Posted on

Home Goods – “Thankful”

Yesterday my wife went to Home Goods, her favorite place. I can spend ten minutes in there on a good day, and she can easily spend hours. Whatever it is that attracts women to Home Goods . . . bottle it and sell it! Anyway while at Home Goods she bought a a white plaque that said, “Thankful” in nice black cursive on a white background. I liked it, and by serendipity she hung it on a wall that I look at literally a hundred times a day!
When I look at this sign, I reflect and ask myself, “What am I thankful for?”
Of course, I am thankful for all of the usual stuff . . .  health, family, living in the U.S.A.,etc., but I am also thankful for a lot of other things that are going on these days.
I am thankful that the stock market  is at near record levels, and is sustaining there.
I am thankful that over 1.7 million new jobs have been created.
I am thankful that the nationwide unemployment rate is at near record low levels for all races, and I am especially thankful that the unemployment rate in California is at its lowest level since 1976 when this statistic initially began to be recorded.
I am thankful that the Gross National Product is humming along at levels not seen recently. Gross domestic product grew at a solid 4.1 percent pace in the second quarter, its best pace since 2014!
I am thankful that ISIS in the Middle East is all but eliminated.
I am thankful that the fiery rhetoric from North Korea has ceased, and I am thankful that it appears that North Korea is dismantling its test sites.
I am thankful that a conservative judge, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed to the Supreme Court, and I am hopeful that I will soon be thankful that Judge Kavanaugh, a jurist who believes in following the Constitution, has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I am thankful for the newly expanded Veteran’s Affairs health-care program just recently signed into law.
I am thankful that there has been a marked increase in the number of MS-13 gang members have been rounded up, including a recently arrested El Salvadorian national who is a high ranking member of MS-13.
I am thankful that there is now a National Public Health Emergency on opioids, and that  $500 million was added to fight the crisis.
As I go back and read over my “thankful” list, I realize that in essence I am thankful that Donald Trump is our president!
Posted on

Lemon Picker

A woman decided to earn a little extra money for herself and so she applied for a job picking lemons. At the interview when she was asked if she had any experience picking lemons, she replied, “Oh yes, lots of prior experience. I have always bought Chryslers. I was married and divorced three times. I voted for Obama twice and then Hillary once, and now I am a member of the California Democratic Party’s executive committee.”
The interviewer who initially had been nodding in agreement now had a quizzical expression on his face and said, “I understood and agreed with your lemon picking qualifications until you mentioned your membership in the California Democratic Party’s executive committee. How does that qualify you to pick lemons?”
She responded, “The 217 members of this committee just endorsed state Senator Kevin de León over Dianne Feinstein in the upcoming race for the U.S.Senate, and the fact that I am a proud member of that committee speaks for itself!”
For those of you not familiar with the voting in California, it is what is called a “jungle primary,” in which the top two vote getters in the primary then runoff against each other in the November election, irrespective of their party affiliation. Thus Dianne Feinstein and Kevin de León, both Democrats, will face each other in the November election.
Kevin de León, represents the far left faction of liberals in California. He is aggressively anti-Trump and within the last few days has called for his impeachment. Obviously this kind of position appeals to the far left in California, but in the recent primary Ms. Feinstein won the support of 70% of the state’s Democratic voters! She had 2.1 million more votes than Señor de Leon, and carried each county in California by double digits. Feinstein had 44% of the vote and de León had only 12%. So why would the California Democratic Party endorse an obvious loser in the upcoming November election?
To me the answer is obvious. In California the November election is essentially a non-election. All of the statewide contests are essentially non-contests. The only real issue on the ballot is the repeal of the recently passed Democratic state gas tax increase. This issue alone will bring out the conservatives and the independents in California, who will overwhelmingly vote to repeal this tax. The Democrats need to excite the voters who otherwise might not have any enthusiasm about the candidates, and thus might not turn out to vote. Pitching de León as a viable candidate is a way to try to get the Democrats in California fired up to vote, so in essence they can vote “No” on the gas tax repeal.
However, just as picking lemons in life does not qualify one to pick real lemons off a tree, endorsing Kevin de León will not get out the Democratic vote in November.
Posted on

Focus !

Press secretary Sarah Sanders took questions outside the White House on 7/23/18, including one from a reporter who asked if the president was trying to “change the subject” from Russia to Iran. Sanders said bluntly that Trump can focus on two things at once, unlike the media.

“I think the president has the ability, unlike a lot of those in the media, to actually focus on more than one issue at a time,” Sanders quipped, “and certainly we know the media’s obsessed with speaking about all Russia . . .”
As I read this, I applauded her quick wit as it is the Main Stream Media who seem to be unable to shift focus, when unscripted news occurs. For instance, here in San Diego, our local liberal NYT & WaPo wannabe seems to be in a rut. The only Trump related stories that make the front page are those that they can put a negative spin on. For example, “President Threatens Stripping Security Clearances” was on the front page whereas on the same day, “N. Korea Begins To Dismantle Test Site” was buried inside with a much smaller headline font size. And one day last week, on the front page was “ Lawyer Secretly Recorded Talk With Trump” . . . I mean really, “Who cares! Focus?”
Today the story that should have been on the front page was the news that retailers are significantly increasing their hiring of seasonal workers this year. For those in the community that are struggling to make ends meet, this is real news . . . real news that matters . . . Good news that they can focus on!
There are 776,000 retail job openings this year, compared to 654,000 last year and 352,000 in 2012. This year retailers are already posting help-wanted ads for their busy season, weeks or even months earlier than usual. As the chief executive of the National Retail Federation Trade Group, Jack Kleinhenz, said, “The jobs machine in the U.S. has really kicked in, and that includes retail.” This year seasonal workers have the best prospects in years due to the strong U.S. economy and the strong unemployment picture. (Here in California, the unemployment rate in June was 4.2%, which is the record low since these statistics started being recorded in 1976.)
Why isn’t this story on the front page? The answer, of course, is the unwritten liberal rule of never focusing on any good Trump related news, and especially not on the front page! Sarah Sanders is right again, as it appears to be beyond the scope of the “media’s expertise” to focus on anything pro-Trump.

Continue reading “Focus !”

Posted on

THC (The Horrible Collision)

Back many years ago there was a popular T.V show called Dragnet, starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday of the L.A.P.D. Every episode started off the same: “My name is Friday. The story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been changed, to protect the innocent.”
In a similar manner, the story that you are about to read is true (except for the dialogue). Only the names have been changed, to protect the innocent.
“Please bear with me as I still don’t speak so good. My name is Jim. On Easter Sunday,  my girlfriend, Amy, and I had a pleasant lunch and we were heading back to my place to watch the Elite Eight on T.V. I was looking forward to that afternoon as my favorite basketball team, Syracuse, was playing, and I had recorded the game. That’s it! That’s all I remember about that day. In June when I woke up, they told me that Amy was killed in the crash, and that I was lucky to be alive. However, on most days over the past two years I don’t feel so lucky, because the pain is there every day, and I still cannot walk very well, even with my walker.
On behalf of both my dear Amy and myself, I would like to ask Ms. Chol, ‘Why would someone smoke marijuana and then drive?’.
I realize that this question is similar to the question that MADD asks about drinking and then driving, as marijuana impairment and alcohol impairment are similar. However, unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyzer (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot yet determine an approximate degree
of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality-of-cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.
Over the past two years I have learned a lot about marijuana, some from Wikipedia and some from my other research. While there are blood, urine and hair tests that can track marijuana’s active ingredient in the body, marijuana lingers around for too long a period in order for one of these tests to determine the actual intake time. Also, the variation between different metabolisms makes an objective cannabis intoxication test very difficult.
I know that there is no definitive test to detect how long before her car crossed the median that the drug was taken. Without such a definitive test, it was possible or even likely, that we would not be in this courtroom today. I suppose that it was just a stroke of good fortune that at the scene her cannabis pipe was still warm when the police officer found it the ashtray of her Corolla.
I have obviously thought about this a lot, and have finally gotten to the point that I can forgive Ms. Chol, but I doubt that I will ever be able to forgive those who have pushed for marijuana legalization before a test to detect impairment had been worked out.”

Posted on

B.O. 1 or B.O. 2

On 7/18/18 the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution in favor of backing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). Is this a surprise? Well the “overwhelmingly” is a surprise. However, I am a bit confused, as in the prior week some Democrats introduced a bill that would abolish I.C.E. within  a year.(However, they subsequently backed off and said that they would vote against it! . . . vote against their own bill?? Even for the Democrats in Congress this is bizarre behavior!)
Anyway this resolution in favor of I.C.E. passed by quite a large margin, 244-35. For those of you in the know, these numbers just don’t add up. The number of members  in the House of Representatives is much greater than 279 (244+35=279). So what happened?
I’ll give you a hint . . . the Dems pulled a “B.O.”
Again for those in the know, this could mean either one of two things.
B.O. 1
They could have merely skipped the vote, and thus they would not be on record of either supporting I.C.E. or not supporting I.C.E. One way of “Backing Out” is to just not show up for the vote. In this way one can avoid going on record for just about anything!
From Jan.,2005 to Oct.,2008 then U.S. Senator Barack Obama missed 24.2% of roll-call votes. For comparison the median of missed votes for those in the Senate at that time was 2.2%!
B.O. 2
But even though the Dems did show up, they chose to embrace the other  “Backing Out”  avoidance tactic . . .  just vote “present.” By voting “present,” one can avoid going on record for just about anything.
According to the New York Times (12/20/2007) while a State Senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted “present” 129 Times! Again according to the NYT at least 36 of these times, B.O. was the only State Senator to vote “present” or was one of a group of six to vote that way. On 5/6/99 he was the only one to vote “present” on HB 1298 , an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness . . . the vote was 57-0-1!! On 5/11/99 he was the only one to vote “present” on HB 854, a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims . . . the vote was 58-0-1!!
When voting on bills in Illinois, in front of each State Senator there is a red button (“no”), a green button (“yes”), and a yellow button (“present”). As one would expect in Springfield, Illinois there is a famous saying about the real meaning of the yellow button, since voting “present” is an obvious way to duck a difficult issue, or to back out of having to make a decision. B.O. was good at backing out (e.g. enforcing his “red-line” statement in Syria).
BTW, the final vote on the I.C.E. resolution was 244-35-133, with 133 Democrats voting “present”! I predict that before the midterm elections, this won’t be the last time that the Democrats sink to use one of these infamous  B.O. strategies!
Posted on

”26”

In a recent post, I satirically talked about some of the frivolous bills that took up the “valuable” time of the California Legislature. One of them was AB 1308 which increased the age under which first offenders could still be treated as juveniles. I suppose that the thinking went something like this, “Since young people, ages 18-24 have a rate of recidivism of >50%, it must be because they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions, and this lack of maturity might allow for a greater chance for successful rehabilitation.” Apparently this concept was strengthened by research in the past decade that shows that the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s. So the liberal legislators in California naturally figured if their criminal behavior was “not really their fault” (due to a brain that is not fully developed), they should not be put into the adult criminal justice system, but rather into the juvenile justice system.Now just as night follows day, one could easily predict that there would be an “aha-moment” in the some other states with liberal policy makers and they would start to consider some of their young criminals might not be fully responsible for their actions either. At present, Illinois, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have considered legislation that would raise the age in the juvenile justice system, and in Vermont a new law allows anyone 21 or younger charged with a nonviolent crime to be eligible for juvenile offender status. “The 18th birthday is not magical; you do not suddenly become a full fledged adult,” said Lael Chester, director of the Emerging Adult Project at Columbia University’s Justice Lab. Although there is no data that this program works, I am willing to give it a shot – after all these misguided criminal folk might have a brain that is not fully developed.

Okay, okay, but what does all of this have to do with the title, “26?”

As many of you might already know, 26 is my favorite number, but that is irrelevant.
“26” has to do with the 26th Amendment.
Without looking it up, how many of you know what the 26th Amendment is?
Briefly, here is the definition as well as some of the history of the 26th Amendment.
The long debate over lowering the voting age in America from 21 to 18 began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War, when young men denied the right to vote were being conscripted to fight for their country. In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level. Amid increasing support for a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971; the states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July.
To summarize, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
Let me get this straight . . . young people, up until their mid-20s are not really fully responsible for their actions, because their brains may not be fully developed, but their brains are fully developed enough for them to vote in elections! Huh!? When one thinks about this logically, it makes no sense!
I say that a thoughtful decision has to reached with this conundrum. If you think it doesn’t really matter all that much, consider that the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama saw a voter turnout of some 49 percent of 18- to 24 year-olds, the second highest in history, and we know who all of these young people elected!
OMG! Obviously the “undeveloped brain premise” must be true!
Who wants to help me start a new movement: “Repeal the 26th Amendment”?
Posted on

Children, Behave!

“Children. behave!”
Those are the first words from I Think We’re Alone Now, a past hit song by Tommy James and the Shondells that reached #4 on Billboards Hot 100 Chart in 1967. (FYI, in 1987 a version of this song by Tiffany reached #1 in various countries.) These words came to my mind last Sunday when there was a family of five sitting in front of me at church. Multiple times I wished that the oblivious father would have said, “Children, behave!” to his four kids who did not seem to have a clue as to why they were where they were, nor did they have a clue as to what they were supposed to being doing. I thought, “What’s the world coming to?”, but then an “aha moment” as I thought of the California Legislature, and decided that the behavior kids wasn’t quite so bad!
I thought, “Does the California Legislature have a clue as to why they are in Sacramento? Do they have a clue as to what they are supposed to be doing”?
Is there anyone that could say to the legislature, “Children, behave!”?
If you think I am being facetious, review with me some of the brilliant stuff that took up some of their valuable time in 2017.
The official dinosaur of California is now Augustynolophus morrisi. This certainly was an important use of their time! I am thankful that California already had a state fabric, denim, and a state lichen, lace-lichen, otherwise God knows how much more time they could have wasted! Oy vey! “Children, behave!”
SB 239 reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor the purposeful intent to transmit AIDS to an unknowing partner. Also knowingly donating HIV infected blood was decriminalized. Whew! What a relief! “Children, behave!”
They passed AB 398 (Cap & Trade Tax) which is projected to increase gas taxes by $0.61-0.73 by 2031. This is on top of the $0.11 that Cap & Trade (2015) has already increased the gasoline tax, and also in addition to the recent $0.12 increase that the California Democrats pushed through in November 2017. Another example of a tax that hurts the poor and the middle class the worst. Lord have mercy! “Children, behave!”
A bill to require that the true sex of an individual be omitted from California driver’s licenses! OMG! “Children, behave!”
SB 394 allotted $45 million in the state budget to provide free legal services to illegal immigrants. This is a perplexing twist of logic as non-citizens who for the most part do not pay taxes get free legal assistance whereas citizens who pay the taxes that fund the budget have to pay for legal services. Huh?? “Children, behave!”
AB 1308 was a bill to give preferential treatment to prisoners less that 25 years old that had been convicted of serious crimes, because their brains might not have been mature enough to understand right from wrong. Apparently their thinking was that this prior immaturity would now allow for a greater chance of successful rehab. This, in spite of the fact that more than 50% of those ages 18-24 are back behind bars within three years of their release from prison. Note that of the 131,000 inmates in California prisons, 11% are less than 25 years old, and many of these “immature brains” may soon be back on the streets. Yikes! “Children, behave!”
There are many more examples of how the California legislators waste their time and essentially misbehave while in Sacramento, but I only have a limited amount of time and space.
Frequently I wonder if those with the “immature brains” are actually those that spend their time on these frivolous bills! When they hear “Children, behave,” I also wonder if they will eventually realize “that’s what they say when we’re together” . . .  which is the second line of that aforementioned 1967 Tommy James hit song?
Posted on

How Did Donald, err Ronald, Do?

We own a condominium in a large condo complex, and the number of condo units has increased substantially over the years. We are one of the original twelve members, and now there are a total of twenty-nine members. The condo complex has a Condo Association called the Noteworthy Affiliation of Tenant Owners  and an association president. In the condo complex not all units are the same size. As it so happens, we happen to have the largest unit.

As part of the Condo Association agreement, all of the condo owners have agreed to chip in and pay yearly for security. Each unit has a different value, and the assessment for security is based on the individual value of each unit. Because we have the largest unit, we pay the most for security, and that seems fair to us. However there is a problem. Most of the condo owners are not paying their fair share, and to make matters worse, this underpayment has been going on for many years! Apparently at the last Condo Association meeting in Wales in 2014, the past association president and the 2014 board of NATO directors recognized that the scofflaws were not paying their fair share, and told them that they all must pay what they had agreed upon in the past . . . but gave them ten years (until 2024) to do so! We could not attend the 2014 meeting, and our representative apparently thought that this outrageous agreement was okay (FYI: She has since been fired!) Four years have passed, and at this point only five (us plus four others) of the twenty-nine owners, are actually paying their agreed upon fair share. Four more of the owners are coming close to paying their agreed upon fair share, but the remaining twenty owners are not close.

The 2018 NATO condo association meeting ended yesterday, and our representative, Ronald, reported back to us today.
Here are some snippets from the conversation between Ronald and us:
Ronald: “I told them at the outset that their behavior was neither fair nor acceptable.”
US:   “and . . .?”
Ronald: “I asked them if they realized that we are paying more than our fair share while they are welching on the deal made in 2014?”
US:  “and . . . ?”
Ronald: “I pointed out that we are paying far more on NATO security than anybody else, but they just nodded and looked at the floor.”
US:  “and . . .?”
Ronald: “I emphasized repeatedly that we are subsidizing 72% of the security for  NATO? I reiterated that we realize that 22 out of the 29 members of NATO  have increased their spending on security since that Crimea episode in the adjacent condo complex, but that they are still not paying what they agreed   to pay.”
A long pause then ensued . . .
US: “Well! Honestly, Ronald, we are not completely happy with your performance. You had them, and you went easy on them! We have the upper hand here, and you were way too nice! You let them off the hook, without getting anything in return!
Perhaps before the next NATO meeting, you should read ‘The Art of the Deal’ written by some New York fellow”!
Posted on

Let’s All Drink Together

What is she drinking? Or perhaps given that she is from the San Francisco Bay Area, I should say, “What is she smoking?” Sometimes I wonder just how dumb some of these politicians think that the general public is. Now granted that a lot of those in California are clueless, but Ms. Pelosi is speaking to the entire country when she opines on her Twitter account.
Her most recent tweet came in response to the June Jobs Report, which stated that in June, 2018 employers created 213,000 new jobs (22,000 more than expected), and of those created, 36,000 were manufacturing jobs. Now try matching what the numbers actually showed with what former Speaker of the House said. She tweeted, “The June #Jobs Report shows what is at stake from the brewing storm of rising health costs, spiraling trade uncertainty & an economy being hollowed out to enrich big corporations & the wealthiest 1 percent. Americans deserve better than the GOP’s raw deal.”
Huh?? Did she read the same jobs report that I did? What is she drinking?
The same jobs report stated that Hispanic unemployment was at 4.6%, which is an all time low. Similarly black unemployment was 6.5%, which is the second lowest level ever. Also wages rose 2.7%, which is only slightly below the 2.8% expected. However, Ms. Pelosi tweeted the following, “Corporate America is on track to spend $1 trillion on dividends and stock buybacks, while announcing tens of thousands of layoffs, refusing to give workers a raise and raising costs for families.”
Huh! Did she read the same jobs report that I did? What is she drinking?
Now granted, only those on the left are going to be following Ms. Nancy on her twitter account, but stop and think what this implies. Stop and think what she is actually suggesting . . . “I realize that anyone who is regularly following me on Twitter does not have the time, or the inclination, or perhaps the smarts to read the June Jobs Report. Do not bother to read the same jobs report that I did. Let’s all drink together!”
Posted on

Supreme Court; Should It Be Like Roulette?

As it stands now the makeup of the Supreme Court is pure luck, just like roulette. At present, the past three presidents, Barack Obama, George W.Bush, and Bill Clinton, have each nominated two and President Trump is on the verge of nominating his second Justice. This recent equality as far as presidential Supreme Court nominees, however is pure happenstance.
Here we are in the middle of another mudslinging, downright disgusting process of the approval of a Supreme Court Justice. Why is this process so nasty? Why do some senators go out of their way to insult and belittle the nominee? Why do some even go so far as to insult the religious faith of the nominee? Is this just politics as usual? Of course the thinly veiled attacks on the nominee’s reputation do play well with the senator’s base, but is that all that is behind it? No, obviously not, as the nomination and the subsequent vote to accept the nominee has dramatic effects for decades to come because the appointment to Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Other than judges are there any other lifetime positions? If there are please let me know. Other than retiring like Justice Kennedy recently did, the Supreme Court is a lifetime position, and so the political stakes are exceptionally high . . . perhaps too high!
Why does this have to be a lifetime appointment? The answer is that’s what’s in the Constitution. That’s what the designers figured would keep the justices free from political pressures for if they didn’t have to worry about their future, they would more likely be fair and just in their decisions. But that was then and this is now! There is one major difference between the 1770s and 2018. Life expectancy! In the latter part of the 18th century, the average life expectancy was 36 years, and in the early 1800s it rose to 37 years. That is far cry from today’s life expectancy. In 2007, the average life expectancy at birth for persons born in the United States was 77.9 years, an increase of 1.1 years from 2000 and an increase of 0.2 years from 2006, and by 2050 the average life expectancy is predicted to increase to 80 for men, and 83-85 for women.

In 1790 the average age of a Supreme Court Justice at retirement was about 62 years, whereas in 2010 it was about 77 years. Call me crazy, but I doubt that this is what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.
Personally, I think that Kennedy’s decision to retire was the right decision. After all he was 81 years old! Since there is no mandatory retirement age, there have been
justices that did not retire till 90! Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 85 years old – four years than older Kennedy, and five years past the average retirement age.
Personally, if I have a case going before the highest court in the land, I do not want a bunch of octogenarians deciding it, and that is why I am recommending the following “rotating mandatory retirement” for Supreme Court justices. I propose that one year and three years after each presidential election, the justice that has been on the Court the longest would be forced to retire.Since there are nine Supreme Court justices, each would serve as a Supreme Court Justice for an average of 18 years, and I think that is plenty long.
Let’s use Justice Ginsberg as an example. She took her seat on the Supreme Court in August 1993 after a nomination from Bill Clinton, and her present the tenure is three years shorter than the average tenure. With my plan, she would have retired in 2011, and Justice Kennedy who was appointed in 1987 would have retired in 2005.
There are two caveats to this plan. No single president could appoint more than three justices. If a president was elected for two terms (8 years in office), he would appoint only three justices – one at the end of the first and third year of his first term, and one at the end of his third year of his second term. Likewise if a justice died, the president would then have to nominate a new justice, even though it was not on the usual two year-four year cycle, but again each president could only nominate a total of three justices maximum. The bickering about Justice Scalia’s replacement would have been avoided since according to this plan, then President Obama would have already nominated his three justices, and so he would have maxed out.This plan would also avoid picking Supreme Court nominees based on age, as all would serve 18 years.  Before his decision, President Trump’s three leading potential nominees were all around 50, and so they could realistically serve for approximately 30 years as a Supreme Court Justice. That’s too long!