King Arthur and Unemployment Taxes

(Just kidding. There is no link between the two that I would actually have time to relate . . .)

Okay, now that the intensity of Holy Week and Pascha have passed, I have no more excuse for not working on what I started—my little experiment, as it were. Oh, Holy Week and Pascha are terms used in the Orthodox Christian world for Easter and the week leading up to it. This week, the week after Easter, is known as Bright Week.

Just wondering . . . why are unemployment benefits taxed? I mean, if the government writes an individual a check for $300, then let him/her have the whole $300. If the government intends to keep $50 of it, then the government should simply write the individual a check for $250 and call it a day. Is it just me?

Opportunity? I was "invited" to become an e-Rewards member yesterday. I am going to see how much (if any) benefit I can receive by giving my two-cents' worth to some nebulous marketing machine, thereby helping them target people (like me). They offered me two Thank You gifts just for signing up. Most of the ones they offered I can't use. Not very promising, but let's get the show on the road, and we'll find out.

In the midst of . . . This week finds me reading a 1950 Grosset & Dunlap, Inc. publication of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table (from Sir Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur), edited by Sidney Lanier and illustrated by Florian. Amazing. The language is so archaic that it's like reading The King James Version of the Bible.  I love it! I was thinking that my eight-year-old and I should sit down and read it together out loud, but that's probably a long shot. At present she isn't one for reading unless there is a timer  and an authority figure attached to the process, and I'm not sure the Shakespearean English would do much to further her comprehension of the story line. I can dream.

So far, Sir Lancelot is coming across as the typical, totally ripped Hollywood A-Lister who makes all the ladies swoon and all the men steer clear of conflict, armed or otherwise. He is, through the third chapter at least, a goody-goody. He's considerate, chivalrous, honorable—all those things a knight worthy of the name really ought to be—and he's humble into the bargain so far. He defeats everyone while depriving no one; he looks out for those weaker than he, being careful not to take advantage of his good looks, charm and physical prowess; he resists the temptations of all (so far) of the ladies, some of ill intent and ill repute.

As for Arthur, it's a good thing he has Merlin to help him out. He would have come to a swift end had he not been fortunate enough to rely upon Merlin's supernatural insights. When you get down to it, it is very likely we would have no one to read about, and Monty Python would have had to find another legend to parody. To be continued . . .