No elucidations felt necessary

#1. And … So how does it … Automatically… Figure? Recently the commentariant Bill Maher gave a paen on the struggles of California, bemoaning that “I stood up for you when it wasn’t fashionable” and right now, at a crosswords… The problems mount…

… In consideration of a wacky looking recall effort, whose imprints tend to get obscured — the messaging forced, somehow ballot one a “yes /no” item tossed aside a ballot two line “if no should pass, who?” and a whole pile of names which ensure that whoever gets in will not get any votes as the acceptance vote tally of Newsom… This mark is supposed to represent political horrors … In and of itself… Even though the question is clear “yes / no”.

Statistics and damned statistics…

The problem area lies in the rules of question 2, not 1, and if you must deign a democracy index to it, its affect is exasperated by Newsom’s strategy — “ignore the second ballot”.

II. California loses a congressional seat for the first time ever. Its population growth is shown to be slower than the national average. A statistical fact which is posited by California’s current political detractors as bad bad bad. For reasons which are so self evident the detractors do not feel the need to elucidate.

Or at least much. There is maybe rumblings of a mass exodus. A lot of people migrating to Texas. Wyoming, percentage wise significant for Wyoming if not for California.

Rapid growth not sustainable and creates problems, slower growth not sustainable and creates problems, loss not sustainable and creates problems. It all represents a fill in the blank cudgel to lob at the geographic politicality no matter what.

III. I see an LA Times editorial, full of snark on statements made by Larry Elder. Again, no elucidation is deemed necessary. One comment in particular hits me. On a contention issue Elder has taken over the years, Elder is taking a “not going to do anything with it because I wouldn’t have the power to do anything” stance — perfectly reasonable. This is given a sarcastic rejoinder, with that “no need to elucidate why” tack. And maybe Larry Elder is the most extreme extremist who ever extremed, and his stance there is the extremist extreme in any possible extremity, but Elders position holds up well. Unless one can argue why it doesn’t. Which the editorial could, but it does not feel the need to bother.

IV. Noting the shady politician or activist / salesman act of heavy handed narrative framing — maybe CRT is the greatest divine lessons that ought be taught (as opposed to what we have, which is a middle of good and bad against a muddle of goid and bad, two sides eager and able to straw man against the worst of the other), but the framing on what it means when a state designs its curriculum is stated as… “teachers would be barred from sharing such critical subject material with” students, an infringement on teacher’s rights, as assuredly as deeming it an infrongement on teacher’s rights some teacher went half cocked on a 7 day Creation myth as Science curticulum.

We are here in definitions of Definitions. Nothing more and nothing less.

My big stance: Repeals are stupid, both Gray Davis’s and Scott Walker’s — whatever one’s opinion, they have their four years. Vote Newsom but go ahead and vote someone on the second ballot.

Leave a Reply