Posted on

“The Mission Hills Problem” . . . For Dummies

Earlier this week there was a forum in the Mission Hills area of San Diego. This forum was held because of an increasing problem with homeless in that area. For those of you not familiar with San Diego, Mission Hills is an upper middle class neighborhood just north of San Diego Bay. The approximately 150 people that packed the meeting hall were both angry and scared, as not only had the numbers of homeless significantly increased in their neighborhood, but they were also becoming more aggressive, harassing individuals, going through trash cans, and urinating and defecating in public. Life has changed in Mission Hills as parents are now afraid to let their children play in the local park, and older residents are afraid to walk their dogs at night. The San Diego Police Department spokesman at the meeting thought that this increasing problem was the result of Proposition 47, which “has led to more homeless drug addicts and fewer people going into treatment.”

Welcome to the new normal in California cities!
For those of you not familiar with Proposition 47, it was passed in 2014, and recently when it was supposed to expire, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown extended its deadline to November, 2022. It reclassified many non-violent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, not only prospectively, but also retrospectively from its passage in 2014. (FYI: In the 13 months after the passage of Proposition 47, 200,000 petitioned for re-sentencing or applied for reclassification! . . .  not 200 or 2,000 but 200,000!!!) Prior to its passage in 2014, it was supported by the California Democratic Party and also by the A.C.L.U. (The A.C.L.U. to the tune of $3.5 million!) Although I suppose  that it should be pretty obvious, Proposition 47 was also supported by the editorial board of both the New York Times and the L.A. Times. It was originally titled “The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act,” by then California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, now U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D, Ca). (You actually have to hand it to the Democrats as they are wizards at naming things exactly the opposite of what they really are, e.g. The Affordable Care Act, which made medical care less affordable!) Anyway this misleading name probably played a significant role in persuading dumbass  Californians to vote for its passage . . . after all who could vote against something which would make both the schools and the neighborhoods safer?
Ask the residents of Mission Hills if it has made their neighborhood safer!
This Mission Hills-type problem is but one of the numerous unintended consequences of Prop 47 (“unintended consequences galore” as pointed out in the National Review on Jan. 30, 2018 – for those of you who are more interested in this, I would encourage reading that National Review article).
To the residents of Mission Hills, I recommend that you to reread the last paragraph, as it is the usual cast of characters that have escorted you to the precipice. The California liberals do not seem to have the words, “unintended consequences”  in their vernacular, nor do not have either the wherewithal or the desire to see that these “unintended consequences”  are actually not unforeseen.
To all of the residents of California, “Wake up!” (“Despertarse!”). If you continue to elect these liberal Democrat politicians, you too will be led, like lemmings, to the precipice, and “the Mission Hills problem” will be coming to a neighborhood near you very soon!
Posted on

A Decent Democratic Senator . . . An Oxymoron

Last night while struggling to find some news that wasn’t about the Kavanaugh ambush, my wife said, “I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on judgement day!” I thought, “spoken like an honest, decent, compassionate, Christian person.” The problem here is that most of Judge Kavanaugh’s opposition does not believe in the same set of mores and certainly does not have the same set of standards as either my wife, myself, or Brett Kavanaugh.

Now I realize that some of you will say, “Politics is a tough profession.” And “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!” Etc. Etc.
Yes, I agree that politics is a tough game, and those with thin skin should not be players in that game. However, Judge Kavanaugh is not a politician. He is a family man who just happens to be a judge.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this week elucidating the sad state of the Democratic Party (“Why Is the Left Consumed With Hate”). My response as to why they are attacking a good and decent man is that they no longer seem to stand for anything, and so they apparently have no option other than slandering and belittling those who are deemed to be on the other side.
I have to ask, “Do they have any principles at all?”
Is attaching the character of an honorable man okay with them? Apparently, yes!
Is searching for and finding “political prostitutes” who will say just about anything okay with them? Apparently, yes!
I have to further ask:
Is there any Democrat in the U.S. Senate who has a shred of decency or a shred of moral fiber?
Is there anyone on the Democratic side of the Senate who has the balls to say, “Stop! Enough is enough!”?
Is there one decent Democrat in the U.S. Senate who will stand up and vote for the confirmation of a good and decent man, Judge Kavanaugh?
A pseudo-paraphrase from God to Abraham in Genesis seems apropos at this time: “If I find one decent Democrat in the U.S.Senate, that will be enough!”
Posted on

The Memory Games

For the past week I have refrained from commenting on the accusations by Christine Blasey Ford against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Whether her allegations are true, mostly true, mostly false, or completely fabricated is something that no one will ever know for sure. While I am not implying that Ms. Ford could be intentionally lying, no reasonable person can argue that one’s memory is 100% accurate after a long period of time, and the alleged incident that Ms. Ford is describing supposedly occurred thirty-six years ago!

As an aside, about ten years ago a woman in my writing class said that she had spoken to her brother on the phone, and asked him to write a few paragraphs describing a particular incident that happened about forty years prior when they were teenagers. He e-mailed his recollection to her, and she likewise wrote a few paragraphs describing her memory of the same incident before she had read his. She then compared her descriptive paragraphs with that of her brother’s, and said that no one would be able to read these two reports, and conclude that they were about the same incident.
Now was either of the two siblings making stuff up or lying about the incident in question? Hardly! Were their separate memories of the same event accurate? Obviously not.
Although at this point I am extremely skeptical that her recollection is on the money,  let’s assume for a second that Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the incident in question is accurate. If this alleged incident did happen, it that a reason to besmirch someone’s reputation and character thirty-six years later? As I questioned in a prior piece on November 18, 2017, “Should there be a statute of limitations on character?”
Like I pointed out back then, if the answer is “no,” then one can argue to the point of ridiculousness, and something that supposedly occurred when someone was seventeen is probably beyond that point.
To conclude, thus far I have avoided any political or quasi-political commentary on this subject, but I will close by saying that I don’t blame the ultra liberal faction of the Democratic Party for using innuendo and “testimony” of questionable veracity for their political gain, as it worked in the case of Roy Moore in 2017!
Posted on

Practical Value

The other day someone that I know pretty well told me that one of her elective college courses this year was “Geology.” She added that it was boring. I felt like saying, “What did you expect? It’s about rocks and dirt!” It suppose that it could actually be interesting, but of any practical value? . . . not likely!  As everyone knows, college is not cheap. Why waste a semester on something that has little, if any, potential to be of any practical value?

Yesterday I read a column entitled, “College courses that can set you up for success.” No, Geology was not listed! The author contacted “seasoned professionals from diverse backgrounds to learn what they thought every college student should take.” The answers were quite varied as listed below:
– “My creative writing class was an important way of forcing myself to be self-aware.”
– “Classes where you have to read, write, and think critically would serve students
     well.”
– “College students need to hone the basic three paragraph essay; learn to
     communicate your ideas in 300 words or less.”
– “Every college student should take an introduction to psychology course.”
– Many suggested a course in public speaking or improvisation to help you
    to “think on your feet.”
– Almost everyone said that a basic understanding of accounting was imperative.
As I read this column the second time, it dawned on me that most of these suggestions could be fulfilled by my blog! Most of these blogs are around 500 words – the perfect example  of communicating your ideas in a shortened form.
I can hear you snickering again!! I reviewed the last 35 blogs and found erudite discussions of topics of history (the 26th Amendment and the Federal Debt), economics (Pension deficits and Housing affordability), politics (Security clearances and Foreign aid), social issues (marijuana and veganism in the workforce), and even topics of interest to environmentalists (a three part series on water and multiple essays on the California wildfires). I would bet that if you reviewed the various topics in the almost 200 of my blogs written thus far, many more varied and interesting topics would be apparent.
I can envision this as a 3 credit course with classes on MWF. Each class would provide a forum to discuss the blog written on the prior day, with emphasis on public speaking, improv, and critical thinking. I realize that you are shaking your heads, but compare this to Geology in terms of practical value when it comes to “college courses that can set you up for success!”
Posted on

Obviously!

If there were a worldwide pandemic or catastrophe, most would think that the first duty of a state government (e.g. California) would be to provide whatever is necessary to care for the citizens of their state (all Californians). The well-being of the earth’s overall population would be a concern, but a secondary priority.

One would think that the Sacramento politicians would say, “We are going to take care of our own first, and then worry about the overall welfare of Mother Earth somewhere down the road. As the representatives of the people who have elected us, our duty is to make the caring for the citizens of California our highest priority.”
I hate to keep referring to “common sense” all the time, but obviously, this seems like common sense.
It’s no surprise for those of us that live in Southern California that this past August was the hottest on record. Maybe this is a result of global warming and maybe it isn’t. It will take a few years to establish any trend.
Let’s assume for a minute that this warmest August on record is a sign of things to come, and the summers are just going to get warmer. Where should the priorities of state governments be? Should their priorities be to try to help their own citizens, or to punish their own citizens under the guise of looking out for the “well-being” of the earth and all of its billions of people? One would think that the answer would be “obvious” with a capital “O.”
During an especially hot spell what do people, both the young and the old, do when the temperatures soars. They obviously turn on their air conditioning. Those who are young turn on the A.C. for comfort while those who are old also have to be concerned about keeping themselves safe. Perhaps in years past the seniors had found it necessary to turn on the air conditioning only a few times a year, but this August they found it necessary to turn it on every day, specially if they wanted to sleep. Again remember that these people are Californians. What would you think that the Governor, the other state representatives, and the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) would do? Obviously, these big advocates of “global warming” would have anticipated such a scenario, and would have made a contingency plan to deal with such a situation.
What has actually happened? Electric bills have skyrocketed. Individual bills have zoomed up out of proportion to the amount of kilowatt hours used. Whoa! That doesn’t seem fair, but that is what happened because of a tiered system of billing that punishes those who find it necessary to run their air conditioners.
A few basic questions:
What is a tiered system of billing?
Think of a tiered system as a power company’s version of a graduated income tax . . . the more electricity you use, the higher rate you pay for it. In addition to charging more as one uses more electricity, it charges more per kilowatt hour in the summer, as opposed to the winter.
In tier 1 the summer rate is 27 cents per kilowatt-hour, but if one uses 130% of its baseline allowance, the rate goes to 48 cents per Kw-hr. In other words if you find it necessary to turn on your air conditioner, you will pay almost double for that air conditioner electricity! If you use >400% of your baseline allowance, you pay a “high usage charge” at a rate of 55 cents per Kw-hr. In other words if as senior with a fixed income, you find it necessary to use your air conditioner every day, you may not be able to afford to eat like you usually do because your electric bill was double or triple what it usually is!
Why a tiered system?
The tiered system was initiated as an attempt to discourage electrical usage. Apparently someone  who “knows best” decided that we needed to limit our personal use of electricity. Why?? . . . probably for the good of the planet, i.e. to prevent global warming!
Baseline Allowance . . . what is that?
This is the amount of kilowatt-hours of electricity a home is deemed to need each month. “Deemed” by whom? Deemed by the CPUC in Nov. 2017 and this allowance will significantly effect 81,000 SDGE customers this summer who will have much higher electric bills.
What does SDGE, the local electricity supplier, pay for its electricity?
The average rate it pays is apparently 22.5 cents per Kw-hr., but as a company spokesman noted there are a lot of additional costs for SDGE, such as repairing underground lines and circuits, increased costs for wildfire safety, and increased costs for storage mandates because of state law.
Does California pay more for its electricity than other parts of the country?
Yes, a lot more! Even though it was hot all over the U.S. this year, everybody does not pay the same for their air conditioning electricity. Since about 2013 Californians pay more for their electricity than anybody else in the U.S. The average cost for residential electricity in the U.S is 12.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, while the cost in California is about 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. (The runner up state is New Jersey in which the residential cost for electricity is about 15.8 cents per kilowatt-hour.)
Could this be because California has moved aggressively against fossil fuel use?
Duh!  . . . Is the Pope a Catholic? The answer to both questions is obviously, “YES!”
Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum stated, “the increased cost is in part due to mandates imposed by California policy makers.” These policy makers are the Democratic Legislators and Governor Jerry Brown. In Europe Germany has moved to “green” electrical production (solar and wind), and they now have the highest rates for electricity in Europe. No one should be surprised that Californians are following in the same expensive path as the Germans with very high rates for electricity, because both are strong advocates of “green power!”
There is a sad part of this “we know what is best for everybody, and so we will limit your electricity usage, or punish you if you use more than we think you need to.” The sad part is that it obviously punishes the poorest among us disproportionately. Has anyone seen or heard of a poor person putting solar panels on his house? Is it not true that the poor have to live further inland because they cannot afford to live near the coast? Is it hotter inland or on the coast?
The even sadder part is, “you haven’t seen anything yet!”
As long as the dum-koff California voters continue to vote Democratic, obviously, things will only get worse! SDGE has already asked for an 11% rate increase for 2019![contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Message” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form]

Posted on

A Quid Pro Quo Gone Bad

Just when I thought that I had seen the worst of the audacious behavior by liberals during the Senate hearings on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, something new has just topped that on the disgusting scale! A caller threatened to rape one of Senator Collins’ young female staffers, if the senator voted “yes” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation! This is the lowest of scum. This sort of threat should never be tolerated and should be aggressively investigated, pursued, and prosecuted.

Also a website is attempting to persuade Senator Collins (R, Maine) to vote “no” on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. Actually “persuade” is a much too kind a way to describe this chicanery, as the effort by this crowdfunding website is an out-and-out attempt at bribery. As described in the Wall Street Journal the website is threatening to give more than one million dollars ($1,041,878 collected so far by credit cards) to her opponent in the 2020 Senate election if she votes “yes”, for Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

Clearly this threat is a quid pro quo, and appears to me to be illegal.
Should this website be prosecuted? Should all of those who have contributed to this “bribing of a member of Congress” be prosecuted or fined at least the amount of their contribution? Of course, any sort of prosecution would discourage this type of behavior, but do we want to discourage this type of behavior by the leftists?
A silly rhetorical question? Perhaps!
But wait, let’s consider the real life implications of this monetary quid-pro-quo threat against Senator Collins.
The way I look at it, ironically, Sen. Collins is now actually forced to vote for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation! If she were to vote against his confirmation, it could only be viewed as a capitulation by her to these bullies. This would be the general opinion no matter what she said afterwards, irrespective of how she really felt.
In addition, if Sen. Collins were to vote “no” on the Judge Kavanaugh issue, there would be far reaching consequences as other nut-jobs would attempt the same thing again, either with Sen. Collins or with other politicians. Who could possibly want their name associated with this potential future nightmare?
So in conclusion she is now caught in a trap that can only have the opposite effect from that which was hoped for by the website when they instigated this threat.
My prediction here is easy. Unless there is some dramatic relegation concerning Kavanaugh, she will vote “yes” on his confirmation. And yes you can take this to the bank!
Posted on

What Was He Thinkin’?

Atweel, at times you have probably heard someone say or do something and you think, “What was he drinkin’?”

(BTW: ”Atweel” was my on-line “word of the day” today, and so I thought that I would try to use it in this essay. FYI: “Atweel” means “surely!”)
Last week Barack Obama was back on the campaign trail and was bad-mouthing Republicans and the present president in contra-distinction to the established norm of past presidents not reentering into the political arena, especially to bash their successor. What was he drinkin’?
Personally I was not at all surprised at his behavior as one’s behavior oftentimes dissolves the mask which is hiding one’s character. Can anyone recall President Bush ever saying anything derogatory about Mr. Obama? Nuff said about that.
Back to the “What were they drinkin’.”
Mr. Obama wants everyone to think that he had some role in the present booming economy. He said, “When you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s remember when this recovery started.”
Huh!? What was he drinkin’?
In a column in today’s Wall Street Journal, Peter Ferrara, a university Economics professor, states, “Before Mr. Obama, in the 11 previous recessions since the Depression, the economy recovered all jobs lost an average of 27 months after the recession began. In Mr. Obama’s recovery, the recession’s  job losses were not recovered until after 76 months, more than 6 years.”
Likewise while he was in office, Obama backers said that the economy could no longer grow any faster than the 2% growth averaged over Mr. Obama’s eight years. Slow growth was the “new normal.” “Get used to it!” What were they drinkin’?
Again from Professor Ferrara, “After Mr. Trump was elected, he fundamentally changed course from Mr. Obama’s policies, increasing annual growth to more that 3% within six months and now to over 4%.”
The sad part about these “What are they drinkin’” analogies is that there are plenty of
thirsty liberals out there who avidly drink this Obama Kool-Aid. They do not care that B.O. is stretching the truth concerning the recovery, and they certainly do not care about his crossing the past presidents’ speech etiquette line. And worst of all . . . atweel they will vote!
Posted on

The Next 9/11 Equivalent ?

On September 11th and 12th  my son discussed 9/11 and its aftermath in his world history classes. Keep in mind that most, if not all of these high school students were not alive when 9/11 happened, so it doesn’t stick out in their minds like the day JFK was assassinated sticks out in the minds of us older folk. Putting 9/11 in a historical perspective he said that he believed that 9/11 was the most important event since WWII. (In his mind the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a close second.) Close to the end of class one of his students asked, “What do you think has been the most important historical event since 9/11?” Before he could give his thoughtful erudite answer, the bell ending class rescued him. Later in the day he asked me the same question.

Now before you read on, think about the question:
“What event or general occurrence has been the most important historical event since 9/11?”
Give it some real thought, keeping in mind that a single event or group of events has the potential to have very long-lasting world-wide consequences. What are your contenders? What is your top choice?
My initial reflexive thought had to do with the outcomes of recent presidential elections in the U.S.A. However, on reflection, I felt that my initial thought process was self-serving and oozed with conceit. It’s hard to imagine that the rest of the world would  ever consider the U.S. elections of lasting world-wide consequence. However, I suppose if one looks back, was the appointment of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister of England in 1940 the event that changed the outcome of WWII?
Nonetheless, I do not feel at this point that the election of President X or President Y would be considered the most important event since 9/11. If this question is re-asked in 20 years, perhaps the answer will be different.
As my son and I talked this through, in our minds there were a few major contenders:
The Arab Spring
The civil war in Syria
Brexit
Mass immigration into Europe
The rise and subsequent fall of ISIS
The explosion of the internet
The invention of the Smart Phone
What is your answer?
Email me your thoughtful responses at dc6255@yahoo.com
Posted on

The “Corner Boys”

When I was growing up we had two very distinct groups of kids in our neighborhood. Of course we had the boys and the girls, but those are not the two groups to which I am referring. Back in those days there was a group of boys that mainly hung out at the corner in front of the drug store. We referred to them as the “corner boys.”  There was a smaller group of girls that also congregated at the corner.  . . . mainly to be noticed by the “corner-boys.” It was not where they hung that distinguished this group, but rather it was their behavior in certain situations that identified them as a group. They were proud of their non-conforming, anti-good etiquette behavior. In general they were coarse and crude, especially with regard to denigrating comments that they would make to an innocent passerby. It didn’t matter to them if there were women or children in the area, as the only important thing to them was for their cronies to be impressed by their complete lack of etiquette.

They also thought that mischievous behavior in the surrounding neighborhood was  not only okay, but to be emulated. Knocking over trash cans in the alleys – condoned and encouraged! Trampling on flower beds in people’s front yards – condoned  and encouraged! Taking the daily newspaper from someone’s porch – condoned and encouraged! Putting a candy bar or a pack of gum under one’s shirt and walking out of the store without paying – condoned and encouraged!
Over the course of many years I have occasionally wondered what happened to this unruly group of boys and girls. Well this past week the lightbulb went on . . . it occurred to me that a lot of them are in Washington D.C., in Congress, proud to be Democrats!
Why would I say such a thing?
Two recent things:
First is the behavior of Senate Democrats at the hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They went out of their way to be coarse, and insulting to Judge Kavanaugh, even in the presence of his wife, his children and other young girls in the audience, sitting right behind him. Senator Kamala Harris (D, Ca.) appeared that she was trying to be a poster child for “Rudeness 101!” Senator Cory Booker (D, N.J.) wanted a “Spartacus moment” for himself as he implied that if he had to break the rules, he would. His fellow “corner boys” cheered him on! This coarse and crude behavior was not limited to these two, as Sen. Durbin (D, Il), Sen. Whitehouse (D, R.I.),and Sen. Coons (D, Del.) tried their best to be number one on the “obnoxious Top 40 list” – condoned and encouraged!
Second, in The House of Representatives, Democrats objected to a bill that defined “crimes of violence” for which non-citizens would be mandatorily deported. These crimes of violence included: murder, assault, child abuse,kidnapping, arson, etc. Just like the corner boys, they would not go on record to discourage aberrant and unlawful behavior. You could almost hear them whisper, “if the accused is one of our corner boy compañeros, do not say or do anything against him/her.” Only those from “the corner” could be for someone who has committed a violent crime. This bill eventually passed 247-152 with the vote largely along party lines with only a few Democrats crossing over.
My guess is that we haven’t the last of this type of boorish behavior, as in the Senate,  and we haven’t seen the last of total disregard for standards of moral conduct as in the House, as it appears that the Democrat’s “corner boys” approve!
Posted on

Deja-vu

Deja-vu! I remember it well. It was early September, 1982. We were all over at Uncle Sammy’s place, and he was in an exceptionally good mood. Actually he had been in a good mood for a little over a year, whereas for the three or four years prior, he had been in a foul mood most of the time. Uncle Sammy was 73 years old, and had lived through the various political perturbations of the sixties and the seventies. Over the years his mood changes were often directly related to who was in the highest office in the land.

“Why the exceptionally good mood today, Uncle Sammy?”
While sitting in his usual comfortable brown chair, Sammy smirked a bit and responded, “As you are undoubtedly aware, the reason for my prior years of distemper was that uber liberal, Jimmy Carter, and today it dawned on me that the reward for putting up with Jimmy Carter is spelled R-E-A-G-A-N. It also then dawned on me that there is a high likelihood that for the rest of my days on earth, our president will be a Republican. For, you see, from my perspective there is little doubt that President Reagan will serve two terms, and he will be followed by his present vice-President, George Bush for another two terms. That gets our country another fourteen or so years of rational reasonable leadership, and since it is unlikely statistically that I will live to be older than 87, it almost guarantees that I will be in a good mood till I die!” (In actuality, Uncle Sammy did live his remaining days in a good mood as he died in June,1992, just after his eighty-third birthday, and prior to the election of Bill Clinton.)
I happened to think about Uncle Sammy today as I was sitting as usual in my comfortable chair. I was in a good mood. Whereas my mood had been dour for years,
I have been in a good mood now for well over a year.
Since I am 73 years old, it dawned on me, that there is a good possibility that for the next fourteen years our president will be Republican and thus for the remainder of my years on earth, my mood will continue to be good!
Deja-vu . . . all over again!