As I am driving a 2001 Nissan Maxima with over 115,000 miles, I am considering a newer car, maybe brand new, in 2017. Toyota’s 2018 Camry will be available in late 2017. The car’s styling has always been a bit stodgy. Reports are saying the 2018 model will offer some sleeker styling and some important safety features. Knowing Camry’s reliability history makes this a car I am definitely going to consider.
According to Toyota, the redesigned Camry features a lower center of gravity aimed at making it more aerodynamic and fuel efficient. The new car also has a two-inch longer wheelbase. And the hood, cowl, and dashboard height have all been lowered for better outward visibility.
Mechanically, the 2018 Camry offers the same familiar powertrains: a 3.5-liter V6, and 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine. Both will be paired to a new eight-speed automatic transmission, as experienced recently in Consumer Reports Highlander and Sienna test vehicles.
A four-cylinder hybrid will also be available, mated to a continuously variable transmission (CVT) and featuring Toyota’s latest fuel-saving technology. Horsepower and fuel economy estimates were not disclosed.
Massachusetts, home to one of the nation’s wealthiest and most highly educated population, leads the nation in quality of life. Mississippi, the poorest state in the country, trails the other 49 states according to 24/7 Wall St. that reviewed three statewide social and economic measures — poverty rate, educational attainment, and life expectancy at birth — to rank each state’s living conditions. Socioeconomic outcomes vary greatly between states.
West Virginia came in at 49th place. That is no surprise. Here is a link to the rest of 24/7 Wall St. ratings. Nine of the ten with the poorest quality of life are in the South. That too is no surprise. What is a surprise is that Florida came in at number 30.
California at number 15 is the result of the high cost of housing. The median home value in California is $449,100, more than double the value of the typical home nationwide. If you can handle that then it is a great place to live as there is no snow in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Life expectancy is the third highest in the nation.
New York state is dominated by NYC is at 13th place. If you love the really big city that never sleeps it might be the place to live.
I would have thought that Hawaii might be in 2nd place but it’s at a mere 10th place. High incomes do not go as far in Hawaii as they would in other states. Goods and services cost about 17% more across the state than they do on average nationwide, the highest cost of living of any state.
Connecticut in second place and appears to be a great place to live.
Interestingly the people of America are not entirely in tune with the above opinions. Below is a U.S. Census map showing the change in population from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016. California’s low percentage growth is a consequence of being the most populated state. With 10 year growth of 11% it now has a population of over 39 million people. As there are over 324 million people in the USA, that means that 12% of the all Americans live in California.
The words “Affordable Health Care” are a contradiction. By its very nature health care is unaffordable. That is the reason so many countries have embraced universal health care as a national responsibility.
The rhetorical term oxymoron, made up of two Greek words meaning “sharp” and “dull,” is itself oxymoronic.
In my opinion the most outrageous oxymoron statement was “Peace for our time.” It was said by Neville Chamberlain on September 30, 1938.
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is “peace for our time.” Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
On September 3, 1939 in response to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, Britain and France, both allies of the overrun nation declared war on Germany.
While health care is hardly in the same category as a war, the Affordable Health Care Act is not affordable.
Obamacare rates are going way up. The latest estimate from the federal government is that the average midlevel Obamacare plan, the most popular choice, will cost about 22 percent more in 2017 than it did in 2016. This is based on data from 39 states where people sign up through the HealthCare.gov website and some preliminary data from four other states and the District of Columbia.
The health care industry is a “for profit” system that hides under the IRS category of “non-profit” but pays its management high rewards. Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard J. Tyson earned $2.3 million in salary and other compensation in 2010, according to Kaiser’s federal tax filing.
For profit companies Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Cigna CEO David Cordani both saw their total pay surge to $17.3 million in 2015 after earning $15 million and $14.5 million, respectively, in 2014.
Over the past six months, Mylan, which is one of the world’s largest purveyors of generic medicines, raised prices more than 20 percent on two dozen products. And Mylan also boosted prices by more that 100 percent on seven other products, according to Wells Fargo analyst David Maris, who called some of the price hikes “exceptionally large.”
So where is the affordability? The idea of controlled costs is a myth. There are no laws limiting the profits that hospitals earn, pharmaceutical companies earn, or insurance companies earn.
For reasons that evade me the GOP’s war on Obamacare offers no reasonable alternative. Of course if their intent is to protect health care profits by returning health care to the way it was before Obamacare was enacted, they are on the right path.
This posting is motivated by the United Nations Security Council condemnation of Israel’s decision to build new housing in Israel occupied West Bank.
The story is old but people reading this blog need to understand how Israelis and Palestinians have come to this sorry place in history. This is not a complete history of all the wars fought between Arabs and Israel. Nor is there any reference to Hamas and Hezbollah in this discussion, who are both sworn enemies of Israel.
When the state of Israel was created by an action of the United Nations in 1948 the Arab population in that area refused to recognize the creation of a Jewish state. Immediately after Israel declared itself a state the surrounding nations attacked. Arabs lost that war.
In 1967 the Arab nations surrounding Israel gathered armies on the borders of Israel in preparation to invade. Those countries were Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The Israelis actually started the war before the Arab countries attacked. Israel won that war driving the Syrians out of the immediately adjoining area, pushing the Jordanians to the east of the Jordan River and taking all of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and occupying all the land of Egypt to the Suez Canal. In the process Israel also occupied parts of southern Lebanon.
Israel reached an agreement with Egypt to withdraw from all of the land they had won in the 1967 War in exchange for Egyptian recognition of the State of Israel. The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., United States on 26 March 1979, following the 1978 Camp David Accords.
The Jordan-Israel Peace Treatywas signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time.
Israel remains in control of what was part of Jordan, the area west of the Jordan River, and Gaza, a small strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea that had previously been controlled by Egypt, and the Golan Heights that were previously part of Syria.
Israel withdrew its settlements in Gaza in 2005. That amounted to about 8,500 people being relocated in the hopes of bringing some peace to that area. Repeated missile attacks from Gaza into Israel’s pre-1967 territory has resulted in repeated bombing of the area by the Israeli Defense forces. The most recent bombing occurred in 2014.
Efforts to create a two state solution between Israel and the occupied Arab territories have been unsuccessful primarily because the leadership of the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Israelis take the position that the spoils of war is they get to decide what happens in the areas they occupy. Thus building Jewish communities in areas that are primarily Palestinians is a fair consequence of the wars they have won. The rest of the world through the United Nations disagrees.
Neither Israelis nor Palestinians trust their opponents to honor their words.
Hatred makes a peace agreement an unlikely outcome in the next few years. New leadership for both Israel and the Palestinians is the only hope for a settlement and permanent peace.
It is not often that a White Christian of considerable fame admits that he is a racist. That is exactly what Bill O’Reilly did on his “O’Reilly Factor” program on Tuesday, December 20, 2016.
He pointed out that it is the White establishment that is in control of this nation. Essentially telling his viewing audience that minorities want to take control. O’Reilly said, “This is all about race. The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with, therefore white working class voters must be marginalized, and what better way to do that then center the voting power in the cities.”
What he did not tell his audience is that White Christians will soon be the minority race in the United States.
The change is already happening throughout the country. In California the change has already become significant. Hispanics now make up 39% of the population and Whites make up 38.4%. That White population includes Jews. Jews are at least 3% of the population. That leaves the White Christians at 35.4%.
“The left wants power taken away from the white establishment and they want a profound change in the way America is run,” said Bill O’Reilly.
From the Christian Science Monitor
December 21, 2016 —Bill O’Reilly doesn’t want the Electoral College – or the disproportionate power it brings rural, white voters – to disappear.
In a two-and-a-half minute introduction to the segment, the conservative Fox News anchor threw his support behind the system, insisting its survival was necessary to ensure that voters in predominantly rural states are not overrun by a growing population of minorities in city centers.
“The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with.” he told The O’Reilly Factor viewers on Tuesday. “The left wants power taken away from the white establishment. They want a profound change in the way America is run. Taking voting power away from the white precincts is the quickest way to do that.”
The segment has left liberals reeling, with many calling Mr. O’Reilly’s comments racist, saying he appears to prefer white votes holding additional influence over ballots cast by minorities. But for some, O’Reilly’s comments illuminate a larger segment of the population that fears the eroding influence of white voters in a rapidly changing America – the very group that President-elect Donald Trump rallied to win key swing states.
Those disappointed with Mr. Trump’s victory have protested the centuries-old system and called for a shift to a popular vote that would create equity among individual votes nationwide. Others have pushed back, arguing that the system put in place by the Founding Fathers in 1787 is a traditional and key element of the US democratic process.
O’Reilly is correct from a mathematical standpoint: The Electoral College does place an emphasis on votes from those in rural, and generally white, areas, allowing a vote cast in Wyoming, for example, to have 3.6 times the influence of one cast in California. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the system is working better for them, says George Edwards, a professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
Under the current system, candidates focus their attention on big swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, never taking the time to visit with voters in large swaths of rural America. That lack of access can hinder voter turnout in states as different as Wyoming and California.
“Right now, the candidates ignore rural areas,” Dr. Edwards tells The Christian Science Monitor in a phone interview. “You can’t do worse than nothing. Any change in the system can’t make them worse off than nothing.”
In O’Reilly’s view, however, a popular vote system would essentially strip states like Wyoming of their voice in the presidential election. Under today’s system, Democratic and Republican candidates alike spend time in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, not only drumming up support but also taking time to hear directly from voters about what issues are important to them.
In the segment, he argued that abolishing the electoral college would make large cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston more appealing campaign destinations for Democratic candidates, who may seek to win favor with minorities and urban dwellers and tip the national vote to the left while largely ignoring white voters living in “fly-over” states.
“[Liberals] well know that neutralizing the largely rural white areas in the Midwest and South will ensure liberal politicians get power and keep it,” O’Reilly said. “White working class voters must be marginalized. And what better way to do that than center the power in the cities?”
O’Reilly’s characterization that the push to abolish the Electoral College is driven by a desire to overthrow the reign of “white privilege” on the electoral process has drawn particular critisism from both ends of the political spectrum.
Juan Williams, a Fox News contributor and regular substitute host for The O’Reilly Factor, dismissed O’Reilly’s claim that race is the driving factor in the debate around the Electoral College.
“There is a racial overlay,” Mr. Williams said on the show. “But not everybody who is challenging the Electoral College is doing it because of race. Lots of people think it should be ‘one person, one vote’ no matter where you live in America. But if you’re out in the sticks now your vote is now worth more than a vote in California.”
That’s a major sticking point for proponents of the popular vote. But, in O’Reilly’s view, simply reverting to a system based on the popular vote would not just bring the weight of a single vote in California in line with a vote in Wyoming, it would also tip the entire election into the hands of Californians.
With more than 39 million residents, California is the most populous state, making up roughly 12 percent of the United States population. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton won California by 4.3 million votes. If the same were to happen under a popuar vote system, California could in effect cancel out the votes of a whole handful of smaller states.
Bu Dr. Edwards, who wrote the book “Why the Electoral College is Bad for America,” suggested that if the popular vote were the law of the land, the campaign in California – and ostensibly the outcome – would have been very different.
As it is now, candidates take for granted that California will go blue. But there are nearly 5 million registered Republicans in California, 30 times as many as in Wyoming. If every vote was to be weighed individually, Republican and Democratic candidates alike would spend time in the state – a point Donald Trump alluded to shortly after the election.
“[Candidates] don’t run ads in California. They don’t invest in the ground game in California,” Edwards says. “But they would. They would take their case to people everywhere because all those votes count.”
Here is the proposal that is planned for a vote by the county supervisors in December and the city council in January. Under the joint Los Angeles city/county effort the two government bodies will put up $5 Million towards a legal defense fund to defend illegal aliens facing deportation. The remaining $5 Million will be raised through philanthropic groups. The funds will be called “The L.A. Justice Fund.”
It is estimated that 1 million of the 11 million illegal aliens in the United States are living in Los Angeles County.
It is easy to say that local governments should not be involved in protecting illegal aliens and that the local tax payers are facing an additional burden that has not been approved through a ballot measure.
However, we do have a representative government that authorizes those elected to determine budgets and how money is to be spent.
Because there is a very large minority population in Los Angeles the will of the people is being carried out by those elected officials. Many of them are members of minority groups.
The argument is that many of the illegal alien: 1. Have been in the United States for decades doing jobs that most Americans won’t do for pay that most Americans consider unacceptable.
2. Are working at businesses that are known to ICE to employ them but have done nothing to arrest and deport.
3. Were brought to this country as children and know of no other country. They are victims of their parent’s decisions.
4. Have children that were born in the United States and deporting the parents will break apart the families leaving the children with no caring family. Those minor children may be orphaned and require foster care.
The above reasons are enough for me to believe that the legal defense fund is an appropriate use of government tax money.
Coast Contact 