Why Not Los Angeles?

Thanks to my father my family moved from Philadelphia to Los Angeles after WWII. There are many reasons for not bringing your family to Los Angeles. Most of them are poor arguments.

Metropolitan Los Angeles spreads across five counties. Traveling north to south it spreads across a distance of about 75 miles and from the beach to inland cities and towns and spreads east about 50 miles. Many people travel a distance of 30 to 35 miles just to go to work. For most people a car is necessary for the commute to work.

Homes are relatively expensive. Even with the downturn in housing prices for a home of 1700 to 2000 square feet will cost at least $350,000. Those least expensive homes are in lower income neighborhoods.

What makes the city desirable are the following features:

1. Total annual rainfall averages 16 inches. Snow is a rarity. Temperature today reached 87ºF/30ºC at my home (October 26, 2009). Winter temperatures drop below freezing at night for about a week every January. How far below freezing? One to three degrees.

2. The entertainment facilities are second to none. Live theater is in neighborhood venues, the Hollywood Bowl, L.A. Live, Staples Center, Disney Hall, comedy clubs, etc.

3. Medical facilities include UCLA, City of Hope, Cedars Sinai Hospital, etc.

4. Universities are too numerous to list but include UCLA, USC, California State University has four campuses.

5. Beaches include Santa Monica, Malibu, and Laguna.

6. Amusement parks include Universal City, Disneyland, Knott’s Berry Farm, and Magic Mountain.

7. The largest port in America and the entertainment industry brings lots of job opportunities.

8. There is also the zoo, museums, gardens, and wonderful shopping malls.

What’s wrong with this picture? The people are too liberal, many races and ethnic groups are intermixed throughout the city. West Hollywood is an internationally known gay and lesbian community. You may have to wait an hour and a half to be seated at Miceli’s and parking at the Beverly Center is always a challenge.

Getting Happy with the Future

America has finally obtained what so many of us has wished and hoped for, the success of countries all over the world. It’s not just European nations that have become prosperous. Even China and India have become nations with growing middle class societies that can afford homes, cars, and wide screen television. China has been documented on television in the United States about its growing middle and upper classes. Fareed Zakaria reports in Newsweek that China “will spend $200 billion on railways in the next two years, much of it for high-speed rail”. The Los Angeles Times reported on October 21, 2009 that China’s growth is at 8.9% thanks to their stimulus and lending programs. BusinessWeek reported on the growing middle class in Turkey.

The bad news is that their prosperity impacts our prosperity. Why? If those other nations prosper they will compete with the United States for the sales of many of the products we export to the rest of the world. Most other nations have lower labor costs than the United States and that affects our competitiveness.

For the United States to continue its economic dominance will require at least two occurrences.

First there will have to be a new advance in part of our economy that will be a show stopper. It will need the next new thing. It will be something that everyone realizes is a “must have.” The federal government is trying to motivate this idea with talk of the new “green” environment and the possible development of new energy sources.

Second, the cost to produce this something new will be accomplished in the United States at a competitive rate with the rest of the world. That evolution is already happening with the lower trade value of the American dollar. Americans may not like this outcome because the cost of oil, cars, televisions, and cameras will be higher. The cost of traveling to another country will be higher.

Just as buggy whips and newspapers are part of the past, new ideas are part of the future. Our inventiveness will make Americans happy with the future.

The President’s Vision

President Obama has already made history by being the first non-White to be elected to the presidency. That was a significant accomplishment. However, it is not enough for our new president. He wants to make significant changes to our relationship with the rest of the world and wants to re-make parts of the American economy. The changes he wants to accomplish are dramatic. Given his lack of experience, his objectives seem unrealistic. After all many Democrats as well as most Republicans hold historical views that are contrary to his ideas.

Obama’s allies are operatives who seem to see everything through a political spectrum. Those associates are driven by political motivation. They understand that their best opportunities to change America and its relationship to the world must be accomplished in the earliest part of the Obama presidency. That is the reason for the hard push for health care reform and the very aggressive foreign policy. It is not clear that his closest supporters even understand his vision.

I am not saying that his ideas are wrong. They are just views that do not conform to historic philosophy. It appears he may be correct in his views of the 21^st century.

In foreign affairs Obama wants the United States to step down from its position of supremacy. His calls for greater participation of other countries in resolving international issues is a view that was actually started by President George W. Bush. There is a good reason for this change of philosophy. This country currently has 300,000 soldiers in 150 countries and 820 bases in 39 countries. The U.S. military budget is approximately $500 billion. Starting with George Washington there has been an idea that the country would be better off with limited foreign entanglements.

In domestic affairs Obama wants to involve the federal government in more of the things that impact most citizens. Reform of health care is just the first step of his agenda. He wants the federal government to become more involved in the educational systems and the industrial system of our nation. I believe his objective is U.S.A. Incorporated. He sees this as the avenue to competition in a global economy. His list of books to read in 2009 includes Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. The recent decline in the value of the American dollar is a good thing when you are trying to compete with the low cost nations of the world.

It’s a scary set of objectives. I think I can see where he wants to take this nation. Many people will fight him because they are living in the past. The problem is too few have taken a really good look at where the nation is right now. Those resisting his ideas could easily stop him. The question is what is their vision?

A Political Conservative

the right wing are a hysterical name calling group

President George W. Bush was no conservative. Conservatives are those who stand for the status quo, do not spend more than they earn and don’t want the government to spend more than its income. They view the bible and the constitution as documents to be both respected and honored. They are the group of people who are the accountants, bankers, business owners, and others who make decisions in a calm and deliberative manner. George W. Bush met only some of those expectations.

Is a political conservative the same as a member of the right wing of the Republican Party? In my view the answer is no. William F. Buckely Jr. offered his views in this statement from his National Review magazine. Those of the right wing are a hysterical name calling group who have become a gang of gun totting haters that are praying for Obama’s failure and his early death.

In the current battles in Congress, Republican conservatives are living up to their standards when they say no to changing the health care system, no to new climate change regulations, and no to war when have not been attacked. OK, they have it right on two out of three. It is President Obama who is taking a deliberative approach to committing more troops to Afghanistan and conducting talks with Iran before attacking.

As a Moderate with both Liberal and Conservative views it is impossible to actively participate in any political party. I do understand how someone can be part of one party. Those people have to accept the idea that the majority rules and besides so many people in the party are their friends. Perhaps I am not part of either party because neither party has been friendly enough. Perhaps I am just too conservative for any party.

The End of the World in 2012?

Over 200 predictions and counting!
Yes the end is coming, but all human predictions are wrong!

Mathew 24:35-36 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Jesus Christ.

Finally something Christ said that makes sense. Only God knows when the end of the world will happen. Perhaps there will be no end.

Nostradamus is said to have had the most success in forecasting future events. The problem is that the observations of his accuracy are made after the events happen. That is said to be the result of his complicated style of writing that was done to keep his ideas a secret from the Catholic church. His forecast of the end is the year 3797. That means the end will not be 2012 as the Mayans predicted. After writing this piece I have learned there is a movie “2012” being promoted at a really fun web site titled “who will survive 2012.” It offers great computer graphics and sound.

—

October 17, 2009 Update: The Los Angeles Times has an article saying that scientists are trying to calm the ‘2012’ hysteria. What hysteria? The article itself is a great advertising piece for the movie.

—

We all thought everything would stop when the calendar turned to the year 2000. Remember? So many people said nothing would function because computers were programmed with only two digits for the year. Either all the systems were fixed or we were very lucky or the computers were smarter than we thought.

Perhaps none of this is real. Perhaps “I think therefore I am” is just a line in a script? My theory is we are just too small and too inconsequential in this universe. It’s a great disappointment to those who thought the Earth is the center of the universe.

The Constitution and the Cross

A New York Times editorial worth re-printing

Published: October 6, 2009

When the Supreme Court takes up a religion case, it often prompts overheated charges: There is a war against Christianity under way; or civil liberties groups are trying to turn this into a secular nation. The court is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday in a case that raises none of these issues — even though Americans may well be treated to another round of scare stories.

The narrow question is whether a large cross that has been placed on federal land violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, the founders’ direction that there must be a wall of separation between church and state. The court should rule that it does.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross in 1934 in San Bernardino County, Calif. — in what is now the Mojave National Preserve — to honor America’s war dead. Since then, the cross has been replaced several times, most recently around 1998. Its religious significance is clear, but the National Park Service has not allowed other religions to add symbols. In 1999, the park service denied a request by an individual to place a Buddhist memorial in the area. The cross has also been the site of Easter sunrise services for more than 70 years.

Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of the preserve who said that he still visits regularly, sued to challenge the display’s constitutionality.

The case comes to the Supreme Court in an unusual form. When a Federal District Court ruled that the cross violated the establishment clause, Congress transferred the property under it to a veterans’ group in exchange for other property. In a second round of litigation, a Federal District Court ruled that the land transfer continued the constitutional violation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, affirmed.

The Supreme Court will first consider whether Mr. Buono has standing to challenge the cross. The cross’s supporters argue that he has not really been injured and, therefore, should not be able to sue. But as someone who was in contact with the cross and was offended by its presence, he was injured. More precisely, though, in this case, Mr. Buono has won a court injunction against the cross, and Congress’s land transfer interferes with his injunction. He has a right to challenge the transfer.

On the merits, the appeals court was right that the cross must come down. By allowing a Christian cross, and not symbols of other faiths, on federal land, the government was favoring one religion over others. Also, Congress has designated the cross as a national memorial, which means that it continues to have official government endorsement.

The land transfer was mere window-dressing. Bypassing normal procedures for disposing of government land, Congress gave the land to an entity it understood would keep up the cross, and it provided that the land would be returned if it was not used as a memorial.

Religious symbolism of this kind on government land is, by its very nature, exclusionary. Allowing only a cross to stand over the memorial sends a message to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others that their sacrifices, and their family members’ sacrifices, are not appreciated or mourned.

It also sends a message that state and church are intertwined. A single cross does not, by itself, mean America has an established religion, but if the Supreme Court stops caring that the government is promoting a particular religion, we will be down the path toward having one.