|
^^^^^^^^ Ag wastes a whole lot of water through inefficient practices, but it is hard to call a massive sector of our economy and the only thing stopping the right wingers in the valley from starting a war a "waste." Jerry Manderbilt posted:Oh, dear, now conservative Texan shitlords are smugging it up about Sriracha and the CEO calling California "communist and anti-business"... Expect he is on record saying recently, he's not moving the factory to Texas. He may open a second factory in texas if demand is there, and they can grow the peppers in Texas (apparently the peppers used basically can only grow in ventura county and they need to be fresh). He doesn't want to move to Texas because no sane person wants to, especially when they are rich already. The whole thing is hilarious and been over blown. He moved his factory near some houses and didn't factor in the possibility that processing tons and tons of peppers might cause a problem.
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
natetimm posted:I don't love the sales tax either but it's better than creating another housing disaster. Over reliance on sales tax rather than a relatively stable (even during a house crash) property tax is one of the reasons why counties and cities in California are still have financial issues.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:I'm voting Donnelly because I want to watch the ensuing meltdown I love that the republican party's leader in the election is a racist who can't even remember where he left his guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
AYC posted:It's a throwaway vote because a Democrat/Republican race is a foregone conclusion. Not always. I live in a majority dem district. There were 2 republicans, a bunch of dems, and some others. The dem vote split and the top two vote getters were republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Which district was that? I assume you mean in 2012. 31st.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Hey look a split dem vote for controller leads to two reps leading. 31 may have the same thing happen, again. gently caress, I move to the one part of the IE with not a poo poo ton of republicans. . . .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:At least if we have two R controllers in the general, I imagine they will be scrambling to moderate because the first to turncoat will be the first to win. You'd have thought that, but in my district last time when two Rs ran in a dem district, they still tried to out crazy each other. Most people I know just left that blank.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
And yet, a number of the horrible suburban cities like Glendora and Rancho Cucamonga are still citing people criminally for brown lawns.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Xandu posted:If the drought does continue to the point where the amount of crops in California has to be seriously cut back, how badly does that impact US food supply? More importantly on a state level, a reduction in ag output would have a serious impact on the central valley with is already extremely poor. However, farmers could do a lot more to reduce water use with a reasonably negligible cost increase. The problem is that water prices are so low as to encourage waste. Also, worth noting that a lot of these "farmers" actually farm a small amount and sell their share of underpriced water to southern california cities.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Dry California Fights Illegal Use of Water for Cannabis It is actually a pretty big problem and has been for a long time. I have an acquaintance who manages a large tract of forest in Mendo county and the destruction is pretty bad. The solution is the legalize and regulate it though. The problem is that it is illegal and unregulated.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Also a fun fact, there's over 100,000 inmates in SB county on a population of 2 million. No, it doesn't. CDCR only has 135k people state-wide. The highest percentage come from LA county. San Bernardino is like 3rd or something. And if you mean county inmates, WVDC has 3.3k beds, Adelanto will have about 3k when complete, Glen Helen has about 1000, and Central has about 800. Joshua Tree and Needles have a few temporary beds. It is a poo poo ton of prisoners, but not 100k! nm fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Prop 47 is the best idea since prop 36 (either of them).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Besides the criminal justice one, the most interesting one to me is the med mal one. For those who don't know, CA capped med mal damages a few decades ago and hasn't moved the cap since. Accidentally cut off the wrong leg? Sorry, you're capped a 250k. Or worse. It is pretty screwed up. Before the caps, a partner at my dad's law firm was in a terrible car accident and went way off the freeway. This was before cell phones. He crawled a mile to the nearest ER7, where they refused to treat him because they thought he was drunk (he was black) and called the police. Due to the delayed treatment, he never worked a day again and died after 20 years of pain and round the clock treatment. The should be no cap for that poo poo. On the other hand, I hate the idea of forcing drug tests on doctors (or anyone) when they aren't working.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Guy Farting posted:Healthcare costs will increase by an unpredictable amount if that bill goes through. Malpractice premiums are not an effective way of ensuring quality of care. Ultimately the cost of all those extra "defensive medicine" tests will be passed along to you via higher premiums and copays. Also, I don't disagree that it isn't an effective method for ensuring quality of care, but I don't give a poo poo. I care about the people who get damaged in terrible ways and only get $250k for not being a function human anymore. Not everyone gets economic damages -- a college student who can not work after his injury essentially gets nothing under the current law. Med mal premiums have gone up anyhow, despite a cap that has been decreasing in real terms anyhow. It amazes me how doctors understand just how hosed up medical insurers are and then believe the same companies when they blame lawsuits for the cost of malpractice insurance going up. Now, I would actually support the cap going away. Caps don't protect good doctors. Good doctors are scared of frivolous suits that tend to be in the tens of thousands in non-economic damages (and the number of these suits are much smaller than claimed -- those that pass the early phases of litigation are even smaller). Those people don't care about the cap. It doesn't stop them. The caps hurt the people who are seriously injured. Those with life long pain and loss of happiness due to gross malpractice. Those doctors and those who insure them deserve no protection. And those who are injured deserve to be made whole and have something to try to make up for the pain. nm fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Guy Farting posted:You don't think increasing caps will increase the number of frivolous lawsuits from predatory lawyers? Increased caps = increased settlement amounts from hospitals and insurers who don't want to fight these edge cases that you describe. The number of cases will increase. You know what costs us all a whole lot of money? Defending lawsuits against police officers alleged to have committed police brutality. There's even more money in it, and potential for settlement because 1983 suits award attorney fees to a party who brings a suit and wins. These lawsuits are paid for by all of us, by tax dollars. They take money that could go to rehabs, school, and community oriented policing. Mean while, these lawsuits could cause police officers to be slow to react, leading to more injured police officers, leading to increased workers comp billing. Yet, no one proposes caps on those types of lawsuits. Not even lawyers have been ballsy enough to propose caps on their malpractice. And again, this doesn't make the awards unlimited, just tied to inflation (with a one time bigger adjustment). Even if you're in favor of caps, you should agree that they should increase with inflation. In real terms, when the caps were imposed, the cap was over 1 million 2014 dollars. I am willing to risk paying more to make sure that people injured by very damaging malpractice get what they are due. nm fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Guy Farting posted:Thank you for the citations. I continue to agree with your points, but the proposed bill doesn't address this, which is my point. This bill doesn't get us anywhere closer to fixing the issues that you bring up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:I don't understand why doctors getting drug tested is a bad thing. Is it because it's only supposed to humiliate lower-wage workers or something? Plus when there are glorious examples for doctors in the world like Dr. Suresh Nair maybe some drug testing now and then isn't necessarily a bad thing? Because, I believe that it requires drug testing when off duty. I don't care if my doctor smokes a joint after work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Guy Farting posted:I disagree. If this bill passes then CA will take a step backwards with regards to actually caring for harmed patients. We will further entrench the current system. Malpractice suits don't come anywhere close to making patients whole. And what about the patients who lose their cases but still deserve help? This bill ignores them. Rewarding litigation? We're making people whole for doctor gently caress-ups. Yes, money doesn't make up for it, but it sure helps more than nothing and a few words about how we'll learn not to do it again. An example not from medicine. My mother was shot in the 3rd grade by a bunch of rich assholes. She lost sight out of her right eye. She won a fairly substantial lawsuit against the parents. While this didn't bring her eye back, it did means she could go to college on the money and get a Ph.D. Is it as good as an eye, but it gave someone who was knocked down by someone else a leg up. Why do you doctors think you are deserving of more legal protection than cops, lawyers, firefighters, or anyone else? I agree we should do more to protect patients and make sure errors are reduced. Saying however that because we haven't done that we should prevent those injured by doctors from recovery makes as much sense as saying that we can't help the dreamers until we seal up the borders. Finally, if we even agree that the $250k cap made sense back when it was imposed, when that was the equivalent for a million dollars, how can you seriously oppose it declining in real terms every year? nm fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Pete Rates the Propositions has started filling in his voting guide for this year. I agree with him most of the time (though not always), but even when I don't, his thoughts are informative. "At $1.1 million, it will be far higher than in any other state." Provides link to source that quickly shows that isn't true as many states have no cap. Mhum. . . .
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think we'll see a population exodus. I think it's much more likely that California's agricultural sector gradually collapses under the weight of the greater voting population of urban and suburban areas voting themselves what remains of California's water supply. Ag is much more important to CA than I think many people realize simply because if ag goes, the valley outside of Sacramento (already troubled) will collapse. That said, Ag in CA is incredibly wasteful with water because with current rates, it is cheaper to just buy the water than to minimize water use. Further, many of the big ag groups in CA have such huge allocations that they sell excess water to urban areas. Also, while urban areas have more voters, central valley farmers (the land owners) are often incredibly wealthy. This gives them a huge amount of clout.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Prop 46: Increased cap on medical malpractice lawsuits and random drug testing for physicians. I don't know: I understand the idea but think it goes a bit too far. Reps are against it, Dems tellingly haven't taken a side, although Boxer came out in favor. I'm voting no because gently caress random drug tests. Prop 47 is a great proposition that is gonna save a poo poo ton of money. It also will stop zealous prosecutors from putting people in prison for 4 years for loving shoplifting. For those who say it doesn't happen, I saw someone get that offer on Tuesday. Straight shoplifting of like $200. Her record was completely non-violent and all drugs and shoplifting. Also, it fixes some stupid issues. Simple possession of meth is right now a "wobbler" which means it can be a misdo. Do the same with coke or heroin, felony only. Prop 47 fixes that. Simple possession should always be a misdo and this makes it a misdo. Note that this drops many crimes to misdemeanors regardless of record (unless you have what is called a "super strike" or a sex offense). This is a good thing because possession and theft under $950 should always be misdemeanors. Anyone who votes no is an rear end in a top hat. I'm voting yes on prop 46. The problem is that we established a malpractice cap 30 years ago and never raised it. This raises the level to where it would be with inflation and ties it to inflation. Right now, if you're unemployed, and some quack ruins your life, you get $250,000 plus medical bills. If he cut your leg off, you probably want more. This cap does basically nothing to get rid of frivolous lawsuits as they're generally under $250k, but it hurts the hell out of people who have legitimate, serious losses. That said, gently caress drug tests. It isn't gonna pass anyhow, I'm voting yes in the hopes that it will be high enough they'll rework it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 04:35
|
|
I'm voting yes half because it's a great idea and half because gently caress Feinstein.
|
Sydin posted:Pretty much. The whole wobbler concept is bullshit, and non-violent drug offenses being felonies is one of the main contributors to our prison overcrowding.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If the prison guards union finally loses a political battle in CA I will be shocked and delighted. They lost both prop 36s too. I have hope. Also, realignment was and is a good thing and don't let anyone tell you different.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
They're reporting prop 47 passed. As a Public Defender, I'm pretty stoked. Its also gonna save so much loving money.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
AshB posted:
And they should lowball the offers more. To quote my (deeply red) county sheriff, "We should be housing the people we are afraid of, not the people we're made at." In any event, our jails are already massively overcrowded. DAs were opposed to this because they can't leverage people into plea deals on weak cases with the threat of long prison sentences. It makes their job harder, boo loving hoo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
AshB posted:I agree a felony 666 would take more money to prosecute than a misdemeanor 484. But at the same time, I would expect more new misdemeanor cases going to trial because there wouldn't be early resolutions. I am not totally opposed to this in principle, but I think there should be funding to support it. Because there won't be funding, it just means lowball offers with virtually no consequences for repeat offenders. I'm not sure how that's a good thing. I work in a county where I see people getting 8 year offers on 666s involving <$100 with nothing but 459, 484s, and 666s because of prison priors. No amount of my tax dollars is worth housing that person for 4 years to save wally world $100. It will have some bad consequences, but it will do more good than harm especially in inland counties where insane offers on petty poo poo are the norm. We'll probably go to trial less, because felons will take something less than a county year all day. nm fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:What the hell are 666s and 484s? 484=petty theft 666=petty theft with a prior (I would have saved that one for murder [187] or child loving [288]). 459=burglary. Generally 2nd degree commercial which is generally shoplifting. "459 1st" is residential burg. Lawyering broke me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
AshB posted:I do think though, that in an ideal world, misdemeanor prosecutors could keep on upping offers and taking these cases to trial. I think a year in jail would get the point across without the burden of several years in prison. But 47 will probably exacerbate the issue of overcrowded jails, and it's the poorer communities that will suffer for it. Long jail sentences don't really work anyhow because they won't even have CDCRs minimal programming in most places (we only have one small jail doing that with 2 massive jails and 1 medium jail with basically no programming).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Does getting your car impounded lead to it being forfeited in California? Here in Texas if you're doing something stupid enough to get the cops to tow you (drag racing, etc) you usually just have to pay the fine to get your car back from the impound. No, they're not seizing those cars. The tow yards going to make a lot of fees, but no one's car is getting seized off that. Asset fortifier for anything but cash is even extremely rare even in my right wing part of CA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
MUNI is terrible until you compare it to every other US public transit system that isn't in Manhattan. Now the Bay Area generally has poo poo public transit if you don't live near a BART/Caltrain stop (and where you need to go is on the same system).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:What fraction of the long term homeless are mentally ill? Huge. Not all of them are pants on the head crazy, but it still is a serious issue. Many of them self-medicate with drugs or alcohol, which can make the MH issues worse. Lots of people argue that a fair number of homeless chose to be homeless. Most that actually do are mentally ill and whatever service offered doesn't mesh with the help offered. For example, I had a client who had been homeless for years. Vet. Drinking himself into an early grave. We lined up a spot at Salvation Army. He had been in jail, sober and was loving ready. Excited. We found his sister, who hadn't seen him in years to drive him to Oakland (we were in the burbs). She did and she dropped him off. Apparently, he had been diagnoised with anxiety at sometime, told them, and was rejected. His ride had already left, they didn't call anyone, and he was 50mi from home. I never saw him again, I hope he is still alive. I will never give salvation army a loving dime again. nm fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Pohl posted:How California's New Rules Are Scrambling The Egg Industry The year this passed basically showed why propositions suck. Prop8 passed and we passed this feel good bullshit law that defines nothing. If they had gone through a proper legislative process, these questions would have been resolved. nm fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:LA used to have more passenger rail, but its backyards now. You would take street car from Downtown to San Bernardino.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They'll choose none of the above. The man behind the curtain? Also a boomer. Shbobdb posted:People who say they like Adam Smith should actually read Adam Smith. He spent a lot of time addressing these issues. I know that isn't really what they are saying here, but it comes up all the time and I'm just sitting there yelling "come on!". I'm not even getting into Theory of Moral Sentiments, dude talked about similar poo poo in Wealth of Nations! If Adam Smith was alive today, I'm sure he'd be attacked as a socialist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
etalian posted:In N Out is actually how Californians hide terrorist sleeper cells in other states SHHHHHHHH!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Today protesters blocked Highway 17 near Santa Cruz to protest tuition hikes at the UCs. Then why does it say this: quote:They chanted: “No justice, no peace. (Expletive) the police.” Or are millennial protesters just terrible at protesting?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Having protested a fair amount, chants get recycled. Especially when you are bored as gently caress. But a completely off-topic chant? I mean this did seem organized, a few chants about tuition increases might have helped. Also, blocking the admin building or occupying a floor would make more sense if that is what they wanted to do. Especially as the admin at the UCs have expanded massively since the 80s (though funding has also been cut back).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
The whole thing is a shitfest between an administration that won't cut its bloated self, and the tax payers who won't pay enough to fund a truly world-class system. I hate to go all truth is in the middle, but it is mostly true here, though I blame the tax payers more as even with reduced admin, the UC will be underfunded, particularly if it will use tenure track people like they should. The students are stuck in the middle. California voters do oppose the tuition increases. However, the alternatives for funding are cutting classes, teaching staff, and admitting few instate students in favor of out-of-states, which they also supported in the same poll as the alternative to increases. Shbobdb posted:Likewise, the kind of person who is going to do a protest like that is going to have a lot of political feelings. They are gonna chant about all of 'em. And they should. No one accuses MLK of being "unfocused" on civil rights because he spent a lot of energy on anti-war and economic justice. nm fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:UCSC was laid out to minimize the ability to do anything like this in response to various historical UCB happenings. (Anecdotal story from UCSC professor.) Ucsb was established in 65, before most of the UCB protests.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Hey man, they get pensions. Even I don't get a pension! Better cut compensation in order to boost the quality of teaching. Good news, the UC has cut back on tenured positions, so they've done that already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 20:00
|
|