Once upon a time when our politicians did not tend to apologize for our country’s prior actions, here’s a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our great country.
JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60’s when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO.
DeGaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?”
DeGaulle did not respond. You could have heard a pin drop.
When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ’empire building’ by George Bush.
He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
You could have heard a pin drop.
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?”
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?”
You could have heard a pin drop.
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?”
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.”
You could have heard a pin drop.
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE…
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
“You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
“Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.”
The American said, “The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.”
“Impossible.. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France!”
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then, he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchman to show a passport to.”
You could have heard a pin drop.
Tribune Publishing said this morning that Patrick Soon-Shiong, by some accounts the wealthiest man in Los Angeles, is buying 12.9 percent of the company’s stock and paying $15 a share, the elevated price that Gannett has offered in a bid to take over the company. Soon-Shiong will become the second-largest shareholder, get a seat on the board of Tribune Publishing and be vice-chairman. The Los Angeles Times says it will be a $70.5 million investment. The company is also entering into a licensing deal with Soon-Shiong’s NantWorks for use of what Forbes calls in its story “over 100 machine vision and artificial intelligence technology patents for news media applications.” Per Forbes, Tribune would earn the first $80 million in revenues from NantWorks’s AI patents and a 6% royalty after that. Tribune would issue 333,333 shares of stock to a NantWorks subsidiary, NantStudio.
Patrick Soon-Shiong is a South African-born American surgeon, medical researcher, businessman, philanthropist, and professor at University of California at Los Angeles.
Forbes magazine estimates Mr. Soon-Shiong’s wealth at $11.9 Billion as of today. He was born in South Africa and holds degrees from University of the Witwatersrand, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of British Columbia. He is 63 years old and married. He is currently chairman of the Chan Soon-Shiong Family Foundation and chairman and CEO of the Chan Soon-Shiong Institute for Advanced Health, National LambdaRail, the Healthcare Transformation Institute and NantWorks, LLC. In October 2010, he bought Earvin “Magic” Johnson’s minority ownership stake in the Los Angeles Lakers. He lives in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles.
This proves you don’t have to be a flamboyant loudmouth to be a billionaire.
You may have thought that Megyn Kelly was a serious reporter when she challenged Donald Trump at the first GOP debate on August 6, 2015. That was where she challenged Mr. Trump on his treatment of women. You would be wrong. Her real intent, and the intent of Fox News, was to obtain attention grabbing headlines that would result in higher viewership of that cable station. The plan worked even better than they had anticipated.
How do I know this? Watch yesterday’s interview by Kelly of Trump. (the video appears to be blocked. It can be found on Youtube) Not one serous question was asked about the campaign for president. Not one serious question was asked about anything. It was all fluff. Why now? Fox wants to continue the appearance of Mr. Trump on their programs. So they made nice. In addition the ending of the program was an advertisement for a Megyn Kelly written book. The new book about her year covering — and feuding — with presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Fox News and Megyn Kelly are not alone in their pursuit of the money that the election generates. MSNBC and CNN have coverage every hour of the day and night on the election and of course their focus on Donald Trump. When it comes to in depth analysis DO NOT look for any of that, even on Sunday morning programs like Meet the Press and Face the Nation.
That leaves the citizenry of America to figure out who should receive their vote based upon the limited, media controlled information and the information posted on line by “independent” thinkers. Is anyone really non-partisan?
Only in LA: Our Cold Property edition
By Steve Harvey | May 15, 2016 10:20 PM
Welcome to the tour, where you’ll get the real dirt on housing in this region.
We don’t need to tell you: real estate is sexy around here
Even the weeds are special.
But Cold Property has something for everyone. You like to pay way too much for stuff? No problem.
Sure it might hurt a little.
Tired of those deadly dull neighborhoods? There’s action afoot here!
You want to discourage visitors. Easy.
Oh, and by the way, if you’re not ready to buy yet we have other tantalizing possibilities for you.
Steve Harvey can be reached at email@example.com. His Twitter address is @sharvey9.
The following article was posted by The Nation magazine on February 23, 2016. That is well before Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. It now appears even more likely that Mr. Trump will be the next president of the United States.
His promise to protect jobs and change trade policies could win over blue-collar workers, especially in the industrialized swing states.
by John Nichols, in The Nation
February 23, 2016
In the middle of the political food fight that was the ninth Republican presidential debate, the front-runner suddenly abandoned the petty politics of the moment and delivered a message that mattered less to the scramble for South Carolina primary votes and more to the November fight for the battleground states that ring the Great Lakes.
“This country is dying. And our workers are losing their jobs,” Donald Trump declared. Noting the announcement of plans by the air-conditioner company Carrier to transfer production (and 1,400 union jobs) from Indianapolis to Mexico, the billionaire said, “Carrier is moving. And if you saw the [workers]…. They were crying.” Promising a no-more-tears presidency, Trump said he’d renegotiate “trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers” and tell corporations to keep production in the United States or “we’re going to tax you.”
The pundits and political insiders who have missed every other warning sign from the 2016 race missed that one as well. But Trump’s recognition of shuttered plants and crying workers struck Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. “I heard him. I heard exactly what he was saying, and so did the people of Indianapolis and Indiana,” Kaptur said. “So did everyone else who has lost a job to offshoring and outsourcing, or who knows they are just one more trade deal away from losing a job.”
Kaptur, a Democrat who represents a multiethnic, multiracial district stretching from Toledo to Cleveland, has decried Trump’s divisive remarks as shameful deviations from the American promise of “unity, not hatred.” But she cautions Democrats against assuming that the revulsion to Trump’s hateful language and crude politics will immediately disqualify him in the eyes of scared and angry voters in states that have been essential building blocks for Democratic wins in presidential races of recent decades. Kaptur’s not alone in this view.
Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry warns that Trump could win a good many union votes—and perhaps the presidency—if he secures the Republican nod. “I think this is a very dangerous political moment in our country,” said the head of the SEIU, which has endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, during a January discussion of Trump’s appeal. “I think he’s touching this vein of terrible anxiety that working-class people feel about their current status, but more importantly, how terrified they are for their kids not being able to do as well as they have, never mind doing better.” Henry noted that internal polls of union members across the country reveal a “broken sense of the future” and raise the prospect of an emotion-driven election in which it is “easier [to] appeal to fear than to what’s possible.”
“I don’t think the Democrats are ready for this,” adds Ralph Nader, the consumer activist and former presidential candidate. “Once he gets these wildcats off his back, once he gets the Republican nomination, then Trump becomes the builder again. He’s already said he’s going to be the greatest jobs president in history. He hasn’t pushed that line too hard in the primaries because he doesn’t want to come off as something other than a conservative. But if he’s the nominee, watch out.”
“Watch out”? Really? Isn’t Trump supposed to be unelectable? Isn’t he too bigoted, too crude, to be taken seriously? That’s what Republicans told themselves for most of 2015. But since his big wins in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, the GOP establishment has begun to adjust to the prospect of a billionaire nominee with a flair for grabbing media attention, shaping the debate, and shredding opponents.
Yes—watch out. “This is an unprecedented election in so many ways that we don’t know what electability is,” cautions Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which has backed Clinton. “What we do know is that Trump is better positioned to pivot, to Etch-A-Sketch his message, than the other Republicans. That constitutes a threat.”
Trump has already proved to be competitive with Clinton and her insurgent challenger, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, in the polls from battleground states like Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado. Measures of hypothetical match-ups should always be considered with skepticism when the parties are in the midst of nomination fights—and when potential independent candidacies are being explored. But poll numbers and interviews with Democrats in key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin indicate that the 2016 Democratic nominee could face a fight for industrial states that provided vital support for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. And Trump has yet to make his play for those states.
Right now, Trump is still peddling the snake-oil blend of xenophobia and bigotry that plays well in Republican primaries (one recent survey in South Carolina found that 38 percent of his backers believe the Confederacy should have won the Civil War). If he’s the Republican nominee, however, he’ll be confident about South Carolina. And Trump is all but certain to have what Hogue refers to as his “Etch-A-Sketch” moment, pivoting toward economic-populist themes that, while still crudely nationalistic, might attract independents and Democrats in key states. Republican pollster Frank Luntz says that in the focus groups he’s conducted, he has regularly found people who voted for Obama twice but now say “they would consider Trump.” Why? Because Trump is speaking to the fears of Americans who have lost faith not just in establishment politics, but in establishment economics. And he is likely to do a lot more of that.
It’s in the industrialized swing states where Trump’s promise to protect jobs and change trade policies could resonate among blue-collar workers. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka acknowledges that workers are “talking to me about Donald Trump.” Union leaders fret about internal surveys that show the billionaire is attracting greater support than is usually afforded Republicans. While much of it comes from white male voters, these union leaders say they’ve seen some evidence of a broader openness to Trump’s message. Luntz claims that his candidacy “would get the highest percentage of black votes since Ronald Reagan in 1980.” That’s not a high bar—exit polls gave Reagan 14 percent—but the prospect of losing any working-class votes in states like Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania should be a wake-up call for Democrats.
“The two major parties will have to change, or they are likely to be changed by voters who have had enough,” argues the Rev. Jesse Jackson. But what if one party changes—however cynically or crudely—to address the fears of the moment, while the other does not? What if Trump turns up the volume on a populist message while the Democrats run a more cautious campaign?
Sanders supporters point to polls in some battleground states that show him faring better than Clinton in matchups with Trump. “Bernie’s where the Democrats need to be,” says RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of the National Nurses United union, regarding Sanders, a longtime critic of corporate-friendly trade pacts. “He’s speaking to fears that working families have about the future, but he’s not dividing people the way Trump is.”
Kaptur, who has not endorsed a candidate in the Democratic race, made a similar point on a drive from Toledo to Lorain, where the steel mills are cutting production and in some cases shutting down. “These people have been hit over and over and over again. They’ve retrained. They’ve done everything they can to survive—but the plants keep closing. They’ve been battered, and they’re sick of it. They want security, and this country is not delivering security. When Bernie talks about this, I think it touches people. Clinton says a lot of the same things, but I don’t hear the same passion.”
That’s a fair critique. But the counter to Trump’s appeal can’t merely be to debate on his terms. “It won’t work to go ‘My populism is bigger than your populism,’” Hogue says. A smart challenge must involve a full-spectrum response to the billionaire’s appeal as “a builder and a doer,” Nader says. “He reaches millions of people by making them comfortable with their prejudices. The press sometimes goes after him on that, which is good. But the press never gets to his vulnerabilities—his tax returns. There’s so much there, but Trump has diverted attention from a real examination of his financial dealings. Progressives can’t get distracted the way conservatives have. They have to expose him.”
Exposing the billionaire as a crony capitalist means pursuing the question of whether a candidate who opposes a minimum-wage hike would really take on multinational corporations in order to save jobs in Flint and Youngstown. In addition to challenging Trump himself, savvy observers say, it is vital to challenge Trumpism—the politics of division that scapegoats, stereotypes, and appeals to bigotry. Trumka says that “a campaign fueled by contempt and exclusion is bad for working families,” and labor unions are preparing to make that point with an aggressive campaign similar to their 2008 push to get union members behind Obama’s candidacy.
The challenge to Trump must address economic anxiety while also emphasizing pluralism, says Hogue. “Where Trump’s weakness is, and where his opponent will have an advantage, is that the way this country genuinely experiences economic inequality has everything to do with your race, your gender, your treatment as an immigrant—all these issues.” Clinton has begun speaking to this. Even if Wall Street is reined in and economic challenges are addressed, she warned in the Democratic debate in Milwaukee, “we would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday.” That’s smart—as was Sanders’s call in the same debate for “a political revolution in which millions of Americans stand up, come together, [and] not let the Trumps not let the Trumps of the world divide us.”
Clinton and Sanders are both evolving—and improving—as candidates. This is important, because if Trump is the GOP nominee, he will not be beaten with old talking points or a cautiously calculated message. “The Democrats have to get much better at making the connections between the water crisis in Flint and the closing of factories in Flint,” Kaptur says. “They have to make all the connections between trade and poverty, between deindustrialization and hollowed-out cities. People are hurting for a lot of reasons. Democrats have to recognize that hurt, and they have to explain that a politics of division is never going to address it.
“Dividing people doesn’t make positive change possible,” Kaptur adds. “Dividing people makes the changes that are necessary impossible.”
I admit to being a numbers wonk.
Twelve percent of the United States population lives in California. It was that way in the last national census. So we are not growing faster than the national population. California’s major cities have run out of space so they must either build taller apartment houses or simply resign to the fact that they have reached to maximum population limit. The consequence is the ever increasing price for rental apartments and individual homes.
California is within earshot now of 40 million residents — 39,256,000 — based on analysis of housing data and other measures. The way these surveys rely on slightly old data, in reality California is possibly already over 40 million.
The state Department of Finance’s estimate also pegs the city of Los Angeles at over four million population for the first time since the state has done this report. Or not quite triple the population of California’s second-largest city, San Diego. Here is the top 10:
- Los Angeles 4,030,904
- San Diego 1,391,676
- San Jose 1,042,094
- San Francisco 866,583
- Fresno 520,453
- Sacramento 485,683
- Long Beach 484,958
- Oakland 422,856
- Bakersfield 379,110
- Anaheim 358,136
Here is the full report if you like to peruse the stats.
California’s population was 10.7 million people in 1950. In 1960 at 15.8 million people it was behind Canada that had a population approaching 18 million. Today Canada’s population is lagging behind at 36 million and NYC has grown by about 1 million people since 1990.
We all ought to understand the reasons. They are the weather, arts and entertainment, high technology, outstanding colleges and universities.
- Art and Entertainment
- Constitution and Law
- Domestic Affairs
- Foreign Affairs
- Good Mood
- Health Care
- Los Angeles
- Middle Class
- More For Your Money
- On Language
- Senior Issues
- Social Behavior