Footloose: California Tries To Ban Raves
Just as it's a myth that Republicans are the "party of Wall Street," it's also a myth that every GOP politician is a prissy-faced blue stocking who wants to "ban" things like rock'n'roll and raves. It was Tipper Gore who founded the notorious PMRC back in the Reagan-Bush era. And it's Democrats Fiona Ma and Jerry Brown who are trying to ban raves in California. Amazing stuff:
Can you ban a style of music? California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma learned the hard way that doing so might not be so easy when she tried to ban electronic rave music.
"We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music," said Ma. "Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn't really know what was going on."
Despite the inability to ban rave music outright, Ma was able to squelch aspects of rave culture like LED gloves and pacifiers by keeping the pressure on event organizers with Assembly Bill 74 (formerly the "Anti-Raves Act" ), which became law on Oct. 9, 2011 when CA Governor Jerry Brown signed it.
The Assemblywoman first became concerned with raves when a 15-year-old girl named Sasha Rodriguez died at the popular Los Angeles rave, The Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC).
Ma's bill only bans some of the accoutrements of raves, although it's hard for me to see how you can "ban" pacifiers. As she discovered to her barely suppressed regret, Ma could not ban music or mass dancing because of the First Amendment. Hmmm. Sounds like some Constitution shredding, not that you'd ever hear about it when speech is suppressed by people with a "D" after their name.
Ma, btw, represents a neighborhood in the supposed hipster haven San Francisco, not that this will do anything to hurt her career. As long as she voted the progressive line, she can legislate in the manner of a "movie Republican" without bearing the consequences that would be visited on a real life Republican who tried to legislate this sort of nonsense.
The Mouse That Roared: Iran Plots Against The US
Eric Holder announced that the US has busted a terrorist plot by Iranian intelligence services and a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US. Oh, and the deal was going to go down in a crowded restaurant, so several score Americans would have been collateral damage. I don't know, doesn't that seem like a big deal?
Prosecutors alleged an elaborate international plot, with two men, including an Iranian-born U.S. citizen who had been living in Texas, using funding from the Iranian government to try to hire a Mexican drug cartel to kill the ambassador.
Attorney General Eric Holder said elements of Iran's Qods Force, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, were ready to spend $1.5 million on the plan.
Saudi officials described the alleged plot as an escalation in the confrontation between the two Middle Eastern rivals, which have clashed anew in recent months over Saudi efforts to bolster the monarchy in Bahrain.
Unbelievable! So unbelievable - the Revolutionary Guards hooking up with the Zetas*? - as to almost strain credulity. The Iranians, of course, deny all:
A spokesman for Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York said, "We categorically reject these baseless allegations." Late Tuesday, Mohammad Khazaee, Iran's U.N. ambassador, released a letter sent to the secretary-general "to express our outrage" over the allegations, calling them "politically motivated."
Glen Reynolds has joked grimly that, at this point, a re-run of the Carter presidency is the best case scenario for the Obama Administration. Back then, all we had to worry about was Iranians seizing our embassy. Now we have to worry about Iranians bringing "the war" to America, and all we have to offer in response are Eric Holder and "sanctions."
* and, where did the Iranians get the idea that a Mexican drug gang could sneak contraband and WMD's across the border?
Real Dems Of Genius
Someone named Doug Usher, who is the director of the research division for Purple Strategies, a "strategic communications firm," (I assume this is some sort of center-left think tank that tries to sell liberalism to insufficiently "blue" states) offers some unsolicited advice to Pres. Obama on a winning electoral strategy. Good for some laughs:
The best model isn't to be found at the presidential level. Indeed, it may come from a Democrat with whom few Democrats want to associate: former California Gov. Gray Davis. In fact, the sentence that began this article is adapted from a San Francisco Chronicle article the day after Mr. Davis's 2002 re-election, with the names changed. The parallels between his position going into his successful campaign and where Mr. Obama finds himself this year are striking....So how did Mr. Davis win in 2002? By using his fund-raising prowess to break all campaign-finance records in California political history, and by playing in the Republican field to knock out his strongest opponent.
Mr. Davis raised money from the day he was elected in 1998, despite criticisms from politicos and the press. In 2002, his political team then isolated his biggest threat—the moderate Richard Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles—and spent millions on ads to defeat him in the Republican primary.
This effort elevated businessman and former assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Simon, a far more conservative candidate whose positions were unpopular with Californians. Mr. Davis retained a significant financial advantage going into the general election: Even after spending $10 million during the primary, the governor's war chest was five times that of his rival. He never stopped attacking and continued raising money to the end.
Mr. Davis won with less than a majority of the vote, following the most expensive election in the state's history. Turnout was low, and polls leading into the election indicated that one-third of Mr. Davis's supporters were voting against Mr. Simon, rather than in favor of the Democrat.Usher goes on at great length to support his thesis without mentioning the most interesting thing about the 2002 California's governor's race: that Davis was recalled from office one year later in part because his election was seen as less-than-legitimate. Obama's welcome to try such a strategy - and there's no recall at the federal level, of course, only impeachment - but if he were to "win" in such a manner his base of support would be whisper-thin.
Does Mitt Romney Have a Mormon Problem?
But, a subtext of the Romney campaign, both now and in 2008, is the quietly persistent argument that he is close to unelectable because he is (whisper, whisper) a Mormon. Supposedly, for evangelical Christians, this is almost a deal breaker on its own. While I am no born-again Bible thumper - at best I am an Episcopalian who doesn't go to church - I do know enough to say that I just don't feel it. If being a Mormon is a disqualifier, then being a Jew or a Muslim is probably a disqualifier, too, and I'm not going to go along with that.
All of that is to lead up to Southern Baptist leader Robert Jeffress, who introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit in DC the other day, and then promptly gave an interview in which he declared that Mormonism is a non-Christian cult; that Christian voters had a duty to vote for a competent Christian over a competent non-Christian; and (my favorite) that Mitt Romney will not be saved.
Reverend, and I say this with all due respect, do you know just how many American presidents have been elected to office whose behavior was such that they are not going to be saved? Being hell-bound is certainly not a disqualifier for higher office in the United States, I'm afraid.
More important, can you tell me what it is about Mormonism that makes Mitt Romney unfit to be president? I am not talking about theology here. I get it that "real" Christians don't view Mormons as being "one of us." But, Mitt Romney is not running for Pope. He is not running to head the Southern Baptist Convention. He is running for president. His religious duties, should he beat Obama, will be to have his picture taken going to church, and to say "God bless America" at the end of his speeches. That's about it.
I've known quite a few Mormons in my day. They were all hard working, solid citizens with an impressive work ethic, and boundless good cheer. For whatever reason, these attributes, especially the last one, have been the source of a lot of mockery from the tolerant left. More important, Mormons have long been citizens of the United States, and so badly wanted Utah to become a state that they were willing to give up some of their more noxious practices in order to obtain statehood. I'm not saying this makes them above criticism, but it does entitle them to a certain amount of decency and respect. The fact that a man in Jeffress's position can't extend that to the Mormons is, frankly, disturbing.
Jeffress has also declared Catholicism to be a cult, as well. If someone said this to me on the bus, I would get up and find another seat. But, it's all good if you are a Southern Baptist "leader," I guess.
Not only that, this sudden demand that we elect only Christians is a definite escalation in the sort of standards evangelicals demand from their presidential candidates. In the past, GOP candidates have had to adopt the pro-life, pro-family views of social conservatives. And that's fine. But, now - at least under the Jeffress standard - GOP candidates must also adopt the religious doctrine of evangelicals. Really? To be president? GOP candidates have a hard enough time mastering the nuances of Roe v Wade. Are they really going to have master religious dogma so that they are better able to determine which Christian sect is a cult and which one is for real?
The conservative coalition is often described as a three-legged stool with fiscal cons on one leg, security hawks on the second, and social cons providing the third. There's a lot of overlap among the three. Indeed, I don't think you can be conservative without believing the basic political tenets of each leg. Where you land depends on your sense of what the nation's priorities should be. Jeffress is coming perilously close to the approach of leftist coalition members, who basically demand obeisance to their discrete set of beliefs/demands in exchange for their ability to deliver votes and money. Whether he meant to or not, Jeffress showed more than a little Reverand Al in his sotto voce demand that Republicans support a non-Mormon for president, or else.
This is a dangerous business. Bill Bennett, for one, denounced Jeffress from the podium at the Values Voters Summit. I agree wholeheartedly with Bennett's message, but when you find yourself publicly denouncing your political allies, that's never a good position to be in. Reports from the scene say that there were audible gasps and murmurs from the crowd, along with applause. There's a bad taste in a lot of mouths on both sides as a result of this.
Needless to say, this is yet another unforced error by Rick Perry who, no doubt, desperately wants to talk about the economy and jobs jobs jobs; but who keeps having to put out these self-starting brush fires.
The Mormons have tax-exempt status from the IRS. They have a clearly articulated doctrine. They have impressive temples. They do charitable works that should humble the rest of us. And so on. At least by the loose standards of the secular world Mitt Romney is seeking to preside over as president, that's enough to make you a religion, not a cult. I honestly don't think it needs to be that simpler.
The Lone Voice: Tom McClintock's Warning To America
Hard as it may be to believe, there are conservative Republicans in California. A few of them have even managed to win elections here and there. One of the best is Congressman Tom McClintock who gave a speech recently that was essentially a warning: if you re-elect Obama, America, your future will look like California's present:
Bad policies. Bad process. Bad politics. Those are the three acts in a Greek tragedy that tell the tale of how, in the span of a single generation, the most prosperous and golden state in the nation became an economic basket case.
When my parents came to California in the 1960’s looking for a better future, they found it here. The state government consumed about half of what it does today after adjusting for both inflation and population. HALF. We had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that some communities didn’t bother to meter the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and our diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.
One thing – and one thing only – changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California’s government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.
That's just an excerpt from a very long piece. You really should read the whole thing. It's a sharp attack on the state's Can't Do society, which is no longer able to build dams, roads, prisons, or schools, but never fails to send out welfare checks to illegal immigrants.
While McClintock's unsparing in blaming liberals and liberalism for California's dysfunctions, he also has some choice words for those Republicans who dealt with the state's liberals by presenting a moderate "me, too" facade:
(Nationally) Republicans rediscovered why we were Republicans, and Republican leaders rediscovered Reagan’s advice to paint our positions in bold colors and not hide them in pale pastels.
The result was one of the most dramatic watershed elections in American history.
California Republicans did exactly the opposite, and ended up replaying the disaster of 2008 while the rest of the country was enjoying one of the greatest Republican landslides ever recorded.
In California, the Democrats attacked Republicans for imposing the biggest state tax increase in American history. The Democrats attacked Republicans for obstructing pension reform to protect the prison guards union. These attacks had the unfortunate element of being true.
Meanwhile, the Republican ticket attacked Arizona’s immigration law. Republicans attacked the Proposition that would have stopped AB 32 – California’s version of Cap and Trade.
The sad truth is that we were more like the Democrats than the Democrats.
A few days after the election, a Republican leader whose mission in life has been to redefine the Republican Party in the image of Arnold Schwarzenegger said he just couldn’t explain the results.
I can. We didn’t need to redefine our principles. We needed to return to them. House Republicans did. California Republicans did not. Any questions?
It's often forgotten that McClintock ran in the recall campaign that resulted in the election of the Governator. As I recall he managed to attain about 20% of the vote. Sadly, I was not one of those 20%. I actually believed that electing Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a boon to GOP fortunes. I admired McClintock's principles, but thought Ah-nuld had enough pizzazz to sell conservatism to reluctant Golden Staters. How wrong I, along with many others, was.
Today, Jerry Brown - a decent, intelligent, but profoundly misguided man - signed into law some classic "only in California" legislation. We are banning the sale of shark fins. We are limiting state initiatives to the November ballot, a sop to unions, who only want to have to do one GOTV effort per year. We are requiring public utilities to put "safety over profits." (are we legislating slogans now?)
And, of course, we are going to be paying public money to illegal immigrants so they can receive grants to go to college. We are closing state parks and releasing thousands of prisoners for lack of funds, but it's roll out the red carpet for people who flout the law.
McClintock has a message that's easy to articulate, and undeniably true. Yet there are very few Republicans, either in-state or nationally, who are up to the challenge of repeating it. And, that's too damn bad.
Green Jobs: US Attorneys in CA Go After Big Marijuana
It's another one of those rare days when the Obama Administration launches an initiative that I wholly support. Today it was the four US attorneys in California launching a major crack down on the state's marijuana dispensaries:
The four United States attorneys in the Golden State announced an initiative cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries on Friday in Sacramento, according to this Associated Press story.
In recent weeks, landlords of some pot shops have received letters from federal prosecutors warning them to stop sales within 45 days or risk seizure of their property and criminal charges
In addition, the IRS has slapped an Oakland dispensary with a $2.5 million tax bill, saying that they improperly deducted business expenses.
I can't think of a sleazier enterprise than that of your typical "medical marijuana" dispensary. They hide behind sick and terminally ill people, all the while selling drugs to able bodied adults with notes from their doctors. The feds are explicit in saying they will not go after backyard growers tending plants for seriously ill people, but legalization advocates immediately began laying the guilt trip:
“I assume the story you’re calling about is: Obama takes resources away from fighting terrorists and goes after old ladies with glaucoma,” Greg Anton, a lawyer for the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Fairfax, Calif., told the LAT.
I used to live a mile away from a dispensary in San Francisco. I never saw any little old ladies walking out of there. Instead, it was the same bunch of stoners you could see coming out of any Haight Street head shop. Why America has to turn its drug laws upside down to benefit these low-lifes is beyond me.
There's a lot of talk in the linked article about how all of this is a reflection of the tension between states that want to legalize medical marijuana and the feds who classify marijuana as an illegal drug. While I'm always eager to have a discussion about federalism, I have to say that federal law should control, and appropriately so. We've spent the last 50 years convincing people to stop smoking, and 30 years convincing people that drinking to excess - especially when combined with driving a car - is bad news. Yet, pot advocates claim that a powerful intoxicant that combines the lung damage of cigarettes with the mental impairment similar to that caused by drink is somehow harmless. I don't buy it.
Should be people who smoke marijuana be hassled by the man (at least when they're smoking at home)? No. Should people go to jail for possession? Doubt it. But, that doesn't mean we should just legalize something that's never really been legal in the first place. And there's something very wrong in a state where the biggest cash crop is also illegal. Criminals have free reign to make money any way they wish, while law abiding farmers and merchants struggle with the many demands government and the tax man place on them. This is a small step towards rebalancing what is legal and what is illegal in California.
