http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

From Forbes in March, 2019: “Fears of a U.S. recession are again stalking markets, with the closely-watched and clearly declining spread between the 10-year US Treasury bond yield and the 2-year yield—i.e., the “10 minus 2”—nearing inversion, a historically reliable harbinger of economic downturns.”

Some economist see the Trump economy slowing drastically before a possible recession in 2020 at the earliest because: Economic growth was significant in 2018, boosted by tax cuts, but those benefits should fade in 2019 and growth will get back to its longer-term pace of near 2 percent. A group of 10 economists, including the Fed, have an average forecast of 2.4 percent for 2019, according to a CNBC survey. Three big factors are behind the slower growth — fading impact of tax cuts, trade wars and tariffs, and the Federal Reserve’s rate-hiking policy. Recessions, in general may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, some sort of economic shock, or the bursting of an economic bubble. Back in 2007-08 the economic crisis and the subsequent recession were caused by the mortgage bubble. Are there any potential bubbles out there that we should be aware of ?

What about college loans? Is this a potential bubble? In August, 2018, the New York Times reported that 43% were not making payments on their student loans. The Urban Institute recently pointed out that 250,000 student loan borrowers see their loans go into default for the first time every quarter! Wow! While this involves millions of student loans, in the overall scope of things, this potential bubble is not nearly on the same level. In 2007 the mortgage debt at its peak was about 66% of GDP whereas the present student debt is only about 7% of GDP.

What about credit card debt? Is this a potential bubble? According to Experian’s latest State of Credit report, the average U.S. consumer holds about two bank-issued credit cards and carries a total balance of $5,551. That’s a lot of money, especially if you’re paying interest of 15% to 20%. However, this doesn’t tell the whole story, as there is a big range of indebtedness, and the average includes consumers who don’t owe anything at all — and there are a lot of them. According to a separate study from ValuePenguin (which found a similar average credit card debt of $5,700 per household), only 38.1% of all American households carry any credit card debt at all. This implies that the average household that carries a balance owes a whopping $16,048! Even though these schmos that owe $16K are in trouble, the total amount of indebtedness is not nearly on the same scale as in 2007.

What about high risk mortgage loans? Is this a potential bubble? I would have thought that lenders would have learned a lesson after the debacle of 2007-08, but according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) just reversed a decision that they had made in 2016. In 2016, the FHA loosened underwriting standards when it removed an earlier rule that had required manual underwriting for mortgages with credit scores below 620 and a ratio of debt to income above 43%. (For those that are unaware, the FHA tries to boost home ownership by insuring loans to those with sub-average credit.) Apparently the FHA is now expressing concern that certain lenders are making loans to borrowers who can’t repay. This sounds like déjà vu all over again! Could a similar crisis again occur?

Potential bubbles and a resultant recession are concerns to all of us. For me if this predicted future recession is going to come, I only hope that it doesn’t occur until 2021. I say this for two reasons:

First, I do not want a recession to interfere with President Trump getting re-elected in 2020. Second, when the recession hits, I want Donald Trump in charge as he would be the best person to guide the country through it.

Why are the Jewish people in the U.S.A. overwhelmingly Democrats? I have struggled with that question for a long time, and I must tell you, I remain flummoxed. For instance, last year 79% of Jews backed Democrats for Congress. Is there any hope for change? Perhaps, as it appears more and more, here lately, that the Democratic Party is taking the Jewish vote for granted. A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out that in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, sympathy for Israel among Democratic Party members has dropped from about 45% in 2010 to 26% in 2018, while among Republicans sympathy for Israel ha increased from about 65% to 77% over the same length of time. Likewise several members of Congress, all Democrats, are supporting BDS, a movement to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.(Which side typically is the first to launch rocket attacks against the other?) Similarly when a Democratic member of the House, Rep. Ilhan Omar, made recurrent anti-Semitic comments, the Democrats in the House could not get together and condemn anti-semetism! Talk about a lack of hutzpah . . . and by that I mean that they were gutless! Likewise when the far left MoveOn called for a boycott of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which is allied with Israel, six of the Democratic presidential contenders made up lame excuses and did not attend.

On the other hand, in December, 2018 President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the relocation of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He did this while presidents over the last 20 years had refused to do the same and instead had exercised a waiver. Likewise, in late March, 2019, President Trump signed an executive order recognizing the Golan Heights as being territory of Israel. This is of critical importance as it takes bargaining over the Golan Heights off the table in any future Israel Palestine negotiations, and can only be viewed as an extremely pro-Israel position. In October, 2018, President Trump went to Pittsburgh to pay his respects to the victims of the anti-Semitic synagogue attack, and in his recent State of the Union address he mentioned two Holocaust survivors including one who survived the Pittsburgh shooting. So despite the Washington Post recently basically preaching to Donald Trump as to why American Jews will not be joining him and the G.O.P., I am seeing some hope for change.

“Hands up, don’t shoot!”
Those words, rose to the public consciousness following the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.
As noted in Politico on 12/14/15, this phrase subsequently took off, becoming a rallying cry for protesters and others trying to draw attention to the death of Brown and other African Americans at the hands of police officers.
In November 2014, some members of the St. Louis Rams ran out on the field during pregame introductions with their hands raised above their heads, an action repeated by four members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the House floor in December 2014.
One problem here: He never did that or said that! (According to Eric Holder’s DOJ report released in Mar., 2015, Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.)
How do these things that never actually happened get wings and then take off?

Fast forward to an unrelated conversation that I had with a liberal friend who accused President Trump of a “racist” reaction to the 2017 tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a white nationalist plowed his car into a crowd, killing one and injuring several others. She insisted that Trump downplayed the horror of the Charlottesville tragedy by stating there were “good white nationalists and bad white nationalists” or “good neo-Nazis and bad neo-Nazis”.
Now at that time I was unfamiliar with what President Trump actually said, but this did not sound like the Donald Trump that I was familiar with. In fact, after looking in to it, it turns out there was one major problem here: He never said that! How do these things that never actually happened get wings and then take off?

Similarly, just recently Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel referred to Trump’s Charlottesville response to blame him for the Jussie Smollett hoax. “This is a President who drew a moral equivalency between people who are trying to perpetuate bigotry and those who are trying to fight bigotry. … When you go back to Virginia, this is a person who said, and I quote, ‘There are good people on both sides!’”
One problem here: President Trump did not say that. How do these things that never actually happened get wings and then take off?

In his widely misquoted press conference three days after Charlottesville, Trump said there were “very fine people” on “both sides” of the issue of whether it is appropriate to display Confederate monuments in public.
Here is what Trump said: “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
In case there was any doubt, Trump, in response to another question, said, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”
The next time I hear that President Trump supposedly said something that just does not ring true with me, I am going to first suspect that he probably did not say it!

“It was Stagger Lee and Billy
Two men who gambled late
Stagger Lee threw seven
Billy swore that he threw eight
Stagger Lee told Billy
I can’t let you go with that. You have won all my money and my brand new
Stetson hat.”
“Stagger Lee“, also known as “Stagolee” and other variants, is a popular American folk song about the murder of Billy Lyons by “Stag” Lee Shelton in St. Louis, Missouri at Christmas, 1895. The song was first published in 1911, and was first recorded in 1923 by Fred Waring’s Pennsylvanians. This was based on the traditional blues/folk song, “Ballad of Stack-o-Lee.” According to Wikipedia, there have been over 170 recorded versions, including four by Taj Mahal and eight by Mississippi John Hurt, released over the past century. A version by Lloyd Price, recorded at the request of Dick Clark, reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1959. This was the first rock ‘n’ roll record to hit #1 despite being censored.
Who was telling the truth? What number did Stagger Lee actually throw? Obviously, one of the two was lying, as the number thrown was either one or the other. In this particular situation it was not a matter of interpretation or opinion . . . it was either a seven or an eight. It did not appear that there was a witness who could verify what number was actually thrown. Basically Stagger Lee said that Billy was lying – not exaggerating, not merely mistaken, but lying!

Sometimes someone can be exaggerating, “The fish I caught was at least a foot long,” but when actually measured, it was only eight inches long. Is anyone going to say, “He lied!”? I would say that most everyone would agree that exaggeration is much different than lying. Likewise if I say, “That statue is a thing of beauty,” but Joe Blow disagrees and thinks the statue is ugly. We have a difference of opinion. He would not be justified in calling me a liar, as we merely have a difference of opinion. If I comment on the green flash that I saw last night as the sun was setting, someone should not call me a liar because he/she did not see the green flash for whatever reason. 

Now to the present day where the Democrats are in panic mode and sinking faster than a murder victim with rocks in his pockets. They are beside themselves over the recent conclusions of the Mueller report. In reality they have nothing so they are resorting to their typical fall-backs . . . name calling and innuendo!

From the Wall Street Journal: On 5/2/19 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat said of Attorney General William Barr, “He lied to Congress.” Now Ms. Pelosi did not say, “Mr. Barr and I have a difference of opinion,” concerning what he meant when he said ‘such and such’.” She did not say, “I believe that Mr. Barr did not speak the complete truth when he said ‘such and such’.” There should be no confusion here about what she said. She called him a liar. 

Apparently Ms. Pelosi does not appreciate the gravity of calling someone a liar! Even for Ms. Pelosi, being in Congress, and thus at one of the lower margins of respectability in our society, calling someone a liar today is a big deal, although not nearly as big a deal as it was in 1895. Luckily for Rep. Pelosi this is not 1895 as:

“Stagger Lee shot Billy. Oh, he shot that poor boy so bad. ’Till the bullet came through Billy and it broke the bar-
Tender’s glass”

“I want to listen to all the townhalls so that I can make an informed decision on who to vote for based on who has the best ideas for the country,” said one of our far left friends with whom we had we had dinner last week.

At that point I started to taste a bit of blood. (In these mixed groups my wife and I typically go overboard trying to avoid anything that could potentially leave the door ajar to political discussions. Inevitably lefties always sneak some snide comments into the otherwise pleasant neutral conversation, and usually that is when I can feel the blood at the corners of my mouth . . . from biting my tongue.)

From my perspective there were at least three major things wrong with her statement. First: The candidate that I am going to vote for won’t be participating in any of the Democrat townhalls, and furthermore since I do not listen to either CNN or MSNBC, I will not be watching the losers. After all with twenty potential Democratic candidates, at least 18 of them will be losers whose sole purpose will be to drag the group further leftward, as they will be increasingly desperate.
Second: A lot of what these potential candidates say in these townhalls will never happen. Whether they actually believe what they are saying is somewhat irrelevant, as even if they were elected, they could not and they would not be able to fulfill some of these promises . . . almost like that famous 1960s commercial, “Promise them anything, but give them Arpege!” For me I am going to vote for the guy who doesn’t have to promise things that are out in left field. He has a track record of making promises and fulfilling them! I will be making an informed decision based on the experiences of the last few years.
Third: This Democrat contest is going to be a contest of leftward one-up-manship. In other words who can position him/herself the farthest to the left. They are already starting: Warren-free college and forgiveness of student debt; Sanders-prisoners, even death row prisoners voting; Booker-some sort of payoff to black citizens for slavery; Harris-“we need to raise taxes on the middle class and force workers into unions.” 

A far left liberal cannot win swing states and cannot win over independent voters who will likewise be making informed decisions. I think we should encourage every Democrat wanna-be to  veer away from the middle, the further away and to the left, the better!

“They call me the wanderer
Yeah, the wanderer
I roam around, around, around.”

This is the refrain from The Wanderer which was a 1968 hit song by Dion. His full name was Dion DiMucci, but he always just went by Dion. Back then if you said a song was by Dion DiMucci, there would have been a lot of “huh” or “whose he?” (For those of you not old enough to remember Dion, or perhaps too old to remember, his other hit songs were Runaround Sue and Teenager in Love.) Everyone recognized him only by his first name, Dion.
That first-name-by-itself recognition reminds me of a lot some of today’s Democratic politicians. For instance, Bernie. Everyone knows who that is, as his last name is no longer necessary, and in fact is often misspelled, Saunders. Beto! I have some difficulty recalling what his last name actually is. Kamala! Is there any one else named Kamala other than you-know-who?
However, those Democratic presidential candidates who are not well known solely by their first names, namely Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, are actually kinda singing. If you are quiet and listen you can almost hear them repeating a Dion-esque refrain:
“They call me the panderer
Yeah, the panderer
I roam around, around, around”

Sen Warren is pandering to the young college students on some days, promising them free college tuition or on other days, she is pandering to recent college graduates, promising them that she will figure out a way to forgive their college loan debts. Promises that she knows will not be kept.
Similarly Sen. Booker is pandering to African Americans, promising them some sort of reparations for slavery. Perhaps he is worried about the black vote because as a group, blacks have done quite well due to the policies of President Trump. These Booker slavery reparation promises are promises that will not be kept.
We are a long way from the Dems choosing their nominee, and I predict a lot more pandering as some of the potential candidates find themselves falling behind the pack. Things like increasing the nation’s minimum wage, expanding Social Security, or implementing some sort of jobs guarantee are fruits all ripe for pandering along the campaign trail.
Don’t be surprised when you hear these words, very much like those sung by Dion:
“I’m the type that likes to roam around
I’m never in one place, I roam from town to town.
Cause I’m the wanderer
Yeah, the panderer
I roam around, around, around”

A few months ago I was walking around a nearby park with my young granddaughter in her stroller and we ran into Helen. Helen is a very pleasant 80+ year old widow who relocated from Albuquerque many years ago. She was enthused because she and her son were soon going back to Albuquerque for some sort of balloon festival. However, she was dismayed that they would no longer be able to eat at their favorite restaurant, because that restaurant now allowed its patrons to carry guns inside the restaurant . . . and that would be too dangerous. My response to her was, “On the contrary, Helen, that restaurant will probably be safer now than ever. If I were a bad guy or a robber, I wouldn’t want to be causing trouble at a place where I knew that “good guys” would possibly be armed. ” She responded, “I never thought about it like that. You’re probably right. What is that old saying about an ounce of prevention?” (The Benjamin Franklin axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is as true today as it was when Franklin made the quote. Although many use the quote when referring to health, Franklin actually was addressing fire safety. Franklin wrote this (courtesy of ushistory.org) under an assumed name.) New Mexico does not have any specific laws allowing or generally disallowing open carry. Anyone 18 or older may openly carry a firearm, however, to carry in a vehicle on school or college/university property one must be 19 or older.

I thought about this exchange with Helen when I was reading that both Florida and Texas are on the verge of enacting major improvements to their laws that will increase the number of teachers with guns who undergo firearms training to protect their students against attackers as a last line of defense. Another example of “an ounce of prevention?”Currently, 20 states allow teachers and other school staff members to carry guns under a variety of rules on school property, so we don’t need to guess about how safe these schools are. Some states have had these rules for decades. Think about it. Is a crazed potential shooter going to attack a school when he knows that teachers in that school could be armed? Unlikely.

The recent mass shootings in the news have been at places of worship . . . a Baptist Church in Texas last year, a synagogue in Pittsburgh six months ago and a mosque in New Zealand last month.The headline in today’s newspaper: “One Dies, 3 Injured As Gunman Opens Fire at Poway Synagogue.” In the front page article it reads, “the shooter was arrested after fleeing the synagogue amid a hail of bullets from a security guard.” (Another report stated that an off-duty Border Patrol Agent was the one who fired at the armed perpetrator and drove him off.) Whoever it was, that armed person saved many lives and prevented a myriad of injuries. He is a true hero . . . an armed “good guy.”
As my wife said, “When you stop and think about it, places of worship are ideal for crazed shooters, as there is often just one main entrance/exit, and everybody is facing away from that entrance/exit.” Scary! She is right-on. She then continued, “Maybe we should be encouraging all law-enforcement personnel to carry their weapons to church every week.” After all an ounce of prevention . . .

This past week Bernie, “I am the original far leftist & will always attempt to be more left than any other presidential candidate,” Sanders proclaimed that he thinks that felons should be allowed to vote while in prison. “The right to vote is inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people,” Sanders said. “Once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Oh, that person did that, not going to let that person vote.’ You’re running down a slippery slope.” Thus far there does not appear to be much general support for Bernie’s proposal, although Sen. Kamala Harris did a poor job of skirting this issue while trying to say nothing of consequence. When asked about imprisoned felons voting she replied, “I think we should have that conversation.” 

As we are all probably aware Bernie is from Vermont, and this is of interest because Vermont is one of the two states that allow imprisoned felons to vote. (Did the votes of the Vermont felons assure Bernie of getting elected multiple times in Vermont?) The other state that allows imprisoned felons to vote (unrestricted voting rights) is Maine. Both states allow the person to vote during incarceration, via  absentee ballot, and then after terms of conviction end. There is a wide variety of different approaches in the other 50 states as far as imprisoned felons and voting. The following summary is from Wikipedia:

-In 14 states and the District of Columbia, disenfranchisement (not being allowed to vote) ends after incarceration is complete. 

– Six states have laws that relate disenfranchisement to the detail of the crime. These laws restore voting rights to some offenders on the completion of incarceration, parole, and probation. Other offenders must make an individual petition that could be denied.

-Twenty states require not only that incarceration/parole if any be complete but also that any probation sentence (which is often an alternative to incarceration) be complete.

– In four states, disenfranchisement (not able to vote) ends after incarceration and parole (if any) is complete – California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York.

-Four states require an individual to petition to the court for restoration of voting after all offenses – Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The rest of the Democratic presidential candidates are all over the place on this issue, and it is going to be very difficult to have an opinion that is to left of Bernie’s. However, I have faith that one of these candidates will figure out something, so that he/she can be the furthest left of the left on this issue. Come on Beto; come on Mayor; come on Pocahontas; come on Cory; etc. “Go left!”

I never was into fishing. Because my dad could neither eat, smell, or look at a fish, he never went fishing and consequently I never really got interested in fishing. In the distant recesses of my mind, I vaguely recall having a bamboo pole and sitting on the banks of the Columbus Park lagoon with some of my young buddies . . .  fishing, or perhaps I should say, throwing my hook into the water, expectantly wishing and hoping for a bite. On the other hand one of my long-time friends loves fishing, or perhaps I could better say that he loves his yearly Canadian fishing trips. He marvels about the solitude, the scenery, and the camaraderie. I don’t recall his regaling me with stories detailing the many hours spent sitting in the boat with his fishing line limply hanging in the water . . . wishin’ and a hopin’. Last week took our young granddaughters for a stroll at Santee Lakes. As usual there were a few guys sitting in lawn-chairs with their fishing poles propped up and their fishing lines stretched out into the water. In the past whenever  I have queried them about what they were catching, I almost always got a shrug of the shoulders in reply. When my three year old granddaughter asked me what these men were doing, I responded, “a wishin’ and a hopin’!”

Why this discourse on fishing, or perhaps better said, this discourse on the sport of “wishin’ and hopin’? The segue is that it occurred to me that fishing now appears to be a sport of the Democrats in Congress . . . throw a hook into the water and hope that you catch something. 

“What specifically do you hope to catch?” 

“Oh, it doesn’t matter, if we wait long enough, we’ll get some sort of a bite, just like with the Mueller probe, and Paul Manafort and General Kelly. Of course our hooks were not baited for them, but oh well!”

As fate would have it, this morning I was reading an op-ed about the present focus of some Democrats in Congress on President Trump’s tax returns. The author of the op-ed, a CPA from Atlanta, went through the history of making tax returns public, dating back to the 1924 Revenue Act, which was most frequently utilized by women in divorce settlement proceedings and by fiancés wanting to know the income of their prospective husbands . . . both wishin’ and hopin’. This initial attempt at publicity was repealed in 1926, but the story doesn’t end there as most recently in 1976, Congress passed a law making tax returns confidential, but with a caveat – “except in limited situations when an agency’s need for information exceeded the citizen’s right to privacy.” So in my mind, does a fishing expedition or the wishin’ and hopin’ of some Democrats in Congress exceed the citizen’s right to privacy, i.e. Donald Trump’s right to privacy. Needless to say the scope of a congressional committee’s wishin’ and hopin’ has never been litigated. 

Oftentimes I just do not understand the thought process of some of these Democrats. The country finally got the results of the fruitless two year “wishin’ and hopin’ investigation” into Trump’s possible Russian collusion. The nation was bored and close to exhaustion  . . . about this big nothing-burger. Why do they think the the people want them to go fishing with another expensive “wishin’ and a hopin’ boondoggle? My advice, as I am wishin’ and hopin’ to get Trump again in 2020: “Go for it, Dems!”, as it will come back to bite them in the butt before the next election!

When my wife was ready to go to college many years ago her father had some very sage advice. Actually it was more than just advice, as it was his sine qua non requirement. “Your major must insure that you can get a job when you graduate.” Unlike today, back then there were very very few college graduates living in their parents basements, and his wise advice would be even more apropos now. The unemployment rate for recent college grads, defined as grads ages 22 to 27, is 3.8%,  according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s latest report on the labor market for recent college graduates. So even in today’s awesome job market, some college graduates cannot find a job.

But what’s worse than having no job prospects in your field of study upon graduation, is having no job or a poorly paying job and having a lot of student loan debt. Ouch!! (FYI: The average student debt is $33,310 according to the U.S Department of Education as of Sept., 2018 with 42.9 million student loan borrowers as of Feb, 2019.) In some situations this sort of ominous situation could have been predicted because of the P.C. major chosen in college. However the colleges are also to blame as many, many colleges offer courses that are similar to that tempting aroma just outside a coffee shop that lures the unsuspecting inside.
Since 1995, Young America’s Foundation has released “Comedy and Tragedy” to document the intellectual abuse and flat-out indoctrination happening by way of the appalling curriculum at our country’s most (so-called) prestigious institutions of higher education.
The following is a very small at-random selection from that list of colleges and some of the “unusual” courses that they offer, which to my perspective cannot ever lead to anything but a future in their parent’s basements for the for the naive students who take any of them:
Vanderbilt UniversityAADS 2294—Insider/Outsider: The Genealogy of Black LGBTQ PeoplesInterdisciplinary engagement with the history, culture and politics of Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) communities during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Mississippi State University SO 4403—Sociology of Gender & SexualityChanging character of gender and sexuality and significance in various social institutions. Intersection between gender, sexuality, and other forms of inequality.

Auburn UniversityPHIL 1120—Introduction to Environmental EthicsEthical inquiry into environmental issues such as non-human animal welfare, environmental justice, global climate change, resource use, and conservationism versus preservationism.

Pomona CollegeAFRI144A—Black Women Feminism(s) and Social ChangeIntroduction to the theoretical and practical contributions of African American feminists who maintain that issues of race, gender, sexuality and social class are central, rather than peripheral, to any history analysis, assessment or strategy for bringing about change in the United States.

Purdue UniversityANTH 48200—Sexual Diversity In Global PerspectivesThis course focuses on anthropological and interdisciplinary research in the study of sexuality with particular attention to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender identities. It explores historical, theoretical and ethnographic work on sexualities and genders in the US and globally.

Ohio State University WGSST 3101—Food & GenderIf you are what you eat, then food is a means for understanding gender, sexuality, culture, society, race, and socioeconomic class. This class explores feminist studies of food. By thinking through good, we explore such topics as vegetarianism, diets, pleasure, farming, hunger, fat studies, boycotts, eating disorders, waste, and culinary heritage. This class is literally food for thought.

University of NebraskaWMNS 288—Exploring Love, Sexuality and Femininity in the History of Arabic CultureConcepts of love, sexuality and femininity as studied in their historical, religious and sociological contexts.

Keep in mind that the courses listed above are but only microcosm of what is out there, and do not seem to fulfill the sine qua non of: “Your major must insure that you can get a job when you graduate.” 

BTW, just as an aside, the best college major is Actuarial Science . . . so if you smell this aroma and like it, go into that coffee shop!