http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Well the results are in, and they were not good. I am talking about the T.V. ratings for the 60th Grammy Awards on 1/28/18. Compared to last years show, the ratings were down 20%, and that was despite the show in 2017 facing stiffer competition on T.V. Ouch!
‘Deadline’ called these ratings an all time low for the ceremony. There are multiple possible reasons for this ratings debacle. Incredibly the show featured a reading by “Crooked Hillary,” a twice failed presidential candidate, from the debunked book, “Fire and Fury.” The show also featured Jay-Z who was, and still is, in a public feud with Donald Trump. All in all I think that the general public has had enough of the Hollywood elite bashing our President, as throngs of Americans are tuned out and thus did not tune in to watch the Grammys. (I did not watch the Grammys this year. )
If this were a prize fight, the round clearly went against the liberals.
Speaking of liberals not winning the T.V. ratings war, let’s go back one more time to the NFL and it’s tanking ratings because of the National Anthem controversy. The T.V. ratings for the NFL Conference Championship games on 1/20/18 were down 8% compared to last years games. This means that almost four million less T.V.s, (including my T.V.) were tuned into the NFL Conference Championship games in 2018 compared to 2017. This is not an outlier as the T.V. ratings for the NFL divisional championship games the weekend before were down 16% compared to 2017. Ouch!
Again if this were a prize fight, these rounds clearly went against the liberals.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the T.V. ratings for the Super Bowl, which is much less a football game than it is an extravaganza. But here I will go out on a limb, and predict that the ratings will be lower compared to last year.
I feel a lot more confident about predicting the T.V. ratings for Hollywood’s version of the Super Bowl, the Academy Awards Show, on March 4th. I project a T.K.O. with the ratings for this show tanking significantly compared to 2017.

Apparently twelve of the House Democrats boycotted the State of the Union speech by President Trump on 1/30/2018. Keeping in mind that this is a dramatic decrease from the number of Demo-brats that had boycotted President Trump’s inauguration last year, an optimist could say that progress has been made. Interestingly, of the twelve that boycotted the speech, half (6) were from California and Illinois, and I would guess that about half were members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Supposedly, prior to the planned speech, Nancy Pelosi “warned” her Democratic colleagues not to cause a scene by walking out during the President’s speech. Is it possible that this warning to behave like adult scouts from the den mother was instrumental in some not showing up at all?
However, in the long run those Demo-brats who did not show up were spared the embarrassment of looking like pouting three years olds who did not want to play Pin-the-Tail-on-Donkey at a neighborhood friend’s birthday party. Those members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who showed up, looked especially petulant when the cameras captured them sitting on their hands when Mr. Trump talked about job creation, higher wages, and the record low African-American unemployment rates. Really?? Other issues which did not engender any interest from the Demo-brats on left side of the aisle included nonpartisan issues, such fighting against the opioid epidemic, diminishing the Islamic State, decreasing drug prescription costs, and “in God we trust.” Mrs. Pelosi consistently had one of those lemon-sucking like facial expressions that you warn your kids about – “be careful as your face could freeze like that!” But to be fair she did recognize the National Anthem, even while shrugging her shoulders and looking towards her minions.
The President did a good job of using compelling stories about sympathetic individuals to reenforce multiple different points during his speech. Unfortunately the sustained ovations that followed each of these stories added to the length of the speech, but the warmth and the compassion brought out by the stories was worth the time.
Of course I liked the speech, but what did the country in general think of it? The initial “hot off the press” CBS poll had the overall approval rating at 75%, with an approval of 97% among Republicans, 72% among Independents, and 43% among Democrats. Of note to me is the approval rating among Democrats (43%) who watched on T.V. was dramatically higher than the approval rating of 1% (Joe Manchin of WV being the exception) of the Demo-brats who heard the speech live and in person. Perhaps the State of the Union is on the upswing!

On Jan. 25, 2018 an article appeared in the New York Times concerning President Trump’s alleged desire in June to fire special consul, Robert Mueller, who is overseeing the “Russia investigation.” This old news of alleged action by Mr. Trump was supposedly thwarted by White House consul, Donald McGahn, threatening to quit over this matter. The NYT’s sources for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity, because “they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation”.
Now to me there are two issues with this story.
First we are again confronted with “unnamed sources.” Do these sources have some axe to grind with President Trump? Why do theses sources feel that it is okay to speak to the NYT about “a continuing investigation,” but yet it is not okay to use their names because of “a continuing investigation?” I don’t know if this story is true or “fake news” . . . but as soon as I read that it is based on anonymous sources, I usually do not attach a lot of credulity to it. Actually for a second, let’s assume that the unnamed sources are telling the truth. Again, who cares! The back and forth between somebody and his attorney goes on all of the time. Why is this news?
To me the second issue with this story is even more perplexing – or perhaps not really perplexing at all. This is late January, 2018 and Trump’s supposed wanting to fire Mueller occurred in June, 2017, eight months ago. Why report this supposed old news now? Is it possible that a paper like the NYT would sit on a potential story so that they could print it at a certain time so to distract its readers when there is a high likelihood that Mr. Trump should be getting some favorable press because of something he is doing. This “distraction technique” is one that is favored by liberals and especially the liberal press. Coincidentally President Trump was going to Davos, Switzerland to give a speech at the World Economic Forum that was being attended by many world leaders. He was to be the first sitting American President to attend this meeting in over 20 years. So did Mr. Trump get the headline that day or the next day? Of course not, as the TV news shows were leading with this eight month old story from unnamed sources. How convenient, especially in view of the fact that his speech in Davos turned out to be well received.
My postulate is that whenever our President does something good, there will be a corresponding “distraction” story, and if you think that this is just serendipity the next time it happens . . . I have a bridge to sell you!

I went with my two year old granddaughter to a “tumbling” class this morning. The teacher was nice, but the class bordered on chaos because one of the two year olds would only obey the teacher’s directions if he felt like it. However, kudos to the teacher, as she did not allow the two year old outlier to control the class. Even though the recalcitrant two year old pouted, and tried to focus all of the attention on himself, the class went on as advertised. Those who obeyed the rules, benefited from the teacher who was the adult in the room. In general the kids who behaved had a good time and the parents got what they paid for.
When I got home I picked up the newspaper and read about the recalcitrant mayors who boycotted U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. on 1/24/18. These “adults” in the newspaper article seemed exactly like the self-centered two year old at tumbling. The President was scheduled to talk about infrastructure, the opioid epidemic, and the economy at this conference – all critically important issues to the country, in general, and to the mayors and their cities in particular. These four Democratic mayors from big cities do not like the person in charge (the President), or the rules (the laws that his A.G. was enforcing), and so they tried to focus all of the attention on themselves.
These “adult” outliers pouted and did not want to participate with the scheduled agenda. They did not like the teacher and how the teacher was conducting the class, and so they decided to try to draw attention to themselves. This, despite the fact that the citizens of their cities are very concerned with infrastructure, the ongoing opioid crisis, and the economy.
They were each against following all the rules (they refuse to obey the laws of the U.S.), but instead choose to follow only the laws that they like. When on the day before, the Attorney General insisted that all of the laws of the country be followed, they pouted and subsequently tried to make themselves the center of attention. In essence the bumblers were saying, “I will obey only the rules that I like, and I will obey them only when I want.” They boycotted the conference.
Now while this may be anticipated behavior for a two year old, it is not acceptable behavior in adults. Is the behavior for these adult Democratic mayors anticipated? Perhaps, “yes!” Acceptable for adults? Certainly not.
These four were insistent on making statements to justify their immature behavior, and by doing so getting their names in the paper. I purposely have not mentioned the names of these four bumbling pouting mayors . . . with the same reason that the T.V. cameras do not show streakers onto the field in the middle of a baseball game – i.e. juvenile behavior in adults should be ignored! When I was growing up we referred to these types of recalcitrant two year old show-offs as a spoiled brats . . . and in today’s world we should still refer to these bumbling show-offs as spoiled brats.

A horse with blinders is supposed to run straight. If that horse were to consistently veer to the left, then one would think that there is something wrong with the blinders. However, here in California the Democratic politicians seem to consistently wear blinders that cause them always to veer to the left. The latest nonsense that is coming from the lefties in Sacramento is in response to the new tax laws which limit SALT deductions to $10,000. Of course, the Sacramento Legislature is in a state of panic, as over the course of the next year many Californians are going to realize that most of the the pound of flesh that they had been forking over to Sacramento in the form of high California state taxes can no longer be claimed as a deduction on their federal taxes.
What to do?

Seemingly, there are five options for the politicians:
1. Accept the new tax law and try to make the best of it. Think again. This will not
happen as the politicians in Sacramento cannot fathom that their policies have
led to this problem, and so there can be no acceptance.
2. File suit. Unfortunately, at this point I think that they do not know whom to sue. Think again! I predict that it is only a matter of time before there is a suit filed which will then be reviewed in the ninth circuit.
3. Try to figure out some way to skirt the new law.
The first reflex response was on 1/4/18. Kevin de Leon, leader of the California State Senate had a “brilliant” idea. Instead of writing a check to the Franchise Tax Board (the collector of the state taxes), tax payers could make the check out to “California Excellence Fund.” This would then be considered as a deductible contribution, which would give California tax payers a dollar for dollar state tax credit  . . . and this would then be deductible on the federal return, because it was a contribution and not a state tax! This lame-brained scheme is so out in left field that I would think that the person who thought this up would be embarrassed to attach his name to it . . . but think again, as this is California.
4. Revenge! “Make somebody pay!”
The most recent option, a proposed Constitutional Amendment, is #4 – to convince the voters that businesses have to pay. This scheme proposed by Kevin McCarthy (D, Sac) and Phil Ting (D, S.F.) involves a “tax surcharge” on California companies that make more than one million so that half of the federal tax cut would then go to programs that benefit low income and middle class families. Of course, a logically thinking person would quickly realize that in the long run this would just drive more businesses out of the state, and half of nothing always comes out to nothing. But think again, as this is California.
5. Reduce state expenditures so that state taxes can be reduced. Although this would seem like a logical course of action, think again for this is not in the thought processes of any Democratic politician in Sacramento.
As we are still January, there will be more of #1- #4, but don’t hold your breath for #5!

I had intended this to be an entire essay on the ridiculous Schumer Shutdown, but Schumer caved as the Dems realized that they had put themselves in a very bad position. Recordings of comments from both Schumer and Bernie Saunders in 2013
(when Republicans shut down the government) were played over and over, exposing both of them as the political hacks that they are. Schumer’s 2013 comments were condescending to Republicans, and when played back made him look like an ass as he was now the one playing “stupid is what stupid does”! When Bernie was reminded of his comments, he hesitantly mumbled that he did not remember! How convenient for him!
However the most amazing and outlandish thing that I heard had to do with Schumer releasing the Senate Dems to vote as they wished. “Releasing the Senate Dems” certainly implies that the Senate Dems cannot vote on their own and cannot follow their own consciences and principles when a vote comes up. It appears that they are all afraid of getting on Godfather Schumer’s bad side. Something is really wrong when an ideologue like Chuckie Schumer has all this power!
Like I said, I was ready to write the entire blog on the Schumer Shutdown, but Schumer shut it down. So I am switching to the “shut-up” story of the week
This amazing “shut-up” news story comes from California. Here in the land of fruits and nuts, California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, is threatening business owners with prosecution and a $10,000 fine if they do not shut-up if I.C.E. comes calling to their place of business. When I read this all I could think of was the incredible irony here. Think about it. The highest legal authority in the state is basically directing the people in his state to disobey Federal Law and lie if I.C.E. comes to business establishment. I had thought that the concept of states rights was settled with the Civil War in the 1860s, but maybe Xavier did not study much U.S. history in law school. However, there is a logical explanation for Mr. Becerra obtuse proclamation. Perhaps he is trying to get the support of all the illegals in California when he challenges Diane Feinstein for her U.S Senate seat. You know all of those illegals that do not vote in this state . . . wink, wink!!
The irony would be even more spectacular if Becerra beats Feinstein in the primary because most of the illegal’s illegal votes went to their amigo, Xavier. Would Feinstein then have the cajones to challenge the result or would she just “shut-up”?

I initially wrote this a few months ago, and thus far my predictions are spot on as on 1/18/18, Amazon announced the 20 finalists for its planned second headquarters.

In October, 2017 I had written, but not published, the following:

“Recently the proposals to be the location of Amazon’s new corporate site were submitted. There were bids from 238 cities and regions, including proposals from 54 states,provinces, districts, and territories. Is this a big deal? Absolutely. Mayor de Blasio of New York City said, “This is a competition for 50,000 job openings – jobs we want New Yorkers to land.” New York City was proposing four different locations, all of which meet Amazon’s prerequisites.

Amazon has said that it would make a decision on the new location next year.

Does California have a chance to land this economic bonanza? 

On paper, yes.

Practically speaking, no. 

On paper, California does meet the metrics of some of the potential determining criteria. It has the availability of software developers and other tech talent. It has good transportation options as well as recreational opportunities. It certainly has many metro areas with a population of more than one million people. It appears to be a “good cultural fit” as Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, is about as liberal as one can get.

On paper . . . A slam dunk, with the only question being whether it will be in NorCal or SoCal.

Practically there are number of reasons why California will not be chosen as the site of this new headquarters. Yes, California may make it to the final eight or ten in deference to some political posturing, but that’s it.  First of all the corporate headquarters are in Seattle and it would make no economic sense to put a second headquarters geographically close. Again practically speaking, California is pretty isolated from the rest of the country. A geographically central or perhaps an East coast location would seem to be much more prudent. Despite this geographic mambo-jumbo, there are many more reasons that California is a ‘no’. 

People are leaving California in droves, and it’s not because of global warming. Since the weather is still good, why are they leaving?

Have you ever tried to drive anywhere in the Bay Area or in or near Los Angeles lately? . . . Horrible, with Sacramento and San Diego not far behind. Why would any company subject their employees to this?

The taxes in California are unbelievable – one of the highest state taxes in the country. Why would any company subject their employees to this? 

The cost of housing is very high and steadily getting worse. Why would a company subject their employees to this? 

The state is veering so far to the left, that soon it will be impossible to make a right turn . . . even with an arrow. I do not think that this will be an actual impediment, as birds of a feather, etc., but over time this tendency to veer  towards socialism can only be bad for all of those trapped in the Golden State. Why would a company subject their future employees to this?

Certainly California can prostitute itself with the best of them when it comes to “bribery” and other tax incentives, but this will not be enough. Just ask Toyota who recently relocated from California to Texas.

Going out on a limb, I am going to predict that either a low state-income-tax state or a no-state-income tax state will win this lottery. At this point, Texas and Tennessee are my favorites.”

 

As noted on 1/18/2018, Amazon narrowed the field of 238 to 20 finalists, and as predicted only one California site (Los Angeles) is still in the running – probably “ in deference to some political posturing.” As a handicapper, my October favorites were Texas and Tennessee, and both (Austin and Nashville) are still in the running. Today I am going to add two more long shots to the mix. The first dark horse is Miami. Not only is Florida is a tax-free state, but its easy access to South America could be advantageous  for future business reasons. The other more nebulous, but politically practical reason for Amazon to choose a Florida location is that Amazon’s founder and Chief Executive, Jeff Bezos, is a far left political player. In recent elections Florida has been playing an increasingly influential role politically, and importing 50,00 new Amazon liberal employees into Florida could turn it blue for decades to come. That leads me to my second dark horse, Columbus, Ohio. I threw a dart at the board and it landed on Columbus for the same reason . . . locating the second headquarters to Ohio  would be a wise geographic choice, and this would add 50,000 liberal voters to that state. From Jeff Bezos viewpoint, “Is there a  better way to turn a purple state like Ohio more blue.”

 

“. . . Democrats are itching for a fight with him”, says Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments, as quoted in Wall Street Journal article on 1/16/2018. Now I don’t know who Greg Valliere is, but ‘him’ refers to Donald Trump, and the article has to do with the possible upcoming government shutdown. Mr. Valliere could also have expanded his statement and said, “they are itching for a fight with him over just about anything, and have been so now for the past year!”
While the main stream media (MSM) have been overwhelmingly anti-Trump (as was documented in a recent Pew Report), the WSJ had been reasonably fair to President Trump – that is until recently.
For instance, this article starts off, “A firestorm ignited by President Donald Trump’s remarks last week has diminished the prospects for a deal on immigration and spending levels ahead of a possible government shutdown at week’s end, congressional aides said.”

There are at least two things wrong with this opening sentence.
First of all, Mr. Trump was acting very presidential when he held a bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders last week. The ‘firestorm’ was actually ignited by Senator Dick (Deke) Durbin of Illinois when he came out and focused on the apparent use of the word, ‘sh**hole’, that Mr. Trump supposedly used when he was referring to certain countries. This is a classic example of Democratic diversion. Not infrequently, Democrats will try to shift the focus away from the message and onto the speaker, or his words, or his tie or her shoes or something else inane. Who cares? They purposely misdirect the focus, so that they do not have to actually address the issues. The meeting itself and the effort by the President to achieve some sort of compromise on the immigration issue should have been the sole focus – not which word he used. Who gives a sh** what word he did or did not use . . . other that Democratic Senator Dicky Durbin and the liberal press?
Whether these were really the words of our president is of no consequence to me.
Whether Mr. Durbin has lied in the past about who said what at confidential meetings, as reported by Politico in 2013, is likewise of little importance.
Shouldn’t the focus be on the overall message and not on one certain word?

The truth of the matter was that there was the potential for a deal between the President Trump and the Democrats on the issues of immigration and the possible government sh**down . . . that is until Deke with the help of the media successfully diverted the attention away from compromise to a “he said, she said” controversy on ‘sh**hole’. Who cares!

Second – “congressional aides said”:
Really? This almost sounds like a “fake news” lead-in that one would read in the MSM.
Who are these congressional aides? Are they aides to Democratic or Republican congressmen or to both? Are we talking about two aides or are we talking about multiple, multiple aides? And actually who cares what these anonymous ‘congressional aides’ think?
It seems to me that the writers of this article are implying that if the government shuts down, it is solely because of Mr. Trump, and that, my friends, “is a crock of sh**!”
Sh*** on you, WSJ!

“Have no fear! God will take care of you!”
“How will that occur?” I queried.
“Have faith, and your faith alone will insure that all will work out.”
“Is there an actual plan?” I reiterated.
“Trust us, for we know best!”

Is this an exchange in the Old Testament between the rabbis or prophets and the Jewish people?
Perhaps an overheard discussion between some disillusioned religious military leader and his troops just before a major battle?
Maybe this was from a bad dream that I just had?

Actually, this is a paraphrase of the “non-discussion” between the California Public Utilities Commission and the mostly clueless citizens of California. On 1/11/2018 the PUC voted 5-0, to close down the last remaining Nuclear Power Plant in the Golden State. Yes, the Diablo Nuclear Plant in San Luis Obispo will be closing in six years. This announcement comes just six years after the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Reactor in Southern California in 2012.
When one looks into the status of the world’s nuclear power plants, over the years many have been shut down – often after a finite number of years of service . . . and during the phase out of a functioning plant, a new nuclear facility is either in the planning stage or has already been built. Is this happening in California? (“Is there an actual plan?”) Actually, The plan for the future of energy in California appears rather vague. (“Have no fear; God will take care of you!”)

“This is no retreat from our strong commitment to Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goals,” said PUC Commissioner Rechtschaffer. I found this to be a strange almost oxymoronic remark, because in the long run, the consequences of the closing of a nuclear power plant will logically not be GHG reduction. Diablo Canyon presently generates 18,000 giga-watt hours of power each year, powering 1.7 million homes. Where will the power for these 1.7 million homes come from when Diablo Canyon is closed? That’s a lot of solar panels and/or windmills! (“Have faith!”) Will the closure of Diablo Canyon cause the state to use more natural gas, a fossil fuel and thus increase GHG emissions? Recall that in 2012 after the closure of San Onofre, the state’s usage of natural gas and the consequent Green House Gas emissions increased compared to 2011. (” Have no fear . . . “) While the environmental lobby hailed this PUC decision, a spokesman did state that they were also “concerned about what will be needed to replace this lost generation of power.” Even more perplexing about them applauding this decision, is that nuclear power now accounts for 9.18% of California power without, let me repeat, WITHOUT, producing any Green House Gases! (“Have faith . . . all will work out.”)

Is the PUC in conjunction with the environmentalists ahead of the curve concerning the future of nuclear power, or is California falling further off the track that supports the nuclear power train? At this point it appears that California has flipped the switch and is going off in its own direction. (“Trust us, for we know best!”)
What is the rest of the world doing? While everyone knows about the tsunami in Japan with the resultant radiation leak that occurred many years ago, this experience in Japan is not what is happening in the rest of the world. At the present time, China has a multitude of functioning nuclear power plants and has 19 new nuclear plants under construction in addition to 24 more that are in the planning stages. Even Egypt, closer to the equator and just as sunny as California, is in the process of building four new nuclear plants. The small country of South Korea (population of 51 million, compared to a population of 39+ million in California) presently has 24 operational nuclear reactors, with two under construction, and four more in the planning stages. Only Germany seems to be on the same track as California has chosen to follow.
Keep in mind that if these five individuals on the PUC in California are wrong about the future of nuclear power, it will be decades before that wrong can be righted. In the USA, and especially in California, it takes many, many years from the approval to the actual building and subsequent functioning of a new nuclear power plant.
I doubt that “having faith alone will insure that . . . God will take care of the California electrical power consumer!”

I read two things yesterday which made me think, “Do we have an epidemic in the U.S.A.? Is there an epidemic of “a loss of common sense?

The first thing that I read was a recent report by the Pew Center, which is a nonpartisan think tank that informs the public about issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Center is not some “right-wing wacko group,” and therefore the report should have credibility with everyone. Their report had to do with voter registration. It stated that about 24 million (approximately 1 of 8) voter registrations in the U.S. are no longer valid or have significant inaccuracies. Furthermore about 1.8 million deceased voters are listed as voters, and about 2.75 million voters have registrations in more than one state. Does this mean that that there are a lot of illegal votes in our elections? . . . “No, not necessarily.” Does his mean that there is the potential for a lot of illegal voting in our elections? . . . “Yes, without a doubt!”

The second thing that I read yesterday involves a case now being heard by the Supreme Court about an Ohio law that removes people from the voting registration rolls if they fail to vote in two consecutive elections and they do not return an address conformation form. In light of the recent Pew Report about the significant issues with voter registration, I initially thought that this “Use It or Lose It” Ohio law made a lot of sense, especially in cities like Detroit and Chicago where the number of ballots cast in certain precincts mysteriously seems to often be more than the number of live voters living in that precinct.
However, my thinking was altered after I read about the plight of a soldier who had been stationed in an isolated area outside the continental U.S. for two years. He had maintained Ohio as his home state of record. He did not vote in two consecutive elections and he obviously could not return the address confirmation card because he was not physically present in Ohio. Is it right that this soldier be disenfranchised, and not be allowed to vote when he returns to Ohio? I say, “No, that is not right.”

What to do? I do not want to have an American in the military be denied his vote, but on the other hand, I do not want my vote cancelled out by the vote of a dead person.
It seems that we have a dilemma!
I have a novel idea . . . “How about if we use some common sense ?”
What if we were to use government-issued photo ID voter registration cards? What if we were to further supplement these voter ID cards with a thumb print to insure against their fraudulent use? What if we were to make the penalty for fraudulent use of these voter ID cards very severe? In other words, why don’t we make our voting process as secure as it is in Mexico?! As an aside, in Canada one has three options to prove that he/she is a legal eligible voter, and all three involve a photo I.D.
Both Canada and Mexico use common sense in their voting processes. Why can’t the U.S. also use common sense ?