None of those are high calorie by weight. None of those are easily and in large quantities turned into high fructose corn syrup. None of those are used in noticeable quantities in feed lots.
Your argument that the central valley which by and large doesn't produce high calorie items or items that go into meat production is more of a breadbasket then the grain belt is insane.
You argued that vegetables which do not even have dominant market share are more of a breadbasket then the corn regions which have tentacles into virtually every single food product we eat?
You really think that one little valley which has high dollar value low calorie is more of a breadbasket then the massive corn producing regions?
Since you seem to think that the central valley is more important, tell me, how long do you think we'd last on the crops grown in the central valley vs the massive corn grown in the grain belt and its association with feed lots and high fructose corn syrup?
Let's see. The court ruled against on the basis of the Constitution. Making a law that is not constitutional serves what purpose?lol you don't need a Constitutional amendment to turn the water back on. All you need is a simple piece of legislation.
Care to cite the specifics of the text that would have done that?Do you even know what the general welfare clause is? Do you know what the endangered species act is? Do you not know that legislation can be amendended through further legislation and that you don't need a court ruling to amend the Endangered Species Act?
Last edited by obvious Child; 09-25-09 at 02:42 AM.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
The stupid argument you are giving is that actual calories produced/tons is not important in determining breadbaskets. Your argument now is that the black sea caviar regions are more of a breadbasket then Ukraine's cereal crop regions.
Tell me, how many people can you feed on caviar vs cereal crops?
Do you not understand the difference between dollar value and tonnage?
Last edited by obvious Child; 09-25-09 at 02:40 AM.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Here is the legal decision from the environmental law firm that took this to court:
On May 29, 2009, in the United States Eastern District Court case of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al v. Salazar (Case No. 1:09-CV-00407), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was enjoined from restricting pumping operations in the Delta without justification and an explanation of why alternative, less severe restrictions would not adequately protect the delta smelt. The Court found that Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District (collectively “Westlands”) were reasonably likely to succeed on their claim that the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in failing to conduct environmental review before establishing pumping restrictions for the protection of delta smelt.
That good enough for you?
Here's another one for you:
Ruling to protect delta smelt may force water rationing in Bay Area
The ruling, made Friday evening by U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger, was an attempt to help the delta smelt, a tiny fish once plentiful but now facing extinction. Environmentalists insist the huge Tracy-area pumps used by the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project suck up smelt, killing huge numbers of them. Those water systems redistribute delta water to parts of the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.
"This is the most drastic cut ever to California water supplies," said Tim Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, a lobbying group that represents more than 400 agencies that deliver 90 percent of the state's water. "It is the most significant decision ever made in the implementation of either the state or federal Endangered Species Act. It's the biggest impact anywhere, nationwide."
Water agency representatives said cropland is likely to go fallow, and cities in the Tri-Valley, Santa Clara County, Los Angeles and elsewhere could have to institute mandatory rationing programs in order to deal with the cuts in water.
Then again, maybe they couldn't legislate favorably toward the farmers without undoing precedent and law which protects all environments, nationally, and by association all nature-interested persons everywhere and consumers, even in those situations where the capital interest is outweighed by public investment in the region (aka, state parks and the communal pride, general enjoyment, and tourist/visitor revenue derived therein).
It could have very well been all these things and more. Politics attracts many persons with different agendas who are policy-making at cross-purposes but by the same means.
As a rule, courts are narrow in their focus, whereas the legislative authorities are holistic and far encompassing in their vision, if disjointed and at odds in their intentions. That the court took this view of the matter is only because it was in the form of an environmental issue that the case reached them. They don't have the authority to rule beyond that jurisdiction; they rule on what they get and only within that very small parameter. Legislative assemblies are not so restricted and can debate every contentious point about an issue, and when it comes to western state water laws, there are plenty of contentious points.
Last edited by Morality Games; 09-25-09 at 02:59 AM.
Heres the bill he introduced.In my ongoing effort to convince Congressional Democrats that Californians need relief from a government imposed dust-bowl, I have been offering amendments to a number of spending bills. These amendments have been straightforward, despite the efforts of Democratic leaders to generate controversy. If enacted, my amendments would prevent federal authorities from implementing environmental decisions that deprive Californians access to essential water supplies.
In addition to the efforts I have undertaken related to federal spending bills, I have introduced separate legislation – HR 3105. The bill is only two pages. It is entitled the “Turn on the Pumps Act” – and that is exactly what it would do.
In addition, I have worked to gain Senate support for legislation. On September 22, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) proposed an amendment to the Department of Interior spending bill that would have given Californians one year of reliable water supplies. It was defeated by California's Senators and a largely party line vote (see video). You can also listen to Senator DeMint and I explain our effort on KMJ's Ray Appleton Program by clicking here.
Here's the video of the vote taken last week, that defeated the amendment to give them water for one year:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sYcp5yqeTU"]YouTube - Senators Feinstein and Boxer kill California water amendment[/ame]
I think this is the congressional vote a few months ago:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKPG6J6MPP8"]YouTube - Turn on the Pumps? Democrats say NO![/ame]
Last edited by Grim17; 09-25-09 at 03:27 AM.
OK... Can we now put to rest the following:
1. The reason for no water, is to save the Delta Smelt
2. Environmentalist took this to court and won.
3. More than one piece of legislation was written and introduced to turn the water back on.
4. The introduction last week, of an amendment to turn the water on for a year, was voted down by the senate on party lines, with the democrats voting not to include it.
Based on what I have posted, can we all agree on those four facts?
If not, than you live on another planet, because I have proven all 4 of them conclusively.
Last edited by Grim17; 09-25-09 at 03:21 AM.
I'm not sure I want to get involved in this "debate" but I'll bite for a moment or two:
stipulating as true all the facts you state, the conclusion offered in the article that started this thread does not follow. The original post said:
The vituperousness aside, I believe there are three primary claims:The democrats have created food lines in this country and they voted for a mino over American farmers in the heart of Americas bread basket this would be funny if it wasn't so god damn sick. This is akin to what Stalin did to the Ukrainians and the Kulaks. It's time for a mother ****ing revolution watch your ****ing backs.
1) The democrats have created food lines in this country
2) The democrats voted for a minnow (not sure what a "mino" is) over American farmers
3) This is akin to what Stalin did to the Ukrainians and the Kulaks.
The article cited makes this central claim:
Out of this, we can get a couple more claims:If you don’t know the story, here’s the deal. The Obama regime is using the excuse of a fish, a two inch bait fish, the Delta Smelt, which they claim is an “endangered species” to shut down all of the water to the San Joaquin Valley. They have created a modern day dust bowl out of some of the most beautiful farm land on earth. Some 400,000 acres have been destroyed with one million total acres in jeopardy.
1) The Obama regime is using the excuse of a fish, a two inch bait fish, the Delta Smelt, which they claims is an endangered species to shut down all of the water to the San Joaquin Valley.
2) [The Obama Regime] has created a modern day dust bowl out of some of the most beautiful farm land on earth.
3) Some 400,000 acres have been destroyed with one million total acres in jeopardy.
None of these claims are supported by or follow from the propositions stipulated. The Obama regime did not use the fish as an excuse to shut down all water to the San Joaquin Valley; there is still water available in the San Joaquin Valley. 400,000 acres have not been "destroyed," whatever that means. There is no indication why senate Democrats voted as they did; it is supposition to assume it was a case of the democrats putting a bait fish over the American farmers. The Senate Democrats have not been shown to have created bread lines in this country. Nor have they been shown to have created a modern day dustbowl. And until something like 30 million people starve to death as a result of something the senate Democrats actually did do, they won't be getting anywhere near Stalin territory.
Getting down to one of two central issues: even if all of that were true, I'm not sure it isn't the correct decision. There is a simple principle involved here: eventually, at some unknown point, if we continue to destroy species, we will reach a tipping point and destroy ourselves as well. We can reason easily enough that if we destroyed all species except our own, we'd end up destroying ourselves. We could then add species back to the survivor list and still realize that at some point prior to having destroyed all species but our own, we'd still be unable to survive. If, for instance, we killed everything but us and horses, we'd still be doomed since horses can't eat us or each other.
We don't know the point at which the inflection will occur, but we know that extinction events have happened in the past, we know they started usually by a fairly small event causing an inflection point, and we know we don't want to face such a thing. We can also reason with some certainty that we're getting dangerously close right now. We have already destroyed one third of the ecosphere.
Going forward stupidly ignoring this point brings us all (all 6.9 billion of us) into peril.