Re: [SLUG-POL] The lunatic state of california

From: Paul M Foster (paulf@quillandmouse.com)
Date: Fri Jun 15 2001 - 01:15:04 EDT


On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:34:47PM -0400, Isaiah Weiner wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:34:21PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > Been there, done that. I lived for several years in LA. I loved it.
> > Buzzing with life, yet still laid back. Saw "Return of the Jedi" at
> > Mann's Chinese the day it opened. I saw a lot of LA and surrounding
> > areas, working as an electrician from Calabasas to Long Beach. Working on
> > houses overlooking Sunset Blvd was terrific. You could (sometimes) see
> > downtown LA and the Wilshire district. And I loved California. Beautiful
> > place, with scores of interesting and breathtaking places to visit. I
> > found people there generally not much different from anyone else in their
> > everyday lives.
>
> I'm not sure how it was then, I suppose I could ask my relatives that
> have been there for the last 50 years, but to my knowledge the general
> attitude in LA is *way* different than (a) it used to be and (b) the rest
> of the state.
>

How so (since I still have a soft spot in my heart for LA)?

> > _However_, while Californians are asleep at the wheel when it comes to
> > their political representatives. The origin of this thread mentioned a
> > California rep who actually got a law through the California legislature
> > which regulated the length of hairstyles, based on some junk scientific
> > study about accidents and hair styles. The only reason it's not a law is
> > that the governor realized he couldn't get re-elected if he signed it
> > into law (not, BTW, because it was a bad idea). And that was only one
> > piece of the original story.
>
> I would acredit this to a small percentage of the population agreeing
> with it, or being stupid, but because it's a percentage, and California's
> so large, it ends up being enough people.
>

I imagine that if you put this in a referendum, hardly _anyone_ would
agree with it. I doubt very many Californians even knew this legislative
vote took place. That's my point. In this way, Californians aren't much
different than anyone else: they aren't that politically aware. Rarely
do they know what their reps are up to. The biggest problem may be that
they have elected representatives who would pass such laws.

Such laws are the tip of the iceberg. I'm not that up on California law,
so you can correct me if I'm wrong. Owning a firearm in California is
next to impossible, or will be soon. Despite the fact that it's
guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Smoking in any public building
(including _bars_) is verboten. And I have heard rumblings that soon you
may not even be able to smoke on your own patio because it might
interfere with someone else's "rights". And I continually hear nightmare
stories about education in California.

> > Californians are justifiably proud of their state, but politically they
> > are clueless. (Not that they're alone in this.) They elect the most
> > liberal of representatives and reap the rewards, such as they are. And
> > they look upon the scene and wonder how this happened. The power crisis
> > is a prime example of political ineptitude foisted off on the people of
> > California.
>
> s,proud,sane,
>

In your dreams, pal. But just for the sake of argument, what in the
world makes Californians more sane than anyone else?

Paul



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:10:57 EDT