Solar-powered clothes dryers disallowed by HOA's

[Western]

I'd rather see -> Spending limits on campaigns, with full public transparency.

Honesty will never have its place in politics, honestly.. I think if you loose the special interest groups and their money, then maybe you'd start getting some where. The problem is the average "Joe" only has his interest as a concern, so the wheels in government get greased off his paycheck.

 

[dave1949]

Honesty will never have its place in politics, honestly.. I think if you loose the special interest groups and their money, then maybe you'd start getting some where. The problem is the average "Joe" only has his interest as a concern, so the wheels in government get greased off his paycheck.

I don't think our politics have ever been particulary honest, even from the early days of the US. So, I agree with that sentiment. If you look up some of the old Will Rogers jokes, they are just as funny and true today as they were during the Dust Bowl.

However, it won't do any good to think like a 'victim' of government. That will always be a losing strategy.

The problem with controlling special interest groups, campaign funds, and term limits is they all run into constitutional issues. I would say, spend all the money you want telling the truth and facts, lie and go to jail for a minimum of 20 years. We do have false advertising laws for commercial purposes after all. So many of the interest groups are telling one whopper after another, and/or completely ignoring facts.

If it didn't work, they wouldn't be doing it. But, it can only work when your audience is largely ignorant, or at least, mostly disengaged from the process. I find that very sad.
Dave.

 

[Western]

I don't think our politics have ever been particulary honest, even from the early days of the US. So, I agree with that sentiment. If you look up some of the old Will Rogers jokes, they are just as funny and true today as they were during the Dust Bowl.

However, it won't do any good to think like a 'victim' of government. That will always be a losing strategy.

The problem with controlling special interest groups, campaign funds, and term limits is they all run into constitutional issues. I would say, spend all the money you want telling the truth and facts, lie and go to jail for a minimum of 20 years. We do have false advertising laws for commercial purposes after all. So many of the interest groups are telling one whopper after another, and/or completely ignoring facts.

If it didn't work, they wouldn't be doing it. But, it can only work when your audience is largely ignorant, or at least, mostly disengaged from the process. I find that very sad.
Dave.

Agreed. The "change I could believe in", is the folks getting their head out of the sand..

 

[2manyrocks]

Tort law developed over hundreds of years pretty well covers the situations you bring up and reflect thousands of years of Judeo-Christian ethics.

By comparison, the science and politics behind CC are very recent in origin and are subject to substantial differences of opinion.

The majority view is not always wise in the long run. Consider Christopher Columbus or the entire book of Jeremiah. Sometimes the majority should show restraint in imposing its will on the minority because the minority might be correct in the long run. But the human tendency appears to be to make ourselves out to be our brother's keeper to control whatever he might do wrong.

If you can find a law library that still has books on the shelves, go and count the number of books physically required to publish the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and your local state law and state regulations. Measure the number of feet of shelf space required to hold it all and then go back and re-measure in a few years to see how many more laws have been added. Then ask yourself if you feel more secure because more laws have been added.

 

[dave1949]

Tort law developed over hundreds of years pretty well covers the situations you bring up and reflect thousands of years of Judeo-Christian ethics.

By comparison, the science and politics behind CC are very recent in origin and are subject to substantial differences of opinion.

The majority view is not always wise in the long run. Consider Christopher Columbus or the entire book of Jeremiah. Sometimes the majority should show restraint in imposing its will on the minority because the minority might be correct in the long run. But the human tendency appears to be to make ourselves out to be our brother's keeper to control whatever he might do wrong.

If you can find a law library that still has books on the shelves, go and count the number of books physically required to publish the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and your local state law and state regulations. Measure the number of feet of shelf space required to hold it all and then go back and re-measure in a few years to see how many more laws have been added. Then ask yourself if you feel more secure because more laws have been added.

I never said majority views are always correct, I said they come about as the result of a democratic process. It does no good to complain about the results, you have to get involved and take part in the process. You may still not like the end result, but the alternative is anarchy. It is possible to repeal laws, all it takes is political pressure and action.

If you are content to abide by old laws, then logically you should apply the same standard to newer laws. I don't think a judge will let you slide just because you break a 'new' law that you personally are not happy with. Let's say you are summonsed for talking on the cell phone while driving. Try telling the traffic court judge the scientific evidence on that is shakey in your opinion.

Yes there are new laws created all the time, and yes, some of them do make me feel more secure. Many of them have nothing to do with my day to day life, but they are important to somebody, if not to me. Are they all great laws? I doubt it. Do I know a better way? No, I don't. Do you?
Dave.

 

[Steve C]

I never said majority views are always correct, I said they come about as the result of a democratic process. It does no good to complain about the results, you have to get involved and take part in the process. You may still not like the end result, but the alternative is anarchy. It is possible to repeal laws, all it takes is political pressure and action.

If you are content to abide by old laws, then logically you should apply the same standard to newer laws. I don't think a judge will let you slide just because you break a 'new' law that you personally are not happy with. Let's say you are summonsed for talking on the cell phone while driving. Try telling the traffic court judge the scientific evidence on that is shakey in your opinion.

Yes there are new laws created all the time, and yes, some of them do make me feel more secure. Many of them have nothing to do with my day to day life, but they are important to somebody, if not to me. Are they all great laws? I doubt it. Do I know a better way? No, I don't. Do you?
Dave.

"Many of them have nothing to do with my day to day life, but they are important to somebody, if not to me.",

They are probably important to those who are reaping the benifit of having bundles of US dollars extracted from the citizens of the United stated being dumped in their laps.

Well I have a great idea. Why don't they let us vote to see if we want to increase our cost of living in our country by buying carbon credits, sending money from our citizens bank accounts into the hands forien countries so they can build clean generating capacity to fuel thier industrial complex....to be more competitive with us.

Sucking these dollars out of our economy and handing them to somebody else is sure to help our economic recovery

Oh wait a minute, we can't do that as a population we are way to ignorant to make those kinds of decisions, those decisions are best made by our elected officials. God only knows they will feel our pain every month as they try to find a way to pay their utility bills on their meager salleries.

After all they don't have social security cost of living increases to help them with these additional costs as many elderley people do here in the great U.S of A.

I think our people in Washington spend way to much time considering "world interests" and not enough time thinking about "our interests". They should spend more time having dinner with working class families and farmers rather than forien diplomats. They are supposed to be working for us not "them"

"They" have managed to down play it so much in the media that I bet that 90% of the people reading this board have no idea that they are going to be paying for them.

 

[Bedlam]

Well said Steve....

 

[keegs]

"Many of them have nothing to do with my day to day life, but they are important to somebody, if not to me.",

They are probably important to those who are reaping the benifit of having bundles of US dollars extracted from the citizens of the United stated being dumped in their laps.

Well I have a great idea. Why don't they let us vote to see if we want to increase our cost of living in our country by buying carbon credits, sending money from our citizens bank accounts into the hands forien countries so they can build clean generating capacity to fuel thier industrial complex....to be more competitive with us.

Sucking these dollars out of our economy and handing them to somebody else is sure to help our economic recovery

Oh wait a minute, we can't do that as a population we are way to ignorant to make those kinds of decisions, those decisions are best made by our elected officials. God only knows they will feel our pain every month as they try to find a way to pay their utility bills on their meager salleries.

After all they don't have social security cost of living increases to help them with these additional costs as many elderley people do here in the great U.S of A.

I think our people in Washington spend way to much time considering "world interests" and not enough time thinking about "our interests". They should spend more time having dinner with working class families and farmers rather than forien diplomats. They are supposed to be working for us not "them"

"They" have managed to down play it so much in the media that I bet that 90% of the people reading this board have no idea that they are going to be paying for them.

Politicians are kept in office with special interest money and when they leave office they (and their staffers) make their personal fortunes advocating for all those same special interests. We need campaign finance reform and a lock on that revolving door. I like what Maine's been doing with their campaign finance laws.

Energy imports are by far the largest part of our trade deficit. Running big trade deficits weaken the dollar and create inflationary pressures. And allot of that money goes to some unsavory characters.

Discounting risk got the global financial system into allot of trouble. I'm afraid we're all having a similar response to the risk from global climate change.

Almost everyone agrees that these budget deficits are unsustainable. But the biggest parts of our budget are entitlments and defense. I'm not sure one of the largest constituancies in the electorate is going to vote for a reduction in their standard of living. We should demand that this bill in congress significantly reduces the cost of healthcare. There's no reason why we should be paying double.

And with defense spending spread across the fifty states, I don't see too many scrambling to risk their seats in Washington to save the rest of us all some money.

Steve....I think all the bickering is making the place ungovernable. We have serious problems...we need better citizens.

 

[dave1949]

Thanks for making my point clearer. Who elected them? As long as a significant % of our citizens are captivated by the likes of 'Joe the Plumber', we are sure to get intelligent solutions to our problems.

Anytime a political party can divert the electorate from the issues that really matter by stirring up emotions about things that don't, they know they are playing to a crowd of ignorant suckers.

I agree with Keegs. Short of an affair or totally brazen thievery, it is almost a given that an incumbent US Senator will win re-election. These people accumulate way too much power and are so far removed from everyday life, they are useless.

The arguement that we need experienced senators and representatives doesn't hold water. Look at all the disasters and short-comings those experienced representatives let slip by. I say term limits are the single most effective tool to stop the idiocy.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

"They" have managed to down play it so much in the media that I bet that 90% of the people reading this board have no idea that they are going to be paying for them.

Steve, I am not advocating for or against carbon credits.
I am advocating for more citizen involvement in the politcal process as an alternative to gripping about the outcomes.

But, on the topic of carbon credits, if you begin from the premise that carbon emissions need to be curtailed, there is no way of doing that without a cost to somebody, somewhere. If your utility provider spends money on more expensive, but less carbon emitting or neutral generation methods and fuels, you will pay for that too. I don't see any free lunches here.

If you also see carbon emssions as a global problem, (ie. even if your own country has it's emissions under control, the developing world will nullify your efforts), then the problem becomes very complex, very quickly.

I see there is a growth industry boom going on in the carbon exchange business. As per usual, that means someone is profitting at our expense.

According to some, cows raised to supply the beef industry generate more methane-caused global warming than all the carbon fossil fuels combined. When you add in all the secondary carbon emissions, fuel, fertilizer, etc. the conclusion is we should all become vegetarians.

So, I ask you, is a world worth living in where you can't enjoy the occassional rib-eye steak?

Dave.