Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, any public school being that religious in the US is breaking the law (the highest law, no less).

[Owlbread]

Yes, any public school being that religious in the US is breaking the law (the highest law, no less).

We also had a minister who would come in and talk to us about philosophical/emotional issues like loss, usually tied to a bible story, or one of his own when he was a missionary in Africa. Again I actually enjoyed his stories - he was a really interesting guy, really sharp. In one of my High Schools we had a youngish (early/mid-30s), radical baptist guy as our Chaplain who didn't believe in evolution (I remember I asked him about it) and dressed up as a Roman soldier and did reenactments at Easter. He was quite entertaining in his insanity, plus he played football with us.

It's interesting that the US education system is far more secular than anything we've got over here. Perhaps people should be more aware of that.

The other thing is that until fairly recently boys in this land didn't really go to "Scouts" or whatever (i.e. no Boy Scouts), they joined the "Boy's Brigade" where they learned rifle drills and other forms of "Christian masculinity". My dad was in the BB.

I was a little Christian boy way back then certainly, or at least I was agnostic until I was around 10 years old, but my belief in Christianity had nothing to do with my parents. My mother had been atheist for decades and my father was really quite new-age, neo-pagan.

I suppose I'm just trying to show you fellows what it would be like if some of the Republicans had their way, to a certain extent. You can make your minds up if it's something to fear. I'm certainly no drone because of that upbringing - 100% atheist today.

[GlyphGryph]

It was a different overall climate, though.

There's a reason most states are able to choose their own electoral rules, but states in certain regions of the US aren't.

It's possible for it to not-be-that-bad, but the sort of people pushing for it are looking to do so explicitly to use as a weapon against those who do not conform.

It's one of those things where it is arguably just better not to let people have the chance to screw it up - and honestly, as you mentioned, you weren't exactly a member of a marginalized group when you went through it.

[FearfulJesuit]

Oh, I think the South Carolina state legislature know exactly what they're doing, and they know it'll get struck down. It's like the umpteen hundred attempts to repeal Obamacare; it's more about ideological purity than anything else.

(Indeed, it's actually not uncommon for state legislatures to pass laws they know will get struck down. The law has to be enforced until it is struck down, which will take a while, and especially with abortion laws there's a hope that when it gets to SCOTUS they'll be more amenable to overturning Roe v. Wade.)

[10ebbor10]

Depends on your electricity generation. If you're burning gas to produce electricity that is then turned into heat, you've lost 60 % of your energy for nothing.

Well, they're pretty efficient in turning electricity into heat. Of course you'll have to get your electricity for a clean, efficient source.

[mainiac]

"If they don't ban horses, those poor car makers just won't stand a chance!"

That's not what he was saying actually.  Can you go a single freaking reply without strawmanning someone?

[GreatJustice]

"If they don't ban horses, those poor car makers just won't stand a chance!"

That's not what he was saying actually.  Can you go a single freaking reply without strawmanning someone?

Oh man, the irony here is palpable. Anyhow, I'd advise you go look up "inertia" because you don't seem to know what it means in the context of the argument if you see no parallel.

[FearfulJesuit]

Janet Yellen has been confirmed for new Fed Chair. As the article notes, she'll be the first Democratic nominee to run the Fed since the Carter administration.

[Leafsnail]

"If they don't ban horses, those poor car makers just won't stand a chance!"

There is a huge flaw in this analogy: the use of "won't stand a chance", trying to imply that the aim of the ban is to keep CFL manufacturers in business.  It isn't.  The purpose is to stop people from wasting energy with inefficient bulbs.  As long as any number of people are wasting electricity with incandescent bulbs it is worth banning them, even if the CFL manufacturers could survive without them.

Furthermore, the switch from one product to another takes time - it's not like everyone stopped using horses and switched to cars as soon as cars were invented (it's kindof a poor analogy anyway because cars and horses do not have exactly the same use, but let's focus purely on horses as a means of transportation down public roads).  Even if most people would end up switching away from incandescent bulbs eventually, we are facing an environmental crisis now.  It is therefore worthwhile for the government to accelerate the change so that less damage is done to the environment.

To fix the analogy you need to add "horses are much worse for the environment than cars" as an additional factor.  You could then state "Even though car manufacturers are doing fine and in the long run will probably win out we should ban horses because the changeover will take time, and during that changeover time we will be needlessly damaging our environment."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Once again, there is no ban on incandescent lightbulbs. There is a program of incrementally increasing energy efficiency standards that may or may not result in incandescents becoming sub-standard or prohibitively expensive.

[Vector]

I'm going to add that, as someone who researches this stupid stuff all day, there's lots of different options for spectrum of fluorescent light-bulbs.  There are in fact full-spectrum options and specific "warm" ones on market.  As for the disposing problem, our end-game is probably going to be LEDs if we can lower cost enough within the next few years (and also change mounting hardware, blah blah blah).

[GreatJustice]

There is a huge flaw in this analogy: the use of "won't stand a chance", trying to imply that the aim of the ban is to keep CFL manufacturers in business.  It isn't.  The purpose is to stop people from wasting energy with inefficient bulbs.  As long as any number of people are wasting electricity with incandescent bulbs it is worth banning them, even if the CFL manufacturers could survive without them.

You're right, my analogy was not perfect, but then it was aiming more for wittiness than accuracy since "light bulbs" wasn't a gigantic topic of debate. Anyhow, to give a more serious reply, I think you miss the point that "wasting electricity" is, in fact, already factored into the equation by the fact that consumers already pay for the electricity that they allegedly waste, and that the amount of energy wasted by inefficient lightbulbs is utterly dwarfed by, say, people leaving computers running, people running vacuum cleaners often, and so on. Even if you think that replacing incandescents with other bulbs will increase energy efficiency (and ignoring any negative environmental effects eg. the problems of disposing of mercury in CFLs), the fact that the bans are largely on sales and manufacturing of such bulbs means that many people have basically bought entire inventories off the shelves so that they can continue to use them for whatever reason far into the future, negating the effectiveness of such a ban.

I think you would find that CFL manufacturers don't mind the government basically mandating the purchase of their bulbs in the future, though, and may even lobby in favour of it.

Furthermore, the switch from one product to another takes time - it's not like everyone stopped using horses and switched to cars as soon as cars were invented (it's kindof a poor analogy anyway because cars and horses do not have exactly the same use, but let's focus purely on horses as a means of transportation down public roads).  Even if most people would end up switching away from incandescent bulbs eventually, we are facing an environmental crisis now.  It is therefore worthwhile for the government to accelerate the change so that less damage is done to the environment.

See above. Anyhow, assuming we are facing an "Environmental crisis" (and that might just be a tad leaning towards hyperbole) at this very instant, there are many measures in facing it that would be quite a bit more immediately successful in dealing with such a problem.

To fix the analogy you need to add "horses are much worse for the environment than cars" as an additional factor.  You could then state "Even though car manufacturers are doing fine and in the long run will probably win out we should ban horses because the changeover will take time, and during that changeover time we will be needlessly damaging our environment."

This argument could be interchanged to argue in favour of a ban of about any product with slightly improved energy efficiency. Actually, it would fit even better for arguing in favour of confiscating old household appliances (refrigerators and washing machines especially), since the energy inefficiency is orders of magnitude higher compared to with light bulbs.

Once again, there is no ban on incandescent lightbulbs. There is a program of incrementally increasing energy efficiency standards that may or may not result in incandescents becoming sub-standard or prohibitively expensive.

In Canada, there is, in fact, a ban on incandescent lightbulbs that went into effect about a week ago (on higher wattages, granted, though the standards get more stringent over time). Stop being so USA-centric.

[Frumple]

... I, uh. Pretty sure while this is an American politics thread, Canada is implicitly excluded from the discussion, by and large. As is central and south. 'Murrican does, after all, generally refer to the USA specifically, and the incandescent discussion specifically was about stuff going on in the states. Point being, if there's any place to be USA-centric, it's this thread.

In any case, when it comes to energy efficiency, you make inroads where you can. It's a lot easier to tighten up on lightbulbs that are already phasing out naturally than it is higher impact stuff like fridges and washing machines. Though... from what I recall (citation needed, et al, and it's been a while since I ran the numbers) finishing the switch from incandescents to CFL and LED stuff will actually be a pretty tremendous saving. Individually, it's not much, but there's serious net effects going on and either of the latter two are quite notably more efficient than incandescents. Not a bad target to target, really.

I would totes support an incentive program to replace older, less efficient, major appliances, though. Tax break, maybe a credit or partial subsidy or somethin'. It'd specifically help the groups I'd wager are more likely to still be using them, even.

[misko27]

In Canada, there is, in fact, a ban on incandescent lightbulbs that went into effect about a week ago (on higher wattages, granted, though the standards get more stringent over time). Stop being so USA-centric.

-This is an American politics thread.


Parallels and citations from abroad are of course permitted, but don't create a ten-page discussion on David Cameron's latest policy.

(So glad I got to use that)I suppose Canada could be considered America in the larger sense of the word, (Discussion-wise, Canada is currently floating about somewhere between the US and Europe threads), but would also include Central and Latin Americas.

I demand a vote on whether to annex more areas of discussion, and if so, whether to include only North American, or the Entire Western Hemisphere.

[Leafsnail]

I don't usually like to cut posts up, but when they're basically a series of rapid fire half-points it's the only way to do it.

Anyhow, to give a more serious reply, I think you miss the point that "wasting electricity" is, in fact, already factored into the equation by the fact that consumers already pay for the electricity that they allegedly waste

Yeah that will negate the environmental problems I guess??

and that the amount of energy wasted by inefficient lightbulbs is utterly dwarfed by, say, people leaving computers running, people running vacuum cleaners often, and so on.

Even if I accepted this point I don't see how it impacts my argument at all.  You'd have to argue that the energy used in domestic lighting is insignificant if you wanted to make a valid point, and it really isn't.

Even if you think that replacing incandescents with other bulbs will increase energy efficiency

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It will

(and ignoring any negative environmental effects eg. the problems of disposing of mercury in CFLs)

Unless you were planning to dispose of them through ingestion there aren't really any.  The amount of mercury in a CFL is not much from the point of view of a disposal plant, and we'll probably be moving away from CFLs fairly soon anyway.

, the fact that the bans are largely on sales and manufacturing of such bulbs means that many people have basically bought entire inventories off the shelves so that they can continue to use them for whatever reason far into the future, negating the effectiveness of such a ban.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here at all.  Fewer inefficient bulbs will be made and sold.  The fact that a few people might hoard them doesn't change that.

I think you would find that CFL manufacturers don't mind the government basically mandating the purchase of their bulbs in the future, though, and may even lobby in favour of it.

Someone will benefit from this law therefore it is bad?

See above. Anyhow, assuming we are facing an "Environmental crisis" (and that might just be a tad leaning towards hyperbole) at this very instant, there are many measures in facing it that would be quite a bit more immediately successful in dealing with such a problem.

...And?

This argument could be interchanged to argue in favour of a ban of about any product with slightly improved energy efficiency. Actually, it would fit even better for arguing in favour of confiscating old household appliances (refrigerators and washing machines especially), since the energy inefficiency is orders of magnitude higher compared to with light bulbs.

You could.  But you have to take other factors into account too, like whether other consequences of the bill would outweigh the good caused by increased energy efficiency.  Laws involving confiscation would obviously fail under these criteria due to the ridiculous expense of enforcing them and the fact that you're mostly hurting poor people by taking their stuff.  You could, however, put laws on the production on new fridges/washing machines.  Kindof like we already do.