It’s beginning to look more and more like this idiotic bullet train idea here in California may actually happen . Never mind that we can’t afford it and don’t want it. Those two factors don’t even seem to be anywhere on the list of considerations taken on the train. It’s the same old story here: a bunch of progressives find a new way to spend billions of dollars we don’t have on something no one wants, then think it’s going to buy them enough votes to get re-elected. Too bad it usually works. This time, however, they may be in for quite a surprise.

I just read Fresno County supervisors tone down criticism of high-speed rail on the Fresno Bee web site. In this story there is a single paragraph, consisting of a single sentence, that speaks volumes about the lunacy of this idea. In fact it says more than the whole rest of the article combined, yet no one seems to have caught it:

The route will loosely follow two existing rail lines through the San Joaquin Valley, near Highway 99.

Please, is there anyone out there who sees what I see in this sentence? First, the train doesn’t have to go 150 miles per hour. Actually, 80 or so will do. Is that a big difference? Yes, in fact it’s a huge difference. So much so that if we were to build a train that went 80 miles per hour we could use… wait for it… existing rail lines! Such a line could get one from Los Angeles to Redding in about 10 hours if there aren’t too many stops, and there does not need to be.

I believe, if we use existing rail lines, and existing rail technology, we could have a cost effective, functional rail system in California that would be used by people looking for just such an option. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been preparing for a trip to Fresno wishing there was a train I could take at a reasonable cost. This is well within the realm of possibilities, but not as long as a bunch of government solution, people hating progressives are in charge.

It would be more useful to have two lines. One running form San Diego to Redding via San Bernardino, the other running from San Diego to San Francisco via Los Angeles. These two lines would cover the vast majority of the population in California, and we could have them up and running in just two or three years. This can be done if, and only if, we keep the government out of it. The only thing government is good for these days is costing money and causing trouble.

There would be a feeder line running between Los Angeles and San Bernardino, and Los Angeles and Palmdale/Lancaster. The line from San Bernardino would run through Victorville where passengers could link up with the Las Vegas train, or go on into the San Joaquin valley via Palmdale/Lancaster and then north through Mojave and Tehachapi to Bakersfield, and then north through the valley all the way to Redding stopping at Tulare, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Sacramento along the way.

The coastal train would run north from San Diego through Oceanside and Orange County, then through Long Beach and up into Los Angeles. From there it would essentially follow U.S. 101 and/or CA 1 along the current Amtrak route all the way up to the bay area stopping at Ventura, Santa Barbera, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Salinas and San Jose along the way. There would be feeder lines from the bay area to Sacramento. It would even be possible to have a line running up to Lake Tahoe and even out to Reno.

No, the train doesn’t have to stop everywhere. Only in fairly large sized metropolitan areas. It’s not necessary to take a train from Tulare to Fresno, or points in between. It might not even be useful to take the train from Bakersfield to Fresno. If, however, you want to go from Bakersfield to Stockton or Sacramento, the train is the obvious choice. Obviously, from Los Angeles or San Diego to any of these destinations the train would be the preferred mode of travel. Preferred, that is, as long as the government doesn’t screw it up and make it cost way too much.

The answer is simple, the government should drop this lunacy, and set up a competition for private enterprise to plan a cost effective passenger rail solution for California. Then, when they have a winner, issue a permit, cut some red tape, help them find some private funding sources, then get the hell out of the way. In a couple of years we’ll be riding the rails from L.A. to Fresno for $25.

Jerry’s Crazy Train is Worse Than We Think Nicholas Fitzgerald

This Washington Times reporting Ron Paul is “out” of the race is interesting given the circumstances. As I stated in a previous post, his being in the race was never the problem. The problem is the behavior of his supporters, especially now as state conventions around the country are starting to heat up. In the article it says they’re going to stop competing in “states that have already voted.” That’s interesting to me as ordinarily I would consider the competition in states that have already voted to already be over. Apparently the Paul people see it differently. Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand the nominating process in a lot of these states works that way. People vote in what is essentially a beauty contest, then go on to have these conventions where the real work is done. I understand that. Circumstances being what they are, I don’t understand why they would pick this time, this election to try to prove a point. Delegate piracy isn’t going to solve anything.

If this activity causes Barack Obama to be re-elected Ron Paul won’t be able to show his face in public anywhere in the nation. As I also said in that post a couple days ago, what will that do to Rand Paul’s chances in the future? The fact is, Ron Paul isn’t out of anything. He’s still going forward with the plan he’s had all along. He’ll try to get as many delegates to Tampa as possible, and it seems he doesn’t care how he gets them, and then go there and raise all kinds of hell. Sure, he’ll get a speech in prime time, he’s earned that, but I think it would be prudent to insure that not a single one of his childish, tantrum prone supporters are allowed anywhere near the convention hall. Their lack of respect for the party and the process demands nothing less.

For the record, there’s one more thing to consider. If, at this point, these people are still talking about Romney being no better than Obama, and many of them are, what makes anyone think they’re going to vote for him in November? I’d like to think they will, but I don’t think many of them have a broad enough intellectual base to enable them to make that leap, such as it is. No, for a long time I was one of those who believed that Ron Paul and his supporters have to be treated with respect and given their due come the national convention. I still believe that about the man himself, but his supporters, many of them anyway, have proven themselves to be a hindrance to the primary goal here which is getting Obama the hell out of Washington while we still can. Romney is going to do fine, and he’s probably going to have a much more conservative house and senate to make sure he doesn’t go too far to the left. If you want to positively effect this election, and you can’t support Romney, then find some congressional or legislative races to get involved in and make sure that conservative congress happens. Just stop with the delegate sneak attacks at the state conventions. All you’re making there is enemies!

Paul Out? Nicholas Fitzgerald

… It’s us, or them. I hate to put it in such a stark light, but there it is. This is where we are. Gov. Brown is saying there will need to be drastic cuts if we don’t pass tax increases this November. All the more reason not to vote for any tax cuts as far as I’m concerned. Here’s an interesting bit of information:

Advocates involved in budget discussions say they expect deeper cuts to social services than Brown originally proposed in January. Union officials are also in negotiations with administration officials about ways to reduce state payroll costs, an issue that wasn’t on the table earlier this year.

Good, that’s a start in the right direction, but not really addressing the core problems. Payroll, and even social services, or not the problem, not really. Though I have to say the fact that the unions are willing to talk about it at this point is a good sign. We’ve finally got their attention. No, if we want to solve this problem long term we have to go with a whole different set of solutions. Yes, a set of solutions. No one action or activity is going to fix this problem. Still, there are two items which, if we can positively effect them, will get the state out of a lot of our troubles.

First, union control. California has to become a right to work state. The only other alternative is to ban unions all together. Banning unions would be as unhelpful and unAmerican as letting them run rough shot over the state like they do now. No, simply making them irrelevant is quite enough. If the unions’ influence goes away, the core engine of corruption and idiotic finances goes away as well, for they are one in the same.

Second, purposefully destructive regulation. We are the champions of stupid regulations here in California. These regulations have taken us from the 5th to the 8th largest economy in the world, and we’re steadily dropping even as we speak. While Gray Davis gets the lions share of the blame for this, the truth is it’s our fault. We elected him, threw him out, and replaced him with a guy who couldn’t figure out how to fix it without completely changing the legislature. That wasn’t Arnold’s fault. We kept sending the same corrupt bastards with bad intentions back to Sacramento every two years, and we still do! If you live in California, and you don’t vote, or if you vote when you shouldn’t, or if you ever vote for any Democrat, or if you ever vote for any spineless, squishy brained Republican, then this is YOUR FAULT.

I must admit that I have to take my share of the blame as well. I voted for Arnold too in the recall election. As soon as I saw the results I realized what a terrible mistake it was. If everyone who would have really preferred McClintock had voted for him, instead of for Arnold because “he’s going to win anyway,” McClintock would have won that election, and the next several years would have been much different. In fact, I’d like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apology to Tom McClintock and to the State of California for that vote.

Let’s face it people, California is sinking into the sea. Not physically, like the old jokes used to say, but fiscally, morally and intellectually. The worst part is we’ve done it to ourselves over the past 100 years or so. Long ago we decided to be a “progressive” state. What most of us didn’t realize at that time is the inherent and inevitable destruction of progressivism. All over the world progressive governments are falling apart, crashing and burning under their own unsustainable weight. It is inevitable, as the people cry out for “fairness,” any responsible leaders are being run out of office. Somewhere, in a thousand different places, the devil, Karl Marx and George Soros are laughing their asses off.

It’s our move California, and we don’t have a lot of time. We’ve always lead the nation. Today we’re leading it into mediocrity. This year, and in 2014, we have an opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity, to finally turn our beloved state around, or ride it into oblivion. I don’t believe California is a lost cause, at least not yet. We still have time to fix this. I dare you to do better!

My Fellow Californians… Nicholas Fitzgerald

There are a lot of possible ways to take that famous line from Forrest Gump, and there are a lot of ways to demonstrate it. One is the actions of California Fish and Game described in the piece Fish and Game seizes stuffed, hat-wearing wolverine from Georgetown bar. This is a particularly idiotic instance of government getting way out of hand. At this point, it seems to me the government of this state has no redeeming qualities left to speak of. It’s all bureaucrats and B.S.

Stupid is as Stupid Does Nicholas Fitzgerald

The behavior of the Ron Paul crowd at the Oklahoma and Arizona conventions, as well as others, may be the most treacherous and despicable political actions ever taken in any presidential election year. This attempt to hijack and steel the nomination by taking over conventions, despite the results of the corresponding primary elections and/or caucuses, has the potential of dividing the party such that it will guarantee a second term for Barack Obama. I urge you Paul people to remember: An elephant never forgets!

As it stands right now, with Mitt Romney as our nominee, Barack Obama is through! It’s over for him. Now is the time to focus on the house and senate races, as well as state legislative races. If the Paul people continue this childish crap we could conceivably loose everything! If you think Romney is just as bad as Obama, I can tell you only two things: One, you obviously don’t know anything about either Romney or Obama, or both. Second, if you’re worried about him being more like Obama than you’d like, you better focus your efforts on getting some conservatives elected to the house and senate.

Speaking of the senate, what do you suppose will happen to Senator Paul’s career if the Ron Paul supporters continue in this way? This is the thing that really bothers me about it. Rand Paul is the future of our party. He’s the guy to take up that mantle and move it forward. It is not, and never has been, Ron Paul. He’s not the right guy for the job, he’s just the only guy willing to do it until now. At this point however, as it relates to this presidential election, for better or worse, Mitt Romney is the man. No, he wasn’t my first choice either, but he’s the one we’re going with. Let me make this clear and unambiguous: Ron Paul will not be the nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States, and even if he is, there’s no chance in hell he’ll ever win the election. It’s not ever going to happen.

If  you want to save the country, but can’t find a way to support our nominee, there are 435 house seats, 33 senate seats, and hundreds of state legislative seats up for election this year. Get on with it, direct your passion to something where you can make a positive difference. Just do us all a favor and leave the childish tantrum B.S. at home. Remember, an elephant never forgets. If the establishment screws this one up like they did in 2008 they’ll never live it down. It will never be forgotten, nor will it ever be forgiven. The same goes for the Paul campaign and it’s childish supporters. If they screw this up, If Obama gets re-elected because of their asinine behavior, I promise they’ll never live it down. The name “Ron Paul” will become synonymous with “Total Political Catastrophe.” The worst part is, the issues Ron Paul believes in will be relegated back to the bottom of the pile on the back burner.

The Paul Crowd May Re-Elect Obama Yet Nicholas Fitzgerald

Mr. Milbank and the Washington Post may have actually outdone themselves with this one. The first thing I noticed is the link to Mr. Milbank’s piece on the front page of the Post’s website: The cowardly candidate. This is, of course, not the actual title of the piece. Also, while having a negative connotation, it’s not really specific enough to amount to anything in its own right. Of course, when you look at the listing under their Opinion heading, it become A Cowardly Candidate. Certainly more specific, but still as clear as mud at midnight. The actual title of the piece, which anyone paying attention saw coming a mile away, is, of course: Mitt Romney won’t stand up to his own party. I wonder if Dana Milbank is aware of his complete and utter lack of opacity.

It’s not likely that he does, but whether he does or not merely tells us if he’s a propagandist or just a useful idiot. In either case, let’s see if I can take his piece apart and shed some reality on it. His beginning is almost too easy, and damn near cliche:

Almost four years ago, I was watching Sarah Palin rile up a Clearwater, Fla., crowd with anti-Obama broadsides when a spectator let loose a bloodcurdling cry of “kill him!”

To his credit, John McCain realized the Obama hatred was getting out of hand, and a few days later, when a woman at one of his events called Obama an “Arab,” McCain did one of the most honorable things in his political career. “No, ma’am,” he said, taking the microphone from the woman and enduring some boos from supporters. “He’s a decent, family-man citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”

The “observation” here is that of a blind man. If that’s what it is. I tend to believe Mr. Milbank falls more into the propaganda category. Too bad he’s not very good at it. (Or is that a good thing?) In any case, Mr. Milbank, the truth is nice guys finish last. This is more true in politics than in most any other endeavor. John McCain lost! The kind of “honorable” behavior pointed out in this piece is exactly the reason why. Some of the most disgusting and destructive political rhetoric is spewed by the democrats as a matter of course. They lie, cheat and steal every day for the singular purpose of gaining power. No, John McCain’s behavior was not honorable. How is it honorable to loose a critical election to a lying sack of snake excrement who you know will do anything to further an agenda that is utterly destructive to a free society because you’re too “nice” to fight for what you believe in? Is that a hateful statement? Or is it simply as accurate as I dare make it?

The next part of Mr. Milbank’s piece is interesting. Obama sides with the occupy crowd, who are nothing more than the latest manifestation of the left’s useful idiot brigades, and are at their core a bunch of militant communists. (No, it’s true. Just ask them. They actually think it’s a good thing, so they’ll be happy to tell you all about it like good useful idiots.) In fact Obama has done nothing to reign in or even distance himself from this violent and fanatical group. Meanwhile, Milbank has the audacity to write this:

Now that the year is again divisible by four, the anti-Obama hatred is flaring anew. But I worry that Obama’s current opponent doesn’t have the strength of character to push back against the most dangerous voices on his side.

The latest sign of trouble came Monday, when a woman speaking at a Mitt Romney event in Euclid, Ohio, said that Obama was operating outside of the Constitution and “should be tried for treason.” Many in the crowd of 500 applauded this call for the commander in chief of the United States to be charged with a capital offense.

Hatred? Do you really think it’s hatred? Perhaps it’s more a case of astute observation. Granted, the word “treason” may be a bit far at this point, but the truth is that remains to be seen. In any case, only an idiot or a complete political hack would argue with my use of the word treachery in this context. Even if we stipulate that the President was born in the United States and is in that and all other ways legally qualified to be president, he is still, as a matter of policy, acting outside of the constitution. Personally, I believe he’s doing it on purpose. Every item on his agenda seems to be specifically designed to weaken the nation both at home and around the world. President Obama’s stock and trade is weakness, and he’s doing it on purpose because he hates this nation and everything it stands for. For an Obama supporter, or any democrat for that matter, to give anyone any grief about “hating” is a true and unmitigated example of projection at its worst.

The piece goes on to complain about Romney, and even Rick Santorum at one point, not calling out their supporters and having a “Sister Souljah” moment. Indeed, the President has had plenty of opportunities to do the same. How about all the Marxists and tax evaders found in his administration early on? He could have had a whole series of “Sister Souljah” moments right there. How about every other thing the Vice President says? How about Obamacare? If he really wanted to disavow something hateful and ridiculous he could start there. That might even give him a shot at reelection. How about some of the more asinine statements of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? He couldn’t possibly take the time to disavow all of them, but between the two of them he could have two or three “Sister Souljah” moments a week!

The bottom line, Mr. Milbank, is this: If you want to go after someone for hateful, detestable and disgusting speech, go talk to the Democrat congressional leadership. Go talk to Attorney general Eric Holder. And yes, go talk to President Barack Obama. These people have shown that they will do anything to further their agenda. Unfortunately, it is an agenda that has a more than one hundred year record of perfect failure on all levels, all over the world. Failure, that is, unless your goal is to bankrupt a free society, destroy a free economy, and oppress a free people. By the way, and just for the record: That’s not going to happen.

Presidential Politics Confuses Dana Milbank Nicholas Fitzgerald

Is there an obesity epidemic? Or is it a government epidemic? There’s an interesting Reuters report on Yahoo! News this morning entitled Obesity fight must shift from personal blame: U.S. Panel by Sharon Begley. As I read the article I began to realize the title of the piece, and the panel that it reports on, is correct. The focus of efforts to reverse this obesity trend shouldn’t be focused, at least not entirely, on “personal blame,” (or personal responsibility), but should primarily be focused on what appears to be the main culprit in this problem, and so very many others, in our society today: Government.

As always, it comes down to a matter of opposing models used to moderate human behavior: Government force and free market choice. Once again we see the abject failure of the government force model, and a fair amount of success with the free market choice model. I wonder how long it will take for enough people to recognize this and finally reject the government force model all together. The piece, though perhaps not intended, clearly points out the failure of government and the so far limited success of free enterprise to mitigate the national obesity epidemic.

Typical big government ideas were discredited:

“There has been a tendency to look for a single solution, like putting a big tax on soda or banning marketing (of unhealthy food) to children,” panel chairman Dan Glickman, a senior fellow of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former secretary of the Department of Agriculture, told Reuters. “What this report says is this is not a one-solution problem.”

The soft drink industry was again blamed:

The panel identifies taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a “potential action,” noting that “their link to obesity is stronger than that observed for any other food or beverage.”

A 2011 study estimated that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce per capita consumption by 24 percent. As a Reuters report described last month, vigorous lobbying by the soda industry crushed recent efforts to impose such a tax in several states, including New York.

“I do not think in any way, shape or form that such punitive measures will change behaviors,” said Rhona Applebaum, Coca-Cola Co.’s chief scientific and regulatory officer. Anyone deterred by the tax from buying sweetened soda, she said, will replace those calories with something else.

I am also quite interested in the apparent disdain for farm subsidies:

The committee also grappled with one of the third rails of American politics: farm policy. Price-support programs for wheat, cotton and other commodity crops prohibit participating farmers from planting fruits and vegetables on land enrolled in those programs. Partly as a result, U.S. farms do not produce enough fresh produce for all Americans to eat the recommended amounts, and the IOM panel calls for removing that ban.

The committee did not endorse the call by food activist Michael Pollan and others to eliminate farm subsidies that make high-fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and other obesity-promoting foods very cheap, however. “There is no evidence subsidies contribute to obesity,” said [Dan] Glickman.”

Indeed, the actual working solution was presented, although given the terms of the presentation I’m not sure the author actually realized what she was saying in this article:

The traditional view that blames obesity on a failure of personal responsibility and individual willpower “has been used as the basis for resisting government efforts — legislative and regulatory — to address the problem,” says the report. But the IOM panel argues that people cannot truly exercise “personal choice” because their options are severely limited, and “biased toward the unhealthy end of the continuum.

The obvious answer is also given right there in the article:

“Walt Disney Co., for instance, found more than 50 percent of customers accepted a healthier choice of foods introduced at its theme parks.”

The truth is, as always, these government interventions don’t work. The title of the article is true, but it’s inference, which I noted parenthetically in the first paragraph of this post, is obviously not true. That, I believe, is borne out by the inevitable contents of the article itself.

What I take from this article is that government interventions reduce choice, and that reduction in choice makes it more difficult for people to make the best choice for themselves and their families. The experience at Disney is indicative of the free market doing what it does best: producing enough choices so the consumer has a much better chance of making the right choice for themselves.

Government intervention in such personal matters is, and always will be, destructive. It is this way by nature, and I can see no way to change it. Subsidies make the wrong products available at the wrong levels. Punitive taxes on certain products simply further limit peoples’ choices which, by default, exacerbates the underlying problem, which is limited choice.

I believe the best solution to this is the same as in most areas where government intervention has caused such problems: Government should stop intervening! In fact, when it comes to the daily life choices people make, the government’s participation, particularly the feds, should be limited to sitting down and shutting up.

It’s not that there should be no role for the government at all, on the contrary. Government can, and should, play a very important role, but as important as that role is, it’s not a very big one. Most, if not all, farm products are grown all over the country. They are, by default, subject to the commerce clause as they are shipped from everywhere to everywhere just about every day. That the federal government should regulate the safety of food products is a no brainer, as in it’s obvious, but also as in it doesn’t take a genius, or six bureaucracies, to figure it out. One federal agency looking at the safety aspects of food production and transportation should be quite more than enough.

The thing is, it doesn’t have to be complicated. Set a standard, then make sure everyone knows what that standard is. Beyond a fair and even tax policy, government should have no financial involvement in any industry, just enforce the standards. Of course, government does not seem to know how to limit itself to its own limitations. If this is where people are taking their example it’s no wonder more and more people are getting fat and lazy.

Obesity Epidemic: Fat Government is Fattening Nicholas Fitzgerald