Bialosky: Banned on Twitter; Nothing Compared to Washington Post

Every time you order something from Amazon, remember, you are financing the hate and bigotry of the Washington Post.  Bruce Bialosky calls the Post worse than Twitter—and he is right.  At least Twitter can have many points of views.  The Post, only one—hate freedom.

“I subscribe to the Washington Post because I am into self-flagellation. I have always believed in reading people of varying viewpoints to understand what they are thinking and saying instead of going on others’ analyses. As you know, a remarkably successful entrepreneur owns WAPO. The paper does not seem to ever be questioned as to how it addresses issues. WAPO’s “quality” has reached the level Twitter’s nastiness.”

Banned on Twitter; Nothing Compared to Washington Post

Posted by Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport,   5/15/22 

I quit Twitter at the same time I abandoned Parler — right after Big Tech ganged up on that site to kill it off because it was presenting a different voice. I found Twitter to be an angry wasteland of malcontents. Then came the eruption with the acquisition of Twitter by the new Darth Vader (Elon Musk).

We don’t need to analyze that entire saga as the matter has been thrashed over ad nauseum. We do know that one of Twitter’s problems is the angry, low-quality communication. The Twitter people determined anything you (conservatives) might say is “hateful” while allowing anyone to spew any ugly words formerly banned in public communications with impunity.

I subscribe to the Washington Post because I am into self-flagellation. I have always believed in reading people of varying viewpoints to understand what they are thinking and saying instead of going on others’ analyses. As you know, a remarkably successful entrepreneur owns WAPO. The paper does not seem to ever be questioned as to how it addresses issues. WAPO’s “quality” has reached the level Twitter’s nastiness.

Below, I have copied a recent week’s worth of WAPO’S various headlines and sub-headlines in editorials and opinion pieces. The items below include a wide array of their opinion writers and an editorial by the Editorial Board. We know that in a publication like this the headline for a column is not written by the columnist, but it does closely resemble the tone of the column. The sub-headlines do come from the columnist. Obviously, the editorial page editor and the Editor-in–Chief endorse this kind of writing.

The job Kevin McCarthy sold his soul for might elude him
When you’ve lost Tucker Carlson, you know you’ve probably lost the speakership.

By Jennifer Rubin

The Republican primaries have gone off the rails
What happens when some of these clowns get elected?

By Paul Waldman

Michigan Republicans put truth vs. lies on this year’s ballot
Opinion ● Opinion by the Editorial Board

More Sean Hannity texts, more corruption
The bottomless trove of journalistic corruption that is Sean Hannity’s text history.

By Erik Wemple

McCarthy’s lying at the border cements him as the Great Prevaricator
It’s easy to tell when McCarthy is lying: His lips are moving.

By Dana Milbank

A Speaker Kevin McCarthy would mean only more debacles like this one
McCarthy is a dissembler who isn’t shrewd enough to cover his tracks.

By Karen Tumulty

The GOP war on democracy is working. Just look at Ohio
Republicans tell their state supreme court to stuff it, and Trump federal judges give them a thumbs-up.

By Paul Waldman

Amend the Constitution to bar senators from the presidency
The Senate has become a theater of performative behaviors by senators decreasingly interested in legislating, and preoccupied with using social media for self-promotion

By George F. Will

This used to be a serious newspaper. It seems like it has reoriented itself by needing to be in with the nasty Twitter crowd.

George Will’s column is included not because it is nasty, but because it is a stunning waste of print space. Really, why would he write something that is never going to happen?

The headlines are nasty enough, but the sub-headlines are something that should not ever be in a serious publication. Of course, one of the headlines wrote of the war on democracy. Other than that being tiresome, it likewise displays a childish attitude of small thinking. If you don’t support my ideas and my candidates you are destroying the fabric of the country. Instead of suggesting people like Speaker Pelosi stop with the disgusting language, they are echoing it. To get an interview with her?

That is the nicer writing of the headlines sampled above. Dana Milbank used to be a reasoned columnist but went over the edge when Trump was elected. He is calling the minority leader of the House of Representatives a liar, the same elected leader most analysts believe will be the new Speaker of the House come January 2023. Not only does he call him a liar but states in a callow comment that McCarthy lies anytime he speaks. This is sophisticated writing?

As bad as Milbank is he pales in comparison to the unctuous Karen Tumulty. She calls McCarthy a dissembler on which I had to refresh myself. A dissembler is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold to conceal his or her real thoughts or motives. Otherwise, she is stating McCarthy purposely deceives us, and he is deceiving himself. Though she really has no knowledge of his thinking in this regard, she is just projecting.

By far the most egregious is loathsome Paul Waldman who uses his perch as a WAPO columnist to try and outdo the hatemongers on Twitter. He used this opportunity to call a broad group of Republican candidates clowns. He doesn’t just disagree with them or think their opponents more worthy – they are simply clowns. And his editors published that.

I have not even mentioned one columnist calling all Michigan Republicans liars who are intentionally misleading the residents of their state and the one who says Sean Hannity is corrupt or Minority Leader McCarthy is the newest version of Shoeless Joe from Hannibal, MO. If you read further into the columns, they are filled with hate. A different hate than the kind they characterize on Twitter, but it is hate as indicated by the headlines. Actual hate that radiates from the pages unlike the characterized hate that Twitter frames.

I consider there to be three nationally significant newspapers – the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. I know the WSJ would never allow this kind of writing. I left out the various columns attacking Musk’s takeover of Twitter.

There is nothing that could be said on the new Twitter that is worse than is said on the Washington Post op-ed pages.

Editorial: Prop. H will punish Boudin, but it won’t solve San Fran’s real problems

The SF Examiner editorial is right—the Recall of the terrorist DA Boudin will only punish him for his promotion of crime, criminals and making San Fran one of the most unsafe places in America.  It will not solve the problem.  That will happen when they have a DA that puts criminals behind bars and demand more cops for the city.

Note the article does not mention his refusal to prosecute criminals, his support for lessened sentences and not fully charging vicious criminals—that is why San Fran is dangerous—and the Editorial Board ignored these facts.

Editorial: Prop. H will punish Boudin, but it won’t solve San Francisco’s real problems

S.F. district attorney recall based on falsehoods, won’t fix crime or homelessness

by The Examiner Editorial Board, 5/13/22  

The recall campaign’s case against San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin tends to be light on facts but heavy on anecdote, emotion and accusations that usually prove untrue. For example, take the charges leveled at Boudin in two new television ads supporting Proposition H, which would remove Boudin from office.

In one ad, a former deputy DA gives viewers the impression Boudin disbanded a unit dedicated to solving auto burglaries. In reality, the auto burglary investigations continue and recently busted a major distributor of stolen goods who worked out of a boba shop in the Tenderloin.

In the other ad, a former business owner named Max Young says he had to close his Mid-Market cocktail lounge due to rampant drug dealing in the area. Yet Young’s establishment, Mr. Smith’s, closed months before Boudin won election to office in 2019.

“Even when they were arrested, they’d be right back here,” says Young in the ad, providing definitive evidence that the revolving door of drug sales in The City preceded Boudin’s tenure.

When everything is software, you don’t really own anything

For many years I had a wonderful computer that used the Microsoft 98 OS.  Then they stopped supporting it—and I was forced to buy a new computer.  Now if you own a well working iPhone, you will find out that in a few years they will stop supporting it—and you will need a new phone.  I own a 2009 Prius, with 262,000 miles on it.  I hope they do not stop supporting it—but as this article says, car companies by making more of its operating systems to use computer, your car wil become obsolete.

We need to tell the companies to stop forcing us to buy new products, when the old ones fit our needs.

“All the car companies are doing it — not just the ones you might think, such as Tesla. Honda recently announced it was “shifting focus from non-recurring hardware (product) sales” to “recurring business in which Honda continues to offer various services and value to its customers after the sale through Honda products that combine hardware and software.”

In other words, car companies are no longer satisfied selling you a car once, with which you are free to do as you please. Now they want to lock you into a never-ending stream of updates and upgrades, all of which come at a hefty price.”

When everything is software, you don’t really own anything

by Conn Carroll, Washington Examiner,  5/2/22 

The MacBook Air I bought in 2014 looks like it is in tip-top condition. It turns on quickly and easily. It runs Safari, Chrome, and Firefox just fine. But if you want to use Microsoft Word or Teams, you simply can’t.

It’s not that Microsoft products don’t work on MacBooks — I used Microsoft Word on my MacBook for years. The problem is that, even though I am all paid up with Microsoft to download and use the latest version of their products, the Microsoft software updates for these programs are incompatible with the operating system on my computer.

Apple has chosen to stop providing updates for all 2014 MacBooks. This means, slowly but surely, as more and more other apps get updated, fewer and fewer programs will work on my computer, even though it otherwise works just as well as the day I bought it.

We see this with cellphones too. If you owned an iPhone 5 and took perfect care of it, it would be a useless brick now because Apple stopped updating the software for it back in 2017.

If this planned obsolescence were confined to phones and laptops, that would be one thing. But the more automakers stuff computers into your car, the danger arises that your car will become useless well before its parts start breaking down.

We can already see this in the farmers’ fight for the right to repair the tractors they thought they had bought from John Deere. It turns out that when you buy a tractor from John Deere today, you are also committing to having all repairs done by John Deere. That can be a problem for rural farmers, many of whom must drive two hours to the closest dealership when their tractor stops working. Some farmers have even begun using code from Eastern European websites to hack their own tractors to make repairs. And John Deere isn’t happy.

But John Deere is not the only corporation looking to change what was once a one-time purchase into a subscription service. All the car companies are doing it — not just the ones you might think, such as Tesla. Honda recently announced it was “shifting focus from non-recurring hardware (product) sales” to “recurring business in which Honda continues to offer various services and value to its customers after the sale through Honda products that combine hardware and software.”

In other words, car companies are no longer satisfied selling you a car once, with which you are free to do as you please. Now they want to lock you into a never-ending stream of updates and upgrades, all of which come at a hefty price.

Not only does this concentrate power and wealth in a few car companies, but it kills independent car parts and repair businesses, and it makes it impossible for people to tinker with and modify the vehicles they own.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Patent and copyright laws are government-created monopolies. If we don’t want to live in a world where everything we supposedly own quickly turns into a useless brick, we are going to need to change these laws.

Newsom’s electric car nirvana collides with reality

Gavin Newsom is bi-polar.  He wants to get us into all electric homes and cars.  At the same time he is limiting and destroying energy sources—causing brownouts and blackouts. If we had 8 million more EV cars and 2 million all electric homes, we would have to ration electricity to a few hours a days and maybe one charge of your EV each week.  Newsom is providing the foundation of the collapse of the California economy.

““Our state is on the frontlines of extreme weather, and we’re taking aggressive steps to protect Californians from the costs of climate change — transitioning away from the big polluters fueling this crisis and towards clean energy,” Newsom said. “These incentives make it easier and cheaper to make that transition.”

This year’s increase in electric car sales was, no doubt, spurred in part by a steep hike in gasoline prices, as well as subsidies – which poses an interesting dichotomy. Newsom has decried those fuel price spikes and wants the state to offset them with payments to motorists, which would reduce some of their motivation to buy electric cars.”

Not only would there be a severe limit on the energy you can use, but the cost of available energy will sky rocket.  Could that be his goal, use energy policy to depopulate California?

Newsom’s electric car nirvana collides with reality

BY DAN WALTERS, Calmatters,   5/15/22 

IN SUMMARY

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Air Resources Board are boasting about California’s shift to zero-emission vehicles but the reality of making it happen is daunting.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board publicly boasted last week about making great strides toward eliminating fossil fuels and their greenhouse gases.

The board released “a draft plan that, when final, will guide the state’s transition to a clean energy economy, drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels, achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or sooner, and significantly clean the state’s air especially in disadvantaged communities disproportionately burdened by persistent pollution.”

Much of the plan is concentrated on transportation — particularly cars and trucks — which is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

“That means rapidly moving to zero-emission transportation, electrifying the cars, buses, trains, and trucks that now constitute California’s single largest source of planet-warming pollution,” ARB said.

Newsom, meanwhile, crowed that with new state subsidies, sales of battery-powered zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) have exceeded 16% of all new vehicle sales so far this year, more than double the proportion in 2020. He also noted that Californians make half of nationwide purchases of electric vehicles.

“Our state is on the frontlines of extreme weather, and we’re taking aggressive steps to protect Californians from the costs of climate change — transitioning away from the big polluters fueling this crisis and towards clean energy,” Newsom said. “These incentives make it easier and cheaper to make that transition.”

This year’s increase in electric car sales was, no doubt, spurred in part by a steep hike in gasoline prices, as well as subsidies – which poses an interesting dichotomy. Newsom has decried those fuel price spikes and wants the state to offset them with payments to motorists, which would reduce some of their motivation to buy electric cars.

Bottom of Form

Moreover, were California to eventually ban sales of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles and go 100% ZEVs, as Newsom also advocates, charging their batteries would impose immense new burdens on an electric power grid that’s already strained to meet demand.

By happenstance, as Newsom and the air board were issuing their upbeat messages about the shift, a financial data website, Forbes Advisor, was revealing that California has one of the nation’s worst records on providing recharging sites for ZEV owners.

Its study, drawn from U.S. Department of Energy data and numbers from all 50 states, found that North Dakota is the nation’s most ZEV-friendly state with one charging station for every 3.18 electric vehicles.

Wyoming, Rhode Island, Maine and West Virginia round out the top five.

And California? It has the fourth highest ratio, just one station for every 31.2 ZEVs. New Jersey is the least accommodating to ZEV owners, with one station for every 46.16 electric vehicles.

Okay, so California is lacking when it comes to infrastructure needed to support the ZEV nirvana that Newsom and the ARB envision, both in terms of electrical power supply and sites to connect that power to electric cars.

However, the situation may actually be worse.

Again by happenstance, last week brought us evidence that not only is California failing to provide enough ZEV charging stations, but those it does have often don’t work.

David Rempel, a retired professor of bioengineering from UC Berkeley, and a team of volunteers tested 181 public Bay Area charging stations with 657 plug-in kiosks and found 73% in working order but 23% had inoperable screens, payment failures or broken connector cables and in 5% cables were too short to reach vehicles recharging inlets.

California’s much-vaunted shift to electric cars may turn out to be one of the state government’s many high-concept programs that become managerial disasters, another Department of Motor Vehicles or Employment Development Department.

Tony Thurmond-Public Sector Union Operative

The FBI and the Department of Justice are investigating parents that do not want hate taught in their schools—the FBI is calling these people terrorists (want to see a real terrorist look at Gascon, Fixx in Chicago or Boudin). Maybe the FBI should investigate the teacher’s union, which promoted the closing of schools, ending of education for millions and supports racism and hate as a daily part of the curriculum.

“Tony Thurmond is making sure California’s K-12 students learn every titillating nuance of modern gender theory, while also learning to harbor intractable racial resentment. Instead of developing the critical reasoning skills to recognize that California is unaffordable because environmentalist extremists have provided cover for special interests to lock up the supplies and jack up the prices for every basic essential – housing, lumber, energy, water, food – Tony Thurmond is instead making sure K-12 students develop crippling anxieties and fanatical compliance regarding anything having to do with the “climate emergency.”

Sending your child to a California government school is a piori evidence of child abuse.

TONY THURMOND – PUBLIC SECTOR UNION OPERATIVE

EDWARD RING, California Policy Center,  5/12/22

As the 21st century careens its way towards more geopolitical and economic uncertainty than most people alive today have ever known, with constant and transformative change the only constant, optimists among us still hope that some elements of California’s labor movement will begin to throw their weight behind policies and politicians that offer stability and common sense; policies designed to advance the interests of all Californians. But when it comes to the teachers union, don’t hold your breath.

The fact that the teachers union is a public sector union is bad enough. Public sector unions, unlike private sector unions, do not have to make reasonable demands on management. In the competitive private sector, union negotiators know that if they ask for too much, the cost will drive the employer out of business. Public sector unions elect their own bosses; the people who then are required to negotiate with them over work rules and compensation packages. Public sector unions also protect the bad apples within their membership, shielding them from accountability. This is particularly troubling when it makes it harder to get rid of public sector workers who abuse their authority.

There’s more. Public sector unions promote a confrontational “us vs them” mentality to their members, many of whom fully embrace this indoctrination. When “them” is the general public, and in particular, any member of the public who might, for example, make a political donation to a candidate that the union opposes, this is especially problematic. Union members operate the machinery of government. They enforce building codes and issue business permits. They conduct inspections and enforce the law. They hold themselves up, often with very good reason, as role models and heroes. If you run a business in California, why would you ever want to alienate public servants and their unions?

These distinctions make public sector unions completely different from private sector unions. But of all the public sector unions, the teachers union is the worst, because the damage they’ve done to the profession of teaching is harming the next generation of Americans. They are harming the people who we are going to need to skillfully guide us through the middle decades of this turbulent century.

The harm being inflicted on America’s youth by teachers unions has become readily apparent in recent years. The teachers unions demanded an extreme response to the COVID pandemic which condemned K-12 students to two destructive years of mostly remote learning. In turn, the rollout of remote learning was poorly managed. Also revealed in the course of remote learning was the appalling level of politicized curricula, driven by leftist ideology. Divisive and controversial race and gender theories were imposed on even the youngest students, along with incessant and terrifying climate change oriented doomsday preaching.

People may debate as to what degree the union mandated COVID response was extreme or appropriate. They may disagree over how far is too far when it comes to teaching new perspectives on race, gender and climate change. But before any of this got out of control or became obvious to millions of parents, the teachers union was already failing California’s students. By making it nearly impossible to fire incompetent teachers, by giving teachers tenure after less than two full years of classroom observation, and by favoring seniority over merit in layoffs, the teachers union has undermined the quality of public instruction for decades. And as was argued in the Vergara case, a 2016 lawsuit that attempted to reform these work rules, they had a disproportionate negative impact on students in low-income communities. Does that sound familiar? What irony.

Presiding over this mess is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond. First elected in 2018, Thurmond is running for re-election. The organizations endorsing him are almost exclusively public sector unions. They include the California Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association, the California School Employees Association, the Association of California School Administrators, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, and others.

To fully appreciate how Tony Thurmond answers to public sector unions, however, follow the money. A useful source for this, early in an election season, is the “Late and $5000+ Contributions Received” report, maintained by the California Secretary of State. Because any contribution over $5,000 has to be reported immediately by political campaigns in California, and posted by the Secretary of State within days, it is possible to get very recent contribution data on any big money. After all, the donors who contribute amounts in excess of $5,000 are the ones whose phone calls get returned. They are the ones who make or break a campaign. Thurmond’s big donors are almost all unions.

With information updated through May 6, Thurmond’s 2022 reelection bid has attracted $894,000 from donations of $5,000 or more. These donations came in the form of 114 transactions, with 70 of them coming from public sector unions. In total, $576,000 of Thurmond’s $894,000 in big money contributions so far are from public sector unions.

What’s interesting, and ominous, is the diversity of Thurmond’s public sector union contributors. There’s plenty coming from public education unions – the California Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and so on. But just as much of this early and big union money is coming from the Service Employees International, the State Pipe Trades Council, the Sheet Metal Workers, the Painters and Allied Trades, the Steamfitters, the California Nurses Association and the California Professional Firefighters, and others not directly involved in public education. Why are nurses and firefighters interested in who runs California’s public schools?

This display of solidarity is for one primary reason: Political power. Public sector unions work together to run California’s legislature, wielding nearly absolute power. They keep their disagreements confined to conference rooms and private conversations. When it comes to putting and keeping compliant political operatives in critical elected positions, they line up in unity.

The partisanship of California’s public sector unions is almost universally in favor of Democrats, and that, too, has as much to do with power than with ideology. This is why high profile billionaires, powerful tech corporations, land developers, supersized “nonprofits” (working through their for-profit vendors), and countless other large corporate and financial special interests have all lined up behind California’s Democratic party. For them, it’s a business decision. But the government glue that keeps this corporatist party closed, exclusive, regressive, and profitable for those privileged insiders, is public sector unions.

And to ensure the feudalist cabal that controls California is never overthrown by an enlightened electorate, we have California’s unionized public school monopoly, with Tony Thurmond available to do whatever he’s told to do by his union handlers. Instead of developing the skills in math and reading necessary to succeed in this complicated new century, Tony Thurmond is making sure California’s K-12 students learn every titillating nuance of modern gender theory, while also learning to harbor intractable racial resentment. Instead of developing the critical reasoning skills to recognize that California is unaffordable because environmentalist extremists have provided cover for special interests to lock up the supplies and jack up the prices for every basic essential – housing, lumber, energy, water, food – Tony Thurmond is instead making sure K-12 students develop crippling anxieties and fanatical compliance regarding anything having to do with the “climate emergency.”

Tony Thurmond, like pretty much every other candidate in California that is supported by public sector unions, is a marionette. His career, like all the rest of them, rests on obedience to an agenda that inverts a famous statement attributed to the Star Trek character Spock: “The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.”

***

Edward Ring is a contributing editor and senior fellow with the California Policy Center.

‘I was shocked by what I used to put up with.’ Why this CEO left San Francisco after 15 years for Bentonville, Arkansas, where the median home costs just about $400K

California government, by its policies, is committing suicide.  High taxes, bad regulations, lack of water and energy due to government action, terrible traffic due to refusal to build more freeways, high cost of living.  San Fran may be the worst—with homeless everywhere, including your doorway, human and dog feces everywhere, crime unabated.  The city has turned into New Delhi of the West Coast.

This is why folks and businesses are fleeing the city.  The good news is that due to the Internet and cities in other States that are responsibility, you can have a good life in America—but then, San Fran no longer considers itself part of America.

“He has a point: According to Realtor.com, the median sales price of a home is just over $400,000, compared to $1.5 million in San Francisco. And overall San Francisco is 147% more expensive than Bentonville, according to Sperling’s Best Places, with home prices being the biggest factor in that. 

While in San Francisco, Libin thought he had a high standard of living –  “I was the CEO and I had a pretty good quality of life because I spent a lot of money,” he says – but he says his standard of living in Bentonville is actually much higher. “I have a higher quality of life and 100% of the people that work with me could afford to live the way I am,” says Libin.

‘I was shocked by what I used to put up with.’ Why this CEO left San Francisco after 15 years for Bentonville, Arkansas, where the median home costs just about $400K

By Alisa Wolfson, Market Watch,  5/14/22 

The number of people leaving the Bay Area jumped 21% from March 2020 and September 2021, according to a report from University of California researchers. We talk to one man who left about why he did it. (Thinking of ditching your pricey city too? Check out the lowest mortgage rates you can get now here.) 

Life as a CEO in San Francisco became increasingly stressful for Phil Libin, founder of the app mmhmm and former CEO and executive chairman of software company Evernote. After 15 years of city living, Libin decided it was time to wait out COVID-19 somewhere peaceful. So he packed his bags, told all of his employees they could work virtually forever and headed east to Bentonville, Arkansas — a place he’d passed through once or twice before, that’s known for its artsy vibe, beautiful outdoors and as the headquarters of Walmart.

Z

Target Home Price

“I thought I’d go somewhere for a few months, so I got an Airbnb and then decided to stay,” says Libin, who hasn’t looked back on leaving the tech capital. The thing he misses the least? Traffic. “In San Francisco, I was Ubering everywhere. I looked back at my calendar and realized I was spending almost three hours every day in a car, going to the office or from meeting to meeting,” says Libin. Now, he works from home, or a few local places within walking distance. “My life here feels much more integrated. Things are much cheaper and money goes much further,” says Libin.

He has a point: According to Realtor.com, the median sales price of a home is just over $400,000, compared to $1.5 million in San Francisco. And overall San Francisco is 147% more expensive than Bentonville, according to Sperling’s Best Places, with home prices being the biggest factor in that. 

While in San Francisco, Libin thought he had a high standard of living –  “I was the CEO and I had a pretty good quality of life because I spent a lot of money,” he says – but he says his standard of living in Bentonville is actually much higher. “I have a higher quality of life and 100% of the people that work with me could afford to live the way I am,” says Libin. (Libin lets all of the mmhmm employees live wherever they want, and he says that about half of them who were in the Bay Area ended up moving.) “They can afford to eat at the same restaurants and be members of the same clubs,” says Libin. 

Dreaming of moving to a less pricey city, too? Here are some resources to help you make that decision:
• Housing: See what kind of a mortgage you can qualify for here, and look up what you might pay in rent here.
• Cost of living and other lifestyle factors: Compare the cost of living in a new city with your current city here, as well as things like taxes, crime and more.
• HealthcareLook up how U.S. News ranks your the new state ranks in terms of healthcare here.
• Jobs: If your current job won’t let you work remotely, you can hunt for jobs via sites like Indeed and Glassdoor.
• Crime, education and other lifestyle factors: Look these up on Niche.

Now, instead of living in an overpriced condominium, Libin has bought land and is planning to build a house. “I was in SF a few weeks ago for the first time in a year and I was shocked by what I used to put up with. I had forgotten about sitting in traffic. I would sit in the car for 90 minutes all the time and I thought it was okay. I never want to ask someone to do that,” says Libin.

Of course, the restaurants and culture of San Francisco are hard to beat, but it’s easy enough to travel from Bentonville, Libin says. “There are direct flights … It’s actually easier to fly domestically from here than SF because the airport is smaller and there’s no traffic. If I have to fly internationally to Asia or Europe, it adds a hop, but it’s worth it,” says Libin.

California’s schools are burning down and the teachers union bring the gasoline

In the past two years, California government schools have lost 270,000 students.  That does not count those lost in the 2021-2022 school year.  To reward the schools for their poor permanence, Guv Newsom is giving them $3 billion MORE, for fewer students and poorer results.  Parents have no say in the running of the schools—the unions and special interests like BLM and Planned parenthood have taken over.

“Thurmond has earned their favor. In nearly four years as the incumbent, he has advanced the unions’ demands to end charter schools, and endorsed teacher strikes — which, in every case, led to school closures and, where the strikes were successful, pressure for higher taxes, greater public debt, and expanded union control over teacher discipline. In every case, it’s poor families who, trapped in failing school districts and facing higher taxes, will bear the burden.”

Last year a bill was passed making it easier to stop the creation of new Charter schools—and easier to close already opened.  As they are closed watch as those parents move to private schools or out of State.  After all, who wants to send their child to a dangerous, failed school which teach hate of freedom and bigotry?

CALIFORNIA’S SCHOOLS ARE BURNING DOWN, AND CALIFORNIA’S SCHOOLS ARE BURNING DOWN, AND TEACHERS UNION LEADERS BRING THE GASOLINE

ERIC GREEN, California Policy Center,  5/12/22 

California’s schools are burning down and the teachers union bring the gasoline

In just three days in early May, California’s teachers unions opened the vault and moved $1.2 million into Tony Thurmond’s campaign for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Thurmond has earned their favor. In nearly four years as the incumbent, he has advanced the unions’ demands to end charter schools, and endorsed teacher strikes — which, in every case, led to school closures and, where the strikes were successful, pressure for higher taxes, greater public debt, and expanded union control over teacher discipline. In every case, it’s poor families who, trapped in failing school districts and facing higher taxes, will bear the burden.

The recent cash gusher came from just three sources. The California School Employees Association and the California Teachers Association each gave Thurmond $500,000. The California Federation of Teachers gave him Tony $200,000. The contributions were tracked on California Policy Center’s Twitter bot, “Union Watch” (@CalUnionWatch).

Lance Christensen, Thurmond’s only real opponent in the race, has brought in a total of just $21,201. (Full disclosure: Christensen is a colleague at the California Policy Center.)

Massive disparities like this one used to have liberals demanding campaign-finance reform. Decrying “dark money,” they campaigned for limits on political contributions from “wealthy” individuals or “powerful” corporations. The legal corruption at the heart of California’s politics — the near total control of statewide offices by union-backed candidates — is the real dark money.

These days, Thurmond is dealing with a problem of his — and the unions’ — creation: with California’s population in an unprecedented downturn, and many parents pulling their children out of the state’s public schools, Thurmond has hidden behind that last refuge of scoundrels, a task force. Thurmond says his will “be intentional about understanding the why behind the drops and the sharing of ideas and local efforts that we may contemplate scaling to make a real difference.”.

We can save him the effort of such “intentional” understanding: he’s responsible, and resigning might be his most significant contribution to restoring the state’s K-12 schools.

Gov. Newsom running for president during primary

This is NOT from Babylon Bee.  No, it is from a well respected, and friend, journalist.  According to tom Elias, Gavin Newsom is running for President in 2024.  The only different between Biden and Newsom>  Gavin is not demented, just arrogant and manipulative.  He killed the California economy, he killed the elderly with his pushing them into unhealthy living facilities during his ill advised lockdown—and then ended education for millions.  Now two years later, California government schools have lost 270,000 students—not including those lost in the 2021-2022 school year.  He is so economically illiterate, instead of cutting funding for schools, he is adding a $3 billion—though having 270,000 fewer students!

As a Democrat he qualifies to run—a bigot, hates women, spends lot of money and does not follow his own rules.  Plus, he is willing to spend $125 of our tax dollars to kill babies from other States—makes him a real Democrat.

“Newsom wasn’t merely campaigning for abortion rights, he was aiming to become the de facto national party leader, and its next presidential candidate, no matter how hard he might deny it now.”

Gov. Newsom running for president during primary

Tom Elias, Ventura County Star,  5/16/22 

Just watching him, you might think that after he secures a November ballot slot in the California primary election ending June 7, Gov. Gavin Newsom would hop a quick flight to Iowa or New Hampshire and press the flesh with voters who will decide early on the next Democratic presidential nominee.

From the moment the news service Politico released a draft U.S. Supreme Court decision likely to remove women’s right to abortion on demand, Newsom has focused laser-like on that issue, criticizing his own party almost as much as rival Republicans who rubber-stamped the three Donald Trump high court choices behind the proposed ruling.

Although he still has to take care of the little matter of getting reelected governor of the nation’s largest state, Newsom looks very much the presidential candidate.

Why not? President Joseph Biden looks frail and vulnerable in a 2024 reelection run. Onetime prominent contenders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are now secondhand merchandise. Vice President Kamala Harris, the former California senator who has long been Newsom’s stablemate and friend, has never gotten past the first two presidential primaries and would not be a strong candidate.

Newsom might be all the Democrats have if they want to avoid a second term of Trump or a Trumpist figure like Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis, whom Newsom loves to lambaste.

Newsom plainly figures he may soon tower over the Democratic field, and he’s apparently decided the way to assure that is to seize on the likely demise of the Roe v. Wade doctrine of privacy that enables abortion.

So he’s gone after anyone not vocally opposing that probable decision, early and often.

DeSantis, who promoted and signed a bill severely limiting abortion rights in Florida, is a frequent target. Newsom began attacking DeSantis in response to the Floridian’s blasting California policy on COVID-19. “We see students denied an education, workers denied employment and Americans denied freedoms…” DeSantis said.

Newsom’s quick response: We also see 40,000 live people who would have been dead had California followed Florida’s non-closure policies. He added, “I do not look for inspiration to that particular governor.”

But once the demise of Roe v. Wade became likely, Newsom hit harder, even flailing against Democrats he thinks have been too passive.

About Republicans, he said in a campaign funding pitch that they are not pro-life, but pro-birth. “Many of those celebrating the draft opinion oppose funding for pre-natal care,” he said. “Many of those celebrating oppose paid family leave. Many of those celebrating tried to take away health care under the Affordable Care Act. These people don’t even believe in climate science, and that is to say nothing of their handling of the pandemic.”

Of DeSantis, he said, “Anyone been paying attention to what that guy…is doing in Florida? The attacks on the LGBTQ community? They’re going after social-emotional learning in schools…I mean, they make their stuff up out of whole cloth.”

It’s clear Newsom’s pitch this fall and in any presidential run will that be abortion opponents are unwilling to help care for the children they want to see born — or almost anyone else. he said, “They’re pro-birth, and then you’re on your own” (regardless of your financial status).

“We have to beat…every far-right radical running for office in California.” And by implication, everywhere else, too.

But he also attacked Democrats for passivity in the face of determined Republicans pushing abortion bans and other policies, like forbidding the mere mention of gays in Florida elementary schools.

“I can’t take any more (Joe) Manchins,” he said of the West Virginia Democratic senator who has stymied many Biden proposals. “And where is the Democratic Party? Why aren’t we standing up more firmly, calling this out. We need to stand up, where’s the counteroffensive?”

That infuriated Newsom’s fellow San Francisco Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who went on national television to wonder how he could miss her Democratic majority’s efforts to preserve Roe v. Wade.

“I have no idea why anyone would make that statement,” the offended Pelosi said.

Here’s why: Newsom wasn’t merely campaigning for abortion rights, he was aiming to become the de facto national party leader, and its next presidential candidate, no matter how hard he might deny it now.

Email Thomas Elias at [email protected]

This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Gov. Newsom running for president during primary

HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views, 5/16/22    

.

VERY BIG STORY!!!!

(Disclosure:  I have not endorsed any candidate for any Statewide office in the primary)

NCIS Special Agent Jethro Gibbs in his Rule #68 makes it clear, “there are no coincidences”.  So why is Rob Stutzman being paid $25,000 to be a strategist for Michael Shellenberger, candidate for Governor?  While the State GOP has endorsed Senator Brian Dahle and there are several solid conservatives also running, Shellenberger is an NPP—endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC, Tucker Carlson calls him the man to beat Newsom and the Wall Street Journal did a feature story on him (no similar story on Dahle).

Who is Stutzman?

capitolweekly.net › rob-stutzmanNo. 97: Capitol Weekly Top 100 – Capitol Weekly | Capitol …

Stutzman is a charter member of the “Never Trump” wing of the Republican Party, and called conservative commentator Laura Ingraham “an idiot” for her recent attack on Arizona Republican”

Also, as his press person is Beth Miller, also a No Trumper.  Why are the No Trumpers backing/helping this guy?  The more votes he gets, the fewer votes the GOP candidates get—making the California Republican Party look even weaker than it already is.

The 2022 Manchurian Candidate is Michael Shellenberger—fronting for the No Trump folks.

TALKING POINTS

  1.  You can’t make these things up.  The guy who organized the Lincoln Project to defeat President Trump and SEVEN GOP Senators—yet is still calling himself a “GOP Strategist”, Mike Madrid has a new client.  Per the L.A. Times:

— “Column: In Ukraine, anti-Trump strategists take on Russia and Putin,” by the LATimes’ Mark Z. Barabak: Madrid, a Republican campaign consultant, has spent much of his political career tackling tough causes, including fighting within his party to broaden the GOP’s appeal to working-class and Latino voters, end the scapegoating of immigrants and stand up to the bigotry and boorishness of Trump.

Maybe the California Republican Party should study what they are doing in Nevada?

 (Periodically the California Political News and Views will publish tidbits of political news, to keep you in the loop of what the pooh bahs know.  The phrase “tom/tom’s” comes from my mentor, Lorelei Kinder who never passed a rumor, just called to tell me what she heard on the “Tom/Tom’s”.  This column is named in her honor.)

The Truth About Katie Porter

Just this past week, the vile Democrat Congresswoman from Orange County made it clear she has NO respect for the poor or human life.  She suggested that if you are poor, don’t get pregnant, get an abortion.

She is just another rich, white liberal—like the “Native American Elizabeth Warren—and the 193-‘s styled communist Bernie Sanders, who hates people of color and supports the eugenics of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

“Her supporters (the well-to-do, impeccably credentialed white professionals) might be more reluctant to admit that perhaps the main reason they like Porter so much is that she reminds them of themselves (obnoxious know-it-alls) and how much better off the country would be if they were in charge of everything. It’s the same reason why they like Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, and Liz Warren (Porter’s former law professor and mentor), whose failed presidential campaigns made clear that while Ivy League grads may run the Democratic Party, they don’t get to choose the nominee in national elections.

Just another white, liberal bigot.

The Truth About Katie Porter

Elizabeth Warren 2.0: Liberal elites love her because she’s one of them

Andrew Stiles, Washington Free Beacon,   5/14/22 

Rep. Katie Porter (D., Calif.) has become a minor celebrity among mainstream journalists and other politics-obsessed white professionals who voted for Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 Democratic primary.

The deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is a recurring guest on MSNBC after making a name for herself by hectoring business executives and Trump administration officials. She is the star of numerous YouTube clips with titles such as, “Katie Porter goes megaviral with MUST-SEE takedown during hearing,” “Katie Porter ROASTS greedy health insurance providers,” and “Lawmaker reveals trunk full of rice during questioning of oil executives.”

Porter’s niche group of admirers would probably describe her as a powerful advocate for working families, a thorn in the side of evil corporations, and so relatable OMG have you seen her Twitter bio? It says: “Minivan-driving single mom, law professor, consumer advocate [car emoji] [nerd emoji] Usually carrying a whiteboard, always bringing the receipts.” How fun!

Her supporters (the well-to-do, impeccably credentialed white professionals) might be more reluctant to admit that perhaps the main reason they like Porter so much is that she reminds them of themselves (obnoxious know-it-alls) and how much better off the country would be if they were in charge of everything. It’s the same reason why they like Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, and Liz Warren (Porter’s former law professor and mentor), whose failed presidential campaigns made clear that while Ivy League grads may run the Democratic Party, they don’t get to choose the nominee in national elections.

Porter grew up in Iowa, the daughter of a “farmer-turned-banker,” which sounds more down-to-earth than “banker.” Her mother founded a media empire for the quilting community. Porter’s résumé is as follows:

Prep school: Phillips Academy (Tuition: $57,800 per year)

College: Yale University (Tuition: $62,250 per year)

Post-graduate: Harvard Law School (Tuition: $70,430)

That works out to $691,500 worth of elite education. No wonder our nation’s journalists are so fond of her. Porter, 48, has an estimated net worth of $1.6 million. She listed no student loan debt on her 2018 financial disclosure, which detailed assets ranging in value from $1.1 million to as much as $3 million. Her liabilities include two mortgages worth between $300,000 and $600,000. The lawmaker’s mother, quilting titan Elizabeth Porter, is listed as the lender for one of the mortgages.

Nevertheless, she persists in playing the part of a working class champion and “minivan-driving single mom.” Never mind that Porter’s congressional salary of $174,000 is nearly four times higher than the median income for single mothers in the United States. The law professor, who was awarded tenure at the University of California-Irvine in 2011, rarely mentions her considerable wealth when railing against the number of millionaires in Congress and how “expensive” it is to run for political office.

Porter recently made headlines by complaining about the rising cost of groceries and chiding her Democratic colleagues for neglecting voter concerns about inflation. Perhaps the economy is so bad under President Joe Biden that even millionaires with multiple Ivy League degrees are struggling to make ends meet. Maybe it’s all part of the act. Porter has a history of bending the truth to pad her “everywoman” credentials. For example, she once falsely claimed to be the “only single, working mother of young kids” in Congress.

Whether or not she is actually struggling as much as ordinary, less-credentialed non-millionaires to put food on the table, Porter’s attempts to empathize with voters frustrated by the soaring cost of food and other necessities suggests she is not as out of touch with reality as her admirers in the media and other left-wing circles. At the very least, she knows how to read the polling data. (Elite education has its benefits.)

Porter’s popularity as the angry lady with the whiteboard in those viral videos has helped her amass an impressive $18 million campaign war chest heading into the 2022 midterms. She is rumored to be eyeing a Senate run in 2024 to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who will turn 89 in June but has yet to announce her retirement despite the party’s increasingly public anxiety about her dementia-addled brain.

First the Democratic “rising star” will have to win reelection in a brand new “lean Democratic” district. Porter is running in an open primary against four Republican candidates. Win or lose, she will continue to be a fixture on MSNBC and the other liberal networks. Her cult following among politics-obsessed elite professionals will continue to grow until she is inevitably persuaded to run for president someday.

(Fact check: Katie Porter will never be president.)