Author: Californiacontrarian

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

The basic question is: “What is killing healthy young Americans?”

Ed Dowd addresses this question in his new book entitled, “Cause Unknown”: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022.”

FYI, Ed Dowd is a global investment firm partner, Phinance Technologies. He’s not a doctor, but he’s an expert in numbers.

Recently while he was being interviewed on The Dennis Prager Show, 

Mr Dowd said,,  “I’ll start before the vaccine actually rolled out. I was skeptical from day one because I knew a couple things. I knew they were going to use mRNA technology, which was new, novel and untested on humans. That’s number one. Number two, Operation Warp Speed sounded like a disaster to me because these are complex manufacturing processes. So, at the very least, I thought the first several runs of this thing would be a disaster. And I also knew it took seven to 10 years for a normal vaccine, due to my Wall Street background, to be vetted and tested for safety before it was released into the human population.

“So I knew those three things. So I was skeptical before going into this. And then very early on, January and February of 2021, I started hearing anecdotes. And just to give you an idea, anecdotes of injuries and then mysteriously people dying that previously were healthy, sudden athletic deaths, I started seeing on Twitter occurring. And what I know about vaccine safety is this: Do adverse events occur in a seven- to 10-year-tested vaccine? Sure they do. But they’re so rare that I should not be hearing an anecdote, statistically speaking. But I was hearing multiple anecdotes.”

Dowd continued, “the data demonstrates that 2020 saw a spike in deaths in America, smaller than you might imagine during a pandemic, some of which could be attributed to COVID and to initial treatment strategies that were not effective. But then, in 2021, the stats people expected went off the rails. The CEO of the OneAmerica insurance company publicly disclosed that during the third and fourth quarters of 2021, death in people of working age (18–64) was 40 percent higher than it was before the pandemic. Significantly, the majority of the deaths were not attributed to COVID. A 40 percent increase in deaths is literally earth-shaking. Even a 10 percent increase in excess deaths would have been a 1-in-200-year event. But this was 40 percent.”

Dowd finished by saying, 

“As far as I’m concerned, there’s no other explanation (for this marked increase in the death rates in younger people). And the conclusion I come to is that vaccines are causing this. I’m open to other interpretations, but no one’s really come forth with anything better yet.”

I think that Ed Dowd is right on! Just about every day, I read about another young person dying unexpectedly. Just today I read that Jessie Lemonier, who previously played in the NFL, had passed away at the age of 25, and a few days ago a football player at Mississippi State University, Samuel Westmoreland, 19, was found dead outside a church.

Damar Hamlin would have been added to this list if he wasn’t defibrillated and saved from his sudden death episode. I predict that these young “anecdotal” deaths will continue to occur. It’s not over yet ! … not by a long shot!!!

2/2/23

No, this is not a story from an authoritarian country, like Venezuela, but rather a story from the USA, specifically from Pennsylvania. Last September, the Biden administration sent 30 FBI agents to Mark Houck’s house and arrested him in front of his wife and seven children.

Houck’s wife, Ryan-Marie, told LifeSiteNews that a SWAT team of 25 to 30 agents in 15 vehicles surrounded their home in Pennsylvania, with rifles at 7 a.m. 

“They started pounding on the door and yelling for us to open it,” Ryan-Marie said, adding that the rifles were “kind of pointed throughout the house.”

When I initially read about his arrest, I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed, because I am a strong backer of law-enforcement, and this disgusting episode was an example of PURE INTIMIDATION by the Department of Justice. In effect, the DOJ was warning others that a similar fate could befall them, if they dared cross the line! To make this even more embarrassing, the case had been thrown out of a district court the year prior. 

If the DOJ wanted to pursue this case in Federal Court, why not send Mr. Houck a registered letter, and give him an opportunity to turn himself in, like is done typically in multiple other instances. He was not a flight risk as he lived with his wife and his seven children.

After months, the case came to trial last week.

The jury began deliberations on Friday, 1/27 but was “deadlocked.” They resumed deliberations Monday, 1/30, and Houck was acquitted of the charges.

Houck’s attorney, Peter Breen, said in a statement,

“Mark and his family are now free of the cloud that the Biden administration threw upon them. We took on Goliath – the full might of the United States government – and won,” he added. “The jury saw through and rejected the prosecution’s discriminatory case, which was harassment from day one. This is a win for Mark and the entire pro-life movement. The Biden Department of Justice’s intimidation against pro-life people and people of faith has been put in its place.” 

AMEN!

The DOJ should be embarrassed, but we all know that it’s deserved righteous embarrassment will not occur.

2/1/23

I’m sure that many of you have been hoping that the pendulum will soon start to swing in the opposite direction as far as the mandating of EVs in the future. Those of us who think logically realize that the mandating that new cars be EVs by certain states (e.g California, New York, & Oregon) in 20XX is pure folly for a variety of reasons.

Finally, Wyoming has stepped up and taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, as what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

From the Daily Mail:

Wyoming has introduced state legislation to ban the sale of new electric vehicles by 2035 to ‘ensure the stability’ of its oil and gas industry. Wyoming officials argue that the oil and gas production has created ‘countless jobs’ and contributed ‘revenues to the state of Wyoming throughout its history.‘I

The bill also notes that Wyoming lacks charging stations and that ‘the critical minerals used in electric batteries are not easily recyclable or disposable.’

In 2021, Wyoming placed as the eighth top oil producer in the US, producing 85.43 million barrels.

Today, approximately 100 companies are operating 30,000 miles of pipelines in Wyoming, not including all gathering systems or all inactive or abandoned pipelines.

And there are more than 68,000 jobs in the state’s oil and gas industry.

The bill praises gas-powered vehicles as enabling the state’s industries and businesses to ship goods and resources across the US. 

The lawmakers also note that the US ‘has consistently invested in the oil and gas industry to sustain gas-powered vehicles and that investment has resulted in the continued employment of thousands of people in the oil and gas industry in Wyoming and throughout the country.’

On the other hand, the shift to electric vehicles would ‘have deleterious impacts on Wyoming’s communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming’s economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce.’

The bill encourages Wyoming residents to limit the sale and purchase of new EVs and aim to phase them out entirely by 2035.

Kudos to Wyoming for sticking up for its citizens and their jobs. Will any other states have the guts to agree with Wyoming’s position and adapt something similar? … if so, how many?

1/31/23

When is it okay to express your religious views on social media? Whether you agree or disagree with the religious views of X, the issue here today is whether or not he/she has the right to express these views on Social Media without fear of retaliation from his employer. I guess an argument could be made that a private employer could restrict some employees’ views on Social Media, if those expressed views were affecting his private business. (For example, if the employee was effusively praising Hitler on Social Media and the business he was employed at was in a Jewish community, a reasonable argument could be made that because of the horrific treatment the Jewish people received from Hitler’s Third Reich that the employee could be made to restrict his hateful praise of Hitler.)

But what about if the “business” was a bureau of government, and the employee was expressing his non-violent views on something that his more liberal superior did not agree with. Could the employee be threatened with the loss of his job? Is it okay or not okay to be non-PC. To make this even more contentious, the views expressed on Social Media were “religious” views.

Now before I relate the details of what happened to Jacob Kersey in Georgia, remember that this is not about whether you agree or disagree with the views of Jacob Kersey, but whether or not you agree with his right to express these views.

From BlazeNews:

“Rookie Georgia police officer Jacob Kersey resigned after his superiors threatened to terminate him for expressing his views on traditional marriage on 1/2/23. Kersey posted the following on Facebook … ‘God designed marriage. Marriage refers to Christ and the church,’ Kersey said in the post. ‘That’s why there is no such thing as homosexual marriage,’ the post concluded.

The next day, Kersey’s supervisor requested he remove the post; Kersey refused, and was warned he could be terminated if he did not comply, according to the Daily Signal’s reporting. Shortly after that, Maj. Bradwick L. Sherrod ordered him to ‘return everything he had that belonged to the city,’ and Kersey was placed on paid administrative leave while the city investigated.

Department leadership formalized its position in a letter to Kersey dated January 13, which was obtained by the Daily Signal. In the letter, Port Wentworth Police Department’s Major Sherrod says, in part, ‘After reviewing your Podcast and social media platforms. . .we did not find sufficient evidence to establish a violation of any policies. . . However, the posts, podcasts, and so forth found and considered in our investigation likely offensive to protected classes . . . please be reminded that if any post on any of your social media platforms, or any other statement or action, renders you unable to perform, and to be seen as able to perform, your job in a fair an equitable manner, you could be terminated.’”

Note that by review, “there was not sufficient evidence to establish a violation of any policies,” but yet Officer Kersey was still threatened with termination.

Now to me the question is whether or not Major Sherrod mainly disagreed with Officer Kersey’s views on marriage, or whether Major Sherrod did not agree with Kersey’s ability to speak his views. I guess freedom of speech apparently does not exist in Port Wentworth, Georgia or in the mind of Major Sherrod !

1/30/23