http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Is it the coronavirus or something else that causes people in authority to make up rules for the good of society because “they know best?” 

The diktats concerning face  masks are a prime example of what can happen when certain people feel that they are absolutely in charge . . . you will do what I say, because I am in charge.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a statewide mask mandate requiring pretty much everyone to wear a face covering when outside your home and near other people.

The CDPH Order requires people in California wear cloth face coverings in “high-risk situations,” which include: indoor public spaces, outdoor public spaces (when maintaining social distancing is not feasible), obtaining healthcare, using public transportation (including taxis and ride—share services), and engaging in work with members of the public. The Order exempts children under two years of age, persons who cannot wear a face covering due to a health issue.

Now, although I am not a pro-face mask person, I do understand that the wearing of face masks does provide comfort to those who are deathly afraid of catching the coronavirus. I am very doubtful that this type of mandate is constitutional, and I noticed that Joe Biden has quickly walked back his tough talk about commanding everyone to wear a mask, if he were to be elected.

I think that I have interpreted this mask mandate in a common sense way. Basically I wear a mask when I am in a situation where social distancing is not possible. I do not wear a mask in my car or in my house, or when taking out the garbage. If I am outside walking alone, I do not feel that a mask is called for, e.g. walking on the beach. (FYI: Yes, I have one ready, just in case a Karen comes walking by.)

If I were to be sitting in the stands at a football game, I would try to wear one – not so much because I think that masks do anything in outdoor settings, but “when in Rome.” If I was sitting with my family outdoors at a football game with no one within twenty feet in the stands, I would probably bite my tongue and put the stupid thing on . . . again “when in Rome”… but not because I thought it was doing any good.

If I were sitting in these same stands with no one near me, and I had asthma, I would not.

Now I freely admit that I am not familiar with the legality of mask diktats at middle school football games in Ohio. I am a very pro-Police individual, but was shocked when I viewed a video of a huge policeman, let’s arbitrarily call him, Ken Smith, harassing, then attempting to handcuff a 120 pound mother, and finally tasering the woman in the stands. . . all because she refused to wear a mask at an outdoor sporting event. Yes, I did say that she was tasered and subsequently arrested. This occurred in Logan, Ohio, and the video is posted on You tube. Supposedly she was arrested and tasered because she was “resisting arrest,” but clearly the whole incident was about her not wearing the face mask. 

Yes, she was resisting arrest, and in principle I do not agree with, or in any way encourage “resisting arrest.” Perhaps she could have been given a ticket for refusing to wear a mask at an outdoor football game. However, after watching the video, she did not attempt to pull a weapon on the burly police officer. As best I could tell she did not try to bite or spit on the officer. She did not attempt to hurt or injure the mammoth officer. Although there is no way of knowing 100%, it did not appear that she was high on either PCP or Fentanyl, as she was quietly sitting in the stands with probable family, possibly her mother and probably her children. As this time I do not believe that she was wanted on any felony charges. . . . yet she was tasered!

FYI: the arrested and tasered woman reportedly has asthma!

President Trump has said that is going to nominate a woman to be the next Supreme Court Justice. At this point there appears to be two front runners and two in the second tier. The two front runners are Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagos.

In the second tier there is Joan Larsen and Allison Rushing.

From the WSJ:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 48 years old, was nominated by Mr. Trump to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2017 and confirmed by the Senate that October in a 55-43 vote. A graduate of Notre Dame Law School, Judge Barrett clerked from 1998 to 1999 for Justice Antonin Scalia, then practiced law at a Washington, D.C., law firm before returning in 2002 to Notre Dame as a professor of constitutional law.

A Trump appointee, Judge Barbara Lagoa, 52 years old, has served on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since December, after being confirmed by the Senate in a mostly bipartisan 80-15 vote. A Cuban-American and Miami native, Judge Lagoa served briefly on the Florida Supreme Court as the first Hispanic woman on the state’s high court. She also spent more than a dozen years as an intermediate appellate judge in Florida before being elevated by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. From 2003 to 2006, she worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in Miami.

From my perspective President Trump certainly likes all of these picks, but in the month before the election which of the top two picks could possibly enhance his prospects in November? The Dems are really po-ed that President Trump will undoubtedly replace their beloved liberal RBG with a conservative Justice. Based on the expected nasty confrontation that will occur during these confirmation hearings, my question is “who potentially will the Dems piss-off more?”

Let me ‘splain:

The nasty behavior of many Democratic senators during the Kavanaugh hearing more than likely influenced the 2018 midterm Senate elections. Now rationally one can also expect that the behavior of the Dems during the upcoming confirmation hearings will also be outlandish, so my question is, “which group will the Dems potentially offend more.”

Amy Coney Barrett is a fervent Catholic, and I think that it is reasonable to expect that her religious faith will be attacked. Likewise Barbara Lagos is Hispanic, more precisely Cuban American. Although I am not exactly sure how, the Dem senators will undoubtedly attack her also.

So from the perspective of the American voter, given that both of the front runners will be insulted, the insults to which candidate would be more advantageous for the President’s re-election? In other words would it be better for him if the Dems attack a Catholic or a Hispanic? Both of these groups constitute significant voter blocs – the Catholics nationally and the Hispanics, both nationally, and especially in the battleground state of Florida.

Yes! Yes! This SCOTUS pick should be best female candidate . . . however if the two top tier candidates are neck-and-neck, will the President allow the upcoming Dem insults influence his choice? (Might it be possible that the Dems will try to foil this strategy, and will insult neither? . . . “No!”)

The other day a friend of mine commented that he thought that Joe Biden has some early symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease. No he is not a neurologist, but has practiced medicine for more than forty-five years, and during that time has seen tens of thousands of patients. “How so?” I asked him. He responded, “Facial expression; confusion; and he walks a little funny.” I do not pretend to be up to date on the early symptoms of Parkinsonism, and from now on, especially during the debates, I will be keeping a close eye on Biden for possible clues as to his health status.

Many others are also concerned because of Biden’s unusual behavior, and his apparent lack of stamina.

“At no time in recent memory has a presidential nominee’s physical and mental health been more important than with Joe Biden,” Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson told Fox News.

“He often appears disoriented, and there is no pretense that he has the physical vigor to run for a second term should he be elected,” Jacobson said. “In a normal election, with the candidate on the campaign trail, the public could judge for itself but that is not possible because Biden is running a basement campaign. More than ever, the press needs to do its job and not act as protector of the Democrat nominee.”

Indeed the MSM do not appear to see or report on the obvious. Wassup with that?

As everyone is now aware, RBG died the other day after a long illness. I would have thought that Biden would have had his guns loaded, and would have been on the offensive. However the following day, he barely came out of his basement, and again on 9/22/20, he was done with his comments by 10 a.m. Wassup with that? This is supposed to be a presidential election, and Mr. Biden is spending more time in his basement than anywhere else. While at the same time, Trump is out on the campaign trail almost daily.

To me Joe Biden appears to be depressed. Why does someone have very little affect, and basically hide in his basement on most days, if he is not depressed? Why is someone running for President not out there campaigning? 

From my perspective there are only six basic possibilities:

1. He figures that he has the election in the bag, or at least that’s what his advisers tell him, and so keeping Joe hidden is merely a way of protecting his lead.
2. There is something physically wrong with him, and as a consequence he has no stamina and tires very easily. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen the results of any comprehensive examination on Joe Biden for years. Wassup with that?  (After all, if he gets elected and then very soon after, his illness is “discovered” . . . well there is no proviso for a redo. If the American people got snookered – oh well, too bad.)
3. He is physically okay . . . old, but physically okay for his age, but his mental status is shaky. We are all aware that he is gaffe-prone, and the less opportunity he has to misspeak the better.
4. He is merely a Trojan horse for the ultra-liberals, who knew that an ultra-liberal like Sanders or Warren could not win in a general election.
5. Take a breath before you read this one . . . He is purposely trying to lose the election! Before you laugh and call me crazy,look at the evidence. Objectively he is not a strong candidate. He is an old, a very old candidate, and he is a “gaffe-machine.” Why would anybody choose a candidate like him? He chooses a running mate that is not likable, and who was so unpopular in the Democratic primaries that she had to drop out. She is only pseudo-African American, and cannot even help Mr. Biden win her home state, as California would go Democrat with Alfred E. Newman running as V.P. Why would the Dems choose such a loser as their VP candidate? I have no idea?
6. He is actually sharp as a tack, and is merely trying to make Trump underestimate him, so that he can shine in the debates. (No, I do not think that this is true, but I only included it for completeness.  Personally, I cannot wait for the debates.)

There are just too many things here that just do not make any sense. 

So again I say, “Wassup with that ?”

Years down the road we will have to address lessons learned from this Covid pandemic. Now here I am not referring to medical lessons learned. I am not referring to which medicine worked or which didn’t work. I am not referring to masks . . . are they actually worth anything outside of an easy reminder that distancing is important? Social distancing ? How much? In Europe they use one meter (approximately 3 feet), whereas in the US, 6 feet is apparently without dispute. And finally I am not referring to whether or not singing “Happy Birthday” spreads the virus more than other songs because of certain consonants. (Honest . . . a real issue by some!)

I am referring to the issue of “How much dictatorial power does an elected official have?” If Joe Biden wins in November, and subsequently commands that everybody in the entire U.S. wear a mask at all times when outside, is he overstepping his authority? When a governor says everybody must do X, at what point is he/she overstepping his/her authority. How can someone arbitrarily make some businesses “essential,” and others “non-essential? By what criteria? Out here in California we have a non-elected individual who has been appointed as Health and Human Services Commissioner. He is not an elected representative, yet apparently has the power to close businesses in counties, because certain counties have violated an apparent arbitrary set of criteria on number of cases . . . or does he actually have this power? 

In Wisconsin back in May an appointee of a Democratic Governor arbitrarily made some diktats that were eventually ruled non-constitutional by that state’s Supreme Court. Just recently in Pennsylvania a judge ruled that “the liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms,” and the judge overturned Dem. Gov Wolf’s use of some emergency powers. 

It’s about time, especially when the U.S. Supreme Court recently ducked a religious freedom issue from the state of Nevada . . . perhaps better said that Justice Roberts ducked the issue. (Sometimes when I read some of Justice Roberts’s opinions, I wonder if he is being hypnotized or threatened.)

Hopefully when this Covid mess abates, lawsuits will be filed challenging the dictatorial power of some elected officials and their appointees. Only then will we be able to answer the question, “What have we learned?”

Back in 2016 one of Trump’s classic campaign lies was “What the hell do you have to loose?” This blunt line was directed to black voters, and apparently it connected to some black voters, because in 2016 6% of black voters pulled the lever for Trump. (Of course this means that 94% voted for Clinton.)

Over the last four years the Dems have incessantly called our president a racist, even though he was never accused of being a racist until he ran for president. . . . Hmmm! 

President Trump has done more for African Americans than any president in the last fifty years. Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and now Trump has done much more than the last several presidents combined, including Barack Obama.

What has he done?

Prior to  the Covid 19 pandemic, Trump’s economic boom had lifted 150,000 black children out of poverty and created the lowest recorded black unemployment rate of 5.4%. He can also take credit for prison reform, as well as added funding for Historic Black Colleges and Universities. Now that the recovery from Covid has started, who do think should be in charge of that economic recovery. A businessman who had done it before or Joe Biden who at this point possibly cannot even spell “economics.” For blacks, whites, yellows, and browns using jobs and the economy as the primary criteria, this choice should be easy.

Back in 2016 Donald Trump called school choice the “civil rights issue of our time.” This is especially true for African Americans who suffer disproportionately because they are often trapped in failing schools. Sleepy Joe is beholden to the teacher’s unions, who always seem to put what benefits them ahead of what benefits the kids. Take a close look at education with online learning … Hey, moms and dads, how’s that working out for you ? 

Well, no matter how dismal it is for you, it’s much worse for the underprivileged black children.

My advice to DJT is to put heavy emphasis on the education of black children. If he follows that advice he will be victorious just like Governor Ron Desantis was in Florida when 100,000 black women, presumably mostly mothers, voted for him as opposed to the black Democrat candidate who did not support school choice.

Sleepy Joe is expecting blacks to vote en masse for him as evidenced by a recent comment of his which was addressed to black voters:

“If you have a problem figuring out on whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” (Hopefully this comment will haunt Basement Joe in 2020, just like Hillary’s “deplorables” comment haunted her in 2016.)

My early prediction: If Trump can garner over 12% of the black vote, he wins in November.

Who is Mark Ghaly M.D., MPH, and basically who cares? Well I, for one, care, as he is the person who is apparently “advising” our Governor on California’s approach to Covid.

Dr. Ghaly is currently is the head of the California Health and Human Services Agency. He was appointed by Governor Newsom back in March, 2019. Prior to that he was a practicing pediatrician and director of health and social impact for the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office.

Yes, you heard me right. A prior practicing pediatrician is now in charge of health care in California. Where does Gavin N. get these guys??

“Director of health and social impact” . . . does anyone know what this means? 

I don’t! Where did Gavin N. get this guy, and why?

Just read on.

Prior to his appointment, Newsom praised Ghaly’s “deep knowledge and understanding of how individual and community health outcomes intersect with policy and law on issues like whole-person care, mental health, and stage-of-life care.” (Sounds like liberal mumbo-jumbo to me.)

Still in 2019: “It was felt that Ghaly would play a pivotal role in the administration, helping prioritize increasing access to health coverage for undocumented adults and restraining health care costs, including drug costs.” 

(Translation = Dr. Ghaly is a leftist that probably went to Harvard med school.)

POLITICO Pro’s Angela Hart reported that Ghaly was chosen, in part, for his work on integrating behavioral and physical health care. Again, I ask what does “integrating behavioral and physical health care” mean?

I am still having trouble believing that of all the physicians in California, Gavin N. chose a pediatrician. (Interestingly just about every pediatrician I know is liberal, and it appears that Dr. Ghaly fits into that mold . . . I would even guess that he went to Harvard under-grad.

• However, more to the point of “why I care.” Well just yesterday, he decided that   the multiple cases being picked up at San Diego State, should count against the tally for our county. Perhaps his decision is based on some made-up tiers – the scientific evidence for which I cannot seem to find. As a consequence probably more unemployment and more business closings fo San Diego County.

The response from Gavin N. and Ghaly is basically. . . tough. Criteria are criteria. (Perhaps he later told his wife, “What do they expect, after all I am only a pediatrician.”)

Now compare this “quality” to that of Scott Atlas M.D., , who is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in Scientific Philosophy & Public Policy at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a Member of Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Health Care Policy. Dr. Atlas was recently appointed to the White House Covid task force.

Read the following points from an article in the NY Post by Scott Atlas on 9/15/20. (N.B. Dr. Atlas is not a pediatrician.)

He following statements of Dr. Atlas are his opinions as to why colleges, including SDSU, should open up to in-person teaching.

“Science tells us that young adults are at extremely low risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that only 0.2 percent of deaths have been in those under age 25.

That’s fewer than 400 deaths in a country of 330 million. That’s also fewer than the 407 from influenza, 4,685 from accidents, 6,759 from suicides and 5,540 from homicides reported in the latest National Vital Statistics report from the CDC.”

(A Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis recently summed up what the entire world’s data consistently demonstrate: The risk for children and young adults dying from the novel coronavirus is “almost zero.”)

Again from Dr.Atlas:

“We are already seeing the negative effects of students not attending school. Almost three-fourths of those aged 18 to 24 reported at least one mental-health symptom by the end of June. A quarter of that age group contemplated suicide in the previous 30 days.”

He continues, “Even most university faculty aren’t at significant risk; two-thirds of them are under 55; only 13 percent are over 65.”

Meanwhile here in San Diego, San Diego State is going to be testing 2400 students this week . . . 2400 students, the vast majority of whom have little, if any symptoms. I am sure that SDSU has theorized some reason why this testing is a good thing, despite the fact that the cases picked up will probably punish the rest of us who live in the county.

I wonder if the head of Health Services at San Diego State is also a pediatrician?

9/21/20

In San Diego one of the measures that has used to determine the level of business closures is what is called “community outbreaks.” A community outbreak is defined as three or more lab-confirmed cases from different households. 

The threshold for community outbreaks was seven or fewer in a week’s span. Arbitrary? Yes, but it sounded at least pseudo-scientific with a modicum of common sense. Here, however, the common sense fell apart. The public was not allowed to know from which business an outbreak occurred. (Basically, “Don’t ask.”)

People around the county were asking, “Was it my gym?”, “Was it my barber shop?”,  “Was it my nail salon?”, “Was it my beauty parlor?

The answer to these types of questions “from those that know 

best” was something like . . . “for your own good,we are not going to tell you.” 

(Basically, “Don’t ask.”)

Hmmm. Okay, I guess that those in charge were tracking and testing those individuals who had been at the guilty beauty shop or the guilty gym. However, when asked which type of business the community outbreak had been traced to . . .  Was it a barber shop? Was it a nail salon? . . . the answer was still the same tripe: “for your own good,we are not going to tell you.” Double Hmmm!

(Basically, “don’t ask.”)

Back then, the response to “too many community outbreaks” was to close all of the above types of businesses. 

I can understand if barber shop A was responsible for a community outbreak, then perhaps barber shop A should be shuttered for a while. Likewise if multiple community outbreaks were traced to multiple beauty parlors, then perhaps all beauty parlors should be closed down for a time. But to close en-masse all barber shops, beauty, parlors, gyms, etc. without telling the public the specifics . . . Triple Hmmm! (Basically, “don’t ask.”)

Now I know that a lot of you are responding something like . . . “They (those in the know) are just looking out for the best interests of the community in general.” If all the barber shops had to be closed because of an increase in community outbreaks at gyms, well that’s the way the cookie crumbles, err, should I say that the way barber shop businesses crumble. Hmmm, to me this makes no sense.

Perhaps those of you who feel that public officials know best and always tell the truth, perhaps a recent revelation out of Nashville will open your eyes.

The following is from Fox 17, WZTV in Nashville:

On June 30th, contact tracing was given a small view of coronavirus clusters. Construction and nursing homes were found to be causing problems with more than a thousand cases traced to each category, but bars and restaurants reported just 22 cases.

Leslie Waller from the health department then asks, “This isn’t going to be publicly released, right? Just info for Mayor’s Office?”

“Correct, not for public consumption,” writes senior advisor Benjamin Eagles . . . (Basically, don’t ask.)

A month later, the health department was asked point blank about the rumor there are only 80 cases traced to bars and restaurants.

Here as confirmed by emails, apparently ‘those that know best’ covered up that bars and restaurants were not the cause of the clusters, but bars and restaurants were kept restricted anyway. Hmmm.

A lot of downtown bartenders, waitresses and restaurant owners are asking why would officials not release these numbers? Hmmm! (Basically, don’t ask.) A lot of people who worked in bars and restaurants remained unemployed while it seems like the Mayor felt that he knew best. Does this sound familiar?

(BTW: The mayor of Nashville is a Democrat.)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away. The 87-year-old lost her battle to metastatic pancreatic cancer. 

In a statement reportedly dictated by her granddaughter Clara Spera days ago, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.”

Ginsburg told The New York Times in 2016, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” 

What came to me when I heard the news was the classic line of Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel: “This is another fine mess you’ve got me into!”

While it’s convenient that RBG supposedly doesn’t want to be replaced until after the November election, it was never her decision to make . . . except perhaps back before the 2016 election.

For whatever reason I retrieved two letters to the editor that I sent to the local paper on 2/16/16.

Her Best Buddy
On 2/14/16, after the death of Justice Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, “From our years togethert the D.C. Circuit we were best buddies.” Justice Ginsberg, a survivor of both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer, has been on the Court for almost 23 years and is the the oldest Justice on the present court. At this time, perhaps, she could seriously consider retirement and suggest that both a more conservative and a more liberal Justice  be appointed to fill the now two vacated positions. The balance of the Court would be maintained, and perhaps the upcoming political upheaval could be averted.Could there be a more patriotic way to honor her “best buddy”?
Daniel R. Collins

Can’t We All Just Get Along?
President Obama has recently advocated cooperation and compromise but advocates on both sides of the aisle are gearing up for the antithesis of either with regard to the Supreme Court vacancy. If Mr. Obama were sincere in his advocacy of cooperation and compromise, he could accept “the resignation” of Justice Ginsberg and then appoint one conservative justice (to replace Justice Scalia) and one liberal justice ( to replace Justice Ginsberg). The present balance of the Supreme Court would be maintained, and the beneficiary of this compromise would be our country!
Daniel R. Collins

What will happen next ? My thoughts at this time keep reverting to Lee Greenwood’s song: “God Bless the U.S.A.”

After many years of “study” I have concluded that any reasonable observer can tell a lot about the driver of a car by observing his/her bumper sticker(s).

Now here I am not talking about the actual message on the bumper sticker as often the message tells a lot about the driver of the car and this is obvious. Here I am talking about how the bumper sticker is placed on the bumper. 

Those of us who are of a conservative bent will take a modicum of time thinking about the placement of the bumper sticker, but this is often not the case with a liberal. Like I said my studying of this issue has led me to conclude that if the bumper sticker is on crooked, then the owner of the car is a liberal. The next time you see a bumper sticker, look at its placement on the bumper before concentrating on the message that the bumper sticker is conveying. Sure a lot of bumper stickers are neutral . . . “My son is a star pupil at xxxx elementary school.” while some are pretty obvious . . . “Can’t we all just along!” No matter the message, if it is on crooked, the owner of the car is a liberal.

Now there is an even better clue as to what kind of person is driving a car. You can take this one to the bank! If the driver of the car is wearing a face mask . . . whoa, Nellie! . . . that person is over the top! What person wears a face mask when driving alone in a car? What type of person wears a face mask while driving in a car accompanied by his/her son, daughter, husband, or good friend? While it might be possible that the person sitting in the passenger seat is a stranger (perhaps, a hitchhiker), the odds are much higher that the driver is a liberal Karen/Ken. (Furthermore, I would guess that some of these “I’ll wear my mask in my car to protect me from the coronavirus,” even wear their masks while inside their homes . . .  as “you can never be too safe.”)

Is there a correlation between the wearing of a mask while driving a car and the crookedness of the bumper sticker on that car? To be honest, I haven’t studied this extensively enough to be sure, but my prediction will be “yes!”

I never thought that I would ever come to point that I would think that Europe is doing things better than the US. To be more precise . . . better than individual states, and certainly better than California. But sad to say, this is exactly what is happening. 

For instance. . . . sending kids back to school. Multiple individual European countries are light years ahead of multiple different states when it comes to children and their going back to school. Everyone who has looked at this realizes that the disservice being done to children far outweighs any good that is coming from online distance learning. Many countries in Europe are eons ahead of most states in the US, including the chaos that is otherwise known as California.

However, today I read in the NYT something interesting spoken by France’s Emmanuel Macron. His message about the coronavirus is “to learn how to live with the virus.” France as well as a lot of other European countries are choosing coexistence with this virus. They are going back to work and school, trying to live their lives close to what they used to, albeit with masks and social distancing. Yes, the number of cases are going up, due in large part by the dramatic increase in testing. However despite this increase, the death rate is not going up and is nowhere near what it had been earlier this year.

Again from the NYT:

“It is not possible to stop the virus,” said Emmanuel André, a leading virologist in Belgium. “It’s about maintaining equilibrium.”

The health minister of Italy concurs, “We are in a living-with-the-virus-phase.”

Perhaps the governor of California should get some people on his staff that speak French, or Italian, rather than just Democratese, so that he can be advised better as to what to do now, before he gets recalled.