Don’t Believe We Need Doge? Read This 30 Apr 1:00 AM (2 days ago)
I am on vacation lying at the pool. I usually do not take much “beach” reading with me. This time no Connelly or Coben or Silva. A couple books to review that friends wrote, The Road to Serfdom (yes, I was shocked I had not read it), a Peter Drucker Book and a couple of lengthy biographies. Not your typical pool reading. Likewise included was the latest book by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. I want to share a story in his book Over Ruled.
He tells the story of Marty Hahne who at a young age became addicted to Houdini and decided to become a magician. As is typical with someone who does magic tricks, he had a rabbit; the first being Charlie then Casey. Everything was hopping along until 2005 when a woman with a badge approached Marty after a children’s show at a library in Missouri. She asked to see his license. Stunned, he said what license? “For your rabbit.” Marty stated, “I could understand if I was using a tiger, but I was using a bunny rabbit. A three-pound bunny rabbit.”
The woman worked for the U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Congress had previously passed a law that people using animals for research must have a license. Congress had recently amended the law stating that carnivals, circuses, and zoos must have federal licenses for their animals. You can see the expansion of government here. As they normally do, agency bureaucrats laid out their own set of rules. They expanded the licensing rules to animal acts and educational exhibits.
Marty applied for a license. He received it, but he had to submit to “surprise” inspections of his house. If he took the rabbit on a road trip, he had to submit an itinerary to the Dept. His home visit had some problems. Casey’s travel cage did not have a sticker reading “live animal.” (You cannot make this crap up). The cage needed arrow stickers directing how to carry the cage. Marty told the federal employee he already knew how to carry the cage – by the handle on the top. The agent insisted he needed the stickers, but Marty had no clue where to get them. She said she would send him a few. Sometime later he received a box of two hundred stickers.
He was later told he must have a written disaster plan. Marty stated he had one. He lived in Missouri where they have tornadoes, and he just used common sense. (Sadly, a dying thought). He had a safe room in his basement. That was not good enough. Marty had to hire a disaster management expert. The disaster expert told Marty the 28-page plan they drafted was short even though it covered not only tornadoes but also chemical leaks, floods, and heat waves.
Marty finally resigned himself to everything after a Dept. supervisor objected to Marty putting his 12-year-old dog in the safe room before the rabbit because the rabbit is licensed. Marty told a reporter, “I always thought I had a fun, easy job, and I would never have to worry about the government bothering me. But our government has gotten so intrusive, their tentacles are everywhere.”
One last thing. Marty had a discussion with the supervisor. If he had raised Casey to eat, he would not have needed a license. Marty said to the supervisor, “you’re telling me I can kill the rabbit in front of you, but I can’t take it across the street to a birthday party without a license.”
Many people are questioning why President Trump, and his team are attempting to dismantle a large portion of this invasive government. They are digging into every nook and cranny as I delineated in a prior column to find all the rules and regulations lawlessly made up by government bureaucrats that are not in compliance with Congressional laws.
Since the ridiculously horrible “Chevron” ruling was overruled that allowed court deference to these bureaucrats the new administration is on a seek-and-destroy mission. Under “Loper” — the new ruling that withdraws “Chevron” — the expansion of our government in the hands of these meddling managers is over. Numbered are the days of our citizens being tortured by heartless overseers destroying the lives of normal Americans pursuing a joyful life. There might even be a readoption of the old idea where people simply use “common sense.”
And you wonder why we have all these agencies where we have no idea what they do. That explains why we have $36 trillion in debt.
Senate Bill 249 Is Yet Another Effort in Sacramento To Hijack Local Elections 29 Apr 10:34 PM (2 days ago)
In the latest chapter of Sacramento’s ongoing effort to chip away at local governance, Senator Tom Umberg’s SB 249 proposes to override county-level decision-making by mandating that all county boards of education elections be held during the statewide general election in November of even-numbered years. While this might sound like a harmless administrative adjustment, it is a brazen overreach that sacrifices both fiscal responsibility and the principle of local control.
SB 249 affects five California counties—Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Alameda—by stripping them of their authority to determine how and when to conduct their board of education elections. All five currently have the power to modify their election timelines through their county boards of supervisors. Yet instead of allowing these counties to continue making informed, localized decisions, Sacramento politicians are once again pushing a top-down, one-size-fits-all mandate.
This is not the state’s first attempt to meddle in this arena. It’s the third attempt in as many years. SB 286 (2022) and SB 907 (2023), aimed at Orange County alone, were defeated—one in the Assembly and the other by the Governor’s veto. And rightly so. Governor Newsom’s message when he vetoed SB 907 couldn’t be clearer: “State circumvention of these local procedures… should be avoided absent extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, I am not convinced those circumstances exist in the context of this legislation.” What has changed since then? Nothing—except that now the state is expanding its reach to four more counties.
Let’s be clear: this bill is not about increasing voter participation or streamlining governance. Just like its predecessors, SB 249 is a political maneuver disguised as reform and comes with a hefty price tag. The California State Senate Appropriations Committee estimated that implementing this law in Orange County would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by five, and we’re talking about a significant hit to the State General Fund—all for a change that local governments could make themselves if necessary. And remember, all this in the face of several economists predicting a looming budget cliff that could deprive Californians of the most basic goods and services.
Beyond the financial irresponsibility, there are real logistical complications. Additional ballot cards, reprogramming voting systems, staff retraining, and voter outreach efforts—all of this takes time, money, and resources that counties are not currently equipped to spend on a mandate they didn’t ask for. All this time, effort, and resources are for a problem we don’t have and don’t want to be solved.
This certainly begs the question, if the Governor and Senate Appropriations Committee determined this is bad policy for one County, how can you be good policy for five counties?
It’s the apex of irony that a bill supposedly aimed at improving elections is being pushed forward in such an undemocratic fashion. First, the bill was a classic “gut and amend.” That means the original bill text was changed entirely, and there’s no real relationship to the first introduced text. Sacramento’s version of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Why do that? Second, it bypasses voters completely. Finally, we must ask ourselves, what is Sacramento’s obsession with local elections? Californians elected our representatives to improve our lives and our children. Have we solved homelessness– exorbitant gas prices — low test scores— fentanyl? No. The message to counties is loud and clear: The Sacramento elitist class doesn’t trust you to run your elections. As stated differently, your votes are just wrong! And that’s a dangerous precedent to set—not just for school boards but for every other aspect of local governance. As the song says, “… You can even run your own life. I’ll be darned if you’ll run mine.”
If SB 249 passes, what’s next? Will the state begin dictating how school boards spend their budgets? Who can they hire? What curriculum must they teach? Local autonomy is not a partisan issue—it’s a foundational principle of good governance. Voters in Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Alameda counties know what they are doing and want to be left well enough alone. Californians deserve leaders who respect the boundaries of their authority, primarily when local mechanisms already exist to enact the kinds of changes SB 249 prescribes. Instead of repeating the mistakes of SB 286 and SB 907, our legislators should heed the Governor’s previous warning and reject this bill.
Let’s keep education decisions close to the communities they serve and reject this bill. Three strikes, and you’re out.
___
Jon Fleischman is the longtime Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics.
Top Five Reasons The Founders Included the Second Amendment 27 Apr 9:08 PM (4 days ago)
I’m playing around with Substack. I’m going to be putting some content over there. Including a post I just put up:
Five Reasons The Founders Included the Second Amendment
Check it out. If you want to be notified when I post on Substack, just subscribe (there’s a button on the Substack post). It’s free.
Why Do We Have to Pay for This? 27 Apr 1:00 AM (5 days ago)
There is a major discussion circling around us about the masses of illegal aliens who entered this country while Joe Biden was President. It is akin to what occurred when Angela Merkel opened the floodgates to people entering her country. Once in Germany, they then spread across the rest of Europe causing tremendous havoc for the native populations. The question is what is our responsibility in removing these people from our country?
A lot of people have been barking about “due process.” They may be correct, but why are they considered by some to be correct? What rights should people have if they enter the country illegally, not following the proper procedures?
Vice-President Vance has taken the following position: “Biden overwhelmed the system with illegal migration. Is your proposed solution to give a jury trial to all 20 million illegal aliens (more if you count those already here)? I am sick of abstract arguments. What your proposal does, whether you know it or not, is ratify the presence of millions of illegal aliens in our country. I reject that.”
Not everyone agrees with that position. Andrew McCarthy writes regarding the current cause célèbres of the Left: “The roundup led to the discovery that he was in the country illegally and had been for about seven years. Being an illegal alien made Abrego Garcia subject to removal proceedings. (Memo to the Trump administration: when a suspect is subject to a removal proceeding, the government must prevail in the proceeding before doing the removal. As we will see, the Trump DOJ lost the proceeding the first time around … and now it wants to skip the proceeding all together.)”
That may be true; but, sorry, I disagree. Why are we obligated to have a hearing when, 1. The burden of proof is on him (Garcia) that he is here legally; and 2. Not one person I have read has argued he is here legally.
When Trump started to remove people who were not citizens and guilty of crimes, I agreed with Border Czar Tom Homan that the government was going to remove them first. We then found out 1.5 million people who came here have been judged as not being here legally and were told to leave by Immigration courts. When I bring this up to members of the Garcia fan club, no one has even responded to the subject. They divert. Worse, a friend of mine who is a long-time immigration attorney stated a large portion of the 1.5 million would appeal and be in the country for years as the courts are flooded.
Who is paying for this? We know we are stuck paying for the prosecutors, judges, and courtrooms. We need to find out who is paying for these appeals. You know it comes from one of two places. 1. NGO’s who are funded through the web of Biden interlocking funds utilized to hide that American citizens are paying; or 2. Affluent Left-wing billionaires funding this through their alternative web of non-profits, often funded by foreign sources.
We need to address another issue. The Left is atwitter about a comment from President Trump. Trump was asked if he is considering deporting criminals who are American citizens. He said he would love to. “I call them homegrown criminals, the ones that grew up and something went wrong, and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat and push people into subways just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes. We are looking into it, and we want to do it. I would love to do that.”
Let me be clear. This will never happen so stop repeating it. Trump says things like this to drive the Left crazy. This is a clear case of something he said that is not remotely serious. American citizens have different rights. As bad an actor as someone might be, they will be tried in an American court and subject only to American justice and American jails.
Mark my words. Just like I stated in 2017 that the Left will be whispering forever ‘Charlottesville’ – a lie about what Trump said, they forever will be repeating this even though it will never happen: “But he wanted to.”
As for someone who is not a citizen they have various stages of rights. Until they become citizens, they do not have the same rights as we do. Even people who have Green Cards do not have the same rights.
As for Garcia and his ilk, he is here illegally, and no one is arguing against that. As far as I am concerned if he wants to make a legal argument, he can do it from El Salvador. He has no right to be here.
This is where we have gone astray. Illegals should not have rights to anything once they cross our border. If they do not apply and come in through the proper process they should be kicked out. Sorry, and I will guarantee 80% of Americans are sick of them hanging here and having us pay for this legal mumbo jumbo. No other country in the world would do this nonsense of supplying legal aid to illegal entrants into their country.
Things like this are why we are $36 trillion in debt. It is nonsense. Where is it written in our Constitution that we must pay for non-citizens, especially ones that are here illegally?
The Law Cartel asserts that the illegals have rights because of the 14th amendment. That amendment was passed directly after the Civil War to specifically validate rights for former slaves. To twist that amendment to state that people 150 years later, who enter the country illegally when we have long established processes, have rights and due process is blasphemous.
The Left could openly get behind this cause and raise the funds. Oh, sorry, lefties do not do that. It is always paid with OPM (other people’s money). Ours.
California’s Gas Price Pain: Taxes, Regulations, and Futile Climate Gestures 23 Apr 10:19 PM (8 days ago)
California drivers know the sting of filling up at the pump, where prices often hover $1.50 to $2 above the national average—$4.65 per gallon versus $3.15 nationally as of April 2025. While crude oil and refining costs play a role, the real culprit behind these sky-high prices is a web of state taxes, fees, and regulations that inflate costs far beyond what’s necessary. Add to that the elevated operational costs for gas stations in California’s pricey real estate and regulatory environment, and it’s clear why motorists are squeezed. Worse, the state’s aggressive climate policies, like cap-and-trade and low carbon fuel standards, promise global environmental gains but deliver negligible impact, raising questions about their prudence.
Let’s break down the numbers. According to the California Energy Commission, taxes and fees account for roughly $1.35 per gallon of gasoline in 2024. The state excise tax, the highest in the nation, stands at 59.6 cents per gallon, up from 27.8 cents in 2017, with annual increases tied to inflation. The federal excise tax adds 18.4 cents, unchanged since 1993. State and local sales taxes, averaging 2.25% but varying by region, contribute about 14.4 cents at current prices. A 2-cent underground storage tank fee funds cleanup of leaking fuel tanks. Then come California’s signature climate programs: the Cap-and-Trade system, which tacks on 27 to 31 cents per gallon by charging fuel suppliers for carbon emissions, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), currently adding 10 cents per gallon, is projected to increase costs to potentially 47 cents or more per gallon as early as sometime in 2025, pending regulatory approval, with estimates suggesting costs could climb to $1.50 by 2035. All told, these levies mean Californians pay an effective tax rate of 45% on gasoline, doubling the cost of refining and delivery.
Beyond taxes, California’s unique fuel regulations drive up prices. The state mandates a special reformulated gasoline blend to reduce smog, costing about 10 to 15 cents more per gallon to produce than standard blends. This “fuel island” status, coupled with strict refinery rules, limits supply options, spiking prices during disruptions like maintenance shutdowns. A 2019 report from the Center for Jobs pegged these regulatory costs at 19.6% of the price gap with the national average. Meanwhile, the state’s push for summer and winter blends adds another 10 to 15 cents, as refineries retool twice yearly.
Gas stations themselves face steep operational costs in California’s high-rent, high-regulation environment. Real estate prices in urban areas like Los Angeles or San Francisco inflate land and lease costs, while insurance rates—driven by wildfire risks and litigation—far exceed those in states like Texas or Arizona. The Energy Commission estimates distribution and marketing costs, which include these expenses plus station profits, at 51 cents per gallon. With California’s 10,000 gas stations serving twice as many drivers per station as the national average, reduced competition lets retailers pass these costs to consumers. A 2023 UC Berkeley study confirmed that fewer stations mean less price competition, further inflating margins.
The justification for much of this burden is California’s ambition to lead on climate change, aiming for an 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. But the global impact of these measures is dubious. California produces just 1% of global emissions, and its transportation sector accounts for a fraction of that. The LCFS and Cap-and-Trade programs, while raising fuel costs, displace only a sliver of global fossil fuel use—30 billion gallons since 2011, per state claims, against 1.4 trillion gallons consumed globally in 2023 alone. Even if California eliminated all petroleum demand, China and India’s rising emissions would dwarf the savings. A 2024 Kleinman Center report warns that LCFS costs could hit $1.50 per gallon by 2035 without guaranteed emission reductions, as fuel producers can buy credits to skirt cleaner production.
This regulatory zeal lacks prudence when the economic pain is so acute. For a family driving 240 miles weekly in a 20-mpg car, California’s $1.50 price premium adds $936 annually—money that could cover groceries or childcare. Small businesses, reliant on diesel-fueled trucks, face even steeper hikes, with diesel taxes and fees at $1.24 per gallon. The state’s $28 billion from Cap-and-Trade funds projects like high-speed rail, but only 25% goes to transit, while administrative bloat siphons off gains. Republicans’ calls to pause LCFS expansions or cut taxes have been rebuffed, leaving drivers to bear the cost of symbolic climate gestures.
California’s gas prices reflect a government prioritizing ideological goals over practical relief. With taxes, fees, and regulations piling on, and operational costs squeezing stations, the state’s policies hit hardest at the pump. Until Sacramento rethinks its approach, Californians will keep paying for regulations that cost dearly but change little on the global stage.
—
Jon Fleischman is the Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics. Permission to reprint granted with attribution to this site.
California’s Firearm List: A Liberal Assault on the Second Amendment 21 Apr 2:02 PM (11 days ago)
California’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale is a cunning gun control scheme dressed up as public safety, designed to erode the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians. This restrictive list, managed by the California Department of Justice, dictates which handguns can be sold in the state, imposing arcane requirements like microstamping, chamber load indicators, and magazine disconnect mechanisms. The state limits the handguns that Californians can legally purchase to about 750 models, many of them variations of the same model. That’s a fraction of the variety available to Americans who do not reside in California – and it ironically bans the sale of newer firearms with cutting-edge safety features. Far from protecting citizens, the roster blocks access to modern firearms with cutting-edge safety features, reflecting the liberal elite’s agenda to disarm Californians through bureaucratic overreach. Legal challenges, including those led by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, are exposing this policy as an unconstitutional attack on fundamental rights.
The roster stems from California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which mandates that new handguns meet stringent safety criteria. Since at least 2013, these rules have grown increasingly draconian, effectively halting the introduction of new handgun models. Manufacturers, deterred by costly and unproven technologies like microstamping—a process requiring firearms to imprint unique identifiers on cartridge casings—largely stopped submitting new designs. As a result, Californians are stuck with a dwindling selection of outdated firearms, many lacking the latest safety advancements available in other states. The irony is stark: the state claims the roster ensures safety, yet it prevents citizens from accessing handguns with superior safety features. This is not about protection—it is about control. Liberal lawmakers, led by figures like Governor Gavin Newsom, have created a system that turns exercising one’s constitutional right to bear arms into a bureaucratic nightmare, leaving law-abiding citizens with older, often less advanced models while criminals, who bypass laws entirely, face no such barriers.
Consider an example of modern safety features unavailable to Californians due to the roster. The Glock Gen5 series, released in 2017, includes a modular backstrap system for better grip customization, improving user control and reducing recoil-related mishandling. Despite its advanced safety profile, the Gen5 is excluded from California’s roster for failing to meet the state’s arbitrary criteria. These exclusions force Californians to settle for older models, often with heavier triggers or less ergonomic designs, compromising both safety and usability.
The landmark case Boland v. Bonta has brought this injustice to light. The California Rifle and Pistol Association, alongside plaintiffs like Gun Owners of California, argues that the roster violates the Second Amendment. In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney issued a powerful preliminary injunction against key provisions of the Unsafe Handgun Act. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, Carney ruled that the roster’s requirements lack historical precedent and unjustly burden the right to bear arms. The Bruen standard demands that gun regulations align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation—a test the roster fails miserably. Carney’s ruling underscored that the state cannot force citizens to settle for “decade-old models” when newer, safer handguns are available elsewhere. It is worth noting that Carney’s injunction included stopping the enforcement of the microstamping requirement, which has already led to a few more firearm models being added to the roster.
This preliminary victory exposes the roster’s true purpose: to discourage lawful gun ownership. The state’s liberal establishment knows an armed populace is harder to control, so they’ve weaponized bureaucracy to achieve what outright bans cannot. The state’s appeal, filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta (in which the State noticeably drops its defense of the micro-stamping requirement, which was repealed by a Governor and legislature that knew it was indefensible) reflects their desperation to preserve this anti-gun policy, but the legal tide is turning. The fight against the roster is about more than a list—it’s about defending the constitutional foundation that guarantees self-defense and resists tyranny. As Boland v. Bonta progresses through higher courts, Californians must rally behind these challenges to dismantle a system designed to suppress their rights. The Second Amendment is not a privilege to be rationed by Sacramento’s elites; it’s a right, and the roster is a direct assault on it.
__
Jon Fleischman is the Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics. permission to reprint granted with attribution.
Living in a Post Racial World 20 Apr 1:00 AM (12 days ago)
A recent encounter left me conflicted as to whether or not someone’s comments were racially based. I thought the person’s assertion that the comments were racially based were over the top. I told the person that is because he lives in a race-based world, and I live in a post racial world.
Forces on the Left have driven us backwards to a race-based world. Black Lives Matter (BLM), a group led by self-identified communists, were able to take advantage of a man’s death in Minneapolis. This led to destructive riots causing billions in damage, not to mention lives lost, without any repercussions.
Corporate America, which sometimes sways with the winds, poured $90 million into an organization that misused the funds, bought at least one personal residence for a founder, and was never held to account for their malfeasance. That is because the people in charge of our government want to take us back to a race-based world.
These supposed “leaders” want to act as if America exists the same as it did in the 1950’s. While America is not a perfect place for blacks (or anyone else for that matter), it is the single best place to be in a multi-racial country.
The most financially successful group in America are people who came here from India. Next are people of Asian descent. Anyone who believes the lives of most black Americans is anything like it was seventy years ago is living in a race-based world of their own making.
We happened to be In Atlanta on Martin Luther King Day. There was an important football game that night. We spent part of our day visiting the Ebenezer Baptist Church. This was the church where MLK preached. There is an entire complex dedicated to the memory of this great man and great American. It seems to me the focus of the movement created by BLM and enhanced by DEI is inimical to what MLK tried to achieve and was achieving until his death.
MLK has many famous quotes, not the least of which is one you know well. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The objective of the people who are promoting the programs delineated above are largely about judging people by the color of their skin. They want us to live in a race-based world.
It is fascinating that there are people who built essentially a cottage industry which is now a full-blown industry around judging people by the color of their skin. They hold seminars and preach how certain people have “privilege” because of their skin color and not because of their personal skills, attributes, or character traits. They live in a race-based world and want us to believe we do too. The reality is we have forsaken that world and live in a post racial world. Worst of all is people ignoring how that type of thinking has failed as they continue to promote and perpetuate America’s most racist organizations — the public-school systems in large cities. The worst offender Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson. He came from the public schools. He was elected with the support of the teachers’ unions and stands by while black children suffer the effects of being in those schools. They fight with all their focus and energy any system of school choice that would free these children.
If you don’t believe me, believe the leaders of the Democrat Party. They held their meeting recently of the Democrat Central Committee at which they elected their new national chairman. John Capehart, a reporter for the Washington Post, asked questions on stage of the candidates and asked the audience to respond also by raising their hands. The question was “How many of you believe racism and misogyny played a role in Vice-President Harris’ defeat.” Every single person raised their hand. Capehart said, “Ok that is good. You all pass.” They all live in a race-based world.
You might also believe the brilliant Thomas Sowell. He has written a number of books on the subject, including Charter Schools and Their Enemies conducting deep analysis into the harm of public schools and the opportunity of giving parents choices to have their children escape them. Thomas Sowell has spent his entire life moving to and achieving a post racial world.
The reason these race-baiters still exist is because of what I have labeled time and again as the most dangerous people in America – white liberals. They exist to virtue signal. They encourage the race-based world and live in fear of a wave of white supremacists descending from the mountains somewhere and taking over our country. Every time one invokes their fears; I remind them the last time American Nazis organized a march they could not rally even 20 people.
Are there racists in America? Absolutely. There will always be as there is in any mixed-race society. But they are not the ones who exacerbate racism because of their focus on the racist world they live in and want to encourage.
Give me my post racial world where nobody really cares about anyone’s race.
The people I hang with could not care less about anybody’s race. They care about the person and what their thoughts are and whether they are good people. The post racial world is glorious. If you aren’t there yet, come over. You will see how wonderful life can be.
The Best of Times, the Worst of Times at The New York Times 16 Apr 10:22 PM (15 days ago)
For a conservative like me, The New York Times is a paradox, a daily tug-of-war between delight and dismay. On one hand, its games—Wordle, Connections, Spelling Bee, and the rest—are a daily ritual I cherish, a mental workout that sparks joy and sharpens my wits. On the other, its news and opinion pages often feel like a lecture hall for far-left ideology, leaving me questioning whether the subscription is worth it. It’s the best of times and the worst of times, all in one app.
Let’s start with the good. Wordle is a daily gem, a five-letter puzzle that demands precision and patience. I savor the moment when the tiles flip green, signaling victory in mostly three or four guesses (but I’ve gotten it in two a few times!). Connections, with its grid of 16 words, is a test of lateral thinking, grouping terms by obscure themes that make me feel like a detective cracking a code. Spelling Bee is my personal Everest—chasing “Queen Bee” status by finding every possible word from seven letters is a thrill that rivals any crossword. These games are apolitical, elegant, and addictive. They’re a sanctuary where I can engage my brain without being preached to, a rare corner of the Times that feels like it respects my intelligence rather than my ideology.
But then I swipe over to the news or opinion sections, and the mood shifts. The Times, once a bastion of rigorous journalism, often reads like a mouthpiece for progressive orthodoxy. Its coverage of President Biden’s mental decline is a glaring example. For years, as conservatives pointed to Biden’s gaffes, stumbles, and moments of apparent confusion, the Times downplayed or ignored the evidence. Articles framed his age as a mere “narrative” pushed by right-wing critics, while opinion pieces lionized his “empathy” and “experience.” Only when undeniable moments—like the June 2024 debate—forced the issue did the paper grudgingly acknowledge what many of us saw all along. This wasn’t journalism; it was enablement, a choice to prioritize narrative over truth.
Back to the games, though, and I’m reminded why I stick around. The Mini Crossword confounds me as I try to solve it faster than friends. Strands, with its word-search-meets-puzzle vibe, feels like a playful nudge to think outside the box. These games are a daily reset, a reminder that the Times can still create something universal, something that doesn’t care whether I vote red or blue. They’re a digital oasis in a paper that too often feels like it’s trying to convert me.
Yet the opinion pages keep pulling me back to frustration. The Times’ editorial board rarely deviates from a predictable left-wing script, whether it’s on climate, social justice, or economic policy. Dissenting conservative voices are scarce, and when they appear, they’re often framed as curiosities rather than equals. The paper’s reporting, while sometimes excellent, frequently carries a slant that assumes its readers already agree with its worldview. Take its coverage of cultural issues: stories on gender, race, or immigration often read like they’ve been pre-vetted by an activist focus group, with little room for nuance or debate. As a conservative, I don’t want to be spoon-fed talking points; I want to be challenged, not coddled.
So why do I stay? The games are a big part of it. They’re a daily dose of fun and mental agility that I’d miss dearly. But there’s also a sliver of hope that the Times’ journalism can rediscover its roots in objectivity. Until then, I’ll keep playing Wordle, chasing pangrams in Spelling Bee, and solving Connections while skimming their news pages with a skeptical eye. It’s a love-hate relationship—650 words can’t fully capture the tension, but every morning, as I tap that app, I feel it. The Times gives me brain games that light up my day and editorials that mostly darken my mood. For now, I’ll take the best with the worst, but I’m keeping my guard up.
_______
Jon Fleischman is the Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics and has been political strategist for more than three decades.