Monday is trash day in our neighborhood. The trash truck usually comes after 9:30 a.m. or so. When I came home last night, I found that our recycling had been picked up but not our trash. I suppose the schedule must have changed a bit. I'll switch in future to putting the trash out on Sunday evenings.
The news discussed how the first Harry Potter book is 20 years old. If the world is broken into those "pro" Harry Potter and those "anti" Harry Potter, I fall into the "pro" section. As with "Star Wars", I suspect that the cultural experience of Harry Potter is different and perhaps more intense for those who were 7 or under when the first book came out than those who, like me, were 37 when the first book came out. I thought last night how the ending to the last novel, less beloved by many readers, appears to me to be essential to the story, as I watched the last movie's attempt to portray that part of the story.
I watched the television program "Shadowhunters" last night, I never read the Mortal Instrument novels. Maybe someday I will read them, but not today.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the appeal by President Trump of his travel ban.
This was not a surprise. The grant included a modification of the injunction issued against the ban during the proceedings, which modification was a bit broader than I had expected. The modification still results in a fairly robust stay. I will be interested to see how the high court balances the authority of the executive branch in perceived national security measures against the importance of treating people (and in particular citizens) fairly and in line with their rights. The extent to which unwise things and unconstitutional things fail to align is always interesting. We'll see. I thought the travel ban as a practical matter to be a poorly-drafted, poorly-handled use to a cleaver to do what a set of scalpels should do. But the court case is not about its wisdom but its legality. I am all for checks and balances.
I read the following language in the Congressional Budget Office report on the Senates' new health care bill:
"The Senate bill would increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to the number under current law, slightly fewer than the increase in the number of uninsured estimated for the House-passed legislation. By 2026, an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law."
I find it hard to understand that rather than fixing the Affordable Care Act, Congress and the president will sign a bill that will over a decade cause 20 million people to be uninsured. But that appears likely. The Affordable Care Act needed amendment, to fix issues with its funding and implementation. But this discard effort seems to me far inferior to a detailed fix.
breakfast: toasted wheat-ful cereal and skim milk
lunch: turkey sandwich and chips
dinner: pho ga'
(cross-posted to DW because life is silly)