SHARED THEME FOR ANTI-VAXXERS, CORONAVIRUS HOAXSTERS

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2020, OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
       “SHARED THEME FOR ANTI-VAXXERS, CORONAVIRUS HOAXSTERS”

          Many of the same demonstrators wanting California to end all aspects of its COVID-19 lockdown immediately have also been front-line protesters against recent California laws making it slightly more difficult for parents to avoid getting their children vaccinated.

          And some of the new protests are at least partly organized by anti-vaxx groups like the Freedom Angels Foundation.

This can seem surprising: after all, what could be more of an affirmation for vaccines than a disease rampaging precisely because there is no vaccine to stop it? We no longer see once-dreaded scourges like polio and smallpox today – anywhere in the world – only because scientists created vaccines to immunize almost every person against them.

          If anything should convince rational minds of the good vaccines do, it should be an out-of-control plague loosed upon the world chiefly because we lack either a preventive vaccine or an effective treatment for it, despite President Trump’s many “helpful” suggestions about consuming unproven drugs and even bleach to kill it.

          The very small but very loud anti-vaccination community has trouble following this logic. Some of its folks march on the state Capitol and other sites these days bearing signs proclaiming “COVID-19 is a Lie,” “Social

Distancing = Communism” and the like.

         

          So far, the California protestors have not trumpeted some of the more outlandish claims made about the coronavirus in other parts of the world and nation. One widely-disseminated contention is that 5G cellphone towers caused the crisis. It’s easier for such baseless junk theories to go viral and gain acceptance if they are furthered by celebrities.

That happens when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. propounds unproven calumnies about vaccinations. And it happened with the 5G charge about the coronavirus when actor Woody Harrelson posted it on Instagram, even though he noted the idea wasn’t “fully vetted.”

          But the basic idea behind both the anti-vaccination movement and demonstrations against the coronavirus-related lockdown is the same: In both cases, protesters insist their individual rights trump any societal needs for safety and survival.

          It’s part of the longtime American debate over whether there is such a thing as a “social contract,” an implicit agreement that government and society have some obligations to aid their people. For many years, this has been a major difference between Democrats and Republicans, the political pendulum swinging back and forth between them for generations.

          Democrats created Social Security over Republican opposition in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s, essentially saying society is entitled to take some income from younger people to help their elders survive. Decades later, Democrats created the Affordable Care Act, often known as Obamacare, in effect saying society is entitled to tax its members to provide health care for those who don’t have it. Most Republican politicians opposed this from the start; they still do.

          When challenged, anti-vaxx activists often say or write things like “I’ll do what I want with my children and government should have nothing to say about it.” Never mind the health and lives of millions of other kids their unvaccinated children could infect. Now the anti-lockdown protesters clamor for complete freedom of movement, association and assembly even while medical experts say this would lead to far more infections and deaths from the virus.

          Try to stop them and some label the virus a hoax. Or say it’s no worse than the common cold. Ask the 80,000-plus Americans whose lives it has already taken about that one.

As in many earlier arguments over the social contract, Democratic officials take the lead in plumping for greater adherence to social distancing while many Republicans are reluctant. GOP governors were among the last to enforce the anti-virus tactics that now hold down California’s caseload, while Democrats like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were among the first. Republican governors have been first to reopen their states, while Democrats are doing it much more slowly.

          The bottom line: Viewed as part of a very long argument over what government should or should not do for masses of Americans, today’s demonstrations and the irrational claims they sometimes purvey should be no surprise. Logic has rarely been central to this very emotional debate.

         

          -30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

TOP TWO TEST? GOP COULD DECIDE AN ALL-DEMO RUNOFF

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2018, OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “TOP TWO TEST? GOP COULD DECIDE AN ALL-DEMO RUNOFF”

          As California’s run for governor nears its June primary election milestone, there’s still a strong possibility this will wind up as a two-Democrat race for the state’s top office.

          If so, it will be the ultimate playing out and test of the 2010 Proposition 14, which set up the top two “jungle primary” system here, with the two leading vote-getters in any primary election making the November runoff ballot, even if both come from the same party.

          The historically huge voter registration advantage now enjoyed by Democrats in this state is the main reason recent polls showed one Democrat – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom – far ahead of the rest of the 27-person field as a majority of voters began receiving their mail-in ballots.

          Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a former San Francisco mayor, led those surveys and ex-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was in a three-person scrum of significantly publicized candidates competing for the second November ballot slot.

          If the two Republicans running, Orange County Assemblyman Travis Allen and San Diego County businessman John Cox, split the Republican vote, it’s highly possible neither will beat out Villaraigosa for second place.

          So a lack of discipline among Republicans, who could not settle on one candidate even as late as their early-May state convention, could create a runoff race matching two Democrats.

          Of course, in this new era of #MeToo focus on sexual behavior and harassment, no one can be sure whether Newsom and Villaraigosa, both former participants in well-publicized extra-marital affairs, can maintain their current status with the women who cast the majority of Democratic votes. Both apologize profusely whenever they discuss those affairs. Both also purport to be better men today than before.

          The bottom line is that because Newsom and Villaraigosa have far outstripped their competition in the vital area of fundraising, they could face off in the fall. Both are liberals, Newsom somewhat to the left of Villaraigosa, a onetime labor union organizer who refused to cave in to public employee unions while he was mayor, one reason Newsom is Big Labor’s favorite in this contest.

          If they do match up, Newsom and Villaraigosa will test the basic premise of the top two system. When it was proposed, sponsors like then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his appointed lieutenant governor Abel Maldonado argued the new system would assure the election of more moderates from each major party. They figured that in one-party races like this year’s gubernatorial contest might become, members of the other party would choose the more moderate available candidate.

          Reality has been that in most such races, almost all occurring so far in legislative or congressional contests, voters from the party left out of the runoff have voted in small numbers, staying home or skipping over an office on their ballots and not bothering to choose what they see as the lesser of two evils.

          But Republicans will be motivated to turn out this fall, especially in the seven or eight Congressional swing districts Democrats believe they must flip from the Republican column in order to take over the House of Representatives.

          If turnout is heavy, the GOP’s almost 26 percent of the registered electorate could strongly influence the outcome, even if there’s no Republican on the ballot.

          One springtime poll from the Public Policy Institute of California showed that by a narrow 6 percent to 4 percent margin, GOP voters preferred Villaraigosa over Newsom in a putative matchup between the two. That’s not a very big slice of the GOP vote, but if higher percentages of GOP voters actually cast ballots for one of the two, they could be decisive.

          Villaraigosa’s margin among conservative voters was higher when party wasn’t figured in. Conservatives favored him over Newsom by a 15-6 percent margin, while he held a 6-point edge among self-described moderates.

          These numbers suggest that this just might be the year the top two system works precisely as it was planned and advertised. But all that, of course, depends on how the June primary plays out and it is far from finished.

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

WILL CALIFORNIA EVADE NEW BASE CLOSURE ROUND?

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2015, 2014, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
    “WILL CALIFORNIA EVADE NEW BASE CLOSURE ROUND?”

          When former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel asked Congress last year to authorize a new round of military base closings, alarm bells went off in many parts of California.

          For this state has been victimized more than any other in the two already-completed rounds, which saw the military fail to realize most of the savings it hoped for, while people and communities involved took greater hits than predicted.

          Sure, there have been positive new uses of some old bases, from parkland in the Presidio of San Francisco to the Cal State Monterey Bay campus on the former site of Ft. Ord. But the jobs lost when those bases closed, plus the ones lost from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the El Toro Marine Air Station, March Air Force Base and many others still have not been replaced.

          Nor have the ripple effects stopped, as many businesses near those bases disappeared or became far less profitable than before, employing many thousands fewer than they once did.

          That’s why there should have been a sign of relief around California early this spring, when a U.S. Senate panel announced it will not back the Defense Department on another base closure round, despite the usual Pentagon warnings that excess facilities will bloat budgets and ultimately hurt readiness.

          Although California took the brunt of the two previous rounds of base closings, neither of its senators was part of this proceeding, mostly because of their committee assignments.

          Both previous series of base closures saw Congress give up much of its control, agreeing to set up Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commissions, then vote yes or no on the entirety of those groups’ proposals without the possibility of making any changes.

          But senators don’t appear to be as willing to part with their power this time. “Let me just make clear up front that I continue to be opposed to (a new) BRAC,” New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte said during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee.

          “You make everyone nervous when you do a BRAC because every community across the United States has to hire lobbyists and lawyers,” added Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine.

          The lobbyists are needed to prevent local economic disasters like those still felt in many parts of California, which lost far more bases than any other state in the previous BRAC rounds. The closures are a major reason California ranks just 43^rd among all states in federal per capita spending, getting back only 78 cents for every dollar its taxpayers put into the U.S. Treasury.

          But military officials at the subcommittee hearing testified that about 20 percent of Defense Department property is unneeded and the department could save about $2 billion a year if it closed even more bases.

          Yet, those same officials admitted under questioning that the previous rounds have not saved as much as expected, while harming military communities across America. While closing 56 major bases and hundreds of smaller installations cost the military $29 billion, it turns out the closures have saved a net total of only about $1 billion a year since. Hardly worth the bother.

          The upshot is that California this time may evade the economic consequences that have followed each spate of base closings in the early 2000s and the mid-1990s.

          Which means that cities around the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in northern San Diego County can breathe easier today. The same for areas around the Army’s Ft. Irwin desert warfare training center in San Bernardino County and the Navy’s air station near Lemoore in the Central Valley. And more.

          For while Congress – and almost all Californians serving there – enthusiastically backed the previous BRAC plans, things didn’t look so good afterwards. For one thing, California dropped 20 places in its rank among the states in federal spending. Federal salaries paid to Californians alone fell by $9 billion per year because of the two BRACs, a huge economic hit.

          So even though Californians have so far had nothing to do with it, all signs point to a long wait before another BRAC round occurs, with this state among the chief beneficiaries of keeping the status quo.

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

SENSIBLE IDEAS FOR SOLVING WATER CRISIS

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2009, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

"SENSIBLE IDEAS FOR SOLVING WATER CRISIS"

If you think California has had a budget crisis over the last two years, sliding into deficits that could reach $23 billion by the end of next year even with the new taxes authorized in February, wait 'til you see what awaits in water.

Yes, this has been almost a normal year for Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack and for rainfall around the state. But because of a court order and the after-effects of previous water decisions cutting supplies from both the Colorado River and the Owens Valley just east of the Sierras, it won't do much to stop impending water rationing in many areas.

But the good news is that at last someone has stepped forward with a sensible statement of principle that makes adequate water supplies for farms and cities in Central and Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area an equal goal with water quality and fish survival in the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.

The delta serves as a funnel for water pouring each spring from the western slopes of the Sierras and the southern Cascade Range, with huge pumps at its southern end relaying fluid to the state Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project.

Those pumps are not operating just now and won't until mid-June, the second year of a thus-far-unsuccessful effort to revive the endangered minnow-like Delta smelt fish species at the expense of water supplies elsewhere. Smelt numbers did not climb in the first year of court-ordered water pump shutoffs, and there's some doubt they ever will. But many millions of gallons of high quality fresh water have flowed into the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean as a result.

How to revive the delta environment and still meet urban and farm water needs from Oakland to San Diego is the focus of the independent, governor-appointed Delta Blue Ribbon Task Force, which has now developed what looks like the best plan yet for solving the water crisis:

Increase use of recycled water for lawns and industry, the task force suggests, while building more desalination plants to make ocean waters drinkable. Add infrastructure like new reservoirs and possibly a peripheral canal bringing water around the delta in a concrete channel that would allow control of runoff to the sea. And police water rights permits more tightly, making sure farmers do not use more than they're entitled to take.

There also may be some merit to a lawsuit filed in Sacramento near the end of last year. This action demands the long-term fallowing of many thousands of acres in the western San Joaquin Valley that are so tainted with toxic selenium, mercury and boron that farming them causes the chemicals to drain back into the San Joaquin River and then into the delta.

The lawsuit contends that since 80 percent of California's surface water is used by agriculture, all urban shortages could quickly be resolved by holding the polluted farmland out of production until it can be cleaned up - something that's not in the immediate offing.

About 100,000 acres in the vast Westlands Water District are already out of production because of poor drainage and chemical saturation, but the lawsuit contends farming and irrigation should stop on much, much more land.

The suit comes from the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and a self-designated watchdog group called the California Water Impact Network.

While it's long been known that taking water from farms could resolve any urban shortages, large farms in the Central Valley have held rights for more than 70 years to most water in the big state and federal aqueducts. Urban water districts bought some of those supplies to ease rationing during the droughts of the 1980s and '90s and probably could again later this year and next.

One question the new lawsuit might resolve: Does a farm retain water rights even when its fields are too polluted to plant? If not, then urban water suppliers like the Metropolitican Water District of Southern California and the East Bay Municipal Water District might suddenly find themselves with an unexpected surfeit.

The bottom line: After many years of stalemate, it appears some constructive potential solutions to long term water issues may be percolating to the surface. If that's not true, California can expect a water crisis in the near future that will make the long-running budget crunch look like child's play.

-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net