http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

After I had read Beartown by Fredrik Backman and was raving about the book to a friend, he asked me what it was about. I almost responded that it was about boy’s junior hockey in a small Swedish town, but realized that it was about much more than that. Boy’s junior hockey was merely a vehicle for the real story. Likewise after you have finished this piece and someone asks you what it was about, I hope that you do not say, “Women’s college basketball,” because it is about much more that that. Like boy’s hockey in Beartown, women’s college basketball is merely the vehicle for the real story.

Last week our local paper had an article titled Equal Stand that described how San Diego State University “inspirationally” dealt with the issue of the women’s basketball team possibly kneeling during the National Anthem. The coach, Stacie Tracy, was informed about the possibility. She was put in quite a bind as apparently the team was divided 50-50. Whether the coach was “yeah or nay” on the issue, she risked alienating half of the team. I believe that she did the right thing by referring the issue to the Athletic Department. Now here is where the issue should have stopped being an issue, as the women on the basketball team are representing SDSU.

Everyone knew that once the NFL players started “protesting” during the National Anthem, it was only a matter of time before these “protests” could potentially spread to college wanna-bees I would think that every university or perhaps the NCAA should have had a game plan to deal with these inevitable “protests.” Surprisingly, it appears that there was no plan at SDSU.

When consulted, the Executive Associate Athletic Director, Jenny Bramer, decided to get an associate professor involved – a professor known on campus for working with groups and individuals about issues of race.. The solution – During the National Anthem the players and the coaches would link arms while wearing shirts with “Equality” printed on them.

Now if I say that the inmates are running the asylum or if it appears that the foxes are guarding the hen-house, I will certainly be accused of something that is far from the meaning of these common phrases. But seriously who is in charge??

It would seem to me that the university or its Athletic Department should be in charge Here Jenny Bramer either decided on her own or was told by superiors, not to make a decision on this issue. Mark my words this will not be the last time that the “children” will push and push and push until an adult stands up to them and basically tells them how they must behave . . . if they want to wear the uniform of the school.

The following is my answer to the college athletes who want to “protest” during the National Anthem while wearing the uniform of the school:

You are free to do whatever you want when not in the uniform of the school. As a sign of team unity, you may lock arms at anytime, however any form of protest during the National Anthem, including the wearing of politically inspired tee shirts will not be allowed. If you do decide to go ahead with your protest, despite being warned, you will be suspended from the team and your athletic scholarship will immediately be revoked.

In case you feel my response is too drastic, consider the response of a friend who said, “if you protest, we are canceling the women’s basketball program at SDSU effective next year – if you want to play next year, you had better start looking for places to transfer!”

Here in San Diego, SDSU is presently in the process of cajoling the voters to back the school’s plan for the land around the Chargers ex-football stadium.      If the adults at SDSU cannot learn to stand up to the children, my vote will be “No”!!

 

 

A Statute of Limitations?

When one likes to write, as I do, oftentimes there is a message or a point of view that I am espousing. If I like or dislike a certain person’s point of view, I try not to camouflage my opinion. Likewise politically, I do not hesitate to point out the folly of the Democrats, especially here in California, or the ineptitude of the Republicans in Washington. However today’s piece will be different. I am going to ask a question that may or may not have an answer. Perhaps my goal is really to point out the folly of what is capturing the headlines in today’s topsy-turvy sphere of politics.

My question: “Is there a statue of limitations on character?”

Before you quickly answer, think for a bit first. Forget the charged political atmosphere and try to consider this question in a vacuum.

If your answer is, “No, there is no statute of limitations on character,” then in essence what you are implying is that people do not change. If one is a creep at age fifty, he/she will be a creep until he/she dies – this is “the leopard cannot change its spots” point of view. But what about a creep a age forty? Age thirty? Age twenty? If someone is despicable in high school, will he/she always be despicable? If someone does something inexcusable as an 18 year old senior in high school, should this follow him/her forever? At age 18 do we assume that he/she is responsible and do we consider him/her as an adult? If your answer to the main question is still “No, there is no statute of limitations on character,” should we go back to age 16? Age 14?  Age 12?  At some point here, the argument becomes ridiculous. If a nine year old is suspended from school for his inappropriate behavior (kissing his teacher), should this follow him ad infinitum? I would think not.

I assume that even those of you were a staunch “No” to the question, will agree that there has to be some point at which the actions of someone at age X do not, and should not, follow that person forever.

If someone steals something at age 20 or at age 32, and then is a modicum of honesty for the next 40 years, would we, should we, consider that person as an honest person or a dishonest person?

If you were one of those who answered, “No” to the initial question, then I would think that you would consider him/her as still being a dishonest person, even though probably over 95% of us would think of him/her as honest.

Not to belabor the point, but what about St. Paul or St. Augustine?

(The more I write here, I realize that I do have an opinion on this question!)

Now let’s get to the present day situation . . . Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alabama. Judge Moore has been accused of doing some dastardly things with teen girls when he was in his early thirties. Let me say at the onset that I do not have a clue as to whether Judge Moore is guilty or innocent of the charges of the sexual impropriety that he is being accused of. I will say that I am very suspicious when the Washington Post and Gloria Allred are involved, and am even more suspicious when the stuff hits the fan just a few weeks before an election.

But be that as it may, let’s assume that Roy Moore is guilty of at least some and even all of these charges. Based on this yet unfounded assumption, the following questions arise:

Is this 72 year old judge the same person that he was in his 30s?

Did he change over the last 35-40 years or is he a leopard that does not change his spots?

Does this mean that he is not able to represent the people of Alabama in the U.S. Senate?

“Is there a statute of limitations on character?”

 

 

“He’s a racist!”
“Donald Trump is anti-California, and has a vendetta against anything California!”

These are just some of the vicious things that have been said by the left and echoed by the liberal media. The California Democratic politicians have been especially vindictive against President Trump. I have yet been able to find anything good uttered by a California Democrat when speaking about our president. If you find anything, let me know.
Fast forward to late last week when three black UCLA basketball players were arrested in China for shoplifting. The players were in China for a visitational game, when freshmen LiAngelo Ball, Jalen Hill, and Cody Riley were charged with shoplifting from three stores at a luxury shopping center. Apparently there was surveillance video that captured their shoplifting in an upscale shopping mall in Hangzhou, China. When the rest of the team left China to fly back to L.A., the three freshmen were forced to remain in Hangzhou.
UCLA officials were silent on the issue as was Steve Alford the UCLA basketball coach. Even LiAngelo Ball’s father, who is usually garrulous and outspoken, was prudently silent as theft is a big deal in China with conviction rates of 99.2 % and sentences of up to 10 years.
Then up steps the unlikely hero . . . Donald Trump.
What? The so-called “racist anti-California bigoted president” comes to the rescue of the three black California basketball players.
“I had a great conversation with President Xi,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on the trip back from Asia. “He was terrific, and they’re working on it right now, and hopefully everything is going to work out.”
“What they did was unfortunate,” Trump said. “You know, you’re talking about very long prison sentences. They do not play games.”
Wallah!
The three basketball players were allowed to return to the United States on 11/14/17, just hours after President Donald Trump confirmed that he had personally intervened with Chinese President Xi.
Strong work, Mr. President!
Now the question will be whether or not the liberal media will give the president his due. Will the unfounded comments concerning his supposed racism stop?
My guess on both of these is, “No!”

In the last line of George Will’s recent column about federal income taxes he said that the best tax bill might be one that Rep. Bob Goodlatte has introduced multiple times. This “Tax Termination Act” would scrap the existing cumbersome and extremely complicated present four million-word tax code for a much simpler version – ” one designed on purpose.”
I have a reasonable tax plan that would be fair, quite simple, and designed on purpose. The entire tax code could be on one page!
In my plan there are three principles that cannot be changed. While there are parts that will be negotiable, the three major principles are not negotiable.
1) Everybody, who has earned income, pays taxes.
Those who make very little will pay taxes and those who earn a lot will pay a lot more in taxes. To my way of thinking, if one is receiving the benefits of being a US citizen, then that person should have to contribute (everyone needs to have some skin in the game!)
2) There will be three income tax brackets. The rates in the upper two brackets will ultimately be determined by the tax rate is for the lowest group of income earners.The rate for the lowest bracket will initially be set, and then the rates for the other two brackets will be incrementally related to this lowest rate. If the lowest bracket started at 5%, then both the middle and the upper tax bracket would pay a 5% higher rate compared to the bracket below.
For example, if the lowest rate is set at 5% then the middle rate would be
10%, and the top rate would be 15%. The corporate tax rate would be the
same as the highest individual tax rate.
This leads to the first negotiable item – in my example the increment between the different levels was 5%, but perhaps for this to be revenue neutral the lowest rate would have to start at 6% then with the same 6% incremental increase between levels; or perhaps would start at 8% with an 8% incremental increase between levels.
What is also negotiable here is the income level at which the rates change. The upper middle bracket cut off would be a 10X multiple of the upper level of the lowestbracket, but again this is a negotiable part. For instance, if the lower bracket were extended to $30,000, then the middle bracket would extend to $300,000 or if the lowest bracket were to extend to $15,000, then the middle bracket would extend to $150,000.
My suggestions as to the income cutoffs for the different rates would be $15,000 and $150,000 with the middle tax bracket being those who earn between $15,000 and $150,000.
3) The tax would be a flat tax. No AMT. Other than deductions for medical expenses, there would be no deductions and no credits.
Let me be clear on this . . . No deductions for state and local taxes; no mortgage deductions; no property tax deductions; no charitable donation deductions; etc.
No standard deduction. No tax credits.
So to summarize, for example (with high rates at 10, 20, & 30%) if the lowest bracket went up to $15,000 and if one earned $15,000, he/she would pay $1,500 in taxes at the 10% rate.
Continuing on, if one earned $150,000, he/she would pay $28,500 in taxes. ($1500 for the first $15,000 of earned income at the 10% rate plus $27,000 for the other $135,000 of earned income at 20%)
Finally if one earned $500,000, then he/she would pay $133,500 in taxes. ($1500 for the initial $15,000; $27,000 for the next $135,000; and $105,000 for the last $350,000 at the 30% rate)
Remember, no deductions, no standard deduction and no credits.
Other than being very simple, the beauty of this system would be that no one would like it, and that can only be good!
The Democrats would not like this example, because the working poor would have to pay something (in my example, their rate would be 10%), and so they would plead to lower the rate on the lowest level. However, perhaps the Democrats would not be anxious to follow their initial instincts to lower the tax rate to 5% on the lowest income groups, as this would also lower the tax rate percentage on the other two groups to 10% and 15% respectively.
The Republicans would not like it because all of their deductions would no longer be there. Imagine no deductions!! Capital gains would be taxed the same as ordinary income. No one would like losing his/her deductions, but the lower tax rates would compensate.
States with high state tax rates would not like it.
Charities would not like it.
Realtors would not like it.
Etc., etc. would not like it!
So what do you think?
I hear ya sayin’, “We don’t like it!!”
No surprise!

In my soon to be published book, The Quirky Contrarian, one of the chapters is titled “Generation Me; ‘Me First’ Is Not Age Related.”

As I was reading the Wall Street Journal on 11/9/17 it struck me that this chapter heading is more that just whimsical, as it is Reality.  In one part of Daniel Henninger’s column (WSJ, 11/9/17), he refers to President Trump as a “selfie president” (Embrace Me), and then describes Democrats’ as focused solely on “what awful thing Donald Trump has tweeted about . . . Me!”  Mr. Henninger also notes that self-interest has always been ‘normal’ in politics, but he implied that now it appears to be over the edge.  Me, Me, Me!!!

 

On that same day while skimming the letters to the editor, it struck me that this ‘Me‘ concept is seemingly much more ubiquitous. All of these letters were in response to “Tax Reform”, and almost all were self serving in that they were all about why my deduction should not be messed with: “Don’t take away my deduction of . . . !”:

Those living in the high state-tax states were bemoaning the loss of SALT (the state and local tax deduction). “It is mean-spirited and intended to punish those that live in high tax-and-spend states that did not vote for the Tweeter.” (Darien, Connecticut)

“Middle-class salarymen (and women) are losing SALT so that the uber rich  can avoid paying estate taxes and the AMT.” (Mill Valley, California)

Senior citizens were complaining that they will be hit with higher taxes as one in three recipients of social security will still have their benefits taxed. (Urbandale, Iowa)

“The child tax credit should be preserved as it helps raise children out of poverty, and provides a well deserved break to hard working parents.” Obviously written by someone who is a ‘hardworking parent’ and not poor. (Monument, Colorado)

Why punish the Republican base by taking away big mortgage and property tax deductions? (a CPA from Los Gatos, California – probably not a Republican?)

Why take away the itemized deduction for medical expenses. “Talk about mean spirited.” (a 90 year old from Plano, Texas) The elimination of the itemized deduction for medical expenses penalizes the ordinary family, not to mention those facing catastrophic medical issues.” (Woodway, Texas)

 

Some of these “don’t take away my deduction” pleas appear valid, especially those pertaining to medical expense deductions, but shouldn’t everyone have to give up something for the overall benefit of the country’s economy?

For the record I live in a blue coastal state and I would gladly go along with eliminating the SALT deduction as possibly this would cause the residents of my state to wake up and thus lead to the ousting of our liberal tax-and-spend local and state Democratic politicians.

 

 

 

In a major decision on 11/7/17,  the LA Unified Board of Education averted a showdown with five charter school operators, who subsequently said in a joint statement, “Today shows that when charter schools and the district work together, kids win. We are proud to have stood up for policies that will have a major impact on our students and teachers.”

The compromise decision involved renewals for 15 established L.A. charter schools and the launch of three new charter schools. The school district staff had recommended denial of all 18 for some mumbo-jumbo reason, but in the end only one renewal application was denied – that because of academic performance shortcomings. Very surprising to me is the fact that there are 224 charter schools in the L.A. Unified system, and this is more than any other school district in the nation.

 

When I looked into the status of charter schools in San Diego County, I was surprised again. In 2017 there are 124 charter schools in San Diego County with over 69,000 students – both of these are significantly improved compared to 2008-9 when there was 73 charters with 38,680 students. At this time approximately 20% of the students in the San Diego Unified School District attend a charter school, and this is projected to increase to 30% over the next decade. Not unexpectedly some of the inner city public schools are loosing students to charter schools, and as a consequence are revamping their modus operandi to become more like some “independent study charters” that combine classroom based instruction with computer based programs.

All of this is good because this competition is forcing the public schools to up the ante, and the result is kids win!

 

 

Yesterday I successfully completed another week without NFL football, and it’s almost getting easier. I am no longer even aware of the night games on Thursday, Sunday, and Monday, but Sunday day is still tough. This past Sunday we decided to go to a movie. What to see? What to see? As it was my turn to choose,  I googled “movies San Diego” to see what was around. I basically knew which movie I wanted to see, so I scrolled Google. There were 51 films and “Let There Be Light” was number 50 on the list.

For those of you not familiar with this film, it is a faith based movie, produced by Sean Hannity, so right away, the reviews and the publicity for the film will be marginal at best. In our local throw-away neighborhood paper, The Reader, the reviewer of movie basically said, “Sean Hannity was involved with this       movie . . . nuff said!” I did find a review in the New Yorker, and as is possibly typical for the New Yorker, I had to look up two of the words in the title of the review! (“A Xenophobic Morality Tale As Cynical As It Is Saccharine”). Anyway the New York City “elitist” reviewer did not especially like it –  no surprise here. He even went out of his way to take a swipe at Trump, even though the movie was completed before the election, and Trump’s name is not mentioned or alluded to in the film.

What was interesting was that even though the film is set in and was filmed in New York City, in its opening week, none of the movie theaters in any of the five New York City boroughs was showing the movie. If you wanted to see it during its opening week, you had to go to New Jersey.

We did find the movie at four theaters in the San Diego area, and we went to the 11:50 a.m. Sunday showing. We expected to be able to have our pick of seats once in the theater, but to my surprise, the theater was about 90% full . . . and this was in California! We did get two seats together, and people kept coming in all throughout the previews. Why was this the case? It was not raining. We’re all of these people in the theater also protesting NFL football? Was this some sort of protest against Hollywood -i.e. by wanting to go to a movie but not wanting to see a movie coming out of the ‘West Coast swamp’? Was this demonstrative of a desire by ordinary folk to see a Christian film? Was this because of Sean Hannity?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that at noon on a beautiful San Diego day, the theater was practically full.

Anyway the film was okay, but not outstanding. With Sean Hannity’s name affiliated with the film, it could never be an Oscar nominee, but it is not Oscar quality anyway. The acting was okay. The plot was okay. It was a story of a world renowned atheist who had a life changing experience, and subsequently became a Christian. Without ruining it for you, I thought the ending was unexpected. There was humor and sadness sprinkled throughout, and at the conclusion of the film there was some applause from of the audience.

Am I glad I saw Let There Be Light  . . . Yes.

Did I survive another week without NFL football? . . . Yes!

 

 

What a great World Series! For those of you who don’t know, the Houston Astros defeated the Los Angels Dodgers in seven games. The games were exciting. The hitting was good on both sides (except for L.A. in the 7th game), and this was against some of the best pitchers in the game. Houston was the sentimental favorite because of all the recent destruction from  Hurricane Harvey. No one that I spoke to was for the Dodgers including people from the East Coast, and from both Northern California and Southern California outside of the L.A. area. I did not speak to anyone from the L.A. area, but I have to assume that they were for the Dodgers. This morning my wife asked me, “Why does everyone dislike the L.A. teams”? I do not know why this seems to be true. I was trying to think of a witty political reason for this . . . but I’ve got nothing.
Not only were the games good, but the singing of the National Anthem and the associated pomp was very good. The tribute to the flag by the fans as well as the players on both sides was touching. These are all professional athletes and many of the players are from outside of the continental U.S., yet I did not see any of the players show disrespect for the National Anthem.
Why would these professional baseball players act with respect during the National Anthem while professional football players are acting the opposite? Both make a lot of money. Both teams were from major U.S. cities. Both sports are being played before large audiences including those attending the live game as well as those watching on TV. There is a mixture of Blacks, Whites and Latinos in both sports, albeit with a significantly higher percentage of Blacks in the NFL and a significantly greater number of Latinos in MLB.
From my perspective there is only one logical answer as to why there is such a dramatic difference in behavior when it comes to the National Anthem – CTE!

Baseball players in general have very little head trauma, while football players have a lot of head trauma. A recent study of the brains deceased pro-football and college football players showed an unbelievably high incidence of CTE. About 99% of these brains demonstrated evidence of CTE on autopsy in this study. Now granted these brains were studied mostly because of some suspicion of possible CTE before death . . . but 99%!!! Therefore my postulate as to why these NFL football players are acting out with disrespect to the National Anthem, especially why they are acting out in a way that is detrimental to both their league and to themselves is that most of these players already have CTE. The only way to potentially prove this while the players are still alive would be by means of a blood test, which is not yet available.

I predict that once this blood test becomes available, there will be a new sport being shown on Sundays on TV. – NFL Flag Football!

Headline: “President Trump’s Travel Ban Rejected by Court”
Is this rejection in line with what has happened in the past with travel bans issued by past presidents?
Has there been a pattern?
President Carter in 1979 ordered federal officials to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”
(hmmm – a ban of citizens of a Moslem country imposed by a Democratic president)
As far as I can tell this travel ban was not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

During WWII President Roosevelt limited the number of incoming Jewish refugees fearing that Nazi spies could be among these refugees.
(hmmm – a ban against foreign citizens of a specific religion imposed by a Democratic president)
As far as I can tell this travel ban was not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

In 2011 Obama’s State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugees for 6 months after two al Queda terrorists were found living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
(hmmm – a ban on all refugees from a Moslem nation, imposed by the State Department of a Democratic president, because there were some terrorists in the U.S.A. from that particular nation)
As far as I can tell this ban was not found to be unconstitutional by courts.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?°
Perhaps, the pattern here is that all of these travel bans involved a Democratic president. Those on the left will rightfully say, “Not so fast! There have been some prior travel bans issued by a Republican presidents!”
True.

Chester Arthur in 1882 banned ” skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining” from entering the U.S.A. – for 10 years during a time of high unemployment. Also Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the U.S.A. This after President McKinley was killed by an American anarchist, a son of Polish immigrants.
As far as I can tell these “Republican” bans were also not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

In the past the courts have not gotten involved when presidents have issued travel bans, even if the ban was against a Moslem nation (Iran & Iraq), a specific religion (Jews from Germany), or people of a specific foreign nationality (Chinese).

As William Stock, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said, “It is very clear that the president has been given the authority when the standard [of] national interest would be adversely affected.”

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent liberal professor emeritus from Harvard Law, stated, “Usually the judicial branch will defer to the executive branch in matters involving national security, unless there is a clear cut violation of the Constitution. In my opinion that high threshold has not been met in this case.”

When asked at the recent Circuit Court hearing, a lawyer from the ACLU said, when asked, that the ban would have been okay if it had been issued by “President Hillary Clinton” . . . and the 4th Circuit still ruled against President Trump!
Could it be that liberal judges of the 4th & 9th Circuit have ruled against President Trump’s recent travel ban only because President Trump issued it?

Are we seeing a pattern . . . now?

Remember back in early 2015 when Donald Trump decided to put his name into the Republican list of candidates for President of the Unitied States . . . a good decision. Then in mid and late 2015 the initial Republican debates had a myriad of potential presidential candidates. No way at this point can I remember the names of all these potential candidates. As the months went by many of these potentials dropped out mainly because they realized that they had no chance . . . all good decisions. On the debate stages Donald Trump was in the center in the beginning and he remained in the center throughout. There was a reason for this. . . he was making good decisions.

As the field narrowed in the early part of 2016, the remainder of the potential candidates basically took one of two basic avenues of approach – one was to choose to go head-to-head with Mr. Trump and the other was to avoid direct confrontation with him. Those that avoided a direct confrontation were obviously not the final Republican nominee, but their reputations remained intact (Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee).. . . all good decisions.

Jeb Bush decided to go one-on-one with Mr. Trump . . . a bad decision! It was no contest. He was humiliated and shot down. My guess is that we will not hear from him in the future.
Ted Cruz learned a lesson when some of his supporters went after Mr. Trump’s wife. Mr. Cruz did not immediately and vociferously show distain for this lowball tactic . . . a bad decision. Mr. Trump counterattacked, and it was not pretty.

Recently the NFL and their liberal genuflectees made a decision to go head-to-head with Mr. Trump . . . a bad decision. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner is now having second thoughts as the league’s TV ratings are tanking and the attendance at the live games is decreasing. Goodell and the NFL now have a second chance. Hopefully they will make a good decision!
On 10/16/17 President Trump and Mitch McConnell had lunch at the White House.. I think that it is reasonable to say that these two have not had a cordial relationship prior to this lunch date. Mr. McConnell had a decision to make.. Accept the invitation or not. He accepted . . . good decision.

What went on at lunch? Oh! to be the proverbial fly on the wall. Whatever transpired, the result was that both men emerged smiling and for all intents and purposes, on the same page, as together they then held a news conference. From my perspective Mr. McConnell had some crucial decisions to make at lunch. He made these decisions . . . seemingly good decisions.
In retrospect, perhaps Jeb Bush and the NFL should have sought Mr. McConnell’s counsel before going head-to-head with The Donald.