Category: US Politics

California’s proposed $26 billion bailout of bankrupt PG&E’s wildfire liability will push the state’s average residential electric rates to 70 percent higher than national average.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on July 18 that supposedly will share equally between Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) shareholders and its customer the estimated $21 billion liability for 2017 and 2018 wildfire losses. The deal is also contingent on PG&E and the state’s other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas, contribute another $5 billion to cover losses.

According to the latest U.S. Energy Information Agency report, California’s residential electric rates currently average 18.05 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) versus a national average for the other states of 13.16 cents / kwh. Despite already being 37 percent higher than the national average, the bailout will push rates up to about 22.22 cents / kwh, or almost 70 percent higher than the national average.

PG&E is the seventh largest U.S. electric utility. The company has 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines, 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines, and 24,000 employees  to service 5.4 million customer accounts for 16 million residents. 

The State of California has implemented a series of disastrous policies since the 1990s to slash utility profit margins, demand conversion to much more expensive sustainable electricity generation, and shriveled spending money on forest management.

The California Public Utilities Commission slashed investor-owned utilities’ return on shareholder equity from 13 percent in 1990 to about 9.45 percent since 2016. The very low return on equity clearly encouraged PG&E to cut back on maintenance spending. 

California also passed a power deregulation plan in 1998 that gave bureaucrats the authority to purchase wholesale electricity. Rather than paying slightly higher prices for long term fixed-rate electricity generated in the state, the regulators made “cheaper” purchases of short-term electricity from out-of-state producers.

But when short-term rates went up by 500 percent, PG&E suffered a $12 billion loss and was forced into a 2001 bankruptcy that lasted for the next three years. The weakened company has never recovered from the devastating losses from its first bankruptcy.

A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that PG&E delayed repairs to older transmission lines by ranking the upgrades as low priority compared to other work like substation upgrades, according to a review of federal regulatory filings. The Journal found that PG&E in 2017 identified the need for new steel towers and transmission line repairs to prevent “structure failure resulting [in] conductor on ground causing fire.”

PG&E issued a statement pledging to continue “working with the new California Public Utilities Commission President, the governor, and all stakeholders on shared solutions to California’s ever-growing risk of wildfire,” while “keeping customer rates and bills as low as possible.”

Gov. Newsom’s bailout plan requires San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison must approve their willingness to participate. The bailout plan also requires PG&E must exit bankruptcy by next June and meet a series of safety requirements, despite providing a long-term funding mechanism for up to $20 billion in repairs.

Although it was assumed the other utilities would participate, Southern California Edison is now requesting that California approve a spike in the return on equity to above 17 percent to “compensate investors for the higher risks associated with uncertain state policies for utility cost recovery and liability resulting from California’s devastating wildfires.”

California’s proposed $26 billion bailout of bankrupt PG&E’s wildfire liability will push the state’s average residential electric rates to 70 percent higher than national average.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on July 18 that supposedly will share equally between Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) shareholders and its customer the estimated $21 billion liability for 2017 and 2018 wildfire losses. The deal is also contingent on PG&E and the state’s other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas, contribute another $5 billion to cover losses.

According to the latest U.S. Energy Information Agency report, California’s residential electric rates currently average 18.05 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) versus a national average for the other states of 13.16 cents / kwh. Despite already being 37 percent higher than the national average, the bailout will push rates up to about 22.22 cents / kwh, or almost 70 percent higher than the national average.

PG&E is the seventh largest U.S. electric utility. The company has 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines, 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines, and 24,000 employees  to service 5.4 million customer accounts for 16 million residents. 

The State of California has implemented a series of disastrous policies since the 1990s to slash utility profit margins, demand conversion to much more expensive sustainable electricity generation, and shriveled spending money on forest management.

The California Public Utilities Commission slashed investor-owned utilities’ return on shareholder equity from 13 percent in 1990 to about 9.45 percent since 2016. The very low return on equity clearly encouraged PG&E to cut back on maintenance spending. 

California also passed a power deregulation plan in 1998 that gave bureaucrats the authority to purchase wholesale electricity. Rather than paying slightly higher prices for long term fixed-rate electricity generated in the state, the regulators made “cheaper” purchases of short-term electricity from out-of-state producers.

But when short-term rates went up by 500 percent, PG&E suffered a $12 billion loss and was forced into a 2001 bankruptcy that lasted for the next three years. The weakened company has never recovered from the devastating losses from its first bankruptcy.

A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that PG&E delayed repairs to older transmission lines by ranking the upgrades as low priority compared to other work like substation upgrades, according to a review of federal regulatory filings. The Journal found that PG&E in 2017 identified the need for new steel towers and transmission line repairs to prevent “structure failure resulting [in] conductor on ground causing fire.”

PG&E issued a statement pledging to continue “working with the new California Public Utilities Commission President, the governor, and all stakeholders on shared solutions to California’s ever-growing risk of wildfire,” while “keeping customer rates and bills as low as possible.”

Gov. Newsom’s bailout plan requires San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison must approve their willingness to participate. The bailout plan also requires PG&E must exit bankruptcy by next June and meet a series of safety requirements, despite providing a long-term funding mechanism for up to $20 billion in repairs.

Although it was assumed the other utilities would participate, Southern California Edison is now requesting that California approve a spike in the return on equity to above 17 percent to “compensate investors for the higher risks associated with uncertain state policies for utility cost recovery and liability resulting from California’s devastating wildfires.”

Immorality is being embraced by so-called Christian love.  Bible-based Judeo-Christian morality is increasingly considered a non-starter.  Traditional Christian doctrine is increasingly looked upon as inconsistent with nature and “human need.”   Sin is being sanctioned and celebrated — homosexuality, non-marital sex, aborting babies (now part of “health”), and even pedophilia — by people who should know better.   One man said to this writer that I was mischaracterizing him.  He said, he was not pro-abortion, but was pro-choice.  My question to him was this: how can you opt out of the moral position and claim that you are not supporting immorality?   Would one say, “I think a person should have a choice about whether or not to rob a liquor store, and that does not mean I am in favor of robbing liquor stores”?

These distortions and immoral positions are rooted in a heresy in Christian theology known as antinomianism.  Anne Hutchinson was expelled by the Puritan leaders of Massachusetts in the 17th century for teaching this heresy.  She relocated in Long Island,where she and her children were eventually massacred by Indians.  This heresy teaches that since salvation is by grace, and since Christians are no longer under the Law (of Moses), God’s grace and mercy extends to all in a way that sinful behavior is forgiven by God in Christ.  Holy living, required by the Puritans, was no longer essential in Christ. 

For her there was no difference between the justification (ultimate, once-forever forgiveness) of salvation provided by Christ, and the demands of daily life of the Christian.  The Puritans premised their theology on the thought that holy living according to the moral law found in the Old Testament is still needed after we are saved, whereby we are sanctified to even greater purity and holiness by the work of the Holy Spirit.  

Alternately, for Anne, love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pe 4:8) was taken to mean that for all practical purposes when we receive Christ as Lord and Savior there is no more sin in our daily lives.  Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross covers that sin.  Hopefully, we won’t repeat the sin, but if we do, Almighty God forgives us seventy times seven times.  (Matthew 18:21-22) The sin of the believer is not counted as sin by Almighty God.

A logical consequence of Anne’s view — today held by many church leaders who are enjoying collecting salaries and living in well-appointed parsonages — is the apostasy that truly saved Christians have the luxury of being “above the law” (of Moses) and are able to engage in rational post-Christian secular humanism while at the same time going to church, claiming to follow Jesus Christ, and nodding sanctimoniously to each other, to their neighbors, and to their co-workers.  A New Testament passage such as Colossians 3: 5-6 is ignored even though it summarizes sexual virtues insisted upon in the Old Testament.  These verses read:  “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.”      

God, they believe, has certified and allowed the liberal/leftist agenda including abortion, the sexual revolution (still one must be prudent and circumspect say the careful liberal ministers), and the homosexual agenda which is seen as a defense of “love” and “equality.”  When this writer was briefly enrolled at Andover Newton Theological Seminary in 1970, at least two of the ministerial candidates were shacking up frequently with their girlfriends in the seminary dormitory. 

What is the greatest offense or “sin” in today’s liberal churches? To this writer, it seems their answer would be failure to speak in a kind way to hurting people or not giving money to help the poor. Although these points have some merit, do they address the essential demands of a Holy God as expressed by the Old and New Testament? 

However, in our era, the antinomian heresy whereby grace is extended without repentance is now extended even further.  Christ’s death on the Cross is not vicarious atonement as traditional Christianity has claimed for more than 2000 years, but is merely an example or proof of God’s love. Self-sacrifice in demonstration of one’s love — not Christ’s divinity, not His vicarious atonement, not His miracles — is the key to understanding true Christian religion.  Christ came only to love humanity as it is — not to save humanity from its sinful nature, not to point to more holy lifestyles, not to promise access to a heavenly eternity based on repentance.  To the modern mind, these “promises of God” are superficial overlays of the essential Christ message — love, love, and more love.

The present view is an outgrowth of the social gospel proclaimed in the late 19^th century by Walter Rauschenbusch.  However, during the first fifty years of the 20^th century, because of the dominant influence of classical Christianity, sexual immorality was still frowned on by Christians, homosexuality as an acceptable practice or lifestyle was a non-starter, and abortion as a woman’s right to choose was also rejected out of hand. In fact, abortion and homosexuality were illegal throughout the land as well as being non-starters in churches.  Now they are the law of the land.  Thus the law of the land of the U.S.A. is now totally at odds with the law of creation enacted by Almighty God.

So, antinomianism as a challenge to Biblical values by Anne Hutchinson in the modern era has morphed into a new type of “toleration” of sin.  Situation ethics — introduced in 1966 by Joseph F. Fletcher — came into vogue as a way to excuse pre-marital fornication by Christians, and anything that could be considered Christian judgmentalism was muted by the liberal churches.  In the name of love, increasing numbers of churches became tolerant of sin.

In the contemporary church world, tolerance of sin is no longer considered kind enough or loving enough.  Now, as seen by Joel Osteen’s recent appearance at an LGBTQ event, celebration of sin is the step beyond tolerance.  A “woman’s right to choose” is openly embraced by many members of the National Council of Churches.  Likewise, homosexuality among the clergy is acceptable.  When I began Harvard graduate school in the 1960s, one of my roommates related that during his entire life growing up, he wanted to be an Episcopal priest.  When he entered seminary, homosexuality was rife. Guys were regularly goosing each other as they went down the stairs to the dining area.  Seeing all this burst his life’s dream, and he left the seminary.

Anne Hutchinson was ejected from Massachusetts Bay Colony because of the heresy she taught (not because she was an uppity woman fighting against male hegemony as some have suggested).  That heresy over time became the basis for increasing toleration of sin. Toleration morphed into celebration.  Today, the transvaluation of values predicted by the German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche, whereby good becomes bad and bad becomes good, is a social reality. Under his moral/philosophical scenario, Zarathustra, the main figure in one of his books, announces, “God is dead.”  This atheistic transvaluation bodes ill for the survival of America and the planet.

Immorality is being embraced by so-called Christian love.  Bible-based Judeo-Christian morality is increasingly considered a non-starter.  Traditional Christian doctrine is increasingly looked upon as inconsistent with nature and “human need.”   Sin is being sanctioned and celebrated — homosexuality, non-marital sex, aborting babies (now part of “health”), and even pedophilia — by people who should know better.   One man said to this writer that I was mischaracterizing him.  He said, he was not pro-abortion, but was pro-choice.  My question to him was this: how can you opt out of the moral position and claim that you are not supporting immorality?   Would one say, “I think a person should have a choice about whether or not to rob a liquor store, and that does not mean I am in favor of robbing liquor stores”?

These distortions and immoral positions are rooted in a heresy in Christian theology known as antinomianism.  Anne Hutchinson was expelled by the Puritan leaders of Massachusetts in the 17th century for teaching this heresy.  She relocated in Long Island,where she and her children were eventually massacred by Indians.  This heresy teaches that since salvation is by grace, and since Christians are no longer under the Law (of Moses), God’s grace and mercy extends to all in a way that sinful behavior is forgiven by God in Christ.  Holy living, required by the Puritans, was no longer essential in Christ. 

For her there was no difference between the justification (ultimate, once-forever forgiveness) of salvation provided by Christ, and the demands of daily life of the Christian.  The Puritans premised their theology on the thought that holy living according to the moral law found in the Old Testament is still needed after we are saved, whereby we are sanctified to even greater purity and holiness by the work of the Holy Spirit.  

Alternately, for Anne, love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pe 4:8) was taken to mean that for all practical purposes when we receive Christ as Lord and Savior there is no more sin in our daily lives.  Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross covers that sin.  Hopefully, we won’t repeat the sin, but if we do, Almighty God forgives us seventy times seven times.  (Matthew 18:21-22) The sin of the believer is not counted as sin by Almighty God.

A logical consequence of Anne’s view — today held by many church leaders who are enjoying collecting salaries and living in well-appointed parsonages — is the apostasy that truly saved Christians have the luxury of being “above the law” (of Moses) and are able to engage in rational post-Christian secular humanism while at the same time going to church, claiming to follow Jesus Christ, and nodding sanctimoniously to each other, to their neighbors, and to their co-workers.  A New Testament passage such as Colossians 3: 5-6 is ignored even though it summarizes sexual virtues insisted upon in the Old Testament.  These verses read:  “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.”      

God, they believe, has certified and allowed the liberal/leftist agenda including abortion, the sexual revolution (still one must be prudent and circumspect say the careful liberal ministers), and the homosexual agenda which is seen as a defense of “love” and “equality.”  When this writer was briefly enrolled at Andover Newton Theological Seminary in 1970, at least two of the ministerial candidates were shacking up frequently with their girlfriends in the seminary dormitory. 

What is the greatest offense or “sin” in today’s liberal churches? To this writer, it seems their answer would be failure to speak in a kind way to hurting people or not giving money to help the poor. Although these points have some merit, do they address the essential demands of a Holy God as expressed by the Old and New Testament? 

However, in our era, the antinomian heresy whereby grace is extended without repentance is now extended even further.  Christ’s death on the Cross is not vicarious atonement as traditional Christianity has claimed for more than 2000 years, but is merely an example or proof of God’s love. Self-sacrifice in demonstration of one’s love — not Christ’s divinity, not His vicarious atonement, not His miracles — is the key to understanding true Christian religion.  Christ came only to love humanity as it is — not to save humanity from its sinful nature, not to point to more holy lifestyles, not to promise access to a heavenly eternity based on repentance.  To the modern mind, these “promises of God” are superficial overlays of the essential Christ message — love, love, and more love.

The present view is an outgrowth of the social gospel proclaimed in the late 19^th century by Walter Rauschenbusch.  However, during the first fifty years of the 20^th century, because of the dominant influence of classical Christianity, sexual immorality was still frowned on by Christians, homosexuality as an acceptable practice or lifestyle was a non-starter, and abortion as a woman’s right to choose was also rejected out of hand. In fact, abortion and homosexuality were illegal throughout the land as well as being non-starters in churches.  Now they are the law of the land.  Thus the law of the land of the U.S.A. is now totally at odds with the law of creation enacted by Almighty God.

So, antinomianism as a challenge to Biblical values by Anne Hutchinson in the modern era has morphed into a new type of “toleration” of sin.  Situation ethics — introduced in 1966 by Joseph F. Fletcher — came into vogue as a way to excuse pre-marital fornication by Christians, and anything that could be considered Christian judgmentalism was muted by the liberal churches.  In the name of love, increasing numbers of churches became tolerant of sin.

In the contemporary church world, tolerance of sin is no longer considered kind enough or loving enough.  Now, as seen by Joel Osteen’s recent appearance at an LGBTQ event, celebration of sin is the step beyond tolerance.  A “woman’s right to choose” is openly embraced by many members of the National Council of Churches.  Likewise, homosexuality among the clergy is acceptable.  When I began Harvard graduate school in the 1960s, one of my roommates related that during his entire life growing up, he wanted to be an Episcopal priest.  When he entered seminary, homosexuality was rife. Guys were regularly goosing each other as they went down the stairs to the dining area.  Seeing all this burst his life’s dream, and he left the seminary.

Anne Hutchinson was ejected from Massachusetts Bay Colony because of the heresy she taught (not because she was an uppity woman fighting against male hegemony as some have suggested).  That heresy over time became the basis for increasing toleration of sin. Toleration morphed into celebration.  Today, the transvaluation of values predicted by the German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche, whereby good becomes bad and bad becomes good, is a social reality. Under his moral/philosophical scenario, Zarathustra, the main figure in one of his books, announces, “God is dead.”  This atheistic transvaluation bodes ill for the survival of America and the planet.

In UC Berkley’s Great Good Magazine, Zaid Jilani and Jeremy Adam Smith ask, why is there so much polarization in the world?

Maybe it has something to do with our desire to politicize everything. And when I say everything, I mean everything.

In the United States, arguably the most polarized nation in the western world, Americans are faced with moral and political Rorschach tests on an almost daily basis.

As the Covington Catholic High School fiasco demonstrated, facts and context simply can’t compete with emotion and tribal loyalties.

Speaking of which, what about the recent attack on Andy Ngo? An innocent man was assaulted in broad daylight. A barbaric incident like this should always transcend political loyalties. However, as Dominic Green noted in Spectator USA, “When is it fine for an all-white gang to assault an Asian American in broad daylight? When he’s a conservative journalist.” 

Parker Molloy of Media Matters was quick to poke fun at Ngo, tweeting “Looks you like were attacked by a small family of pigeons.”  Remember Molloy works for “the nation’s premier progressive watchdog.” If progressive is a synonym for insufferable, Molloy’s cheap shot makes perfect sense.

What’s more, Ngo was hit with a milkshake, a sickly sweet drink that has become a weapon of choice for dissenters both sides of the Atlantic.

And what about Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland? This is a man who has single-handedly politicized the police force. Shortly after the attack on Ngo, Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw held a 20-minute press conference to defend her officers. She made a passionate plea for policy changes.

When asked why officers were slow to intervene in the Ngo attack, she seemed to imply that their hands were tied. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, criticized Wheeler, tweeting out “To federal law enforcement:  investigate & bring legal action against a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists.”

Ted Cruz makes a great point, and that’s not a sentence you hear too often.

In 2019, even sneakers are political. In early July, after reported insight from Colin Kaepernick about the shoe’s design, Nike pulled a pair of sneakers intended to commemorate the Fourth of July

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Air Max 1 sneakers featured the “Betsy Ross flag.” This early version of the American flag featured 13 red and white alternating stripes and 13 stars in a circle design, symbolizing the 13 original U.S. colonies.

And what about soccer? The sport’s popularity is clearly on the rise in the US, especially after the women’s latest victory in France. Megan Rapinoe, co-captain of the women’s national soccer team, should really run for president. Due to “popular demand”, according to Public Policy Polling, the firm decided to poll the public about a “Megan Rapinoe v Donald Trump 2020 match-up.”

The findings? According to the firm, Rapinoe gets 42% of the vote, Trump gets 41%.  If anyone can keep Iran in check, maybe it’s an individual with no political knowledge whatsoever who happens to kicks a ball for a living. The poverty of thought is worrying.

Not even children’s movies are safe from the plague of politicization. Did you know that The Lion King is fascist?

Yes, The Lion King, the beloved family movie. According to a recent Washington Post article, the Disney masterpiece is “both fascist and racist.”

In the article, Dan Hassler-Forest, a Utrecht University media studies professor, argues that the nostalgic Circle of Life scene is ”a painful reminder of the film’s ideological agenda: It introduces us to a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.”

Not finished there, the impassioned author argues that “The Lion King’ offers us fascist ideology writ large”

What next, is Aladdin really just a classic example of toxic masculinity? Some guy desperately pursuing a helpless female; and don’t even get me started on Jafar, that filthy misogynist.

Just to add, in The Lion King, Mufasa is voiced by James Earl Jones, the great black actor. By lending his voice to a fictional lion, did Jones also lend his voice to fascism? Moreover, in the remake, Simba is played by Donald Glover. Nala, his wife, is played by Beyoncé, who is also – wait for it – black. In the remake, Mufasa is still voiced by James Earl Jones, who, last time I checked, is still black.

Politics, though important, are deeply rooted in highly charged emotions. All too often, political discourse circumvents logic. As Karl J. Salzman noted in The National Review last year, “If we choose to center our lives completely on politics, then we forget why we have them in the first place. We cannot love policy-prescriptions, but we can love people, and we ought to realize that when we’re tempted to politicize every aspect of our society — from pageants to sports to film and television to our interactions with others.”

Lion King poster via IMDB

In UC Berkley’s Great Good Magazine, Zaid Jilani and Jeremy Adam Smith ask, why is there so much polarization in the world?

Maybe it has something to do with our desire to politicize everything. And when I say everything, I mean everything.

In the United States, arguably the most polarized nation in the western world, Americans are faced with moral and political Rorschach tests on an almost daily basis.

As the Covington Catholic High School fiasco demonstrated, facts and context simply can’t compete with emotion and tribal loyalties.

Speaking of which, what about the recent attack on Andy Ngo? An innocent man was assaulted in broad daylight. A barbaric incident like this should always transcend political loyalties. However, as Dominic Green noted in Spectator USA, “When is it fine for an all-white gang to assault an Asian American in broad daylight? When he’s a conservative journalist.” 

Parker Molloy of Media Matters was quick to poke fun at Ngo, tweeting “Looks you like were attacked by a small family of pigeons.”  Remember Molloy works for “the nation’s premier progressive watchdog.” If progressive is a synonym for insufferable, Molloy’s cheap shot makes perfect sense.

What’s more, Ngo was hit with a milkshake, a sickly sweet drink that has become a weapon of choice for dissenters both sides of the Atlantic.

And what about Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland? This is a man who has single-handedly politicized the police force. Shortly after the attack on Ngo, Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw held a 20-minute press conference to defend her officers. She made a passionate plea for policy changes.

When asked why officers were slow to intervene in the Ngo attack, she seemed to imply that their hands were tied. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, criticized Wheeler, tweeting out “To federal law enforcement:  investigate & bring legal action against a Mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked by domestic terrorists.”

Ted Cruz makes a great point, and that’s not a sentence you hear too often.

In 2019, even sneakers are political. In early July, after reported insight from Colin Kaepernick about the shoe’s design, Nike pulled a pair of sneakers intended to commemorate the Fourth of July

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Air Max 1 sneakers featured the “Betsy Ross flag.” This early version of the American flag featured 13 red and white alternating stripes and 13 stars in a circle design, symbolizing the 13 original U.S. colonies.

And what about soccer? The sport’s popularity is clearly on the rise in the US, especially after the women’s latest victory in France. Megan Rapinoe, co-captain of the women’s national soccer team, should really run for president. Due to “popular demand”, according to Public Policy Polling, the firm decided to poll the public about a “Megan Rapinoe v Donald Trump 2020 match-up.”

The findings? According to the firm, Rapinoe gets 42% of the vote, Trump gets 41%.  If anyone can keep Iran in check, maybe it’s an individual with no political knowledge whatsoever who happens to kicks a ball for a living. The poverty of thought is worrying.

Not even children’s movies are safe from the plague of politicization. Did you know that The Lion King is fascist?

Yes, The Lion King, the beloved family movie. According to a recent Washington Post article, the Disney masterpiece is “both fascist and racist.”

In the article, Dan Hassler-Forest, a Utrecht University media studies professor, argues that the nostalgic Circle of Life scene is ”a painful reminder of the film’s ideological agenda: It introduces us to a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.”

Not finished there, the impassioned author argues that “The Lion King’ offers us fascist ideology writ large”

What next, is Aladdin really just a classic example of toxic masculinity? Some guy desperately pursuing a helpless female; and don’t even get me started on Jafar, that filthy misogynist.

Just to add, in The Lion King, Mufasa is voiced by James Earl Jones, the great black actor. By lending his voice to a fictional lion, did Jones also lend his voice to fascism? Moreover, in the remake, Simba is played by Donald Glover. Nala, his wife, is played by Beyoncé, who is also – wait for it – black. In the remake, Mufasa is still voiced by James Earl Jones, who, last time I checked, is still black.

Politics, though important, are deeply rooted in highly charged emotions. All too often, political discourse circumvents logic. As Karl J. Salzman noted in The National Review last year, “If we choose to center our lives completely on politics, then we forget why we have them in the first place. We cannot love policy-prescriptions, but we can love people, and we ought to realize that when we’re tempted to politicize every aspect of our society — from pageants to sports to film and television to our interactions with others.”

Lion King poster via IMDB

It’s the Chicago way! On steroids, combining corrupt personal politics with ethnic group preferences. Fighting for the oppressed, one fixed parking ticket at a time.

The Chicago Sun-Times did a little digging when the Cook County Inspector General issued a report last week, and discovered who was the unnamed commissioner featured in that report. Rachel Hinton writes::

After his pal tried to clout his way out of a parking ticket by uttering that classic Chicago question, “Do you know who I am?” Cook County Commissioner Luis Arroyo Jr. didn’t hesitate to intervene and use his political weight to get the ticket tossed out.

t doesn’t hurt that that friend whose ticket Arroyo helped to get voided was Luis Pena, who Arroyo said is the 36th Ward superintendent for Ald. Gilbert Villegas (36th) — who is also Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s City Council floor leader.

But Arroyo on Friday insisted he wasn’t just protecting his buddy, but all Latinos. He said he stepped in to make sure “[Latinos] are being treated fairly by our officers. That goes for all Latinos in Cook County, not just someone I know.”

Source: Facebook

Evidently, Commissioner Pena believes that anyone with a Hispanic surname is immune from parking tickets. Sorry, whites, whites, blacks, Asians, and interracial folks. 

Fixing parking tickets may be the bottom of the barrel when it comes to politicians using their clout to benefit themselves and their buddies. It’s corrupt. Sp is the regime of ethnic preferences that so many progressives seem to want.

Put them together, and you get the corrupt politics of Cook County and Chicago – the only major metropolitan area on the country losing population.

It’s the Chicago way! On steroids, combining corrupt personal politics with ethnic group preferences. Fighting for the oppressed, one fixed parking ticket at a time.

The Chicago Sun-Times did a little digging when the Cook County Inspector General issued a report last week, and discovered who was the unnamed commissioner featured in that report. Rachel Hinton writes::

After his pal tried to clout his way out of a parking ticket by uttering that classic Chicago question, “Do you know who I am?” Cook County Commissioner Luis Arroyo Jr. didn’t hesitate to intervene and use his political weight to get the ticket tossed out.

t doesn’t hurt that that friend whose ticket Arroyo helped to get voided was Luis Pena, who Arroyo said is the 36th Ward superintendent for Ald. Gilbert Villegas (36th) — who is also Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s City Council floor leader.

But Arroyo on Friday insisted he wasn’t just protecting his buddy, but all Latinos. He said he stepped in to make sure “[Latinos] are being treated fairly by our officers. That goes for all Latinos in Cook County, not just someone I know.”

Source: Facebook

Evidently, Commissioner Pena believes that anyone with a Hispanic surname is immune from parking tickets. Sorry, whites, whites, blacks, Asians, and interracial folks. 

Fixing parking tickets may be the bottom of the barrel when it comes to politicians using their clout to benefit themselves and their buddies. It’s corrupt. Sp is the regime of ethnic preferences that so many progressives seem to want.

Put them together, and you get the corrupt politics of Cook County and Chicago – the only major metropolitan area on the country losing population.