journalism prof at EMU back in the day who spoke long and loud about “objective journalism” –
 
There ain’t no such thing.
 
Some come closer than others, but in today’s multi-media fed world, pundits and reporters are indistinguishable.  A source is a source, and readers/listeners/viewers see them all as fair and balanced IF they say what I want them to say, otherwise, they are biased against my blessed positions.
 
And it’s actually ALWAYS been that way.  It seems worse now because the political theatre we call “Presidential Politics” goes on FAR too long, and this year’s event has been a particularly nasty and protracted affair.  It’s gotten to the point that friends are unfriendly friends (both online and in real life) and others are taking sabbaticals from participating in the process (both online and in real life).  I regret those decisions, because we all need to take part in the dialogue if we are to progress as a nation and a people.
 
But it won’t be easy.  Truth is, I almost tossed in the towel a week or so ago, as I foolishly tried to comment (read: inject some common sense and a bit of facts) into a post from the “other side.”  I was in a conversation last week that started with illegals coming in to vote, encouraged by Obama (which is pointless since they can't vote in Federal elections). When I pointed that out, we moved to drugs (they're bringing "Heroine" into the country) and who shot JFK and Hillary lies all the time and Bernie is a commie and so damn far off track...and never, not once, did anyone say anything more about the “illegals can't vote” until the end, when someone finally admitted this: they knew that they could not vote but "felt" that maybe they'd want to and it could happen, so that's why it mattered.

Feelings, not facts.  That’s what this election is all about?

Y’know what’s most surprising to me about all of this?  That many people are “surprised” by all of this.

One more thing – I hear a tremendous amount of crap about “if my candidate doesn’t win the nomination, I am not voting for his/her opponent.”  Bullshit.  You know DAMN WELL that your liberal friends will vote for whoever shows up in blue on the ballot, as they’d rather vote for Hillary or Bernie even if they weren’t their first choice instead of whatever the GOP tosses up.  And you know damn well that despite what died-in-the-red Republicans are saying about #TrumpNever, they’d rather vote for the orange orangutan than either Hill or Bern.

You know it’s true.  I am being objective here.

And I forgot to mention this – much of the media sucks.  See below:

The reason I didn't use the Washington Post for any of my examples...because they really do suck this badly.

Get a Stupid Answer. Or a Lie.

I’ve rewritten this post a couple of times, partly because my focus has shifted as to what the real issue is, and partly because of the changing political scene.  This was to be “Part Two” on “Asking Stupid Questions” and I was going to hold the media’s feet to the fire for letting this year’s crop of Presidential candidates to hold forth without much critique and account.

I will do that, and much more.

I’ve long learned that good questions get good answers, and bad questions don’t deliver.  Sure, the media is dealing with complex issues and many positions are “nuanced,” but there are times when a simple “yes or no” question can be asked AND answered.  In this year’s Presidential debates, some of the moderators did well while others were gawd-awful.  Certainly I see it that the Democratic debates contained more structure, policy, and informative dialogue than the Jerry Springer-like Republican bouts.  But as time went on the debates got worse, not better, and that’s when the media should have stepped up their game, and they failed.  And continue to do so.

However, I recognize that they are dealing with politicians, who, as we all know, lie.  All of ‘em.  It was in the New York Times, so it must be true.  It is true, but there is a difference between a professional liar and a politician who exaggerates a bit.  The latter does so because the story he/she is telling isn’t quite as compelling as the story it COULD be, and it we weren’t all so distracted with our iPhones and Twitter and SnapChat and such we might pay a bit more attention and they wouldn’t have to exaggerate or stretch the truth so much.

I get that.

A professional liar has more on their plate.  They have agendas and goals, and often the only way to obtain those objectives is to tell a story that in no way resembles reality.  And they do this so often with such “skill” that they accomplish those goals and fulfill those agendas, often with the approval of the very people whose eyes they have pulled the wool over.

You can recognize a professional liar when you ask them a question, and they give you a response that (a) is completely true, and (b) does NOT answer the question, although if you weren’t really paying attention it might seem as if it does.  This skill was aptly displayed at the debates, and many in the media called the candidates on it, and…they continued to do it.  Because it works.

Lotsa Lies

Personal example:  I’ve had one employee over the years who stole from me (and just the one – I am thankful for that).  Catching her was easy – she stole money at a time when the only people in the store were me, my wife, and her.  Pretty sure my wife didn’t take money from the tip jar and her own purse.  When I confronted her, I asked her if she took the money.  Her response was a pro-job:  “Search me – you won’t find it on me.”  True that (it was in her coat in the back).  A “true” response yet it did NOT answer the question.  So I repeated the question.  “I would not do such a thing, and you can search me all you want.”  Again, not an answer.  So I asked a third time.  “I cannot believe you are accusing me of this – search me!”  A true pro.  And a thief (who, I am sad to report, moved up in the crime world to drugs, drug running, and it currently occupying a federal building somewhere).

You can debate among yourselves which candidate lies more often, though I wanted to provide a handy chart so that you could see who Politifact thinks lies the most.  And truthfully, Politifact has been known to be full of shit on occasion, so there’s that.  Still, everyone lies, and no one cares.

At least, they don’t seem to care if it’s THEIR candidate who lies.  There is a psychological reason for that, and that’s the reason that exposing the lies doesn’t seem to have any affect on a candidate’s popularity.  If you spend some time on Facebook responding to an every steady stream of political bullshit with facts, exposure, and stuff from Snopes, you’ll see exactly what affect all that truthiness has on your political friends who inhabit a different side of the fence than you.  Nothing.

This does NOT include Fox or CNN.  Scary, huh?

The ironic facts are these – currently, the two candidates who lead their parties are also the candidates who lead their respective parties in “lack of truthiness.”  They also lead their respective parties in one other measure – exposure.

The more the public sees and hears a candidate: good, bad, truth, lies, pundited, speechified, whatever…the higher their position.  Here again the networks are at fault.  See chart.

And finally, the media is starting to examine their role in creating this.  Whether they do something about it remains to be seen.  I am not holding my breath, since CBS CEO Les Moonves quipped that the current front-runner of coverage and lies, "may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS, that's all I got to say."

Liberal media and journalistic credibility, my ass.

Ask a Stupid Question…

Well, sorta.

You know the rest, I assume.  As a former educator, I know the value in asking questions and seeking knowledge.  However, many tend to perform this task poorly. Like so many things, you get out of it what you put into it, and many folks just can’t form a good question to save themselves.

The reasons I know this and choose to write about it are twofold – it’s the start of our ice cream season (which I’ve written about previously), and Quora.  Let’s discuss Quora first.

I became involved in this question-and-answer “community” after seeing a post from a friend about it.  I was intrigued and he responded to my query about Quora with enough positiveness that I decided to join.  I claimed to be an “expert” in gambling and ice cream, and after a day or two, questions on those topics (sort of) appeared in my in-basket, waiting for my response.  After six weeks of activity, I can assure you that the old “Ask a Stupid Question…” cliché does NOT apply.  Rather, it’s this one:

“There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people with questions.”

Had I read the answer to this question in Quora, “How is Quora different from Wikipedia?” I might not have been so eager to join.  The first two differences cited (of nine) were:

• Quora is not an encyclopedia, and does not strive for objectivity.
• Quora covers emerging knowledge, for which there are no published references yet.

The first part is certainly true.  Many answers are subjective as hell, and I can assure you that I have never seen a full-blown promotional piece on Wikipedia in describing a person, place, or thing.  On Quora, people feel no shame whatsoever to respond to a question and at the same time promote their book, blog, or other profit-making enterprise (especially true in the gambling questions).

The second part is funny, only because many of the answers seem to be culled from other online sources, including Wikipedia.  I must admit that I’veThere are some answers from true experts like Senator Elizabeth Warren and noted professors, teachers, professionals…and some from pseudo-experts (I fall somewhere in-between).  Then…there are the answers from everyday folk who try to be expert and share their knowledge.  But this isn’t Quora’s downfall.

No, the problem is with the questions.  Seriously, how would anyone, expert or not, answer this:

• How can I become who I really am?
• Is there a way to get Nigel Slater to come to my house and cook for me? If so, how much does he charge to cook for the evening?
• What's this book called?
• Who is the worst person to ever live on this planet?
• Do you play online casino in your browser or on an app on you (sic) phone?
• What were moments in life when one couldn't help but think, "I am so f**ked."?
• What if everyone in the world yelled at the same time?
• How are bad American Chinese buffet desserts different from regular restaurant desserts?
• How do you know how much pulled pork to feed 50 people?
• If I bet $800 on Exacta and won, how much do I actually win?

No, I am not making any of those up.

After a couple of weeks, I started responding to the really bad questions with “Good answers come from good questions.  I need much more information here in order to provide you with a decent answer.  Please try again.”  That worked once.  I also started to get fewer requests and hardly anyone upvoted my answers.  No surprise and little disappointment (from me).

I should have known better, of course.  At the ice cream parlor, this Q&A is all-too typical:

Customer: “How do you make your ice cream?”

Me:  “Well, we use a 20-gallon batch freeze…”

Customer:  “No, I mean, what’s in your ice cream?”

Me: “It’s a typical mix of cream, sugar, milk solids, egg yo…”

Customer:  “No, what I mean is do you have any sugar free ice cream?”

Now, why in the world didn’t they just ask THAT?  I have no idea.  I supposed I should ask someone.  Maybe on Quora.

By the way, there is no such thing as sugar-free ice cream.  If it’s ice cream, it has milk; if it has milk, it has lactose.  Lactose is a milk SUGAR.  There is no sugar added to the mix (which is why they call it “no-sugar-added ice cream”), but it is NOT free of sugar.

Hooray - The End is Near

Yup, that's us - two crabs with ice cream

In a few days (Friday) our ice cream shop, Zinger’s Homemade Ice Cream, will open up for our 16^th Season.  I usually greet this time of year with a mixture of dread and anticipation.  Anticipation because it’s been five months since we’ve made any money and as the spousal unit says, “our balances are dropping dramatically.”  Dread in that I haven’t been actively working for five months…and I like that.  Really, I do.  But work we must.

I suppose this post is as much a pep talk to myself as anything.  The days that I truly worried about the upcoming season are long gone.  We’ve faced damn near everything in our time here, and whether it was increased competition, bad weather, slow tourism, power outages, or equipment malfunctions, we’ve survived and thrived.  Last year we joked that we finally wouldn’t have to worry about any equipment breakdowns because we had finally replaced everything with moving parts in the store at least once.  And then we learned that our one year old display freezer needed new moving parts.  Add in a freak city-wide power outage on Independence Day, our busiest day of the year, and 2015 was a year to “remember.”

But there is one additional aspect of this year (aside from not worrying about more breakdowns) that makes me giddy and eager to start:  I won’t have to do this much longer. The end is near.

We’ve joked about having five year plans to eventually put the business up for sale, find a piece of property, build the “dream home” and move on with our lives in what some folks call retirement, as we refer to as “progression.”  We truly mean to “progress” to some other aspect of our lives, but until now it’s been a hazy vision.  Over the last five months, however, we’ve “fixed target” and we’re headed to the promised land:

And the promised land is about 90 miles east of here, in Warren, Oregon. 

We have two perfect acres of land, suitable for a small house with solar, a small orchard, a large garden, room for dogs and us, close to groceries and services, yet far enough from everything to be considered rural, pastoral, quiet, and perfect.

I said perfect twice, didn’t I?  Well, it’s an apt description.

We had been looking for the right combination of land and home for more than five years.  Everything was either too big, too old, too sloped, too wooded, too far away, too close by, too…too much not what we wanted.  Or too expensive.  Finally, last year we found a property that could work, and the very next day we found an architectural firm that specializes in small, pre-fab homes that had everything we wanted, and needed, and at a price that was…perfect.

Then this winter we sat down and ran numbers on the business and figured out much it was worth, and it was better than we expected.  We’ve made arrangements (legal, broker, etc.) to move forward later this fall in putting all the information together to get ready to sell.  We already have people who have told us that they’d love to “take over” Zinger’s when we’re ready to let go.  And we’re about ready.  This year, then next year, and that’s it.

So the plan really is a plan, after all – a two year plan where we put the business up for sale, start working with the architect, find a buyer, clear the land, build the home, sell the biz, move and put the old home up for sale, and…by this time in 2018, we will be “progressed.”  That’s the plan.

So this year, as we head back to work, there’s dread, and anticipation, and a bit of “short timer’s” disease. If it seems I have a bit more spring in my step, it’s not the Geritol.