‘Dumb and Dumber’ is Real in Sacramento

How much fuel do you use on a weekly basis? How much is used simply to get to work? If you were told you must cut your fuel use by half—that’s right 50% -- how would that affect you? If the price of fuel was taxed, so the total was around $10 per gallon – while the rest of the nation paid about $2.50 per gallon – how you feel about that? If you were rationed only enough gas to make it to work three days a week, what would you do? If you were limited by mileage police to drive only an arbitrary number of miles-per-week, what would you do?

If you are okay with any of the above, then you will love SB350 now circulating in the California Assembly. The author, State Senate President pro-Tem, Kevin De Leon and Governor Jerry Brown love the idea. So do Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. The Pope loves it too.

Following Jerry Brown’s meeting with the Pope, he got the religion of climate change and is proselytizing it throughout government. De Leon converted, but then again he seems to have never seen a goofy idea he wasn’t for.

Now we are stuck with two State Senate bills, SB32 and SB350 intended to make a big dent in the 2 percent of the overall greenhouse gasses generated by California. This is akin to a little boy peeing in the ocean being told to hold it because it might raise the level and flood Topeka, Kansas.

Is the climate changing? Well, duh, it has since the beginning of time, and will continue to change long after the climate zealots are long gone. The Sahara desert was once a lush, verdant, area with species of creatures now long extinct. Was California air the cause? Was any human activity the cause of this phenomenon? I seriously doubt it.

Is the greenhouse effect real? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, making Californians or even all Americans unilaterally bear the burden and painfully sacrificing to reduce a miniscule amount of greenhouse gas is not merely unjust, it is unwarranted.

SB32 will give the California Air Resources Board unlimited authority to require Californians to do whatever the CARB feels is necessary to meet the arbitrary quotas for greenhouse gas reduction. SB350 will require Californians to reduce use of vehicle fuel by a flat 50%. While the mechanism to enforce that reduction is nowhere spelled out in SB350, SB32 gives the CARB full authority to do whatever it wants to make that happen. You can bet it will result in draconian measures for all of us.

Of course, we could all simply go out and buy electric vehicles – at some $100,000+ a pop. Or we could all carpool, but only on days when the driver can buy gas.

There are good ideas and there are bad ones. On a scale of one to ten (ten being euphoric, and one being horrible) SB32 and SB 350 is a minus-ten. I am convinced that the intent of the Democrats in Sacramento is to reduce the population of this state to zero – zero jobs and zero people. These bills will go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

Take Responsibility

In the wake of yet another tragic shooting, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at the cause or causes of these events. First, I decided to look up a word that we should all be familiar with in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Responsibility | noun

the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone: women bear children and take responsibility for child care.

• the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something: the group has claimed responsibility for a string of murders.

• the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization: we would expect individuals lower down the organization to take on more responsibility.

• (often responsibilities) a thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation: he will take over the responsibilities of overseas director.

• [in sing. ] (responsibility to/toward) a moral obligation to behave correctly toward or in respect of: individuals have a responsibility to control personal behavior.

Can a weapon – gun, knife, club, baseball bat, etc. – be responsible for these killings? Can even the availability of a weapon be responsible? Again, look at the definition of responsibility. Nope. The burden of responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

A compilation of data by information Please® Database, © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012 shows there were 12,765 murders in 2012. Of this total, 8,855 or 69.4 percent were committed by someone using a gun. But wait! That’s not all: 1,589 used a knife or sharp object; 518 used a club or blunt object; 767 killed by strangulation, hands, fists, feet, or pushing; 85 burned the victim in an arson; leaving 951 that were killed by poison, explosives, unknown, drowning, asphyxiation, narcotics, other means, and weapons not stated.

Wow! What a list of ways to kill! I am sure someone will be eager to point out that the majority used a gun. But was it the gun’s fault? If no guns had been available, would these 12,765 murders have not been committed? Not likely, since the killers in 3,910 of these instances used a different weapon.

No, it all comes down to responsibility. And that rests solely with the killer. Take the recent tragedy at the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater. James Holmes walked into the theater and shot into the seated crowd, killing 12 people and wounding 70. At his trial, he claimed to be not guilty due to reasons of insanity. In other words, he was not responsible; his mental state was the cause. The judge didn’t buy it, and neither did 12 of his peers in the jury. Holmes now has 12 life terms plus 3,318 years to contemplate the definition of responsibility.

The other day a disgruntled former news reporter shot and killed two former colleagues and wounded a woman they were interviewing while on air. Immediately, the father of one of the victims – the cameraman – vowed to fight for stricter gun control. Well, there you go; it was the gun’s fault, not the gunman. The same call made after every tragedy of this type.

If I drive my car into a tree and total it, it would be pretty hard to blame the car, unless it was defective. I seriously doubt the insurance company would buy that story. Yet, no one has reported a defect in any of the weapons used that could have caused the killings. Oddly, the responsibility is almost always deflected from the shooter to guns or the supposed availability of guns.

Okay, back to my wrecked car scenario. Cars are much easier to own than any gun. If I had to go through more hoops to own one, would that make me a better, more responsible driver? Well, I wouldn’t intentionally drive a car into a tree, but then again, I wouldn’t intentionally shoot up a theater either. I take responsibility for my actions, and others should too.

Unfortunately, the trends of society toward more control these days seem to be contributing to the lack of personal responsibility. It is far too easy to claim that the government should control conditions that cause tragic events, and push the responsibility off on the government.

Regardless of the shooter’s state of mind, sanity, or weapon availability, it is always his or her responsibility. No amount of legislation will ever or can ever relieve the killer of responsibility for his or her actions. 

Democrats v/s Socialists

Well, the cat is slowly slipping out of the bag. Earlier this month Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was asked – not once but twice on different television programs – to explain the difference between Democrats and Socialists. She quickly diverted the question to an altogether different subject. No, she would not answer the question.

What brought about the question – from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, of all people – was the fact that the other Democrat contender in the Presidential race, Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist.

This deserves more in-depth examination. In 2009, the Socialist Part of America proudly announced there were 70 members of congress belonging to the party. Today, beliefnet.com said:

The 75-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, is closely allied with the Democratic Socialists of America. The Communist Party USA identifies Progressive Caucus members as its “allies in Congress.”

Okay, it is settled, Sanders is a socialist, as apparently are a huge number of members of congress – all Democrats. Just what is a socialist and why should we be wary of them?

Socialism wasn’t invented by Karl Marx. Frenchmen Saint-Simon and Fourier advanced the idea of a socialist society long before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated on this aberrant philosophy. Europeans, in particular, the French experimented with various forms of socialism well before the Lenin brought the Marxist ideals to notoriety.

The Russian revolution came about because of the excesses of the Tsarist monarchy. It was not intended to be a socialist or Marxist revolution. The people simply wanted to be free of the Tsar and his henchmen. What they wound up with was the dictator Lenin and his Bolshevik henchmen. When Lenin died during the formative stages of the Soviet Union, Joe Stalin stepped into his shoes, ruled with an iron fist, and allowed only a single party, the Bolsheviks, to dominate the political scene. The name Bolshevik was changed to Communist but maintained the same Marxist philosophy of socialism.

Socialism isn’t new in America. The Socialist Party of America was founded in 1897 and dissolved in 1972. No fewer than four socialist organizations succeeded the SPA. One of those organizations was the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders, a self-identified socialist.

Is there a difference between socialists and communists? Not much. Communists are Marxist socialists who advocate transition from a capitalist economy to a regulated socialist economy. Communists believe that transition should be achieved through a violent revolution. The Bolsheviks found out the revolution would not accept socialism without the force of a dictator.

Do socialists work for the “working class” aka., the little people. Again, that would be no. It is the big lie. Lenin called the proletariat, “useful idiots.” Workers unions were controlled by Bolsheviks and peasants were forced into collective farming. Individualism was outlawed – except for the elites of the administration. If you like slavery, you will love socialism.

And what of mere socialists? Well, in the ‘60s and ‘70s the American Socialists and Communist party advocated the same transition through revolution. Today these communists/socialists are members of our congress and reign throughout our government. Most are registered Democrats.

It is no coincidence that the recession brought out the socialist call for wealth redistribution. Of course, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The fall of the Soviet Union appeared to eliminate communism, but in actuality, it merely renamed itself – again – to “Progressive” and “Democratic Socialist”.

Is there a difference between socialists and Democrats? Well, Chris, apparently not for many Dems. The question he should have asked is, can a socialist leopard change its spots? Not likely! As the Russians tragically realized, socialism is elitism wrapped in a lie.

The Modern Car Dilemma

My wife’s ten-year-old PT Cruiser is … not well. If it were a person, we would be looking for a good nursing home to place it in.

It’s not like we haven’t maintained it properly. Every 3000 miles it gets a new oil filter and oil change. I replace the brake rotors and pads when they are worn. We always put the best tires on it and keep them properly inflated. It has had two new batteries during its lifetime. It gets regular tune-ups. It’s had a good life.

Lately, it has become… well, incontinent. The garage has a large – and growing – puddle of something oily beneath the poor car. On top of that, the air conditioner quit. I can’t say precisely when it quit, but the wife has been using the 4-60 A/C method most of this summer. What is the 4-60 A/C method? You roll down all four windows and drive 60 miles per hour. It doesn’t help much and leaves her hair looking like that new “just out of bed” messy style. But it’s still better than arriving looking like a wet dishtowel.

It’s been a good car, but yes, the time has come to think about a replacement.

I have never been a fan of used cars especially those only a year or two old. You have to ask, why would someone get rid of a car that soon? Although, those cars more … mature, have usually been around the block more than a time or two, so you might not be gaining much by trading in your old problems for new ones.

No, I like new cars. I like the warranty with a new car, although I have seldom had to use it. I like the feel of a new car. And I like the smell of a new car.

What I don’t like these days is the look of the new cars. One day when the PT Cruiser was in the shop, I rented a new Buick. Wow! A Buick! Nice car. My impression when setting in it for the first time was, huh? Well, I recognized the steering wheel, and brake and accelerator pedals, but everything else was foreign. I may just as well have been sitting at the controls of a 747.

I went to put the key (yes, the Buick did have a key) into the ignition. There was none. The rental guy showed me how to start the car by just putting your foot on the brake and pressing the “start” button. I still don’t know that the key was for. Nothing seemed to use it.

Okay, now that the engine is on, let’s back out. Wait a minute! There is no gearshift lever! Back to the rental guy. Turns out, there is a little knob on the console that controls the transmission.

Now I’m finally out of the lot and on the road. In front of me is a bewildering array of buttons – all with some sort of hieroglyphics – and a couple of computer screens. One screen appears to be showing the car’s speed, and the other is giving me more information than a Sunday newspaper.

I experimented with a few of the buttons and managed to get the A/C and fan to a somewhat comfortable point. I have no idea what most of the buttons did, though, and I’m certain the owner’s manual was the size of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.”

I did manage to make it through the day but really didn’t go far. Even so, I still needed to have the same gas reading as when I left, so I pulled into a filling station. Uh, what side is the filler on? Of course, I had a 50 percent chance of guessing right and 100 percent chance of being wrong. So, whip the car around to the other side. Now I am confronted with a filler door that won’t open. Well, back to the buttons. There must be one with something that looks like a filler door that will open the thing. There wasn’t!

I panic! I am cutting it close on time to return the car, and just know they will be charging me for an extra day. Well, forget it. I know they will charge me ten dollars a gallon for what I used, but what-the-hey. I had no way of putting gas in it and didn’t have time to read through “War and Peace” to figure it out.

As it turned out, the PT Cruiser wasn’t done. I still needed a car, so the dealer was kind enough to provide a loaner – yes, I should have asked for one earlier.

When the service adviser brought the loaner around, he appeared in a brand new Chrysler 200. Wow! New car! It was then I noticed the Chrysler looked nearly identical to the Buick I had just returned. Parked next to each other, you could not tell the difference. Then it dawned on me; nearly all cars from all the different manufacturers look the same. Is there a conspiracy here, or did the engineers all go to the same school of design? Every car looks alike! And they all look like pregnant roller skates. There are no lines or distinguishing features, just the same blah in every car.

Call me nostalgic, but I do long for the ‘50s and ‘60s when cars had class, for the days when high-performance meant a mean engine and drive train, not a bigger amp. No Bluetooth, Pandora, or GPS for me. Give me a ’57 Chevy with standard transmission and a big V-8 – American iron with American muscle and class. A car you could be proud to own and drive.

Oh, well… dream on. I guess, I will be stuck with a pregnant roller skate and car payment larger that my mortgage. Maybe I can paint a Confederate flag on it so I can find it in a parking lot.

Drone No-Fly Zone

As two recent wildfires raged in California, the tankers and aircraft needed to fight them sat idle on the ground leaving property and lives at great risk. The North Fire that burned along I-15 in the Cajon Pass came on vehicles on the Interstate so fast that the occupants were lucky to scramble to safety while their vehicles were consumed. That fire took 44 vehicles, 7 homes, and 16 outbuildings. Another home and 4 outbuildings sustained damaged but was not destroyed. Much of this destruction may have been prevented if the airdrops had been allowed to fly.

But why were these badly needed aircraft sitting idle? In a word, safety! Some idiot decided it would be cool to watch the fire from cameras mounted on a drone. Never mind that the drone could present a safety hazard to aircraft as they dropped water and fire retardant on the flames, this jerk just wanted some excitement! Never mind that he or she might be responsible for destroying 44 vehicles and placing the occupants at risk of being burned alive, he or she just wanted some good shots of the fire.

Okay, what is being done to these drone idiots? NADA! That’s right, it’s not against any law to interfere with fire crews, not against the law to fly a drone into a situation that could cause other aircraft to collide, not against the law to be an inconsiderate and dangerous idiot with a drone. So, it happened again with the Lake fire. Once again, fire aircrews were told to stand down because a drone was in the area.

Remotely piloted model aircraft have been around for decades. Hobbyists have enjoyed flying these toys without causing serious incidents. Recently someone mounted a camera on them and called them “drones.” They have taken various shapes, but the most popular seem to be the helicopter type with four or six rotors.

It’s a handy little thing, these drones. Any fool can own one. You can put them almost anywhere, fly them remotely from ever increasing distances, and with those cameras, see things you would never otherwise be able to see – like in the neighbor’s high-rise windows; over the privacy fence at… well, whatever; and through the smoke and flames of a wildfire.

Yep, these things are intrusive, obnoxious, and now dangerous. I am of the opinion that they might also make great shotgun targets when they get low enough. Oh, wait… there is a law against that. That’s right, the FAA takes a dim view of shooting at aircraft – even if the aircraft is unoccupied and buzzing your house. Although I haven’t seen reports of anyone being arrested for shooting at a drone, I did see where a woman was arrested for hitting a drone operator who was harassing her with the drone.

Personally, I believe a little double-ought buckshot from a goose gun would end the problem in a hurry. Drone down… fire crews back in the air, property safe. If they can’t put the idiot drone pilots in jail for endangering or harassing people and property, at least they won’t be flying that drone again.

If you own a drone, take heed. In my neck of the woods, we shoot unidentified flying objects. With my bifocals, drones could easily be mistaken for a large bird or some strange locust.

The Trump Card

With over 500 days to election 2016, Donald Trump leads the pack in the Republican camp. Well, why not. He’s rich; he’s a celebrity; he’s rich; he’s entertaining; he’s rich; he’s outspoken; he’s rich; he gets a lot of free air-time; and oh, by the way, he’s rich… very rich.

He also has the ire of the Republican Party, which only tends to elevate him in the eyes of Republican voters.  Make no mistake about it, though; Donald Trump is a loose cannon.

Can he win the Party nomination? Maybe. Can he win the White House? Well, the odds are probably somewhere like those of me being struck by lightning – twice – then winning the Power Ball Lottery and California’s Mega Millions on the same day. It could happen!

Let's take a look at this 69-year-old billionaire. He lives in Queens, New York, was married three times, has five children, holds a Bachelors Degree from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania after transferring there from Fordham University in the Bronx. Trump finished High School at the New York Military Academy (NYMA), after being dismissed from the Kew-Forest School in Forest Hills, Queens for having “behavior problems.”

Trump’s fortune got its start when his father brought him into the family real estate business that focused on middle-class rental housing in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. It wasn’t long before he changed the company name from Elizabeth Trump and Son to The Trump Organization.

Lest anyone might think Trump was handed his fortune, they would be wrong. The man works hard for the money he has made and takes some very big risks. “The Donald” has created a great number of very successful enterprises, from the Trump Towers to the Taj Mahal Casino (which nearly brought him to bankruptcy), with a number of high-rise developments having the name Trump in them along the way. His net worth, depending on the source, might be from 1.8 billion to 10 billion dollars. The guy is rich… filthy rich!

Trump’s party history runs the range of Republican (Before 1999; 2009–11; 2012–present), Reform Party (1999–2001), Democratic (2001–09), and Independent (2011–12).

There can be no doubt that Donald Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than Texas and a very bad haircut. On the other hand, he is probably one of the most recognizable people in America, if not the world. He is also one of the most outspoken. His tirade on Mexican illegal immigrants and denunciation of heroism of Senator John McCain has given him great traction among voters. Why, because he is not just another mealy-mouthed politician. In fact, he has proven that he has not a drop of politician blood in his veins.

Is he dangerous? Very! In 1992, another billionaire businessman with strong libertarian tendencies, Ross Perot, cost a very good Republican candidate, President George H.W. Bush reelection and essentially bought Bill Clinton the office. Trump has already hinted that he might run an independent campaign if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination. If this happens it will be a Clinton redux.

Like Perot, Trump is telling many conservatives what they long to hear – and what the other candidates are too timid to voice. His schoolyard invectives against other candidates are entertaining, and seem to hit a chord with many voters simply because Trump is calling the politicians out in violation of the Republican 11^th commandment (thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans).

If you scan back to Trump’s political history, you will find he was registered in the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001 – the same Reform Party created by Ross Perot. Coincidence?

Is Donald Trump merely a celebrity buffoon? If so, he is a very cagy buffoon, one that might just trump the Republicans with an undeserving loss.

The Stars and Bars

On June 24^th,, a Sunday, a young White man walked into the Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina during a bible study session. He was welcomed and sat through the class for an hour before declaring he was there "to kill black people" and then opening fire, killing nine parishioners. I won’t dignify the killer by mentioning his name, but I’m sure everyone knows whom I am referring to.

God lord, we are not even safe in church anymore! Why would a person do such a low, despicable thing?

It’s too easy to blame it on racism and white hate groups. Since the end of the Civil Rights movement in the ‘60s, I can’t remember sensational reports of blatantly racist hate crimes of this sort. There may have been a few, but nothing like the September 15, 1963 bombing before Sunday morning services at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama—a church with a predominantly black congregation that served as a meeting place for civil rights leaders. Four young girls were killed and many other people injured in that bombing. You don’t hear of cross-burnings and lynchings much anymore either. These hate groups don’t seem to be doing much besides wallowing in their own misery and paranoia.

These days, however, terrorists are being increasingly recruited on-line through the “social” media. (Although, I don’t see much social about it. Maybe there needs to be a special web section for an anti-social media.) This killer posted pictures sitting with a Confederate battle flag, and spouted racial hatred and an affinity for White hate groups. Other terrorists have black flags of the Islamic State and spout hatred of anyone not of their particular pseudo-religious bent.

Whoa, back the train up! This guy had a Confederate battle flag?

That’s right. The flag was what everyone seemed to focus on. Suddenly this inanimate piece of cloth was reviled more than even the despised handguns and assault rifles or even the maniac that did the shooting.

Ah, but there is a Confederate battle flag flying over a Confederate Soldiers Memorial on the South Carolina statehouse grounds. From a single picture, you get the feeling that the Confederate battle flag somehow managed to climb down from that flagpole and murdered all nine people in that church. Well, it simply had to go.

Scant mention was made of the vile young man with the twisted mind, or surprisingly, not even much mention of the weapon he used. Although, a few weeks after the shooting it was reported that the background checks to purchase the handgun were faulty.

After much ballyhoo and protestation, the Confederate flag was lowered and relegated to the Confederate Museum.

Suddenly, though, the people who cry over any perceived slight were protesting just about everything containing the name of a Confederate soldier, street names and names of buildings were now to be changed. And it wasn’t limited to Confederates. Now any name anyone deemed offensive was to be changed – Washington, Lee, and Jackson Streets along with Squaw Bread and Redskins football team are now racist. The carving of three Confederate Generals at Stone Mountain State Park in Georgia that had stood since completion in 1924 by Gutzon Borglum – the same Gutzon Borglum that carved Mount Rushmore – must be blasted from the face of the mountain, was the battle cry. Political correctness is running amok!

People need to get a grip. Slavery is dead. President Lincoln ended that abomination in 1863. The 13^th amendment put the nail in that coffin. The Civil War has been over for 151 years!

The flag that people seem to think depicts slavery and racism is not even the flag of the Confederacy. The flag of the Confederate States of America was entirely different – not the “stars and bars.” This flag was one carried into battle by brave men who fought for the rights of their states and their homes. Most of these men never even owned a slave. That flag is no different than the pennant Colonel George Custer’s 7^th Cavalry carried into battle for the North.

Any racist connotation ascribed to the “Stars and Bars” is merely a product of those who have hijacked the flag for their own vile purposes and is a disgrace to the men who fought valiantly under those colors. We should be condemning those people, not the flag they happen to have with them. If that flag reminds you of slavery, it is your problem, not the flag’s. Cotton reminds some of slavery too, but they have no problem wearing cotton products. If those hate groups displayed the American flag, would the reaction be the same?

The Confederate battle flag is a relic of our nation’s history, and should be treated as such. It should be revered and honored as with any other relic of men who fought and died for their country.

Leave Stone Mountain and the paint job on Beau Duke’s car alone!