Don's Tuesday Column (NOTE TO READERS: THIS MAY BE MY LAST COLUMN AS EDITOR SPIKED IT, DIDN'T PRINT IT, WITH NO EXPLANATION)

THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson     Red Bluff Daily News 12/02/2025

        Thanks for much, just not for CA

I truly hope that this Tuesday finds readers’ lives better off for having shared camaraderie and joyful thanks for what blessings we all share, as well as those for your circle of family and friends. In case any harbor doubts or cynicism about our God-blessed nation, step back from the hateful sources of negativity and recognize that much of the world’s population, who value political and economic freedom, set their sights on this beacon of hope. Not that we want them all, but still.

America has welcomed, and should continue to welcome, those who share our values; and reject anyone wanting to take advantage of the generosity of our taxpayers, refuse to assimilate to our culture, or seek to undermine our constitutional system of representative democracy. Winston Churchill perceptively stated, “...democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

***

In pointing out the benefits of Native agricultural methods to the Pilgrim settlers, which helped them feed their families and community, do remember that starvation threatened the Pilgrims more for their attempted communal system of food “distribution” than their farming techniques. The fruits of all labor were put in a “common store” and given to all equally; such laziness and resentment arose among the inhabitants over having their food given to those who hadn’t harvested as much, that they all faced starvation.

It was only then that Governor Bradford mandated assigning plots to each family or person, together with the commandment that whoever would not work, would not eat. That simple self-serving, free market system then produced the abundance that the Pilgrims shared with their Native neighbors. As this lesson has been emphasized (even in this column) for many years, an unfortunately growing segment of (mostly young) Americans have ignorantly succumbed to the theory of “socialism” as the best path to rectify...fill-in-the-blank social or economic problems.

While such misled voices find little acceptance locally, our not-so-fair state stands at the precipice of a slide to failure that is easily predictable based on the clear history of such failed economic systems throughout history. This column will exercise its prerogative to continue to inform readers of misguided policies and laws, and irrational situations throughout our state.

***

Cut from last week’s column for space: A recent article revealed something on the “affordability” crisis in housing: “Developers found a way to bypass Berkeley’s standards” (11/21, Berkeleyside/AP). Eyes may have glazed over at the mention of Berkeley, but labor union and “consumer” opponents of a 23-story housing project worry that the side-stepping of “worker protections” and bird-friendly exterior glass materials, may loosen the grip they have on housing construction statewide.

While unlikely to impact our Northern California communities, note that the most economical housing—high rise “stacked and packed” vs. single family or even duplex units—still must conform to basic economic laws: If it costs too much and rents cannot be correspondingly, profitably set, it won’t get built. Such is the reality of a free-market economy. Government-run, or socialist, housing construction is not exempt from that reality.

“Requirements to provide health insurance and apprenticeships, and another ordinance mandating large buildings use glass designed to prevent bird collisions” are mandated by the worker/enviro/animal rights crowd. Oblivious to economic realities, housing affordability becomes just another casualty.

Such special interest-driven government interference goes a long way in explaining why California’s housing costs twice that in nearby states, and why “the rent is too damn high.” Just keep voting for Democrats, California; they are doing such a bang-up job on “affordability,” right? Those moving vans and trucks still cost more to leave, as to come to, California. Kudos to CalMatters’ Dan Walters for his documenting these issues.

***

On energy and the never-ending obsession with a clean environment: “California’s War on Oil Actually Harms the Environment; California bans offshore oil while importing dirtier foreign crude, worsening environmental and energy outcomes at home” (amgreatness.com, 11/26). Yes, California’s estimated 10 billion barrels of oil, both on- and off-shore, are treated like a communicable disease best left buried, rather than the virtual life blood of nearly every aspect of our state’s economic abundance—which is then sustained by oil from the worst polluters on the planet.

While virtually barricading ourselves from off-shore drilling, “clean energy” proponents want “up to 20 gigawatts of floating offshore wind turbines...requiring 2,000 nearly 700-foot-tall wind turbines,” visually polluting the views from entire shorelines. The energy expected from such a massive “wind farm” is a pittance compared to that from the oil reserves that would need a fraction of the area off our coast.

Such is the backwards, upside-down mentality of the “zero carbon” advocates, ignoring the carbon-producing, environmental cost of the wind turbine materials—which will eventually need replacing, anyway.