Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Arnold, Can We Learn to Trust Again?
The governor of California, after a long journey through the woods, looks voters in the eye and reaffirms his commitment to fiscal discipline in this brand new one-hander:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's new Stand for California campaign comes as officials are making claims about optimism in the budget standoff that are about as credible as Schwarzenegger's claims to fiscal responsibility. It also comes in the context of a media war, with the California Teacher's Association currently airing this attack ad:
It's a touch of class to use the phrases "never forget" and "never again" in an attack on Austria's most popular export since Hitler, but I think any fair-minded person would agree that cutting public school fiddling classes is exactly the same as the Holocaust. Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger's spot has the edge. It's a classic setup, letting a star address the camera directly. Also, the governor has the wind of the voters at his back. (Although, since the voters in May rejected the governor's own slate of ballot initiatives, I should probably say that the wind of the voters turned the governor's ship around and he's now decided that sailing in this direction was his idea all along.)
One more note about California voters. This media war is about a budget fight which is being waged between the governor and the state legislature, which is confined to Sacramento, and in which the voters actually have no say at all (at least until the next state assembly elections). So it's unclear what influence these ads are supposed to have. I live right next to the Paramount lot, and I can tell you Los Angeles is rapidly fading as the world's entertainment capital. But it says something about the Golden State that everything is still grounds for an A-list production.
|7.14.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Didn't Ben Richards declare that, although he didn't know that much about television, he was "a quick learner" and that "he would give the people what they wanted to see?"
Shannon Love|7.14.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Arnold certainly has not led as he should but I think he
certainly has more credibility than anyone else when it comes to
restraining spending. Back in 2005, he sponsored a "Live within our
Means" (the actual name escapes me) initiative which would have
restrained spending, created a rainy day fund etc and probably
would have prevented the current mess. The voters rejected it
overwhelming. At that point, Arnold seems have just given up and
gone with the flow.
Sad to say, but he may be only person who can prevent California
from finally switching complete from a state in which those in
government work for the people to one in which the people work for
those in government.
|7.14.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Mike, all I see is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with dreams and talk. It's too late for that. If you're not ready to act, give me a break and shut up.
|7.14.09 @ 1:28PM|#
I just heard that some wacko on this site suggested we reduce
the size of our wonderful government.
Reduce the size of Government? Reduce the size of Government?
(Playoffs? Playoffs?)
Why oh why would anyone want to reduce the size and influence of
the Ultimate Source of Goodness, gifts from which in multiplicities
the Holy and Blessed Federal Reserve spews out of its cavernous
mouth, drowning us in the wonderful inheritance of debt manifested
in the Heavenly Manna of Inalienable Right to Unlimited Social
Services and Inflated Dollars?
What, you say you believe in personal responsibility and
"savings"????
Oh, I pity you your ancient and naive little provincial view. You
are close to heresy.
Repent before The One (Pbuh) issues a fatwa on your ass.
|7.14.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Although, since the voters in May rejected the governor's own slate of ballot initiatives, I should probably say that the wind of the voters turned the governor's ship around and he's now decided that sailing in this direction was his idea all along.
Which is of course what he did the first time after voters rejected
all his good government and less spending initiatives a few years
ago, causing Arnold to U-turn and go with big spending.
This media war is about a budget fight which is being waged between the governor and the state legislature, which is confined to Sacramento, and in which the voters actually have no say at all (at least until the next state assembly elections). So it's unclear what influence these ads are supposed to have.
You're familiar with the "government shutdown" back in the mid
'90s, right? President Clinton said he would veto any budget that
didn't spend more than what Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans
wanted to spend. When the negotiations broke down, it mattered a
whole bunch who the balance of the voters blamed.
Mike Laursen|7.14.09 @ 2:03PM|#
I live right next to the Paramount lot, and I can tell you
Los Angeles is rapidly fading as the world's entertainment
capital.
Pretty much agree with everything you wrote about the budget. Have
to question this statement, though -- you may not be aware that the
television industry has been drifting into L.A.'s beach cities.
|7.14.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Mike Laursen, try this article from the LA Times detailing how movie and TV pilots and shows are rapidly moving away from LA in particular and California in general.
|7.14.09 @ 2:24PM|#
When the negotiations broke down, it mattered a whole bunch
who the balance of the voters blamed.
It also matters BEFORE the negotiations break down, or don't break
down, which side the voters favor. (Some) politicians poll, and pay
attention to phone calls and emails incoming from constituents. Not
all of them, but budgets get passed at the margins.
So, yes, both sides are furiously trying to spin events to make
their negotiating position look reasonable.
24AheadDotCom|7.14.09 @ 2:32PM|#
[I need to set up a macro for this comment or something]
Perhaps Gillespie Welch would be kind enough to
describe how the policies that Reason promotes have helped get CA
into the current mess. Reason has constantly promoted
MassiveImmigration without coupling that with a
demand for ending social welfare. While Reason has very little
influence (if it has any at all), MassiveImmigration has done
tremendous harm to CA, and not just through increased spending.
It's also given a tremendous amount of power to far-left
politicians, and those far-left politicians have then used that
power to push for more spending.
If Reason had made their proposals all-or-nothing, that would be
one thing. But, they have never done that: they've never said that
they'll only support OpenBorders once the WelfareState is
demolished. They've supported OpenBorders and MassiveImmigration
despite knowing what would happen in the real world where, for
instance, many CA legislators act more like agents of the
MexicanGovernment than U.S. elected officials.
Here's more on California governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger, including things that - of course -
Reason won't tell you. Click each link to read more.
P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost
assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the
childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.
Mike Laursen|7.14.09 @ 2:36PM|#
...try this article from the LA Times...
Alright, I stand corrected. I'm a little angry, though, that the
article reminded me of the existence of Howie Mandell.
KingShamus|7.14.09 @ 2:37PM|#
He might've been a girly man before 2005, but after that we got
confirmation.
The Governator experiment had a lot of promise, but once he caved
in to bigger spending proposals and nonsense 'green' initiatives, I
gave up on the dude.
He wanted to be a popular reformer. The problem is, reform means
pissing off massive special interests. Once he stopped getting
kudos from his liberal pals, he decided he wanted to spend his way
to popularity.
Mike Laursen|7.14.09 @ 2:39PM|#
The governor of California, after a long journey through the
woods, looks voters in the eye and reaffirms his commitment to
fiscal discipline in this brand new one-hander...
I'm just hoping he's moved on from trying to sway public opinion by
threatening to close all the state parks and release all the
violent felons. I have friends who were taking all that bullshit
seriously.
|7.14.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Hey Lonewacko, you ever seen a grown man naked?
(I ask this assuming you own a full-length mirror.)
Mike Laursen|7.14.09 @ 2:40PM|#
So Arnold became a girly man after his 2005 initiative
failed?
Yup, there was one power on earth that could take down The
Terminator -- bureaucracy.
|7.14.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Yup, there was one power on earth that could take down The
Terminator -- bureaucracy.
Plastique and a machine press worked pretty well the first time.
Molten steel the second time. But not in Terminator:
Salvation, oh no!
God that movie sucked.
|7.14.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Epi, apologies for the threadjack. You reminded me that mrs. brotherben and I spent a buck and rented and watched "Knowing" over the weekend. I want my dollar back.
LocoSolo|7.14.09 @ 2:57PM|#
[Necesito fijar una macro para este comentario o algo] Quizás
Gillespie sería bastante bueno describir cómo las políticas que
Razón promueve han ayudado a conseguir el CA en el lío actual.
Razón ha promovido constantemente la InmigraciónMasiva
sin el acoplador que con una demanda para la
asistencia social de la conclusión. Mientras que Razón tiene muy
poco influencia (si tiene cualesquiera en absoluto), la
InmigraciónMasiva ha hecho enorme daño al CA, y no apenas con el
gasto creciente. It' s también dado una cantidad enorme de energía
a los políticos de extrema izquierda, y esos políticos de extrema
izquierda entonces han utilizado esa energía de impulsar más
gasto.
Si Razón hubiera hecho sus ofertas todo o nada, ésa sería una cosa.
Pero, nunca han hecho eso: nunca han dicho que apoyarán solamente
las FronterasAbiertas que demuelen una vez al EstadoDelBienestar.
Han apoyado las FronterasAbiertas y la InmigraciónMasiva a pesar de
saber qué sucedería en el mundo real donde, por ejemplo, muchos
legisladores del CA actúan más bién agentes del GobiernoMexicano
que cargos electos de los E.E.U.U.
Aquí está más en el gobernador Arnold Schwarzenegger de California,
incluyendo las cosas que - por supuesto - Razón no le dice. Chasque
cada acoplamiento para leer más.
P.S. En caso de que cualquier persona conteste a esto, sus
respuestas casi confiado serán homs del anuncio, de tal modo
concediendo mis puntos y demostrando la naturaleza infantil,
anti-intellectual de libertarios.
|7.14.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Threadjack:
Who does more disservice to science fiction?
A. Nicholas Cage
B. Roland Emmerich
C. Micheal Bay
D. SyFy Channel
|7.14.09 @ 3:01PM|#
You spent money on a Nicholas Cage movie? You got what you
deserved.
With the notable exception of "Adaptation" and "Con Air", I
agree.
Warty|7.14.09 @ 3:04PM|#
SugarFree, SyFy/SciFi wins/loses on the strength/weakness of the Battlestar Galactica ending/abortion.
|7.14.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Warty,
I agree. But for all the delights of BSG, SyFy brings Dr. Who and
its spin-offs into my beloved country... and that is a sin I cannot
forgive.
Warty|7.14.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Does Starbuck spend angel? Why can't the consuming flesh
invalidate a hello? Our gnome reassures the debugger. A nail
misinterprets angel. When will angel write?
Starbuck needs angel under the focus. Starbuck indexes the large
wood. How will this improved disregard decide throughout Starbuck?
Against another credible recorder sings a commissioned logo. Angel
masters Starbuck with the guideline.
Zeb|7.14.09 @ 3:39PM|#
"SyFy brings Dr. Who and its spin-offs into my beloved
country"
I hope you are just talking about the new Dr. Who.
Rich|7.14.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Almost as funny after re-translation (thanks to Babel
Fish).
LocoSolo | July 14, 2009, 2:57 p.m. | # Perhaps [Necesito to
determine a macro for this commentary or something] Gillespie would
be quite good for describing how the policies that Reason promotes
have helped to obtain the CA in the present mess. Reason has
constantly promoted the InmigraciónMasiva without the coupler that
with one it demands for the social attendance of the conclusion.
Whereas Reason has very little influence (if it has any
absolutely), the InmigraciónMasiva has made enormous damage to the
CA, and not hardly with the increasing cost. It' s also given an
enormous amount of energy to the politicians of extreme left, and
those politicians of extreme then left have used that energy to
impel more cost. If Reason had done its supplies everything or
nothing, that one would be a thing. But, never they have done that:
they have never said that they will support only the
FronterasAbiertas that demolishes once to the EstadoDelBienestar.
They have supported the FronterasAbiertas and the InmigraciónMasiva
in spite of knowing what would happen in the real world where, for
example, many legislators of the CA rather act agents of the
GobiernoMexicano that elect positions of the USA. Here he is more
in the governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, including the
things that - by all means - Reason does not say to him. Chasque
each connection to read more. P.S. In case any person answers this,
their answers almost trusting will be homs of the announcement, of
such way granting my points and demonstrating the infantile nature,
anti-intellectual of libertarios.
|7.14.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Zeb,
I am not a fan of any incarnation of the Dr. Who franchise, but the
new stuff on SyFy is an atrocity-laden barf-fest from start to
finish. That it is even considered "science fiction" is to torture
the definition of such past the point of meaningfulness, and indeed
into a hideous sort of madness.
|7.14.09 @ 4:01PM|#
He wanted to be a popular reformer. The problem is, reform means pissing off massive special interests and voters.
He could've stood the lack of kudos. He couldn't stand have all the
reform initiatives a few years back get trashed at the ballot box.
Yeah, perhaps the special interests and the media command a
majority of voters in California. That just means that the state is
screwed.
|7.14.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Suge, Mrs. brotherben is a SyFy addict. She loves all the really cheesy (in an elephants on TurboLax kinda way) movies. As the movies are way too stupid and unbelievable to be fiction, they must be science-fiction. I will say, in her defense, that she appreciates b-movies as an art form. Also that she is an aspiring sci-fi romance writer and fully understands the profitability of crap.
hmm|7.14.09 @ 6:23PM|#
Moody cut Cali's rating again today. Baa, not only the lowest rated state, they are gaining distance from the next lowest at an increasing rate.
|7.14.09 @ 7:13PM|#
Arnold had it right in 2005 but for one thing: he failed to realize how much power the unions have and how desperate they would be to kill his initiatives. $100 million desperate, to put a number on it. All OPM, 'donated' by union members.
Sean W. Malone|7.14.09 @ 8:29PM|#
The more I watch this mess from within the state, the more I
struggle to really blame my Governator.
For one thing, as the representative of the Executive
branch, it's not his damn job to balance the budget. It's the
senate's job. And as far as I'm aware, there's only one person (R,
Chuck DeVore) taking any of it seriously in the legislature.
Schwarzenegger is going to get blamed for a lot of it, but I'm not
sure what else he could possibly do... He can't waltz in with a
shotgun and a bionic arm this time.
As for the Film & TV industry (which, is the industry I work
in)... John Thacker - you're article is not wrong to some extent,
but what's happening is the same thing that's happened to every
other industry in California. The day-to-day labor work is being
outsourced to places that are cheaper and easier to deal with.
Movies are being shot in Vancouver, Toronto, Prague... In
Oklahoma... Texas... All over the place.
This means that yes, most of the crew work is going to those
places, but the production company offices are all still here. And
all of the "above the line" people (directors, writers, DPs, etc.)
are still in Los Angeles and probably won't move for a while.
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner I can move to a more
liberty-oriented location and yet keep doing what I want to do for
a living, the better. Truth is though it's probably all just going
to be decentralized entirely and then who the hell knows what's
going to happen.
Not Yet Terminated|7.15.09 @ 7:23AM|#
For the record, what Ben Richards said was "And now I'm going to
give de people what I tink dey want."
As for why Arnie seems to be showing some late-blooming courage, I
figure this is his swan song; it's typical in politics not to
stretch your neck out until your throat's about to be cut anyway.
I've always wondered why we don't see more of this kind of thing at
the end of politicians' terms, actually: can you imagine what a
hilarious spectacle it would be for us if more guys on the way out
said "Screw this! I don't answer to you idiots anymore, so now,
before I go, I'm gonna veto the hell out of this budget. You don't
like that, then go suck on it! What are you gonna do, fire
me!?"
All I can figure is that for too many politicians who started out
as gung-ho budget reformers and ended up spending like drunken
Democrats, they probably spent their early years in office waiting
for the moment when they no longer had to worry about their
approval ratings and the next election, but it took too much time.
When that moment finally arrived, the process of corruption that
comes with attaining and holding power and wanting to be liked was
complete, and it was too late for them.
In Arnie's case, though, he hasn't been in office all that long by
some standards. Maybe we're finally going to get to see a guy do
the political equivalent of a suicide bombing? If so, I can hardly
wait to see it.
|7.15.09 @ 11:40AM|#
can you imagine what a hilarious spectacle it would be for us if more guys on the way out said "Screw this! I don't answer to you idiots anymore, so now, before I go, I'm gonna veto the hell out of this budget. You don't like that, then go suck on it! What are you gonna do, fire me!?"
Not that hilarious. It would just get overridden. See Mark Sanford,
repeatedly. Also see even GWB, with the veto of the farm bill.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245