Comment Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676
I don't know. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial not long ago suggesting she is significantly more 'liberal' and 'progressive' than her husband was in office.
The truth is, the Republicans are scared to death of Clinton.
I don't think they are anymore. Hillary is looking a lot like Romney did last election.......not too great, but the party couldn't find anyone to beat him (although a Gengrich campaign would have been much more interesting, it would have been awful if he'd won).
Hillary looks beatable.
The last time we had a 3 way battle was in 92. It was also the last time any serious discussion happened on balancing our budget.
Clinton countered that by realizing people care about a balanced budget, and balancing it himself. That's why he's a clever politician, and it's why he stayed in office.
I doubt [Rand Paul] will be nominated.
I was thinking that too, but his recent points on abortion were politically shrewd. I used to consider him a joke candidate, but if he's shown he knows how to manage the press, and if he keeps it up he has a reasonably good chance.
Myself, disliking all candidates (merely because anyone who wants to be president is slightly insane), I'd like to see Jed Bush run against Hillary Clinton, just for the pure absurdity of the situation. We'd have a Bush who didn't vote to invade Iraq running against a democrat who did.
Based on a mixed layer temperature budget, these anomalies were caused by lower than normal rates of the loss of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, and of relatively weak cold advection in the upper ocean. Both of these mechanisms can be attributed to an unusually strong and persistent weather pattern featuring much higher than normal sea level pressure over the waters of interest. This anomaly was the greatest observed in this region since at least the 1980s.
Let's just take this at face value, and let's falsely pretend that the water shortages aren't also causing cutbacks by residential consumers. Then that's 40% of the state's water to provide a fraction of 2% of the GDP, in drought conditions.
Personally? I think you're a moron for using GDP as a valid way to allocate water resources. Seriously? Where did that idea even come from?......When a residential consumer drinks water, they are producing 0% of GDP.....You need to think a little more before responding.
Agriculture is the big culprit, taking 80% of the state's water (and in return ag and mining together only make up 2% of the economy). Its a totally unsustainable situation that has to be remedied sooner or later.
That isn't true, and hasn't been true for years. Farmers are promised 80% of the state's water, but even in good years they haven't been getting that for a while. This year farmers are getting less than half the water that they've been promised.
Incidentally, the water fights between urban and rural dwellers have been going on for well over a century, and will probably continue far into the future. "Stupid farmers, taking all the water." "Stupid city slickers, what are they going to eat?"
California residents use about 1 trillion gallons a year (about 10% of California's yearly water usage). To put that into perspective: almond farms use about 1.2 trillion gallons a year; alfalfa farms use about 1.5 trillion gallons a year.
Not the past few years......farmers have been getting 50% (or less) of their normal amount of water. This year, for example, an almond farmer near Manteca who is used to getting 48 inches a year will be lucky to get 18 inches.
Sure, sure it is popular to claim that the government wastes money It goes back to the Proxmire Golden Fleece Awards where a Senator from Wisconsin would claim to have identified horrendous wastes of money,
It's way older than that. In the early 1800s people were complaining that government was wasting money on canal infrastructure projects, digging canals so shipping could travel across the US. People complained that the canals could have been dug much more cheaply by the private sector.
Most of the arguments we have in politics go back all the way to the beginning in one form or another. It's kind of amazing.
The tipping point was around the Gregorian revolution in the late 11th century (1050-1150 or thereabouts.)
Why date it to then, instead of the blossoming under Charlamagne?
As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison
