It's no secret that Gavin Newsom is cultivating presidential ambitions for 2024 or beyond, and that he is putting himself forward as a Democratic Party leader on social issues by challenging conservative states and their social policies.
But Newsom's focus on other states has always been dubious, given the many problems that California faces, and his poor track record in handling them. And in a new demand that Hollywood boycott pro-life states, he's gone too far.
This business of boycotting states is almost a uniquely Californian phenomenon. It is a form of secession, really: California bars official travel to 22 states, nearly half the country (in San Francisco, the ban extends to more than half the U.S.).
Moreover, Newsom is demanding that Hollywood conform to his government's view of abortion -- a complex and highly contentious issue on which even many people who think they are on one side or the other often have nuanced views.
He is demanding that Hollywood boycott other states while dangling $1.65 billion in tax credits for the industry. The clear message: play along if you want to get your share of the California pie. It's coercion to enforce conformity.
Astonishingly, Newsom then has the chutzpah to claim that going along with his boycott demand means choosing "creativity." It's the opposite: there can never be true artistic creativity when production demands state conformity.
Newsom's effort is partly a protectionist one: he's representing companies and unions in his state who are threatened by competition from other states and countries. But it's also disqualifying in terms of a future presidential campaign.
No one should be president who has deliberately tried to cause economic harm to half the country. And no one should lead any level of government who is this hostile to the First Amendment and the true meaning of American freedom.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
