Sunday, August 22, 2021



In the scheme of life this topic matters little, but I keep getting annoyed every time I hear the word "jabbed" used to describe people getting the vaccination combatting this world sweeping pandemic.  I don't know why this word used for this purpose grates on me, but I find "injection" or even "shot" (though, come to think of it, shot can have a worse meaning) much less objectionable.

Maybe "jabbed" in my mind suggests just a careless imprecise sticking of someone with any ol' object, anywhere, in which case who would want a vaccination -- I wouldn't.   But I don't mind getting a shot?   Go figure!

Are there words that just automatically trigger a negative reaction aggravating you when you hear them used?

ANNOYING ACTIONS -- be forewarned of political commentary

Writing of jabs and annoyance, I might add I'm more than a little annoyed that my and others tax money here in California is being squandered to the tune of $276 million.   We're having to foot the bill for a special election to recall our Governor Newsom that I consider to be purely politically motivated.   Do you think there just might be better ways to spend that sum?  I do!

I don't question there are issues with actions our Governor has taken with which some Californians have not agreed.  I do not believe they have risen to the level warranting this recall vote, however.   This is especially evident when compared to the gross actions the previous U.S. President of that major political party's monied supporters promoting this recall consistently tolerated by denial and turning a blind eye -- they still do.

We California citizens are basically paying for a pre-primary election for the Republican Party prior to our future regular election, November 2022.  They view this recall election as an exercise to come up with a viable candidate to offer next year, as described by a writer with a newspaper that endorsed one of that Party's candidates for this recall election.  (Note: I'm not registered with any political party.)

If this recall is successful, we're really only shortening our current Democratic Party governor's term by one (1) year!  There is no justifiable reason in my view for not waiting for the regular election in 2022 to determine if we want him as governor, when we can reject or re-elect him at that time.  

My ballot arrived in the mail this past week offering me the choice of two actions.  The first choice is, do I want to recall our Governor -- "Yes" or "No".  The second action is to select who should replace him from the 46 listed candidates if he is recalled.  That's right -- 46 candidates!   (24 Republicans, 9 Democrats, 9 No Party Preference, 2 Green Party, 1 Libertarian, Write-Ins of unknown number, if any)

Our current Governor must receive a majority, 50% or more, of the votes saying "NO" we don't want to recall him in order to stay in office the last year of his elected 4 year term.

Here's the scary part -- if the voters recall him, the candidate who has the most votes will become our replacement governor.  The votes for all the other candidates may total more than the winning candidate but that won't matter.  

What kind of representative of the electorate would that person be?  This is how political nutsos (technical term) receiving only a meager number of votes can be elected to office!  That, and occasionally via the Electoral College less-in-number votes taking precedent over the larger majority popular votes.  The latter has taken place twice in recent years with disastrous consequences -- Iraq War, Capitol Insurrection.  

Reading the resume' of most of these candidates reveals qualifications that hardly prepare them to be our state's governor.  One or more candidates might realistically be considered as endorsement fodder by the Republican or Democratic Party come our regular election, but many other candidates might not be judged realistic prospects  for political offices in their own communities whether  the office of mayor, treasurer of a local club, or dog catcher.  

Of course, there is that woman who is simply described as "Entertainer", or more precisely, "Billboard Queen, Icon. Experienced politician."  She has a P.O. Box in Beverly Hills so what further qualifications or endorsements does she need?  (No Party Preference)

Hopefully, the majority of my fellow Californians will mark their ballot, "NO" we do not want to recall our current Governor.  Let him serve out his four-year term, then we'll decide whether to re-elect him or not.

Our current Governor Newsom is telling those who support him to vote "NO" on the recall, but not vote for a candidate.  I haven't heard him explain why not vote for a candidate.   He cannot be written in either as the vote won't be viable.   I guess he is optimistic that he will not be recalled.

Perhaps he does not want the primary opposition Republican Party to have the benefit of learning the voting strength of any of his Democratic Party's candidates, but especially which of their own candidates might attract the most votes in 2022.  So far, the most prominent Republican candidates agree on the major issues, with which I don't agree, despite whatever lesser issues they disagree on with each other.

Frankly, I'm not inclined to want to make the Republican Party's formulating their 2022 election ticket any easier for them either. I don't trust a political party whose actions have demonstrated efforts to undermine our democratic republic.  This gives me little confidence in whether most of their candidates would protect our freedoms -- a troubling perspective I never imagined their actions would cause me to form of that Party. 

I have mixed feelings about not selecting a candidate, since not only do I resent my tax money paying for this recall election, I am angry about being used by the Republican Party in this manner -- an abuse of the political process and all taxpayers.    Just when I think they couldn't ethically sink any lower  earning my respect for them, they keep managing to go deeper at every governmental level into the national cesspool they seem to have created.

What I think also, is, if by some fluke the recall vote succeeds, do I want to take a chance on who the candidate receiving the most votes will be?   No doubt the Republicans will come out to vote in full force, but if I don't select a candidate, do I want to risk their possibly choosing the most unacceptable to me of their candidates?

Their voter track record for quality candidate selection isn't too good as I recall the last time they put one of their own in the White House as a prime example.  Too many of the Republican Party members appear to continue to bend, bow and kowtow following this now ex-President's much less than noble, unethical example garnering votes with total disregard for facts and truth coupled with their promoting often  ridiculous, even dangerous conspiracy theories.

In addition to voting "NO" on the recall, I must decide whether to vote for a specific candidate, then vote by September 14th.  


  1. Being a language purist, I can relate to your annoyance with words like jabbed. I too get quite annoyed when either silly words or phrases are used in our media. For instance, this morning one of our local papers had this headline - "Woman dies by suicide." I shot off a letter to the editor correcting it to "Woman commits suicide."

    1. Wording that is chosen can really be strange sometimes.

  2. Unless he is doing something harmful or illegal, I don't understand the need to recall. I agree, I thought the election process was what decided who should hold office. And the selecting of a replacement shouldn't even be on your ballot. If you mark "NO" you have stated you want it to follow the regular path for the next Governor. I don't understand the part that "if the voters recall him, the candidate who has the most votes will become our replacement governor." Shouldn't it be the
    Lt.Governor till the next election? Me thinks there is trickery afoot. Good luck.

    1. The ballot and choices are on the up and up. I think last election voters passed this provision to allow a majority win to avoid additional runoff elections that typically ended up with the person who received the most votes the first time winning anyway. But this is the first time we’re finding out what can happen in such an unexpected situation like this which begins to look problematic — unintended consequences.

  3. I also would flinch when someone on TV said they were not getting the jab. I agree that it makes it sound if someone has to punch you into healthiness. I am so tired of politics and until we get money out of the calculation, we are stuck with this stupid process.

    1. I sure agree the money in politics needs to be reined in. The Supreme Court sure didn't help with their decision years ago to equate a corporation with an individual, unleashing so much money. So many individuals, groups form that use sneaky ways to hide who and what they're giving money to.

  4. I’m with you on the stupid election. SO FRUSTRATING that someone could get maybe 15% of the vote and then be our governor. How is that democracy? It’s stupid beyond stupid. We need to change our rules and fix this. In the mean time, I voted no, and then I wrote in Newsom and mailed it in, and the following day learned that the write in for him would not count. Rats. At least it doesn’t invalidate my No vote, checked on that.

    1. Sorry you didn't know Newsom couldn't be written in. It’s the first time we’ve voted under these circumstances. I’ve decided to pick somebody, because I’m really concerned about the issues of who seems to be a real possibility of being the front runner if Newsom is recalled. There’s no candidate named that I think is qualified for the job but don't know who I’d write in.

  5. I also bristle at the word jab but wasn't sure why. I think your explanation is spot on - it suggests something stuck in your arm any old how with no precision.

    Unnecessary and expensive elections are annoying. Here in Northern Ireland we have a widespread co-option system which allows certain seats to be filled with a co-opted candidate without the need for an election. The system is widely accepted and causes little contention.

    1. That’s an interesting system with co-opted candidates as long as it isn’t abused with individuals replaced for petty little things or manufactured grievances.

    2. No, they're not replaced over anything petty. Usually they've resigned their seat for various good reasons.

  6. I think Jab is just a more Eurocentric slang term than Shot. Neither one bothers me. Jab is actually more accurate of a euphemism than Shot, which sounds violent and grisly to me. (Or like you're downing a quick drink!)

    The stakes are very high with Newsom. I'm thinking of Sen. Feinstein, who has already shown herself to be missing a step, so to speak. If she does not finish her term, her replacement is appointed by the governor of the state. We need that seat to stay Democratic.

  7. Jab irritates me too, shot also, they sound so random and not accurate at all.

    US politics never sound democratic to me, the Electoral College element with a stranglehold on the outcome, etc.

    As to headlines, the Domestic Incident one is the worst. It sounds so harmless like tripping over the vacuum when in reality a woman lies dead as her husband got upset with her.