Month: February 2023

Blast From the Past – XVII

(This was written before the 2020 election … on 8/13/20.)

Diktats . . .Constitutional ?

The “COVID police” continue to try to enforce arbitrary diktats made up by  . . . who? . . . based on what? . . . with exceptions seemingly pulled out of thin air.

The following was spoken earlier this week by the mayor of a coastal town north of San Diego, “Local laws need to be consistent with state and federal constitutions, and should not infringe on anyone’s freedom.” 

Wow, now that is a novel idea! Follow the constitution . . . why didn’t someone else think of that?! Why are those who are arbitrarily pronouncing these diktats apparently choosing to follow some arbitrary “made-up” sets of rules. What Constitution, they ask? Here in California, there are a gazillion rules on just about everything, the the next stages of reopening are being defined by some arbitrary rules. For instance: A county can end up on the Governor’s watchlist if the number of new COVID cases is above 100-per-100,000 residents. The esteemed Dr. Fauci is constantly talking about controlled studies … can anyone show me a controlled study defining this arbitrary tipping point?

 My gym cannot be opened because apparently a single gym was the source of “an outbreak,” which is defined as three cases not from the same family, from a single source somewhere in the county. In this situation if a single gym is the source of three cases, then close it down. That at least makes some sense, but to close down hundreds of gyms because three cases were found to stem from one gym, utter insanity!

There are also other “pull-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat” hocus-pocus examples … for instance, fourteen day moving averages, used magically to place people, churches, parks, and businesses on or off some list. . . abracadabra!”

All arbitrary . . . formulated by whom?

Businesses are going under. Suicides are up. Mass masking is begetting chaos, as Karens are all in a tizzy. All because of some arbitrary criteria and lists. Have any of these mambo-jumbo dictums been validated by a Fauci double-blind controlled study?  . . . Not a spatial-distancing chance!

Soon we will start to see more cases about infringement of our constitutional liberties, and these cases will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court. So far the only case that I am aware of is one from Nevada where a church wanted the same spacing rules, etc. as casinos. The church lost that case because John Roberts for some inexplicable reason, voted to squash religious freedom. Now you might say “who cares about some hodunk-podunk church in Nevada?” We should all care because this case points out that Justice John Roberts is merely a pseudo-conservative, and certainly should not be thought of as one who will reliably follow the Constitution. This becomes even more critical since, if Biden wins the presidency, the Supreme Court will again be a non-Constitutional left-leaning quagmire. Another reason to “vote Trump!”

( My upcoming novella, “The Keneally Chronicles” will deal with some of these non-constitutional diktats, and their impingements on our Constitutional liberties.)

8/13/20

2/11/23

These Dems are trying to figure out way to pay for their cockamamie ideas, and so they are trying to get more taxes from those who earn the least … minimum wage food servers.

The Internal Revenue Service announced it is proposing a new voluntary tip reporting program to improve tip reporting compliance by employers of service industry workers, such as servers.

The IRS requires employees who earn at least $20 a month in tips to keep a daily record of their tips to give to their employer. All of those tips are then required to be included on tax returns.

Employers are then required to withhold taxes on income earned from tips.

On the other hand, according to established IRS rules, every taxpayer can gift up to $17,000 per person, per year. This is called the annual gift tax exclusion amount. A married couple filing jointly can each give $17,000 ($34,000 total) to the same person in one year with no gift tax reporting consequences as of Jan 1, 2023.

So let me make sure that I understand … I can give an individual up to $17,000 per year with no tax consequences for anybody. Yet, if I give a waiter/waitress at a coffee shop a tip of $1.00, he/she must report this to the IRS, especially if he/she receives more than $20 per month in tips. If I always go to the same coffee shop every day, and give the same $1.00 tip to the same server each day, then in a month that server would have to pay taxes on that $30. 

What if I say that I am not tipping, but rather I am gifting that server $1.00 each day? So in a full calendar year, I would gift that waiter/waitress $365, which is well short of $17,000, and thus would not be taxable. Of course, the IRS would frown on this. Perhaps the way around it would be for the coffee shop to put up a sign saying:

NO TIPPING.

HOWEVER, 

GIFTING IS ENCOURAGED!

2/10/23

Q: During Covid did masking make a difference?

Many of us asked this same question, and there has not been a definitive answer up till this point. However, a Cochrane Review just came out on this very subject.

(FYI: A Cochrane Review is a systematic review of research in health care and health policy that is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews are considered the gold standard of systematic reviews.)

To cut to the chase … from Townhall:

“The analysis, which examined 78 studies featuring more than a million people around the world, found that community masking made “little to no difference” to either Covid death or infection rates.”

From the section on medical or surgical masks:

“Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.”

The study’s section on N95/P2 respirators was ‘also devastating,’ according to Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and health researcher who is a professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. It found that such masks made ‘little to no difference’ when compared with medical or surgical masks.

Writes Prasad: ‘Here is the big summary finding. With 276,000 participants in RCTs or cluster RCTs, masking does nothing. No reduction in influenza like or Covid like illness and no reduction in confirmed flu or COVID. That’s stone cold negative. See those effect sizes and confidence intervals.’”

These findings have not yet come out in the Main Stream Media. But don’t hold your breath, as they probably never will.

Not to be a braggart, but I am glad that Cochrane Review agreed with what I have been saying for a long time about masking in general. I must admit that I was surprised concerning the benefit of N95s … as perhaps N95s are only beneficial if they are individually form fitted.

2/9/23

My original title for this piece was going to be “Girls Just Want To Have Fun,” a 1985 song by Cindi Lauper, but because this is such a serious topic, I just could not do it.

I recently heard a story about a transgender first grader. This individual is a genetic girl (XX) who knew that she should be a boy. She is six years old and the story goes that she knew that she should be a boy at age two. (Now just to be clear my wife and I babysit for two young granddaughters, age five and seven, and transgenderism is not in their bailiwick.) What is even more incongruous than a six year old girl knowing that she should be a boy, is saying that she knew it at age two! I would guess that it was the parents who “knew” that their two-year old girl should really be a boy. OMG! … two-year old girls think about eating, sleeping, and cuddling with Mommy and Daddy. They DO NOT think they should be  boys! Going out on a limb, I would postulate that the parents of this young girl are the ones who think she should be a boy! How else could their two year old daughter know that she is really a boy!

Did this two year old girl like to do things that are typically thought of as things that boys like to do? For instance, at age two did she like to play with cars and trucks? And at age five did she take an interest in baseball? 

Back in the day, we might have called this girl a tomboy. For those not cognizant of this term, a tomboy is an energetic, sometimes boisterous girl whose behavior and pursuits, especially in games and sports, are considered more typical of boys than of girls.

At this point I might ask, “is being a tomboy such a bad thing?” 

My answer is “absolutely not … in fact it can be quite a good thing.”

I am friends with a woman who freely admits that as growing up she was a tomboy. She later became a mother to two boys and a girl, and now is a super- grandmother to her three grandsons. At this point my rhetorical question is “could tomboys potentially make better mothers?” They know what young boys like, just as they know what young girls like. Perhaps when a mother/father sees their young daughter playing with cars and trucks, or taking an interest in baseball, they should encourage her to do what she likes to do, instead of convincing her that she is the wrong gender.

2/8/23

One of the proposed draws to Electric Vehicles is that are less expensive to drive. Not surprisingly when Joe Biden drove up the price of gas, this was true … however, the cost to fuel electric vehicles in the United States is higher than gas-powered cars for the first time in 18 months, a consulting company, Anderson Economic Group (AEG) said in an analysis. (AEG is a consulting firm based in Michigan that offers research and consulting in economics, valuation, market analysis, and public policy, according to the company’s website.)

The fuel costs in the analysis are based on real-world U.S. driving conditions including the cost of underlying energy, state taxes charged for road maintenance, the cost of operating a pump or charger, and the cost to drive to a fueling station, AEG said.

From The Epoch Times:

“In Q4 2022, typical mid-priced ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car drivers paid about $11.29 to fuel their vehicles for 100 miles of driving. That cost was around $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by mid-priced EV drivers charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially,” Anderson Economic Group (AEG) said in an analysis.

However, luxury EVs still enjoy a cost advantage against their gas-powered counterparts. It costs luxury EV owners $12.4 to drive every 100 miles on average if they charge their cars mostly at home or $15.95 if they charge their cars mostly at commercial charger stations in the 4th quarter of 2022. Meanwhile, the fuel costs for luxury gas-powered cars are $19.96 per 100 miles on average.

Eventually we all know that when things get back to normal, the price of gas will go down further. As time goes on will these Q4 comparisons continue to favor gas-powered vehicles?

Another interesting tidbit from that same article is that insurance carriers are sending low-mileage Tesla Model Ys to salvage auctions because they are too expensive to repair.

Of more than 120 Model Ys that were totaled after collisions, then listed at auction in December and early January, the vast majority had fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer, according to a Reuters analysis based on online data from Copart and IAA, the two largest salvage auction houses in the United States.

Insurance companies typically “total” a vehicle—which means to scrap it and reimburse the owner—when the estimated cost of repair is deemed too high.

Remember insurance companies are in business to make money. Is this totaling of low mileage Teslas going to be a trend, and will this mean that insurance on Teslas will go up even higher?.

2/7/23

Today I read about a perplexing incident at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum that occurred in January. I say, “perplexing” because haven’t we been down this road before. Either the National Air and Space Museum is totally off-kilter about what the First Amendment means or they only hire those who watch only MSNBC.

Following the March for Life, a group of Catholic students went to visit the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. In order to keep track of all in their group, they were all wearing similar light blue hats. 

Student Patrick Murphy spoke out about what happened next. He told “Hannity” that the group was viewing an exhibit when they were approached by two women, presumably security guards, about their attire. They (said), ‘All people wearing a pro-life hat, take it off’,” Murphy recalled, “and immediately we’re confused.” 

A student in the group told the women the blue hats reading “Rosary Pro-life” were used for identification purposes to keep the group together, but that the women blew them off. 

After walking out of the museum, Murphy said they were approached by a man claiming he had reports the group refused to take off their hats and they were in trouble. After a student reminded him the hats were used to identify the group, Murphy defended his Constitutional rights. 

“I said, ‘This is a violation of our First Amendment right. This is a government funded building. How are we paying for this with our taxes and I’m not allowed to wear this hat?”

The pro-lifers were “blown away” when the man said it was a neutral zone and their rights didn’t apply. 

“A neutral zone?” I wasn’t aware that in the U.S.that there were places that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution didn’t apply. Those in charge at this museum immediately tap-danced:

“Asking visitors to remove hats and clothing is not in keeping with our policies or protocols,” said Alison Wood, the museum’s deputy director of communications. “We provided immediate training to prevent a re-occurrence of this kind of incident.” 

“They said they did a training afterwards. We want to know… about the training before and they didn’t apologize to these students,” Sekulow said. “They picked on the wrong students, as people can tell from Patrick.” 

American Center for Law and Justice’s Jordan Sekulow told Fox News that legal action is “imminent.” 

Sekulow added,”We’re going to get to the bottom of it. We’re fighting back.” 

Haven’t we been down this road before? My guess is that this is not over, but do not expect to hear or read about this incident in the Main Stream Media!

2/6/23

As per my usual modus operandi on Sunday, today I write about someone who deserves our praise and respect.

From Epoch Bright:

Born in Liverpool, United Kingdom, James Anderson, 55, is a fully qualified plumbing and heating engineer, who currently resides in Burnley, Lancashire.

In 2017, Anderson was called for a second opinion at a disabled, elderly gentleman’s house who was almost conned by a heating company.

“[He] was nearly scammed out of £5,500 for work he did not need,” Anderson told The Epoch Times. “The memory of him sitting there in his bed with a hoist is still fresh in my memory … so fragile and helpless.”

Shocked on witnessing this and on learning about the low-quality life that many elderly, disabled, and vulnerable people had to lead due to poor heating and plumbing, Anderson established Depher (Disability and Elderly Plumbing and Heating Emergency Repair).

“I couldn’t believe it and I made it my life mission to make sure I could help as many people as I could, whatever the cost,” Anderson said, according to Daily Mail. “’If you’ve got disabilities, issues, sometimes these things can become too difficult to overcome and we want to make sure they’re taken care of.”

Since the inception of the community initiative company, Anderson and his team have delivered a “life-saving service,” to over one million people. Their service includes plumbing, heating, gas, electricity, and food, amongst other things.

In December 2022, Anderson and his team received a call from Macmillan nurses and a doctor regarding a cancer-stricken patient named Robert Downs who needed help with a boiler.

Downs—battling cancer for the third time—had tried to get help with his broken boiler everywhere but couldn’t find any. However, as soon as Depher got to know about Downs’ need they were able to install a Glow-worm boiler for free.

Anderson believes that every customer has their own story and they’re all treated with the same respect and dignity.

Kudos to James Anderson and his Depher organization.

2/5/23

Agree or disagree with the following:

“On the Judiciary Committee, we are charged with vindicating the constitutional rights of our fellow Americans, and our Pledge of Allegiance is a national symbol of pride and unity,” Matt Gaetz (R.FL) explained. “My amendment gives the committee the opportunity to begin each of its meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to the committee’s rules that would require each member to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before conducting committee business.

I did a trial run multiple times and The Pledge of Allegiance takes ten seconds at the most to recite.

Sounds logical, easy and quite simple … ten seconds! Ask for a show of hands, and move on … but wait! … Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the committee, immediately opposed it. Is Jerry Nadler going to oppose everything any Republican says, or he is not a fan of the US, or he is simply an idiot.

At one point, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) took the opportunity to point out what he believed was the absurdity of the debate.

“I’m almost speechless,” he said. “I know it’s a real backbreaker. … We can [go] that little extra mile, stand up, put our hand on our chest, say what we believe, and reaffirm this America that we love. Come on. This can’t be real. I can’t believe we’re having this debate.”

After thirty minutes of useless caterwauling by Democrats, Gaetz’s, amendment was unanimously approved by a vote of 39-0.

My answer to the above question. … Jerry Nadler (D,NY) is all three … an argumentative, unpatriotic idiot!

2/4/23

We are now seeing the catastrophic effects of the drawn out “teaching remotely” due to Covid. This blog from 8/9/20 points out that those in the know had no clue! 

 An Inexplicable Dilemma

In Chicago under the return to school plan, all students will begin the school year on Aug. 27 with remote learning, which will continue for all students through at least Sept. 28. An in-person option is scheduled to begin on Sept. 29, if it is safe to do so.

The first question I have to ask is, “What does ‘if it is safe to do so’ mean?” Does it mean that we need some data on the incidence of Covid in children? (We already have that data.) Does it mean that we need some data on the seriousness of Covid if a child tests positive? (We already have that data.) Does it mean that we need some data on the chance that an infected student will pass this infection to a teacher? (We already have this data.)

Be that as it may, on Sept. 29 in-person learning (on-site) is to begin. However, there are two factors which will limit the number of students that can be accommodated into the the in-person (on-site) program. The first is space. Taking  “safe” spatial distancing into account, there is only so much space in a school building, and therefore the space available will limit the number of students.

The second factor that may impact enrollment in on-site learning is the number of teachers who are willing to teach on site, due to their concerns about being infected by COVID-19. Some teachers may have a concern based on their own risk factors or of people in their household. At this point it appears that the District is honoring teachers’ decisions on whether to teach on-site or not.

School Superintendent Devon Horton said the District is not setting teachers up to say, “You must come back.” It is anticipated that not all teachers will go along with this in-person option, and so the number of teachers willing to teach will also potentially  limit the number of in-person students that can be accommodated.

Latarsha Green, Deputy Superintendent, said that one of the District’s task forces considered what the District should do in the event more students applied to take on-site learning than there were available slots. 

(This is where it gets interesting, as it seems that there is an inexplicable dilemma.)

Ms. Green said the task force and administrators decided to give the following categories of students a priority: “students receiving free or reduced lunch, Black and Brown students, students who received an I [Incomplete] or less than 50% on their report cards, emerging bilinguals, and students with IEPs. There are also other categories in relation to students who are not performing according to reading or math grade-level expectations, and students with no comorbidity factors.”

So here is my dilemma: Is going back to school safe for children or is it not safe for children? 

If it is safe, then why not send them back in-person on August 27? If it is safe for children on Sept.29, logic would dictate that it is safe on Aug. 27! Nothing of import is going to happen over the course of one month’s time. I would ask Ms. Latasha, “If it is safe for children, why are you waiting a month?”

On the other hand perhaps it is not safe sending children back to school for in-person learning. If that is the case why are Black, Brown, and children that receive free or reduced lunch (poorer children) going to be given priority. Why if the number of children going back in-person learning is not safe, are you sending these children in first. Are they in essence the guinea pigs here?

A dilemma! Either it is safe to send kids back to school now, or somebody has decided to experiment with the safety of Black, Brown, and poorer children.

You can’t have it both ways. Inexplicable!

8/9/20

2/4/23

For those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of you who are long term readers, I know that you already know my feelings concerning CNN. To put it politely, I think it is trash.

At my gym there are 8 or 10 TVs on prominent display such that those on a treadmill or an elliptical can watch them while working out. Whereas CNN use to occupy a central position, it is no longer on any of the gym TVs. My response …”it couldn’t happen to a nicer cable …”

Other than what is happening at my gym, how is CNN doing nationally?

It’s not news, necessarily, that CNN is not keeping up with the post-Trump administration times we live in — despite a change in course directed by new boss Chris Licht following a merger between CNN’s parent company and Discovery. But when tanking ratings continue to sink to levels not seen in nearly a decade, there’s bound to be some talk of whether the network is salvageable at all. 

From The Wrap:

CNN “notched its lowest ratings in nine years across all its day parts for the week of Jan. 16 through Jan. 22, 2023,” per ratings data from Nielsen: “just 444,000 viewers in primetime, 93,000 in the all-important age 25-54 news demographic and 417,000 in viewers and 80,000 in the demo for total day.”

This week was “the first time since May 2014” that saw CNN stay below 450,000 viewers. And it’s not like there was a industry-wide dip in viewers last week. It turns out Fox News Channel, the leader in cable news for almost too many consecutive weeks to track at this point, had 1.4 million total viewers and 176,000 in the 25-54 demographic during the same timeframe. Their primetime shows brought in two million viewers and 256,000 in the 25-54 range.

2/3/23