http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

One of the articles in today’s local newspaper had to do with homelessness, veterans, and hope. You might initially think that this is an unusual combination of words, but San Diego is a military town and so will have a good number of veterans. California has a relatively large homeless population, so it stands to reason that San Diego would have its share of homeless veterans, and it does. One of the worst things about being homeless is the despair that goes along with it, and one big thing that society can try do is to offer them some hope . . . hope that things will get better. The article was about a “Back2Work” program which hires homeless veterans in San Diego to work temporarily for the California Department of Transportation’s clean-up crews. The program also teaches skills to help them find permanent jobs, such as resume-writing, interviewing techniques, etc. Some  of the luckier ones will stay on at the California D.O.T. Recently Caltrans has hired more veterans through Back2Work, expanding from 3 crews to 7 crews with 12-15 workers on each crew. Bill McClinton, a Caltrans superintendent in San Diego said, “They help with our workloads. We’re kind of short right now for some crews, so it’s been very beneficial.” The program has an 84% success rate, with 153 people leaving their temporary jobs at Caltrans for other employment after three to six months.

Norma Murillo, 38, Marine Corps from 2001-2006, was one of the first to work on a Caltrans crew in 2017.  “I was homeless, unemployed, and in recovery. . . . When I started working, I started to see a little bit of hope.” In February she began a new job as a an official technician with Caltrans. Wow, I thought, “This is a great program because it provided hope for homeless veterans here in San Diego.

In an apparently unrelated story, we just got back from taking three of our granddaughters to Chicago for a few days. We stayed at an Embassy Suites and did a lot of walking – from five to six miles a day. As you are probably aware four days anywhere involves a lot of eating, especially with teenagers. A lot of things stood out on this trip, but what stood out the most to me was the number of youths, all black, between the ages of 18-25 who worked at the various places to eat. UNO’s pizza, Pot Belly sandwiches, Shake Shack ice cream, Garret’s popcorn, and Safe House restaurant all had black late-teens and young adults working as clerks, waiters and waitresses. Likewise at the Embassy Suites’ “breakfast is included,” the staff clearing the tables was made up entirely of young black women. All of these black youths were well dressed, attentive, and extremely polite. (I usually try to avoid all-inclusive words like “all” in my essays, but here I need to emphasize “all.”) I thought “what an outstanding way for these black youths to get introduced to the workforce.” Obviously these were all entry level type jobs or perhaps summer jobs,  but they were jobs! These jobs provided hope for their future.

Where am I going with this? These two apparently unrelated stories are in fact related! Here we have two separate groups, homeless veterans and black youths, who have historically had little hope for a good future. Here we have two very different stories of ways to provide hope, through jobs. In the first story Caltrans was short on some crews, and with the low unemployment rate, Back2Work used ingenuity to help homeless veterans get into the workforce, and thus provide hope for their futures.
In Chicago, something is causing entry level jobs to be available to black youth. In September 2018, the 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, helped all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs — like black teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent in October, 2018, the lowest on records dating to 1972. In May 2019 the unemployment rate for black youth was down to 23.9%, up slightly, but still a dramatic drop from 49% in 2010.

Why did I see a plethora of black youth working in and near downtown Chicago? To me the answer is quite simple – The economy, the Trump economy, is driving down the unemployment rate and so employers are hiring those that they were not considering before. I am not alone in thinking this way. “As the labor market tightens, employers have to look to workers they ordinarily don’t (consider), like black teens,” says Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This Trump economy is providing hope for the futures of many black youths in Chicago, as well as many homeless veterans in San Diego!

John Krupinsky, an assistant coach with Connecticut’s Danbury Hat Tricks of the Federal Hockey League, recently delivered a pointed speech to his team as training camp opened.

“Listen up for a second,” Krupinsky said. “First day of camp. Something really important. We’re not women’s soccer. We’re not the NFL. If there’s anybody here that’s gonna be disrespectful to either the American or the Canadian national anthem, grab your gear, and get the f— out now. ‘Because you’ll never see the ice in this arena. We don’t have that problem in hockey. We’re better than that. But there’s no sense in wasting anybody’s time if that s— was gonna happen. I don’t believe it would happen here. We’re the most patriotic sport that they have out there. Just keep that in mind, thank you.”

His speech has gone viral, and interestingly it was apparently given squarely in the middle of the U.S. Women’s National Team’s run to the World Cup championship. How refreshing! Hooray for Coach Krupinsky.

If anybody on the Hat Tricks hockey team feels strongly about presumed. social issues then he clearly has a choice to make. Either do not play hockey for the Hat Tricks, or put on your big boy pants, play hockey, and keep your issues to yourself, out of the public eye. 

I am a big soccer fan, and I like to watch the games. I do not enjoy seeing or hearing supposed grown-ups pouting and acting out for some fuzzy causes, especially if the acting out is occurring when they are representing the USA. I did not watch the Women’s World Cup final. I did not watch any of the postgame shenanigans. I did not watch the parade in New York . . . no desire to do any of the above. I did, however, watch the U.S. Men’s Soccer Team play Mexico that same Sunday night. There were no shenanigans, no protests by either side. I got what I tuned in to see . . . good soccer!

Now that all of the hoopla about the Women’s World Cup is hopefully over, I have a few questions for the U.S. team, in general, and the players in particular. 

Is there a “Coach Krupinsky” in the U.S.A. women’s soccer higher echelon? At this point we know that the actual coach would not, could not, or was told that she should not stand up to the acting out by some of the players. So now the question is whether or not anybody is now going to do anything similar to what coach Krupinsky did? If so, now is the time! No one in the NFL had the courage to stand up to the kneeling players, and that did end well for the NFL, and the commissioner ended up looking like a fool!

The second question is about the rest of the players on the team. I understand that it would not have been a smart thing to have team dissension during the middle of a grueling international tournament. (Let the adult-adolescent captain act out, but let’s focus on soccer.) However, the World Cup is now over.

From my perception, either the entire team or most of the team agrees with Rapinoe, and has opinions similar to Rapinoe . . . or they don’t. And if they don’t, now is the time for them to speak up. When they get invited to the White House to meet with President Trump, are some or perhaps a large number of them going to go? Or are they going to follow the Pied Piper, Megan Rapinoe, like young children . . . right out of town; alternatively are they going to stand up and speak their own mind. This is important because their actions could well determine the fate of women’s professional soccer in the U.S. Even more important for the female soccer players, if the team is viewed as anti-American flag, and anti-National Anthem, this could well doom their striving for comparable pay. Most of the women on this team have gone to college, and presumably understand that in essence the public pay their salaries, as it is the public that pay to go to the games. Public opinion counts! Are fathers and mothers in the Heartland going to take their daughters to a game and have to watch demonstrably anti-American female soccer players? Are they going to pay to listen to potty-mouths like Rapinoe. I don’t think so!

Now is the time for all good women soccer players to come to the aid of their country. 🇺🇸

“A closed mouth gathers no foot!”

Oops? No, as this was not a mistake, but rather a unique juxtaposition of phrases that was seen on a billboard. However, this mixed metaphor immediately reminded me of Colin Clown-pernick, and his recent statement that purportedly had something to do with an older American flag on Nike shoes. His hypocrisy was then exposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R,TX) on Twitter.
For those of you not familiar, this is what the ex-NFL kneeler said:“What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? This Fourth of July is yours, not mine…There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.” This statement was from an 1852 speech by Frederick Douglass, a noted abolitionist.

Sen. Cruz responded as follows:“You quote a mighty and historic speech by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, but, without context.”

Two critical points: 1. “This speech was given in 1852, before the Civil War, when the abomination of slavery still existed. Thanks to Douglass and so many other heroes, we ended that grotesque evil and have made enormous strides to protecting the civil rights of everybody.”2. “Douglass was not anti-American; he was, rightly and passionately, anti-slavery. Indeed, he concluded the speech as follows: ‘Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. . . . I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from ‘the Declaration of Independence,’ the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age’.”

Oops! It appears that Mr. Clown-pernick has cherry-picked only that part of the speech that suited his purpose. My guess is that he probably read Douglass’ entire speech, but chose to ignore the ending. Alternatively, he had neither been taught at University of Nevada, Reno to finish reading anything nor that slavery was ended in the 1860s, after the Civil War.

In view of Nike’s recent example of what the word “cowardice” means, and Colin Clown-pernick’s opinion on the Betsy Ross flag, let’s go back to the Oval Office and listen in on the planning discussion for Barack Obama’s second inaugural ceremony in 2013 . . . Just for fun!
President Obama: “Let’s try to emphasize patriotism as a theme for this inauguration.”
Staff: “Do you have any ideas, sir?”
President Obama: “I want my speech at this year’s inauguration to mention our Founding Fathers, and the transition from 13 small colonies to the vast nation that we are today. Michelle has also drooped hints that I need to mention the names of more women in this speech, so make sure that Betsy Ross is mentioned at least a few times.”
Staff: “That’s a wonderful Idea, Mr. President. Just like with her school lunch program, Michelle seems to always have her finger on the pulse of the nation!”
President Obama: “We also are going to need some visual displays that will be captured by our friends at CNN and MSNBC, and will at the same time emphasize my patriotism. I took a lot of heat from Fox when I stopped wearing the flag pin on my lapel, so I want something that will be the opposite. Perhaps big American flags on display above my head.”
Staff: “Another stroke of genius, sir.”
President Obama: “I am visualizing five huge American flags high above my head with the flag in the center positioned directly me while I am speaking. And to tie everything together . . . Betsy Ross, the American flag, and my patriotism, how about having three present day flags in the center flanked by two Betsy Ross flags, one on each end.”
Staff: “Brilliant!”
President Obama:  “I figure with the 13 stars on her flag, it’s another way to tie together the growth from the 13 colonies to the present 50 states, err . . . it is 50, not 57, right?”
Staff: “Yes, 50 is correct, sir. And together with your speech, these flags will leave a wonderful and lasting impression!”
President Obama: “I think it’s really important to take into account the impression that kind of symbol would have for many of our fellow Americans.” (FYI, this exact line was possibly plagiarized by Beto O’Rourke just in the last few days!)
Staff: “Just to be on the safe side, is there anybody that could possibly be offended by this type of display?”
President Obama: “I do not think so. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) says that the flag is “innocuous” and has been used by people mostly for patriotic purposes. A senior research fellow for the group’s Center on Extremism, has told the Associated Press that the flag is most commonly used by people for patriotic purposes. (Again, FYI: Probably just by coincidence an opinion by the ADL and the statement by Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the group’s Center on Extremism were restated again in the last few days!)
Staff: “Okay then, Mr. President, we’ll go with it just as you have outlined.”

Now that you have read the inside poop on what happened in the Oval Office back in Jan. 2013, google “American flag display at Barack Obama’s 2013 inauguration” . . .  just for fun!

The other day I read an interesting article in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. Next to the first paragraph was a picture of a politician with blondish hair, dressed in a dark suit, talking with and giving the thumbs-up sign to an older gentleman. A line in the initial paragraph read as follows: A statesman once opined, “Never trust people who lead a one-dimensional political life. They are dull and dangerous.” Immediately an image of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi popped into my head. The gentleman about whom the article was written is obviously not dull and obviously not one-dimensional. The tip-off that this was not about Donald Trump was that in the accompanying picture his tie was not tied in a Windsor knot.

This particular article article was about Boris Johnson, who is the favorite to be the next leader of the British Conservative Party and the prime minister of the U.K. I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about the politics in the U.K., but many of the lines in the article referring to Mr. Johnson could easily have been written, referring to Mr. Trump.

-He has been married and divorced in the past, and the woman that he is living with is      considerably younger than him.

-Mr. Johnson is a bit eccentric and has an unusual hobby. (I assume that his Twitter    use could be considered an unusual hobby for Mr. Trump.)

– “Britain is in the grip of Boris Neurosis. It is a psychological condition much like the     Trump Derangement Syndrome that has about half of the populace in paroxysms of fear and loathing – the metropolitan, cultural, media and academic elites in     particular.”

– “Every hour of every day on the BBC and elsewhere in the main U.K.media someone      seems to be expressing revulsion at the personality of Mr. Johnson and his utter      unsuitability for high office.” (Substitute CNN and U.S. mainstream media for BBC     and main U.K media)

– Mr. Johnson’s wit and charisma are widely liked outside the BBC-Westminster    bubble. (Again substitute CNN/MSNBC-Washington bubble.)

To sum it up, it appears that Boris Johnson speaks the language of the people as does President Trump!

In many sports, you can find betting odds and point spreads. For example, the New England Patriots could be favored by 7 points over the Buffalo Bills, or the Patriots are 3:2 favorites over the Bills. There are no polls in the world of sport’s predicting. No one at  ESPN, ABC, or Fox is calling one thousand people to get their opinion on who is going to win the Patriots-Bills game.

In the world of politics it is the opposite. There are numerous polls just about every week on just about everything including the 2020 presidential election. The problem is that in the past polls have been sometimes unreliable and at times far from accurate for a variety of reasons, but this is all we have . . .  or is it? Is there a betting line or odds on the 2020 presidential election, and what is the difference between betting line odds and a poll?

The key difference between a betting market and a poll is this – a poll is a snapshot of voter intention at any given time, often including those who are undecided, with an average sample size in the thousands. A betting market is a global future prediction pool, updating in real time, factoring in the opinion of millions of individuals forecasting an event – backing up their opinion with their own cash. In the past, starting in 1868, betting on presidential elections was legal in the U.S. Back then the betting was done predominately by wealthy U.S. politicians and entertainers. How did they do? In 11 of 15 elections the betters were right, and in the 4 that they lost, they predicted a tight margin. However, betting on presidential elections has been illegal since the 1930s, so I guess we are left only with polls . . . or are we?

Although political betting is currently illegal in the U.S., it  is alive and well in other markets. In fact, US-Bookies.com predicted via press release on 6/25/19 that over $100 million will be spent in the 2020 race, “making it the biggest non-sports betting event of all time.”The website US-Bookies.com uses millions of betting dollars worldwide to provide market trends. It specializes in U.S. politics and who wagerers think will win at any given time. A spokesman for them said. “The money wagered on each candidate dictates the odds and therefore the percent chance, based on simple laws of supply and demand. In 2016, some election simulators and polls gave Trump under a 2% chance of success, while the betting market comfortably gave the president anywhere between a 25% and 40% chance of success.”

US-Bookies.com posts probabilities which are derived from “bet365”, a U.K. betting market. In the U.K. this type of betting is legal, regulated, and very large. The odds are converted to more user friendly percents. As of  6/29/19 Donald Trump a 43% chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This is up from 31.5% on 6/27 and up from 27.5% on 6/1/19. Of the Democratic candidates as of 6/29/19 Biden is at 15.1%, Harris is at 11.3%, and Warren is at 10%. In a straight-up battle with Biden, Trump still enjoys 51.2 to 48.8 percent lead over the former Vice President.

Updated odds as of 7/2/19 (in Britain):

Trump = 45.2%

Harris = 12.9%

Biden = 11.3%

Warren = 9%

I may have to contact my friend in Liverpool and see if I can put some money on the favorite!

The other day I referred to the Democratic debates as soporific and made an allusion to Rip Van Winkle, the classic 1819 short story by Washington Irving. In this tale Rip Van Winkle fell asleep and awoke 20 years later to discover the dramatic changes that had occurred while he was asleep, namely the American Revolution and its after effects. Most noticeable was that England’s King George was no longer in charge of the now new United States, and thus his small town at the foot of the Catskill Mountains was no longer considered “English.”

Imagine what things would look like if you had fallen asleep for nine years prior to the upcoming 2020 election. The biggest differences from your pre-sleep U.S.A. in 2019, and the “new and different” U.S.A. in 2028 were a consequence of the 2020 election  in which Elizabeth Warren had been elected as the President in a different type of American revolution.

First of all, using her sobriquet, “Pocahauntas,” had been outlawed by decree, and a mere slip of the tongue was now punishable by having to spend 6 months “teaching” at the now universal “preschool,” which was actually just free childcare starting at 6 weeks of age. It was rumored that some actually said “Pocahauntas” on purpose, because “babysitting” at the free universal childcare centers paid the standard minimum wage which had grown to $22.50 per hour, and this was better than being unemployed. The new normal GNP increase hovered at around 0.25%. Amazon, Google, and Facebook were things of the past as President Warren had fulfilled her vendetta against big business. Unfortunately, as a consequence of her animosity to Wall Street and to business in general, the stock market had taken quite a hit and the DJIA had only recently recovered some, now down to only 20% below what it had been prior to the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

Throughout the U.S. especially on the coasts, most youths spent most of their days just hanging out, smoking pot which was now legal federally. Yes, they all had college degrees and were debt free, but there were few jobs.  However everything was not bleak as one of the new entrepreneurial businesses would hold a spot for you in the line to see a physician’s assistant for an hourly fee. Because of Medicare-for-all and the abolishment of private medical insurance, schools for physician assistants had been booming, especially with the closure of many now free medical schools, and the retirement of upwards of 50% of practicing older physicians. Again a job as an underpaid physician assistant, earning the minimal wage, was better than no job at all, as in 2028 the unemployment rate had become pretty steady at 9%.

Upon awakening in 2028 and seeing the disastrous consequences of the 2020 Warren election, the first question might be, “How did Warren ever get re-elected in 2024?” The simple answer to that question would be “the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote in 2023.” At that time the Democrats convinced all of the pot-smoking, debt-free, unemployed youth that “the popular vote was the only fair way to decide an election.” However, some would argue that the abolition of ICE, and the establishment of a truly open border in 2022 played a significant role in Warren’s 2024 re-election, especially in view of the fact that all illegals were granted the right to vote in 2023!

But be not dismayed, as the Democrats are guaranteeing that things can only get significantly better after the election of Vice President Kamala Harris in 2028!
“WAKE UP NOW, AMERICA!”

It is from a sense of guilt or from some form of altruism that a group of nearly 20 wealthy Americans on 6/24/19  released a letter asking for all 2020 presidential hopefuls to support a “moderate wealth tax” on the richest one-tenth of the richest 1 percent of Americans. To me, this is a very slippery slope. First, the richest 0.01, then the richest 0.1%, then the richest 1% . . . then what ?

The New York Times reported that the letter in part stated, “America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more. A wealth tax could help address the climate crisis, improve the economy, improve health outcomes, fairly create opportunity, and strengthen our democratic freedoms.” The letter was signed by financier George Soros, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, heirs like Abigail Disney and others.

Of course those on the left will support almost any “tax the rich” proposal, and this letter specifically highlights Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) plan to tax “only 75,000 of the wealthiest families in the country,” and it cites South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) as being “already supportive of the idea” of a tax on the wealthiest citizens. Now I am not one of the “only” 75,000 who would be lucky enough to fall under the net of these liberal politicians, but I say to anyone, including Mr. Soros, “If you feel that the rich, like you, do not pay enough in taxes, then put up or shut up! Lead by example! Donate some of your excessive wealth to the government. Perhaps, many of the other uber rich will then follow your lead and do the same!”

A friend of mine donates 5% of his earnings to charity. He does not preach to others that they should do the same. He just does it because he feels that it is the right thing to do. Although neither the Mayor nor Beto are in Warren’s “lucky 75,000,” they are not destitute and I would suggest to them, “donate some of your money to the government; lead by example!”

On the other hand, President Trump is donating his entire salary to different causes. In March, 2019 he revealed that he donated a quarter of his $400,000 salary to the Department of Homeland Security. 

“While the press doesn’t like writing about it, nor do I need them to, I donate my yearly Presidential salary of $400,000.00 to different agencies throughout the year, this to Homeland Security,” Trump tweeted. What he did not tweet was: “All rich Washington politicians, especially those in the House and the Senate should follow my example and be donating a significant portion of their wealth or perhaps their entire salary to, for instance, help pay down the federal deficit. Do you hear me, Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Warren!”

“Help me, Rhonda!” Not the song by the 1965 Beach Boys, but just my way of requesting help for something I do not understand, namely measles in the U.S. and why the significant increase in the number of cases this year.
The CDC is reporting 1044 cases of measles in the United States thus far in 2019. This is the greatest number of cases reported in the U.S. since 1994, when 963 cases were reported for the entire year. Why the recent increase in the number of cases? Some would try to blame that increase, especially in Brooklyn, on religious exemptions, but I have not seen any figures documenting that the number of religious exemptions has dramatically increased. Certainly some parents are fearful of potential side effects, and choose not to have their child vaccinated, but I am not aware of this number significantly increasing.

As most of us know, measles is basically a highly contagious childhood viral infection that has occasional severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). Children younger than 5 years of age and adults older than 20 years of age are more likely to suffer from complications, and about 1 in 5 unvaccinated people in the U.S. who get measles are hospitalized. The key word in this last statement is “unvaccinated.” 

Once quite common, measles can now almost always be prevented with a vaccine. The measles vaccine has been in use for over 50 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. It costs approximately one US dollar to immunize a child against measles. Two doses of the vaccine are recommended to ensure immunity and prevent outbreaks, as about 15% of vaccinated children fail to develop immunity from the first dose. Most people born before 1957 have been exposed to measles and have immunity. Those born after 1957, but before 1964 may not have immunity as the vaccine came along in 1963, but in general those that are susceptible to measles are unvaccinated. Again, the key word is “unvaccinated.”

So let’s try to use some common sense here. The number of measles cases in the U.S. is up dramatically this year, and there have been outbreaks in 28 states. Some outbreaks, e.g. the one in Newark, have been due to unvaccinated travelers in airports, and in some, the index case was in someone who travelled from afar, as in Washington State where the initial case was in a child, almost surely unvaccinated, who had come from Ukraine. However, I have not seen any data suggesting that there are more travelers to the U.S. this year.

It seems to me that one key point has been missing, or perhaps purposely not reported in this outbreak story. One unvaccinated individual can get measles, but an outbreak only occurs when that initial individual passes the virus to other unvaccinated individuals. Is there a reason why there might be a significant increase in unvaccinated people in the U.S. compared to years past? There is, of course, an obvious answer to that question . . . an increase in the number of individuals, a lot of whom are most likely unvaccinated, coming in droves across our southern border. To put things in perspective, $800,000 was spent containing one potential outbreak in Clark County, Washington, and this was only one of the multiple outbreaks across 28 different states. Perhaps this money could have been better spent vaccinating 800,000 illegal immigrants.

Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) used to be one of my favorite opinion writers. I would look forward to her weekend piece, and would immediately find and read her column every Saturday morning. But then Donald Trump got elected, and Ms. Noonan became a chameleon. This must have been a truly traumatic experience for Ms. Noonan, as the quality of her writing seemed to go steadily downhill. No matter what her primary topic was, almost every week she would hit a mogul and would segue into Trump bashing. It got old, and recently I would often not read her opinion piece at all.

But then it happened. On 6/15/19 she wrote a common sense piece that was chockfull of good advice. I have taken the liberty of quoting her as follows:

“Now and then a country needs to get slapped.”

“A great nation can’t function cut in two, with half the nation at the other half’s throats. It can’t go forward in history that way; it must be one thing or the other, as Lincoln said.”

“You can’t insult the very idea off democracy and say, Oh well this is hard, so we’ll have a do-over on the vote, and hope that the people will have a different outcome. You have to accept the result and forge ahead.”
I was encouraged. Finally Ms. Noonan was coming around to a pro-Trump position! But as we all are aware it is always much easier to give advice to others than it is to apply that same advice to your own situation. “This is how you should raise your kids.” “This is how you should invest your money.” Etc.

Sure enough Ms. Noonan was finding it easy to give advice to some other country, namely Great Britain vis-a-vis on how to proceed with Brexit, when in fact she could have suggested these same bits of wisdom to our Democrat politicians . . . perhaps on border immigration, perhaps on fetal heartbeat and abortion, perhaps on the wisdom of expanding the welfare state.

Again to quote Ms. Noonan with some advice for politicians, “Stop whingeing it. You were hired to lead the people. If you are not talented enough to do that, you can at least follow them.”

Is this a one-and-done opinion piece for Ms. Noonan? Are we merely seeing another side of the Noonan-chameleon? Will she return next week to bashing President Trump?