California is the Progressive Model

Mark Noonan23 Comments

Here’s what California’s leadership is up to these days while drought, degrading infrastructure and economic malaise proceed apace – from Joel Kotkin:

In a state ruled by a former Jesuit, perhaps we should not be shocked to find ourselves in the grip of an incipient state religion. Of course, this religion is not actually Christianity, or even anything close to the dogma of Catholicism, but something that increasingly resembles the former Soviet Union, or present-day Iran and Saudi Arabia, than the supposed world center of free, untrammeled expression.

Two pieces of legislation introduced in the Legislature last session, but not yet enacted, show the power of the new religion. One is Senate Bill 1146, which seeks to limit the historically broad exemptions the state and federal governments have provided religious schools to, well, be religious.

Under the rubric of official “tolerance,” the bill would only allow religiously focused schools to deviate from the secular orthodoxy required at nonreligious schools, including support for transgender bathrooms or limitations on expressions of faith by students and even Christian university presidents, in a much narrower range of educational activity than ever before. Many schools believe the bill would needlessly risk their mission and funding to “solve” gender and social equity problems on their campuses that currently don’t exist.

The second piece of legislation, thankfully temporarily tabled, Senate Bill 1161, the Orwellian-named “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016,” would have dramatically extended the period of time that state officials could prosecute anyone who dared challenge the climate orthodoxy, including statements made decades ago…

You might think that the people of California would revolt against this – but, they won’t. This November, California’s voters will retain the massive, Democrat majority in their State legislature, will award their Electoral Votes to Hillary Clinton and in 2018 will elect another far-left kook to replace Jerry Brown as Governor. California will get more laws and regulations designed to make it ever harder for poor and middle class people to work and thrive. Infrastructure will continue to get worse (don’t even think about building new power plants or water reservoirs!), education will continue to get worse, it will get ever more expensive to buy a house, gasoline prices will continue to get higher…and the people will just take it and take it and take it. Why?

Because after all this time of Progressive control of government, a permanent, Progressive majority has been created. You see, the very rich can afford the freight. It doesn’t matter to people living in San Francisco and Santa Monica if gas prices are high, or electric rates are high, or that new houses can’t be built. They’ve got the money to afford all that – and by voting for Progressives who talk of Social Justice, they get to feel good about themselves. Meanwhile, the poor are bribed with welfare – scraps from the table, to be sure, but so far no one has been able to convince them (or even try to convince them), that they’d be better off under a system which pays them less welfare but allows them to gain property. A combination of poor and rich ensures a permanent Progressive majority in California. And this is precisely what Progressives want for all of the United States…because it best ensures control for themselves.

Can this really continue for an indefinite amount of time? That remains to be seen – but it might well continue long enough until anti-Progressive forces are so atrophied that there is no alternative available. Britain is about to have a vote on Brexit and my bet is that they will vote to remain. I hope I’m wrong – but Britain has been down the Progressive route even longer than California…there is even more fear among the rich of being out of step with Progressive ideology than even in California; the poor are even more awash in welfare there than America’s poor. To step out of the EU is the act of a free and independent people who know that they want to work very hard to advance themselves and their community. I don’t see much prospect of that being the case; I think Britain is too far gone to reclaim self-rule. In the minds of most, I think, is this idea that without Progressive rulers to take care of them, things will get bad (never mind that they are bad because Progressive rulers…at least the welfare check comes each month, right?).

Of course, a vote to leave would be a grand and great thing. And I do believe the Progressive stranglehold can be broken, even in California. But that will take us on the right explaining to people we don’t want to talk to (ie, poor people), just how they are being shafted…how they are living on scraps while the Progressive dispensers of the scraps are living swell lives. It will take an all out attack on the basic ideas of the Progressive State…which will take courage, a thing notably lacking on the right since Reagan left office.

War Clouds

Mark Noonan

Did you know that when Hitler launched his invasion of Poland in 1939 he never had a chance at victory? Not even the slightest – the whole deck was stacked against him…and by bringing Russia and then the United States in against him, he just made it worse. But even before Russia and the United States joined in, Britain had enough economic and military power to ensure that victory was impossible, no matter how long the war went on. Britain, alone, might not ever have got to Berlin but Britain, alone, was sufficient to stymie Hitler…and eventually new combinations against Hitler were bound to happen. And when Hitler launched his war, he immediately ranged against himself Poland, France and Britain – which together had a far larger population and industrial capacity. It was suicidal.

So, why did he do it? Because he felt he had to. All along he had been telling his generals that a general war wouldn’t happen until about 1944 – which is about how long it would have taken Germany, working flat out, to build a military instrument which had even an outside chance of matching the nations he’d fight. The trouble was that his armament program had finally spurred everyone else to re-arm and while these programs were still just in the starting stages in 1939, they were rapidly increasing and would swiftly outpace whatever Germany could produce. In addition, the military build up of Germany had rendered Germany, in early 1939, functionally bankrupt. The bankers were already telling him he had to ease up on re-armament and curb his ambitions as Germany needed a period of financial retrenchment or economic catastrophe would ensue.

In the end, Hitler struck because he couldn’t keep up the financial end unless he could steal resources from others and because his build up had given him a slight qualitative edge – and, most importantly, he had come to view all his opponents with contempt. Striking in 1939 and hoping for a quick victory (or, that Britain and France would, in the end, refuse to fight) was the plan. It didn’t work out that way, of course – but he still started the war.

Now, fast forward to 2016 and what do we have in Russia? A general contempt for the Western leaders who have pathetically weak military forces at their immediate disposal…and Russia is also in great financial difficulty and can’t keep things going much longer. Just as in 1939, some nations in Europe are also starting to re-arm (most notably Poland and the Baltic States), but their plans for re-armament envision 2020 as the year they’ll be ready. There’s a four year gap when they are not ready.

This is the sort of situation with which wars are made. And it doesn’t have to be Russia – it can also be China, which has a similar level of contempt for opponents, a similarly over-strained economy and a gap between now and when re-armament among their opponents will be complete. Whether or not either nation will decide to strike while the iron is hot remains to be seen, but what this does illustrate is the need to keep a massive military force in being at all times.

For the most part, the nations of the West are spending 2% or less of their GDP on defense. The United States is a bit higher, but still we have a much smaller military force than we had 10 years ago – not only smaller, but less ready as money for maintenance and procurement has been reduced. We’ve been basking in the long peace (in spite of regular military actions, there has been no major war involving a Western power since Vietnam) and have let things slide – forgetting that when you need an army, you need it right away…not some years down the road. And, in fact, not having an army ready to hand just encourages aggressors to think that they can get away with a quick victory. And if they do strike, your unpreparedness will allow an enemy to score some spectacular victories which will then have a very high cost in blood and treasure to reduce…blood and treasure which would not have been spent if a bit of foresight had been used.

People don’t really like to think of defense – war is a horrible thing and people tend to banish it from their thoughts. But as worn out as the old saw is, it is none the less true: if you wish to have peace, prepare for war. We have not prepared for war, and so it is all the more likely that we’ll get one, and get one soon.

Weekend Open Thread

Mark Noonan22 Comments

Found out a new tooth will cost about $1,200.00. Personally, I blame Big Candy for oppressing me when I was young.

About 234 women have been diagnosed with Zika because we all thought a hallmark of the 21st century would be insect-borne disease. Thanks, environmentalists!

86% of Americans are totes cool with dispensing with due process of law, as long as such action will make them feel like they’ve done something in response to massacres.

There have been some actual signs of a possible delegate revolt at the GOP Convention. I personally doubt that such will happen – mostly because the GOP leadership is spineless.

Pope Francis the Surprising has shocked the world, again:

Because most people today do not understand that sacramental marriage really is a bond that binds them to each other for life, many marriages today can be considered invalid, Pope Francis said.

Raising a point he has raised before, and one also raised by now-retired Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis insisted June 16 that the validity of a marriage implies that a couple understands that sacramental marriage is a bond that truly binds them to another for their entire lives…

This is upsetting a lot of people – hasn’t upset me in the least. Most marriages probably are invalid once you fully understand what is meant in Christian terms by the word “marriage”. A civilization of valid marriage would not have, for instance, “no fault” divorce. A valid marriage cannot be one where there’s even the slightest thought of “I can get out of this”. Methinks that a lot of the outrage is from people who do, in the back of their minds, have that “out” clause in there. If you are serious about keeping your promise all the days of your life, then what the Pope said should not worry you, at all.

Related: just keep in mind when reading MSM reports about Christianity, they simply don’t know what they’re talking about.

Brits will vote on Brexit next week – the entire global Ruling Class is in a tizzy because recent polling shows Brexit in the lead. I don’t buy that for a moment – in the end, the majority of British voters will be too frightened to leave the Super Nanny State. I hope I turn out wrong, but I just don’t see much patriotic spirit anywhere in Europe outside Poland these days. And even if the Brits do vote to leave, just watch Tories, Labour and Liberal-Democrats pledge themselves to adhere to the EU in spite of the vote.

I Tip My Hat to the New Constitution

Mark Noonan11 Comments

Been pondering this for a while – what would I have, if I could do a re-write of the Constitution, taking into consideration some of the gaps people have used since it was written to wreck it? Below the fold is what I’d propose – it is pretty much the same Constitution you’re familiar with, though the Bill of Rights is included in the body of the document.

But it is also changed a bit – term limits for federal office are built in. Specific definition of “natural born citizen” is provided. If we are to have welfare and Social Security, provision is made for it…and the federal government is effectively prohibited from using such programs to advance federal government power. Contentious social issues are taken out of the purview of the federal government.

I’m not saying this is how it all must be, but it is how I think it should be – or something very much like it, if we want to restore rule of law and liberty in the United States. Read it and tell me what you think.

Continue reading →

Orlando and Coming to America

Mark Noonan25 Comments

I tried to write about it last night but just couldn’t. I’m guessing the disgust was just too much. Fortunately, Victor Davis Hanson had something worthwhile to say:

Still more monotonous themes: as in the case of Major Hasan (the Fort Hood jihadist), the Tsarnaev clan (Boston Marathon), and Syed Rizwan Farook (San Bernardino), there is something deeply wrong with American immigration policy and the attitude of us, the lax host, to newcomers. In too many deadly cases, a generation of Muslims goes to great lengths to reach the United States only to raise an American-born or naturalized ungracious and unappreciative generation that apparently grows to hate the bounty and freedom of America to such a degree as to blow up, shoot, and maim innocent Americans. Immigration to the U.S., and citizenship itself, should be seen, again, as a privilege, not a right—and assimilation and integration, not multicultural separatism and ethnic and religious chauvinism, should be the goal of the host. We need not single out Muslims in terms of restricting immigration, but we should take a six-month timeout on all would-be immigrants from countries in the Middle East deemed war zones—Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen—not only for our own immediate security but also to send a general message that entrance into the U.S. is a rare and prized opportunity, not simply a cheap and pro forma entitlement.

Open Thread

Mark Noonan27 Comments

Susan Collins (R-ME) can’t quite bring herself to back Trump – but also can’t quite bring herself to back Hillary. Normally this would be regular RINO stuff…but a lot of people are feeling that way, so we let it slide.

9th Circuit rules that carrying a concealed weapon is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. This actually strikes me as legitimate – I can’t see how a right to bear arms means a right to bear hidden arms. Of course, such a ruling brought to a new, Hillary-created 6-3 liberal majority Supreme Court is tailor made to allow said Justices to rule that the right to bear arms is collective rather than individual. So, stay tuned.

A study showing that Conservatives were bad and liberals were good turned out to be flat wrong. And by “flat wrong” I mean that the data in the study actually proved the opposite of what was initially asserted. Pro tip: there’s no such thing as “settled science”.

The absurd thing here is not merely that a school kid is being punished for insulting a vegetarian but that it had to go up to the State level for decision.

Curb Your Bias

Mark Noonan36 Comments

Last night on Twitter I posted the comment, “Once you realize the astonishing amount of bull**** which is believed by massive majorities, Clinton vs Trump makes sense” (though on Twitter, as it is a crude place, I didn’t use “****”) and it got a fairly high response for a Tweet by a guy with around 500 followers – 13 likes and 5 retweets. My follow-up Tweet, however, didn’t get any response, at all: “A lot of ‘likes’ for my Tweet about the amount of BS believed. Now, ask me what is BS so I can piss all you off, one by one”.

I can only assume I had no takers because people were a little wary of responding – which leads me to believe that what is BS is, for a lot of people, entirely subjective. People liked having it generally confirmed that everything is messed up because a lot of BS is believed, but weren’t quite ready to have their own beliefs examined under the BS-Detector.

Just how much of a BS detector I want to put out here is based upon just how mad I want to get every last person who reads this; because if I were to list all the BS, then it is bound to offend everyone at some point (and that is leaving aside The Issue Which Shall Not Be Named). But, for now, I immediately call to mind a time when I was effectively banned (actually, put on “audit” where my comments would be reviewed before being published) at a Catholic, Conservative website. Yep, Catholic, Conservative me so angered fellow Catholic Conservatives that I was banned. How? Well, in an historical discussion, I brought up the point that the French Revolution, at bottom, was set in motion because a collection of Bankers figured the only way they could collect on their government bonds (the royal government being de-facto bankrupt) was if the government would confiscate the wealth of the Church…which event would not happen as long as deeply Catholic Louis XVI was in charge.

This assertion just infuriated the guy running the blog – and I can only imagine it did so because he had a conviction that the fundamental reason for the French Revolution was a genuine aspiration on the part of the overwhelming mass of the French people for a Republic. I think the revolt in the Vendee kind of indicated otherwise – even without (I think it was Robespierre who said it) the understanding of the Revolutionary government that a free and fair vote of the people would amount to a recall of the Monarchy. At the end of the day, the Monarchy fell not because of a desire for a Republic, but because the Monarch ordered his troops to stand down when a howling mob of thugs assaulted his palace. A “whiff of the grape” at that time would have worked just as effectively as it did when Napoleon, commanded by the Revolutionary leaders allegedly in favor of liberty, equality and fraternity, blasted heck out a similar mob a few years later.

To me, it illustrated the habit people have of simply confirming their own biases. If there’s something a person disagrees with, they’ll look for reasons to support their disagreement even if it means ignoring evidence that it isn’t, perhaps, disagreeable. So, too, will people find reasons to support what they like, even if evidence exists that perhaps it isn’t so good. As for me, I can only figure that I’ve been lucky – over the past 10 to 15 years, I have come to appreciate that as everything is run by human beings who are Fallen from grace, even the best has some bad in it and even the worst can be explained. I’ve also come to understand that no person – or group of persons – is irredeemable. The worst rat you can think of can still be saved – but, also, the most angelic person can still err.

As it relates to right now, I think this is why I am just not all that upset about Trump – nor about the likely result of a Hillary Presidency that Trump represents. Not for me getting out there and being all fanatic #NeverTrump all day long. What is the point? Trump is a man who is doing things – as such, of course he’s doing some things wrong. It can’t be otherwise. Voting for Trump doesn’t make you either wicked or a fool, nor does voting against Trump garner you any virtue (and ditto with Hillary). Even if we had got our dream candidate, we’d still all be voting for a flawed human being who would make all sorts of mistakes. Naturally, I’d prefer if my choices in November were different from what they’re going to be, but these are the choices I’ll have and I’ll just have to make the best of it and pray that things come out as well as possible.

It is always good to keep in mind our own inability – no matter how smart or knowledgeable any of us are, there is still a vast amount we don’t know, and we’re not nearly as smart as we think we are. Herman Khan was a certified genius – yet the man routinely got lost going between his house and his office. The best course of action I can suggest is that when either pleased or angered by something, think it over a bit before you react. You’re first reaction is probably wrong – or, if not flat wrong, didn’t take into consideration all (or even most) of the factors involved. Curb your bias! Think a bit. Keep silent for a long while, if possible – the words you never write or say are words you never have to take back! Also, of course, if you write or say something you’re very likely to dig in and keep defending yourself, even when you’ve been proven a fool…better to not have to defend folly, you know?

Conservatives are Stupid: Here’s Why

Mark Noonan15 Comments

From Veronique de Rugy over at NRO:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is at it again. In the name of protecting consumers, it would like to ban or heavily restrict a tool that is very useful to them. This time the target is payday lending – high-interest, low-dollar “payday loans” – that the federal government wants to regulate out of existence. Yet, no matter how horrible the well-intentioned bureaucrats at the CFPB think it is, the $38.5 billion payday-lending market is used daily by many customers for whom it is the only source of credit available.

I almost can’t even talk about this – it is just so blind to reality.

The article goes on to make all sorts of arguments that the payday loans aren’t that bad and that poor people need them. At the end of it all, you have a strong and vigorous defense of an institution – and a practice – which Progressives can easily demonize and which they can use to garner support among poor people. That Progressives won’t ever do anything to get people to a point where they don’t feel a desire to use payday loans is neither here nor there – by attacking payday loans as a blood-sucking “soak the poor” scheme, Progressives will gain support. Meanwhile, we’ll be out there going, “come on, guys; it’s not so bad”. We deserve to lose, we’re so stupid.

The reality is that payday loans are a horribly anti-Conservative thing. Conservatives are supposed to be about making things so that people can live independently of the ministrations of Big Government. This means we have to convince people that working hard and saving money is the way to go…not working part-time and using payday loans to even out the cash flow for immediate consumption!

I know full well that payday loans are often the only form of credit a poor person can get – but it is far better that they get no credit, at all, then get vastly expensive credit which is used for immediate consumption rather than long-term investment. Having access to payday loans – like having access to welfare – encourages improvidence. Such things make people less conservative in thought and action. And the only purpose of sustaining such things is – aside from encouraging irresponsibility among the poor – is to make a few people rich by making the loans. They do nothing good in a Conservative sense.

But the real stupidity here is that Conservatives don’t think – we see a business and it’s profitable and legal and we instantly assume it is worthy of defense. It doesn’t work like that! What is legal is not necessarily what is right. A Conservative response to payday loans is to encourage savings – figuring out a way to make saved money so clearly a good thing that people will want to save (you know, so the poor person will have $300 in his account when money is short for food, and thus won’t have to take out a payday loan). A major step on this would be, of course, to make real money again – gold and silver backed money – but that isn’t happening any time soon. But we could take a baby step and say to the Banks, “as long as you’re borrowing money from the Federal Reserve for next-to-nothing, you’re going to pay 5% interest on savings accounts up to $100,000.00”. Allow people to write off their taxes 10% of the amount of cash they have saved up to $100,000.00. Give EITC to people who make 100% or less of the poverty rate but still manage to save 10% of their gross annual income. That sort of thing. But whatever we do, for goodness sake don’t defend people can justly be accused of charging 400% annual interest! If the Progs want to slap another tax or regulatory step on payday loans, let them! Defending such companies is not the hill Conservatism should die on.

We really got to start thinking, Conservatives. We can’t forever be stupid – because if we are, then we’ll be living in the United Socialist States of America by 2030.

So, How Was Your Weekend? Open Thread

Mark Noonan13 Comments

In case you missed it – NPR essentially was bribed to do positive cover of Obama’s Iran Deal. Point to really understand: the MSM is venal. And don’t be thinking that this is a new development – the press has always been bought by someone. It just used to be that all sides of the debate had purchased media outlets to get their story out. Round about 80 years ago, that ceased and the press generally remained bought by the liberal side. The people in the MSM are not Tribunes of the people, nor purveyors of truth…and it is worse these days because most of the people running the show are ignorant (and I mean that – as in they don’t have the foggiest notion of what they’re actually talking about) and merely regurgitate talking points provided to them by political operatives. There are a few shining exceptions but even in such cases, take what they say with a grain of salt because you never know how much the over-arching Narrative has penetrated their thinking and thus prevents them from looking at the facts from a different point of view.

Related: Katie Couric, caught red-handed lying in her “documentary” about firearms, semi-confesses to her lie.

Glenn Reynolds: Trump is the response to political correctness gone wild.

Related: Victor Davis Hanson –

So how did a blond comb-over real-estate dealer destroy an impressive and decent Republican field and find himself near dead even with Hillary Clinton — to the complete astonishment, and later fury, of the Washington establishment? Simply because lots of people have become exhausted by political and media elites who have thought very highly of themselves — but on what grounds it has become increasingly impossible to figure out.

And to complete a Trump trifecta for today – Yes, Trump Can win.

And if you really want to depress your Democrat friends, note that the back-up plan if Hillary flames out is Biden-Warren.

EU goes after “illegal, online hate speech”. You might think this means they’ll be going after neo-Nazis, racists and assorted hate-mongers…but my experience on Twitter, at least, tells me that such groups are allowed to spew all the hate they want. But, try to point out that, just perhaps, Progressive SJW’s are not 100% correct and you’ll get in trouble. There’s a reason for this – and I figured it out when the ACLU went to bat for the Nazis in Skokie but never seems to go to bat for the free exercise of Christians…Nazis pose no threat to the power of the left, Christians do.