Posted on

The 51st District

Today I was reading in the local paper about a forum sponsored by The League of Women Voters between Mary Edly-Allen (D) and Helene Walsh (R), who are vying to be the representative from the state’s 51st district. You are probably not familiar with either of these two women as they are opponents for the seat in the 51st district . . . in Illinois. Why Illinois? Well that’s where I happen to be right now.
In the debate there was a question about the advisability of allowing teachers in Illinois classrooms to be armed. Predictably the Democrat was a flat out, “No!”, whereas the Republican said that she “supports the idea for those who are well trained, in order to make students safer.”

Later in the forum when they discussed other specific issues, Edly-Allen (D) said that she favors high schools holding classroom discussions about sexual consent and LGBTQ issues, whereas Mrs. Walsh (R) panned this suggestion, and responded, “l believe that schools are supposed to teach reading, arithmetic, history, and provide for physical exercise. I further believe that other discussions should be had at home and in your church, synagog, or mosque.”
In her closing statement Mary Edly-Allen said, “This race is a microcosm of our country. We represent the two spectrums of what we have right now in our country. We have homophobic, racist, kind of xenophobic views and we have the other side.”
Actually the fact here is that Edly-Allen’s opponent, Helene Walsh has been an advisory board member at Project H.O.O.D., an inner city non-profit organization and has spent a lot of time on the South Side of Chicago, which is predominately black. Yet Edly-Allen, the Democrat, calls Mrs. Walsh a racist!
In response to the xenophobic charge, Mrs. Walsh responded that she has traveled the world and believes that those who come here should do so legally. I presume that it is this view that according to Eddy-Allen, makes Mrs. Walsh xenophobic!
I found this interesting because to me it just reenforces my view that these days the Democrats seem to have no message, even in the small towns in northern Illinois, and when one has no message, he or she is apt to resort to personal attacks and name calling despite the fact that the name-calling may have no basis in fact.
If I still lived in Illinois, I would vote for Helene Walsh, not because she is most likely Irish, but because her philosophy is spot on! Likewise, I would not vote for Mary Eddy-Allen, not only because of her hyphenated last name, but also because she is resorting to the same old tiresome tactics as those Democrats on the national stage, and is peddling their same old tripe.
After the election, I will try to remember to let you know who won.
Posted on

What To Focus On ?

I just read that the Democrats want to make the midterm elections about character and behavior! Of course they are trying to make the focus of the upcoming elections  the behavior and character not of themselves, but of President Trump. They cannot afford to draw any focus onto their own behavior and character after the recent debacle in the Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

While Democrats want to make Trump the focus in the upcoming midterms, the Republicans want to focus on the economy. The recent rise in President Trump’s poll numbers (now with a 51% approval rating) are undoubtedly related to the economy, and the September numbers that just came out only demonstrate that the Republican focus is right on.
You may not be aware of the following stats if you get your news from CNN or MSNBC, but they are so impressive that they are worth detailing here.

1. The most recent numbers show the unemployment rate fell to 3.7%, the lowest rate since December, 1969. According to the Wall Street Journal unemployment rates less than 4% have been extremely rare in the 70 years of modern record keeping. In addition, Federal Reserve officials project that the jobless rate will drop to 3.5% next year and remain below 4% through 2021.

2. Again from the WSJ, in September 134,000 jobs were added, a record 9th straight month of gains. Job gains for July and August were revised up, pushing the average number of workers added to payrolls each month this year to 211,000, outpacing average monthly growth of 182,000 in 2017.
3. Likewise wages rose 2.8% from a year earlier. The low unemployment rate is creating some worker shortages for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers as well as blue collar workers whose wages typically lag behind. In fact wages in blue collar industries, such as construction and maintenance have risen more in recent quarters than wages in white-collar management jobs. The lowest paid Americans saw weekly earnings grow by more than 5% in the second quarter compared to a year earlier, more than the national median gain of 1.7% for all workers. Workers with less that a high school diploma saw their wages grow almost 6%.
Almost lost in this wave of good economic news was the fact that according  to CNSNews:
The number of people employed by the federal government declined by 1,000 in September, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Since President Donald Trump took office, federal employment has declined by 16,000, and this is significant as President Trump had made it a priority to reduce the size of the federal government, and this new report suggests he is succeeding here also.
Back to character, I want to focus here on Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator From West Virginia. I will go out on a limb and predict that Joe Manchin will be the only Democratic Senator re-elected in this November’s election. He stood tall amongst his fellow Democrat parasites, and the electorate notices these things. He proved that a “Decent Democratic Senator” is not a total oxymoron!
Going further out on the proverbial precarious limb, I would not be surprised if Sen. Manchin ultimately switches parties.
Focus on this: “Joe Manchin, R, WV!”
Posted on

Those Cute Little Guys

One of the first cases on the docket for the Supreme Court this session involves the dusky gopher frog, which is obviously neither the plaintiff nor the defendant, but nonetheless is a prime focus in this case.

This 3 inch long creature spends most of its life in underground burrows and tree stumps, but breeds in isolated ephemeral ponds. The private property in question in this case is  located in St Tammany’s Parish in Louisiana and has ephemeral ponds, which are low-lying areas that fill with water at certain times of the year — when the frog lays eggs — but then dry out. Because of that, the ponds can’t support fish, which would eat the eggs.

Basically, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, designated more than 1,500 acres in Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog’s future survival. The property in question is owned by a family which leases the property to Weyerhaeuser, the timber giant that harvests trees there, but also has development plans for the land. The wildlife service determined that the 1500 acre parcel was “restorable with reasonable effort” to support the dusky gopher frog . . . if it were to be transported there.

Now I wasn’t at the Supreme Court proceedings, but my source tells me that this is what went on . . . in general.

Initially, Justice Ginsburg questioned whether the company and the family that owns most of the land had yet suffered any loss that would make the case ripe for a Supreme Court decision. The Weyerhaeuser lawyer, Timothy Bishop responded that the government had estimated the land value could decline by $33 million if the government restrictions stand.

We pick it up just as it was Justice Elena Kagan’s turn to ask the questions.

Kagan: Are you familiar with the term “critical habitat? “                                              Bishop responded: Yes, your honor. And the law only allows the government to designate as critical habitat, lands where the species could now live.

Kagan: Yes, yes, I am aware of that. Are you implying that those cute little dusky gopher frogs do not live there now?                                                                             Bishop: Yes, I am your honor. In fact they haven’t lived there since 1965.

Kagan: Yes, yes, of course, I am aware of that, but those cute little guys do live close.            Bishop: Of course distance is always relative. As I am sure you are aware, the closest dusky gopher frog presently resides in Mississippi’s De Soto National Forest, about 50 miles from the property in question. I would also venture that you are aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already designated 11 sites, 4,900 acres, in 11 different sites in Mississippi as critical habitats for this animal.

Kagan: Yes, I am aware of all that, but fifty miles is a relatively short distance. Perhaps we should just move the cute little buggers over there tomorrow.                                                                                              Bishop: With all due respect your honor, just about everybody agrees that, although the land has the ponds, it does not have other physical characteristics the gopher frogs need. As I am sure you are aware, the current tree canopy and ground cover are not conducive to the frog’s survival.

At this point it appeared to some that Justice Kagan had a tear on the right side of her face, making its way out from under her sunglasses, down her cheek, and onto her desk, where she had four snapshots of the dusky gopher frogs. From the side it appeared to some that her eyes were red. Was that why she was wearing her sunglasses inside?

Hesitantly, Justice Kagan continued: What if the land could be made habitable with reasonable alterations, so that we could save those cute little guys? “To my mind, it is a counterintuitive result that the statute would prefer extinction of the species to the designation of an area which requires only certain reasonable improvements in order to support the species.”

Justice Samuel Ailto Jr.: “This is not a question of whether the frogs will become extinct.” Alito continued, “The question is, who is going to have to pay, and who should pay for the preservation of this public good?”

Then Justice Roberts chimed in:  “If you permit the designation of something as critical habitat that cannot be occupied by the animal, because you think they can do something down the road that will cure the problem . . . you ought to be able to articulate what the limit is on what you require down the road.”

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler, the government’s representative for the tiny dusky gopher frogs, appeared somewhat choked up when he replied that the improvements would have to be reasonable, but yet after he regained his composure, he was unable to come up with a time limit that would satisfy Roberts. Some in the room wondered why Mr. Kneedler was also wearing sunglasses.

Posted on

Schadenfreude(r)

“Schadenfreude” was my “word of the day” today. When I read the definition, I immediately thought about the Democratic Party, specifically the Democratic politicians. Before divulging the definition of “schadenfreude,” I do not want anyone to think that what I am about to say refers to all of those who consider themselves Democrats . . . it does not, but it does appear to be apropos to leftist Democrats. (I am sure that there are many Democrats to whom this noun does not apply, but it’s just that sometimes I have difficulty immediately identifying them.)
“Schadenfreude” is a noun that means: “satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune.” (And to go on record right from the git-go, “No, I could not initially pronounce this word!”) Obviously, my immediate connection is to the Democratic Senators who appear to be feeling immense “satisfaction or pleasure at someone else’s misfortune,” namely Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The reason for their posturing on this matter is so obviously political that it is insulting that they think that us ordinary folk do not see through their charade. Schadenfreuders!
Apparently one of the reasons that the Democrat Senators oppose him is that they fear his views on abortion. BTW: Who suffers from abortions? Duh, it’s the unborn fetus . . . the unborn fetus that may even have a recognizable heartbeat! Do those politicians who support abortion feel “satisfaction or pleasure at someone else’s misfortune?” . . . namely the misfortune of the fetus. No matter what your political leanings, stop and think about that for a second. Would you agree that with regard to abortion, the Democrats are schadenfreuders?
This term is not limited to politicians, but can also be applied to liberal non-politicians in Washington. For example, on  the first day of the present cases before the Supreme Court, liberal Justice Ginsberg appeared to be “pooh-poohing” a potential $33 million loss for a family on their property’s value because of a frog! Schadenfreuder?
 
Are there any other examples of the word association of “schadenfreude” not associated with national Democratic politicians? (“Is the Pope a Catholic?”) The other obvious present day example, here in California, is the recently passed Democratic gas tax that supposedly will pay for infrastructure. (According to a recent article in The American Spectator, “California does not have enough money to improve our infrastructure or anything else because it spends far above market wages for its government employees. No wonder California road costs are around 2.5 times higher than the national average.”)
Who will end up paying this tax that will cost the typical family of four $779.28 more per year in taxes? Will it be the elites that own Teslas? “No!” Will it be the more affluent that can can afford other electric cars or hybrids? “Hardly!” Are the California Democratic politicians aware of this? “Absolutely!” Schadenfreuders!
I can hardly wait until my word of the day comes tomorrow!
Posted on

“Net Neutrality” . . . Federal or State ?

California’s version of “net neutrality” was just signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. To be honest I do not understand the ins-and-outs of “net neutrality,” but from what I do understand, this new California law forbids internet service providers from blocking websites, intentionally slowing down a website or app or accepting payments to make online services go faster. When I first read this, I thought that it was a reasonable idea. It would protect consumers from the potentially unscrupulous internet service providers. “Three cheers for the little guy!”

However, in an attempt to understand this topic better, I did some research, as the background is always important.  In 2015 the FCC under Obama adopted similar regulations. However last year the FCC led by Trump’s choice, Amit Pai, undid these prior regulations.
Jeff Sessions, the U.S. Attorney General, said that the Federal Government, and not the states, should oversee the internet. Mr. Pai added, “The internet is inherently an interstate information service. As such only the federal government can set policy in this area.” In addition, Mr. Pai stated that in rolling back Obama-era rules, the FCC preempted any state rules. This, of course made no difference to the California politicians. The gauntlet was thrown down, and apparently nobody can dare to tell the Democratic California’s Legislature what to do!
After Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill, California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra predictably chimed in, “Today marks a true win for the internet and for an open society.”
After this California net-neutrality bill was signed into law, the Justice Department responded almost immediately with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the new California law. Again Xavier Becerra predictably whined something derogatory about President Trump, as he wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that he was “fighting” for the people of California, especially in view of his upcoming Senate election. (God help us! Can you imagine anything worse than having Becerra and Kamala Harris as your Senators?)
And so another chapter of the ongoing battle between California and the Trump administration. Even though I am tending to agree with California’s “net neutrality” position, the internet is clearly under the auspices of the federal government.
In the real world this is just another reason why the Democrats are attacking Judge
Brett Kavanaugh. This “net neutrality” lawsuit, as well as many other California-Trump lawsuits, will inevitably make its way to the Ninth Circuit Court, before going to the Supreme Court. As we all know the Ninth Circuit will rule on favor of California, and without a ninth Supreme Court Justice, it will be 4-4, and so the decision of the Ninth Circuit will stand! OMG!
Posted on

Common Sense and the Lesser of Two Evils

Over the years I have been critical of California’s Jerry Brown on multiple occasions. As most of you are aware, the legislature in California is far-left, and today I find myself being thankful that Governor Brown is not far-left, but only left of center (the lesser of two evils!). The California Legislature had recently finished its term and sent multiple bills to the Governor’s desk for signing. In my estimation he seemed to display some common sense when deliberating whether or not to sign bills into law.

He did sign a number of bills restricting gun ownership, and I actually agreed with him on these restrictions. He restricted rifle ownership to those less than twenty-one years of age, exempting members of the military, law enforcement, and hunters. (Handgun ownership for those less than twenty-one is already restricted in California). In addition he signed bills that restricted gun ownership by those with certain psychiatric issues as well as those with a history of domestic violence. Sounds like common sense to me.

He vetoed a bill that would have mandated later start times for high school throughout the state, saying that the local school districts should manage their own start times. Sounds like common sense to me.

In a similar vein he also vetoed a bill that would have allowed “medical marijuana” on school campuses! Whew!! Who is this guy?

He also vetoed a bill that would have let bars in certain cities serve alcohol till 4a.m., saying, “there already is enough mischief from midnight till 2a.m. without adding two more hours of mayhem.” Sounds like common sense to me.

Brown vetoed SB-174, which would have made California the first state in the country to allow non-citizens, both legal residents and those in the country illegally, to serve on local and state boards and commissions that now require citizenship. In his veto message Brown said, “This bill would open up all boards and commissions to non-citizens. I believe existing law – which requires citizenship for these forms of public service – is the better path,” Again, sounds like common sense to me.                                     This veto is similar to one in 2013, in which he  vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve on juries.  Brown said at the time: “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Another common sense line of reasoning.

He also vetoed a bill which sought to prohibit immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses — a key point of contention between California officials and the Trump administration. Brown wrote in his veto message that he supports the intent of the bill but worries it may have unintended consequences. He did not elaborate, but said he wants to wait until the state attorney general publishes model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement in courthouses, which is required under legislation Brown signed last year. This veto sounded like a “pass the buck down the road” hedge.

However, to demonstrate some solidarity with immigrants, Brown signed another bill that decriminalized sidewalk vending, a business popular with many immigrants. I have no problem with this one.

However, Governor Brown is being termed out, and there is a high likelihood that far-left Gavin Newsome will be the next governor of California. I bet that unlike Jerry Brown, Governor Newsome will be rubber stamp for the next set of the still far-left legislature’s cockamamie ideas. OMG!

In retrospect, Governor Brown may turn out to be the lesser of two evils.

Posted on

“The Mission Hills Problem” . . . For Dummies

Earlier this week there was a forum in the Mission Hills area of San Diego. This forum was held because of an increasing problem with homeless in that area. For those of you not familiar with San Diego, Mission Hills is an upper middle class neighborhood just north of San Diego Bay. The approximately 150 people that packed the meeting hall were both angry and scared, as not only had the numbers of homeless significantly increased in their neighborhood, but they were also becoming more aggressive, harassing individuals, going through trash cans, and urinating and defecating in public. Life has changed in Mission Hills as parents are now afraid to let their children play in the local park, and older residents are afraid to walk their dogs at night. The San Diego Police Department spokesman at the meeting thought that this increasing problem was the result of Proposition 47, which “has led to more homeless drug addicts and fewer people going into treatment.”

Welcome to the new normal in California cities!
For those of you not familiar with Proposition 47, it was passed in 2014, and recently when it was supposed to expire, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown extended its deadline to November, 2022. It reclassified many non-violent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, not only prospectively, but also retrospectively from its passage in 2014. (FYI: In the 13 months after the passage of Proposition 47, 200,000 petitioned for re-sentencing or applied for reclassification! . . .  not 200 or 2,000 but 200,000!!!) Prior to its passage in 2014, it was supported by the California Democratic Party and also by the A.C.L.U. (The A.C.L.U. to the tune of $3.5 million!) Although I suppose  that it should be pretty obvious, Proposition 47 was also supported by the editorial board of both the New York Times and the L.A. Times. It was originally titled “The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act,” by then California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, now U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D, Ca). (You actually have to hand it to the Democrats as they are wizards at naming things exactly the opposite of what they really are, e.g. The Affordable Care Act, which made medical care less affordable!) Anyway this misleading name probably played a significant role in persuading dumbass  Californians to vote for its passage . . . after all who could vote against something which would make both the schools and the neighborhoods safer?
Ask the residents of Mission Hills if it has made their neighborhood safer!
This Mission Hills-type problem is but one of the numerous unintended consequences of Prop 47 (“unintended consequences galore” as pointed out in the National Review on Jan. 30, 2018 – for those of you who are more interested in this, I would encourage reading that National Review article).
To the residents of Mission Hills, I recommend that you to reread the last paragraph, as it is the usual cast of characters that have escorted you to the precipice. The California liberals do not seem to have the words, “unintended consequences”  in their vernacular, nor do not have either the wherewithal or the desire to see that these “unintended consequences”  are actually not unforeseen.
To all of the residents of California, “Wake up!” (“Despertarse!”). If you continue to elect these liberal Democrat politicians, you too will be led, like lemmings, to the precipice, and “the Mission Hills problem” will be coming to a neighborhood near you very soon!
Posted on

A Decent Democratic Senator . . . An Oxymoron

Last night while struggling to find some news that wasn’t about the Kavanaugh ambush, my wife said, “I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on judgement day!” I thought, “spoken like an honest, decent, compassionate, Christian person.” The problem here is that most of Judge Kavanaugh’s opposition does not believe in the same set of mores and certainly does not have the same set of standards as either my wife, myself, or Brett Kavanaugh.

Now I realize that some of you will say, “Politics is a tough profession.” And “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!” Etc. Etc.
Yes, I agree that politics is a tough game, and those with thin skin should not be players in that game. However, Judge Kavanaugh is not a politician. He is a family man who just happens to be a judge.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this week elucidating the sad state of the Democratic Party (“Why Is the Left Consumed With Hate”). My response as to why they are attacking a good and decent man is that they no longer seem to stand for anything, and so they apparently have no option other than slandering and belittling those who are deemed to be on the other side.
I have to ask, “Do they have any principles at all?”
Is attaching the character of an honorable man okay with them? Apparently, yes!
Is searching for and finding “political prostitutes” who will say just about anything okay with them? Apparently, yes!
I have to further ask:
Is there any Democrat in the U.S. Senate who has a shred of decency or a shred of moral fiber?
Is there anyone on the Democratic side of the Senate who has the balls to say, “Stop! Enough is enough!”?
Is there one decent Democrat in the U.S. Senate who will stand up and vote for the confirmation of a good and decent man, Judge Kavanaugh?
A pseudo-paraphrase from God to Abraham in Genesis seems apropos at this time: “If I find one decent Democrat in the U.S.Senate, that will be enough!”
Posted on

The Memory Games

For the past week I have refrained from commenting on the accusations by Christine Blasey Ford against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Whether her allegations are true, mostly true, mostly false, or completely fabricated is something that no one will ever know for sure. While I am not implying that Ms. Ford could be intentionally lying, no reasonable person can argue that one’s memory is 100% accurate after a long period of time, and the alleged incident that Ms. Ford is describing supposedly occurred thirty-six years ago!

As an aside, about ten years ago a woman in my writing class said that she had spoken to her brother on the phone, and asked him to write a few paragraphs describing a particular incident that happened about forty years prior when they were teenagers. He e-mailed his recollection to her, and she likewise wrote a few paragraphs describing her memory of the same incident before she had read his. She then compared her descriptive paragraphs with that of her brother’s, and said that no one would be able to read these two reports, and conclude that they were about the same incident.
Now was either of the two siblings making stuff up or lying about the incident in question? Hardly! Were their separate memories of the same event accurate? Obviously not.
Although at this point I am extremely skeptical that her recollection is on the money,  let’s assume for a second that Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the incident in question is accurate. If this alleged incident did happen, it that a reason to besmirch someone’s reputation and character thirty-six years later? As I questioned in a prior piece on November 18, 2017, “Should there be a statute of limitations on character?”
Like I pointed out back then, if the answer is “no,” then one can argue to the point of ridiculousness, and something that supposedly occurred when someone was seventeen is probably beyond that point.
To conclude, thus far I have avoided any political or quasi-political commentary on this subject, but I will close by saying that I don’t blame the ultra liberal faction of the Democratic Party for using innuendo and “testimony” of questionable veracity for their political gain, as it worked in the case of Roy Moore in 2017!
Posted on

Practical Value

The other day someone that I know pretty well told me that one of her elective college courses this year was “Geology.” She added that it was boring. I felt like saying, “What did you expect? It’s about rocks and dirt!” It suppose that it could actually be interesting, but of any practical value? . . . not likely!  As everyone knows, college is not cheap. Why waste a semester on something that has little, if any, potential to be of any practical value?

Yesterday I read a column entitled, “College courses that can set you up for success.” No, Geology was not listed! The author contacted “seasoned professionals from diverse backgrounds to learn what they thought every college student should take.” The answers were quite varied as listed below:
– “My creative writing class was an important way of forcing myself to be self-aware.”
– “Classes where you have to read, write, and think critically would serve students
     well.”
– “College students need to hone the basic three paragraph essay; learn to
     communicate your ideas in 300 words or less.”
– “Every college student should take an introduction to psychology course.”
– Many suggested a course in public speaking or improvisation to help you
    to “think on your feet.”
– Almost everyone said that a basic understanding of accounting was imperative.
As I read this column the second time, it dawned on me that most of these suggestions could be fulfilled by my blog! Most of these blogs are around 500 words – the perfect example  of communicating your ideas in a shortened form.
I can hear you snickering again!! I reviewed the last 35 blogs and found erudite discussions of topics of history (the 26th Amendment and the Federal Debt), economics (Pension deficits and Housing affordability), politics (Security clearances and Foreign aid), social issues (marijuana and veganism in the workforce), and even topics of interest to environmentalists (a three part series on water and multiple essays on the California wildfires). I would bet that if you reviewed the various topics in the almost 200 of my blogs written thus far, many more varied and interesting topics would be apparent.
I can envision this as a 3 credit course with classes on MWF. Each class would provide a forum to discuss the blog written on the prior day, with emphasis on public speaking, improv, and critical thinking. I realize that you are shaking your heads, but compare this to Geology in terms of practical value when it comes to “college courses that can set you up for success!”