After two decades of tireless effort‚ the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco now has stainless-steel netting designed to prevent suicides‚ a project championed by survivors and families devastated by tragedies. Kevin Hines‚ who miraculously survived a jump over the bridge at the age of 19‚ spearheaded this transforming initiative: “Had the net been there‚ I would have been stopped by the police and gotten the help I needed immediately.” Hines‚ now a suicide prevention champion‚ praised the tireless efforts of a small‚ determined group that never gave up on this important cause. Since its inauguration in 1937‚ approximately 2‚000 people have jumped from the renowned bridge. The project‚ which was approved more than a decade ago‚ has been repeatedly delayed. Installation of protective nets The 20-foot-wide stainless-steel mesh nets‚ located 20 feet beneath the bridge’s surface‚ are hidden from vehicles but visible to walkers. Dennis Mulligan‚ the Golden Gate Bridge’s general manager‚ underlined the barriers’ immediate impact on curbing leap attempts. Nets: an effective deterrent As the nets neared completion in 2023‚ the number of jumpers fell substantially from an annual average of 30 to 14‚ indicating their effectiveness in preventing suicides‚ while some occurrences happened in incomplete parts. Controversies and challenges While the stainless-steel wire nets discourage jumpers‚ they also endanger those who attempt them. Mulligan clarified‚ “It’s like jumping into a cheese grater. It will hurt.” Despite these concerns‚ training programs for rescue operations and attentive bridge patrols try to reduce these hazards. The advocacy for preventive measures‚ which began shortly after the bridge’s opening‚ faced opposition due to concerns about disrupting the iconic views. The plan for higher fences was met with criticism‚ ultimately leading to the recommendation of nets. Construction expenses rose from an initial estimate of $76 million to $224 million as a result of design revisions and structural problems. Legal disagreements between contractors and the bridge district exacerbated the project’s financial challenges. Debates on effectiveness While detractors dispute the large cost in discouraging determined individuals‚ defenders point to research that show that restricting access to lethal means reduces the risk of repeat attempts. The personal impact Families directly affected by these tragedies advocate for nets‚ claiming such barriers would have stopped their loved ones. Dayna Whitmer‚ who lost her son in 2007‚ emphasized the necessity of limiting access to avoid impulsive behavior. This article involves sensitive discussions about suicide. If you or someone you care about is struggling‚ please reach out to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988. Support and guidance are available to you.The post Golden Gate Bridge suicide prevention nets finally installed: a lifetime advocacy realized first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

If there’s a theologian known for upsetting categories—and unsettling listeners—it’s Stanley Hauerwas. He has been a top voice in virtue ethics‚ a critic of Reformed theology (to which I hold)‚ and the only theologian I’ve known to cuss in class. He can lob a fiery critique at Christian nationalism‚ only to tell off the theological left for where they’re not even Christian. Time named him “America’s best theologian” in 2001‚ eliciting his dry response that “best” isn’t a theological term he recognizes. We can all benefit from Hauerwas’s willingness to call out idols on the right‚ idols on the left‚ and—most dangerous of all—idols we hold in common. Ever noticed how quiet it gets in church when the pastor brings up money? Hauerwas takes the awkwardness up a level. It gets really uncomfortable when he launches into how materialism‚ desire for control‚ and failure to be distinct from the world together affect our theology of childbearing. Discussion of “having babies” is as awkward as it gets. How did Hauerwas influence my thinking about children? From Debating to . . . Dating I studied with Hauerwas as a single grad student‚ and his criticism of “romantically idealizing family” hit me personally. I was a culprit. A frustrated culprit. I’d stayed on my career path partly (OK‚ mostly) because marriage hadn’t materialized. At Duke‚ I was surrounded by male colleagues more prone to debate than date. Yet one such philosophy student caught my attention‚ and I determined not to let him off so easily. It gets really uncomfortable when Hauerwas launches into how our materialism‚ desire for control‚ and failure to be distinct from the world together affect our theology of childbearing. In a weeks-long debate with this “friend” from both Duke and church—was it only friendship?—Hauerwas’s views on marriage took center stage. No mere academic exercise‚ the debate was this: Could we each do as much‚ or more‚ for God’s kingdom through singleness? (My friend’s stance.) Or are certain goods best‚ even only‚ accomplished through marriage? (My stance.) We contested the place of personal goods like companionship and romance versus societal goods like raising the next generation in the faith. Though Stephen was older‚ decidedly single‚ and more concerned with productivity than romance‚ I managed to win that great debate-to-date‚ thanks in part to Hauerwas’s robustly unsentimental vision of marriage. Five children later‚ we’d both still cite Hauerwas as a challenging‚ disruptive‚ and needed perspective on the purpose of family. Act of Faith and Hope Consider Hauerwas’s opening question to students in his marriage course at Notre Dame. I started with the question‚ “What reason would you give for you or someone else wanting to have a child?” And I would get answers like‚ “Children are fun‚” or “Children are a hedge against loneliness.” Then I recommended getting a dog. They would come up with that one big answer that sounds good. “We want to have children in order to make the world a better place.” And by that‚ they think that they ought to have a perfect child. And you get into the notion that you can have a child only if you have everything set—finances in good shape‚ the house‚ and so on. . . . The crucial question for us as Christians is what kind of people we need to be to be capable of welcoming children into this world‚ some of whom may be born disabled and even die. . . . In a world of such terrible misery . . . having children is an extraordinary act of faith and hope. Where in either liberal or evangelical circles do you hear theologians speaking as Hauerwas does in his 2001 essay on the “radical hope” seen in bearing children? “What we are about as Christians is the having of children. That must come first‚ and then we must subject other aspects of our lives to that reality.” Hauerwas speaks uncomfortable but much-needed truths. Do we have such radical hope that we’re willing to “welcome the children the world does not want”? Hope Found Throughout the Bible The idea that we ought to be pro-children—whether in bearing‚ adopting‚ fostering‚ or serving—runs across all of Scripture. When Jesus showed unusual favor to women‚ children‚ and other underdogs of the ancient world‚ he was continuing God’s pattern throughout the Old Testament‚ where he repeatedly elevates candidates who were small in the eyes of the culture: widows‚ the second-born‚ the outsider‚ and the child. Scholars have attested‚ over and over‚ to the importance of multiplication and offspring in Scripture’s story. The motif of “seed” (children‚ descendants‚ offspring) runs from Genesis to Revelation. It’s integral at every major moment: creation‚ fall‚ Israel‚ Jesus‚ church‚ and new creation. God’s first commissioning of humanity to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28)— spreading his image around the earth—is finally fulfilled in the last pages. Revelation depicts God’s kingdom as a “city” comprised of “the nations” (Rev. 21)‚ “a great multitude that no one could number‚ from every nation‚ from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev. 7:9). Historically‚ the church has flourished when these motifs have fueled its imagination. The early church stood out from Roman culture in its embrace of women and children and its vibrantly pro-life stance that included adopting infants who were left to die. The church’s growth through underdogs surprised its detractors. And to give ourselves for the least of these‚ including children‚ continues to be a uniquely Christian hope. Hope Found Most Clearly in the Church Why is hope foundational for raising children? Precisely because investing in children involves sacrifice and delayed gratification—the kind of sacrifices that only make sense if we’re confident they’ll have far-reaching fruit. “Children lack the three things the world values most—power‚ wealth and influence‚” Hauerwas writes. “If we concern ourselves with people who are powerless‚ then children should obviously be at the top of our list.” Why is hope foundational for raising children? Precisely because investing in children involves sacrifice and delayed gratification. This characterizes the most devout believers. A report published at the National Institutes of Health notes‚ “Women for whom religion is important in daily life have higher fertility intentions.” They desire more children. This isn’t to say that having children is the only way Christians prioritize the vulnerable—nor to lay a corporate calling directly on each individual. As God’s redeemed humanity‚ the church is corporately to “be fruitful and multiply.” Individually‚ we may invest in kingdom growth in various ways. Notably‚ our Lord Jesus forever dignified the path of singleness‚ producing innumerable “offspring” through his saving and sanctifying work. But our affirmation of singleness shouldn’t encourage us to take the blessing of biological fertility out of the vocation of marriage. As Hauerwas says‚ “Marriage is a practice whose telos is children. . . . Those called to marriage are presumed to accept the call and responsibility to have and care for particular children in the name of the [church] community.” How Do Churches Cultivate This Hope? If having children remains a taboo topic in the church‚ I don’t see how we can escape being discipled by the world. Yet at times when the church has addressed procreation‚ we’ve given mandates that lack careful reflection on the theological complexities. I have more questions than answers here: What ethical issues should evangelicals consider related to the use of birth control? Since it’s a nearly ubiquitous practice‚ how do we help congregants form and articulate their theological stances? What vision‚ ethical paradigms‚ and wisdom should guide us? And if we’re not teaching well on this topic (as I contend)‚ where in the church’s life can we cultivate stronger discipleship? How‚ for instance‚ do married couples receive guidance on proper versus improper uses of reproductive technology? How do they evaluate the reasons and appropriate length of time to wait before trying to have children? May married couples rightly choose not to have children as a matter of preference? Or is childbearing essential to the purpose of marriage? Tim Keller once said the only way we’ll discern an idol like materialism is through deep community and transparency in mixed socioeconomic small groups. We need feedback from one another as a church body. Perhaps we need a similar feedback mechanism for this issue. When it comes to having children‚ Christians’ callings legitimately differ‚ and to navigate the ethical issues‚ we benefit from relationships where we’re deeply known‚ accountable‚ and able to receive individualized counsel. As churches seek to disciple their people in childbearing‚ we can thank Stanley Hauerwas for his provocative contributions to this necessary discussion. Having babies is a private and awkward topic for many of us—but it’s one we should recognize as a priority.

A basic tenet of any sort of media tradecraft‚ whether in print or on-screen‚ is that you should have some knowledge of the things of which you speak or write; a revolutionary concept. When that doesn’t happen‚ we get what we saw tonight- an assortment of drive-bys beclowning themselves over the meaning of a quote used by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as a callback to Ronald Reagan. The meaning of “pale pastels” within GOP political discourse is not something that is readily discoverable subsequent to a 10-second Google search. I get it. But the term does have historic significance. Ronald Reagan used the term multiple times‚ most notably during his unity speech at the 1976 GOP convention. “Bold‚ unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades‚” Reagan said when contrasting the GOP platform with that of the Democrats. That phrase has been broadly used by conservatives ever since- with the crystal-clear understanding that it comes from Reagan.  And yet‚ while live-posting (formerly live-tweeting) about tonight’s Republican primary debate on CNN‚ NBC reporter Ali Vitali took notice of DeSantis’ use of “pale pastels” when drawing distinctions between himself and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. And immediately‚ Vitali thought that DeSantis had committed a SEXISM‚ posting: A color scheme‚ “pale pastel” or otherwise‚ is not the way you attack a presidential candidate. None of the men who’ve been on these debate stages have had their clothes used to criticize their policies.      Vitali would further expand upon this point during NBC’s live coverage of the debate‚ saying (scroll down to 9:32): At a certain point‚ the “pale pastels” commentary could start to ring a little sexist. None of the male candidates are being taken to task for their bright red ties’ somehow being akin to their policy stances. OOF.  Her colleague Alec Hernández brought no knowledge to this discourse‚ either‚ indicating that the line is part of DeSantis’ stump speech but ultimately co-signing on Vitali’s accusations of sexism: DeSantis’ “pale pastels” reference is a line pulled from his stump speech. He often says that Republicans need to lead with “core convictions” and govern with “bold colors‚ not pale pastels.” That said‚ saying it out of context here standing next to Haley does come off differently. Ten minutes later‚ the AP’s Meg Kinnard would add to this nonsense by firing off her own item with its own overt accusation of sexism (scroll to 9:42): DeSantis has twice used the phrasing of “pale pastels” as a knock on Haley. She is the only woman in the race‚ and she is standing next to him on stage‚ clad in a pastel pink dress. DeSantis first used the reference to portray the former South Carolina governor as in favor of raising taxes. He said‚ “We need to fly a flag of bold colors. Carrying the banner putting the American people first — not the pale pastels of the warmed-over corporatism of people like Nikki Haley.” Minutes later‚ he said it again in reference to immigration‚ saying Haley is “bankrolled by people who want open borders” and adding‚ “You should work with corporate CEOs‚ Governor‚ that is pale pastels.” One symptom of the corruption of our journalistic institutions is the willful elevation of propaganda over facts obtained through knowledge of the subject matter you are writing about.  Exit question: How soon before the media try to wriggle out of it with a “DeSantis plagiarizes Reagan” news cycle?

"No harmony. No melody. No rhythm. No bullshit." The post Did Phill Niblock inspire The Velvet Underground? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Seattle is in King County‚ Washington‚ where Joe Biden got 75 percent of the vote in the 2020 election. King County had more than 1‚000 drug overdoses involving fentanyl in 2023. These two facts are almost certainly related‚ but which is the cause and which the effect? Or could it be that both (a) the tendency to vote for Democrats and (b) the addiction to dangerous drugs are caused by some unknown factor? Without a careful analysis of the available data to identify that unknown background factor‚ is it wrong to hazard a guess that the overdosing dopeheads and Democratic voters in King County are just plain stupid? READ MORE: The Destruction of the Family Was Not Inevitable Beyond sarcastic put-downs‚ it behooves those interested in public policy to take a look at what’s going on in places like Seattle‚ where Democrats dominate and “progressive” ideas therefore advance unhindered by any effective opposition. In the case of King County’s skyrocketing drug overdoses — which increased nearly 50 percent in just the past year — local officials have declared the problem “a public health crisis.” However‚ fentanyl is illegal‚ which means that the overdoses are also indicative of a crime problem‚ and progressives are against putting criminals in prison. After the 2020 George Floyd riots — caused‚ not coincidentally‚ by the death of a fentanyl user — the progressive outcry against “mass incarceration” was part of the general anti-law-enforcement rhetoric that incited “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests. It was claimed that black people were disproportionately imprisoned because of “systemic racism‚” and‚ it was further claimed‚ many of those inmates were guilty of nothing more than “non-violent drug offenses.” This rhetoric has now become the basis of national policy‚ e.g.‚ Biden’s recent commutation of the sentences of 11 criminals “serving disproportionately long sentences for non-violent drug offenses.” These commutations were part of “reforms that advance equal justice‚ address racial disparities‚ strengthen public safety‚ and enhance the wellbeing of all Americans‚” Biden declared. (READ MORE: Chauvin Did Not Murder George Floyd) As a matter of public policy‚ this approach only makes sense to those who know nothing about how criminals operate or law enforcement works. Habitual felons are not specialists; that is to say‚ the person trafficking in illegal drugs is also likely to be engaged in other criminal behavior. Pimps and thieves are often involved in the drug trade‚ to say nothing of the gangbangers who shoot each other in disputes over urban “turf.” Once upon a time in America‚ cops and prosecutors knew how to deal with such activity‚ a get-tough approach that included what we may call the Al Capone principle of law enforcement. Everybody knows that Al Capone and his gang were guilty of innumerable murders and other serious crimes‚ but Capone didn’t go to prison for those crimes. Instead‚ he went to prison for federal tax evasion. The principle expressed by this prosecution was simple — once you identify the habitual perpetrators of crime‚ it doesn’t really matter what charge sends them to prison. What matters is getting the bad guys off the street. For decades‚ intellectuals and activists told us that the “War on Drugs” was misguided and ineffective. However‚ if recent experience has shown us anything‚ it’s that you can’t reduce the drug problem by legalizing hitherto outlawed substances or refusing to enforce existing drug laws. Just take a look at the streets of Seattle‚ where addicts crowd the sidewalks in open-air drug markets. Is it a coincidence that Washington state was the first to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in 2012 and that now‚ more than a decade later‚ dopeheads are dying at record rates on the streets of Seattle? The criminals who were previously trafficking in marijuana didn’t decide to stop dealing drugs once marijuana was legalized. Drug dealers aren’t specialists‚ after all‚ and even with legalization‚ black-market marijuana sales continue‚ outside the taxed and regulated state-licensed cannabis shops. The same criminal who sells you weed will also be happy to supply you with fentanyl‚ cocaine‚ methamphetamine‚ or MDMA. The cause-and-effect questions about the correlations between (a) voting for Democrats and (b) disastrous outcomes like the drug problem in Seattle are matters of national consequence. The progressive policy agenda that tolerates — nay‚ that enables — the squalid scenes on the streets of Seattle and other Democrat-run cities is far-reaching in its ambitions. Even while urban “blue zones” turn into crime-ridden hellholes‚ the people responsible for these disasters lecture us about their plans to “save democracy” and‚ indeed‚ to “save the planet.” (RELATED: A Trashy Speech by a Trashy President: Biden Takes on Valley Forge) In one of the all-time great moments in the history of televised political debates‚ Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently confronted California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom with what instantly became known as the San Francisco “poop map”: “This is a map of San Francisco. There’s a lot of plots on that. You may be asking‚ what is that plotting? Well‚ this is an app where they plot the human feces that are found on the streets of San Francisco‚” DeSantis said‚ holding up the geographic depiction of the city smeared in shades of brown. Democrats don’t seem to mind if the streets of their cities are littered with discarded hypodermic needles and other detritus. They have more important priorities‚ like making sure restaurants don’t provide plastic straws to their customers. This is not a joke. In 2018‚ Seattle became “the first major U.S. city to ban single-use plastic straws and utensils in food service.” Think about that for a minute. Police in Seattle are patrolling restaurants to enforce the city’s plastic utensil ban‚ even while the city’s “progressive” policies require cops to ignore the junkies shooting up on the sidewalks. Peddlers of fentanyl go about their deadly business unmolested‚ but a restaurant owner could go to prison for giving his customer a plastic straw. How many exclamation marks do you want me to put after a sentence like that? It is difficult to express in words how crazy Democrats have become. What can explain this madness? Thomas Sowell once outlined it as The Vision of the Anointed — the belief that what matters in public policy is not practical consequences but rather the expression of good intentions. This vision turns politics into a narcissistic competition in which support for “progressive” ideas is considered symbolic of one’s moral and intellectual superiority‚ without regard for the efficacy of the resulting policies. Even when progressive policies produce disaster — e.g.‚ the squalor in cities like Seattle — the people who vote for such policies still cling to the vision that tells them they are more enlightened and caring than their opponents and critics who point out the failures of their policies. It would be bad enough if these failures were merely local in their impact. Watching once-prosperous cities turn into crime-plagued nightmares — whether in Seattle or Portland‚ Chicago or Baltimore — is unpleasant‚ but people who want to avoid local disasters perpetrated by advocates of “social justice” can simply move away from Democrat-controlled cities. What happens‚ however‚ when urban progressives gain control of entire states? This was the point DeSantis was making in his debate with Newsom‚ namely‚ that the former San Francisco mayor has presided over California’s startling decline since becoming governor. We may stipulate that Newsom himself is not entirely responsible for this decline‚ which was underway long before he became governor in 2019. Nevertheless‚ it cannot be denied that the progressive agenda is the basic cause of most problems in California‚ a state where a majority of voters have chosen Democrats in every presidential election since 1996. Democrats control the state legislature and every statewide office in California‚ where Joe Biden got 63 percent of the vote in 2020. Is anyone surprised to learn that (a) the state now has a record $68 billion budget deficit‚ and (b) it is now losing population as fed-up residents leave the state? Eventually‚ however‚ as the cancer of progressivism spreads‚ destroying cities and states‚ the health of the nation is threatened — which is‚ after all‚ why Joe Biden is in the White House. Go through the 2020 election results state-by-state and a pattern becomes clear. In every “swing” state that tilted to Biden‚ Trump would have won were it not for the overwhelming tsunami of Democratic votes in major cities. For example‚ in Georgia‚ where the official margin of victory was less than 12‚000 votes (0.23 percent of the approximately 5 million votes in the state)‚ Biden’s margin of victory in Fulton County (Atlanta) was more than 160‚000 votes. Which is to say‚ the Democrats in Atlanta won and the rest of Georgia lost. Something similar was true regarding Philadelphia versus the rest of Pennsylvania‚ Milwaukee versus the rest of Wisconsin‚ and so on. Democrat-controlled cities exercised a decisive influence in putting Biden in the White House‚ and‚ therefore‚ the preferences of urban progressives control the policy agenda of the administration. No matter how much Biden tries to portray himself as a blue-collar “regular guy” favoring commonsense policies‚ his election was the result of the Democratic Party’s urban dominance‚ and the agenda of the Biden administration owes much less to common sense than to the kind of ideologues who think it is good policy to legalize drugs‚ ban plastic straws‚ and turn loose violent felons in the name of “social justice.” What is really at stake in this year’s election is whether the American people will wake up and stop this insanity before it destroys our nation. READ MORE from Robert Stacy McCain: American Journalism Is Decadent and Depraved Staying Sane in the Era of Rainbow Flag Totalitarianism The post America’s ‘Social Justice’ Nightmares Have Only Intensified appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A week before the 1980 election‚ Ronald Reagan closed his debate with President Jimmy Carter with some of the most memorable questions in campaign history: “Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago?” A tight election turned into a Republican romp. READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Latest Evidence of a Death Spiral in Newsom’s California Since then‚ the “are you better or worse off” question has become a staple of presidential campaigns‚ especially in times of rampant inflation and job loss. According to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll‚ 55 percent of Americans — including 62 percent of independents and 21 percent of Democrats — believe they are worse off now than they were during the last administration. Data shows cooling inflation‚ but Americans remain surly about their economic prospects. Against this backdrop‚ it’s odd that President Joe Biden would continue to look toward modern-day California for his economic inspiration given its embrace of labor policies that drive up the cost of living and eliminate jobs — and‚ most decidedly‚ haven’t made us better off. Yet that’s where we are‚ as Biden moved forward on Tuesday with a federal labor rule that‚ as Reuters explains‚ could “upend [the] gig economy” by limiting the ability of companies to use independent contractors. Specifically‚ the new U.S. Department of Labor regulation overturns a Trump-era rule that allowed businesses to treat a wider range of workers as contractors‚ thus exempting them from paying the minimum wage‚ Social Security taxes‚ mandated overtime‚ and other benefits required for employees. “We are confident that this rule will help create a level playing field for businesses [and] protect workers from being denied the right to fair pay‚” said acting Labor Secretary Julie Su‚ who as a top California labor official implemented a similar policy in California. The president might not worry about a 44-year-old political debate‚ but he should ponder the results of a policy implemented only five years ago and overseen by his own acting labor secretary. In 2019‚ Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5‚ which codified a state Supreme Court ruling known as the Dynamex decision that banned the use of independent contractors except in limited circumstances. The federal rule wouldn’t exactly impose AB5 on the nation. But‚ as the New York Times explained‚ “employers tend to follow the department’s guidance‚ and the determination could have influence in other contexts and jurisdictions.” It certainly pushes the country in California’s direction. With AB5‚ the California Legislature had targeted ridesharing companies such as Uber‚ Lyft‚ and DoorDash‚ but the fallout was widespread. It was hatched by unions eager to protect their industries from competition. Supporters claimed its passage would expand benefits and improve working conditions‚ but it’s not hard to guess what happened next. Companies quickly shed jobs. AB5 threatened creative endeavors that relied on freelance writers‚ musicians‚ and photographers. Rideshare drivers — who typically relied on these gigs between their other work and enjoyed the flexible hours — found their extra income threatened. Innovative tech companies faced an existential threat. Because the law applied to truck drivers‚ it contributed to massive backups at the Port of Oakland that further disrupted supply chains. The state even doubled-down on enforcement in the midst of COVID-19-era “stay at home” rules‚ thus limiting freelance income sources for people when they desperately needed it and hobbling delivery services that provided groceries to people who were hunkered down. The Legislature ultimately exempted 100-plus industries from the rules‚ and voters exempted rideshare drivers (although the latter is still in the courts)‚ but it caused blowback. The Legislature didn’t seem to learn from the debacle. Newsom last year signed a law that raises the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 an hour and creates a sectoral-bargaining council to regulate restaurant working conditions. In anticipation of the April pay hike‚ fast-food restaurants already are shedding workers. California progressives will do what they do‚ but it’s unfathomable that the president — down in the polls and struggling to boost the economy before November — is not grasping the obvious message: You can’t make those of lower income better off by regulating their jobs out of existence. Economic news out of the state is discouraging. Its progressive tax system makes the budget overly reliant on capital-gains taxes and always susceptible to boom-and-bust cycles. The Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts an unparalleled $68 billion budget deficit. As CalMatters reported‚ “California is ending the year facing a multitude of economic challenges‚ including a budget deficit‚ flat tax revenue‚ sluggish job growth and massive unemployment insurance debt.” Amid this economic malaise‚ Californians continue to vote with their feet‚ thanks largely to its punishing tax burdens‚ high housing costs‚ and declining quality of life. For several years now‚ the state’s population has declined significantly‚ led by middle-income people seeking better economic prospects. Recent news suggests the state’s wealthiest residents have now joined the exodus. The situation isn’t getting better at the lower end of the economic spectrum‚ despite the state’s ever-expanding panoply of social services and income-transfer programs. California has the highest poverty rate in the nation‚ adjusted for the cost of living. Californians certainly aren’t feeling better off now than in the past‚ so Biden might want to rethink his labor policies lest he suffer the fate of Carter. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: Biden Lashes Out at the Half of the Country That Refuses to Vote for Him World War III Is Coming‚ and Senile Joe Doesn’t Care The post By Echoing Newsom‚ Biden Risks Becoming Carter appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In June 2020‚ as peaceful protesters burned city after city as part of their ongoing Summer of Love‚ Europe watched on warily as the love threatened to spread across the pond and soon did‚ in the United Kingdom‚ Italy‚ Belgium‚ Switzerland‚ Spain‚ and‚ of course‚ France‚ a country even more prone to outbursts of protester-love than our own — by my count‚ about once every two years in recent times‚ thanks usually to scrapes between police and young Muslim/immigrant youths. READ MORE from Erik Lewis: The Trials of Salman Rushdie In keeping with France’s long tradition of tolerating protesters‚ in this case 15‚000 of them who’d gathered beneath the Eiffel Tower‚ and perhaps fearing that the lovers might decide once again to torch Paris‚ French President Emmanuel Macron broke a long‚ uncomfortable silence and addressed the nation. In a televised speech‚ he articulated his support for the protesters’ message and affirmed his government’s commitment to stand against “racisme‚ antisémitisme‚ et discrimination‚” while adding‚ crucially‚ that there would be no erasure of historical monuments or renaming of buildings as was happening stateside‚ where‚ taking a page from Mao and his Cultural Revolution‚ the Lovers‚ not content with smashing storefronts and throwing Molotov cocktails‚ were turning their savage affections on culturo-historical fixtures and works of art. Statues and monuments were maimed‚ defaced‚ toppled‚ officially because said works supposedly depicted‚ or represented‚ things the mob did not love: historical racism‚ sexism‚ misogyny‚ et al. Before too long the distinction between Loved and Unloved broke down‚ and the Lovers started smashing monuments to progressives. Statues of abolitionists and minority and women’s rights advocates were either damaged or toppled simply because … well‚ they just looked old-fashioned and were‚ therefore‚ undeserving of Love. “There are no historians in a mob‚” said Fox News host Dana Perino as the carnage unfolded. That is true. In fact‚ a key aspect of all totalitarian movements is lack of love for art and culture‚ save for that select sliver of cultural expressions that love the State and show it unrestrainedly. A week after Macron’s speech‚ the Paris morning dawned to find a statue of Voltaire‚ theretofore perched serenely in a Left Bank garden‚ covered in red paint. Almost instantly after the statue’s defacement‚ left-wingers took to the internet praising Voltaire’s paint-bombing as a necessary and long-overdue statement of Love and taking shots at the grand old man of French letters for his Judeophobia and his profiting from the slave trade‚ even though the very same charges can be made about Harvard‚ Yale‚ and a great many other liberal institutions and heroes. In fact‚ some of the people who wrote these attacks on Voltaire are presently busy filling cyberspace with rose-colored prose on behalf of Hamas while eviscerating Israel. O selective outrage! O twisted love! As a Voltaire fan‚ art-lover‚ and Francophile‚ it hurt‚ on a personal level‚ to see the attack on Voltaire‚ which represented not just the defacement of one of the West’s great intellectual heroes but an all-too-literal embodiment of the sort of know-nothingness and savagery that has come to define today’s Left. That the vandalism was praised by some both inside and outside France was even more disheartening. It seemed to mark a new low point in the decline of Western civilization. The Age of Reason had become the Age of Unreason‚ the Age of the Mob‚ fueled not by civil discourse and debate but by blind rage and bestial impulses‚ with so-called intellectuals leading the charge. “Men made stupid by education‚” said Wilde‚ a quip that could just have easily come from the hand of Voltaire. Many on the French left have long loathed Voltaire as the embodiment of the Old Guard‚ the so-called patriarchy‚ and his dominance over the Republic of Letters and la République itself. Voltaire’s nemesis‚ Jean-Jacques Rousseau‚ a man unforgettably described by my undergrad politics professor as “the patron saint of all leftists” and “the great liberal whacko who started the dadblame French Revolution‚” is much more highly favored by today’s Left‚ and it’s little wonder why. At a time when most other philosophers were debating bigger‚ more important ideas like freedom and forms of government‚ Rousseau was hung up on feelings‚ on equity and inequities‚ class warfare … and Love. He held that humans were innately good and that society makes us bad (where have we heard that before?). It was Rousseau‚ the original proto-Marxist‚ who drew the plans for the modern welfare state‚ and who made “inequality” a centerpiece of his philosophy. In his memoir Confessions‚ Rousseau recounts visiting a prostitute and weeping as he realized that society would never see her essential worth‚ as he did. Whatever else‚ Rousseau had Empathy‚ that vaunted and oft-manipulated favorite buzzword of today’s Left. Seen in this light‚ it makes sense then that Rousseau’s statute was left unharmed‚ while poor old Voltaire‚ the seemingly peevish‚ elitist aristocrat with the pouf hairdo and the attitude‚ got paint-bombed‚ one of only two statues in the city to receive this unlovable treatment. For Rousseau‚ mankind’s immediate task must be to return to the State of Nature‚ an Eden-like garden of perfection and delight that even he readily admitted had never existed nor ever would‚ yet still he was convinced we should try to find this elusive fantasyland. But how‚ since it existed nowhere outside Rousseau’s own mind? A strange and most romantic notion. That’s what Rousseau was above all else: a Romantic‚ in the purest and most dangerous sense. II Voltaire first encountered Rousseau’s crackpot ideas in the latter’s 1755 essay Discourse on Inequality‚ in which Rousseau attacked private property ownership as the root of evil (another familiar chord) and argued that the inequality that resulted from property ownership could only be remedied by forsaking all pretense of civilization and becoming more like animals‚ something his followers would take‚ and are taking‚ him up on. Five years earlier he’d won an essay prize at Dijon‚ where I would study more than 250 years later‚ although‚ alas‚ without prizes. Perhaps accustomed by now to being treated as a serious thinker‚ Roo‚ as I call him‚ made the fatal mistake of sending his savage little book to the older‚ wiser‚ highly cultured Voltaire‚ who was not amused: “I have received your new book against the human race‚” Voltaire wrote‚ “and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs‚ in reading your book‚ to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years‚ I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it.” (READ MORE from Erik Lewis: Canceling Philip Roth … And His Biographer) No love lost there. Rousseau wrote to Voltaire‚ “I hate you.” Then‚ as if with a tinge of guilt‚ he added‚ “But I hate you like a man still worthier to have loved you.” Cue Mendelssohn. Rousseau’s creepy brand of love would grow more destructive with time‚ as evidenced by his falling out with Hume‚ a once-beloved friend whom he soon viciously turned on‚ accusing him of all sorts of treacheries‚ including trying to have him assassinated. Roo’s final book‚ the rather pitiful Reveries of the Solitary Walker‚ is full of paranoid musings of obsessive love and love lost. His fragile mental and physical states were not helped‚ I contend‚ by his being run over by a galloping Great Dane one day while taking a walk‚ an event he describes in harrowing and rather pathetic detail in Reveries. I asked philosopher-teacher Simon Critchley in his Brooklyn living room some years ago if Rousseau was as crazy in real life as he seems in his writings. “He was quite bonkers‚” said Critchley‚ a sentiment echoed by others. Rousseau does “not pretend to be rational‚” Bertrand Russell wrote in the 1940s. Neither do his followers‚ as they demonstrated in dozens of cities across the U.S. and Europe during the Summer of Love/Winter of Hate. Rage‚ not reason‚ drives these state-of-nature seekers‚ reflecting the psychotic nature of their ideas and those of their designer. You see‚ progressivism is a Dionysian rather than an Apollonian belief system. Virtue and Knowledge‚ not to mention the arts and sciences‚ key aspects of the Apollonian spirit and both which Rousseau expressly rejected as holding no benefit for man‚ are definitionally Apollonian‚ while the Dionysian relies on animal instinct‚ passions‚ chaos‚ pleasure‚ the erotic‚ the irrational‚ the insane. The former values order and logic; the latter‚ pleasure and feeling. The former seeks to build; the latter‚ tear down. And it’s the difference between Rousseau and Voltaire: the culture-hater versus the culture-lover; art collector vs. art-destroyer; realist vs. romantic; civilized vs. barbarian. I’ll take the Party of Humanity over Hamas’ child-raping “Party of God” any day. The fact is‚ for his age‚ Voltaire was astonishingly progressive. He spoke out against torture‚ witch hunts‚ book-burnings‚ religious dogma and bigotry‚ war‚ hypocrisy‚ the privilege and corruption of the ruling classes‚ and even capital punishment‚ something not even the bleeding-heart Rousseau would do. In his 20s‚ Voltaire was thrown in the Bastille for writing satirical poetry against the nobility. In his 30s‚ he was beaten up and exiled to England‚ yet again for insults against noblemen. In his 40s‚ his books were burned‚ and not for the last time. And for all talk about Voltaire and the slave trade‚ most of his wealth came not from slavery but from lottery winnings. I guess soon his detractors will say the lottery was tied to slavery too. Haskell Block writes in his excellent 1956 study that “Voltaire is always our contemporary‚ and never less so than he is today” in his “assertion of human brotherhood and the essential dignity of all men.… He may not have been a saint‚ but there can be no doubt that in his fearless dedication to the rights of others and in his constant struggle to liberate men from the bondage of closed systems of whatever sort‚ he stands forth as one of the great champions of humanity.” This is what anti-Voltairists never mention in their virtue-signaling diatribes. They don’t mention‚ in their haste to brand Voltaire a racist‚ that Voltaire frequently hailed non-White peoples as examples of civility and humanity. We know that he venerated Chinese and Indian cultures. Native peoples‚ too‚ as he made all too clear in his 1767 his novella L’Ingénu‚ performed in Paris in 1768 as the comic opera Le Huron‚ about a Huron Indian who goes to France and is exposed to the bizarre fashions of Europeans‚ a setup Voltaire uses to blast what he perceived as the bigotry‚ corruption‚ fanaticism‚ and intolerance of Western ways. (READ MORE: The Delightful Voltaire) The late‚ great scholar of the Enlightenment Peter Gay writes in his book The Party of Humanity that Voltaire exuded “a passion for humanity and decency‚ a hatred of fanaticism and stupidity.” Unlike the provincial Rousseau‚ Voltaire was a Man of the World‚ a true cosmopolitan. In the words of Islam scholar Ibn Warraq‚ Voltaire was “a universalist who was also perfectly aware and appreciative of cultural differences.” In fact‚ tolerance is one of Voltaire’s most frequent themes‚ the way it was among modern liberals till about twenty years ago‚ when they decided mere tolerance wouldn’t get the job done and dumped it in favor of D.E.I.‚ canceling‚ deplatforming‚ blacklisting‚ and systematic cultural erasure. I’ll take the Party of Humanity over Hamas’ child-raping “Party of God” any day. Voltaire would’ve‚ too‚ and I’m happy to defend his legacy in these un-Enlightened times. The post When Voltaire Fell Victim to France’s Woke Mob appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.