Wednesday, December 18, 2019

What the New Socialists Want More Than Anything is to Punish the Rich

Radical leftists are looking to fulfill Marx's vision in the 21st century: Expropriate the expropriators!

Here's Jerry Z. Muller, at Foreign Affairs, "The Neosocialist Delusion: Wealth Is Not the Problem":

The neosocialists are descended from Rousseau. They downplay poverty and fetishize equality, focus on wealth distribution rather than wealth creation, and seem to care as much about lowering those at the top as raising those at the bottom.

The movement’s signature policy proposal is a wealth tax, an annual levy on household assets. Touted by economists such as Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, all associated with the Paris School of Economics, the concept has been embraced by both Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, U.S. senators from Vermont and Massachusetts, respectively, who are running for the Democratic presidential nomination. At first, Warren advocated a two percent tax on households worth more than $50 million and a three percent tax on billionaires. Later, pressed on how she would pay for her proposed universal health insurance, she doubled the billionaire tax to six percent. Sanders’s plan starts at taxing $16 million in assets at one percent and tops out at an eight percent tax for assets exceeding $10 billion.

The radicalism of this approach is often underestimated. Many people conflate wealth taxes with higher income taxes or see them as mere extensions of a similar concept. But wealth taxes are fundamentally different instruments with much broader ramifications for economic dynamism and individual liberty.

The main effect of a wealth tax would be to discourage wealthy individuals from holding demonstrable assets. Any individual or household within shouting distance of the threshold would have to get its assets valued annually, imposing costs and creating a permanent jobs program for tax lawyers and accountants, whose chief responsibility would be to figure out ways around the law, including moving assets abroad.

A wealth tax would dramatically curtail private investment. The higher people rise on the economic ladder, the more of their resources go to investment instead of consumption. Those investments, in turn, often fuel innovative, risky ventures, which get funded in the hopes that they will eventually produce still greater gains. A wealth tax would upend the incentive structure for rich people, causing many to stop funding productive economic activity and focus instead on reducing their tax exposure and hiding their assets.

Warren contends that calculating one’s wealth tax would be as easy as calculating one’s property tax, but that is ridiculous. Take a firm that has a market value but no income—a frequent situation for startups but also common for established firms in various situations, such as a turnaround. Rich investors in such firms would have to sell their shares to pay the wealth tax or force the companies to disburse cash rather than invest in the future. Either way, the tax would discourage investment, reduce innovation, and encourage short-term thinking.

A wealth tax, finally, would force everyone whose assets were near its minimal threshold to give the government a full accounting of all those assets every year: homes, furniture, vehicles, heirlooms, bank accounts, investments and liabilities, and more. The result would be a huge expansion of the reach of government into citizens’ lives, a corresponding reduction in citizens’ privacy, and the accumulation and storage of vast amounts of highly sensitive data with few safeguards to prevent their misuse.

It is not only successful individuals who draw the neosocialists’ ire; it is also successful companies. If a firm grows big enough to become famous, it becomes a potential target of vilification; if it grows too big, it becomes a target for destruction. Sanders, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic representative from New York, accordingly, have all pledged to break up Amazon, Facebook, and Google.

Here they can draw on a venerable antimonopoly tradition in American political culture from the trustbusters on, rooted in the assumption that the further away you move from Smith’s ideal of perfect competition among many small firms, the more the public is hurt. The economist Joseph Schumpeter, however, argued that Smith had greatly underestimated both the dynamism of capitalism and the role of entrepreneurs in driving it. Capitalism’s manifold benefits didn’t just happen; they were created, by a relatively small group of people responsible for introducing new products, services, and business methods. Entrepreneurs sought the big profits associated with temporary monopolies and so were driven to create whole new industries they could dominate.

Large companies, Schumpeter realized, acted as engines of innovation, plowing back some of their profits into research and development and encouraging others to do the same in the hopes of becoming an acquisition target. He would have been delighted with Silicon Valley, viewing technology giants such as Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft as poster children for the enormous benefits to consumers that entrepreneurs generate.

Companies such as Amazon and Walmart, meanwhile, maintain their position through furious competition in service and price, contributing to the virtual elimination of inflation in the American economy. And yet it is precisely these dynamic, successful, customer-oriented companies that the neosocialists want to tax heavily, burden with regulations, and cut up for parts.
Still more.

Image Credit: The People's Cube, "Chiquita Khrushchev: 'We will bury you!'."

Jennifer Delacruz's Mid-Week Forecast

Well, it's not snowing outside at the moment, heh.

Not too bad, a week or so before Christmas.

Here's the fantastic Ms. Jennifer, for ABC News 10 San Diego:



Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Impeaching Trump

At Amazon, Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Impeaching Trump.



Andrew C. McCarthy, Ball of Collusion

At Amazon, Andrew C. McCarthy, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.



Lisa Page Explains 'Insurance Policy' Texts (VIDEO)

At Newsweek, "LISA PAGE REGRETS PETER STRZOK TEXT MESSAGES, REBUKES TRUMP FOR MOCKING HER WITH 'VILE, SIMULATED SEX ACT' PERFORMANCE."



Tuesday, December 17, 2019

New Era of Cyberwar

Sue Halpern reviews Andy Greenberg,'s, Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers, at the New York Review


These Obama/Trump Voters Are Just Trump Voters Now

It's Alexi McCammond, at Axios:


Lindsey Pelas Busting Out in Green

Wonderful.

Brightens things up for the holidays!


Mitch McConnell Rejects Charles Schumer’s Opening Offer on Impeachment Trial (VIDEO)

He's the Senate Minority Butthurt Leader, at Politico, "McConnell rejects Schumer’s opening offer on impeachment trial: “It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to ‘guilty,’” McConnell says."



Nice Playmate Lady

Don't know who this is, but she's wild!

Iryna Ivanova?

See here, for example, or just scroll her feed wow!


Jennifer Delacruz's Tuesday Forecast

He's the fabulous Ms. Jennifer, for ABC News 10 San Diego:



Mark 'Gator' Rogowski Gets Parole

He was a skate buddy of mine from back in the day. Dude committed a heinous murder.

At ABC News 10 San Diego:



Labour's Stunning Shellacking

It's a realignment. From Toby Young, at Quillette, "Britain’s Labour Party Got Woke — And Now It’s Broke":

The crumbling of the ‘Red Wall’ is the big story of this election and some commentators are describing it as a “one off.” The conventional wisdom is that working class voters have “lent” their votes to the Conservatives and, barring an upset, will give them back next time round. It’s Brexit, supposedly, that has been the game-changer—an excuse leapt on by Corbyn’s outriders in the media, who are loathe to blame Labour’s defeat on their man.

If you look at the working class constituencies that turned blue, most of them voted to leave the European Union in 2016 by a significant margin—Great Grimsby, for instance, an English sea port in Yorkshire, where Leave outpolled Remain by 71.45 to 28.55 per cent. Labour’s problem, according to this analysis, is that it didn’t commit to taking Britain out of the EU during the campaign but instead said it would negotiate a new exit deal and then hold a second referendum in which the public would be able to choose between that deal and Remain. This fudge may have been enough to keep graduates on side, but it alienated working class Leave voters in England’s rust belt.

This analysis doesn’t bear much scrutiny. To begin with, the desertion of Labour by its working class supporters—and its increasing popularity with more affluent, better educated voters—is a long-term trend, not an aberration. The disappearance of Labour’s traditional base isn’t just the story of this election, but one of the main themes of Britain’s post-war political history. At its height, Labour managed to assemble a coalition of university-educated liberals in London and the South and low-income voters in Britain’s industrial heartlands in the Midlands and the North—“between Hampstead and Hull,” as the saying goes. But mass immigration and globalization have driven a wedge between Labour’s middle class and working class supporters, as has Britain’s growing welfare bill and its membership of the European Union.

At the October election in 1974, 49 per cent of skilled workers (C2) and 57 per cent of semi-skilled and unskilled workers (DE) voted Labour; by 2010, those numbers had fallen to 29 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. Among middle class voters (ABC1), support for the Conservatives fell over the same time period from 56 per cent in 1974 to 39 per cent in 2010. In 1974, Labour enjoyed a 23-point lead among skilled working class voters (C2), but by 2010 the Conservatives had overtaken them in this demo to lead by eight points—a pattern repeated in 2017. Among graduates, by contrast, Labour led by 17 points in 2017, up from a two-point lead in 2015. (See this data table compiled by Ipsos MORI, a polling company.)

Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have talked a good deal about winning back these working class voters, but his policy positions haven’t been designed to appeal to them. I’m not just talking about his ambivalence on Brexit—there’s a widespread feeling among voters who value flag, faith and family that Corbyn isn’t one of them. Before he became Labour leader in 2015, he was an energetic protestor against nearly every armed conflict Britain has been involved in since Suez, including the Falklands War. He’s also called for the abandonment of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, the withdrawal of the UK from NATO and the dismantling of our security services—not to mention declining to sing the National Anthem at a Battle of Britain service in 2015. From the point of view of many working class voters, for whom love of country is still a deeply felt emotion, Corbyn seems to side with the country’s enemies more often than he does with Britain.

Corbyn’s victory in the Labour leadership election was followed by a surge in party membership— from 193,754 at the end of 2014 to 388,103 by the end of 2015. But the activists he appeals to are predominantly middle class. According to internal Party data leaked to the Guardian, a disproportionate number of them are “high status city dwellers” who own their own homes.

A careful analysis of the policies set out in Labour’s latest manifesto reveals that the main beneficiaries of the party’s proposed increase in public expenditure—which the Conservatives costed at an eye-watering £1.2 trillion—would be its middle class supporters.

For instance, the party pledged to cut rail fares by 33 per cent and pay for it by slashing the money spent on roads. But only 11 per cent of Britain’s commuters travel by train compared to 68 per cent who drive—and the former tend to be more affluent than the latter. Corbyn also promised to abolish university tuition fees at a cost of £7.2 billion per annum, a deeply regressive policy which, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, would benefit middle- and high-earning graduates with “very little” upside for those on low incomes.

It’s also worth noting that Corbyn’s interests and appearance—he’s a 70-year-old vegetarian with a fondness for train-drivers’ hats who has spent his life immersed in protest politics—strike many working class voters as “weird,” a word that kept coming up on the doorstep according to my fellow canvasser in Newcastle. He’s also presided over the invasion of his party by virulent anti-Semites and Labour is currently in the midst of an investigation by Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission thanks to his failure to deal with this. One of his supporters has already blamed the Jews for Labour’s defeat.

But Corbyn isn’t the main reason C2DE voters have turned away from Labour, any more than Brexit is. Rather, they’ve both exacerbated a trend that’s been underway for at least 45 years, which is the fracturing of the “Hampstead and Hull” coalition and the ebbing away of Labour’s working class support.

Another, related phenomenon that’s been overlooked is that these “topsy turvey” politics are hardly unique to Britain. Left-of-center parties in most parts of the Anglosphere, as well as other Western democracies, have seen the equivalent of their own ‘Red Walls’ collapsing. One of the reasons Scott Morrison’s Liberals confounded expectations to win the Australian election last May was because Bill Shorten’s Labour Party was so unpopular in traditional working class areas like Queensland, and support for socially democratic parties outside the large cities in Scandinavia has cratered over the past 15 years or so.

Thomas Piketty, the French Marxist, wrote a paper about this phenomenon last year entitled ‘Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right: Rising Inequality and the Changing Structure of Political Conflict’ and it’s the subject of Capital and Ideology, his new book. His hypothesis is that politics in the US, Britain, and France—he confines his analysis to those three countries—is dominated by the struggle between two elite groups: the Brahmin Left and the Merchant Right. He points out that left-wing parties in the US, Britain and France used to rely on ‘nativist’ voters to win elections—low education, low income—but since the 1970s have begun to attract more and more ‘globalist’ voters—high education, high income (with the exception of the top 10 per cent of income earners). The nativists, meanwhile, have drifted to the Right, forming a coalition with the business elite. He crunches the data to show that in the US, from the 1940s to the 1960s, the more educated people were, the more likely they were to vote Republican. Now, the opposite is true, with 70% of voters with masters degrees voting for Hilary in 2016. “The trend is virtually identical in all three countries,” he writes.

In Piketty’s view, the electoral preferences of the post-industrial working class—the precariat—is a kind of false consciousness, often engendered by populist snake-charmers like Matteo Salvini and Viktor Orban. He’s intensely suspicious of the unholy alliance between super-rich “merchants” and the lumpen proletariat, and similar noises have been made about the levels of support Boris has managed to attract...

Monday, December 16, 2019

Kenneth Turan Reviews 'Richard Jewell'

An economical review, but positive, at LAT, "Review: Clint Eastwood’s ‘Richard Jewell’ illuminates a real-life nightmare."




Alonzo L. Hamby, Man of the People

At Amazon, Alonzo L. Hamby, Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman.



Ben Shapiro, The Right Side of History

At Amazon, Ben Shapiro, The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great.



Heather Mac Donald, The Diversity Delusion

*BUMPED.*

 At Amazon, Heather Mac Donald, The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.



Realignment: A Tectonic Demographic Shift is Under Way

It's Yoni Appelbaum, at the Atlantic, "How America Ends":

The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced: Its historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority—and its minority groups are asserting their co-equal rights and interests. If there are precedents for such a transition, they lie here in the United States, where white Englishmen initially predominated, and the boundaries of the dominant group have been under negotiation ever since. Yet those precedents are hardly comforting. Many of these renegotiations sparked political conflict or open violence, and few were as profound as the one now under way.

Within the living memory of most Americans, a majority of the country’s residents were white Christians. That is no longer the case, and voters are not insensate to the change—nearly a third of conservatives say they face “a lot” of discrimination for their beliefs, as do more than half of white evangelicals. But more epochal than the change that has already happened is the change that is yet to come: Sometime in the next quarter century or so, depending on immigration rates and the vagaries of ethnic and racial identification, nonwhites will become a majority in the U.S. For some Americans, that change will be cause for celebration; for others, it may pass unnoticed. But the transition is already producing a sharp political backlash, exploited and exacerbated by the president. In 2016, white working-class voters who said that discrimination against whites is a serious problem, or who said they felt like strangers in their own country, were almost twice as likely to vote for Trump as those who did not. Two-thirds of Trump voters agreed that “the 2016 election represented the last chance to stop America’s decline.” In Trump, they’d found a defender.

In 2002, the political scientist Ruy Teixeira and the journalist John Judis published a book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which argued that demographic changes—the browning of America, along with the movement of more women, professionals, and young people into the Democratic fold—would soon usher in a “new progressive era” that would relegate Republicans to permanent minority political status. The book argued, somewhat triumphally, that the new emerging majority was inexorable and inevitable. After Barack Obama’s reelection, in 2012, Teixeira doubled down on the argument in The Atlantic, writing, “The Democratic majority could be here to stay.” Two years later, after the Democrats got thumped in the 2014 midterms, Judis partially recanted, saying that the emerging Democratic majority had turned out to be a mirage and that growing support for the GOP among the white working class would give the Republicans a long-term advantage. The 2016 election seemed to confirm this.

But now many conservatives, surveying demographic trends, have concluded that Teixeira wasn’t wrong—merely premature. They can see the GOP’s sinking fortunes among younger voters, and feel the culture turning against them, condemning them today for views that were commonplace only yesterday. They are losing faith that they can win elections in the future. With this come dark possibilities.

The Republican Party has treated Trump’s tenure more as an interregnum than a revival, a brief respite that can be used to slow its decline. Instead of simply contesting elections, the GOP has redoubled its efforts to narrow the electorate and raise the odds that it can win legislative majorities with a minority of votes. In the first five years after conservative justices on the Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, 39 percent of the counties that the law had previously restrained reduced their number of polling places. And while gerrymandering is a bipartisan sin, over the past decade Republicans have indulged in it more heavily. In Wisconsin last year, Democrats won 53 percent of the votes cast in state legislative races, but just 36 percent of the seats. In Pennsylvania, Republicans tried to impeach the state Supreme Court justices who had struck down a GOP attempt to gerrymander congressional districts in that state. The Trump White House has tried to suppress counts of immigrants for the 2020 census, to reduce their voting power. All political parties maneuver for advantage, but only a party that has concluded it cannot win the votes of large swaths of the public will seek to deter them from casting those votes at all.

The history of the United States is rich with examples of once-dominant groups adjusting to the rise of formerly marginalized populations—sometimes gracefully, more often bitterly, and occasionally violently. Partisan coalitions in the United States are constantly reshuffling, realigning along new axes. Once-rigid boundaries of faith, ethnicity, and class often prove malleable. Issues gain salience or fade into irrelevance; yesterday’s rivals become tomorrow’s allies.

But sometimes, that process of realignment breaks down. Instead of reaching out and inviting new allies into its coalition, the political right hardens, turning against the democratic processes it fears will subsume it. A conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism, winning converts to its principles and evolving with each generation. A conservatism defined by identity reduces the complex calculus of politics to a simple arithmetic question—and at some point, the numbers no longer add up...

This Impeachment is Different

A surprisingly interesting piece, from Lawrence Lessig, at Politco, "This Impeachment Is Different—and More Dangerous":

The impeachment of Donald Trump will happen in a radically different media environment — again. (In Clinton’s impeachment, standing between Trump’s and Nixon’s, the effects were consistent but muted relative to today.) Polling persists, indeed it has expanded, and so politicians will know how the proceedings are playing among their own voters. But as information channels have multiplied, real “broadcast democracy”—the shared and broad engagement with a common set of facts—has disappeared. An abundance of choice means fewer focus on the news, and those who do are more engaged politically, and more partisan. No doubt, there is more published today about impeachment across a wide range of media than before, but it lives within different and smaller niches.

That division will have a profound effect on how this impeachment will matter to Americans. In short, it will matter differently depending on how those Americans come to understand reality. In a study published last month, the research institute PRRI found that 55 percent of “Republicans for whom Fox News is their primary news source say there is nothing Trump could do to lose their approval, compared to only 29 percent of Republicans who do not cite Fox News as their primary news source.” That 26-percentage-point difference is driven not just by politics but by the media source.

This means that as the story of impeachment develops, it will be understood differently across the network-based tribes of America. The correlation among conservatives and liberals alike that drove Nixon from the White House won’t be visible in 2020—because it won’t be there. Regardless of what happens, on one side, it will be justice delivered. On the other, justice denied.

That difference, in turn, will radically constrain the politicians who Americans have entrusted to render judgment on the president. The reality of Fox News Republicans will be persistently visible to red-state representatives. More idealistic, less inherently partisan senators, such as Ben Sasse of Nebraska, might have a view of the “right” thing in their heart of hearts, but they will be forced to choose between what they know and what they know their very distinctive voting public believes. So far, few have faced that choice with courage.

Though the president was wrong to invoke it in this context, the Civil War may well have been the last time we suffered a media environment like this. Then, it was censorship laws that kept the truths of the North separated from the truths of the South. And though there was no polling, the ultimate support for the war, at least as manifested initially, demonstrated to each of those separated publics a depth of tribal commitment that was as profound and as tragic as any in our history. That commitment, driven by those different realities, led America into the bloodiest war in its history.

We’re not going to war today. We are not separated by geography, and we’re not going to take machetes to our neighbors. But the environment of our culture today leaves us less able to work through fundamental differences than at any time in our past. Indeed, as difference drives hate, hate pays—at least the media companies and too many politicians...
RTWT.

Sunday, December 15, 2019

Alexandra Stan

At Celeb Jihad, "ALEXANDRA STAN NUDE SNAPCHAT VIDEO LEAKED."


Friday, December 13, 2019

Elie Johnson

That's one big, healthy lady!


Monday, December 9, 2019

Sunday, December 8, 2019

On the 2nd Day of Christmas?

Not sure what the promotion is, but some nice photos.

At Drunken Stepfather, "ON THE 2ND DAY OF STEPXMAS – TOP 10 CELEB OPIATE-USERS FOR APEX KRATOM OF THE DAY."

Blond Emily

Seen yesterday:


Pensacola Naval Air Station Jihadist Watched Shooting Videos Before Attack

Pamela reports, "Jihadi who killed three at Pensacola naval station ‘hosted dinner party with three fellow Muslim countrymen to watch videos of mass shootings’ days before the attack."

And at Jihad Watch, "10 Saudi military students at Pensacola Naval Air Station now detained after jihad massacre."




Jill Arrington Featured at the Los Angeles Times

This is a major, major investigation, and fascinating.

I remember Ms. Jill announcing her departure from CBS 2 Los Angeles a couple of years ago, and she was disgruntled.

At LAT, "One year after Moonves’ exit, CBS TV stations also face harassment and misogyny claims":


Jill Arrington was a star in TV sports. Then, four years ago, the former NFL sideline reporter traded national exposure for what she thought would be a more stable job at CBS’ television stations in Los Angeles.

Arrington loved chronicling the Rams and other pro teams, and eventually took on additional duties as the weekend sports anchor for KCBS-TV Channel 2 and KCAL-TV Channel 9. But one thing about her job galled her: She was earning nearly $60,000 less a year than the male anchor she replaced.

When her contract came up for renewal, Arrington told the station’s top managers that it was unacceptable to pay a woman so much less than a man.

“Oooh, isn’t she tough,” Arrington recalls the former general manager of CBS’ L.A. stations, Steve Mauldin, saying during a March 2018 meeting. She said Mauldin turned to his lieutenant and said: “This one talks more than my wife.”

The meeting ended with no assurance of a raise. But as Arrington started to leave, she said her boss told her: “Put on a tennis dress and meet me at the golf club. We’ll put you on tape, and you can make some extra money.”

Arrington had experienced come-ons in her years covering sports, but nothing like this. She confided in a colleague, who recalled that Arrington was “frantic and scared” after the exchange. In an interview last week, Mauldin denied making the remarks. “That didn’t happen,” he said. “That’s the most absurd thing. I would not talk to women that way.”

Six months after that meeting, a bombshell detonated at the highest level of the company: CBS’ larger-than-life chief executive, Leslie Moonves, was ousted over claims he harassed and assaulted multiple women decades ago.

After a high-profile probe into Moonves’ conduct and the company’s workplace culture, independent law firms hired by CBS concluded that “harassment and retaliation are not pervasive at CBS.” But a Times investigation has uncovered claims of discrimination, retaliation and other forms of mistreatment in an overlooked but significant corner of the company: the chain of CBS-owned television stations.

More than two dozen current and former employees of KCBS and KCAL described a toxic environment where, they said, employees encountered age discrimination, misogyny, and sexual harassment — and retaliation if they complained.

Discrimination complaints have also surfaced at CBS-owned stations in Chicago, Dallas and Miami. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against CBS after investigating allegations that station managers in Dallas denied a full-time position to a 42-year-old traffic reporter and instead hired a 24-year-old former NFL cheerleader who didn’t meet the job’s requirements. CBS denied that it engaged in discrimination.

In late November, shortly before a scheduled trial, CBS reached a tentative agreement to resolve an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by award-winning Miami-based journalist Michele Gillen, who sued CBS last year. The company admitted no liability in the agreement. In her court filings, Gillen called CBS a “good ole boys club” that “protects men despite bad behavior.”

*****

During the last seven years, multiple women at the Los Angeles stations complained that they were subject to harassment by their bosses or colleagues.

Early in 2018, prominent KCAL anchor Leyna Nguyen complained to KCBS management about inappropriate comments and unwanted touching by a male colleague, according to several people familiar with the matter. CBS spent months investigating the allegations but concluded there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing, according to a person familiar with the situation who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity.

CBS reached a settlement with Nguyen in July 2018 — just days before the allegations about Moonves became big news. Nguyen, a 20-year employee who left KCBS following the incident, declined to comment on the matter. CBS also struck a separation agreement with the person who was accused of the misconduct, and he also left. CBS did not admit liability in the matter. The employee denied wrongdoing and did not respond to a request for comment placed through his attorney.

The station’s then-head of makeup, Gwendolyn Gatti, backed Nguyen’s allegations. Gatti said the same employee harassed her, too, and that he “propositioned her for sex, asked about her sex life,” “slapped her on the buttocks,” and used the N-word when referring to her, according to a lawsuit in a separate case. CBS settled the matter with Gatti on July 27, 2018, according to court records. In a court filing, a CBS attorney labeled Gatti’s sexual harassment allegations “frivolous.” CBS denied any liability, according to a partially redacted copy of Gatti’s settlement agreement.

A former KCBS employee told The Times that he recalled a separate episode several years ago when Gatti was near tears and shaking with anger after a different colleague, a cameraman, forcefully slapped her on the buttocks. A second person confirmed that CBS investigated the slapping incident and the cameraman was disciplined.

Gatti was fired in September 2018, two months after her settlement. The 64-year-old makeup artist sued CBS in Los Angeles Superior Court in February, alleging wrongful termination, discrimination and retaliation. CBS, in court documents, said Gatti was fired “after she brought illegal drugs onto CBS property, in violation of company policy.”

In her lawsuit, Gatti said she realized her wallet was missing on Sept. 18, 2018, and called CBS’ security office to see if it had been turned it in. Later that day, she said she was called to the security office and presented with what she said were two empty plastic bags that a security guard claimed were found in her wallet. Gatti denied the bags were hers and “stated that she does not use any illegal drugs,” according to the lawsuit. She was fired the next day.

Nguyen and Gatti complained to management about sexual harassment in March 2018, according to court records. This was the same month that Arrington, the weekend sports anchor, began inquiring about her contract renewal. A single mom, she had been at the station more than two years, her duties had increased, and she wanted a raise.

The Times independently confirmed that CBS was paying Arrington about $60,000 a year less than her male predecessor. Arrington said her goal simply was to extend her contract, which expired in April 2018, and get a bump in pay to an anchor’s salary because she was putting in long hours serving as both a reporter and an anchor — appearing in as many as seven telecasts on a weekend shift.

Arrington was far from the highest-paid employee at the station, according to a person familiar with KCBS’ finances. Her salary put her among the middle of the pack. She was told to discuss the situation with Mauldin, which led to the awkward exchange.

Arrington’s colleague, Elsa Ramon, a former KCBS and KCAL anchor, confirmed that Arrington shared details about the incident with her shortly after it occurred in early 2018.

“She was uncomfortable,” Ramon said. “Mauldin made a suggestion that she engage in some activity,” adding that she viewed it as a quid pro quo situation.

A second CBS executive who attended the meeting said he didn’t recall Mauldin making inappropriate comments. Arrington claims that executive left the meeting just before she did. The second executive and Mauldin said they felt that Arrington was out of line in asking for a substantial raise over her $135,000 annual salary at a time when the station was struggling to control costs. (Arrington said she made no specific salary demands, and merely asked to be paid what other anchors in L.A. were making.)

“I thought she was making a good salary,” Mauldin said. “She thought she was worth more.”

Arrington initially was reluctant to talk to The Times.

Before joining KCBS, the 47-year-old Georgia native worked at Fox Sports, ESPN and CBS Sports, where she was seen by millions of viewers on the sidelines of NFL games and hosting shows about college football and NASCAR. Playboy readers in a 2000 online poll voted her America’s “sexiest sportscaster.” She declined the $1-million offer to pose for the magazine.

She arrived at KCBS and KCAL in 2015 after being recruited by Bill Dallman, a popular station news director who was also a Fox Sports alum. Arrington said she accepted the CBS stations job even though it meant lower pay and less exposure than a position at a national network. She was then in her 40s and working in on-air roles, a corner of the industry that can be unforgiving to women as they age.

Arrington nonetheless said she “felt it could be a whole new career for me, and a place where I could work for the next 10 years.”

Dallman, who now is news director for an ABC affiliate in Seattle, told The Times: “Jill and I both worked diligently to improve the quality of the on-air product and the culture in the building.”

Arrington enjoyed her experience early on, particularly co-anchoring KCAL’s weekend “Sports Central” with Gary Miller, an ESPN veteran. Miller, who now works at a Cincinnati station owned by Sinclair, said in an interview that Arrington was capable and a team player. Another KCBS reporter said: “She was one of the best we’ve ever had.”

Miller said Arrington confided in him that she was uncomfortable with Mauldin’s comments. Miller said he encouraged Arrington to complain to the human relations department, but she felt her best option was to avoid Mauldin. “He would start talking about her appearance or ask about her private life,” Miller said. “It was so inappropriate.” Mauldin denied the claims, saying “there was never a time when I put her in an uncomfortable position.”

Miller was let go in January 2017 due to budget cuts, and Arrington’s workload increased.

There were other tensions, too, according to seven current and former station employees interviewed by The Times. Jim Hill, a former NFL player and a fixture in L.A. broadcasting, was the station’s main sports personality and its sports director. He seemed uninterested in sharing the limelight, these people said.

“Jim wanted to handle the big stuff,” Mauldin said, adding that Hill was one of his favorites. “He wanted to do the big interviews, and I think Jill had a problem with that. ... I don’t think people down there [in sports] were comfortable being around her because of where her head was at.”

Arrington’s feature stories rarely appeared in Hill’s shows, she and others familiar with the situation said. Even a powerful report on an NFL lineman battling depression didn’t make the cut. Instead, the station ran preseason baseball clips.

“She wasn’t allowed to do stories that she wanted to do,” Miller said.

Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

Arrington said she tried to persevere: “I was just hoping the quality of my work would speak for itself.”

In early August 2018, the high-profile investigation into CBS’ culture began. Arrington’s attorney, Bobby Hacker, said he reached out to lawyers conducting the review because of concerns about Arrington’s treatment. But Arrington didn’t get a chance to talk to the investigators.

She was blindsided a week later on Aug. 22, 2018. It was her first day back at work after spending the weekend covering a Rams-Oakland Raiders preseason game. She was summoned to a conference room, where Tara Finestone, the news director who had replaced Dallman in January 2018, told her it was her last day.

Arrington demanded an explanation. She recalls Finestone saying: “We’re not firing you. We are happy with the quality of your work.” Instead, Arrington was told her position was no longer being staffed.

“I thanked her for her contributions and we talked about budgetary reasons,” Finestone told The Times. “Hers was the position that we decided to eliminate.”

More than a year later, Arrington still hasn’t landed a new job and she fears for her future.

“My takeaway from my experience at KCBS is that they were more concerned with protecting political alignments rather than the quality of their on-air broadcasts,” she said.

Colleagues and others also were confused by her abrupt departure. “My dealings with Jill were always first rate,” said Steve Brener, Dodgers spokesman. “She was professional and easy to work with. Then one day, she wasn’t here any more.”

Other station staffers say management decisions can be capricious and punitive. In 2013, Emmy Award-winning KCBS reporter Joy Benedict, who had just become the union shop steward at the station, posted a photo on Facebook of herself playfully posing on a giant chess board while on vacation in Miami with the caption, “Who wants to play with me???” Executives in New York became upset when a TV industry blog reposted the picture. They ordered KCBS managers to fire Benedict over the picture, according to three people with knowledge of the incident. KCBS executives felt that was too harsh of a punishment but they nonetheless assigned Benedict to primarily work less desirable weekend shifts. CBS representatives pointed out that she has since been given additional on-air opportunities at KCBS and CBS News.

Nancy London, who worked at CBS for 34 years, found herself on the outs after years of favorable performance reviews.

Nearly a decade ago, London, who worked at KCBS in technical services, received a new assignment and a new boss. He “harassed and ridiculed” her, she claimed in a lawsuit, alleging age, race and sex discrimination. London is African American. When she complained to HR, she said the situation grew worse. In July 2011, she was confronted by her boss and three other men who “railed upon” her in a group setting, London alleged in court filings. She fainted, requiring medical attention, according to the lawsuit.

A week later, London was fired.

London sued CBS in 2012, alleging wrongful termination. CBS dismissed London’s account as baseless. CBS settled the case in 2013 and did not admit liability. London declined to comment.

Several older CBS workers in L.A. also have alleged that they have been subject to age discrimination. The company also has come under criticism for its use of so-called per diem reporters, some of whom have worked for CBS for decades. These employees refer to themselves as freelancers, but some have been there so long that they jokingly call themselves “perma-lancers.”

Los Angeles relies heavily on per diem talent, according to executives and agents. The system causes resentment because it results in two classes of staff members working side by side. Using more per diem, part-time workers allows the stations to save money on personnel costs.

“People want to work in L.A., so there is a bigger pool of talent,” said one veteran CBS executive. “It comes down to market conditions.”

In the last 18 months, the station hired several new part-time reporters in their 20s. Younger reporters tend to get marquee weekday slots, which has caused resentment among some veterans, according to interviews and a review of KCBS staffing schedules.

In the just-completed November sweeps, KCBS and KCAL tied for sixth place in Los Angeles in viewership to late local newscasts. Market leaders are Walt Disney Co.’s KABC-TV Channel 7 and Univision’s KMEX-TV Channel 34.

“They are trying to cut, cut, cut and it’s taking a toll,” said Ramon, the former anchor who left the station in spring 2018. Ramon, 48, left rather than return to the weekend shift after spending two years filling in on prominent weekday newscasts because she cherished that time with her kids. She said she did not experience sexual harassment, but she didn’t see any opportunity for advancement, particularly because the station was investing in younger workers. “I felt that I was just spinning my wheels,” she said.

Numerous people said the atmosphere at KCBS and KCAL deteriorated after Dallman left.

Six employees told the Times that what they perceived as a hostile atmosphere at the station contributed to their decision to leave it in recent years.

Earlier this year, KCBS employees brought their concerns about stagnant wages and reliance on long-term freelancers to their union, SAG-AFTRA. Nearly two dozen reporters and anchors signed a petition in May. A union representative declined to comment on pending negotiations.

Mauldin denied that women were treated poorly or underpaid and said that the highest-paid talent was 30-year anchor Pat Harvey, a woman.

“We didn’t pay women less than men because they were women,” he said. “We respect everyone. But when you cut back in business, it’s difficult on people.”

CBS has faced workplace complaints in other divisions. Scott Pelley, 62, the respected former anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” told CNN that he lost his job as chief anchor “because I wouldn’t stop complaining ... about the hostile work environment.” CBS also ousted two big names — morning news anchor Charlie Rose and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager — over allegations of inappropriate conduct.

CBS’ board a year ago acknowledged shortcomings. “Historical policies [and] practices ... have not reflected a high institutional priority on preventing harassment and retaliation,” the board said of the investigators’ findings.

At KCBS and KCAL, a new general manager, Jay Howell, arrived in July, after spending the previous year running CBS stations in Pittsburgh.

Some staff members said they doubt reforms will filter down to the local stations.

Emma Roberts Flash

At Taxi Driver:


Saturday, December 7, 2019

John Dower, Embracing Defeat

At Amazon, John Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II.



Chalmers A. Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle

At Amazon, Chalmers A. Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975.



Sara Jean Underwood — Wow!

She's a fine babe.


John Toland, The Rising Sun

At Amazon, John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945.



Gordon Prange, At Dawn We Slept

At Amazon, Gordon Prange, At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor.



Local Pearl Harbor Veteran Will Be the Last Interred on Battleship Arizona

Great story.

Only three survivors left.

At LAT, "End of an era: Last Pearl Harbor veteran to be interred at USS Arizona Memorial":

Just before 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning 78 years ago, Lauren Bruner was preparing for church services and a date that would follow with a girl he’d met outside his Navy base.

The 21-year-old sailor was stationed as a fire controlman aboard the U.S. battleship Arizona, overseeing the vessel’s .50-caliber guns.

Then alarms rang out. A Japanese plane had bombed the ship in a surprise attack.

It took only nine minutes for the Arizona to sink after the first bomb hit. Bruner was struck by gunfire while trying to flee the inferno that consumed the ship, the second-to-last man to escape the explosion that killed 1,177, including his best friend; 335 survived.

More than 70% of Bruner’s body was burned. He was hospitalized for weeks.

Now, nearly eight decades after that fateful day, Bruner’s ashes will be delivered to the sea that cradled his fallen comrades, stored in an urn inside the battleship’s wreckage.

Bruner, who died in his sleep Sept. 10 at age 98, will be the 44th and final crew member to be interred at the site, a decision he made nearly 30 years ago. The last three surviving members of the Arizona’s crew have all chosen to be laid to rest with their families.

A moment of silence will be observed at 7:55 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time on Saturday (9:55 PST), the exact moment the bombings began so many years ago, followed by an annual public ceremony at Pearl Harbor to remember those killed in the attack.

Lou Conter, 98, one of the last three surviving crew members, will be at the interment, coordinated by the U.S. Navy and the National Park Service and attended by about 160 loved ones of Bruner.

In Colorado Springs, Colo., fellow survivors Donald Stratton, 97, and Ken Potts, 98, will watch a livestream of the event alongside the daughter of Joe George, the man who saved Stratton and Bruner when he tossed them a rope from the repair ship Vestal 100 feet away, which the men used to pull themselves to safety.

“I was there when he was strafed by a passing Japanese plane — wounded in his leg. He watched me climb across the burning water to relative safety aboard the Vestal, and I encouraged him to keep going when it was his turn to cross,” Stratton said of Bruner.

“The bonds of brotherhood are forged working side by side, but nothing connects men more than going through something like that. We were lucky, blessed, to make it out of there.”

In 2017, Stratton and Bruner presented the Bronze Star for valor posthumously to George by way of his daughter, Joe Ann Taylor, at the Pearl Harbor memorial in Hawaii. Stratton said it was a defining moment for both of them.

“We were the lucky ones to escape, thanks to Joe. If I could ask one thing, it would be for people to remember the ones who died, the ones who never really got a chance to live. Remember their stories,” he said. “Remember our story and never let something like this happen again.”

Bruner was an easygoing man who enjoyed a slice of pizza and a cold beer. He regaled people with stories, hesitant only when it came to discussing the events of Dec. 7, 1941. He outlived two wives and a longtime girlfriend whose family considers him their own..
More.

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Katie Bell Make a Wish

Who'd you rather?


Big Bear's Heaviest November Snowstorm in 50 Years

At ABC 7 Los Angeles:


Dancing Christmas Globes

At Drunken Stepfather, "RINGING IN THE CHRISTMAS COUNTDOWN WITH A DANCE OF THE DAY."

Shop Black Friday Weekend Sales

Well, how was your Black Friday shopping?

I watched football all day yesterday, and ate leftovers, lol.

At Amazon, Black Friday Shopping in Camera and Photo.

And, Shop Grocery and Gourmet Food.

More, Kindle Store Savings.

Plus, Mountain House Essential Bucket.

Also, Signature by Levi Strauss & Co. Gold Label Men's Relaxed Fit Jeans.

Here's more, Samsung UN65RU8000FXZA Flat 65-Inch 4K 8 Series Ultra HD Smart TV with HDR and Alexa Compatibility (2019 Model).

BONUS: Gordon Wood, The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States.


Friday, November 29, 2019

Hey, Hands Off the Hallmark Channel!

My wife loves the Hallmark Channel, and I've watched numerous weepy holiday dramas with her.

Leave the network alone.

It's one of the last television outlets that consistently promotes traditional conservative courting rituals and family values.

At Instapundit, "EVERYTHING IS PROBLEMATICAL: Hallmark Channel Under Assault by Race Hustlers and LGBTQ Cult, ‘Too White’."

Holiday Gift Ideas

At Amazon.

Also, Sebastian Gorka, The War for America's Soul: Donald Trump, the Left's Assault on America, and How We Take Back Our Country.

Shop Desktops

At Amazon, Desktops Under $500.00.

And shop books.

Black Friday Tool Girls

At Drunken Stepfather, "TOP 10 GIRLS WITH TOOLS WHO SHOULD HAVE USED A GEEK KEY FOR BLACK FRIDAY OF THE DAY."

That's a promotional post, but folks gotta make some money. (*Shrugs.*)

Tessa Fowler

She's a good lady.

Troubling New Era in Mexico

At World Policy Review, "It’s a New and Troubling Era in Mexico Under AMLO":

MEXICO CITY—Some welcomed the return of the left to the height of political power in Mexico nearly a year ago as a promising new chapter in the country’s history. Yet 12 months into Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s presidency, drug violence and attacks on freedom of speech have spiraled and the economy has stagnated, adding to the sense that Mexico is floundering. While all these challenges existed before AMLO—as he is better known in Mexico—took office, the bigger concern now is the way his government is seeking to address them.

There is no mistaking that this is a new era for Mexican politics. Gone are the globally minded, centrist administrations that swapped power in the years following Mexico’s transition from one-party rule to free elections in the 1990s. In their place is a self-styled champion of the people whose inward-looking economic vision harkens back to the country’s statist past. AMLO openly dismisses a role for experts and civil society in policymaking, calling them “neoliberal nostalgics,” while lacing his public rhetoric with an almost religious call of devotion to his presidency—all with the passionate approval of his unwavering political base.

“There is much about AMLO that is reminiscent of the populists that came through the Institutional Revolutionary Party in the latter half of the 20th century,” says Alberto Fernandez, a political analyst and columnist for the magazine Letras Libres in Mexico City, referring to Mexico’s former ruling party, the PRI. “But he’s also more individualistic than they were—he expects the public to believe in his personal moral vision rather than in the democratic institutions Mexico has been trying to build over the past two decades.”

Amid widespread dissatisfaction among voters heading into last year’s presidential election, AMLO won a landslide victory, vowing to reduce inequality, fight corruption and put an end to years of deadly drug violence. Like many Latin American populists, he put neoliberalism and corrupt, privileged elites at the center of his critique of the policy path Mexico has followed over the past two decades. He promised nothing less than the country’s “fourth transformation”—a brash reference to the seminal events in Mexican history, from its independence from Spain in 1810, to the War of Reform that led to separation of church and state in the mid-19th century, to the revolution of 1910 that ended decades of dictatorship and established a constitutional republic.

Yet his actual policy positions were always vague. Corruption would be “eradicated,” AMLO insisted, but he has left the previous administration’s plans for an independent anticorruption commission in limbo. Next year, he will slash the budgets for the attorney general’s office, the National Electoral Institute and the Supreme Court, institutions that, while flawed, have been key building blocks in Mexico’s democracy. The drug cartels would be fought with “hugs, not bullets,” AMLO declared, yet they continue to wreak havoc, with the recent massacre of a Mormon family of nine, including six children, in the state of Sonora drawing international headlines. With nearly 26,000 homicides documented by federal authorities as of October, 2019 looks likely to end as Mexico’s most violent year in recent memory.

In March, AMLO announced that the era of neoliberalism, the great scourge of the Latin American left, was over. Yet his budgeting plans have been far from progressive. He has drastically reduced spending on health and education, among other areas, in favor of costly infrastructure projects, including a new international airport and what many economists view as a dubious attempt to revive Mexico’s debt-ridden and unproductive state energy giant, Pemex. A number of international organizations have subsequently downgraded their forecasts for Mexico’s growth this year to as low as 0.2 percent amid a decline in oil output and slumping construction and service sectors—its worst year since the global financial crisis.

“There are three major issues with AMLO’s diagnosis of the economic challenges Mexico faces,” says Macario Schettino, an economist at the Technological Institute of Monterrey in Mexico City. “The idea of regaining energy sovereignty is misplaced and has paralyzed the country’s landmark energy reform of 2013. Secondly, redirecting public funds to Pemex and poorly designed direct cash transfer programs has seen government ministries lose up to 30 percent of their budgets. Thirdly, the business community is losing confidence, and we are seeing a significant reduction in private investment.”

AMLO has attempted to compensate for the economic slump and spiraling crime rates with token gestures to his base: frequent popular referendums on everything from infrastructure projects to indigenous rights bills, the reduction of salaries for bureaucrats, and the controversial offer of political asylum to ousted Bolivian President Evo Morales. With a current approval rating at 58 percent, he clearly maintains a close bond to many of his supporters, a phenomenon Fernandez attributes to dissatisfaction with prior governments, notably the scandal-ridden term of AMLO’s predecessor, Enrique Pena Nieto.

Pena Nieto and his party, the PRI, successfully pushed through a series of long-hoped-for institutional reforms early in his presidency, yet they ended up flailing because of political foot-dragging and poor implementation. His administration then became mired in a series of corruption and human rights scandals, which at least partly contributed to the desire for change that led AMLO to power.

“For many citizens, Pena Nieto’s term really destroyed any notion that the current political system was working for them,” Fernandez says. “AMLO came along with a very simplistic diagnosis of what was wrong with the country, and it appealed to many.”

Two decades after the formal end of one-party rule, Mexico’s democracy remains fragile, hamstrung by the weak rule of law. Slow but steady progress was being made in the form of increasingly competitive elections, newly independent institutions and a growing role for civil society in public policymaking. Perhaps the most concerning element of AMLO’s presidency so far is his disregard for these gains—and for democratic institutions as a whole.

AMLO says he plans to hold a popular referendum in 2022 to determine if he should continue as president through 2024, the official end of his term under the constitution. Yet his budget cuts to the National Electoral Institute, known as the INE, could also strip the body, which was founded in 1996, of its independence. The INE is responsible for both organizing and financing elections at all three levels of government, along with setting campaign funding limits and allocating public resources to political parties...
Keep reading.

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe

At Amazon, Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine.



Evelyn Taft's Thanksgiving Forecast

Well, I've posted on the Thanksgiving snowmageddon already, but I can't resist Ms. Evelyn.




BONUS: Danielle Gersh's forecast this morning.

Shop Black Rifle Coffee

For Thanksgiving.

At Amazon, Black Rifle Coffee Company CAF Caffeinated AF Medium Roast Ground Coffee, 12 Ounce Bag.

Katie Bell Thanksgiving

Well, she's really giving this Thanksgiving, man.


Storm Pounds California Travelers on Thanksgiving

A white Thanksgiving is giving Californians a fresh take on the holiday.


Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Shopping Today

At Amazon, Today's Deals.

See especially, Pelican 1510 Case With Foam (Black).

More, Ergodyne N-Ferno 6802 Thermal Winter Trapper Hat, Black, Large/X-Large.

Plus, Carhartt Men's Quilted Flannel Lined Sandstone Active Jacket.

Still more, Parker 2020376 Jotter Gift Sets Pen, Stainless Steel, Ball Point.

Here, Xbox One S 1TB Console - Fortnite Battle Royale Special Edition Bundle.

And, CLIF BAR - Energy Bar - Blueberry Crisp - (2.4-Ounce Protein Bar, 12 Count).

Also, Samsung UN65RU7100FXZA Flat 65'' 4K UHD 7 Series Smart TV (2019).

BONUS: Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class.

Lena Gercke

At Drunken Stepfather, "LENA GERCKE SLUTTY PHOTOSHOOT OF THE DAY."

Plus, "Steplinks of the Day."

Rain and Snow for Thanksgiving

Here's the forecast, "Megan Parry's Thanksgiving Eve Forecast."

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Is the Thanksgiving week storm approaching Southern California really a ‘bomb cyclone’?"

And, "Rain and snow likely to break California’s most enduring Thanksgiving tradition: perfect weather":

SAN FRANCISCO —  Trolling the East Coast and Midwest with tales of Thanksgiving dinner while wearing shorts under sunny skies is a California tradition.
But this year is going to be different.

Forecasters are warning of a stormy Thanksgiving holiday week marked by rain across the state and snow levels so low in elevation they could close major freeways like Interstates 5, 15 and 80. The storm is expected to bring such cold temperatures that snow may accumulate even on the floor of high-desert cities such as Lancaster, Hesperia and Barstow. Up to 2 feet of snow could hit Big Bear and Wrightwood and up to 4 feet around Lake Tahoe and Mammoth.

The forecast has holiday travelers checking their plans and hosts fretting about whether turkey al fresco for 20 could end in disaster. Just two years ago, Los Angeles sat down to a Thanksgiving feast just after the high temperature hit a crispy 92 degrees — an all-time record. This year, San Diego could be facing one of its coldest Thanksgivings since records began being kept in 1874, with a forecast high of just 60 degrees.

“Everybody can definitely break out their Uggs and Lands’ End parkas,” climatologist Bill Patzert said. L.A.'s high temperature on turkey day could remain in the 50s; San Francisco, possibly in the 40s.

And with rain probably persisting in Southern California into Thanksgiving evening, with a slight chance of thunderstorms, the holiday week might lead to the discovery of new roof leaks.

“Put your water buckets next to your turkey,” Patzert said.

But as you imagine a rain-slicked ride to your holiday dinner or a soggy drumstick, there is something positive to say about the wet Thanksgiving forecast. “This could put an end to the fire season. This is large enough, if it delivers,” Patzert said.

Much of California has been abnormally dry so far this autumn, leaving vegetation tinder dry and threatening to keep fire danger high until rains arrived. Some of California’s most recent destructive fires have hit during November and December while rainfall has been absent, such as the Camp fire that ignited on Nov. 8, 2018, destroying much of the town of Paradise and killing 86 people, and the Thomas fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, which began on Dec. 4, 2017, burning more than 1,000 structures and killing two.

Fire danger continued on Monday, with a fast-moving brush fire threatening numerous homes in Santa Barbara. The Cave fire was being pushed down from Los Padres National Forest toward communities by powerful winds. Highway 154 was closed, and officials were dealing with spot fires breaking out dangerously close to homes. Firefighters are hoping they can hold off the blaze until the rains arrive.

Until this storm, the fall of 2019 has been among the top five driest starts to the water year across Northern California, which began Oct. 1, said Nina Oakley, regional climatologist for the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno.

Sacramento has reported no measurable precipitation between Oct. 1 and Sunday — a parched situation that has occurred in only four other years since records began being kept in 1877, Oakley said. San Francisco has seen only 0.03 inches in the same time period...
More.