Posted on

Schadenfreude(r)

“Schadenfreude” was my “word of the day” today. When I read the definition, I immediately thought about the Democratic Party, specifically the Democratic politicians. Before divulging the definition of “schadenfreude,” I do not want anyone to think that what I am about to say refers to all of those who consider themselves Democrats . . . it does not, but it does appear to be apropos to leftist Democrats. (I am sure that there are many Democrats to whom this noun does not apply, but it’s just that sometimes I have difficulty immediately identifying them.)
“Schadenfreude” is a noun that means: “satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune.” (And to go on record right from the git-go, “No, I could not initially pronounce this word!”) Obviously, my immediate connection is to the Democratic Senators who appear to be feeling immense “satisfaction or pleasure at someone else’s misfortune,” namely Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The reason for their posturing on this matter is so obviously political that it is insulting that they think that us ordinary folk do not see through their charade. Schadenfreuders!
Apparently one of the reasons that the Democrat Senators oppose him is that they fear his views on abortion. BTW: Who suffers from abortions? Duh, it’s the unborn fetus . . . the unborn fetus that may even have a recognizable heartbeat! Do those politicians who support abortion feel “satisfaction or pleasure at someone else’s misfortune?” . . . namely the misfortune of the fetus. No matter what your political leanings, stop and think about that for a second. Would you agree that with regard to abortion, the Democrats are schadenfreuders?
This term is not limited to politicians, but can also be applied to liberal non-politicians in Washington. For example, on  the first day of the present cases before the Supreme Court, liberal Justice Ginsberg appeared to be “pooh-poohing” a potential $33 million loss for a family on their property’s value because of a frog! Schadenfreuder?
 
Are there any other examples of the word association of “schadenfreude” not associated with national Democratic politicians? (“Is the Pope a Catholic?”) The other obvious present day example, here in California, is the recently passed Democratic gas tax that supposedly will pay for infrastructure. (According to a recent article in The American Spectator, “California does not have enough money to improve our infrastructure or anything else because it spends far above market wages for its government employees. No wonder California road costs are around 2.5 times higher than the national average.”)
Who will end up paying this tax that will cost the typical family of four $779.28 more per year in taxes? Will it be the elites that own Teslas? “No!” Will it be the more affluent that can can afford other electric cars or hybrids? “Hardly!” Are the California Democratic politicians aware of this? “Absolutely!” Schadenfreuders!
I can hardly wait until my word of the day comes tomorrow!
Posted on

“Net Neutrality” . . . Federal or State ?

California’s version of “net neutrality” was just signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. To be honest I do not understand the ins-and-outs of “net neutrality,” but from what I do understand, this new California law forbids internet service providers from blocking websites, intentionally slowing down a website or app or accepting payments to make online services go faster. When I first read this, I thought that it was a reasonable idea. It would protect consumers from the potentially unscrupulous internet service providers. “Three cheers for the little guy!”

However, in an attempt to understand this topic better, I did some research, as the background is always important.  In 2015 the FCC under Obama adopted similar regulations. However last year the FCC led by Trump’s choice, Amit Pai, undid these prior regulations.
Jeff Sessions, the U.S. Attorney General, said that the Federal Government, and not the states, should oversee the internet. Mr. Pai added, “The internet is inherently an interstate information service. As such only the federal government can set policy in this area.” In addition, Mr. Pai stated that in rolling back Obama-era rules, the FCC preempted any state rules. This, of course made no difference to the California politicians. The gauntlet was thrown down, and apparently nobody can dare to tell the Democratic California’s Legislature what to do!
After Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill, California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra predictably chimed in, “Today marks a true win for the internet and for an open society.”
After this California net-neutrality bill was signed into law, the Justice Department responded almost immediately with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the new California law. Again Xavier Becerra predictably whined something derogatory about President Trump, as he wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that he was “fighting” for the people of California, especially in view of his upcoming Senate election. (God help us! Can you imagine anything worse than having Becerra and Kamala Harris as your Senators?)
And so another chapter of the ongoing battle between California and the Trump administration. Even though I am tending to agree with California’s “net neutrality” position, the internet is clearly under the auspices of the federal government.
In the real world this is just another reason why the Democrats are attacking Judge
Brett Kavanaugh. This “net neutrality” lawsuit, as well as many other California-Trump lawsuits, will inevitably make its way to the Ninth Circuit Court, before going to the Supreme Court. As we all know the Ninth Circuit will rule on favor of California, and without a ninth Supreme Court Justice, it will be 4-4, and so the decision of the Ninth Circuit will stand! OMG!
Posted on

Common Sense and the Lesser of Two Evils

Over the years I have been critical of California’s Jerry Brown on multiple occasions. As most of you are aware, the legislature in California is far-left, and today I find myself being thankful that Governor Brown is not far-left, but only left of center (the lesser of two evils!). The California Legislature had recently finished its term and sent multiple bills to the Governor’s desk for signing. In my estimation he seemed to display some common sense when deliberating whether or not to sign bills into law.

He did sign a number of bills restricting gun ownership, and I actually agreed with him on these restrictions. He restricted rifle ownership to those less than twenty-one years of age, exempting members of the military, law enforcement, and hunters. (Handgun ownership for those less than twenty-one is already restricted in California). In addition he signed bills that restricted gun ownership by those with certain psychiatric issues as well as those with a history of domestic violence. Sounds like common sense to me.

He vetoed a bill that would have mandated later start times for high school throughout the state, saying that the local school districts should manage their own start times. Sounds like common sense to me.

In a similar vein he also vetoed a bill that would have allowed “medical marijuana” on school campuses! Whew!! Who is this guy?

He also vetoed a bill that would have let bars in certain cities serve alcohol till 4a.m., saying, “there already is enough mischief from midnight till 2a.m. without adding two more hours of mayhem.” Sounds like common sense to me.

Brown vetoed SB-174, which would have made California the first state in the country to allow non-citizens, both legal residents and those in the country illegally, to serve on local and state boards and commissions that now require citizenship. In his veto message Brown said, “This bill would open up all boards and commissions to non-citizens. I believe existing law – which requires citizenship for these forms of public service – is the better path,” Again, sounds like common sense to me.                                     This veto is similar to one in 2013, in which he  vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve on juries.  Brown said at the time: “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Another common sense line of reasoning.

He also vetoed a bill which sought to prohibit immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses — a key point of contention between California officials and the Trump administration. Brown wrote in his veto message that he supports the intent of the bill but worries it may have unintended consequences. He did not elaborate, but said he wants to wait until the state attorney general publishes model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement in courthouses, which is required under legislation Brown signed last year. This veto sounded like a “pass the buck down the road” hedge.

However, to demonstrate some solidarity with immigrants, Brown signed another bill that decriminalized sidewalk vending, a business popular with many immigrants. I have no problem with this one.

However, Governor Brown is being termed out, and there is a high likelihood that far-left Gavin Newsome will be the next governor of California. I bet that unlike Jerry Brown, Governor Newsome will be rubber stamp for the next set of the still far-left legislature’s cockamamie ideas. OMG!

In retrospect, Governor Brown may turn out to be the lesser of two evils.

Posted on

“The Mission Hills Problem” . . . For Dummies

Earlier this week there was a forum in the Mission Hills area of San Diego. This forum was held because of an increasing problem with homeless in that area. For those of you not familiar with San Diego, Mission Hills is an upper middle class neighborhood just north of San Diego Bay. The approximately 150 people that packed the meeting hall were both angry and scared, as not only had the numbers of homeless significantly increased in their neighborhood, but they were also becoming more aggressive, harassing individuals, going through trash cans, and urinating and defecating in public. Life has changed in Mission Hills as parents are now afraid to let their children play in the local park, and older residents are afraid to walk their dogs at night. The San Diego Police Department spokesman at the meeting thought that this increasing problem was the result of Proposition 47, which “has led to more homeless drug addicts and fewer people going into treatment.”

Welcome to the new normal in California cities!
For those of you not familiar with Proposition 47, it was passed in 2014, and recently when it was supposed to expire, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown extended its deadline to November, 2022. It reclassified many non-violent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, not only prospectively, but also retrospectively from its passage in 2014. (FYI: In the 13 months after the passage of Proposition 47, 200,000 petitioned for re-sentencing or applied for reclassification! . . .  not 200 or 2,000 but 200,000!!!) Prior to its passage in 2014, it was supported by the California Democratic Party and also by the A.C.L.U. (The A.C.L.U. to the tune of $3.5 million!) Although I suppose  that it should be pretty obvious, Proposition 47 was also supported by the editorial board of both the New York Times and the L.A. Times. It was originally titled “The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act,” by then California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, now U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D, Ca). (You actually have to hand it to the Democrats as they are wizards at naming things exactly the opposite of what they really are, e.g. The Affordable Care Act, which made medical care less affordable!) Anyway this misleading name probably played a significant role in persuading dumbass  Californians to vote for its passage . . . after all who could vote against something which would make both the schools and the neighborhoods safer?
Ask the residents of Mission Hills if it has made their neighborhood safer!
This Mission Hills-type problem is but one of the numerous unintended consequences of Prop 47 (“unintended consequences galore” as pointed out in the National Review on Jan. 30, 2018 – for those of you who are more interested in this, I would encourage reading that National Review article).
To the residents of Mission Hills, I recommend that you to reread the last paragraph, as it is the usual cast of characters that have escorted you to the precipice. The California liberals do not seem to have the words, “unintended consequences”  in their vernacular, nor do not have either the wherewithal or the desire to see that these “unintended consequences”  are actually not unforeseen.
To all of the residents of California, “Wake up!” (“Despertarse!”). If you continue to elect these liberal Democrat politicians, you too will be led, like lemmings, to the precipice, and “the Mission Hills problem” will be coming to a neighborhood near you very soon!
Posted on

A Decent Democratic Senator . . . An Oxymoron

Last night while struggling to find some news that wasn’t about the Kavanaugh ambush, my wife said, “I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on judgement day!” I thought, “spoken like an honest, decent, compassionate, Christian person.” The problem here is that most of Judge Kavanaugh’s opposition does not believe in the same set of mores and certainly does not have the same set of standards as either my wife, myself, or Brett Kavanaugh.

Now I realize that some of you will say, “Politics is a tough profession.” And “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!” Etc. Etc.
Yes, I agree that politics is a tough game, and those with thin skin should not be players in that game. However, Judge Kavanaugh is not a politician. He is a family man who just happens to be a judge.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this week elucidating the sad state of the Democratic Party (“Why Is the Left Consumed With Hate”). My response as to why they are attacking a good and decent man is that they no longer seem to stand for anything, and so they apparently have no option other than slandering and belittling those who are deemed to be on the other side.
I have to ask, “Do they have any principles at all?”
Is attaching the character of an honorable man okay with them? Apparently, yes!
Is searching for and finding “political prostitutes” who will say just about anything okay with them? Apparently, yes!
I have to further ask:
Is there any Democrat in the U.S. Senate who has a shred of decency or a shred of moral fiber?
Is there anyone on the Democratic side of the Senate who has the balls to say, “Stop! Enough is enough!”?
Is there one decent Democrat in the U.S. Senate who will stand up and vote for the confirmation of a good and decent man, Judge Kavanaugh?
A pseudo-paraphrase from God to Abraham in Genesis seems apropos at this time: “If I find one decent Democrat in the U.S.Senate, that will be enough!”
Posted on

The Memory Games

For the past week I have refrained from commenting on the accusations by Christine Blasey Ford against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Whether her allegations are true, mostly true, mostly false, or completely fabricated is something that no one will ever know for sure. While I am not implying that Ms. Ford could be intentionally lying, no reasonable person can argue that one’s memory is 100% accurate after a long period of time, and the alleged incident that Ms. Ford is describing supposedly occurred thirty-six years ago!

As an aside, about ten years ago a woman in my writing class said that she had spoken to her brother on the phone, and asked him to write a few paragraphs describing a particular incident that happened about forty years prior when they were teenagers. He e-mailed his recollection to her, and she likewise wrote a few paragraphs describing her memory of the same incident before she had read his. She then compared her descriptive paragraphs with that of her brother’s, and said that no one would be able to read these two reports, and conclude that they were about the same incident.
Now was either of the two siblings making stuff up or lying about the incident in question? Hardly! Were their separate memories of the same event accurate? Obviously not.
Although at this point I am extremely skeptical that her recollection is on the money,  let’s assume for a second that Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the incident in question is accurate. If this alleged incident did happen, it that a reason to besmirch someone’s reputation and character thirty-six years later? As I questioned in a prior piece on November 18, 2017, “Should there be a statute of limitations on character?”
Like I pointed out back then, if the answer is “no,” then one can argue to the point of ridiculousness, and something that supposedly occurred when someone was seventeen is probably beyond that point.
To conclude, thus far I have avoided any political or quasi-political commentary on this subject, but I will close by saying that I don’t blame the ultra liberal faction of the Democratic Party for using innuendo and “testimony” of questionable veracity for their political gain, as it worked in the case of Roy Moore in 2017!
Posted on

Practical Value

The other day someone that I know pretty well told me that one of her elective college courses this year was “Geology.” She added that it was boring. I felt like saying, “What did you expect? It’s about rocks and dirt!” It suppose that it could actually be interesting, but of any practical value? . . . not likely!  As everyone knows, college is not cheap. Why waste a semester on something that has little, if any, potential to be of any practical value?

Yesterday I read a column entitled, “College courses that can set you up for success.” No, Geology was not listed! The author contacted “seasoned professionals from diverse backgrounds to learn what they thought every college student should take.” The answers were quite varied as listed below:
– “My creative writing class was an important way of forcing myself to be self-aware.”
– “Classes where you have to read, write, and think critically would serve students
     well.”
– “College students need to hone the basic three paragraph essay; learn to
     communicate your ideas in 300 words or less.”
– “Every college student should take an introduction to psychology course.”
– Many suggested a course in public speaking or improvisation to help you
    to “think on your feet.”
– Almost everyone said that a basic understanding of accounting was imperative.
As I read this column the second time, it dawned on me that most of these suggestions could be fulfilled by my blog! Most of these blogs are around 500 words – the perfect example  of communicating your ideas in a shortened form.
I can hear you snickering again!! I reviewed the last 35 blogs and found erudite discussions of topics of history (the 26th Amendment and the Federal Debt), economics (Pension deficits and Housing affordability), politics (Security clearances and Foreign aid), social issues (marijuana and veganism in the workforce), and even topics of interest to environmentalists (a three part series on water and multiple essays on the California wildfires). I would bet that if you reviewed the various topics in the almost 200 of my blogs written thus far, many more varied and interesting topics would be apparent.
I can envision this as a 3 credit course with classes on MWF. Each class would provide a forum to discuss the blog written on the prior day, with emphasis on public speaking, improv, and critical thinking. I realize that you are shaking your heads, but compare this to Geology in terms of practical value when it comes to “college courses that can set you up for success!”
Posted on

Obviously!

If there were a worldwide pandemic or catastrophe, most would think that the first duty of a state government (e.g. California) would be to provide whatever is necessary to care for the citizens of their state (all Californians). The well-being of the earth’s overall population would be a concern, but a secondary priority.

One would think that the Sacramento politicians would say, “We are going to take care of our own first, and then worry about the overall welfare of Mother Earth somewhere down the road. As the representatives of the people who have elected us, our duty is to make the caring for the citizens of California our highest priority.”
I hate to keep referring to “common sense” all the time, but obviously, this seems like common sense.
It’s no surprise for those of us that live in Southern California that this past August was the hottest on record. Maybe this is a result of global warming and maybe it isn’t. It will take a few years to establish any trend.
Let’s assume for a minute that this warmest August on record is a sign of things to come, and the summers are just going to get warmer. Where should the priorities of state governments be? Should their priorities be to try to help their own citizens, or to punish their own citizens under the guise of looking out for the “well-being” of the earth and all of its billions of people? One would think that the answer would be “obvious” with a capital “O.”
During an especially hot spell what do people, both the young and the old, do when the temperatures soars. They obviously turn on their air conditioning. Those who are young turn on the A.C. for comfort while those who are old also have to be concerned about keeping themselves safe. Perhaps in years past the seniors had found it necessary to turn on the air conditioning only a few times a year, but this August they found it necessary to turn it on every day, specially if they wanted to sleep. Again remember that these people are Californians. What would you think that the Governor, the other state representatives, and the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) would do? Obviously, these big advocates of “global warming” would have anticipated such a scenario, and would have made a contingency plan to deal with such a situation.
What has actually happened? Electric bills have skyrocketed. Individual bills have zoomed up out of proportion to the amount of kilowatt hours used. Whoa! That doesn’t seem fair, but that is what happened because of a tiered system of billing that punishes those who find it necessary to run their air conditioners.
A few basic questions:
What is a tiered system of billing?
Think of a tiered system as a power company’s version of a graduated income tax . . . the more electricity you use, the higher rate you pay for it. In addition to charging more as one uses more electricity, it charges more per kilowatt hour in the summer, as opposed to the winter.
In tier 1 the summer rate is 27 cents per kilowatt-hour, but if one uses 130% of its baseline allowance, the rate goes to 48 cents per Kw-hr. In other words if you find it necessary to turn on your air conditioner, you will pay almost double for that air conditioner electricity! If you use >400% of your baseline allowance, you pay a “high usage charge” at a rate of 55 cents per Kw-hr. In other words if as senior with a fixed income, you find it necessary to use your air conditioner every day, you may not be able to afford to eat like you usually do because your electric bill was double or triple what it usually is!
Why a tiered system?
The tiered system was initiated as an attempt to discourage electrical usage. Apparently someone  who “knows best” decided that we needed to limit our personal use of electricity. Why?? . . . probably for the good of the planet, i.e. to prevent global warming!
Baseline Allowance . . . what is that?
This is the amount of kilowatt-hours of electricity a home is deemed to need each month. “Deemed” by whom? Deemed by the CPUC in Nov. 2017 and this allowance will significantly effect 81,000 SDGE customers this summer who will have much higher electric bills.
What does SDGE, the local electricity supplier, pay for its electricity?
The average rate it pays is apparently 22.5 cents per Kw-hr., but as a company spokesman noted there are a lot of additional costs for SDGE, such as repairing underground lines and circuits, increased costs for wildfire safety, and increased costs for storage mandates because of state law.
Does California pay more for its electricity than other parts of the country?
Yes, a lot more! Even though it was hot all over the U.S. this year, everybody does not pay the same for their air conditioning electricity. Since about 2013 Californians pay more for their electricity than anybody else in the U.S. The average cost for residential electricity in the U.S is 12.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, while the cost in California is about 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. (The runner up state is New Jersey in which the residential cost for electricity is about 15.8 cents per kilowatt-hour.)
Could this be because California has moved aggressively against fossil fuel use?
Duh!  . . . Is the Pope a Catholic? The answer to both questions is obviously, “YES!”
Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum stated, “the increased cost is in part due to mandates imposed by California policy makers.” These policy makers are the Democratic Legislators and Governor Jerry Brown. In Europe Germany has moved to “green” electrical production (solar and wind), and they now have the highest rates for electricity in Europe. No one should be surprised that Californians are following in the same expensive path as the Germans with very high rates for electricity, because both are strong advocates of “green power!”
There is a sad part of this “we know what is best for everybody, and so we will limit your electricity usage, or punish you if you use more than we think you need to.” The sad part is that it obviously punishes the poorest among us disproportionately. Has anyone seen or heard of a poor person putting solar panels on his house? Is it not true that the poor have to live further inland because they cannot afford to live near the coast? Is it hotter inland or on the coast?
The even sadder part is, “you haven’t seen anything yet!”
As long as the dum-koff California voters continue to vote Democratic, obviously, things will only get worse! SDGE has already asked for an 11% rate increase for 2019!

Posted on

A Quid Pro Quo Gone Bad

Just when I thought that I had seen the worst of the audacious behavior by liberals during the Senate hearings on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, something new has just topped that on the disgusting scale! A caller threatened to rape one of Senator Collins’ young female staffers, if the senator voted “yes” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation! This is the lowest of scum. This sort of threat should never be tolerated and should be aggressively investigated, pursued, and prosecuted.

Also a website is attempting to persuade Senator Collins (R, Maine) to vote “no” on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. Actually “persuade” is a much too kind a way to describe this chicanery, as the effort by this crowdfunding website is an out-and-out attempt at bribery. As described in the Wall Street Journal the website is threatening to give more than one million dollars ($1,041,878 collected so far by credit cards) to her opponent in the 2020 Senate election if she votes “yes”, for Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

Clearly this threat is a quid pro quo, and appears to me to be illegal.
Should this website be prosecuted? Should all of those who have contributed to this “bribing of a member of Congress” be prosecuted or fined at least the amount of their contribution? Of course, any sort of prosecution would discourage this type of behavior, but do we want to discourage this type of behavior by the leftists?
A silly rhetorical question? Perhaps!
But wait, let’s consider the real life implications of this monetary quid-pro-quo threat against Senator Collins.
The way I look at it, ironically, Sen. Collins is now actually forced to vote for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation! If she were to vote against his confirmation, it could only be viewed as a capitulation by her to these bullies. This would be the general opinion no matter what she said afterwards, irrespective of how she really felt.
In addition, if Sen. Collins were to vote “no” on the Judge Kavanaugh issue, there would be far reaching consequences as other nut-jobs would attempt the same thing again, either with Sen. Collins or with other politicians. Who could possibly want their name associated with this potential future nightmare?
So in conclusion she is now caught in a trap that can only have the opposite effect from that which was hoped for by the website when they instigated this threat.
My prediction here is easy. Unless there is some dramatic relegation concerning Kavanaugh, she will vote “yes” on his confirmation. And yes you can take this to the bank!
Posted on

What Was He Thinkin’?

Atweel, at times you have probably heard someone say or do something and you think, “What was he drinkin’?”

(BTW: ”Atweel” was my on-line “word of the day” today, and so I thought that I would try to use it in this essay. FYI: “Atweel” means “surely!”)
Last week Barack Obama was back on the campaign trail and was bad-mouthing Republicans and the present president in contra-distinction to the established norm of past presidents not reentering into the political arena, especially to bash their successor. What was he drinkin’?
Personally I was not at all surprised at his behavior as one’s behavior oftentimes dissolves the mask which is hiding one’s character. Can anyone recall President Bush ever saying anything derogatory about Mr. Obama? Nuff said about that.
Back to the “What were they drinkin’.”
Mr. Obama wants everyone to think that he had some role in the present booming economy. He said, “When you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s remember when this recovery started.”
Huh!? What was he drinkin’?
In a column in today’s Wall Street Journal, Peter Ferrara, a university Economics professor, states, “Before Mr. Obama, in the 11 previous recessions since the Depression, the economy recovered all jobs lost an average of 27 months after the recession began. In Mr. Obama’s recovery, the recession’s  job losses were not recovered until after 76 months, more than 6 years.”
Likewise while he was in office, Obama backers said that the economy could no longer grow any faster than the 2% growth averaged over Mr. Obama’s eight years. Slow growth was the “new normal.” “Get used to it!” What were they drinkin’?
Again from Professor Ferrara, “After Mr. Trump was elected, he fundamentally changed course from Mr. Obama’s policies, increasing annual growth to more that 3% within six months and now to over 4%.”
The sad part about these “What are they drinkin’” analogies is that there are plenty of
thirsty liberals out there who avidly drink this Obama Kool-Aid. They do not care that B.O. is stretching the truth concerning the recovery, and they certainly do not care about his crossing the past presidents’ speech etiquette line. And worst of all . . . atweel they will vote!