Los Angeles

L.A. Times Grossed Out by Poor People

|

Speaking of Riverside, I'm probably driving out this afternoon to hear Sheldon Richman speak at La Sierra U. Get in touch if you want to carpool.

They live in ugly, sprawling towns. They clog up the roads and foul the air. They force their foreign tongue on people who just want to speak American. 

They are the poor, and the Los Angeles Times editorial board hates them. 

One of the unsung blessings of late-breaking news is that it forces newspaper editorial boards (still bound by the Baumol inefficiencies of print) to roll out their odd-length evergreens that will take up the right number of lines in the editorial stack. The L.A. Times' on-the-one-hand-this-on-the-other-hand-that response to the death of Osama bin Laden had the good side effect of creating a hole in the stack just right to fit this elitist attack on the people of Southern California. The editorial shows signs of having sat for months in the purgatory of the CCI publishing system, and its existence can only be explained by the fact that it conveniently covers the necessary two-thirds of the stack. Fittingly, the piece is now Opinion L.A.'s most-viewed article. 

"Southern California's great migration" participates in the sterling journalistic tradition of taking a broadly positive trend and treating it as bad news. In this case it's the net migration of Southern California residents to the Inland Empire. As I noted briefly in Reason's April print issue, census results indicate that Golden Staters are increasingly choosing to leave the state's high-tax, tightly zoned "gateway cities" for remote suburbs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where they must endure such deprivations as bigger houses, better schools, safer neighborhoods and (unmentioned by the L.A. Times) lower local taxes. 

As the ed board notes, these intra-state migrants include "working class and immigrant families." That's not a mysterious move. The paper's own regular news reporters are making clearer every day that L.A. County is among the most expensive, corrupt and dysfunctional jurisdictions in the history of the republic – a place where only the wealthy can afford a comfortable existence. The real estate bust, which has been much larger in the inland counties, makes housing there even more affordable. No surprise, then, that the number of "nonwhite children" in L.A. County has declined. (So has the number of white children in L.A. County, but the ed board doesn't bother with that.) 

So what could possibly be the problem? It's really aesthetic: 

The quick rise and fall of the Inland Empire — which already shows the first signs of recovery — has thrown into sharp relief a longstanding truth about Southern California's growth pattern: Its dependence on cars, its sprawl and the general lack of regional planning create an unwieldy hodgepodge of housing and jobs that make its residents too vulnerable to shifts in the economy.

There's a lot to admire in this paragraph. The self-negating chiasmus in "quick rise and fall of the Inland Empire — which already shows the first signs of recovery." The amphiboly "has thrown into sharp relief" – a phrase that actually means nothing more than "reminds me of." The false induction whereby one concocted crisis (people high-tailing it out of L.A.) leads to the author's preferred diagnosis (absence of rail-accessible smart growth hubs, preferably with a Coffee Bean and a Waldenbooks B. Dalton Dutton's Borders Barnes & Noble). 

"With the housing market's sharp downturn and the flailing economy, things haven't worked out for many of us as we'd planned," the author coos. This statement is false in person and number: Members of the Times editorial board are (as was I during my too-brief tenure) paid at least twice what their jobs are worth. When they try to speak for anybody earning less than $60,000 a year, it comes out sounding like what it is: purse-lipped snobbery wrapped up in a disguise of liberal concern. 

A little slice of heaven right there in Riverside County. I may go househunting after Richman's speech.

So we learn that the "Latino families" who trekked out to Riverside and San Berdoo have been separated from the folkways that "catered to their needs." Strange then that the vast majority of recent arrivals are managing to stay put despite the foreclosure wave – though the editorial barely mentions this and refers to "the first signs of a reverse migration." The shoddy evidence for that reverse migration – a mini-scandal within this broadly scandalous piece of journalism – comes from an L.A. Times story published a year before the 2010 census, which the ed board says suggested "there were the first signs of reverse migration — growth of ethnic minority populations slowed [in the Inland Empire] and began rebounding in such gateway cities as Los Angeles." 

In any event the editorial later concedes that housing starts are "up slightly in the Inland Empire." So apparently people who can't hack the redeveloped swankitude of downtown L.A. are still managing to find homes in less tony districts. 

But is that all they need? And by the way, in 140 lines, this editorial can't find a single person with a Spanish-sounding name to play the role of Every[person], referring to "they" and "them" throughout, with resulting weird constructions like "their new job might be at any distance, in almost any direction." 

No, apparently the proletariat will remain alienated from the means of production until they (it?) have (has?) a "centralized employment hub for the region." Repeat: "With no centralized location where most jobs are found, it's hard to build a system that can take enough workers where they need to go." I would say there already is such a system and it's called the automobile. But what's the point? Cars are of course the problem, a scandalously low percentage of Inland Empire residents take mass transit, and we're back to what I find so offensive about this editorial. 

Of course, there's the sneering disdain for people the ed board considers too dumb and desperate even to take care of themselves, let alone act in any pattern approaching civic-mindedness. But worse, the condescension doesn't even come from an honest, Judge Elihu Smails-style aristocratic impulse. It's just a secondhand fantasy from a smug cocoon of right-thinking people who have ready access to on-site parking, Rick Caruso-style fauxmericana villages, and environmentally safe disposable coffee cups. People, in other words, who can't imagine a fate worse than moving to Riverside, that El Dorado on the Santa Ana. 

NEXT: After the Twister

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey Tim ? ya ever heard of a zoning code? Hate to break it to ya, but there’s nothing libertarian about suburbia.

    1. Hey asdf, ya ever hear of choices? Hate to break it to ya, but there are libertarian qualities to having choices, especially given that choice a) small house, high taxes and choice b) big house, lower taxes.

      The fact that an entity decided that all of these lots are for houses, and those lots are for industrial purposes is actually OK with a lot of libertarians, even as steeped in property rights as the philosophy is. Zoning is not usually changed after you buy, so you know damned well what you can do on your property and what you can not. I’m not buying a lot, spending money building a house and moving in, just to have you dig a landfill right next door.

      Now if the reverse was true, and you had a landfill and then I bought next door, I would have no room to complain as it’s called moving to the nuisance. And it would be my fault for buying that property.

      You see the theme here? Choices.

      1. Actually, I oppose zoning*.

        If someone wants to put a landfill in the empty lot next to you…tough shit. That was a risk you took when you purchased. I guess you should have bought the empty lot too.

        *some exceptions based on noise and affluents, which might apply to your landfill example too.

        1. Oh and

          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

          Cant believe I had to do that to myself.

        2. Precisely your asterisk (although I thought it was “Effluents”).

          🙂

          1. Unless you meant to say that we should ban rich people.

            1. That’s usually the opposite of the intent of zoning!

              1. Totally, MikeP!
                And further robc, I really just wanted to respond to asdf… although I believe his/her response would be “but, but, but… you have to take roads to get there! ROADZZ!! You’re all anti-road lunatics!”

            2. Don’t joke. My Town Council lowered the maximum housing height, because a few people didn’t like the “McMansions” being built by the relatively rich people moving into a neighborhood.

              1. Ah, “McMansion”, now there’s a red flag phrase.

          2. I typed effluents first and changed it.

            Doh.

            Using rich people for the landfill has been suggested by some though.

            1. “Affluent” can also mean a tributary stream, although that’s considered archaic.

        3. I guess you should have bought the empty lot too.

          That’s a damn inefficient use of land if everyone has to buy 4x the land they need if they don’t want to live next to a landfill.

          1. fyi, assuming sqaures it would be 8x

            just sayin.

            1. Never correct Dr. Teabagger’s geometry, you ingrate.

            2. I bought 20 acres. Just sayin’.

            3. I was counting lots that actually share a border with yours, since that’s the best case scenario if we follow robc’s suggestion. But yes, you would probably have to buy even more in practice to keep a certain distance away from the land fill.

              1. I have 640 acres, suckahs. THe only neighbors I have to worry about are cattle. And they’re my cattle, so if they piss me off, I got burgers and steaks for a lifetime.

                And they know it.

          2. Or you could say that it requires people who want to control the sight lines from the location of their house to actually pay the cost required to do that, rather than make their abutters bear the cost in the form of reduced usage options for their properties.

            1. I thought we were talking about landfills, not sightlines. Two entirely different concerns.

          3. That’s a damn inefficient use of land if everyone has to buy 4x the land they need if they don’t want to live next to a landfill.

            They don’t have to buy the land. They just need to buy the right to prevent the land fill.

            A price far less then buying the whole thing.

            1. I should also point out that on a per square foot basis land next to a neighborhood (with roads and power and sewer and ect) is more valuable as residential then it is as a land fill.

              Because of market forces Landfills being built next to houses does not happen with any regularity and the likely hood of it happening is actually increased by zoning because of the distortions zoning causes in the market place and because it puts the power of land use into the hands of poeple who do not have vested interests in the land.

            2. Right. Many neighboring land owners will set up a trust to buy and hold easments that prevent unpleasant developments in town. It’s a great libertarian solution.

              1. Many neighboring land owners will set up a trust to buy and hold easments that prevent unpleasant developments in town.

                I am talking about home owners associations and covenants and restrictions agreements. They exist today not just in libertopia.

                Also be more obvious with your sarcasm…most poeple probably did not pick it up.

                1. It wasn’t sarcasm, Joshua. We have a nonprofit near me that buys and holds easments to keep land natural. I also read an article a couple years ago about how neighbors form trusts and sell easments to these trusts because they all want to keep the land wild. It tends to happen in sparsely populated areas before they become suburban.

                  1. sorry

        4. If someone wants to put a landfill in the empty lot next to you…tough shit. That was a risk you took when you purchased. I guess you should have bought the empty lot too.

          If zoning were done away with, it would simply be created from the ground up in the form of neighborhood associations. The protection for property values that they afford are simply too appealing when the family home is most of a family’s equity.

        5. I guess you should have bought the empty lot too.

          Or simply bought in a neighborhood or community that set up covenants and restrictions on the vacant lot.

          The astonishing thing about zoning is that its benefits (small as they are) can be replicated voluntarily by the the land owners without the government and other non-interest holders getting involved and redistributing property rights after the fact.

          As you noted below:

          Coase indeed.

    2. The zoning in the Inland Empire is far less pernicious than in Los Angeles.

  2. The more local the better. If a neighborhood wants to enact HOAs or strict zoning, that’s not libertarian, but it’s better to be on the local side (if one has to pick an evil, go with the lesser everytime).

    I hate when people decry urban sprawl. It is simply stating that people are stupid for not living like the editorialist thinks they should, like the editorialist does (I’m sure). People vote for suburban sprawl with their feet and wallets. The same is said for urbanites and apartment dwellers.

    In summation, “why all the mothafuckin’ hate?”

    1. There really isn’t a better display of waste or inefficiency than suburban sprawl.
      well – maybe gubmint pensions.

      1. “Sprawl” is nothing but a natural consequence of growth. How the hell are you going to fit twenty million into Manhattan?

        1. Arcologies?

        2. “‘sprawl’ is nothing but a natural consequence of growth.”
          I disagree with that statement. It’s a consequence of uninformed or inefficient development strategies/desires. In older times with less available information probably, but now it’s fairly avoidable with planning.

          See S?o Paulo for an example of an awesome lack of urban planning and growth strategy and the effects from it.

          1. See S?o Paulo for an example of an awesome lack of urban planning and growth strategy and the effects from it.

            No, that’s an example of poverty. Urban planning is an aesthetic that shifts with fads from year to year and decaded to decade. You get cities redone from the top down in the latest fashion, and then they end up looking like garbage after a few years. See Los Angeles for an example of what years of idealized urban planning will create. The cities that are today used as models, ironically enough, tended to arise well before the advent of any organized urban planning.

            1. I used it as an example because it is one of the latest megacities and has yet to go through the “redevlopment facelift” Most cities have grown this way historically but I propose that it’s time to change that since we now have the tools and information at our disposal to do so.

              I don’t claim to know everything about SP but I did live there for a year and had many a conversation about the cities rather recent hyper-development. Obvioulsy poverty played a role, but it’s not the reason theres 30 story high rises next to 2 story houses in circles resembling tree rings

              1. should say “not the only reason”

          2. It’s a consequence of uninformed or inefficient development strategies/desires.

            Wait! The spontaneous development by large numbers of individuals is less informed that the centralized development by a small number of individuals? And the smaller group can better satisfy the desires of the former group too?

            Okay!

            1. It worked out really well for the Soviet Union and satellites, after all.

        3. Sprawl is the density that people want to live in personally but don’t want anyone else to live in.

        4. Very tall skyscrapers

        5. You know who could have squeezed 20 million bodies in Manhattan?

      2. Just because something costs more doesn’t make it wasteful or inefficient, since it produces a different experience which may be more enjoyable to some people.

        Speaking from personal experience, I feel on-edge and claustrophobic in cities, and rural areas are too lacking in amenities. Suburbs give you the benefits of other people without actually drowning you in them.

      3. There really isn’t a better display of waste or inefficiency than suburban sprawl.
        well – maybe gubmint pensions.

        Then why do people who live in the suburbs live longer, are less likely to commit a crime, are better educated, and have lower child mortality then those who live in density?

        Also why does cities with high density spend more per person then cities with less density?

        1. Because low income people are priced out of the suburban housing market through over restrictive zoning laws and building codes.

          1. Because low income people are priced out of the suburban housing market through over restrictive zoning laws and building codes.

            Sort of true but you are missing a step. zoning laws and building regulations restrict the supply of land which in turn raises prices.

            Anyway the points I made above about the living standards in suburbs are true even after adjusting for income.

            The city is exiting but the suburbs are safe. It is a fact.

            1. “The city is exiting but the suburbs are safe. It is a fact.”

              I’d say this is a little bit of a bold statement. I’ve lived in a city for the past 12 years and haven’t been mugged or had my car broken into once (Becuase I live in nicer/safer parts of the city).

              My parents have lived in what would be considered an incredibly affluent suburb for the past 40+ years and I’ve had my car broken into 3 times and have been robbed at gun point. Obvioulsy one person’s experiences don’t prove or disprove something, but I think the whole “City’s dangerous suburbs are safe” might be a bit of an over sipmlification

        2. “Then why do people who live in the suburbs live longer, are less likely to commit a crime, are better educated, and have lower child mortality then those who live in density?”

          Come on. There’s clearly socio-economic factors at play with this and is not a product of the city vs. suburbs alone. Also with the current trends of people moving back into the city forcing lower income individuals into more suburban areas I wouldn’t be surprised to see those statistics to begin reversing their trend.

          As for the city spending number I would need more information on what cities you’re referring to. I also notice you mentioned smaller cities rather than suburbs/rural areas which still would not be considered suburban sprawl.

          1. Come on. There’s clearly socio-economic factors at play with this and is not a product of the city vs. suburbs alone.

            Nope. When you compare the same income levels the trend still holds.

            I also notice you mentioned smaller cities rather than suburbs/rural areas

            Suburbs (4 units or less per acre) cost local government less money then urban densities (6 units per acre or more).

            Happy?

            1. Honestly, no. Sorry, I’m an engineer so when something is seemingly non sequitor I have to see the numbers behind it that explain it. My initial response would be:
              Are they providing the same services to the population? What accounts for the increase in cost? There is no reason that if providing the same services the costs should be higher in the city so it would seem to be either inefficiency (or corruption, ridic pension benefits) on the city government’s part, or a differential in services provided (IE welfare / foodstamps / etc). Or both.

              Do you have any sources for either of your above statements? I ask not because I’m challenging your assertations but more because I’m interested in the methodology used for conducting this assessment and the services considered.

              I also question why 6 units/acre is considered urban density (seems somewhat arbitrary and low), but I’m sure there’s good reason for it.

              1. http://pfr.sagepub.com/content/36/3/359.short

                The relationship between per capita total expenditures and population density has policy relevance because it indicates that when all government expenditures are taken into account, policies that increase population density will not reduce per capita government expenditures and, in larger cities, will lead to higher per capita government expenditures.

                I got this info by doing it myself comparing a much smaller set of cities and towns in my state.

                But it is interesting that another person did a more formal study and found the same thing.

                For info about the benefits of suburbia read the aptly named book “sprawl” http://www.press.uchicago.edu/…..14185.html

                Jonathan Levine comes to much of the same conclusions in his book “Zoned out”

                I chose 6 units per acre and 4 units per acre because they tend to crop up in zoning codes and growth management hearing cases in my state.

    2. The more local the better.

      Uh, no. The petty tyrants who run local zoning boards/ HOAs are in many ways worse than distant officious bureaucrats.

      1. The petty tyrants who run local zoning boards/ HOAs are in many ways worse than distant officious bureaucrats.

        but Local tyrants are isolated.

        It is easier to escape a bad home owners association to a good one then it is to escape a bad state run growth management act.

        Think markets Tulpa.

        Also are you just playing devils advocate in this thread or do you really think centralized land use planning is a good idea?

    3. Sprawl is not just the result of free choices. Zoning restrictions that prevent building up in the suburbs cause sprawl to extend farther away from the city than it would otherwise. My town is 3 miles from the city. If 5 story buildings were legal in my town, more people would live here instead of 40 miles from the city.

      1. The proof is the significant number of low rise (6 to 30 stories) in the neighboring town south of mine. Some of those tall buildings are withing 100 ft of the town border.

    4. I’d like to take every single one of those editorialists and force them to live in the worst barrios in LA County for at least five years. Let them see how much they enjoy all that “ethnic diversity” when they’re worried about getting robbed every day, their neighborhoods look like a bag of ass, and they’re watching drug deals take place on the corner 24/7.

      With any luck, those SWPL goons would catch something from one of the roach coaches and get incapacitated by dysentery.

  3. Sour grapes about former employer are sour.

    1. anonymous pussy is anonymous.

    2. Whining troll is whining. You just can’t stop, can you?

  4. How dare you make me google “Inland Empire”. I was expecting something more regal and less banal.

    1. They’re thinking “Evil Empire” even though they don’t state it.

    2. i can’t imagine how disappointing it must be to google “inland empire” expecting anything other than Riverside, CA. the only other comparable search i can think of is seeing the phrase “BBW” and googling it without knowledge of what it is.

      1. Bath and Body Works, obviously. No need to google.

      2. Maybe getting rickrolled into opening Two Girls One Cup?

      3. i can’t imagine how disappointing it must be to google “inland empire” expecting anything other than Riverside, CA

        This is the *proper* “Inland Empire”.

      4. For real. The first time I ran it through Wikipedia, I was disappointed to learn it was the cracker towns between Los Santos and Las Venturas. Just for kicks, I had C.J. jack a fighter jet and strafe a few.

  5. cavanaughing is the new fisking?

  6. The LA Times only likes the poor when they take public transportation (something liberals rarely do themselves). Yet when the poor adopt middle class values in neighborhoods where its affordable, the liberal elite gets angry and hates them.

  7. Say doesn’t Tim Cavanaugh work for the LA Times (I know he used to)? If so, how sad that he has no influence on the paper or what it prints.

    1. Members of the Times editorial board are (as was I during my too-brief tenure) paid at least twice what their jobs are worth.

      Way to read, no-read.

      1. Enough of your purse-lipped snobbery!

      2. I actually stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs.

        I have never liked Tim Cavanaugh’s overly self-reverential writing style and apparently, neither did the LA Times.

        1. I think you mean his self-referential writing style.

          I have a self-reverential writing style. Tim does not.

          1. No, I clearly meant self-reverential as in worthy of deep respect or awe of one’s self.

            1. I dispute this.

              You clearly meant “Obsessed with the content of the LA Times because he once worked there and everything must always refer back to the petty details of his own life history”.

              1. No, I mean I have been reading his work both here (and on the LA Times Opinion Blog back when he ran that monstrosity) for years.

                Writers have what is known as a “voice” and IMHO his voice comes off as an elitist-know-it-all, who in reality, doesn’t. I mean look at this piece (or any of the LA Times Opinion Blog pieces he has written). He is fond of snarky criticism, but when it comes to offering constructive insights or solutions, not so much. Rather adolescent, that.

                1. “You clearly meant”

                  BTW, who the fuck are you to be claiming insight into what anyone is thinking? Christ what a boorish cunt.

                  1. You read a few paragraphs by a writer you already know you don’t like, still feel compelled to comment haphazardly, defend yourself with a string of inconsequentialisms, and then call someone else a “boorish cunt.”

                    Insightful.

                  2. I get to say what you meant because I am your unquestioned superior in every way.

                    At some point in this process you’re going to get that I am fucking with you and enjoying it.

                    1. “I get to say what you meant because I am your unquestioned superior in every way.”

                      Then it comes as no surprise that you’re a big fan of Tim’s.

                    2. “At some point in this process you’re going to get…”
                      Apparently you’re wrong.

                    3. Seriously, what kind of pretentious dandy wears a suit to the beach?

  8. I love Tim’s LAT takedowns, not only because they correctly highlight stupidity, but because they introduce me to aspects of SoCal’s absurd self-obsession and to the phrase “Inland Empire.” It’s hilarious that there are people out there sincerely pondering whether some Latinos live in one part of Southern California or another part of Southern California as though it were a real live “issue.”

    1. Of course it’s an issue. Those people are supposed to do what they’re told. And they’re not doing it. Ingrates.

      1. But this isn’t mere “the poor ethnics simply refuse to live in mixed-use, transit-accessible neighborhoods that are walking distance to Whole Foods, how terribly distasteful.” It has a refreshing twist of: you do realize that to the rest of the country there is basically no distinction between your shitty counties? And that when we think California, we think fiscal DOOOOM and not much else?

        1. The only thing I can think of in the Times’ defense is this:

          It’s problematic when housing costs provide incentives for poor people to move from urban areas with mass transit to suburban or semi-rural areas without it, because it sets up the possibility for this chain of events:

          1. Breadwinner loses job.
          2. Car breaks down or is repossessed while breadwinner is on unemployment.
          3. Former breadwinner walks to state employment office and declares that he can’t take any posted job because he has no way to travel to any of them.
          4. Family sits on public assistance forever and descends into underclass.

          Poor people near a city bus line have a chance to become not-quite-as-poor people because the bottom rung is closer to their reach.

          Poor people in trailer parks or disintegrating cottages can turn into Appalachia real fast.

          1. That’s meeting the ed board more than half way. People in general and immigrants in particular have a tendency to go where the jobs are. I’m sure there are examples of retards who bought houses they now can’t sell in areas they now can’t work in, and have the added inability to travel to their new job, but what little faith I have left in humanity leads me to believe that is the exception not the rule.

            1. You should probably kiss that last little bit of faith behind. I’d venture to guess that the percentage of people that have done that (or similar circumstances) is far greater than negligable.

              1. sigh… “goodbye”, not “behind” long day.

          2. Sounds like the solution is to get rid of public assistance. Either they find a way to go where the jobs are or they starve to death rely on voluntary charity.

            1. Well, another solution would be to stop restricting the construction of housing in urban areas, and to not spend a century using the state to try to encourage medium-density development that can leave the overconfident marooned from replacement employment opportunities.

              1. Fluffy, I want to end the restrictions on building housing in both urban and suburban areas.

          3. Poor people in trailer parks or disintegrating cottages can turn into Appalachia real fast.

            Which explains why inner cities with high unemployment and lots of bus lines are such freaking utopias.

            1. An excellent point.

              Still, if you wanted to give me $0 and no high school diploma as an experiment in bootstrapping, and I had the choice of where to physically live to perform the bootstrap experiment, I’d pick the inner city over Appalachia.

              1. Appalachia has lots of bartering, relative safety from violence, helpful neighbors, wood heat, tin roof tans and some occasional fish and game. What does the inner city offer again?

                1. bitches

              2. In fairness, Fluffy, you could hunt your own food and grow your own veggies in Appalachia, assuming you found someone willing to let you do a “chores for board” deal for a little bit. But your point about the cities is acknowledged–the guy who wrote that “Bootstrapping” book did his experiement in an urban area, not on a farm, after all.

                I think the real lesson is that if you want to pull yourself up out of poverty, you’re going to have to be willing to go above and beyond what your peers will do. Yeah, you might not do a Carnegie-like rise, but it’s still possible to have poor beginnings and build a nice life for yourself.

          4. 2. Car breaks down or is repossessed

            So wait are you actually making the claim that the 20 or so cars/trucks/bikes/RVs parked at a typical home in Appalachia that none of them run????

            I can accept say a 75% to 90% figure of inoperable…but the 100% you are claiming is a fantasy.

          5. Fluffy, let my introduce you to two rules.

            1) The perimeter of a circle is proportional to the square of the circle’s radius.

            2) The price of something will decrease when its supply increases.

            This means that in a free market, the cost of homes should decrease rapidly as you move away from the city center, because the amount of available land increases rapidly.

            The solution is allowing 5 story buildings and buses in the suburbs, not locking the poor up in ghettos.

            1. 1) The perimeter of a circle is proportional to the square of the circle’s radius.

              Euclidean geometry says otherwise.

        2. Flyover Country extends right up to LA and San Fran?

    2. “I love Tim’s LAT takedowns, not only because they correctly highlight stupidity”

      I see no self-reflection in this Tim Cavanaugh piece.

      1. Somebody has a hard-on for Tim, it seems.

        1. I had to google two words in Tim’s blogpost. He’s on fire.

          1. That Vocabulary Builder toilet paper has really been working out for him.

            1. He’s on a roll….

              1. [groan]

    3. It’s hilarious that there are people out there sincerely pondering whether some Latinos live in one part of Southern California or another part of Southern California as though it were a real live “issue.”

      Welcome to what I call the ‘three ring circuis’ of mainstream media. One of those rings is race/ethnicity.

      The other day I was listening to NPR about the tornadoes. The NPR reporter, when describing the damage the tornado had done, made sure to indicate that it didn’t spare anyone, not blacks, not latinos, not asians.

      How brutally color-blind those tornadoes…

      1. The sad thing is that there actually is a pretty interesting demographic story, which involves the emptying out of black L.A., the endless struggle between pro-density zoners and anti-density zoners, the Seventh-Day Adventist shadow history of Riverside County, and other stuff. These are not essentially uninteresting matters, nor is it a essentially tragic story.

        1. In my opinion, the media is only interested what happens to ethnic minorities. They become amazingly tone-deaf when there’s a story about what ethnic minorities are doing all by themselves.

          1. I’d be willing to bet that some of their concern is also driven by the fact that the Inland Empire tends to be more conservative than LA. That’s just salt in the wound.

        2. the endless struggle between pro-density zoners and anti-density zoners

          You are making a distinction without a difference.

          My experience has been the same poeple who want 6 single family units per acre are the same poeple who impose front yard/side yard/back yard set backs, and local access neighborhood roads that you can land a 747 on.

        3. Know where black Angelenos are fleeing to?

          Riverside and Moreno valley. It’s huge.

    4. The local free newsweekly in Riverside is even called Inland Empire.

  9. You lost me at the self-negating chiasmus.

    1. Whatever. I love it when Cavanaugh talks dirty.

      1. He’s the HP Lovecraft of Libertarianism.

        1. He needs to use “squamous” and “eldritch” more.

          1. “In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement within this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative. It is an unfortunate fact that the bulk of humanity is too limited in its mental vision to weigh with patience and intelligence those isolated phenomena, seen and felt only by a psychologically sensitive few, which lie outside its common experience. Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal; that all things appear as they do only by virtue of the delicate individual physical and mental media through which we are made conscious of them; but the prosaic materialism of the majority condemns as madness the flashes of super-sight which penetrate the common veil of obvious empiricism. ”

            -Tim Cavanaugh, upon accepting Reason position.

            1. -Tim Cavanaugh, writing the Palin 2013 Inaugural Address

            2. Submitted on a crumbling scroll in spidery, yet elegant script, no doubt.

            3. Good job, pissing off Randroids from the very start.

            4. Most people flush a toilet after filling the bowl with diarrhea.

            5. That’s awesome. Did you write it yourself or steal it? Should I already know that answer to my question?

                1. Aw, Tim. It was funnier when she was displaying her extreme ignorance for everyone to see.

                  1. Sometimes you gotta spell it out for people. People who try to take the elevator during an earthquake. People who smoke at the gas pump.

                    1. Just drive away and park at a safe distance.

                  2. Girls get a free pass on not knowing Lovecraft.

    2. You lost me at Alan.

      1. You make me happy in my secret place.

        1. Need a tissue?

  10. Yer not truly poor until you learn to fiddle and dance…

  11. Its dependence on cars, its sprawl and the general lack of regional planning create an unwieldy hodgepodge of housing and jobs that make its residents too vulnerable to shifts in the economy.

    I saw that article, too, and this struck me as poorly thought out.

    I’m no huge fan of the state-created automobile society, but I can think of some nice examples of places organized around a central employment hub: Flint, Michigan, for example.

    The problem with making one central employment hub and forcing everyone to work there is those hubs tend to become dominated by similar employers or even one or two big employers, and if anything happens to that sector or those employers the whole region is fucked.

    A “hodgepodge” of disparate employers, in dispersed locations, employing a range of different types of workers from across class levels sounds an awful lot like what Michigan is desperately now trying (and failing) to create. To this editorialist, though, it’s a problem to be avoided, because without centralization there’s no way to support his preferred development mode.

    1. But surely, keeping everybody’s eggs in one big centralized basket is easier than burdening The Poor with the responsibility of deciding which basket works best for their own eggs.

      1. All this talk of eggs during an obesity crisis.

      2. I like feralgenius’s writing so much better (and I have visited her blog many times over the years).

    2. The five year plan always fails.

      1. But the NEXT one will be better!

    3. Well, no place is safe from the state-created automobile culture, but I believe So. Cal. has for several decades now lagged the country in new road construction. So in a way it’s a good test case for what happens in the absence of state-supported carism: People still choose cars as their preferred way to travel.

      Ditto the zoning code comment above: If the claim is that S.B. and Riverside Counties have looser zoning codes than L.A. County, that is just factually wrong. It’s bad everywhere, but it’s orders of magnitude less bad in the inland counties.

      And yes, although I am second only to Huell Howser in my enthusiasm for Southern California’s shittiest regions, I agree the idea that S.B. and Riverside deserve the title “Inland Empire” is the hilarity of the hilariousness.

      1. Well, no place is safe from the state-created automobile culture

        Manhattan.

        Seasteads!

        Totally safe.

        [Fluffy pats himself on the back in a self-reverential sort of way. “Yay, me! I am very clever, with my seasteads joke.”]

        1. [Fluffy pats himself on the back in a self-reverential sort of way. “Yay, me! I am very clever, with my seasteads joke.”]

          And makes a self-referential comment about it.

          1. SNAP!

            Got me there.

        2. We need a good seasteading thread. It’s been a while.

          Anyone know what happened to that foundation that was offering a bunch of money for viable seasteading ideas?

          1. They went underwater.

            1. Hoo-hoo…..

            2. Hey-oo!

      2. I just thought it was the name of a David Lynch film until I stumbled upon it in my web travels a few months ago.

      3. To be clear, S.B. here refers to San Bernardino and not Santa Barbara, which yields to no one in its zoning requirements.

      4. I’ve long assumed that Riverside/San Bernardino is called the “Inland Empire” for much the same reason the Vikings described their icy new discovery as “Greenland.”

    4. I’m no huge fan of the state-created automobile society,

      I’m unaware of any state-created automobile societies. Which were you thinking of?

      1. The one in joe’s imagination – where people were herded like cattle into cars and off to suburbs suburbs and away from the sheer heaven of more densly packed, mutli-use urban neighborhoods of yore. There was absolutely no free will whatsover involved in any of that transtion.

        It was all government engineering, all the way.

        1. There were a lot of things in joe’s imagination that had no connection whatsoever to reality.

        2. Who said no one wanted to go?

          It’s still state engineering either way.

          I want to go to Mars.

          If the government spends the next 20 years pouring resources into getting me to Mars along with everyone else who wants to go, the resulting society along with its various weaknesses and problems would be the result of state social engineering.

          The happy smile on my face on the day I get to Mars would be immaterial.

      2. I’m unaware of any state-created automobile societies. Which were you thinking of?

        The Interstate highway system. States counties and cities have their own road systems as well. All of which is payed, built maintained and planned by the government.

        I think there would be one even without the state creating it….but I think the one a freer market would create would work a hell of a lot better then the one we have now.

        Perhaps we should rename it from “state created” to “state distorted”.

  12. When they try to speak for anybody earning less than $60,000 a year, it comes out sounding like what it is: purse-lipped snobbery wrapped up in a disguise of liberal concern.

    I.e., they are concern trolls.

    1. Seriously. There are so many professional concern trolls out there the phrase is starting to lose its potency. From concern trolling over the appropriate level of concern re. Osama’s demise to damn near everything in the media, it’s exhausting just listening to it.

  13. . They force their foreign tongue on people who just want to speak American.

    Dude? Dude, ‘American’ is not the preferred nomenclature. *English*, please

    Fuck it, Anglo-American if you *really* want. But I think its a little presumptuous to pretend that somehow the other 2/3 of the ‘Americas’ don’t speak ‘American’. It’s not like we’re dealing with intransigent Swahili-speakers. People who make such a big shit out of the fact that in the US we’re becoming a sorta bi-lingual society ignore the reality that in most of the world, 2+ languages is kinda *pretty fucking normal*. We ‘Americans’ bitch if we have to take 2 years of HS-Spanish. Most Scandinavians speak better english than US High School kids of the same age. (OK generalization, but seriously…are they *complaining* about it?)

    1. Don’t be silly. Multilingual societies never work.

      Look at Switzerland, for example. What a shithole those Swiss have made for themselves!

      1. They dont even have gasoline cars in Zermatt. Crappy hellhole.

      2. Don’t even get me started on Belgium.

        1. Belgium? Utopia compared to Luxembourg. Officially *trilingual*. Its understandable why they are internationally reviled as cultureless, uncivilized, mongoloid people.

          1. Belgium is officially trilingual as well.

            But, here’s what wikipedia has to say about Luxembourg: Luxembourg is a rare example of a truly trilingual society, in that it not only has three official languages, Luxembourgish, French and German, but has a trilingual education system. For the first four years, Luxembourgish is the medium of instruction, before giving way to German, which in turn gives way to French. (In addition, children learn English and another European language, usually Spanish or Italian.) Similarly in the country’s parliament, debates are conducted in Luxembourgish, draft legislation is drafted in German, while the statute laws are in French.

            Holy. Fucking. Shit.

            1. And to bring us full circle, Switzerland has four official languages.

              1. Tacos mmm…|5.3.11 @ 4:42PM|#
                And to bring us full circle, Switzerland has four official languages.

                Yes, but they also have a respectable degree of Xenophobia and race-panic.

                They’re on the mend!

            2. No doubt. These people HAVE NO CONCEPT OF WHO THEY ARE!! They’ve done multicultured themselves into a bunch of trilingual eel-eating multilateralist polyglot effete millionaires who shame their ancestors by bastardizing their native Luxembourgianess.

              I think it should also be noted that after all that messing with their trilingual brains? They learn English too. Christ, one American kid learns how to ask where the toilet is in Spanish and he thinks he’s now a Renaissance man; and still some Americans think the sheer fact he was offered the option to learn Spanish at all *a threat to our National Culture*(tm)

              Real Americans Speak Only Americanish.

          2. Mongoloid? or mongreloid? The former is a somewhat obsolete term for a certain birth defect.

            1. Mongoloid? or mongreloid? The former is a somewhat obsolete term for a certain birth defect.

              1) it also refers to people of Mongol ancestry
              2) vis a vis, “Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idiots (1866)” … I say, Obsolete My ASS! That is known within the phrenological society as the Luxembourg Lobe

      3. I wouldn’t characterize Switzerland as a multilingual society, since there are very specific laws and customs as to which language is used in which canton. Switzerland isn’t even really a single society, but then I’m sure you knew that.

        1. So what you’re saying is that if we fixed it so that English was spoken in the northeast and Spanish in Texas and California, we’d end up just like Switzerland?

          BUY GUNS AND GOLD, BOYS

          1. Fixed english? You ever try to speak English in the South?

            1. Or in Detroit, for that matter?

        2. even Swiss German and normal German are very different.

          1. IVE BEEN TELLING THEM THIS ALL ALONG!!!

    2. Dey took our wurds! Dey took our wurds!

    3. But I think its a little presumptuous to pretend that somehow the other 2/3 of the ‘Americas’ don’t speak ‘American’.

      Nigga, please. First of all, American English is distinct from English spoken in other English-speaking nations. Also, this “South Americans are AMERICANS” pedantry was tiresome when little snot-nosed suck-up bastards in sixth grade said to try to impress everyone around them. There is a country called “The United States of America”, and the residents thereof are called “Americans”. Spare me this nonsense.

      1. Brilliant. Now explain to me how the term, “third world” makes sense too…

      2. There is a country called “The United States of America”, and the residents thereof are called “Americans”

        Master of the Obvious slays imaginary dragon.

        And the citizens of that particular country speak…”English”. Non?

  14. “Southern California’s growth pattern: Its dependence on cars, its sprawl and the general lack of regional planning create an unwieldy hodgepodge of housing and jobs that make its residents too vulnerable to shifts in the economy.”

    There’s no way Cavanaugh could have hit everything wrong with this piece–without doing the internet’s longest line by line fisking job ever…

    But the problem with California’s growth pattern is–the general lack of regional planning?!

    Pu-lease!

    Belly laughs!

    You can’t get a project more than 5 acres started without an EIR, and 18 to 24 months in the planning stage–anywhere in Southern California. Much of that is handled by state wide agencies too.

    If Southern California has any problems related to regional planning? Those problems are because of the planning!

    Ask anybody but the Times.

  15. tightly zoned “gateway cities” for remote suburbs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where they must endure such deprivations as bigger houses, better schools, safer neighborhoods and (unmentioned by the L.A. Times) lower local taxes.

    Even a rube like me understands the negative side to this: An entire population is trying to starve the beast. How dare they?

  16. The Metrolink goes out to Riverside and San Bernadino and will take you to LA or even Orange County. Sometimes as far south as Oceanside. Also there are outposts of civilization as far east as Pamona and even Riverside itself.

  17. Carpooling to the valley of the dirt people? Hmmm.

    Can you get past the checkpoint without a trailer, or at least a trailer hitch? Do 1990 civics even take trailer hitches?

    Avoid the blue meth.

  18. Poor people in trailer parks or disintegrating cottages can turn into Appalachia real fast.

    Stuck migrants recreate the places they migrated from, not other places migrants got stuck. Appalachia is the Munros, basically. Riverside County will be Sonora, not West Virginia.

    And it’ll just sit there, being like that, punctuated by tequila still explosions. Unless you have plans for those people that they’re not fulfilling, like the Times does, who gives a fuck?
    They can leave if they want.

    1. OK, that’s fair.

      Thank you for reminding me that I don’t actually give a shit.

  19. Proles are icky!!

  20. To be fair – Who among us can honestly say they aren’t grossed out by poor people? They should know better than to be poor.

    1. They don’t waste money on LA Times subscriptions.

    2. I have the same thoughts about libertarians but like poor people, they are often caught up in a cycle of ignorance

      1. I hear both of their periods attract bears. And LA times writers too.

      2. Don’t be ridiculous, rectal. You don’t have thoughts. That would require you having more than just a lizard brain.

        1. I’m sending PETA to save your cat

          1. and SWAT to pick-up the dope on your couch. Feel free to mail it to me, and I will dispose of it environmentally

          2. You misspelled “shave”

            1. Yuk! Is that what he means when he emailed me that he likes a shaved pussy?

            2. Why does rather sometimes hyphenate words that don’t need hyphenating? She writes like an 1890s yellow journalist. SWAT does not have to “pick-up” the dope from Epi’s couch, they will simply “pick up” the dope.

              Jesus, and she writes a blog, apparently.

              1. pick-up – 1 dictionary result

                corinthnissan.orrnissan.com

                World English Dictionary
                pick-up

                ? n
                1. pick-up arm , Also called: tone arm the light balanced arm of a record player that carries the wires from the cartridge to the preamplifier
                2. an electromagnetic transducer that converts the vibrations of the steel strings of an electric guitar or other amplified instrument into electric signals
                3. another name for cartridge
                4. Also called: pick-up truck a small truck with an open body and low sides, used for light deliveries
                5. informal chiefly ( US ) an ability to accelerate rapidly: this car has good pick-up
                6. informal a casual acquaintance, usually one made with sexual intentions
                7. informal
                a. a stop to collect passengers, goods, etc

                1. Now we know what happened to T. Herman Zwiebel.

                2. Now we know what happened to T. Herman Zwiebel.

                  1. Now we know what happened to Michael J. Fox

              2. Pussy, are you hiding behind your handle? Email me you little bitch, and I’ll give you another lesson.

                1. You couldn’t give him a lesson. You’re dead fucking wrong. You used “pick-up” to indicate an action. The above definitional citation
                  (seventh, nice touch) assumed an adjectival function. When you make a pick-up stop; the “pick-up” *modifies* the thing or the action, in this case, telling the reader what kind of “stop” it is. It’s like a pick-up line, which, idiomatically, tells the reader what the line is intended to do.

                  You wanted “SWAT to pick up the dope on [his] couch.” In this case, to “pick up” is an action, modifying nothing. Move along, son. Thus endeth the lesson.

                  1. I enjoyed your classic sin of ‘wordiness’, and you failed to comprehend that “assume” means “to accept without proof” and “presume” means “to accept before proof is established.”

                    1. Thanks Rock.

                      Rather – I would not email you, because I assume that clicking on your handle will give you an undeserved hit on your “blog”. And that is something I refuse to do.

                      Also, don’t be so defensive about being a bad writer – lots of people are. Consider my comment a piece of constructive critisim.

                      Suck on knowledge, bitch.

                    2. rctlfy@hotmail.com does not give me a blog hit, and I don’t think I will miss yours: Referrer Views
                      reason.com 3,162

                      defensive about being a bad writer I love your ignorance.

  21. The demographic shifts revealed by the latest Census results show that Southern California has still not mastered the art of planning for sustainable growth.

    Hah, sounds like we just haven’t practiced enough, and if we would just try hard enough we could eventually “master” it. It’s like they want to force on us a carpet humping guy for urban planning.

  22. Tim, don’t you understand? The L.A. Times has a noble and righteous concern about the fleeing Hispanic population. With all these working class hispanics emigrating East, do you know what this will do to the supply and resulting price of good landscaping for the L.A.Times’ Editorial Member’s Westside homes or the ample supply of quality busboys at the swanky downtown eateries?!?!?!?!

    Have you no heart sir?

  23. Cars are of course the problem

    The propensity of certain ethnic types to further emphasize their individuality by performing modifications and “performance enhancements” on otherwise perfectly serviceable automobiles serves to further inflame the delicate sensibilities of the supercilious liberal consciousness.

    1. The no car people are only slightly less obnoxious than the “no TV” people. Bah.

      1. Yes, but the no-TV people rarely show up to work soaked in rain-water with chain grease all over their legs. Which means the no-car people have the funny advantage.

        1. I’s say that was funny but Rather would launch a salvo.

        2. the no-car people are always asking for rides.
          the no-tv people brag about how they just download their shows.

          1. The no-TV people were funnier before downloading. Back then it was a clear statement of extreme douchbaggery.

            1. I’d say before gaming became widespread too. I mean, I’m mostly a no-TV person, but only because I’m doing something that annoys moral scolds even more.

    2. Well done, sir.

      The vatos in their low riders bouncing up and down in the burbs surely has nothing to do with their alleged ickiness.

  24. There really isn’t a better display of waste or inefficiency revealed preferences than suburban sprawl.

  25. Those who lack the clarity that libertarian principles provide fall short in so many ways. The editorial writers at the LA Times are strinking examples of this sad truth.

  26. I meant “striking” of course. Some may have read it as “stinking,” but that descriptor also fits.

    1. Have you moved out of your mom yet?

      1. I think this is a different Max. Must suck for him, having no idea why so much abuse is coming his way. Tip to Max: if you aren’t the other Max, change your handle to something else. Or don’t.

        1. How many Maxen can we endure?

      2. I’m thinking this may be a different Max. Not sure yet, though.

        1. Damn server; The IH beat me to it.

        2. It is a sockpuppet pretending to a sarcastic Max.

          My guess is it is Prolibertate but I accuse him of being all sockpuppets on general principle.

      3. Careful!
        I think Max =/= MAX.

        1. Damn it! I usually F5 before posting.

  27. there actually is a pretty interesting demographic story, which involves the emptying out of black L.A.

    Redevelopment Agencies work!

  28. Can I post now? My postings have been blocked lately. Gee, talk about libertarian censorship.

  29. Can I post now? I keep getting marked as spam. CENSORSHIP!

    1. I think there’s a German word for what I’m feeling right now…

      1. Fahrvergn?gen?

        1. Thought that was Swedish?

            1. Thanks. Memory isn’t what it used to be, I guess.

      2. You know who else had German words for what he was feeling?

        1. Col. Hogan?

        2. Great Cthulu?

      3. Arschloch?

      4. Schiesskomp?

  30. poor people would be a lot more fun if they dressed better and didn’t smell.

    1. And it would be nice if they picked up the check every now and then.

      1. poor people would be a lot more fun if they dressed better and didn’t smell

        Hmm, they are libertarian! Mommy gets tired of washing their semen and shit soaked underwear and they will never pick up the check, financial oppression!

        1. God you suck.

          1. God you suck and you’re an anonymous pussy too.

            1. King Arthur: I am your king.
              Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
              King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
              Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
              [Angelic music plays… ]
              King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
              Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
              Arthur: Be quiet!
              Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

              ——————————————————————————–

              Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
              Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
              Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
              Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!
              Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

              1. Tim, as your mommy, I am the one to read you bedtime stories.

                Now go look under daddy’s mattress for his magazines

                1. One cannot blame daddy for wanting a peek every now and again of a woman who can actually get him aroused.

                  1. Hmm, didn’t I say it was Playgirl magazine?

            2. you’re an anonymous pussy

              …..

              If that is an anonymous pussy then would you be so kind as to tell us your first and last name?

                1. Mrs. Joshua Corning

  31. Oh Bobby, I’m sorry you gotta head like a potato.

    I really am.

    “San Berdino”

  32. “I’m tired of being rich. I want to be poor; dance with paupers and… have sex in a car. Oh! I do so want to be poor.”

    “Ye want to be poor!? Are ye half crazy? I work eighteen hours a day for a mere shilling a week! Then I return to a freezin’ room the size of a closet! Oof… I would pack myself in excrement if it meant just stayin’ one degree warmer.”

    “I do so want to be poor… except for all those parts.”

  33. damn i don’t know wh my browser won’t let me respond to fn comments but..

    Sao Paulo hahahaha you just had to pick the country that has the most glorious example of urban planning failure. Brasilia is a fucking disaster that looks like an airplane. Every other city in that country should be glad if there were a lack of centralized planning for avoiding another Brasilia disaster.

    1. I picked it because I lived there and experienced it first hand. And yes, brasil does offer an excellent glimpse on the failures of both lack of, and poorly done urban planning. Although brasilia’s biggest flaw is it’s location-trying to force people into the interior.

      1. You want o see fucking planning failure, go to the Barra section in south Rio.

        Fucking. Hideous.

        1. Or the city in the north of Brail (which slips my mid) that decided that lining the streets with mango trees was a good idea.

          Of course for about 2 months of the year no one can park there because of the various hazards that big fucking mangos present when they fall.

          Central planning is AWESOME!

  34. Typical L.A. Times tone-deafness. A few years ago, when I worked in Riverside, the Times had newspaper box ads that read: “World, meet the Inland Empire. Inland Empire, meet the World.” Because the slack-jawed troglodytes of Riverside and San Bernardino _had no idea_ there was life beyond the Santa Ana River or the Anaheim Hills, I guess. I guess the poor benighted residents should have been grateful the Times bothered to cover the Inland region at all. I mean, do those people even READ?

  35. Future SciFi LA times head line of the Future:

    “Nanobot plague killing rich white males; poor, women and minorities hardest hit.”

  36. In 2010, I left Los Angeles, cruised right past the Inland Empire, and settled in the NV. No regrets whatsoever. Now instead of paying CA income tax, CA-based tourists pay my state taxes for me!

  37. A Caddyshack reset?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.