Is California still the "Golden State"...

 ...or is it more "reddish-orange"?

Welcome to California!

How to Ruin Your Life in Twenty-Five Minutes or Less!

A guy, I hesitate to use the word "man", attempted to use a rural gun range recently. Zonathan Derrell Butler, 29, was refused entry into the Linden Gun Range, southeast of Linden California, because it was not open to the public. Mature individual that he was, he threatened the worker who refused him entrance, and from the parking lot, discharged his .40 cal handgun at least 29 times. He then fled the scene at a high rate of speed. Sheriff's deputies pursued him and managed to catch up after good ol' Z.D. lost control of his vehicle as well and crashed on an arrow straight portion of Highway 4. Did quite the number on his car, too!

His life went from unlimited potential to zero in less than half an hour's time!

He was taken to a nearby hospital for clearance before being booked into San Joaquin County jail, on five felony charges. If you ask me, poor Z.D. is still angry with his parents for naming him Zonathan Derrell.

California - The New Rustbelt?

Back at the turn of the century, around 2001, my new job took me back to Ohio for an nationwide company meeting. We met in Akron. The hotel we were staying at provided a complimentary newspaper. I remember seeing for the first time, page after page of near microscopic type, listing all the delinquent tax bills of individuals and businesses, and statements that John Doe was no longer responsible for the debt of Jane Doe, etc.

On the way from the hotel to the meeting site, we'd pass by many closed and boarded up buildings on the main street of town. The Rust Belt, I thought. Being from California, I gave it little more thought than to feel sorry for the residents.

Fast forward two decades. You'll never guess what I've been seeing on the pages of my Dead Tree Newspaper. That's right! Today, there were two and a half pages full of near microscopic type, listing delinquent tax payments. And it wasn't the first time. Just like Akron, 2001.

The next time I hear Gavin Newsom or some other California Democrat crowing about how wonderful the California economy is, I've got a list two and a half pages long, microscopic type, who people who might want to disagree with them.

California Trashin'

One of the items in this photo doesn't belong...



In case you couldn't spot it, it's... a broom!

Live in California? Taxes Too High? Have I Got a Deal for You!

Most of you know that I'm not a "grab your pitchfork, storm the capital" kind of guy. I see my role as mostly information and entertainment, not activism. On rare occasion, however, I do make an exception.

If you live in California, this may be for you. Recently, without a vote of the people, the California legislature decided they needed more money, so they raised the taxes on gasoline and auto registration. If the good liberals in Sacrament were honest (stop laughing!), they'd know this is a regressive tax on the poor.

Our ultra liberal Attorney General, Javier Becerra, likes to characterize the movement not as "rolling back taxes", but "taking away funding from public transportation". The AG writes the summaries of ballot initiatives.

So, if you think the state government needs to make do with less, you can find a petition to roll back this latest tax here. Download and print out the petition and mail it back by January 10th. if you're so inclined.

H/T  Woodsterman Odie

Welcome to Baja British Columbia!

It gets old...telling people you are from California and either receiving that sad eyed, mournful "Poor baby!" look, or always having to explain that, yes, I am in my right mind, and no, I don't see any hope with liberals running the state. So, I've decided, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Since there are splinter groups calling southern California, "Northern Mexico", I don't see why I can't just rename my part of the state, Baja British Columbia! It has a much nicer ring to it, don't you think?

And since I may be the leading, and only, literary light in Baja British Columbia (pop. 1), I should have a proper title. I'm trying to choose between 'the Sage of Southern BC', or 'the Bard of Baja British Columbia'. I'm leaning towards the latter... I'm wondering if I should get a new passport?

Prison Doc Highest Paid California Employee - Does Next to Nothing

They'd really rather he do nothing, but I guess there's a law against that!

The highest-paid state employee in California last year, a prison surgeon who took home $777,423, has a history of mental illness, was fired once for alleged incompetence and has not been allowed to treat an inmate for six years because medical supervisors don't trust his clinical skills.

Since July 2005, Dr. Jeffrey Rohlfing has mostly been locked out of his job — on paid leave or fired or fighting his termination — at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, state records show. When he has been allowed inside the facility, he has been relegated to reviewing paper medical histories, what prison doctors call "mailroom" duty.

Just recently, the state was ordered by a judge to reduce the prison population because of "inadequate medical care". Here's a thought: Fire the guy taking home a quarter of a million dollars a year, for doing nothing more than busywork and hire someone in his place who might actually treat the inmates.

I know. That's why I'll never be in politics!

H/T Memeorandum

Southern California : The 51st State?

I saw this story last night, and put it in the Saturday links, but seeing LCR's piece on it and the comments it generated, got me thinking a little more seriously about it. Jogged some old memories, actually.

In the past, the talk was always about the North seceding from the south! I think boundaries and the redness or blueness of the new states would be a concern. LCR seems to think they might be "purplish". I'd always figured we'd draw the line below Fresno, something like this:



...which would definitely tilt the North towards the red and the south would be bluer.

Since the 51st state would have two new US Senators, making sure that they were at 50% conservative or at least competitive could be a deal breaker. No one (sane) wants two more liberal senators in DC.

One practical concern I used to think about was the cost of doubling the bureaucracy:
Two governors, two Lt. Governors, two DMVs, two boards of everything, and it just seemed like quite an expense. Now, it may be more like the old joke:

Q. Why is divorce so expensive?

A. Because it's worth it!

It may be a little bit idealistic of our friends in the south, to think that all the ills of the state reside in Sacramento. Make that, "currently reside". Do you honestly think that Los Angeles as the capitol of Southern California would be anything other than the same liberal big government types we have up here?

Again, it comes down to where you draw the line. Splitting the liberal power hold of Sacramento/SF/LA may do great things to make the states more competitive and more business friendly. But, two bare liberal majorities would mean extra liberal votes in the Senate, confirmation of judges, etc.

It is an interesting idea. One, perhaps, whose time has come, should Californians ever decide where the line should be drawn.

One suggestion for the southerners: "South California" sounds so Dakota-ish. I would suggest a name more in line with the deep cultural contributions of southern California: "La La Land".

Update: Mr. Stone wants to gerrymander the state so that LA is part of "Northern" California. Yeah. Right! In your dreams! Northern California doesn't want your excess baggage.


More at Memeorandum, LCR

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

California Welfare: It's Worse Than You Think

My friend, the Left Coast Rebel, has an excellent article below, on the mess that is California and the slippery slope the politicians keep greasing. The only trouble with the Rebel's article is: It's even worse than that.

In talking about the Food Stamp mess, first we might note that the politicians have renamed it last October, to get rid of some of that nasty stigma.
The new name? CalFresh

"This rebranding campaign will go a long way in helping to erase the unfortunate stigma associated with this program and encourage families to seek CalFresh as a resource for putting healthy meals on their table,"

-First Lady Maria Shriver

And well they should. Back when the government printed the food coupons, the next person in line could see what you were using. I remember an incident from over thirty years ago. It was the mid seventies, I had just bought my first house, (for fewer dollars than my current car, but the devaluation of the dollar is another story!), at a time when it was suggested that your mortgage payment be no more than 25% of your gross income. Mine was about 33% of my take home, so let's just say times were tight!

I was in the grocery store, buying some sliced bologna for my brown bag lunches. The guy in front of me in the line was a healthy looking, burly fellow, and I noticed that he had just bought two of the biggest t-bone steaks I had ever seen. And he had junk food and dog food and beer, and the checker told him he couldn't pay for the dog food or the beer with food stamps. (Sorry, Fido. Get a job!) So the gentleman proceeds to pull a roll of bills out of his pocket that would have choked a horse, peeled off a couple of fifty dollar bills and paid for the non-covered items.

You will forgive me, if in a moment of weakness looking at those steaks, pondering the tastiness of my lunchmeat, if it didn't at least cross my mind that maybe this guy didn't really qualify for foodstamps?

So, now that stigma has been taken away. Instead of a printed food coupon or stamp, the recipients receive what amounts to a debit card they swipe through the machine at the grocery. Much harder to see at a glance how the person in front of you is paying, so no one can tell who's using them. And in itself, that's not a bad thing. This is: the EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards, as they are called have not been allowed to be used for alcohol or cigarettes, but they could be used for cash! In other words, the person goes through the line, pays for the allowable groceries and then asks for cash back, which they could then spend on literally anything.

In fact, last June, a small scandal revealed that the EBT cards were being used to withdraw cash in California casinos!

California welfare recipients are able to use state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state, a Los Angeles Times review of records found.

The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.

So, add gambling to the alcohol and cigarettes we provide welfare recipients in California. Add to that the irony that the state is spending literally millions of dollars to convince Californians not to smoke, while they are subsidizing tobacco products for the poor, the people who are statistically most likely to smoke. Go figure.

Cross posted at LCR.

Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?

More powerful than seven million, Judge Vaughn Walker

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

Anyone who was surprised that the will of the people of California was dismissed yesterday afternoon by an activist judge, please stand on your head.

Anyone who was shocked that an issue of public policy - a matter rightfully assigned to the people - was tossed out the window by a radical jurist, please grab your medication and return to the land of the thinking.

It should have astonished no one that Proposition 8 - the measure voted on by the people of California in 2008 to keep the millennia-old definition of marriage in tact - was declared unconstitutional by a leftist judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

(Walker did, however, issue a stay on the order while an appeal is pursued.)

See how easily the will of seven million Americans can be tossed aside like so much pocket lint?

Almost immediately after the ruling, I received an e-mail from a long-time liberal acquaintance - let's call him Emotion Man -  who wrote:

"Not a good day for America's haters, is it?"

Clever ...

... because all of us who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage must be homosexual haters.

There's a scene in the Godfather Part II, spoken by Michael Corleone in front of the Senate Committee, where he is reading from a prepared statement:

"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a criminal."

(Of course, he was a criminal, but that's beside the point).

This line keeps popping into my head every time I am accused of being a hater of homosexuals because of my position on same-sex marriage.

Emotion Man sent me an e-mail in response to a piece I posted back during the Anti-Proposition 8 rallies a couple of years ago.

He wrote:

"Whether you're getting your values from the Bible or not, there's no valid reason to be against gay marriage unless you hate or are afraid of gays."

I immediately saw myself sitting at that table with Michael Corleone, exasperated with the Senate Committee:

"I find it a great dishonor to me personally to have to deny that I am a gay hater."

(Of course, I am not, and that is the point).

I neither hate gays, nor do I fear them. Such thoughts don't even cross my mind.

I am, however, loath to use the term “gay marriage.” In context of the argument to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage, it is incorrect. It's a trap. The appropriate term is “same-sex” marriage. The fact that the former is often employed in place of the latter is no accident. It is as much a strategic move as it is one of ignorance. That's because same-sex marriage activists recognize how easily the traditional view can be made to sound like a position of hate and intolerance. Thus, the perfunctory conclusion one can draw about someone being against “gay marriage” is that he is against "gay people."

Dozens of likewise examples exist ...

-I have contempt for the policy of affirmative action, but because its purpose is to “level the playing field” for minorities, I must obviously be anti-minority.

-I am against most unions, but because their purpose is to make sure that fair working conditions exist for employees, I am clearly anti-employee.

Irrelevant is whether or not initiatives like affirmative action, or organizations like the labor unions, are actually doing any good or delivering on their original designed purposes.

It doesn't matter. On the Left, compassion is measured by intent, not results.

My liberal friend went on to say:

This is an issue of equal rights, and it can hardly be denied. Your thinking is not only outdated, it is dangerous. Because you and your right wing bretheren continue to deny us the right to marry, we will never be looked upon as equals.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage caterwaul about the inherent inequalities in being denied the opportunity to marry. But by definition, there is no issue of inequality in the debate, nor is there a denial of rights. Gay people can, in fact, marry. That they wish to marry people of the same sex is a separate issue and altogether inapposite to the so-called "equality of rights" argument.

No one can marry whomever they want unless it fits the very specific guideline of what marriage is - that is, the union of one man and one woman.

To illustrate the point, let's say, for example, we have a young lady named Laura who wishes to be married someday, and there are three young men courting her - one white, one black and one oriental.

And let's say, eventually, Laura falls in love with the black man and decides she wants to marry him.

If that black man is denied the opportunity by the state to marry the girl because of his skin color, then a clear-cut example of a denial of equal rights exists. (The fact that there were statutes on the books denying interracial marriage in some states at one time was an aberration. They exist no more. It should be noted that there is nothing biblically-based that prohibits interracial marriages. Additionally, there is nothing anywhere in any context in all of human history that supports or advocates marriage between members of the same sex). The equality issue, as it relates to marriage, is defined by the fact that any man - even a gay man - can marry any woman. It's not about which sex he will marry.

I repeat - no one can marry the same sex, just as no one can tie the knot with a squirrel or take the vows with a candy machine.

Remember, there are no vital distinctions between men of different races. There are, however, genuine and explicit differences that exist between the sexes - a reality that has been undermined in this society for the better part of four decades, from college campuses on through to pop culture. The predictable (and tragic) by-product has been the movement to redefine an institution that has been steadfast for thousands of years.

By propagating the idea that the marriage between two men (or two women) carries the same importance to civilization as the marriage between one man and one woman, the uniqueness of each sex is devalued, and the contrasts between them blurred.

I do not want those distinctions diluted. I celebrate and cherish the differences between men and women.

That doesn't mean that as individuals gay people are less important human beings than straight people. I would never say such a thing, nor do I believe it with even a scintilla of my being. We are all God's children.

That isn't the point.

My friend continued:

It will only be a matter of time before the old guard Bible-thumpers like yourself, hell-bent on institutional discrimination, are seen as the radical ones. Your position is indefensible.

There are a multitude of gays who do not agree with the push to redefine marriage - including the likes of Elton John, no Bible-thumper by any means. (He recently called for the abolition of religion, you may recall).

I also find the use of the word "radical" amusing, seeing as it is the millenia-old definition of marriage being challenged by a movement not even a generation old.

And just for the record ... as "radical" as this may sound, I am also opposed to humans marrying cats - and I assure you, I do not hate cats.

And if there were a movement sweeping the nation calling for the government to advocate sibling marriages, I would be just as vocal and just as adamantly opposed to it.

And if sheep could somehow speak, and a grassroots movement caught fire calling for humans to be able to lawfully wed them, I would vehemently debate them (at a barnyard of their choice) on the necessity of preserving traditional marriage.

I want only the best for all Americans. That includes homosexuals. That is as truthful a statement as I can make.

This is not an anti-gay position.

This is a pro-marriage position.

Come off it already.

(I'll have more thoughts tomorrow on this matter here on the great Proof Positive blog)

Schwarzenegger Cuts Gov't Workers Pay to Minimum Wage

Because, he won't be back!

The Schwarzenegger administration today ordered State Controller John Chiang to reduce state worker pay for July to the federal minimum allowed by law -- $7.25 an hour for most state workers.

The instructions from the Department of Personnel Administration exclude roughly 37,000 state workers in six bargaining units that recently came to tentative labor agreements with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The rationale is that the legislature has not passed a budget, therefore there really isn't any money budgeted to pay these folks, but, you have to pay them something!
As noted, if you worked for one of six collective bargaining units that cut a deal with Arnie, the ax didn't hit you.

Schwarzenegger has invoked a 2003 state Supreme Court decision as grounds for the move. That ruling, White v. Davis, held that without a budget that appropriates money for state payroll, employee wages can be withheld to the federal minimum. That condition exists today, which is the start of the 2010-11 fiscal year and the state is without a budget. The back pay would be paid once a budget is enacted.

Even if it's legal, is it the right thing to do? Schwarzenegger is a lame duck, due to term limits, but ticking off 240,000 state workers is bound to have some consequences. People's expenses tend to expand to their salaries. That's about a quarter million Californians who will have to cut back on spending (and paying sales tax) just to struggle to make ends meet.

Not a pretty picture!

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything