Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Fans Flock To Mourn California, 1849-2009

This post from the genius Iowahawk about my beloved home state is side-splittingly hilarious. I want to party with this dude:

Longtime California fan club president Iowa said that despite being the constant butt of the Golden State’s insults and jokes, it will remember the late superstar fondly. "Let’s not remember California as a bloated, rotting freakshow corpse hanging above a filthy public pension toilet," it said. "Let’s remember the good times. Like my 6-day bender at the ’91 Rose Bowl. California’s pain is finally over, and I like to think that the whole state is going to a better place," Iowa added. "Just look at all those U-Hauls headed to Oklahoma."

Discussions - 25 Comments

Don't Cry for me, North America?

Genius? Side-splittingly hilarious? The site reads like any two-bit satirist working out of his mom's basement. So a celebrity death is used to celebrate the 'death' of a state, but dozens of states are in a similar situation. Don't think Republicans had anything to do with it? They did, but California will get endlessly condemned by the rightwing basement satirists since they lost the state by 3.3 million votes, the worst showing since Alf Landon. The Republican party folks in California are deader than the dancing corpses in the Thriller video.

It's ren from "ren and stupid" stupid again once more showing his deep, yet shallow intellect.


Hi ren, did you try to think today? Hope it didn't hurt too much.

thedaddy

Man, this must have hit the mark judging by poor widdle ren's reaction.

Don't think Republicans had anything to do with it? They did

When you stop foaming at the mouth go ahead and try to explain exactly how Republicans of all people are responsible for the fall of California. I could do with a good laugh.

I did not say that Republicans were solely responsible, only that it would be wrong to think they had nothing to do with it. I would begin by tracing things back to Phil Gramm, whose push for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act back in 2000, which deregulated the market for energy futures, and also conveniently deregulated most of the enabling financial instruments, including the collateralized debt obligations at the center of Lehman bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch failure, Bear Stearns bail out, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and AIG. The legislation contained a provision that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant and destroy the California energy market, which cost mega-billions and started the slide. But the staggering aspect was the credit default swaps, also provisions of Gramm's bill, which by the way was a last minute attachment as a rider to an 11 thousand page appropriations bill, signed two days after Bush v. Gore and read by even fewer people when signed than the recent cap and trade bill. Details you won't get from the side-splittingly hilarious website. But hey it is clever to connect one's opponent to celebrity death. As we speak I am working on a little ditty comparing the Iraqi war costs to Karl Malden's nose. I'm sure it will be a big hit.

@ ren: What of the many liberals at ground zero of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse? And what about 'regulation' is so magical? When I see the culture inside the NY-DC nexus, how am I to suppose that things will change for the better? At least when a CEO flies his private jet, it isn't done with public money. Can the same be said of Gore or Pelosi?

Dozens of states are not in California's situation. I wonder whether they are blue or red...

I would begin by tracing things back to Phil Gramm

Thanks for the laugh. I knew I could trust you to respond by trotting out your entire file of off-topic talking points, none of which have anything to do with California spending more than it can take in in taxes.

Lehman bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch failure, Bear Stearns bail out, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and AIG.

What does any of this have to do wth the way the Democrats in California have run the state into the ground? You can always count on a goofball lefty to try to change the subject.


credit default swaps

Riiiight!! The problem with California is "credit default swaps"!

Regardless of the questions asked, moonbats always respond with their same pre-programmed answers.

Bush v. Gore ... the Iraqi war..

Come on, I'm sure you could have worked "Haliburton" and "KKKarl Rove" in there with just a little more effort, as long as you're checking off your list of approved Talking Points.

I take it that you don't have the foggiest idea why California is the way it is. There's a surprise.

I will take the opposite side of the coin. California isn't dead, sure its state government is in some financial trouble, what with banks refusing to accept the IOU's...but that is why the SEC will step in and regulate them so that they can be traded. If IOU's actually are traded then they will effectively function as a mechanism for lowering wages. This is actually the creation of California's own fiat currency, and there isn't necessarily a reason to conclude that it might not be stronger than the dollar, as it actually pays a coupon rate. California is too big to fail, and holding these IOU's can't be much more dangerous than holding dollars, especially if folks want to scare up california demise so as to pick these things up cheap. California has a lot of great companies, and in almost every sense the recent motivation for the stock market recovery is bunk if California isn't first in and first out of the housing bubble(housing bottoms in California...unemployment bottoms in California...Palm, Apple, Google/Silicon Valley/ Cupertino, California has to be among the least hit areas in the entire world. Hollywood benefits from recession as more folks watch movies, and Blizzard/software developers also benefit from the low cost/hour entertainment options.

Sure you can see and say that the fact that the Sun Valley conference is in Idaho instead of California signals that the very things that are most profitable in california are also elements that reduce the importance of geography...Apple and Google reduce the importance that being in california has...if you have an internet connection you can live in Montana...or with twitter you can live in Tehran(some limits)...but if your time is alocated to internet usage does geography matter?

In other words the most ridiculous debate over reading Lolita or Jane Austen in Tehran deals with the fact that when reading one is not necessarily in a place...as eyes pass over paper prison itself may matter little...and the question is if the accessories and freedoms of california are ever enjoyed with sufficient leisure to justify valueing living there...but I am bullish on California...if for no other reason than if folks who lived in california really wanted to leave they would sing its praises to support real estate prices...in many ways the richer republican californians are in a situation that seems similar to that of China with regard the greenback.

Conversely it could be that this entire baby bull market was simply constructed to allow the wealthy californians to escape the state, which would say something about the possibilities for market manipulation if one can manipulate the narratives...still I think the market may be a little too deep(even on light volume?)for such a feat to work...

Still my entire macro view of the market is based on California outperforming the rest of the nation and I already sold out of Google and Palm way too soon

What is bad for California is really bad for the green shoots/smart phone/hollywood naratives. Then again with tech there is quite a disjunction with regard questions of place...

California has to be ahead of other states on a relative basis...they are largely suffering from lack of water...and unless there is something to climate change...a lot of california problems will solve themselves as rainfall returns...unless they are due for an earthquake... Also California's problems with rainfall will impact all states west of the Missippi, and I know for a fact that Oklahoma and the other dust bowl states that are supposedly home to new migrants are dry.

So there is nothing wrong with California that isn't simply a question of relative equality in regards value with respect to other states...California is still solid it just isn't a growth stock...so Idaho hosts a tech savy futurist media conference, and a leading indicator is the emergence in Football of Boise State and Utah...but the trend is that the west is growing...and LVAS(Las Vegas Sands) talks up the region/macro picture because it seeks new funding. Las Vegas isn't California, but in the big picture it is close enough being a couple hour drive from LA...as bordering states improve California declines on a relative basis...but folks are still buyers of California at a lower price, and really the other western states are simply bargain brand California's. The bargain brand California's(Utah,Nevada..excetera) are the growth stocks...but California is more of a blue chip than Michigan...and Alaska is still cold and rustic, and many will praise Sparta and bemoan Athens that never wish or intend to face the elements.

I liked the link and forwarded it to some fellow Californians for their sad amusement.


And among the state government, it is certainly liberals who hold the blame. I've seen a lot of people pointing to tax ceiling like Prop 13 and blaming that and conservative economic feats for the state's woes. Yes, it put a limit on how much the state can tax its people. But, rather than react reasonably, California shifted from tax and spend to spend and spend, allowing the bill to grow much larger than the income. If less spending had accompanied less taxes, the mess would not be nearly as bad as it is now. Californians have become addicted to the drug that is government, can no longer afford that drug, and is about to go through a horrible, painful withdrawal because of it.

Ingenious!

BTW, NLTers: Don't feed the Troll. Haven't you learned by now?

Re: Rainfall--- I just read this morning that scientists have confirmed that the first big El Nino weather system in a while is on its way. This means it will give California much needed rain (though, unfortunately, a bit too much at once! There'll be mudslides and flooding galore, like back when the last big one hit in the 90s, but it'll solve the drought problem). Of course, these scientist types also say that California is supposed to get that proverbial "big one" within the next decade, and that'll really put the Golden State on its knees if it happens in the midst of this economic fiasco.

I am a native-born, Bay Area Californian who has lived here for most of my life (I lived in Austin, Texas for two years). The main cause of the budget deficit right now is that the RICH people who pay all the states taxes are leaving in droves to Nevada - where there is no state income tax. California has lost $16 billion in tax revenue from the people who the Democrats say don't pay taxes - THE RICH. Second, California is the VICTIM state - if you are a victim then you get free lunch, free medical, free housing, free abortions, free money to have babies left and right - especially if a father or dad IS NOT involved (Kids who are raised without a dad have a 85% chance of ending up in proverty or jail). THe LIBS in CA believe that any form of VICTIMHOOD means more votes. Third, the environmentalists (who by the way are usually responsible for the extend of the fire damages that take place in SoCAl) have stopped any innovation in things like nuclear engergy and DRILLING FOR OIL. Most of the environmentalists in California are hypocrites like Al Gore - The Hollywood moonbats, i.e. Streisand, want everyone to hand wash and hand dry their clothes, but the Hollywood Moonbats have big huge houses that use TONS AND TONS of engery to heat/cool and usually take up huge space along the southern California coastline. Fourth, the state workers are leeeeeeches. The state prison guards make about $100,000 per year and when they retire after 25 years they get $90,000 a year and all their benefits. The state workers (my husband used to work for the state) abuse cars, equipment, time and above all worker's compensation. One of the workers my husband worked with appeared in the shop saying that he had fell down the steps near the back of the garage and hurt his back. No one heard anything or saw anything. He was off work for 18 months at almost full pay and when it was time to return to work he claimed that he needed to do light duty for 6 months to get "USED' to working again. My husband saw workers steal engines, gasoline, tools, etc. and nothing was done about it. Cut the state workers and contract it out. California is a mess. Period. It will take years and years to get out of this mess and the first step is to CUT CUT CUT.

Born and raised in Northern California, made many trips to what was once a wonderful San Francisco, a city since destroyed by outsiders. Moved to the South Carolina Lowcountry four years ago and would never give any thought to returning, not even on a visit. I think of California like my first girl friend: I don't want to see her now, but remember her as she was in our youth.

Yes, remembering California as it was -- I was only ever a visitor. Wasn't it something wonderful? On a visit to Berkeley in 1972, the only part of San Francisco my friends thought interesting was the Haight-Ashbury district. The ride down from Portland was more impressive to me. I see that there were less than 21 million people there then. Now there are almost 37 million people there and it is the tenth largest economy in the world and has almost 12% of the nation's population. It's influence in our Congress it staggering. All of which is, I suppose, another way of putting what John Lewis says, that people really like California, although I don't know that I can call it a bargain.

The last few times I have been out there I have been struck by how much of the place is developed. The gorgeous landscape I saw when driving down in 1972, seems always to have someone working on getting it covered, now. If, as R.O.B. suggests, the San Andreas fault shifts significantly -- how big is this "big one" you are predicting R.O.B.?

Isn't California an object lesson in democratic government, significantly less restrained by republican principles than is prudent? It always seems like most of the people who live there have a mouth full of gimme. Or maybe that is just a general human problem and there are so many humans there, the "gimme" sounds louder.

The "big one" is expected to be a magnitude 7.0 or greater. As the northern part of the San Andreas saw significant movement in 1906, they're fairly certain it will next give off pressure on the southern portion of the fault. As the largest concentration of Americans in the country is around the southern portion of the fault, anything over a 7.0 could be crippling. However, given the significant pains and money spent to make buildings sustainable during a significant quake (buildings deemed unfit for earthquake safety, like the community pool I used to swim in as a kid, have been shut down frequently over the past decade), the most in-depth study I read a few months ago said that if a 7.8 hit, the death toll is not expected to top 1,800 individuals (with ~50,000 injuries); in an area of 30 million, that isn't too shabby. However, the damage done will probably make it the most expensive disaster in American history, and the bulk of the damage will not be from the quake itself, but rather from the widespread fires most likely to be caused by the quake. It's estimated that a 7.8 would damage from 300,000 buildings. Whenever even the most insignificant little earthquake occurs lately,
the geologists like to remind people of their so-called "99 percent certainty" of a "big one" hitting. I don't really understand the science enough to comment on how they can be so certain, so I guess we're better off listening to them on it, eh?

Isn't California an object lesson in democratic government

There is no small-d democratic government in California. Whenever they had the chance the people of California voted for sensible ballot inititives to try to stop the rot. These were mostly side aside by the courts, displaying their usual naked contempt for the will of the people. America in general and California in particular are about as "democratic" as those Soviet bloc "Peoples Democratic Republics".

The main cause of the budget deficit right now is that the RICH people who pay all the states taxes are leaving in droves to Nevada - where there is no state income tax.

Those RICH people are mostly solid Democratic party supporters, and when they get to states not yet destroyed by that party they will set about institutng the exact same destructive policies they left CA to escape.

John, how do they get their judges in CA?

The CA Supreme Court and court of appeals judges are appointed by the governor and confirmed by some commission. Contrary to what some think, they are not elected to the bench.

One the ballot initiatives that Californians voted for about 3 to 1 was prop 187 which banned any form of public service to ILLEGAL aliens such as medicare, schools, housing or food stamps. Of course the COURTS overturned it.

As far as the CA Supreme Court Clowns - I believe they are appointed by the Governor, but they are regularly confirmed by the electorate - I believe every six years - not sure. That is how CA got rid of Supreme idiot Rose Bird. She reviewed 64 death penality cases and then overturned them after the Criminals had been convicted. People believe that she was substituting her own opinions and not following the law. This reaffirmation by the CA electorate is the reason why the CA SUpreme Clowns did not over turn Prop 8 - there was a buzz in the air that there would be a massive push to remove the SUpreme CLowns if they overturned it.

The RICH people I know that have left California do not support Democratic ideas. HOwever, I do agree that there are a lot of dumb RICH people in California (most of Hollywood qualifies) that vote in politician who rape and pillage them. Can't fix stupid.

John M., I thought I remembered that they were appointed, which is merely indirect democracy. If CA elects liberals governors, they will get liberal judges. Somebody ought to tell them.

But Zee Kurent Govenor vis Rebublican.

I thought I remembered that they were appointed, which is merely indirect democracy.


Not sure what mechanism you'd like to see, if democracy is your bane. SCOTUS judges are also appointed. But I'm curious as to why you think that CA's problem is a surfeit of democracy.

John M, I am admittedly confused or conflicted, maybe, on the topic of democracy. Reading history, ambiguity on that topic is an American political disease. We love democracy when the people vote in a way that makes sense to us and are exasperated when they do not. Voters in a democracy do not always vote looking to the higher principles that keep them free. That is frustrating to watch, and sometimes makes for a difficult regime to live under when what or who is voted in tends to foolishness or despotism, either soft or hard. I would like to be a devotee of small-r republicanism, but representatives do not always cling to higher principles, either, as we both know. (Zee Kurent Govenor vis Rebublican.) is a case in point.

I don't know exactly what I meant the other day by that question, except that those judges who vote to set aside the will of the people are in office because of the will of the people, who elected the politicians who appointed them. I hate to descend to Waly Kelly, but "We have the met the enemy and he is us." seems to apply.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14154