Californians paralyzed by Trump hatred

by philg

“Can You Still #Resist When Your State’s on Fire?” (nytimes) is an interesting window into the thinking of the West Coast Righteous:

There’s something about the situation here this season that seems like a stage set for the current political moment: fires raging, a giant company, PG&E, responsible for so much of the death and destruction; the incredible salaries and compensation of that company’s executives, the huge shareholder dividends; the company’s decision to create giant blackouts for millions of people, presumably while it fixes the negligence that caused the problem in the first place. And all this, with 59,000 people living homeless in Los Angeles. This is the apocalyptic backdrop against which, it seems to many of us here, President Trump is trying to destroy the planet in so many ways. Of course, the builders of this set predate the Trump administration, but the script playing out on the set — the underlying themes and angles and shots — fits well with his direction.

One way to make sure the homeless don’t end up starting fires might be to house them, which Los Angeles has not figured out how to do.

Meanwhile, all my neighbors are in the “resistance” against Mr. Trump and his policies.

Or putting together events in their backyards to fund-raise for various Democratic candidates and for important causes like reproductive rights, climate change initiatives, homeless housing and criminal justice reforms.

All of the problems mentioned by the author are ones that can be addressed without interacting with the federal government and the hated Trumpenfuhrer. California can build apartments for those currently homeless, run new power lines, pay people $10,000 for each abortion that they want to have (“reproductive rights”; note that selling an abortion privately in California can be substantially more lucrative), and open its prisons (“criminal justice reforms”).

[Note that California state prisons hold roughly half as many prisons as the federal government holds nationwide. These 115,000 victims of an unreformed criminal justice system are guarded by folks who earn more than Harvard graduates at a cost that exceeds tuition, room, and board at Harvard.]

Yet instead of getting together to create state programs to solve all of the problems that they say they’re concerned about (voting to tax themselves as necessary to pay for the new programs), Californians invest their time and energy complaining about a guy who is 3,000 miles away.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire running for the Democratic presidential nomination currently, is a good example of this way of thinking. He’s pledged to give half of his money to charity (i.e., he’s pledged not to pay state or federal tax on half of the money he has earned). Why wouldn’t he instead build some apartment buildings in California and give away half the units to those currently homeless?

Related:

16 thoughts on “Californians paralyzed by Trump hatred”

  1. Gee…a nice rant from the New York Times ( a city with no problems at all). It’s truly amazing to read all the nonsense that the other 49 states write about us. Post again when there’s actually something new to say about the state.

  2. > But weather events have definitely changed since I moved here in 2002. The droughts are longer and more severe, and when the rain does come, it falls for days in torrents that can and do cause fire-blighted topsoil to flood downhill in life-threatening mudslides, and then, as the seasons turn, come the fires again, blown by fierce and shifting winds. Every year the wildfires are bigger, more evil, more destructive, more likely to get you. Every year I know more people who are being evacuated, and I have to assume my turn will come

    History in California didn’t begin when she arrived in 2002.

    https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14684630/california-atmospheric-river-flood-storm-evacuations-rain-arkstorm

    LA’s rains, floods, droughts, fires and the responses are literally the subject of the best songs and movies from Them, Chinatown, LA Woman, to Terminator 2.

    And if the wildfires are more destructive, a huge reason for that is where we build, our infrastructure, and the greedy incompetents at PG&E and the regulations they may suffer under.

  3. A homeless (multiple graduate degree) friend of mine insists that CA fires are started by those who want to be rid of homeless campers (whether permitted cabins on leased federal land or garbage-generating tent setups). Interestingly, some arson-caused fires *are* famously set by firefighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr
    ‘Federal ATF agent Mike Matassa believes that Orr set nearly 2,000 fires between 1984 and 1991.[25] Furthermore, arson investigators determined that after Orr was arrested, the number of brush fires in the nearby foothill areas decreased by over ninety percent.’
    Virtuous homeless NIMBYs of course could never behave this way.

    • baz: I support a ban on hate speech as long as I get to define “hate speech”! (though I did not understand Toucan Sam’s comment as intended to be taken seriously/literally)

    • My statement suggests we cannot kill liberals. To me it’s the opposite “hate speech”. I would call it “love speech”. Or maybe “protection speech” because I am saying we must protect the liberals! To the question of the point of my statement…. reminds me of something the great Barack Obama said… If you like your internet troll you can keep your internet troll! Good night. Kiss Kiss I love you all.

    • Hi Baz! Murder is usually defined as illegal or unjustified killing. If our Congress were to declare war on a group of liberals it would be perfectly legal to kill liberals thus not being murder. However in my “love speech” I speak out against killing of liberals. I don’t recommend living with liberals but you can’t kill them! Even if you could you should not.

  5. Cool, just wanted to clarify that calling for the murder of your political rivals is a-ok on this forum ( just call it a “joke” )!

    • I have never advocated for murder ever! I said we can’t kill liberals! I will go even further and say we SHOULD NOT kill liberals even in cases where it would be perfectly legal to do so… like in self defense or time of war.

    • Hi Baz! Murder is usually defined as illegal or unjustified killing. If our Congress were to declare war on a group of liberals it would be perfectly legal to kill liberals thus not being murder. However in my “love speech” I speak out against killing of liberals. I don’t recommend living with liberals but you can’t kill them! Even if you could you should not.

  6. ” If our Congress were to declare war on a group of liberals ”

    You sound very confused about the powers of Congress.

Comments are closed.