See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 5520
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state. They will also be plagued by race riots as soon as the US dollar collapses and debt increases will not buy more free stuff. You cannot project our past to predict our future.
Just wait till the Mexicans take over "Atzlan" (their fictional land). They will turn it into the same kind of $#ithole they are trying to escape.
I've had some recent contacts in the CA food industry, and many crops that were normally grown in the state are started to get imported directly from Mexico. They pay laborers less down in Mexico than growers are obligated legally to pay them here, and I imagine there is less agricultural oversight to have to deal with too.
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
bullshit
bullshit Mono Lake? Salinas Valley? Sacramento Delta? Bakersfield, Taft? Any reason for running sprinklers in the daylight instead of night, potty mouth?
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
Just a quick point: farmfriend has consistently updated the water shortage issues in California based upon federal restriction guidelines, particularly in the central valley area which used to be the breadbasket of the world (now just a dustbowl with farming communities dying and where unemployment runs as high as 25%). She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save. BTW, I have always enjoyed your posts (as I do farmfriend's). Please keep doing so on 4um.
I don't believe we have an either/or choice where it's choosing production or saving species. All across the US the entire ecosystem has been trashed in little more than 100 years. When the Great Plains were first cultivated there was over 12-18 inches of topsoil just about everywhere. Then by the 1930's we had the "Dust Bowl," and today the norm for good soil there is about 4 inches. The silt has clearly washed down the Mississippi/Missouri river basin and dozens of miles into the Gulf - where now it gets mixed with oily goo. People back then just didn't care about the future, until big bad government decided to make them care. Not that the government choices thesmelves were always right, but at least it was movement into the right direction. So all this talk about the goodness of private enterprise and the badness of govenment control is really a big joke. Then take Colorado/Nevada/Arizona/Imperial Valley. The same type of waste and trashing of water resources. Added to this the violation of water treaties promising a certain amount of water to go into Mexico they can use for their own agriculture. The US has never delivered on those commitments to Mexico. Then some Americans complain when Mexican farm labor comes north to where the water is. Working west, the misuse of Sierra water for placer mining in the Gold Rush, then the construction of huge inefficient irrigation projects to move San Joaquin Delta water into parts of the Central Valley where lots of it evaporated, and some of the rest leached poisons into toxic cesspools like Kesterson. Even further west, over pumping of Salinas River Valley water causing salt water intrusion into the ground water table. Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions. Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. All these practices could have and should have been done more carefully and more with an eye to conserving for future generations. They weren't done that way because so-called free market forces were allowed to run rampant. And now we have the consequences of this systematic destruction of what was only 200 years ago was pristine agricultural land from sea to sea. Bottom line is the government is going to step in, and there are some people who are motivated to keeping and even improving what is left, and any people who don't like it are just going to have to get off the train and walk to where they're going. Because the train is not going to stop to please them. All the blather about eco-weenies, smelt-lovers, Gaia worshippers, leftists, property rights, Brave New World, government tyranny, etc. is not going to cut it because the "free market" forces have made a substantial hole in the system in little more than 100 years, and there are enough people wanting to see that hole start to get plugged that it will happen.
There is so much wrong with what you have posted I don't even know where to begin. I can tell you that buying into the enviro propaganda doesn't mean you have the truth. And government regulation isn't the answer. Never has been despite what you say and think. Sigh, where to start.
Among other things "government regulation" has never caused the strippage of nearly a foot of topsoil from the Great Plains, nor did it cause John Muir to refer to sheep as "hooved locusts" and register similar protests to wholesale cattle farming. Nor did government cause the Dust Bowl in the 1930's. American farmers were free to do whatever they felt like for years. And they did and much of the American ag environment was trashed. Among other things they were free to sell their land to the agribusinesses you find more convenient to blame. Amerian farmers were even free to require their workers to use back- injuring tools that were later found to be less productive than ones that don't cause injuries. The problem with your pipe dreams about free market and environment is whenever you come up against a fact that doesen't dovetail into your concepts, you simply deny it is part of free market or blame business and government for its existence. And enviro treehuggers can see that clearly and that is why they will continue moving towards changes. I do believe that the power of agribusinesses to lobby should be decreased especially if money is used.
Again you conflate observations of events and draw conclusions unsupported by your examples. From the point of view of logic and sound reasoning they have little support or support is completely absent. They are assumptions which you assume to be true, conclusions, but for which there is nothing validating to prove their truth. Pardon me if I get a bit clinical here as this, while not intended to be insulting, could get a bit brutal. Again, this is NOT intended as a personal attack, but I also will not abide sloppy reasoning - you are an intelligent person, who means well, but that does not mean that your reasoning is sound. That itself is a logic error - assuming that because someone is a good person that therefore their reasoning is correct or sound. For example you imply that farmers willfully "trashed the environment" a conclusion which is wholly unsupported by any logical, or provable, set of data. In fact one could gather and present a considerable weight of evidence to the contrary. Farmers, following sound practice, seek to improve their holdings, its value, and their return on their work invested. This can be easily observed by visiting any viable family farm - you will find animals well tended, fields watered and fertilized, and crops gathered as efficiently as possible. Take your earlier example of the short handled hoe. Do you think farmers required that of their workers because they wished them harm and wanted to see them all crippled with back pain? Not likely. More likely, and for which your argument provides indirect support, is that they thought, erroneously as it turns out, that it was the best method to use to hoe the fields. People do reach erroneous conclusions and become set in their ways i.e., they do not always react logically and rationally. That applies equally to farm workers - who have had a culture eschewing education and enter multiple generations of doing the same menial work for the same low wages. In other words it is an assumption and a prejudice unfounded and unsupported. Take further your example of the "Dust Bowl". You assume, in prejudice, that the dust bowl's sole cause was greedy farmers without ever supporting it factually or demonstrating a mechanism by which these foul cretins intentionally destroyed their homes, their livelihood, and their families. Let's examine that from a factual perspective. Where did the dust bowl occur? In Plains States largely along the Mississippi drainage. So, what is the Mississipi river drainage and what does it have to do with soil viability and farming? Where did all that rich topsoil, as deep as 18 inches in some places, come from? Hands please? No, it did not just happen. It was a result of Mississippi river flooding. One of the indirect consequences of the Tennessee Valley Authority (a government project) in concert with the Army Corps of Engineers (a government agency) was to erect works and dams along the Mississippi Drainage to control flooding and produce electricity. One of the unintended consequences of "controlling" the Mississippi was to prevent the repleneshing of the riverine system with fresh layers of sediment i.e., topsoil. Along with that the region experienced a decade or so of abnormally low rainfall. And so the two had a predictable, in hindsight, outcome. No new topsoil depositation meant that the type of farming which was prevalent, and until that time successful, combined with extended drought resulted in the rich soil drying out, turning to dust, and blowing away. While today we do know ways of mitigating that you assume from a viewpoint of knowledge gained after the fact that automatically it was the result greedy farmers despoiling the land and foul free market of free individuals pursuing rational self interest that caused the drought and the unintended consequences of the TVA (which is erroneously sold in history texts as a panacea and as an example of the wisdom of government control of natural resouces - balderash, it is a thick layer of pro-government bullshit written by people whose closest contact with a real farm is a Sunday drive after having been primed with disinformation written by ignorant journalists with a political agenda) had nothing to do with it. Since I am not going to write a full history text to correct all of your misconceptions just one other point on the Plains region. (And much of this applies almost equally to the Imperial Valley - which was formerly arid land and made to blossom by the industry of farmers through tapping into the aquifer to provide the needed water to support the crops). One of the problems farmers are now running into there now is the depletion of the Oglalla Aquifer which was tapped into heavily beginning in the 1930's WITH THE BLESSING AND AID OF GOVERNMENT without regard to the long term affects of depleting the aquifer. In fact as a result of lack of knowledge it was not even, until the 1970's (if I recall correctly) that such depletion was even a problem. So, again you attribute base motives to people without knowledge of the true circumstances. It is farmers now leading the way by switching to low water varieties, which actually is more profitable but produces a lower yield per acre, which do not require heavy irrigation from the rapidly depleting aquifer. Ask the farmers of the Klamath Basin how government intervention aided their farming. Most of them are going broke and having to sell off their farms, which their parents and grandparents established in the 1920's, '30's, and '40's, and who were encouraged to begin - in many cases by government incentives. With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker. With their water cut off the crops dried and died. All with the beneficial hand of government and not the action of the free market. I could easily spend another several hours relieving you of your lack of knowledge, but I learned all of this largely on my own and the information is freely available assuming you would rather know what you are talking about rather than robotically repeating cliches and propaganda implanted by environmental groups run by city dwellers supported by wealthy foundations operating on a political agenda opposed to individual liberty.
The Great Plains started with over 18 inches of topsoil before American farmers - not agribusinesses, just regular growers - got it down to less than 6 in under 100 years. That's what I term trashing. In their opinions, which can be wrong especially if they don't take the time and trouble to cooperate with scientific research. No, they were ignorant, partially motivated by greed, had some racial prejudice, and were in the end flat-out wrong. Just like their protesting requirements to have sanitation in the fields - another evil government mandate. I've already told you I've done several consulting projects for food industry businesses with direct grower contacts and contracts. You're the one in this instance spouting propaganda. Corporate farming didn't even catch on until after private individuals degraded the land and felt a need to get out.
There are no replies to Comment # 44. End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Horse (#1)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state.
#6. To: James Deffenbach, Horse, abraxas (#3)
#7. To: AGAviator (#6)
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
#10. To: AGAviator, abraxas (#8)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#13. To: AGAviator (#12)
potty mouth?
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
#16. To: AGAviator, farmfriend (#14)
(Edited)
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
(Edited)
She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save.
#21. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#17)
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier.
#38. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#21)
There is so much wrong with what you have posted I don't even know where to begin. I can tell you that buying into the enviro propaganda doesn't mean you have the truth. And government regulation isn't the answer. Never has been despite what you say and think. Sigh, where to start.
#41. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, Lod, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#38)
Among other things "government regulation" has never caused the strippage of nearly a foot of topsoil from the Great Plains, nor did it cause John Muir to refer to sheep as "hooved locusts" and register similar protests to wholesale cattle farming. Nor did government cause the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
#44. To: Original_Intent (#41)
For example you imply that farmers willfully "trashed the environment" a conclusion which is wholly unsupported by any logical, or provable, set of data. In fact one could gather and present a considerable weight of evidence to the contrary.
Farmers, following sound practice, seek to improve their holdings, its value, and their return on their work invested.
Take your earlier example of the short handled hoe. Do you think farmers required that of their workers because they wished them harm and wanted to see them all crippled with back pain? Not likely.
Available assuming you would rather know what you are talking about rather than robotically repeating cliches and propaganda implanted by environmental groups run by city dwellers.
Replies to Comment # 44.