http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Me: “I’m busy!”
They: “How can you be sure that you are busy on those two nights? The nights in question are about 10 days away. Certainly you can’t be busy on both nights. You don’t even know what time on either night.”
Me: “I’m pretty sure that I’m busy!”
They: “Well you surely can record the programs on both nights, and then watch them at your leisure any time during the following week.”
Me: “Sorry, no can do, as I’m busy for the entire following week. Besides I do not even know which channel MSNBC is on my cable.”
They: “Well, no doubt, there will be plenty in the newspapers in the days following the debates, and you can read about the witty comments and put-downs from each of the twenty candidates. It is likely to be very exciting!”
Me: “Unlikely that I will have time to read about the debates, as I’m very busy on both the 27th and the 28th. It might be amusing to read about “the day-after espirit de l’escaliers” of the participants, but these private thoughts will not see the light of day.”
They: I am super excited about the upcoming Democratic debates on June 26 & 27, and might even host a victory party of sorts of both nights.”
Me: “I looked at the scheduled participants on both nights, and an “Ambien-party” might be more exciting on the 26th. Yawn! Who are Tim Ryan, John Delaney, Jay Inslee, and Tulsi Gabbard? . . . can anyone imagine the president of the U.S. with a first name of “Tulsi”? Probably the biggest anticipation will be to see if anyone takes a shot at Pocahauntas, who seems to be the only one of the front-runners on that first night. But again, I’m busy!”
They: “Perhaps, after looking at the scheduled challengers on the first night, I will have my victory party on the second night, as this is where the real excitement will be.”
Me: “Help me here. WTF . . . who are Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennet, Eric Swalwell, and John Hickenlooper? Can anyone imagine a President Yang or a President Hickenlooper? Who are these twiddle-dums? . . . Yawn!”
They: “I agree that there are some sleepers on the 27th, but I can hardly wait to see Biden and Sanders face-off against Buttigieg and Harris – the old versus the new, the experienced versus the non-experienced.”
Me: “Like I have said, ‘I’m busy!” In fact I will be watching something a lot more exciting that night . . . the sunset!”

In the past few days two things caught my attention on the sport’s page because they demonstrated two extremes in the politics-sports dichotomy.

The Good:  Simon Pagenaud. 

After a behind-the-scenes tour of the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Pagenaud and the team spent about an hour with the president. They chatted about racing and posed for photos inside the oval office and outside the White House in front of Pagenaud’s winning car.

Pagenaud said, “He was very knowledgeable about racing. He knew all about Indianapolis. I don’t know what I should be saying or not,” Pagenaud laughed, “but he was very interested in knowing the strategy that was in my head the last 15 laps. It’s very rare that someone has so much interest in the sport like that. It’s very rare that you could keep their attention for so long. So I was very pleased and I was very impressed by the president.”

“To me, when the president of the biggest country in the world invites you to reward you for sports achievements, I think all politics aside, you say yes,” Pagenaud said. “Because it’s a recognition of your work, it’s a recognition of the hard work that was behind it. It’s very symbolic. It’s something that you can’t say no to, in my opinion. I think because it’s sports, you have to put aside any political views. It had nothing to do with politics.”

Good for Pagenaud. Good for NASCAR!

The Ugly: Megan Rapinoe

U.S Women’s National Soccer team co-captain Megan Rapinoe stood silent with her arms behind her back as the rest of the U.S. team placed their hands over their hearts and sang the Star-Spangled Banner ahead of the 6/11/19 game in Reims, France.

The 33-year-old U.S. star kept a stony demeanor as the rest of her team sang the Star-Spangled Banner in the Auguste-Delaune Stadium. Rapinoe had already warned that she would “never sing the anthem again.” Apparently she views her disrespectful actions as some sort of Trump protest. Her stoic selfishness made all the more blatant as it occurred in France where 75 years ago, almost to the day, thousands of Americans lost their lives on D-Day., and Reims is a mere 4 hour drive from Normandy! “FYI, Ms. Rapinoe, President Trump wasn’t even born on D-Day!”                                 

Bad for Megan Rapinoe. Worse for Women’s Soccer!

The Bad: Potentially bad for women’s soccer

The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team is favored to win this year’s World Cup, but you can be sure that if they do win, many will not care as they will have been turned of by the actions of the co-captain, Ms. Rapinoe. It will be too bad if the T.V. ratings for these soccer games are less than anticipated . . . remember what happened to the T.V. ratings after the N.F.L. players pulled their kneeling protests. Her actions being all the more unfortunate, occurring  at a time when women’s soccer is trying to get paid on a scale with men’s soccer. I like women’s soccer, but I will not pay to see Rapinoe play.

“It is glaringly apparent that many who support the present administration are either racist, steeped in religious beliefs, ignorant, or as my mother used to say, ‘just plain dumb’.”

This sounds eerily similar to what Hillary Clinton said about Trump supporters (“basket of deplorables”) prior to her defeat in 2016. (“Basket of deplorables” is a phrase from a 2016 presidential election campaign speech delivered by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton  on September 9, 2016, at a campaign fundraising event, which she used to describe half of the supporters of her opponent, Republican nominee Donald  Trump.) So who made this initial statement about those who support the present administration? It was Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), who tried to challenge Pelosi for the House speakership. She read a constituent letter that trashed Trump supporters on the House floor on 6/11/19. Why would she read such a thing on the House floor? Does she not realize that this sort of commentary will just fire up potential Trump voters in Ohio. A Trump victory in Ohio is critical to his re-election in 2020.

Keep talking, Marcia!

On the same day as Rep. Fudge read this obviously anti-Trump voter statement on the House floor, thus, in essence, making it her own, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley College again saying things that can only come back to hurt Democrats in 2020. In a speech during an alumni event, she insinuated that Trump’s America could be more dangerous than…Nazi Germany. Now this may play well with the partisan Wellesley crowd, but this sort of comment can only fire up potential Trump voters in 2020. 

Keep talking, Hillary!

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg criticized President Donald Trump on Tuesday for turning the United States into a country that looked more like Russia. “Russia nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia, and repression of the press are both highly disturbing in that country and disturbingly ascendent in our own country,” Buttigieg warned.

I understand that for some reason unbeknownst to me, the mayor of South Bend is on the campaign trail, and he needs to play to his audience, but again this sort of bombastic rhetoric can only fire up potential Trump voters in 2020.

Keep talking, Mayor!

These bonehead statements came after Joe Biden stuck his foot in his mouth again. He made a campaign promise to “cure” cancer if elected president in 2020 during an event in the state of Iowa on 6/10/19.

“I’ve worked so hard in my career, that I promise you, if I’m elected president you’re gonna see the single most important thing that changes America, we’re gonna cure cancer,” Biden told supporters in Ottumwa, Iowa. At least he didn’t proclaim that he invented the Internet, but Joe, “really!”

Keep talking, Joe! 

From Wikipedia:Shakespeare’s phrase, “hoisted with his own petard” is an idiom that means “to be harmed by one’s own plan” or “to fall into one’s own trap.”For those of you, (including myself until I looked it up) who do not know what a “petard” is. A petard an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, or to form a breach in a wall, etc., and sometimes it backfired and it blew up and killed those who were setting it up.

As almost everyone knows, California, especially in its Central Valley, has a very large agricultural economy. There are many crops to pick, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, agriculture employed a year-round average of 70,000 workers in California last year. Who picks these crops? In years past these agricultural workers were mainly illegals, mainly single men, who would live cheaply so that they could send most of their earning home. Local communities as well as the state of California have turned a blind eye to these illegals, and now there is a problem (acting a bit like a petard). In some Central Valley towns, apartment rents have risen approximately 28% since 2015. Who are renting a large number of these apartments? . . . illegal farm workers. Why such a significant increase?

As with most economic questions, the answer usually revolves around “supply and demand,” and this is no different. For years in California the supply of low income housing has not kept up with its population growth, due partially to state and local regulations (another petard?) In addition in recent years there has been an increasing group of agricultural workers with H-2A visas, and thus an increasing demand for limited housing. According to that same WSJ article, use of the H-2A visa program has been steadily increasing in California in recent years with the Labor Department certifying nearly 19,000 applications in 2018, up 24%.Employers have been hiring more of these H-2A visa workers as they are more dependable compared to illegals, who can be deported, and who have been having more difficulty getting back into the U.S. if they return to their home country.

Okay so H-2A visa workers have been replacing illegals . . . why does that effect the cost of housing? Actually, the answer is quite simple – employers are required to provide housing for their H-2A visa workers, and this requirement drives up demand for and subsequently drives up the cost of housing. Landlords who own the apartments, prefer H-2A workers, because farmers are willing to pay higher rents in order to house these H-2A workers, and do so more reliably. One farmer planned to use his own farmland to construct housing for his H-2A workers, but California’s strict environmental regulations precluded him from doing so (another petard?).

What are the consequences for these illegal workers who now cannot afford housing? The short answer is that they either return to their home country, or they become homeless. And because of California’s liberal social handout programs ( yet again, another petard!) most stay and become part of an ever increasing homeless population. 

Can anybody think of a sport, a contest, a match, or a game in which one of the participants gains an advantage by breaking the rules? Out-and-out breaking of the rules should be and usually is overseen and disallowed by the referee or the umpire. Certainly some will try to bend the rules to their own advantage, but it is very unusual, or perhaps even unheard of, to have someone admit to breaking the rules and yet argue that breaking the rules is “fair play!” Well, welcome to the Democrat’s playbook when we are talking about the 2020 census and the present legal protestation by the Democrats, vis-a-vis states where the Democrats are in charge.

As you are all probably aware, the issue is about whether a question about citizenship can be allowed on the 2020 census. Here the Dems admit to breaking the rules when it comes to enforcing laws that would tend to punish and deport illegals, and they are concerned that merely asking a question about citizenship will discourage these non-citizens from filling out a census form. And here is where the breaking of the rules leads to a big advantage for these rule-breaking states, for the way the standards are written now, it is the total population, not the legal number of citizens, that determine representation in the House of Representatives. The Dems think that it is right for a state to have more representation in Congress, because that state sanctions thousands, and perhaps millions of illegals living within its borders. (On 6/11/1929, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depends on its population.)

Think about the logic (illogic) of this: State A gets more representation in Congress than State B because State A has a larger population; even though State A has many more illegals than State B, it doesn’t matter. These “extra” representatives from State A can now argue (vote in Congress) for issues that favor the illegals over the actual citizens in State B. All other things being equal, State A gets relatively more representatives, and that means that State B gets relatively less of the total of 435.

So that brings us back to the original question: Can anybody think of a sport, a contest, a match, or a game in which one of the participants gains an advantage by breaking the rules? Ans: Of course not, as that would be stupid!

6/6/19

President Obama certainly seemed to be a believer in the “everybody should be able to go to college“ school of thought. At a Democratic National Committee event, June 23, 2011 he said, “We still have so much more work to do on education. We have made great strides, but we have to hit the goal that I set that once again we will have the highest proportion of college graduates of any country in the world.” He remarked at the Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables, Fla., Feb. 23, 2012. “When kids graduate, I want them to be able to afford to go to college. If they’ve been working hard, if they’ve gotten the grades to go to college, I don’t want them to cut their dreams short because they don’t think they can afford it.” At the Weekly Address by President Obama on 8/16/14, he said, “And so as President, I’m working to make sure young people like Elizabeth can go to college without racking up mountains of debt. We reformed a student loan system so that more money goes to students instead of big banks.” 
To set the record straight ahead of time:

-I do not believe that everybody should go to college.

-When considering college it behooves every applicant to understand how he/she is  going to pay for that college education.

-If the cost of a college education is beyond one’s means, go to a community college first and get a part time job while going to school.

-Consider joining the military first so that it can aid you with your college expenses.

-Do not, and I repeat . . . do not go into significant debt in order to pursue your college    dream, and do not expect your parents to borrow money to pay for your college.

So keeping my thoughts in mind, I would have to say to President Obama, “Oops!”    For perhaps, as a consequence of his enthusiasm for his “everyone should be able to go to college,” many, many of today’s college graduates are in deep financial holes from which they may never dig out. 
There was a disturbing article last month in the Wall Street Journal on the sad situation about student loan payback at historically black colleges and universities (HBCU). The fact that this article was about HBCU is particularly relevant, because of the enormous influence President Obama had and still has with black youth. Granted white youths also have significant debt because of student loans, but as this article pointed out that attendees at these HBUC schools “have been hit particularly hard by the student-debt crisis,” as on average those from HBCU schools are further in debt. HBCU alumni have a median federal-debt load of about $29,000 at graduation – 32% above graduates at other public and non-profit four year schools. Even worse “the majority of HBCU grads haven’t paid even $1 of their original loan balance in the first few years out of school.” One wonders if these non loan-balance payers understand the basic concept of principle and interest. Oops!

Now granted the indebted students that have graduated from an HBCU school are really no different than indebted students that have graduated from non-HBCU schools, except that “many HBCU schools see a mandate in giving opportunity to disadvantaged youth, who often start out with fewer financial resources and a diminished ability to pay.” The WSJ article tells the stories of various individual HBCU graduates as well as stories of HBCU graduate’s families who are in dire straits because of these student loans. At this point I have to wonder if that HBCU college education debt is going to be worth it. Have those with a diminished ability pay been done a service or a disservice? Will this federal-debt be a millstone around their necks for many years, decades, or even forever? When will they be able to start a family? Will they ever be able to buy a house? I have empathy for these individuals, but perhaps the decision to go to college was misguided in the first place. One wonders if those who acted as their cheerleaders understand the concept of principle and interest! Oops!

On May 30 my local newspaper had a large picture of a small infant accompanying a front page headline that said, “SMALL BUT MIGHTY, BABY BEATS ODDS; Premie born at 8.6 ounces is the tiniest infant ever to survive.” The infant was delivered by C-section at 23 weeks gestation in December, 2018 because of the mother’s life threatening preeclampsia. The story goes on to detail the various reasons why premies this small usually do not survive, but this premie girl beat the odds and has gone home. To me this story on the front page is somewhat oxymoronic for this ultra liberal local newspaper that usually leans far to the left on just about anything. Could this represent a small, but potentially mighty change in the attitude of this liberal “paper.” Highlighting that a 8.6 oz. 23 week gestation premie is alive, well, and now home is a bit odd in the context of the recent continued leftward-shift on abortion being promulgated by various state legislatures.

As pointed out by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List:“Take for example the sweeping abortion billDemocrats in the Illinois legislature are trying to ram through in the last days of their session. This bill would create a “fundamental right” to abortion, wiping out all sorts of modest limits Illinois has on the books and effectively expanding abortion on demand (already paid for by taxpayers) through the moment of birth and even infanticide. It repeals the state’s ban on grisly partial-birth abortions; since the federal ban still applies, it seems this was intended to make a statement about values. It also allows non-doctors to perform abortions, removes conscience protections for pro-life health care workers, and would force all private health insurance plans to cover abortion – including religious organizations. This bill is even more radical than the law signed by New York’s Governor Cuomo and the failed bill proposed by a Virginia legislator earlier this year.”

According to the latest polling (May 17-20,2019) 45% of Independents believe that abortion should be generally available to those who want it, while 36% think that abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now, and 17 % feel that abortion should not be permitted. These Independent stats have not changed much over the last 15 years, but now the more radical abortion laws these different state legislatures pass (e.g. Illinois), the more the Independents will back away. With more radical things like partial birth abortion, and infanticide, it’s easy to predict a shifting of the of Independents’ thinking more toward abortion with stricter limits than it is now. A small, but potentially mighty change. For those of us who are against abortion this shift can only be good.

“Houston, we have a problem” is a popular but erroneous quotation from the radio communications between the Apollo 13 astronaut John Swigert and the NASA Mission Control Center during the Apollo 13 spaceflight, as the astronauts communicated their discovery of the explosion that crippled their spacecraft. 

“Denver, we have a problem.” This could well be the response from U.S. Attorney General William Barr in response to a letter written to him from Denver Democratic Mayor Michael Hancock about a problem. No, just because Mr. Hancock is a mayor doesn’t mean that he is adding his name to the list of unqualified presidential candidates ! Rather his letter basically was asking the U.S. Attorney General to not do his job . . . more specifically not to enforce federal law. Here we are speaking of one ramification of the problem that Colorado law and Federal law are at odds when it comes to marijuana. Everyone knew that eventually this would be a major problem, if not with Colorado, then with one of the other ten states and D.C. that have legalized marijuana or one of the fourteen states that have decriminalized it, as marijuana is still classified as an illegal substance federally. The problem as addressed in the mayor’s letter involves immigrants who legally use marijuana in Colorado or who work in the Colorado cannibas industry. These permanent residents can be denied citizenship by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, even though marijuana use is legal in Colorado.

This dilemma initially arose because during the Obama era, the federal government eased up on enforcing federal laws against marijuana, however closing one’s eyes like a toddler trying to hide while playing hide-and-seek does not make a problem go away. Subsequently while he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stopped playing hide-and-seek and rightfully opened his eyes when he stated that it was part of his job to enforce federal law.

What little I know about William Barr makes me think that it very unlikely that a letter from a Democratic lightweight mayor would persuade this Attorney General not to enforce federal laws. I am sympathetic to the plight of these legal immigrants who are caught up in this game of monkey in the middle. Perhaps Congress should seriously address this issue instead of frivolously searching for phantom collusion, etc.! The longer Congress shirks it’s responsibility, the more likely we will hear, “Boston, we have a problem” or “L.A., we have a problem” or “Seattle we have a problem,” etc.!

This year Memorial Day weekend has turned out to be different and unique for me because of three separate things, all of which happened over the last day or so. What makes these three unrelated things even more eerie is that each is a “Michael-thing,” as I will explain. 

The first “Michael-thing” was sent to me in an e-mail by a acquaintance of mine, Michael Mc. It was a YouTube video entitled “Price for Freedom,” which was a display of multiple cemeteries, mainly scattered throughout Europe (Italy, 4402; Luxembourg, 5076; Sicily, 7861; Netherlands, 8301; multiple areas in France with thousands of graves in each) and also in North Africa and the Philippines (16,366). Set to the music of “Hymn to the Fallen” by John Williams, each of these cemeteries had row upon row of graves marked only by white crosses. Thousands and thousands and thousands of graves, each one for an American serviceman killed in battle. The final cemetery with its approximately 303,000 graves was Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. A truly moving video. These are the real heroes. Thank you, Michael Mc.
The second “Michael-thing” was an article in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal by Michael M. Phillips entitled The Medals They Carried, which chronicled multiple Medal of Honor recipients. For those not familiar with the Medal of Honor, it is America’s highest award for combat valor, and as the article points out, “it is both a gift and a reminder of what is often the worst day of a veteran’s life.” While detailing unbelievable acts of bravery by recipients of the Medal of Honor, the article emphasizes how difficult it is for some of these recipients to wear or even view the Medal because many of their comrades died despite their valor. These are real heroes. Thank you, Michael Phillips.
The third “Michael-thing” was pure serendipity, as yesterday when I was pushing my granddaughter in her stroller, we ran into my neighbor, Michael. Even though Michael has lived only two houses from me for about twenty years, I have never really gotten to know him. He is quiet, sometimes bordering on aloof, and on more than one occasion I have refrained from asking him about his “Oxford” scarf. Anyway yesterday for whatever reason, he was unusually garrulous and started talking about the recent 50th reunion of his Vietnam unit. He spoke of Vietnam things that he could not remember very well and also talked about the one thing he could remember very very well . . . the day that he lost thirty-five of his men during a Vietcong ambush. He was a medic, and thirty-five of his comrades were killed in a single afternoon . . . “I could not save them, and I still wake up nights, terrified, in a sweat, even though it’s been fifty years!” Where did this catharsis come from? Why did I never suspect that my neighbor was a Vietnam War hero? Thank you, Michael.
I consider myself a big backer of the military. Even though I was in the Navy for many years, I was never in combat, and never had to put my life on the line. Perhaps that is why I never stand at athletic events when the PA announcer asks that all veterans stand in order to be recognized. I stay sitting so that I can applaud the real heroes, like those buried in unmarked graves marked only by white crosses, those who have distinguished themselves by their acts of unheralded bravery, and those like my neighbor, Michael.
5/27/19

On Thursday, 5/23/19, at her weekly “Days of Our Life” press briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters she is concerned for the well-being of President Donald Trump.

While standing next to Schumer, who is looking more drained and sluggish by the day, Nancy said, “We don’t want it to be partisan now, but I can only think he wasn’t up to the task of figuring out the difficult choices of how to cover the cost of infrastructure legislation that we had talked about . . . I pray for the president of the United States. I wish his family, his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.”

Does she actually think that anybody other than her lapdogs and of course, Sluggo Schumer, actually believe any of this drivel? Perhaps, even more important does she actually believe any of this drivel? (If she sincerely believes any of this, then maybe we should be praying for her!) 

I suspect that she purposely insulted President Trump just before their scheduled meeting on infrastructure. Infrastructure repair and replacement is more his baby than it is hers, as it was one of his campaign promises. So why not torpedo the infrastructure meeting before it could get going? She undoubtedly suspected that her statement that morning about him covering something up would piss him off . . . and after the recent exonerating Mueller Report, it did piss him off . . . understandably. Only a fool would think that it is okay to insult someone in the morning, and then sit down with them in the afternoon and play buddy-buddy. So either she is a conniving wench or she is a fool. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she is a mere fool, as the more this Democratic intransigence persists, the more foolish she and most of the Democrats, in general, are looking.

Rumor has it that her chauffeur never even turned off the car when she exited for her meeting with the President, as he/she apparently suspected that Nancy would be back very shortly. (Another rumor has it that President Trump basically told Nancy and Sluggo Schumer something like, “I am pretty busy getting ready to go to Japan for my meeting with Shinzō Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, and so perhaps you two ‘shin-go away’!”)

According to a poll taken just today, her bit about “praying for the President” is now running a close second to syrup of ipecac when an emetic is indicated and vomiting is a necessity. Her comments about her concern for the well-being of Mr. Trump did not even move the dial one iota on her “The Days of Our Life” credibility scale. Why did she say some of these obviously unbelievably phony things?

Nancy is aware that the Dems have steadily falling numbers and that they have neither a real message nor any real ideas on the radar either now or in the foreseeable pre-2020 future! And so . . . Desperate Nancy Says Desperate Things!