I’m Not Dead Yet
#CalExit, more formally known as Yes California (poached unapologetically from the Scottish independence movement) seemed to collapse when it’s leader, Louis Marinelli, moved back to Russia in April, but a flurry of recent news makes it seem like someone forgot to leave the stake in the movement’s heart.
Singam is the face of “CalFree TV 100% Made in California” (source: YouTube)
When the site was young—and so was I—I wrote a quick primer on Marinelli and the #CalExit movement for this site. I was contacted by the good folks at the California National Party to clarify the differences between Yes California’s push to radically sever ties with the US by ballot initiative, and the CNP’s more structural process of building a political movement toward that end.
A Wild #CalExit Movement Appears
Much of this noise seems to stem from a new group, The California Freedom Coalition (CFC) appearing on the scene. They seem eager to funnel attention to Yes California, but whether they have a formal relationship or are just fellow travelers is murky at best.
With the exit of Marinelli from the scene I had assumed Yes California would be remembered as the state-scale equivalent of “If Trump wins, I’m moving to Canada,” but a few days ago my news feed started lighting up with sour-grapes Op Eds about how awful California is, being republished by the GOPUSA site and some kind of bizarre exchange between Tucker Carlson and Shankar Singam* the “Vice President, Board Member and Chapter Laision” for the CFC, in which Singam claims California hemorrhaging its middle class to other states is a good thing and leaves Tucker Carlson wondering if he’s being punked.
Yes California’s official Twitter account has since explicitly denied that Singam speaks for Yes California.
Singam should replace Marinelli quite handily as a lightning-rod for controversy. He comments aggressively on articles about California independence and is a published author on the topic of ghost hunting.
CalExit Bits and Bobs
There’s a Calexit comic book by Matteo Pizzol with art by Amancay Nahuelpan and Tyler Boss. I’ll try and get a copy to peruse on my upcoming roadtrip.
The gloriously named “Capitalism.com” has an unusually balanced gloss on the economic issues related to CalExit, which was written prior to Marinelli’s exit from the movement. Singam commented heavily on their article.
*Trying to find information on Singam, Google autocorrects the name to Shanker Singham and tells me he’s an advocate of free markets and free trade with the Legatum Institute. Unfortunately for everyone involved Google is full of shit and this is a totally different guy, and this is why we can’t have nice things.
The first thing California will do once they gain independence is to ban all citizens from owning firearms. Then, 48 hours later, when the invasion has settled down, the ban will still be in effect.
If California secedes, I’ll support a 1 year program of accepting refugees. After that, I’m going to be more insistent that Trump build a wall along the California border than the Mexican border. With very little immigration.
I don’t think you’d even need a wall. Just signs along the border proclaiming “You’re racist if you try to leave”, and that should be sufficient to keep the progs penned in.
Or just nuke it from orbit.
It’s the only way to be sure.
Nod…
One sign that would work: THERE ARE NO MULTIPLE COLORED RECYCLING BINS BEYOND THIS POINT.
Only give them the coastal enclaves, wall those off (an easier wall to build) and create the states of Sierra and Jefferson from the interior.
+1 Snake Pliskin
I thought he was dead?
Turns out he’s a living planet.
Meh, that living planet was not as bad ass as the Pliskin was…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVrEwCa8nSA
It speaks to California’s dysfunction that I escaped to… Illinois.
Sounds like out of the frying pan into the fire to me. Although since you characterized it as “escaped” I’m going to assume you didn’t go to Chicago. Or did you? I’ll have to reevaluate some things if you escaped to Chicago.
So trading deck chairs on the Titanic. You wanted a better view of the iceberg?
We’re not in Chicago but still too close for comfort. Looking for our next escape…
Don’t come to CT… Everyone not insane is leaving..
Not sure why I am still here other than I am being lazy…
Not on the list.
I’ve lived in non-progressive states, non-progressive areas in progressive states, progressive areas in non-progressive states, and progressive areas in progressive states. I prefer non-progressive states, but still out in the sticks.
I guess I just hate humans.
It may not be classy enough for ya’ll, but I really like rural arkansas. it’s about as far from progland as you can get.
It got a little bible belt flavor to it, but not a whole lot and that seems to be diminishing with time.
We’re not classy, our favorite place of everywhere we’ve lived was Butte, MT.
I am unfortunately limited by where I can find work. I suspect rural Arkansas would not have use for product development scientists.
I have no direct knowledge of that job market, but Northwest Arkansas actually has a booming economy. Several extremely large companies are based out of the region. J.B. Hunt, Tyson Foods, and the the world’s third largest employer just behind the U.S. Dept of defense and the Chinese army, Wal-Mart.
Do you have a great idea for a new chicken based product? Then NWA is for you.
It doesn’t take very long to get outside of Austin and into the wilderness. Check out Del Valle or Garfield.
We came thiiiiis close to moving to Elgin. Close enough to my (then) job in Austin for a reasonable commute, but a nice rural feeling.
Wait, (((you))) would move to a sausage mecca?
Some excellent smoked brisket and taquerias there too.
Eastern Washington. Actually anywhere in Washington 30 miles outside Seattle and Tacoma is still good.
There should be a gigantic number of product development chief chemist jobs in and around the Houston area. NE of Houston it gets real rural, real fast, yet is only about a 30-45 minute drive in. (Thinking Liberty, Dayton, that sort of area.) Or down the coast to Galveston if you like being near sea water.
Phenomenal availability of food, both raw materials and professionally prepared. Breweries and distilleries sprouting up like mushrooms after a thunderstorm. Some are actually decent.
The weather, OTOH, sucks balls, (or at least is as hot/steamy as Satan’s) but you say you live near Chicago? We never have to deal with snow. O.K., there’s a brief flurry, once every six years or so. Nothing like Dallas.
Housing prices are getting unpleasant, but again, nothing like the Bay Area or even Austin.
Seconding both the job availability, food scene, and ball-suckingist weather of Houston.
When I think about Texas, I envision that ZZ TOP song, Arrested for Driving while Blind. That’s what it’s like, right?
Shockingly, I love snow and cold weather. But outside of petro (where I have zero expertise), not much there.
My last time in Houston, I was giving a talk at a professional meeting. They had it at a Hilton hotel, so I figured that the area would have to be OK. I found out later that the pleasant-sounding “Greenspoint” had a local nickname of “Gunspoint.”
I remembered your tale of asking the front desk clerk if there was somewhere you could have your early morning constitutional…
No, but not all of Houston is like Gunspoint. Or Sunnyside. Or SW Houston. Or… well, we do have a few slums.
I was thinking there’d be a ton of organic chem jobs, not exclusively O&G, but yeah, most of them are probably going to be petrochem related. Though there are quite a few medical tech jobs here.
Hyper, the problem with driving in Texas is that it’s very much not like California. Living in coastal CA, if you drive two hours, you can: be in the wine country, the seashore, the coastal hills (mountains if you’re Appalachian), and the start of the Sierras. Desert if you’re in SoCal. All of which have different microclimates, scenery, and things to do.
Two hours driving in Texas, and you’re still in Texas. Only the Buc-ees are different.
We’re not in Chicago but still too close for comfort.
Isn’t that pretty much anywhere in Illinois?
And lots of Indiana.
And Wisconsin.
Where I live in Indiana is nice. An hour or so from Chicago, and it feels like you’re in the middle of nowhere but you’re not.
I can’t even imagine anything in Indiana an hour from Chicago being nice. Unless you like cornfields, cold, and wind as nice. Middle of nowhere, yes.
The wind farms are absolutely beautiful. Mesmerizing, even.
I hate those things. They’re all over Central, OH. At first they reminded me of giant killer robots, then they were just meh…
In 1991 I left Massachusetts to move to California. I still visit friends in MA from time to time. I can’t believe California has become more dysfunctional than MA but there it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akoi-aIHN1g
Boobs are better in California.
Will CA be taking its $1.3T debt with it?
If you mean begging the rest of us for a bailout once their economy goes belly up, then yes.
The separation should contain two clauses – first they take their share of the national debt as measured on a per-capita basis.
Secon,d the US is forbidden from every giving them aid. These should be treaty clauses and enforcable as such.
Dear California-
Don’t go away mad, just go away. And stay there.
Yr hmbl srvnt
P Brooks
You asked for it
(assumes this is a euphemism for banging old white women)
*very slow clap*
i look for the joke. its my half-jewish part. the fact that they’re terrible jokes comes from the half-irish part.
I know (((someone))) who is (((all))) and he also makes terrible jokes. I keep waiting for the funny part of the jokes.
I am disappointed.
It’s the lack of a punchline that’s supposed to be funny.
confession: i’m not really even half-jewish. its an affectation.
Oh! Ironic hipster comedy.
every woman should know that pleasure is about delayed gratification
One of our many linguists should write a post about why Yiddish is the funniest language.
“Tuches”
Tee hee.
I think language is downstream from philosophy
the reason people are funny is because they have a long history of putting up with bullshit
I thought it was all the “k” sounds.
“Klezmer.”
Tee hee.
Reference:
https://vimeo.com/28688111
Shoving a knackwurst up someone’s tuches is funny. Blood Eagle? Not funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherently_funny_word
excellent.
i think i worked in that building.
Not as funny as raping them after you hack their heads off.
ALL RAPE FUNNY TO STEVE SMITH!
The California Freedom Coalition
A textbook example of a “contradiction in terms” if ever there was one.
“We want to be free to tell everybody what to do, you fascist. What part of that don’t you understand?”
“We want to be free to tell everybody what to do, you fascist. What part of that don’t you understand?”
Maybe Tony is defining terms for them.
I’m confident that freedom is not their goal.
Equality of outcome.. except for the people in charge.
Exactly. And they’re not going to like it when they find out that equality means getting what you need to subsist, not all the cool stuff you were used to. It’s all cute and hip to talk about socialism when you don’t have to live under it. After you get it, it’s no fun anymore.
The only thing any of the collectivist pipe-dreams have ever reliable delivered to the masses has been misery.
That, and other people’s money. They love to pat themselves on the back when they spend money they didn’t earn.
Not true. They’ve given us some snappy looking t-shirts with pictures of murderous thugs on them.
Lots of statistics and excuses too. Some 120 million killed, billions that lived or are living in prison states, and it was always because whatever was done was not real communism. Nazism, another socialist offshoot, they seem to never have a problem claiming had the right people in charge…
I like to ask them why they are so drawn to such a fragile political system, such that no one has ever gotten it right. They usually stop talking to me then, so WIN.
I’d take the day off to vote if they’d let the rest of the country in on referendum. You can do it Cali!
one of my latest hobbies is cheerleading the lefties who think the DSA is a wonderful new direction into which to take left-politics. actually, its cheerleading both them, AND the even “more lefty-than-thou” types who call people like Freddie Deboer ‘hopeless reactionaries’ and who think the DSA is too sellout for their ostentatious leftwing hipsterdom.
I’d even donate to the cause.
So, a bit of a Meta comment:
We need more articles like this. The links, Thicc Thursday and my equally (mostly) brainless screed are fine distractions, but we need more journalistic pieces like this if we ever hope to take this site past ‘fun hang out spot’.
*Ahem* https://glibertarians.com/about-us/
Yes yes but it would be nice if one day we’re all sitting in our ivory towers looking down going ‘remember when there was only one libertarian news site?’.
Is there one?
If you want to do investigative journalism, feel free.
If I had the time or the ability to do so, I would. And if something comes along that is a nice mix of guns and libertarian hot takes, then I will definitely jump in it.
Question; do you write the article and submit it for approval or just the idea and then write the article?
If you’re using the submission button then you give them an elevator pitch and if they like it then they tell you how to submit it to them. Once you get invited to enough cocktail parties like me you become a contributor and then you can write and submit articles directly, although they still have to be posted by the higher order beings.
Thanks.
But after the cocktail parties it’s only a matter of time until the cruises with STEVE SMITH. It’s a trap!
I don’t think we’ve ever turned an article idea down.
I feel slightly disappointed. The commentariat is slipping.
Irony
*furiously begins work on Transformers/Family Ties crossover erotica
You’re gonna have to do some serious work to beat SF at his own game.
I submitted an idea. If it sounds dumb, feel free to turn it down. I won’t be offended.
The Economics of Meth Production and Alligator Farming?
Spoiler alert; it ends in profitz!
The hardest part is getting the alligators to make good meth.
The alligators are purely there for security and waste elimination.
Like Wu’s pigs. COCKSUCKAH
I thought CFCs were bad for the environment.
Chloroflorocarbons are okay.
Democratic Socialist People’s Republics, however, are ecological nightmare zones.
*narrows gaze*
I don’t comment much, and I think that’s my first SS narrowed gaze (or was that for UCS?).
One of us! One of us!
That was obviously for you, whiz.
This entire Calexit thing is a hilarious joke. They would be begging the US for a bailout in a year or less because they did something incredibly stupid, like try to implement single payer while totally opening their borders to peasants from Mexico and Central America. That would be the end of the revolution and they’d have to come crawling back on hands and knees. And we’d be incredibly stupid to let them come back. Instead, allow all of the progs in the Northwest and Northeast to join them.
I’d love to see them establish their embassies and consulates across the globe – “must be all union labor, fair trade, non-GMO, organic building materials. Staff must be woke as all get out.” Or, since the movement seems to desire the split primarily over not enough Messicans (butt secks and weed levels OK though?) – just apply to become one big arsed province of Mexico.
And as someone else commented in an earlier article on this, it wouldn’t be too long before they had the Chinese trying to build military bases and get themselves invaded by the US.
I disagree. They don’t seem to care much about unions or the environment when Elon Musk and his non-UAW plants make cars that run on rare earth metals coming from Chinese strip-mines.
It’s a delusional pipe dream but Arguendo: How much California is actually left after you take out all the federal land and military bases? The feds own 46% of California’s 100m acres. Then subtract everything north of San Francisco as it will most certainly vote to separate and remain in the US and you’ve got what? A state about the size of Ohio.
California goes from 3rd largest state to 34th largest.
Please do it.
If you are talking about area then you might be right. If you are talking population then you are way off. California north of San Francisco is very sparsely populated. The real fight would be within the state. Inland counties like Riverside and San Bernardino would not want to get lumped in with LA. Not so long ago a state senator from the area proposed creating a new state running from San Diego (and I think Orange County), east and then north. It was basically a way of cutting out everything along the coast between LA and San Francisco.
If I donate more money, will they take the rest of the west coast with them?
I wonder what their national anthem will be back. Something with Viva la Revolucion and something something El Presidente Moonbeam.
“California Dreaming”
Something about all the shirts are red and the dwelling units gray…
“California Uber Alles”
Proggytopia..
Hotel California.
They can check out any time they want, but they just can’t ever leave.
And the song is as unrelentingly awful as the political climate there.
From the Tucker Carlson link:
Dude, indeed.
Was that all he said, or was there a statement after the “Dude,”?
*sigh
I’m underwhelmed.
You asked
“Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not Mr. Singam. You’re Mr. Tucker. I’m the Dude. So that’s what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.”
Only Californians are not fleeing CA as part of some master plan to turn red states blue. They’re fleeing the mess they created so that they can go somewhere else and do the same because surely it will work next time. This is what leftists do. There’s a reason why the Soviets had to build a wall to keep people in.
With those fleeing the soviets, they generally didn’t vote for more Sovietization once they got free.
And yet until this day, you have a large portion of the Russians wishing for a return to the good old days. Granted, those are the ones who have yet to experience anything much better. The ones who came here are some of the most outspoken against communism.
And yet until this day, you have a large portion of the Russians wishing for a return to the good old days
This is not because they believe the system worked well. In most cases it was because the system worked better for them, they pine for the days their nation was touted as something more than it really was because it had a massive military complex and it was feared, or a combination of the two.
Pretty much. Russians want their pull on the international stage back, they hate the fact that they’re basically a middle power with a little more influence due to their nukes. It’s why so many of them are attaching themselves to the Putin train and unapologetically support anything that makes it look like Russia is getting away with thumbing its noses at the U.S., regardless of whether its actually beneficial or not. They’re lagging behind the rest of the world and know it.
And it’s not like if the U.S. went through a massive decline there wouldn’t be tons of Americans dreaming of returning to the good old powerful days of George Bush.
Which one? The pretentious father, or the somewhat slow kid?
Either or really. Just imagined glory days when America was top dog.
According to the Neocons and Dems Russia is to be as feared as ever. Are you saying this might not be 100% accurate?
So, when Calexit was lead by some Russian dude, that’s was totally different, right?
Apparently you are unfamiliar with a part of the country known as the Greater Seattle Area.
That’s why Mrs. Animal and I are planning our move to Alaska. Many Californians vacation in the Great Land, find it appealing in summer – but there are hundreds of half-finished houses up there, begun by would-be Californicators who can’t make it through their cheechako year.
Much like Russia, Alaskan winters tend to deter invaders.
“they’re leaving cali because taxes and regulations are too high”
“but surely they’ll want more taxes and regulations where they are going”
this is the same “dude” rebuttal that i’ve made to people who think “every immigrant simply wants to bring their own shitty leftwing latin-american socialism with them”
I’m not a ‘theoretical open-borders’ type because i don’t generally subscribe to any ideas that can’t be translated into practical policy. that said, i think we DO need a healthy amount of immigration, and i think the net effect of immigration is to make the immigrants more ‘american’ than america is made ‘wherever the hell they’re from’. meaning, net-net, the basic ideas of liberty, free enterprise, bill of rights type-stuff is generally fortified.
i think it needs constant reminding that the greatest enemies of liberty aren’t foreigners, but rather the children of suburbanite fuckwads who think they can regulate us into utopia.
“every immigrant simply wants to bring their own shitty leftwing latin-american socialism with them”
Not all of them, just most of them.
i don’t buy it. there is some of that in the communities where they are cloistered and they don’t have to integrate into the wider culture, but those are mostly restricted to urban areas and all it takes is 1-2 generations before their kids are as Yankee-Doodle as you or i
Well, you might not buy it, but it’s true. I think this is an established fact. Sure, after a couple of generations, they develop their own identities. But the ones who are walking across the border, different story. This is why Democrats want illegal immigration and why they want them to vote. The math has already been done.
sure they’ll vote dem because that’s how the left panders.
i think your problem is you think of the whole think of the whole think in some sort of binary way. immigrants are either ‘this or that’.
of course they’re more ‘this’ (lefty) than ‘that’ (libertarian). but, as my point above, they are actually far more likely to eventually be proponents of liberty than the children of the well-ensconced natives, because they have skin in the game and they know how bad lefty ideas actually work in practice.
tl;dr, “you’re confusing a statistical fact for a genetic inclination”
It’s not only how the left panders, it’s that this ‘government should take care of me’ bullshit is ingrained in their cultures. The leftist plan to keep most people poor and uneducated and make them totally dependent on government handouts, really works. Look how well it works here. It works even better when you have the majority of people dependent like that. This is why I fear that Venezuela will never right their situation. Sure, they’ll get rid of Maduro with a lot of casualties on both sides. Then they’ll vote for the exact same thing again, wash, rinse, repeat. If the left ever succeeds in getting the majority dependent on government here, we’ll be just as fucked.
And no, I’m not confused about that, it has nothing to do with genetics. Well, I just explained in my comment.
the solution to the problem of lefty thinking in america is to be better salespeople for liberty.
not to prevent customers from coming through the door.
First, I need to know what kind of customers we are letting in the door. English-speaking, self-supporting, high-assimilation and economic value people? Sure. Masses of peasants and/or barbarians? Sorry, not convinced those actually benefit the US, which is supposed to be the point of immigration policy.
“not to prevent customers from coming through the door”
Letting customers through the door and allowing an invasion, which the Democrats want, are two entirely different things. I’m pro-immigration with limits.
Not only do you have the governments they built, but also their voting patterns and polls. Yet you conclude they will be proponents of liberty based off what? What is your evidence?
English-speaking, self-supporting, high-assimilation and economic value people?
Apart from being self-supporting, which is more a consequence of what they could avail themselves of once here rather than something they brought with them, my great-grandparents met none of your above criteria. They spoke Italian, they never really assimilated (their kids did), and their economic value was marginal.
I find it hard to believe that allowing them entry at Ellis Island harmed the interests of the country.
you’d think i wouldn’t have to explain the idea that markets are a better solution than state-controls.
This. For immigration to succeed, you have to allow time for assimilation. You can’t go throwing open the gate and allowing the hordes to pour in. Well, you can if you want to ‘fundamentally change the United States of America’. Someone once said something like that…
Latin America
“I find it hard to believe that allowing them entry at Ellis Island harmed the interests of the country.”
When did they come? Was socialism a thing then? I’m thinking when they came (my ancestors came in the 1700s), they fully expected they would have to work and support themselves, or else.
Also, what was the rate of immigration when they came? If you think that we can allow to just let everyone in today, I think you are making a grave error in judgement. How does a billion new 3rd world immigrants sound for a number in the next year? Because that’s what you would be looking at.
Is that saracasm? It has to be.
*i should remind people
1 – i stated at the beginning that i’m not a deontological open-borders-ish person
2 – i stated that it takes generations to turn immigrants to ‘you or i’.
that they’re shit when they show up is a given.
Why are people leaving California?
its just a matter of degree. People are leaving latin america for the same reason.
Not all of them are shit when they show up. Most are hard workers. Most will also accept tax payer money when the Democrats insist that they take it. Not because they’re bad people, because they don’t see the problem with that. The problem is, is that the educated ones who would more likely have an understanding and appreciation for the US Constitution and relish that, are going to be mostly the highly educated and well off. That’s not who’s going to be coming. So unless we really have a serious shortage of people to do your landscaping, I’m not seeing any advantages for the USA with increasing immigration.
Why are people leaving California?
its just a matter of degree. People are leaving latin america for the same reason.
Yes, and people leaving blue states vote for the very same shit that forced them to flee in the first place, as they proceed to turn their new home blue as well. You’re kind of arguing against your own point, here.
When did they come?
Early 20th century
Was socialism a thing then?
Both Bastiat and Marx had written about, so I’d say so.
Also, what was the rate of immigration when they came?
Anywhere from 100,000 to 1 million per year came in through Ellis Island while it was open. Or do you just mean Italians?
Is that saracasm? It has to be.
Why are people leaving California?
its just a matter of degree. People are leaving latin america for the same reason.
I can’t agree with that. People are leaving Latin America because they are dirt poor and they want to look for work. Most people are leaving CA because they’re stupid progs who have ruined it and now they want to go someplace else and do the same. I’d actually rather wall off Cali and let the Mexicans in as far as that goes. But that’s not an option.
see post #2 in thread
for clarity – i don’t think that argument, if you want to call it that, makes any sense.
see post #2 in thread
It’s just about impossible to offer a better sales pitch when the other guy is offering free shit.
“Anywhere from 100,000 to 1 million per year came in through Ellis Island while it was open. Or do you just mean Italians?”
No, I meant altogether.
And, so how many new immigrants do we get a year now? I’m pretty sure that number was over one million in 2016.
So how many should it be? If you say all that want, then you’d better be ok with some astronomical numbers. And most of them immediately eligible for welfare. You don’t see any problem here? No problem with us having the population of India or China in a couple of years? Most with no skills and who don’t speak the language?
No problem with us having the population of India or China in a couple of years?
Amazingly, there are still Italians in italy. Lots of them, in fact. They did not all come here.
Most with no skills and who don’t speak the language?
So, just like my great-grandparents.
I am not disputing that welfare is the problem. The question is, is welfare the problem or is immigration the problem? A lot of people seem to be saying that immigration is a problem no matter what.
“no shit, but 1000X the freedom!”
the solution to the problem of lefty thinking in america is to be better salespeople for liberty.
not to prevent customers from coming through the door.
When you’re selling someone an opportunity without a safety net and the other guy is selling them guaranteed housing, food and clothing at the expense of people who have plenty of money, and they’re coming from a third world shithole without a pot to piss in and an empty, emaciated belly…how is that gonna work out 99 out of 100 times?
They’ll end up like the bloody irish!!
That’s no answer. Seriously, if we are selling liberty and an end to the welfare state/safety net, we are gonna have a hard time winning hearts of immigrants whose main priority is food, shelter and clothing. Especially if the other guys are telling them they can point a gun in our ribs together and make us pay for it all.
I didn’t think there was much of an argument to rebut.
poor people want jobs. the people insisting on handing out welfare, as pointed out way in the beginning, are mainly the offspring of the well to do.
my great-grandparents met none of your above criteria
Times change, and what benefits the US as an immigration policy changes as well.
i wouldn’t have to explain the idea that markets are a better solution than state-controls.
Our current labor market is heavily distorted and constrained, and there’s the welfare state and misc. other tax benefits to consider. Looking at a semi-functional market as a solution needs, at a minimum, more justification.
More importantly, markets are an excellent solution to economic problems, but I think too many libertarians fail to see that not everything is economic. I’m concerned with more than just what I pay the maid, or what I pay for stuff; immigration impacts more than just the economy.
what benefits the US as an _____ policy
… is not a market-driven question.
Economics is more than just what you pay for things; it is about human reaction to incentives. All of human decision making is economic. Also, markets are more than just the stock exchange or bazaar, they’re the sum of interactions and decisions people make. The point is that a decentralized approach that can respond to changing conditions on the ground is a better solution than a top down, heavy handed approach dreamed up by an ideologue that thinks they can run everyone else’s life with no room for compromise probably every time.
^^
* tho in fairness to RC that argument can always be addressed with the fact that “people often make decisions based on ‘cultural’ factors which don’t actually maximize their own self interest”
i think its actually just a semantic debate at that point about what “economic” means. imo these ‘cultural’ decisions are just their own form of economic reasoning. e.g. many people in poor immigrant communities face a bias against “over-achievement” because it is seen as abandoning their community/heritage. the social pressures are themselves just a form of economic reasoning
All of human decision making is economic.
“If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.”
Seriously, this only works if you dilute the meaning of “economic” to the point of meaninglessness. Its actually a pretty Marxian notion, really, that economics encompasses every single aspect of human existence. I don’t buy it, myself.
The point is that a decentralized approach that can respond to changing conditions on the ground is a better solution
But the question of immigration to a nation is not one that can be handled at any level other than the national level, unless the national decision is to not limit immigration at all.
It would have been helpful if I had read the other half of what you wrote, instead of just the part directed at me. If anything, it looks like I ignored your point entirely. A more on-point response:
It is indeed true that not everything is economic. But it is equally fallacious to assume that what is not economic is governmental. Insofar as there is life beyond economics, so too is there freedom beyond economic freedom.
But the question of immigration to a nation is not one that can be handled at any level other than the national level, unless the national decision is to not limit immigration at all.
There was, for the most part, no national answer until 1890. Of course, the U.S. had more land than people then, there was no welfare state, the progressive movement was just getting started (and was in favor of limiting immigration), and the states had a lot more autonomy then than they do now.
I think looking to the government for answers is a fool’s errand. You’ve framed the problem as inherently within the government’s domain but that’s a false premise.
Realistically, U.S. immigration problems have been driven as much by avoidance of policy as adherence to it. The question of what immigration policy should be has to acknowledge the “is” more than the “ought”.
Sure and i don’t think there’s any disagreement on that point to begin with.
saying we need immigration isn’t saying that immigration shouldn’t be controlled.
You’ve framed the problem as inherently within the government’s domain but that’s a false premise.
If there are to be any limits at all on immigration, I think that is the government’s domain, assuming of course, that there is demand to move to the US. If nobody wanted to come here, then, sure, with no immigration, you don’t need an immigration policy. Even in the halcyon Ellis Island days, there were limits on who could come in. Ellis Island was a processing center, don’t forget; it was there to weed those we would allow in from those we would not.
So, assuming we want to have borders and a country, we need an immigration policy. Who else (besides the national government) can establish it?
The question of what immigration policy should be has to acknowledge the “is” more than the “ought”.
Good policy is both – its how we get from the is to the ought.
I think Gilmore is right that this is devolving into a semantics argument. I was trying to inform you on what most economists, people well versed in economics and libertarians who have read Mises and Hayek mean when they talk about economics or economic calculations. It is a misunderstanding I have had to deal with a lot. Though your silly ad hominem is noted. There’s definitely nothing and no one more Marxist than Mises or the Mises Institute. Maybe that will help, as I think you’re still thinking about transactions at a store.
I think Gilmore is right that this is devolving into a semantics argument.
Though your silly ad hominem is noted
I find the totalizing definition of economics is rooted in Marxism, or perhaps vulgar Marxism – Marx may have been a little more sophisticated and less deterministic about economics v culture, politics etc.
I’m not an Austrian econ nerd, but my impression is that the Mises et al definition of it is (a) overbroad (and reminiscent of the totalizing view of Marxists) and (b) not commonly held in the general population. They may be more nuanced on the feedback loops between culture, politics, economics, etc.; I couldn’t say, but when I see things reminiscent of “everything that matters is economically determined”, it trips my (vulgar) Marxism trigger.
If you look at Texas, in fact, all the major cities Californians are going to they are turning blue
They’ve been Blue for quite some time, actually. Texas as a whole was pretty deep Blue not that long ago, let’s not forget. Basically, the 70’s and Reagan turned Texas Red statewide, but the cities have always been reliably Blue.
The funny part is all of California’s resources are in the red parts of the state. Assuming an unlikely scenario that the US military doesn’t move in. I could see the red portions rebeling and rejoining the states. Of course this whole idea of a cal exit is an unlikely scenario.
The Blue parts would not have any water – so they could be shut down within a week.
And as they’re running out of water, they’d probably shut what water they have left off to protect some bait fish. These people are incredibly stupid. If they think they can survive on their own and continue with their leftist prog bullshit, they’re really quite insane.
Stop harshing their mellow by bringing up that despite all the proggie attempts to make it so, reality has refused to bend to their idea of what it should be…
The delta smelt has a sad.
Also a third of their power is imported, and its not the red interiors using most of it.
The unspoken irony of the “Yes California” movement. While they hate the direction the country is going in and want to secede, they are baking in the assumption (especially with all the economic ramifications) that all of the constituent parts of California are going to be on board with this idea and want to secede as well. As you say, if North Cali decided to stay in the USA, would they be okay with that? Guessing no.
San Bernardino County has a ton of natural resources out there in the mines. And a lot of the oil is off the LA and Ventura County coasts. Those are all reliably blue.
Bakersfield and Kern County only have so much. It starts to get blue as you get north of Visalia. And that’s the bulk of the central valley’s agriculture since they fucked everybody on the west side of the valley out of their water rights.
Only Californians are not fleeing CA as part of some master plan to turn red states blue. They’re fleeing the mess they created so that they can go somewhere else and do the same because surely it will work next time.
No shit. And then you end up with a bunch of people in Montana whining about crappy “infrastructure” and why “they” don’t pave the roads and do a bunch of other stuff. “And why do I have to shuttle my kid down this private road to the school bus stop at bottom of the hill? The bus should come right to my door, like it did in California! (or Michigan, or Rhode Island, or whatever other shithole they fled in order to recreate it here)”
One of the things they do is that they go all hysterical activist to pass all sort of greenie environmental regulations that make it super expensive to build any housing and then gentrification sets in and then they bitch and moan about the cost of housing and how the poor and minorities are being driven out and can’t afford housing. Then you try to explain this to them and they are incapable of accepting it because it couldn’t happen since they had good intentions.
Heaven forbid they make the old Tercel or PU the “school bus car”. The twelve-year-old drives it to the state highway to catch the bus. My grandson’s school bus car was a shit box ’53 Ford. He had to stand up to push in the clutch all the way.
It’s not going to happen. The Civil War and basic continental security issues make non-violent secession an impossibility. Either you bleed for independence or you don’t get it.
Hmmm…I was thinking that California secession wasn’t going to happen.
Then when you point how stupid and pointless and destructive it would be, I thought “well, maybe it *will* happen, given the stupid, pointless and destructive nature of what these California loonies tend to support.”
A ‘stupid, pointless and destructive’ California represents far too great a security threat to the United States to allow it to exist independently, largely in the context of other major foreign powers (although illegal immigration is probably a secondary issue). Sure, you might have to make a false flag ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ mission to justify a casus belli, but ultimately they’d need to be stomped out in the same way a pro-Soviet and anti-U.S. Canada would have had to been stomped out in the Cold War.
Kratman’s got the right of it. Invade, take pro-Union areas and turn them into a state, then manage the rest as a territory.
That’s the most likely scenario. If California actually tries to leave, we’ll break them up using the precedent set by West Virginia, and force the remainder back into the union with pseudo-state status.
There is no option where the feds let them leave peacefully, and coastal California can’t stand against the rest of the U.S. militarily.
I’d prefer an implementation of something akin to the free city model, where cities that want it are given a great deal of autonomy in exchange for removing themselves from the national and state political processes. That seems like it would give everyone what they wanted without the mess that you rightly point out secession would entail.
Do such things exist in the U.S.?
Our “free cities” still get to vote in state and national elections, they just don’t have another layer of government between municipal and state.
Do such things exist in the U.S.?
No. The thing you’re talking about is where the county/city is merged into one level of government, but they still are subject to and influence their state and the wider nation as a whole. A “free city” historically has a lot more autonomy than that, the closest we have to that concept is Indian Reservations.
A “free city” historically has a lot more autonomy than that, the closest we have to that concept is Indian Reservations.
Man, that is not a winning sales pitch. Come for the autonomy, stay for the poverty and dysfunction!
Half-joking aside, I see what you mean but don’t see it working out, practically speaking. The city people will demand more say or more benefits until the same or worse problems return.
Free cities created…problems for the Holy Roman Empire, specifically ones related to religious and ideological beliefs that makes me wary in the age of social justice. The greater issue now though is the classic problem of how federal/state/’free city’ laws and regulations would work in conjunction to each other, a problem the HRE did not admittedly have.
Ideally the free cities would be subject only to their laws and the Constitution, and everywhere else would be subject to applicable state and federal laws, with federal laws regulating movement of people/goods between free cities and the rest of the nation. Their only obligation would be to pay their share of the national defense, and defense would be the nation’s only obligation to them. I fully expect some such free cities would go off the deep end ideologically, but my (vain) hope would be that this would serve as an object lesson to the rest of the country. The main problem with this proposal would be the suffering of city residents who weren’t on board with where the majority was heading, but that’s really a problem endemic with all government systems.
So (based on jesse’s earlier article) it seems that Russia is actually interested in destabilizing the U.S., in ways which don’t involve supporting Trump.
Of course, that wouldn’t preclude them simultaneously supporting Trump against Hillary “let’s shoot down Russian planes” Clinton.
Hmmm…California secession would be objectively pro-Trump since it would mean that in the remaining United States, the Republicans would do better nationally without Cali’s electoral votes.
Putin is totally playing 5-dimensional chess, not just winging it and trying to poke the U. S. in the eye.
To be fair, there is no direct evidence (at least none that I have seen) that The former leader of calexit is some sort of Russian operative. Yes he moved to Russia but that is a fairly circumstantial bit of evidence.
Just for the benefit of his lawyers, let me say I’m speculating not on his motives, but on Putin’s.
Alternative title: #CalExit 2, Electric Boogaloo
Troll 2, in many senses.
+Ice T in ski goggles
OT, yet relevant to our interests: Chris Pratt is gonna be single again!!
“OT, yet relevant to
ourmy interests: Chris Pratt is gonna be single again!!”FTFY.
Respect the Kristen Gaze.
“Our” in that jesse may find this info inneresting.
Best. John-O. Evar.
Anna Faris has the crazy eyes. It’s strangely enthralling.
I hope he and J-law get together. That will definitely cut down on my stalking time since I can just creep on them together instead of separately.
Jude Law or Jennifer Lawrence?
“why not both” joke in 3…2…1…
Hahahah! Well… why not both?! That would be such a pretty …triple?
#FirstWorldProblems
Who is Chris Pratt and why should I care about marital status of said human?
He’s an adorable goof who suddenly got super ripped for Guardians of the Galaxy. Hot mentality + hot body. You could say he delivers.
If Guardians of the Galaxy has CGI, the denizens of the OMWC household will never
be allowed tosee it.Crazy Girlfriend Idioms?
That, too.
Chris Pratt is one of the few things that isn’t CGI in the GotG movies, so I guess the OMWC household will miss out. Those movies are good fun if you like wild/goofy sci-fi, though.
What a bunch of assholes.
That’s a really good movie, you should see it. Seriously.
I kind of prefer smooshy Chris Pratt (the hot body is OK, if he would just put his chest hair back). I also think he needs to do more straight-up comedy, because I think he’s a comedic savant. So many of his best P&R moments were improv.
He is a space-dino hunter.
He’d the actor dude giving out at all the lady boners at current time. He’s Ron Swanson’s son and hangs out with velociraptors.
Who is Ron Swanson?
REALLY?!
Ron Swanson is the libertarian we all dream of being.
Have never seen that show. We don’t watch much television.
The last scene in that montage just warms my heart (and makes me LOL)
He is Kristen’s First and Bestest L
oveadyboner!He’s my platonic ideal of manhood.
O. M. G.
I would imagine SP is doubling over in laughter right now.
He’s Ron Swanson’s son and hangs out with velociraptors.
I would watch that movie. The Ron Swanson character and the Chris Pratt character (I know that’s the actor, but all his parts seem the same to me) as a father/son team going on wild adventures serial-film/pulp-fiction style.
He’s the guy who apologized in American Sign Language on a video because he tweeted a vine (or vined a tweet) telling his fans to “TURN UP THE AUDIO!” then realized deaf folks don’t use audio.
Ah it was instagram. Here it is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0WRyYe0jE4
Turn it up?
There is no way this ever happens, even if the Californians vote for it.
How long has it been since Britain voted to leave the EU. Nothing has happened yet. California would end up spending years trying to negotiate an amicable split and it would never happen. The Californians leading this initiative aren’t serious. This is just more, Trump bad/middle america racist virtue signaling.
true
In all fairness it’s only been a year, although I suspect that the Top Men will drag it out as long as they possibly can. No need to let good tax money go to waste.
And the UK triggered Article 50 as soon as allowable. They are currently negotiating with the EU over exit terms. This is all proceeding according to the provisions laid out in the EU Charter. Now, it’s still possible that Top Men will prevent it but, right now, it’s following the agreed upon procedure.
I thought the agreed-upon procedure was the Top Men preventing it.
Here’s a decent summary:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40788669
The scheduled date is March, 2019, the end of the two year period which began when May triggered the process in March, 2017. It took 9 months for Britain to get there because the British courts determined that Parliament had to vote to begin the process.
Even if California was able to work it from their end, there are too many significant ports for the US to give it up. Think about what losing California would do to the US as a naval power in the Pacific.
Yeah. They would have had a nice scheme if Obama was still POTUS, maybe if Hillary was now. I mean, not even Obama or Hillary would let them secede. But what they might do is let them threaten and then give them a nice big fat tax payer bailout to stay. Then they would brag that they settled it peacefully and the left would love it. Too bad for them, mean old Trump is president.
Part of the secession deal could be that the US keeps its major naval/airforce bases, perhaps as part of a joint defense agreement. Its very solvable, IMO.
I think you’d need some agreement as to commercial ports, too. A lot of shipping happens through LA and Long Beach.
The British did something similar with Singapore when Malaysia became independent.
OT: – m8, read the summary you replied re AFL. I did reply, but it was a few hours later. I think you were totally right regarding the Demons. The loss against the Roos is damning. Not their year. They finish up against some weak sisters, but given their performance against GWS & the Crows (not to mention NM), even if they win out and get into the final 8, I’d be surprised to see them move beyond the semis, at best.
Regarding the Blues, they’re living down to expectations. At least you can take pride in not being a Brisbane fan.
I mean, not much, but…
Yeah, thanks – I caught it the next morning.
Of course, Footscray’s performance last year will have everyone convinced you can win the flag from any final place. One tiny silver lining for CFC: they’ve been playing a lot of their youngsters this year which is giving them experience.
AFL ran a feature last week on “three regrets” for each club this year. For MFC, too many close losses. Whole thing here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-02/turn-back-time-your-clubs-big-three-regrets
Worked out great for Crimea.
When Obama was president and if Hillary were president, you wouldn’t be hearing about this. These Calexit morons only started screeching after Trump was elected.
I understand there has been a liberty minded secession movement there for awhile, but I think theor goals are to split California into multiple states, not to leave the US.
The flip side of that is the Texit people have finally shut the hell up for awhile.
My guess is, as a nice fuck you, San Diego is not included in the deal, which would be the holy trifecta of 1) taking the absolute nicest part of California away from them 2) denying them direct access to Mexico, and 3) Preventing their Pacific port monopoly from happening.
Then I would have to drive through Californiastan to get there. I’d anticipate the socialist government will not be able to hammer down the violent, nomadic hordes that will terrorize I-8.
Actually, that sounds like fun.
I should have clarified, but by San Diego I mean it and everything east of it, which should be a nice 40 mile strip of awesome right at the southern border. also, Beachfront Arizona. I can’t wait.
The U.S. would still have Hawaii which is the most important pacific naval base. Oregon and Washington have ports that couod be used militarily. They would have some bargaining power, but not as much as you think.
We have Gitmo, so its not like we would have to give up the military bases.
And there is the Ft Sumter precedent too.
Bit of an understatement, considering what sits at Kitsap, a.k.a. Bremerton and Bangor.
Though if CA gets to leave, you really think Hawai’i won’t be close on its heels?
While you are probably right that they aren’t serious about it, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “either it happens overnight or it’ll never happen”. Island nations with less than a million people have spent decades working out the logistics of partial independence. California has over 30 million people and is something like the world’s seventh-largest economy. If they do get serious about leaving, and they don’t intend to do it Fort Sumter style, it will take a long time to work out the details. Both the U.S.-sans-California and California would have significant bargaining power, and so one could expect negotiations alone to take years. Then the process of executing the agreement would likely take more years. And it’s doubtful they’d ever be fully independent, especially militarily.
Minor adjustments: California has almost 40 million people and ranks sixth among world economies.
I would think that during the years of negotiations that it would take national politics will change back to something more to theor liking and that will eliminate theor entire reasoning for wanting to leave in the first place. This Calexit business started with Trump. When we get whoever our next Democrat president is or even the next time the Senate turns blue, all the wind will be out of their sails. I don’t think it will happen. There is a much greater chance liberty minded Texans succeed than a bunch of commies is California.
I think the US would be more willing to allow some kind of partial independence for Texas than for California. Texas is a big economy too, but there isn’t the strategic value.
There are a lot of nukes in Texas that the fed gov would not be very interested in letting out of their control.
Speaking of California – many laughs:
Rich SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street
Alternatively he could let the street go to shit and see how they like that.
See? The problem of roads in libertopia solves itself!
“And if the Presidio Terrace residents aren’t interested in paying for parking privileges, perhaps some of their neighbors outside the gates — in a city where parking is at a premium — would be.”
LOL. Oh noes, the peasants are parking in OUR spaces!
$1,000/year would be very reasonable for parking in San Fran, and produce a good profit on the $90K/year investment. I would bet if they did an auction, they could get a lot more than that, especially if people from other neighborhoods could bid.
What they should do instead is set up a homeless park with tiny houses on the parking spaces. I’m sure the rich uber proggies living in their mansions would love the idea.
I like that. “Any spaces not sold at auction for the minimum reserve price of $5K/year will be leased at $1/year to a non-profit to benefit the many homeless in San Francisco.”
The crossed wires (“Muh parking! The homeless!”) and bitter lefty-on-lefty squabbling would probably create a new pay-per-view profit center. I’d pay to watch the auction, at a minimum.
I think the best part about this is that these people probably already pay astronomically high taxes and yet the city STILL sold their street to make ends meet. Hopefully this will pound some sense into their thick Cali skulls but I highly doubt it.
Yeah, sure… Keep Dreaming brah.
Progs seem to think the problem is that the immutable laws of physics/economics simply refuse to validate their sense of feelz reality…
That story entertained me.
I have zero sympathy for any Cali elites.
Something which occurred to me regarding the “immigrants vote Dem” discussion: it’s not so much that they actively/explicitly want to go full Peronist, but within the bounds of available options, they might be more likely to vote for Democrats. I find it difficult to believe lazy people who want nothing more than to lie around and collect American welfare will expend the energy, or endure the hardship, required to get here. Based on no concrete citeable evidence, I think they skew more to the “ambitious” end of the spectrum.
Much as Hillary presumed the loyalty of a vast swathe of the electorate (What are they gonna do, vote for TRUMP? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!), I think a lot of immigrant voters have a tendency to gravitate to the Democratic candidates. Until they don’t.
I find it difficult to believe lazy people who want nothing more than to lie around and collect American welfare will expend the energy, or endure the hardship, required to get here.
Living the life of an American on the entitlement gravy train would seem to make a lot of the hardship worthwhile, I believe.
Of course, not all Democrats are lazy. Sometimes a group has simply developed an affinity for the Dem party, or a distaste for the Republicans, and this applies regardless of income or ambition level.
For those who think the Republicans are the party of white Christian people, then voting Dem is just a matter of self-respect for non-Christians and nonwhites. The Dems have always managed to maintain “big tent” coalitions – it’s not as big as the old days when Catholic ethnics pulled the Dem lever alongside liberal “social reformers” and southern white Protestants, etc. There’s more purity testing now (that is, they test for purity and throw it out). But you still have deranged freeloaders pulling the Dem lever alongside ambitious immigrants. The different groups in the coalition may look at each other funny, but what are ya gonna do, vote Republican?
This is why shoestring coalitions based on ethnicity and race rather than actual issues are unstable in the first place: many of them won’t actually agree with each other on fundamental things.
The African American voting bloc must the exception that proves the rule.
And, after all, the Dems haven’t yet degenerated to the point of appointing Party apparatchiks to take over businesses and run them. Business people can still get rich, and so long as they let the Democrats siphon off a bit of the wealth in the form of taxes and campaign contributions, the wealthy still have a lot of money left over. And the can use regulations to stomp on their competitors, with their Dem allies invoking “social justice” rationales.
See, for example, large multinationals with offices in Saudi Arabia seeking to crush small businesses for being “anti-gay.” Just as an example.
And let’s not forget the Dems’ environmental and zoning regulations keeping housing expensive, their opposition to voucher programs which might bring the “wrong” people into rich Dems’ private schools, and other areas where coincidentally the Party of the Poor helps out the selfish rich.
In fact, Democratic leaders catering to the wealthy is so obvious that even Bernie supporters can see it, thus the present divide in the party.
And I may as well mention wealthy Dems’ support for policies which subsidize the killing off of the children of poor mothers.
See, maybe I don’t fully get the whole picture. I understand why the ultra-wealthy may support leftism, but wasn’t the average Trump voter wealthier than the average Clinton voter? I always thought that there was a correlation between amount of assets and your belief in individualism and less government.
I don’t know the general trends, I’m just saying that being wealthy doesn’t *preclude* being Dem, and there are advantages.
If you’re, say, a native-born American who works 14-hour days at a real job, but you are of Mexican ancestry and you see someone like Trump mentioning Mexicans in the same context as rape and so on, then maybe you’ll conclude, as a matter of self-respect, that you can’t vote Republican. I’m not saying I’d agree, but it certainly would be possible to see the criticism of “the worse” Mexicans as an attack on Mexican-Americans as a group.
Or say you’re a wealthy black person who rolls your eyes at the nonsense said in the name of “civil rights,” but you can’t bring yourself to “turn your back on your community” by voting Republican.
Or say you’re an immigrant of Indian origin who follows Hinduism and associates Republicans with those white guys who tell you you need Jesus…
There’s all sorts of factors going on here.
Exit polls generally show that Republicans do better in the middle economic brackets than at the ends, so it’s not entirely inaccurate to say that the Democratic coalition leans towards an alliance of the rich/poor while the Republicans are more solidly middle class.
Example exit poll from CNN in 2016:
under $50K split 53D/41R
$50K-$100K split 46D/49R
above $100K split 47D/47R
It certainly belies the narrative that Trump just appealed to backwater, Tea Party hillbillies who’ll “get a Darwin Award” when their hated Obamacare is repealed.
Also, I don’t know whether the rich or the poor are more invested in “cultural issues.”
To your average Dem, “cultural war” means right-wing stuff that only impoverished rubes believe because they’re tricked into it by cynical billionaires who care only about tax cuts.
Yet I suspect there are plenty of rich and middle-class people who would be willing to put up with extra taxes (especially if there are loopholes) if it means that darling Tiffany doesn’t have to bear that child she conceived with that poor minority boyfriend of hers. Or who would be willing to tolerate regulatory overreach so long the overreach extends to those awful homophobic bakers.
Of course, it’s not a cultural war if the SJW side is winning – so Dems think “freedom of choice,” “marriage equality,” “common sense gun laws” and so forth are Fundamental Questions of Human Rights which are Above Politics. It’s only those who disagree with these obviously-correct positions who are introducing politics into the situation.
Based solely on anecdotal experience, I’ve met a lot of Latin American immigrants who are hard workers and social conservatives, but who either don’t make enough money to owe much in taxes, see taxation as inevitable and figure they’re going to lose the money anyway so they may as well get what they can for it, or despite being legal still prefer to do most business in cash, so they’re not paying income tax anyway.
Also, FWIW, all but one of the Catholics who I personally know are registered Democrats. Granted this is Maryland, and there are a lot of both Catholics and Democrats here, but I’ve also heard that Catholicism sort of primes people for the kind of big government line of the Democrats. I can’t speak to that, not knowing enough about Catholicism for one thing, just something I’ve read in a few different places.
It’s complicated.
I think the underlying issue is that Americans really are unusual in their appetite for individualism. In much of the world, there isn’t a party that even pays lip service to limited government.
And that saddens me sir..
What did Ben Franklin say about people that think trading freedom for security is a good idea again?
I do about 80% of my business in Laredo, TX. Trust me, there are plenty of immigrants who are lazy AF. Not all of them have some sort of dangerous journey to cross the border. A lot of them can just cross the Rio Grande at the right time. Furthermore, most don’t head north, because that’s hard. Most stay close to the border, in communities that are predominantly Spanish speaking, because assimilation takes effort.
Yes, there are many industrious immigrants (I am married to one). But there are very, very many who come here because it is absolutely easier to do the bare minimum to survive here in the US than it is in Mexico.
On the surface, it’s nice to imagine California seceding and the schadenfreude of this enabling the GOP to take over what’s left of the country. In the long run, this gives the GOP a nearly unbreakable hold on national politics and there’s very little to stop their worst impulses. And the GOP had some horribly bad impulses. I’ll stick with the status quo, please.
In such a scenario, though, I could see actual Tea Party conservatives get emboldened and start their own party. I’d support that.
One of the ways that the GOP establishment stops actual conservatives from influencing the agenda is to say that they’re just going to give all of the electoral powers to the Democrats if you defect and start a new party. A theoretical CalExit would mostly put those concerns to bed. They can start their new conservatarian party and become the new second party, pushing the political axis further to the right.
Living the life of an American on the entitlement gravy train would seem to make a lot of the hardship worthwhile, I believe.
I concede the possibility that I am more wrong about this than I think. No doubt some unspecified portion of he people who come here view the expense and difficulty of getting here as an up front investment in the “gravy train” benefits.
One of the things that might make people think a little on this, or at least it should, is to take a look at Europe and find how mass immigration is going there. Ok, so America has had a lot better luck with getting people assimilated into the culture, so far. But I think there’s going to be saturation point where that starts to not be true. And when does it end? Apparently all of these countries where people are emigrating from, have no interest or no ability to improve their own countries to the extent that people stop fleeing from there. Yet, their populations do not stop growing. In fact, just the opposite, the poorest countries are having the highest amount of population growth. So they keep leaving and coming here. I’ll say it again, if having the population of China or India, mostly made of up unskilled 3rd world immigrants does not sound alarming to someone, they are not thinking very hard about it.
I think that part of the reason why immigrants assimilate better in the US is because the kind of wrongthink that the left hates, like “cultural appropriation”, is far more accepted here by the vast majority of people than in other parts of the world. Also, as long as you learn to speak English you are free to maintain your traditions and culture here.
China and India’s populations came about through natural growth, not immigration, and without much of a welfare state*. I don’t know what those examples are supposed to represent in the context of U.S. immigration but they have very little relevance.
* = India has a massive quasi-socialist economic bureaucracy, and China is still kinda communist, but neither country has anything like a Western welfare state. India can’t even ensure clean drinking water exists for the majority, and the welfare of the Chinese poor has been improved far more by the limited form of capitalism that exists there than through any state programs, Mao’s legendary water-boiling efforts notwithstanding.
India is socialist amd China is communist. How is that not welfare? They are all wealth redistribution to the lowest economic actors. Just because there is more wealth to spread around in the U.S. welfare state doesn’t mean that India and china’s less lavish social welfare programs are not welfare.
India is socialist amd China is communist. How is that not welfare?
Because it’s more about power and authority?
My point is that China and India grew to populations of over a billion despite having widespread lack of sanitation, nutrition, literacy, …. The U.S. has far more generous benefits and yet much lower population growth.
Most people in India and China are also dirt poor.
Which makes it kinda hard to travel here, pay rent here, get jobs here, ….
But I think there’s going to be saturation point where that starts to not be true.
I’m not really too convinced of the “saturation point” theory. I’m much more convinced it stems from the changing policies you allude to. Historically, there was a major effort to assimilate immigrants into the “melting pot”. Today, there’s a big effort to “preserve their cultural integrity within a multicultural context”.
The Californian separatist movement’s leader is working with the Russians!
Where is all the Lefty Anti-Russian Indignation ™ at trying to destabilize our largest state, indeed the West Coast and our very nation???!!!
Heh, I just posted pretty much the same thing. No scandals there, no reason why Russia would want to break up the USA and seize control of one of the biggest states. No siree, nothing there.
The dipshits (primarily lefty dipshits, but not exclusively) don’t seem to understand that Putin’s goal is to cause chaos for the US and undermine American’s faith in their government. It isn’t to put a Manchurian candidate in office. Putin doesn’t care who’s in office as much as he cares about his ability to undermine their credibility.
Where is this idea that Putin wants to destabilize the U.S. coming from? I don’t buy it. I doubt he wants a hostile amd destabilized nuclear superpower that is somewhat hostile to him. I doubt he has eyes on seizing any U.S. territory or having any military confrontations with the U.S. I’d imagine Putin wants us to leave him be in his dealings with his neighbor states, but having a friendly relationship with a stable America is a lot better for him than an unfriendly relationship with a destabilized U.S.
Ken has said about 1000 times that Trump ran a campaign on the platform that Russia and the U.S. should get along. I happen to agree with that notion. Putin would be better served with trying to form a good working relationship with us, not by some scheme to get Americans to mistrust their leaders.
The idea came from unhinged leftists when they made this shit up after Hillary lost. Of course with US / Russia relations being in the shitter, Putin is not going to wish the best for the US. It would be best, however, for both countries to have better relations and I’m sure Putin wants that. Can we trust Putin? Not so much, he’s former KGB guy who supposedly wants to return to the Soviet era of greatness. Still it’s best to try and keep a close eye on him.
I can’t read Putin’s mind, but I can’t believe he actually wants an independent California, or thinks that’s a plausible option.
Though it’s in Russia’s interest to have peaceful trade relations with the world, I think Putin is adding another factor – showing his people he’s tough and can stand up to foreigners.
It’s not as if Putin is showing a lot of interest in reviving the Russian economy. I’m not sure he knows how. What he knows is rallying people against the hated foreigners.
He’s probably reaching out to Ivan Six-Pack (Ivan Six-Bottles-of-Vodka?), who thinks “it’s bad enough my stomach is rumbling, but those foreigners are laughing at us and pushing us around, why not show them who’s boss and have them back off from our sphere of influence?”
At the same time, pushing things too far can lead to a military defeat, and Putin probably knows enough Russian history to anticipate what would happen to the government if Russia loses a war.
So in short, I don’t know what his endgame is.
The thing about him wanting an independent CA, was sarcasm. Sort of parodying the left for their stupid Russia bullshit.
But I think he may enjoy trolling Americans – “you want to meddle in our backyard? Well, let me host a secession conference and invite some weird Californians!”
Putin is only better served by a ‘good working relationship’ if it actually fulfills his goals. If, say, the U.S. opens up more natural gas for drilling, threatening his petrostate, or attempts to intervene in conflicts that are primarily in Russia’s foreign policy interest, i.e. Syria and Ukraine, then no, a ‘friendly’ relationship (and there is no such thing in foreign policy, only interests) is largely not in his best interest, but that doesn’t mean an overtly hostile one is the only alternative.
Tina Lam and Michael Cheng snatched up Presidio Terrace — the block-long, private oval street lined by 35 megamillion-dollar mansions — for $90,000 and change in a city-run auction stemming from an unpaid tax bill. They outlasted several other bidders.
I have to ask why/how this auction was conducted with (presumably) no notice given to those residents, if for no other reason than the potential to extract a higher bid from them. $90k isn’t very much, to my way of thinking.
If everyone on the street is a multimillionaire it seems like an easy way for the new owners to get a nice payday from a few of the residents pooling some money together to buy it back.
sounds like the city was sending correspondence to an old address.
lol check out this fucking nonsense wrt Google..
Phillip Atiba Goff (@DrPhilGoff):
It’s bad. Also: I worry about the libertarian strains pervasive in tech. SV wields so much power right now and the culture is…not ready.
SV?
Steve Vai?
well, he’s right. the culture was just not ready for the greatness that is The David Lee Roth Band.
I prefer watching some of his later work….
Violin duel
That took me a minute as well. Although I remain unsure of how much power a slanty vagina really wields.
It is a ‘Snapping Vagina’ and is all that is necessary to rule the world.
Werder Bremen, of course.
Not ready for what? And which culture?
Dog whistle for muh roadz
You wanna take away muh welfare? BIGOT!
culture is patriarchy.
not ready for greatness, i assume.
Ah. You wanna know what irks me?
After 30+ years of insisting women get more involved in STEM, with lots of money thrown at it and lots of programs created to encourage it, participation of women in computer science and software engineering is… the lowest it has ever been.
There is literally no barrier to women entering the field. There never really was, but whatever traces there were are long gone. And… crickets.
Most IT orgs I’ve known, know today, would probably rather hire women so they won’t be looked upon as bigots. Problem is, there are few women applying. You can’t force people to do things, this is the left’s problem. I know they’d love to drag women out of their preferred job or even out of their living rooms caring for their children and say ‘YOU WILL BE AN ENGINEER, AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!’. Fortunately, they don’t have that much power yet.
It’s been patriarchy as far as I know for about 2.5 million years. Maybe the Neanderthals were actually the good guys and they had matriarchy? That’s why the Sapiens forced them all off a cliff.
Aren’t most mammals patriarchal? I think they’ll have to go much further back to find some good guys…
Yeah, I was just kidding about the Neanderthals. As far as I know, both apes and humans have been very patriarchal as far back as we can trace our lineage. And our closest relative today, Chimps are extremely patriarchal and have a whole bunch of toxic masculinity going on.
Well, heaven forbid we let libertarians ruin technology. We need a bunch of SJWs who don’t know jackshit about technology to do technology. Because feelz. Yes we can run SV on rainbows and unicorns!
he obviously peaked in 1999.
??
And his doctoral thesis title was a pun. FFS.
The six state california plan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
Is a good alternative if Calexit didn’t happen. I assume the little momentum the 6 state plan was absorbed by Calexit
I would allow them to leave. Each county should vote individually.We keep the areas that want to stay, or most of them that allows for a simple border. Then a few years of travel into the US to allow people to escape.
We could cut the areas that come in into a few smaller states to allow Jefferson and the like become even more locally controlled.
CA gets its share of debt obligations. We move military bases out over the same few years.