Month: April 2018

Last week I brought up to one of my liberal friends that Ben Carson was one of my heroes. Ben Carson was an esteemed neurosurgeon, and now is the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. If you don’t know his story, I would strongly recommend reading one of his books in which he details his growing up in Detroit. They are easy reads, and are G-rated. They would be good reads for children and grandchildren. That got me to thinking, “Who are the heroes of today?” In order to answer that question, I reviewed the newspapers for the past week, and was surprised not only by the number of heroes, but also shocked by the words of one “anti-hero.”
(I use the term “anti-hero,” because my comments are meant to be G-rated, but actually a more apropos name would be “x*#yb¥” . . . if you know what I mean.)
First for the heroes. In the last week two deceased heroes were written about. The first was Gussie Zaks. She was a truly remarkable person. She was a Holocaust survivor who spent her time informing and lecturing to groups, mainly younger kids and teens, about the Holocaust. I happened to know her because I took care of her husband, Mike, and I can personally vouch that Gussie was a remarkable woman. I asked myself, “Why don’t politicians have the character of a Gussie Zaks?” The second deceased hero was 1st Lt. Philip Sauer who was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his courageous actions in Vietnam on 4/24/67 when he gave his life to try to save the men under his command. Why don’t politicians have the courage and the character of a Philip Sauer?
The “anti-hero” of the last week is Senator Jon Tester of Montana. He is a ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and came out against President Trump’s nominee for the head of the V.A. I can understand it if the Democratic Senator did not feel that Dr. Ronny Jackson was qualified to run the V.A., as that is what the Senate Hearings are all about. I can also understand why a liberal senator would come out against anything proposed by Trump. (I can understand it, but I still think that it is despicable in today’s political environment.) However what I can’t stomach is the outright meanness and anger that Senator Tester exhibited against someone who has spent his entire career as a military physician. I reviewed Senator Tester’s bio, and I did not find any mention of his military service! Nor did I find that the former music teacher and farmer had any expertise in medicine. To go on T.V. and make unsubstantiated malicious comments about Admiral Jackson is below disgusting in my book! If the reputation of this long term White House physician, who has served under three presidents, is damaged, he can thank Jon Tester! Why do we have politicians like Jon Tester?
Finally the heroes of the past week. There are two true heroes – one male and one female. Ladies first.
Tammie Jo Shults, the courageous pilot of the Southwest Airline plane Fl. 1380, that had a potentially disastrous occurrence at close to 30,000 feet when a piece of an engine came loose and went through a window in the passenger cabin. The cabin depressurized. All of the passengers could have easily been killed if it were not for the courage, the steady hand, and the steady nerves of the pilot. If you haven’t heard her calm radio communication with air traffic control, it is inspiring. Why can’t we have politicians with the courage and fortitude of Tammie Jo Shults?
Last but not least is perhaps the bravest hero of the past week, James Shaw Jr., who disarmed the deranged shooter at The Waffle House just outside of Nashville, Tennessee, and as a consequence saved many lives. He did not consider himself a hero, but just someone who made a split second decision to act. After watching him hesitantly speak on T.V., I thought of the dichotomy with Jon Tester who was anxious to spew his political vitriol about a good man, Dr. Ronny Jackson.

Although I don’t often give advice to President Trump, here I would advise him to invite both of these heroes, Tammie Jo Shults and James Shaw Jr., to the White House and personally commend them both.

The other day I saw an editorial by Catherine Rampell, an uber liberal who writes for the Washington Post. In the past my reading of anything by Ms. Rampell has led to something akin to nausea, but her title (“Debt bomb looms”) intrigued me. For a long time I have been concerned with the National debt of the U.S.A., and in fact have asked the following question to those who I figured would know the answer, “Where should I put my savings or at least a portion of my savings that will be safe when the sh** hits the fan with our National debt?” The answer from those that should know was typically, “I don’t know!”
Ms. Rampell actually made some good points in spelling out her concerns about the increasing National debt. However, in lockstep with her liberal tendencies, she wasted no time in criticizing the Republicans about the recent “tax-cuts for the rich.”
“Catherine, did I miss the part about the National debt increasing from $10.6 trillion to $19.7 trillion while Barack Obama was in office?” Of course, this was not mentioned in her article . . . but I digress.
She cited some source as forecasting that within a decade our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at its highest level since 1946, and commented that International Monetary Fund expected that the debt burden of the U.S.A. will get worse over the next five years. Of course, she railed against the Trump administration officials who have expressed interest in further tax cuts.
“Catherine, did I miss the part about the National debt increasing almost as much during the presidency of Barack Obama as it had during the time off all previous presidents?” Of course, this was not mentioned in her article . . . but I digress.

I agree with Ms. Rampell that the debt bomb is looming. Make no mistake about it, I was disgusted with the Republican’s recent capitulation to Schumer and Pelosi which added significantly to the deficit. When you have a liberal like Catherine Rampell truly concerned about the National debt, then I am really worried, and I wonder if economic disaster can be that far down the road?
Finally, if anyone knows of a safe place to put my savings when economic disaster strikes, please let me know – perhaps, the sooner, the better!
“Catherine, that includes you!”

Last week I saw something that I had not seen much of in many years. I saw multiple “Help Wanted” signs. I saw them at McDonald’s, Einstein’s Bagels, and at CVS. Was this apparent plethora of job openings just a coincidence or did it indicate something of more significance? I assume that you have heard the phrase “A rising tide lifts all boats,” and I think that is what is happening here. Most of these job openings and Help Wanted signs are aimed at teenagers, as the 12 month average unemployment rate for teens In March was 13.9%, the lowest year-round average since 2001 and about half that in 2010. Why?
Well in my opinion because the nation’s unemployment rate is at record low levels, those over-qualified individuals who had worked at McDonald’s, Einstein’s, and CVS have now moved up to better jobs – jobs that they were always qualified for, but now the jobs are there, whereas these jobs weren’t there before. This low teen unemployment rate extends across all races. The jobless rates for white teens is the lowest since 2001, and the jobless rates for both Hispanic and black teens are about half of what they were in 2010. Many of my friends described the various jobs they had while growing up, and just about all agree that this teenage job experience better prepared them for the real world.
What I have detailed so far are facts, most of which have come from a recent Wall Street Journal article about teen employment, but the question remains, “Why?” Well to me the answer is pretty obvious. The reason that the tide is rising is because of the economic policies of Donald Trump.
Sure the politicians, especially the Democrats, will argue that this is a fluke, a coincidence, and not related to the policies of our present president, but the sons and daughters of these big time politicians don’t need the jobs at McDonald’s, Einstein’s, or CVS because daddy owns the yacht club!

What do the following three things have in common?
1. A Broward County school district
2. San Diego city libraries
3. A private school in the northern suburbs of San Diego

Actually these three things have little in common, except for a common unifying liberal policy or principle. Note that I did not say “principal”, although if you called the head of the library system, ‘a principal’ and a school superintendent, ‘a principal’, then one could probably say that the common thing is that you have three principals with leftist principles.
Let’s discuss separately:

1. In 2013, apparently Broward County schools rewrote their disciplinary policies to make it nearly impossible to suspend, expel, or arrest students for behavioral problems including criminal activity. This strategy has been adopted by more than 50 school districts nationwide, and allows troubled students to commit crimes without legal consequence with the stated purpose to slow the “school to prison pipeline.” Of interest the Broward school Superintendent, Robert Runcie, had close ties to Barack Obama and his Education Department. His new policy promoted discipline through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses, and other “self esteem building exercises.”
One of the lead advocates for this programs was Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. In November 2013, he reportedly signed an agreement that spelled out 13 crimes that could no longer be reported to the police. Unfortunately, since then ex-students without an arrest record, could buy weapons, and also without an arrest record, the police could not corroborate tips with past arrests.
Not surprising Broward County, where Nikolas Cruz went to school, went from leading the state of Florida in student arrests to having one of the lowest school-incarceration rates in the state. If this is the parameter by which Runcie’s policy is measured, it could be considered a success . . . however, if the measured parameter is ‘lives lost’ . . . 17, then it is not!

2. San Diego city libraries will now automatically renew a book on its due date, and the book will be automatically renewed up to five times. This despite the fact that there is a three day email notification when a book is due, and the book can easily be renewed by phone or by email. What this now means is that it is almost impossible for the lender to pay a late fee. From my perspective the message to the users of the library is: “If your book is late, don’t worry. There is no need for you to take responsibility. You won’t be punished with a fine as there is no consequence for your inaction!” Officials contend that fines for returning items late create an adversarial relationship between libraries and the people that use them, and Misty Jones, San Diego’s head librarian commented that “‘Seinfeld’ did a whole show about library cops.” (I am assuming that regular readers already understand my theory about the correlation between first names and political leanings!) Uri Gneezy, a behavioral economist at U.C. San Diego feels that charging fines introduces a potentially damaging economic element into the relationship between libraries and the people that use them. (Let me try to understand this kind of position: “The library and the library user have entered into a contract of sorts. The user may use the library’s book for free for a certain period of time, but only for that specified period of time. If the user keeps the book beyond that period of time, there will be a fine . . . Whoops! Never mind. For you, the library user, forget the concept of a contract. Forget the concept of personal responsibility. Forget the fine.”) If Uri and Misty feel that a fine of 30 cents a day is too steep for the poorest among us, then lower the daily fine rate, but, please, do not destroy the concept of personal responsibility for those who most need to learn that concept. I hope that the parameter, by which this new plan’s success is measured, is not the number of library fines that were levied or the number of books that were returned late!

3. At the school where my son teaches, the principal has just introduced the concept of “Restorative Discipline.” From what I can understand this new policy involves the teacher (not the principal!) sitting down with the misbehaving student and explaining to him/her that their actions are not acceptable in the classroom setting, and to please not do it again. The principal apparently feels that a policy of talking nicely and rationally to a high school student can supposedly alter a student’s mis-behavior without resorting to the usual principle of “you must learn that you are responsible for your actions, and so you must pay the penalty – the usual penalty is an hour or so of detention either after school or on Saturday.” Since this new enlightened policy has just gone into effect, time will tell if disconnecting an action from its unpleasant consequences will alter student’s behavior. I hope that the parameter by which this new principle is judged is not the number of hours that students are spending in detention!
Just as the Kumbaya principle of no consequences for bad behavior did not work in Broward County, I will predict that it will not work in libraries or in private schools. Hopefully the consequences of these new principles by leftist principals will be recognized as typical leftist “pie-in-the-sky” consequences before bad things happen.

This year California’s legislators will make $107,238. They also get $183 per day in tax-free per diem payments to cover expenses for each day they are in session in Sacramento. FYI, Governor Brown’s makes $195,803, which makes him the highest-paid governor in the country.
Q: Who actually pays them?
A: We, the taxpayers of California, pay them.

Are we getting value for our money?
What do they actually do to earn these generous salaries?

For the record last year they passed almost 1,000 bills. Wow, it sure sounds like we are getting our money’s worth! Quantity, yes. Quality, ?? For the record, last year Governor Brown only vetoed about 12% of the bills passed by the legislature, which implies that the citizens of California have over 800 new things to be aware of because of the “work” of its legislators. So not only do we actually pay those in the legislature, but we have to actually live with the nonsense that they pass into law each year. If you think that I am using the word, “nonsense” loosely, perhaps to see if we are getting our money’s worth, we should look at some of the things they are working on this year.

As noted in a recent column by George Skelton in the L.A. Times, the California legislators appear to be wasting their time by sponsoring bills, that include the following:
“Mouth to snout” which would allow first responders to provide this emergency service for dogs and cats.
Barring sit-down restaurants from providing plastic straws unless they are requested.
Making surfing California’s official sport.
(Keep in mind that we are paying them to work on these bills.)

But the primo bill that our “legislators” are working on is SB 1490 (Henry Sterns, D- Canoga Park). This bill involves abolishing Columbus Day and replacing it with “Indigenous Peoples Day”.
Perhaps a bit of history is appropriate here. Many Italian Americans observe Columbus Day as a celebration of their heritage, and the first celebration was held in New York City on 10/12/1866. In April, 1934 Congress and President FDR proclaimed Oct. 12 as a federal holiday under the name, “Columbus Day.” Since then many liberal bastions such as Berkeley, Ca., Madison, Wisconsin., and Cambridge, Mass have renamed October 12, “Indigenous People Day.”
Recently, the city of L.A. and L.A. County have renamed this day, “Indigenous Peoples Day,” and now our state legislators are “working” on the same thing in Sacramento. This despite the fact that here in California October 12 is not an official holiday. Those who are against keeping October 12 as Columbus Day point out that Columbus did not treat the natives very well, and thus should not be celebrated. I actually do see their point here, and to me any time we can get rid of a useless federal holiday . . . get rid of it!
But I do have an issue with California legislators renaming the day “Indigenous People’s Day” especially in view of the fact that in 1968 then California Governor Ronald Reagan commemorated Native Americans by proclaiming the fourth Friday in September as “Native American’s Day.” Perhaps the California Legislature should consult an official state calendar, and move on to something more useful because that is supposedly what we are paying them to do!

According to the San Jose Mercury News, apparently enough signatures have been collected to put an initiative on the ballot that would split the present state of California into three separate states. The new state of “California” would include Los Angeles and would basically extend up along the Pacific Ocean to Monterrey. The new proposed state of “Southern California” would include Orange County, San Diego and the counties in the mid and the eastern part of the state up to just past Fresno. The new proposed state of “Northern California” would include San Francisco, Sacramento, and all the way to the Nevada and the Oregon state lines. Of course the people of California can express their opinion through this ballot measure, but the ultimate determination would be made by the U.S. Congress.
Two questions:
First of all which way would those of you who live in California vote?
And secondly . . . Let’s assume that this proposed ballot measure passes in California, which way do you think the vote would go in the U.S. Congress?
To be clear, this splitting of a state to make two separate states has been done in the past, so this splitting up of California is not without precedence.
To analyze the political effects of this proposed division, let’s look at the effect on both the U.S House and the U.S. Senate. There would be little if any effect in the U.S. House of Representatives because the representation in the House is determined by a state’s population, and since the population of California would be the same both before and after the proposed division.
However, the big change would be in the U.S. Senate, because each state gets two senators. So the “new California” would now be three separate states, and so would be represented by six U.S.Senators – two from each of the new states. So if two of the three new states were to vote for Democrats, the balance in the Senate would in essence remain the same as it is now with +2 senators (present California Senators) for the Democrats. The Republicans could benefit would be if two of the three proposed new states were to vote in two Republicans each, or if the voters would elect three Democrats and three Republicans combined in the three new states. Neither of these scenarios is likely to happen in the near future, if ever, so I would assume that the Republicans in Congress would be against this CAL 3 proposal. However, keep in mind that the House now is Republican, but could easily be flipped in November. Would the Democrats think that this is a way to strengthen their Democratic representation in the Senate?
To even things out, perhaps Texas should split into “East Texas” and “West Texas?”
But until that happens, I will be voting “No” on CAL 3.

“WARNING: This product (area) contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

This ubiquitous warning sign is a consequence of Prop 65 and the lawsuits that have been brought about by “see what good people we are – looking out for you and the environment” groups, and their lawyers that make millions from these suits that shakedown businesses in California to pay a ransom.
Proposition 65 (“Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act”) was passed in 1986. Who doesn’t want safe drinking water? Who would object to preventing toxins from seeping into our water supply? (As an aside, this is another example of how important it is to call your proposed proposition or law by a moniker that any “normal” person would be for. If it’s name is misleading . . . Oh well; let the buyer beware!)

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, administers the Proposition 65 program, and that tells you more than you need to know about Proposition 65 in 2018. Proposition 65 may have started out as a well meaning effort, but has morphed into a way for “do-gooders” to feel better about themselves and their attorneys to make lots of money, as more than two-thirds of the millions paid by businesses to settle Proposition 65 lawsuits has gone to the lawyers. The last big settlement ransom was paid by potato chip makers, and the present ransom is going to be paid by coffee makers, like Starbucks, 7-11, etc., because on 3/28/18 Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle ruled that the coffee makers failed to show that the threat from a chemical compound produced in the roasting process was insignificant. (Keep in mind how difficult it is to prove a negative.) Apparently the judge ignored the fact that WHO removed coffee off its “ possible carcinogen” list two years ago. Also the “all-knowing” judge ignored that nutrition expert, Edward Giovannucci of Harvard School of Public Health said, “At the minimum coffee is neutral. If anything there is fairly good evidence of the benefit of coffee on cancer.”

• Now I personally do not like Starbucks coffee as I find it too bitter, but who do you think will end up paying the multi, multi-million dollars that Starbucks will have to pay, in essence, to the plaintiff attorneys? Duh! . . . Those who drink Starbuck’s coffee will pay the ransom!
  When is a judge going to have enough courage to call a spade a spade, and tell the plaintiff attorneys that enough is enough, and find for the defendants – in this case the coffee companies. A judge with fortitude would tell the “do-gooders” and their attorneys that they are also responsible for all of the court costs . . . but I do not think that either Courage or Fortitude are taught in Judge School – at least not in the Judge School that Elihu Berle attended!

The verdict on 4/9/18 from the State Supreme Court was unanimous, 7-0. The judges ruled that D.A.C.A. recipients are not eligible for lower in-state tuition. This will mean an increase in tuition for approximately 2000 students beginning next year. This increase in tuition will effect three state colleges and the largest community college district in the state, the Maricopa Community Colleges District.
You say that you don’t know where the Maricopa Community Colleges are located. Perhaps that is because they are not located in California, but rather in Arizona, where apparently there are judges who actually follow the law.
Of the approximately 800,000 D.A.C.A. beneficiaries in the U.S., about 223,000 live in California. Perhaps this is at least partially because of the very very nice way that California treats this class of illegals. Between 2012 and March 2017 over 242,000 D.A.C.A. immigrants have been enrolled in colleges and universities in California, and at present there are over 72,000 undocumented students enrolled in California’s public colleges and universities. There are 60,000 in community colleges, 8,300 in the Cal. State system, and 4,000 in the Univ. of California system.
Since 2001 California has allowed undocumented students (not necessarily D.A.C.A. students) to pay the discounted in-state levels of tuition, and since 2011, the California Dream Act provides aid to undocumented students whether or not they are D.A.C.A. eligible students. This 2011 Act also provides grants that cover up to the entire cost of tuition at U.C., Cal St, and community colleges, and up to $9,000 for private colleges. Again D.A.C.A.status is not required!
Think about what this actually means. The State of California is subsidizing college educations for thousands upon thousands of young students who are not citizens. Furthermore since there is limited space in the U.C.and Cal St systems, undocumented non-citizens are taking spots that should belong to legal California residents. This hardly seems fair to those who are here legally, but in the minds of the Democratic State Legislators, this is perfectly fair! (Please note that I am using the word “minds” here very loosely.)
What is probably going to happen next? Think logically here . . . (California Democratic Legislators need not even try!) Of course, some of those undocumented Arizona college students will opt not to pay the new increased tuition rate in Arizona, but instead will choose to come to the Golden State to finish their college educations, and thus will displace yet more legal residents from matriculating at a U.C. or a Cal St school. I can almost hear them singing, “California, here I come!”

Beware, as in the following discussion, there are some topics that you may find depressing, but they need to be discussed. Over the last few days two totally unrelated things caught my attention, and form the basis for this discussion.
The first is that over the first three months of 2018, the murder rate in London was more than the murder rate in New York City. This is a surprise because although the populations of the two cities are each about 8.5 million, England has strict gun control laws.
(A lot of the following is taken from The Guardian, one of London’s premiere newspapers.)
At this point criminologists have expressed caution about drawing conclusions from only a few months’ figures, but if the uptick continues, it will amount to London’s highest level of violence in more than a decade. Most of the killings in London so far have been stabbings, most apparently carried out by young people. Knife crime in Britain rose by 21 percent last year, and stabbings in London were at their highest level in six years, according to figures released in September by the Office for National Statistics. The head of the Metropolitan Police Force, Cressida Dick, partly blamed social media for the rise in knife crime in London, which accounts for the majority of killings in the city. In December, she appealed for increased funding for police forces despite overall cuts to public services in order to fight the rise in knife crimes.

My question here is: “Does this imply that those with a penchant for violence in London have found different ways to fulfill their violent tendencies after you have taken away their guns?”

The second totally unrelated issue is potholes.
The other day as we were driving down a major street, my wife commented how bad the potholes were as my right front tire went over a pothole that could have been used to plant a tree! In a city that has arguably the best weather in the U.S., why are there so many unfilled potholes? Apparently the answer, as usual, relates to money, as in . . . there is only so much money to go around. On that same day there was a major spread in our newspaper about funding for suicide prevention measures for the Coronado Bridge. Projected costs for various different models range from $5 million to $137 million with only about 40% of this coming from the state, and the rest coming from local funding and donations. With limited funding in California available for mental health, officials have started looking at “transportation funding” to provide the funds for this project.

Now here comes the tough part. Some uncomfortable questions:
Is “transportation funding” the same local funding that fixes potholes?
Suicide prevention seems like a mental health issue. I am saddened each time someone commits suicide, but shouldn’t the funding for some sort of barrier to prevent people from jumping off the Coronado Bridge come from mental health funding?
And finally, if someone is depressed enough to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge will they just find another means to accomplish their goal if jumping off of the bridge is no longer a feasible option?
In other words, if the bridge is no longer a suicide option will these depressed individuals just find another option, similar to those with a penchant for violence in London have now resorted to knives to accomplish the end results of intimidation, violence, and murder?

News Flash!

Governor Brown said, “No” to President Trump’s request to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border. (Brown out!) Here I am speaking of governor Kate Brown of Oregon. Now I have never heard of Kate Brown and as best as I can tell Oregon is not a border state, and I thought that this was a request to border states. The fact that she was not invited did not stop Kate Brown from submitting her RSVP! (Gee, I wonder if she is a liberal?)
Oregon is more than 1,000 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border, but the state has seen an unprecedented number of drug cartels operating in the state over the past few years. In 2015, federal authorities busted a drug trafficking operation that took place in Oregon, Texas, and California, and many of the defendants, in that case, were illegal aliens. So in some circuitous way of thinking to Kate Brown, it is important not to stop illegals from crossing the border and from making their way to Oregon with their drugs!

Governor Kate Brown’s “No” was in response to President Trump’s signing a proclamation on 4/4/18 directing Defense Secretary James Mattis to “request use of National Guard personnel to assist” with the Department of Homeland Security Department’s existing efforts to secure the border.
For those of you not aware of the president’s authority in this situation, he is allowed to call on National Guard units under two different laws passed by Congress in 1956.
Under U.S. Code Title 10, Trump could “federalize” the Guard, ordering federally-funded National Guard troops under the Defense Secretary’s control to report for “active duty.” However, President Trump invoked invoked U.S. Code Title 32 in his proclamation, which directs state governors to order the Guard to report “for operational Homeland Defense.” Under Title 32, state governors can ignore or refuse the president’s order. While Brown has authority to deny Trump’s request under Title 32, the president can invoke his authority to send the National Guard to the Mexican border under other provisions. Of interest is the fact that each of the last two presidents (Bush and Obama) have both used the National Guard at the border.

The more interesting response will be that of the other governor Brown, Jerry Brown of California, which is actually a border state. (Brown in or out?) My prediction is that his initial response will be, “No!” (Brown out!) After all by what circuitous logic could the Governor of California agree to provide the National Guard to help secure the border that he wants unsecured? You can’t make this stuff up! State tuned!