Posted on

”I Didn’t Know That!”

Here in California many of the local newspapers seem to have a penchant for not reporting pro-Trump news, as to them, I guess, most pro-Trump news is apparently not newsworthy.

For instance, What do the following places have in common?

Erie, Pa
Johnson City, Tn
Topeka, Kansas
Rochester, Minnesota
Council Bluffs, la
Southern Mississippi
All of these places held rallies in early October – Donald Trump rallies.
“What, I didn’t know that!”
All of these rallies were packed, and in most, if not all, there is a near full overflow space outside for those without tickets. But these were just the rallies that President Trump held in the early part of the month. Later in the month there was a weekend rally in Elko, Nevada which drew 8500. Meanwhile Joe Biden held a rally in Las Vegas that drew only about 500 supporters, and prior to that Barack Obama held a rally in Las Vegas at UNLV’s Thomas and Mack Arena. BO’s rally drew about 2000 Democratic supporters. I did read about that in my local paper. However, what I did not read was that this arena holds 18,000! (Yes, you read that right . . . only 2000 in an 18,000 seat arena!)
“I didn’t know that!”
The largest recent Trump rally occurred on 10/22/18 at the Toyota Center in Houston, Tex. This rally was not initially scheduled for this venue, but was moved to the 18,000 seat arena because of the huge demand for tickets. Apparently about 100,000 had initially requested tickets! (Yes, you read that right . . . 100,000!!)
“I didn’t know that!”
In the middle of last week the President also held a rally at Central Wisconsin Airport in Mosinee, Wi. I could not find out how many attended this rally, but I do know that people began lining up for the Wednesday evening rally at 1p.m. . . . on Tuesday! On 10/27 there was another rally in Murphysboro, Il. The line to get into this rally stretched over one mile (see You Tube video). Thousands of people attended! Oh yeah, BTW, there were 75 Democratic protesters. (Yes, you read that right . . . 75!)
“I didn’t know any of that!”
Are these rallies effective? The purpose is obviously to excite the base and get them to vote. Not only will most of those attending these rallies vote, but there is also a significant “force multiplier,” including friends, relatives, and coworkers who will get fired up as they talk to a rally attendee.  Recall that Donald Trump, the candidate, held 323 rallies in 40 states during the 2016 campaign, and something worked then!
In the upcoming weeks before the midterm elections, President Trump will be holding rallies in eight states, including two in Florida, and another one in Montana. (Yes, you read that right . . . eight!)
“I didn’t know that.”
I am quite confident that the local newspapers will not consider any of these upcoming rallies to be “newsworthy.” So later when you do not read that Trump held a large rally in XXX,  you won’t be able to say, “I didn’t know that,” but rather “ I didn’t read about that!”
Posted on

Should a Description be Accurate or Vague?

Last month a mother of a student at a local elementary school notified the principal of the school about a situation that had alarmed her. She told the principal that a man had stared at her daughter while in Starbucks and and then had followed her. Of course at this point the principal, a woman, had to make some assumptions and then had to decide what to do about the situation.

It seems reasonable for the principal to assume that both the mother and the daughter were concerned about the situation or else it would have not been brought to her attention. Is it possible that both the daughter and her mother exaggerated the entire incident way out of proportion? Yes, certainly that is possible, and a reasonable person has to assume that if either this mother or her daughter had a past history of blatant exaggeration or a history of fabrication that the principal would have been justified in discounting the story. However since the story did not end there, one can assume that this was not the case.
So at this point, the principal had a choice to make. In my view there were only three possible options for her.
Option 1: She could do nothing. The likelihood that this incident could be a precursor to a tragic encounter for this same student or for another female student is small, but not zero. Yes, small, but real, and if the principal had remained silent, and something did occur in the near future, then all hell would break loose. Certainly, I would not want to be in the principal’s shoes, either legally or morally. If someone passes on a reasonable concern to someone in authority, I feel that it is the responsibility of that person in authority to act. To me, doing nothing is not a reasonable option.
Option 2: Communicate the facts in this situation to the parents of the other children at the school. There are many ways that this potential concern could be communicated, but in this day and age, e-mail would seem to be the easiest and most logical way to notify the other parents, so that they in turn could discuss add reenforce with their children how to react in certain situations.(“Don’t talk to strangers. Always walk home with a friend. etc.”) If my daughter or my granddaughter were attending this elementary school, this is the option that I would hope that the principal would take.
Option 3: Notify the police. This is always an option although to the best of my knowledge, staring at someone is not a crime . . . yet! Perhaps the principal or the mother involved did notify the police, but we do not know if either occurred.
Now let’s assume that the principal did choose  ‘Option 2’. How detailed should her description of the possible “starer and follower” be. Should it be as detailed a description as the daughter gave the mother, or should it be purposely vague? For example should the description be “a male wearing a hooded sweatshirt,” or should it be a detailed description like is seen in the newspapers every day? A vague description might be helpful to the parents as a lead in to a general discussion of things the children should be aware of, but does nothing to actually alert anybody about a potential real danger.
Of course, when the principal gave a detailed description of the “starer and follower  (“an African-American male, about 6’1” – 6’2,” about 30 years old, dressed in all black with a hooded sweatshirt”), she was chastised by the NAACP and a black community leader. I found this particularly interesting as I read the description of a bank robber in the local newspaper today. He was described as “being a black man in his twenties about six feet tall and wearing sweats.” To me these two descriptions sound amazingly similar.
  1. I am waiting for a complaint from the NAACP about this newspaper description, but I have been advised not to hold my breath!
Posted on

Do Ya Want Some Mo, Joe?

Last Saturday night my wife and I went to a play. We were there early and before the doors opened, I was outside talking to Joe, an amicable guy even though his politics are on the left. He politely asked if I had had a good day, and when I answered “yes, very much so,” he inquired as to what I had done that day. I told him that I had taken a long nap and had done some writing for my second book. One thing led to another and after I told him the format and the genesis of the first book, he queried as to how he could purchase it.

I responded to him, “It’s title is The Quirky Contrarian by Daniel R. Collins, and you can buy it on Amazon. However, Joe, I must warn you that there are some parts of this book that you may not like or agree with, namely my many letters to the editor”
(For me it’s not worth the small change, that I receive for each copy sold, to piss someone off.)
His response made me feel like a hockey player who has just made a clean check, and is suddenly faced with an angry opponent who has taken off his gloves and dropped his stick, “Oh, are you one of those looney-tunes that back that wacko president in Washington?”
A choice:
Either drop my gloves and my stick and come out swinging.
Or, quietly skate away and avoid the confrontation.
“Oh, it looks like they’ve opened the doors and we can go inside. See ya later, Joe.”
The play was only so-so, but I did not care. For the next hour and a half, in my mind  I went going through what I could have said to Joe, considering that I had both the height and the weight on my side and would have easily won the hockey skirmish.
 
“Joe, without getting emotional, let’s just look at the facts. President Trump has merely done those things that he promised when he was campaigning. 

He has nominated two conservative Supreme Court Justices, and the Senate has confirmed 29 federal appellate judges . . . more than any other recent president.

He withdrew from the Paris Accords and from Obama’s Clean Power Plan, while he has approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and opened the  Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration – all just as he had promised.

He withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership, and has renegotiated NAFTA.

He has rolled back regulations resulting in $8.1 billion in regulatory savings in his first year, and $9.8 billion so far this year. The economy is booming and he passed the tax cuts that he said were necessary. Unemployment is at a record low.”

When I finally took a breath, Joe was skating off the ice and back on the bench!

“Do ya want some mo, Joe?”

BTW: No additional book sales . . . yet!

Posted on

Half-a-Brain

Well last week it happened! Anyone with half-a-brain anticipated that it would happen and it did. Actually the only question was, “How big would the increase be?”

Again not a big surprise as similar scenarios occur all the time with alcohol. For example in Naples, Florida there is a group of bars clustered fairly close together in a small mall like area. On the weekend for the young set this is the happening place, and the alcohol flows freely till 2a.m. The police are very cognizant that the vast majority of the young clientele will be exiting the funnel shaped area on the one main road that leads to the highway, and so they patrol that road from 12:30 a.m. until 2:30 a.m. Anyone with half-a-brain knows what’s going to happen, yet the young drivers are surprised every weekend when they are pulled over. Likewise if the police did not patrol this area, with many lubricated drivers behind the wheel between 12:30 and 2:30 a.m., those with half-a-brain would anticipate an increase in auto accidents on that road.

Like I said, last week it happened . . . The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that traffic accidents are rising in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. After retail sales of cannabis began, the frequency of collision insurance claims in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada rose about six percent higher than in nearby states where marijuana is still illegal.  Similarly in a separate study, IIHS saw a five percent increase in the rate of crashes reported to the police in Colorado, Oregon and Washington compared to neighboring states that haven’t legalized the drug. Was this anticipated? For anyone with half-a-brain the answer is “Yes, certainly, this result was anticipated.”
Recreational marijuana has been legalized in many other states including California, Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Will anybody be surprised when there is a reported increase in auto accidents in these states? Will the other states that are considering referendums or legislation to legalize cannabis pay any attention to what is happening on the roadways in states where it is already legal? . . . Extremely unlikely!
As David Harley, president of the Insurance Institute, said, “With marijuana impairment we are just now starting to understand what we don’t know.” Anyone with half-a-brain might respond to that statement by saying, “Why are we legalizing something before we actually comprehensively know it’s effects?”  The answer, unfortunately, is that the majority of the voters and a lot of the state legislators rarely use half of their brains!
Posted on

Nostalgia

The other day I was minding my own business, driving down the freeway with my windows open, enjoying the warm Santa Ana winds. I was listening to Sirius Radio, which provides a nice respite from talk radio with no commercials. One of my favorite stations is “50s on 5,” which obviously plays only music from the 1950s, and is able to quench my thirst for nostalgia.

Sirius was playing one of my favorites from the late 50s, “Susie Darlin’” by Robin Luke. Ahh, “nostalgia” . . . what a wonderful thing! The good old songs of the 50s enable me to recall the “good old days.” As I drove along humming the songs of the late 50s, I began to think of the “good old Democratic Party” of the late 1950s. Back then the Democrats were in the process of transitioning from Adlai Stevenson II, who was the Democrat’s presidential candidate in both 1952 and 1956 to a fresh young candidate from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
Next on Sirius came “Wake Up Little Susie” by the Everly Brothers. Ahh, nostalgia!
The Democrats back then were a far cry from the Democrats of today. Remember JFK’s “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” I do not think that the word, “negotiate” is in the present day Democrat’s vocabulary!
The nostalgia continued with Sirius’ “Runaround Sue” by Del Shannon. The Democratic Party of JFK was patriotic. Recall JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you… ask what you can do for your country.” Does this sound anything like the Democrats of today? Absolutely not. In fact the JFK-Democrats appear to be more like the Republicans of today than today’s Democrats.
Next on the 50s on 5 was “Waterloo” by Stonewall Jackson. Ahh nostalgia!
But here the lyrics did not remind me of the good old Democratic Party, but rather the chorus seemed to portend their possible future.
“Waterloo Waterloo
Where will you meet your Waterloo?
Every puppy has his day
Everybody has to pay
Everybody has to meet his Waterloo”
Will their recent shenanigans in the Kavanaugh Senate hearings lead to the ultimate Waterloo of the Democratic Party as we now know it?
Only time will tell if the Democrats will soon be singing a “Broken Hearted Melody” like Sarah Vaughn did in 1959.
As I pulled off the freeway, I  hoped that in the near future the American people might say “I’ve Had It” and by serendipity 50s on 5 played that same song by the Bell Notes!
Ahh . . . nostalgia!
Posted on

Bee Quiet

A friend of mine, Buzz, is an apiculturist, and not only is he an apiculturist, but he is also a conservative. Is this unusual? Is this combination common or a rarity? Of course, in order to answer this question, one must first know what an apiculturist is . . . and even then, since there are relatively few apiculturists, it would be difficult to know statistically if this association is common or uncommon.

Anyway, the other day Buzz told me about a dream that he had had the night before. He related how refreshed and alive he was when he awoke the following morning. “It was the opposite of a nightmare, and when I woke up, I wished that I could have that same dream every night!”
He continued that the background to this dream was based on a study that was done during the solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017. (I had no idea what study he was talking about, as I hardly remembered the eclipse.) Apparently this study looked at audio recordings of bumblebees, honeybees, and other types of bees as they visited flowers along the path of total eclipse. The researchers found that while the insects were happily buzzing throughout the day and during the partial phases of the eclipse, the bees went quiet the instance that the total eclipse occurred in their area. The bee’s buzz is the result of the insect flapping its wing muscles, and so when the bees are flying, they are buzzing. No one is sure exactly why the bees stopped buzzing, but some think that it may be related to how the bees interpreted the drop in light.
At this point my friend, the apiculturist, then relayed the actual content of his dream, in which it was possible to simulate an eclipse indoors. However, as if this wasn’t far enough out there on the sci-fi spectrum, the more amazing part was that the Democrats in the U.S Senate behaved like the bees did during the 2017 eclipse.
In other words the Senate Democrats became quiet in response to this faux eclipse . . . quiet almost on demand!
He finished his story by saying, “Can you imagine what a wonderful world it
would be, if with the flick of a switch, simulating an eclipse, you could get Senator Schumer, Senator Warren, Senator Booker, Senator Kamala Harris, etc. to stop flapping their mouths. How much more efficiently would the Senate then run?”
He and I both realized that the likelihood of this happening in the near future was zero, but wondered if perhaps a grant could be given to The National Society of Apiculturists so that they could work on a project like this.
“Imagine,” said Buzz, “What a wonderful world . . . this could bee.”
BTW: An apiculturist is a bee-keeper.
Posted on

Goody, Goody

Last week the Trump administration announced it was nominating three attorneys to the 9th Circuit, the largest and busiest federal appeals court in the country. When I mentioned this to my friend, Patti, she said that Trump’s action on the 9th Circuit kinda reminded her of a song that had been recorded by her favorite, Frank Sinatra, and in addition had been sung by Frankie Lymon a few times on the Ed Sullivan Show.

As she then sang a few bars, I could envision the lyrics being directed to the two Senators from California:

So you met someone who
Set you back on your heels
Goody goody!

White House officials had been negotiating with California Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris (both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee), earlier in the year about filling these and other federal court vacancies. However, Senate aides confirmed that the dialogue had collapsed this past summer. I then recalled that the chaos in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was started by Senator Feinstein, as Patti continued to sing:

So you met someone and                                                                                                    Now you know how it feels.                                                                                                                            Goody, goody!

President Trump’s nominees for the appeals court — litigators Daniel Collins and Kenneth Lee and Assistant United States Attorney Patrick Bumatay — are all based in Southern California, are prominent members of the conservative Federalist Society, and have worked for Republican administrations. None of the three were approved by Feinstein or Harris via a process known as a “blue slip.” Recall that Senator Harris was extremely obnoxious and insulting toward Judge Kavanaugh during the recent Senate hearings. Patti sang on:

So you lie awake
Just singing the blues all night
Goody goody!

Feinstein whined, “Last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested.” Patti concluded:

And I hope you’re satisfied
You rascal you!

Another issue for Democrats was the age of Trump’s nominees, as these judgeships are lifetime appointments. Bumatay, Collins and Lee are all in their 40s and 50s – which means they could potentially remain on the 9th Circuit Court for decades. Democrats would have preferred older nominees. Patti and I then sang a duet:

Hurray and hallelujah!
You had it coming to ya

Personally, as I thought about what President Trump did . . .  plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with conservatives, while brushing aside Democratic resistance, I sang the last verse:

Goody goody for him
Goody goody for me

And added:

Goody, goody for the U.S.A.!

Posted on

The 51st District

Today I was reading in the local paper about a forum sponsored by The League of Women Voters between Mary Edly-Allen (D) and Helene Walsh (R), who are vying to be the representative from the state’s 51st district. You are probably not familiar with either of these two women as they are opponents for the seat in the 51st district . . . in Illinois. Why Illinois? Well that’s where I happen to be right now.
In the debate there was a question about the advisability of allowing teachers in Illinois classrooms to be armed. Predictably the Democrat was a flat out, “No!”, whereas the Republican said that she “supports the idea for those who are well trained, in order to make students safer.”

Later in the forum when they discussed other specific issues, Edly-Allen (D) said that she favors high schools holding classroom discussions about sexual consent and LGBTQ issues, whereas Mrs. Walsh (R) panned this suggestion, and responded, “l believe that schools are supposed to teach reading, arithmetic, history, and provide for physical exercise. I further believe that other discussions should be had at home and in your church, synagog, or mosque.”
In her closing statement Mary Edly-Allen said, “This race is a microcosm of our country. We represent the two spectrums of what we have right now in our country. We have homophobic, racist, kind of xenophobic views and we have the other side.”
Actually the fact here is that Edly-Allen’s opponent, Helene Walsh has been an advisory board member at Project H.O.O.D., an inner city non-profit organization and has spent a lot of time on the South Side of Chicago, which is predominately black. Yet Edly-Allen, the Democrat, calls Mrs. Walsh a racist!
In response to the xenophobic charge, Mrs. Walsh responded that she has traveled the world and believes that those who come here should do so legally. I presume that it is this view that according to Eddy-Allen, makes Mrs. Walsh xenophobic!
I found this interesting because to me it just reenforces my view that these days the Democrats seem to have no message, even in the small towns in northern Illinois, and when one has no message, he or she is apt to resort to personal attacks and name calling despite the fact that the name-calling may have no basis in fact.
If I still lived in Illinois, I would vote for Helene Walsh, not because she is most likely Irish, but because her philosophy is spot on! Likewise, I would not vote for Mary Eddy-Allen, not only because of her hyphenated last name, but also because she is resorting to the same old tiresome tactics as those Democrats on the national stage, and is peddling their same old tripe.
After the election, I will try to remember to let you know who won.
Posted on

What To Focus On ?

I just read that the Democrats want to make the midterm elections about character and behavior! Of course they are trying to make the focus of the upcoming elections  the behavior and character not of themselves, but of President Trump. They cannot afford to draw any focus onto their own behavior and character after the recent debacle in the Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

While Democrats want to make Trump the focus in the upcoming midterms, the Republicans want to focus on the economy. The recent rise in President Trump’s poll numbers (now with a 51% approval rating) are undoubtedly related to the economy, and the September numbers that just came out only demonstrate that the Republican focus is right on.
You may not be aware of the following stats if you get your news from CNN or MSNBC, but they are so impressive that they are worth detailing here.

1. The most recent numbers show the unemployment rate fell to 3.7%, the lowest rate since December, 1969. According to the Wall Street Journal unemployment rates less than 4% have been extremely rare in the 70 years of modern record keeping. In addition, Federal Reserve officials project that the jobless rate will drop to 3.5% next year and remain below 4% through 2021.

2. Again from the WSJ, in September 134,000 jobs were added, a record 9th straight month of gains. Job gains for July and August were revised up, pushing the average number of workers added to payrolls each month this year to 211,000, outpacing average monthly growth of 182,000 in 2017.
3. Likewise wages rose 2.8% from a year earlier. The low unemployment rate is creating some worker shortages for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers as well as blue collar workers whose wages typically lag behind. In fact wages in blue collar industries, such as construction and maintenance have risen more in recent quarters than wages in white-collar management jobs. The lowest paid Americans saw weekly earnings grow by more than 5% in the second quarter compared to a year earlier, more than the national median gain of 1.7% for all workers. Workers with less that a high school diploma saw their wages grow almost 6%.
Almost lost in this wave of good economic news was the fact that according  to CNSNews:
The number of people employed by the federal government declined by 1,000 in September, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Since President Donald Trump took office, federal employment has declined by 16,000, and this is significant as President Trump had made it a priority to reduce the size of the federal government, and this new report suggests he is succeeding here also.
Back to character, I want to focus here on Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator From West Virginia. I will go out on a limb and predict that Joe Manchin will be the only Democratic Senator re-elected in this November’s election. He stood tall amongst his fellow Democrat parasites, and the electorate notices these things. He proved that a “Decent Democratic Senator” is not a total oxymoron!
Going further out on the proverbial precarious limb, I would not be surprised if Sen. Manchin ultimately switches parties.
Focus on this: “Joe Manchin, R, WV!”
Posted on

Those Cute Little Guys

One of the first cases on the docket for the Supreme Court this session involves the dusky gopher frog, which is obviously neither the plaintiff nor the defendant, but nonetheless is a prime focus in this case.

This 3 inch long creature spends most of its life in underground burrows and tree stumps, but breeds in isolated ephemeral ponds. The private property in question in this case is  located in St Tammany’s Parish in Louisiana and has ephemeral ponds, which are low-lying areas that fill with water at certain times of the year — when the frog lays eggs — but then dry out. Because of that, the ponds can’t support fish, which would eat the eggs.

Basically, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, designated more than 1,500 acres in Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog’s future survival. The property in question is owned by a family which leases the property to Weyerhaeuser, the timber giant that harvests trees there, but also has development plans for the land. The wildlife service determined that the 1500 acre parcel was “restorable with reasonable effort” to support the dusky gopher frog . . . if it were to be transported there.

Now I wasn’t at the Supreme Court proceedings, but my source tells me that this is what went on . . . in general.

Initially, Justice Ginsburg questioned whether the company and the family that owns most of the land had yet suffered any loss that would make the case ripe for a Supreme Court decision. The Weyerhaeuser lawyer, Timothy Bishop responded that the government had estimated the land value could decline by $33 million if the government restrictions stand.

We pick it up just as it was Justice Elena Kagan’s turn to ask the questions.

Kagan: Are you familiar with the term “critical habitat? “                                              Bishop responded: Yes, your honor. And the law only allows the government to designate as critical habitat, lands where the species could now live.

Kagan: Yes, yes, I am aware of that. Are you implying that those cute little dusky gopher frogs do not live there now?                                                                             Bishop: Yes, I am your honor. In fact they haven’t lived there since 1965.

Kagan: Yes, yes, of course, I am aware of that, but those cute little guys do live close.            Bishop: Of course distance is always relative. As I am sure you are aware, the closest dusky gopher frog presently resides in Mississippi’s De Soto National Forest, about 50 miles from the property in question. I would also venture that you are aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already designated 11 sites, 4,900 acres, in 11 different sites in Mississippi as critical habitats for this animal.

Kagan: Yes, I am aware of all that, but fifty miles is a relatively short distance. Perhaps we should just move the cute little buggers over there tomorrow.                                                                                              Bishop: With all due respect your honor, just about everybody agrees that, although the land has the ponds, it does not have other physical characteristics the gopher frogs need. As I am sure you are aware, the current tree canopy and ground cover are not conducive to the frog’s survival.

At this point it appeared to some that Justice Kagan had a tear on the right side of her face, making its way out from under her sunglasses, down her cheek, and onto her desk, where she had four snapshots of the dusky gopher frogs. From the side it appeared to some that her eyes were red. Was that why she was wearing her sunglasses inside?

Hesitantly, Justice Kagan continued: What if the land could be made habitable with reasonable alterations, so that we could save those cute little guys? “To my mind, it is a counterintuitive result that the statute would prefer extinction of the species to the designation of an area which requires only certain reasonable improvements in order to support the species.”

Justice Samuel Ailto Jr.: “This is not a question of whether the frogs will become extinct.” Alito continued, “The question is, who is going to have to pay, and who should pay for the preservation of this public good?”

Then Justice Roberts chimed in:  “If you permit the designation of something as critical habitat that cannot be occupied by the animal, because you think they can do something down the road that will cure the problem . . . you ought to be able to articulate what the limit is on what you require down the road.”

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler, the government’s representative for the tiny dusky gopher frogs, appeared somewhat choked up when he replied that the improvements would have to be reasonable, but yet after he regained his composure, he was unable to come up with a time limit that would satisfy Roberts. Some in the room wondered why Mr. Kneedler was also wearing sunglasses.