By Guest Columnist Michael Ceremello – January 3, 2018 –
There is one thing I find to be most frustrating when listening to other commentators on subjects within the National scene. That is the redundancy and endless repetition of points. I understand learning by rote where repetition helps to embed the desired result in memory. Perhaps my mind works too fast but, really, must we all be treated as children who must be simply indoctrinated with the elite’s supposed wisdom?

Even this is not as simple as it seems. While there are those who repeat proven, documented facts, others use the Joseph Goebbel’s “tell the lie long enough and it becomes the truth” mental manipulation. Most of us don’t follow up and check into subject matter deeply enough to find the truth. Many of us will simply look for something that verifies our stance and justifies our ideology.

So we have a New Year and what has changed? I am finding it essentially unproductive to attempt to educate the ignorant, whether it be on the Left or Right. Alienation of either or both sides of the aisle is all that is accomplished in pointing out errors. So rather than getting locked up into liberal versus conservative, I will revert to documentation. That should please those of you who don’t like name calling in any size, shape or form.

Listening to “Meet the Press” this last Sunday on KMJ out of Fresno again demonstrates “fake news” at its best. I find it interesting that the elite commentators continue the Goebbel’s conditioning of their audience by making statements as if they are proven fact. Whether it be climate change or “Russian collusion”, fantasy is what it is.

According to some, Russian collusion was the attempt to interfere with our election by putting out factual derogatory statements about one candidate who was attempting to hide these facts from the public. The American national media not only did not do any investigate work in this area but continues to run interference for this defeated presidential candidate.

Going beyond the accusations, let’s look at what this portends for the future. Do I have to look to Pravda as my news source? How can any of us trust our own news providers when they continue to be in denial about their own ideological political efforts? Try reporting real news on major subject matter rather than personality conflicts within administrations.

Do I trust scientists or supposed professors given the tainted vocal emanations imbued with quite recognizable political hatred? Let’s not just talk the talk, let me prove it.

There is one thing I find to be most frustrating when listening to other commentators on subjects within the National scene. That is the redundancy and endless repetition of points. I understand learning by rote where repetition helps to embed the desired result in memory. Perhaps my mind works too fast but, really, must we all be treated as children who must be simply indoctrinated with the elite’s supposed wisdom?

Even this is not as simple as it seems. While there are those who repeat proven, documented facts, others use the Joseph Goebbel’s “tell the lie long enough and it becomes the truth” mental manipulation. Most of us don’t follow up and check into subject matter deeply enough to find the truth. Many of us will simply look for something that verifies our stance and justifies our ideology.

So we have a New Year and what has changed? I am finding it essentially unproductive to attempt to educate the ignorant, whether it be on the Left or Right. Alienation of either or both sides of the aisle is all that is accomplished in pointing out errors. So rather than getting locked up into liberal versus conservative, I will revert to documentation. That should please those of you who don’t like name calling in any size, shape or form.

Listening to “Meet the Press” this last Sunday on KMJ out of Fresno again demonstrates “fake news” at its best. I find it interesting that the elite commentators continue the Goebbel’s conditioning of their audience by making statements as if they are proven fact. Whether it be climate change or “Russian collusion”, fantasy is what it is.

According to some, Russian collusion was the attempt to interfere with our election by putting out factual derogatory statements about one candidate who was attempting to hide these facts from the public. The American national media not only did not do any investigate work in this area but continues to run interference for this defeated presidential candidate.

Going beyond the accusations, let’s look at what this portends for the future. Do I have to look to Pravda as my news source? How can any of us trust our own news providers when they continue to be in denial about their own ideological political efforts? Try reporting real news on major subject matter rather than personality conflicts within administrations.

Do I trust scientists or supposed professors given the tainted vocal emanations imbued with quite recognizable political hatred? Let’s not just talk the talk, let me prove it.

There is one thing I find to be most frustrating when listening to other commentators on subjects within the National scene. That is the redundancy and endless repetition of points. I understand learning by rote where repetition helps to embed the desired result in memory. Perhaps my mind works too fast but, really, must we all be treated as children who must be simply indoctrinated with the elite’s supposed wisdom?

Even this is not as simple as it seems. While there are those who repeat proven, documented facts, others use the Joseph Goebbel’s “tell the lie long enough and it becomes the truth” mental manipulation. Most of us don’t follow up and check into subject matter deeply enough to find the truth. Many of us will simply look for something that verifies our stance and justifies our ideology.

So we have a New Year and what has changed? I am finding it essentially unproductive to attempt to educate the ignorant, whether it be on the Left or Right. Alienation of either or both sides of the aisle is all that is accomplished in pointing out errors. So rather than getting locked up into liberal versus conservative, I will revert to documentation. That should please those of you who don’t like name calling in any size, shape or form.

Listening to “Meet the Press” this last Sunday on KMJ out of Fresno again demonstrates “fake news” at its best. I find it interesting that the elite commentators continue the Goebbel’s conditioning of their audience by making statements as if they are proven fact. Whether it be climate change or “Russian collusion”, fantasy is what it is.

According to some, Russian collusion was the attempt to interfere with our election by putting out factual derogatory statements about one candidate who was attempting to hide these facts from the public. The American national media not only did not do any investigate work in this area but continues to run interference for this defeated presidential candidate.

Going beyond the accusations, let’s look at what this portends for the future. Do I have to look to Pravda as my news source? How can any of us trust our own news providers when they continue to be in denial about their own ideological political efforts? Try reporting real news on major subject matter rather than personality conflicts within administrations.

Do I trust scientists or supposed professors given the tainted vocal emanations imbued with quite recognizable political hatred? Let’s not just talk the talk, let me prove it.

From Loran Hoffman’s and Shirley Humphrey’s “Conversations” column of this week, I give you Dennis Ventry, tax law specialist, School of Law

“Here’s a prophecy you can count on: There is a zero percent chance that the tax bill Republicans have been recklessly racing to pass before the holiday recess will generate the economic growth projected by the White House. In fact, the bill is guaranteed to explode deficits beginning in 2018 and extending deep into the future. Bah! Humbug!”

I certainly hope that Mr. Ventry knows a little more about tax law than he understands about economics. While his “prophecy” has a touch of pseudo-humor to it, there is no historical basis on a National level for his expectations. Kalifornia and New York, the bastions of tax your citizens to death, may experience a different economic result than the rest of the country, but decreasing the corporate business tax will induce corporations to utilize their resources differently as shown immediately after the bill was passed.

Perhaps Mr. Ventry has never heard of Arthur Laffer. Laffer, known for the Laffer Curve which was ridiculed at one time by economists with closed minds, is predicting 8% growth which is far beyond the White House’s expectations. Laffer is also predicting large growth in State tax revenue as more income is generated from economic growth.

Of course, we must not forget to look at one of the greatest benefits of this tax bill, the rescindment of the individual mandate for medical care. I am sure Mr. Ventry knows about disposable income. If you have to make what is essentially a house mortgage payment to pay for your family’s medical care and that gets eliminated or reduced, you can either choose to spend or save the money this tax bill put in your pocket. In addition, the benefit to low income earners is also there in the doubling of the standard deduction and child exemptions.

But let’s get back to Ventry’s deficits. While Laffer would agree there is a possibility for a decline in tax revenues dependent on where the country is on his Laffer curve of taxation, given that US corporate taxation is the highest of any developed country, given that our citizens are taxed at high marginal rates by both the Federal and some State governments, and given that history has shown us that tax cuts prove relatively where we are on his curve by increasing tax revenues to the government, Ventry’s prediction is laughable.

I will now give you one more example of expert advice. This one comes from Kevin Johnson, dean and professor, School of Law at UC Davis.

“With Justice Gorsuch settling in, the Supreme Court will continue to move in a moderate to conservative direction.
One of the justices, perhaps Justice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer, will decide to retire, and the nation is enveloped by a controversy as President Trump nominates an arch-conservative.”

Wow, I don’t know whether the appropriate comment is a Homer Simpson “DOH!!!” or the question “Really?” Was it a surprise to Johnson that a court being moved to the far left saw a conservative named to an “arch-conservative’s” vacant seat? You betray yourself, Mr. Johnson, as your ideology pervades your phraseology.

What controversy? Was there controversy when Kagan and Sotomayor were nominated? You would think that a professor of law would be more interested in seeing that the “rule of law” was promulgated rather than some alternative version of reality designed to fit a political agenda.

Within that same column we have a dean at the business school telling us “ownership” is an antiquated concept. Exactly who provides the vehicles to be used for his touted services such as Uber and Lyft if it isn’t their owners? It would seem to me that the professor is guilty of making “leaps” to his chosen deductions without consideration of the intermediary steps he takes for granted.

I continue to see within all of these commentaries an attempt to rebuild society and the world to some Utopian dream while ignoring the nightmare created for those of us entrenched in the older paradigm. I live in the looniest State in the Nation and experience what ill thought out legislation brings.

Are we surviving what is being wrought by Jerry Brown and the State legislature? Do we simply want to “survive”? Why do you think people are leaving one of the most diverse and wonderful State’s in our Nation?

How do you tout putting in two huge tunnels to ship water south and, with a straight face, talk about resurrecting the Delta? Without the “twin tunnels”, exactly what has the government done to bring the Delta back?

Do you feel safe or safer now that Jerry and his band of merry men and women have made Kalifornia a “sanctuary” State? I heard that Jerry also pardoned two men, both Cambodians and one from Davis. After researching the circumstances, I have a hard time disagreeing with Jerry that a guy convicted of “felony joyriding” (whatever the hell that is) should be deported back to Cambodia.

There is a problem when you get put in jail for ten years for possessing a “nickel” bag of pot. Do I think you need to create a sanctuary for “legal” immigrants as well as “illegal” or even citizens charged with minor offenses?

Tell Jerry that he was the State Attorney General at one time. I don’t remember any reform to the system these men were charged under. I do know there are far too many laws, far too many restrictions, and far too many regulations.

So, what is different? It would seem just the players are and that most of us just want society and government run and controlled the way we see fit. That doesn’t make it right or good.

That is also why I prefer personal freedom …