Month: March 2021

As was apparent to me from the very beginning there is a wide discrepancy on how differently individuals act with regards to Covid. Some of our friends would not come over to our house for “a bring your own food for dinner” in our back yard. Another friend, who is religious, has not been to live church for over a year, even though the church service is outdoors, with masks, and social distancing. 

Personally I have continued to have lunch with friends – albeit mostly in an outdoor setting. From the beginning of Covid my wife and I have continued to go to church, initially indoors, then outdoors and now indoors again both with distancing. We carried on as usual for both Thanksgiving and Christmas with our kids and grandkids from out of town. For the past year we have continued to babysit our young grandchildren who go to preschool for half-day.

Why this Covid dichotomy? Obviously the reasons are multifactorial, with varied reasons for different folks. 

I just happened to read an article from the New York Times by David Leonhardt (yes, I do occasionally read things from the NYT, whereas I do not ever watch CNN or MSNBC – both of which have suffered recent dramatic drops in their ratings.) Mr. Leonhardt postulated that this dichotomy was primarily a Democrat-Republican thing, but personally I think this is an over-simplification of something more basic. 

I think that there are two things which have basically determined these dichotomous individual behaviors with reference to Covid.

First: As I have stated multiple times before, in general, individuals are basically either logical thinkers (frontal lobe) or emotional thinkers (midbrain). Granted logical thinkers tend to be conservative whereas emotional thinkers are liberal. With Covid, some can only focus on how serious this coronavirus infection can be . . .”if I get it, I could die!” On the other hand others can think more logically . . . “if I catch the virus, there is a good chance that I will be either minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic, and the risk of me dying from Covid is much less than one percent. Life is too short, and so I’ll take that very small risk.”

Second: Just as important, is where are individuals getting their basic Covid information. Most are getting it from local TV news, local newspapers, or from friends, most of whom are probably also getting their info from local sources. I point that  out because local sources are doing a piss-poor job of actually educating anyone. (When I asked one of the local “newspaper” columnists about this, he responded that his job was to report, not to educate or opine.) 

The following is from that same  Leonhardt article, Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study(NYT):

When asked what percent of Covid patients needed hospitalization, 69% of Democrats said more than twenty percent needed hospitalization, 51% of Republicans said more than twenty percent, and 60% of Independents said the same thing. To me these numbers signify just how dramatically misinformed the public actually is. (Amazingly 41% of Democrats thought that the chance of hospitalization for a Covid patient was . . . are you ready for this . . . more than 50%!!) No wonder these individuals are paralyzed with fear. The actual hospitalization rate is about 1%. 

How could so many people be so drastically misinformed?! 

Again from Leonhardt:

There is also the same basic sort of misinformation when it comes to the risk of school children and going back to school. Democrats are more likely to exaggerate Covid’s toll on young people and to believe that children account for a meaningful share of all Covid deaths. In reality, Americans under 18 account for only 0.04 percent of Covid deaths (4 in 10,000).

How could these individuals be so misinformed? Again I blame this on the news sources, both TV and newspapers. And as long as they are “not in the education business.” (because optimism does not sell newspapersor boost TV ratings), this dichotomy will continue.

Right from the git-go let me state that some of you will not like this attempt at compromise. However, our President wants us to strive for unity, and it seems to me that unity can only be achieved through compromise. Those of us who are older might remember the compromise between the Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and the Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill. The result back in the 1980s was that things got done.

So this attempt at compromise involves the Student Loan quagmire. Before you start screaming, hear me out..

First of all in general, I do not think that we should punish stupidity. Let’s face it some of us are born with lower IQs and some of us are born with higher IQs. Why should we punish those with lower IQs? It’s not their fault that they are not very bright. 

Let me give you a hypothetical example:

If someone says to a prospective college student, “In order to go to a four year college you will need to borrow $100,000 over four years. Granted while that may seem like a lot of money, you can get loans at a mere seven percent interest rate. With a payment every month you will probably be able to pay this off in twenty or so years.”

Now while this sounds almost too good to be true, only someone who is extremely naive or has been born with a low IQ is going to jump at this offer. Should we as a “unified” country punish those students who borrow that $100,000 and come out with a degree that is basically unmarketable because they are stupid? That is not compromise.

I would propose that while a naive student should not be completely forgiven for his/her stupidity, it is the one that is selling this p.o.s. to the student that should bear the financial burden. This entity is the college or university who had gently persuaded that naive student to go forward and “just borrow the money.” This is now beginning to sound more like a compromise, and perhaps if these bastions of higher learning have some skin in the game, they will be a bit more cautious about advocating loans as solutions.

Should the government as the representative of we the people pay part of this student loan debt? If we truly want unity and compromise the answer should be “yes,” as a lot of these deadbeat student loan borrowers will likely never be a part of the American dream because basically they will never be able to pay off these loans. Remember the key word here is “compromise.”

My solution would go something like this:(these figures are negotiable to some degree as long as the basic principle remains intact).

1. For junior college: student = 50%, school= 25%, gov’t = 25%
2. For a four year college: student =25%, school = 50%, gov’t =25%
3. For graduate school: student =75%, school =25%, gov’t =0%.

This compromise solution insures that those unethical salesmen (the schools) now must pay for their shenanigans. The student pays his/her fair-share, and those who get graduate degrees pay more, as they are likely to have higher IQs and are going to earn more. Those who owe money because of junior college alone are mostly those who will never get a degree (drop out), but owe a debt nonetheless. Most of these will be those who should have never gone to school after high school, and I would guess have the lowest IQs. 

Now I realize that some of you may be asking why the government should pay any of the student debt. “Come on, man, compromise,” as it’s all for unity.

The topic of election fraud just continues to surface. Today I read about two separate situations where election deviousness (cheating) was instrumental in determining the outcome of an election. One in Florida, and one in Michigan.

The first story is  from the New York Times … the headline reads:

Florida Finds Election Fraud

A student and her mother were arrested after the authorities found more than 100 votes suspiciously cast from a single school login. In Escambia County Florida a seventeen year old girl and her mother were accused of vote tampering (cheating).

The report about vote tampering reached the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in early November: Someone had gained access to electronic accounts without authorization. At least 117 votes had been suspiciously cast

Department agents arrested Laura Carroll, 50, and her daughter, Emily Grover, 17, on Monday and charged them with conspiracy to use Ms. Carroll’s school district login to help Ms. Grover get elected homecoming queen.

Ms. Grover was expelled, according to police records, a decision that the family contested, but the expulsion was upheld. Ms. Carroll was suspended from her job,

Ms. Carroll was taken into custody on Monday and released on $8,500 bail. Ms. Grover was sent to juvenile detention for an evaluation, according to the Department of Law Enforcement.

To me the key parts of this story include “arrested,” “taken into custody,” “expelled,” and “suspended from her job.” It appears that Florida does not take cheating lightly especially when in reference to voting.

With the severity of this punishment, I doubt that another teenager will try this stunt again.

The second story is from Michigan where the courts ruled that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson overstepped her authority (cheated) when she issued unilateral changes for absentee ballots in the state. It all centered on voter signature verification. If she wanted to do that, she was going to have to get the state legislature’s approval. 

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she unilaterally issued rules related to absentee balloting, legitimizing a key claim made by the Trump campaign in its legal challenges to the 2020 election.

Benson issued several unilateral orders during the 2020 election including sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. She also issued “guidance” on how to evaluate absentee ballots, a move Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray held violated the state’s Administrative Procedures Act.

Signature validation rules created without the approval of a legislature is more than just cheating. . . . It is a crime. BTW: it was one of the issues the Trump campaign and Republicans claimed was done illegally in the 2020 election.

What I didn’t see in this Michigan story that confirmed Ms Benson’s breaking of state law was “suspended,” “fired,” “fined,” “jailed,” “dis-barred,” etc. it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence is handed down to Ms. Benson. I sincerely hope that her punishment is very severe so as to deter any similar shenanigans (cheating) in the future. I hope that the judge throws the book at Ms. Benson (D).

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is facing intense criticism and calls to resign for cooking the books in the states COVID nursing home death toll.

One governor is obviously not a pattern.

However, we could have another COVID nursing home death scandal brewing.

From Townhall:

There could be a COVID death toll scandal occurring in Michigan. Reporter Charlie LeDuff wanted to know the number of COVID deaths from nursing homes, but the state refused to release the data. So, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation decided to file a lawsuit to unseal those records.

Investigative journalist Charlie LeDuff sounded off on 3/11, following his filing of a lawsuit against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, telling “The Story” that the state still refuses to provide relevant data on coronavirus-related nursing home deaths.

LeDuff told host Martha MacCallum that while embattled New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo stopped co-mingling coronavirus-positive patients in Empire State nursing homes after some time, the Great Lakes State is allegedly “still doing it.

Republicans in the state legislature have threatened to subpoena records from the state’s department of health. Maybe they should follow through on that. 

Two governors could be a duet, but not a pattern.

Could there be a third governor with a scandal brewing?

Can Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee now be added to this  list?

The background is that Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington saw a massive coronavirus outbreak. The Life Care outbreak was dubbed America’s “epicenter” for the Wuhan coronavirus, which officially began on Feb. 19, 2020.

The Life Care Center had two outbreaks, with a total of 156 confirmed COVID cases in its facility, with 101 being residents and the other 55 being staff members, KING-TV reported. The nursing home facility amassed “46 deaths between residents, staff, and visitors.” 

On March 24, 2020,  a little more than a month after the Life Care outbreak, the Department of Health issued guidelines for how nursing home patients should be accepted into nursing homes.

Inslee and his team at DOH saw the outbreak at Life Care and still asked nursing homes to take in COVID-positive patients. The Seattle Times says these decisions contributed to roughly half of the state’s 5,000 coronavirus-related deaths to the nursing home policy because “nearly 200 nursing homes” had “at least one outbreak.” Some had multiple outbreaks. Very few long-term care facilities in the state have gone without any COVID infections. But in King County, where Seattle is located, “455 people connected to nursing homes have died, account for a third of the county’s total deaths.” 

Of interest to me is that these three governors (Cuomo, Whitmer, and Inslee) have one big thing in common. Is there a pattern here? Indeed I am seeing a recognizable pattern.

Q: Do you know what that pattern is? 

      HINT – it begins with the letter, ‘D.’ . . . Think hard!

A: Could it be that all three are Dumb?

How many times have I said something to the effect that the sun will rise in the west when the very liberal Supreme Court Justices agree with the very conservative Justices in a non-unanimous decision. Sometimes the case is a no-brainer, and as a consequence all nine justices agree. However this past week there was a case that was decided 8-1, and the three far left Justices agreed with the majority opinion by the very conservative Clarence Thomas.

The Supreme Court ruled on 3/8/21 that a student in Georgia could pursue a lawsuit challenging speech restrictions at his college even though he sought only nominal damages.

The 8-1 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Chike Uzuegbunam — who was silenced by Georgia Gwinnett College officials even after he had obtained a permit to proselytize and handout religious literature — can seek nominal damages despite the fact that the school ultimately changed course and Uzuegbunam subsequently graduated.

Mr. Uzuegbunam sued, saying Gwinnett College’s policies violated his First Amendment rights, and to his credit he did not back down. Supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, he took his case all the way to SCOTUS.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the 8-1 decision, said a request for even a token sum, typically a dollar, satisfied the Constitution’s requirement that federal courts decide only actual cases or controversies in cases. The fact that the college had withdrawn the speech code challenged in the suit, he wrote, did not make the case moot.

“Despite being small,” Justice Thomas wrote, “nominal damages are certainly concrete.”

From ABC News:

“When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims,” said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Uzuegbunam in the case. ‘When such officials engage in misconduct but face no consequences, it leaves victims without recourse, undermines the nation’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, and emboldens the government to engage in future violations. We are pleased that the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of justice for those victims.’”

Without going into the details of the case, who do you think was the dissenter? One doesn’t have to think very long to determine that the lone dissenter was Justice John (“we cannot take up any election cases as there will be riots in the streets”) Roberts. He continues to make a case as to why Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed for life. His decisions are all over the lot, and some do not appear to make much sense. On this one the Chief Justice said the majority had turned judges into advice columnists. Huh??? Chief Justice Roberts did not make much sense here . . . again!

Free speech finally wins one, despite Justice Roberts standing for basically nothing.

At the present time there is no doubt that the Washington Post made “a mistake” by misquoting what the President Trump said on a phone call with a Chief investigator in Georgia’s Secretary of State Office, Frances Watson back in December, 2020. As you might recall at that time President Trump was questioning the vote counts in multiple states.(Also recall that millions of Americans were similarly questioning the same thing . . . and many still are.)

Could this type of questioning be detrimental for those on the left? . . . Possible?

Could their thinking have been along the lines of . . . “perhaps the best defense against such questioning would be a good offense.” . . . Possible?

As we all know the Washington Post is a widely read nationally syndicated newspaper. Could the thinking by someone back then have been something like this? . . .  Maybe the best way to distract the nation away from any further such questioning of some election results would be to go after President Trump by besmirching his reputation. Perhaps a quote from a telephone call would tilt opinion against the President.

But there was no such quote. Could it be that someone then suggested an anonymous source for such a quote? Hmmm! . . . Possible?

Conveniently after reporting that Trump was trying to twist arms in Georgia by stating, “find the fraud,” the audio of that phone mysteriously disappeared. Hmmm!

Could it be that there actually was a recording, and that recording was purposely “misplaced?” . . . Possible?

But then . . .a miracle!

The audio of the approximately 6-minute call between Trump and Frances Watson, the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, was published by The Wall Street Journal on March 11 and shows Trump never told anyone on the call to “find the fraud,” as was reported by WaPo back in December. 

Oops! Double oops, WaPo! Now a retraction of sorts.

Wapo’s response to this latest miraculous recording resurrection:

“The recording revealed that the Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source,” it said. “Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud,’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so.

“Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now.'”

Hmmm!

Now there are a couple of big problems with WaPo saying “Mea Culpa” , now in mid March, 2021.

First: Someone “misreported” (“lied” is perhaps a more accurate word) at a time when it was important for liberals to throw water on that potential spark which was questioning the veracity of some of these vote tallies.

Second: Could it be that WaPo knew that this anonymous source, if there actually was one, was lying? It does not appear that WaPo confirmed this anonymous source – which would have been what an honest newspaper would have done. Since there was no independent confirmation, could it be that someone figured that “dishonesty was the best policy?” . . . as long as there was no recording of what was actually said on the phone who could say different? . . . Possible?

Third: While WaPo issued a retraction of its syndicated story, I did not see that retraction in my local newspaper. Could it be that this retraction was not syndicated? Furthermore, could it be that those newspapers further down on the syndication chain were told not to carry that retraction in their local paper? . . . Possible? On the other hand, could my local liberal newspaper have made its own decision to not report that retraction story to its readers? Possible?

Fourth: . . . It gets worse! These same erroneous “quotes” were also reported by . . . brace yourselves . . . NBC News, ABC News, USA Today, PBS News Hour, and CNN, many of whom supposedly “confirmed” these “quotes” through their own anonymous sources. Hmmm! Nothing like one anonymous source confirming another anonymous source about some “fake news!”

One would hope that perhaps some good could come from this skullduggery. (again, another word for “purposely lying”) Could it be that a lot of those recently converted to “anti-Trumpism” (“he has tarnished his reputation forever by his post-election antics”) would learn not to believe a lot of B.S. promulgated by the liberal Main Stream Media? . . . Possible, but unlikely!

Now one needs to wear a mask to go inside just about anywhere, because “those in the know” say so! Britain has just stated that there was no risk of contracting the virus while at a beach, and we have known for a while that the chance of catching or spreading the virus while outside is minuscule, even though for quite a while, beach going was verboten. Granted if someone sneezed in your face while you were outside, all bets would be off, but again there is only a very small probability of this happening. At this point just about everybody has accepted mask wearing as a fait accompli. A “when in Rome philosophy” is just easier now days.

As best I can tell no one has protested and vocalized that diktats to wear masks are unconstitutional, even though they probably are. (except possibly where private businesses are concerned.)

The next stop on this voyage aboard the ship, “The Un-Constitution”, will be the demanding of proof of vaccination to do X,Y, or Z. Right now one must wear a mask to travel just about anywhere, but how far are we from demanding demanding proof of vaccination to travel anywhere? What about demanding proof that one has gotten the vaccine as a prerequisite to work? Impossible, you say? Actually it is already beginning. 

From the New York Post:

“Restaurant staffers in New York joined the list of people eligible for the shot earlier this month. Not long after, management at a Brooklyn eatery emailed staffers to let them know they were eligible, and later said the vaccine would be “mandatory” for all employees.

Bonnie Jacobson, 34, told The Post that the management at Red Hook Tavern canned her on Monday because she balked at getting the shot immediately.

Jacobson, who has been married since October 2019, stressed that she’s not an anti-vaxxer and “fully supports” people being inoculated, but said she wants to wait for more research on the coronavirus vaccine’s possible effects on fertility.”

Hmmm! 

Certainly since the vaccine has only been around for two months, it is reasonable to say that no one knows if there is an effect on one’s future fertility. Is Mrs. Jacobson’s concern beyond the pale? 

The response of Red Hook Tavern . . . “Tough! You’re Fired!” Red Hook Tavern must feel pretty confident of its position concerning this issue, as at this point since there has apparently not been any dramatic side-effects from the vaccine. However, if the vaccine proves to have some serious side-effects, would diktats like those from Red Hook Tavern hold up in court?

Yes, older people have died in the week following their vaccine, but their death has been deemed something that would have occurred anyway. (If a ninety year old dies from a stroke six days after getting the vaccine, it is not unreasonable to say that the stroke would have occurred anyway.) However there are reports of younger individuals dying within close proximity to getting the vaccine.

Also from the New York Post:

“A former Detroit news anchor who worked at the country’s first black-owned television station died a day after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, a report said.

Karen Hudson-Samuels, 68, who also worked as a producer and news director at WGPR-TV, was found dead in her home by her husband, Cliff Samuels, CBS Detroit reported.”

The question that I have is whether or not at some point in the future the general populace will say, “Enough! Let us make our own decisions concerning what we will and will not do . . . based on the Constitution.”

Does anyone in a governing position in this country have the nerve to do what President Reagan did forty years ago? Granted, Ronald Reagan did many things forty years ago, but I am here referring to August 5, 1981.

Does anybody remember what he did on that date? 

This is neither a random date nor a random question. I am refreshing everyone’s memory because of something else that is happening in 2121.

The following are the facts  . . . the ( ) are my personal feelings:

From History on This Date, August 5:

On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan began firing 11,359 air-traffic controllers striking in violation of his order for them to return to work. The executive action, regarded as extreme by many, significantly slowed air travel for months. (However, there have been no adverse long term consequences to his decisive action.)

Two days earlier, on August 3, almost 13,000 air-traffic controllers went on strike after negotiations with the federal government to raise their pay and shorten their workweek proved fruitless. The controllers complained of difficult working conditions and a lack of recognition of the pressures they face. The same day, President Reagan called the strike illegal and threatened to fire any controller who had not returned to work within 48 hours. (The important thing to note is that President Reagan had the cajones to identify a critical problem in this country.)

On August 5, President Reagan carried out his threat, and the federal government began firing the 11,359 air-traffic controllers who had not returned to work. (Not only did he identify a critical issue for the country, , but he had the cajones to follow through on his threat.)

In addition, he declared a lifetime ban on the rehiring of the strikers by the Federal Aviation Administration. On August 17, the FAA began accepting applications for new air-traffic controllers, and on October 22 the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO, the union of the air-traffic controllers. (Those who felt that Reagan was bluffing eventually recognized that they shouldn’t have challenged Reagan.)

So here we are forty years later, and the question is does anyone in charge have the cajones to do anything similar to what Reagan did back in 1981?

At present we have a critical nationwide problem. Children across the country are suffering in a multitude of different ways because they are not in school. Not only is the plight of our country’s children being ignored, but also millions of their parents, especially those in the lower socioeconomic are likewise being slighted. For the good of the country and its future, all of the children need to be back in school full time.

(Here I am referring to full time in-person school, not the “dancing with your sister”-like Zoom school.) In a realistic sense, the kids should be back in school next Monday, but we all know that some school districts will continue to lallygag even possibly into the beginning of the next school year. 

My suggestion – Reaganesque-like action . . . 

“By May 5, 2121, all schools and all teachers need to be back on the job, in their classrooms, full time.”

The different districts across the country should begin that transition now. No more tap dancing. Teachers that are not back on the job on that date should be fired, and just like back in 1981, never rehired!

This type of concrete action should have been taken on August 5, 2020, but unfortunately wasn’t. It is needed now, and hopefully would be an example of how those in charge should act when the next pandemic hits.

In a practical sense, does anybody now in charge have the cajones of a Ronald Reagan?

Nationally, does Joe Biden?  HEAVENS NO!

Locally, does Gavin Newsom of California, the state with the least in person education in the nation have the cajones? HELL NO! 

Odds are that the vast majority of people in the US have no idea who John James is. For the uninformed he is a West Point graduate, an Iraq War veteran, a businessman, and a loser in the recent Senate race in Michigan. His opponent, Gary Peters (D), got 49.9% of the vote, and won the Michigan Senate race by 9335 votes.

Other notes of interest about John James. He was born in Southfield, Michigan which is in Oakland County and abuts on the border of Wayne County (Detroit). In other words he is a local guy, and furthermore John James is black.

Statewide Mr. Peters got 49.9% of the vote and beat John James by 92,635 votes.

In both Wayne County (Detroit) and Oakland County, Joe Biden got about 4000 more votes than John James. This is somewhat surprising to me as I would have expected John James to have done better both in predominately black Detroit and in his home county. In Wayne County (Detroit) Gary Peters won by 322,221 votes, getting almost 70% of the vote. Hmmm!

As you recall there was a lot of “funny stuff” that happened in Detroit on election night. Biden’s lead grew immensely once absentee and mail-in ballots were counted. According to unofficial election results, Biden pulled in 415,465 absentee votes in Wayne County. Trump had just 130,880. Factoring in just Election Day voting at polling locations, Trump lost by just about 40,000 votes.

Wayne County wasn’t the only state that saw absentee ballots go in Biden’s favor quite heavily, but it was one that caught a lot of attention after ballot challengers outside the TCF Center in Detroit where ballots were being counted.

Now the votes for the presidential election are done! Even if Michigan’s vote presidential vote tally were to have been reversed because of skulduggery ( a nice word for fraud), Biden would have still won the necessary electoral votes to have been elected.

However, what about John James?

Remember if John James actually won the Senate would be 51-49 in favor of the Republicans. How different would that be!

I think that John James got the shaft, and as a consequence the country is getting the shaft.

Some people pride themselves on being good at giving away other people’s money. For some reason unbeknownst  to me, a lot of these individuals seem to gravitate into politics, at least here in Southern California. These politicians just do not seem to understand that those businesses whose money is being given away are not enthusiastic when politicians try to gain political points by giving away some of the hard earned profits of their business. This is especially true when profit margins are slim. 

So of course, in an attempt to make people like them, (and by the way, continue to vote for them), these pols make very questionable decisions that can hurt the very ones that they are naively attempting to help. 

In Long Beach, California, in January, the City Council unanimously decided that those who work in grocery stores will be given “hero pay” of an additional $4.00 per hour for four months. The Democrat mayor of Long Beach then signed this money giveaway mandate. The response was an anticipated one . . .  two Kroger grocery stores in Long Beach subsequently closed.

As would expected, not to be outdone, the Los Angeles City Council decided that they should do the same thing, namely give “hero pay” of an additional $4.00 per hour to their grocery store workers. Keep in mind that this money was not money that belonged to the Los Angeles City Council, but rather was money that belonged to the various grocery stores.

So in L.A what do you think happened next? Right! Two Ralphs stores and one Food 4 Less, both of which are owned by Kroger, will shut down in May, joining the other two Kroger locations that closed after a $4 hero pay hike was mandated in Long Beach.

From Townhall, in a news release Kroger said:

“The mandate will add an additional $20 million in operating costs over the next 120 days, making it financially unsustainable to continue operating underperforming locations.”

Kroger continued, “The Los Angeles City Council disregarded their own Economic Impact Report by not considering that grocery stores – even in a pandemic – operate on razor-thin profit margins in a very competitive landscape.”

(A total of 289 associates at the three L.A. stores will be affected by the upcoming May 15 closures, Kroger told the Washington Examiner.)

So let’s get this straight . . . “those Democrats on the City Councils of both Long Beach and Los Angeles (“those that think that know best”) are seemingly astounded that Kroger Foods wasn’t happy that their slim profits were being given away. As a consequence of the ineptitude and shortsightedness of those City Councils, many of those who had worked in these now closed stores in Long Beach, and in those soon to be closed L.A. stores will lose their jobs. (A total of 289 associates at the three L.A. stores will be affected by the May 15 closures, Kroger told the Washington Examiner.)

According to the LA Times, there was only one supervisor who voted against the measure, predicting what would happen if the temporary pay hike was implemented. 

“I would hate to think we’re driving [out of business] the very businesses we fought so hard to locate in unincorporated areas, many of which are working-class neighborhoods,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger. 

Ms. Barger was indeed right on!

Be forewarned. This same sort of inept inane thinking could well be coming soon to a Democratic city near you. If you live in a city with a Democrat City Council, perhaps you should stock up on some groceries now.