The Age of Obama

 Is over. Even Barack Obama knows that, though he's reluctant to acknowledge it. As Trump was finalizing  a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas which basically, repudiated everything Obama had ever had a hand in regarding the Middle East. In a recent podcast interview, the ever arrogant, pompous ex-pres demoaned the politicization of the FBI and Justice department as though he didn't play an instrumental part in their corruption. It's especially contemptible considering his role in various and sundry scandals is now documented public knowledge. 

Obama now appears nonplussed, wondering how the nation came to embrace Trump, a man who in almost every ideological way set out to undo everything he had 'accomplished'. Once thought to be a transcendent figure in American politics, despite the incessant media accolades and unmerited awards, Obama's legacy has been eclipsed by his Republican successor. And for very good reasons. 

Obama utilized the federal bureaucracy to push the country to adopt leftist social views. Which the Biden admin blindly and willingly continued. Most presidents leave Washington after their time in office is over to avoid the impression that they are trying to manipulate their successors. Obama pretentiously did not. It is clear and evident to even this most casual observer that Obama was directing the marionette that was Joe Biden. It was Obama who unleashed the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice on political foes. And it was Obama who put into motion the DEI foolishness that permeated much of the Western world. 

It's not a well-known fact, but indeed is a fact that Obama issued an executive order to establish a "Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce" back in 2011. This ignominious order coincided with the timing of legacy, mainstream media racializing practically every topic written about. 

The left has long sought to transform American culture not in alignment with its own cultural and political goals. Clearly, Obama played a significant role in the incipient stages of the Great Awokening. It appears Obama's legacy is that of abject failure. A century-old progressive movement that collapsed under its own contradictions, unrealized ideals and failure to connect with reality. 

Fewer young people are identifying as trans...

 A very surprising shift is taking place in the gender and sexual identities of young Americans. Data from the Heterodox Social Science Report shows that since 2023 both trans and queer identity among young Americans has dropped sharply with Generation Z. 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. Just 3.6% of respondents this year identified as something other than male or female. In 2024 that figure was 5.2% and 6.8% in 2022 and 2023. The number of trans-identified students has halved in just two years. 

This trend is especially marked in elite institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in Boston surveys over 75% of its students each year. In 2023, 9.2% identified as neither male nor female. In 2025, that number was 3%. A similar story comes from Brown University. 5% of students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%. 

More of the surveys inquired about sexual orientation than gender identity. Based on the data in the graph, the pattern appears to be rising non-conformity from 2010 until 2023, with a near 10 point drop in the ensuing two years. 

It's tempting to speculate about the reasons behind the rise and fall of trans and queer identities. Mental illness among American teens has fallen since 2021 as confirmed by the FIRE data.  Changes in mental health over time, especially depression, made s significant difference in the trend of trans and queer identities over this period. The drop in mental health issues encompassed all social groups, including trans and queer youth. The post-pandemic decline in mental illness did not immediately trigger a decline in sexual and gender non-conformity, that shift didn't occur until a year or two later. There is no clear evidence to indicate what is driving the retreat from alternative gender and sexual identity. However, there is clear evidence that it is happening. Ironically, "woke" attitudes such as shouting down those perceived as hostile to transgenderism hasn't changed much since 2020. 

It appears that trans and queer identification has declined among young Americans even as levels os wokeness and religion have not. For young people, gender and sexual identity are now independent fashions that rise and fall separately from other cultural and political currents. This is quite an unexpected post-progressive development that education and media establishments will be reluctant to acknowledge. 

Is legalizing marijuana really a good idea?...

 Over the last decade a handful of states have mulled the idea of legalizing the use of recreational marijuana. Some have forged ahead with the legislation to do so, some have not. As of 2025, 24 states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. That's close to half of the 50 states. Fourteen states have legalized the restricted medical use of marijuana. Doctor's prescription only. The standards for obtaining a prescription are not known and not a subject of this article. I am making no contest as to the validity of medical use marijuana. My understanding is marijuana can be quite effective in alleviating the pain associated with certain cancers and the treatment of them. I have personal experience with the pain associated with cancer and chemotherapy and I am 100% behind anything that can alleviate this pain.

But this is not the point. Cancer patients who are suffering indescribable pain are not typically out driving and getting into accidents. Recreational users are. Data shows these 'users' are involved in a disproportionately high number of auto fatalities. We have known for a long time, a very long time the relationship between drinking and auto accidents and fatalities. There is no need to delve into those statistics. It is worth noting the relationships between driving while under the influence of THC and auto accidents and fatalities. 

Going back to the days of the repeal of prohibition and the invention of automobiles, there is a dark relationship between driving and the consumption of alcohol. The loss of life due to driving while intoxicated is inestimable, beyond frightening, and it continues today. But we have now included a new dimension to this lunacy. Driving while high. As I mentioned earlier, almost half of the states have approved recreational use. I might ask the question, what is the 'purpose' of drinking alcohol, if not recreational? I dare say, there's never been a medical professional ever who has prescribed alcohol for a medical condition. Obviously, alcohol is exclusively for recreational purposes. It serves no medicinal purpose. When these 24 states passed these laws, was due consideration given to the risks associated with driving while impaired? I think not.

A recent study conducted in Ohio, which is one of the 'legal recreational states' proffers the following statistics: 42% of drivers in Montgomery County Ohio who died in traffic accidents over a six year period from 2018 to 2024tested positive for THC. Any way you look at it, that is very competitive with traffic fatalities due to driving while under the influence of alcohol. I wouldn't expect results much different from other 'recreational use states'. 

Who exactly benefits from these liberal laws? The recreational users? Of course. It is without doubt a fledgling industry within itself, as was alcohol in the early days.  We are approaching the benchmark where about half of traffic fatalities are due to driving while high. Is the high from a joint worth dying for? Or taking the lives of innocents in an accident? How is this net effect any different from driving while under the influence of alcohol? The net result is people die, does it matter what the inebriated person was indulging in?... 

Having the right to indulge in the recreational use of THC products is not the issue. Just as the right to imbibe alcohol is legal. But no one has the right to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any substance that impairs the ability to safely operate a vehicle. This puts not only their life but the lives of others at risk. We have well over a century of evidence that the results of this can be catastrophic. About 12,000 people each year are killed in auto accidents involving drunk driving. In 2021, there were about 11,000 drug involved traffic fatalities reported. This includes crashes where one or more drugs were detected, not THC alone and not necessarily causal. Obviously, there is a surfeit of recreational drugs, most of which are illegal and will always be. A few peer-reviewed studies comparing crash rates before and after legalization across states estimate increases in fatalities that could amount to 1,000 - 1,400 additional traffic deaths per year. Data for traffic fatalities where THC was known to be the cause of the crash is in an incipient stage. But the pattern is already emerging. Legalization may have solved the issue of reducing the amount of drug offenses for a 'seemingly harmless' drug that many will indulge in anyway, but at what cost? It sort of seems like throwing fuel on the fire...

Colorado: beautiful state, ugly policy.

 When Americans think of Colorado, we think of beautiful, scenic mountains , clear mountain air, and not just freedom but a 'sense' of freedom. It is without doubt one of our most beautiful states, of many. Many alluring advertisements attempting to convince foreigners to visit the US shows photos of Colorado landscapes. Visitors from the world over as well as the US make a stop in Colorado a must. 

If you are a visitor, what Colorado has to offer cannot be beat. If you are a resident or a counselor, there are issues. In 2019, Colorado enacted a law that restricts counselors (lawyers) from having conversations regarding gender and sexuality with clients under the age of 18. Any counselor who engages in any such conversations with clients under the age of 18 could face steep fines, up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension from practice and even revocation of license. 

A Colorado lawyer challenged this lawsuit. The Supreme Court heard her case today, and there are aspects of her case that should lead to a ruling in her favor. A ruling leading to free speech prevailing. Colorado bans the expression of viewpoints with which it disagrees. If a young girl comes to this lawyer, whom we'll call "Beth' and says she thinks she may be a boy, and wants to realign her identity with her sex,  Colorado law bans that conversation. The law does, however, allow conversations to impel that girl down a path of gender transition, which might include dangerous drugs and procedures. Colorado is forcibly obliging counselors and their clients to succumb to its ideological demands or refuse help. 

Colorado's misplaced paternalism harms the very children it aims to protect. Colorado law declares 'change' a forbidden goal if a client seeks conversation to help them recover an identity consistent with the biological sex. Studies show that roughly 90 percent of children who struggle with gender issues before puberty  will regain comfort with their sex over time. Colorado's law encourages these children to a path of gender transition. Colorado law deprives children of the many reported benefits that can come from counseling, including a better understanding, improved mental health, and increased hope that they can live consistently with their faith. Many clients believe that their religious identity is more fundamental than their self-perceptions of gender and sexuality. 

For whatever reason, Colorado's state government goads counselors and clients into a forced ideological path. Unfortunately, this path ignores free speech, client autonomy, and restricts available help which leads to sabotaging help in the counseling room. The most helpful ways to discuss gender and sexuality, which are widely debated natters of moral and spiritual significance should be left to the counselor and client, not the government. 

This matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm that freedom. By all means and matters it should protect free speech from Colorado's attempt to thwart it. The rule of law is the rule of law. No state is allowed to opt out... This includes Colorado...

Celebrating Communism; raising the Chinese flag in Philadelphia

 Tomorrow, on September 30, Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs is planning to raise the red flag emblazoned with the star of the Chinese Communist Party to celebrate the anniversary of the establishment of the CCP.  There's more than just a mere touch of irony involved here. Less than a mile from City Hall, the site of the proposed CCP flag-raising, Betsy Ross stitched the first American flag in a small house on Arch Street, at the direct request of President George Washington. The Stars and Stripes was adopted by the incipient United States on June 14, 1777. It was proudly flown during the Revolutionary War that resulted in our independence. Very near to Betsy Ross's house is the site of John Dunlap's press that disseminated the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1788.  

Celebrating the authoritarianism represented by the CCP is antithetical to the essence of freedom and American values. Is this 'virtue-signaling, tolerance for diversity, or just a patent disgrace? Philadelphia has long been the center of gravity for American freedom. A public celebration of the Chinese Communist Party, which is fast becoming the single greatest national security threat to the United States in the 21st century, is warped.

The proposed event is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania United Chinese Coalition, part of a network of organizations attempting to boost the CCP's reputation and influence within the US under the guise of 'cultural exchange'. While it may have been intended to be a symbolic gesture, it is nonetheless crass and vacuous. Here is the real underpinning irony; many Chinese-Americans are in Philadelphia because they were seeking the freedom and opportunity denied to them by the CCP. The Chinese in Philadelphia are likely loathe to celebrate the regime that persecuted them. This 'ceremony' is likely more of an insult to them, not to mention a reminder that they're not far enough removed for the CCP. Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs needs to rethink this. We should be celebrating American Freedom, not Communist oppression. Just ask the Chinese immigrants...

Discord, Dissonance, Hate, Murder, What's Next? Dare we ask...

 It's difficult to say exactly when the 'divide' began to develop, but it has been over a fairly long period of time. Decades, for sure. As children we're not really aware of which direction the political winds are blowing, but there are some major political events that we will remember even at a very young age. In November, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Johnson was in office when the bill passed, but Kennedy first proposed it. I remember both very well. I was ten years old. I was born during the Eisenhower administration and recall seeing him on television. It was black & white back then of course and stations signed off at midnight to the National Anthem. The good old days...  I don't recall my parents ever declaring they were democrat or republican, but they were indeed patriots and supported the president. Eisenhower was a Republican and Kennedy was a Democrat. Both great presidents. No hint of a political divide back then. 

During the Reagan and Bush admins, any ideological political divide that existed was subdued and mostly irrelevant. Compared to the present political climate, this was a very calm period in politics. Along comes Bill Clinton. The Whitewater Scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, and ultimately Monicagate. Scandal after scandal, there were those unfortunate ones who lost their jobs and reputations, but such never included the Clintons. Except of course Monicagate which resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In January, 1998, Bill Clinton on national TV made his famous statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." As he said this he shook his right forefinger at the nation for emphasis. In August 1998, Clinton admitted to an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. The House impeached Clinton in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. In February 1999, the Senate trial acquitted on both counts. Oddly, the Republicans held the majority in the Senate but could not remove Clinton from office without a 2/3 majority. Obviously, the democrats would not support the move to impeach. 

Arguably, there were a number of points in history that could be tagged as the genesis of the political, ideological divide the country is experiencing today. In my opinion, the above described event is a prime contender. The president of the United States screws a 20-something year-old intern in the Oval Office, is impeached and his party refuses to vote for impeachment?... Despite his DNA being on her blue dress? How much more egregious could his conduct get before the Democrats would vote to impeach? From that point forward the impetus to 'protect the incumbent Democrat' by the party members, and increasingly as time passed by the liberal-leaning mainstream media began to snowball. There are dozens upon dozens of examples but it has become tiresome to recount them. So I won't. They are all a matter of public record. 

Fast forward to today. The divide is so real, and raw. So raw that a young radical, leftist murdered a conservative activist speaker on a university campus in Utah. Simply because he was tired of his perceived "hate". I say perceived because the majority does not align with his speech being 'hate'. Not everyone, including myself, agreed with everything Charlie Kirk said. The Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. In broad, general terms and point by point, it was no mistake. There have been numerous misrepresentations about what he said and meant, but the Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. It was a requirement. It was necessary. 

But let's put Charlie Kirk aside for a moment, God rest his soul. He was a good person. He loved his family, he loved God. Give him credit. But, here we are. In a nutshell, we have right and left. Should it be so simple. We have far-left and far-right. The 'fringe'. The 'extremists'. Is each actually a part of the divide? Is the far-right' actually 'right'? Ditto for the left? We see 'markers' that cause us to tag them as right or left, but are they really? Or are they in reality just 'extremists'? Prone to violence, even to the extreme of taking anothers' life? Taking another's life is a heinous act of insanity, even if transitory. Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, what difference does it make? It's a criminal act. Let's blame it on criminal tendency. Blaming it on the left or the right is a waste of time.  

Now, let's move past that. We know how far we have come and how wide the divide has become. How do we fix it? Can we fix it? How much worse, how many people must die before we can make it better. Let's go ahead and get optimistic, before we can stop it. I wish I could answer that. I wish anyone could. If we look at history, when we reached such a divisive point in the past, war broke out. Did the war solve it? No, but changes were made and we went on. We, eventually unitedThe problem is lives were lost, thousands of lives. God help us it doesn't take a war to make those necessary changes this time. 

The tax you didn't even know you were paying...

 We've all heard the old adage "There are only two things that are guaranteed in life; death and taxes". Hard to argue with that axiom. Taxes are endless; income, property, estate, sales, inheritance, capital gains, excise, luxury, tariffs, hotel/lodging, motor vehicle...  And more. But there is one tax not listed here that we all pay at some time, some of us more than others. Much more. It's an insidious tax for which there are no statues that codify it. But it's real, very real. That tax is time. 

Most discussions of inequality focus on wealth gaps and income. But there's an equally sinister version of inequality that doesn't pit the rich against the poor. It's the administrative state's pilfering a valuable resource from anyone trying to get ahead and improve their life. Time. 

Time inequality is less visible, harder to measure and more harmful than income inequality. Modern life and liberal market advocates have achieved a steady increase in individuals' leisure time. Work/life balance is a goal of any corporate environment these days. In the past those with fewer means labored from sunup to sundown to survive, they now enjoy more time for family, rest and improving their lives. Lassez-faire delivered this miracle; but government bureaucracies are surreptitiously taking it back. 

Navigating government systems is like a second job that doesn't pay the bills. Renewing your drivers license, that's a half day down the tubes. Applying for social security benefits? Lots of luck with that. Starting a side business? Expect to spend months navigating complex licensing requirements, completing paperwork, obtaining inane approvals, and making repeat visits. These are beyond mere annoyances, they're regressive, invisible taxes involving time, imposing the greatest burden on those with the least resources. A 2016 study by researchers at the consulting firm Management Lab revealed that bureaucratic waste - including delays and over regulation cost America 17 percent of its GDP. This number represents real hours lost, opportunities denied, and lives hindered. The well-to-do have ways around this. They can hire assistants, pay for expedited services, or simply take time off without financial strain. But for the poor, every government imposed delay comes with a tangible cost: lost wages, missed shifts, and less time with family. I didn't even mention frustration and stress.

A maze of occupational licensing laws govern over twenty percent of U.S. jobs. In many states to obtain a license for a job one must pay fees, pass tests and complete sometimes hundreds of hours of training. It's not just money being extracted, excessive amounts in many cases, but time. For example, in New Mexico to obtain a cosmetology license one must complete more than 1,600 hours of training. Requirements such as this are intended to protect incumbents who benefit from high hurdles to eliminate competition. 

To compound the problem, even after meeting the costly, time-consuming requirements, many find themselves blocked by arbitrary bureaucratic vetoes. Policies like 'certificates of need' allow government officials to decide, often without justification, that an individual's services aren't needed, regardless of that person's qualifications. Some people who are hindered by arbitrary hurdles seek help from the courts. Legal recourse can be a marathon as well, not to mention unaffordable by most. The Supreme Court case Sackett v EPA involved a family that wanted to build a modest home on their property in Idaho. The EPA claimed jurisdiction over their property and threatened absurd fines unless they obtained an expensive permit. The couple fought back, and won. But it took a full sixteen years to vindicate their rights. Is this government overreach or sheer stupidity? Both, I suppose, but a little heavy on the stupidity. 

What can be done about this? Actually, a lot. Lawmakers can repeal these ignorant, baseless licensure requirements. Government permission is not needed for jobs that pose no risk to the public. Streamlining government processes; if it takes more than 30 days, requires multiple in-person visits, or can't be completed on-line, then the process is broken. Implement response time caps, default approvals, and digital filing for everything. Regulatory audits shouldn't measure only monetary costs, they should also measure the time burden. Courts should treat bureaucratic time-wasting, particularly when it burdens or prevents people's right and ability to earn a living, as a matter of legal concern. Courts reflexively defer to regulators determination that a law is necessary, even when the law blocks a person from earning a living. If a law unnecessarily consumes people's time without a clear public benefit or need, the courts should strike it down. 

Every unnecessary delay, form and regulation is an insidious, hidden tax on our most precious, unrecoverable resource: time. And that tax is anything but equal. On an individual basis, time is a very limited resource. The time tax is real and it's time to treat it that way...

Getting the Job Done.

A couple of weeks ago a New York Appellate Court dismissed an unconstitutional and disgraceful $500million penalty on President Trump and his businesses. At the time, incidentally, New York Attorney General Letitia James was getting busted for mortgage fraud.  Rewind a little further and have a look at all the declassified documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel that show the entire RussiaGate hoax was quarterbacked by then president Obama and Hillary Clinton. A scrutiny of the events reveals a collapse of the legal and deep-state forces against president Trump. One could arguably say such reveals explicit details of the ongoing collapse of the Democratic Party. 

Not only could the deep-state not defeat Mr. Trump and the forces of treachery and sedition break him, the prominent liars are themselves now facing criminal indictment. To ice the deception cake, Trump was re-elected. Quite a nightmare for Obama, Clinton, the deep-state, and the Democratic Party. It appears that all those who participated in the Russian hoax and various other phony trials, they're getting fired form their jobs and lawyering up. 

As if that's not enough, Trump is running a vastly successful administration in terms of economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration policy et al. Oh, lest we forget, law and order. He closed the open border. Not only could they not put him in prison, or bust his businesses, or keep him off the ballot, or tie him to the Russia hoax, he is now succeeding in virtually every initiative he's put forward. In spite of numerous judicial hurdles (overreaching federal district judges) the judicial system appears to be working. As bad, inept and corrupt as some of these judges have been, with all of their political biases and weaponization of lawfare, Trump has prevailed. Hey, he may be a bit of pompous jerk at times, but he's getting the job done...

Our True Heroes...

 I like writing about politics and statesmanship, heaven knows there's plenty to write about that. I'm going to take a break today though from my predisposed political bent and talk about a different topic. This is one of my life topics, and a very important life at that. 

My precious granddaughter who is sixteen years old has been suffering from cancer for over ten years now. It's a very serious and life-threatening form of brain cancer called metastatic epitheloid glioneuronal. When she was initally diagnosed, the prognosis was grim. She was in the care of a team of doctors at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. They decided that surgery was the best initial approach. They operated and were able to remove 'most' of the tumor. As is often the case with cancer, especially in the brain, the tumor ensconced itself in the cranial cavity like hot lava oozing down a mountainside, embedding itself in every nook and crevice along the way. Their efforts to remove almost all the tumor was nothing short of miraculous. Years went by and she lived a normal childhood life. 

Then, it began to rear its ugly existence once again.   At the time there were some cutting-edge treatments available; radiation and proton therapy. I can't offer much of an explanation of these therapies as such is way above my pay grade. But empirical evidence convinces me that it is a life-saver, at least it was for my granddaughter. After the treatment program she was diagnosed as 'in remission'. Some of the tumor, which was now greatly reduced in size was still there but determined to be 'dormant'. One pitfall is the radiation procedures can and do have side-effects. Hers was Moya-moya. This is a rare progressive condition that affects blood vessels in the brain. Doctors were near certain it was caused by the massive doses of radiation she had received. Months later, she suffered a stroke. 

She survived the stroke and after extensive rehab was able to resume a near normal life once again. A few more 'more-or-less' uneventful years passed. One evening, recently, she began having severe headaches and vomiting and was rushed to the emergency room. Cat-scans and MRI's revealed the tumor had grown and was spreading again. Once again an oracular team of doctors convened to determine the best path forward. Because we humans can only endure so much radiation in our lives, radiation/proton therapy was not an option. Which only left one. Surgery. Surgery is by nature fraught with risk. Any type of surgery, some more or less than others. Brain surgery is likely the apex on the risk curve. And for the second time... The first time she had brain surgery she was a mere five years old. To a five year old, brain surgery, toe surgery, what's the difference. Everyone around her was telling her you're going to be fine. That was good enough. The second time though, she's sixteen years old with a significantly heightened sense of self awareness. She's a very bright young lady and knew the gravitas of the situation this time and she was scared to death. The moments I spent with her just before the surgery, seeing her fearfulness was heart-breaking and life-changing for me. 

She not only survived the surgery she came out like Rocky pumping his fists in the air on the steps of the museum in the movie "Rocky". The morning after the surgery she was awake and talking almost as if nothing had happened. I felt as if I had entered an alternate existence. How can this be happening? The sense of relief was probably akin to being rescued from a tsunami. We were prepared for whatever was to be, but ultimately were granted a God-given reprieve. 

This little girl in her short sixteen years of life has endured more pain and suffering than most people endure in a lifetime. And if you were to walk in her room at the moment you would see a smile brighter than the sun. She is my hero. If I can muster the courage I have seen in her for the rest of my days, I will be proud. The other heroes I have encountered in this ordeal are the gifted doctors that have so compassionately cared for her. And saved her life, more than once. There are a great deal of really smart, gifted people in the world. And then, there are doctors. Getting up in the morning (actually all hours of the day and night...) and going to work and saving someone's life. We are just so proud, glad and blessed that on one of those days, the life they saved was my precious granddaughter. Again. 

Godspeed to doctors the world over. 

Social Media, let's pull back the cover and have a look...

 In the late 90's and into the early 2000's social media began to take a foothold. Early sites like SixDegrees, Friendster, and MySpace introduced online social networking, but were still mostly the province of younger, internet-savvy groups. By the mid-2000's, MySpace had peaked, and for a time was the most visited site in the U.S. FaceBook launched in 2004 and expended beyond college campuses in 2006. Once it opened up to the general public and added features like News Feed (2006) it became the dominant social network. It was around this time that social media stopped being just for 'techies' or students and was used by families, businesses, and politicians. In the 2010's, with the rise of smartphones, especially after the iPhone appeared in 2007, platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and eventually TikTok, made social media a part of everyday life across nearly all age groups. 

I do not believe that anything in history has influenced such rapid changes in culture, customs, even language than has the advent of social media. It has undoubtedly influenced and changed the mores of younger generations. The social norms, customs and 'unwritten rules' of the younger generations are so many and so varied, older generations are unaware of most (uninterested probably, as well). In recent times it has undoubtedly played an influential role of the outcome of a presidential election. Morals, on the other hand should not change from one generation to the next, provided that parents are doing their due diligence. Which we know isn't always the case. There is little doubt that moral decay is being insidiously advocated on social media platforms for those young, vulnerable ones in search of their own moral platform.. There have been countless crimes committed via the internet; financial, moral, including reputational damage, vile hoaxes, criminal, including extortion, fraud, the list is endless. And these are difficult, tedious, resource-heavy crimes to solve. Yet the image they inflict seems to be practically instantaneous. 

And now we are experiencing the technological tsunami that is AI. Google was cool. AI is revolutionary. Scholars can do extensive research in a fraction of the time bringing new discoveries and developments and literary works to our lives. The misguided amongst us can incubate evil ideas with clarity and speed. To be fair, every new technological development spawns both good and evil. For example, in 1836, Samual Colt patented the Colt Revolver, the first commercially successful handgun made in the US. Colt Revolvers are still made today, one-hundred eighty nine years later. They still allow law enforcement officers to do their jobs. They still allow the armed forces to defend our country. Regrettably, they also abet bank robbers, thieves and burglars and murderers to ply their illicit trades. 

And so it shall be with social media, the internet and AI. At least until we can figure out an effective way to avert evil. Considering since the days when Jesus walked the earth, evil has been present and prevailed all too often, it would not be reasonable to expect a timely resolution. Unfortunately and regrettably it is a part of the human condition. There will always be misdeeds and miscreants, not to mention ordinary troublemakers. But the thinkers, the innovators, the inventors, the developers will always far outnumber them. As fast as these elite groups can come up with groundbreaking ideas, the troublemakers will always follow. For all the great wonderful things the internet and social media has brought, always keep in mind there are those lurking in the cyber shadows waiting for an opportunity to wreak havoc. It's what they do. Deny them their opportunity. 

California: Gorgeous coastline, fabulous climate, lots of nice people and the dumbest politicians on earth.

 California seems to be experiencing an 'energy crisis'. Gas prices are expected to exceed $8 per gallon in 2026. That's similar to Europe, who have been experiencing extremely high fuel prices for decades. But there's an entirely different 'cause and effect' in play causing California's gas price spike. Seems California has regulated itself into unaffordable energy. In spite of abundant energy resources and refining capacity, California has created a regulatory climate that has convinced  two major oil companies to close their refineries in the coming year. 

Valero's Benicia refinery near San Francisco and Phillips 66's Wilmington refinery near Los Angeles are both scheduled to close in 2026. Valero CEO Lane Riggs said on a recent earnings call that California's tough "regulatory enforcement environment" was the main factor driving the closing of the state's sixth largest refinery. The announcement came six months after state regulators fined the company $82 million for exceeding toxic emissions standards for more than 15 years. 

Phillips 66 announce the closure of its Los Angeles refinery, the seventh largest in the state, just 3 days after California passed ABX2-1, which requires refiners in the state to hold additional inventories of gasoline stock. The company attributed the closure to not any specific policy but to "long-term uncertainty' for the refining business in the state. This is the sixth and seventh largest refiners in the state. Would a reasonable person be inclined to think that conditions would be any better for the five larger refineries?...

Last year Chevron moved its headquarters out of San Ramon, California to Houston, Texas, because it was becoming increasingly difficult to do business in the Golden State. According to a professor at USC, California has legislated itself into a situation where costs are extraordinarily high and the political environment is extraordinarily harsh. The two refineries represent almost 20% of in-state gasoline production, about 6.2 million gallons of gas per day.  At present, California gas prices are about 40% higher than the US average, a difference attributable to 'supply issues', the CA 'special blend' of gasoline (sold only in CA), and a layer of taxes and fees paid by consumers. 

California Governor Newscum blames the oil companies for gouging consumers for decades. According to him, "There's no other way to put it." Well, Gav, if you told the truth, there would indeed be another way to put it...  California with the help of Obama and Biden have been pushing to make California (and the country for that matter) an all-EV affair. Newsome's objective was to eliminate internal combustion engine vehicle sales by 2035. That mandate set the stage for energy companies and refiners to set up an exit strategy. His timing is a little off, the refiners seem to be leaving about a decade too early. 

California at one time was fourth in the world in oil production. Today, it produces about 2.5% of all US crude production, and only about 24% of its own in-state needs. That has left CA highly dependent on foreign imports including Iraq, Brazil, Guayana, and Ecuador. In 2024, CA imported 61% of its oil from foreign sources. 

With the looming closure of the two refineries, the situation stands to get worse. California has no inbound pipelines for incoming gasoline or oil, leaving them completely dependent on foreign sources to make up the difference. All arriving gas and oil imports will be via maritime vessels, known for being some of the most egregious producers of greenhouse gas emissions. 

California doesn't only have a lack of competent leadership, they have a leadership vacuum. If the Richter scale could measure stupidity, this earthquake would be historic.