Isaac Laquedem

An unexpected surprise at MOD Pizza

CNN accidentally makes a point about child-rearing

I can't be the only one who noticed the coincidence in CNN's story about the mother of Osama bin Laden being followed by, well, the story that it was followed by.

Venerable Mom's credit was not good enough for Macy's, but it satisfies her bank

Six years ago Macy's turned down Venerable Mom's application for a credit card, despite her good credit history and enviable financial status.  I wrote about it here.

This week VM received an invitation to apply for a Platinum Visa card from a more local institution, which acknowledged her good credit and years as a customer.  I wrote a response on her behalf:

I received the solicitation that you directed to my mother, Venerable Mom Laquedem, to apply for a Greatest Bank Visa Platinum Card, and the recognition of her good credit that your offer implies.  Mom was very proud of her sterling credit history – I think her last late payment on anything was in 1953 – and she reacted with chagrin in 2011 when Macy’s turned her down for a credit card, something she and I couldn’t explain, given her substantial private income and complete freedom from debt.  I think at the time her debts totaled $674, the amount of her charges that month on her credit card, and she had then lived for 15 years without a home mortgage and 50 years without a car payment.

She’s not, unfortunately, able to accept your offer, because in the fall of 2013 she died, quite peacefully and still debt-free.  She’d likely be cheered by your offer, almost as much as she’d have reveled in the news that Macy’s has closed the store that invited her to apply for a credit card and then rejected her as unworthy of the honor.

Very truly yours,

Isaac Laquedem

 

Sprint says the new iPhone can reach people no other phone can call

My cell phone carrier texts me today: "This Mother's Day, call your mom (on THIS NEW iPhone - and save)," with a link to the advertisement.

The carrier has hit on a compelling sales pitch.  I would pay well for a new iPhone on which I could call Venerable Mom Laquedem, if she would answer.  I can speak to her -- she occupies a handsome brass container above my fireplace -- but it's been several years since she last talked back.

A job has opened up for which I am painfully qualified

Comedian Irwin Corey billed himself as "The World's Foremost Authority."  Authority on what?  Anything you might wish him to talk about, if you were willing to overlook how he could spiral from coherent and professorial English into a whirlpool of substance and syntax so mangled that George W. Bush would have cringed.  Professor Corey died yesterday at the advanced age of 102, and his death leaves vacant the post of being the world's foremost authority.  Until a less suitable substitute is located, I'm happy to claim the title. 

The definition of "contributory negligence" is

. . . giving money to state and local candidates who finish second.  I committed a lot of it this year.

The Oregon Symphony has a new conductor -- maybe

Today the staff and orchestra of the Oregon Symphony picked up a possible explanation for why they never see Carlos Kalmar (the Symphony's music director) and Charles Calmer (the Symphony's artistic administrator) in the same room.

Isaac celebrates Tax Day 2016

As is our custom, we celebrate Tax Day 2016¹ with a apposite reading from A.P. Herbert.  Today's reading is an extract from his story "Rex v. Haddock: Can a Worm Turn?", written in the form of the decision of a trial court.  The author's protagonist, Albert Haddock, has been accused of knowingly filing an untrue income tax return, in which he stated that he expected his gross and net income for the coming year to be "nil," and in one instance "Absolutely nil."  The Chairman of the Bench of the West London Police Court sums up Haddock's first defense, which is that Haddock could not make sense of an instruction on the form, as follows:

The evidence of the accused is that in this pronouncement (which is headed NOTE AS TO THE RELIEF WHICH MAY BE CLAIMED BY TAXPAYERS) there are nearly two hundred words; that, after reading the first fifty words, he laughed heartily; that he then began again and read the whole passage through from start to finish six or seven times, first silently, then aloud, and finally singing to a chant in B minor; that after these exhaustive experiments the words still conveyed no meaning to his mind whatever; that he concluded that not even a Government Department could with serious intent have issued to the whole body of income-tax payers two hundred words entirely devoid of sense or meaning;² that therefore his first impression was probably correct and the whole Form a base practical joke, to which he replied in the same spirit and kind.

Having myself studied the Form in question, I find this defence a good one.

The Chairman describes Haddock's fourth defense with these sprightly words:

Fourthly, [Haddock] says that, as a professional man (if writing can be called a profession), he sees no reason why any professional man should in any way assist the officers of the Crown in the collection of Revenue; that the professional man is the dog's-body of the State; that he is constantly writing to The Times newspaper or to Ministers to protest against injustices, or to point out the errors of His Majesty's Government; that no notice is taken of these protests; that he is referred to in Parliament contemptuously as a direct taxpayer, as if he were somehow immune from the payment of indirect taxes; that in fact he pays the greater part of both; that the wine-tax is monstrous,³ the whisky-tax monstrous,⁴ and the tobacco-tax monstrous; that he sees no reason for the present ferocious treatment of these simple indulgences, while those poisonous pleasures with which women ruin their systems, such as tea, coffee, and sweets, are classed as 'necessaries' and go almost free; that beer is as much a necessity as tea; that there should be no representation without taxation; * * * that he (Haddock) has studied carefully the items of National Expenditure, and that from that eight hundred million pounds he (Haddock) received no benefit except the agreeable spectacle of the Changing of the Guard and an occasional view of a distant battleship; that if every Government Department were to collapse in ruins at this moment he (Haddock) would not be a penny the worse; that in these circumstances he does not propose to exhaust himself by any elaborate efforts to assist the Inland Revenue Department to collect his money; * * *; that the income-tax is intolerable; and that the Income-Tax Delayers' Association are paying his expenses in this case.

Our usual jovial support of the commercial-welfare state will return tomorrow.

¹  I know the returns are actually due on April 18 this year, but I refuse to move Tax Day to a Monday as if it were the birthday of a President.

²  Later developments in tax law would disprove Haddock's argument.

³  Sound thinking.

⁴  Again, sound thinking.

The 2016 Republican ticket is official: It's Trump and Scalia

New York, April 1 (Laquedem News Service):  In a surprise move, Donald J. Trump announced today that his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket will be the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia.

In a press conference at the Trump Tower, Mr. Trump said: "Justice Scalia has a distinguished record of public service and an unparalleled intellect, and the gravitas to lead.  He'll make history as the first man to move from the Supreme Court to the Vice Presidency, and he'll be a powerful voice for underrepresented necro-Americans."  Mr. Trump went on to praise Mr. Scalia's views on abortion restrictions, voting restrictions, federalism, and the Alien and Sedition Act.

Political analysts believe that Mr. Trump's selection is coldly political, an attempt to appeal to the party's conservative base that has been lining up behind Mr. Trump's main rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Florida.  In his years on the court, Mr. Scalia had become a favorite of right-wing talk-show hosts and columnists, a group of influential Republicans who are expected to enthusiastically support Mr. Trump's choice.

Unusually, the candidate took questions from reporters.  One reporter pointed out that Mr. Scalia had died in February.  Would he be able to do the job?  "So what?" Mr. Trump replied, "The vice president doesn't have to do anything except break ties, and we're gonna keep control of the Senate, so there won't be any tie votes."  Asked how the campaign would handle a deceased candidate, Mr. Trump said, "Look.  Whoever the old socialist or what's-her-name picks for VP has to be out on the trail, and will say something stupid, and you press people are gonna be all over that.  My running mate won't say a word.  No words, no embarrassments.  I don't need anyone's help to embarrass my campaign - I can do it myself."

Vice President Hillary Clinton: take two

In my delight at how the constitution's workings could result in Mitt Romney being elected president with Hillary Clinton as his vice president, I overlooked the change that the 12th amendment brought about.  The 12th Amendment, adopted in Thomas Jefferson's term, was a response to the awkwardness that developed in 1796, when the electoral college put John Adams in first place and his bitter opponent Thomas Jefferson in second place, resulting in Adams becoming president and Jefferson being his ostracized vice president.  The 12th amendment changed the procedure somewhat: instead of the House of Representatives selecting two of the top three finishers in the presidential race to be the president and vice president, the House selects the president (still with one vote per state) from among the top three in the presidential race, and the Senate selects the vice president from among the top two in the vice-presidential race.  There's still an opportunity for constitutional mirth, but it's a little more complicated than I had described.

Let us continue to suppose that the Republican convention nominates Donald J. Trump and that he selects, say, Ted Cruz to be his running mate.  (I think his best choice is Jeb Bush, but that's an analysis for another day.)  The party's old guard puts together a third party and runs Mitt Romney, with (let's say) John Kasich as his running mate.  The Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, who picks Sherrod Brown, a second-term Senator from Ohio, as her running mate.

The election comes.  The Clinton-Brown ticket receives the most electoral votes, but not the 270 required for election.  Trump and Cruz finish second.  Romney and Kasich finish third, winning a few states.  The day after the November election, the candidates will know that the House will choose the president from among Secretary Clinton and Messrs. Trump and Romney, and the Senate will choose between Senators Cruz and Brown. Let's suppose that the Senate flips to the Democrats but the House remains Republican.

The nation will know that on January 3,  the new House will select Mitt Romney as the president (I can't imagine the Republican majority lucidly voting for Mr. Trump), and the Senate will select Senator Brown as Mr. Romney's vice president.  But wait -- the House and Senate don't select from the top finishers in the popular vote; they select from the top finishers in the electoral vote, and the electoral vote doesn't actually happen until mid-December.  The important point is that the House and Senate cannot elect a dark horse candidate; they must choose from among the top three presidential candidates and the top two vice presidential candidates.

The Democratic leadership might have the interesting idea (I would in their place) to request the Democratic electors to swap their votes: to ask that in December when they meet in their state capitals to cast their votes, they should cast their Presidential votes for Senator Brown, and their Vice Presidential votes for Secretary Clinton.  She will now be one of the top two finishers in the Veepstakes, and the Democratic Senate will elect her over Senator Cruz.

Ladies and gentlemen:  I again give you Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman vice president of the United States.