Four small hands reached into our overflowing bowl of candy. Just four cheery kiddies squealed, “Trick or Treat.” How disappointing, especially since just a few weeks ago our cul-de-sac neighborhood’s annual block party showcased more than a dozen youngsters.
I stocked up expecting a horde of hungry kids. I bought the 200 pack of caramel flavored chocolate treats—Three Musketeers, Snickers, Twix and Milky Ways.
I should have known better. The neighborhood WhatsApp foretold disappointment as several parents advised they were taking their kids to the Highlands sectioin of town to Trick or Treat.
Even the four who showed up were last minute beggars. The oldest child implored his mother to walk them around our development.
Gilda doesn’t eat caramel chocolates. As a diabetic who monitors his dietary indiscretions, I figure my stash of goodies will last through next Halloween.
Stumped by The Simpsons: I think I have a good vocabulary. As a writer my mission is to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, conveying my thoughts directly to the reader without requiring him or her to detour to the dictionary to decipher my words.
That’s prelude to my gripe with a New York Times columnist, whose name I will not reveal, whose prose displays a penchant for obscurity. Here’s an example from a recent column: “Under this standard, even Watergate may well have been perfectly cromulent.”
Cromulent? What language was that? What does it mean?
A quick Google check revealed cromulent is a made-up word, created by David Cohen, a writer of The Simpsons. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as meaning acceptable, satisfactory in a humorous way as befitting its origin in 1996 in episode 16, season 7 of The Simpsons (“Lisa the Iconoclast”).
Not being a Simpsons devotee, cromulent caught me by surprise. In fact, cromulent never made it into a Simpson script beyond its 1996 debut.
Lest you think I am being too picky, that same Times columnist included “ontological” in the same article. I’ll let you research what it means.
Drawing the Line: I covered retailing and foodservice companies, and their suppliers, for more than 30 years. You’d be hard-pressed to find a collective group of executives more regressive than those who populate those companies.
They generally, but not universally, oppose raises to the minimum wage. They’re anti-union. They offer minimal healthcare benefits. All while paying eye-popping compensation to their executives.
I bring these comments to your attention because of a recent Times Opinion article by Ben Wikler, chairman of Wisconsin’s Democratic Party from 2019 to 2025, on the major funders of the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin. Tom Tiffany’s sugardaddies are Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/09/opinion/midterms-wisconsin-georgia-arizona.html?smid=url-share).
Here’s one paragraph from that article: “Much of the money being spent to elect Mr. Tiffany comes from one multibillionaire couple, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein. Mr. Uihlein was reportedly among the largest funders of the rally that morphed into the Capitol riot. The Uihleins have given more than $30 million to the Republican Party of Wisconsin this year. By late last month, the party had transferred close to $35 million to Mr. Tiffany’s campaign. And Mr. Uihlein is the main contributor to the Restoration of America PAC, which has reported spending more than $12 million in support of Mr. Tiffany.”
If you’re like me, you probably had never heard about the Uihleins. Unless, unless your mailbox is weighted down every few months or so by a thick Uline product catalog of shipping boxes, packing materials, warehouse supplies, and material handling equipment.
When the first catalog showed up more than a dozen years ago we needed a new kitchen floor mat. Uline had a good price and could cut it to our required size. Several times a day I stand on that mat. Several times a day I regret not knowing the company’s background before making the purchase. Now, I toss new catalogs into the recycle bin without opening them.
The Uihleins are billionaires funding politicians who, in my opinion, are not working expeditiously to benefit the lives of Americans.
It is almost impossible to abstain from patronizing companies whose executives support conservative causes. But there’s a line I find difficult to cross.
Wikler noted the importance of electing Democrats to key governorships in presidential election battleground states because governors must certify results for them to be official. Republican Tiffany has a track record of denying Joe Biden won Wisconsin in 2020. Come 2028, he might deny certification to a Democrat in a closely contested election.
“In Wisconsin,” Wikler pointed out, “the past three presidential elections came down to margins of less than one percentage point, making the state attractive to those fraudulently claiming that chicanery has affected election results.”
Though I stand on a Uline floor mat, I stand opposed to anyone who would undermine our electoral system.
