Posted on

A Radical Departure

“This might not be the perfect bill. This may not go as far as people want . . . But we need to do something!”

This sounds suspiciously like the infamous Obamacare justification line (“once you pass the bill, you’ll know what’s in it”). Recall that Obamacare that was passed solely by Democrats, who at that time felt like “something needed to be done,” and so they rushed and passed the significantly flawed A.C.A. This is not the A.C.A. all over again, but it is going to be passed by predominately, if not solely, California Democrats. I am talking here about California Senate Bill 10, that just passed out of the state Assembly and is headed to the state Senate for final approval.

For those not in the know, California Senate Bill 10 is California’s version of bail reform.
The proponents of SB10 say that it is not just about bail — the refundable cash or property that a defendant traditionally deposited with the court as a guarantee that he or she would show up for trial, or the unrefundable percentage that modern-day defendants pay to bail agents for putting up the full amount. They proclaim that it is more about justice between arrest and trial, and the time-honored American premise that even a person accused of a serious crime is to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
The basic conundrum is that the rich can always post bail, while the poor often cannot, and the consequences of not being able to post bail are much more dramatic for the poor whose lives are dramatically effected if they need to stay in jail until their trial. They lose their jobs if they do not show up, and they often lose their home because they cannot pay the rent or the mortgage. This occurs whether or not they are ultimately found guilty or innocent. The proponents of SB 10 say that the presumption of innocence should translate into a presumption that people who are arrested and arraigned should then be set free to return to their homes, families and jobs and be in the best position to prepare their defense.
Senate Bill 10 will mandate the use of risk assessments in pretrial release decisions. In theory these assessments can allow for more defendants to be released pretrial while maintaining public safety. More specifically these risk assessments are questionnaires that gather information about a defendant’s criminal and/or social history and use this information to output a risk score. Pretrial risk assessments intend to predict what a defendant would do if released before their trial: specifically, whether they will fail to appear in court and whether they are a risk to public safety.
My initial reaction to SB10 was that it was a bad bill, and it would just return criminals to the streets. However after I thought about it for awhile, I thought that the concept was good, but the trick would be putting that concept into practice.
My opinion was tempered by the fact that the A.C.L.U. was for SB10. However here in the last few  days, because of amendments, the A.C.L.U. changed its opinion, and came out against it . . . now I am even more sure that SB10 is a good idea.
If it passes and is signed by the governor, there are few things that almost certainly will occur. Something heinous will be done by someone who passed the pretrial risk assessment, and was released without bail prior to his/her trial. Likewise certain judges will be castigated because they are not releasing a high enough percentage of those who appear before them with marginal pretrial risk assessments.
Oftentimes with bills written and moved through the system in haste, there are flaws, and SB10 has certainly been pushed through the legislature with alarming alacrity. I would propose that such a radical departure (no bail) from long established norms (bail for everyone charged) is not wise. My suggestion would be to pass SB10, but with a trial period of two or three years during which everyone will be able to evaluate if SB10 is working, or if its flaws far outweigh its benefits. If in fact after two or three years, it turns out to be all that it is advertised to be, then it could be made permanent.
Posted on

A.A. ; Times They Are a Changin’

In my book I have a piece entitled “How Trump Won.” This was not meant to be a rah-rah, get out and vote for Mr. Trump essay as it was written after the election of 2016. It was meant to be a thoughtful reflection of “How in the heck did this happen?” For those of you who are non-political, I would advocate that you read that piece and tell me where I was wrong. For those of you who are anti-Trump, perhaps it would be best that you not read that piece, as you may realize where to focus your attention in 2020.

One of the points that I made had to do with predominately African-American parents that had kids in failing inner city schools. Trump’s basic message for them was “ Vote for me. What do you have to lose?” I do not think that many African Americans voted for Trump, but today I thought about African-Americans voters when I read some amazing statistics.

A new Rasmussen poll shows that Trump has 36% approval among African American voters, making it nearly double the 19% of support he had last year. Of course, the Mainstream Media (MSM) would have you believe the exact opposite, but the numbers don’t lie – Trump has achieved success among African Americans. Why? To paraphrase: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Digest the following amazing numbers:

Under President Obama, from 2009 to 2015 the incomes of black Americans fell by more than $900 per family, adjusted for inflation. According to Sentier Research, when President Obama left office the median household income for all Americans was $58,056. Under President Trump, the rising tide of median household incomes rose to $62,175 by June – a jump of more than $4,000. And income for black Americans has been lifted as well.

Under President Trump, black employment has grown by an average of nearly 40,000 each month. In January 2017, the black unemployment rate stood at 7.8 percent. It’s now at 6.6 percent. The number of black Americans with a job has risen by 708,000 from last year. Not only are black wages and incomes up since the election of Donald Trump – black employment has repeatedly hit historic highs.

According to the Minority 2018 Small Business Trends Survey, the number of black-owned small businesses has increased by a whopping 400% between 2017 and 2018.

When people have jobs, and their income is going up, typically they are satisfied with those that are in charge. This no different if you are black, white, or green! True, I didn’t foresee the potential improvement in the lives of African Americans because of the surging economy, but if I had, it would have been another point  in “How Trump Won.”

To be honest, I did not start out this essay with the intention of plugging my book, but . . . .  “what the heck!”

“The Quirky Contrarian” can be purchased on Amazon!

Posted on

Be Aware of the Headline

Headline from my local wannabe newspaper on 8/19/18:

“ICE ARRESTS MAN DRIVING HIS WIFE TO DELIVER BABY”
A common  reaction to a headline like this would be something like: “ICE is vicious and nasty! They arrested this poor man who is driving his pregnant wife, who is in labor, to the hospital. How unfeeling! In this potentially emergent situation, couldn’t thy have waited until the wife was safely at the hospital?”
After looking into the situation further perhaps this headline could have instead read:
“ILLEGAL WANTED FOR MURDER IN MEXICO ARRESTED WHILE STOPPING FOR GAS”
Both of these headlines are technically correct, but the initial headline that was published in my local newspaper was taken from The Washington Post (WaPo).This is an excellent example of slanted news coverage, meaning that although the WaPo headline is technically correct, it does not come close to telling “the rest of the story!”
What is the rest of the story? (Most of the following is from the Associated Press)
Well to start with both Joel Arrona Lara and his pregnant wife are illegals from Mexico. They came to the U.S. 12 years ago from Leon in the Guanajuato State in Mexico. He is 35, and she is 32. They have four other children, all of whom were supposedly born in the U.S.  He was driving her to the hospital for an elective Caesarian section on 8/15/18. Even though he was driving, he had no identification with him. (In essence he was driving without a license, although it is possible that he did, in fact, have a valid California driver’s license, as just about anybody can get a driver’s license here in Cali-Mexicania!) Yes, his wife was on her way to the hospital to deliver a baby by an elective C-section. She was not in labor. They were stopped for gas – not speeding hellbent because her delivery was imminent. Interestingly, since this was an elective procedure, it means that she had some sort of medical insurance. Was she on Medi-Cal? If so, has this been how she has been able to have five children in the U.S., while being an illegal?
As far as Mr. Lara is concerned, he is wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant for a killing in Mexico. An official in the Mexican state of Guanajuato confirmed this on 8/20/18. The husband’s attorney claims that the arrested illegal is the victim of mistaken identity, and that his client “denies any criminal history in Mexico, and is unaware of any criminal proceedings in which he is named as a defendant.”
Perhaps this is a case of mistaken identity. It is possible. It is unfortunate that he was arrested as he was transporting his pregnant wife to the hospital, although I find it hard to believe that ICE knew that before approaching him in the gas station.
This entire situation could have been avoided by the categorization scheme that  I proposed in a blog in late April of this year (“Are All Illegals the Same?”). For those of you not familiar with my categorization plan, I would suggest that you read this April blog in its entirety.
My take-away from this story . . .”Be very leery of anything that comes from WaPo!”
Posted on

Missing, but Presumably not Dead

Last week I read an article entitled, “The Long Road From Missing, to Legally Dead.” It detailed the chronicle of an Arizona woman whose 59 year old husband, Dennis Yu, vanished in November 2012. He apparently left his house that morning on foot as his car was still in the driveway. He did not show up for work at Panda Express where he was a manager and has not been seen since. His glasses, wallet, passport, and his meds were also all at home. There was no reason to think that he left his family, voluntarily as he still had a steady job and four children living at home. Since he did not own a cellphone, he was essentially unreachable. No trace of him was ever found again.

A genuine horror story for his wife! However for her from that day in November, 2012, things just continued to get worse, as for almost the last six years Mr. Yu has been considered as missing, not dead. This becomes a major deal, because since he was not legally dead, she could not sell any of their jointly owned property and she could not get the benefits of his life insurance policy. Life for her as a single mom raising four kids still at home was extremely difficult. The laws are different from state to state but most presume a missing person to be dead after either five or seven years, and finally last week Mr. Yu was declared legally dead.
This got me to thinking about C.S. who has been missing until recently for about eight years. Just about every week I hear someone say, “What ever happened to C.S.?” For a long time I have assumed that C.S. was merely unrecognizable, disguised as someone else. I could not face the fact that C.S. was actually dead! Could C.S. possibly be just hiding out, waiting for the right time to make an appearance!
Last week I wrote a piece about security clearances, and expressed my opinion that perhaps the best way to deal with this issue was to just use  . . . Common Sense!
 If Common Sense were not dead, this might be the apropos time for him/her to make a reappearance.
I did get one interesting response to my plea that keep Common Sense alive. That response was simply, “Hmmm!” Now no matter what intonation I use, “Hmmm” still expresses doubt. I guess that “Doubting Thomasina” believes that C.S is dead. I don’t,
and I hope that we will be seeing more of Common Sense, especially in the political sphere.
Posted on

An HOA Allegory

Let’s suppose that in addition to the HOA fees that I pay to live where I do, there is a mandatory add-on fee for the golf course that everyone must pay. This year the annual fee was increased by $25 to $175. However, in addition, in order to use the golf course, one must use a golf cart, as no one is allowed to walk the course. Neither the HOA nor the golf course provides for a cart, so everyone must buy and maintain a private golf cart. Over the years this golf course has become increasingly crowded. It had been that the course was only busy during peak times, but now it is busy most all the time.

Yes, all of this is bad, but the most recent report from the Traffic Research Group, TRIP, details a bunch of stuff that the ordinary golfer does not ordinarily think about.

Last year it was estimated that the average golfer wasted about 40 hours annually, basically stuck in traffic because of the congestion. Last year it costs the average golfer (driver) almost $2000 for hidden costs associated with poor golf path conditions and traffic congestion on the course. Lost time and fuel wasted while in traffic accounted for an average of $920 in annual costs. The maintenance of the cart paths (roads) and the bridges has slipped dramatically. This is  probably because the money that was supposed to be allocated for this has been diverted into “pet projects!” Driving on deteriorating and unsafe cart paths (roads)now costs the average driver $1,021 in everything from maintenance and repairs to emergency medical costs following a crash.
Membership in my HOA allows me to use the golf courses in the adjacent neighborhoods but the maintenance and the upkeep of the cart paths in these other communities is no better. In fact my community of San Diego ranks 6th as far as poor golf cart path (highway/road) upkeep with less well maintained cart paths (roads) in Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Jose, the Bay Area, and Los Angeles. In general 68% of the major roads/ highways in the state (California) are ranked as being mediocre or poor, and it is the drivers that suffer. Californians in general spend approximately $61 billion per year on extra costs associated with crumbling roads and bridges!
While this metaphorical golf course allegory might be amusing, the report from the Traffic Research Group is not fiction and should be food for thought each time we sit in traffic or bring our car in to have the tires rebalanced and rotated because the alignment is off!
Posted on

Common Sense

When I retired from work I had to turn in my key to my office. That made sense as I was not going to have to use my office anymore. At the same time I had to turn in my card that got me in and out of the employees parking garage. Again that made sense as I was not going to have to use the employees parking lot anymore, as I was no longer an employee. And finally I had to turn in my picture I.D. badge that had previously allowed me access to any locked door in the building and also permitted me to ride the employee elevators. This also made sense as I did not need to be able to access certain areas of the building now that I no longer worked there.
This was all common sense!

If I had decided to come back and do some part time work, then I would have been reissued a new key, a new parking badge, and a new photo I.D. If one is no longer actively working, then clearance for an office, the parking garage, and certain elevators is not necessary, and can only potentially lead to problems. I will bet that nobody out there will disagree with me on this as it is common sense. In addition, for safety’s sake, I should not be allowed to keep that for which I had no legitimate use.
So why is the keeping of security clearances any different? If one is no longer actively working for the company (the government), then the keeping of a security clearance is not necessary and can only potentially lead to problems. Actually I was quite surprised to learn that it is Standard Operating Procedure (S.O.P.) for every Tom, Dick, or Harry to retain their security clearance long after they have stopped working for the company. WTF? This is not common sense.
On 8/15/18 President Trump took away the security clearance of the former CIA Director, John Brennan. OMG! Why in God’s name did he still have one?
“As the head of the executive branch and the commander in chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it,” Trump said in a statement.
To me this is just another example of Donald Trump using common sense! I would, in fact, go much further. I would say that if someone is no longer actively working for the company (the government), S.O.P. should be for that person’s security clearance to be automatically cancelled after one month. If that individual should again require a security clearance at a later date, he/she could apply to have it reinstated.
To me this just seems like common sense!
Posted on

Mismanagement! . . . By Whom?

For the last week or so, some of my grandchildren are having their soccer practices cancelled while their local high school has moved P.E. classes and lunch indoors. About one-hundred miles to the south of them, people are constantly wearing masks when outside, and despite temperatures around 100, and many are reluctant to turn on their home air conditioning because it draws air from outside the house. Why? Because in both places the air quality is horrible! Where are these godforsaken places? Drum roll, please!   Dada!! . . . In California!

In the state that is soooo concerned about air quality, about 25% of the State has air quality so bad that people are being warned not to do any exercise outside! Here in the state that is over the top on air quality and climate change, there are innumerable fires with the inseparable big time property damage, and the unfortunate loss of life. How did we get into such a predicament? Well of course those in charge are putting the blame on climate change and drought, because both the heat and the dryness make the forest trees more susceptible to bark beetles which kill the trees, which then are the perfect fuel for these massive conflagrations.

However, if you can blame climate change and drought for the fires, then in essence no one is responsible except Mother Nature! California has been run by liberals for a very long time now, and it seems to me that these predisposing conditions are not new. The liberals have been talking about global warming and climate change for a long time. Droughts are certainly not unexpected in California, and the bark beetles have been an increasing threat for decades. Has someone been asleep at the wheel?

Earlier this year The Little Hoover Commission released a new report calling for a dramatic culture change in the way forests are managed to curb a disastrous cycle of wildfire and tree deaths. (The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency created in 1962. The Commission’s mission is to investigate state government operations and policy, and – through reports and legislative proposals – make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature.) The Commission’s report, Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada recommended that instead of focusing almost solely on fire suppression, the state must institute wide-scale controlled burns and other strategic measures as a tool to reinvigorate forests, inhibit firestorms and help protect air and water. Immediate action is crucial, according to Pedro Nava, chair of the Little Hoover Commission. “Dead trees due to drought and a century of forest mismanagement have devastated scenic landscapes throughout the Sierra range,” said Chair Nava.  “Rural counties and homeowners alike are staggering under the financial impacts of removing them.  We have catastrophe-scale fire danger throughout our unhealthy forests and a growing financial burden for all taxpayers and government like California has never seen.” Over the course of the Commission’s year-long study, the number of dead trees in the Sierra rose from 102 million to 129 million. The Commission found that the deadly bark beetle invasion, responsible for the tree kill, signaled a larger problem of mismanaged forests and climate change.

So let me get this straight: The Commission feels that in order to correct this “mismanagement” that the course of action should be drastically and immediately changed. So in accordance with the “We rob banks, ‘cuz that’s where the money is!” philosophy, perhaps we should be going after the bark beetle and the dead trees because that’s where the problem is. Of course those responsible for the “mismanagement” will not agree with that. Who are those who are responsible for this mismanagement? This report doesn’t identify who has mainly been responsible for the “mismanagement,” although we all basically know. After all who has been against increased, albeit selective logging? Who has been against controlled burns? Who has been against using any sort of pesticide in order to try to inhibit the destructive march through the forests by the bark beetle?

The following is a quote from a legal brief filed in 2011 by environmentalists on behalf of itself and several other groups, the South Dakota-based Friends of the Norbeck: “Yes, bark beetles are killing many trees, but that won’t necessarily lead to large fires. Even if it did, there’s not much humans can do directly to forests to influence fire risk, except to begin reducing human causes of climatic change. Logging the forest will not significantly influence fire spread, and removal of dead trees has many negative effects on the forest ecosystem.”                                                                                         Let me see if I have this straight: Dead trees do not lead to large fires, but “even if it did,” the way to combat this danger is to drive electric cars!

Another environmental group, the allied “Native Forest Council” issued a statement a few years ago saying, “Insects, fire and disease are part of nature. They keep our Commonwealth of forests healthy and alive. They did so until the white man came and began liquidating them, using them up because they were there. Nature’s insect, fire and disease don’t destroy forests. Man, chainsaws and greed destroy forests. Man, scientists, even foresters have never grown a forest, let alone a “like kind or better” forest. They don’t know how. They never have and they never will.”                              Let me see if I have this straight: The real problem is the white man. Fire and diseased trees don’t destroy forests, man and chainsaws do!

Now we can all laugh at the absurdity of the last two nonsensical statements, but these gung-ho environmentalists have been a major part of the “problem of mismanaged forests.” Unfortunately for us who live in the Golden State this forest mismanagement is not likely to end anytime soon, as our liberal politicians and governor do not find themselves having to wear masks or stay inside because of poor air quality, and as usual, the environmentalists have their ear!

Posted on

California on Fire

We have lived on a canyon for almost twenty-eight years and the threat of fire has been on my mind for the entire time. About ten years ago a very nice woman from the city was in my backyard inspecting the brush clearing in the canyon.

She asked, “When was the last time the city cleared anything in this canyon?”
I answered, “To the best of my knowledge, never!”
That woman inspector has never been back.
In fact, no one from the city has ever been back!

Fire is always a threat in California, and the drier, and the hotter, the worse the threat, and this year has been especially hot and much drier than average. Around the state, crews are stretched to the limit to combat at least 17 major blazes from San Diego to the Oregon border, and so far these fires have burnt about 250,000 acres. Dead trees are one of the major reasons for the vast swatches of forests being burned by these fires.
 Drought and excessive temperatures cause the trees to be less resistant to the bark beetle which in kills the trees. Dead trees are highly flammable, and there are a myriad of dead trees out there as the die-off has been accelerated by years of past droughts. The estimate is that 102 million tress have died in California over the past few years. To get an idea of the severity of the problem, lifeless forests in California occupy an area about twice the size of Connecticut!
The die-off, which prompted Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency three years ago, began when trees, mainly pine but also oak, cedar and fir, became weakened by drought and easy prey for the beetle. The decline was hastened by already-crowded forests — a product of antiwildfire policies — which increased competition among trees for soil, sunlight and water.
Brown canceled the state of emergency in April, 2017 after a wet 2016-2017 winter. At that time there was a controversy as to whether or not the governor excessively cut that part of the budget that was allocated for fires. The governor said he didn’t, while the congressman from a district with a lot of forest said that he did. What actually happened is anybody’s guess. To no one’s surprise fighting wildfires is quite costly
This year California spent $125 million in July fighting wildfires. That was more than one-fourth of what was budgeted for the entire fiscal year, which began July 1 and won’t end until June 30, 2019. Keep in mind that September and October has historically been the prime time for wildfires.
Of course whenever disaster strikes, someone is always trying to place the blame on somebody else, and I am no different! Should any of the blame go to the environmentalists? When you listen to environmentalists and ecologists, you get the feeling that their houses have never been destroyed or even threatened by a wildfire.

Chad Hanson, research ecologist with the nonprofit John Muir Project, said tree die-off is part of the natural progression of the forest. While many fear that the largely dead forests present increased risk of fire, Hanson is among many who say the standing timber is no more dangerous than living trees. In fact, he infers that it can be less threatening because there are fewer needles and less foliage to burn. “From my perspective, you want a lot of live trees and you want a lot of dead trees in the forest,” Hanson said. “It’s just good for biodiversity.”
Biodiversity . . . Smio-diversity! Let’s get the fires out and let’s try to prevent them from occurring next year. If getting rid of dead diseased tress is what it takes, then get rid of them!
Now back to my canyon. In my younger days I spent many many hours each year clearing the canyon slopes adjacent to my property . . . but no longer can do. We just paid to have the slope cleared of brush, and it was not cheap. A large cottonwood tree in the canyon just at the edge of our property on has multiple large dead branches, high up in the tree. These dead branches are undoubtedly due to this year’s drought. A fire threat? Absolutely!
A easy fix? Absolutely not!
Should I get did of these dead branches? Absolutely.
A cheap fix? Absolutely not, as tree guys are not cheap even when you pay them in “cash only.”
I have a partial solution for my tree and the millions of other trees adjacent to houses, that are fire hazards. Recall the classic idiom, “A stitch in time, saves nine.”
Make the cost of getting rid of fire hazards – dead trees and dead brush – a state tax deductible expense. Would this be self-serving? Absolutely, but the end this would save not only lives, but also money as fighting wildfires is an extremely expensive item in the state’s budget.
Posted on

WeWork; We Dictate; Wow!

In May,2008 Adam Neumann and Miguel McKelvey established GreenDesk, an “eco-friendly coworking space” in Brooklyn. Perhaps the name for the original company, GreenDesk, should have been a clue as to what was to come. In 2010, Neumann and McKelvey sold the business and started WeWork, a company that provides shared workspace. WeWork designs and builds physical and virtual shared spaces and office services for entrepreneurs and companies. It has been very successful now with locations in 23 United States cities and 21 countries around the world.
Wow, good for the entrepreneurship of Neumann and McKelvey.
Now here comes the scary part!
In July 2018, the company restricted employees from expensing meals that contain red meat, pork or poultry. WeWork also announced that it would not provide meat for events at its locations or allow meat at self-serve food kiosks in WeWork locations. The policy was rolled out to cover the company’s nearly 6,000 employees globally.
Wow! Is sounds like a new chapter in the book, “My Way Is the Only Way; Do Things My Way”?
I have heard of CEOs of some companies (both left-leaning or right-leaning) suggesting that a vote for X would be better than a vote for Y, but the CEO does not actually go into the voting booth with the employee. Some environmentally conscious companies provide desirable parking spaces with charging stations in order to encourage the use of electric cars or hybrids, but gasoline powered automobiles are not banned from the parking facility. A CEO may provide an on site gym, because he feels that it would be best if his employees exercised regularly. While that CEO is suggesting that his employees exercise, he doesn’t monitor who does and who does not go to the gym.
I have no problem with the CEOs in any of the above examples, because a suggestion is just that . . . a suggestion, a recommendation.
But WeWorks’ forced vegetarianism is over the top! McKelvey could have encouraged a vegetarian cuisine at WeWorks without totally banning meat, etc. It’s amazing to me that Miguel McKelvey has the hutzpah to basically force his employees to be vegetarians! From that same book, My Way Is the Only Way; Do Things My Way: “I am a vegetarian. I know best. I know that the best thing for you is not to eat meat . . . so I will now force you to do things my way!” Company co-founder McKelvey claims that new research has shown that avoiding meat is one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact.
Wow! “Personal environmental impact” – This sounds like a children’s book in which  little Jimmy changes the world by using Splenda instead of sugar at his lemonade stand.
In an interview McKelvey said the policy was aimed at raising consciousness among the company’s employees. “We are coming at it from an awareness and mindfulness perspective. The headline has been ‘meat-free’, but this is a much larger effort to develop personal accountability in our team.”
Wow! “Personal accountability” – This sounds like the spiel from the pulpit of a new church which will now show you the only way to environmental nirvana.
A New York Times columnist wondered if WeWork’s enforced vegetarianism was just an example of another whimsical human resources directive from a high flying technology startup with an inflated sense of self importance. Duh!! Yes that is exactly what it is, but it is more than that. It’s an extension of the liberal mantra, “We (I) know best, and because of that, you will do things our (my) way.” If the WeWorks vegetarian dictum stands, look for more dictums from other liberals, such as the outlawing of sugar use at lemonade stands, or perhaps a special added tax on all meat products!
However the really scary thing  for me is that all of these looney liberal ideas eventually make their way to California. I live in California, and I not only like sugar in my lemonade but also one or two Sausage McMuffins with Egg for breakfast!
Wow! Scary!
Posted on

In Agreement, Again

Just today I found that I agreed with President Trump on an issue on which I was unaware that he even had a position. I realize that some of you may feel that I agree with him carte blanche on everything. While this may be mostly true, I think that we agree because we just think alike. Perhaps I should have been a real estate mogul! Maybe the next time around?

Today I read that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) was going to sponsor a bill called The United Nations Accountability Act that is awaiting a vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This is a common sense measure that seeks to punish those countries that vote against us in the United Nations by withholding their aid. Apparently of the 14 nations that received the most aid money in 2016, only one voted with the USA more than 50% of the time a the United Nations: Israel.
This is crazy! On the surface it appears that we are being very generous to those who, in essence, oppose us most of the time. Now we all know that there will be those who will say that if we withhold our aid to these countries that disagree with us more than half the time that their behavior, especially with regard to human rights, will deteriorate. While that may be true, the fault does not lie with us. That’s like saying that if I don’t give the bully my lunch, he will beat up on and steal the lunch from someone else. If the bully does do that, it’s his fault, not mine.  After all it is my lunch.
With the U.S. being trillions of dollars in debt, perhaps we should not be giving any aid at all, or at least giving aid in a sensible and judicious manner.
While I agree in principle with Rep. Gohmert, I would approach this issue from a different angle. I would make all foreign aid renewable, individual country by individual country, every two years before the summer recess, in election years. Every two years, make all of the members of the House and the Senate take a position on the aid we are giving to each individual country. The American people deserve to know, for instance, if their tax money is being well allocated, or is being given willy-nilly to those countries that are really not our friends. This would not be punishing anybody, but rather would be rewarding our friends as they have earned it. Would any parents continue to give an allowance to a child who was constantly disagreeing with them. Of course not! An allowance must be earned.
Apparently in one of his speeches President Trump said something similar to what I just said, but he did not have a detailed plan like the one I just spelled out. In essence, he has agreed with me again! I wonder if and when he will be calling me for advice? Like I said in the beginning he and I agree most of the time, because we think alike!