Or perhaps we can call it Coastalvania?

California is one of the biggest states in the US and I guess with that size comes a lot of proposals to divvy up the state. I just read about a new proposal in the Economist that would divide California along thirteen coastal counties; from Marin to Los Angeles. Those thirteen would become an unnamed new state, and the rest would remain California. Most of the past proposals would divide the state along north-south sections. This is the first I’ve seen that does it into east-west sections.

So what potentially will go? In the proposal brought forth by Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries, or their catchier name – Downsize California, this would include thirteen coastal counties: Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Monterrey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles. Those counties have 18 million people, leaving California with 18.5 million. That’s a remarkably even split.

Coastalania is the most liberal and urban parts of California. That right there tells you why this movement is brewing. It’s the classic conflict between urban and rural ways of life. This secession movement really didn’t exist until Proposition 2 in the 2008 election. That proposition banned “tight” (probably as defined by some regulation) confinement for chickens, veal calves and pigs. It was a direct attack on how farmers see fit to run their farms and smacked of clueless liberals issuing more regulations from atop their pedestal. So the farmers became angry and began a secession movement.

It seems like a good idea to me. We’ll all be a lot happier separate from each other. Imagine if this coastal state already existed. It would easily be the bluest blue state in the US. I’d call it a one-party state for the Democrats, but honestly I bet the new state would get divided between Democrats and Greens. Imagine the progressive causes that the state could embrace. There would be no opposition to the state issuing laws banning oil and gas drilling off the coast. The new state could legislate the fishing industry out of existence. Gay marriage would be a lock. It would almost certainly pass some kind of universal health care law assuming that fails in the US Congress. The new legislature could declare the entire state to be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Oh and marijuana would instantly be made legal. Basically every pet liberal cause would come into force. Democrats should latch on to this plan because it will guarantee them two senators (or at least a friendly Green senator) in Congress forever. On the other side, downsized California will not become a Republican bulwark. Yes that place will start out redder, but with a stream of Mexican immigrants leaning Democrat, it will shortly be a purple state again.

What could this place really be named though? Coastalania is too ridiculous. I’d hate for some lame name like Pacifica to get considered, but I bet that would be one of the front runners. Maybe the old time baby boomers would want to name it Kennedy for their idol JFK. Personally I would like to see a name with some roots to the region. For instance, San Francisco’s original name was Yerba Buena. I think that would make a fine name for a state. We could also name it Fremont, after John Fremont who was at the vanguard of rebellion against Mexico. Nah, who am I kidding. No one here would support the name of a American army officer. It’s more likely the new state would be named for Che Guevara. Maybe we should just stick to a variation on California. How about Azul California, since this state will be primarily a seaside community?

If this proposal makes it on the ballot in 2012, I’m definitely voting yes. A clean break will be good for all of us.

Is today Earth Day? I always thought it was on April 20th, which struck me as an odd choice because that’s Weed Day and Hitler’s birthday. Well, I suppose the association with pot makes some sense. Apparently though, April 22 is Earth Day this year. Not sure why. I’m pretty confused.

But in keeping with the day let’s salute Gaia with a circle of idiots!

Just seeing this makes me lose all respect for the human race. Seriously, that’s not exaggeration. I feel like humanity is irredeemable. It pushes me beyond frustration to think that these people believe what they’re doing matters. A tree can’t understand English! They will never understand that you love them. The trees don’t love you either just so you know.

May the sun explode and wipe us all out. It’ll be no great loss.

Our president is “to challenge government agencies to cut costs,” in the words of Reuters. That makes a fantastic headline. Instead of being the profilgate spender, Obama is casting himself as a budget watchdog. If you take a moment to read the article you’ll see he’s calling on his cabinet to find $100 million in cuts. That’s $100 million out of $3.5 trillion. Put another way that’s $100 million out of $3,500,000 million.

Economics professor Greg Mankiw puts the proposed cut in even clearer terms.

[I]magine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Such bold action. Obama’s really going to tame that budget. In all seriousness, that’s not the point of this exercise. What will happen is that each cabinet department will cut tiny amounts from hundreds of programs. It will all be inconsequential sums but it will give Democrat pundits an important talking point. When they go on cable news or the Sunday morning public affairs shows, they can then say, “President Obama has cut thousands of government programs. He’s a fiscal hawk.”

My only guess on the timing is that the Tea Parties must have spooked the White House. Why else bother with creating the illusion of caring about the budget?

Ron Paul finally has one good idea. We have a piracy problem in the world, but combating it with a professional navy is expensive work. So we can turn to an old, forgotten power as a solution: the Letter of Marque. It’s right in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The basic idea is that Congress will empower privateers to capture pirates and destroy their vessels. It gets more complicated when you have to work out the bounty payouts and deposits. Generally speaking though Paul’s plan is to leave pirate hunting to private citizens. I frickin’ love the idea, but then again I think all pirates should be executed. There’s bound to be a fair number of people who disagree with me. It’s a Ron Paul idea so it will go nowhere, but damn, I just have to give credit where it’s due.

I saw this video this morning and man did I have to cringe while watching it. It’s South Carolina Congressman Gresham Barrett being lambasted by the crowd at the Tax Day Tea Party in Greenville, South Carolina. It’s merciless. People turned their backs to him. There was one guy who shouted “Go Home” during Barrett’s whole speech. Everyone in that crowded booed for 5 minutes straight.

What did Barrett do to desire this ire? He voted in favor of funding the $700 billion TARP program. Supposedly he’s going to run for South Carolina governor. I can’t see that contest ending well for him.

I am just a hopeless pessimist. Here I sit worrying about the state of the country and the world. Why? Well a few things come to mind: the imminent bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, pirates off the Horn of Africa, China expressing concern over our debt levels, budget cuts to the missile shield, an ever rising unemployment rate, a media in bed with the White House, a war in Afghanistan getting worse. There’s probably more if I think real hard. However all of this proves I’m just an idiot who can’t see the forest for the trees because George F. Will has identified the real worry; the one, single snowball that rolled into the avalanche that is destroying society – jeans.

Yes, George Will took time to castigate the lazy, slovenly Americans who persist in wearing denim everywhere. Because really, what other problems are there?

Actually I planned to write a much longer post about Will’s fashion don’ts column, but then I read this post on Lileks. I can’t top that. If I try, I’ll fail and probably end up ripping off a lot of that good material in the process. Here’s an excerpt to whet your appetite.

We can gather much from this, aside from the fact that the tea was tepid when served that morning, which always puts one in a querulous humour. We can assume he hasn’t seen more than two seconds of “King of the Hill,” a very clever show that’s firmly on the side of the folk who share his instincts and understands their culture far better than Mr. Will does. (Hank Hill is a man haunted by Oughts of all sorts, constantly parsing the demands of modern life with the Oughts that arise from being a middle-aged Texan father who deals with propane. And propane accessories.) The self-contented sneer against animation suggests no disrespect for the thing itself, but rather the moving drawings aimed at adults. They should content themselves with the amusing engravings in Punch, which stay in one place and do not excite the blood.

Read the whole post. It’s smart, wry and hilarious.

Tenuously related, and also quite funny is this old SNL clip about George Will I saw today on Ace of Spades. I actually remember watching this on TV as a kid when it was brand new. I shouldn’t have found it all that funny back then, but I was a weird child who loved to watch This Week with David Brinkley, so it really struck a chord with me.

Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, threw his support behind a resolution that reasserts the legitimacy of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. In doing so Perry has clearly branded himself a rightwing extremist, at least according to the Department of Homeland Security. Check out this quote from a DHS report on “Rightwing Extremism“.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The emphasis is mine. The DHS has declared anyone who supports federalism a rightwing extremist. The Bill of Rights is a rightwing extremist document thanks to the 10th Amendment Rick Perry made such a fuss over.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If that’s not clear enough for you, it means the federal government gets the powers named in the Constitution. All the other powers not mentioned are left to the States or citizenry. And now if you agree with that you’re on the road to becoming a terrorist. Amazing how one of the principles this nation was founded on becomes a warning that brands people as radicals. I guess I’m one of them. Reading this news today makes me wonder if our federal government is becoming the oppressive behemoth the founders warned about. What if that’s the direction we’re heading in?

This news does give me a positive view of Rick Perry, and I suspect he’s trying to raise his profile for a presidential run. Like a few other Republicans out there he’s someone trying to showcase himself as a classic conservative. It would be refreshing to have a politician who seriously wants to remove government from our daily lives. Is Rick Perry the real deal? I have no idea. I haven’t paid any attention to Texas politics. I’m sure we’ll hear more from him though. He recognizes there’s a power vacuum in the Republican Party and he’ll try to become the standard bearer. I can’t wait to hear more from him.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

¹⁴And the State of Hawaii went forth, and saw a great disaster in Polihale State Park, and was moved with compassion, and proposed funding $4 million to repair.

¹⁵And when the State of Hawaii examined its budget, his accountants came to him, saying, This budget is a desert place, and the funding is not allocated; send the multitude of merchants of Polihale State Park, that they may go into the villages, and find themselves other jobs.

¹⁶But the State of Hawaii said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them a date two years hence when the repairs shall be.

¹⁷And they say unto him, We have here but a simple bridge repair.

¹⁸He said, Bring the plans hither to me.

¹⁹And he took the bridge repair job, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and wasted time, and overspent on labor and supplies.

²⁰And they did all plan $4 million to build a short bridge two years hence.

– The Book of the Bureaucrats: Chapter 14: Verses 14-20.

Yes the State of Hawaii worked a miracle. A bridge was destroyed in Polihale State Park thanks to bad flooding. Hawaii figured replacing that bridge would cost $4 million and couldn’t be done for two years. The merchants whose livelihoods depend on tourists visiting the park found that intolerable and actually did something about it. They replaced the bridge in eight days for a cost far less than $4 million. Hawaii took a simple construction project, and using the power of bureaucracy, turned it into an expensive and time-consuming one. Government be praised!

Gee, I can’t wait until the government is in charge of my healthcare.

Not being a parent this may have slipped under my radar for some time, but a fight over the rights of parents is brewing in Congress. Republicans in the House have introduced a bill to amend the Constitution and add a Parental Bill of Rights. When I first heard the news I dismissed the idea as ridiculous. Why should the government bestow rights upon families? It feels so wrong to me considering how the parent-child relationship long pre-dates the government.

Then again I didn’t know about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This UN treaty defines certain rights every signatory nation is supposed to guarantee for children. Immediately I have to ask why is this the UN’s business. The UN is supposed to be a forum between nations. Why is it trying to legislate when it is not a government?

It would be a nice idea to read through the treaty’s actual text, but what loser has that much time on their hands? It has 54 articles! Okay I’m a loser. I actually did read the treaty. I got caught up in the preamble and it didn’t seem so bad. Here I’ll summarize the 54 articles. If you’re also a total loser read along side with a copy of the treaty from that earlier link.

Article 1: Sets a definition of a child. I don’t understand the caveat though. “…unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” Majority? Is that some legal term for adulthood?

Article 2: No discrimination.

Article 3: Best interest of the child is primary concern.

Article 4: Every nation that agrees to this treaty must also pass whatever laws necessary to make its provisions part of the nation’s law.

Article 5: Parents (or legal guardians) have their own rights and responsibilities (which are unnamed) that must be respected by signatory nations.

Article 6: This looks to me like the very first contentious part. “…every child has the inherent right to life.” Unless you go back to rewrite article one and tighten up the definition of a child, here is the basis for a ban on abortion. After all, article four says you must pass laws that implement these treaty articles.

Article 7: I find it amusing that the UN is essentially granting the right to bureaucracy. “The child shall be registered immediately after birth…” *whew* What a weight off my mind. Every child can expect to be entered into a record.

Article 8: This looks like a leftist dream. This forces nations to preserve a child’s identity. Identity includes nationality. Now we can have lawsuits by NGOs who demand governments pay more money into lame cultural programs so minority children will feel their nationalities are being celebrated. Yes, cultural assimilation cannot be allowed.

Article 9: I find this to be an exercise in pointless legalese. Basically, nations will ensure a child is not separated from their parents except in cases where the nation thinks a child should be separated from their parents. This is pure feel-good legislation. The delegates must have wanted to have some strong moral stand on keeping families together, but knew it would undermine state authority to confiscate a child. Not to mention it would screw with divorce laws too.

Article 10: Any child who wishes to leave one nation for another, for the purpose of being reunited with parents, shall be treated with smiles and sunshine by both nations.

Article 11: Every nation must do something to combat child trafficking.

Article 12: Every child has a right to express their feelings about their own welfare. No one really has to listen to them, but they do get to speak their piece.

Article 13: Freedom of Expression - I guess this is supposed to be some guarantee for permission to pursue arts and education. There are lots of caveats though so nations can wiggle out of it if they’re determined. After all you don’t want muslim girls to be allowed to read do you?

Article 14: A nation must respect the freedom of thought and religion of a child, but also respect the right of parents to direct a child’s thought and religion. Religion and beliefs can be limited to protect public safety.

Article 15: Children have a right of free association and assembly. This right is totally unrestricted except where the national government wants to limit it; all in the interest of public safety of course!

Article 16: Children have a right to privacy and honor, and the law must protect that.

Article 17: Mass media is important and government “shall ensure that the child has access to” that media. Government should also encourage mass media to educate and promote good moral values. The media should also be encouraged to create books in minority languages. This last section sounds like an excuse for governments to throw money at publishing books in obscure languages that nobody will read. By the way who will define those values I’d like to know.

Article 18: Nations will make their best effort to recognize that both parents have responsibilities for raising a child. Oh and by the way, governments “shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities”. So welfare is now a right for parents. Good to know.

Article 19: Nations must protect children from all forms of violence. I think this is one of the articles that have social conservatives worried. This could be intrepreted as an anti-spanking order.

Article 20: A child who is removed from their family must be cared for by the government.

Article 21: This article emphasizes that countries with adoption programs must ensure children aren’t being sold or given to idiots who can’t care for children.

Article 22: Refugee children are also covered by this treaty, and nations must cooperate in efforts to reunite these children with their families.

Article 23: Disabled children have a right to special care. In some contorted logic, that special care “shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents…” So it will be free if you can afford to provide it free. Otherwise it costs money I guess. I’m really getting sick of reading passages like this where the treaty says you must do X, but only if you think you can. They’re meaningless. Either something is a requirement or its not. What a waste of words.

Article 24: This is some mini-proclamation on children’s rights to health care. Reading it I get the feeling it’s actually saying all children have a right to have health care provided by the state. I hope I’m not being confused by UN-speak, but what else could “…ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children…” mean? It goes on to include encouraging some health programs in the third world, and that the first world should pay for it. Oh excuse me. I mean the first world should “cooperate”.

Article 25: Children taken away from their parents have a right to have that decision reviewed periodically. It doesn’t say what the period is though, so I guess we could schedule one review every twenty years.

Article 26: Here’s another right to bureaucracy article! This one bestows the right to social insurance in accordance with local eligibility laws. So put another way, every child is entitled to social insurance if the government says they are.

Article 27: Every child has a right to a standard of living adequate for their “physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.” It gets even better. One section says that parents are responsible for providing that standard, but government shall assist those who cannot afford to implement this right. So it’s really a legal guarantee for welfare.

Article 28: Generally speaking, education is an inalienable right, but there are some fun sections in here. Primary education must be free and mandatory for all children. Government should be encouraging secondary education for every child by making it free or offering financial aid to poor students. College should be available to all children, but at least there’s no words about making it free. There should be free school guidance counselors for all though. School discipline must be maintained in accordance with this treaty, so I guess that means no more Boards of Education.

Article 29: Let’s call this the “Respect Everyone Clause”! Every country’s education system must preach respect for everything under the sun. Parents are in the list. The child’s cultural identity, language and values along with everyone else’s identity, language and values. The Charter of the UN is also mentioned believe it or not, as well as the environment. I’m actually a little surprised Muslim countries accepted equality of the sexes and tolerance.

Article 30: Minority children, along with “other members of his or her group”, should have the right to maintain their own culture. Wasn’t there another clause that protected minorities? This one is hardly about children anyway. It cover all in a minority group.

Article 31: Children have the right to play.

Article 32: This one bans child labor, but I don’t think conservatives should worry. It’s worded so that I don’t think it could regulate chores as home.

Article 33: Children should be banned from using narcotics.

Article 34: Don’t sexually abuse children.

Article 35: No trafficking in children.

Article 36: Any kind of exploitation of children should be banned. This article is very vague. I wonder if it could be twisted into something troublesome.

Article 37: No torture or executions of children are permitted, neither is a sentence of life without parole. Child prisoners should be kept separately from adult prisoners. Finally, every child can challenge their detention in court.

Article 38: This sets an age limit of 15 for being a soldier.

Article 39: All children damaged by abuse, neglect, torture, wartime, or whatever shall be rehabilitated by the state.

Article 40: This is the longest article so far and it seems to be an extension of article 37. It covers a variety of ways children are treated in a legal system. For one they must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Isn’t that going to cause a conflict with some legal systems? Hell, doesn’t Louisiana presume guilt first? Children must be informed of their charges and get legal counsel. They can’t be compelled to testify against themselves. They have a right to appeal. They have a right to an interpreter. There must also be a law that sets an age below which children are not considered capable of committing a crime. There are so many specific provisions in this article I expect it must conflict with several established legal systems.

Article 41: If national law gives more rights to a child, then it supersedes this treaty.

Article 42: Governments must make the rights in this treaty widely known.

Article 43: This is another long one. It creates the “Committee on the Rights of the Child” which will judge countries on how well they implement this treaty.

Article 44: Details on how nations will report their progress in implementing this treaty.

Article 45: Other UN organizations may assist in implementing this treaty.

Articles 46 through 54: These spell out the formal diplomatic crap. Stuff like when the treaty takes effort or a process for amending the treaty.

*WHEW* I can’t believe I went through all that. Did you skip ahead? Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised. My verdict… The treaty is probably harmless. It’s so full of caveats and loopholes it seems to undermine itself. Sure its vagueness could have potential to cause problems and I guess that’s what conservatives are worried about.

Honestly I don’t support the treaty. I don’t think children need to have specially enumerated rights. They should be treated the same as any citizen. I also don’t think this is any business of the UN. The UN has no place in the relationship between citizen and government.

However I also can’t support a US Bill of Parental Rights. I don’t think this lame treaty will actually harm the country. I don’t want to further risk the creation of more stupid laws through a bill designed to guard against a treaty I don’t think will do any harm. Ideally neither treaty nor bill would be passed, but if the Democrats are obsessed with forcing Americans to be like everyone else and ram this treaty through the Senate, I don’t think it will make any difference.

This day is an embarassment. Today US sailors retreated under gunfire from Somali pirates. The sailors did not return fire. How have we come to this? How is it that the US Navy is being held at bay by a gang of pirates?

The West is a civilization of cowards. Europe and now America are incapable of showing any fortitude. You would think pirates of all people would be dealt with quickly and harshly. Instead here we are standing around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for the FBI to fly in and start a criminal investigation. WHY?!?! Pirates do not have rights. Pirates get shot and dumped in the ocean. That’s it. There are no negotiations or investigations. For centuries when a navy found a pirate vessel, they hunted it down. Every pirate was killed and there was no question that was the correct action. When did that change? When did piracy become respectable? How can pirates have defenders?

Today the US Navy should take on the role the British held in the 19th century and police the oceans. Britain was at the height of its naval prominence and used that to keep the world’s shipping lanes open and safe. The continual growth in world trade was thanks to Britain. Now that the US has the dominant navy we should take up that responsibility. Do you think the British had any qualms about killing pirates? I don’t and America shouldn’t. We should hunt them down and kill them. Sink their ships and leave them to drown. Execute them and dump them in the ocean. Bomb their ports and give them no place to shelter. This is what pirates deserve and nothing more.

Our civilization is over. If we’re going to quiver over what to do with pirates, we’re no match for a real military.  The West shall drift and decay until some other civilization realizes our incapability. Then we will be no more.