|
Sydin posted:As much as I'm all for dirty socialism, this sounds like one of those referendums that has a great general idea but is lax on details. The article makes it sound like the text of the bill basically says: "Eminent Domain the pre-existing infrastructure from the existing companies, then... figure it out, I guess. Oh and I suppose you can issue bonds and such if you need more money to set this up." That's not good enough: you need a strong, reasonable hand-over plan or it's going to be a disaster. Its from the same guy who got Rancho Seco shut down if that gives you a hint.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Also, Eminent Domain requires the government to pay. Fair market value. We don't get to just seize the
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
I'd imagine that no matter what the state claimed to be the eminent domain pricetag, PG&E as well as the other power companies would disagree, and it would be tied up in court for years, if not the better part of a decade. Also - and I fully admit that this is my ignorance of eminent domain shining through - is the proposal even legal? Can the California voters really just snap their fingers and dissolve three multi billion dollar publicly traded companies and put their assets & infrastructure in the hands of the state, even if they pay fair market value for it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I'd imagine that no matter what the state claimed to be the eminent domain pricetag, PG&E as well as the other power companies would disagree, and it would be tied up in court for years, if not the better part of a decade. Pretty much. It's a neat idea but just insanely stupid. SMUD is loving great, and I know EBMUD has talked about setting up their own division as an energy utility although I think currently they just sell their current power generation to PGE. Probably the better way to approach is to allocate funds to create state power facilities to generate power and provide funding to municipalities (like EBMUD or SFPUC) to utilize those and/or generate their own, and distribute power to their residents as an alternative. And then just let PGE and poo poo fall by the wasteside as overpriced awful companies they are because everyone would probably switch in a heartbeat if they had an option. E: One problem is PG&E has a lot of prime dam locations already (especially in the Sierras). I suppose you could more selectively eminent domain those although that'd still get insanely messy. Xaris fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also, Eminent Domain requires the government to pay. Fair market value. We don't get to just seize the Isn't it only through eminent domain that the utility infrastructure can exist on private land? Can the eminent domain be revoked by the state? Fascinating to think about even if it ends up being unworkable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's eminent domain or other laws that govern access and rights-of-way, for things like stringing power poles through private land. I don't even think fully claiming public utilities from the private market is a bad idea, necessarily. I just don't think a single ballot initiative will succeed at doing it, and I don't think it's a simple thing, and I think Californians would shoulder a huge up-front cost. Utilities are already heavily-regulated, with government-mandated caps on profitability (but also guaranteed profits, to some extent, which is a pretty great deal for shareholders!) - the cost savings of cutting away that profit might well take a century to pay off the up-front cost of the transition. Maybe it could be approached on a smaller scale. Instead of a wholesale, statewide thing, just take individual communities over one at a time, creating regional public utilities modeled on SMUD etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Sydin posted:
Las Vegas is beginning to contemplate the same ordinance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:32
|
|
I mean I understand the health rationale, but if anybody honestly thinks the porn industry is going to completely retool itself vs just packing up and moving to Nevada or somewhere else where nobody gives a poo poo what they do, they're an idiot.
|
If I remember correctly, Darkpriest, SA's resident porn producer, did mention some production moving to Florida. E: also, who says porn is limited to on camera studio work. From the same thread, a lot of actresses supplement their income with strip club appeances, cam shows and even escort work. Okuteru fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
One of the articles I saw pointed out that the dramatic drop in permits may not correspond to a dramatic drop in filming, and that a lot of illegal permit--less filming continued.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
So to what degree of there a legitimate safety issue that needs to be addressed? I was under the impression that porn actors underwent fairly frequent STI screenings and that outbreaks in the industry were fairly rare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So to what degree of there a legitimate safety issue that needs to be addressed? I was under the impression that porn actors underwent fairly frequent STI screenings and that outbreaks in the industry were fairly rare. Probably it's as simple as showing safe sex will encourage safe sex. What I don't get is how it will "ruin" the industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So to what degree of there a legitimate safety issue that needs to be addressed? I was under the impression that porn actors underwent fairly frequent STI screenings and that outbreaks in the industry were fairly rare. Space-Bird posted:What I don't get is how it will "ruin" the industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Sydin posted:It's less about the health of the workers themselves (although let's be honest, even with extensive testing in the industry condoms are going to reduce risk when something inevitably slips through) and more about the impression on the viewer. 18 or older warnings or no, a lot of young people watch a lot of porn. And they're much more likely to have safe sex if the people they see loving in all the pornos are doing the same thing. Yes, because putting a condom ordinance in one state is going to result in all porn from that point on featuring condoms, and not just productions picking up and moving shop to the next state over. (Oh yea, and all the porn produced before the ordinance went into effect is suddenly going to feature condoms as well, or simply cease to exist! There will only be good example porn from that point on!) Here's a pretty good piece breaking down exactly why this type of ordinance is stupid and ultimately harmful. When the actual workers in an industry are concerned that the effect of a "safety" ordinance will actually make them less safe, it's probably a good idea to listen to them first. (Also, this brings up one of the biggest problems with this ordinance in the first place: It completely ignores the voices of the people directly affected by it. It's like trying to create a set of factory safety procedures without talking to anyone who has ever been inside a factory. This is just another in a long line of public health advocates being patronizing to sex workers and ignoring their voices.) Also, trying to use porn as an example to kids is a loving idiotic idea. It's far more important (and more effective) to teach them to view porn critically and to let them build a strong distinction between fantasy and reality. (Because there are plenty of fantasy elements in porn besides the lack of condoms that kids viewing it need to understand aren't necessarily part of a healthy sex life or positive sexual experiences.) e_angst fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
We can't get proper background checks for firearm sales, why did this one decide to go the tougher route of ammo background checks AND magazine ownership?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:51
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
e_angst posted:Here's a pretty good piece breaking down exactly why this type of ordinance is stupid and ultimately harmful. When the actual workers in an industry are concerned that the effect of a "safety" ordinance will actually make them less safe, it's probably a good idea to listen to them first. (Also, this brings up one of the biggest problems with this ordinance in the first place: It completely ignores the voices of the people directly affected by it. It's like trying to create a set of factory safety procedures without talking to anyone who has ever been inside a factory. This is just another in a long line of public health advocates being patronizing to sex workers and ignoring their voices.) That was an interesting read, cheers. As for your second point, I completely agree: using porn to help kids form their view of sex and sexual behavior is the height of stupidity. That's not the issue though. The issue is that sex education in this country is spotty at best, and downright maliciously unhelpful at worst. Schools in California aren't even required to teach Sex Ed. Barring sweeping legislation at the federal level to implement better standards for sex ed (ie: never happening) there are going to be a good number of people who're going to get their first real look at sexual activities via porn, and I'd imagine "think of the children!" is a large piece of the rationale behind the idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Probably it's as simple as showing safe sex will encourage safe sex. What I don't get is how it will "ruin" the industry. Porn is supposed to be a sexual fantasy dree from stds and pregnancy. Condoms would ruin that fantasy and using this ordinance to promote safe sex is a terrible idea due to the reasons other goons have posted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Peter Acworth (kink.com guy) has written about this stuff a few times on his blog (here, here, and here).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Lesbian porn doesn't have to move, though, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Given the crossover between straight and gay porn for female performers I'd imagine that they'd follow production. If the major producers all move out of state they'd probably pull the talent with them for convenience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Sydin posted:As for your second point, I completely agree: using porn to help kids form their view of sex and sexual behavior is the height of stupidity. That's not the issue though. The issue is that sex education in this country is spotty at best, and downright maliciously unhelpful at worst. Schools in California aren't even required to teach Sex Ed. Barring sweeping legislation at the federal level to implement better standards for sex ed (ie: never happening) there are going to be a good number of people who're going to get their first real look at sexual activities via porn, and I'd imagine "think of the children!" is a large piece of the rationale behind the idea. Yea, "think of the children" is definitely a part of the rationale. Thinking that it will actually solve any of the problems caused by our broken sex ed system in this country is ridiculous, though. You might as well decide that, because our driver's ed programs still result in thousands of teenagers dying in wrecks every year, we're going to make it illegal for movies to show a car chases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
I was thinking about this in the shower. The two rationales - (A)protect performers and (B)get people to use condoms - great, I am in accord with those. But, prohibitive legislationis a rather blunt instrument for saving what I asumme would be no more than a single digit number of performers from getting AIDS. And, the idea that the Los Angeles city council is responsible for or capable of convincing everyone to use condoms is laughable. To actually prevent the production of a product, whether drugs or guns or barebacking videos, you need federal legislation. Imagine federal legislation on porn-production standards and you will start to realize that this is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:To actually prevent the production of a product, whether drugs or guns or barebacking videos, you need federal legislation. Imagine federal legislation on porn-production standards and you will start to realize that this is a bad idea. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html 15 to 19 propositions for 2016, oh my.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html  How many of those will be mutually contradictory this time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
You guys need to knock it off with your ballot system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:You guys need to knock it off with your ballot system. It's very humorous how the ballot system was made a century ago to combat corporate control of politics by the S&P railroad monopoly on the state, and now it is a major tool of corporate control on politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
We really should leave legislation to the legislators. I don't trust my fellow Californians to walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone make informed decisions on bond proposals or state policy. The silver lining is that I don't see anything absolutely horrible in the proposed initiatives/amendments so far. It actually looks like I'll be voting yes on a bunch of them, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Excited for bullet train! But I hope it isn't hyped too much. I don't want it to become an icon/target for crazies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Watcjing the news about the Paris attacks and they said there were fighter jets scrambled over san francisco. Anyone know anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
That makes zero sense to me. E: Would they be there to nicely escort off course passenger jets? It's not like they would take down a plane full of civilians. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:It's not like they would take down a plane full of civilians. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJfO1HnCT8 http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Rapping-science-teacher-in-Novato-wins-25-000-6643821.php This is not okay California. This is not okay. I'm losing my mind and I have to post this somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJfO1HnCT8 Rapping (yes, rapping)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJfO1HnCT8 Feel good story of impassioned teacher winning an award for good teaching. Yeah, not OK California!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Feel good story of impassioned teacher winning an award for good teaching. ...wait, you think this rap is good?  Welp. uh....carry on then...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
CALIFORNIA MUST BE NERDENFREI EIN VOLK, EIN REICH, EIN MOONBEAM CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:...wait, you think this rap is good? I didn't say anything about his rapping dingus. He didn't win an rapping content he won an award for being a good teacher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I didn't say anything about his rapping dingus. Ok well I am talking about the rap. Which was bad. And the article leads one to believe that he won due to his rapping teacher schtick. Maybe that clears it up for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
It doesn't matter that his rapping is good or bad, what matters is how it helps him connect with students.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES I do so like that song.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:51
|
|
