First of all, one of the definitions of sexism is: “discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex . . . more commonly, this discrimination is directed against women.” However, nowhere can I find that sexism can only be discrimination against women.

On 1/19/20, the  New York Times announced the candidate(s) it was endorsing for president. In an interesting interesting progressive end-run, they endorsed two candidates, both women, Sen. Warren and Sen. Klobuchar. Could it be that the NYT could not afford to take the risk of potentially offending either one of these women by endorsing the other? Even though they are both progressive, their progressiveness is a matter of degree. Warren is far-far left, whereas Klobuchar is much more moderate although left of center. If the NYT was set on endorsing two candidates, why would they not endorse two candidates based on their policies? Why endorse two candidates that are not equal on the leftism scale ? To me this sounds as if they are set on backing a woman, irrespective of the differing policies of Warren and Klobuchar. Objectively this sounds sexist . . . back a woman, and devaluate men, irrespective of policy. The mere fact that they are endorsing two women sounds like they are purposely “poking a stick in Bernie’s eye” in response to his alleged comment on the possibility of a woman being elected. Clearly this NYT’s endorsement of two women was intended to be the coup-de-grâce for Sanders, his death knell, so do speak. 

I do not consider myself a sexist. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I voted for Donald Trump instead, not because he was a male, but because he was the far better candidate. Would I vote for a woman to be POTUS? Yes, in a New York minute! (No pun intended!) Give me a choice between a good female candidate and a mediocre male candidate, and I will go XX every time. For instance, I would have voted for Condoleezza Rice in the past and I would vote for Nikki Haley in the future if she were running for President.

When the NYT says, “May the best woman win,” is this sexist? Is this the 2020 version of being DNC-esque? Is the fix in ?

Does anyone think that it was just coincidence that Elizabeth Warren’s recent accusation surfaced just before the “CNN debate” last week? Supposedly over a year ago Bernie Sanders said something “nasty” about her, and indeed, women in general, with regard to the possibility of defeating Donald Trump in 2020. 

Although not confirmed one could certainly imagine a quid-pro-quo proposition that went something like this: “Ms. Warren, your campaign is in trouble as Bernie is surging ahead with those far left progressives. You need something to draw renewed interest in your campaign. We, at CNN, need something to generate better ratings in this coming CNN sponsored debate. Let’s make a deal. Give us something we can use, and we will make sure that you will look like the good guy with the white hat on the debate stage.”

Not possible, you say! Is there another reasonable explanation for CNN’s obvious blatant favoritism towards Warren during the CNN-debate ? I say the fix is in! 

Consider that this seemingly endless string of Democrat debates has been steadily losing viewership and thus ratings. Most of the country is losing interest in a bunch of hackneyed politicians saying “same-o-same-o.” If one had been listening and watching closely, it wouldn’t have taken a body language expert to pickup on the desperation in the CNN-persona over the last few weeks. To me it seems a bit strange that Sanders’ alleged statement about a woman not being able to beat Donald Trump happened serendipitously to surface just before the CNN-debate. If you believe that . . . I have a bridge that I want to sell you!

Next MSNBC’s Joy Reid had a body language expert on her show. Does anyone think that it was just coincidence that this expert said that, in her opinion, Warren was telling the truth and Sanders was lying during their on stage confrontation at the debate. Next, apparently Joy Reid said scandals hurt more when they seem plausible and complained about Sanders’ “physicality” whenever the senator speaks to women. (I say “apparently” as my T.V. just cannot seem to tune into MSNBC . . . for some reason!) It again sounds to me like the fix is in.

Does the CNN-MSNBC “collusion” with Warren against Bernie Sanders sound familiar? Is this deja-vu? Is Sanders getting shafted again, just like he was shafted in 2016 by the DNC? Is Warren the preordained “favorite daughter,” so to speak, just like Hillary was in 2016? 

Just to be clear, I have no vested interest in Bernie Sanders. However, if I was one of his gung-ho supporters, I would be outraged at what is seemingly happening again in 2020. Are these supporters outraged enough and insulted enough that they are already considering that perhaps Bernie should run as an independent ? After all, he really is not a Democrat, but rather is actually an Independent. Wouldn’t a third candidate make things interesting in November, 2020 ?

Does any rational person understand the “why?” of these impeachment shenanigans?  At this point in this game, it seems that the Dems have lost it. For the most part they are acting like prepubescent teenagers . . . historic pens for all! marching the articles of impeachment over to the Senate! Beyond melodramatic to say the least. Of course these dramatics are all for show, and I am sure that Pelosi, et al are getting plenty of airtime on MSNBC as well as the anti-Sanders CNN, however this is hearsay, as I do not watch either of them. Will this charade be a big flop?

The way I see it, there are two options when faced with “why?”:

-They are all infected with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) which must be like an extremely communicable disease on the left side of the aisle, and the TDS has affected their ability to think clearly.                                                                    

Or

-They actually have a realistic plan; not a plan to beat Donald Trump in 2020, but rather a plan to try to take over the Senate. In order to take control of the Senate in 2020, they have to flip four seats if Trump is re-elected. Only three seats if President Trump is not re-elected. When the impeachment voting takes place in the Senate, the Dems hope to capitalize on the “No” votes of those Republican Senators who are up for re-election. They then hope that this “No” vote will fire up the Dem’s base, enough so that the turnout will be such that they can flip this seat. 

On the other hand, if any of those Republican Senators who are up for re-election, vote in favor of impeachment, they will be persona-non-grata in those states which support Trump, and thus the Dems might feel that they have a chance to flip these present Republican Senate seats. This assumes that the Dems have a plan and the wherewithal to follow through on it.                                       

Who are these Senators that might be susceptible to being flipped? According to the Cook Political Report, three Republican Senators are in a “toss-up” contest. These “toss-ups” are McSally-AZ, Collins-ME, and Gardner-CO. There are also two Senate races that lean Republican, but are not likely Republican at the point. These are an open seat in Kansas, and Tillis-NC. if all five of these Senate seats were to go to the Democrats, it would be most likely the Dems would take over control of the Senate . . . assuming, of course, that no present Democrat Senator gets flipped. (There is one Democrat “toss up,” Jones-AL, and one  present Democrat Senate seat contest that is rated as “leaning” Democrat, Peters-MI.).               

What I look for in September and October, 2020 is a lot of Democrat money being spent in Maine, Arizona, Colorado, and Alabama and likewise look for frequent Trump rallies in these same states. If the Republicans can retain control of the Senate, then Mr. Trump will continue to advance his agenda, especially with regard to his judicial appointments. If the Democrats retain control of the House, and also are able to win control of the Senate, look for another impeachment of Trump fiasco, probably in 2022!

Just in general, what do people use their cars for? 

Before your “final answer,” first think of how you use your car, and then consider the different ways your extended family uses its cars. Next think about how your friends and neighbors use their cars.

My general list goes something like this:

For the majority of people, going to and from work is number one. 

This is followed by some sort of recreational or leisure activity, going to the beach or taking the kids to the park, mostly on the weekends.

Going out to dinner occurs intermittently for some and perhaps by necessity, more regularly for others. 

Taking care of the necessities of everyday life comes next . . . getting groceries, going to the barber shop, the hair salon, the cleaners, the laundry-mat, the doctor’s office, or church.

For a number of younger families, transporting the kids to and from school and their various after school activities comes next. 

I am sure that this list is far from complete, as each of us could add our own auto-use idiosyncrasies to this list.

To start with, the vast majority of those who live in Southern California do not live within a few miles of where they work. Just look at the morning and the evening traffic on the freeways. Those who live less than a few miles from where they work are not on the freeways. However, the freeways are jammed during rush-hour, ergo the thousands upon thousands of cars on the freeways are there by necessity.

As far as the other general usages of our cars, how many of them can be done without perspiring? For most, would it be appropriate to show up hot or sweaty to work or to a social activity with friends? I think not! 

Certainly, if the grocery store was relatively close, most of us could use other modes of transportation instead of out cars. We could walk, bike, or even rollerblade to Vons. Of course, the carrying home of the groceries would present an additional challenge for many unless they went to pick up a small amount of foodstuff each and every day . . . as our parents did back in the Stone Age. And forget Costco. How many of us can go to Costco and come away with a only small amount that we could bring home in our bicycle’s basket or in a backpack? 

By this time most of you who use logical thinking are saying something akin to, “For 90+% of the things I use my car for, I would need my car and not a substitute, like a bike or rollerblades.”

For me it is more that just a bit of a stretch to conflate freeway travel and bike paths in the same sentence. Are they both a way to transport people? Yes, but are they on equal footing when it comes to how people get around from day to day? Get real! Who would actually think that that these two modes of transportation should be used in the same sentence? The answer my friends . . . San Diego Association of Governments, SANDAG, and its relatively new executive director, Isan Ikhrata. For those of you not familiar with SANDAG, it is the metropolitan planning agency for the county. This group of policy makers basically controls our future modes of transportation – our freeways, our roads, our rapid transit systems, and our bike paths. Isan Ikhrata  is the executive director of SANDAG. (According to those in the know, San Diego County was fortunate to be able to “steal” him away from L.A. County, where he has done an obviously wonderful job of dealing with the freeway congestion and the rapid transit system in L.A.!  Huh?! This “theft” is only costing SANDAG [more precisely, us voters] over $400,000 per year.)

Earlier this year, Ikhrata announced that the agency would abandon its previous transportation plans, which focused on improvements to the county’s network of roads, in favor of a transportation plan that boosts funding for public transit projects with the goal of moving the county away from the use of personal vehicles.

Ikhrata’s powerful argument for his recommendation: Unless the plan was modified, the region would never succeed in meeting a state climate law’s requirement that there be a 19 percent per capita reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, using 2005 emissions as a baseline.

Ahh! Now I get it! Ikhrata is a member of California’s new religion, which is anti-car and pro-bike. (FYI: As a faithful follower, he did allude to global warming in his full statement.) Because of some pie-in-the-sky beliefs of the liberal members of this religion, i.e. the Democratic politicians in Sacramento, Mr. Ikhrata states that the people of San Diego County will be forced to use more rapid transit, bike paths, and our feet in years to come. 

Always remember: These politicians are smarter than us and because of their religious beliefs, they feel obliged to tell the rest of us how we should go about our day to day activities, like going to work and going . . . or perhaps never again in the future, going to Costco!

One would think that it’s a bit early for their typical “October surprise,” as it’s only January. However this is not the usual run of the mill January, because it is the day before the next Democrat “debate,” and it is only a few weeks until the Iowa primary. Somebody in the Warren camp must have a bad feeling about the present status of their candidate. Perhaps a sense of panic. At least that is what it now sounds like. 

Consider the following:

Who stands to benefit from this latest unsubstantiated rumor? Certainly not Bernie, as this strategic missile is aimed directly at him, and most of the collateral damage is dependent on progressive Democrat females taking offense at his supposed remarks. I can envision the conversation of some of these liberal women sounding something like this . . . “He said what? And he said it right to her face? He’s got a lot of nerve! How dare he!“ You get the idea!
Now Bernie is in a real pickle. Of course, he has already denied that he said any such thing, but since no independent observer can affirm or deny the accusation, he is stuck with trying to prove a negative which is never a good strategy. Whether Bernie actually believes that a woman cannot beat President Trump is really a mute point at this juncture. The rumor is now out there, and the damage to his campaign growing.

Just for the record, Warren’s communications director Kristen Orthman has declined to comment. . . why comment one way or the other!? – just let innuendo take its course. At some point I would anticipate Warren to deny any culpability in this episode, but from her perspective . . . why hurry?!

To be clear if this was just a outlier, I could gloss over it. However, this is a tactic that is right out of the standard Democrat playbook. The difference here is that this “October surprise” was pulled against another Democrat.

Mention “Elmer Vasko” in 1961 in Chicago, and nobody would have a clue as to whom you were referring, but mention “Moose Vasko”, and everyone would know. Like most men nicknamed “Moose”, Elmer was big, but different from most men called “Moose”, as he could skate, and in fact he could skate quite well. Moose Vasko played defense on the 1961 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks.  He wasn’t a high scorer like Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita or an exceptionally smooth skater like Pierre Pilote or Todd Sloan. However, he was a very important piece of this championship team for he (along with Reggie Fleming) was the “enforcer”.

For those unfamiliar with hockey, the job of the enforcer in hockey is to respond to dirty or violent play by the opposition (Wikipedia). Moose would protect his teammates, maintain order, and retaliate, especially if the bullies on the other team took cheap shots against his smaller teammates. While Bobby Hull (5’10, 195lbs) could take care of himself, undersized Stan Mikita (5’9″, 169lbs) and slender Todd Sloan (5’10”, 152 lbs) knew that Moose (6’2″, 200lbs) had their back. Hockey is a very rough sport, and, the smaller guys on any teamwould take quite an unrelenting beating unless their own feared and respected enforcer had their back. The presence of an enforcer on a hockey team in essence was telling the other team, “Be careful because your actions will have consequences.” Everyone on the other teams knew that if they crossed the line against the smaller Blackhawk players that Moose would kick their ass. In fact he did his job quite well – well enough that the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup in 1961.

Well now one might say, “Interesting, but actually who cares about Elmer Vasko, aka Moose, and the 1961 Blackhawks other than some near-senile old Chicago hockey fans?” Actually an interesting analogy can be drawn between the 1961 Chicago Blackhawks and today’s world situation. Just as hockey is a very rough game, our world is a very rough place. If an opportunity arises, the bullies on the hockey rink would go out of their way to pick on and then beat up on the little guys, just as the world’s “bullies” abuse those who do not fight back. Just as the bad guys can become more and more emboldened on the ice, the bad guys on the world stage become more emboldened when they realize that they can act without fear of retaliation.

And this brings me to the Moose Vasko of today . . . President Donald Trump. The hockey game of today’s world is a rough game. The bullies feel that they can do anything they want, and just like in hockey, they will continue to throw their weight around . . .until someone says, “Be careful, as your actions will have consequences. You’ve pushed the envelope too far this time. We now actually have an enforceable red line, and you’ve crossed it by killing an American.”

Now granted the USA is not diminutive like the 1961 Blackhawks’ Stan Mikita or Todd Sloan, but whereas in the past the US has been very reluctant to backup a red line, and very reticent to throw its weight around . . . things are now different. Hopefully, Iran, just like the 1961 Red Wings, Rangers, Canadians, and Maple Leafs, realizes that Donald Trump is now the enforcer, and plans to fulfill this job description in 2020, just like Moose Vasko in 1961, whenever necessary . . . until he wins the Stanley Cup!

 Right off the bat, I admit that I am a geography snob! Perhaps this is related to the fact that I had Geography in fourth grade with a large book devoted only to Geography.This week the big news story concerned the killing of Qassem Soleimani of Iran, and the subsequent feeble “response” by Iran. It appears that with the firing of about 15 ballistic missiles supposedly aimed at American military bases in Iraq, the only significant thing that was apparently hit was a Ukrainian 737 Boeing airliner while taking off from Tehran’s International Airport bound for Kiev. Thus far the evidence suggests that the airplane was shot down by an Iranian Surface to Air missile, killing all 176 passengers, including 63 Canadians. The ballistic missiles “aimed” at the US military killed nobody.  “Strong work, Iran!”

But I stray from the real topic of today’s piece.where is Iran? Can you pick it out on a map? If not, could you pick it out on a map of the Middle East? (If your answer to either of these is “yes,” can you identify which countries border Iran to the east and to the west?) If you are clueless as to the answers of the above questions, you are in the majority. A poll by Morning Consult/Politico found that less than a quarter of registered voters knew where Iran was on a map. Only 23% could identify Iran as being between Iraq and Afghanistan, and only 28% if shown a map of the Middle East. Nonetheless, 47% were for the killing of Soleimani and 43% were against it.

I can’t decide what is worse:

That 47%/43% have an opinion about a country that they do not know where it is. 

Or

The sad state of our educational system!

1/9/20

A new term in the day-to-day lexicon of our country and in the vocabulary of almost all of us is, “fake news,” which refers to the way the media tells a news story. Either the info in the story is false or misconstrued or probably more commonly the reporting of a story is sprinkled with bits of editorial commentary that slants the factual telling of the news story. When the story is blatantly false, it is often fairly simple to spot, for example, A.B.C.’s recent map of the fires in Australia, superimposed on a map of the U.S. I tend to think the mistakes like this, while “fake,” are probably due to the ignorance of the flunky who was tasked with  the job of making this superimposed map. Unfortunately for ABC mistakes happen. 

However, the more blatant “fake news” often comes from a T.V. news network that purposefully reports a news story with factual inaccuracies. CNN and MSNBC are most often the culprits here, and it seems obvious that these inaccuracies are deliberate in order to slant the story in favor of their political agenda. Just yesterday MSNBC was reporting that 30 U.S. service members had been killed in Iran’s ballistic missile attack, despite the Department of Defense saying otherwise. Incompetent or malicious? As best I can tell these “news networks” do not apologize nor do they retract the “fake news.” 

Similarly, newspapers also have been known to print similar inaccuracies (again “fake news”), however often they will subsequently print a retraction, hidden somewhere in the following editions. A “mea culpa” . . . but a soft whispered one.

In other news this week CNN settled a defamation lawsuit that was the consequence of its reporting in the case of Covington Catholic High School’s student, Nick Sandmann, in January, 2019 in Washington, D.C. Although not confirmed, the settlement is reportedly $25 million.

Now my question is: “Is there a name for not reporting a newsworthy event?” It is not “fake news” as nothing false was actually reported. I would realistically not expect CNN to report that it had doled out $25 million because of how it reported a certain news-story. I also would not expect the Washington Post to report on this story as WaPo is one of the next in line to be sued for its reporting of that same story. But what about my local newspaper? I do not think that it is on the chopping-block to be sued by Nick Sandmann or his family. I scanned every page in the front section of today’s local paper, but nada! Nothing on the CNN settlement! Is it not news? Why is there nothing on this story? (Like most of you, I can make an educated guess!)

But again back to the original question: “What do you call it when a newspaper deliberately does not report on a story?” Could it be that silence is the default tact when a story goes against its political agenda?

I have some potential descriptive names for No Apparent News (N.A.N.), but would be interested in any other ideas.

Osama bin Laden was a bad dude! He believed that women and children of enemies were legitimate targets for jihadists to kill, and thus the killing of more than 3,000 civilians on 9/11/01 was okay by him. 

Before 9/11, in 1998 he orchestrated simultaneous truck bomb explosions at U.S. embassies in Africa, killing hundreds. In Dec. 1998 the director of the C.I.A. Counter-terrorist Center reported to President Clinton that al-Qaeda was preparing for attacks in the U.S.A., including the training of personnel to hijack aircrafts. On Sept. 10, 2001 (the day before the 9/11 terrorist attacks), ex-president Clinton, while in Australia, stated that, “he could have killed bin Laden, but I would have had to kill innocents, so I did not do it.” On the following day, the World Trade Center attack occurred. Apparently the CIA had bin Laden in its sites in late 2000 before Clinton left office, and this is when then President Clinton demurred and said, “no!” (According to Dark Side author, Jane Meyer, Clinton was haunted by a swing set in the area, which suggested that children lived nearby. In 2012, 60 Minutes reported that President Clinton had many chances to kill bin Laden, but because of the risk of civilian casualties, he did nothing.) The question will always remain, “If President Clinton had killed bin Laden when he had the chance, would he have saved the over 3,000 innocents killed on 9/11?” History will be the judge.

Qassem Soleimani was a bad dude. He was the head of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. He had been described by an ex-CIA operative “as the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today.” Within the week prior to his demise an American had been killed in Iraq and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad attacked – undoubtedly with the knowledge of Soleimani, and more than likely both orchestrated by Soleimani. 

It has been said that Soleimani has been responsible for hundreds of American deaths. (It has been rumored that President Obama kept a list of all the hundreds of American military that had been maimed or killed because of Soleimani.) Moreover, it has been said that Soleimani had future attacks against the U.S. planned. The attacking of an embassy is tantamount to declaring war, and President Trump finally acted and ordered him killed. He was killed with a drone strike last week. As best I can tell there were no civilian casualties. Did the action of President Trump save American lives? History will be the judge.

Back in 2011, after bin Laden had been killed, Sen. Coons (D,Del) sponsored S. Res. 159 honoring those who work over many years culminated in bin Laden’s death. This resolution passed 100-0. Word has it that Sen Cruz (R, Tx) is planning a something similar concerning the death of Soleimani. It will certainly be interesting to see if the Democrats in the Senate do as the Republicans did for bin Laden’s death in 2011. Will they cheer the death of another terrorist leader, or will they demur even though there has not been any reports of swing sets in the area.

Here the American people will be the judge.

I would think that at least one of them would show some leadership, or at least some leadership potential, but that’s not what is happening. What I am hearing is bleating from a bunch of sheep, and what’s worse is that they are bleating in unison with the head ram, Chuck Schumer, and the queen ewe, Nancy Pelosi. Who am I talking about here ? 

I am referring to those who are running for the Democratic nomination for the highest office in the land. Yes, there is a whole flock of them, and with such numbers one would think that at least one would break from the flock. We all are aware that most Dems, including those competing for the nomination, do not like Mr. Trump, however one would think that statistically at least one of them probably agrees with the recent decision by President Trump to order the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes. But I not hearing anything of the sort!

What if one of these spineless lambs said something like this: 

“I do not agree with most things that President Trump says or does, however in this situation I believe that he made the right decision. Those who were killed in the air strike were terrorists that have been responsible for the deaths of many many Americans, and they deserved what they got.”

I, for one, would pay attention to that individual, as that person seems to have the hutzpah to actually be our Commander-in-Chief . . . but nooo, none of them demonstrated that they could think and act on his/her own. That group-think inaction is one of the reasons why none of them will ascend to the throne! 

In a more practical sense, everyone realizes that the independent voters are the key to this election. A Democratic candidate must separate him/herself from the rest of the flock, and must appeal to Independents. It would have been a smart political thing to demonstrate some independence and some leadership on this issue by verbalizing support for Trump’s actions in this case.

I am still listening, but so far all I am hearing is, “Baa, Baa!”