Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TRUE_TRUTH who wrote (85511)	1/28/2001 12:31:21 PM
From: Eclectus	Respond to of 95453

T_T RE: Editorial from the Los Angeles Times An interesting article! Thanks for providing it to all... Eclectus

To: TRUE_TRUTH who wrote (85511)	1/28/2001 12:31:24 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

OT: Read that in this morning's paper. Interesting anomaly in the article: a government-centric focus (as though the gov't is proxy for the people), yet without mentioning the significantly different levels of freedom gov't leaves to the people in each state. Is the ascendancy of Texas really about a rival nation-state, armed with superior political power and a more vital economic culture, set[ting] its mind to assaulting California's most strategic industries? I see the situation being that W, like most Texans, wants more limited gov't than most Californians and is now in the fortunate position of being able to do something to further it. What can California do to meet this challenge? Perhaps the most important thing is to recover its sense of statehood. . . . only economic growth can provide a decent future for the vast majority of its residents. It isn't a sense of "statehood" California needs to nourish, it's a sense that capitalism is a better answer to growth-related problems than turning to the State nanny to solve them. I lived for a year in California in the '70s. I loved the land and liked the people. It's a tribute to that land and those people that the state is still as strong as it is, given the number of control freaks with influence in its government. The bigger story is that (as I see it, as a generalization) those politicos really do represent most Californians, just as W represents most Texans. That makes ideology even more significant than culture in explaining why California, with huge advantages in location, geography, and people, isn't far ahead of Texas by every measure.