Speaker 1: I want to talk about the psychology of voting, how
Speaker 1: you change your political opinions. People are really prideful about
Speaker 1: their politics. They are honest to God, more willing to
Speaker 1: stick to their political opinions. I think this is true
Speaker 1: of the psychology of modern day, present day Americans, at
Speaker 1: least boomers and younger may be greatest generation and younger
Speaker 1: that we are honest to God, more adhered to our
Speaker 1: politics than we are to our religion. We will change
Speaker 1: our religion to suit our politics, far more so than
Speaker 1: the other way around. If you don't believe me, look
Speaker 1: at Joseph Biden, look at Nancy Pelosi, look at every
Speaker 1: Catholic liberal out there who you know one is not
Speaker 1: budging one inch from the Democratic Party platform when it
Speaker 1: comes to gay marriage, abortion, and yet is trying to
Speaker 1: present themselves as if they're, you know, a card carrying
Speaker 1: great old Catholic with nothing nothing amiss in their religious practice.
Speaker 1: And it's not just them. I think it goes all
Speaker 1: the way from the level of someone who's a top
Speaker 1: level political operative like Nancy Pelosi, all the way down
Speaker 1: to John Q citizen. People are really prideful about their
Speaker 1: political views. It's you saying how you think the country
Speaker 1: should be ordered, and you kind of when you say
Speaker 1: something like that, you're putting yourself out there, and as
Speaker 1: a result, people dig in and they get prideful about it,
Speaker 1: and they get puffy about it, they get offend, they
Speaker 1: get defensive about it. They get offended and defensive, and
Speaker 1: because there's so much pride in it, I think it
Speaker 1: politics is one of the few cases where you're willing
Speaker 1: to sit listen to someone who disagrees with you and
Speaker 1: say I was wrong and you were right. You know,
Speaker 1: there are very few things in life, very few big
Speaker 1: life things where someone is willing to sit and listen
Speaker 1: and say, yes, I used to think this, but I
Speaker 1: listened to you, and that convinced me that you were
Speaker 1: right and I was wrong. Very few people have that
Speaker 1: kind of a one to eighty conversion on politics or religion.
Speaker 1: Usually it takes a long time to turn the Titanic around.
Speaker 1: It takes a long time for political attitudes to shift
Speaker 1: because it has to shift on an individual level for
Speaker 1: thousands and thousands and thousands of people. And this is
Speaker 1: part of why I sort of had this attitude of
Speaker 1: you know, there are a lot of Trump people. When
Speaker 1: you get real deep into deep hardcore Maga land deep
Speaker 1: hardcore maga Facebook and Twitter posting. And I remember this
Speaker 1: during twenty twenty, all the Trump people like, we couldn't
Speaker 1: have a lot of big gatherings, I guess unless you
Speaker 1: were doing a Black Lives Matter protest, and so the
Speaker 1: Trump people would do these truck and car rallies. You
Speaker 1: just get a whole bunch of Trump people together and
Speaker 1: they drive their trucks or cars by and have American
Speaker 1: flags and Trump flags flying from the back of them.
Speaker 1: And there was a big rally like that somewhere in
Speaker 1: Orange County, I think, somewhere in California, and Trump people
Speaker 1: were like, Trump's gonna win in California. Oh well, if
Speaker 1: you didn't cheat, he definitely win California. California would be
Speaker 1: so much twich. And I'm looking at this, I'm like,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's not gonna win California. And I think people
Speaker 1: ask me, what's gonna happen, what's gonna take whin or
Speaker 1: when is California gonna wake up? And I always kept
Speaker 1: trying to retort to people, it's not it's not going to.
Speaker 1: It's not going to. People are dead set in thinking
Speaker 1: this is better it is better that there there are
Speaker 1: a ton of people who vote for whom the big
Speaker 1: problems of California don't impact them that much. Homelessness is bad,
Speaker 1: but if you live in a really posh neighborhood in
Speaker 1: Pacific Palisades, it's really not impacting your day to day
Speaker 1: all that much. Taxes are bad, but if you're already
Speaker 1: a multi millionaire, maybe you just don't care. Housing costs
Speaker 1: are bad, but if you've already owned, you already own
Speaker 1: your house, what do you care about? High housing prizes
Speaker 1: just means the value of your home is going up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of problems with California, and there
Speaker 1: are also you know, oh, taxes are high. Well, IM
Speaker 1: a lowering com person. I don't pay much taxes anyway.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people who have, because of
Speaker 1: where they are in society, either don't care or don't
Speaker 1: allow themselves to connect the dots that. Hey, Democrat policies
Speaker 1: are bad and are making life worse, and there are
Speaker 1: way too many people like that. I think there are.
Speaker 1: There is an army of millennial to gen z women
Speaker 1: who are gonna vote for Democrats eighty five to fifteen
Speaker 1: every election for a long long, long time, and they're
Speaker 1: just gonna do that because they think that there's some
Speaker 1: kind of moral superiority to do in that. And this
Speaker 1: is the first election when millennial and zuomer men sort
Speaker 1: of woke up and were like, I don't know that
Speaker 1: there's anything morally superior about voting for Democrats. And there's
Speaker 1: this massive new gender divide on politics between young men
Speaker 1: and young women, which is kind of fascinating to see.
Speaker 1: But in California, I just think the dynamics of generation
Speaker 1: after generation after generation pumped out by liberal California public
Speaker 1: schools and too many people for whom the problems of
Speaker 1: California just aren't impacting them, and they're the ones staying.
Speaker 1: They're not the ones fleeing to Idaho, They're the ones staying.
Speaker 1: This brings me to the wildfires in Los Angeles. I
Speaker 1: am sure that there are tens of thousands of people
Speaker 1: who have been impacted by the wildfires or are family
Speaker 1: members of people directly impacted. That that probably extends into
Speaker 1: the hundreds of thousands of people by the wildfires who
Speaker 1: voted for Kamala Harris and two years before that voted
Speaker 1: for Gavin Newsom, and two years before that voted for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden in two years before that, voted for Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom and voted for Gavin Newsom and vot and voted
Speaker 1: for Jerry Brown and voted for Hillary Clinton and voted
Speaker 1: and have just consistent Democrat voting track record. I am
Speaker 1: sure there are tens of thousands of people like that
Speaker 1: who have lost their homes or a family member lost
Speaker 1: their homes. I've been saying on this show, and what's
Speaker 1: going to take for California to wake up? What's going
Speaker 1: to take to change things? My response has always been,
Speaker 1: you can't think of California politics this way. It's taken
Speaker 1: us thirty years to slide to where we are now,
Speaker 1: with the Republican Party being absolutely dead, with Democrats having
Speaker 1: this massive super duper majority. It's gonna take a long
Speaker 1: time for Republicans to build back up to being competitive again.
Speaker 1: This is not something that you're gonna snap your fingers overnight.
Speaker 1: This is a twenty year project. That's what I've repeatedly
Speaker 1: been saying that there's no I just don't believe there's
Speaker 1: a silver bullet that's gonna restore We got to bring
Speaker 1: California back. What do you mean bring California back. The
Speaker 1: state is so screwed up on so many fronts in
Speaker 1: so many different ways. Even a good governor couldn't change
Speaker 1: everything overnight. Not when Democrats control literally three quarters of
Speaker 1: the state legislature. I'm not exaggerating, three quarters of the
Speaker 1: state Legislature, of the eighty seats in the California State Assembly,
Speaker 1: thirty of the forty seats in the state Senate, in fact,
Speaker 1: in fact, I think it's slightly more than those numbers.
Speaker 1: One governor's not going to change everything now when they
Speaker 1: have six of the seven seats on the California State
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Not when they have all of these appointees
Speaker 1: all over the place on entities like the California Air
Speaker 1: Resources Board. That thing wields unbelievable power. I don't think
Speaker 1: you can replace everybody overnight. I don't think a new
Speaker 1: governor can replace everybody overnight. But boy, if there's any
Speaker 1: one thing that could be a catalyst to change people's minds,
Speaker 1: because it has to involve individual people's minds changing people
Speaker 1: changing their minds on their owns. Why I started by
Speaker 1: talking about the pride that people have in their politics.
Speaker 1: People don't change their politics. People are stubborn as heck
Speaker 1: about them. They're prideful about them that they're they dig in.
Speaker 1: My pastor and I was we were talking about this,
Speaker 1: how even we notice sometimes among certain Catholics that they're
Speaker 1: more there, even Catholics who are like pro life, but
Speaker 1: in certain cases that it's almost like they're more tied
Speaker 1: to the Republican Party to being anti woke than they
Speaker 1: aren't necessarily to being Catholic people. People are so dug
Speaker 1: into their politics, but if there's anything that could really
Speaker 1: change your mind, it's your house burning down, or your
Speaker 1: dear friend's house burning down, your brother in law's house
Speaker 1: burning down, and your sister and your nieces and nephews
Speaker 1: scrambling and needing a home, needing to stay with you
Speaker 1: for a month. It's seeing that some reservoir it had
Speaker 1: to be covered and then they had to drain a
Speaker 1: reservoir and they never refilled the reservoir because of environmental loans.
Speaker 1: It's seeing a mayor who's clearly incompetent, who said that
Speaker 1: she wasn't going to be traveling doing foreign travel to Africa,
Speaker 1: and then of course was doing foreign travel to Africa.
Speaker 1: It's a mayor who's you know a bunch of liberals
Speaker 1: who are screaming and yelling, well, we can't be pointing
Speaker 1: the fingers right now. Meanwhile, the mayor is firing the
Speaker 1: fire chief because the fire chief said, hey, we don't
Speaker 1: have water. The fire chief whose main priority the fired
Speaker 1: fire chief, by the way, who said one of her
Speaker 1: main priorities was making sure that DEI is enforced within
Speaker 1: the fire department. You know, the fire department that's putting
Speaker 1: forward female officers to say, well, people, when they get
Speaker 1: firefighters coming for emergency response, they want someone who looks
Speaker 1: like them. If you're a if I can't lift your husband,
Speaker 1: then well sorry. And what can the Democrats say? I mean,
Speaker 1: what possible excuse can the Democrats give for this situation
Speaker 1: when insurance companies were telling people, we can't ensure these houses.
Speaker 1: The fire risk here is too extreme, it's too deadly.
Speaker 1: Certain kinds of forests managed certain kinds of ways by
Speaker 1: certain kinds of entities, like so Southern California, Edison that
Speaker 1: did thinning, that did all kinds of fire breaks, all
Speaker 1: kinds of stuff. Those are fine. But the constant push
Speaker 1: from the environmental left, the Sierra Club left, that which
Speaker 1: was basically of push that Gavin Newsom has to listen to.
Speaker 1: He has to give some credence to was never cut
Speaker 1: anything down, don't ever cut anything down, don't the forest floors,
Speaker 1: don't do anything, don't drive a truck into a forest. Ever.
Speaker 1: That's their forestrym management strategy for much of the left,
Speaker 1: and for the activist left, that's their forest stream management strategy.
Speaker 1: And the political left has to placate that movement somewhat.
Speaker 1: They didn't do everything they wanted, but they had to
Speaker 1: listen to him somewhat. There's a strain of folks on
Speaker 1: the left who are sort of trying to be like,
Speaker 1: now is not the time for pointing fingers, and they're
Speaker 1: immediately looking for someone to point fingers at Gavin. You know,
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom doesn't want to hear anyone pointing a finger
Speaker 1: at him, but he's writing, Left, we need to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of who's responsible for this. You You've been
Speaker 1: the governor for six years. You've had Democratic supermajorities in
Speaker 1: the state legislature your whole time in office. You appointed
Speaker 1: people to the California Air Resources Board. You it's you
Speaker 1: and the Democrats had full control of everything for the
Speaker 1: eight years prior to you. Okay, don't point fingers. One
Speaker 1: party has been completely in charge of everything in La
Speaker 1: City government, La County government, California state government for at
Speaker 1: least fourteen years. It's all them. And this gets me
Speaker 1: back to the individual John Q. Voter. Is this the
Speaker 1: moment where John Q. Voter looks around at his house
Speaker 1: that burned down, His house that had a Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: yard sign in it, that had a Gavenue sign Newsom
Speaker 1: sign in it two years prior, that had a Joe
Speaker 1: Biden sign in it, two years prior, that had another
Speaker 1: Gaven Newsom sign in it, that had a no on
Speaker 1: Gaven Neuwso recall sign in it. Does he look at
Speaker 1: his yard that's now burned down and say, I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm voting for these people again. There is going
Speaker 1: to be more than zero people like that. I'll guarantee that.
Speaker 1: I'll guarantee the numbers more than zero. Where this colossal
Speaker 1: failure of providing this one basic service firefighting forestream management,
Speaker 1: which leads me to my next question, what problem did
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom encounter that he has actually made better? Next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show, what were the problems California
Speaker 1: was experiencing when Gavin Newsom became the governor in January
Speaker 1: of twenty nineteen, and what are the problems we are
Speaker 1: experiencing today? Six years on? Homelessness was starting to be
Speaker 1: a pretty bad problem. It's worse by every metric, it's worse,
Speaker 1: more homeless people, and we have spent tens of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars on it, and it's not better. Housing availability
Speaker 1: was a problem in twenty nineteen. Housing was too expensive.
Speaker 1: It was too expensive to build. It was too expensive
Speaker 1: for builders to build anything other than In many markets,
Speaker 1: much of the time, too expensive to build anything other
Speaker 1: than high end housing or California registered trademark low income
Speaker 1: housing and low income housing often lost exorbitantly high prices
Speaker 1: to build and could only be built because of government subsidies.
Speaker 1: This unsustainable model where the only way to build it
Speaker 1: is through government subsidy. Newsom came in in twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: talking about how we need to have more homes, we
Speaker 1: need to have more housing construction, we need more, we
Speaker 1: need Have we improved, No, there's been no improvement. The
Speaker 1: Dallas metro area of Texas builds more homes annually than
Speaker 1: all of California, all of the key constraints that limit
Speaker 1: our ability to build and sequa worst of all, they're
Speaker 1: still there. We have a huge shutdown of all kinds
Speaker 1: of building construction projects here in Fresno because of one
Speaker 1: stupid sequel lawsuit against the city. One stupid sequel lawsuit
Speaker 1: that brought in the city's entire environmental and development plan
Speaker 1: that all these different businesses were relying on to help
Speaker 1: them build, including building new housing. All of it shut
Speaker 1: down because one left wing nonprofit filed One left wing
Speaker 1: nonprofit filed a lawsuit that was it. That's how sequel works,
Speaker 1: the California Environmental Quality Act. We have really high taxes.
Speaker 1: We still have really high taxes. We had budgetary problems.
Speaker 1: We still have budgetary problems. We have some of the
Speaker 1: highest unemployment in the country. We have the highest gas
Speaker 1: prices in the country. We have really high energy costs.
Speaker 1: All by the way, in the gas and energy costs,
Speaker 1: everyone knows why. We know why. Because California has much
Speaker 1: higher emission standards than everywhere else in the country. We
Speaker 1: have to set up separate refinery systems just for our gasoline.
Speaker 1: Because we have our specific blend of California gas. So
Speaker 1: we're a gas island. You know, the same gas that
Speaker 1: they sell in Nevada or Arizona wherever, they can't sell
Speaker 1: it in California because California has special regulations. And what
Speaker 1: does Gavin Newsom try to argue, Well, he's arguing that
Speaker 1: the gas companies are greedy and are price gouging. That's
Speaker 1: why the prices are high. He knows that's not why
Speaker 1: the prices are high. Everyone understands why energy costs in
Speaker 1: California are expensive. Oh, we're trying to get rid of
Speaker 1: natural gat We're moving to a situation where we're going
Speaker 1: to have no nothing but green energy production in this state,
Speaker 1: but no nuclear. We constantly want to shut down the
Speaker 1: L Diablo nuclear plant until we realize that we're not
Speaker 1: going to have any any power without it. We don't
Speaker 1: want any nuclear in spite of the fact that it's
Speaker 1: zero emissions in the atmosphere. You know, the only thing
Speaker 1: you can say about nuclear about nuclears, what are you
Speaker 1: going to do with nuclear waste? Which I would respond,
Speaker 1: what are you going to do with the batteries that
Speaker 1: are done from your solar panels? What do you do
Speaker 1: with the batteries you can't recycle them, what do you
Speaker 1: do with the batteries? So Newsom's grand plan is to
Speaker 1: build a whole solar power industry that does not exist
Speaker 1: in this state, a whole offshore solar power production infrastructure
Speaker 1: that does not exist anyway anyway, Needless to say, another
Speaker 1: problem that hasn't been solved and completely bat bleep unrealistic
Speaker 1: goals that we know we're never going to achieve. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people in California who are able
Speaker 1: to who live complacently ignore the fact that Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: hasn't made any of those things better, and still line
Speaker 1: up and vote for Democrats. That's what people did this
Speaker 1: year in California, although Republicans did better than they normally do,
Speaker 1: at least in the presidential election. Certainly there are people
Speaker 1: who are able to be complacent about all these problems
Speaker 1: that never get better and never resolve themselves, and they
Speaker 1: still vote Democrat because housing costs their high but they
Speaker 1: already own their home, doesn't impact them. Homelessness is a
Speaker 1: big problem, but maybe not in their neighborhood. It's not
Speaker 1: that big of a deal. It's only when they go
Speaker 1: to the downtown part of the city. Yeah, whatever energy
Speaker 1: costs or high Yeah, I already made my money. I'll
Speaker 1: be all right. I sort of calculated that into my budget.
Speaker 1: It's just an annoying nuisance. You just don't make the
Speaker 1: connection that the government has anything to do with it,
Speaker 1: that the people you elect have anything to do with it.
Speaker 1: At some point though, you know, as I said, there
Speaker 1: was certainly at least one house burnt down in this fire,
Speaker 1: in these fires, maybe in the Palisades fire, at least
Speaker 1: one house burned down that had a Kamala Harris for
Speaker 1: President's sign in it, that had had before that a
Speaker 1: Gavenusom for Governor's sign in it, that before that had
Speaker 1: a Joe Biden for President sign in it, that before
Speaker 1: that had had another Gavenuissem sign in it, that before
Speaker 1: that had had a No on the Gaven Newsom recall
Speaker 1: sign in it, and before that had had a Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton sign in it. Certainly a house with those yard
Speaker 1: signs burned down, and the owner has got to be
Speaker 1: standing there and thinking to him or herself, did these
Speaker 1: people fail me? Did this governor fail me? Did this
Speaker 1: political party fail me? This political party that led me
Speaker 1: to support Democrat politicians in the city of La, County
Speaker 1: of La, and statewide throughout California. Maybe I think differently
Speaker 1: next time I pull that lever. Maybe I think, if
Speaker 1: anything could be a catalyst for change, maybe this is it.
Speaker 1: When we return the convenient excuse of climate change. Next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show, What were the causes of
Speaker 1: the Roman Civil War that pitted Julius Caesar against Pompey. Well,
Speaker 1: the cause one could on one level, one could say
Speaker 1: the cause was Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon River, violating
Speaker 1: the office given to him. He crossed the Rubicon River
Speaker 1: at the head of an army that violated Roman law.
Speaker 1: Roman law said, nope, if you're a commander, if you're
Speaker 1: a proconsul with military command in this region, if you
Speaker 1: leave that regent at the head of your army, you've
Speaker 1: broken the law. You're marching on Rome with an army
Speaker 1: behind you. You violated the law. You've started a rebellion.
Speaker 1: That was the immediate cause of that civil war. But
Speaker 1: what was the real cause. The real causes were the
Speaker 1: dysfunction of the Roman Republic, the changing of how Roman
Speaker 1: militaries viewed their allegiances, Roman legions or individual units of
Speaker 1: the Roman military viewed their allegiance changes that had been
Speaker 1: introduced in the prior generation, as far as the ability
Speaker 1: of extremely wealthy men who got appointed to different proconsular
Speaker 1: positions to help directly fund and pay for soldiers and
Speaker 1: their equipment and their pay themselves, which resulted in soldiers
Speaker 1: having more of an allegiance to their generals than they
Speaker 1: did to the Roman state. So if Julius Caesar, your
Speaker 1: guy that you've campaigned with, who's put bread on your table,
Speaker 1: says hey, boys, we're crossing the rubicon here, we're going
Speaker 1: to go. We're going to go take Rome. Hell. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And a lot of dysfunction within the Roman state of
Speaker 1: senators not wanting any one individual man to take credit
Speaker 1: for good things, petty jealousies towards Julius Caesar, a culture
Speaker 1: of law fair basically prosecuting people. Basically the way the
Speaker 1: Roman legal system worked, you could have private people could
Speaker 1: prosecute you for capital crimes, for criminal crimes. It wasn't
Speaker 1: the state that prosecuted for crimes. An individual would bring
Speaker 1: a charge against you. And Julius Caesar knew if he
Speaker 1: came back to Rome, not at the head of his
Speaker 1: army with his weapons put down just coming back as
Speaker 1: a citizen, he'd immediately be subject to lawsuits for decisions
Speaker 1: he made when he was consul in about a decade prior.
Speaker 1: And basically the Roman Republican system was flood. That was
Speaker 1: the actual cause of the Roman Civil War. I feel
Speaker 1: like blaming the fires on quote climate change is a
Speaker 1: way of sort of it's an amazing way to sort
Speaker 1: of disclaim any responsibility and just to vaguely put it
Speaker 1: the responsibility for the fires on the shoulders of vague, faceless, nameless, shapeless,
Speaker 1: anonymous conservatives in California who somehow apparently are stopping us
Speaker 1: from achieving the environmental utopia that we all really desperately want.
Speaker 1: If only Yeah, if it weren't for climate change, if
Speaker 1: it weren't for climate change, these firefires, these forest fires,
Speaker 1: wouldn't have happened. These forest fires are happening because of
Speaker 1: climate change. Climate change. Also, the term is so vague
Speaker 1: climate change. It doesn't even mean hotter temperatures, because lest
Speaker 1: you all forget, this is happening in January, it's not
Speaker 1: because it's hot. Well, climate change happened, which led to
Speaker 1: less rain, led to a dry rain year. I mean,
Speaker 1: I thought, so is it less rain happens. Now, this
Speaker 1: is the fun thing about climate change is that any
Speaker 1: bad thing that happens you can blame on climate change.
Speaker 1: If you have more hurricanes and too much rain, whoa
Speaker 1: climate change? If you have a dry year, not enough rain, Hey,
Speaker 1: climate change. The climate's always changing. And it's sort of
Speaker 1: a way for Democrats who have run this state completely,
Speaker 1: no holds barred, for fourteen years, and who've run Los
Speaker 1: Angeles for longer than that. It's this great way for
Speaker 1: liberals to disclaim any individual responsibility, for any one politician
Speaker 1: to disclaim responsibility, any one political party to disclaim responsibility.
Speaker 1: It's climate change. And you know who is pro climate change?
Speaker 1: Or conservatives? Conservatives who have last I checked, not run
Speaker 1: anything in California since Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor. And this
Speaker 1: is the infuriating thing with people. A little climate change,
Speaker 1: You know, you have to look at climate change. Well,
Speaker 1: if climate change is so bad that it leaves us
Speaker 1: vulnerable to forest fires like this, yes, let's just take
Speaker 1: that for the sake of argument. There's some evidence that
Speaker 1: average temperatures have crept up one or two degrees, you know,
Speaker 1: two degrees or so over the last one hundred years.
Speaker 1: Let's just take that as a given. Doesn't that put
Speaker 1: even more of an onus on responsible environmentalists people concern
Speaker 1: with the environment, given that climate change is here and
Speaker 1: that I don't know that climate change gets resolved by
Speaker 1: just California doing stuff. I mean, there's federal policy that
Speaker 1: the state of California can control. There's international business and
Speaker 1: policies that California simply cannot control. We have no ability
Speaker 1: to control what the Chinese do and how they pollute.
Speaker 1: We have no ability to control India and now it pollutes,
Speaker 1: or Russia now it pollutes, or anywhere. Given that climate
Speaker 1: change is a thing, if you accept that as a given,
Speaker 1: it puts an even greater onus on you to be prepared.
Speaker 1: The forests aren't going away, climate change isn't getting reversed.
Speaker 1: Even if you completely were to reform the entire state
Speaker 1: of californiash reshape the entire economy and culture around your
Speaker 1: green future, which you know you can't do in a
Speaker 1: general in ten years, in twenty years, you know you
Speaker 1: can't really do it. It puts more of an onus
Speaker 1: on you to have forest effective forestry management, to limit fires,
Speaker 1: not less. It puts more of an onus for you
Speaker 1: to have water storage systems, not less. It has more
Speaker 1: of an onus on you to do the kinds of
Speaker 1: effective things that have worked for the Force managed by
Speaker 1: Southern California Edison, like clearing clearing ground, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. There's more of an onus, not less saying that, oh,
Speaker 1: what started the Civil War? Well, it was it was
Speaker 1: the South was concerned with states rights. No, it was slavery. Well,
Speaker 1: but it was the Southern states were well, they were
Speaker 1: trying to stick up for their rights. Yeah, their right
Speaker 1: to have slaves, their right to have state laws that
Speaker 1: allowed them to have slaves. Slavery was a major issue.
Speaker 1: It was a major issue. There were other issues too,
Speaker 1: but that was a major overriding issue. Don't just I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's the ultimate, don't you know, urinate on my
Speaker 1: boot and tell me it's raining situation you want to blame.
Speaker 1: You cannot just say climate change and say that that's
Speaker 1: the reason the forest fires happened. No, especially given that
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, twenty twenty, we had horrible forest fires in
Speaker 1: this state. We just lucked out that they didn't happen
Speaker 1: near the second biggest metro population area in the country.
Speaker 1: We had massive, horrible forest fires that resulted in horrific
Speaker 1: environmental damage. And that's the thing that just drives me nuts.
Speaker 1: There's no sense the radical environmental left in this state
Speaker 1: that they cannot bear. They cannot fathom the idea of
Speaker 1: a limited sacrifice for the sake of a long term gain.
Speaker 1: They look at the idea of controlled burns, fire breaks,
Speaker 1: thinning forests, these small environmental harms to prevent larger environmental harms.
Speaker 1: They look at that with horror. They think it's they
Speaker 1: seem to think it's the equivalent of like, look if
Speaker 1: we're talking about doing that with human lives, like I'm
Speaker 1: not going to murder five humans to prevent one hundred
Speaker 1: humans from dying or something. That's an unacceptable solution to
Speaker 1: do genuine evil. We're not talking about absolute negative prohibitions
Speaker 1: of the moral law. Trees are not people making some
Speaker 1: kind of limited sacrifice by thinning forest floors, controlled burns,
Speaker 1: et cetera to forestall. I mean some of the horrible
Speaker 1: forest fires we had in twenty twenty, people were able
Speaker 1: to estimate it undid in one fire all of the
Speaker 1: environmental programs California has ever done in it history, the
Speaker 1: carbon offset basically of all of the environmental programs California
Speaker 1: has ever done in its history was basically offset undone
Speaker 1: by one horrible fire. One fire. I don't know if
Speaker 1: this fire is gonna be a similar effect, But this
Speaker 1: idea that no, we just say, oh well, well, who's
Speaker 1: to blame? Arsonists? Arsonists not afraid of criminal punishment because
Speaker 1: California has been so lax on criminal punishments. Was it,
Speaker 1: you know? Was it Mayor Karen Bass not managing the
Speaker 1: water situation appropriately being in Ghana when she knew there
Speaker 1: was high risk of fires? Was it the fire department
Speaker 1: being too focused on DEI rather than firefighting? Was it
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom? Was it the state legislature? Was it the
Speaker 1: air resources? But was it California's inability in spite of
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen prop one to actually build any water storage
Speaker 1: facilities to deal with the fires, to actually build any
Speaker 1: of the water storage facilities? The Californians agreed we should
Speaker 1: build and set aside billions of dollars to build. Whose
Speaker 1: fault is it, Oh, well, let's it's climate change. Climate
Speaker 1: change is the main culprit. Oh, so then no one's
Speaker 1: responsible is a great way of the people who are
Speaker 1: responsible for the problem being able to say and pretend
Speaker 1: like they're not the ones responsible. It's utterly infuriating. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm going to be that guy who's not gonna
Speaker 1: I mean, I think firefighters are amazing. I think firefighters
Speaker 1: are heroic. I think so many of them have done
Speaker 1: amazing things. They've done incredible stuff. There's been a lot
Speaker 1: of local firefighters have gone down to LA to help
Speaker 1: fight the fires. God bless every single one of them.
Speaker 1: Hope they all come back safe and they're doing great work.
Speaker 1: But at a certain point you got to start asking, like,
Speaker 1: at a certain point, focusing just on the heroics of
Speaker 1: the firefighters is an avoidance strategy. It's a way to
Speaker 1: avoid the politically highly distasteful reality that the one side
Speaker 1: that's run this state for fourteen years has done a
Speaker 1: terrible job. When we return Gavin Newsom's Lululemon jacket that
Speaker 1: he keeps wearing next on The John Girardi Show, I've
Speaker 1: always noticed that Gavin Newsom is dressed to the nines,
Speaker 1: and I always notice he has this one particular kind
Speaker 1: of looks like a quarter zip jacket kind of thing
Speaker 1: that he wears whenever he's rough in it. So if
Speaker 1: he's out like for seeing another horrible forest fire that's
Speaker 1: devastated his state because he doesn't actually insist on effective
Speaker 1: forestry management, or when he's going to a homeless encampment
Speaker 1: that's getting cleaned up that he hadn't done anything really
Speaker 1: to help with that problem, either over the course of
Speaker 1: his time as governor or whatever he's doing. Whenever he's
Speaker 1: roughing it, he tends to wear this. Or he goes
Speaker 1: to pretend laid down the first rail for the high
Speaker 1: speed rail system that'll never get built that he keeps
Speaker 1: insisting we've pour money into, he tends to wear this
Speaker 1: one jacket. I sort of noticed it, and I mentioned
Speaker 1: it to my wife just says that I read a
Speaker 1: story about that. This is a piece from January eleventh
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty three, two years ago when from SF GAIT.
Speaker 1: When California Governor Gavin Newsom appeared in front of the
Speaker 1: news media to discuss his proposals for the new state
Speaker 1: budget Monday, he was wearing one of the several custom
Speaker 1: garments that have become one of his hallmarks since he
Speaker 1: first took office approximately four years ago. A navy blue
Speaker 1: jacket with a white bear embroidered on the left breast
Speaker 1: Alex Moffatt, the actor from Saturday Night Live, or a
Speaker 1: similar one when he played the governor on Saturday Night Live.
Speaker 1: This is, in fact a custom made Lulu Lemon jacket.
Speaker 1: So he's got a custom Lulu Lemon jacket for when
Speaker 1: he's surveying the wreckage of the state. That'll do it.
Speaker 1: Johns already show see you next time on Power Talk.