So everybody buys an SUV, because everybody else is buying an SUV, and so we all need SUVs to avoid being crushed by other SUVs, or whatever.
What if people just like having an SUV? It's bigger, more comfortable, easier to transport stuff around in, etc, etc. I personally don't own one but I don't feel the need to punish those that do.
ironically, CAFE standards could have prevented the extraordinarily painful market correction that came to a head in 2008 in the auto industry, but since the auto industry lobbied so hard against it for so long, they had to be bailed out.
They didn't have to be bailed out. The proper course of action would have been to let them fail for their stupidity and allow the capital that we are now throwing at them to go to more productive enterprises instead.
So if you modify your behavior, carbon taxes *should* save you money.
I don't think it's the proper place of government to be trying to "modify" the behavior of the citizenry, but even if I went along with your logic, have you ever known a tax that didn't eventually morph into just another revenue source? I'm extremely skeptical of any claim that a carbon tax will save me money, even if I "modify" my behavior.
I would love to see the US become a leader in green technology. I'm not convinced that the best way to accomplish that is to impose new taxes that dramatically raise the cost of living for American citizens while increasing the size and scope of government. I don't see how you build a green economy by gutting the current one and diverting much needed capital into Uncle Sam's coffers.
Take a look at the data for your fucking self, but quit doing the bidding for Exxon Mobile.
I'm not so worried about Exxon Mobil. I am worried about the economy as a whole if we tie both our hands behind our collective backs. Particularly when we can't promise that the nations that compete with us on the global stage (*cough* China *cough*) will do the same.
What good does gutting our economy do when China continues to bring a new coal fired power plant online every week? What will that accomplish in the long run other than to disadvantage the next generation of Americans and reduce our standard of living?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We were powerful where we needed to be -- the US Navy. No reason to spend massive amounts of money on an Air Force and Army when you are surrounded by oceans and friendly countries. In the modern day you'd want to spend a bit more on the Air Force than we did before WW2 and keep the Navy around. Combine that with the nukes and I think we are pretty secure.
Just sit on ones ass, somewhere someone will come up with the right idea.
No, first we need a global nuclear war that kills hundreds of millions of people. Then we need a drunk who wants to make enough money to retire to an island filled with naked women. Added bonus if he hates flying so much that he takes trains and has never been into space.
Once you have those ingredients the technological leap will follow.
Who said it was a baseless ticket? It was a petty ticket but that's not the same thing as baseless. If he had her clocked on radar in excess of the speed limit then she was in violation of the law and the citation was proper.
I would be fine with calling it all back, and letting the next 10 or 20 years get spent letting everyone sort out a new power structure, both economically and militarily. if this were to happen, I dont want to hear a damn word about how it is all the US fault.
There are times when I think this would be a fabulous idea. We still have two oceans and a few thousand nuclear warheads to defend our homeland with. Slice the majority of the military down to size and maybe we'd have some money left over to invest in our aging infrastructure at home.
Problem is, we'd just get called in to clean up their mess again. European attempts at keeping the peace have never been successful. The only other alternative (China) isn't worth contemplating, given their record on human rights.
The Royal Navy could defend the UK from a foreign power (with the exception of the US if it became hostile) and we still manage to run a welfare state.
It couldn't have defended you against the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. You chaps watered down the Royal Navy to the point that your ability to reclaim islands from a Third World nation was in serious doubt. One or two more Exocet hits or a little less stupidity on the part of the Argentinians and 1982 would have ended very differently. As it was you couldn't even mount the operation without logistical support from the United States.
Don't get me wrong, the Royal Navy is a fine force and is even a step or two ahead of the US Navy in certain areas, but you are kidding yourself if you think it alone could have defended the UK after WW2 without outside support or the use of the nuclear option.
The entire foundation of the idea of having a country, laws and a constitution is based on people giving up the freedom of living in anarchy in exchange for the benifits of living together as a society.
Except that we stopped following the constitution a long time ago. Now 50%+1 of the country intends to dictate to the other 49.99% the exact terms of that social contract. Any honest reading of the Constitution suggests that the Federal government has no power to compel me to purchase health insurance. And yet here we are, having this conservation.
The government hasn't just made Pot illegal, the government has directed its employees to lie, classing the drug as a narcotic, claiming it is chemically related to the opiates,
To be fair, the other side of the issue hasn't exactly been fair or impartial either. If you listen to the "science" coming out of NORML you'd believe that smoking pot has no ill effects whatsoever and hemp is the cure-all for every economic and environmental woe that currently faces us.
The way "medical" pot is handled in some of the states that have legalized it is patently absurd too. In California you can get a script for pot by seeing a "doctor" that you've never visited before and telling him you have trouble sleeping. 15 minutes later you walk out the door with a script to buy pot. Now I've seen first hand how helpful pot is for certain diseases (it was the only thing that got a friend of mine through cancer treatment) but the way California is handling it has nothing to do with medicine. It's backdoor legalization for recreational use.
Mind you, I happen to think that pot should be legal for recreational use but I don't think we do ourselves any favors when we dodge a genuine debate on the issue while hiding behind cancer patients.
Afghanistan wanted proof that Bin-Laden was behind the 9/11 actions and got invaded.
Give me a damn break. That Government knew damn well what he was up to. Al Quada was practically a law enforcement auxiliary for the Taliban. We could have handed them a videotaped confession and it would not have made an iota of difference in their attitude.
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
D2 solved that issue. It spits out 250 comments at a time and you can keep requesting more of them until you have the whole damn discussion on one page if you are so inclined.
I don't think they should be cut slack by the system when they abuse their power. All I'm saying is that the people who are interacting with them might want to consider cutting them some slack.
There was just a case that went down in Syracuse. A woman wound up getting tased in front of her kids during a traffic stop that escalated out of control. Now I think the officer in question deserves to lose his job, however the woman arguably contributed to the escalation of the situation and should not be let off the hook either.
She was initially pulled over for allegedly talking on her cell phone. She argued this point with the officer and insisted that she could prove she wasn't by showing him the call log on her cell phone. Then the officer informed her that he would citing her for speeding, some ridiculously low figure, I think 40 in a 35 or something similar. At this point she again argued with him and demanded to "see his evidence" and started to get out of her car. He told her to stay in her car and that she could see the evidence when she went to court.
He went back to write her citations and she got out of the car. He again ordered her to get back in the car. She started yelling at she wanted to "see the evidence". He then informed her that she was under arrest for disorderly conduct. At this point she started to get back into her car, he ordered her out, she refused and he tased her.
In review, the officer was being petty (who writes a speeding ticket for 5 miles over?) but the woman contributed to the situation by demanding to "see his evidence" (in this respect the officer was right, that's what the courts are for) and ignoring his instructions to remain in her vehicle. Then when informed that she was under arrest she refused to comply and submit to being cuffed. A messy situation that could have been avoided with better judgment on the part of the woman and a little less pettiness on the part of the officer.
The sad thing is that if drugs were legalized we wouldn't have to worry about the junkie crawling out of the window with our TV. He'd be at home poisoning himself to death alongside the tobacco smokers. How many of them break into homes to get the money for their next fix?
Recreational drug abuse should be considered a medical problem, not a legal one.
It's from a sci-fi series called Babylon 5. One of the sub-plots involves the ambitious Vice President of the Earth Alliance assassinating the President so he can advance his own agenda. That agenda includes the suppression of civil liberties and extreme xenophobia towards non-Earth influences/culture. He sets up an organization called the Ministry of Peace which runs another organization called the Night Watch. Night Watch is primarily made up of regular citizens whom are encouraged to inform on their neighbors if they notice any "subversive" activities.
It's a great show if you are into the genre. Worth checking out just for that storyline alone. It shows just how many people are willing to be co-opted into such a system but provides the occasional glimmer of hope as others see what's happening and refuse to go along with it.
The militarization of the police; where every traffic stop is treated as a 'Life or Death' situation, is as much a result of the behavior of the police as it is of the risk.
I understand and agree with your sentiment here but I don't think you can blame the police for this turn of events. We are the ones who tolerated and even encouraged the War on Drugs. We are the ones who tolerated and even encouraged the War on Vice. In so doing we transformed the police from being people that we turned to for protection to being people that we are all afraid of, on one level or another.
We the people created the militarization of the police. In 50 years we went from a police force armed with revolvers and shotguns to SWAT teams packing fully automatic M-16s and armored vehicles. We went from the beat cop who knew everybody on his patrol to nameless faces behind riot shields that kick in your door and shoot your dogs, all in the name of the fucking War on Drugs.
Ever watch the TV series "The Wire"? There's a great scene in it after a police officer gets shot during a drug bust gone wrong. His CO laments the fact that he didn't sign up to do this kind of work and would rather be doing things that are "worth taking a bullet for". I've known my share of police officers and I suspect that most of them share this thought process. For better or worse though they are trapped in the system that we created for them.
Bull. Shit. He has as much to worry about taking a bullet "every single time he has an interaction with someone" as I do. There are *some* interactions that are riskier than others, but it's absurd to state he has to fear every encounter.
Really? Wasn't there just a news story the other day about four police officers being gunned down while drinking coffee?
We've got to quit treating the police like gods
I didn't say that we should treat them as Gods. All I suggested was that they have a dangerous job and are entitled to some consideration because of that. I also suggested that discretion is the better part of valor.
Slashdot Mirror
So everybody buys an SUV, because everybody else is buying an SUV, and so we all need SUVs to avoid being crushed by other SUVs, or whatever.
What if people just like having an SUV? It's bigger, more comfortable, easier to transport stuff around in, etc, etc. I personally don't own one but I don't feel the need to punish those that do.
ironically, CAFE standards could have prevented the extraordinarily painful market correction that came to a head in 2008 in the auto industry, but since the auto industry lobbied so hard against it for so long, they had to be bailed out.
They didn't have to be bailed out. The proper course of action would have been to let them fail for their stupidity and allow the capital that we are now throwing at them to go to more productive enterprises instead.
So if you modify your behavior, carbon taxes *should* save you money.
I don't think it's the proper place of government to be trying to "modify" the behavior of the citizenry, but even if I went along with your logic, have you ever known a tax that didn't eventually morph into just another revenue source? I'm extremely skeptical of any claim that a carbon tax will save me money, even if I "modify" my behavior.
Ah, I just can't do it. Can somebody else say it?
In Soviet Russia, meme fails you?
I would love to see the US become a leader in green technology. I'm not convinced that the best way to accomplish that is to impose new taxes that dramatically raise the cost of living for American citizens while increasing the size and scope of government. I don't see how you build a green economy by gutting the current one and diverting much needed capital into Uncle Sam's coffers.
Take a look at the data for your fucking self, but quit doing the bidding for Exxon Mobile.
I'm not so worried about Exxon Mobil. I am worried about the economy as a whole if we tie both our hands behind our collective backs. Particularly when we can't promise that the nations that compete with us on the global stage (*cough* China *cough*) will do the same.
What good does gutting our economy do when China continues to bring a new coal fired power plant online every week? What will that accomplish in the long run other than to disadvantage the next generation of Americans and reduce our standard of living?
The 5th amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Too busy teaching her how to play Russian roulette responsibly.
Lesson #1: Don't use a semi-automatic pistol.
Exactly how is this flushing the 4th down the toilet?
You don't see being subjected to a traffic stop without any sort of probable cause as a violation of the letter and spirit of the 4th amendment?
Rights are inalienable, to use an American term, while privileges are revocable for cause.
Rights aren't inalienable. They can be taken away with due process of law. Hence why convicted felons can't vote or possess firearms.
Before WWII, we weren't that powerful militarily
We were powerful where we needed to be -- the US Navy. No reason to spend massive amounts of money on an Air Force and Army when you are surrounded by oceans and friendly countries. In the modern day you'd want to spend a bit more on the Air Force than we did before WW2 and keep the Navy around. Combine that with the nukes and I think we are pretty secure.
Just sit on ones ass, somewhere someone will come up with the right idea.
No, first we need a global nuclear war that kills hundreds of millions of people. Then we need a drunk who wants to make enough money to retire to an island filled with naked women. Added bonus if he hates flying so much that he takes trains and has never been into space.
Once you have those ingredients the technological leap will follow.
Who said it was a baseless ticket? It was a petty ticket but that's not the same thing as baseless. If he had her clocked on radar in excess of the speed limit then she was in violation of the law and the citation was proper.
I would be fine with calling it all back, and letting the next 10 or 20 years get spent letting everyone sort out a new power structure, both economically and militarily. if this were to happen, I dont want to hear a damn word about how it is all the US fault.
There are times when I think this would be a fabulous idea. We still have two oceans and a few thousand nuclear warheads to defend our homeland with. Slice the majority of the military down to size and maybe we'd have some money left over to invest in our aging infrastructure at home.
Problem is, we'd just get called in to clean up their mess again. European attempts at keeping the peace have never been successful. The only other alternative (China) isn't worth contemplating, given their record on human rights.
The Royal Navy could defend the UK from a foreign power (with the exception of the US if it became hostile) and we still manage to run a welfare state.
It couldn't have defended you against the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. You chaps watered down the Royal Navy to the point that your ability to reclaim islands from a Third World nation was in serious doubt. One or two more Exocet hits or a little less stupidity on the part of the Argentinians and 1982 would have ended very differently. As it was you couldn't even mount the operation without logistical support from the United States.
Don't get me wrong, the Royal Navy is a fine force and is even a step or two ahead of the US Navy in certain areas, but you are kidding yourself if you think it alone could have defended the UK after WW2 without outside support or the use of the nuclear option.
The entire foundation of the idea of having a country, laws and a constitution is based on people giving up the freedom of living in anarchy in exchange for the benifits of living together as a society.
Except that we stopped following the constitution a long time ago. Now 50%+1 of the country intends to dictate to the other 49.99% the exact terms of that social contract. Any honest reading of the Constitution suggests that the Federal government has no power to compel me to purchase health insurance. And yet here we are, having this conservation.
The government hasn't just made Pot illegal, the government has directed its employees to lie, classing the drug as a narcotic, claiming it is chemically related to the opiates,
To be fair, the other side of the issue hasn't exactly been fair or impartial either. If you listen to the "science" coming out of NORML you'd believe that smoking pot has no ill effects whatsoever and hemp is the cure-all for every economic and environmental woe that currently faces us.
The way "medical" pot is handled in some of the states that have legalized it is patently absurd too. In California you can get a script for pot by seeing a "doctor" that you've never visited before and telling him you have trouble sleeping. 15 minutes later you walk out the door with a script to buy pot. Now I've seen first hand how helpful pot is for certain diseases (it was the only thing that got a friend of mine through cancer treatment) but the way California is handling it has nothing to do with medicine. It's backdoor legalization for recreational use.
Mind you, I happen to think that pot should be legal for recreational use but I don't think we do ourselves any favors when we dodge a genuine debate on the issue while hiding behind cancer patients.
Afghanistan wanted proof that Bin-Laden was behind the 9/11 actions and got invaded.
Give me a damn break. That Government knew damn well what he was up to. Al Quada was practically a law enforcement auxiliary for the Taliban. We could have handed them a videotaped confession and it would not have made an iota of difference in their attitude.
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
Yes, I should have left it at trade secret. My stupid. I shall now commence pounding my head against the table to atone for my error.
I also think that we just got trolled, based on the handle of the first poster.....
D2 solved that issue. It spits out 250 comments at a time and you can keep requesting more of them until you have the whole damn discussion on one page if you are so inclined.
It's one of the few redeeming qualities of D2.
First, protocols are like food recipes.
Which can be copyrighted and regarded as a trade secret. Or do you think that KFC should have to post their recipe online for all to see?
Perhaps you should try a car analogy instead? ;)
I don't think they should be cut slack by the system when they abuse their power. All I'm saying is that the people who are interacting with them might want to consider cutting them some slack.
There was just a case that went down in Syracuse. A woman wound up getting tased in front of her kids during a traffic stop that escalated out of control. Now I think the officer in question deserves to lose his job, however the woman arguably contributed to the escalation of the situation and should not be let off the hook either.
She was initially pulled over for allegedly talking on her cell phone. She argued this point with the officer and insisted that she could prove she wasn't by showing him the call log on her cell phone. Then the officer informed her that he would citing her for speeding, some ridiculously low figure, I think 40 in a 35 or something similar. At this point she again argued with him and demanded to "see his evidence" and started to get out of her car. He told her to stay in her car and that she could see the evidence when she went to court.
He went back to write her citations and she got out of the car. He again ordered her to get back in the car. She started yelling at she wanted to "see the evidence". He then informed her that she was under arrest for disorderly conduct. At this point she started to get back into her car, he ordered her out, she refused and he tased her.
In review, the officer was being petty (who writes a speeding ticket for 5 miles over?) but the woman contributed to the situation by demanding to "see his evidence" (in this respect the officer was right, that's what the courts are for) and ignoring his instructions to remain in her vehicle. Then when informed that she was under arrest she refused to comply and submit to being cuffed. A messy situation that could have been avoided with better judgment on the part of the woman and a little less pettiness on the part of the officer.
The sad thing is that if drugs were legalized we wouldn't have to worry about the junkie crawling out of the window with our TV. He'd be at home poisoning himself to death alongside the tobacco smokers. How many of them break into homes to get the money for their next fix?
Recreational drug abuse should be considered a medical problem, not a legal one.
You can get one on Aprils Fools Day by posting a request one for one. I've seen a couple that way. Kinda feels like cheating to me though :)
It's from a sci-fi series called Babylon 5. One of the sub-plots involves the ambitious Vice President of the Earth Alliance assassinating the President so he can advance his own agenda. That agenda includes the suppression of civil liberties and extreme xenophobia towards non-Earth influences/culture. He sets up an organization called the Ministry of Peace which runs another organization called the Night Watch. Night Watch is primarily made up of regular citizens whom are encouraged to inform on their neighbors if they notice any "subversive" activities.
It's a great show if you are into the genre. Worth checking out just for that storyline alone. It shows just how many people are willing to be co-opted into such a system but provides the occasional glimmer of hope as others see what's happening and refuse to go along with it.
The militarization of the police; where every traffic stop is treated as a 'Life or Death' situation, is as much a result of the behavior of the police as it is of the risk.
I understand and agree with your sentiment here but I don't think you can blame the police for this turn of events. We are the ones who tolerated and even encouraged the War on Drugs. We are the ones who tolerated and even encouraged the War on Vice. In so doing we transformed the police from being people that we turned to for protection to being people that we are all afraid of, on one level or another.
We the people created the militarization of the police. In 50 years we went from a police force armed with revolvers and shotguns to SWAT teams packing fully automatic M-16s and armored vehicles. We went from the beat cop who knew everybody on his patrol to nameless faces behind riot shields that kick in your door and shoot your dogs, all in the name of the fucking War on Drugs.
Ever watch the TV series "The Wire"? There's a great scene in it after a police officer gets shot during a drug bust gone wrong. His CO laments the fact that he didn't sign up to do this kind of work and would rather be doing things that are "worth taking a bullet for". I've known my share of police officers and I suspect that most of them share this thought process. For better or worse though they are trapped in the system that we created for them.
Bull. Shit. He has as much to worry about taking a bullet "every single time he has an interaction with someone" as I do. There are *some* interactions that are riskier than others, but it's absurd to state he has to fear every encounter.
Really? Wasn't there just a news story the other day about four police officers being gunned down while drinking coffee?
We've got to quit treating the police like gods
I didn't say that we should treat them as Gods. All I suggested was that they have a dangerous job and are entitled to some consideration because of that. I also suggested that discretion is the better part of valor.