Has Calif Lost its Charm? Seeking comments (San Diego, Stockton: unemployment rate, schools)

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

My personal situation is fine. I could stay here until I die if I wanted to, and actually, do not rule that out.

However, when I put on my political / economic / social critic hat, I see certain things. I am going to comment about such things, it is both my right and my duty.

Of course. As long as you don't expect others to agree your opinions or be in denial. That is the falacy I am addressing. You opinion is simply that, especially with regards to the original question. The poster was asking for feedback from individuals, not snide remarks about what others experiences are because they differs from yours. The only purpose that serves is it to try to somehow show that your view of California is the correct one which everyone should hold as well. But that is just your experience and thats it. So if I have a totally different view and experience with California then thats mine. Can you handle that? Or must everyone think like you with regards to CA or be in denial?

For me CA will never loose its Charm regardless of its economic high and lows. If your take is different then thats just you. So what?

Derek

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

What is that difference ... between the "old JFK liberalism" and liberalism now?
I have a sense of what you're saying and have a sense of the "malevolence" (although that may be extreme) you're referring to but i cannot articulate it.
Can you? or Will you?

Today's variant is really not even proper liberalism (with a small "l") at all, it is not so called "classical liberalism." It is more of an admixture of the neo-"Bolivarian" quasi Marxist impulses common in Latin America, post WW2 Western European big government Democratic Socialism, and, home grown 1960s radicalism. With headstrong and egomaniacal "intellectuals" and wealthy scions at its helm, is makes for what I consider to be a rather toxic brew, IMHO.

There you have it. From the wannabe political scientist ... LOL!

[coyoteskye]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Today's variant is really not even proper liberalism (with a small "l") at all, it is not so called "classical liberalism." It is more of an admixture of the neo-"Bolivarian" quasi Marxist impulses common in Latin America, post WW2 Western European big government Democratic Socialism, and, home grown 1960s radicalism. With headstrong and egomaniacal "intellectuals" and wealthy scions at its helm, is makes for what I consider to be a rather toxic brew, IMHO.

There you have it. From the wannabe political scientist ... LOL!

Phew.
Could ya dumb that down for me?
It's my sense (non - political scientifically informed) that it's those "egomaniacl intellectuals and wealthy scions" that care more about their own power and their own "rightness" and "winning" against those that perceive differently from them than they do about doing what is socially good and helpful.
So it's more about them than others but it's in the guise of social concern.
What is "proper liberalism"?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Today's variant is really not even proper liberalism (with a small "l") at all, it is not so called "classical liberalism." It is more of an admixture of the neo-"Bolivarian" quasi Marxist impulses common in Latin America, post WW2 Western European big government Democratic Socialism, and, home grown 1960s radicalism. With headstrong and egomaniacal "intellectuals" and wealthy scions at its helm, is makes for what I consider to be a rather toxic brew, IMHO.

There you have it. From the wannabe political scientist ... LOL!

I know what you're talking about.

Think Sweden. Now, Sweden was socialist for years and was a perfectly OK place to live, but a certain group of people got in who imported "PC" from California and who were enthralled with radical feminism and social control and made Sweden more repressive. One of the problems with Eurosocialism is that it has a high potential to turn into fascism (refer to Hayek's "Road To Serfdom") if the wrong people are in power ; the earlier socialists generally were tolerant sorts, but after the late '80s this new group of socialists who were decidedly intolerant decided they'd use socialism to control peoples' lives and restrict peoples' freedoms. The earlier socialists had generally appealed to the working classes, but this new crowd didn't have any use for the working classes being that they tended to be elitist intellectuals who held that "women were the true working class" and that the little guy was part of the problem. Instead of doing something about the immigration problem they sought to restrict the freedoms on the individual with the tacit message sent out that said laws would primarily be used against illegals, as it might not be "nice" and "PC" to confront the problem and too much money was being made. So, prostitution was banned, drug laws were stiffened, high taxes were slapped on alcohol, and, finally, smoking was banned in public places. This new type of Swedish socialist then imposed their agenda on the EU as a whole. Underneath the PC veneer lies a sort of soft fascism.

Sound familiar? It should....

[EscapeCalifornia]

That's why you never give government any more power than absolutely necessary, no matter how good the idea may look at the moment.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

That's why you never give government any more power than absolutely necessary, no matter how good the idea may look at the moment.

Depends what kind of power you're talking about.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Cool, this seems to be evolving in the liberatarian direction. On that four way political chart I'm about 80% libertarian and 20% conservative - :-)

[Welch]

Hi, Original Poster here.

I have received several very thoughtful emails and had good phone interviews with several readers and posters here. Thanks very much to all of you.

I am still interested in hearing from more of you as I "gather string" for a story or stories. So, keep 'em coming.

In reading the comments here and rereading my own post, perhaps my use of the phrase "lost its charm" was a bit too flip or general. Most of you I have heard from got to the real heart of the matter anyway. I'm interested in whether developments -- the budget, the economy, growth, whatever -- have caused living in California to be less attractive these days. California has long been the land of dreams for the rest of the nation -- I know it was for me growing up on the East Coast. Does it still deserve to be thought of that way?

To those of you who point out the beautiful spots -- I couldn't agree more. The topography of this state is incredible, as are its climate and its people, and we are very fortunate to be able to enjoy these features. The question is, are the other problems or hassles or difficulties or costs of living in California starting to outweigh those benefits?

Thanks again. I hope to hear from more of you.

Bill Welch
bwelch@usatoday.com

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by Welch

Hi, Original Poster here.
...
To those of you who point out the beautiful spots -- I couldn't agree more. The topography of this state is incredible, as are its climate and its people, and we are very fortunate to be able to enjoy these features. The question is, are the other problems or hassles or difficulties or costs of living in California starting to outweigh those benefits?

Thanks again. I hope to hear from more of you.

Bill Welch
bwelch@usatoday.com

Thanks for the clarification Bill. And as you can see the answer varies quite a bit from person to person. Obviously the ecomony has effected Californians in different ways. And many will ask this same question when deciding if they plan to stay or go.

I think it would be even more interesting if you could do a follow-up question/article after the recession ends and things start to pick back up again.

Another thing which would be cool would be to interview the same ppl that have decided to leave CA now for greener pastures to the MidWest, South, etc... in 2 then 5 years.

Derek

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Cool, this seems to be evolving in the liberatarian direction. On that four way political chart I'm about 80% libertarian and 20% conservative - :-)

When the going gets tough, you see the true colors. After seeing how the state handled the budget crisis (by taking from the least among us), I'm rapidly becoming a Socialist!

Oh, wait, I forgot... Nevermind! The poor, school kids, transit, etc., those are "da zpezial eentrrreztz." Take another toke off the cigar, Ahnold....