February 7, 2012

If the courts are overturning 2008 California initiative votes ...

... as they did today with the Proposition 8 vote against gay marriage on the grounds that majority rule violates minority rights, can they please also throw out Proposition 1A from the same ballot? As you'll recall, California's majority of marching morons voted to borrow $10 billion for a SuperTrain! that would go vroom-vroom between Los Angeles and San Francisco real fast. (It's now expected to cost $98 billion). As a member of California's endangered and oppressed minority of non-morons, I want the $10 billion back. 

23 comments:

DCThrowback said...

Sadly, the non-moron party is deep demographic decline.

I hear Minnesota is nice...

Anonymous said...

Eh. The state probably isn't even going to go through with the bond sale. At this point the only people really pushing it are a few Central Valley Democrats (because their section is getting built first).

Dan Kurt said...

My question is when will California collapse?

Dan Kurt

Eric said...

If the courts are overturning 2008 California initiative votes ...

It's Tuesday.

No Name said...

The courts found a right to Gay marriage in the US constitution. Not surprising since it was right next to the right to sodomy and the right to an abortion.

Frankly, I don't care anymore. People are willing to accept Fascism as long as they like the result and you call it by some other name like "Judicial Review".

Until the SCOTUS finds a constitutional right that hurts the 1% or social liberals this crap will continue.

Anonymous said...

How can every other country manage high speed rail but we can't.

Anonymous said...

What? You don't want to zip from Fresno to Bakersfield at 200 miles/hr?

beowulf said...

Freight, commuter, intercity rail in the NE makes sense. High speed rail is as overengineered as a street-legal rocket car. Its simpler and cheaper just to fly.

Scott said...

The right to gay marriage is an obvious right but the right to bear arms which actually is in the constitution is an outdated notion. Smart readers they are.

Anonymous said...

"How can every other country manage high speed rail but we can't"
________________________

Pray tell, how many Californians have a need to go from SF to Modesto or Fresno or Bakersfield by high speed rail?

I can just as quickly leave SFO and be in LA hour an hour after boarding.

Duh.

Anonymous said...

"How can every other country manage high speed rail but we can't."

they have much higher population density.

Gee, wouldn't it be great if we did, too? Oh, wait.

Anonymous said...

"How can every other country manage high speed rail but we can't."

1. Not every other country can. For propaganda purposes, some claim they've done it, but it's a mess. Stop believing government lies.

2. This country is extremely spread out. "Why so many cars? Why so much sprawl?" BECAUSE IT'S BIG. It's not some evil pathology of provincial Americans - it's geography.

Dan Kurt said...

re: "...intercity rail in the NE makes sense. beowulf said..."

Been tried all across the USA, East to West. My late mother who was born in 1918 talked about the vast interurban trolley networks of her childood and young adulthood and visiting relatives on them in Pennsylvania and (I think) Ohio.

Google Interurban Trolleys and see the history.

The interurbans could not compete with the automobile and constantly improving road system in the 20th century.

Dan Kurt

Anonymous said...

Steve, seriously, where are your weekly essays for VDARE? Very much missed.

peterike said...

Rail only works between highly dense, geographically compact urban centers with dense mass transit systems (e.g. NY to Boston). Otherwise, when you step off that high-speed rail in Fresno or wherever, where the hell do you go without a car?

You step off in Manhattan or Boston, you can get everywhere you need to go.

Europe has many such urban centers with effective mass transit within short distances. It's not that hard to figure this stuff out.

Though perhaps California could combine initiatives and have a "Glory Holes Car" on the high-speed rail where you can pass the time engaged in entertaining activities which are smiled upon by our betters.

Glaivester said...

This is why Matt Yglesias wants to empty out 90% of the people from the suburbs and rurals and move them into New York, Boston, D.C., Chicago, LA, and a few other hubs (perhaps everyone in the smaller states can congregate in the largest city in their respective state, so all Mainers would live in Portland, all New Hampshirites in Concord, etc.

Eric said...

This is why Matt Yglesias wants to empty out 90% of the people from the suburbs and rurals and move them into New York, Boston, D.C., Chicago, LA, and a few other hubs...

Well, he thinks he got beat down because Washington doesn't have a high enough population density.

Internationsl Jew said...

California would be a much nicer, saner, place if the courts respected the will of the people -- Prop 187, Prop 209, not to mention the *previous* vote on the definition of marriage.

slyboots said...

I'm willing to let this instance of judicial activism stand, if we can, in exchange, negate another one - the court's declaration that Prop 187 was unconstitutional.

Seems like a fair trade to me.

Reg C├Žsar said...

The interurbans could not compete with the automobile and constantly improving road system in the 20th century. --Dan Kurt

You left out "highly regulated" in the first part, and "highly subsidized" in the second.

Some social engineering schemes are more equal than others, evidently.

Anonymous said...

What? You don't want to zip from Fresno to Bakersfield at 200 miles/hr?

There was a time, if you had a powerful enough car, you could drive from Fresno to B-field at 200 miles/hr.

walter condley said...

I think the $98 bil might just be for the crucial Fresno-Bakersfield leg.

jody said...

having talked with liberals for a long time now, i can tell you that they will go to enormous lengths and construct truly impressive logic pretzels to justify ANYTHING for which they feel some deep, passionate to defend. and they are arrogant and condescending about it, insinuating that YOU are the moron for not seeing how self evidently correct they are. like you would have to be positively stupid and backwards to not see how right they are.

gay marriage is just one of these things. 10 years from now, when mestizos or africans are the largest group in a few states, liberals will go through TREMENDOUS mental gymnastics to explain why it is utterly, obviously correct to continue to give them preferential treatment in every aspect of law, and to continue to discriminate against europeans, even though europeans are just another outnumbered group at that point.

eventually due to demographics, the majority of people will get affirmative action in california, and nobody could explain why this makes sense better to you than a unsufferably pretentious liberal. if you think, hey, maybe the biggest group doesn't need affirmative action now, you'll quickly be told how stupid and wrong you are.

thankfully, reality intrudes on their delusions sometimes. their laughably retarded high speed train will never be built. liberals aren't too good at math, physics, or engineering. heck, the secretary of energy is a professional physicist with a nobel prize in physics, yet he's clueless about...energy.