[Synnen]

Just want to point out that I lived in Seattle for a while.

The snow packing thing is stupid, yes.

BUT--it's ALSO stupid to invest in salt and chemicals and plows for the ONE DAY it snows every 2-3 years. The whole city pretty much shuts down in the snow anyway--the hills make it very difficult to navigate, even when the roads have been cleared. The floating bridges close when it's slick, as well--making most peoples' commutes impossible. Besides--Seattle pushes a very green agenda when it comes to driving: they WANT you to use public transportation. It goes nearly everywhere west of the Cascades and from Everett in the north to Olympia in the south. It's also FREE downtown, and subsidized in the greater metro area.

So... can't be mad at Seattle for handling snow the way they do. It only snowed twice in the five years I was there, and had melted within 24 hours.

As far as the LED lights thing--I live in Minnesota now, and thought they were a GREAT idea when I looked at the amount of money I was going to be saving in taxes on the City's power bill. Apparently I'm an idiot just like those city planners, because I didn't think of the fact that they wouldn't melt the snow, either. I do think, though, that it's more practical to find a way to fix them rather than replace them with the old lights and just be PAYING for the new lights anyway.

PS--you don't HAVE to use the new fluorescent lights. They still sell the old ones. No one is MAKING you have to use them and specially dispose of them.

[tomder55]

Unless the law passed by Congress in 2007 is repealed ;the incandescent light bulb will be phased out of the US market by 2012.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[galveston]

Hello again, tom:

Couple things.

I support nuclear power. Those plants will last long into the future. I don't support building refinery's for a product that is ending its usefulness.

I AM aware that there will be some lead time before we become energy independent. That's exactly WHY we should start NOW, and BIG.

excon

Glad to see you support nuclear power plants.

I must have missed something, though. I thought it was the liberal eco-nuts that opposed nuclear, not conservatives.

But gasoline fueled engines are not dead yet. I remember seeing that prediction many years ago, that those engines are obsolete.

Progress takes time.

[tomder55]

Progress takes time.

Exactly . What they are doing is the equivalent of reading an HG Wells novel and then creating public policy to attempt to initiate a vision of future before it is viable. I'm surprised there isn't legislation and mandates to subsidize the development of the flux capacitor and the warp drive.

[NeedKarma]

unless the law passed by Congress in 2007 is repealed ;the incandescent light bulb will be phased out of the US market by 2012.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all though:

Under the law, incandescent bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light are effectively phased out between 2012 and 2014. Bulbs outside this range (roughly, light bulbs currently less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts) are exempt from the ban. Also exempt are several classes of speciality lights, including appliance lamps, "rough service" bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights

[galveston]

exactly . What they are doing is the equivalent of reading an HG Wells novel and then creating public policy to attempt to initiate a vision of future before it is viable. I'm suprised there isn't legislation and mandates to subsidize the development of the flux capacitor and the warp drive.

Let's not feed their lunacy with any ideas they haven't thought of yet!:D

[paraclete]

I'm suprised there isn't legislation and mandates to subsidize the development of the flux capacitor and the warp drive.

Oh really what do you think that strange light over Norway was last week? You can't get anything done without those nosey politicians. Thing is, Tom, Wells was right about the nuclear submarine and, although a little off, the voyage to the Moon, our problem is we no longer have anyone with enough imagination to give us a vision of the future that isn't full of disaster.

[Synnen]

No... it's not that we don't have anyone with enough imagination to come up with a vision of the future that isn't disaster.

It's that we live with the reality every day of the stupid things governments and businesses and people do in the name of power and money, and can't imagine the tide turning against them anytime soon.

[paraclete]

No...it's not that we don't have anyone with enough imagination to come up with a vision of the future that isn't disaster.

It's that we live with the reality every day of the stupid things governments and businesses and people do in the name of power and money, and can't imagine the tide turning against them anytime soon.

Ok let's hear this vision so revolutionary that we want to go to the frontier now. The tide is turning. People have already seen the folly of trying to change climate change and are fighting back but that isn't visionary. Where is the man who would proclaim today "I have a dream" and lead a people out of subjection?
You can't imaging a different future because you have no visionary leadership, your leadership is submerged in the politics of division and opposition for the sake of opposition and dragging the rest of us along with it

[Synnen]

Why do OUR leaders have to be the visionaries?

Why does it yet again fall on the backs and shoulders of the American people to be the saviours of the world?

Get your OWN visionary leaders, and let them lead the rest of the world out of subjugation!

I don't see visionary leadership in ANY country, not just my own.

I also see hypocrites at every turn--whether the hypocrisy is political, religious, emotional, or ethical.

I see an entire generation of people--and NOT just in the United States--brought up with the "entitlement" attitude.

I can think of ALL SORTS of revolutionary ways to change things. The problem is that other people don't agree with me, and therefore create opposition that my ideas are too harsh and won't work the way that I want them to. So--we're divided and opposing each other simply because I don't like someone else's ideas, and they don't like mine.

Who gets to win that? I'm being serious now. You can take the sarcasm in the previous paragraph with a grain of salt--but I'm serious about the fact that the opposition isn't JUST for opposition's sake. On a smaller scale, simply look at the previous conversations Speechlesstx and I have had on the topic of Planned Parenthood. On the surface, we're divided and opposing each other just to oppose each other--but we BOTH feel strongly about our different points of view on the topic. So--should we just stop opposing each other, or what? Who wins?

Now how do you expect a GOVERNMENT to do better with MORE people sticking their ideas in the pot, and representing their constituents who have even MORE ideas about the "right" thing to do in any situation?

Where's YOUR vision? Why are you not stopping at least your part of the world from the U.S. "dragging the rest of you down with it"?

You have the SAME pessimistic attitude of the masses that I have. And you have it for the same reasons, really. But don't blame it solely on the U.S. We are not the ONLY place in the world with corrupt and argumentative governments.

[galveston]

Why do OUR leaders have to be the visionaries?

Why does it yet again fall on the backs and shoulders of the American people to be the saviours of the world?

Get your OWN visionary leaders, and let them lead the rest of the world out of subjugation!

I don't see visionary leadership in ANY country, not just my own.

I also see hypocrites at every turn--whether the hypocrisy is political, religious, emotional, or ethical.

I see an entire generation of people--and NOT just in the United States--brought up with the "entitlement" attitude.

I can think of ALL SORTS of revolutionary ways to change things. The problem is that other people don't agree with me, and therefore create opposition that my ideas are too harsh and won't work the way that I want them to. So--we're divided and opposing each other simply because I don't like someone else's ideas, and they don't like mine.

Who gets to win that? I'm being serious now. You can take the sarcasm in the previous paragraph with a grain of salt--but I'm serious about the fact that the opposition isn't JUST for opposition's sake. On a smaller scale, simply look at the previous conversations Speechlesstx and I have had on the topic of Planned Parenthood. On the surface, we're divided and opposing each other just to oppose each other--but we BOTH feel strongly about our different points of view on the topic. So--should we just stop opposing each other, or what? Who wins?

Now how do you expect a GOVERNMENT to do better with MORE people sticking their ideas in the pot, and representing their constituants who have even MORE ideas about the "right" thing to do in any situation?

Where's YOUR vision? Why are you not stopping at least your part of the world from the U.S. "dragging the rest of you down with it"?

You have the SAME pessimistic attitude of the masses that I have. And you have it for the same reasons, really. But don't blame it solely on the U.S. We are not the ONLY place in the world with corrupt and argumentative governments.

BRAVO!!

(Surprised?)

[paraclete]

Why do OUR leaders have to be the visionaries?

Because you have placed yourselves in the position of world leadership. You posture and offer opinions and solutions to others. Look, we have some good leaders here but they are seen as backwoods by people in Washington and London. Too remote from the "action". Truth is; we are not interested in solving your problems and you can't solve ours. We look at some of your solutions to things and just scratch our heads. The level of complexity is what makes the difference, we are basically uncomplicated people. When something needs to be done we do it. Life is difficult enough without worrying about what some "up himself or her self" politician is on about.

People who aspire to lead nations should be visionaries, You don't want any old dullard leading otherwise you get what we all got with George Bush. He didn't just impact your nation, he dragged a whole lot of us into an unnecessary war

Now how do you expect a GOVERNMENT to do better with MORE people sticking their ideas in the pot, and representing their constituents who have even MORE ideas about the "right" thing to do in any situation?

It is apparent that you truly don't understand democracy, true democracy is about the opinions of all being heard and considered, not some elite making all the decisions. True democracy is about consensus. Governments govern better when they have the people with them, when the ideas have been well articulated and assented to, it is known where I come from as a mandate and what it means is we don't do things for the sake of expediency or to massage a leaders ego. We saw a case of expediency in Obama's little effort in Copenhagen, the need to show something had been done, but the outcome was worse than admitting that more deliberation was necessary to arrive at consensus. We aren't children, we know that in many arena's nothing will be done unless the US is on board, whether it is in Trade negotiations, Climate action or ending confrontational foreign policy

[Synnen]

What you're missing here is that the US isn't a democracy.

It's a democratic republic.

Yes, everyone has a say in things, and all things considered, anyone's ideas can be heard. HOWEVER--we elect officials to speak for us. Our "consensus" is that Bob is our President, or Jill is our Governor, or Jackie is our Representative in the House.

THEY then speak on behalf of their constituents. They also listen to others speak on behalf of THEIR constituents. But again--what happens when you have two VIOLENTLY opposed views? When the views are so incredibly opposite that you can't get a consensus? Say, for instance, the abortion issue--how do you resolve two halves of the country, with extreme views on a subject? What if you CAN'T reach consensus? Some people call it murder, others call it choice. You can't walk a line between the two views with "compromise"--because then you're taking away choice, but still allowing murder, depending on whose point of view you're looking from.

You're awfully idealistic about how a democracy works.

I didn't vote for Obama OR GWB. But I did get my butt out there and vote. I ALSO vote in my local school board elections (even though I don't have kids) and read up on our OTHER representatives--both to the state government and to Congress. How many people (outside of this thread) actually do that? MOST people have a bad idea of how our government works, and think that if we could just get a good president, all our troubles would go away. HA! If we got rid of the two-party system, we'd make a huge step towards that, but the president just doesn't have the power that Congress has--but most people can't even name who their representatives in Congress ARE.

The problem is that most people are sheep. As long as they are fed, and can have cable television, and a cell phone--they don't much CARE what the government is doing, except to complain about how evil politicians are, and how much their taxes are going up. They listen to what the news tells them is right and wrong, and cry about the babies who died in China (or Iraq, or Ethiopia, or wherever) that day, and then move on with their lives. Most people don't recognize "economic policy" unless it directly affects them.

And frankly--that's true EVERYWHERE, not just in the US. If it weren't true everywhere, then someone else would have risen up as the new world power in the last 30 years.

So.. don't tell me that the US has to be on board for anything to happen. The PROBLEM is that every OTHER country out there is just as full of sheep, and lacks just as many visionaries--or any power the US may have had in ANY arena would have been destroyed or diminished years ago.

[paraclete]

What you're missing here is that the US isn't a democracy.

It's a democratic republic..

Ah that explains it, it places the US on a par with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, How is Kim Il Obama, the dear leader, these days? What you are saying is you have a Congress full of party hacks and yes men

I live in a place where voting isn't just a right, it is a legal obligation, and as a result we get a true refection of the electorates allegiences. It is what is called a Parliamentary Democracy. I think we long ago lost the illusion that the Representatives expressed the view of the people, but, at least, we have someone calling the Government to account. Our dear leader must answer questions every day, it makes for entertaining television at times

--or any power the US may have had in ANY arena would have been destroyed or diminished years ago.

I think you misunderstand military power, We often would like to hear less from the leader of the US, but he seems to lack the ability not to be heard even when he has little to contribute. We hear a great deal less from the leader of Russia. We cannot diminish US power without a war and that is so unproductive. However it appears the US citizens have certain self destructive tendencies which mean that we only have to take the long term view

[Synnen]

Oh--WAR is the only way to diminish the power of a country? Really?

Is that the only way to get a government to change, too?

Is beating someone up the only way to make them less powerful?

I think YOU misunderstand economic power, political power, scientific power, social power, and moral power--not to mention the power of words.

Gandhi didn't change the world with a war. Neither did Martin Luther King, Jr. For that matter, neither did Martin Luther himself. Jesus (who is always being held up to me as a great example) most certainly didn't use war to change the world.

And as I said before--it's not ONLY U.S. citizens that have self-destructive tendencies. Or does everyone in your country have a job? Do they all recycle? Every last one of them exercises 30 minutes a day, three times a week? No fast food in Australia, right? You all go to the church of your professed belief on a regular basis? Eat breakfast every day, and brush and floss your teeth after every meal?

Teenage pregnancy and rape are non-existant, right? And you don't have issues with schools teaching sex education so that no one gets venereal diseases, either. And pedophilia just doesn't happen, I bet, or child abuse. Everyone in your country who can't afford kids is on birth control, provided by the government. Since you can't have guns there, there's no violent crime, either, right?

Every last Australian above age 8 must know how to read, too. And you all balance your checkbooks regularly--and make sure your country does as well, right? You might not be as badly in deficit as the U.S.--but you don't have a balanced budget either.

Don't you sit there on your pedestal and tell me that the US citizens have self-destructive tendencies. Pot and kettle, hmmm? The PROBLEM is that the citizens of the WORLD have self-destructive tendencies.

And frankly--that's not the fault of the U.S. As a U.S. citizen, I'm sick and tired of the rest of the WORLD not taking personal responsibility, and simply blaming the U.S for everything. Nope--we sure don't have a perfect government. And most of us are disenchanted with our government, too.

But I absolutely, positively, COMPLETELY disregard any whining to the effect that the U.S. is responsible for all of the ills in the world, and no one else can change that.

There are millions of ways to change the world, things that people do for other people every single day. Rosa Parks didn't set out to change the world--she was just tired and didn't want to move.

You can change the world the SAME WAY. If you're tired of it, refuse to move. Other people will join you.

But stop blaming everyone else because you get off your a$$ and move to the back of the bus instead of staying where you are and saying "no, I'm not moving".

[tomder55]

When the views are so incredibly opposite that you can't get a consensus? Say, for instance, the abortion issue--how do you resolve two halves of the country, with extreme views on a subject? What if you CAN'T reach consensus? Some people call it murder, others call it choice. You can't walk a line between the two views with "compromise"--because then you're taking away choice, but still allowing murder, depending on whose point of view you're looking from.

The answer to that is to let the process work itself out. Compromise can be achieved on even the most contentious moral issues .
Look at slavery . The country lived with 2 intractable positions from before it's founding ;through the compromises at the constitutional convention ,through legislative battles between 1787 and 1860 .

Then SCOTUS intevened and imposed upon the process (the Dred Scott Decision) and completely destroyed the process where compromise was achieved.

The same happened in abortion. The natural process would've been a state by state solution and compromises until although unity of opinion could never be reached ;each side still believed a political solution could be reached .
Then SCOTUS intervened again and positions hardened.


The more I think about it ,the more I am convinced the Marbury V Madison decision created an imperial judiciary that has done more harm to the country than good.

When it is said we don't have "democracy " I have to agree ;and not because we have a representative system .It is because the courts can impose their will on the body politic.

[tomder55]

The rest of the world tends to complain about US military might until they need to depend on it. Then it isn't that bad a thingy. It's like the western movie where the people depend upon the rough sheriff while they secretly fear and despise him.

Pax Europaea does not happen without tremendous American sacrifice .While we supply the muscle they save the money and invested in the nanny state instead.
They will rue the day that American troops aren't there to defend German beer halls.

Australia doesn't have the means to defend against the emerging China hegemony . So in themselves interest they will make their own accommodations with the new super power. Under their breath they will say the same things about that as they do about the U.S. (once the bloom is off the rose )

[excon]

The same happened in abortion. The natural process would've been a state by state solution

Hello again, tom:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which WAS ratified by each state, said that our Constitutional rights MUST be upheld by the states.

Therefore, where you have issues that deal with Constitutional rights, an individual state by state solution, would be un-Constitutional.

Do you support segregation? If your solution were to be the law of the land, we WOULD have states that keep black children from going to school. No doubt about that.

excon

[tomder55]

Abortion is not a protected right at least it wasn't until the supreme SCOTUS went above their authority to name it as one. No where in the 14th amendment is there a provision creating abortion access as a right.

[Synnen]

Bah... let's not degenerate this thread into yet ANOTHER debate on abortion.

Abortion isn't BANNED anywhere in the 14th amendment, either.