Cali Crazy: A Texan’s take on the Golden State—part 5—Making us better citizens: one lightbulb and gun law at a time

citizens

I’ve noticed something about California lawmakers: They don’t trust us citizens to be good people on our own. So they create laws to help us become better people … with their help.

As a doofus Texan, do I need the enlightened folks in Sacramento to help me be a better person? Nope. When it comes to lightbulbs and handguns, I need a nanny state like I need a hole in the head.

Take the legislative push to help Californians use less energy, for instance. If you add floodlights to the outside of your home, by law they must have motion sensors that kick them on when the neighbor’s cat triggers them at 3 a.m.

Why can’t you just leave them turned off when you go to bed, you ask? Because this is much too commonsensical. You see most Californians can’t be trusted to turn off their floodlights before turning in.

The folks in Sacramento know this right well, which is why they created a law to help mitigate our thoughtlessness.

However, if you buy newer, more efficient LED floodlights, you don’t need a motion sensor built in. It’s kind of a carrot, you see—do the right thing, and buy an energy efficient LED floodlight, and it doesn’t matter that you’re still likely to leave your floodlight on. This way, thoughtlessly burning it all night uses much less energy.

I have LEDs because they use a fraction of the energy fluorescents and incandescents use. It’s smart and cheaper. Do I need a law to be wise and thrifty? Do you?

Guns Guns GUNS!

The handling of the “gun issue” in California is the mother of all efforts to make us citizens better people. And here’s an irony—once a part of the Old West where saloon disputes were solved with revolvers on main street, California has become an overprotective, hyper-legislative wuss of a state.

Texas is the rootinest tootinest shootinest hombre east and north of the Rio Grande. And for some reason, I take a heap of pride in this distinction. Mostly for this reason—through all its bluster, Texas runs on common sense.

Funny thing is that for years as a Texas resident, I didn’t give a hoot about owning a gun. But after moving to California and experiencing the angst and annoyance many Northern Californians felt during the Obama years, I now exercise my Second Amendment rights with grit and gusto.

You see when a silly pseudo-Old West state like California tries to force itself on me for my own protection, I’m likely to protect myself from it. It’s called Freedom, and it’s mighty scarce ’round here.

A matter of trust

It all boils down to this: California lawmakers, many of them hailing from the Northeast either directly or one or two generations removed, don’t trust their citizens—or anyone for that matter—to do the right thing. This goes for energy use and for self and/or property protection.

In the case of firearms, these Yankee know-it-alls think California citizens don’t need those dangerous, treacherous things. Do you know how many people guns kill people in California annually? A big, fat zero. Criminals kill people…with guns.

Not sure the folks in “Sac” as they call the Cali capitol ’round here understand something elementary about guns: They need a finger to trigger them. Otherwise, they’re just pieces of steel or alloy. And limiting their magazines to 10 rounds won’t do a thing.

You see, it’s not like bad people are gonna abide by the law and make sure their magazines are legal capacity. They don’t follow the rules in getting weapons; why would they give two shakes about a 10-round magazine limit?

Logical state: Criminals will always have and use guns.
Logical measure: Allow more good guys and girls to have guns.
Logical conclusion: Good can more effectively combat evil.

Update: Well, what do you know? This happened in Texas on Wednesday, May 3, 2017—just three days before this post: 

Police: ‘Good Samaritan’ kills active shooter in Texas sports bar

Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun and saves others.
Yeehaw!

Trusting citizens

In the rare instance a background-checked and trained conceal carry licensed citizen can use his or her weapon to protect others and him or herself, the 10-round limit gives the criminal the advantage in a firefight.

Here’s an idea: Instead of forcing citizens to carry more magazines (which negates concealment, by the way), why not let conceal carry permit holders use magazines that hold as many rounds as the handgun can manage?

Level the playing field between good guy and bad guy, right? Common sense? Nope.

California lawmakers don’t consider this commonsensical; they think it’s dangerous. Why? The answer brings us back to an earlier point: If they don’t trust us to turn off floodlights, why would they trust us with guns?

The truth is they would like to forbid gun ownership in California … period. It’s that simple. They think citizens who want to own and use guns shouldn’t.

Their legislative message is this: Don’t be a right-wing, gun-crazy nutjob. That’s what Texans are for.

By attacking Assad’s air base, we’ve pressed a real RESET button: Tyrants beware—America is a paper tiger no more.

tyrants

Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ford Williams/U.S. Navy via AP

Love him or hate him, Trump just reasserted America’s lone superpower status. And though I don’t like our president, I’m grateful that we’re off the sidelines and back in the game. Hooyah!

Punching an evil tyrant in the nose is EXACTLY the right response to war crimes. It’s eight years overdue, but better late than never. Our missile attack on Syria’s Shayrat air base sends this vital message to Assad and Putin and others like him:

If you commit acts of barbarity against civilians, expect anything and everything from the world’s greatest military.

By the way, how does Trump’s treatment of Russia and its ally make the howlers of Russia/Trump election collusion look? Silly, that’s what.

Cool as Key lime pie

I have to give it to him: How cool is it to order the strike and then sit down to dinner with a tyrannical leader of another amoral regime? I wonder if Xi Jinping was just beginning to enjoy his Key lime pie when an aid whispered the news in his ear.

tyrants

What Trump seems to get and others should, too, is this:

Evil leaders, regimes and terrorists—and this includes Iran, North Korea, ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al—only consider altering behavior in response to brute force and the fear that crossing “red lines” will likely result in violent consequences.

There are those who claim that Assad’s gas attack is somehow a product of Trump’s supposed “hateful” words. Based on Assad’s previous behavior:

This horrendous act would likely have happened had Hillary been elected. It would likely have happened had Trump not even run. It would’ve even more likely have happened if Obama were still in office.

In each scenario, the timing and other factors may have been different, but the salient issue is this—the gassing of civilian men, women and children was not about Trump or his words. Every neophyte president gets smacked in the face with the reality of real-world intelligence. It happened to Obama and now to Trump.

Any self-respecting tyrant

Does any reasonable person truly think Assad is such a two-bit tyrant that he takes his cues from Trump’s “hate” words and acts accordingly? He’s an evil dictator with a weak chin—why would he need motivation from a loose-cannon-mouthed president? To those who blame Trump for this—STOP giving him so much power.

I’ve written time and again that I don’t like Trump. Though he’s petty, thin-skinned and a bit buffoonish, he’s not evil nor is he the devil. That said, I’m glad he just reestablished America as the muscle behind right responses to international war crimes committed by thugs and their minions.

Finally, America is back as the world’s enforcer of international law and order and common, civilized morality. My first shout out was in Navy speak—here’s the Marine Corps version—Oorah!

Being back sure feels good. It’s RESET time, baby.

Diversity=disunity. Rediscovering the American Dream is our only hope.

dream

We become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams. ~Jimmy Carter

Let’s talk about the dream that once made our nation strong. This vision has nothing to do with differing anything. Where once our differences were incidental; they’re now monumental. What can we do to overcome our obstacles and achieve real unity? Rediscover our shared American Dream.

The American Dream once beckoned hopeful immigrants to come for the chance to build new lives through opportunity and freedom. If they could only get to our shores, they reasoned, they could work hard to become citizens in a nation that, far from perfect, afforded them the best chance to build new and better lives.

What happened to the American Dream? It’s been lost to the limiting, shaming and militant god of cultural diversity. If my grandfather had arrived in 2021 instead of 1909, he would find a once promising and relatively united country torn and tugged by division and a glorification of all things different.

Building barriers, not bridges

Instead of discovering a diverse nation of fellow immigrants and new citizens united by a shared dream, he’d be encouraged to cling to his cultural heritage and to resist embracing American culture—the very culture his family had scrimped and saved and sacrificed everything to join.

My grandfather would be confronted by his supposed “white privilege” even though he was more olive than white. America’s diversity dealers would demand he accept his white guilt and embrace his tribe. They don’t build bridges; they build barriers by glorifying differences.

Our once shared American Dream has been trampled and trumped by a small, but vocal minority who decry its legitimacy. A dream that galvanized generations of immigrants has been replaced by a glorification of cultural diversity.

There’s nothing wrong with cultural diversity per se—but there’s everything wrong with it when it divides rather than unites us. Diversity, with the right perspective and emphasis, makes us uniquely American.

Diversity as America

What began as a rekindling of interest in our rich ethnic and cultural origins has become an elevation of all things diverse. And by making diversity an obsession, proponents have denigrated the idea of conforming to a shared national identity.

Here’s a fun factoid:

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “diversity” only acquired a positive connotation as recently as 1992. Since then, diversity means so much more than … well, what it actually means.

Contrary to our leaders in education, politics and the spirit of the age, diversity does not make for a Utopian paradise of differing and self-contained, yet somehow cohesive mini-cultures. Neither does it weave a strong national tapestry or create a beautiful mosaic. What did diversity mean before its meaning was co-opted?

Diversity is rooted in a Latin word for disagreement, which naturally occurs when people of differing cultures, ethnicities, religions and worldviews come together. Diversity is a close cousin to discord, which is inevitable—just as my words will create discord. Worthwhile diversity is about commitment, not division.

Commitment is constitutional

In America, what unites people with differences is a commitment to a common dream: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a central tenet of our Constitution, which, by the way, immigrants swear by before they become citizens.

The oath, in part, is this: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America … that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Renounce allegiance … bear true faith? These words confirm a commitment to a uniquely American way of thinking, an embrace of uniquely American values and dreams. The words of the oath are a commitment to … dun dun DUN … assimilation.

Assimilation good, tribalism bad

Sadly, assimilation has been made a dirty word just as “melting pot” has been made a dirty phrase. Here’s the truth—an immigrant cannot truly commit to becoming an American nor fulfill his or her oath without assimilating.

The idea that successful immigration can occur without assimilation is a relatively new construct—and it’s naturally illogical. A foolish, mouthy minority has convinced a generation of young minds that a culture with differing beliefs, yearnings, hopes and dreams makes for a stronger society and nation. This is nonsense.

Here’s more truth: A culture with different people with differing beliefs and points of origin can be strong—but only if its people are united by a common dream.

Consider the world-changing actions of our “Greatest Generation.” Ask an elderly American what made his or her country great. They certainly don’t cringe at the mention of a melting pot. If they’re honest—and most are—they’ll tell you Jimmy Carter is full of it.

Issue of the heart

This quote by a much more effective president make much more sense: “Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections.” ~George Washington

This seems like “nationalism” because it is. Is nationalism also a dirty word? It is now. Somehow, to be a nationalistic nation is to be a racist one—even though our country have been its strongest, wisest and best when we’ve been the most nationalistic. Is it wrong to be a nationalistic superpower? Not when a nation balances its greatness with goodness.

The greatest nations in history were powerful, altruistic and influential in their time. And they were nationalistic … without being Nazi. Take this test: Think about the word nationalism. Does Nazi or Alt Right come to mind? If so, have you been influenced by an ideology?

Conversely, if nationalism makes you think about our nation coming together after Pearl Harbor or 9-11, maybe your mind is still free and historically sensitive and unencumbered by propaganda.

Logic over lunacy

Let’s look at this logically. Allow me to ask some penetrating questions regarding this diversity-as-virtue motif:

When athletes on a sports team hold differing beliefs about how to reach their goal of winning a championship, will they be as likely to become champions? If soldiers in an army have different ideas about how to win a battle and aren’t willing to follow the battle plan, will the army be as effective a fighting force?

When employees of a company don’t conform to a singular business model to achieve profitability, will the company stand the best chance to succeed? If we hold differing beliefs, yearnings, hopes and dreams, can we be strong as a nation?

Never too late

Yes, we can, but only if we lose the hyphen and see ourselves as Americans first and foremost. We desperately need to re-examine this infatuation with elevating and glorifying cultural differences. If you want to appreciate other cultures, please do so, but don’t do it at the expense of a shared American culture.

The opportunity to pursue happiness and the American Dream can be as inviting, accepting and amazing for us and our children and grandchildren as it was for our great-grandparents and their parents.

We’re different, but let’s be different together—as Americans. Let’s resist the diversity despots who create barriers between us by glorifying our differences. By coming together, we can recapture what Americans do best—excel by pursuing a shared dream of freedom, opportunity and goodness through commitment.