Re:How California Is Winning the Drought
by rebootthesystem on Saturday August 15, 2015 @12:51AM
(#10064357)
> Perhaps you think the people at the agencies have the ability to ignore the law and carry out their own agenda, and there's no recourse?
You obviously haven't dealt with government enough then. I've done a ton of business with multiple government agencies over the last 30 years or so. My father for about 70 years and on three continents. Thinking that government agencies do not behave badly and above the law is, I am sorry to say, a really naive position that can only come from a lack of experience (and, in that case, understandable). Government agencies are people, not machines, and we are flawed in a million different ways.
If you don't think government agencies don't behave unethically or badly, just read this:
http://www.unclefed.com/TxprBoR/JWWade.html
And there are a million more like that if you dig far enough.
I think you need to start backing up your rhetoric with facts. As it stands, you are just spreading innuendo and FUD. Anecdotes about lifelong Democrat parents and a table full of relatives talking up Donald Trump are great stories, but that's all they are. It's obvious Trump has people interested, the polls show that. But if they are seriously considering Trump and his non-plans as a viable future after being Democrats, in what way are they not the exact people that caused the problems you seem to be railing against here?
> The proof is in the trees. Nobody could see past the rules/ideology to focus on the damage would ensue from not finding a solution to the problem.
You mean the trees, which as the OP mentioned, are having problems due to beetle infestations caused by drought? In what way is the drought the fault of environmentalists? Do you think a water plant in Cambria will somehow make the area no longer susceptible the massive ecological ramifications of a state-wide drought?
> There's nothing wrong with regulations. Nowhere did I say that regulations are bad. It's more about being sensible about things.
No, you just jumped from regulatory agencies preventing something to saying environmental Nazis prevented it. Perhaps you think the people at the agencies have the ability to ignore the law and carry out their own agenda, and there's no recourse? Forgive me if I'm having trouble parsing what your intention was with the original statement, the logic didn't seem sound to me, so I had to assume the point you were trying to make.
> Again, today, you could not build San Francisco. Period. You couldn't even start. Think about that for a moment.
Even if I accepted this completely unsubstantiated statement as truth, have you bothered to think about what it means? Since when do we just build cities like San Francisco? San Francisco is the way it is because it was built up over a couple centuries. Would we want to build a city with portions of it built to the standards of the 19th century? Even if we could build a large city to current standards, why would we? Why not build something better?
> We have allowed things to devolve to the point where we are damaging our ability to function and drive progress.
At some point you should really try backing up these expansive statements about the state of country with actual evidence. It might go over better.