http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

“He actually called him and wished him a happy birthday! String him up. How could he ever call a Russian and say something nice to him? What a disgrace!”
Here I am not referring to President Trump, but to Winston Churchill calling Stalin!
“Oops, never mind!”
“Whadda you mean an innocent phone call? How can a call to Putin congratulating him on his election be anything short of treason? String-up the president! Impeach him!” Here I am referring to President Obama calling Putin many years ago.
“Oops, never mind!”
“How can the president call a ruthless leader and congratulate him on his victory?” Keep in mind that this ruthless leader is causing havoc in the Middle East, and has been responsible for the deaths of many of our troops. There must be some kind of conspiracy going on here. We must investigate.”
Here again I am referring to President Obama. This time he called the president of Iran.
“Oops, never mind!”
I do not recall the press coming down on Obama for these congratulatory phone calls. Could it be that the mainstream media is biased?
To set the record straight, President Trump just called Vladimir Putin and congratulated him on his recent election victory, and the press went ape-shit.
Could it be that the mainstream media is biased?
From my perspective, President Trump did the right thing here. Yes, Russia is not our best bud, especially in light of recent goings-on. These recent developments actually make the call potentially more important, as it can do nothing but help dialog between the two super powers in the future.
“An ex-Republican presidential candidate came out and criticized the president for making this phone call.” But this Arizona Senator lost that presidential election, and no one pays much attention to him anymore since he torpedoed the Republican promise to get rid of Obamacare.
“Oops, never mind.”

Every once in a while there is a story that makes me stop and think. Actually, that is not true, as here in California, there are stories that makes a rational person stop and think at least a few times per week when the California Legislature is in session! So again last week, just when one thinks that he has seen it all . . . Boom, Shaka-Laka! . . . the California Legislature does it again! The following is from the Washington Post via the WAPO wannabe, The San Diego Union Tribune, “Woman in U.S. Illegally Named to State Post,” and the article notes that the California Senate Rules Committee approved to nomination of Lizbeth Mateo to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee (Cal-SOAP).
Now indeed Lizbeth Mateo is no ordinary illegal. She was born in Oaxaca, Mexico and was brought from Mexico to Los Angeles, presumably by her parents, at age 14. When she got here she did not speak English, but eventually was able to finish high school, college and ultimately law school at Santa Clara. Wow! I have to tell you that I am impressed, and have nothing but respect and admiration for her accomplishments. Since she was brought to the U.S.A. by her parents, I am assuming that she is a “dreamer.” If all “dreamers”were like this, thee U.S. might come out a huge winner by accepting all of the dreamers. The problem, however, is that not all of the potential D.A.C.A. recipients are of this caliber. In fact, in general, this is actually far from the case. According to Steven Camarota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, only 1/3 graduate from high school, and only 1/7 have two or more years of college. In addition according to the Congressional Budget Office, granting amnesty to the D.A.C.A. recipients would add $26 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Perhaps this is because 54% of D.A.C.A. families collect some sort of welfare and their poverty rate is twice that of the general population.
Unfortunately, all of talk about dreamers has distracted me from the scary nightmare, which is that the California Legislature has appointed an illegal alien to a state post.

Last week Jeff Sessions announced that the Federal Government in conjunction with the DOJ is suing the State of California, its Governor Jerry Brown, and its Attorney General Xavier Becerra for their defiance of federal immigration law. This suit has to do with California being a sanctuary state and the Supremacy Clause, which says that a state law cannot preempt federal law. There does not seem to be a real question among legal scholars as this doctrine of preemption dates back to 1819, and was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2012 in a case involving an Arizona anti-immigration bill, SB 1070. Interestingly with this case, the liberals argued that the Supremacy Clause took precedence and won the case. Now the shoe is on the other foot so to speak, and California is saying that what was good for the left foot in 2012 doesn’t apply to the right foot in 2018. Actually, there is not much doubt as to how this legal skirmish is going to play out. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit will hold a fair hearing, but we all know that it will rule against the Federal Government and in favor of California, only to be reversed the Supreme Court which will actually go with The Law. This will obviously take time as there will undoubtedly be many court dates, delays, and appeals before the Supreme Court decides what perhaps should be obvious to any first year law student in the first place. Although this case should be a slam dunk for the Feds, we will see Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra fighting it to the bitter end, because California has over two million illegals living within its borders.
Okay, I get all of that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it . . . which Democrat would ever do anything to go against two million voters?
My question is, “Who is to pay the legal bills for the State of California, Jerry Brown,
and Xavier Becerra?” Perhaps Governor Brown and Mr. Becerra will be paying their own legal bills. I doubt it! Perhaps Kevin de Léon (D, LA) who authored the Sanctuary State bill will pay the legal expenses since it was his idea that got us into this mess to begin with. I doubt it! Perhaps the Democrats in the state legislature (No Republicans voted in favor of this legislation)who voted in favor of California being a Sanctuary State will all chip in to fund these legal expenses! That would certainly be the fair thing to do as they are the benefactors of the two million “legal” illegal votes, but I doubt it! Putting all of this frivolity aside, as the Democrats pass laws that feel good but never consider the real life outcomes, it will be the taxpayers of California who will pay for all of this grandstanding by the “B-Boys”, Brown and Becerra. When all is said and done, the losers (the State of California) may also be responsible for the legal bills of the Federal Government. If that happens, perhaps the B-Boys’ voters (notice I did not say ‘taxpayers’) will choose to pay in pesos, but I doubt it!

When I was a kid, we used to play ball in the alley just about every day except in the winter. Inevitably the softball that we played with would end up going into someone’s yard. Usually not a big deal, unless the ball happened to go into Grumpy’s yard. We didn’t know his real name, but called him “Grumpy” because he always seemed to be in a bad mood. It seemed that he would always be sitting on his patio, and as soon as he recognized that our ball had gone into his yard, he would start shouting at whomever was tasked with retrieving it. “Keep that ball out of my yard! The next time I am going to grab it and not give it back!” Sometimes he would sprinkle in a a few swear words, but we all realized that he could never catch us even if he jumped up from his chair, which he never did. Our usual retort was usually something lame like:
“Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed again today, Grumpy Gus!”
“Pipe down, you grumpy old man.”
One day I did not hear Grumpy shouting at me when I bounded over his fence to get the ball. When I looked towards the patio, Grumpy was not in his chair, but he was playing with two little girls. They were frolicking close to him and were giggling, “Grampy, don’t not tickle me. Grampy, can you catch me.” In the presence of these two interlopers, he was smiling. Grumpy had been transformed into Grampy.
I said to him, ”Are those your granddaughters, Grampy?” He nodded his head up and down, smiled, and said, “Yes, when they visit from out of town, we have a grand old time!” As I picked up the ball, I said, “Cute! You’re lucky to have them.” From then on whenever I would climb over his fence to retrieve the ball, I would say, ”How ya doin’ today, Grampy?” Like a miracle, his shouting and his dour look had vanished, and he usually responded in a cordial away. Together we had come a long way, and now we understood each other a bit differently . . . all because of that one friendly encounter.
Does every Grumpy have a Grampy side?
Probably not, but is it worth a try to find out? In most instances, probably yes.
Can the above Grumpy-Grampy story be a segue somehow to Donald Trump?
Of course!
The enemies of Mr. Trump might say that he is the prototypical Grumpy. At times he appears nasty and unfeeling. (Keep that ball out of my yard). He seems to constantly be making threats. (Next time I am going to grab the ball and not give it back!) But there are also many anecdotal stories demonstrating his soft side. (When they visit from out of town, we have a grand old time.)
It seems to me that the way things are going, nothing good can come out of any interaction between the Democratic politicians in California and our President. It appears that all the politicians want to do is play “macho man” to their base. Do they have any real interest in improving things for those in their district? If they really do want to make things better, they could quit grandstanding and do something to try to reduce the widening chasm between California and Washington.
President Trump happened to be in San Diego on 3/13/18. Perhaps instead of saying that Trump “wasn’t welcome here”, Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) could rather have said something like, “Even though we have our differences on immigration, I hope you have a pleasant visit in Southern California.” Which of these two statements could be considered as Vargas grandstanding to his base? Which of these statements could only further destroy any possibility of a truce between California and Washington?
Maybe if Grampy were still alive, I could get him to advise the grumpy Mr. Vargas!

Full disclosure to start off with. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to understand all of the laws that are on the books. I assume that the laws are formulated to apply to everyone. If an individual does something, and there is a bad outcome, then that individual is potentially libel for the consequences of his/her actions.
The one notable exception that I can think of applies to elected officials who are doing their job according to the law. Again, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if an elected official pushes a policy that he/she believes to be the right thing to do, and this policy turns out to be a bad policy, the elected official cannot be sued because of damages that occurred because of that policy. The elected official was merely doing his/her job, and did not break any laws. Therefore that elected individual is not legally responsible for the bad things that occurred because of his/her poor judgement. (Again, I am not a lawyer, but in other words it is not a crime to be stupid!) The person and the example that comes to my mind is Barney Frank, the liberal ex-congressman from Massachusetts, who felt in the 2000s that, in essence, everyone should be able to buy a house. It was this type of poor judgement that eventually led to the market crash because a huge number of these loans were not being paid off. Because Barney Frank was an elected representative, and did not break any laws, he could not be sued by an individual because that individual lost his life savings as a consequence of Mr. Frank’s poor judgement. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I think that the key phrases here are “elected representative” and “did not break any laws.”

To shift gears, again I am no lawyer, but someone is deemed to be an accomplice if he/she knowingly helps another in the commission of a crime or wrongdoing. The driver of the getaway car can be prosecuted as an accomplice to the bank robbery, even though he/she was never in the bank. If I call the bank-robber on his cellphone to warn him that the police are on their way, and he is able to escape because of my warning, I am an accomplice and can be prosecuted as such, because that is the law.
I don’t think that one has to be a lawyer to know that if law A applies to ordinary Joe, then law A should apply to everyone else, no matter what that person’s title is . . . even if that person is the mayor of Oakland, Ca. The mayor (his/her name will not be mentioned!) admitted to warning many illegals that ICE was going to be making raids in Oakland area. Now granted, she did not drive the getaway car, nor did she speak to these illegals directly on the phone, but there is little question that she facilitated the escape of some criminals. If one of those who escaped ICE were to kill, maim, injure, or rape someone in the future, would the mayor of Oakland be libel?
Yes, she is an elected official, but did she break the law by warning criminals that the good-guys were coming? I am no lawyer, but my answer is, “Yes, she is an accomplice and thus broke the law, and yes, she should be held accountable for the consequences of her actions.”

When I was working, I would send people to see a guy who was a specialist in his field. Let’s call him Mr. A. Not only was he a specialist, but he was one of the best at what he did. Once I recall a gentleman coming back to me and telling me that he was disappointed with the referral because Mr. A.” was not friendly to he and his wife.”
My response was, “Well it’s unfortunate that you are disappointed, however I referred you to him because I thought that he was the best man for the job. I did not refer you to him because I thought that you two could sing Kumbaya together or go out for coffee and become best friends. Again I specifically referred you to Mr. A., because I felt that he was the best man to solve your complex problem. Did he accomplish the task that he was supposed to accomplish? Are you much better off now that you were before?”
He thought for a few seconds and then responded, “Yes, I am much better off, and so on second thought I think that you are right. His forte is obviously not his friendly outgoing demeanor, but his ability to approach a difficult situation, and make it better. He told me what he was going to do beforehand, and he did it.”
My approach from that point on was to ask potential referrals, “Do you want me to refer you to the best man for the job? One who will tell you what he is going to do, and who gives you the best chance at a resolution of your problem. Or . . . Do you want someone who will talk nice-nice and shoot the bull with you and your wife?” Inevitably, they all chose the former.

Is there any similarity between the above story and anyone in today’s politics ?
Of course, Donald Trump!
When we were electing a president in November, 2016, did the country want someone who would talk nice-nice all the time? Or did we want a straight shooter who would tell you what he was going to do, and then would do it? Did we care if he was brash and outspoken, and perhaps not the easiest guy to get along with or did we want someone who could solve the complex problems of the country? Did the country care if his modus operandi was to speak his mind and not to kowtow to anyone? No, the country did not care if he was abrasive at times as he was abrasive during the debates. Just like with Mr. A. in the above story, the country chose him because he was the best man for the job. Now his enemies, of course, do not care for his policies or his style, and so they try to get the country to focus on his style or his tweets instead of his talents and what he has accomplished. From my perspective, again just like with Mr. A., the country is getting exactly what it voted for – the best man for the job, and we are better off now than before he was elected.

For all of you liberal Democrats (there must be at least one) who read this blog, I am going to review a basic term that I have gone over before . . . “Racism!”
In more simple language racism involves making a decision about someone based on the color of his/her skin or nationality, and not on the basis of his/her ability. If I were to state, “I am not hiring him, because he is Polish,” that would be a racist statement, because my decision was based on his ethnic background, and not on his ability to do the work. Likewise if I said, “I oppose the nomination of Mr.X because he is black or yellow or brown,” that too would obviously be racist, because I was opposing him because he is black or yellow or brown.
What if someone said that he could not vote for Mr. X for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina because he is . . . A White Man . . . a white man replacing two black Obama nominees. Well, sport’s fans, that is what Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) said last week on the Senate floor about nominee Marvin Quattlebaum, and that is a racist statement. Now his statement, in and of itself, is not that surprising as Chuck Schumer is a political hack and a boor. What is surprising to me, however, is that I did not hear any of the other 48 Democratic senators call him out on it. The way that I look at that is that either all of the other Democratic senators are either afraid of Mr. Schumer and thus are afraid to speak their own mind, or they agree with his racist statement.
To be perfectly honest I am not sure which is worse!

Last week after President Trump announced his intention to institute significant tariffs on aluminum and steel, I received an article from The Economist in an email from a friend. He said that he sent me the article because “you occasionally send around some items on Trump.” Actually I send around a lot of items on Trump, but I only send a few of them to him.
Anyway author of the article from The Economist was against the proposed tariffs. I noted that he was either educated outside the USA or lives outside the USA, because no one in the USA uses the word “tyres” when talking about those round things on a car. My guess is that he probably was from Great Britian, and so I would expect him to be against U.S. tariffs. Should I take his opinion as gospel. Err, . . . “No.”
As I see it, this is another fulfilled Trump campaign promise. He has been saying for at least five years (long before he was a candidate) that other countries were taking advantage of The United States on trade. He promised to change that, and he feels that tariffs are a step in the right direction.
Be that as it may, there are a multitude of opinions concerning why these proposed tariffs are either good or bad. I am a bit skeptical because uber liberal radio talk show host, Leslie Marshall, and Senator Sharrod Brown (D, Oh) are both in favor of these new tariffs. On the other hand some Republican Senators have come out against these tariffs. They include Orrin Hatch (R,Ut) who is a lawyer by trade and who has been in Congress for umpteen years. Does he have experience in business or international trade? Err, . . . “No.” Ben Sasse (R,Ne) has also come out against them. He was a college professor and subsequently a university president. Does he have experience in business or international trade? Err, . . . “No.” Another critical Senator is Pat Toomey (R, Pa), who actually did work as a currency trader, which, I guess, gives him some basic international experience, but no real business experience. Does this make him an expert on tariffs? Err, . . . “Maybe, at best.”
On the other hand Mr. Trump has had multitudinous years of international business experience. Has he had results on the economic front since he has been president? Are there some significant economic parameters that we can measure since Trump’s election to gauge economic success? As a matter of, there are quite a few:
In January U.S. household incomes rose 0.9%.
In February new jobless claims fell to a 50 year low (the lowest reading since 12/6/69). The ISM Manufacturing Index in February was 60.8 . . . in other words, terrific!
The adjusted GDP growth over the last nine months was 3% . . . Wow!
Who should I believe and trust on economic issues? On tariffs?
Err, . . . “I’ll take The Donald!”

What’s the best insurance policy? No, this is not a trick question. The best insurance policy is one that you never use! If you have health insurance and never have to use it, obviously that’s a good thing as it implies that you are never sick or injured. The most dramatic example of this tenet is life insurance . . . again if someone doesn’t need to be a beneficiary of your life insurance policy, it means that you are around to live another day.
In the aftermath of the recent Florida school shooting, could this line of reasoning be of any use? Could this insurance metaphor be helpful? At this point both the left and the right cannot find a compromise solution that is acceptable to both sides. Those on the right argue that taking away guns is not the solution, while those on the left always address this issue by emotionally stating that the answer is to take away guns. While I believe that limiting some guns may be helpful in certain circumstances, it is not the panacea that the anti-NRA lobby is trying to sell us. Eventually some sort of limited gun ban will be passed and suits will follow. The courts will get involved and eventually the Supreme Court will be called upon to make decisions on specifics. This may take years, and in the meantime, “What?”
Perhaps we can apply the concept of insurance (the best insurance policy, etc.) to this vexing topic. If we could take out some sort of insurance to prevent future school shootings, would that be a good thing? To me, the answer is obviously, “yes.”
The insurance policy that I have in mind addresses the following questions:
“Is anyone at the school armed?”
“Would arming anyone at schools be helpful?” (Interestingly if there is any sort of a
threat at a particular school, multiple armed law enforcement personnel are there
standing guard.)
“Would the potential shooters think twice before marching Continue reading “Cheap Insurance?”

Unfortunately yesterday my wife and I spent four hours in the Emergency Room. Fortunately, we were able to go to the Emergency Room and receive good timely medical care. Fortunately the USA is a rockstar in the medical care arena compared to those countries that unfortunately have a single payer system, as is illustrated by the following true story.

Fortunately, while on a recent December trip, my wife and I met a wonderful couple, Ken and Pat, from Liverpool, England. Unfortunately, in mid-December Pat began having trouble with her knee. Fortunately, she was able to get an appointment with her doctor on the 27th after she returned home . . . unfortunately it was not until January 27th.
We recently received an email from Pat on 2/4/2018. It read verbatim as follows:
“Still having trouble with knee, doc says X-ray shows mild arthritis, and not much else, can’t have scan till I’ve had physio which I have to wait 4 weeks to ring and then wait for appointment, then if still bad will refer me to specialist who can scan me! But talking to people I think the world has arthritis and I’ll just have to manage pain. Its less painful today so more positive. Trying to walk longer each day, the weather here is cold but dry.”

As I am sure you are all aware, England’s National Health Service (NHS) is a single payer system with the payer being the British government. It is free at point of use, and is paid for by general taxation. For all intents and purposes, it is designed to be inefficient, and by our standards, very inefficient. The NHS came into being in 1948, and so Pat who is in her late 60s has used NHS all of her life. Reread her email, and note that she is not complaining that she has had this knee problem for over six weeks, and there is no diagnosis in sight. She is not complaining that she will not see a specialist until probably April. To me, the problem is not arthritis, but probably a medial or a lateral collateral ligament issue, and the probability of getting it repaired within six months of its onset, is close to zero, as the median wait time for elective surgery in England is close to six weeks. She is not complaining because the NHS is the only healthcare system that she knows, whereas in the USA these long delays would not pass muster.
Unfortunately, here in California all of the potential Democratic candidates in next year’s election for governor are all espousing “single payer healthcare.”
A few questions for these candidates: “How will this be paid for?”
“Would the medical care be similar to that in England?”
“To which states will the California patients with torn medial or lateral collateral ligaments go for expedited care?”