RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/death_to_the_suburbs.html

The indomitable Betsy McCaughey has called out the latest ugly manifestation of “diversity, inclusion, and equity” the drive to destroy the suburbs.  The Biden administration and Democrat-controlled legislatures in several states have taken the lead in this effort.  In New York State, Governor Kathy Hochul, as part of the state budget, has advanced a so-called Housing Compact that would eliminate local control and single family zoning. 

Hochul’s plan would require that high-rise “affordable” (read: low-income, taxpayer-subsidized) housing be constructed close to each sleepy village train station — mostly a few miles apart — on Metro North and the Long Island Railroad.  If the affected communities fail to do so “voluntarily,” the state will have the power to override local zoning.  Those who fail to applaud this combined coup by warriors for social justice and real estate interests are, you guessed it, racist.

Suburban homeowners, Democrats as well as Republicans, are beginning to awaken to the deadly threat these proposals pose to their way of life.  What is largely overlooked is that this is a repeat of a similar effort in 1972 about which I wrote at the time (“Housing Controversy in Westchester,” Congress Biweekly, November 10, 1972 and December 22, 1972).  Believe it or not, the effort to overthrow zoning was then spearheaded by Republicans — with New York’s Westchester County selected to pioneer the program.

On June 20, 1972, the New York State Urban Development Corporation announced that it was overriding local zoning to create a variety of low- and moderate-income housing developments in nine, for the most part rural, Westchester communities.  Reminiscent of the emotional reaction to the death of George Floyd, the UDC had been given zoning override power by a hitherto balky state Legislature the day after the murder of Martin Luther King.  Republican governor Nelson Rockefeller, in a burst of virtue-signaling, argued that this was the best tribute the Legislature could give the slain civil rights leader.  When rationality returned, efforts by the state Legislature to take away the override power were vetoed by Rockefeller.

https://lidblog.com/biggest-population-loss-in-us/

Democrat residents are fleeing two of the nation’s largest counties — Cook County, home to Chicago, Illinois, and L.A. County, home to Los Angeles, California — in record numbers. Last year, those locals led the nation in population shrinkage.

Of the two, Los Angeles County led the nation by losing the most citizens to outbound migration by losing a whopping 90,704 citizens, according to U.S. Census Bureau records.

Right behind LA  was Cook County, the home of the Windy City, which lost 68,314 people from July 2021 to July of last year.

Despite the loss, the two counties were still the most populous in America, according to Just the News:

Los Angeles County was still the most populous county in the U.S. That was followed by Cook County in Illinois at 5,109,292, which declined by 68,314 from the prior year. Rounding out the top five were Harris County, Texas (4,780,913); Maricopa County, Arizona (4,551,524); and San Diego County, California (3,276,208).

Eight of the top 10 most populous counties in the U.S. were located in the South and West. The two exceptions were Cook County in Illinois and Kings County [Brooklyn] in New York.

“Reflecting longstanding regional population shifts, the nation’s most populous counties are increasingly located in the South and West,” the bureau reported. “In 2022, 63 of the country’s 100 most populous counties were located in the South and West, up from 61 in the prior year.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/04/13/millions-have-voted-for-trump-since-2020-with-their-feet/

Over the past two years, vast numbers of Americans picked up and moved. In a mobile society like ours, that’s not news. What is news is where they are moving from, and where they are going to.

Turns out, there’s a mass exodus underway, with people leaving Biden strongholds and heading to MAGA country.

New Census data show that, from 2021 to 2022, more than 2 million people moved out of urban areas that are largely controlled by Democrats and relocated to exurbs and more rural areas that largely voted for Donald Trump.

Los Angeles County, for example, had a net ex-migration of more than 363,000 over the past two years. Cook County, Illinois, lost 200,000. In New York, New York County lost 109,000, Queens County, 158,000, and Kings County, 187,000. Philadelphia County sank 52,000.

In Texas, a state where Trump beat Joe Biden 52%-46%, the two counties that saw the largest ex-migration – Dallas and Harris – both went heavily for Biden. Combined they had a net loss of 130,000 people.

The two biggest gainers in Texas – Collin and Denton counties – went for Trump. They had a net gain of 120,000. Another big gainer – Montgomery County – voted 71% for Trump.

Salt Lake County, Utah, (which went for Biden 58%-39% in a state Trump carried 58%-38%), lost 20,000 people.

The counties in Virginia that saw the biggest outflow of people are all ones that went heavily for Biden.

Still not convinced? Take a look at these two maps in the gallery below. One, produced by the Census Department, shows net migration from 2021 to 2022. The other (click on the arrow) shows the 2020 election results by county. Notice how, across the country, the places losing population almost all voted for Biden, and the ones gaining are almost all Trump counties.

https://reason.com/2023/04/11/why-america-needs-to-be-open-to-debate/

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that,” John Stuart Mill wrote in “On Liberty” (1859), laying out the essential case for open, robust, and systematic debate. If you don’t test your beliefs by engaging with people who disagree with you, you’re more likely to make weak, incomplete, self-serving, or irrelevant arguments, leading to ruinous outcomes in policy matters or acrimonious misunderstandings in social life.

That’s where the group Open to Debate comes in. Founded in 2006 as Intelligence Squared U.S., Open to Debate has hosted hundreds of debates with the goal of “restor[ing] critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to American public discourse.” Through a mix of online and in-person events, Open to Debate brings together artists, officials, public intellectuals, scientists, and entrepreneurs from across the ideological spectrum to work through contentious, heated, and seemingly irresolvable issues of the day.

Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward, for instance, was part of a debate that asked, “Is Capitalism a Blessing?” and Reason’s Nick Gillespie has argued for legalizing all drugs and against Medicare for All, net neutrality, and forgiving student loan debt. Open to Debate invites audience participation, and it airs all its programming on NPR, YouTube, and the group’s own website, where it provides voluminous notes and materials, all designed to help audience members reach an independent and informed conclusion.

In February, Gillespie talked with Open to Debate CEO Clea Conner about her group’s mission, its name change, and its push to host actual presidential debates rather than “joint press conferences with really rehearsed talking points.”

Reason: What is Open to Debate? What are the goals of the organization?

Conner: Open to Debate is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. We consider ourselves a debate-driven media company. So we are curating conversations and experiences where people can engage with opposing views on complex issues in a respectful and thought-provoking way.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/10/the-depopulation-bomb/

Today, the spectre haunting the global order is not communism, as Marx predicted, but seemingly relentless demographic decline. We can already see its consequences in everything from the fight over pensions in France to the persistent labour shortages across almost all the high-income world. In the future, a lack of human labour is also likely to accelerate a shift towards automation, reshaping economic and political conflict for decades to come.

The world’s population has long been growing on an upward curve. About 75 per cent of the world’s population growth has occurred over the past 100 years, more than 50 per cent of it since 1970. But now, according to the United Nations, population growth is on course to drop to near zero, especially in more developed nations. Globally, last year’s total population growth was the smallest in half a century. By 2050 it is estimated that some 61 countries are expected to experience population declines.

A majority of the world already lives in countries with fertility rates well below the replacement level (2.1 births per woman) – the level, that is, at which a country’s population would remain steady. By 2050, UN data suggests 75 per cent of countries will have fertility rates below replacement level. Some UN demographic projections now contemplate that world population could peak in 2086, with the global population about one billion below today’s level by 2100. Ours will become a rapidly ageing planet. In 1970, the median world age was 20.3 years. By 2020, it had increased to 29.7 years, and it is expected to be 42.3 years in 2100.

It’s no longer a question of if, but when global populations will start to decline. We are entering a new epoch, defined by the first large population declines since medieval times. A series of plagues halved Europe’s population between 1346 and 1460. The primary causes today are not war or disease, however, but social evolution, including the decline of the family and religion, as well as diminished economic opportunity and a soaring cost of living. Most rich countries have to contend with birth rates well below the replacement rate. Japan, which has a fertility rate consistently 50 per cent below replacement, is likely to see its population drop from 126million in 2021 to under 90million by 2065. Indeed, last year, Japan recorded twice as many deaths as births.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/society/2023/04/when-the-mad-fringe-becomes-the-centre/

‘I got turned on today watching the fear in Posie Parker’s eyes. She actually was fearing for her life’.

These are the words of a ‘transwoman’ (a biological man who identifies as a woman) commenting on the violence directed against the Let Women Speak event in Auckland. The first thought of any civilised person reading that disgraceful comment might well be that all ideologies have zealots, and that the man does not represent the mainstream of the cause he supports. This is unequivocally not the case with transgender ideology. The fringe, to be precise, is the centre. This is something that critics of transgenderism have tried to highlight since the ideology became the Left’s cause du jour.

At the heart of transgender ideology lies an impulse, a psychology, a drive, which, due to biological reality, cannot be sated.  The twin delusions that your real self is unrelated to biology and that one can be ‘born in the wrong body’ expresses itself psychologically as a desperate desire to be recognised as something the trans person is not and can never be. This is the core of the profound irrationalism that characterises transgenderism and it is the source of the relentlessly extreme behaviour that manifests as an animosity towards anyone who, even in the most insignificant way, fails to affirm the fantasy of the trans person’s self-identity.

The inability of trans activists to accept the tangible, corporeal reality of their bodies while rejecting others’ entirely rational belief in biological reality are the drivers of an inchoate rage that brooks no argument, and which creates a mindset that rejects traditional concepts of decent behaviour and tolerance towards other human beings. To do so would allow the possibility that someone may not affirm the idea that the trans person is the opposite sex or, in modern parlance, the ‘gender’ they claim to be. Anything, then, that advances the trans agenda of forcing people to affirm their self-identification is allowed, no matter how ugly the behaviour or destructive the consequences. This is not true of all trans people, many of whom just want the same rights as everyone else, but it is true of the majority of transgender activists.