Month: July 2021

The following is not meant to be judgmental … as Jack Webb used to say, “just the facts, please.” In addition, in advance I want to go on record that I do not regularly read ‘Evie Magazine,’ and I fact never knew it existed before today. Be that as it may, I just read an article in Evie Magazine that referenced a Pew study of March, 2020, titled Pew American Trends Panel: Wave 64. 

After I read the entire Evie article, the first question that I asked and that you may also ask when you finish this essay, is …”Why have I never heard about this before?” After all it was published well over a year ago. Again, as I earlier stated, I am trying not to be judgmental, even though, to me, the answer as to Why?… is intuitively obvious.

Apparently it took a Ph.D. candidate in political science posting about the study on Twitter for it to garner even a smidge of attention. The most likely answer as to why “nobody” was interested in this Pew story should be obvious from the title of the summary article in Evie:

“Over 50% Of Liberal, White Women Under 30 Have A Mental Health Issue. Are We Worried Yet?”

With the risk of repeating myself too often, I am just reporting what this Pew study found … again, not trying to be judgmental.

The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.” What’s more, white women suffered the worst of all. White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.

Still from Evie:

Zach Goldberg, the doctoral candidate in question, consolidated the study’s info in a set of visuals and posted them to a thread on Twitter. But it’s important to note that he clarified the following: “I didn’t write this thread to mock white liberals or their apparently disproportionate rates of mental illness (and you shouldn’t either). Rather, this is a question that’s underexplored and which may shed light on attitudinal differences towards various social policies.” He’s right.

From my point of view … trying not to be judgmental … the question is which is the chicken and which is the egg? (which came first?) Or perhaps more apropos, another phrase from the “trite sweepstakes” … which is the cart and which is the horse.(which is leading and which is following?)

I am certainly not a Ph.D candidate, and would not dare to try to identify which is which, visa vi, the chicken versus the egg, or visa vi, the cart and the horse. However, I will say that this Pew study makes things a lot clearer for me, as in “Aah … perhaps an explanation!”

7/21/21

www.californiacontrarian.com

Finally a comeuppance as a  government has the guts to respond to censorship by the likes of Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Not surprising the government that I am referring to is not in this country. The government with some fortitude is in Europe.

From the Washington Examiner:

YouTube was fined 100,000 euros (around $118,115) over the weekend in a German court for removing a video of a coronavirus lockdown protest in Switzerland.

After the Dresden Higher Regional Court in Germany ordered an injunction directing YouTube to restore the video in April 2020, the video platform ignored the ruling for nearly a month before complying on May 14, a “deliberate and serious violation,” the court found, according to free speech group Reclaim the Net. YouTube told the court the video needed to be removed because it violated the company’s “medical misinformation policy,” which YouTube has expanded since the outset of the pandemic to remove content that includes claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict health authorities’ guidance. The court reportedly rejected this argument.

Sunday’s fine “appears to be the highest on record in Germany,” the group added.

The notion that Big Tech platforms have been censoring dissenting voices has made headlines since former President Donald Trump was deplatformed following the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill attack. Twitter, Facebook, and others said Trump’s words and actions preceding the attack incited violence and warranted removal.

My response to Trump’s suit … “Go DJT.”

I look forward to the day when the Facebooks of the world get their comeuppance in the USA. Certainly a fine of $100,000 is peanuts for YouTube. I cannot wait until the courts decide that censorship by the all-knowing  on these platforms is just wrong. In the future I hope that they are fined millions here in the US.

7/20/21

On 7/16/21 Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Southern District of Texas issued a decision which will block the Department of Homeland Security from approving new DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) applications. 

Finally a bit of common sense injected into what is usually a topic that is discussed purely on an emotional basis. At this moment in time I am presuming that we all know that DACA recipients are those individuals who were brought into the USA illegally by their parents while they were children. The emotional argument can probably be summarized like this – these poor children were brought here through no fault of their own, and if they are deported, they would have no place no go, no place that they would be familiar with, and certainly no place in which they had any roots.

The counter argument is that they are here illegally as are their parents, and therefore should be deported.

From Townhall:

“The decision found that President Barack Obama illegally exceeded his executive authority in 2012 when his administration created the DACA program. 

Judge Hanen called the program an “illegally implemented program” and said “the public interest of the nation is always served by the cessation of a program that was created in violation of law and whose existence violates the law.”

He held off for now on deciding how current recipients will be affected. “To be clear, neither this order nor the accompanying injunction requires DHS or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that it would otherwise not take.”

I get it. I get both sides of this discussion. I have no axe to grind with these DACA individuals, and as is often the case, I have a compromise which involves those words that are not used in politics these days . . . common sense!

First a  cut off date needs to be arrived at. It makes no sense to say that young children being brought into the country illegally can continue to be brought in ad infinitum.

I have no issue with these DACA individuals staying in the country except that I do not want them voting. It’s actually quite simple … they are not citizens and should neither vote nor receive benefits.

My compromise:

Let them all stay as that is the right thing to do. However, if any of the DACA individuals try to vote or even register to vote, try to get benefits, or commit a felony … -> out! … meaning immediate deportation.

Now finally the “contrarian” part of my plan … have the Republicans sponsor the legislation for the reconciliation of this DACA dilemma. Furthermore, have the Republicans in both the House and the Senate coordinate efforts to resolve this problem.

Everyone is aware that eventually this issue is going to need to be resolved, and for the most part the sentiment of the country is going to be on the side of the DACA individuals.

Republicans: “Steal the thunder on this issue … and do it now.”

7/19/21

Is there any way that anyone can disagree with a person of color without being called the ‘R’ word? In today’s world the answer is “no,” … unless the person of color that is being disagreed with is a conservative, or a Republican. If they happen to be in either of the aforementioned groups, then the person of color is called an “Uncle Tom,” and the critics are not called the ‘R’ word.

To me it is becoming more and more clear that if someone is called the ‘R’ word, it means that those who disagree actually cannot argue substance, but are reverting to the Democrat standby of attaching the speaker instead of what the speaker is saying. Fortunately, at this time, those who indiscriminately toss around the “R’ word are being recognized more and more as being the same type of individuals as those who stand on the street corners warning everyone that “the world is ending.” In other words, no one is paying attention to them.

Like an increasing percent of the population, I resent being told that I am a racist. I fully agree with Martin Luther King Jr. when he said “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Sometimes I wonder if those who haphazardly toss around the ‘R’ word are familiar with MLK. 

I disagree with some individuals who are black, brown, or yellow for the same reason that I disagree with many individuals who are white … I do not agree with what they say or what they stand for. Period!

I remember quite well back after the 2008 election that a black coworker told me that her mother was ecstatic because “one of their own had been elected, and she voted for him because he was black.” At that point I did not come out with an ad hominem statement using the ‘R’ word even though the mother was certainly professing what the ‘R’ word was originally meant to imply.

So do not call me the ‘R’ word unless you want the R to stand for Rational, Reasonable, or Responsible for my own actions.

And BTW, yes, I am the other ‘R’ word … I am a Republican.

7/18/21

There are a few things that we all know are true these days:

• Private jets are very expensive, and two private jets are twice as expensive.
• Getting from an airport to downtown is expensive, and even more expensive if one is being chauffeured.
• Hotel rooms are expensive, especially hotel rooms in big cities.
• Eating out at restaurants is increasingly expensive, especially if one is eating three meals a day at restaurants.
• If one does not have a car, getting back and forth to “work” is expensive, whether it’s by taxi or by Uber. BTW, Renting a car these days in over-the-top expensive.
• “Vacationing” for one day in a big city is expensive, and “vacationing” in a big city for approaching a week has to be quite an expensive way of “vacationing.”

On 7/12/21 at least 51 Democrats from the Texas House of Representatives fled to Washington D.C. to avoid doing their job in Texas.

By fleeing Texas these Democrats are insuring that a quorum cannot be reached, and if a quorum isn’t reached, no business, visa vi no votes can be carried out. (“If we Dems do not like what the majority wants, we are going to pout!”)

Am I surprised by this passive aggressive type of behavior? … No, not in the least, as passive-aggressiveness is listed as a synonym for “Democrat” in some thesauruses.

However, my question is “who is paying for all of this?” And furthermore how long are they going to stay out of Texas. Granted these rebels can continue to avoid coming back to Texas by staying in some place cheaper, like New Mexico, but the end of the present Texas legislative session is still more than three weeks away.

Again, “who is paying for all of this?” And if some liberal fat-cat is footing the bill, should all of these individual expenses to be considered earned income and taxed federally. (Texas has no state income tax.)

7/17/21

I just ran into the neighbor next store and his three year old son. When I asked if the three year old was still going to preschool during the summer, the father told me that the little boy was off for the past week, because he had a runny nose. I said, “Well, three year olds in their first year of pre-school are going to get a lot of runny noses.”

However, the worst of it was that the three year old could not return to pre-school until he had a negative covid test, and getting this test meant that he had to take time off from work. OMG! I didn’t say anything, but rather I bit my tongue  … hoping that neither the father nor his young son would notice the blood slowly dripping from the corner of my mouth.

Just when I started to think the Covid craziness was over, something like this brings me back to the “nutso reality” in which we live out here in California.

Keep in mind that this is not back last year when no one really knew that much about Covid. This is now July, 2021. Certainly one would think that a lot of information has been gathered since when Covid started, but this info has apparently not been read and certainly not been digested by  … here I am trying to think of the right minimally offensive description … not been digested by some of the wackos that run day care centers, or to the more elite the pre-schools.

This is the latest from BBC News:

Scientists from University College London, and the Universities of York, Bristol and Liverpool say their studies of children are the most comprehensive yet anywhere in the world.

Dr Elizabeth Whittaker, from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Imperial College London, said it was encouraging they were seeing very few seriously unwell children in hospital.

She added: “Although this data covers up to February 2021, this hasn’t changed recently with the Delta variant. We hope this data will be reassuring for children and young people and their families.”

What amazed me the most about this “needs a negative Covid test to return to pre-school” is that the pre-school that my two grandchildren attend has never required a negative Covid test in order for either the three year old or the five year old to return after cold like symptoms kept them home for a day or two. I know, I know … different rules in different states and in different cities … so what? However the two pre-schools in question are in the same state, and in the same city, and on the same street approximately two miles apart!

Can anyone tell me how this makes any sense?

7/16/21

For those interested in more of the findings in this English study, I have detailed the findings below:

They checked England’s public health data and found most of the young people who had died of Covid-19 had underlying health conditions:

• Around 15 had life-limiting or underlying conditions, including 13 living with complex neuro-disabilities
• Six had no underlying conditions recorded in the last five years – though researchers caution some illnesses may have been missed
• A further 36 children had a positive Covid test at the time of their death but died from other causes, the analysis suggests
• Though the overall risks were still low, children and young people who died were more likely to be over the age of 10 and of Black and Asian ethnicity.
• Researchers estimate that 25 deaths in a population of some 12 million children in England gives a broad, overall mortality rate of 2 per million children ( a risk of 0.0002%).

Separately, scientists considered all children and young people in England who had an emergency hospital admission for Covid up to February 2021:

• Some 5,800 children were admitted with the virus, compared to about 367,600 admitted for other emergencies (excluding injuries)
• About 250 required intensive care (250 ICU admits out of 12 million children, for a risk of 0.025%)
• There were 690 children admitted for a rare inflammatory condition linked to Covid, called paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS-TS)
• Though the absolute risks were still small, children living with multiple conditions, those who were obese, and young people with heart and neurological illnesses were most at risk.

Back on 11/11/78 there was a classic SNL skit involving Garrett Morris and John Belushi. For those of you who were not watching Saturday Night Live back in 1978 or those of us who cannot remember back that far, the following us a summary of one of SNL’s classics:

Belushi then introduces this special guest: “the immortal” Chico Escuela, a former all-star baseball player for the Chicago Cubs who came to the US from the Dominican Republic.

After being introduced, Chico — portrayed by SNL cast member Garrett Morris — gets up, stands at the podium and says in a thick Hispanic accent:

“Thank you berry much. Baseball been berry, berry good to me. Thank you. God bless you. Gracias!”

Then he sits down.

Astonished by the brevity of this $900 “speech,” Belushi’s character asks: “Is that it Chico?”

Chico thinks about it a second, gets up again and adds: 

“Keep you eye…keep you eyes…on de ball.”

After which, he sits down again.

Belushi says sardonically: “Thank you, Chico. You’ve been an inspiration to all of us.”

Carry that skit forward to 2021. How out of place is it?

First of all it would not P.C. to substitute “berry berry” for “very, very” in an Hispanic speaker. It was funny back then and could be funny today if it were not for the woke P.C. police.

Again for those of you not familiar with Garrett Morris, he was black, and ironically baseball has recently been far from berry berry good to African Americans … especially in Atlanta.

For those of you who are not aware Major League Baseball pulled it’s All Star Game from Atlanta and relocated it to Denver. This is especially ironic because Atlanta’s population is largely black, whereas Denver has only a small percent of its populace that is black. MLB, in its wisdom, pulled the game from Georgia because of some phantom idea that Georgia’s voting law is anti-black … it isn’t. It seems that Democrat Stacey Abrams was still mad over losing an election, and decided to partially take out her vengeance on those it would hurt the most, namely the black business owners in Atlanta.

The mlb all star game (purposefully not capitalized) was held  on 7/13, and the TV ratings were not berry good for NBC, in fact they were berry berry bad.

From Townhall:

MLB’s All-Star Game, played Tuesday night, predictably tanked in the Nielsen ratings, delivering the second-lowest official total in the sport’s history. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the game narrowly avoided “a third straight all-time audience low” with 8.24 million viewers, “about 100,000 more than the 2019 game’s 8.14 million.”

Except, it’s quite possible that this could indeed be the game’s lowest ever viewership. Why? According to THP, “It’s also worth noting that the Nielsen figures for Tuesday include out of home viewing and 2019’s do not.” Ouch!

No I did not watch the mlb all star game along with millions of other baseball fans.

Perhaps woke mlb should have followed the advice of Garrett Morris, aka Chico Esquela, “Keep you eye…keep you eyes…on de ball,” as obviously it took its eye off the ball, and a  fastball hit mlb directly in the pocketbook. GOOD!

7/15/21

I thought that I had seen it all … the nadir of wokeness. However, just when I had thought that I had seen it all, another “woke” individual attempted to surpass the previous nadir of “wokeness,” by recommending something even more preposterous, outlandish, and … how can I say this in a family-type blog … stupid! 

I thought that there was no way to surpass the latest from an organization called ‘Bird Names for Birds,’ which recently announced that they were going to campaign to remove all eponymous names for birds. I thought, “I just learned the name of the majestic hawks that fly around in our canyon. They are Cooper hawks.” (FYI, the Cooper hawk was named in 1828 by Charles Lucien Bonaparte in honor of his friend and fellow ornithologist, William Cooper, who  studied zoology in Europe from 1821 to 1824, and afterwards travelled to Nova Scotia, Kentuckyand the Bahamas collecting specimens.)

Why change this eponymous name? 

There is an unsubstantiated rumor that these enlightened woke ornithologists somehow learned that William Cooper used a pejorative name for a native while he was in the Bahamas. For those of you unfamiliar with this word, “pejorative” means “having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect.” 

He used a pejorative name? … Naughty, naughty, William Cooper. No eponymous bird name for you!”

Like I said, just when I thought I had heard it all, I read an article in my local Sunday paper that was taken from the New York Times. Apparently the name “gypsy moth” and “gypsy ant” are too pejorative, at least according to Ethel Brooks, who by the way is the chair of the department of woman’s gender and sexuality studies at Rutgers University.

From the NYT article, presumably when thinking about these “gypsy” renegade moths and ants, Brooks remembered thinking as a child, “That is how they see us. We eat things, and destroy things around us.” Was she really speaking on behalf of the insects? (Now right away my index finger was making a circumferential circular motion in the vicinity of my ear.)

“It’s hideous and it’s hurtful,” Brooks said, “but what can you do about it?” 

I’m sorry but who is being hurt here?  Who is being belittled? Is it the insects that are being hurt? Or is it the “gypsies” that are being disparaged? Or perhaps it is ‘Gypsy Rose Lee!’

Now that I think I am seeing the nadir of wokeness in the person of professor Ethel Brooks, I cringe, waiting until the next woke jerky entomologist considers the Black Widow spider, as this could be considered a “double pejorative” – both to blacks and to widows.

7/14/21

On 7/11/21 I was watching a soccer game between the U.S.A. and Haiti. The game was part of Concacaf, which is a tournament involving North American nations, Central American nations, and nations in the Caribbean. This particular game was played in Kansas City, and I guess that the fans in attendance did not get the message that the American flag is a racist symbol. If perchance you missed it, to celebrate Independence Day, the Utah BLM chapter,, disparaged the American flag and patriotic Americans, as follows:

“When we Black Americans see this flag we know the person flying it is not safe to be around. When we see this flag we know the person flying it is a racist,” the group said on Facebook.

Meanwhile in Cuba the mass crowds of Cuban demonstrators are waving American flags. So the flag is a symbol of what? … outside America it is an international symbol of freedom embraced by oppressed peoples. I guessed these Cuban people missed the Facebook post by the Utah BLM.

Back in the heartland, in Kansas City, which is not that far from Utah, I saw American flags being patriotically waved at that Concacaf soccer game. How could those in Kansas City, and in particular, those at that soccer game have missed this insightful message from the Utah BLM? When the U.S. scored its goal, hundreds of American flags were waving in the stands – apparently being held by a patriotic Americans. Keep in mind that about half of this American soccer team is African American … so I have to ask, “the flag is a symbol of … what?

The Utah Republican Party hit back in a statement.

“Utahns should never tolerate SHAMEFUL and DIVISIVE rhetoric like this. The American flag is a symbol of freedom, opportunity and equality to the world, NOT a symbol of racism!” the party said on Facebook.

BTW, I did not see a single response from a single Democrat in Utah … nor did I see a response from the Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney!

Hmmm! I wonder what he thinks the flag is a symbol of?

Now contrast the patriotism and the zest in Kansas City to the video of a young white boy ripping an American flag out of someone’s yard and then flinging it to the ground as his mother nonchalantly watches. I saw the video of this prototypical anti-American act. The neighborhood in which this occurred appeared to be quite nice and reasonably affluent. I am going to surmise that this elitist neighborhood was somewhere on one of the coasts, and that the mother was a Democrat, and the boy was a spoiled brat. Why do I say that? … Just playing the odds. 

One thing for sure – it was not in Kansas City.

And yes, the U.S.A. did beat Haiti.

7/13/21

The state of California has just come out with its “enlightened” master plan for the school year that begins in a month or so. I say “enlightened” even though it is apparent to me that the Californians in charge of this master plan seem to be still wandering helplessly in the dark. California Health and Human Services Director, Mark Ghaly is apparently leading the way, stating that face masks must be worn by all students and all who work in the schools or drive school buses.

Right off the top, let’s assume a few things:

First: let’s assume that face masks work … one face mask and not the two or the three face masks that some have recommended because one mask “may not be good enough.” Again let’s just assume that face masks work … not the N95s, but the ones that are purchased at Walgreen’s or the ones that are given away where “masks may still be necessary for some.”

Second: let’s assume that school children will wear these face masks properly, covering both the nose and the mouth. And let us assume that the correct positioning of the mask in the morning when that child leaves home to board the school bus, will be maintained throughout the entire school day.

Third: let’s assume that when these children’s masks are temporarily removed, for instance at recess or at lunch, that the masks will be handled cautiously and only by clean hands in the interim.

Fourth: let’s assume that the child with the sniffles or one that may have sneezed will never touch his/her mask with his/her hands.

Fifth: let’s assume the each and every child puts on a clean face mask every morning … meaning that the paper face masks are not reused, and that that cloth face masks are washed every day.

If Dr. Ghaly believes in these five assumptions, with all due respect, “Doctor, do you want to buy a bridge?”

At this point I think most all of us would agree that in-person schooling is a sine qua non (an indispensable requirement) for the children returning to school this year. If only the unvaccinated needed to wear masks while at school, common sense would dictate that teachers and hall monitors could not realistically differentiate who is vaccinated and thus realistically does not need to wear a mask.

Ergo, I think that the only rational and commonsensical approach would be for nobody to wear a face mask at school. 

Think about the following: 

Consider: At this point the vaccine has not been okayed for those twelve or less. Middle school would be a cacophony of confusion with some students older and some younger than twelve.

Consider: The mortality and morbidity statistics just published from England – supposedly the most comprehensive anywhere in the world – found that the risk of a child dying from Covid is 2 / 1,000,000, and the risk of a child ending up very sick in an ICU is 1/48,000. In other words the covid risk of bad stuff happening for children is extremely low.

Consider: This would be the ideal time and the ideal situation to try to achieve some sort of herd immunity. If kids who are at minuscule risk get Covid at school, in the long run, all the better as far as the population in general achieving herd immunity.

Consider: The risk of getting significantly ill with a Covid infection after receiving both doses of the vaccine is extrembly small. If a teacher or a school bus driver insists that everyone be masked … perhaps he/she should consider another job.

I can already hear the screams that this plan would be inhumane as Junior could well infect Gramma. My response to this emotional blather … “consider gettin vaccinated, Gramma.”

Of course this sort of rational and commonsensical plan could never be implemented … as this is California.

FYI: For those interested on how a small college town approached their Covid situation in schools, you may want to read my latest book, 

“The Keneally Chronicles,” by Daniel R. Collins

7/12/21