THE 90% ISSUES – VERSION B
by Doug

We are constantly told that our nation is deeply divided: Democrat vs Republican, Rural vs Urban, Rich vs Poor, Coastal Elites vs Middle America, and on and on. In spite of this, I STRONGLY suspect that most people want the exact same things. So my question is, are there issues on which we all, or almost all, say 85-90% and up, actually agree. If so, can we agree on solutions? Let’s take issues first, and put off solutions for the moment.

I’d start with SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS: where you live, where you work, where you shop. You want your elderly mother, or your wife, or anybody, to be able to go to the store at 10PM to get some milk, and to know that it’s safe for them to go there and back. Can we all agree that THAT’S a worthy goal of Government? Nearly unanimous, I would guess.

What’s next? LOWER PRICES? Is there anybody advocating for HIGHER prices, or can we all agree that, at least for food, energy, housing, transportation, we all want to pay less? For lots of folks in our country right now, this is clearly issue #1. That’s two issues we agree on, probably both above 95%.

How about high-quality EDUCATION for kids, at least K-12? Maybe we disagree about what constitutes “high-quality” education, but for the moment we put that aside and agree in general that we want kids to grow up knowledgeable, able to read well, do math, and able to prosper and become healthy adults. Anyway, we all agree that we want kids to get something that qualifies as a “high-quality education”. It’s still a 95% issue.

Next up? Good-paying JOBS and entrepreneurial OPPORTUNITIES in your neighborhood? I would think that’s something a vast majority want, another 95% issue. CLEAN AIR and WATER, anyone? My guess is 99% approval. We’re at 5 MAJOR ISSUES where the vast majority of people, regardless of political affiliation, want the same things! How about “ELECTION INTEGRITY”? Don’t we ALL want fair and open elections, where it’s EASY for people who have the right to vote, to vote, and where it’s impossible or extremely difficult to cheat? Somehow, I’m guessing we’re still well above 90%. What about HOMELESSNESS, “Less or More?”. Let’s see. I’ll go with 90-95% saying “Less” is better. Again, we may disagree somewhat on HOW, but the direction of desired change is close to universal. That’s SEVEN issues on which we agree, and probably many are high on people’s priorities list! (It’s interesting, but that list of 90% issues looks a lot like a Conservative’s “Wish List”.)

I would certainly ask Democrats, “Do you have any suggestions to add to such a list, any issues of near-universal acceptance of a direction of needed change?” If they have one it simply is added to the list. (However, it is more common for their suggestion to be some sub-category or example already covered by the above, or it lacks the near-universality criterion. After all, their “Big 3” apparently are Climate Change, Abortion, and LGBTQ+ issues, and the people of America are nowhere near universal agreement on those issues.) So now, what issues should Government address first, those with near-universal agreement, or those that are highly controversial, like paying off some people’s student loans with other people’s tax money, or letting 15 million Illegal Aliens into the country? If we get agreement on this point, the battle is 80% won. So now we are on to possible solutions.

Safe neighborhoods? Here’s your choice: Defund the Police, Buy-Back the guns from Law-abiding citizens, No-cash Bail, legalize theft up to $950, release prisoners because of Covid, arrest them 15 or 20 times before you decide to incarcerate, or … you LOCK UP criminals. Studies show that 3% of the population commits 60% of the crime, and if you lock THEM up, your neighborhood suddenly, magically, becomes much safer. It’s been used for thousands of years, and it works. Your neighborhood might not be perfectly safe (no place is), but it’ll be a LOT safer than it is now. My guess is, if both sides could do a brief presentation in front of 1000 non-partisan people, and ask which approach they preferred, that 90% would go with the basic “lock-em-up” philosophy. Maybe it’s as low as 80%. Let’s try THAT first!

Now we’re on to “Lower Prices”. Well, how DO you get lower prices? By Government-mandated Price Controls and more Regulations? Or by encouraging PRODUCTIVITY, especially in the Energy Sector, which, literally, fuels all other productive industries: Agriculture, Building, Manufacturing, Mining, Logging, and more. When energy is PLENTIFUL, the costs will come down. When that happens, a cascade through all other industries will follow. This will benefit us AND handicap our geopolitical rivals: Russia and China. Again, what do we THINK Americans would actually prefer, the government control approach or encouraging productivity? I’ll go with 80% for productivity.

“High-Quality Education”? Well, what does that mean? Some people want a focus on pure Academics: Reading, Math, Science, History, Geography, Civics, Literature, Art and Music, Philosophy. Others want Social Learning; sexuality, discussions of Race, of Social Structure, perhaps what might be called a “Liberal perspective”. Fine: We probably can never get these two sides to agree, so the answer is – School Choice! Each parent controls the education of their child or children, is entitled to some reasonable proportion of the tax money intended for education (perhaps, one might suggest, their child’s FULL share?), with some controlling proviso that it actually be used for education. This has the advantage of avoiding the pitfalls of some authority selecting “controversial” curriculum requirements which would then be applied to all. Some reasonable achievement requirements in the areas of Reading and Math might be certifiable to qualify a school to operate under the program. Other details may vary among different states, but the idea of School Choice to improve on the quality we are currently getting, is undeniable to any objective observer. Any other suggestions? Try to answer without saying “More Money!”

Jobs and Entrepreneurism is next. Now we’re starting to get into an arcane area, as many people don’t have a good understanding of Capitalism and Free Markets. They think “Capitalism” means the guy with the most money wins. Instead, we ask “What creates good-paying, long term jobs in a neighborhood that needs them? Government programs? Or government jobs?” That’s clearly not a productive solution: it makes those jobs a drain on everybody else, instead of adding to the pie. What we really want are jobs that PRODUCE enough to earn enough to sustain a middle-class living and raising a family. The process of creating these can be facilitated by creating “Enterprise Zones”, designated areas in need of jobs, where businesses or individuals who invest there and hire previously-unemployed LOCALS get a tax break. This creates several positive effects: Employment for previously-unemployed people, income injected into the community, higher levels of community participation, an improving neighborhood, an increasingly educated and skillful workforce, and more. Details can be hashed out, and maybe the Dems do have some good ideas on how to promote this, but the goal should always be the same: jobs in the PRIVATE sector to the greatest degree possible.

This next one probably surprises some people: that a “Conservative” would suggest this! Clean Air and Water are obviously necessary and desirable, and, after all, what is Conservatism but the idea that we should “Conserve”, or SAVE, the most desirable things for us, our society and our posterity? We probably agree pretty unanimously that anti-pollution laws should be strictly enforced, with large, painful penalties, plus forcing polluters to pay for cleaning up the mess they made. That should make many Democrats happy (and help improve the situation!). What next? Prior restraint of some kind? Reasonable regulation? Perhaps. Let’s have a public, open, nation-wide debate on what policies are most effective and/or least intrusive. This may be an issue on which the Left may have some worthy ideas. Let’s hear and discuss them.

We’re really making great progress here. We’ve covered 5 major issues now, and while recognizing differences of opinion, it feels pretty clear what courses of action should be taken for each issue: Public Safety, Prices, Education, Jobs. (Clean Air and Water probably has the most “nibbling at the margins” arguments.) Each solution may have a mix of “Conservative” and “Progressive” elements, but each element should have some HIGH degree of public support before it is enacted, perhaps a “threshold” of 55% approval for that particular “remedy”. And everything should be focused on remedies. No ancillary goals, such as DEI, or Racial Quotas, or any other form of social engineering, should be considered as a criterion for enactment, unless they can show an 80-90% approval rate.

Election Integrity might be a toughie. One side yells “Voter Suppression” even though voter numbers increase constantly in every demographic. The other side hollers “Fraud”, but has hardly been able to make a 90% convincing argument, to say the least. Perhaps we could try something with a “sunset provision”, meaning it will expire in a fixed time unless intentionally renewed. A 10- or 12-year period should be enough to determine if voters are being suppressed by safeguards like Voter ID, a return to Voting Day (or maybe Weekend), banning Voting Machines and returning to Paper Ballots. This is a case where the appearance is almost as important as the reality, because we not only want free and fair elections, we want everybody to BELIEVE they are free and fair. A Government program which confirms Citizenship and provides a FREE VOTER ID to anyone who needs one, would be approved by a large majority of Conservatives, I’m certain. Other suggestions are welcome.

Homelessness also presents a bit of a conundrum. We all agree that we want LESS Homelessness, but one side favors a “Humane” or “Tolerant” attitude, while the other wants a “Tough Love”, more disciplinarian, approach. How to reconcile? Perhaps, since we’re talking about the “efficiency” of solutions, we could simply do an empirical study which FAIRLY looks at both policies (reasonably broadly defined, so we have a substantial data set) and simply measures results. Of course, there has to be some consideration of Human and Constitutional Rights in determining the worthiness of various programs, but let’s try to allow a broad swath of policies, at least at first, to see if they qualify as possible solutions. Again, any specific proposals that have reasonable chances of success in the goal of REDUCING Homelessness should be considered.

Wow! Did I just solve the problems of the whole country in one essay? Probably not: there are issues which many believe need addressing where no particular solution reaches the 90% threshold: the high costs of health care, secondary education, and other things, abortion (perhaps the MOST contentious issue of all), Racism (both real and perceived), the ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East, the threat from China, security at the border (though this might be a 90% issue now). But if Federal and State Governments were to focus on those top 7 issues, a lot could be accomplished. The security and prosperity of the nation as a whole would rise, a feeling of UNITY might be generated (something we currently sorely lack), and the benefits would extend to a vast majority of all citizens. Perhaps some forum can be created where these ideas can be given a full hearing.

CRT DECONSTRUCTION
by Doug

I could talk about this for a long time, but I’ll confine my remarks to several key points. First of all, Critical Race Theory is not a “Theory”. Its proponents are taking advantage of the public’s common confusion of “Theory” and “Hypothesis”. A Hypothesis is an educated guess, which MUST be tested against reality and competing hypotheses to determine its Truth or Falsity. A Theory, on the other hand, like Newton’s “Theory of Gravity”, or “Atomic Theory”, or Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity”, is an explanatory framework which covers a wide variety of phenomena and has NO KNOWN COUNTEREXAMPLES. As far as I or anyone else knows, the “Critical Race Hypothesis” has never been tested, either experimentally or observationally, against competing hypotheses. I’m not even sure that it can be expressed in any testable form, such as “Gravity is a force of attraction between any two masses which is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.” If there is such a statement, I would like to hear it propounded. In fact, we get the opposite: poorly defined terms and misleading generalities. Ibram X. Kendi, perhaps the leading proponent of CRT, was recently asked his definition of “Racism”. His answer? I quote: “A collection of Racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by Racist ideas.” Any fourth grader should know that this is a completely unacceptable definition, since it uses the term itself to create the definition. If I used the term “Chorkist” in a speech, and you asked me what a Chorkist is, and I said “It’s someone who believes in Chorkism.”, you wouldn’t learn a thing. This response to what should have been an easy question completely disqualifies CRT from any serious academic discussion.

Maybe I’m wrong, but from what I’ve read, including many articles by supporters of CRT, the basic hypothesis is something like this: All inequalities of outcome, or “Inequities”, in our society can be explained by “Systemic Racism”, or some form of bias. It’s interesting that “Systemic Racism” is itself never well-defined, but I would note first that, if our “Systems” are Racist, then the political Left is entirely responsible for this. After all, they control virtually all our “Systems”: Hollywood and the Media, the Government Bureaucracy, the big Unions, Academia (both K-12 and College), the Big Tech monopolies, Corporate and Government HR Departments, the Legal System through the Leftist Bar Associations, and more. With its long history of support for Slavery, Segregation, Jim Crow Laws, and the KKK, and its opposition to Integration, Reparations for ex-Slaves, Civil Rights legislation and the 13th and 14th Amendments, it’s the Democrat party and its supporters which should be “Cancelled” immediately and perhaps forced to pay Reparations.

But back to the hypothesis. Is it true that all inequities are caused by some form of bias? Example 1: Prisons, in this state, in our country, and around the world, are filled with MEN, in spite of the fact that women make up more than half the population. This obvious “inequity” must be the result of bias, according to CRT, but is it? Is our “Patriarchal” society, and all the others in the world, biased against men? Of course not. Men commit most of the crimes, especially the most serious crimes: Murder, Assault, Grand Theft, Robbery, and Rape. That’s why most prison inmates are men. This is a clear example of an obvious “inequity” without any underlying systemic or other bias. Strike 1 for CRT. Example 2: Our population is approximately 64% Caucasian, but the National Basketball Association has only 17% Caucasian players, and is 74% African-American, derived from a group which makes up only 12% of the population. Is the NBA Racist against Whites? I don’t think so. Every team obtains players that they think have the best chance of helping them win Games and Championships, pretty much without regard to Race, Religion, or National Origin. I suspect most teams would draft orange players with purple polka dots if they thought it would help them to win. The predominance of Black players is simply because of their superior skill at playing Basketball, usually obtained, I would guess, through hours and hours of practice. No anti-White bias need apply. That’s Strike 2! Example 3: The Big Tech firms, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., constantly lecture us on how fair-minded, anti-racist, unbigoted, and generally how wonderful they and their management are. But an examination of their workforce reveals a startling problem: less than 5% of their employees are Black, and, among the Leadership positions at these companies, this number is even lower. So, either these Leftist organizations are horribly Racist, or, perhaps, there is a shortage of well-qualified Minorities for these positions. I don’t know the answer, but, as far as I can tell, there has never been a “Scientific” examination of this question. I certainly haven’t heard anyone arguing that “Systemic Racism” is the reason. Strike 3, you’re out! I could go on and on with more examples (the dominance of Hispanic players in Major League Baseball or Canadian players in the National Hockey League, the proportions of Gay people (especially men) in Show Business, Women teachers in K-6, etc.) but I hope the point is clear: rather than teaching students untested and highly dubious and divisive hypotheses, let’s get back to basics and make sure ALL students can read and write well, do Math at least through Algebra, know the FACTS of U.S. and World History, both the good and the bad, learn Science and Engineering, Civics, Art and Literature, Geography and maybe some Philosophy. These are the subjects that enhance people’s lives and actually drive our society forward, both materially and spiritually. There’s plenty to learn and precious little time to teach it all. Let’s not be a bunch of Chorkists!

WHAT A TANGLED WEB
Published on YourNews.com on 5/16/24

I’m a little tired of hearing “But Donald Trump’s a liar” from Dems. Huh? Like Dem politicians are “Truth-Tellers”? Are you kidding? The Wuhan Lab-leak theory was “debunked”? LIE! The border is under control? LIE! Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation? LIE! Inflation is “transitory.”? WRONG! “My son did nothing wrong.” LIE! If you take the jab, you won’t get Covid? LIE! “I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” LIE! The Russia-Collusion delusion? A LIE made up by Hillary Clinton! “We welcome Illegal Immigrants to our city!” YEAH, UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY GET THERE! (Remember Martha’s Vineyard?) “My son took no money from China.” LIE! Kamala Harris’ story about “Fweedom”? LIE! “You like your doctor, you keep your doctor, period!” LIE! (5 MILLION people lost the doctors they liked.) Benghazi was caused by an Internet Video? LIE! Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine don’t work and are dangerous? LIE! “Who says protests have to be peaceful?” THE CONSTITUTION! The idea that police are “hunting down” Black men in our cities? LIE! “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.” LIE! Antifa is just an idea (Jerry Nadler). LIE! Joe Biden’s scholarships and his college record? LIES! Elizabeth Warren is a Native American? LIE! Hillary Clinton was named after Sir Edmund Hillary? LIE! Beau Biden died in combat in Iraq? LIE! Masks or the jab or Social Distancing prevent the spread of Covid? WRONG! “I called it (Benghazi) a “terrorist attack””. LIE! The Trump campaign was never spied on? LIE! “I was arrested with Nelson Mandela.” (Joe Biden) LIE! “Joe Biden grew up going to Jewish synagogues/Black churches/Puerto Rican culture/truck driving/working underground and coming up at night to play football.”? LIES, LIES, LIES! “I never spoke to my son about his business dealings.” LIE! “Inflation was at 9% when I took office.” LIE! Trump gave away the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King? LIE! And I could go on and on: Jussie Smollett, Kyle Rittenhouse, Duke lacrosse team, “What difference does it make now?”, there’s no crime problem: I had a great dinner (Don Lemon), the protests of 2020 were “mostly peaceful” (25 people were KILLED, plus 2 BILLION dollars’ worth of damage!), Border Patrol Agents “whipping incident”, the glaciers will disappear, and more. So enough already with “But Trump’s a liar”. You can tell if Dem politicians are lying if they’re moving their mouths and words are coming out.

Everyone should be able to recite this, or some reasonable facsimile of it, the next time your dumb brother-in-law tries “But Trump’s such a liar.” Then finish up with “Let’s hear YOUR list.” To quote Hamlet, “The rest is silence.”

California's gasoline prices are influenced by several components, including taxes and fees. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Additional Factors

The Brief

LOS ANGELES - The energy crisis triggered by the U.S.-Iran conflict has hit Southern California harder than almost any other region in the nation.

On Tuesday, regular self-serve gasoline in Los Angeles County hit an average of $6.005, a 1.1-cent increase from the previous day. Neighboring counties are following a similar trajectory:

What They're Saying

What You Can Do

The Source

This report is based on daily regional price data from the AAA Gas Prices dashboard and GasBuddy’s real-time tracking. Details regarding military impacts and federal policy were corroborated by Associated Press reports and official statements from the International Energy Agency and the White House.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is set to increase gas taxes by approximately 50 to 65 cents starting July 1, 2025, as part of the state’s updated Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Efforts by California Republicans in the Assembly to suspend the constitution and bring Assembly Bill 12 to the floor, which aimed to halt the tax increase, failed with an 18-39 vote. The measure is expected to raise gas prices further. The gas tax increase has drawn criticism from Republican politicians, who argue it will burden consumers, while the Democratic supermajority supports the measure. The vote reflects ongoing political divisions in California over environmental regulations and taxation policies.

THE CENTER SQUARE — A new analysis has found California gasoline prices could rise to $8.44 per gallon by the end of 2026 after the pending closure of two refineries—one-fifth of the state’s refining capacity—and the onset of new state regulations.

California gas prices are already the nation’s highest, at $4.78 per gallon for regular-grade gasoline Tuesday, according to AAA.

The new study from University of Southern California professor Michael A. Mische examined California’s historical gas prices, oil supply, and refining capacity, and modeled the likely impact of refinery closures and costly new fossil fuel and refinery fees and regulations.

“The shutdown of the two California-based refineries could possibly place the Golden State in a precarious economic situation and create a gasoline deficit potentially ranging from 6.6 million to 13.1 million gallons a day, as defined by the shortfall between consumption and production,” wrote Mische. “Reductions in fuel supplies of this magnitude will resonate throughout multiple supply chains affecting production, costs, and prices across many industries, such as air travel, food delivery, agricultural production, manufacturing, electrical-power generation, distribution,

“Based on current demand and consumption assumptions and estimates, the combined consequences of the 2025 Phillips 66 refinery closure and the April 2026 Valero refinery closure, together with the potential impact of legislative actions such as, but not limited to, the new [low-carbon fuel standard], increase in excise taxes, Cap and Trade, SBX1-2, and ABX2-1, the estimated average consumer price of regular gasoline could potentially increase by as much as 75% from the April 23, 2025, price of $4.816 to $7.348 to $8.435 a gallon by calendar-year end 2026,” continued Mische.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/06/04/california-assembly-approves-50-65-cent-gas-tax-increase-under-low-carbon-fuel-standard-gas-prices-could-hit-8-44-gallon-in-2026/

For Updated info on CARB’s increase, follow this link: https://californiaglobe.com/fr/65-cent-per-gallon-tax-hike-halted-by-carb-following-rejection-by-office-of-administrative-law/

BREAKING NORMS
by Doug

I heard something unintentionally funny the other day. Sam Harris, Leftist, was on TV and said that Donald Trump might have broken no laws, but he was breaking established norms, or something similar. I thought, sure, and the Dems are the “Guardians of Tradition”, I guess. To quote Joe Biden, “C’mon, man!” How about same-sex marriage, transgendering kids in school without telling their parents, drag queen story hour? Traditional values, anyone? Providing abortions to minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent? I could sure see John Adams doing that! Maybe, in public schools, we should teach little kids graphic lessons about sex, and that the country they live in, or getting the right answer in Math, is horribly racist? That’s what WE all grew up with, right? What about letting 17 million illegal aliens into the country in just three years and providing them with housing, food, transportation and jobs? Not exactly what France was thinking of when they gave us the Statue of Liberty! Or releasing thousands of violent felons from prison, decriminalizing theft up to $1000, instituting no-cash bail, refusing to prosecute men who push women in front of subway trains or beat the living daylights out of them, and telling employees to do NOTHING about massive smash-and-grab robberies, even if they want to? Not exactly from the classical playbook, eh? What about massive campus protests in support of a declared Terrorist organization with a stated genocidal intent? That was REAL common when we were younger, right? Or Homelessness. Is it “normal” to ENCOURAGE homelessness by providing bums with tents, cell phones, public toilets, booze, and drug needles and other paraphernalia and letting them take over sidewalks, streets and parks? Or letting them do drugs or walk around naked in public, right in front of stores, businesses, and children? Somehow, I don’t recall THAT being the norm in San Francisco, New York, and other Democrat-led cities when I was growing up. I’ve got an idea! Let’s pack the Supreme Court by adding FOUR NEW JUSTICES just so we can get our way! I bet that’s happened LOTS of times in American history! Or let’s add two new states, both strongly Left-leaning, so we can control the Senate far into the future! That’s a great idea, steeped in long tradition! Let’s elect a President who can’t even speak a coherent sentence, who clearly suffers from cognitive damage, who mumbles and stumbles his way through even a simple speech or interview. Been there, done that, right? Why not Abortion on Demand, right up until the moment of birth (or maybe even AFTER birth!). THAT was certainly on the agenda during Bill Clinton’s term as President in the late 90’s, right? GIVE ME A BREAK! The Dems are CONSTANTLY accusing the Republicans of doing exactly what they themselves are guilty of, whether it’s rioting, spying on the opposition, corruption, favoritism, gaslighting the public, being obsessed with Race, or breaking norms. C’MON, MAN!