Let's #racetogether for Racism

I am sure you have heard of Starbucks' ridiculous effort to show that they're contributing to moving America forward on the issue of race, with a hashtag #racetogether. Of course, this effort will be heavily lampooned, see Iowahawk's entry for starters. (By the way, how is the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag working out?)  However, I wanted to take on the issue head-on.

The real purpose behind efforts such as Starbucks' #racetogether is to delegitimize white people's voices, by continuously hectoring them over their supposed ongoing racism. Well, besides being an effort in colossal corporate ass-covering, just in case someone notices that all those baristas are persons of pallor, if you will.  Because this "conversation" is targeted at a specific racial group, in this case, whites, it is fundamentally racist. There is never any legitimate reason for racism. This is true whether the racism is practiced on behalf of the perceived victims or the perceived oppressors.  

Ultimately, the thought process behind the Starbucks campaign is illegitimate. It assumes a viewpoint on the part of the white customers. It doesn't treat them as individuals. In our society, we descend from a tradition where our rights accrue to us as individuals, we expect to be treated as individuals and we expect to be held accountable for our actions as individuals, not as members of a race. So when you are all given your Starbucks coffee cup emblazoned with #racetogether, if you haven't boycotted them already, you should ask:

"What makes you think I'm racist?"

The Chargers Must Leave San Diego

Qualcomm Stadium By Intersofia at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 2.0], from Wikimedia Commons

As long as the voters of San Diego are willing to punish politicians for subsidizing a new Chargers stadium, or as long as the law is interpreted that such subsidies require a public vote, there is no way that the Chargers can remain in San Diego for much longer. Numerous studies have shown that the value of a football stadium to a city is never more than the amount of money plowed into subsidies, so there will never be a viable economic argument for a new stadium, and I think San Diegans understand that. See Pacific-Standard for a great summary of the issue in general in America.

. . . from 2001 to 2010, 50 new sports facilities were opened, receiving $130 million more, on average, than those opened in the preceding decade. (All figures from Long’s book adjusted for 2010 dollars.) In the 1990s, the average public cost for a new facility was estimated at $142 million, but by the end of the 2000s, that figure jumped to $241 million: an increase of 70 percent.
. . .
Due to these oversights, Long calculates that economists have been underestimating public subsidies for sports facilities by 25 percent, raising the figure to $259 million per facility in operation during the 2010 season.

This only leaves emotional arguments about the value to the city of being in the "big leagues."  However,  even with the Chargers threatening to leave, the latest polls indicate that the public is unwilling to subsidize the team to stay in San Diego, with 54% disapproving of using tax dollars to keep the Chargers.

However, the situation is also unfair from the Spanos family's viewpoint. Other cities are willing to subsidize their football teams with money for stadiums, so San Diegans attitude puts the Spanos' Charger team at a competitive disadvantage. They have to compete against teams in larger markets who are playing on subsidized ballfields. The interest on loans to build a stadium is money not available to pay players salaries.  If the Chargers are a business, then they would be crazy not to look to move to a location where subsidies drive down their costs.  Ultimately, the business with the higher cost goes bust.  In the NFL, this would mean never being in contention and slowly losing your fan base.  Also, if the Chargers aren't going to receive subsidies, then moving to a larger market and sharing the costs of a stadium with the Raiders in Carson is still better than footing the bill alone in San Diego.

The real problem is that politicians in most other states and cities are willing to ignore public opinion and provide tax payer funding to professional sports franchises.  They do so, even when the public votes against ballot measures, like in Pittsburgh.  In such an environment, the only way to win is not to play the game.  But it means the Chargers have to go.

Water Conservation Hypocrisy

This lake near San Luis Obispo, California barely contains any water following a several year drought.  Photo courtesy U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

The ever helpful nanny state types have invaded my neighborhood app, called Next Door, with tips about saving water.  Of course, there was no discussion about why we don't have any water and why agriculture is dying in California.  Since the hypocritical nanny-staters didn't allow me to comment on their post, I am responding here.


I muted the discussion topic "Waste No Water" because they closed any discussion of their post. The fact is that California is suffering more from this drought because of the stupidity of past kowtowing to the environmental movement that killed reservoir projects. Victor Davis Hanson has a great  summary on the The City Journal web site.

Just as California’s freeways were designed to grow to meet increased traffic, the state’s vast water projects were engineered to expand with the population. Many assumed that the state would finish planned additions to the California State Water Project and its ancillaries. But in the 1960s and early 1970s, no one anticipated that the then-nascent environmental movement would one day go to court to stop most new dam construction, including the 14,000-acre Sites Reservoir on the Sacramento River near Maxwell; the Los Banos Grandes facility, along a section of the California Aqueduct in Merced County; and the Temperance Flat Reservoir, above Millerton Lake north of Fresno. Had the gigantic Klamath River diversion project not likewise been canceled in the 1970s, the resulting Aw Paw reservoir would have been the state’s largest man-made reservoir. At two-thirds the size of Lake Mead, it might have stored 15 million acre-feet of water, enough to supply San Francisco for 30 years. California’s water-storage capacity would be nearly double what it is today had these plans come to fruition.

If these groups so concerned about the drought's effects would work to increase the state's reservoir capacity I might not ignore them for their hypocrisy. I have cut back my water usage by over 40%, but the state is killing jobs by not reserving water for farms and industry. I don't think the state can thrive without agriculture.

San Diego Planning Follies

From the U-T:

The City Council voted 6-3 on Monday to reject plans to build three homes on the Jessop estate in Point Loma, adding to the single one built in 1926.
. . .
"When you have properties this big, you shouldn't be putting the houses 12 feet apart," said Council President Sherri Lightner, adding that the design would make firefighting difficult. "I have grave concerns about public safety."
Councilwoman Lorie Zapf, whose district includes Point Loma, said she could support adding­ development to the site, but not this particular proposal for La Crescentia Drive because of the locations of the new homes.
Monday's council vote was actually in favor of a res­ident's appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed subdivision last June.
. . .
The owner of the property, Carolyn Kutzke, has been trying for several years to develop it.

The OBRag has more background on the story.  Apparently, there were 700 signatures on a petition to overturn the planning commission vote.  I think that Carolyn Kutzke should sue under the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution if she is not given a way ahead to develop her 1.5 acre property.

I hope that the city council is as fearful of resident's dismay when they vote on jamming dense development into the Morena district.  I am sure there will be far more than 700 people willing to sign a petition.  In the meantime, the council approved the path ahead to change the Bay Park community plan bypassing an update of the entire community plan.  This is a process foul that didn't go unnoticed by RaiseTheBalloon:

While we appreciate that the city threw out the original timeline to complete the Morena Blvd Area Specific Plan and replaced it with a more reasonable one, Raise the Balloon and residents of our community have made a formal protestation of the City’s attempt to change/amend our community plan through the Morena Blvd Station Area Specific Plan instead of updating our ENTIRE plan through the process of a comprehensive community plan update (CPU).

Meanwhile, all that money that the city collects from developers to make your neighborhood better?  It's not getting spent.  Apparently $78 million isn't enough cash to start a real project.  From the U-T watchdog:

Developers have paid more than $157 million in impact fees since San Diego approved the charges on new construction in the 1980s, and despite a litany of needs the city has spent only half the money, budget records show.
The money was collected from builders in some of San Diego’s oldest neighborhoods, with the idea that they should contribute to community needs such as parks and fire stations. Much of the money has remained in the bank for years while city planners save up for projects or figure out how it should be spent.
In the downtown district alone, the city has assembled $25 million. The city has not completed an impact fee-funded project in that area in more than 10 years, although officials have spent more than $400,000 of the funds on administration.
Citywide, $78 million of the money collected so far has not been spent, as of June 2014, the most recent accounting available.

Creative way to waste tax dollars? Don't spend it.

Short Term Rental Issue in San Diego

There is a petition on change.org asking the mayor and the city Council to ban short-term rentals in the city of San Diego. I'm not going to link to the petition because I don't want you to sign it. A total ban would be ridiculous and an invitation for people to just flaunt the law. However, there are some issues that ought to be dealt with regarding short-term rentals.  Some negative comments about short term rentals from my neighbors on Next Door.

• The vacation rental on our street is basically a hotel. New people, often for only two or three days. Lots of parties lots of noise. Sometimes they book it for a wedding.if it was the neighbor getting married, nobody would object to them having a wedding at their house.
• It makes me upset and ruins my quality of life by having a "hotel" on my street in my quiet residential neighborhood. It is not safe for my child and threatens my well being. Especially when I am verbally assaulted by a transient occupant who thinks it's ok to party until 2:30 in the morning.
• I know that some vacation rental owners do NOT pay TOT [10% tax levied only on short-term rentals], which one must remit voluntarily. Most of these owners do tend to rent for longer terms [& thus do not have to pay TOT], but 2- & 3-week rentals are common, as in the beach areas, so those who do not pay TOT on their short-term rentals are cheating the city.
• As long as the city is receiving TOT from a vacation rental, there is no reason for them to care if it is a full time mini hotel or not. Houses in residential neighborhoods should not be turned into full time mini hotels, that is why we have hotels in the first place.

Other cities have taken some steps to regulate short-term rentals.  Portland's approach, however, seems a little heavy handed.

Portland will start issuing permits for its first legal short-term rental operations in private homes as soon as September.
The Portland City Council on Wednesday gave its OK for Portlanders to rent out one or two bedrooms in their home over-the-counter, $180 permit after an inspection and notifying neighbors.

$180 permit? Why?  This will only encourage people to evade the system and reduce the extra tax revenue that Portland could receive.  Further, there is no need for an inspection. This market is very much self regulating, with renters providing feedback on the quality of their stay.

A better approach for San Diego would be very light touch regulation. Owners who want to do a short-term rental, should pay a very low fee, maybe $10, so that the city is aware of their activity. They should also pay the same transient occupancy tax (TOT) that hotels do. If owners don't control their rental properties their permits could be revoked.

Exit question: If I rent out my home on airbnb.com do I get to vote on the use of the TMD tax? Would I have standing to sue that it violates Prop 26?

Leftism, corruption, and its causes

You can always count on the left to favor solutions that both increase government size and lead to cronyism and corruption. Holman Jenkins makes this connection in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal.

But Europe, Japan and the U.S. have been desperate to stir private-sector growth and yet refuse to consider how they treat their private sector. Europe gave itself austerity in which the private sector shrank and the government didn’t. Big-name economists keep insisting monetary policy can conjure growth without anyone having to question any ideological, political or policy embraces of the past three decades. 

Nobody asks: How can we make our societies ones in which people find opportunity? They worry about the distribution of income but not the absence of income-creating opportunities for individuals.

When the left's solutions never actually solve the problems they report to solve, then it is fair to question their motives. Indeed I have come to believe that the motives of the leaders of the left are merely to aggrandize their own power. They have no interest in solutions, just as Al Sharpton has no interest in better race relations in the United States, because continued trouble gives him the continuation of his platform.

Another area of leftist hypocrisy, but I repeat myself, is in the area of global warming. It seems clear to me that man is having some effect on the climate, even if not catastrophic. But you might argue that it would still be good for the environment to impose a tax on carbon since the burning of carbon is associated with other forms of pollution.  Such a tax would need to be offset by other tax reductions to not distort the economy further. Of course, the left does not propose this. Instead, they opt for cap and trade, which does very little to reduce carbon omissions, is prone to fraud, and lines the pockets of politicians seeking donations from groups to get exemptions from the caps for their favored industries.  It becomes nothing but a graft machine wall destroying the wealth that we need to come up with a real solutions to the problem.

Rather than argue policy with the left, it is much easier and more effective to point out their massive hypocrisy. When they propose cap and trade, for instance, just ask them why they intend to increase corruption.  When they propose raising the minimum wage, ask them why they hate the unemployed. When they propose even more regulation of Wall Street, ask them why their legislation includes bailouts for Wall Street's biggest firms.  Ask them why they always favor the solution that increases corruption.

What You Should Be Reading

• Left Coast Rebel provides an excellent review of American Sniper, without plot spoilers.
• Dalrock continues to expose the ugliness of feminism through the subject of hot farts. (It is really worth the read.  Also, defeating feminism is necessary to maintaining liberty in this country.)  Fortunately, feminists have made themselves so darn easy to ridicule.
• Duck Enlightenment (@jokeocracy on Twitter) guest blogs at Heartiste and puts the shiv to SJW feminism by asking "Who Bitch This Is?" Reasonable debate has failed and the feminist establishment refuses to listen to rational concerns about where they are leading our civilization. Direct words need to be spoken, and this man Shinblade has gifted us with these four powerful direct words to show us the way forward.  (Backstory, the woman pictured in the video had plotted ahead of time to provoke a reaction that would prove her SJWs theories.  When she is caught on video, the result is epic fail.)

The Surveillance State and the Erosion of Trust in San Diego

Revelations about the surveillance state are eroding trust in government and in law enforcement in particular.  Police officer involved deaths of civilians are also responsible. Setting the Ferguson incident aside, which details are murky; Eric Garner's death in New York and the death of Tamir Rices in Cleveland, both captured on video, cast doubt on the fairness and integrity of those police departments and the justice system.

Locally, this distrust played out in social media on my app, NextDoor,which allows people to connect with others in their neighborhood (the comments referenced below come from the Bay Park neighborhood news feed.)  Significantly on this app, anonymity is not allowed, which seems to improve on-line behavior.  SDPD Officer Hesselgesser posted an article about car break-ins by thieves capturing the key-fob signal. I applaud the SDPD for taking to social media in this way to work with the community.  But, subsequent commentary revealed the impact of the lack of trust.  Officer Hesselgesser advised against covering up the vehicle's VIN as a means of preventing thieves from getting fobs from the dealership. Some wondered why.

What's the valid, non big brother reason we should keep the VIN uncovered?

Asked Tom from PB in the comments.

Another interaction that reveals the mounting concern over surveillance comes from this posting about video cameras at a Balboa Ave. intersection.

At the intersection of Balboa Ave. and the Target store entrance driveway, there are 4 video cameras installed next to the hanging traffic signals. All 4 cameras are aimed toward the center of the intersection. Does anyone know why the cameras are there, and who is monitoring them?

And comments worrying about transparency:

I noticed those also. For sure those are video cameras. They are *not* traffic light sensors or Traffic Signal Preemption (TSP) sensors for emergency vehicles (turn traffic lights green). The TSP sensors don't look like cameras. That intersection is not on the 511 camera list: http://traffic.511sd.com/#cameras/search/layers=cameras
I'm guessing those cameras are for law enforcement against illegal use of Traffic Signal Preemption devices which are sold on the Internet. If you want to dig deeper, call councilmember Chris Cate's office and ask.

In case you are curious the cameras appear to be optical detection cameras to sense approaching vehicles and linked to the traffic light controls.

Cylindrical object is optical detection camera. (Source: WikiMedia Commons.)

Finally, there is the unresolved issue of how the San Diego police are using the cell phone tracking devices known as the Stingray.  (This stingray is much more pleasant.) The Stingray is a mobile cell phone device that masquerades as a cell phone tower, allowing law enforcement to get a suspect's (or average citizen's) cell phone to divulge information to the interceptor.  Because information on the operation of the device is being kept secret by the San Diego police, we have no way of knowing if bystanders or even love interests of officers, are under surveillance.  The Snowden revelations have made us realize that once a technology is in the hands of the government, it will likely be misused without oversight.

Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher, not lower, standard than the average citizen.  There should be consequences when the police don't live up to high standards, rather than the current culture that rallies the DA and fellow officers to get an exoneration.  Even when circumstances don't warrant prosecution, poor police conduct that results in the citizen deaths should be punished by dismissal.  Finally, local law enforcement needs to be transparent.  The San Diego police should release as much information about the Stingray that pushes the envelope of what the Justice Department has told them.  When they engage on social media, a good thing, they need to follow up on citizen's concerns.  Restoring trust that law enforcement is doing its job while protecting our constitutional rights will make us all safer.

What We Believe Matters - Reason, Faith and Islam

The adherents of Islam who tacitly or explicitly condone the latest violence, have placed themselves beyond the realm of reason. Their conception of God is that he is all powerful and unlimited in what he may require of believers. As a Christian, I too believe in all powerful God, but one who has chosen to be bound by the promises of His Word. He is a God of reason as well as a God of faith. He will not require of me that I commit idolatry or slaughter the innocent for that would violate his word and reason itself.

Muslim apologists often point to passages in the Koran prohibiting the latest atrocity. Others claim that such acts are not really the acts of Islam. But such apology misses the point, because those committing the heinous acts hold a belief that Allah may command them to do so regardless of what is written.  Further, this belief is widely held throughout the Muslim world.  They do not adhere to a philosophy that requires consistency and logic.  This matters. We will never be able to come to a rapprochement with Islam until such time as it's adherents  believe that reason, logic and fair play must apply in their dealings with nonbelievers.  

Pope Benedict said the following  when discussing the subject of forced conversion, which is also unreasonable to Christian thinking. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

 (The entire speech is worth reading for Christians' education on the interplay of faith and reason.)

We should demand of the Muslim world a commitment to truth and reason. This commitment must extend even to their dealings with those whom they see as unbelievers. Without such commitment there will always be mistrust and conflict. 

[published from iPad blogger.]

Our Duty to Offend

The strain of Islam that motivated the killers in Paris appears to be Wahhabism.  I say this because one of the killers is said to have been trained by al-Qaeda. This strain of Islam is clearly incompatible with western concepts of civilization.  While Francois Hollande may say that these attacks have nothing to do with the Muslim religion, that is like saying that an action by say, the Southern Baptists, has nothing to do with Christianity in America.  Wahhabism has been the most successful global cultural export in modern times.  From Frontline: 

For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California. 

This brand of faith has millions of adherents and its precepts infuse al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban with their religious fervor.  And the drastic interpretation of Islam contained in sharia law enjoys widespread support in Muslim countries. 

Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.

I infer that there are also many Muslims who believe that the publishers of Charlie Hedbo deserved death for heaping disrespect on the Prophet.  This belief system is the cauldron from which killers emerge.  This belief system is a threat to the west because its adherents tolerate those murder by select members of their sect.  It is unfortunate that their are other, more tolerant, Muslims who are offended by the images in Charlie Hedbo.  But as long there is a credible threat of murder in retaliation, then such images should be published, to hammer home the lesson that our right to free expression is inviolate.  I am sorry that the following image from Charlie Hedbo is crude and offensive.  I personally dislike giving offense to someone's religion; but if Muslims make a credible threat to murder in retaliation then it becomes a duty to offend them to defend our sense of the civilized order.  And the burden must be shared so that there is not a single convenient target for the terrorists to seek out.

I would prefer to live in a world where I could merely offer my indifference or hostility to cartoons that offend religious sensibility.  But today, it is only images that offend Muslims that have the remotest possibility of getting a publisher killed, so it is Muslim sensibility that will have to be offended.

And to answer my friend KT, yes, if a KKK rally was shot up by Black Panthers due to the presence of confederate flags, I would display a confederate flag.  But I note that even Black Panthers aren't provoked by mere symbols and drawings.

What You Should Be Reading:

• KTCat who has a different take on Charlie Hedbo.
• Dean proposes an 8 team college football playoff, which seems inevitable.
• A scholarly look at why Diversity Training backfires.

My Message to Radical Islam

Not backing down.

Immigration and The National Interest

I have always been a strong proponent of nationalism when it comes to the United States.

The notion of American nationalism is an ideal worth defending. We are a nation of nations, ironically enough, bound together not by the traditional fascist symbols of nationalism, race, ethnicity, or empire; but by ideals embodied in the greatest political documents ever written, the Declaration and the Constitution. The left sees our riches and feels guilt, assuming they are the result of plunder. In fact, they are the result of trade, invention and industry.

So what are to make of the left's desire for unfettered immigration and the business class' desire for working class immigration? How do they accord with the national interest? I submit that they do not.  While some immigration of skilled workers is in the national interest, wholesale immigration that undermines national values, strains our infrastructure and depresses wages does not help the nation.  We have built the most stable wealthy and freest nation in the world. We are under no obligation to allow centuries of work to be undone by unfettered immigration and a generous welfare state.  I am certain that the left looks to mass immigration to change the character of the nation for that very reason, out of their resentment at the success that liberty and a strong constitutional order have wrought.

Take a look at Sweden, where immigrants from war-torn countries in the Middle East are never turned away.  The presence of so many immigrants is leading to a vast increase in crime and especially rape (actual rape, not imaginary frat house rape.) It is also causing the erosion of legitimate political debate as the parties of both right and left have cut a deal to prevent any debate on immigration at all.  CDR Salamander has the story:

As large boats drift throughout the Mediterranean Sea, waiting to come ashore; as open borders to the east and south minimize barriers to entry, and a political elite who are tuning out the concerns of its own people - and more importantly - want to make sure no one calls them a nasty name - well, where does this go?. . .For immigration to work where the people lack education, technical skill, and cultural literacy; if they come to work hard and contribute to society, most of the friction will come only from the indigenous population who are on the lower side of the economic spectrum whose wages are depressed (another reason to keep unskilled immigration at low levels, it impacts most your nation's most economically vulnerable). However - what if they come to only take? 

. . . 

It doesn't have to be this way. Smart, humane, and economically sound policies are out there to keep things manageable without asking a people to commit cultural suicide or to turn to their darker natures to preserve their unique culture.

Sultan Knish argues that both the left and the business class take their cues on immigration from the concept of empire, which is the opposite of nationalism and that only nationalism can beat back the forces of empire.

The argument between the establishments of the right and the left is over two different kinds of empires. The Republican establishment in America and its various center-right counterparts abroad have attached themselves to the liberal vision of a transnational empire of international law so much that they have forgotten that this vision came from the left, rather than from the right.
This Empire of International Law proved to have some uses for global trade and security, particularly during the Cold War. These practical arrangements however are overshadowed by the fact that it, like every empire, sacrifices the interests of its peoples to its own structure. This is true of the structure at every level, from the EU to the Federal structure of the United States. The system has displaced the people. And the system runs on principles that require cheap labor leading to policies like amnesty.

While I agree that immigration of skilled workers will help our economy, we have a right and duty to control who and how many to ensure that the interests of the American people are upheld.  This is why Obama's policies, which have only encouraged a new flood of illegal immigration are so treacherous.  His message to Central America was almost explicitly a call to violate our borders.  He did so in the very best leftist tradition.

Our only hope is that the forces driving immigration from across the borders are subsiding.  For the first time in quite a while, Mexico did not supply the majority of illegal border crossers into America.  I predicted over a year ago that illegal immigration from Mexico would slow.  Now that it has, it makes it easier to secure the border and get on with overall immigration reform.

Happy New Year's Cocktails

Happy New Year's to all of you.  Over at my other blog, which I reserve for the non-political I have two cocktail recipes: The Rusty Venture and the Cola Stingray.  Enjoy.

High Density "Transit Oriented Development" in Bay Park and Linda Vista

I haven't looked at the ongoing process of amending the city's community plans to comply with SB 375 in a while, but the whole process moves slowly; prior posts on the subject can be viewed here.  The more I read about the sausage making of the process to amend the community plans the more my head hurts.  Apparently it's an arcane process intended to bore opponents to death and allow insiders and city staff to dominate the process.  Understand The Plan is a great resource if you are willing to dive into these details.

Currently the opponents of the 60 foot height limit are planning to propose amendments that would impose a 30 foot limit in Linda Vista near the proposed trolley station at Tecolote Road as well Green Area Ratio requirements to reduce the density of development.  These proposals will compete with planning department proposals that will go before the city council.  It's ironic that green initiatives that require open space are in conflict with green initiatives to increase  urban density to increase mass-transit ridership.

What is not clear is how the City Council will vote regardless of community pressure.  The city could certainly face lawsuits if it doesn't do enough to comply with SB 375.  This is how sclerosis sets into government.  There are so many competing requirements and mandates that eventually nothing can be done, but even doing nothing results in costly lawsuits.  I can envision a future where all city fundings is used in lawsuits because no local governmental action is possible due to laws passed in Sacramento.

It doesn't appear that the subject will come to a city council vote until January 2016 according to the planning document posted on the Understand the Plan site, but I can't find any confirming evidence that this process won't get on a faster timeline with developers waiting to make money on the zoning changes.

It's worth remembering that this whole process is somehow linked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I defy anyone to prove the building of high-rises along Morena Blvd will result in so much as one less ounce of carbon emissions.

What You Should Be Reading

• Dalrock, because he shreds the fantasy that is feminism which resulted in the utterly, completely false UVA rape story. "It wasn’t just Erdely who fell in love with this perfect story.  Feminists across the media fell in love with the fantasy story as well."
• My twitter feed, because I don't blog much anymore.

Death and Taxes and Eric Garner

The death of Eric Garner has struck a chord in a way that Michael Brown's did not.  For one thing, there is video evidence lacking in the Michael Brown.



The outrage over the tactics used to arrest a man for selling untaxed cigarettes has provoked outrage.  Further outrage ensued when a Grand Jury failed to indict, just as in the Michael Brown case.  But there are some big differences in these two cases.  Michael Brown credibly committed a crime against persons before his encounter with the police.  Further, there is evidence that Brown put the life of officer Wilson in danger.  From this video, we see that Garner was no such threat to the police.

We also have to ask why the police feel that they have to enforce tax policy?  Even if Garner was in fact selling smokes illegally, why can't you give him a ticket and a fine?  Why the arrest?  What the hell is going on that the police have literally become the health police in New York.

The answer is that this the ultimate enforcement power of government.  We should be careful about what we make illegal, because government has the force of arms to kill us to comply.  This is why the individual mandate in Obamacare is so pernicious.  I can easily imagine a scenario where someone dies as federal agents attempt to seize assets for non-payment of the health care penalty.  Gives new meaning to the term "Death Panels."

Deny Obama Entry to Congress for SOTU Address - UPDATED

Under the concept of separation of powers, the President is invited annually by the Congress to address the "State of the Union."  While it is a constitutional requirement that the President provide a report or address as to the State of the Union, there is no requirement as to the form it takes.  In 2013, Speaker Boehner invited the President to deliver the address:

Dear Mr. President:
As we round out the first session of the 113th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the president’s State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  In that spirit, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas, particularly for putting Americans back to work.  It’s my honor to invite you to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

However, under the current circumstances of the President's unprecedented extra-legal usurpation of powers, especially, but not only with respect to illegal immigration; Speaker Boehner and soon-to-be Majority Leader McConnell should send a letter to the President that reads something like this:

Dear Mr. President:
As we look forward to the first session of the 114th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the President providing the Congress a report on the State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  However, through your executive actions that have exceeded the authority provided you under law, you have failed to include the Congress in addressing the nation's challenges.  In the spirit of Constitutional observance, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas on addressing these issue, but not through personal appearance, rather in the form of written correspondence to be delivered by January 28, 2015. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

Such action is entirely within tradition and legitimate constitutionality.  The Congressional Research Service documents that:

Between 1801 and 1913, Presidents fulfilled their constitutional duty by sending their yearly report as a formal written letter to Congress. These written messages contained information about the state of the nation, and also included policy recommendations.

This action would underscore Congressional prerogative in the face of the President's unprecedented and unilateral usurpation of power.  There will be howls from the left; but no one can claim that anything other than Obama's feelings would be hurt.  However, that would hit him where he lives, because, like any would be dictator, he loves the trappings of power.  Indeed, the delivery of the SOTU was discontinued for a long period for just such a reason:

Likening it to a “speech from the throne” reminiscent of monarchy’s vestiges, Thomas Jefferson changed course and instead submitted his Annual Message in writing.

Obama can just get used to his coming retirement a little early by losing this perquisite due to his own arrogance.

Not Barack Obama, in any way. (Thomas Jefferson if you didn't know.)

UPDATE

Andrew McCoy (@DrewMTips), writing in the Ace of Spades blog, echoes my thoughts and adds this:

Yesterday, Boehner said, "The president had said before that he's not king and he's not an emperor," Boehner says. "But he's sure acting like one." 

Why would the Speaker invite such a man to address "the people's house"? All Obama would do would use the time to lecture members of a co-equal branch on what they must do and what he deems acceptable work product for them. Members of the United States Congress are under no obligation to sit mutely while the President brow beats them. 

Obama has said he doesn't feel compelled to listen to the voters who showed up to the polls a little over two weeks ago. The Representatives elected by those people should make it clear they are simply acting in kind, they will not listen to him.

Tweet of the Day - Defund Universities

@Runsonmagic tweeted this today:

If conservatives were serious about winning, they would defund universities - social justice training centers - and reinforce marriage.
— runsonmagic (@runsonmagic) November 14, 2014

I couldn't agree more, but since it is hard to make a nuanced argument on twitter, I would add the following.  The specific manner in which I would defund universities is to end the taxpayer subsidies and forgiveness polices for student loans.  Veronque de Rugy explains the connection:

". . . by keeping student loan rates artificially low, the federal government is contributing to the rapid increase in college tuition. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced-priced money has artificially inflated the price of a college education."

This inflated pricing is what keeps professors of comparative dance employed, indoctrinating America's youth in actual and social Marxism.  Further, under Obama, forgiveness of loans, especially for "public service" has greatly expanded.  Essentially, the student loan program has become a direct funding line to the leftist professoriat.  End these programs and let banks make loans to students based on the earning potential of their degree; drive the mewling manlets and manjawed feminist fatties of the left back to the brackish backwater that is their birthright.

She wants to indoctrinate your kids and maybe flirt with your daughter.

Meanwhile, why stop with the uni's?  All of the institutions of the left need defunding; Scott Walker and Rick Snyder have led the way in Wisconsin and Michigan by making union dues for state government workers non-compulsory.  For this reason, Scott Walker has been subjected to vilest vitriol.  Next, we should go after so called environmental advocacy groups, who receive a surprising amount of funding from the federal government.

And let's be clear, this defunding is legitimate, because those our your tax dollars being spent subverting the moral and rational basis for the republic.

What You Should Be Reading

• Dean, because he hasn't blogged in a while and he completely takes down a leftist tool on Veteran's Day.
• KTCat explains the bankster-industrial complex in one easy lesson from Japan.  Warning: Get any of your assets out of Japanese companies and currency.  The inflection point is nigh.
• Dalrock cracks me up with a tale of a Criminal Lack of Game.
• Cell phone attacks? It's not just for the NSA anymore.

Seize the Initiative on Illegal Immigration

Republicans need to seize the initiative on illegal immigration and propose a plan before Obama takes executive action this December.  It won't stop the President from making yet another extra-consitutional move, but it would serve to highlight his unwillingness to to abide by the law and work with the Congress.  The GOP needs to deal with the issue because it will hurt them in the long run.  I am under no illusion that somehow dealing with the issue will make them suddenly popular with Hispanics.  I am also certain there are no votes to be gained if current illegals are granted citizenship.  However, the issue still hurts the party.

• As more illegals continue to cross the border, they eventually spawn Democratic votes.  They either vote illegally, or eventually their children cast votes for Democrats.  This isn't to say that Republicans can't make inroads among descendants of illegal immigrants, its just not the way to bet.
• The failure to solve the problem continues to eat away at the respect for the rule of law.  It sets an environment that makes it harder for Republicans to win elections.
• Its bad for the country.  A country with a larger proportion in the middle class will vote more conservatively.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have no coherent policy to propose, because they did not campaign on this issue.  You could argue that that position served them well, but it makes it harder to govern.  What they shouldn't do is over react to the problem.  Massive deportation would be a horrible idea both in the short and long run.  Do we want the DHS to get in good practice with identifying and rounding up millions of undesirables?  Think of that power in another Democratic President's hands in the mold of Obama.  

Here is what should be proposed and why:

• Secure the border with more technology, fences and the like.  But also make expedited deportation far easier.  You can have great border security, but once an alien born child sets foot on U.S. soil, he or she now has due process rights that adds time to the deportation process.  In the meantime, the illegal is released, often never to be seen again.
• From a previous post: To keep the DHS accountable, if illegal crossings weren't reduced each year, the Congress should cut the budget for the immediate staff of the Secretary of DHS, and impose a hiring freeze on all portions of the DHS budget except border control.  Such ruthless tactics work; I know, because I work for the government.  But the Congress is never willing to hold agencies accountable. And frankly, part of the problem is that government is so huge.  Obviously its size needs to shrink.
• From Newt Gingrich in 2012: "We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts."  But the practical difficulties of such a program are immense.  I would prefer to the let those without criminal records come forward and legislation that aggressively deports those with felony convictions.
• A guest worker program, but maybe later.  The supply side of this equation is changing rapidly.  New statistics will soon be released that show that Mexico is no longer accountable for most of the illegal immigration. Mexico's fertility rate has continued to fall to just barely above replacement at 2.2 births per woman.  Having skilled workers is good with good education is helpful to the economy.  The unskilled? Not so much.  

Mexican fertility rate from 1960 to 2012.

That downward trend has continued.  In some ways, I think that the problem of illegal immigration may solve itself, but not soon enough to prevent more damage from working into the body politic.  Republicans have an opportunity to upstage Obama on this issue.  As Krauthammer points out, his narcissism always gets the better of him, so why not use it to help the country and further disadvantage his party?

What You Should Be Reading

• Left Coast Rebel has a nice score card of worthy candidates for whom he urged donations.  Well done.
• KTCat excoriates DeMaio for his relentless negative campaign.  I still have a Carl DeMaio yard sign out front, but admit to feeling queasy about his attack ads that made Carl sound like a Democrat, complete with Mediscare tactics.  If DeMaio was a tea party favorite, why did he end up turning off so many of that persuasion?  KTCat wasn't the only one of my conservative or libertarian friends who abandoned DeMaio.

Democrats and School Choice

Democrats are reflexively against anything that gives parents more freedom to rescue their school children from the maw of the failed public education system.  RedState ponders how this may have influenced the elections in Georgia and Illinois this week.

My friend Roland Martin put one of these on my radar. In Illinois, prominent black ministers around the state cast their lot with the GOP. They encouraged congregants to abandon Governor Quinn in Illinois and support the Republican. That made a real difference in the metropolitan Chicago area, where the Republican this time outperformed prior Republicans.
Another one that is a real surprise to me is Georgia. But it is abundantly apparent from the turn out data and the anecdotal evidence. Black voters were turning out for Democrats in early voting. In fact, I’m told that privately the GOP saw Democrats outpacing them in early voting around the state. But on Election Day, black voters stayed home. 

One might wonder why Democrats are so adamantly opposed to school choice when it seems so popular with urban blacks, a big part of their base.  My answer: #unionism and #feminism.

At the end of the day, the teacher's unions donate far more money, "the mother's milk of politics" than the already locked up votes of blacks appear to be worth to Democrats.  The public school system is a way to recycle tax dollars into campaign cash.  Charters and their ilk are often non-union and upset this apple cart.

The more overlooked issue is feminism.  Charter schools are seen as a threat to the public school systems in the white suburbs.  In order to be free to "lean in" and "have it all" suburban moms and especially the core constituency of single moms need the free baby-sitting of the public schools.  Never mind that charters can also provide that function, the mere threat to the established order of government provisioning to their offspring is viewed as a threat by many such Moms. (Married women are far more likely to view the government as competitor for the family resources because married men are outperforming economically, so it makes sense for married women to reduce the competition for resources from the government.)  And don't forget that the public schools are a jobs program for women, much more so than men.  Not to say that there aren't great teachers, but reform of the schools is always attacked as a threat to the "middle class" as if the government creates the middle class.

Finally, the public schools serve as a great propaganda outlet for the left.  The left always is seeking to influence the culture, especially through the schools and universities.  Charter schools threaten the leftist union control of the message.  If you haven't noticed public schools getting more authoritarian with zero tolerance policies and the suppression of free speech, you're not paying attention.

So poor black moms hoping to "win the lottery" and get their kids out of poverty?  Sorry, we Democrats already haver your vote. Or do we?

Opportunity Lost

Watched Dennis Kucinich on Fox tonight, who is nothing else if not honest. He blamed the Democrats losses tonight on a failure to bring a coherent economic plan to the table.  More importantly, he said that both parties are the parties of Wall Street and the Banks.  I agree.  If you think that Republicans are going to end the cozy relationship between the Fed and the banks I urge you to heed W.C. Varones:

Nah, even if the Republicans take the Senate, I'm sure the Fed will find the new majority can be quite flexible...

The Republicans could have done something special to change the direction of the country, and win even more seats if they had coalesced nationally around a liberty agenda.  Instead, in two or four years, they will again suffer losses because they stand for nothing and will therefore accomplish nothing.

Sorry to be churlish, but the Schadenfreude of watching Obama and the Democrats get their inevitable comeuppance isn't enough to overcome the feeling that the GOP has no sense of direction to help the country.

It's the Culture, Stupid

Elections tomorrow are really only a rearguard action to slow the spread of the disease of leftism and its advance vermin of multi-culturalism and feminism in our society.  The attacks on all things traditional, including and especially the rule of law are intended to pave the way for leftist politicians with unlimited power to get away with ruling by decree because those laws are just "unreasonable." Like freedom of speech?  The left, in the guise of #feminism launches a campaign to mark some speech, #catcalling, as so offensive as to be in need of restriction.  Of course, it is only part of a larger scheme.  R.S. McCain explains:

You see? The whole point of the “catcall” video was to provoke conflict over a phony “issue” that is not really an issue at all. That is to say, everybody is anti-catcall, except those men who are actually engaged in this boorish behavior, so why is there an “issue” here?
Objectively, catcalling presents no cause for political controversy. Ah, but it does give feminists a chance to (a) demonize men, and (b) discredit any male commentator who attempts to dispute feminism’s authority to define what catcalling means as an “issue.” This is really about who controls the narrative, see?
. . .
Feminists can “win” arguments only if they are permitted to control the terms of debate, to decide what the issues are, to limit the parameters of discussion, and to disqualify critics who refuse to cooperate with feminism’s Orwellian thought-control project.

Fortunately, because of the racial content of the men depicted in the catcall video, there has been some blowback against feminism.  But that was only luck.  We lose the culture wars and then elections, when we allow the left to frame the debate.  Too often we win elections and the government still changes under our feet.

Mark Steyn makes that point regarding gay marriage:

In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the chief justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage.
What happened in between? Jurisprudentially, nothing: Everything Chief Justice Warren Burger said back in the ’80s — about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature,” “the legislative authority of the State” — still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture — from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts — moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat.
Because to say today what the chief justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office — not merely as Chief Justice but as CEO of a private company, or host of a cable home-remodeling show, or dog-catcher in Dead Moose Junction.

Indeed, ballot measures to define marriage as between a man and a woman passed even in solidly Democrat California, but it made no difference.

So what's to be done?  The only way to fight back is to seize control of the narrative, to ridicule lampoon and shame the forces of cultural marxism, to call them out for the liars they are.

Rapes on campus? Sorry, you're a bunch of liars.  And who said you get to regulate sex on campus? And if your stupid statistics are true, why did you send your daughter to college, do you hate her?

Lena Dunham the spokesperson for her generation? Sorry, don't accept lectures from pedophiles.

Gay marriage? I find it disgusting to hear about men sticking their dicks in other men and most of you do too. Isn't that what gay marriage is about?

R.S. McCain continues with this great advice:

“Turn the camera around,” as Andrew Breitbart used to say. Instead of them demanding answers from you — “Look at this awful misogyny! Why don’t you denounce this misogyny? Is it true that you secretly hate women?” — you start asking them questions:

1. Who appointed you as Grand Inquisitor?
2. What is the basis of your authority to interrogate me about this? What difference does my opinion make?
3. When did Americans elect you as Our Moral Superior?
4. Where do you get the idea that I’m obliged to cooperate in this transparent political “gotcha” game you’re paying?
5. Why is it necessary that I answer your questions?
6. How much is the Democrat Party paying you to do this?

Indeed, because the whole point of the cultural marxism is to move the country to the left.  Because in a country founded on principles of limited government and liberty, traditional values are the bulwark of maintaining that form of government.  So the left seeks to destroy the values that preserve liberty, and this is why the culture ware is more important.

Sad to say, I am personally more comfortable with economics and policy, so I have left this topic alone for the most part.  The culture is not my forte, so I will most likely stick to my expertise on this blog.  But my growing understanding of the nature of framing the narrative by the left has dampened my enthusiasm for writing about the purely political.