Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in December of 2020 to replace Alex Padilla, whom he had just appointed to the United States Senate, Weber has experienced one embarrassing gaffe after another. She doesn’t seem to learn from her mistakes and she never really apologizes after getting caught abusing or grossly misinterpreting the law to punish her political adversaries.

In many ways, she’s perfect for a Newsom appointee.

I’d love to know who else was on Newsom’s short list to be secretary…Fraulein Helga from Hogan’s Heroes?

Let’s take a brief look at some of Weber’s “greatest hits.”

In a statement issued last Friday, the California Secretary of State’s Office acknowledged a mistake that led to Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Christina Pascucci receiving a “No Ballot Designation” identifier on both the March 5 primary ballot and the accompanying voter guide.

Pascucci, a former Los Angeles TV news journalist, should have received the designation “Local Television Journalist,” according to a statement from Secretary Shirley Weber’s office.

The mistake has been corrected online, but it is too late to fix the ballots or official voter information guides. Weber’s office said it was “an administrative error” that led to the mistake.

The phrase, “I’m sorry” never appeared anywhere in her statement.

In response, Pascucci took to X and said, “It’s a huge deal because voters use the ballot designation to guide them when they cast their vote. I’m going to be frank: This is bad and it doesn’t just affect my campaign, it could impact the overall results of this election. Our team has been dealing with this for a month. The Secretary of State admitted ‘an unfortunate internal clerical error’ and issued a correction via press release and on social media late Friday. That doesn’t fix the harm caused.”

No kidding. Weber’s inability to perform the basic duties of her office harmed Pascucci irreparably. Dare I suggest she sue?

In Bakersfield, Weber said that Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong could not run for Congress because he had already qualified to run for the Assembly before a December deadline.

Fong did sue Weber, saying that her office’s job is to “receive and file” nomination documents, not to decide who is eligible to run. His lawyers argued that state law does not prevent Fong from running for both Congress and the 32nd Assembly District, which he currently represents.

In December, Judge Shelleyanne Chang granted Fong’s request to run for Congress, reversing Weber’s decision.

With the campaign now in full swing, Weber is appealing the decision in California’s Third Appellate District, still attempting to disqualify Fong as a candidate.

In response, Brian Hildreth, an attorney for Fong, told the Fresno Bee, “This is an unprecedented attempt by the secretary of state to disqualify the ballots of potentially tens of thousands of Central Valley voters.”

Ya think?

And in the 2021 recall campaign of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, then candidate and long time radio talk show host Larry Elder beat Weber in court after she tried to keep him off the ballot, for what she described as not filling out the proper paperwork.

Superior Court Judge Laurie M. Earl disagreed and ruled that, “I don’t find Mr. Elder was required to file a tax return at all…I would find he substantially complied.”

As a result, Weber was forced to list Elder’s name on the ballot.

Weird that Weber, a Democrat, has tried to prevent three candidates,  a moderate Democrat and two Republicans, from winning elective office.

Shirley Weber has got some nerve, trying to stop Californians from voting for the candidate of their choice.  Who does she think she is, Fani Willis?

As Secretary of State, Weber has proven to be anti-democratic, bad at her job, and pretty shameless about it.

Seems to me, she’s a genuine “threat to democracy.”

John Phillips can be heard weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. on “The John Phillips Show” on KABC/AM 790.

For a few, the decision to leave is easy and reasons numerous. Who wouldn’t want better job opportunities, a tax cut and a lower cost of living? But for many more, it’s a tough call.

Older Californians often stay for their children and grandchildren. But young people, who would otherwise prefer to stay in California for the lifestyle and recreation, are ultimately compelled to pack up and go because of the ridiculously high housing costs. They simply can’t afford not to leave.

Those of us who speak and write frequently on the state’s legendary dysfunctional governance hear the same question from those who remain uncertain of the future of California: Is there any hope for California and what would it take to put the state back on track?

We don’t have a crystal ball, but it would depend almost entirely on the extent to which voters reject the dysfunctional one-party rule that has inflicted so much damage on the Golden State. If they did, fundamental change could happen much faster than one might think.

Take Argentina, for example. At the beginning of the 20th century the country’s name was synonymous with wealth. With vast reserves of natural resources, including minerals and millions of acres of productive land, Argentina was one of the richest nations in the world on a per capita basis. But starting in the 40s, the country began its long struggle with inflation. Today, at a whopping 211%, Argentina’s rate of inflation is the highest in the world. But persistent inflation was only part of the nation’s economic woes. Crushing regulations brought about by a hard socialist administrative state prevented any semblance of a free-market economy.

Argentinians had had enough. Voters recently elected the self-described anarcho-libertarian, Javier Milei, who is attempting to repair the poor economy he inherited with radical pro-market shock therapy. Dislodging an entrenched deep state won’t be easy, but it is notable that Milei’s political base is made up in large part of young voters who seem exceptionally motivated to embrace the reforms of the new president.

Another example of radical changes in a nation from statism to free-market democracy is, of course, the demise of the Soviet Union, initiated with Ronald Reagan’s challenge: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” While Russia itself can hardly be called a free-market state – it’s more like a kleptocracy – dozens of former Soviet satellite states are enjoying freedoms that they never had when they were locked behind the Iron Curtain.

Here in the United States, recent years have seen several historic shifts toward more conservative, free-market-based legislative bodies. In 2016, the Kentucky House of Representatives, the state’s lower house, not only flipped from Progressive to Republican control for the first time in nearly 100 years, but also secured a super-majority of representatives.

Although incremental changes in the body politic are probably the norm, these examples demonstrate what can happen when a majority of voters reach the breaking point over the way they are being governed. And it doesn’t necessarily result only in the election of politicians.

A 57% majority of Californians think the state is on the wrong track, according to a recent poll by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

Change won’t be easy. California’s entire political structure is aligned against change and favors the status quo. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Contracting is the opposite of governmental regulation. It allows people to make mutually beneficial agreements without the coercive powers of the state dictating the terms. People make contracts every day without government interference.

When it comes to contracts for the use of one’s digital likeness, Sacramento now wants to limit this freedom, driven by a technopanic over generative artificial intelligence.

Assembly Bill 459 targets so-called “digital replicas,” which are virtual representations of real people. Creators have been employing replicas for decades, using teams of skilled animators and computer-generated imagery (CGI). AI streamlines and reduces barriers to this technology, making it easier for smaller producers without large movie studio budgets to incorporate digital replicas into their art.

Of course, when technology becomes available to the masses, it’s more difficult to control.

The bill would insert government into the creative process, unnecessarily dictating special provisions about the use of digital replicas if the business seeks to create a digital replica of an agreeable employee. What’s worse is the legislation would be retroactive and invalidate existing contracts if the employee was not represented by a lawyer or union representative during the negotiation period.

Californians can adopt a child, get married, sell a house, create a last will and testament, and organize a corporation in the Golden State without paying a lawyer or union dues. But sign an agreement about digital replicas? That’s a bridge too far, say the sponsors of AB 459.

While one can appreciate the wisdom of individuals retaining counsel in many contexts, it’s not the government’s job to require that for digital replicas or any other reason. Such a requirement is likely unconstitutional and, as a policy matter, is a dangerous overreach that compromises the individual liberty of performers and ordinary Californians.

What’s more, AB 459 does nothing to address actual harms, and potential harms, associated with digital replicas created using AI. This technology has been used for exploitation. The phony pornographic AI-generated images of Taylor Swift released on social media last month is a shocking example. Likewise, an AI-generated voice clone used to convince parents their child was kidnapped, or an unauthorized dental ad featuring an AI-generated Tom Hanks, were not created by good-faith businesses, but rather malicious actors seeking illicit financial gain.

AB 459 does nothing to curtail or punish such behavior but imposes a variety of new costs on individuals and businesses that seek legitimate uses of the technology.

The proposal is simply impractical. The law’s terms like “digital replica” and “generative artificial intelligence” are ill-defined and so vague that it’s unclear how such a retroactive requirement would even apply.

As is often the case, Sacramento is rushing to regulate complicated questions that may be better answered by others. Copyright law is a federal matter and it makes sense to see what Congress may do before we try to preempt a more deliberative action.

There are worthy concerns underpinning AB 459. No one wants to see actors and creators exploited by new technology. But Sacramento shouldn’t go it alone.

Lance Christensen is Vice President of Government Affairs at California Policy Center.

This time it’s for “Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee,” which is currently dedicated to passing Proposition 1 on the March 5 statewide ballot.

The measure is terrible, but the collecting business is going very well.

In January, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria kicked in $1.5 million. In December, contributions of $1 million each came from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Hospital Committee on Issues Sponsored by the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals, and the Members’ Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

Sutter Health donated $1 million in October and another $150,000 in January. The Service Employees International Union Political Education and Action Fund contributed $500,000 in December, and SEIU Local 2015’s PAC added $275,000 more. The California Building Industry Association Issues Committee donated $250,000, and so did the Issues PAC of the California State Council of Laborers.

Blue Shield of California gave $200,000. Elevance Health, together with its affiliate Anthem Blue Cross, donated $125,000.

Uber gave more than $300,000, Doordash threw in $100,000, and Airbnb wrote a check for $50,000.

Five- and six-figure donations came in from associations representing law enforcement officers, dentists, domestic workers, teachers, firefighters, new car dealers, doctors and nurses. Generous donations came in from Dimension Energy, LLC, in Atlanta and the Community Solar Action Fund in Washington, D.C.

Sensing a pattern here?

The government of California directly negotiates contracts that determine the pay and benefits of a lot of people. It also legislates mandates that can make the vendors of certain products and services extraordinarily wealthy, or can put them out of business.

When the governor of California comes collecting, he never goes home empty-handed.

As with the governor’s campaign committee to fight the recall, there is no contribution limit on donations to a ballot measure committee. There’s also no limit on behested payments, a category of giving that Newsom has used to raise huge sums from entities with business before the state.

Newsom asked for and received payments totaling over $4.2 million to fund his 2023 inaugural festivities. The list of donors who made these payments “at the behest” of the governor is remarkably similar to the list of donors giving to the governor’s ballot measure committee in support of Proposition 1.

It seems like this kind of activity would end in handcuffs, but it’s completely legal in California as long as the forms are filled out correctly.

According to its most recent form, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee had $14.2 million in cash on hand as of January 20. Expect to see TV commercials and stacks of campaign mail, all paid for by special-interest money, to sell you on Proposition 1.

Don’t fall for it.

Proposition 1 borrows money to pay for more of the same homelessness policy that has shown no success despite billions of dollars of spending. The measure authorizes the state to add $6.38 billion to California’s already $80 billion bond debt, but that money buys only 6,800 treatment beds and “up to” 4,350 housing units. With interest, $6.38 billion could cost $12 billion by the time taxpayers finish paying back the debt.

About $4.4 billion would be spent building unspecified “places” for mental health or addiction treatment. All decisions about what to build and where to build it will be made by the state sometime in the future. It’s a blank check.

Two billion dollars would go into the program that currently gives local governments money to buy and renovate hotels, turning them into housing with optional services on-site. Proposition 1 requires these projects to pay the “prevailing wage” for construction labor, raising costs considerably. The projects also are required to comply with the core principles of Housing First, meaning no one can be required to participate in a sobriety or treatment program as a condition of receiving this housing.

You might not want one of these projects in your neighborhood given that the housing units may be awarded to people who are actively using hard drugs, potentially turning the building and the community into a magnet for dealers and problems.

The proponents of Proposition 1 already thought of that,  and here’s what they did about it: they removed the ability for communities to have any input into the approval or location of these projects. The measure requires streamlined, ministerial approval.

To fool Californians into voting for Proposition 1, the governor has been emphasizing that it will help veterans. In fact, only 2,350 housing units are projected to be built for veterans from this $6.38 billion bond. That’s a lot of money for not much help.

But the worst part of Proposition 1 is its robbery of county mental health services funding.

Counties will also be required to spend their limited funds to operate the new “places” for treatment that the state will build with the Proposition 1 bond money.

We can guess what happens next. If Proposition 1 passes in March, the counties will start putting tax increases on the ballot in November. They’ll tell voters there’s not enough money for urgently needed programs such as suicide prevention.

It’s easy to avoid these problems. Vote no on Proposition 1, and tell a friend.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley

Not enough of us, apparently.

I realize that on this, its holiest of days, the United States of Football is a vast nation, that we contain multitudes among our 336 million people, and that conspiracy theorists will be and always have been among us.

I mean, when I was a little kid, a good friend of my moderate Dad was a member of the John Birch Society, because they shared a love for Dixieland jazz.

At 6 or 7 years old, I couldn’t quite get my hands around what that meant, not being able to see that nice old guy who formerly saved the free world from Nazism and then was president, Dwight D. from Kansas, as a tool of the international Communist conspiracy.

My Mom said, “Well, Lawrence, you know that poster that’s up in the Altadena Barber Shop?” I did, as I had stared at it while getting my regular boy’s cut. It was a rendering of Uncle Sam, and it read: “He’s your uncle, not your dad.”

“Right, Mother — I still don’t get it.”

And so while I do get that people will do and say crazy things, I perhaps naively still can’t believe that these days, when they do and say them, they will get amplified by a major television news network I am reliably informed is watched by tens of millions of Americans.

The very idea that Tay Tay, America’s sweetheart, a great songwriter and singer, a businesswoman smart enough to become a billionaire herself, dating a very American-looking tight end, is, like Eisenhower, a dupe of the commies? That’s nuts. Obviously. But it’s simply another item up for discussion, according to Fox News.

It’s one thing for the American kooks, God love them, to believe, or say they believe, that Taylor Swift dating Travis Kelce is a sure sign that the libtards conspired to get the Kansas City Chiefs into the Super Bowl, because sure as shooting she’s going to take the field at halftime Sunday and announce her impending nuptials as well as her endorsement of Joe Biden. One thing.

But for Fox to encourage that conversation? How can people still turn the channel on?

On something called “Jesse Watters Primetime,” the host said: “Around four years ago, the Pentagon’s psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset. It’s real. The Pentagon Psyop unit pitched NATO on turning Taylor Swift into an asset for combating misinformation online.”

Then Fox anchor Jeanine Pirro begged Swift to not “get involved in politics” so as not to alienate any segment of her Swiftie fans.

But Fox’s Charly Arnolt, pleaded, “Please don’t believe everything Taylor Swift says.” Its Sean Hannity said: “Maybe she wants to think twice.”

Then former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wrote on X: “I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl … And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple.”

“Wonder” means the fix is in, sports fans. Place your bets accordingly.

Larry Wilson is on the Southern California News Group editorial board. lwilson@scng.com.

“The 2024 Super Bowl in Las Vegas symbolizes the ultimate convergence of the NFL’s showcase event and the beacon of American betting,” Rotowire, a website devoted to sports gambling, recently noted. “This historic pairing is set to amplify the excitement surrounding the game, potentially making it one of the most bet-on events in history.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court voided the anti-gambling Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which had been passed in 1992 with the full support of sports leagues, 38 states legalized sports wagering and the leagues signed sponsorship deals with major gambling corporations.

However, California and Missouri, the home states of Sunday’s contenders for the National Football League title, are two of the holdouts, so their residents cannot legally place bets on their favorite teams.

After the federal anti-gambling act was declared unconstitutional, it was immediately apparent that promoters of sports wagers would target California, the nation’s most populous state and home to 14 major league sports teams. With billions of dollars potentially at stake, the gambling industry’s major players pressured the Legislature to act but essentially battled to a draw over which faction would have the upper hand.

As with many other legislative stalemates, the contenders shifted their conflict to the initiative process and eventually two measures were placed before voters in 2022.

Proposition 26, sponsored by a dozen Native American tribes that already owned casinos, would have allowed sports bets at their casinos and at four horse racing tracks – the inclusion of the latter aimed at neutralizing a potential opponent.

Proposition 27, backed by a coalition of gaming companies, such as FanDuel and DraftKings, would have allowed online sports wagers. Three small tribes that did not have casinos also supported it, since they could have derived some financial benefits.

Upwards of a half-billion dollars were spent on campaigns for and against the two measures but both went down in flames. It was, however, a strategic win for the tribes, whose virtual monopoly on legal gambling in California was protected.

“Everybody knows this: You don’t come and try to screw the tribes,” Victor Rocha, conference chairperson for the national Indian Gaming Association, later told CalMatters.

Given the outcome, there was little appetite for another legislative effort or another ballot battle. However, last year a couple of businessmen, gambling industry veteran Kasey Thompson and blockchain executive Reeve Collins, submitted two potential sports wagering initiatives to the state Department of Justice and began trolling for support from California tribes.

Stripped of politics and self-interest, is there really any reason for California to deny its residents opportunities to legally bet on sports? After all, the state already allows Californians to legally kill their brain cells with alcohol and marijuana, pollute their lungs with cigarette smoke and gamble with cards and slot machines, on horse races and in the state’s own lottery.

Sports wagering is no worse than these other vices. While a purist might decry betting on athletic competitions, it’s already legal in many other states and the sports leagues themselves have embraced it.

Given all of that, it’s somewhat hypocritical for California to continue its prohibition.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

Today in California, that vision looks exceedingly small.

How else to react to the forthcoming statewide launch of a so-called fast food workers’ union? This new entity is not a union in the traditional sense, it has no self-sustaining funding source, and no employer is obligated to bargain with it. Moreover, it has no apparent power beyond collecting feedback from the union’s existing supporters.

If a union-in-name-only is the SEIU’s future, no wonder union president Mary Kay Henry announced her retirement this week.

This fast food flop is a debacle of the SEIU’s own making. The union spent more than a decade working on its Fight for $15 and Union campaign, a wildly-expensive undertaking to unionize fast food restaurants. The final price tag topped $100 million. The union achieved its policy goal of normalizing a $15 minimum wage, but it failed spectacularly at its goal of unionizing fast food workers.

(As of its most-recent Labor Department filings, the SEIU’s National Fast Food Workers Union reported zero members.)

Struggling at the national level, the union turned to its legislative allies in California. It worked for several years to enact the so-called “Fast Recovery Act,” a scheme to create a new council that would regulate wages and working conditions for fast-food workers. The idea: Save the union the unproductive hassle of signing up new workers, and instead make all of them subject to a union-controlled government board.

Though it took the union two legislative sessions to pass it, over fierce resistance from restaurants, it eventually got to the Governor’s desk in 2022. He signed it on Labor Day that year.

But that wasn’t the end of the story. The restaurant industry successfully collected more than one million signatures to put the unpopular law to voters in a 2024 referendum. To prevent an embarrassing public defeat at the ballot box, the SEIU found itself in an unusual position of weakness–at a bargaining table with its sworn enemies in the hospitality industry.

In exchange for pulling the referendum, the SEIU’s signature Fast Food Council was transformed into a smaller-toothed tiger, an advisory board whose primary power is to increase the relevant minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living. The union’s scheme to destroy the franchise industry was scrapped. And liberal localities like Los Angeles and San Francisco were prohibited from raising fast food wages above any state mandates.

The one policy priority the union achieved in the negotiation–a $20 minimum wage for many fast-food restaurants–has already proved deeply unpopular. The Wall Street Journal reported that fast food prices in California are among the highest in the country, and set to rise even higher thanks to this SEIU-backed wage mandate. Restaurants report cutting workers’ hours and benefits, and even scrapping lunch service–all to keep their doors open in response to a $20 minimum wage.

After several years of lobbying and untold millions spent, the SEIU in California is still lacking the one “win” that matters to its leadership: New dues-paying members. Private sector union membership remains at an anemic six percent nationwide, and fast food workers are apparently no more interested than other employees in signing up. Perhaps these workers see how the SEIU is squandering its members’ dues on fake food unions–and decided they would rather keep their money.

Michael Saltsman is Executive Director at the Employment Policies Institute

That’s because the House of Representatives on Tuesday defeated an ill-advised, obviously merely partisan attempt to bring impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary over the immigration policies of his boss, President Joe Biden.

The impeachment would never have succeeded in the end, because it couldn’t have passed the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Still — impeachment trials are big deals — political circuses — as the nation recalls from the two endured by Donald Trump when he was president.

The defeat of this effort by still-new GOP Speaker Mike Johnson was not un-circus-like on its own merits, and it very nearly succeeded in sending the case to the Senate.

Despite the initial defections of three Republican House members, Ken Buck of Colorado, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and California’s own Tom McClintock, the vote was looking good for Johnson until Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat, came to the House floor in his hospital gown in order to vote No.

McClintock, by the way, was not exactly expressing his support for his fellow Californian Mayorkas with his vote. “This border crisis can’t be fixed by replacing one left-wing official with another,” he said before the vote.

Others may not brand the former United States Attorney for the Central District of California under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama as precisely left wing.

But McClintock was precisely right in remarks on the House floor about why the impeachment notion was a bad one: Members of presidential cabinets “can be impeached for committing a crime relating to their office, but not for carrying out presidential policy.”

That simple fact is all Americans need to know about why this impeachment effort was a bad idea, an idle display of politics for politics’ sake, a waste of time and effort that had nothing to do with good governance.

Mayorkas, as a member of a presidential cabinet, serves at a president’s pleasure, and whether he does that well or poorly is up to the president to say. What that cabinet member does — unless he has gone rogue — is what the president tells him to do.

After the vote, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, McClintock again got to the heart of the problem here: “It dumbs down the standard of impeachment to a point where it will become a constant fixture in our national life every time the White House is held by one party and the Congress by another. That’s exactly what the American Founders feared, and that’s why they were very careful to specify narrow limits to its use.”

Even though the Mayorkas impeachment effort unexpectedly failed at the House level — because of the unanimous Democratic opposition, the defection of three Republicans, and the unexpected return of the hospitalized congressman — and even though any later successful House vote on the issue would not likely pass in the Senate, we can expect to see its return.

“Democracy is messy. We live in a time of divided government. We have a razor-thin margin here and every vote counts,” Johnson said. “We will pass those articles of impeachment. We’ll do it on the next round.”

That’s unfortunate, both for the real need for reform of American immigration policy, and because it fuels the future of this new attitude in Congress: You impeached our president, and so we’ll try to impeach one of yours.

That kind of tit-for-tat is the wrong way to run a republic.

The cultural calendar used to be crammed with important “must see” events. The State of the Union Address, Inauguration Day, and the Academy Awards were all once big draws. Not even New Year’s Eve packs the punch it once did, with more people bragging about not celebrating than posting pics of their wild, all-night bacchanals. SNL is pretty much DOA. Let’s face it, we’re not interested in seeing anything live anymore. Even church on Sunday has fallen out of fashion, more of a hobby than an obligation.

But not football! And especially not the Super Bowl, the High-Holy Day of secular spectacles.

With so many eyes glued to the tube all at once, advertisers shell out enormous sums to hawk their wares, while super star performers consider headlining the Halftime Show a career highlight. Is it any wonder politicians want a piece of the action?

The political traditions around the big game are mostly benign, with the mayors of the cities involved concocting civic pride wagers, usually involving a local delicacy. (This year it’s BBQ.) Richard Nixon started the tradition of calling the winning team’s locker room after the game way back in Super Bowl IV, and the TV networks started running softball interviews with sitting presidents during the Obama years, a gift during an election year. Yet, for the second year in a row, Joe Biden has punted, possibly a smart move considering how most Joe Biden speaking engagements go these days.

Or does Team Biden have a trick play up their sleeves?

According to recent GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, the NFL, a notoriously crooked organization that snubbed Donald Trump when he wanted to buy the Buffalo Bills, is in cahoots with Biden to fix the Super Bowl. This doozie was echoed by FOX News host, Jesse Watters, Laura Loomer(the too crazy even for Florida congressional candidate) as well as a cornucopia of  conspiracy kooks online and possibly in your family.

The plot goes something like this: the refs will make sure Kansas City wins so Taylor’s boyfriend (and Pfizer huckster) Travis Kelce can pop the question to Swift on the field as confetti rains down upon them. Then, the newly engaged Swift, will turn to the cameras and endorse Joe Biden for reelection.

When Ms. Swift endorsed Biden in 2020 it didn’t make much of a ripple. But the historic success of Taylor’s “Eras Tour” means everything Swift does today is a big deal. The NFL has profited from cutaways to her celebrating with Kelcy’s family at Chief’s games throughout the season, and voter registration drives have benefited in everywhere Swift has performed. Apparently, the Republican Party fears they will lose the Swiftie vote.

The only thing that would tick off Trump voters more than a Biden endorsement would be a cutaway to Swift’s luxury suite catching her shot-gunning Bud Lights with Dylan Mulvaney, Colin Kaepernick and Hunter Biden.

The nexus between showbiz and politics is as old as showbiz itself. In the Old World, royalty had jesters and favored court composers and painters while the Vatican showered wealth and fame on Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Raphel among others. With the birth of recorded music and film stars like George M. Cohan, Charles Chaplin and others were put into service to sell war bonds. In the Second World War, Hollywood cranked out pro-government films including specific tributes to Franklin Roosevelt. Sinatra campaigned openly for FDR, and took the same heat Taylor Swift is getting for expressing her political views.

Celebrities have the same rights as the rest of us to express their opinions. And we have the right to boycott their work if we choose to do so.

But not many are boycotting the NFL.

So, vote for whoever you like, vote against whoever you despise. Buy or don’t buy Taylor Swift’s music, but for three hours on Super Bowl Sunday, we can ignore all the noise and enjoy great athletes doing great things and watch some funny commercials while stuffing ourselves with pigs-in-a-blanket and hoping our team covers the spread. The day after, we’ll go over every big play, every dud commercial or great one we missed and talk to each other like friends, you know, like we used to.

Doug McIntyre column appears Sundays. Reach him at: Doug@DougMcIntyre.com.

That’s partly because of what’s happened with the state’s separate but not yet official mandate that public school districts teach a one-semester ethnic studies curriculum as a requirement for graduation. Where they exist, many such classes have become hotbeds of anti-Israel lies and half-truths that border on outright promotion of Jew hatred.

This has occurred in some districts that jumped the gun on ethnic studies, hiring members of the Critical Ethnic Studies Association (CESA) to write programs before they’ve become a requirement. Some of those hired were among authors of two versions of the state ethnic studies curriculum that were both rejected by state education officials as anti-white, anti-Western and anti-Semitic, with rewrites ordered both times.

So far, there are no precise statewide standards for what must be taught, letting districts and classroom teachers design their own programs. But CESA, to which many UC and California State University ethnic studies faculty members belong, specifies classes should “analyze, confront and intellectually dismantle… institutionalized forms of racism, apartheid, settler colonialism and empire in and beyond the United States.”

So when CESA members write curricula, classroom emphasis is often not on building pride and self-esteem in all children, as envisioned by legislators who enabled an ethnic studies course, but instead stresses resentments, divisions and fault-finding.

That’s no surprise considering that some UC and Cal State academic departments use state-funded equipment and official websites to promote hatred of ethnic groups they despise and, more than any other country, the state of Israel. Within the last month, 405 non-ethnic studies faculty at UC signed a letter calling on their system’s Board of Regents to stop professors from using state-funded resources for promoting personal points of view.

They pointed to the Critical Race and Ethnic Studies Department at UC Santa Cruz as an egregious example of using its website and classrooms to promote anti-Israel activity that all UC campus chancellors have unanimously condemned as “a direct and serious threat to the academic freedom of students and faculty.” And they noted that state-supported anti-Israel activity has stepped up since the Oct. 7 Hamas kidnap/massacre of more than 1,500 Israelis. That included encouraging students to participate in a “Shut it down for Palestine” protest rally. All this runs counter to system-wide UC policies proscribing use of public funds and facilities to push private views.

The faculty letter noted similarly illegal misuse of websites and facilities at UC Merced and UC San Diego, among others.

But any distortions there have been mild compared to some of the high school classroom materials now in use. This academic malpractice is nowhere more egregious than at Woodside High School and Menlo Atherton High School, both components of the Redwood City-based Sequoia Union High School District.

Via radio broadcasts, they asked Arab residents to leave so they could operate more freely. The materials do not mention that Israel at the time told Palestinian Arabs to stay put, warning that if they left, they would not be allowed to return. Nor do the materials mention that simultaneously, more than 800,000 longtime Jewish residents were forcibly expropriated and expelled by Arab countries from north Africa to Iraq and Syria, and then immediately taken in by Israel as full citizens.

All this comprises a solid argument for delaying any statewide ethnic studies requirement until firm guidelines demanding factuality and prevention of falsehoods and propaganda are put in place.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com.