The War Against Californication

Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
edited September 19 in Purgatory
News item: the 45 administration revokes the clean air waiver California has had for years which allowed it to set its own environmental standards regarding auto emissions.

News Item: 45 says he has a plan to take on the homelessness situation of California

I am setting this up as a separate thread from Oops--- mainly because it seems to be the strategy 45 is going to use to "win" his re-election.

Everyone in the hinterlands has been afraid of California since I can remember. It has been the trend setter ever since the movie industry discovered the LA Basin. Almost all progressive ideas have come from the lower West Coast.

Take on California and people in the midwest will cheer.

Problem is 13 other states have already signed on to California auto emission standards. Even the automakers wanted to go by that standard.

How about taking two steps backward 45?
«1

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 18
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Everyone in the hinterlands has been afraid of California since I can remember. It has been the trend setter ever since the movie industry discovered the LA Basin. Almost all progressive ideas have come from the lower West Coast.

    So the ideas behind the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society all originated in California? I woulda thought places like Wisconsin(LaFollette) and Minnesota(the DFL) might have played some role in that as well, but I'd be interested to hear your version of the history.

  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Some parts of California are progressive. Others not. And some that seem progressive aren't when you look more carefully or propose building a homeless shelter nearby.
  • I live in the midwest, I'm not cheering.

    Chicago is indeed part of the midwest.
  • wot Ruth said. Also, is the missing R in Califonication deliberate? Although I am calling Fake Word on both...

    Also, my faux Norcal sensitivities are outraged by the OP. Even now, as we speak (that bit not fact checked) the Mayor of Stockton is running a UBI experiment.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Some parts of California are progressive. Others not. And some that seem progressive aren't when you look more carefully or propose building a homeless shelter nearby.


    Absolutely. Los Angeles springs to mind. Good God, the homeless emergency is seriously frightening there. Bubonic plague could very well break out again there and in supposedly progressive Seattle.
  • Having grown up in the hinterland the people I was around were leery of anything that came out of California. Various reasons. Loose morals. Liberal attitudes. Californians buying out property owners in another state.

    I can give a quick example. Southern California used to have some very large dairy farms, but as the cities have expanded, the farmers have been bought out. They, in turn, have moved on to other states, Southern Idaho saw a major influx of dairy farmers who had money to buy up land to establish new dairies. But those dairies have been creating many problems. Methane has built up in some of the Idaho valleys. Cattle waste is beginning to affect groundwater supplies.

    Sun Valley Idaho is known to be a hang out for many rich Californians who have second homes in the area and who come up on snow trips and even summer vacations. It is called the "People's Republic of Idaho" because they want to push a liberal agenda on the rest of the state.

    On the other hand, northern Idaho has seen an influx of retired Californians who are really very conservative. Some of those people have been white nationalists and they also want to impose their way of living on the native groups as well.

    Please know, I have nothing against Californians. I lived there myself. I am just saying that people who live in the middle states are very cautious about the coastal states, especially California and 45 in his divide to conquer modality is trying to use it to his advantage.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Having grown up in the hinterland the people I was around were leery of anything that came out of California. Various reasons. Loose morals. Liberal attitudes. Californians buying out property owners in another state.
    Liberal attitudes like those of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan? Were the people you were around ignorant of their careers?
  • "Californicate" has been a word in the PNW since at least the 1960s/1970s. I remember seeing "Don't Californicate Washington" and "Don't Californicate Oregon" bumper stickers from my youf.
  • T was in the SF area today. Didn't stay long. Prob'ly afraid of catching California cooties/germs.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I have added an ‘r’ to the title of this thread.

    BroJames
    Purgatory host
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 19
    mousethief wrote: »
    "Californicate" has been a word in the PNW since at least the 1960s/1970s. I remember seeing "Don't Californicate Washington" and "Don't Californicate Oregon" bumper stickers from my youf.

    And then of course there was this.

    Though that band was essentially using "California" to mean "Hollywood". (Guess they figured that with Wall Street and the Bible Belt brought to heel, they could focus on the real villains.)
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Please could somebody provide a bit of an explanation and a glossary to help those of us from other countries or continents guess what this thread is about?

    What is the relevance of 45? Who or what is it or does it signify? Google doesn't seem to help.

    Does the word 'californicate' have existing resonances? Or, @Gramps49, did you neologise it for this thread? Does it just mean 'make like California', or is it, as it sounds, as a compound formed on the more familiar word 'fornicate', describing some sort of hippy sexual free-for-all?
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    And then of course there was this.
    When I first read the thread title, I wondered who wanted to go to war with this song.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Please could somebody provide a bit of an explanation and a glossary to help those of us from other countries or continents guess what this thread is about?

    What is the relevance of 45? Who or what is it or does it signify? Google doesn't seem to help.

    Does the word 'californicate' have existing resonances? Or, @Gramps49, did you neologise it for this thread? Does it just mean 'make like California', or is it, as it sounds, as a compound formed on the more familiar word 'fornicate', describing some sort of hippy sexual free-for-all?

    45 is the 45th president of the united states. "Californication", as I understand it, is to make somewhere more like California with the subtext of corruption, dissolution and sin associated with "fornication".
  • stetson wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    "Californicate" has been a word in the PNW since at least the 1960s/1970s. I remember seeing "Don't Californicate Washington" and "Don't Californicate Oregon" bumper stickers from my youf.

    And then of course there was this.

    Though that band was essentially using "California" to mean "Hollywood". (Guess they figured that with Wall Street and the Bible Belt brought to heel, they could focus on the real villains.)

    and what about this (NSFW, I am pretty sure).
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited September 19
    45 is the current President of the United States of America (aka POTUS)
    Californication is the title of a song and a TV series, and seems to have multiple semantic possibilities.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    45 is the 45th president of the united states. "Californication", as I understand it, is to make somewhere more like California with the subtext of corruption, dissolution and sin associated with "fornication".
    Thank you. I certainly would not have guessed that 45 was yet another euphemism for the Orange Cookie Monster.

    Going back to the OP, wasn't there a Civil War in the 1860s about the rights of individual states? I seem to remember that was on the rights of individual states to be oppressive and retrogressive without being interfered with by the Union, rather than to be progressive and interested in good things like environmental standards and emissions.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Going back to the OP, wasn't there a Civil War in the 1860s about the rights of individual states? I seem to remember that was on the rights of individual states to be oppressive and retrogressive without being interfered with by the Union, rather than to be progressive and interested in good things like environmental standards and emissions.

    Speaking of which, some Californians were putting up monuments to the Confederacy in 2004.
  • Re states' rights:

    Someone else can address the Civil War angle.

    In and of itself, IMHO, it's not a bad concept. A state can make its own choices according to its own lights. Good choices (e.g., improving workers' rights, environmental protections, health care, etc.) or bad (e.g., giving corporations more freedom to destroy the environment, reinstating old discriminatory laws, etc.). ISTM that when states' rights have been referred to in the last 50 years or so, there's a really good chance that it's about bad choices. Sometimes, though, it's just that the gov't in DC wants something different than a state gov't wants--or a state gov't thinks DC is flat-out wrong.

    The federal "No Child Left Behind" policy really messed up public/state schools (especially with much more testing), and many states (eventually) responded by asserting states' rights.

    They've also been asserted re teaching Creationism in science classes.

    {Note: This is all from whisps of memory, dust bunnies, and a carton of 3x5 cards that spilled all over the floor of my brain's attic. Posting of additional or corrected info welcome!}
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Local control is not always a bad thing; one size frequently does not fit all. It's a good thing when it allows states or municipalities to tighten controls on things that matter to them. It's a bad thing when they're not all in the same lane on things like human rights. There are still places in this country in which GLBT people can be denied employment and housing because of their orientation.

  • One small thing that *could* come into play re T and California:

    The ex-wife of Gov. Gavin Newsom is married to one of T's sons. I don't know if she and Gavin have any contact. They didn't have kids, IIRC, so probably no pressing need for contact. But if T gets his family into an all-out war with Gavin and California...might be a factor.

    I hope not.
    (:votive:)
  • A problem with our adaptation of the American federal model is the diffusion of responsibility between different levels of Govt. This has been muddied in Australia by the way our tax system works, with much sales and income taxes collected federally and then allocated to the various states to deal with their responsibilities. It's a big old stinky mess, but it's our mess, so we love it.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Of course until the middle of WW II there were both federal and state income taxes here.
  • US states each have their own rules about state income taxes. Don't know how that currently breaks out, but it used to be that some states didn't have state income taxes.
  • Washington State does not have state income tax. We have a grossly regressive system of sales tax, property tax, and user fees.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Re states' rights:

    Someone else can address the Civil War angle.

    In and of itself, IMHO, it's not a bad concept.

    It's quite a bad concept. States don't have rights. They have powers and authorities granted to them by their people, but they don't have "rights" as the term is usually understood and claiming states have "rights" in the same manner as people do is to fundamentally misunderstand several concepts.
    mousethief wrote: »
    Washington State does not have state income tax. We have a grossly regressive system of sales tax, property tax, and user fees.

    There are eight U.S. states without income tax. There are five without sales tax. Alaska is the only state that has neither. Most state income is derived from taxes from and/or leases to various extraction industries. This has caused some problems lately with the price of oil being fairly low by historical standards.

    Conveniently, Paul Krugman's column today* is about California (and the conservative hatred thereof).
    Lately I’ve been seeing dire warnings that if Democrats win next year they’ll try to turn America into (cue scary background music) California, which the writers portray as a socialist hellhole.

    <snip>

    First, let’s talk about two Californias: the real state on America’s left coast, and the fantasy state of the right’s imagination.

    The real California certainly has some big problems. In particular, it has sky-high housing costs, which in turn are probably the main reason it has a large population of homeless residents.

    But in many other dimensions California does very well. It has a booming economy, which has been creating jobs at a much faster pace than the nation as a whole.

    It has the nation’s second-highest life expectancy, comparable to that in European nations with much higher life expectancy than America as a whole. This is, by the way, a relatively new development: Back in 1990, life expectancy in California was only average.

    At the same time, California, having enthusiastically implemented Obamacare and tried to make it work, has seen a sharp drop in the number of residents without health insurance. And crime, although it has ticked up slightly in the past few years, remains near a historic low.

    That is, as I said, California’s reality. But it’s a reality the right refuses to accept, because it wasn’t what was supposed to happen.

    <snip>

    Conservatives confidently predicted disaster, declaring that the state was committing “economic suicide.” You might think that the failure of that disaster to materialize, especially combined with the way California has outperformed states like Kansas and North Carolina that turned hard right while it was turning left, might induce them to reconsider their worldview. That is, you might think that if you haven’t been paying any attention to the right-wing mind-set.

    Krugman goes on to talk about how the wrongness of various conservative predictions about how California was going to become a miserable hellhole have prompted conservatives to play make-believe and pretend that California actually is the miserable hellhole they predicted, while at the same time trying to pursue policies to make Californians suffer like they should be.


    *The New York Times has a paywall that resets itself every calendar month. Only click through if you want to use one of your monthly Times clicks to read this Krugman column.
  • Croesos--
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re states' rights:

    Someone else can address the Civil War angle.

    In and of itself, IMHO, it's not a bad concept.

    It's quite a bad concept. States don't have rights. They have powers and authorities granted to them by their people, but they don't have "rights" as the term is usually understood and claiming states have "rights" in the same manner as people do is to fundamentally misunderstand several concepts.

    As I've always understood it, states have "rights" in the sense that state gov'ts have the right to make decisions for/with their own people, without having their hands tied by the federal gov't. A little like federal checks and balances: the federal gov't has the power to do certain things, but states don't always have to knuckle under. {broad brush} Americans don't like DC* messing around in their states--unless it's something good that they approve of: disaster relief, needed infrastructure projects that also provide needed jobs, etc. "Federal interference" in schools, livestock grazing rights, churches, etc. is generally disdained.

    AIUI, the US gov't was originally intended to do things that states couldn't easily do individually. It wasn't intended to mess with what a state did within its own borders. And that tension is still there.

    As I mentioned upthread, states' rights can be used for good or ill.



    *DC = Washington, DC, for those who may not know.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited September 20
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Croesos--
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re states' rights:

    Someone else can address the Civil War angle.

    In and of itself, IMHO, it's not a bad concept.

    It's quite a bad concept. States don't have rights. They have powers and authorities granted to them by their people, but they don't have "rights" as the term is usually understood and claiming states have "rights" in the same manner as people do is to fundamentally misunderstand several concepts.

    As I've always understood it, states have "rights" in the sense that state gov'ts have the right to make decisions for/with their own people, without having their hands tied by the federal gov't. A little like federal checks and balances: the federal gov't has the power to do certain things, but states don't always have to knuckle under. {broad brush} Americans don't like DC* messing around in their states--unless it's something good that they approve of: disaster relief, needed infrastructure projects that also provide needed jobs, etc. "Federal interference" in schools, livestock grazing rights, churches, etc. is generally disdained.

    AIUI, the US gov't was originally intended to do things that states couldn't easily do individually. It wasn't intended to mess with what a state did within its own borders. And that tension is still there.

    As I mentioned upthread, states' rights can be used for good or ill.

    *DC = Washington, DC, for those who may not know.

    No, Croesus is correct. State's Rights is used as a catch cry against the federal government not in the sense you set out but as a general demonisation of a policy of which a State politician disapproves - generally because it cuts into a method of feathering the nests of state politicians.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    It's quite a bad concept. States don't have rights. They have powers and authorities granted to them by their people, but they don't have "rights" as the term is usually understood and claiming states have "rights" in the same manner as people do is to fundamentally misunderstand several concepts.

    Sure. The People are sovereign, and have granted powers and authorities to their state, and to the federal government.

    So what is at stake here is the rights of the people of one state to resist the impositions of the people of other states. The state is merely acting as a proxy for its citizens.
  • States have rights unless people in other states don't like those rights.
  • I thought the Right hated Massachusetts more than California.
  • Why? Kennedys?
  • Gee D--
    Gee D wrote: »
    No, Croesus is correct. State's Rights is used as a catch cry against the federal government not in the sense you set out but as a general demonisation of a policy of which a State politician disapproves - generally because it cuts into a method of feathering the nests of state politicians.

    That's a way it can be used--not what it actually is.

    As I indicated upthread, it can be used for good or ill. (Definitions depending on who/what's involved.) If you've got a knife, you have a way to cut and/or spread things. You can threaten someone, kill them, cut a package open, do surgery, practice knife throwing, make a peanut butter sandwich. Even use it as a pry bar.

    A brief excerpt from Reference.com:
    States' rights are recognized in the Tenth Amendment, and include looking after the health, education and general welfare of the citizens. Some specific examples of exclusive state rights include the rights to issue licenses, conduct elections, ratify changes to the federal Constitution and establish local governments. These rights are not regulated by the federal government and are the sole responsibility of state governments.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    The use you mentioned sounds more like "pork-barrel politics". I don't think I've ever heard that connected with states' rights.

    Some uses of states' rights that may be good or bad, depending on your views:

    --Legalizing marijuana at a state level.

    --Legalizing same-sex marriage at a state level.

    --Increasing environmental protections at a state level.

    --Fighting the disastrous "No Child Left Behind" federal education policy. (AKA "No Child Left Untested".)


    For a state to have no control over being in lockstep with the Feds, for its residents to have no control would be awful.

  • The federal government does have the power to regulate interstate trade. Since cars are built in one state--with parts from other states, and all over the world for that matter--and sold in another state, it claims the power to regulate what happens.

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency in the Nixon Administration had given California a waiver to federal regulations because what California was proposing even back then was stricter than what the Nixon administration was willing to do.

    There are various other examples of how the Federal Government will waive control over an interstate event as long as local laws are stricter than federal government requirements.

    When Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, California and 12 other states stated they would remain committed to the Paris Agreement regarding auto emissions. Every time Trump wants to reduce or eliminate or dismantle federal regulations, these states will often challenge him in court.

    This is again being challenged in court. I think the hope is at this stage in the game, California will be able to keep everything tied up until a new (Democratic) president is sworn in.
  • Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
    edited September 21
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Why? Kennedys?

    "Taxachussetts", is the phrase isn't it? Massachusetts being considered by Republicans as the high taxed socialist state of the east coast.
  • Hmmm. Might be, though I haven't heard of it. I think some people see Vermont as a bit hippie-socialist.
  • carexcarex Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »

    No, Croesus is correct. State's Rights is used as a catch cry against the federal government not in the sense you set out but as a general demonisation of a policy of which a State politician disapproves - generally because it cuts into a method of feathering the nests of state politicians.


    Politically, "States Rights" advocates have tended to be conservatives, often Republicans, and it comes up a lot when trying to maintain discriminatory practices in spite of Federal laws.

    This was made very clear some years ago when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act (which permitted terminally ill patients to obtain a lethal prescription that they could take when their pain got too bad). Congress tried to block the State law, led by the most vocal advocates for States Rights, because, you know, States Rights only applied to their pet issues.

    For several years before that, Oregon had elected one Senator from each major party. However, after the Republican senator voted against the rule, he lost his re-election bid, and Oregon has returned 2 Democratic senators ever sense.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The federal government does have the power to regulate interstate trade. Since cars are built in one state--with parts from other states, and all over the world for that matter--and sold in another state, it claims the power to regulate what happens.

    The Constitution here declares that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free (s.92. It used be called the inter se provision and was the source of much litigation and of course considerable fees flowing the way of constitutional lawyers. Even in the early/mid 60s we were lectured thoroughly on it, although by-and-large its days in litigation were almost over. Almost nothing heard of it since 1965. Despite that provision, both Federal and State legislation contain near-identical consumer protection provisions.

    Golden Key, what you say is fine in theory but that's not how it works here (and I suspect in the US either).
  • Gee D--

    It is the way it works here in the US. And I did wonder if you were thinking of states where you are. (Somewhere Antipodean, IIRC.) I was only speaking of the US.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Oz. Our constitution was largely inspired* by that of the US, both being a federation of previously separate colonies, but IIRC there is no direct US equivalent to s.92.

    *It used be said that it was modelled on the US one, but even a quick glance would show considerable differences, differences which go beyond drafting styles.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Is there a US equivalent of the phrase "postcode lottery" ? People who think it's morally wrong for your access to services to depend on which side of the state line you live ?
  • Russ wrote: »
    Is there a US equivalent of the phrase "postcode lottery" ? People who think it's morally wrong for your access to services to depend on which side of the state line you live ?

    Do you mean these people think that there should be no denial of access because all services should be provided entirely by the central government?

    Or do you mean that they think it's okay for different states to have different services, but people from one state should be allowed to access those in another, if their own state doesn't provide them?

  • stetson wrote: »
    Do you mean these people think that there should be no denial of access because all services should be provided entirely by the central government?

    Or do you mean that they think it's okay for different states to have different services, but people from one state should be allowed to access those in another, if their own state doesn't provide them?

    The UK doesn't really have local taxation. So, for example, the NHS is funded through central taxation, but the services that you receive depend on the priorities, choices, and funding of your local NHS trust (hence if you live in a different postcode, you might get worse services even though you pay for them on the same basis as the people who are better-served.)

    I don't think the postcode lottery argument extends to cases where some locality (city, state, whatever) has chosen to tax at a lesser rate, and provides fewer services as a consequence.
  • IMHO postcode lottery's closest American analogue is the local school district, which receives most of its funding from local taxes--with understandable disparities in resources, buildings, programs, teacher quality... And since you generally have to attend school in the district within which you live (or else go private, or hope to find some rare sanctioned scheme that will allow your child to somehow escape), well... It's one reason why "In a good school district" is a common phrase used in selling a house.
  • And if you (try to) deceive the powers that be into thinking your kid is eligible for a different district, you can get in big trouble. There was recent news about a mom getting years in jail--which sparked comparisons with actress Felicity Huffman getting only 14 days for paying someone to fix her daughter's college aptitude test.

    FYI: Felicity is white and rich. The jailed mom is African-American. Not sure of her finances.

    Might be both good and wise for Felicity and her husband to pay for a good appeals lawyer for the mom. And maybe pay for private school for her kid(s)

    (:votive:)
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Local control is not always a bad thing...
    IMHO, Local control is the best of all possible options. I think the more centralized, and away from the people "on the ground", the greater the potential for mischief.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Local control is not always a bad thing...
    IMHO, Local control is the best of all possible options. I think the more centralized, and away from the people "on the ground", the greater the potential for mischief.

    How the would you deal with the sort of problems outlined by Lamb Chopped? I can see that there would be enormous problems in altering the scheme, but would not the potential for beneficial results be worth it?
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Local control is not always a bad thing...
    IMHO, Local control is the best of all possible options. I think the more centralized, and away from the people "on the ground", the greater the potential for mischief.

    The problem with this is that there are plenty of things that can't be funded only by local taxes, and once you're spending state and/or federal money, you cede at least some local control.

    Also, where I live local control does not at all prevent mischief. The city council seats are controlled by local developers and the local Democratic machine, and the city is big enough that they are stepping stones to state government positions, so city council members are hardly motivated to do the best thing for the people they supposedly represent.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Local control is not always a bad thing...
    IMHO, Local control is the best of all possible options. I think the more centralized, and away from the people "on the ground", the greater the potential for mischief.

    I don't know that the Little Rock Nine would have shared that view:
    When integration began in September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students.
Sign In or Register to comment.