Rebane's Ruminations
December 2013
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

George Rebane

In ‘The End of the Beginning’ Bill Whittle spells out the overall impact of Obamacare and the pack of Washington’s lying scumbags that continue to foist this atrocity on America.  It can viewed as Exhibit A confirming Mark Twain’s wise remark above.  (H/T to RR reader)

Obama’s gratuitous and self-serving abandonment of the rule of law is now the mainstay of our country’s retreat from being a civil society.  The latest departure from law by executive fiat is this president’s selective lifting of Obamacare’s individual mandate in order to delay torches and pitchforks showing up in town squares across the land.  This arbitrary removal is being justified under the law’s hardship clause designed to help, of all people, those who have become ‘victims of Obamacare’.  More here.

None other than NYC’s departing Mayor Bloomberg is now advising us that the country’s cities are going under fiscally, being dragged there by hundreds of unfunded public service pension plans that were nefariously negotiated by the “labor-electoral complex”.  This sinister relationship between progressive politicians and unions was long identified as being toxic to America.  But national dumbth constantly salved by the liberal lamestream kept everyone fooled (note the wrath of the local lackeys in these pages when such information was presented).  Now we have a progressive mayor spilling the beans in his swansong speeches as he explains away the fourfold increase in NYC’s pension costs over the last decade.  More here and here.

The Bush2 policies of expanding America’s energy production have so lowered the cost of electricity in the land that some manufacturing is actually beginning to return to our shores.  Obama and the socialists have done everything possible to reverse this trend in energy prices, but right now there is enough momentum to attract overseas manufacturers so that even Chinese companies are offshoring to the United States.   A poster child in this is Keer Group Company from Hangzhou, a yarn manufacturer, that is relocating its mill to South Carolina’s traditional textile territory, and creating 500 jobs in the process.  Of course, when the transition is complete Team Obama et al will crow that it is their socialist policies that are bringing about such things.  And don’t be amazed at how many people will actually believe that crap.  More here.

SixCaliforniasHear about California divided into six states?  That is the initiative proposed by investor Tim Draper.  For many people some form of The Great Divide cannot happen soon enough.  More here and H/T to RR reader.

Posted in , , , , ,

116 responses to “Ruminations – 22dec2013”

  1. Gerry Fedor Avatar
    Gerry Fedor

    This concept will never happen as the south needs our water and will never be willing to relinquish this product.
    The poor counties will never be willing to survive on their own without the income from the San Francisco Bay Area.
    This will mean that the Red and Orange areas will quickly become the new Kentucky and West Virginia’s of the Union.

    Like

  2. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Geroge: I messes around with this idea a few months back. Four states would be logical.
    Bay Area (7.9 million – about size of Virginia by population)
    Los Angeles Area (11.3 million – about size of Ohio by population)
    San Diego Area (10.5 million – about size of Ohio by population)
    Remainder (including Sacramento) (7.5 million – about size of Virginia by population)
    Basically one big city per state and the areas have a unity of interests and geography. The sizes reduce the state to four manageable populations and geographic areas.
    Bay Area and Los Angeles Area would end up heavily democrat, while San Diego would be middle right and the remainder would be pretty even registration wise.

    Like

  3. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Re: Abandonment of the Law. Barrackobamacare is the reason for the hardship clause.
    Re: Cheap energy and US energy production. As a cause and effect issue, America’s cheap energy production is causing our State Department headaches threatening to destabilize Sheik Kingdoms. The State Department of all agencies is 100% opposed to fracking in places like the Midwest and is fighting hard against individual states’ energy production.
    RE: 6 States. Looking at the map, the FUE is getting the last laugh. We in this neck of the woods are the Purple State.

    Like

  4. Russ Steele Avatar

    Fox Business News has a summary of pension news at #pension911
    here: http://www.foxbusiness.com/live-coverage/pension-crisis
    Closer to home: Pollster gives unions roadmap to fight California pension proposal here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/19/6014489/pollster-gives-unions-roadmap.html#storylink=cpy

    Like

  5. Gregory Avatar

    I think a fair market rate for Hetch Hetchy water would do wonders for the cash flow of Mariposa County. Who knows, maybe Merced or Stockton (after they emerge from bankruptcy) would also like some, and SF might even prefer solar photovoltaic power driving high tech desalinization plants to be self sufficient while the rest of the former great state of Calfornia makes do with an abundance of fracked fossil fuels the current legislature forbids.
    The #1 reason the breakup would be fought tooth and nail is that it would quickly end the Democratic advantage in presidential elections. The winner take all Electoral College is the reason California is ignored in presidential elections, except as a fundraising center. Also, I find it more than a bit distasteful that such a plan would be drawn up by one ultrarich guy, bypassing the (small d) democratic process in drawing up boundaries.

    Like

  6. fish Avatar
    fish

    Also, I find it more than a bit distasteful that such a plan would be drawn up by one ultrarich guy, bypassing the (small d) democratic process in drawing up boundaries.
    Remember Greg….we’re fascists here….try to not stray too far from the approved narrative.

    Like

  7. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Hardship? Don’t call us, we will call you….maybe.
    http://www.oregonlive.com/finance/index.ssf/2013/12/cover_oregon_if_you_dont_hear.html

    Like

  8. Russ Steele Avatar

    In the face of stiff opposition from the Obama Administration, it’s lefty lackeys and lame stream press, fracking will enable drillers on private and state land to an produce a U.S. oil surpluses by 2016, according to experts. For the first time in 25 years the U.S. produced more oil than it imported in October 2013. None of this was supported by Obama. It was in spite of Obama. Think what we could do, it the Obama Administration allowed more drilling on Federal lands. Think about the impact on the California economy if the scumbags legislators in Sacramento supported franking.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    BarryP 401am – Your boundaries make more sense than Draper’s. My thoughts in the past were simpler and would divide the state into three parts. The southern and central parts would be divided by a line generally running through the San Gabriel and Los Padres range. The northern part would start north of SF and cross somewhere right south of El Dorado county; it would include Sacramento as the big city.

    Like

  10. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Perhaps a simpler idea would be to divide our state into 2 parts along geographical lines. One State would be to the east of the San Andres Fault and the other State would be to the west of the fault line. The Western California part would get all the major ghettos, the rising sea levels, most of the libs and a bunch of movie stars along with beautiful sunsets and beautiful people, and of course Muscle Beach in Venice.
    The East California would get the Mojave Desert (including the breathtaking town of Blythe), some rugged high country and a bunch of Hicktowns, USA. I could live with that. Suppose we in the new East California would have to renegotiate the price of water with our neighboring West California to pay for our new government bureaucracy.

    Like

  11. George Rebane Avatar

    Open question – what are the demographics of Californians 1) who see benefit from partitioning the state and want to study ways of accomplishing it; and 2) those who think it a dumb idea and oppose even its examination? Does anyone know of any formal work done to answer this question?
    Informally, I and many other conservatives of my acquaintance always come up with the same result. Conservatives, especially those of the entrepreneurial bent, would like to separate themselves from socialist California while changing a good part of the state into a freer capitalist form of government. Collectivists, apparently sensing the loss of government revenues, uniformly oppose creating a free California into which capitalists can ‘escape’ without leaving the abundant natural benefits of our state.
    Light thinking liberals always like to cite the stasist notion that most of California’s wealth today is created in regions that vote socialist. And since things never change (i.e. respond to public policies in unexpected ways) in their world, a post-partition California would yield a conservative region that would quickly pauper itself, and thereby require massive federal cash inflows to support civil society. This would place an undue burden on the socialist part in which wealth production would continue to flourish.

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar

    Bill,
    If we want to actually divide the state up with political boundaries East West split would be the natural choice. I have to explain to the coast Greens that the east side of the state is pure republican stronghold. I don’t think the Greens are the answer to the problems we face but there platform is the solutions to those same problems. The Green Ten Key Values would be an excellent thing for George to dissect on his blog.
    An almost perfect platform
    Ecological Wisdom
    How can we operate human societies with the understanding that we are part of nature, not on top of it?
    How can we live within the ecological and resource limits of the planet, applying our technological knowledge to the challenge of an energy efficient economy?
    How can we build a better relationship between cities and countryside?
    How can we guarantee the rights of non-human species?
    How can we promote sustainable agriculture and respect for self-regulating natural systems?
    How can we further biocentric wisdom in all spheres of life?
    Nonviolence
    How can we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the street to nations and the world?
    How can we eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth without being naive about the intentions of other governments?
    How can we most constructively use nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and in the process reduce the atmosphere of polarization and selfishness that is itself a source of violence?
    Social Justice
    How can we respond to human suffering in ways that promote dignity?
    How can we encourage people to commit themselves to lifestyles that promote their own health?
    How can we have a community controlled education system that effectively teaches our children academic skills, ecological wisdom, social responsibility and personal growth?
    How can we resolve personal and intergroup conflicts without just turning them over to lawyers and judges?
    How can we take responsibility for reducing the crime rate in our neighborhoods?
    How can we encourage such values as simplicity and moderation?
    Grassroots Democracy
    How can we develop systems that allow and encourage us to control the decisions that affect our lives?
    How can we ensure that representatives will be fully accountable to the people who elected them?
    How can we develop planning mechanisms that would allow citizens to develop and implement their own preferences for policies and spending priorities?
    How can we encourage and assist the “mediating institutions”–family, neighborhood organization, church group, voluntary association, ethnic club–to recover some of the functions now performed by the government?
    How can we relearn the best insights from American traditions of civic vitality, voluntary action and community responsibility?
    Decentralization
    How can we reduce power and responsibility to individuals, institutions, communities and regions?
    How can we encourage the flourishing of regionally-based culture, rather than a dominant mono-culture?
    How can we have a decentralized, democratic society with our political, economic and social institutions locating power on the smallest scale (closest to home) that is efficient and practical?
    How can we redesign our institutions so that fewer decisions and less regulation over money are granted as one moves from the community to the national level?
    How can we reconcile the need for community and regional self-determination with the need for appropriate centralized regulation in certain matters?
    Community-Based Economics
    How can we redesign our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy?
    How can we develop new economic activities and institutions that will allow us to use our new technologies in ways that are humane, freeing, ecological and accountable, and responsive to communities?
    How can we establish some form of basic economic security, open to all?
    How can we move beyond the narrow “job ethic” to new definitions of “work,” jobs” and “income” that reflect the changing economy?
    How can we restructure our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside the formal monetary economy: those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens, community volunteer work, etc.?
    How can we restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation?
    Feminism
    How can we replace the cultural ethics of dominance and control with more cooperative ways of interacting?
    How can we encourage people to care about persons outside their own group?
    How can we promote the building of respectful, positive and responsible relationships across the lines of gender and other divisions?
    How can we encourage a rich, diverse political culture that respects feelings as well as rationalist approaches?
    How can we proceed with as much respect for the means as the end (the process as much as the product of our efforts)?
    How can we learn to respect the contemplative, inner part of life as much as the outer activities?
    Respect for Diversity
    How can we honor cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity within the context of individual responsibility toward all beings?
    How can we reclaim our country’s finest shared ideals: the dignity of the individual, democratic participation, and liberty and justice for all?
    Personal & Global Responsibility
    How can we be of genuine assistance to the grassroots groups in the Third World? What can we learn from such groups?
    How can we help other countries make the transition to self-sufficiency in food and other basic necessities?
    How can we cut our defense budget while maintaining an adequate defense?
    How can we promote these ten Green values in the reshaping of our global order?
    How can we reshape the world order without creating just another enormous nation-state?
    Sustainability
    How can we induce people and institutions to think in terms of the long range future, and not just in terms of their short range selfish interest?
    How can we encourage people to develop their own visions of the future and move more effectively toward them?
    How can we judge whether new technologies are socially useful, and use these judgements to shape our society?
    How can we induce our government and other institutions to practice fiscal responsibility?
    How can we make the quality of life, rather than open-ended economic growth, the focus of future thinking?

    Like

  13. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1017am – Great list of questions not all of which are germane to the organization and operation of civil society in the conservative mind. But how do all these questions relate to the Green Ten Key Values? Can you restate them as declarative tenets of a/the Green belief system? That would eliminate a large part of the innuendo and implied indeterminacy that comes with substituting questions for definitive declarations. We could then productively consider them. Should you follow my recommendation, I would gladly post them as your byline on RR.
    BTW, this line of discussion is quite established on RR. As examples of such liberal tenets, I draw your attention to –
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/09/the-educated-li.html
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/09/liberal-tenets.html

    Like

  14. fish Avatar
    fish

    Gee Ben…that looks like a political manifesto….have you ever considered running for office?

    Like

  15. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    Personal Responsibility is the absolute value found in all of the Ten Key Values.
    Here is the link with the information you are looking for.
    http://www.cagreens.org/platform
    The issue I think hits home with you most.
    Community Based Sustainable Economics
    http://www.cagreens.org/platform/economics

    Like

  16. Barry Pruett Avatar

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 3.
    It does not appear that the Constitution permits partitioning of a state by initiative.
    One could make an argument that states cannot be separated into sub-parts. Notice the location of the semi-colons. The provision regarding the consent of the legislatures of the states (plural) seems to refer only to joining two states. One could make an argument that the Constitution bars partitioning of a state.

    Like

  17. Barry Pruett Avatar

    The supreme court has never directly ruled whether West Virginia, Vermont, Kentucky, and Maine were created constitutionally, but I also do not know all of the history. Obviuosly precedent leads one to believe that it is fine. Just interesting…kind of like the arguments about the second amendment and the commas.

    Like

  18. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    I need to start saving my comments again I guess. I think you will be surprised at some of the positions and why the first few months on RR I tried to find common ground.
    Personal Responsibility is the Ultimate Value found within each of the Ten Key Values (TKV).
    Here are summaries to the Green Platform each category has many issues attached to it and they are addressed individually within the big picture.
    Green Platform
    http://www.cagreens.org/platform
    Sub-topics
    Ecology
    Community-Based Sustainable Economics
    Democracy and Electoral Reform
    Peace and Non-violence
    Social Justice and Livable Communities
    Community Based Sustainable Economics
    http://www.cagreens.org/platform/economics
    Budget
    Excerpt that might tease you enough to really dig in and read on.
    “We must insist on measuring the long and short-term benefits of government spending after the fact. Too often benefits are promised that never materialize but the spending continues.
    We need a thorough analysis of the California State Budget from a perspective which emphasizes results for the people of the state. California, like other states and the federal government, struggles to avoid budget deficits. The great bulk of expenditures in this state are for education (44%) and welfare (26%). While the Greens advocate adequate funding for these areas, we question whether this is being accomplished effectively.”

    Like

  19. Ben Emery Avatar

    Barry,
    Splitting states up is a very tricky and tedious venture to say the least. First it has to get passed local, then state, and finally federal hurdles. At every stage after the local process a chipping away of the original plans takes place making the finishing product unacceptable to the original petitioners.
    As I put on Sierra Foothill’s Report it will be out of necessity not political motives that will split California into multiple states. I think a maximum of three states could be possible but most likely a North/ South will be the desired divide.

    Like

  20. Walt Avatar

    Not long ago, S.F. voted on tearing down Hetch hetchy,, all on the idea of “pretty”. 20% or so of their water supply, profits of the hydro electric,( that evil money they get from “green power” generation)
    “They” wanted to restore little Yosemite,, never mind the Billions it would take to do so.( More of that forward thinking we keep hearing about.) Only Loony Leftys would take a needed revenue maker and turn it into a liability, and a money pit.( at taxpayer expense of course. )
    I got my “trouble making” devise back in operation… Finally!
    Whatever digital venereal disease these microchips caught, has now been removed. I’m back in business.
    BTW,,, The attacks on the Duck Dynasty boys has come back to bite.
    Funny how A&E goes on a chest pounding rant,, right after a whole season of the show was “in the can”. Ya’ really think they will edit out Phil? LOL!!
    I hope DD moves to The Blaze. A&E has butchered their own cash cow.
    Now they can choke on it.

    Like

  21. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Brother Ben, keep posting those manifestos. Speaking of manifestos, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/25/was-unabomber-correct-about-horrors-technology-combined-with-government/
    A more detailed and comprehensive analyst of the good professor’s theories are detailed here. I am certain the Green Weenies would find some common ground with Professor K.
    http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/the_unabomber_w.php

    Like

  22. Gregory Avatar

    “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress”
    Barry, there’s nothing there that forbids an initiative, just that it would also require a consent of the state’s legislature and consent of Congress. Interesting that it doesn’t take a Presidential signature.
    Now, Dems in the state legislature might rail against it… until considering that there’d be five more Governorships and 10 more Senate seats for them to run for. Hmmm.
    If the GOP controls both the US House and Senate, a California split could be done before the 2016 elections but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I was in the GOP.

    Like

  23. Ben Emery Avatar

    Bill,
    Just because we have great differences on some issues doesn’t mean we don’t have agreements on others. Despite deploring the elitism in George positions I do like the honesty when it finally surfaces through all the mumbo jumbo that allows a fall back position in any direction. Eventually we get to the truth when pressed enough. Your opinions as well even with their rough overtones. I cannot stand Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, and George Will ideology but like to read and listen to their commentary.
    It is the likes of Greg, Todd, and now Fish that just muddy the waters so much it makes having a respectable dialogue impossible because they cannot help themselves and make personal comments instead of topics at hand. I am guilty of participating but a brother can only take so much before he strikes back.

    Like

  24. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1122am – Thank you for those links to such comprehensive and revealing tenets of the Green’s TKVs. For a conservetarian like me, reading those tenets and the autocratic state required to implement them is both maximally scary and corroborates in toto my long held belief that the collectivist green movement, taken together per your citations, is the enemy of everything that I and people like me have been working to sustain and attempting to pass on to future generations. The state required to implement such tenets and attempt to bring about such a society will be draconian beyond anything that mankind has tried so far in its bloody history. Thanks again.

    Like

  25. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Barry Pruett | 22 December 2013 at 10:53 AM
    Not to mention the point that California has a Constitutional provision that defines the difference between amending and revising its state Constitution, thus part ion would almost assuredly require a state Constitutional Convention.
    A lot of chatter on the local blogs to day about what is in essence a ‘conservetarian’ [sic] wet dream.

    Like

  26. Barry Pruett Avatar
    Barry Pruett

    Steve: Please elaborate.

    Like

  27. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Barry Pruett | 22 December 2013 at 01:11 PM
    See this from the California State Supreme Court Prop 8 decision:
    “At the same time, as numerous decisions of this court have explained, although the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt amendments to the California Constitution, under its governing provisions that process may not be used to revise the state Constitution.
    (See, e.g., McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330 [196 P.2d 787]; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208 [149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 [276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077].)
    Petitioners’ principal argument rests on the claim that Proposition 8 should be viewed as a constitutional revision rather than as a constitutional amendment, and that this change in the state Constitution therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.
    As we discuss at length below, in determining whether Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment or, instead, a constitutional revision, we by no means write on a clean slate. Although the issue arises in this case in the context of an initiative measure, the distinction drawn in the California Constitution between constitutional amendments and constitutional revisions long predates the adoption in 1911 of the initiative process as part of the California Constitution. The origin and history in the preinitiative era of this distinction between an amendment and a revision shed considerable light upon the contemplated scope of the two categories. As we shall see, our state’s original 1849 Constitution provided that the Legislature could propose constitutional amendments, but that a constitutional revision could be proposed only by means of a constitutional convention, the method used in 1849 to draft the initial constitution in anticipation of California’s statehood the following year. Thus, as originally adopted, the constitutional amendment/revision dichotomy in California—which mirrored the framework set forth in many other state constitutions of the same vintage—indicates that the category of constitutional revision referred to the kind of wholesale or fundamental alteration of the constitutional structure that appropriately could be undertaken only by a constitutional convention, in contrast to the category of constitutional amendment, which included any and all of the more discrete changes to the Constitution that thereafter might be proposed.
    (As we note later, it was not until the state Constitution was changed in 1962—through a constitutional amendment—that the Legislature obtained the authority to propose revisions to all or part of the Constitution.)
    Furthermore, in addition to the historical background of the amendment/revision language that appears in the California Constitution itself, over the past three decades numerous decisions of this court have considered whether a variety of proposed changes to the California Constitution represented constitutional amendments or instead constitutional revisions. Those decisions establish both the analytical framework and the legal standard that govern our decision in this case, and further apply the governing standard to a wide array of measures that added new provisions and substantially altered existing provisions of the state Constitution. Those decisions explain that in resolving the amendment/revision question, a court carefully must assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect—both quantitative and qualitative—that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1933184769513157018&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
    Reading this it is my considered opinion that the State Supreme Court would consider splitting the state into six part a “revision” and would require a Constitutional Convention, thus they would invalidate the placement of this initiative on the ballot.

    Like

  28. George Rebane Avatar

    re stevenfrisch 0100pm – Mr Frisch correctly identifies the partition of California (and other states) into jurisdictions more ideologically cohesive as a “wet dream” of conservetarians et al, especially in light of Mr Ben ‘A21’ Emery’s 1122am. In the process he augments my 1244pm assessment of how the Left and Right view such an approach to implementing the Great Divide. Still would like to see how such attitudes would fall out of a more rigorous poll.

    Like

  29. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Don’t feel bad George, I think Ben’s Green Party platform is a liberal wet dream….but my identification of this idea as a wet dream is more from a legal perspective than an emissions projection.
    I have to ask, what is the point of more “ideologically cohesive’ political units? If one could form them, and maintain the US Constitution at the same time, the cohesion would be gone in a few short decades; and if the intent were to maintain the cohesion, Constitutional rights be damned (or reinterpreted) we would have ideological apartheid.
    I would posit that a more logical solution would be for us to learn how to understand our fellows’ and live in a civil society again. Much more efficient.

    Like

  30. fish Avatar
    fish

    It is the likes of Greg, Todd, and now Fish that just muddy the waters so much it makes having a respectable dialogue impossible because they cannot help themselves and make personal comments instead of topics at hand.
    I won’t speak for the others Ben, but something I picked up on early during my visits to RR was that dialogue/debate really wasn’t what you were interested in. You really, really, really like to pontificate and do so with the fervor of one recently converted to religion. Any challenge to your positions relegates one to the status of non-believer (fascist/corporatist/authoritarian are your preferred terms…perhaps “infidel” will find its way into your repertoire at some point). I would have stopped “making it personal” long ago if you were stupid but since you’re not I thought I owed it to you…some of your idiocies simply need to be challenged.

    Like

  31. George Rebane Avatar

    stevenfrisch 137pm – The point of ideological cohesion, as I have argued here for years, is a more salubrious civil society that can be more productive and demonstrate to the world what such governance has to offer to others – much like the US has demonstrated during much of its existence. If socialist states are as attractive as our socialists claim, then people would migrate into such post-partition states to enjoy its benefits. But your prediction that liberals would soon flood conservative states is probably correct, since they would quickly realize that all those advertised social benefits will be short-lived as they run out of other people’s money. This, of course, is precisely what’s happening countrywide right now with progressives demanding higher taxes and wealth redistribution to fund their bankrupt spending programs that can be maintained only through more borrowing, printing, and taxation.
    The aim of such a partitioned US would be to allow the states to continue as competing experiments of liberty and enterprise as our Founders envisioned. Diversity in governance is very enlightening to those who would learn. We today have the results of untenable amalgamation where one side counsels force to obtain even more uniformity (aka ‘social justice’, equal this and equal that), and the other simply wants to escape and be free again.

    Like

  32. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Ban Emery 12:41 (M here is a cut and paste of your comment.
    “It is the likes of Greg, Todd, and now Fish that just muddy the waters so much it makes having a respectable dialogue impossible because they cannot help themselves and make personal comments instead of topics at hand. I am guilty of participating but a brother can only take so much before he strikes back. ”
    Wow! Do you read what you write? You are the worst name caller next to Paul Emery here. You dudes even discuss my dating for goodness sakes. So, since you have called all of us “fascists” and worse, do you you not get how ridiculous your protestations are?
    I would suggest that if you don’t that you are in need of a 12 step program freo delusion.
    Regarding dividing the state into smaller bits. I have a feeling we are not going to experience the Yugoslavia effect. California should be smaller and we on the inland to the Nevada border should have our on state but it is not going to happen. It has been tried before. Divided into North and South and of course went no where. Any attempts must be started by the Legislature and then if that happened, the Congress. So the whole thing is unattainable.
    Economically, we in the counties that have the water sources should be able to sell it to the highest bidder. Then we could use the money to better our counties. The Feds renig on their promises for the 250,000 acres they control so we need a steady income. Since the eco freaks have destroyed the mining, timber and most of the grazing and noiw the Williamson Act and soon the TPZ, we have to get a backfill from our most valuable resource. Watter.
    The only way there may be a chance would be a initiative to change the State Constitution.

    Like

  33. Ben Emery Avatar

    Steve,
    I would rather fight and work towards a wet dream than be complacent and complicit in a living nightmare, which is the option we are given with the one corporate political party with two heads at the moment.
    I would argue that we are on the same path as those indigenous cultures that survived tens of thousands of years. We are going through the growing pains of unsustainable policies and practices. Indigenous cultures totally wiped out ecosystems brought certain bands of people to extinction and eventually learned to live within a closed circle instead trying living outside of it. The wet dream scenario of the Green Party will be the way civilization will move if we don’t wipe life on earth for humans first. It is a learning process that western civilizations are still in the teenage years. I have an Aunt who is a Lakota Medicine Women and we have talked deeply about the ills of our society and she learned from her grandparents and parents who learned from their grandparents and parents that there was some pretty steep learning curves going on in the first peoples on North America.

    Like

  34. fish Avatar
    fish

    I have an Aunt who is a Lakota Medicine Women and we have talked deeply about the ills of our society.. .
    Oh Ben…..Elizabeth Warren already did the Indian thing….try something original.

    Like

  35. Ben Emery Avatar

    Fish,
    “I won’t speak for the others Ben, but something I picked up on early during my visits to RR was that dialogue/debate really wasn’t what you were interested in.”
    For the few months I tried and for months little snide remarks like you do presently were aimed at myself, Frisch, Anderson, Keachie, P. Emery, and anyone who didn’t fully agree with their views. Tried to find common ground but nobody was going to have it, except B. Pruett and couple others but not regulars. So I said screw it and started pushing back. Then I stopped for awhile with no real intent of coming back but now I want to finish my authoritarian fascist/ corporatist assessment before I will end my days at RR except to update Goodnight and yourself about my higher education progress because the both of you have taken so much interest into it.

    Like

  36. Gerry Fedor Avatar
    Gerry Fedor

    Reading Todd’s comment makes me wonder why we are not funding the mental health issues more….
    I love his ideas as to having the counties get the income on the water projects that the American / California residents have paid for (much like when you buy a business), as the cost of buying the Shasta Dam project would be estimated to be worth?
    The cost of buying Shasta dam is estimated at $6+ Billion dollars, with an upgraded storage capacity, it is then estimated at another $500 Million – $1 billion dollar. This dam would then be able to generate 1,980 MW and if you consider that Westlands has had a spotty record with environmental responsibility and has been criticized by environmentalists for high levels of pesticide and selenium in the toxic runoff waters from farms operating under this district, it would be extremely hard, if not impossible for this county to find the financing. In fact if you consider that this county could barely pay it’s employees pension obligations I think that there is ZERO chance of this ever happening.
    If you consider that after this upgrade the dam would hold 13,890,000 acre feet (if it could every be filled as there have only been 5 years since the dams completion in 1943 where the lower dam was full), and a acre foot of water is $520, this would bring in $7.2 Billion dollars, but it’s estimated that it would take 12-19 years to fill it……
    Todd, I’d like to know if the is there a chance that we’ll every get some type of comment that makes some “rational” business sense?
    It seems that you make the foundations of your comments some rants about the illustrious puppet in your sock…….

    Like

  37. fish Avatar
    fish

    Tried to find common ground but nobody was going to have it, except B. Pruett and couple others but not regulars. So I said screw it and started pushing back.
    Sherman set the WayBack machine back to the July 13th/14th thread where we were treated to endless appeals to emotion, appeals to anecdote, accusations of crypto racism, accusations of “corruption of the blood”, accusations that 5 middle aged white guys living in California were somehow responsible for the actions of the Spanish Empire in the 15th century….and on, and on, and on!
    Continue through out the rest of 2013:
    …”what’s an adequate level of taxation Ben?” ….crickets followed by something penned by Robert Reich…..! Yeah, that Robert Reich..of Clinton administration fame…hacker of the welfare/entitlement state. How does that that jibe with Ben Emery valiant defender of inner city redistribution. Remember wanting to “punch that grinning face of his” earlier this year?
    …”Well what solutions do you personally propose Ben?”….Oh I have many solutions but it would take a radical change in the political direction of this country (paraphrased)….Dance monkey dance!…..
    On discussions regarding Obamacare: “Medicare for all…everybody in and nobody out!” Again how does a bankrupt, top down, bureaucratic, centrally controlled, fraud riddled government health program fit into to your radiant decentralized green, power to the people future! Do you have a logically consistent position, anywhere, at all in that buckethead of yours?
    …and here’s a corker…we’re all unconscious racists
    Greg,
    You’re hopeless. The statement that I understand it and you don’t couldn’t have been clearer by your response. The privilege white males have isn’t about material wealth per se. That privilege allows white males to have more access and opportunity. That was the point to my personal example. Very few people of color would have had the opportunity to live the type of lifestyle I did for many reasons you are obviously incapable of comprehending.
    I will put it to you in a easy way so you might be able to understand. White males have to work at least half as hard for the opportunities they get.
    Is that simple enough for you?
    It doesn’t mean you didn’t work hard. It means a black male of your age would have had to work at least twice as hard as you to even get the chance at the same opportunities. Even then it still isn’t equal. That is what a culture and society where white males have dominated by force has given you. Doesn’t matter if your relatives where here or not the fact your physical traits match the traits of the those who set up our nation from day one until today.

    followed by…
    You guys are so privileged and entitled you’re missing the entire point even when it is spoon fed to you. No matter how hard you worked doors were there for you that would not have been for a person of color or for a woman.
    Talk about a bunch of privileged entitled whiny brats!

    Poor little Negrocchio, the intellectual puppet who desperately wanted to be a real (black) boy.
    And who could forget this classic blast!
    George,
    From the fact that you blanket me into a Marxist camp is not only ignorant on your part but irresponsible. It shows more and more that a good education and normal to high intelligence doesn’t make a person immune to being ignorant. I am very busy this afternoon and will try once again to give you a the meaning of “rights”, especially human rights.
    Universal Human Rights Declaration…

    Your a perpetual subject changer, you have no skill for debate other than pitiful whining, and seem to have a genetic aversion to answering direct questions. I’m just some guy on the web..you can barely engage me! You think you can elbow your way into government with this weak assed shit….don’t make me laugh!
    Much like you Ben, “I could go on and on!” replaying your passive/aggressive hits but truth be told this whole fiasco is starting to bore me a bit!
    You give as good as you get in the insult department and you’re every bit as dismissive of our opinions as you claim we are of yours….difference is no one else here is whining to George about the other posters!

    Like

  38. Paul Emery Avatar

    Todd writes:
    “You are the worst name caller next to Paul Emery here.”
    Gee Todd, I thought you were going to take a break here and confine things like this to your blog but no way. As a peace offering I’ll buy you a drink if you you show up at one of my gigs. I’ll even visit you at your work sometime but don’t worry, I wont tip over your mop bucket.

    Like

  39. Ben Emery Avatar

    Fish,
    I guess you’re a newbie to RR or something because we have had threatened legal action, pleas for George to get comments under control, people have threatened to get involved to stop funding for certain organizations. The worst part is the constant personal attacks that have nothing to do with politics. You made the claim I was just as bad, which is true and even worse at this point. That wasn’t always the case and there was a reason for my about-face of approach, that is what I was explaining but was understood as whining. I can take the insults as good as anybody but find it a waste of time and pointless after awhile. I truly believe this blog is as extreme to the right as it can get before heading into some really over the top disturbing content. It is the Nevada County version of Townhall http://townhall.com/

    Like

  40. fish Avatar
    fish

    . I truly believe this blog is as extreme to the right as it can get before heading into some really over the top disturbing content.
    Again….so what?
    Why soil yourself by remaining in our presence! You, Frisch, Anderson, all revel in the fact that we’re dinosaurs soon to be overtaken by history! Why not just bail and revel in your victory over at fat boys site?
    Neither side is doing any convincing at this point.

    Like

  41. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Mr. Fish, the term “fat boys site” is no longer a politically correct term. Some of us grew up saying “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.” Those days are gone as nowadays feelings are kinda very important to some for whatever unknown reason. America has become softer and fatter and this has resulted in an avalanche of butt hurt feelings.
    I shutter to think what some would do if they had to face the challenges of what our fathers and grandfathers faced. Just recall all the headlines and the mass hysteria when somebody smashed into a telephone pole on 49 a couple of years back and blew out At&T internet and Verizon cell service. You would have thought the world ended that day and people are still talking about it. Guess it made them feel vulnerable or lost and that conjured up a bunch of rather unpleasant feelings. Boy, it sure got this neck of the woods all riled up and pissed off to the max. Almost as bad as having elephant rides at the county fair. The sky truly fell the day a car tangled with a telephone pole.
    Thus, my fellow traveler Mr. Fish, perhaps you should refer to the fat boys site as a vertically challenged site or the good ole boys club. Someday Bob’s Big Boy Restaurants will go the way of Sambo’s Pancake House. Until that blessed hour, we must patiently wait for Bobs Big Boy Double Decker to see the light.

    Like

  42. fish Avatar
    fish

    Bill,
    I will defer to your knowledge of the local customs and sensibilities. The term “Fat Boy” is henceforth changed to “Volumetrically Challenged Boy”.

    Like

  43. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Mr WALT, 22 December 2013 at 11:34 AM:
    THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-oops-were-putting-duck-dynasty-products-back-on-our-shelves/?partner=yahootix
    Mr. Fish: yep, change don’t come easy for some of us. All we can do is try to accommodate the softer fatter ones until we evolve and atone for our grievous errors.

    Like

  44. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Golly, where to begin. Hmmm. The sock puppet Fedor just can’t stop showing me how much he is infatuated with me but I insist Fedor, find your fun on Castro Streeyt please.
    Regarding the water. I would say my analysis of the benfits to we counties of origin are much ore accurate than your “:solar panels” and the resultant dollars saved BS. You simply make it up. I am more a overarching policy guy while you are in the weeds.
    PaulE, you seem to think I would let you by me a drink. It is problematic. You never showed up for the two corndogs you won from me at the fair so perhaps you are untrustworthy and undependable.
    The term “fat boy” is rather harsh fellas. I would go with bloated meats sausage with legs. Oops. LOL!
    I don’t respond to the cut and paste duo of BenE and SteveF anymore. We are always debating Wiki!

    Like

  45. Gerry Fedor Avatar
    Gerry Fedor

    Yea you’re right Todd, with your financial record and accomplishments we should listen to a Weiner like you….
    Maybe that should have been Winner, but with Todd, I think Weiner is correct!
    Interesting use of your overarching policy! LOL!!!! More of that “overarching” and we could re-establish the TARP program for California’s Counties!

    Like

  46. Barry Pruett Avatar
    Barry Pruett

    As George is pointing out, we must also look at the law of unintended consequences in connection with partitioning the state (if permissible). I would posit that the four state partition could spark a migration from say an overly regulated bay area to a more tax friendly Sierra region. The assumption is that a bay area state would continue the regulatory policies that have caused California to slip from the fifth largest economy in the world to the ninth. This also assumes that a conservative Sierra region would promote pro-growth economic policies recently unheard of in California. The question is whether a partition causes San Francisco to become Detroit.

    Like

  47. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Gerry Fedor the sock puppet. Let me get this straight. You said you were able to install hundreds f thousands of dollars of “solar panels” and did so with “tax credits”? OK, I get it. the taxpayers took it in the shorts by giving you a direct subsidy of which your personal home benefited. What about all the poor people you shortchanged? They are cold and hungry yet you could care less. You got your “tax credits” at their expense. But since you are not a real person but a sock puppet, this discussion is one sided unless George boots you and me. Too funny. Corporate welfare by a sock puppet! LOL! What a scammer.

    Like

  48. Ryan Mount Avatar

    tax credits = free money. In some[most?] cases, it’s an example of the cronyism that’s eating the Republic like termites.
    We’re taxing an redistributing the wrong way that encourages people to figure out how they can get more cookies out of the jar. I’m not talking about moochers, I’m talking about everyone. So if you work for yourself, there are a myriad of ways to bury monies. If you work for someone else, you get it in the rear. If you grow pot, you pay nothing.
    We should be taxing consumption not production*, which you’d think Progressives would love given the constant rants over our somewhat ugly form of consumerism. The reason this consumption tax reform will never happen is we have everyone up and down the economic spectrum “benefiting” from our crony tax Progressive system.
    *That’s soooooo early 20th Century.

    Like

  49. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Re: Obama’s self serving abandonment of the Rule of Law:
    Barrack Obama seemed surprised a couple of weeks ago that he just could not snap his fingers and have some changes put into the law. When one signs a law, it is best to read it first. Most puzzling considering Barrack Obama’s background a a Constitutional Law professor and editor of the Harvard Law Review.
    Since this is our President’s signature legislation and the wet dream of the left since FDR tried it, it is only appropriate to call it what it is: BarrackHussenObamaCare. His name is on this bill. It is BarrackObamacare because its his precious baby he nourished and defended and fought for with all his might..He should not have left such an major revolutionary preeminent piece of legislation up to Nancy and Harry and then hit the road to do fundraising and political backslapping. Barrackobamacare is just too darn important not to be on top of it 24/7.
    With that said, Barrack Obama is now scrambling and backpedaling at a high rate of speed desperately trying NOT to have a net loss of insured Americans come January 15th. It is important politically that at least one more person is insured come January 15th than the millions who will become uninsured on January 1st.
    Yes, many of the millions who had their insurance cancelled as a direct result of BarrakObamacare will do the responsible thing and hop on the Exchange Express. But (and this is a big butt…no offense Mr. Fedor/Pelline) if they don’t, then BarackObamacare will produce a net increase of uninsured Americans. The cure appears worse than the problem. The cure is known as BarrackObamacare.
    Another thing to consider is that with these new sky high deductibles, many folks will have to choose between keeping a roof over their heads, feeding the kiddies OR paying out the thousands of medical bills owed because of the outrageous deductibles. Thus, BarrackObamacare will directly result in a surge of bankruptcy filings to make these new medical bills owed go away. Penny wise and pound foolish.

    Like

  50. Ben Emery Avatar

    Bill,
    Obama has circumvented the process the entire time with ACA. That is why I have opposed it from 2009. I think it has good stuff in it and the fact a reform was attempted at least shows that our “representatives” kind of saw something wrong. Unfortunately they had to create the law with approval from the industry every step of the way, which is making the law very convoluted. Only time will show us if it will work. For the first time in just under a decade I have health insurance due to the fact that preexisting conditions are no longer a problem. My step daughter and wife were in a near fatal car accident in 2003. When we got married in 2004 I was advised to drop my insurance and join my wife and step kids policy. It turned out I could not join their policy (I forget the reasoning) but we had to create a new account. We could not do this since there was some severe injuries that are now preexisting conditions or maybe be approved for a high deductible/ copay policy that was $16k a year. This was a gigantic increase in cost so I just went without insurance since. When I tried to renew my former policy my rates tripled. Why? Because the industry could do it. I was a 34 year old male with zero health conditions and very low usage of policy previous.
    ACA is a mixed bag in our family. $200 a month is affordable but we will see how it works when it is time to use the services.

    Like

Leave a comment