Yeah, I know, why in the name of Almighty God do I continue to live in this Bronze state.
What happened to the Golden State?
Well, I just thought that I would just jump ahead of the O-Care "metals" plans and go for the lowest.
Much as what is happening here in Cali.
Another article by Joel Kotkin in The Daily Beast really hits the nail on the head of what is wrong with unfettered socialist Democrat control of state government.
Oh, Mr. Kotkin does point out that the Cali Democrats and with a big boost of the leftywhore media are touting how wonderful life is in Cali now. Now that they have had since 2012 full control of the state legislature, all the constitutional offices and control all the major populated cities in the state.
Mr. Kotkin points out, accurately, that there are really increasingly Two Californias.
One California is along the coast, the Pacific Ocean. If you take a look at a map of the state, save for Orange county in the south and Del Norte county in the north, it would be an almost straight line of Blue. Democrat central. The only seriously competitive county now in San Diego county.
The other California is mostly inland areas.
Again taking a look at a map of California, you can draw a line from Kern County and all the way to the Oregon border and it is Red. Republican central. There are a few Democrat pockets like Sacramento county in the north and Imperial county in the south. And two competitive counties in Riverside and San Bernardino. But by and large, that is your Two Californias.
A serious problem is that the coastal counties have some of the major population areas of California. That includes Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose. I leave San Diego out because it is still a competitive city that does elect Democrat and Republican mayors. But the other four, forget it. They are four of the major cities of the Bronze state. All in deep and or deeper control of the Democrat party.
Another problem is that the state can only rely on Silicon Valley growth to fund the ever-expanding state government. But it is only one viable industry. Gone are the days of manufacturing, energy, aerospace, and increasingly agriculture jobs. There is not a diversity of industries that people can actually be employed as it once was in California. There is a reason that people came here from all over the United States. And now, that is gone.
Consider these alarming stats.
California now has the highest levels of poverty in the United States. Higher than that of such perpetually high-poverty states such as Mississippi. In California, the poverty rate is an astonishing 23.5% according to Mr. Kotkin's article. The national average is 16%.
And we lead the nation as the state with the most welfare recipients as this report indicates. California has one-eighth the population of the United States and yet one-third of the welfare recipients.
Terrific!
And, not really all that surprising, California is pretty high in income inequality, a very big deal in left-wing circles. Although I don't particularly think it is something that can ever be evened out, a strong diverse economy does usually work.
And this is the shameful and saddest of all.
First that native born Hispanics can expect a lower life-span than their parents. Parents that almost certainly had it much tougher financially and physically than those born today. And if that is not enough, most people in California expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months. And that is shared by a diverse group of Hispanics, Whites, the young and the less educated.
The group that surprises me is Whites.
Because as you continue to read Mr. Kotkin's piece he will cite this piece by Victor Davis Hanson about, I love this, 'liberal apartheid'.
It is very, very true.
But it is coastal people that are dominating this state and who are they? Mostly Asians and WHITES!
But the fact is while Whites are now almost certainly a minority, no group tops 50%. Thus Whites are still a majority-minority in Cali. And they most certainly do not all live on the coast.
But this at the end of Mr. Davis Hanson's piece is the dagger through the leftist heart:
Modern liberalism, among other things, is a psychological state, in which very-well-off Americans find ways through their income and privilege to be exempt from the ramifications of their own ideologies, while adopting causes and pets that exempt them from guilt over their own status and limitless opportunities. Judging by their concrete actions, they are indifferent to the poor whom they romanticize at a safe distance. In short, voting for larger government and subsidies is seen as a necessary cost of being a reactionary, liberal elite.
OUCH!
IT IS ALL TRUE!
And that is what has happened in California.
One other thing that I want to comment on is when the inlanders and the coastals collide.
A recent article in the Left Angeles Times illustrated this point rather sadly IMHO.
The recent U. S. Open of Surfing was held in Huntington Beach. H. B. is in the 714 area code. And is important to the story. On the last day of competition, in the early evening some people got rowdy and caused a mini-riot.
So, who should be blamed for it? I mean it can't be any local people. Can't be any people from H. B. and certainly it must be outsiders. And by outsiders, yeah it has to be people from San Bernardino and Riverside. And they are in the 909 area code. Although Riverside within the last five years got a separate area code, 951. But that does not matter because whether its 909 or 951, it those dreaded inland ya-hoos.
Read the comments in the article and you read resentment that inlanders dare to go to "their" beach. Correctly, many inlanders, and I have to say I am one even though I am in the San Gabriel Valley area code of 626, take offense to such blanket discrimination. And many people who have lived at the beach community for years do to. For people that make such illiterate statements are the nouveau riche types that have made Huntington Beach into a land that people want to come to. And overwhelmingly not to cause problems. And really, who is to say that those that caused the mini-riot were not in the words of Rick Fignetti, owner of Rockin Fig Surf, "a bunch of spoiled rich kids causing problems?"
The thrust of the article is the divide between coastal elites and inland everyone else. And the ill effect that it has on the state as a whole.
And here is where Mr. Kotkin's explanations of the four classes of Californians comes in.
Mr. Kotkin uses these terms:
Oligarchs
Clerisy
New Serfs
Old Yeoman
Read the article for the explanation of each term.
One other reality is that now for the first time, the majority of Californians are renters, not homeowners. Thus the largest potential tax base is in the hands of not a cross-section of middle class people but a lot of speculators. The very people that were a huge part of the bursting of the housing bubble in the first place. That more than anything will drive class divisions even deeper than they already are in the Bronze state.
What Mr. Kotkin refers to as a New Feudalism is keeping California from regaining status as a positive trendsetter.
What can be done?
Understand that this problem is not something that happened overnight. It has been a bipartisan effort to get us here. It will need to be a bipartisan solution to get us out of this mess.
First, we need to be open and friendly to all kinds of businesses and that includes manufacturing, aerospace, conventional and unconventional energy coming to do business in the Bronze state.
Second we need to much less bureaucratic dealings with small business. Cut all red tape. The more business that there is the better in terms of employment and yes tax revenue for Sacramento.
Third, total revamping of all taxes collected by the state.
Here is a great litany of taxes the average Cali resident has to pay.
Income tax, sales tax, property tax.
In Cali, sales tax statewide is 7.75%. But if you so lucky as I am to live in Los Angeles County we get to pay a sales tax of nine percent.
Understand that some people will go to another county where it is lower to purchase big-ticket items such as appliances, autos and furniture. And the fact is that 7.75% is still too high. Many states have a reasonable state sales tax of four to six percent.
Fourth, a total overhaul of the state education system. California ranks at the bottom of all education statistics. We have to come to the reality that there is not enough money and too much money has gone down a rabbit hole. It is not all money. It is what we are teaching K-12. We should be totally ashamed that public school students that are fortunate to end up in a California university often have to take remedial classes just to catch up to college level. Where we should spend money is on junior colleges and tech schools. Education is a crucial long-term problem and needs a serious long-term solution.
Fifth, we desperately need to return to a part-time legislature. I will not bore you with the inane legislation that has passed and has been signed by Gov. Moonbean Brown. But most are detrimental to the state as a whole and a huge payoff to Democrat constituencies. And they are the fringiest of the fringe. It is not helping our economy, education and overall state well being.
Sixth, the Republican party needs to regain some strength beyond their strongholds. Again, that has been a long-term demise and will need a long-term solution. It will not take one or two elections. The fact that the Republicans have been set to the sidelines and the Democrats control the state legislature with a super-majority is not a good thing. Both parties need to be strong and yes, beyond their strongholds. It appears to be a good start that the Cali GOP is focusing on a lot of local races in this off-year election season and trying to build a bench.
There are others, but this is a start.
We can not continue going this road and expect that all will be A-OK. it will not.
Otherwise these California decline posts will continue to write themselves.
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Monday, October 07, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
I don't Understand Conservative Love For Richard Nixon
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon, a man that for better or worse had a huge impact on mid-20th century America and the world.
Mr. Nixon began his political life in his native California by running for congress in 1948 from his hometown of Whittier, California. In that election, Mr. Nixon ran as a strong, anti-communist Republican.
By the time Mr. Nixon left the presidency in disgrace in 1974, he began a policy known as detente and that essentially acceded to the ascendancy of the then communist Soviet Union and to live with them and not defeat them.
With political stops in the aforementioned House of Representatives, the senate, the vice-presidency and eventually the presidency, Mr. Nixon was always hard-nosed and perceived to be some sinister, right-winger when in fact and indeed, Mr. Nixon was nothing of a sort.
As John Fund over at National Review put it in this article, Mr. Nixon was a liberal. A liberal, not a conservative Republican at all.
Mr. Nixon did nothing to roll back the excesses of the so-called Great Society programs of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact as Mr. Fund notes Mr. Nixon added to these programs.
Here are just three government agencies that Mr. Nixon implemented in his five plus years as president:
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
And trust me, all three are behemoths that will never, ever go away. And between the three agencies, there are nearly 20,000 employees that are setting forth national environmental policy. Never mind that this probably is best left to the states, but it is the inclination of Mr. Nixon to put the federal government involved.
And, sadly, it did not stop there.
Again, let Mr. Fund explain one horrible day in 1971 for context of just how liberal, domestically, Mr. Nixon was:
In a single day in 1971, Nixon famously imposed wage and price controls in a naïve attempt to curb inflation, ended the U.S.’s last ties to the gold standard, effectively devalued the dollar, and imposed a 10 percent import surcharge.
Good lord, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and Lyndon Johnson must have been stunned to see the turn of events in which a supposed conservative Republican, Nixon, implemented policies that they just could fantasize about.
Now Mr. Nixon did conceded that he did set bad precedents that successive presidents tried to follow.
Thanks a lot Tricky Dick!
And even on foreign policy, Mr. Nixon went from strident cold warrior to one that made a fateful decision in implementing detente with the Soviet Union.
As I noted, it meant that the United States, and thus the West, accepted the Soviet Union and its communist form of government.
There was no more talk of defeating the expansionist communist regime but accommodation.
And of course there is Mr. Nixon opening the door to beginning relations with Red China. Eventually, the United States ended formal recognition of the Republic of China on Taiwan. We recognized that there is only one China and we sided with the communists.
So again, my fellow conservatives, what is it exactly do you like and think Mr. Nixon was a good conservative president?
To be fair, also at National Review, James Rosen does give this counter balance here.
But I find Mr. Rosen's defense of Nixon the conservative to be very weak at best.
Where Mr. Rosen bases much of his praise of the conservative Nixon, it is almost strictly on so-called social issues. Here is a telling aside sentence in building the case for the conservative Nixon:
After all, they championed law and order, and stood against amnesty, abortion, and acid, as well as media bias, when it was least fashionable to do so — the age of Radical Chic — and carried 49 states.
Yes, that maybe true.
However, if one cannot govern as a fiscal and small government conservative, then what is the point of the above? It has to be taken in its totality. And in reality, because of the paranoia that was one Richard Nixon, Watergate did occur and while I find it a minor tale in the grand scheme of things, it was the cover-up and sustaining that what drove Mr. Nixon to resign office.
For all the tough-talk that was Mr. Nixon, he did not fight when in fact today a Democrat would do so with gusto.
Mr. Fund makes the righteous case that the Watergate affair did some very serious damage to the Republican party in general and conservatism in particular. Mr. Rosen pretty much dismisses that.
Again, I am with Mr. Fund.
I have long believed that the Watergate affair has ushered in an age of corruption that has afflicted both political parties.
But Republicans are almost always more hurt by corruption because they run against it. And when a said Republican is caught, it continues the sorry precedent of one Richard Milhous Nixon.
Now Mr. Nixon did not do all wrong.
Mr. Nixon ended the armed services draft and that has been a great thing for the United States. The all-volunteer armed forces has done a spectacular job in all military actions that have been taken since the end of the Vietnam war.
Speaking of which, Mr. Nixon did end the war that he was inherited with by Democrat President Johnson.
Mr,. Nixon did support the armed forces and always wanted to maintain higher spending than many believed he should.
And yes, many believe that today Mr. Nixon's law and order stand considering his own dalliances on the borders of legality was kind of a fraud. But it was not. Mr. Nixon believed in an imperial presidency, no doubt about that. But he saw the overall breakdown of society that the 1960s hath wrought as a direct result of the breakdown of law and order.
At best, Mr. Nixon was a conflicted politician.
He sought approval from the very people he ran against, the Establishment. Yet as Mr. Rosen notes, he wanted to set the stage for a conservative counterweight against the Establishment and their liberal allies.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-communist hawk to defender of the status-quo in regards to Soviet communist expansion.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-New Deal conservative to without a doubt a pretty damned liberal president.
In short, I do not get the conservative love for Richard Milhous Nixon.
Mr. Nixon began his political life in his native California by running for congress in 1948 from his hometown of Whittier, California. In that election, Mr. Nixon ran as a strong, anti-communist Republican.
By the time Mr. Nixon left the presidency in disgrace in 1974, he began a policy known as detente and that essentially acceded to the ascendancy of the then communist Soviet Union and to live with them and not defeat them.
With political stops in the aforementioned House of Representatives, the senate, the vice-presidency and eventually the presidency, Mr. Nixon was always hard-nosed and perceived to be some sinister, right-winger when in fact and indeed, Mr. Nixon was nothing of a sort.
As John Fund over at National Review put it in this article, Mr. Nixon was a liberal. A liberal, not a conservative Republican at all.
Mr. Nixon did nothing to roll back the excesses of the so-called Great Society programs of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact as Mr. Fund notes Mr. Nixon added to these programs.
Here are just three government agencies that Mr. Nixon implemented in his five plus years as president:
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
And trust me, all three are behemoths that will never, ever go away. And between the three agencies, there are nearly 20,000 employees that are setting forth national environmental policy. Never mind that this probably is best left to the states, but it is the inclination of Mr. Nixon to put the federal government involved.
And, sadly, it did not stop there.
Again, let Mr. Fund explain one horrible day in 1971 for context of just how liberal, domestically, Mr. Nixon was:
In a single day in 1971, Nixon famously imposed wage and price controls in a naïve attempt to curb inflation, ended the U.S.’s last ties to the gold standard, effectively devalued the dollar, and imposed a 10 percent import surcharge.
Good lord, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and Lyndon Johnson must have been stunned to see the turn of events in which a supposed conservative Republican, Nixon, implemented policies that they just could fantasize about.
Now Mr. Nixon did conceded that he did set bad precedents that successive presidents tried to follow.
Thanks a lot Tricky Dick!
And even on foreign policy, Mr. Nixon went from strident cold warrior to one that made a fateful decision in implementing detente with the Soviet Union.
As I noted, it meant that the United States, and thus the West, accepted the Soviet Union and its communist form of government.
There was no more talk of defeating the expansionist communist regime but accommodation.
And of course there is Mr. Nixon opening the door to beginning relations with Red China. Eventually, the United States ended formal recognition of the Republic of China on Taiwan. We recognized that there is only one China and we sided with the communists.
So again, my fellow conservatives, what is it exactly do you like and think Mr. Nixon was a good conservative president?
To be fair, also at National Review, James Rosen does give this counter balance here.
But I find Mr. Rosen's defense of Nixon the conservative to be very weak at best.
Where Mr. Rosen bases much of his praise of the conservative Nixon, it is almost strictly on so-called social issues. Here is a telling aside sentence in building the case for the conservative Nixon:
After all, they championed law and order, and stood against amnesty, abortion, and acid, as well as media bias, when it was least fashionable to do so — the age of Radical Chic — and carried 49 states.
Yes, that maybe true.
However, if one cannot govern as a fiscal and small government conservative, then what is the point of the above? It has to be taken in its totality. And in reality, because of the paranoia that was one Richard Nixon, Watergate did occur and while I find it a minor tale in the grand scheme of things, it was the cover-up and sustaining that what drove Mr. Nixon to resign office.
For all the tough-talk that was Mr. Nixon, he did not fight when in fact today a Democrat would do so with gusto.
Mr. Fund makes the righteous case that the Watergate affair did some very serious damage to the Republican party in general and conservatism in particular. Mr. Rosen pretty much dismisses that.
Again, I am with Mr. Fund.
I have long believed that the Watergate affair has ushered in an age of corruption that has afflicted both political parties.
But Republicans are almost always more hurt by corruption because they run against it. And when a said Republican is caught, it continues the sorry precedent of one Richard Milhous Nixon.
Now Mr. Nixon did not do all wrong.
Mr. Nixon ended the armed services draft and that has been a great thing for the United States. The all-volunteer armed forces has done a spectacular job in all military actions that have been taken since the end of the Vietnam war.
Speaking of which, Mr. Nixon did end the war that he was inherited with by Democrat President Johnson.
Mr,. Nixon did support the armed forces and always wanted to maintain higher spending than many believed he should.
And yes, many believe that today Mr. Nixon's law and order stand considering his own dalliances on the borders of legality was kind of a fraud. But it was not. Mr. Nixon believed in an imperial presidency, no doubt about that. But he saw the overall breakdown of society that the 1960s hath wrought as a direct result of the breakdown of law and order.
At best, Mr. Nixon was a conflicted politician.
He sought approval from the very people he ran against, the Establishment. Yet as Mr. Rosen notes, he wanted to set the stage for a conservative counterweight against the Establishment and their liberal allies.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-communist hawk to defender of the status-quo in regards to Soviet communist expansion.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-New Deal conservative to without a doubt a pretty damned liberal president.
In short, I do not get the conservative love for Richard Milhous Nixon.
Monday, August 06, 2012
How Liberalism Really Does Screw The Rich
This recent story in the Left Angeles Times may not seem like a big deal for it is a time-honored complaint about any given city and the seeming inability to fill in those potholes.
But what is really interesting is where this takes place and that the reaction of the local residents is to find a way to Escape From L. A.
The posh Los Angeles district of Holmby Hills is where this tale takes place. This is pretty much part of the fru-fru areas such as Brentwood and Bel Air. In other words where the rich residents of Los Angeles live.
And yet surprisingly, the potholes are pretty bad. According to the article, the tow-truck folks from AAA think the area is a gold mine for them based on their calls. And the highlight was on a Paul Kanin who blew out a front tire on his Audi A6.
A brief interlude.
Audis are pretty much a car that SWLPL*, so take that for what it is worth.
Back to point.
The lack of action to take care of the said potholes has so riled some members of the community that they are seriously looking to leave the city of Los Angeles and ask the equally snooty, yet seperate city of Beverly Hills to annex them.
The drive is being led by an attorney, of course, named William Fleischman.
Now, read this quote so that you are illuminated as to the headline:
"Holmby Hills pays millions of dollars to Los Angeles in property taxes, and we're getting back thousands of dollars in services,"
And Mr. Fleischman, welcome to the wonderful world of liberalism.
Ironically, today the Dear Leader, President Obama, referred to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as Romney Hood. Taking from the poor to give to the rich.
But the reality is that in Los Angeles, it is the real Robin Hood that happens.
And Holmby Hills is not alone in their frustration with a city hall that caters to every fringe group in every fringe area leaving a lot of taxpayers, rich and middle class, hung out to dry.
For years, a portion of the San Fernando Valley, which is essentially Los Angeles with a bunch of names like Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, West Hills, Granada Hills, Canoga Park and several others had wanted to seceed from Los Angeles and form their own city.
And guess why they wanted to?
Because they were getting screwed in how the public services were distritbuted in a city that is over 300 square miles and as diverse as Holmby Hills and South Central Los Angeles.
While the people in the poorer neighborhoods would disagree, the reality is that because they are more dependent on government services of all kinds, they get most of it.
And they get it from the San Fernando Valley and the wealthy neighborhoods that are mentioned above.
Only now that they have an issue, the lack of road maintanence, do they realize how screwed they are in the environs as Holmby Hills.
And the reason that their neighborhood is not being taken care of in a timely manner is rich.
Here is Richard Lee, spokestool for the Los Angeles Department of Public Works:
The city plans repairs years in advance.
"The Bureau of Street Services recognizes the need for street resurfacing in Holmby Hills and in neighborhoods across Los Angeles. While we sympathize with the concerns of neighbors .... the city wants to make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely."
OK, sure Richard.
I would like to see the planned repairs for 2017, just for the hell of it, Richard. Will these residents get taken care of then? Or do they have to keep getting blown tires for, oh I don't know, whenever they come under the plan?
Well my wealthy friends, you are seeing what the liberals that are in charge at city hall in downtown Los Angeles really think of you.
As Mr. Fleischman said, they paid boatloads to all kinds of government and all they are aksing is for a little road repair and they are given the "We'll get back to you" from the city.
But if they are late on any of the said taxes, well they would probably THEN hear from the city. To pay up.
But all the poor folks have to do is stir up a little trouble and BOOM! All the liberal pols and their hanger-ons will crawl over each other to talk about how we need to give more money to stop whatever grievence, real and or imagined, they bellow about. And the problem never gets solved while some mid-level schmuck gets his or her hands on taxpayer money and only the good Lord knows what they do with the money.
Eventually, people start to wise up. But it maybe too late.
As an eternal optimist, I hope that it is not too late for the city of Los Angeles to maybe get some of their public works people over to Holmby Hills and at the very least do something temporarily until the permanent solution can be done. You know. Because they plan these years ahead.
The lesson here is that yes, liberal governance does take from the rich. Yes it does give to the poor. And when the rich ask for a little measly road maintanence, they are told they have to wait until the city is good and ready to fix their real problems.
*-SWLPL-Stuff While Liberal People Like, aka Stuff White People Like.
HT: An Unmarried Man
But what is really interesting is where this takes place and that the reaction of the local residents is to find a way to Escape From L. A.
The posh Los Angeles district of Holmby Hills is where this tale takes place. This is pretty much part of the fru-fru areas such as Brentwood and Bel Air. In other words where the rich residents of Los Angeles live.
And yet surprisingly, the potholes are pretty bad. According to the article, the tow-truck folks from AAA think the area is a gold mine for them based on their calls. And the highlight was on a Paul Kanin who blew out a front tire on his Audi A6.
A brief interlude.
Audis are pretty much a car that SWLPL*, so take that for what it is worth.
Back to point.
The lack of action to take care of the said potholes has so riled some members of the community that they are seriously looking to leave the city of Los Angeles and ask the equally snooty, yet seperate city of Beverly Hills to annex them.
The drive is being led by an attorney, of course, named William Fleischman.
Now, read this quote so that you are illuminated as to the headline:
"Holmby Hills pays millions of dollars to Los Angeles in property taxes, and we're getting back thousands of dollars in services,"
And Mr. Fleischman, welcome to the wonderful world of liberalism.
Ironically, today the Dear Leader, President Obama, referred to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as Romney Hood. Taking from the poor to give to the rich.
But the reality is that in Los Angeles, it is the real Robin Hood that happens.
And Holmby Hills is not alone in their frustration with a city hall that caters to every fringe group in every fringe area leaving a lot of taxpayers, rich and middle class, hung out to dry.
For years, a portion of the San Fernando Valley, which is essentially Los Angeles with a bunch of names like Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, West Hills, Granada Hills, Canoga Park and several others had wanted to seceed from Los Angeles and form their own city.
And guess why they wanted to?
Because they were getting screwed in how the public services were distritbuted in a city that is over 300 square miles and as diverse as Holmby Hills and South Central Los Angeles.
While the people in the poorer neighborhoods would disagree, the reality is that because they are more dependent on government services of all kinds, they get most of it.
And they get it from the San Fernando Valley and the wealthy neighborhoods that are mentioned above.
Only now that they have an issue, the lack of road maintanence, do they realize how screwed they are in the environs as Holmby Hills.
And the reason that their neighborhood is not being taken care of in a timely manner is rich.
Here is Richard Lee, spokestool for the Los Angeles Department of Public Works:
The city plans repairs years in advance.
"The Bureau of Street Services recognizes the need for street resurfacing in Holmby Hills and in neighborhoods across Los Angeles. While we sympathize with the concerns of neighbors .... the city wants to make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely."
OK, sure Richard.
I would like to see the planned repairs for 2017, just for the hell of it, Richard. Will these residents get taken care of then? Or do they have to keep getting blown tires for, oh I don't know, whenever they come under the plan?
Well my wealthy friends, you are seeing what the liberals that are in charge at city hall in downtown Los Angeles really think of you.
As Mr. Fleischman said, they paid boatloads to all kinds of government and all they are aksing is for a little road repair and they are given the "We'll get back to you" from the city.
But if they are late on any of the said taxes, well they would probably THEN hear from the city. To pay up.
But all the poor folks have to do is stir up a little trouble and BOOM! All the liberal pols and their hanger-ons will crawl over each other to talk about how we need to give more money to stop whatever grievence, real and or imagined, they bellow about. And the problem never gets solved while some mid-level schmuck gets his or her hands on taxpayer money and only the good Lord knows what they do with the money.
Eventually, people start to wise up. But it maybe too late.
As an eternal optimist, I hope that it is not too late for the city of Los Angeles to maybe get some of their public works people over to Holmby Hills and at the very least do something temporarily until the permanent solution can be done. You know. Because they plan these years ahead.
The lesson here is that yes, liberal governance does take from the rich. Yes it does give to the poor. And when the rich ask for a little measly road maintanence, they are told they have to wait until the city is good and ready to fix their real problems.
*-SWLPL-Stuff While Liberal People Like, aka Stuff White People Like.
HT: An Unmarried Man
Friday, January 20, 2012
Say, That Newt Gingrich Fellow Kind Of Reminds Me Of Someone Named Nixon
It has been a long thought for me to write this overall assessment of one Newton LeRoy Gingrich. That in fact he is not necessarily the strong conservative that he makes himself out to be.
There was another American president that tried that shtick.
His name.
Richard Milhous Nixon.
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I believe that while he destroyed his own presidency, he almost single-handily destroyed the Republican party as well. Of course we all know that it took one Ronald Reagan to reform and renew the party.
But what Mr. Nixon did was talk a conservative game. Yet it was Mr. Nixon that believed in socialist medicine. Oh, he would argue that it was not, but in the end it would have created the bureaucracy that all of Europe sees.
Mr. Nixon never actually did anything to scale back the so-called Great Society of his predecessor, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, to fight inflation, Mr. Nixon not once but twice imposed wage and price controls.
In other words, Mr. Nixon essentially conceded domestic policy to the other team.
And Mr. Nixon was always a brooding figure. Seemingly not all that much of a happy man. Yet, he always had a fighter's view of politics.
And that is Mr. Gingrich.
A fighter. In last night's CNN Republican debate, Mr. Gingrich got conservatives excited because he slammed CNN's moderator, John King, for bringing up ABC's interview with the former Mrs. Gingrich number two, Marianne.
Well, sorry but this is relevant.
This is Mr. Gingrich's third marriage. And he left his previous two wives while cavorting with the future wife. Wife number three, Calista, was who he wanted to share with wife number two.
Get all of that?
And Mr. Gingrich was carrying on that affair while pushing to impeach then President Bill Clinton.
An aside.
The impeachment was not about sex.
It was about the president of the United States lying under oath in a civil case. And he was caught. The fact that the lie was about a short-term affair is not what is important. What he lied about on that was in regards to a sexual-harassment suit brought against him by Paula Jones.
But knowing that Mr. Gingrich was shtooping Calista at the same time, what did that do the proceedings?
And if that does not bother you, how about this devastating piece in The American Spectator by Quin Hillyer? And Rick Santorum pointed out the grandiosity of Mr. Gingrich that Mr. Hillyer does in the piece. But this is the critical line of the piece:
Gingrich was great at rabble rousing. He was awful at actually managing things
I would alter it this way:
Gingrich is great at rabble rousing. He is awful at actually managing things.
And he has the Nixonian view of any disagreement as being an enemy.
We lived that before and it was a traumatic era in the United States.
This is the most critical election in my life. And to blow it because we like when Mr. Gingrich goes gonzo on the Leftywhore media. Or when he slams Mitt Romney for. . .making money. For once being a strong believer in Globaloney Warming to weaseling worse than anyone on stage. For once backing the individual mandate in national health care and now weaseling on that.
And yet Mitt Romney is called a flip-flopper.
And while it is not something that is good, optics and attitude matter.
A thrice-married, kind of short, a little chubby, white-haired White guy next to the youngish, handsome mixed-race success story with a very nice family. The first mentioned guy pretty mercurial a lot of the time. The latter guy with a smile.
Like it or not, people vote for someone who exudes a positive quality. Look at Mr. Reagan, both Mr. Bush's, Mr. Clinton.
At the end of the day, a vote for Newt Gingrich is a vote for Richard Nixon from the grave. And that is not a good vote for the United States.
There was another American president that tried that shtick.
His name.
Richard Milhous Nixon.
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I believe that while he destroyed his own presidency, he almost single-handily destroyed the Republican party as well. Of course we all know that it took one Ronald Reagan to reform and renew the party.
But what Mr. Nixon did was talk a conservative game. Yet it was Mr. Nixon that believed in socialist medicine. Oh, he would argue that it was not, but in the end it would have created the bureaucracy that all of Europe sees.
Mr. Nixon never actually did anything to scale back the so-called Great Society of his predecessor, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, to fight inflation, Mr. Nixon not once but twice imposed wage and price controls.
In other words, Mr. Nixon essentially conceded domestic policy to the other team.
And Mr. Nixon was always a brooding figure. Seemingly not all that much of a happy man. Yet, he always had a fighter's view of politics.
And that is Mr. Gingrich.
A fighter. In last night's CNN Republican debate, Mr. Gingrich got conservatives excited because he slammed CNN's moderator, John King, for bringing up ABC's interview with the former Mrs. Gingrich number two, Marianne.
Well, sorry but this is relevant.
This is Mr. Gingrich's third marriage. And he left his previous two wives while cavorting with the future wife. Wife number three, Calista, was who he wanted to share with wife number two.
Get all of that?
And Mr. Gingrich was carrying on that affair while pushing to impeach then President Bill Clinton.
An aside.
The impeachment was not about sex.
It was about the president of the United States lying under oath in a civil case. And he was caught. The fact that the lie was about a short-term affair is not what is important. What he lied about on that was in regards to a sexual-harassment suit brought against him by Paula Jones.
But knowing that Mr. Gingrich was shtooping Calista at the same time, what did that do the proceedings?
And if that does not bother you, how about this devastating piece in The American Spectator by Quin Hillyer? And Rick Santorum pointed out the grandiosity of Mr. Gingrich that Mr. Hillyer does in the piece. But this is the critical line of the piece:
Gingrich was great at rabble rousing. He was awful at actually managing things
I would alter it this way:
Gingrich is great at rabble rousing. He is awful at actually managing things.
And he has the Nixonian view of any disagreement as being an enemy.
We lived that before and it was a traumatic era in the United States.
This is the most critical election in my life. And to blow it because we like when Mr. Gingrich goes gonzo on the Leftywhore media. Or when he slams Mitt Romney for. . .making money. For once being a strong believer in Globaloney Warming to weaseling worse than anyone on stage. For once backing the individual mandate in national health care and now weaseling on that.
And yet Mitt Romney is called a flip-flopper.
And while it is not something that is good, optics and attitude matter.
A thrice-married, kind of short, a little chubby, white-haired White guy next to the youngish, handsome mixed-race success story with a very nice family. The first mentioned guy pretty mercurial a lot of the time. The latter guy with a smile.
Like it or not, people vote for someone who exudes a positive quality. Look at Mr. Reagan, both Mr. Bush's, Mr. Clinton.
At the end of the day, a vote for Newt Gingrich is a vote for Richard Nixon from the grave. And that is not a good vote for the United States.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The Duke On Liberals
Whilst going around the internets, I found this over at The Other McCain.
It is comments made by the late, great John Wayne.
We do not know when this was done, but it is worth the under five minutes of your time.
The Duke speaks plainly about what liberalism hath wrought on the United States.
Warning.
It is defiantly not politically correct.
The Duke refers to Native Americans as, Indians.
The language is blunt, if not colorful.
The frightening aspect about this is that not much has changed. It may be that it has only gotten worse. And yet, if one speaks openly about this, one can now be rightfully worried about being tarred as anti-fill-in-the-blank lefty cause.
We need more plain speakers like John Wayne, not less. Enjoy watching the link.
HT: The Other McCain
It is comments made by the late, great John Wayne.
We do not know when this was done, but it is worth the under five minutes of your time.
The Duke speaks plainly about what liberalism hath wrought on the United States.
Warning.
It is defiantly not politically correct.
The Duke refers to Native Americans as, Indians.
The language is blunt, if not colorful.
The frightening aspect about this is that not much has changed. It may be that it has only gotten worse. And yet, if one speaks openly about this, one can now be rightfully worried about being tarred as anti-fill-in-the-blank lefty cause.
We need more plain speakers like John Wayne, not less. Enjoy watching the link.
HT: The Other McCain
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A Rocker's View Of Conservatives Needs A Conservative Primer
I start this post pointing out that your humble blogger loves rock music. Hard rock, metal, alternative, whatever it is called now a days. From such seminal bands as Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, to the 1980s and Iron Maiden, Metallica, to the 90s and Nirvana, and alt bands to the 2000s and bands like Rage Against The Machine, Rise Against I have followed the music with great love and interest.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:
If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.
Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:
If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.
Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)