Border Patrol section chief Gregory Bovino made it abundantly clear that the point of the operation at a Home Depot parking lot in South Sacramento was embodied in the same word, the same concept, as the round-ups in Los Angeles. They are about “sanctuary.”

It is a word that has clearly gotten under Bovino’s skin, just as it has gotten under the skin of immigration opponents in the White House and the Capitol. 

“There is no sanctuary city,” Bovino told Fox News. “Sacramento is not a sanctuary city. The state of California is not a sanctuary state. There is no sanctuary anywhere.”

If by that he meant that no jurisdiction can protect residents from federal immigration law, he is of course correct. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause leaves no doubt about that. States, counties and cities that describe themselves as sanctuaries are engaging in recklessly misleading political marketing. Their laws at most prevent local police from questioning suspects about their immigration status, for example, or block jailers from holding inmates past their release dates so the feds can get them.

But the federal government’s contempt for sanctuary appears to go well beyond the modest if over-sold local policies. Their actions and statements demonstrate that they respect no sanctuary, no refuge, no protection in the very things they purport to be guarding: the law, the Constitution, the American people, and their safety, values and sovereignty.

District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s blistering July 11 order, which the administration has appealed, lays out the frightening details of a government that has turned hard-won American freedoms inside out.

In this country, unlike most others in the world, the people are free to go about their business without having to show their papers to government agents on demand, absent probable cause to believe they have committed a crime, or at least sufficient suspicion to ask them questions. Those same agents, by contrast, must identify themselves, and not merely by brandishing their guns. They must be clearly distinguishable in action and appearance from crooks of the sort who kidnap residents of third-world countries. Here there is no army of secret police. There are no roving bands of quasi-military thugs.

Until now. Border Patrol and ICE agents in San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties, and now in Sacramento, hide their faces, tint their car windows, remove their license plates, cover their badges, ignore requests for identification, and target people based on where they work and how they look. 

If this conduct is allowed to stand for federal officers, based on the specious argument that they need protection, it is inevitable that all police, perhaps all jailers, prosecutors and judges, will soon hide their faces and do their government work in secret.

Agents recognize no sanctuary in the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless search and seizure. They demand at gunpoint that you show your papers and lock you up if they find them unsatisfactory. Frimpong’s order describes a U.S. citizen showing a driver’s license — and then being grabbed anyway after an agent demanded to see a passport. 

Since when do American citizens have to carry passports? 

There is no sanctuary in the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection or in generations of civil rights struggles, court rulings and policy updates that supposedly swept away racially disparate treatment. Frimpong’s order describes a stop in which agents let a white person walk away but not a nonwhite person. Border “czar” Tom Homan said recently that ICE agents were free to stop people based on their appearance.

There is no sanctuary in the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. The order describes shocking conditions in the basement of the immigration building at 300 N. Los Angeles Street, where captured suspects were so cramped they could not sit or lie down and had no access to lawyers for days.

There is no sanctuary in courthouses, churches, nursing homes or other places where agents grab people without judicial warrants. There is no sanctuary in essential work, such as farm fields, despite President Trump’s statement that perhaps farmworkers and hotel workers might get a break, because after all, farmers would not hire any murderers. He did not explain why the exemption should cover farmworkers but not, say, kitchen workers.

There is no sanctuary, no protection from deportation, even in American citizenship. The Department of Justice is stepping up a program to denaturalize people who were born elsewhere but lawfully go through the citizenship process and take the oath, but who later commit crimes. Such a move creates a second, lesser tier of citizenship, with different standards of conduct and different consequences for the same crimes. 

Second-tier citizenship was virtually abolished in American society after a century-long post-slavery struggle for equality. Must we countenance its return?

But there is no sanctuary even in being born here. The administration is moving to end birthright citizenship, which long has been an unassailable cornerstone of American identity and civil rights. Our leaders are threatening to, for the first time in 60 years, award or deny fundamental rights based not on who you are or what you do, but who your parents were and what they did.

So where can sanctuary be found? If not in lines written on the base of the Statue of Liberty, or in the Constitution, or in citizenship or in simple human decency, then where?

Is there sanctuary only in skin color? If you’re white, or perhaps if you’re Black, you may be OK. If you are brown, you’d better carry your passport for the rest of your days, and teach your children to carry theirs too. Stay away from Home Depot. Endure stops and questions. Keep your head down. It is the dream of the white supremacist. It is the achievement of the 2017 Charlottesville rally to “Unite the Right.” It is a state of affairs repugnant to the American creed. 

And the only thing, so far, that keeps it from becoming the new American normal is Judge Frimpong’s emergency order. 

The government has appealed.

The post The Trump regime targets California’s sanctuary status at the expense of the American creed appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Additionally, there are state, city, county, and community holidays. Holiday stories are by far the easiest to write. They require little research to find every detail about any kind of holiday. In fact, some housewives have found at-home careers writing holiday stories.

Take Christmas, for instance. It begins with celebrating the birth of Christ and extends to Santa Claus and gift-giving. Gift-giving (and buying) has become an institution in itself. Look at all the ballyhoo and beauty of the Macy’s Parades. Last night, I watched Miracle on 34th Street for the first time in decades, and I was as excited as I was when I first saw it as a child. Can you imagine how many stories have been written about the impact that film had on Americans and people beyond our borders? How about the idea that Natalie Wood’s mother didn’t want her to believe in myths?

There are countless stories tied to Easter — myth or fiction? Religious or commercial? (Not much difference these days.)

I could go on and on, but by now, you should have the idea and can take it from here.

Oh yes, there’s the upcoming Valentine’s Day, but don’t get me started. I’ve made my point. As they used to say, “With pen in hand, I put ink to the paper!”

Just sayin’,
rustystrait@gmail.com

The post Holiday storage are the current rage appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

I accepted an offer that paid me $400 a month for a 288-page manuscript. Soft porn. It was easy as long as you intermittently tossed in some sex. Sex is a major part of almost all novels today. I developed my style, got paid on time, and learned the fundamentals of characterization and plotting. Nothing could have been easier.

Now, before you get all excited, your future readers will not be interested in, nor should they be, how you learned and improved your craft.

Times have changed. Today, nobody cares who your characters sleep with. They want stories that will be page-turners. In other words, they can’t wait to see what’s on the next page, in the next chapter, and a gratifying coda.

There are certainly other ways to hone the work, but a beginner will not be judged on his or her writing education. Later on, when you become a successful novelist or biographer, your readers will be interested in your work, not how you learned. You might enjoy writing porn, and believe me, there is a big market for it, and it pays well. Good porn writers are earning six figures annually.

I’m reminded of what my son often reminds me: “Dad, times have changed. Society today is a lot more liberal.”

I am always available on Gmail to answer any questions you might have. So don’t hesitate to give me a hoot and a holler if you need help. Just sayin’.

rustystrait@gmail.com

The post One way to learn how to write professionally appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Lorena Gonzalez, head of the California Labor Federation, thinks she has at least a partial solution.

“We’ve got to listen to them,” she said, “and not talk about things that do not play in their life, or that they don’t identify with.”

That may seem as straightforward as a palm-slap to the forehead. (Well, duh!) But it’s not necessarily something union leaders have done in the past. Often, Gonzalez said, the top-down instruction to labor’s political troops has been, “This is our message. Go sell it.”

Vote Harris. Elect a Democratic Congress. Stop Trump.

But none of that, she said, resonated with the large number of Republican and conservative-leaning California voters who also happen to be union members in proud standing. So the Labor Federation tried something different this election, avoiding words such as “Democrat” and “Republican,” “Biden,” “Harris” and “Trump” in its political pitch.

“The usual go-to, the top-of-the-ticket discussion with our union members, wasn’t going to get us anywhere,” Gonzalez said last week in a lengthy conversation at the Labor Federation’s downtown Sacramento headquarters. “And it would just shut them down for everything else.”California was an oasis this November in a largely barren Democratic landscape. Even as they lost the White House and Senate, the party flipped three House seats in the state, helping Democrats to an overall gain of a single seat and holding Republicans to the barest majority in decades.

Several of those California races were very close, so the Democratic success can be attributed to any number of factors. But at least some credit goes to the Labor Federation and its speak-no-partisanship strategy, which helped yield a significant number of crossover votes in a several closely fought congressional contests.

As Democrats spend the next few years soul-searching and wilderness-wandering, it’s an approach to winning union members and working-class voters that, Gonzalez suggested, is worth studying across the country.

As recently as 2012, Democratic presidential candidates could count on the support of about 6 in 10 voters from union households. (That’s how exit pollsters typically measure the sentiment of union members; they ask whether a voter or someone they are living with belongs to a union.)

That percentage has fallen in every election Donald Trump has been on the ballot, to just about 5 in 10 voters. The decline may not seem like a lot, but even a small shift matters in close elections — especially in battleground states with large union memberships, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The California strategy grew out of a series of focus groups undertaken soon after Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker, became head of the Labor Federation in July 2022. “What did I want to do?” she asked, as the clang of a trolley car rang from the K Street Mall below. “Not talk to our members, but listen to them.”

Discussions were held throughout the state, in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, Orange County and the L.A. region — home to the half-dozen most competitive congressional races in California. The groups were split among men and women, Democrats and Republicans; the separation was intended, Gonzalez said, to avoid turning conversations into political arguments.

The survey found that in virtually every district there were more self-identified Republican union members than Democrats — which didn’t necessarily match up with members’ voter registration. “Take back the House,” the national Democratic rallying cry, was obviously “not gonna fly,” Gonzalez said, nor would a message built around keeping a Democrat in the White House — even if both were seen as being to the greater advantage of union members.

Instead, strategists drew on something that emerged from those focus groups: a fundamental belief in the value of diligent labor. “We would ask questions like, ‘What do you like about your union?’ ” Gonzalez recollected. The oft-heard response: “My union fights for me because I work hard.”

That, in turn, led to a campaign focused on the failings of the 118th Congress, historically one of the least productive in history. The message was simple. If you performed as poorly on the job as your representative in Washington, you’d be fired.

Variations on that theme were repeated to tens of thousands of union members in each of the six competitive districts. In mailers. In discussions on front porches. On refrigerator magnets sent to their homes. “If I got as little done at my job,” the magnets read, “this refrigerator would be empty.”

Care was taken to include documentation from the likes of CNN and Fox News, lest attacks on the do-nothing Congress came across as a one-sided attack.

(It was a somewhat tougher sell in the open-seat contest to replace Democrat Katie Porter, but union strategists counted on Republican Scott Baugh being tainted by association with the Republican-led House. Democrat Dave Min narrowly won the Orange County contest.)

Rather than telling union members who they should vote for — the usual approach — “we left them to come to their own conclusion,” Gonzalez said. Not by making a partisan argument, but appealing to their work ethic.

It seemed to work. Not perfectly. Democrats knocked off Reps. Mike Garcia in northern L.A. County, Michelle Steel in Orange County and John Duarte in the Central Valley. (The latter two by not much). They failed to oust Republicans David Valadao in the Valley and Ken Calvert in the Inland Empire.

But the strategy was successful enough that Gonzalez plans to sit down with national labor leaders for a debriefing.

It was admittedly difficult for the self-described “bleeding-heart liberal” not to press the hair-on-fire argument about the dangers of Trump and the need for a Democratic check on his authoritarian impulses. Typically, Gonzalez said, “That’s how we talk.”

The approach to California union members — more a nudge than a shove — also had to be sold to skeptics. There has long been a sense within the labor movement that if “we just … ‘educate’ them enough,” she said, “they’ll be good Democrats.”

But that bespeaks an arrogance the party will have to overcome if it’s going to stanch the bleeding among union and working-class voters. Only then will Democrats end their exile in Washington.

The post Column: How organized labor boosted California Democrats — by not talking like Democrats appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The text arrived midday, saying a delivery to me was on hold. To fix the problem, all I had to do was click on a web link and enter my ZIP Code.

“Have a great day from the USPS team!” the text said.

The awkwardly worded message (with bad punctuation and an international phone number) was clearly not from the Postal Service. And if I can hazard a wild guess, I don’t think the senders really wanted me to have a great day.

They wanted to rip me off and, so, a word to the wise this holiday season:

Watch your wallet.

Fraud is a year-round, multibillion-dollar international enterprise. But for thieves, the season of joy is a wide-open window of opportunity, as AARP warned Nov. 18:

“With scammers looking to take advantage of consumers from all angles, new AARP survey research reveals that people need to be vigilant this holiday season as they buy gifts, book their travel arrangements, and donate to charities.”

Many of the scams are run by sophisticated international syndicates, said Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention at AARP’s Fraud Watch Network. Those crooks are working every channel, fishing for victims by email, phone calls, texts, fliers and regular mail.

Unwitting people are forking over money via gift cards, cryptocurrency, credit cards, cash and wire transfers. Losses often are virtually impossible to recover because the money is on foreign soil before the victims know they’ve been robbed.

Stokes said that in one common ripoff, thieves are going after people who own timeshares they’re trying to dump.

“There’s all this paperwork that makes it look legitimate, like you’re paying to get out of the timeshare,” Stokes said. But the crooks are pocketing thousands of dollars while the target is still stuck with the timeshare.

Last week, in a national conference on scams targeting older adults, Deborah Royster of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warned that consumers are being wiped out in a flash.

“Retirement savings and other resources that people have earned over a lifetime, and depend on,” Royster said, “can be gone in an instant.”

In that same conference, Virginia lawyer Julie M. Strandlie said her 85-year-old mother lost $80,000 between Thanksgiving and Christmas five years ago in a common scam that began with “flashing graphics and pounding voices” on her computer screen, warning of a virus.

“There’s a number to call for help, but it’s not the real Microsoft,” Strandlie said.

Her mother fell for the ruse, giving the criminals remote access to unlock her frozen computer. She was then duped into believing they had deposited money into her account, and she needed to pay it back in cash and gift cards from Best Buy and Target.

Steve McFarland, president and CEO of the Better Business Bureau region that runs from Palo Alto to Long Beach, said his office is getting 1,100 consumer complaints of all types each and every day.

He wasn’t kidding and repeated the number.

McFarland and other sources say a greater percentage of millennials report fraud than do older adults, but the latter group suffers greater losses. And across the age spectrum, McFarland said, gift card scams are hot right now.

Bar codes on those cards can be tampered with or photographed by someone before they’re sold, McFarland said. The buyer of the card goes to a checkout stand and puts, let’s say, $100 on the card to be redeemed at Target, Burger King or any number of establishments.

But when the recipient goes to redeem it, the funds are gone. It happened last year to L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who bought a $100 VISA gift card for a nephew who found that it wasn’t worth a nickel. Hahn later warned of the scam, along with McFarland, on L.A.’s Eyewitness News.

“It’s called gift card draining and these scammers have found several slick ways to victimize unsuspecting shoppers,” Hahn said.

In addition to outright scams, this is a time of year when solicitations for charitable donations can fill your mailbox.

“A lot of charities are trying to close out strong, and criminals know that and are vying for the same dollars,” Stokes said.

If it’s not an established organization that’s known for its good work, Stokes advised going to the Better Business Bureau’s give.org website, where you can type in the name of the charity to find out whether it’s legit. You can also find out what percentage of donations go to the cause versus overhead costs.

Your best policy, unfortunately, is to be suspicious of everything. I recently got a letter with my mortgage lender’s name in the window and opened it to find a warning that this was my “FINAL NOTICE” to avoid a monthly payment increase.

It looked hinky, and on the back page, in fine print, I learned that the mail was from a lender unaffiliated with my mortgage company.

If you see “final notice,” “urgent” or “benefit disbursement enclosed,” don’t even bother opening the envelope.

A friend shared a tall stack of mail that keeps coming for his mother, who died months ago, and as I sifted through it I found one attempt after another to separate her from her money. “Copy of Final Check Enclosed,” said one, and in the cellophane window was what looked like a check for $437.18 that said “Pay to the order of …”

But it wasn’t a check, of course. It was a solicitation from a lobbying firm claiming it will fight to preserve Social Security funding (and by the way, she had a lot of mail from organizations claiming they were out to do the same).

The fake check was described as an example of what she stood to lose if she didn’t immediately support the cause by pulling out her credit card and making an “urgent donation” to keep Social Security solvent.

And then there were solicitations from organizations representing a Noah’s Ark of endangered animals. Look, I’m an animal lover, but how does one begin to sort through all the pleas?

Save the pigs. The horses. The bees. The lions. The donkeys.

“Sunday, a baby donkey was ripped from his mother and brutalized,” said one envelope.

Lots of appeals for dogs, too. One included the photo of a dog with amazing verbal skills, judging by the quote attributed to the canine: “I wish for no one else to be hurt the way humans have hurt me.”

I feel for the dog, but if he can actually speak, let’s get him an agent and send him out on tour so the pup can raise a fortune for his cause.

Of course, there are plenty of good charities out there that are worthy of your generosity, but be careful.

With solicitations. With email. With texts. With phone calls.

All of it.

Banks should be doing more to prevent repeated, questionable, out-of-the-ordinary withdrawals and wire transfers. The gift card industry ought to be able to rein in rampant fraud with smarter security measures.

And people of all ages need to be more discerning, refuse to provide personal information such as Social Security numbers, and get some advice from a trusted friend or loved one before signing any checks or doing business with strangers.

Last year I wrote about two retired L.A. residents, a former teacher and a former banker, who were swindled out of roughly $80,000 apiece in internet scams. Earlier this year I wrote about a Redwood City woman who was taken for $1.8 million, and an Alhambra woman, Alice Lin, who lost $720,000 in an “investment” scheme introduced to her by a man she met on a chat app.

I reached out to Lin, who had some good advice on all forms of communication from sources you don’t know or trust.

“Do not respond,” Lin said. “Don’t touch it.”

The post Column: It’s the season for scams, so here’s a piece of advice: Never do business with strangers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the race to register voters before what folks are apocalyptically calling THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF ALL TIME, which we think happens every four years, we are disappointed to report that California is trailing the numbers it hit back in 2020 (the last most important election of all time).

Eighty-five percent of the Golden State’s eligible voters were registered by September 2020.

On October 10th, only 83% are.

Granted, there are more actual voters registered now than back then (22.3 million vs. 21.2 million), but there are also nearly 2 million more eligible voters.

Two million eligible, unregistered voters! That’s more than the entire population of a dozen states! You have no right to complain if you do not vote. It’s one of the few civic duties asked of us, and it’s a lot easier than jury duty or getting drafted.

Los Angeles County is bucking the slowpoke trend and putting the rest of SoCal to shame: There, 85.7% of eligible voters are already registered (5.7 million).

Orange County hit the state average, with 83% of eligible folks registered (1.8 million people).

Riverside is trailing a bit, with 82% of eligible folks registered (1.3 million); as is San Bernardino, with just 81% registered (1.2 million).

You can’t vote, people, vote, if you don’t register, people, register!

There’s still time. In California, registrations must be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than 15 days before Election Day, Nov. 5. That makes the deadline for registering Oct. 21, according to the Secretary of State.

Some props are due, though, to the SoCal counties, which have seen the largest increases in registration statewide since September 2020.

Riverside is tops, registering an additional 179,336 voters.

Orange is next, with an additional 140,571; then San Bernardino, with 122,454; San Diego, with 68,960; and Los Angeles, with 64,997.

What party are these registered voters affiliated with, you’re wondering? Statewide, 46% are Democrats; 25% are Republican; and 23% have no party preference.

It’s different, however, in the counties:

In progressive Los Angeles County, 52.4% are Democrats, 18% are Republicans, and 23% have no party preference.

Orange County still has strong conservative leanings, despite its new more progressive majority that backed Democrats in the last two presidential elections: 37% are Democrats, 34% are Republicans, and 23% have no party preference.

The Inland Empire counties, with a reputation for being more conservative than O.C., actually have more registered Democrats than O.C. In Riverside County, 39.6% are Democrats, 32% are Republicans and 20% have no party preference; while in San Bernardino, 40% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans and 21% have no party preference.

This is the most important election EVER!  And there are almost three weeks to register. Details on how to do that are at www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration. Get on it, people! This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF ALL TIME!

At least until next time.

The post Lower percent of eligible Southern California voters are registered now than in 2020. Get on it, people! appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Bennett Estate—An empire! A testament to a life lived in the limelight, the estate is vast, comprising multi-million-dollar properties, lucrative royalties from film and music, and an art collection that would make even the most seasoned connoisseur envious. But it’s more than just wealth; it’s a complex web of investments, trusts, and intellectual property. The Tony Bennett was not only a household name but also a shrewd businessman who built an empire. But as the old saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility”—and, in this case, a heap of legal trouble.

When the Tony died, he left behind not just a fortune but also a family on the brink of war. The Bennett daughters felt betrayed and sidelined, thus, filing a lawsuit against their brother, accusing him of mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty. They claim that their brother, who was entrusted as the executor of the estate, failed in his duty to protect the family’s legacy. Instead of safeguarding the assets, the girls alleged he siphoned funds, made questionable investments, and prioritized his interests over theirs. The lawsuit has turned into a highly publicized battle, with accusations flying and the media watching every move.

Now, let’s zoom out for a moment. The Bennett case is not unique to celeb’s. In fact, this fact pattern is one common among may families across all socioeconomic classes. But, its fun to talk about celebrities, so lets keep the limelight on them, and not us. The Bennett feud is just one example in a long line of celebrity estate disputes that have captured public attention. Celebrity estates are notoriously tricky—just ask the families of Prince, Aretha Franklin, or James Brown. Will contests, trust disputes, and questions about the role of executors and trustees are all too common. Executors and trustees have immense power, and with that power comes the potential for conflict. When a high-profile individual passes away, the vultures circle. But sometimes, the vultures aren’t outsiders—they’re family.

It’s often said that death brings out the best and the worst in people. And when money is involved—especially vast sums of it—the worst can be pretty bad. Add in grief, mourning, anger, rage, sadness and all of the feels… it’s a setup for disaster that can lead to irreparable damage among family relationships. Siblings who once played together, shared secrets, and supported each other through thick and thin can find themselves on opposite sides of a courtroom, locked in a bitter, public, and painful legal battle. To this, the Bennett’s are no different. The loss, grief, money and allegations left the family bonds strained and broken. What was once a tight-knit family has been shattered by greed, mistrust, and resentment.

So, how can such disputes be avoided? The key lies in foresight. Clear, unambiguous wills and regular updates to estate plans can prevent much of the confusion that leads to conflict. It’s also crucial to choose impartial executors—someone who won’t play favorites, who will act in the best interests of all parties involved. In some cases, it might even be wise to appoint a professional executor, someone with no personal stake in the estate.

Now, let’s get to the bottom line: the cost-benefit analysis. Estate disputes are expensive—not just in terms of money but also in time, energy, and emotional well-being. Litigation can drag on for years, draining the estate’s assets and leaving everyone involved exhausted. In contrast, settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options like mediation can be far more cost-effective and quicker. ADR offers a way to resolve disputes outside the courtroom, preserving family relationships and saving everyone a heap of money.

And here’s the kicker, As one lawyer famously quipped, “Why is it that the people who inherit a fortune always seem to end up needing one to settle the fight over it?” It’s funny because it’s true—and it’s a reminder of just how costly these battles can be.

The Bennett Estate serves as a cautionary tale. It reminds us of the importance of careful estate planning, the dangers of mismanagement, and the devastating impact that financial disputes can have on families. By taking proactive steps, families can avoid the heartbreak of a public feud and ensure that their loved ones’ legacies are preserved—not torn apart.

The post The Bennett Estate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That depends on what you use, how much, and whether or not it has a tight copyright that requires special permission. It is a slippery slope, and all too often new writers do not know that they may be plagiarizing a copyrighted work. Even well-established writers make the same mistake without realizing it, so it always pays to check who owns the copyright. If the person holding the copyright is available, it is easy to check with them, and they will almost always give you permission to quote them, provided you ask. It doesn’t get you anything but trouble to assume.

When you are writing a bio of yourself or a member of your family, be especially careful. It is all too easy to say, “That’s part of my family. I know that for a fact.” Knowing something to be factual doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to do private conversations as though you owned them.

Writing about celebrities is a shade different. People in the spotlight do not have the same guarantees of privacy as a private person does. Politicians are always fair game, but when it comes to other types of celebrities, writers beware!

Now that I’m back riding the range for writers, I will be reporting weekly. I look forward to answering your questions as I always have. So sail on, oh ship of literature, sail on. Just sayin’.

rustystrait@gmail.com

The post Quoting or plagiarizing? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That is the body language of a man who knows how to wield a magic wand, and how to cast a spell. Trump is a wizard, a very powerful one, and he has magical powers. He will use his magic to make all these complicated issues disappear as soon as he is elected as our next president. We know his magic is very effective, because for the last decade or so, he has kept millions of people spellbound, worshipping him, thinking of him as a divine being, doing whatever he’s commanded them to do, even committing crimes in his name. He has made them drink the Kool-Aid and show unquestioning obedience to him. A whole party has disgraced itself in his loyalty. Some of the smartest and most intelligent politicians have ruined their own legacies to propagate his lies and to defend his most indefensible acts. Even hardcore Christians have ignored the teachings of the Bible, just to kiss his behind, in a totally hypocritical way. All those people tolerating his morally, spiritually, ethically, and legally bankrupt actions, must be under a spell. Otherwise, they’ll see right through his crimes against this nation.

The post Problem Solving Strategy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But there is no requirement for cooling equipment to keep your home from becoming dangerously hot. Landlords have no obligation to provide air conditioners, swamp coolers or anything to keep rental units safe for occupants during heat waves.

That might have been understandable decades ago. But it’s unacceptable now that greenhouse gas pollution has driven average temperatures more than two degrees higher than they were in the 1950s, fueling more frequent, dangerous and record-breaking heat waves and a mounting death toll.

Cities and counties across the country, including Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Portland, Ore. and Clark County, Nev., have already established indoor temperature limits or cooling requirements of some kind. Countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, have them too. L.A. County is developing its own maximum temperature standards for rental units.

But California’s policies haven’t been changed to reflect our new reality.

In 2022 lawmakers failed to advance legislation to establish maximum indoor temperature standards for residential units. Instead they passed watered-down language that directed the Department of Housing and Community Development to come up with recommendations for maximum indoor air temperatures that ensure homes are safe for residents and submit them to the Legislature by the end of this year.

Earlier this month, the department released a disappointingly narrow draft of its recommendations, which suggest a maximum safe indoor air temperature of 82 degrees — but only for newly constructed residential units. While it would apply to rentals and owner-occupied homes, it would exclude more than 14 million existing dwelling units, where the vast majority of Californians live, millions of them without air conditioning. That standard is weaker than a previous draft, in April, that proposed the adoption of an 82-degree temperature limit and did not exclude existing homes.

Is this really the best California officials can do?

Including existing rental units in statewide temperature limits is essential. California only builds roughly 100,000 new homes each year, and most are already likely to include air conditioning anyway. Leaving out existing homes may please landlords, who have opposed requirements to install cooling equipment because of the costs. But it would defeat the purpose of the standard, which is to save lives and protect the most vulnerable communities, whose less-shaded neighborhoods and older, less-insulated housing magnify their risks from extreme heat.

Instead of setting a temperature limit, the department makes other suggestions for existing units, such as policies to ensure renters at high risk for heat-related illness have the right to add cooling equipment and can afford to operate it. The document also encourages the installation of window coverings, shade trees, insulation, solar-reflective roofs and “broader adoption of fans,” which it highlights as a cheaper and more energy-efficient alternative to air conditioning because it costs about $400 to install a ceiling fan compared to $550 for a window A/C unit.

Housing, environmental, and climate justice advocates have pushed the housing department not to limit its recommendations to building standards for new construction. The fact that landlords may incur hundreds or even thousands of dollars in costs to retrofit their units is no reason to shy away from meaningful standards to protect people who are in unsafe conditions in their own homes. Instead, the state should offer solutions, like financial assistance to help property owners manage the expense of installing air conditioners for their tenants.

Extreme heat is the deadliest climate hazard and killed an estimated 3,900 Californians between 2010 and 2019, a Times analysis found. State health officials counted 395 deaths during one 10-day heat wave alone in 2022. And scientists project that if the rate of global warming continues, by mid-century 11,300 Californians could die from heat-related causes each year.

Statewide standards are needed because extreme heat is increasingly putting Californians in harm’s way, and not just in inland areas. People in California’s historically mild coastal regions are especially susceptible during heat waves, because they are not accustomed to such high temperatures and less likely to have air conditioning in their homes, and would be among the areas with the most to gain from cooling requirements.

Kyle Krause, deputy director of Codes and Standards for Housing and Community Development, said that the indoor cooling recommendations are not final and may still be changed before they are submitted to the Legislature. Good. They ought to be revised to make it clear to lawmakers and regulators that it’s time for California’s health and safety protections to change with the climate. No one should be exposed to life-threatening heat inside their home, no matter their ZIP code or type of housing.

The post Climate change is making more California homes dangerously hot. It’s time state laws caught up appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.