Posted on 05/20/2003 7:37:40 AM PDT by new spartacus
Sunday was a gorgeous day here in Los Angeles, clear, windy, just a hint of smoke from the fire up above Santa Clarita.
The SO – who is the “perfect pillion” as well as a pretty good rider herself – and I took the motorcycle out and spent the day with some friends riding through the canyons up there, and on the way I was strongly reminded of why I am a liberal.
First, the clean air.
The population of Southern California has gone up by about 60% since 1970, according to the Southern California Association of Governments. Auto ownership and use has grown faster, probably about 25% more, I’ll estimate, so we’re looking at a 75% increase in vehicle-miles. We’ve probably lost a bunch of manufacturing and refining, but employment is still a whole bunch higher than it was back then.
And I remember summer days in high school when you couldn’t see the end of my West LA block for the smog. Two-a-days in the pool at school when you spent the day with “aqualung”—a chest so sore you couldn’t raise your voice.
My sons haven’t had those problems (I am aware of the higher incidence of asthma, but there’s a bunch of interesting epidemiology on that). I don’t think their children will, either. Why?
The damn bureaucrats, and their command-and-control bureaucracy. Personally, I think there are more refined tools available to us in the Information Age … Precision Guided Munitions of regulation, rather than the crude daisy-cutters. But if we don’t regulate, we’ll choke.
Next, the infrastructure.
Our normal ride, up Bouquet Canyon, was closed due to the fire, so we rode up San Francisquito Canyon instead (past “A Place to Shoot”, a pretty decent firing range).
In the canyon you can see the remnants of William Mulholland’s last great project, the St. Francis Dam, which failed catastrophically in 1928, killing at least 500.
But Southern Californians live on the desert because of the infrastructure that gives us water, protects us from floods, lets us move around, etc. etc. etc.
I know that each of these is the heavy boot of man’s dominion over nature…but unless we are all willing to live like Gabrielinos, we need it.
And the infrastructure isn’t just physical, but social as well. I have a bachelor’s and a master’s from the University of California, and it is a truism the public university has changed people’s lives.
Finally, charity and hope.
We spent Saturday night at the annual fundraiser for the St. Joseph’s Center in Venice. This hasn’t been a brilliant year for us financially, but we managed to give some away anyway, and enjoyed the company of a bunch of people who were doing pretty much the same thing.
I’ve always felt that I was an economic liberal because I enjoyed my nice things less when I had to either worry about someone trying to hit me on the head and take them away, or eat my meal in the window of a restaurant while a starving family stood outside.
Look, I know that the biggest beneficiaries of the welfare programs in the last fifty years have been the people who work for the welfare departments.
I know that we’ve grown dysfunctional cultures like mold on bad French cheese.
But does it tell you we’ve accomplished something when the biggest nutritional problem among the very poor is obesity?
Not to worry. Soon they'll all have personal trainers, once they win their suit against McDonald's.
Does it? You think this is better, I suppose, than seeing the bloated bellies of starving African children? Why, because it makes you "feel" better?
Note, however, the medical community still classifies obesity as being a result of "malnutrition." Just because you cannot see the visible results of heart disease and diabetes, among other ills of obesity, doesn't mean that they are not just as real.
The problem that many of us see with liberals is that you judge the worth of something, not on empirical evidence, but on your emotional response. The paragraph above highlights this tendency. You "feel" that one is better than the other, even in the face of rational evidence that both are equally morbid.
MOM: I'm so happy! I don't know what to say. Did the school teach him that?
ANOUNCER: No, I think it was the stupid rat ma’am.
You should have to deal with CARB sometime.
They are definitely the JDAM's of regulation.
I know that we’ve grown dysfunctional cultures like mold on bad French cheese.
But does it tell you we’ve accomplished something when the biggest nutritional problem among the very poor is obesity?
Our efforts in the past have grown large ineffective welfare departments and dysfunctional cultures, so we ought to continue to do more of the same because the very poor don't know or care about nutrition or exercise? That is absolutely the most twisted logic I've ever read outside of the rantings of Louis Farrakhan.
Nixon
Next, the infrastructure.
He's a liberal "because of the infrastructure". So vague it could mean anything. May as well say he's a liberal because purple.
But Southern Californians live on the desert because of the infrastructure that gives us water, protects us from floods, lets us move around, etc. etc. etc.
Uh, the water thing has nothing to do with "liberalism", it's a fight specific to SoCal vs. NoCal. And the NoCals ('liberal' or not) are usually none too happy about it...
And the infrastructure isn’t just physical, but social as well. I have a bachelor’s and a master’s from the University of California, and it is a truism the public university has changed people’s lives.
The infrastructure is social because of this truism? Is it just me or has he actually not said anything with these two sentences? (other than to inform us of his great credentials)
Finally, charity and hope.
emphasis on "hope"
This hasn’t been a brilliant year for us financially, but we managed to give some away anyway,
Frankly this makes him sound decidedly non-"liberal". "Liberals" (meaning leftists) shun charity, they want the gov't to do it all.
I’ve always felt that I was an economic liberal because I enjoyed my nice things less when I had to either worry about someone trying to hit me on the head and take them away, or eat my meal in the window of a restaurant while a starving family stood outside.
What's this got to do with economic "liberalism"? Leftism, perhaps. Anyway what he's saying is that he wants the gov't to create a system to alleviate his guilt.
Oh yeah, and he wants to reduce crime? Leftists sure don't do that.
But does it tell you we’ve accomplished something when the biggest nutritional problem among the very poor is obesity?
Yes, it tells me that free market solutions such as "McDonald's" created a very efficient system of delivering calories to humans at low cost. Don't know what this has got to do with the government or "liberalism".
The liberals had a great teacher in Billy Jeff after all. He taught them well
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.