Utopia Talk / Politics / The Valley Obama Forgot

Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 19 23:53:16 The Valley Hope Forgot: Schwarzenegger Responds to Crop Crisis Friday, September 18, 2009 This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," September 17, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. SEAN HANNITY, HOST: We are live tonight from the San Joaquin Valley. We're in California, where the government has turned off the water, now forcing countless farmers into unemployment and food lines. And joining me now from Sacramento is the governor of the great state of California. Governor Schwarzenegger is with us. Governor, thank you for being here. Thank you. GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, R-CALIF.: Thank you very much, Sean. For covering this very important story. HANNITY: Governor, you have said that, if you had the power, you would turn on the water tomorrow. You have brought out the Interior Secretary Salazar. You got scolded in a letter by two Barack Obama Cabinet secretaries. What is the status from your standpoint? â?¢ Video: Watch Sean's interview SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I think that, you know, we have a terrible crisis on our hands. And this is a crisis, not because of some disaster. It's a crisis self-inflicted. This is something that the federal government is doing to us. We have done, like you said, everything in the book to convince them otherwise and to turn on the water. But all they're doing is, is just letting us know that this is impossible to do and do whatever you want, you're on your own. And they're not going to help us. And I think that it is a horrible situation to have, you know, federal judges interfering with all of this. We have federal judges for the salmon. We have federal judges for the smelt. Where is the federal judge for the farmers? That's what I'm asking myself. Where are the federal judges for providing our food and providing jobs and helping our state? That's what I'm asking for. So I think the federal government has had a good relationship with us. We have had a good working relationship with them. But, in this particular case, they have absolutely screwed up in the worst way. Column Archive * The Valley Hope Forgot: Schwarzenegger Responds to Crop Crisis * The Valley Hope Forgot: California Farmers at Obama's Mercy * 'Hannity' Exclusive: Undercover at San Diego ACORN Office * Fourth ACORN Video Most Explosive Yet * White House Turns Back as Thousands Take D.C. By Storm Full-page Interview Archive Video * Watch Sean's interview Show Info Airs Weekdays at 9 p.m. ET * E-mail Sean: hannity@foxnews.com * Sean Hannity's Bio * Interview Archive HANNITY: Governor, let me ask you this. Because this impacts over 38 million people. You had sent a letter to the â?? you brought out Interior Secretary Salazar. You got a letter back scolding you. And in that letter they went on to say â?? attack California's water infrastructure. They were disappointed that your letter would attempt to lay blame for the California water crisis on the feet of agency scientists. Now, my question is, Governor, have you had any opportunity to talk to the president of the United States to tell his interior secretary and others in his administration to turn the water back on? And are you planning to talk to the president specifically about this? SCHWARZENEGGER: Yes. First of all, I'm planning to talk to the president about this, and I have many, many times talked to the interior secretary and to others. And, you know, we have done everything that we can. Writing the letters, bringing the political leaders out to our â?? the valley. And to show them firsthand the 40-plus percent unemployment rate, the way the people are suffering. How we have, you know, have to hand out foods to them. How they have no way of making a living or anything like this. And this is not only just in the local area or in the valley. I mean, this limits us in the amount of food that we can produce in California, and the valley has specifically always been the place that, you know, feeds the world. So, we are being handicapped here by federal judges, and this is the terrible thing about it. In the meantime, I think it's also important for you to note that we're moving ahead here in Sacramento, because we have been negotiating for years to create a water infrastructure, to bring our water infrastructure up to date, because we have now 38 million people in California. And the last infrastructure that you see now that was done was done when we had around 18 million people. So we are very close to coming to an agreement, and I have great hopes that it can get that done. So we can build infrastructure, build above the ground and below the ground water storage, and also fix the delta and do the kind of things that we need to do. But we've got to, you know, stop choosing the smelt and the salmon over the people and over farming. HANNITY: All right. But Governor, let me ask you â?? let me ask you this question. Because I'm listening to the crowd here. And I spent a lot of time. I walked a number of the fields today. I mean, it's becoming a dust bowl. And the political back and forth has gone on and on and on. What emergency measures do you think as governor of the great state of California do you think is your next step to help this problem sooner rather than later? What do you think you can do next? We have this 1978 endangered species act. They have the God Squad provision. What do you think you can do next and how soon do you think you can accomplish it, sir? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, the God Squad provision we had thought that through because, believe me, that would work. I would do that immediately. But it doesn't work because it takes years to come to a solution. And those five times they have tried that. Four times it failed. So this is not the right way to go. Believe me, otherwise I would have done it already a long time ago. (CROWD CHANTING "TURN THE WATER ON! TURN THE WATER ON!") HANNITY: Let me â?? let me, if I could just ask, I think this is an important question. Considering, Governor, that you don't have the power to do this, considering that you're now in a little bit of a political battle with the Cabinet. President Obama has said so many times in so many different public speeches that he has an open door policy. Would it be possible, perhaps â?? I mean, look, he found time to have a beer with Professor Gates. Would it be â?? would it perhaps be possible for you to fly to Washington and sit down and explain the plight of these farmers and loss of job and maybe sooner than later meet with him and see if we can get this resolved sooner. Is that something you would be willing to do. I'm asking are you willing to go there sooner than later and would you ask the president on this program tonight to meet with you over a beer and a cigar and bring water here? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, Sean, I think that I made it very clear that I will do whatever it takes to make sure that we turn on the water as quickly as possible so we can go back into the farming and produce the food and create jobs. Because that is the number one priority for me. HANNITY: Yes. All right. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate your time tonight. We're going to continue to follow the story obviously. â?? Watch "Hannity" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552340,00.html
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 20 00:36:38 If you want to find out a little about The Valley you can look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Joaquin_valley It is estimated that about 12.8% of our farm production comes from there and turning off the water is turning it into another "Dust Bowl."
Muslim Member	Sun Sep 20 00:42:24 To arms!
Aeros Member	Sun Sep 20 23:20:17 And of course, the alternative is to water the crops and run out of drinking water. The entire South West is running out of water Rod, and what little is left cannot be used for high intensity agriculture and peoples lawns.
yankeessuck123 Member	Sun Sep 20 23:33:23 "This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," September 17, 2009." Should have stopped reading there.
Ninja Member	Sun Sep 20 23:44:44 I love how in nothing you've linked here do they actually talk about what's going on with the water, why it was 'shut off' and where the water is coming from. Historian Kevin Starr has referred to the San Joaquin Valley as "the most productive unnatural environment on Earth."[citation needed] unnatural environment?
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 20 23:52:38 Aeros, they are not conserving water for drinking. They are conserving it to protect a small 3 1/2" fish that is on the endangered species list. What they are destroying is approximately 12.8% of our national farmland for a freaking fish that is of no use to anyone. yankee, if you don't want to read Hannity's reporting go research it. Not sure what you will find because the MSM doesn't give a fuck. This is a serious problem that no one seems to care about. Why is it only FOX and a couple of college students are the only ones doing any investigative reporting these days?
Internet Bully Member	Sun Sep 20 23:56:33 Because you ignore every other news source and only pay attention to Fox and Glenn Beck. Jeez, that was easy. Nothing to see here, now moving on.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 00:00:37 Ninja, they do mention what it is about, but just in passing. My fault, I should have elaborated a bit more. "We have federal judges for the smelt." The environmentalists are behind this in order to save a small fish that is of no use to anyone that I know of. I saw video of the land and it looked like something out of the "Dust Bowl." This action is putting the farmers out of business and has caused a 40% unemployment in the area. It is criminal what they are doing. I halfway think they are doing it in order to steal the farmland like they did the homes when that bubble burst.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 00:07:33 Project to place fish-saving gates in delta stalls The Associated Press Posted: 09/18/2009 07:09:16 PM PDT Updated: 09/18/2009 07:09:17 PM PDT FRESNO, Calif.â??A plan to place two removable gates in California's freshwater estuary to keep threatened fish from getting killed by water pumps has been put off for this year. San Joaquin Valley farmers favored the "Two Gates" proposal as a temporary solution to the water crisis hitting the state and slowing deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A three-year drought, coupled with environmental restrictions on pumping, have forced farmers to idle thousands of acres and contributed to the collapse of the commercial salmon fishing industry. Metropolitan Water District officials hope contractors can get the gates installed and permitted by next summer, a critical time for a native fish called the delta smelt. http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13369996 Water deal fails, but hope remains Legislators ask governor to call a special session By WES SANDER Capital Press After lawmakers went home last week without a deal, farm interests are expressing hope that California's water problems can still be fixed this year. A complex package of legislation aimed at fixing the ecosystem of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while improving water-supply reliability to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California failed to attract sufficient votes by early on Sept. 12. Legislators have asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to call a special session this fall to finish the process. Danny Merkley, water resources director with the California Farm Bureau Federation, called it fortunate that the package failed, considering progress that still needs to be made. The tight deadline ultimately produced legislation that most stakeholders and lawmakers didn't fully understand, he said. "This will give us a chance to get it right," Merkley said. "The process was so out of sorts, ... that very few people, if anybody, really knew what they were looking at. This is such a complex issue, with so many little details and nuances in it, that you can't be trying to cobble it together." Farm interests say the biggest piece missing in the end was a bond measure to pay for it all, especially storage infrastructure. A $12 billion bond introduced late in the process by Assemblywoman Ann Caballero, D-Salinas, came close to what Republicans wanted, especially in its allocation of $3 billion for new water storage, something Democrats had never before offered. But negotiations to bridge the final gaps between Caballero's bond and one by Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, failed to fully convince either side. Democrats remained leery of its size, while Republicans and farm interests said its design -- including a proposal to split the total into two bond measures, one going before voters next year, the second in 2014 -- would place too many obstacles in the way of infrastructure financing. Beyond that, proposed water-use efficiency rules would compromise existing water rights, a non-starter for farm interests, Merkley said. And with limited time to craft a comprehensive water plan, adding that piece to the puzzle overloaded the process, he said. "Water use efficiency and reporting are key," Merkley said. "But you're throwing a monkey wrench into (discussions of) water-supply reliability when you throw that in there." Donn Zea, president of the Northern California Water Association, agreed that the process was overburdened. "If we can set aside the tangential issues and get to the core challenges -- Delta management and restoration, the expansion of north state water supply and a more effective path to move water -- we can make historic progress," Zea said. "If the focus is again blurred by the need to reach beyond the critical problems, the process may be destined to repeat itself." Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League in Fresno, called lawmakers irresponsible for failing to reach a solution while drought and environmental rules burden San Joaquin Valley agriculture. "There was very, very poor collaboration on both sides," Cunha said. "I thought we had adults -- what we have is reckless juveniles in Sacramento that only care about their jobs." But Tom Birmingham, general manager of Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, said solid progress had been made on creating a Delta plan and oversight council. "I think the final outcome of those negotiations was a well-balanced, comprehensive solution," Birmingham said. "I don't consider the work that was done as having been done in vain." Staff writer Wes Sander is based in Sacramento. E-mail: wsander@capitalpress.com. http://www.capitalpress.com/california/ws-Delta-Bills-091809
Ninja Member	Mon Sep 21 01:11:31 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/21/opinion/op-slack21 Why we should save the delta smelt The tiny fish is a bigger deal than you think. Saving it is worth a little sacrifice. By Gordy Slack October 21, 2007 California is a thirsty state. You don't mess with its water, even in a good year, unless you have an excellent reason. Which is why many Californians are shaking their heads in dismay over a federal judge's recent decision to cut by as much as 30% the water sent south from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta this winter. The judge's reason: to save a French-fry-sized fish called the delta smelt. The delta smelt makes no heroic journey across the ocean or up river rapids to reproduce. Once superabundant, Chinese fishermen used to harvest the fish by net, but the little thing, a weak swimmer, wouldn't put up any fight at the end of a line. And a smelt would not even make a decent snack. Frankly, on first glance, the fish just isn't much to look at either. So why should millions of Californians who rely on water pumped south from the delta make economic and social sacrifices -- including the possibility of rationing -- for a basically unremarkable fish? There are at least four good reasons. First, it is the law. The Endangered Species Act prohibits the government from doing anything that jeopardizes the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, and it forbids any government agency, corporation or citizen from harming, harassing or killing endangered animals without a permit. It is a sound law, put in place by the Nixon administration in 1973 to protect imperiled plants and animals "from the consequences of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation." By drawing a bright legal line this side of annihilating whole kinds of creatures, the law is to thank for saving the bald eagle, the gray whale, the California condor and the Pacific green sea turtle, among other animals. And it's a law that will be especially important in California and beyond as climate change, human population growth, habitat conversion and invasive species increasingly degrade the natural world. But obeying even a good law may seem unjustified when it comes time to make sacrifices for a ghostlike fish that conveys no clear benefits to mankind. That common perception brings us to the second reason to save the smelt: The goal of the Endangered Species Act is not just to protect single species but also the ecosystems on which they depend. The delta smelt is what Peter Moyle, a fisheries biologist at UC Davis, calls an indicator species: Its condition reflects the overall health of an ecosystem. In the case of the delta, we're talking about a once-magnificent place that is in serious trouble. It is 16,000 square miles of wetland and open water -- the West Coast's largest estuary -- and the end point of about 40% of California's precipitation. When the Spanish arrived centuries ago, it was teeming with fish, crawling with bears and beavers, its skies periodically darkened with migrating birds. Twenty-nine known fish species once called the delta home. Twelve of those are either gone altogether or are threatened with extinction. The Sacramento perch, once one of the most abundant fish in the system, was last seen in the 1970s, Moyle says. The thicktail chub disappeared in the 1950s. Many other fish are in rapid decline too, victims of pollution, overfishing and habitat destruction as big portions of the delta were diked and drained for agriculture, and the natural exchange of fresh and salt water was altered by the huge, sucking pumps that send water south. As for the delta smelt, Moyle has been charting its decline for decades. But that decline turned into a nose-dive a couple of years ago because of increased water diversions from the delta. This year's spring survey found 90% fewer fish than in 2006, the previous record low. Reducing the amount of water sucked from the delta, increasing the release of fresh water upriver and controlling pollutants would help save the delta smelt and help protect spring- and winter-run Chinook, striped bass, steelhead trout, green sturgeon and the entire delta ecosystem. If we don't take these steps, and if we let the delta smelt go down, the longfin smelt, the next most endangered species in the delta, will follow. Then maybe the striped bass and the Sacramento splittail. Why care? The species in an ecosystem are woven together like characters in a Shakespeare play. Start pulling them out, and the play's integrity is lost. Removing the delta smelt would be like pulling the ghost from "Macbeth." Forever. You'd still have a play, but it wouldn't work. Then pull, say, Banquo and the three witches and replace them with characters who don't belong there. You'd have some kind of absurdist sitcom where you once had a masterpiece. Without the native fish and other species that populate the delta, it won't work either. A slightly closer look at the delta smelt shows us a third reason to rescue the fish from oblivion -- it's actually pretty impressive. While most fish are hard-wired either for salt or fresh water, the delta smelt tolerates both, a talent that allows it to exploit the brackish zone where the waters meet. Before there were giant aquatic vacuum cleaners in its midst to send water south, it could afford to be a weak swimmer because it mastered the cyclical ebbs and flows of the estuary, exploiting the system's inhalations and exhalations to get where it needed to go. During the dry season, when the salt water moves up the estuary toward the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers that feed it, the smelt would ride the tidal currents up into the delta's river channels, where it laid its eggs. With the winter rains and consequent outflows, the fish would be carried out to what is called the entrapment zone, where fresh and salt water meet, a place where the zooplankton they feed on is most abundant. The delta smelt's ghostly blue color makes it nearly invisible to predators. It is a triumph of evolution and, believers might say, of creation, as well adapted to the old delta as the bald eagle and the gray whale are to their natural habitats. Finally, the Torah says that if you save an individual, you save an entire universe. How much truer that is for a whole kind of creature. Nothing else on Earth lives the way the delta smelt does, senses the world the way it does, looks like it, moves like it, fits into an ecosystem the way it does. If we drive it from existence, we will have obliterated an entire world, willingly, in order for a while longer to grow cotton, rice and alfalfa in the desert, to keep our swimming pools topped off and open, to keep the price of water cheap. If we can face our growing need for water, and our diminishing supply of it, without driving whole species to extinction, it might be more expensive and inconvenient in the short term. But if it saves the fish, saves the delta and saves a world, it would be well worth the price. Gordy Slack is the author of "The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything." ----------------------------------------------- *shrug* the battle is for more than just one fish.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 21 01:51:31 Hot Rod Thing is, the 30% is delaying the inevitable. Water resources contain huge buffers. Those are gone, so basically the question is what the valley is going to take down along with it in its fall.
Muslim Member	Mon Sep 21 01:58:21 "What they are destroying is approximately 12.8% of our national farmland for a freaking fish that is of no use to anyone." Maybe the governments wants to intentionally starve the people, to stop them from being so obese.
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Mon Sep 21 04:35:34 Hot Rod this is for you: Hannity stumbles upon cause of west side water issues Published online on Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 By Bill McEwen / The Fresno Bee Sean Hannity came to the San Joaquin Valley a few days ago and did what he does best. He exaggerated, distorted and turned a complex situation into a hysterical rant. But I'll give the Fox News right-wing shouter this: citing all the wrong reasons, he unintentionally fingered the right culprit for the economic disaster unfolding on the Valley's west side and in Northern California. To hear Hannity and his cast of local enablers tell it, farmers and farmworkers in the Westlands Water District are suffering the pain of a water shortage caused by activist federal judges, the delta smelt and President Barack Obama's administration. Not much of that -- or anything else he said -- is true. But, in fact, the federal government does bear much of the responsibility for the mess entangling the west side, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the decline of salmon along California's coast. Decades ago, federal authorities promised more water to farmers than they could deliver. They compounded the mistake by offering subsidies and incentives that encouraged small farmers to become mega-farmers. Then they turned around and -- again with incentives -- encouraged small fishermen to build bigger boats and bigger fleets, further endangering salmon. The whole time, few in the federal bureaucracy had either the wisdom or the courage to ask how much water would be needed to sustain California's fish and wildlife, much less the state's population growth. Hannity, of course, didn't say this. He's incapable of anything but shouting, mugging to his fans and palming off his made-to-fit lies and omissions as facts. The activist federal judge ruling on many issues affecting the delta, farmers and fishermen is Oliver W. Wanger, a conservative Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Hannity called the Central Valley "a Dust Bowl." It's not. Millions of acres are being farmed, and most farmers are getting their water deliveries. In a one-hour show alleged to be about water, there wasn't a single second devoted to an explanation of the hierarchy of water rights under California law. Or a single word about the fact that Westlands' farmers have junior water rights, meaning that by law they get what is left after all the other interests have dipped into the state's sprawling water system. Nor did Hannity bother to explain that Westlands' water comes from the Trinity River 400 miles away and that some Valley farmers sell their water rights to cities and developers. And somehow Hannity, a fierce opponent of illegal immigration, didn't get around to noting that some of his newfound friends in agriculture rely on illegal immigrants to harvest their crops. Hannity came here for two things: to tell the nation that a "2-inch minnow" is killing farming in the food basket of America, and to tell Obama to turn on delta pumps that send water to Westlands. Never mind that the pumps have been on since June 30 -- too late for spring plantings, admittedly, but on nonetheless despite claims otherwise by three local congressmen and comedian Paul Rodriguez. In a fake attempt at balance, Hannity conned Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, to be on the show. Hannity began the short segment by calling Grader "a wacko environmentalist from San Francisco" and any chance to have a thoughtful discussion about the destruction of the salmon fishing industry was lost. All this said, the Obama administration's response to the economic hurt on the west side has been disappointing. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made it clear during a recent interview at The Bee that the president isn't interested in entering California's water wars. If heavy rains don't come this winter, a good argument can be made for keeping the pumps on next spring so that Westlands' soil can be planted and watered -- particularly since there is evidence suggesting that pollution and non-native species also are contributing to the decline of fish in the delta. But the long-term answers aren't that simple. Simple, unfortunately, is the only thing that Hannity understands.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 05:18:39 First of all, your article is two years old. They are now blocking 90% of the farmer's water needs. Secondly, you have given no overriding advantage to the human race to keep the fish. Environmental law is not always rational and the environmentalists are too often kooks that cannot be reasoned with. One of the czars comes to mind who wants to allow bears and trees and dogs to sue humans. Another instance I can think of right off hand is when Bush wanted to clear the brush from the national forests a few years ago. The environmentalists blocked that, to keep the forests pristine, and a recent fire burned out of control for several weeks destroying 21 homes and 105,000 acres of national forest and killing two firefighters. Next Peter Moyle calls it an indicator species. I don't know what that means. We all know that the delta has resources that humans need and that other species are suffering because of those needs. What is there to indicate beyond what we already know. Third, the smelt can swim in both salt and fresh water. I see no overwhelming advantage to humans in that singular ability of the smelt. Fourth, "Finally, the Torah says that if you save an individual, you save an entire universe." Time to ask yourselves is religious "dogma" applicable to a fish. Wouldn't it be more applicable to the human farmers and farm workers who are suffering mightily because of this program? There is a 40% unemployment rate and I would imagine the farm owners are in desperate financial straights. With no relief in sight until next Spring when, and if, they are able to install the two removable gates that may or may not protect the smelt. I wonder if saving that little fish is worth all of the human suffering that it is causing. Humans are important too, when do we get on the endangered species list?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 05:29:29 BTW, I laid the blame for this fiasco on Obama when he, in fact, has nothing to do with it. It is the California legislature, the EPA and the environmentalists that are at fault.
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 05:33:25 Same old story...LINK that a "czar" wants trees to be allowed to sue, you fucking lunatic CT nutcase?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 05:51:54 Don't you watch any news about America? Obama Science Adviser: Trees Should be Allowed to Sue, Babies Not Yet â??Human Beingsâ?? Thursday, July 30, 2009, 11:50 AM Wesley J. Smith Just when you thought that the high advisers to President Obama couldnâ??t get any more radical. Consider: Cass Sunstein, his nominated regulations czar, wants animals to be able to sue their owners and has asserted that the lives of elderly people should be given less value in government regulatory cost/benefit determinations. Ezekiel Emanuel, a high health care adviser, wants to ration health care based on quality of life (and perhaps against the elderly) and has asserted we all have a moral obligation to be experimented on. And now, it turns out that his science adviser wrote years ago that trees should be allowed to sue! From the story: The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues. Giving â??natural objectsâ?? â?? like trees â?? standing to sue in a court of law would have a â??most salubriousâ?? effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s. â??One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, â??Should Trees Have Standing?â??â?? Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. â??In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,â?? Holdren added. Bring on the ents! Of course, as with animals suing, the real litigants would be ideological zealots who would use the legal system and plant standing to shut down free enterprise and stop human flourishing in its tracks. Holdren also once wrote that a baby was not yet a human being. From the story: â??The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,â?? John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in â??Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.â?? This is radical personhood theory, beyond Peter Singer even, in which full moral status may not accrue until years after birth. Since the point of the book was radical population control, it will be interesting to see if Holdren, like Singer, used the so-called non human being status of young children as a rationalization for justifying murder. A man is known by the company he keeps. On issues important to SHS, President Obama has surrounded himself with true radicals. Is this administration scary, or is this administration scary? http://www...e-babies-not-yet-human-beings/
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 05:54:53 "Should Trees Have Standing?" So you lied...he asked a theoretical question to start a debate...what a surprise...
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 06:00:16 Funny how there is no mention of John P. Holdren in that book anywhere on the net...did you so completely lie about a book that he has nothing to do with whatsoever?
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 06:03:39 "and has asserted that the lives of elderly people should be given less value in government regulatory cost/benefit determinations. Ezekiel Emanuel, a high health care adviser, wants to ration health care based on quality of life (and perhaps against the elderly) and has asserted we all have a moral obligation to be experimented on. " WHAT A LOAD OF FUCKING SHIT LOL
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:06:02 I guess you missed this: "The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues. Giving "natural objects", like trees, standing to sue in a court of law would have a "most salubrious" effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s."
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 06:07:10 I guessed you missed what utter shit your source is... "and has asserted that the lives of elderly people should be given less value in government regulatory cost/benefit determinations. Ezekiel Emanuel, a high health care adviser, wants to ration health care based on quality of life (and perhaps against the elderly) and has asserted we all have a moral obligation to be experimented on. " ROFL
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:07:40 hoER - WHAT A LOAD OF FUCKING SHIT LOL Your unilateral shouting does not change the facts.
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 06:09:10 No, it confirms them. Your lying and spreading false rumors every day you're on here doesnt change the facts though, much as you try to bend the round truth to force it into square holes....lol, you're so stupid and easily led...
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:10:05 hoER, these claims have been all over the news for months and not one word of denial. These people have been documented as making these statements.
hoER Member	Mon Sep 21 06:11:10 "hoER, these claims have been all over the news for months and not one word of denial. " Wait, their lack of denial is incriminating?
jergul Member	Mon Sep 21 06:16:05 Change in groundwater has actually improved from minus 1900 cubic feet a second on average for 1964-2003 to a mere minus 300 cubic feet of water per second 2003+. HR water use is unsustainable.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:30:02 And this post ends your trolling or your stupidity, whicheve one it is this time. Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care. By BETSY MCCAUGHEY Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physicianâ??s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patientâ??s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree. The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative. [mccaughey] "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009 The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused. Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others." In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007). Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008). "In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line. "You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions." Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polityâ??those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberationsâ??are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996) In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one. "However, other things are rarely equalâ??whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years eachâ??is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby). Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not." The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009). To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007). Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing bodyâ??the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)â??to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life. Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name." View Full Image McCaughey Associated Press McCaughey McCaughey This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views. Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort." Is this what Americans want? Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state. http://onl...3706604574374463280098676.html
Goreth Member	Mon Sep 21 06:34:59 "Humans are important too, when do we get on the endangered species list?" LOL! The sheer stupidity of this (not uncommon) sentinment is really amusing. No endangered species has anything remotely close to 7 billion members. And that fish might not be important, but draining a river too much to use the water for farming is a dumb idea, as the Soviets have proven to us with the Aral Sea. The way from an agricultural success story to an environmental disaster can be very short. California has essentially two choices. 1) Seriously reduce water to reduce the strain on its limited water ressources. Either by mass emigration or reducing individual use, both of which would harm California's economy. 2) Invest really big money in (preferrably solar powered) Desalination plants. California's water use is simply not sustainable right now. Wreaking havoc on entire ecosystems by extracting their water is no solution in the long run, just really crappy patchwork.
roland Member	Mon Sep 21 06:36:25 RIP, Hot "I dont post op-ed" Rod. You cant do any worst posting the originator of the deather myth.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:40:06 jergul - HR water use is unsustainable. You know how I feel about taxes, but if they want to conserve water why not tax waste. Tax all homes with swimming pools $10,000 per year, pass a law where address' ending odd can water their lawns on Saturday and even on Sunday, reinstate the program urging people to flush urinals every other use, and shut down all fountains that do not use recycled water. That would be a nice start. They could find many ways to conserve if they put their minds to it. I can think of no rational reason for destroying the farms of The Valley?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:43:46 roland - RIP, Hot "I dont post op-ed" Rod. You cant do any worst posting the originator of the deather myth. In this case her opinion piece is loaded with fact and not innuendo as with ny times op-eds. Her claims can all be verified if you want to put in the effort to google them. Big difference.
steven New Member	Mon Sep 21 06:46:10 In this case her opinion piece is loaded with lies and innuendo as with Fox op-eds. Her claims can all be verified as lies and exaggerations if you want to put in the effort to google them. Big difference you fucking lying whore LOL
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 06:48:44 Goreth - LOL! The sheer stupidity of this (not uncommon) sentinment is really amusing. And they call me stupid for not recognizing an obvious attempt at humor. See my last post for a start on alternate solutions. Not sure the environmentalists would allow desalination plants, I understand they are complaining about wind farms now.
steven Member	Mon Sep 21 06:50:38 Goreth - LOL! The sheer stupidity of this (not uncommon) sentinment is really amusing. And they call you stupid for not recognizing an obvious attempt at humor. See your last post for a start on alternate retardness of a stupid old nazi. Not sure Limbaugh would allow desalination plants, I understand he is complaining about wind farms now, you sick fucking worthless turd LOL
roland Member	Mon Sep 21 06:57:53 "In this case her opinion piece is loaded with fact and not innuendo as with ny times op-eds. Her claims can all be verified if you want to put in the effort to google them." Lol, I actually read his studies, instead of her piece loaded with fact and not innuendo. And her piece has been widely disputed. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/deadly-doctor/
Hot Rod Member	Mon Sep 21 07:02:08 "And Emanuel tells us, "I am not advocating this."" I guess that settles that.
steven Member	Mon Sep 21 07:06:01 And Rod posts more lies... I guess that settles that.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 21 09:18:38 Tha kind of taxation will not solve anything. 80% of water use goes to agriculture, another large slice to industry. Personal consumption is really not that big and the tax measures you suggested would solve nothing. The best measure by far is to legislate a requirement that non-renewable electricity producers maintain an 80+ efficiency rating. They can only do that by using waste heat to produce water. A M3/kwh balancing function also required to ensure max water output. The reason for this is how the system works. Most water is eventually recycled internally, but there is some loss. In the case of the valley groundwater, you need to add say another 500 cubic feet of water per second into the system by way of industrial water production. Reducing water use by the same amount would only give you a net savings of about 100 cubic meter a second because nature is pretty damned good at recycling.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Mon Sep 21 10:09:06 fuck kalifornia and their greed for water,other people's water that is, so that they can turn their desert into a playground.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 21 10:35:41 Picked blueberries in my youth on a plantation like entity during my illegal occupation over there. It aint no playground.
Ninja Member	Mon Sep 21 12:34:50 "Next Peter Moyle calls it an indicator species. I don't know what that means. We all know that the delta has resources that humans need and that other species are suffering because of those needs. What is there to indicate beyond what we already know." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_species An indicator species is any biological species that defines a trait or characteristic of the environment. For example, a species may delineate an ecoregion or indicate an environmental condition such as a disease outbreak, pollution, species competition or climate change. Indicator species can be among the most sensitive species in a region, and sometimes act as an early warning to monitoring biologists. ----------------------------------------------- More generally, so goes the indicator species, so goes the environment they lived in. "Fourth, "Finally, the Torah says that if you save an individual, you save an entire universe." Time to ask yourselves is religious "dogma" applicable to a fish. Wouldn't it be more applicable to the human farmers and farm workers who are suffering mightily because of this program?" A few people who can move elsewhere and work compared to the extinction of a species. ... "Humans are important too, when do we get on the endangered species list?" There are 6.785 billion people. We're not anywhere near being endangered.
Ninja Member	Mon Sep 21 12:35:34 And HR has not addressed yeswecan's post so lets follow it up: ------------------------------------------------ Hot Rod this is for you: Hannity stumbles upon cause of west side water issues Published online on Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 By Bill McEwen / The Fresno Bee Sean Hannity came to the San Joaquin Valley a few days ago and did what he does best. He exaggerated, distorted and turned a complex situation into a hysterical rant. But I'll give the Fox News right-wing shouter this: citing all the wrong reasons, he unintentionally fingered the right culprit for the economic disaster unfolding on the Valley's west side and in Northern California. To hear Hannity and his cast of local enablers tell it, farmers and farmworkers in the Westlands Water District are suffering the pain of a water shortage caused by activist federal judges, the delta smelt and President Barack Obama's administration. Not much of that -- or anything else he said -- is true. But, in fact, the federal government does bear much of the responsibility for the mess entangling the west side, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the decline of salmon along California's coast. Decades ago, federal authorities promised more water to farmers than they could deliver. They compounded the mistake by offering subsidies and incentives that encouraged small farmers to become mega-farmers. Then they turned around and -- again with incentives -- encouraged small fishermen to build bigger boats and bigger fleets, further endangering salmon. The whole time, few in the federal bureaucracy had either the wisdom or the courage to ask how much water would be needed to sustain California's fish and wildlife, much less the state's population growth. Hannity, of course, didn't say this. He's incapable of anything but shouting, mugging to his fans and palming off his made-to-fit lies and omissions as facts. The activist federal judge ruling on many issues affecting the delta, farmers and fishermen is Oliver W. Wanger, a conservative Republican appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Hannity called the Central Valley "a Dust Bowl." It's not. Millions of acres are being farmed, and most farmers are getting their water deliveries. In a one-hour show alleged to be about water, there wasn't a single second devoted to an explanation of the hierarchy of water rights under California law. Or a single word about the fact that Westlands' farmers have junior water rights, meaning that by law they get what is left after all the other interests have dipped into the state's sprawling water system. Nor did Hannity bother to explain that Westlands' water comes from the Trinity River 400 miles away and that some Valley farmers sell their water rights to cities and developers. And somehow Hannity, a fierce opponent of illegal immigration, didn't get around to noting that some of his newfound friends in agriculture rely on illegal immigrants to harvest their crops. Hannity came here for two things: to tell the nation that a "2-inch minnow" is killing farming in the food basket of America, and to tell Obama to turn on delta pumps that send water to Westlands. Never mind that the pumps have been on since June 30 -- too late for spring plantings, admittedly, but on nonetheless despite claims otherwise by three local congressmen and comedian Paul Rodriguez. In a fake attempt at balance, Hannity conned Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, to be on the show. Hannity began the short segment by calling Grader "a wacko environmentalist from San Francisco" and any chance to have a thoughtful discussion about the destruction of the salmon fishing industry was lost. All this said, the Obama administration's response to the economic hurt on the west side has been disappointing. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made it clear during a recent interview at The Bee that the president isn't interested in entering California's water wars. If heavy rains don't come this winter, a good argument can be made for keeping the pumps on next spring so that Westlands' soil can be planted and watered -- particularly since there is evidence suggesting that pollution and non-native species also are contributing to the decline of fish in the delta. But the long-term answers aren't that simple. Simple, unfortunately, is the only thing that Hannity understands.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: