Category: Uncategorized

When I was a kid, we used to play ball in the alley just about every day except in the winter. Inevitably the softball that we played with would end up going into someone’s yard. Usually not a big deal, unless the ball happened to go into Grumpy’s yard. We didn’t know his real name, but called him “Grumpy” because he always seemed to be in a bad mood. It seemed that he would always be sitting on his patio, and as soon as he recognized that our ball had gone into his yard, he would start shouting at whomever was tasked with retrieving it. “Keep that ball out of my yard! The next time I am going to grab it and not give it back!” Sometimes he would sprinkle in a a few swear words, but we all realized that he could never catch us even if he jumped up from his chair, which he never did. Our usual retort was usually something lame like:
“Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed again today, Grumpy Gus!”
“Pipe down, you grumpy old man.”
One day I did not hear Grumpy shouting at me when I bounded over his fence to get the ball. When I looked towards the patio, Grumpy was not in his chair, but he was playing with two little girls. They were frolicking close to him and were giggling, “Grampy, don’t not tickle me. Grampy, can you catch me.” In the presence of these two interlopers, he was smiling. Grumpy had been transformed into Grampy.
I said to him, ”Are those your granddaughters, Grampy?” He nodded his head up and down, smiled, and said, “Yes, when they visit from out of town, we have a grand old time!” As I picked up the ball, I said, “Cute! You’re lucky to have them.” From then on whenever I would climb over his fence to retrieve the ball, I would say, ”How ya doin’ today, Grampy?” Like a miracle, his shouting and his dour look had vanished, and he usually responded in a cordial away. Together we had come a long way, and now we understood each other a bit differently . . . all because of that one friendly encounter.
Does every Grumpy have a Grampy side?
Probably not, but is it worth a try to find out? In most instances, probably yes.
Can the above Grumpy-Grampy story be a segue somehow to Donald Trump?
Of course!
The enemies of Mr. Trump might say that he is the prototypical Grumpy. At times he appears nasty and unfeeling. (Keep that ball out of my yard). He seems to constantly be making threats. (Next time I am going to grab the ball and not give it back!) But there are also many anecdotal stories demonstrating his soft side. (When they visit from out of town, we have a grand old time.)
It seems to me that the way things are going, nothing good can come out of any interaction between the Democratic politicians in California and our President. It appears that all the politicians want to do is play “macho man” to their base. Do they have any real interest in improving things for those in their district? If they really do want to make things better, they could quit grandstanding and do something to try to reduce the widening chasm between California and Washington.
President Trump happened to be in San Diego on 3/13/18. Perhaps instead of saying that Trump “wasn’t welcome here”, Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) could rather have said something like, “Even though we have our differences on immigration, I hope you have a pleasant visit in Southern California.” Which of these two statements could be considered as Vargas grandstanding to his base? Which of these statements could only further destroy any possibility of a truce between California and Washington?
Maybe if Grampy were still alive, I could get him to advise the grumpy Mr. Vargas!

Full disclosure to start off with. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to understand all of the laws that are on the books. I assume that the laws are formulated to apply to everyone. If an individual does something, and there is a bad outcome, then that individual is potentially libel for the consequences of his/her actions.
The one notable exception that I can think of applies to elected officials who are doing their job according to the law. Again, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if an elected official pushes a policy that he/she believes to be the right thing to do, and this policy turns out to be a bad policy, the elected official cannot be sued because of damages that occurred because of that policy. The elected official was merely doing his/her job, and did not break any laws. Therefore that elected individual is not legally responsible for the bad things that occurred because of his/her poor judgement. (Again, I am not a lawyer, but in other words it is not a crime to be stupid!) The person and the example that comes to my mind is Barney Frank, the liberal ex-congressman from Massachusetts, who felt in the 2000s that, in essence, everyone should be able to buy a house. It was this type of poor judgement that eventually led to the market crash because a huge number of these loans were not being paid off. Because Barney Frank was an elected representative, and did not break any laws, he could not be sued by an individual because that individual lost his life savings as a consequence of Mr. Frank’s poor judgement. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I think that the key phrases here are “elected representative” and “did not break any laws.”

To shift gears, again I am no lawyer, but someone is deemed to be an accomplice if he/she knowingly helps another in the commission of a crime or wrongdoing. The driver of the getaway car can be prosecuted as an accomplice to the bank robbery, even though he/she was never in the bank. If I call the bank-robber on his cellphone to warn him that the police are on their way, and he is able to escape because of my warning, I am an accomplice and can be prosecuted as such, because that is the law.
I don’t think that one has to be a lawyer to know that if law A applies to ordinary Joe, then law A should apply to everyone else, no matter what that person’s title is . . . even if that person is the mayor of Oakland, Ca. The mayor (his/her name will not be mentioned!) admitted to warning many illegals that ICE was going to be making raids in Oakland area. Now granted, she did not drive the getaway car, nor did she speak to these illegals directly on the phone, but there is little question that she facilitated the escape of some criminals. If one of those who escaped ICE were to kill, maim, injure, or rape someone in the future, would the mayor of Oakland be libel?
Yes, she is an elected official, but did she break the law by warning criminals that the good-guys were coming? I am no lawyer, but my answer is, “Yes, she is an accomplice and thus broke the law, and yes, she should be held accountable for the consequences of her actions.”

When I was working, I would send people to see a guy who was a specialist in his field. Let’s call him Mr. A. Not only was he a specialist, but he was one of the best at what he did. Once I recall a gentleman coming back to me and telling me that he was disappointed with the referral because Mr. A.” was not friendly to he and his wife.”
My response was, “Well it’s unfortunate that you are disappointed, however I referred you to him because I thought that he was the best man for the job. I did not refer you to him because I thought that you two could sing Kumbaya together or go out for coffee and become best friends. Again I specifically referred you to Mr. A., because I felt that he was the best man to solve your complex problem. Did he accomplish the task that he was supposed to accomplish? Are you much better off now that you were before?”
He thought for a few seconds and then responded, “Yes, I am much better off, and so on second thought I think that you are right. His forte is obviously not his friendly outgoing demeanor, but his ability to approach a difficult situation, and make it better. He told me what he was going to do beforehand, and he did it.”
My approach from that point on was to ask potential referrals, “Do you want me to refer you to the best man for the job? One who will tell you what he is going to do, and who gives you the best chance at a resolution of your problem. Or . . . Do you want someone who will talk nice-nice and shoot the bull with you and your wife?” Inevitably, they all chose the former.

Is there any similarity between the above story and anyone in today’s politics ?
Of course, Donald Trump!
When we were electing a president in November, 2016, did the country want someone who would talk nice-nice all the time? Or did we want a straight shooter who would tell you what he was going to do, and then would do it? Did we care if he was brash and outspoken, and perhaps not the easiest guy to get along with or did we want someone who could solve the complex problems of the country? Did the country care if his modus operandi was to speak his mind and not to kowtow to anyone? No, the country did not care if he was abrasive at times as he was abrasive during the debates. Just like with Mr. A. in the above story, the country chose him because he was the best man for the job. Now his enemies, of course, do not care for his policies or his style, and so they try to get the country to focus on his style or his tweets instead of his talents and what he has accomplished. From my perspective, again just like with Mr. A., the country is getting exactly what it voted for – the best man for the job, and we are better off now than before he was elected.

For all of you liberal Democrats (there must be at least one) who read this blog, I am going to review a basic term that I have gone over before . . . “Racism!”
In more simple language racism involves making a decision about someone based on the color of his/her skin or nationality, and not on the basis of his/her ability. If I were to state, “I am not hiring him, because he is Polish,” that would be a racist statement, because my decision was based on his ethnic background, and not on his ability to do the work. Likewise if I said, “I oppose the nomination of Mr.X because he is black or yellow or brown,” that too would obviously be racist, because I was opposing him because he is black or yellow or brown.
What if someone said that he could not vote for Mr. X for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina because he is . . . A White Man . . . a white man replacing two black Obama nominees. Well, sport’s fans, that is what Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) said last week on the Senate floor about nominee Marvin Quattlebaum, and that is a racist statement. Now his statement, in and of itself, is not that surprising as Chuck Schumer is a political hack and a boor. What is surprising to me, however, is that I did not hear any of the other 48 Democratic senators call him out on it. The way that I look at that is that either all of the other Democratic senators are either afraid of Mr. Schumer and thus are afraid to speak their own mind, or they agree with his racist statement.
To be perfectly honest I am not sure which is worse!

Last week after President Trump announced his intention to institute significant tariffs on aluminum and steel, I received an article from The Economist in an email from a friend. He said that he sent me the article because “you occasionally send around some items on Trump.” Actually I send around a lot of items on Trump, but I only send a few of them to him.
Anyway author of the article from The Economist was against the proposed tariffs. I noted that he was either educated outside the USA or lives outside the USA, because no one in the USA uses the word “tyres” when talking about those round things on a car. My guess is that he probably was from Great Britian, and so I would expect him to be against U.S. tariffs. Should I take his opinion as gospel. Err, . . . “No.”
As I see it, this is another fulfilled Trump campaign promise. He has been saying for at least five years (long before he was a candidate) that other countries were taking advantage of The United States on trade. He promised to change that, and he feels that tariffs are a step in the right direction.
Be that as it may, there are a multitude of opinions concerning why these proposed tariffs are either good or bad. I am a bit skeptical because uber liberal radio talk show host, Leslie Marshall, and Senator Sharrod Brown (D, Oh) are both in favor of these new tariffs. On the other hand some Republican Senators have come out against these tariffs. They include Orrin Hatch (R,Ut) who is a lawyer by trade and who has been in Congress for umpteen years. Does he have experience in business or international trade? Err, . . . “No.” Ben Sasse (R,Ne) has also come out against them. He was a college professor and subsequently a university president. Does he have experience in business or international trade? Err, . . . “No.” Another critical Senator is Pat Toomey (R, Pa), who actually did work as a currency trader, which, I guess, gives him some basic international experience, but no real business experience. Does this make him an expert on tariffs? Err, . . . “Maybe, at best.”
On the other hand Mr. Trump has had multitudinous years of international business experience. Has he had results on the economic front since he has been president? Are there some significant economic parameters that we can measure since Trump’s election to gauge economic success? As a matter of, there are quite a few:
In January U.S. household incomes rose 0.9%.
In February new jobless claims fell to a 50 year low (the lowest reading since 12/6/69). The ISM Manufacturing Index in February was 60.8 . . . in other words, terrific!
The adjusted GDP growth over the last nine months was 3% . . . Wow!
Who should I believe and trust on economic issues? On tariffs?
Err, . . . “I’ll take The Donald!”

What’s the best insurance policy? No, this is not a trick question. The best insurance policy is one that you never use! If you have health insurance and never have to use it, obviously that’s a good thing as it implies that you are never sick or injured. The most dramatic example of this tenet is life insurance . . . again if someone doesn’t need to be a beneficiary of your life insurance policy, it means that you are around to live another day.
In the aftermath of the recent Florida school shooting, could this line of reasoning be of any use? Could this insurance metaphor be helpful? At this point both the left and the right cannot find a compromise solution that is acceptable to both sides. Those on the right argue that taking away guns is not the solution, while those on the left always address this issue by emotionally stating that the answer is to take away guns. While I believe that limiting some guns may be helpful in certain circumstances, it is not the panacea that the anti-NRA lobby is trying to sell us. Eventually some sort of limited gun ban will be passed and suits will follow. The courts will get involved and eventually the Supreme Court will be called upon to make decisions on specifics. This may take years, and in the meantime, “What?”
Perhaps we can apply the concept of insurance (the best insurance policy, etc.) to this vexing topic. If we could take out some sort of insurance to prevent future school shootings, would that be a good thing? To me, the answer is obviously, “yes.”
The insurance policy that I have in mind addresses the following questions:
“Is anyone at the school armed?”
“Would arming anyone at schools be helpful?” (Interestingly if there is any sort of a
threat at a particular school, multiple armed law enforcement personnel are there
standing guard.)
“Would the potential shooters think twice before marching Continue reading “Cheap Insurance?”

Unfortunately yesterday my wife and I spent four hours in the Emergency Room. Fortunately, we were able to go to the Emergency Room and receive good timely medical care. Fortunately the USA is a rockstar in the medical care arena compared to those countries that unfortunately have a single payer system, as is illustrated by the following true story.

Fortunately, while on a recent December trip, my wife and I met a wonderful couple, Ken and Pat, from Liverpool, England. Unfortunately, in mid-December Pat began having trouble with her knee. Fortunately, she was able to get an appointment with her doctor on the 27th after she returned home . . . unfortunately it was not until January 27th.
We recently received an email from Pat on 2/4/2018. It read verbatim as follows:
“Still having trouble with knee, doc says X-ray shows mild arthritis, and not much else, can’t have scan till I’ve had physio which I have to wait 4 weeks to ring and then wait for appointment, then if still bad will refer me to specialist who can scan me! But talking to people I think the world has arthritis and I’ll just have to manage pain. Its less painful today so more positive. Trying to walk longer each day, the weather here is cold but dry.”

As I am sure you are all aware, England’s National Health Service (NHS) is a single payer system with the payer being the British government. It is free at point of use, and is paid for by general taxation. For all intents and purposes, it is designed to be inefficient, and by our standards, very inefficient. The NHS came into being in 1948, and so Pat who is in her late 60s has used NHS all of her life. Reread her email, and note that she is not complaining that she has had this knee problem for over six weeks, and there is no diagnosis in sight. She is not complaining that she will not see a specialist until probably April. To me, the problem is not arthritis, but probably a medial or a lateral collateral ligament issue, and the probability of getting it repaired within six months of its onset, is close to zero, as the median wait time for elective surgery in England is close to six weeks. She is not complaining because the NHS is the only healthcare system that she knows, whereas in the USA these long delays would not pass muster.
Unfortunately, here in California all of the potential Democratic candidates in next year’s election for governor are all espousing “single payer healthcare.”
A few questions for these candidates: “How will this be paid for?”
“Would the medical care be similar to that in England?”
“To which states will the California patients with torn medial or lateral collateral ligaments go for expedited care?”

I watch sports because I like sports. I don’t watch sports when there are political overtones. I did not watch the NFL on TV this year because of the demonstrations during the National Anthem. I realized that not all of the NFL players were protesting, but the higher-ups in the NFL did nothing to curb the National Anthem protests, and this turned me off. I suspect that many did what I did. They turned off the NFL and the TV ratings took a significant hit last season.
It appears that a similar thing happened with the Winter Olympics this year. NBC’s viewership was down 24% compared to Sochi among viewers in the 18-49 year old age group. (This is the age group that is most coveted by the advertisers.) Although there are multiple reasons for this ratings drop-off, I think that the remarks and attitudes of some of the Olympians played a large role in the poor TV ratings.
It started with the carrying of the flag at the opening ceremonies. An African-American sped skater complained that he was not carrying the flag, because the American Olympic Committee was racially biased against him. Strike one. I did not watch the Opening Ceremonies, as I am tired of the cries of racism in those decisions that are not racial. FYI, this speed skater did not win anything.
Next came the appearance the North Korean dictator’s sister at the games. The liberal press did not hesitate to praise her, while at the same time taking potshots at Vice President Pence for a multitude of nefarious reasons. I like Mike Pence, and I do not think that he should have kowtowed to Kim Jong Un’s representative. Strike two.
My wife not only looks forward to both the Summer and the Winter Olympics, but she also watches a lot of them on TV. It seemed to me that every time I looked up at the TV, I saw the gay US figure skater, Adam Rippon being interviewed on NBC . . . again and again and again! Now I personally do not care if Adam is gay or not, but quickly grew tired of him and gay skier Gus Kenworthy bashing our Vice President. Rippon criticized the choice of Mike Pence as the ceremonial leader of the U.S. delegation, but when Pence offered to meet with him, Rippon declined, and then said that he would not attend the White House with Team USA. FYI, he did not win any medals! Likewise I quickly grew tired of NBC’s recurrent reporting of Kenworthy saying that he would not shake Pence’s hand. Who cares? Lindsey Vonn had stated that she would not travel to the White House to celebrate her victories. FYI, she did not have any victories, and did not win any medals! Strike three . . . Out!
There is a difference, however, between the low TV ratings for the NFL and the low ratings for the Olympics on NBC. Those TV networks that broadcast the NFL games were innocent bystanders, whereas it seemed that the liberal NBC was pushing its political agenda in its broadcasts, and I suspect that this turned off many people. NBC deserved their low ratings as I think that many did what I did. They turned off the TV and the Olympics.

Finally someone is listening! This problem of school shootings has been a major issue since at least 1999 when the massacre of high school students occurred at Columbine High School. Since then there have been multiple similar incidents at schools, including grade schools, high schools, and colleges. Those on the left immediately go into the trite “ban the guns” mode, while those on the right revert to the “protecting second amendment rights” mode, and nothing gets done. Since 1999, the country has gone through eight years of a Republican president and eight years of a Democrat president, and nothing has been accomplished. We have had years of a Democrat Congress, and now we are into the second year of a Republican Congress, and nothing is getting done to try to solve this problem . . . until now.
Finally someone is trying to approach this problem without immediately going into the “ban-the-guns”/”protect second amendment rights” tug-a-war, in which no progress has been made.
On 2/22/2018, President Trump had a meeting with families that have been affected by gun violence in our schools. During this meeting President Trump did what he does very well . . . He listened. He spent more than one hour listening to parents and adolescents whose lives have been irreversibly altered by school shootings. He listened to parents of children killed at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland Stoneman Douglas. He listened to a student whose friend was killed at Stoneman Douglas. It was a respectful setting as opposed to the CNN quasi-political forum that morphed into a loud, angry, scripted, vengeful session that basically achieved nothing. At one point during the White House meeting Mr. Andrew Pollack, who daughter was murdered by Nikolas Cruz at the Parkland high school, made a practical point when he said that school safety needed to be the first priority, and then gun laws could be debated later. “How many schools, how many children have to get shot?”
At one point President Trump said, “We’ll solve this together.”
Finally, I realize that, for whatever reason, about half of the country does not approve of Donald Trump. So be it. But let’s give credit where credit is due, here he has stepped up to the plate whereas the past two two-term presidents have stayed in the on-deck circle. Since Columbine Congress has spent the last 19 years in the dugout, doing what they do very well . . . they have shouted back and forth, and have accomplished nothing with regard to this issue. Will President Trump accomplish anything substantial? It’s too early to tell, but he is in the game. Those of you who do not like our president should at least do what real Americans should do well . . . Get behind him on this issue, give him a chance, and hope that he can finally put a stop to these senseless shootings.

What is the best way to pay for the restoration and repair of the infrastructure of the nation’s roads. Basically there are two general pays to pay for this expense.
First, one could argue that since everyone benefits in some way from good roads, (for instance the trucks that use the roads deliver food that everyone eats), all should chip in for their upkeep etc. If one accepts this logic, then the cost would come out of a general fund.
On the other hand one could argue that most if not all of this expense should be borne by those that use these roads. It only makes sense to have the users pay for their maintenance and repair.
Recently President Trump said that he would consider an increase in the federal gas tax to pay for this infrastructure repair. In an ideal world those that used the roads the most would pay the most, and the revenue collected from this gas tax would then pay for road maintenance and repair. The Democrats in California have bought into this paradigm, and have recently increased the gas tax in California by 12 cents per gallon. Of course in California, prior funds that were supposed to be allocated for roads seem to have “disappeared’! (A topic for another day.)
However, as in California, this proves to be a regressive way to fund road maintanence.
There are multiple reasons that this is an unfair system. To start, under this system, those who can afford to buy electric cars pay nothing to maintain and repair the roads. The electric car users use the roads as much as everybody else, but because they do not buy gas, they pay no gasoline tax. In addition those who can afford to buy hybrids would pay significantly less as they get very good gas mileage and thus use much less gas. So despite the fact that they also use the roads just as much as everybody else, they would pay much less to maintain and repair them. When the rose-colored glasses are removed, it is the poorest among us who will be forced to pay the most. Of course one might argue that because they usually have to live the furthest from where they work, they use the roads more than the average-Joe, and so they should pay the most. But the dilemma here is that for the most part, they cannot afford electric cars or hybrids. The older cars that they drive do not get the best gas mileage, and so they will use more gas for a variety of reasons and thus will bear the brunt of this regressive tax.
In my opinion there are but two ways to level the playing field. You can tax individuals by the number of miles that they drive – the more miles one drives, the more one should pay to maintain and repair the roads. Although this might be the penultimate of fairness, because electric cars and hybrids would pay their fair share, it would be impossible to administer. The other option is to apply a federal tax across the board to every car when the state license plate is renewed yearly. Is this option perfect? Heck no, and I suspect that the solution lies somewhere between “fair” and “regressive.”