Well, of course there are a range views on what sort of development folks in different parts of different metro areas want. Generally though, most folks who have actually thought about these issues (and understand that no car will actually be getting 200+ MPG even in 2015 because the numbers are based on an odd formula including battery life) will not rail against verdant suburbs.
The changes, we need are quite specific: 1)Less Exurban development 2)Making suburbs more walkable and bikeable 3)Connecting suburbs to real cities with real transit
Of course, other folks might take a harder line, but real cities that have proper development will fair best in the long term both economically and quality of life.
You have no idea. Back before the car was born, New York and other Northeast cities were so full of horseshit that people could barely walk. The manure was piled high, and it was the man reason the subway was born, to help eliminate the smelly mess. You think cars are dirty? Horses in the 1800s were far, far worse.
When you reference sanitation and the development of the subway system what you are really emphasizing is the need for robust infrastructure and forward-oriented urban planning. And no, cars to not belong in either category as they are not scalable. Certainly in a transition toward more livable and sustainable cities there is a place for you and your 80MPG car and for grid-powered cars. Just like the massive sewage system London built after the fire in 1666, cities need to address the issues of today with long-term planning, not simply an improvement in gas mileage.
>>>You can buy groceries instore or online and then get them delivered for free
(1) I've already looked into it, because I don't enjoy shopping. I prefer to do my purchases online, but online food costs about twice as much.
(2) Believe me - a UPS or other delivery truck makes a LOT more pollution than my 80 MPG ULEV Honda hybrid (insight). My car emits a few hundredths of a gram per mile, while those trucks emit about 1000 times more (per EPA regulations; or lack thereof).
(3) I don't trust that they can get spoil-sensitive food to my house as fast as I can. I have no desire to get soup instead of frozen yogurt/ice cream. Or curdled milk instead of fresh milk. I'd be afraid to eat it.
I've never used delivery services, but I know they don't charge twice as much. They usually just charge a fee based on the bill, but often waive it for orders over $100. And one has to imagine they can transport ice cream; I think it would be common knowledge if they couldn't. As for milk, you're the one buying groceries once a month, so you should know how long it takes for milk to curdle. (hint: a 5 hour delivery window isn't enough in a van with environmental controls)
I think you are confusing automobiles with a rational critique of transportation policy. Your example and analogy both suck.
Just because humans have been hauling heavy items on carts (for 10,000 years no less!), doesn't mean that transportation systems for cities of >1M people should attempt to accommodate or even center policy around them. If you just think about this for a moment I hope you will believe/me/.
I just don't get the example involving 20 bags of groceries. I understand a caterer might buy food in bulk, but that is unrealistic for most non-mormon families. The point of urban planning is to create cities where families are close enough to real food that they don't need to buy 20 bags of groceries (how many carts?) at a time. But for reasonable shopping excursions, bikes can haul quite a lot. I've probably carried 80+ lbs on my road bike with panniers and backpack for bulkier items. Folks with proper bike trailers can carry more than most families usually purchase on larger grocery outings. But, there is also nothing inherently wrong with peapod-type delivery services for groceries, since they actually have a need for a huge vehicle; plus, they take many other GHG emitting cars off the road.
Who are these 'enviro wackos' you speak of? I'm sure there are a few people who fit that qualification, but if you look hard enough you can find all kinds of wackos. There are certainly many more free market wackos.
This is a common canard that appears whenever politicians spend money/create legislation in the name of the environmental boondoggle. It's always the environmentalists who are to blame, not the lobbyists and their industries who pushed through the legislation and stand to benefit from it, even if it doesn't help the environment.
Someone please mod parent down. The price of corn (and other staples) is going up because of Ethanol. Clean coal is not clean. And, WTF is 'clean air'?
At one point I tried to print onto tempered chocolate, by using chocolate bloom. It didn't work, but I suspect that it might've if I had a stronger light source that could either trace a path or flash an image quickly enough so that only the outer layer would heat up. When you heat up tempered chocolate above ~92 deg F the beta-crystals break up and form weaker bonds (most likely alpha crystals). This is called chocolate bloom, and occurs naturally in chocolate if left alone for a month or so; although at room temperature the crystalline structures should become stronger. Tempered chocolate owes its sheen or gloss to its tighter crystalline structure.
IANAChemist, so feel free to correct my terminology if you are.
Let's talk about global warming, since that's where this thread started. It may not seem 'absolutely necessary' to some people for the government t act. However, most reasonable people believe that it is a problem and will be a much larger problem if we don't act now to mitigate future effects. Would you argue that the individuals though goodwill and best business practices can address this? No, obviously the only way to address this is through the government.
I think most people would agree that when the government attempts to solve a problem it should aim for a simpler approach. My first post in this discussion was an endorsement of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which would be a far more efficient way of attacking the problem of greenhouse emissions than just putting money into hydrogen fuel technology or ethanol.
It's easy to feel like the government can't do anything well when we tolerate leaders who feel the same way. I'm sure there are millions of people who may say that they agree with that statement, but they each have a different view on what is an absolute necessity. It's a fine principal, but when take to the extreme doesn't allow for a reasoned comparison between the private and public sector approach to providing goods and services.
Remember that very rich Americans don't need mortgages. But for those that do, the other 2/3 of their salary includes a greater percentage of money that goes towards savings. Also, those that spend 1/3 of their salary on rent instead of a mortgage do not own property at the same time homeowners finish paying back their mortgage; so you can look at mortgage payments as a form of investment in some cases, when weighed against the appreciation of housing values and inflation. I think that if you ask the average educated mortgage broker, he will tell you that rich people save far more of their income as a percentage.
The reason why cars are sometimes used for comparison is because most Americans own one. Some people may have the option to avoid the purchase, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful example. I think the example might make more sense if you tweak the numbers to express a common scenario. Imagine one person who makes $40k/yr and another who makes $80k/yr - only twice the salary. Even if, in this reasonable example, the wealthier individual buys a $25k car instead of the $18k car bought by the less wealthy individual, you can still see the disparity. Over ten years the the $18k car will be 4.5% of the first person's salary and the $25k car will be 3.1% of their salary. That's 50% more in terms of percentage of their salary spent by the less wealth person. Or if the 2nd person didn't care too much about cars, they could easily buy the same $18k car, in which case the first person would spend 100% more as a percentage of their salary.
I agree with you about voter mobilization problems and tax loopholes, but I don't think it is reason enough to assume that no progress can be made in these arenas. I don't know how you define 'truly progressive', but Americans have made progress on these issues in the past. Apathy and loopholes are a problem for every generation.
My understanding is that most people who support a carbon tax believe that the revenues should be spread equally to each taxpayer at the federal level, and that the money received by the tax would be remain independent from other taxs. Rich people tend to consume more carbon than poor people, so unless your friends use much more energy than the average American of their income level, they will come out ahead with a carbon tax. That's the beauty of it.
It's also important to note that the restrictions on the energy efficiency of appliances do raise the cost of goods, though not necessarily the total cost of ownership. There was a story on slashdot about a proposal in Australia to ban incandesent bulbs (http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/02/20/1632 204.shtml). Regardless of the cost to the average consumer, this bill presumes that the state should outlaw all bulbs of a certain type rather than simply creating incentives that are aimed directly at reducing emissions. Economists have studied short and long-term effects of price elasticity for different types of energy consumption in different sectors. It doesn't matter how we reduce our emissions, only that we do so in a manner that we know will make a substantial difference in the short and long-term.
Lowering the taxes on companies that sold clean energy or technologies which produce or use clean energy is another legislative tool to reduce carbon emissions. I think its a good idea that has disadvantages. Would you consider hydrogen fuel to be clean? It could be, but it currently relies on the grid which consists of a lot of carbon emitters. What about ethanol? It seems clean, but its not clear how much energy (and money) is needed to produce it in the first place, esp. given the crazy farm bill subsidies. What about solar panels? Do you consider the costs to produce the panel? This isn't to say that the government should never support certain technologies, but you have to consider how difficult it is to craft a bill that addresses these sorts of issues without adding too much complexity or having difficulty getting political support without calls to amend an already complex bill to support certain industries.
I personally think that the best ways for the government to support the reduction in greenhouse emissions is by doing things that the private sector cannot, or would have trouble getting started. A primary example would a modern rail system, or helping support a pilot public transportation technology. We all know that if companies sell cars that use less gasoline, they will sell (esp. with the carbon tax), but it is a difficult business proposition to invest in the rail system in America when it seems that most Americans have no choice but to drive or fly (with minor exceptions on the east coast).
A carbon tax would go to a separate fund, just like social security. The difference is that it would be distributed in full every year. It would be/illegal/ to use this money for any other purpose. Compare this to state and city taxes on cigarettes, which were never intended to be paid out to citizens directly. Just because our politicians have a propensity to subsidize special interests, doesn't mean we should abandon legislation because it could eventually be subverted. You could say the same thing about any bill.
Hybrids always use traditional fuels. In theory they could be built to use liquefied coal, but they can only produce diesel fuel.
Assuming that you're talking about charging an electric car from the grid, then your monthly bill would reflect the carbon emissions used to generate it because in the case of electric distribution of energy, all of the generating sources would be responsible for paying the tax. They are currently monitored for emissions already, so there would be very little paperwork involved. Compare this to carbon trading, which would be/far/ less efficient and result in greater market instability.
Actually, I don't agree with you about taxation. There are only a couple states without sales tax, so the vast majority of people are taxed on the vast majority of things "you absolutely need to live."
1. Food may not be taxed at the grocery store, but it is certainly taxed at fast food restaurants. And besides, many grocery stores in poor neighborhoods are more expensive and farther away.
2. If you own a house, you pay a property tax. If you rent, your monthly rate incorporates the property tax.
3. Unless you buy your clothes online or in a tax-free state, you will pay sales tax.
Plus, many people rely on cars in places where public transit isn't feasible. I think what you find is the disadvantage with income tax is what many people consider the advantage: it is easier to tax it progressively. Yes, there are certainly limitations and loopholes that are exploited, but that's merely a reason to reform/adjust the tax code.
Singapore takes a similar approach, however, it is also easier to get by without a car in city-state. American cities could probably benefit from the congestion tax implemented in London, which applies to cars in the city during business hours; I know that NYC is looking into this.
One major problem with taxing either gas or cars is that it is a regressive tax. Besides, it doesn't matter just how fuel efficient or expensive a car is, what matters is the emissions created during its use (and production). A carbon tax addresses these issues, because it is intended to be a revenue neutral tax, in which the money that is collected from corporations selling energy of fuels to consumers is returned when consumers file for taxes. This way, individuals can make their own short-term (driving habits) and long-term (car purchases) based on the premise that they can save by cutting down on their carbon emissions.
http://www.carbontax.org/
By the way, you can't "really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue," because that's the same principal as sales tax which is the primary example of a regressive tax.
I think that's called contract work. Businesses pay people under the table, but individuals just pay with cash. However, just because you pay a licensed painter to do a job, doesn't mean that he won't hire someone who is not documented.
The reason why people are risking their lives coming to the US is because they are working as slave labor making products to ship to richer countries. America can slow immigration by enforcing labor laws for the companies that produces the goods that it imports, even if it is in another country. Many unions are behind this, but it's a radical argument to make in this political climate.
Really, our infrastructure is so valuable because we were deliberate and conflicted about most of the money that was spent, and didn't go creating public projects on a whim. Like the Osprey. I'm all for highways and schools, but that's only a small part of the infrastructure we've built (or at least attempted to build).
And I mistakenly thought that the worst channels would fold.
As far as I can tell, the only niche channels (aka candidates for folding) which the average consumer receives (the standard package) consist of preaching and selling. I would be fine with a reduction of both categories, and I suspect most/.ers would agree. Semi-premium channels like sci-fi are already niche, because the cable companies tend to only distribute them to customers who subscribe to higher priced packages (called silver or gold in my area).
However, it seems that there is little political will to make any fundamental changes that would give consumers the option of a la carte, mostly because of industry opposition. Personally, I wouldn't care at all about a la carte if a standard cable package wasn't so damn expensive (due to the corrupt city council of chicago). Just give me Comedy Central and Food Network. (Of course, I might just pay for more if they turned off firewire encryption on non-premium channels.)
I don't mean to rant, but a response really is necessary.
I don't hate you for your opinions regarding WMDs. Luckily, we all know the information that was available to the administration in the spring of 2003 (and earlier). In my view, there are practical security measures, and then there is security theater, as in the case of liquid restrictions on planes. There's no way anyone can change your belief as to why Bush invaded Iraq, even knowing what they knew at the time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't damaging to our safety. But it was certainly not a slam-dunk.
As far as Empire building, you have to decide whether forcing Iraq to accept American companies pumping its oil (under contract for 50 years) is empire building. I don't think the nomenclature matters as much the end result.
Ultimately, I think you have a very simplistic view of the middle east. While Israel is known as a major military ally of the US and has been labeled one of the biggest human rights abusing country in the developed world, that doesn't mean either: 1) "They have no qualms about going ape-shit on everybody around them using all our latest weaponry" 2) "It wouldn't have taken much at all to arrange things so that they'd do our empire-building for us in the region, had that been the goal." Israel has enough problems with its neighbors without picking fights for the US. And while they have certainly shown a will to use aggressive force, such as in Lebanon last summer, they have not used any WMDs (nuclear, chemical or biological) that I am aware of. Just because the US supports gives support to Israel doesn't mean that Israel is going to do anything which puts Israeli lives in jeopardy. Although Israel expanded her borders in '67, there's no chance whatsoever that it could "do our empire-building" in an Arab state given the tensions in the region. And I don't get where the 51st state thing comes from - I would think Puerto Rico or DC would be better candidates for that honor.
I don't know who's touting the underground railroad as civil disobedience. It was certainly subversive, but civil disobedience is a public act to draw attention to an institution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, of course there are a range views on what sort of development folks in different parts of different metro areas want. Generally though, most folks who have actually thought about these issues (and understand that no car will actually be getting 200+ MPG even in 2015 because the numbers are based on an odd formula including battery life) will not rail against verdant suburbs.
The changes, we need are quite specific:
1)Less Exurban development
2)Making suburbs more walkable and bikeable
3)Connecting suburbs to real cities with real transit
Of course, other folks might take a harder line, but real cities that have proper development will fair best in the long term both economically and quality of life.
You have no idea. Back before the car was born, New York and other Northeast cities were so full of horseshit that people could barely walk. The manure was piled high, and it was the man reason the subway was born, to help eliminate the smelly mess. You think cars are dirty? Horses in the 1800s were far, far worse.
When you reference sanitation and the development of the subway system what you are really emphasizing is the need for robust infrastructure and forward-oriented urban planning. And no, cars to not belong in either category as they are not scalable. Certainly in a transition toward more livable and sustainable cities there is a place for you and your 80MPG car and for grid-powered cars. Just like the massive sewage system London built after the fire in 1666, cities need to address the issues of today with long-term planning, not simply an improvement in gas mileage.
>>>You can buy groceries instore or online and then get them delivered for free
(1) I've already looked into it, because I don't enjoy shopping. I prefer to do my purchases online, but online food costs about twice as much.
(2) Believe me - a UPS or other delivery truck makes a LOT more pollution than my 80 MPG ULEV Honda hybrid (insight). My car emits a few hundredths of a gram per mile, while those trucks emit about 1000 times more (per EPA regulations; or lack thereof).
(3) I don't trust that they can get spoil-sensitive food to my house as fast as I can. I have no desire to get soup instead of frozen yogurt/ice cream. Or curdled milk instead of fresh milk. I'd be afraid to eat it.
I've never used delivery services, but I know they don't charge twice as much. They usually just charge a fee based on the bill, but often waive it for orders over $100. And one has to imagine they can transport ice cream; I think it would be common knowledge if they couldn't. As for milk, you're the one buying groceries once a month, so you should know how long it takes for milk to curdle. (hint: a 5 hour delivery window isn't enough in a van with environmental controls)
I think you are confusing automobiles with a rational critique of transportation policy. Your example and analogy both suck.
Just because humans have been hauling heavy items on carts (for 10,000 years no less!), doesn't mean that transportation systems for cities of >1M people should attempt to accommodate or even center policy around them. If you just think about this for a moment I hope you will believe /me/.
I just don't get the example involving 20 bags of groceries. I understand a caterer might buy food in bulk, but that is unrealistic for most non-mormon families. The point of urban planning is to create cities where families are close enough to real food that they don't need to buy 20 bags of groceries (how many carts?) at a time. But for reasonable shopping excursions, bikes can haul quite a lot. I've probably carried 80+ lbs on my road bike with panniers and backpack for bulkier items. Folks with proper bike trailers can carry more than most families usually purchase on larger grocery outings. But, there is also nothing inherently wrong with peapod-type delivery services for groceries, since they actually have a need for a huge vehicle; plus, they take many other GHG emitting cars off the road.
Who are these 'enviro wackos' you speak of? I'm sure there are a few people who fit that qualification, but if you look hard enough you can find all kinds of wackos. There are certainly many more free market wackos.
This is a common canard that appears whenever politicians spend money/create legislation in the name of the environmental boondoggle. It's always the environmentalists who are to blame, not the lobbyists and their industries who pushed through the legislation and stand to benefit from it, even if it doesn't help the environment.
Someone please mod parent down. The price of corn (and other staples) is going up because of Ethanol. Clean coal is not clean. And, WTF is 'clean air'?
who modded you? what has happened to slashdot?
-carbon taxation is a long-term approach toward reducing emissions and employment taxes
-the use of capitol injections into financial institutions is a temporary and very debatable approach toward averting economic collapse
just because you disagree with the 'how' doesn't mean the aim isn't positive (slowing global warming or avoiding economic downturn)
self.free()
I'm not inclined to read a position paper that has a typo on the second page which a spell-checker could easily fix.
I don't know what the truth is, but their website mentions 99.99% accuracy.
At one point I tried to print onto tempered chocolate, by using chocolate bloom. It didn't work, but I suspect that it might've if I had a stronger light source that could either trace a path or flash an image quickly enough so that only the outer layer would heat up. When you heat up tempered chocolate above ~92 deg F the beta-crystals break up and form weaker bonds (most likely alpha crystals). This is called chocolate bloom, and occurs naturally in chocolate if left alone for a month or so; although at room temperature the crystalline structures should become stronger. Tempered chocolate owes its sheen or gloss to its tighter crystalline structure.
IANAChemist, so feel free to correct my terminology if you are.
I count 6 letters. My issue is that, given the insanely small sizes, the cell phone companies won't split up messages that you receive from emails.
Let's talk about global warming, since that's where this thread started. It may not seem 'absolutely necessary' to some people for the government t act. However, most reasonable people believe that it is a problem and will be a much larger problem if we don't act now to mitigate future effects. Would you argue that the individuals though goodwill and best business practices can address this? No, obviously the only way to address this is through the government.
I think most people would agree that when the government attempts to solve a problem it should aim for a simpler approach. My first post in this discussion was an endorsement of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which would be a far more efficient way of attacking the problem of greenhouse emissions than just putting money into hydrogen fuel technology or ethanol.
It's easy to feel like the government can't do anything well when we tolerate leaders who feel the same way. I'm sure there are millions of people who may say that they agree with that statement, but they each have a different view on what is an absolute necessity. It's a fine principal, but when take to the extreme doesn't allow for a reasoned comparison between the private and public sector approach to providing goods and services.
Remember that very rich Americans don't need mortgages. But for those that do, the other 2/3 of their salary includes a greater percentage of money that goes towards savings. Also, those that spend 1/3 of their salary on rent instead of a mortgage do not own property at the same time homeowners finish paying back their mortgage; so you can look at mortgage payments as a form of investment in some cases, when weighed against the appreciation of housing values and inflation. I think that if you ask the average educated mortgage broker, he will tell you that rich people save far more of their income as a percentage.
The reason why cars are sometimes used for comparison is because most Americans own one. Some people may have the option to avoid the purchase, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful example. I think the example might make more sense if you tweak the numbers to express a common scenario. Imagine one person who makes $40k/yr and another who makes $80k/yr - only twice the salary. Even if, in this reasonable example, the wealthier individual buys a $25k car instead of the $18k car bought by the less wealthy individual, you can still see the disparity. Over ten years the the $18k car will be 4.5% of the first person's salary and the $25k car will be 3.1% of their salary. That's 50% more in terms of percentage of their salary spent by the less wealth person. Or if the 2nd person didn't care too much about cars, they could easily buy the same $18k car, in which case the first person would spend 100% more as a percentage of their salary.
I agree with you about voter mobilization problems and tax loopholes, but I don't think it is reason enough to assume that no progress can be made in these arenas. I don't know how you define 'truly progressive', but Americans have made progress on these issues in the past. Apathy and loopholes are a problem for every generation.
My understanding is that most people who support a carbon tax believe that the revenues should be spread equally to each taxpayer at the federal level, and that the money received by the tax would be remain independent from other taxs. Rich people tend to consume more carbon than poor people, so unless your friends use much more energy than the average American of their income level, they will come out ahead with a carbon tax. That's the beauty of it.
It's also important to note that the restrictions on the energy efficiency of appliances do raise the cost of goods, though not necessarily the total cost of ownership. There was a story on slashdot about a proposal in Australia to ban incandesent bulbs (http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/02/20/1632 204.shtml). Regardless of the cost to the average consumer, this bill presumes that the state should outlaw all bulbs of a certain type rather than simply creating incentives that are aimed directly at reducing emissions. Economists have studied short and long-term effects of price elasticity for different types of energy consumption in different sectors. It doesn't matter how we reduce our emissions, only that we do so in a manner that we know will make a substantial difference in the short and long-term.
Lowering the taxes on companies that sold clean energy or technologies which produce or use clean energy is another legislative tool to reduce carbon emissions. I think its a good idea that has disadvantages. Would you consider hydrogen fuel to be clean? It could be, but it currently relies on the grid which consists of a lot of carbon emitters. What about ethanol? It seems clean, but its not clear how much energy (and money) is needed to produce it in the first place, esp. given the crazy farm bill subsidies. What about solar panels? Do you consider the costs to produce the panel? This isn't to say that the government should never support certain technologies, but you have to consider how difficult it is to craft a bill that addresses these sorts of issues without adding too much complexity or having difficulty getting political support without calls to amend an already complex bill to support certain industries. I personally think that the best ways for the government to support the reduction in greenhouse emissions is by doing things that the private sector cannot, or would have trouble getting started. A primary example would a modern rail system, or helping support a pilot public transportation technology. We all know that if companies sell cars that use less gasoline, they will sell (esp. with the carbon tax), but it is a difficult business proposition to invest in the rail system in America when it seems that most Americans have no choice but to drive or fly (with minor exceptions on the east coast).
A carbon tax would go to a separate fund, just like social security. The difference is that it would be distributed in full every year. It would be /illegal/ to use this money for any other purpose. Compare this to state and city taxes on cigarettes, which were never intended to be paid out to citizens directly. Just because our politicians have a propensity to subsidize special interests, doesn't mean we should abandon legislation because it could eventually be subverted. You could say the same thing about any bill.
Hybrids always use traditional fuels. In theory they could be built to use liquefied coal, but they can only produce diesel fuel.
/far/ less efficient and result in greater market instability.
Assuming that you're talking about charging an electric car from the grid, then your monthly bill would reflect the carbon emissions used to generate it because in the case of electric distribution of energy, all of the generating sources would be responsible for paying the tax. They are currently monitored for emissions already, so there would be very little paperwork involved. Compare this to carbon trading, which would be
Actually, I don't agree with you about taxation. There are only a couple states without sales tax, so the vast majority of people are taxed on the vast majority of things "you absolutely need to live."
1. Food may not be taxed at the grocery store, but it is certainly taxed at fast food restaurants. And besides, many grocery stores in poor neighborhoods are more expensive and farther away.
2. If you own a house, you pay a property tax. If you rent, your monthly rate incorporates the property tax.
3. Unless you buy your clothes online or in a tax-free state, you will pay sales tax.
Plus, many people rely on cars in places where public transit isn't feasible. I think what you find is the disadvantage with income tax is what many people consider the advantage: it is easier to tax it progressively. Yes, there are certainly limitations and loopholes that are exploited, but that's merely a reason to reform/adjust the tax code.
Singapore takes a similar approach, however, it is also easier to get by without a car in city-state. American cities could probably benefit from the congestion tax implemented in London, which applies to cars in the city during business hours; I know that NYC is looking into this. One major problem with taxing either gas or cars is that it is a regressive tax. Besides, it doesn't matter just how fuel efficient or expensive a car is, what matters is the emissions created during its use (and production). A carbon tax addresses these issues, because it is intended to be a revenue neutral tax, in which the money that is collected from corporations selling energy of fuels to consumers is returned when consumers file for taxes. This way, individuals can make their own short-term (driving habits) and long-term (car purchases) based on the premise that they can save by cutting down on their carbon emissions. http://www.carbontax.org/ By the way, you can't "really make taxation progressive by taxing the percentage of the vehicle's value to bring in the necessary revenue," because that's the same principal as sales tax which is the primary example of a regressive tax.
I think that's called contract work. Businesses pay people under the table, but individuals just pay with cash. However, just because you pay a licensed painter to do a job, doesn't mean that he won't hire someone who is not documented.
The reason why people are risking their lives coming to the US is because they are working as slave labor making products to ship to richer countries. America can slow immigration by enforcing labor laws for the companies that produces the goods that it imports, even if it is in another country. Many unions are behind this, but it's a radical argument to make in this political climate.
And I mistakenly thought that the worst channels would fold.
/.ers would agree. Semi-premium channels like sci-fi are already niche, because the cable companies tend to only distribute them to customers who subscribe to higher priced packages (called silver or gold in my area).
As far as I can tell, the only niche channels (aka candidates for folding) which the average consumer receives (the standard package) consist of preaching and selling. I would be fine with a reduction of both categories, and I suspect most
However, it seems that there is little political will to make any fundamental changes that would give consumers the option of a la carte, mostly because of industry opposition. Personally, I wouldn't care at all about a la carte if a standard cable package wasn't so damn expensive (due to the corrupt city council of chicago). Just give me Comedy Central and Food Network. (Of course, I might just pay for more if they turned off firewire encryption on non-premium channels.)
I don't mean to rant, but a response really is necessary.
I don't hate you for your opinions regarding WMDs. Luckily, we all know the information that was available to the administration in the spring of 2003 (and earlier). In my view, there are practical security measures, and then there is security theater, as in the case of liquid restrictions on planes. There's no way anyone can change your belief as to why Bush invaded Iraq, even knowing what they knew at the time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't damaging to our safety. But it was certainly not a slam-dunk.
As far as Empire building, you have to decide whether forcing Iraq to accept American companies pumping its oil (under contract for 50 years) is empire building. I don't think the nomenclature matters as much the end result.
Ultimately, I think you have a very simplistic view of the middle east. While Israel is known as a major military ally of the US and has been labeled one of the biggest human rights abusing country in the developed world, that doesn't mean either:
1) "They have no qualms about going ape-shit on everybody around them using all our latest weaponry"
2) "It wouldn't have taken much at all to arrange things so that they'd do our empire-building for us in the region, had that been the goal."
Israel has enough problems with its neighbors without picking fights for the US. And while they have certainly shown a will to use aggressive force, such as in Lebanon last summer, they have not used any WMDs (nuclear, chemical or biological) that I am aware of. Just because the US supports gives support to Israel doesn't mean that Israel is going to do anything which puts Israeli lives in jeopardy. Although Israel expanded her borders in '67, there's no chance whatsoever that it could "do our empire-building" in an Arab state given the tensions in the region. And I don't get where the 51st state thing comes from - I would think Puerto Rico or DC would be better candidates for that honor.
Copyright is a moot point. They are only going to include cars from companies that pay big bucks for product placement.
Chase is truly screwed up. https://chase.com/ just gives you a cert for www.chase.com and then forwards you to their main unencrypted page. However, you can bookmark https://chaseonline.chase.com/ which redirects to https://chaseonline.chase.com/online/home/sso_co_h ome.jsp
Still, there's no reason why anyone should have to make an extra effort to get a secure log-on form to access a bank account.
I don't know who's touting the underground railroad as civil disobedience. It was certainly subversive, but civil disobedience is a public act to draw attention to an institution.