Posts

Posted on

California on Fire

We have lived on a canyon for almost twenty-eight years and the threat of fire has been on my mind for the entire time. About ten years ago a very nice woman from the city was in my backyard inspecting the brush clearing in the canyon.

She asked, “When was the last time the city cleared anything in this canyon?”
I answered, “To the best of my knowledge, never!”
That woman inspector has never been back.
In fact, no one from the city has ever been back!

Fire is always a threat in California, and the drier, and the hotter, the worse the threat, and this year has been especially hot and much drier than average. Around the state, crews are stretched to the limit to combat at least 17 major blazes from San Diego to the Oregon border, and so far these fires have burnt about 250,000 acres. Dead trees are one of the major reasons for the vast swatches of forests being burned by these fires.
 Drought and excessive temperatures cause the trees to be less resistant to the bark beetle which in kills the trees. Dead trees are highly flammable, and there are a myriad of dead trees out there as the die-off has been accelerated by years of past droughts. The estimate is that 102 million tress have died in California over the past few years. To get an idea of the severity of the problem, lifeless forests in California occupy an area about twice the size of Connecticut!
The die-off, which prompted Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency three years ago, began when trees, mainly pine but also oak, cedar and fir, became weakened by drought and easy prey for the beetle. The decline was hastened by already-crowded forests — a product of antiwildfire policies — which increased competition among trees for soil, sunlight and water.
Brown canceled the state of emergency in April, 2017 after a wet 2016-2017 winter. At that time there was a controversy as to whether or not the governor excessively cut that part of the budget that was allocated for fires. The governor said he didn’t, while the congressman from a district with a lot of forest said that he did. What actually happened is anybody’s guess. To no one’s surprise fighting wildfires is quite costly
This year California spent $125 million in July fighting wildfires. That was more than one-fourth of what was budgeted for the entire fiscal year, which began July 1 and won’t end until June 30, 2019. Keep in mind that September and October has historically been the prime time for wildfires.
Of course whenever disaster strikes, someone is always trying to place the blame on somebody else, and I am no different! Should any of the blame go to the environmentalists? When you listen to environmentalists and ecologists, you get the feeling that their houses have never been destroyed or even threatened by a wildfire.

Chad Hanson, research ecologist with the nonprofit John Muir Project, said tree die-off is part of the natural progression of the forest. While many fear that the largely dead forests present increased risk of fire, Hanson is among many who say the standing timber is no more dangerous than living trees. In fact, he infers that it can be less threatening because there are fewer needles and less foliage to burn. “From my perspective, you want a lot of live trees and you want a lot of dead trees in the forest,” Hanson said. “It’s just good for biodiversity.”
Biodiversity . . . Smio-diversity! Let’s get the fires out and let’s try to prevent them from occurring next year. If getting rid of dead diseased tress is what it takes, then get rid of them!
Now back to my canyon. In my younger days I spent many many hours each year clearing the canyon slopes adjacent to my property . . . but no longer can do. We just paid to have the slope cleared of brush, and it was not cheap. A large cottonwood tree in the canyon just at the edge of our property on has multiple large dead branches, high up in the tree. These dead branches are undoubtedly due to this year’s drought. A fire threat? Absolutely!
A easy fix? Absolutely not!
Should I get did of these dead branches? Absolutely.
A cheap fix? Absolutely not, as tree guys are not cheap even when you pay them in “cash only.”
I have a partial solution for my tree and the millions of other trees adjacent to houses, that are fire hazards. Recall the classic idiom, “A stitch in time, saves nine.”
Make the cost of getting rid of fire hazards – dead trees and dead brush – a state tax deductible expense. Would this be self-serving? Absolutely, but the end this would save not only lives, but also money as fighting wildfires is an extremely expensive item in the state’s budget.
Posted on

WeWork; We Dictate; Wow!

In May,2008 Adam Neumann and Miguel McKelvey established GreenDesk, an “eco-friendly coworking space” in Brooklyn. Perhaps the name for the original company, GreenDesk, should have been a clue as to what was to come. In 2010, Neumann and McKelvey sold the business and started WeWork, a company that provides shared workspace. WeWork designs and builds physical and virtual shared spaces and office services for entrepreneurs and companies. It has been very successful now with locations in 23 United States cities and 21 countries around the world.
Wow, good for the entrepreneurship of Neumann and McKelvey.
Now here comes the scary part!
In July 2018, the company restricted employees from expensing meals that contain red meat, pork or poultry. WeWork also announced that it would not provide meat for events at its locations or allow meat at self-serve food kiosks in WeWork locations. The policy was rolled out to cover the company’s nearly 6,000 employees globally.
Wow! Is sounds like a new chapter in the book, “My Way Is the Only Way; Do Things My Way”?
I have heard of CEOs of some companies (both left-leaning or right-leaning) suggesting that a vote for X would be better than a vote for Y, but the CEO does not actually go into the voting booth with the employee. Some environmentally conscious companies provide desirable parking spaces with charging stations in order to encourage the use of electric cars or hybrids, but gasoline powered automobiles are not banned from the parking facility. A CEO may provide an on site gym, because he feels that it would be best if his employees exercised regularly. While that CEO is suggesting that his employees exercise, he doesn’t monitor who does and who does not go to the gym.
I have no problem with the CEOs in any of the above examples, because a suggestion is just that . . . a suggestion, a recommendation.
But WeWorks’ forced vegetarianism is over the top! McKelvey could have encouraged a vegetarian cuisine at WeWorks without totally banning meat, etc. It’s amazing to me that Miguel McKelvey has the hutzpah to basically force his employees to be vegetarians! From that same book, My Way Is the Only Way; Do Things My Way: “I am a vegetarian. I know best. I know that the best thing for you is not to eat meat . . . so I will now force you to do things my way!” Company co-founder McKelvey claims that new research has shown that avoiding meat is one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact.
Wow! “Personal environmental impact” – This sounds like a children’s book in which  little Jimmy changes the world by using Splenda instead of sugar at his lemonade stand.
In an interview McKelvey said the policy was aimed at raising consciousness among the company’s employees. “We are coming at it from an awareness and mindfulness perspective. The headline has been ‘meat-free’, but this is a much larger effort to develop personal accountability in our team.”
Wow! “Personal accountability” – This sounds like the spiel from the pulpit of a new church which will now show you the only way to environmental nirvana.
A New York Times columnist wondered if WeWork’s enforced vegetarianism was just an example of another whimsical human resources directive from a high flying technology startup with an inflated sense of self importance. Duh!! Yes that is exactly what it is, but it is more than that. It’s an extension of the liberal mantra, “We (I) know best, and because of that, you will do things our (my) way.” If the WeWorks vegetarian dictum stands, look for more dictums from other liberals, such as the outlawing of sugar use at lemonade stands, or perhaps a special added tax on all meat products!
However the really scary thing  for me is that all of these looney liberal ideas eventually make their way to California. I live in California, and I not only like sugar in my lemonade but also one or two Sausage McMuffins with Egg for breakfast!
Wow! Scary!
Posted on

In Agreement, Again

Just today I found that I agreed with President Trump on an issue on which I was unaware that he even had a position. I realize that some of you may feel that I agree with him carte blanche on everything. While this may be mostly true, I think that we agree because we just think alike. Perhaps I should have been a real estate mogul! Maybe the next time around?

Today I read that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) was going to sponsor a bill called The United Nations Accountability Act that is awaiting a vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This is a common sense measure that seeks to punish those countries that vote against us in the United Nations by withholding their aid. Apparently of the 14 nations that received the most aid money in 2016, only one voted with the USA more than 50% of the time a the United Nations: Israel.
This is crazy! On the surface it appears that we are being very generous to those who, in essence, oppose us most of the time. Now we all know that there will be those who will say that if we withhold our aid to these countries that disagree with us more than half the time that their behavior, especially with regard to human rights, will deteriorate. While that may be true, the fault does not lie with us. That’s like saying that if I don’t give the bully my lunch, he will beat up on and steal the lunch from someone else. If the bully does do that, it’s his fault, not mine.  After all it is my lunch.
With the U.S. being trillions of dollars in debt, perhaps we should not be giving any aid at all, or at least giving aid in a sensible and judicious manner.
While I agree in principle with Rep. Gohmert, I would approach this issue from a different angle. I would make all foreign aid renewable, individual country by individual country, every two years before the summer recess, in election years. Every two years, make all of the members of the House and the Senate take a position on the aid we are giving to each individual country. The American people deserve to know, for instance, if their tax money is being well allocated, or is being given willy-nilly to those countries that are really not our friends. This would not be punishing anybody, but rather would be rewarding our friends as they have earned it. Would any parents continue to give an allowance to a child who was constantly disagreeing with them. Of course not! An allowance must be earned.
Apparently in one of his speeches President Trump said something similar to what I just said, but he did not have a detailed plan like the one I just spelled out. In essence, he has agreed with me again! I wonder if and when he will be calling me for advice? Like I said in the beginning he and I agree most of the time, because we think alike!
Posted on

Brothers?

Let me go on the record right from the beginning. This story is not from the Bible, even though it might sound like it. At the end there might be a moral . . . or perhaps not!

Let’s assume that there are two brothers in a well-to-do family. They are not twins, and in fact Brother A is older than Brother B.They are competitive by nature, and both seem to have a petulant streak. Neither are perfect, and in fact they have some of the same character flaws. For years Brother A has made it a point to disagree with Brother B on just about everything.
For example:
“What is the best way to care for our older parents?”
B says, “We should do it this way,” and Brother A says the opposite.
“How should we help our less fortunate siblings?”
B says, “ Force them to stand on their own two feet, and they will be better off in the long run.” Of course Brother A says the opposite.
“How should we deal with our cousins who are breaking the rules by attempting to take advantage of the good nature of our parents?”
Brother B says, “Rules are rules. If they do not abide by the rules, they must be held accountable.” Brother A takes the antagonizing position, “They are just kids. I think we should just forgive and forget. Of course they are aware of the rules . . .  but, come on, have a heart!”
Up to a point these conflicts were basically conflicts of principle with Brother B taking a more “toe-the-line” approach (“play by the rules”), and Brother A taking a more laissez faire approach. However over the last year these differences of opinion have accelerated from merely a war of words. Brother A has taken their disagreements to a new level, as he is now taking Brother B to court over many of their disagreements. On more than one occasion, Brother A has come out and said really nasty things about Brother B!  Brother A has turned into the recalcitrant brother seemingly now opposing Brother B just for spite, and at this point their relationship seems to be beyond repair!
However as we are all aware life can take some unexpected turns. Things can suddenly come up that are beyond our control. Something totally unexpected can occur, and suddenly the situation is much different, and that is exactly what happened.
Some things started to go poorly for Brother A. He was in a bind as things continued to get worse. He needed some help. “Tragedy brings people together,” said Brother A,
so he asked Brother B to help him out!
Some chutzpah!
How does Brother B respond?
Consider that Brother A has made it a point to oppose Brother B on just about everything, even going to the extreme of taking Brother B to court. Brother A has also repeatedly said nasty things about Brother B!
What should Brother B do?
My guess is that Brother B will acquiesce and give Brother A what he needs.
In other words, Governor Brown will get the wildfire aid that he asking President Trump to provide!
Posted on

A Better Use of Tax Money? Part 2

To review from the prior essay, housing affordability is a major problem and it’s getting worse. Among California cities, San Diego’s home prices showed the smallest increase at 7.3 % in a year. In Los Angeles the prices increased 7.6% in a year and in San Francisco the yearly increase was a whopping 10.9% gain. As noted before those who are already in the market can more easily move up because of the increased equity in their present home. However for those not already in the market the chance of being able to afford a house is steadily going down. If wages go up commensurate with inflation, then the increased income should be able to keep pace with the increasing monthly mortgage payment, however, remember that with the increased sales price of a house, the down payment is also increasing. This increasing down payment is what kills potential first time home buyers, as they cannot save enough for that initial down payment.
 A dilemma. What to do? Keeping middle class workers in the state will be crucial to California’s future economy
Like I said, I have an idea . . . a plan!
What I propose is a state-tax free house down payment savings plan.
Before you say, “Not another government plan,” hear me out.
This plan would only be for the middle class, arbitrarily defined as those making between $50,000 – $100,000 per year. The money that they owed each year in income tax to the state could instead be put into a “first house, down payment account”. This money would be before tax money, similar to an IRA, and would grow tax free for up to ten years. Unlike a traditional IRA, however, this money would not be taxed when it was removed from this account if it was used to make a down payment on a first house. As long as people remained in the middle class, they could continue to contribute to this account for a maximum of ten years.
Some caveats:
– Participants in this plan would have to be residents of California.
– The house purchased with the money saved in this special “house down payment
    account” would have to be the primary residence of the purchaser of the house.
– The individual beneficiary of this account would have to reside in California for at
     least ten years after the house had been purchased.
– If perchance any of the rules were broken,  e.g. the house purchaser moved out
  of state after two years or the money was withdrawn from this account, but not used
   to purchase a first house, there would be a significant penalty (?25%) in addition to
   the California tax owed on the money withdrawn.
The big caveat, however, would be for the state. The shortfall in the California tax revenue because of this plan would have to be accompanied by an equal decrease in state spending for the following year. In other words, giving a small proportion of the middle class a tax break could not be accompanied by an increase in taxes for others in order to make up the shortfall.
Even though in the long run this plan has multiple benefits for individuals as well as for the state, my guess is that the state of California would not be able to fulfill its part of the bargain!
Posted on

A Better Use of Tax Money? Part 1

I realize that many of my readers, especially in California, are going to scream, “Of course there are ways to better use my tax money. In fact there are many ways!” However, instead of ranting and screaming . . . “focus” . . . focus on just the following.
In California one of the major problems is housing. Here, there are multiple issues including the basic economic one of supply and demand. For a variety of different reasons, the housing supply has not kept up with the demand, and so the natural consequence is a rise in the price of that which is in short supply, in this case, housing. This is a basic economic principle, and lately there are multiple ideas on how to increase the supply of homes. Again according to the same economic principle, the price of housing will not go down until there is an over supply or at least a competitive abundance of places to live, and unless there is a major recession, I do not seen the price of housing coming down in California for decades.
However, let’s assume for a second that the price of housing in California stabilizes sometime in the future because there is an increased supply. Who is going to buy these houses? Perhaps this question would be better phrased . . . “Who will be able to afford to buy these houses?” These days if one is not already in the market and thus has some equity, it is extremely difficult for that person or family to be able to save enough to afford a down payment on a house. A lot of those who are presently renting would like to buy a house in the future, but because of the high cost of living and the high taxes in California, they are lucky if they are able to stay afloat.
Switching gears, in general which general economic group are we talking about? Which class of people are we talking about that would like to own a house, but just cannot afford it? Many in the upper class already have a house, and for most the cost of housing is not even in the top ten on their problem list. Likewise those that are in the lower economic group are usually swimming upstream just trying to survive. Again for the most part their inability to purchase a house is not in the top ten on their problem list. So who are we talking about? No surprise here. Those that want to, but just cannot save the down payment to purchase a house are those in the middle class.
Recently my tree guy said that he may not be coming back to take care of my trees because he might be moving. “Moving? Why, Francisco? Where to,? I asked him. He replied, “Probably back to Mexico. My wife wants her own house, and even though we are both working, we cannot afford to buy a house here”!
His moving to Mexico is bad for me, as he is a nice guy, as well as a great tree guy, but more significantly it is not good for California, as he is a hardworking, responsible member of the middle class. The real problem for the state is that he is not alone. At present the exodus from California is mainly a middle class exodus, and unless something can be done to improve the standard of living of the middle class, they are going to continue to leave, and this will lead to the economic downfall of California.
Here in San Diego County in 2016 there was a net exodus of 17,194 people with 2,478 in the 18-34 age group, and 3,953 in the 35-54 age group. The main reason that those interviewed gave for leaving was the lack of affordable housing, and for many specifically the inability to ever own their own house.
What to do? Is there any way to improve the chance that those in the middle class will be able to buy a house in the near future, and thus remain in the state?
Does anybody have an idea?
Of course, I have an idea! See the next essay to see an example of thinking out of the box to solve an apparently unsolvable problem.
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.”