#7

[Aktungbby]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-california-overtakes-brazil-with-companies-leading-world (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-california-overtakes-brazil-with-companies-leading-world) California bounces back to the world's #7 economy! Never mind the real estate collapse, earthquakes, drought, one of the highest poverty rates in America and a dysfunctional governor 'Moon beam' Brown! It seems we surpassed Brazil (Gross Domestic Product) reaching 2.3 billion. Now if we can just host the FIFA World Cup to go with the Giants, 49'rs and the Warriors and the worlds # 1 wines....:hmmm: As 'teddy' Roosevelt once said; "California is west of the West!"

[Oberon]

Probably got the money to buy enough of FIFA to do it. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

Probably got the money to buy enough of FIFA to do it. :yep:
Jeeze! I left out Oracle's Ellison and the America's Cup Team; we'll let him handle Herr Blatter...or his successor. Too much coffee in my own cup-gotta go MT my own blatter:O:

[vienna]

It should be noted Jerry Brown, much like Bill Clinton, inherited a mess from a previous GOP Governor (Schwarzenegger) who, when he wasn't busy banging his maids, drove the state into the ground even further than the Dem Governor he and his far right cronies succeeded in deposing via a recall election based on promises of vast improvements once the GOP held the Governor's chair. An odd bit of history is the fact Brown was governor once before and in a similar situation. In 1974, Reagan was Governor of California and had also driven the state into a very, very bad fiscal situation. Reagan was eyeing a run for the White House and was mulling a 3rd term as a platform for his campaign. His far right cronies had even pooled a very large sum of money to build him a very expensive and elaborate new, modern Governor's mansion. But the writing was on the wall: Reagan had very little chance of winning a 3rd term and a defeat would seriously harm his reputation in running for the Presidency. His campaign went on an offensive (in more than one meaning of the word) launching a wide-ranging smear campaign against potential Dem candidates. The campaign ventured far into the area of slander and libel and resulted in the destruction and demise of Look Magazine, a then very popular rival of Life Magazine. However, he could not make a serious dent in Brown's campaign and Reagan opted not to seek a 3rd term. The GOP in CA was in very poor repute due to the failures of the party's elected office holders, most notably Reagan, and Brown was elected in 1974 as Governor. He instituted a program of austerity; he even put the elaborate new Governor's mansion on the block as he opted instead for a sparsely furnished small apartment in Sacramento (just like a Jesuit: give him a home and he'll turn into a monk's cell). He lead by example and eschewed much of the pomp and perks of the office of Governor. (I once was in downtown Los Angeles and passed by a hotel where the Governor Brown had been speaking and saw him drive out of the hotel's parking structure and I don't mean in a chauffeured limo; he was himself driving an older model Plymouth and he only had an escort of two (2) CHP motorcycle officers. It was a far cry from the extensive motorcades and large police presence that accompanied Reagan when he breezed into LA.)...

The whole "Governor Moonbeam", hippy-dippy rep Brown has been saddled with is a result of the Governor Reagan era effort to discredit and demean those who stood in his way to the White House. But history has proven Brown to have been a rather good steward during his first eight year, two term stint as Governor (1975-1983). He opted to not run for a 3rd term himself and, instead, ran for the Dem nomination for President in 1984. His candidacy failed because, ironically, given all the GOP labelling of him as someone who was "out there", the Dems deemed him as not liberal enough for their tastes...

The state of California was in a really sad state when Brown began his most recent stint as Governor. I have often said sometimes the best measure of the effectiveness of a political administrator (President, Governor, etc.) is not the grand gestures or posturing, but the results he delivers by governing in a low key manner. Eisenhower was such an administrator and, I believe, the best and overall, most successful GOP president of the 20th century. He left Kennedy with a US in pretty good shape overall. Say what you will about Brown, his administrations as Governor have been productive and beneficial to the state. Basically, he hasn't messed up (although I feel the high-speed rail project is a misguided endeavor) and that may be the best that can be said about an administrator...

And as far as Brown being a tree-hugging, die-hard, far-left liberal, few people outside of CA are aware of his staunch opposition to banning fracking in the state. Some sort of weirdo liberal, eh?...


<O>

[Platapus]

People tend to forget that the policies of a politician (good or bad) often do not become apparent until the following term.

This means that the wrong politician is often blamed for bad stuff
This means that the wrong politician is often praised for the good stuff

Neither of which were done by the current politician.

This is why politicians are often reluctant to deal with anything on a long term strategic level, but prefer short term issues. The last thing you want is your opponent, who is elected after you, getting the credit for something you got started.

[vienna]

Although they don't seem to mind their successor getting the blame for the failures they started; just ask Clinton or Obama...


<O>

[Aktungbby]

It should be noted Jerry Brown, inherited a mess from a previous.... The whole "Governor Moonbeam", hippy-dippy rep Brown has been saddled with is a result of the Governor Reagan era effort to discredit and demean those who stood in his way to the White House. But history has proven Brown to have been a rather good steward during his first eight year, two term stint as Governor (1975-1983).
Basically, he hasn't messed up (although I feel the high-speed rail project is a misguided endeavor) and that may be the best that can be said about an administrator...

And as far as Brown being a tree-hugging, die-hard, far-left liberal, few people outside of CA are aware of his staunch opposition to banning fracking in the state. Some sort of weirdo liberal, eh?...


<O>I completely agree: I was just having a fun thread and was a Youth for Nixon: mom was diehard WASP Republican! 'The sins of the father also a former CA governor, Pat Brown, are visited on the son' but so are the good things...Jerry knows the ropes and doesn't make big mistakes....:hmmm: too much:D! and daddy's strong infrastructure commitments such as canals and water systems have stood the test into his son's terms in office. Overall grade: B-http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz040815dAPR20150408014530.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/08/129391)

[nikimcbee]

Although they don't seem to mind their successor getting the blame for the failures they started; just ask Clinton or Obama...


<O>

Needs more Carter.

[nikimcbee]

I want my money back. I thought this thread was going to be about:
http://www.jackdaniels.com/verify-age?url=whiskey/jack-daniels-old-no-7

[vienna]

Needs more Carter.

If there is anyone who got royally reamed by political predecessors, it probably is Carter. After the absolute debacle that was Nixon and his near destruction of the political, social, and economic state of the US, along comes Ford who is only able to muster a pathetic "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now") button campaign as his response to the extreme recession that was Nixon's economic legacy. Added to this was the deep distrust (well earned in Nixon's case) by the American people of all things political. For Carter, it was kind of like being the guy who marries a woman whose previous spouse had been the scum of the earth. No matter what, you're going to be loaded down with the baggage of the previous spouse and anything you do will always be viewed through the filter of the previous fellow's shortcomings. Carter also wasn't helped by the fact he was totally unprepared to be President. He wasn't politically savvy enough to fend off the wolves of Washington and he was basically unfamiliar with the machinations of national politics. His election shows what happens when the radical wing of a party gets its way and foists their candidate on the rest of the party and, ultimately, the nation. He should never have been elected. Although, I do admire his post-Presidency humanitarian activities...

[August]

I'm sorry but I think the op is based upon a flawed premise.

No governor or president acts in a vacuum (at least not yet). If the Legislature is hostile to him then there is little he can do. His policies are watered down, delayed or rejected outright, programs underfunded, nominees grilled etc.

Note that I said "hostile" and not "controlled by the other party". Legislatures, especially state legislatures, can be as hostile to an executive from their own party as they can be to one from the other.

[nikimcbee]

I'm sorry but I think the op is based upon a flawed premise.

No governor or president acts in a vacuum (at least not yet). If the Legislature is hostile to him then there is little he can do. His policies are watered down, delayed or rejected outright, programs underfunded, nominees grilled etc.

Note that I said "hostile" and not "controlled by the other party". Legislatures, especially state legislatures, can be as hostile to an executive from their own party as they can be to one from the other.


I found this curious from the article:
High-technology jobs in the business and professional services sector in California were forecast to grow to 15.7 percent of the economy in 2014, up from 15.4 percent a year earlier.


I call BS to that. They don't actually manufacture anything there (see China/ Asia), but the corporate HQ's are there, so I guess they count everything.

[Platapus]

I'm sorry but I think the op is based upon a flawed premise.

No governor or president acts in a vacuum (at least not yet). If the Legislature is hostile to him then there is little he can do. His policies are watered down, delayed or rejected outright, programs underfunded, nominees grilled etc.

Note that I said "hostile" and not "controlled by the other party". Legislatures, especially state legislatures, can be as hostile to an executive from their own party as they can be to one from the other.

That's an important point. Sometimes we think that we are a series of kingdoms in which the Executive (federal and state) are dictators with absolute control over policy. As you wrote, this just ain't so in the US.

No legislative body (regardless of party) will cede power to an Executive (regardless of power).

Some of the most bitter battles happen when the Executive and the Legislation are of the same party.

[Aktungbby]

YIPES! Less than a month after edging out Brazil for seventh CA has slipped to eighth in the world. Our GDP is 2.31 trillion compared to brazil 2.35 trillion....:hmmm: $2,350,000,000-$2,310,000,000= $40,000,000. CMON U :subsim:ers! Every one go buy a case of Napa Vino and help out here. Fortunately, the drought has not affected the vines here but I suspect the drop in gasoline prics below $3.00/GAl. from CA refineries might have!:yep:

[Oberon]

I hear you guys are going to resort to drinking the Pacific soon. :yep:

[Aktungbby]

I hear you guys are going to resort to drinking the Pacific soon. :yep:
Actually in the works??? We already do this to protect ocean oil-rigshttp://perspectives.3ds.com/wp-content/uploads/Icedream_composite_V21.jpg (http://perspectives.3ds.com/wp-content/uploads/Icedream_composite_V21.jpg)We put a man on the moon...We can do this! Especially in tech oriented CA!:hmmm: http://perspectives.3ds.com/environment/turning-icebergs-into-drinking-water/ (http://perspectives.3ds.com/environment/turning-icebergs-into-drinking-water/). http://lh3.ggpht.com/-FNUI9WacDSU/U2OAJxqc4OI/AAAAAAAAx-E/iwHVs1xDgw0/towing-iceberg-3%25255B2%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800
http://lh5.ggpht.com/--v1fVHzWLvs/U2OAI6aOiRI/AAAAAAAAx98/1mS0zfbQHZA/towing-iceberg-2%25255B2%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800

[Wolferz]

I hear you guys are going to resort to drinking the Pacific soon. :yep:

And when they do, it'll be bone dry in a year.:O:

[Oberon]

Actually in the works??? We already do this to protect ocean oil-rigs
We put a man on the moon...We can do this! Especially in tech oriented CA!:hmmm: http://perspectives.3ds.com/environment/turning-icebergs-into-drinking-water/ (http://perspectives.3ds.com/environment/turning-icebergs-into-drinking-water/).


I was thinking more:

http://www.logicom.net/EN/WaterPowerGas/PublishingImages/Pages/Desalination/Desalination%20Plant2.jpg

[vienna]

I'm guessing that may be a desalinization plant. There was a plant built in CA during the last bad drought back in the late 70s, but at that time the technology and the processes were so expensive, the cost of producing clean water outweighed the benefit. I am fairly sure the situation would be different today. I have heard a lot of talk on TV and radio locally about building new plants but little is actually being done. It seems whenever the idea comes up, the opposition brings up the shortcomings of the previous plant as a reason not to even try again. It's always the same tack: wasting taxpayers' money on yet another government "boondoggle". It is interesting that the opposition comes from entities who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and their hold on the water distribution system: private water utilities, quasi-governmental water districts, etc. I would like to see if perhaps someone in the tech field might be able to push forward a project to prove the efficacy of new technology to address the problem...


<O>

[Jimbuna]

And when they do, it'll be bone dry in a year.:O:

I was thinking in terms of a month at the most :)

[Aktungbby]

And when they do, it'll be bone dry in a year.:O:

I was thinking in terms of a month at the most :)

Speaking of 'bone dry': As I stated in another thread on the CA Climate Change thread "the drought is business as usual" under CA's mismanaged water programs....as the bottom line reflects in today's headlines...regardless of the fact that the number of dry wells in California is 2,520. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0c44db68cb04485ca907c76bcaa72d8f/california-farmers-reap-record-sales-record-drought (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0c44db68cb04485ca907c76bcaa72d8f/california-farmers-reap-record-sales-record-drought) A new state report shows California farmers reaping record sales despite the epic drought, thriving even as city-dwellers have been forced to conserve water, household wells have run dry and fish have died. California's 76,400 farms recorded $53.5 billion in sales in 2014, the year Gov. Jerry Brown declared the state in a drought emergency and launched what in 2015 became mandatory conservation for cities and towns. The sales figures are the most recent annual ones released by the state agriculture department.
With the punishing drought entering its fifth year, the figures are sure to stoke tensions between farmers on one side and, on the other, city-dwellers and environmentalists, who complain they are being forced to make greater sacrifices than growers.

Experts cite two key reasons for California farms' strong showing even in dry times: a California almond boom fed by surging demand from China and elsewhere, and farmers' ability to dig deeper, bigger wells to pump up more groundwater when other sources run out....
California farmers have passed the higher costs of water on to consumers, with almond prices soaring from $2.40 a pound in 2012 to $5 last year.
The recent state agriculture report, released late last month, shows almonds were the state's second-biggest cash crop in 2014 after dairy. Exports accounted for $4.5 billion of California almond farmers' total $5.9 billion in sales, agriculture officials say. Meanwhile I continue to get warning notices that my tap-water is contaminated (above Federal EPA limits) and my water rates are going up to cover the lost revenues from mandatory cut backs in usage fees... :hmmm: :nope:

[Catfish]

I was thinking more:

http://www.logicom.net/EN/WaterPowerGas/PublishingImages/Pages/Desalination/Desalination%20Plant2.jpg


Where DID they get this idea from .. after all people were supposed to pay for salt made in England .. AH Gandhi ! :O:

[Commander Wallace]

From what is being said now, the weather patterns causing the drought are here to stay .

[Bilge_Rat]

Desalination plants are so 20th century, this is the new frontier...

Turning sewage into drinking water gains appeal as drought lingers

It's a technology with the potential to ease California's colossal thirst and insulate millions from the parched whims of Mother Nature, experts say.
But there's just one problem — the "yuck factor."

As a fourth year of drought continues to drain aquifers and reservoirs, California water managers and environmentalists are urging adoption of a polarizing water recycling policy known as direct potable reuse.

Unlike nonpotable reuse — in which treated sewage is used to irrigate crops, parks or golf courses — direct potable reuse takes treated sewage effluent and purifies it so it can be used as drinking water.

It's a concept that might cause some consumers to wince, but it has been used for decades in Windhoek, Namibia — where evaporation rates exceed annual rainfall — and more recently in drought-stricken Texas cities, including Big Spring and Wichita Falls.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83621491/

Now you know why everyone in California drinks bottled water. :ping: