News Arizona Utility Official Threatens to Cut Off Electricity to Los Angeles

[IcedEcliptic]

Isn't living in LA punishment enough? :)

 

[mheslep]

Well yes, without knowledge of the agreement anything is speculation. But really, the utility companies are in the *power* business, they aren't investment groups (especially in 1976 or so, when the Palo Verde deal was being put together). ...

Yes I was going to counter that today many of them look like investment groups (e.g. Duke Power) , but I think you are right about the 1976 era.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yes I was going to counter that today many of them look like investment groups (e.g. Duke Power) , but I think you are right about the 1976 era.

Shouldn't the contract be on record in the relevant courts? Does anyone have access to Lexisnexis? Maybe we really could discuss the details and see if this is pure posturing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't living in LA punishment enough? :)

Lots of bars, clubs, good restaurants, beaches, pretty ladies in scant clothing... yeah I feel punished. ;-)

 

[tiresmokindad]

In response to LA's threatened boycott of all things Arizona, an official of Arizona's version of a Public Utilities Commission (http://www.azcc.gov/divisions/administration/about.asp" !

This is getting uug-lee..

Thanks for the information and news! If Arizona will continue to cut the power, I think the city will begin to have a bad situation.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Lots of bars, clubs, good restaurants, beaches, pretty ladies in scant clothing... yeah I feel punished. ;-)

All true, all true, but then those ladies start to talk, and the clubs get old, and if one more person says they "love yah" you start to think of what they would look like hanging from a butcher's hook. Pollution on a grand scale, traffic that would make a Jesuit curse the name of God, and a fault that should have its own "ticking time-bomb" soundtrack.

New York City has the restaurants, the clubs, no beaches to be fair, PRETTY women, and you trade a fault and "I love you" for terrorism and "**** you". I prefer an honest "up yours!" to a false "love you!". I prefer real cleavage to that only found in catalogs and the fever dreams of R. Crumb. I prefer a universal and moderate threat to the eventual catastrophe of an earthquake.

Now San Fransisco would almost be worth the fault.

 

[Char. Limit]

I have to disagree with that last sentence... No city is worth the 9.0 earthquake (or higher!) that is going to happen at some point... And you never know exactly when. Could be 50,000 years from now, could be next week.

That's why I live in a city where there are no major earthquakes, no major floods, no major volcanoes (barring the one), no major windstorms... no real disasters at all. Although we did get a minitornado once. It was pretty cool, but it never touched the ground.

 

[edward]

The local scoop.


The statement made by the chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission was more symbolic than anything.

The Sheriffs in the border counties have stated that they will not enforce the law.

On the other hand the situation here is a bit frantic. We have seen a sharp turn to the far right in government in this past year.

Just two weeks before signing the immigration law, the governor signed a new concealed weapons law.

Anyone who can legally own a handgun may carry it concealed anywhere without a permit. No weapons training is required.

Permits are still available for those who may wish to carry out of state. The permit is issued only after completion of a firearms safety class with live fire and a background check.

Shortly before the firearms law the governor signed a birther law requiring anyone on the presidential ballot in AZ to show a valid birth certificate to the state Attorney General.

There were a number of off of the wall attempts at passing other wing nut bills this past year.

The militia types are loving it.

From a personal perspective the only thing I like about the immigration law is that it finally got the politicians to take a close look at what is happening on the border.

As far as massively enforcing the new law goes, Arizona simply can not afford it.

As for ICE, the dentention centers for illegals are already full. ICE has announced that it will not enforce the law because they are a federal agency.

 

[mheslep]

...

As for ICE, the dentention centers for illegals are already full. ICE has announced that it will not enforce the law because they are a federal agency.

Eh, not quite.

“his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials.”

Why?

“I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution",

http://www.examiner.com/x-45209-LA-...2-Head-of-ICE-might-not-carry-out-Arizona-law

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Eh, not quite.


Why?

http://www.examiner.com/x-45209-LA-...2-Head-of-ICE-might-not-carry-out-Arizona-law

Simple question, how much money will be spent training police, and on lawsuits? What percentage of 11+ million illegal immigrants to the USA are likely to be caught and deported as a result? I hear a lot about slowing down the influx, but there is no data I've seen to show that this will be an effective means of that either. Given that, how is this a solution, except as a balm for the electorate?

 

[Char. Limit]

There is no solution. The country is spiraling, through conflicts such as this one, out of control. It's also spiraling down, down, down, and I'm not sure if we can get back up again.

At least the Pacific Northwest will always be ok. No major disasters like La Raza, Katrina 2.1, Hyperconservative Arizonans, or Washington D .C. (classified as a natural distaster by the EPA, that city was) up here!

I laugh at Californians and Arizonans, as well as our neighbors to the west (Seattle). Four inches of snow is a citywide emergency? Try four feet!

 

[mheslep]

Deporting existing illegals is incidental, not the goal. The goal is stop future illegal flows across the border. Do that, and I imagine most Americans would favor creating a path to legalization for current illegals in the US.

 

[Proton Soup]

Deporting existing illegals is incidental, not the goal. The goal is stop future illegal flows across the border. Do that, and I imagine most Americans would favor creating a path to legalization for current illegals in the US.

not me. i'd send every one of them back. since seeing "Chasing El Norte", and seeing their double standard regarding immigrants and their own southern border and treatment of Hondurans, I've lost sympathy for them. they are a hypocritical and mean-spirited people. if we need immigrant workers, we can send ships down to Honduras to transport them here safely. mexico just wants our money, and their own laws regarding illegal immigrants are much harsher than ours.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

All interesting, and how do you "send every one of them back"? If these people are so terrible, what should be the penalty to their employers? No trabajo aqui, and your problem is done, except for drugs... which is a supply and demand issue. 11+ million people, in a country the size of the USA? Good luck. Personally I think Americans demonize illegal immigrants because they can't figure or enact a practical solution, so hostility is all that is left. Of course, if the economy continues this way, it may be the problem is solved for you.

 

[Nebula815]

People chatter about Bush being conservative, but his military policies were anything BUT conservative. Obama is liberal, but he's mainly centrist, and saddled with a greedy and incompetent congress. His policies on gay participation in the military is verbally liberal, but practically conservative.

I would not say Obama is a centrist, he is a leftist. A centrist does not resort to reconciliation to ram through a massive healthcare bill the people don't want and that he cannot even defend or explain, or seek to push through carbon regulations like he has. One look at his history and people he has in his administration also demonstrate this. Obama pushed Congress to pass healthcare, not the other way around.

Bush's military policies were extremely conservative. Financially, he was very left-leaning with regards to policies like his expansion of healthcare, his expansion of the federal government into education, etc...but on war, remember, conservatives are against war unless they perceive something to be a major growing threat. Which is what Saddam Hussein was seen as. To prevent any kind of real, imminent threat from forming, which can lead to a real war or a real crisis, you sometimes have to take pre-emptive military action and eliminate the threat, which is what Bush did with regards to Hussein.

 

[Nebula815]

All interesting, and how do you "send every one of them back"? If these people are so terrible, what should be the penalty to their employers? No trabajo aqui, and your problem is done, except for drugs... which is a supply and demand issue. 11+ million people, in a country the size of the USA? Good luck. Personally I think Americans demonize illegal immigrants because they can't figure or enact a practical solution, so hostility is all that is left. Of course, if the economy continues this way, it may be the problem is solved for you.

People do not like the illegals that commit crimes, kidnapping, and murders, and the ones that come here to suck off the taxpayer. However, I agree that deportation would never work. That would require a roundup that would put the Nazi roundup of the Jewish to shame. However, illegals who are caught committing crimes, they should most certainly be sent packing.

The solution to the whole thing I'd say is to build a fence (like Israel did to stop terrorists from coming across their border) and then grant the existing illegals amnesty because the flow has been stopped.

 

[Char. Limit]

I would not say Obama is a centrist, he is a leftist. A centrist does not resort to reconciliation to ram through a massive healthcare bill the people don't want and that he cannot even defend or explain, or seek to push through carbon regulations like he has. One look at his history and people he has in his administration also demonstrate this. Obama pushed Congress to pass healthcare, not the other way around.

And that would be a great argument, except for the fact that you're making huge assumptions about what "the American people" do or do not want. For every opinion poll you can find that "the American people" oppose this bill, I could find at least one that finds that "the American people" support it. But unless you ask all 330 million people, the best you've got is a wild guess.

Bush's military policies were extremely conservative. Financially, he was very left-leaning with regards to policies like his expansion of healthcare, his expansion of the federal government into education, etc...but on war, remember, conservatives are against war unless they perceive something to be a major growing threat. Which is what Saddam Hussein was seen as. To prevent any kind of real, imminent threat from forming, which can lead to a real war or a real crisis, you sometimes have to take pre-emptive military action and eliminate the threat, which is what Bush did with regards to Hussein.

Oh, please. Every single one of the last three Republican presidents we've had have gotten us into one or more wars or similar military undertakings. George III had the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which completely missed the point, considering that Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Bush Sr. got us involved in the Persian Gulf War. Ronald Reagan, the Conservative Messiah, had that whole Star Wars, Evil Empire, Iran-Contra, Iran-Iraq war going on. So don't tell me that conservatives don't like war. Their track record shows a stark contrast to your words.

 

[edward]

People don't seem to realize that deportation is just a revolving door. With our vast open border, they simply turn around and come back.

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/deported-immigrants.html

 

[Nebula815]

And that would be a great argument, except for the fact that you're making huge assumptions about what "the American people" do or do not want. For every opinion poll you can find that "the American people" oppose this bill, I could find at least one that finds that "the American people" support it. But unless you ask all 330 million people, the best you've got is a wild guess.

If the American people really had wanted it, Obama and the Democrats would not have had such a hard time getting it passed in the first place, and then ultimately having to ram it through.

Also, it isn't a wild guess. Polls are very statistical in how they do them. Good polls are educated guesses. For example, right after 9/11, Bush had very high support in the polls. Later on, his poll ratings really tanked. I think the polls were fairly accurate.

The unemployment rate also is done through statistics with samples. They can't call up everyone in the country and ask their employment situation.

TV show ratings also are a statistic that has to be calculated from samples.

Oh, please. Every single one of the last three Republican presidents we've had have gotten us into one or more wars or similar military undertakings.

Reagan did not get us into any extensive military undertaking.

George III had the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which completely missed the point, considering that Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi.

Neither of these missed the point. Leaving Afghanistan go through the 1990s is what led us up to 9/11. As for Iraq, it was believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was growing to be an imminent threat. He was a man who had attacked two neighboring countries, attacked two other countries, and used chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands. His Baath party was modeled on the Nazi party.

He was viewed as a very grave growing threat that had to be dealt with. BTW, it was Bill Clinton who made it official U.S. policy to depose of Saddam. Bush just actually went through with it.

Bush Sr. got us involved in the Persian Gulf War.

Because Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we won that war easily.

Ronald Reagan, the Conservative Messiah, had that whole Star Wars, Evil Empire, Iran-Contra, Iran-Iraq war going on.

The Strategic Defense Initiative was started to develop missile defense capabilities against nuclear weapons, and I think is still a very sound concept to keep working towards. A missile defense system that has around a 70% chance or higher of shooting down a missile launched by a nation like Iran or North Korea provides a huge advantage.

On the Evil Empire, well he just told the truth. The Soviet Union was an evil empire. It brutally oppressed people and the only thing that kept it from conquering all of Europe was the United States. The Soviets were not going to go to war over being called the evil empire.

Iran-Contra was one of Reagan's blunders, but was done as part of a strategy to fight the Soviets. The Iran-Iraq War was similar.

So don't tell me that conservatives don't like war. Their track record shows a stark contrast to your words.

No it doesn't. In fact, it shows conservatives clearly hate war, but are willing to use force to stop threats from sprouting up when necessary. That is a core tenet of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism arose as a direct response to the horrors of Nazism and Soviet communism. It emphasizes very strong national defense and a complete no-nonsense approach to foreign policy. That confuses a lot of people, the idea that to prevent a war, you need to use military force sometimes, but it is the truth.

For example, a neoconservative would have gone in and knocked out Hitler's Nazi regime long before it became an imminent threat. Then said neoconservative probably would have been blamed for destroying what would have been a bullwark against the evils of Soviet Communism and thus gave us the Cold War

Real war is something historically beloved by the political Left, because it unites industry and state. The Progressives supported U.S. entry into World War I and also liked the effects of World War II for these reasons. Lyndon Johnson took us into Vietnam. Nixon, the "warmonger," is the one who ended the Vietnam War when he opened Northern Vietnam and Cambodia up to bombing finally.

Today's left differ from the Progressives in that they do not like formal war, but rather the moral equivalency of war; I'm sure you've heard how some on the Left want a WWII-style effort to combat global warming for example. They always want something to make everyone hold hands and march in lockstep and to unite industry and state, to give the government wide-reaching powers over the economy.

Conservatives recognize this danger of war, plus war as a whole sucks anyhow, so they do not support it unless absolutely necessary, and are willing to use force to stop a threat from arising, which may incur some casualities, but casualties viewed as peanuts compared with what otherwise might occur. War has everything conservatives hate: infringement on individual liberties, government takeover of the economy, and people having to go and die. The U.S. was lucky in that the socialists attempts to make America socialist with WWI and WWII both failed.

Neoconservatism simply holds a very, very skeptical view about the world. It understands that peace is very fragile and is only maintained through strength. Weakness invites aggression. Thus you always maintain a strong defense so that if necessary you can act pre-emptively to put down any such aggressors so a truly serious threat doesn't arise.

Iraq and Afghanistan, while they suck, are jokes from a historical standpoint as "wars." The U.S. isn't really at war, it's military is. No one has to sacrifice except the families of the soldiers. We lost around 30,000 in Korea, 50,000 in Vietnam, yet "only" about 4,300 thus far in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. All wars stink, but these are peanuts compared to what can happen if terrorists ever detonate a nuke in the U.S. in a major city or a rogue nation became too strong but needed to be stopped. Korea and Vietnam were considered "small" in comparison to the big wars (WWI and WWII). Korea so much so some call it the forgotten war.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Nebula, that's some "enhanced interrogation" logic you have there.

 

[Nebula815]

Twisty logic is the administration calling terrorism "man made disasters" IMO.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Twisty logic is the administration calling terrorism "man made disasters" IMO.

You just post right-wing talking points, sans evidence, in every thread you're in? What's the deal with that? If this is going to be your MO, at least start backing up your diatribes.

 

[Nebula815]

You just post right-wing talking points, sans evidence, in every thread you're in? What's the deal with that? If this is going to be your MO, at least start backing up your diatribes.

I have done no such thing. I would be terrible at writing talking points. Talking points have a reason for their name: you can say them as a point, not writing a paragraph. I try to explain my points. As for other things, I thought a lot of it was common knowledge.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I have done no such thing. I would be terrible at writing talking points. Talking points have a reason for their name: you can say them as a point, not writing a paragraph. I try to explain my points. As for other things, I thought a lot of it was common knowledge.

If it is common knowledge, citing that should be easy, so please do. For the talking points, I said you echo them, not that you write them. That is the whole aim of a talking point; a meme that can be passed until it is "common knowledge" or rather, commonly accepted.

 

[Nebula815]

If it is common knowledge, citing that should be easy, so please do. For the talking points, I said you echo them, not that you write them. That is the whole aim of a talking point; a meme that can be passed until it is "common knowledge" or rather, commonly accepted.

Except they aren't memes passed around, they are positions that Obama has actively supported and ran on.

It is Obama who said he wanted to raise taxes in the name of "fairness" and "economic justice" and whatnot. He said that in multiple debates and speeches.

Obama himself has spoken numerous times about cap-and-trade, and got into a battle with the Chamber of Commerce because they don't support it. When Congress said they can't pass cap-and-trade right now, the administration said they would allow the EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant, essentially bypassing the legislative.

Obama's position on abortion is so extreme that the right-wing equivalent would be a pro-life person who believes birth control is evil and if a pregnancy threatens the mother, she should risk it anyway. He voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. NARAL was okay with the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

The Employee Free Choice Act (an Orwellian name for union card check), Obama was one of the co-sponsors.

And universal healthcare was one of Obama's primary campaign promises.

None of these are talking points.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Except they aren't memes passed around, they are positions that Obama has actively supported and ran on.

It is Obama who said he wanted to raise taxes in the name of "fairness" and "economic justice" and whatnot. He said that in multiple debates and speeches.

Obama himself has spoken numerous times about cap-and-trade, and got into a battle with the Chamber of Commerce because they don't support it. When Congress said they can't pass cap-and-trade right now, the administration said they would allow the EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant, essentially bypassing the legislative.

Obama's position on abortion is so extreme that the right-wing equivalent would be a pro-life person who believes birth control is evil and if a pregnancy threatens the mother, she should risk it anyway. He voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. NARAL was okay with the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

The Employee Free Choice Act (an Orwellian name for union card check), Obama was one of the co-sponsors.

And universal healthcare was one of Obama's primary campaign promises.

None of these are talking points.

OK, but I am forced to take your word for it, or research it myself. Again, you make the claim, so you provide the research, links, and so forth. It may seem silly to you, but why should I just say, "Oh yes, this person online is speaking gospel truth"? I am not saying you lie, but you could be wrong, or misinformed.

 

[mheslep]

.So don't tell me that conservatives don't like war. Their track record shows a stark contrast to your words.

Conservatives don't like war.

 

[Nebula815]

OK, but I am forced to take your word for it, or research it myself. Again, you make the claim, so you provide the research, links, and so forth. It may seem silly to you, but why should I just say, "Oh yes, this person online is speaking gospel truth"? I am not saying you lie, but you could be wrong, or misinformed.

So you need sources to "prove" to you that Obama wants to raise taxes, enact card check, enact cap-and-trade, ran on universal (government) healthcare, etc...

 

[Proton Soup]

Conservatives don't like war.

enough of this. they all like war. liberals just pretend to not like war when they're not the ones waging it.

 

[Nebula815]

No one likes war. Even if you have strict politicians who could give a crap either way, war is very risky from a political standpoint. But from a moral standpoint as well, most do not like war.