Cap & Trade bill

About: h.r. 2454: american clean energy and security act of 2009 (govtrack.us)


Global Warming/Climate

The wannabe rulers of the world and rationers of our energy supply can see their opportunity slipping away with the world's obstinate failure to overheat and the sun's continued quiescence. Countdown timers such as the above are beginning to proliferate (you can get the html code for this one and variants here). Their purpose is of course to pressure lawmakers and politicians into rash and panicked action against the mythical beast. Ours is a little different. We think Copenhagen is where the Kyoto farce will finally crash and burn and with it the political issue of gorebull warming.

We look on our version as a clock ticking away the life of one of the most absurd scares in human history.

Unfortunately the Congress & President are still in crisis mode.

I wonder why Gore bailed at the last minute?

Biggest tax in history coming up!

source: ... When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035
...

6/30/2009

source: ... The rejection by China and Russia of international initiatives to control global warming will reduce the likelihood that Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon taxes will be adopted. Without controls on all global greenhouse gas emitters, nothing the US does in the way of costly greenhouse gas reductions will impact climates.


 
...WTF  - Ecopolitics - well described by Paul Taylor here - sounds a lot like the Obami Organizing the community using Alinsky's Rules of radical politics with an update because now he is president.

Tags

  1. cap and trade
  2. obamadoggle
  3. hr 2454
  4. environment

Comments


Mark de LA says
From this article comes this picture:
source: ... The expected warming in the next hundred years is estimated to be about 0.50 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and the new bill is estimated to lower global temperatures by about 0.18 degree Fahrenheit by 2100. Manzi estimates the additional economic costs of the bill would be 0.8% of gross domestic product, while the economic benefits would be just 0.08% — so the costs would be 10 times the benefits.
...


Mark de LA says
source: ...

Today the U.S. Chamber unveiled what is becoming an annual exercise: a chart of the overwhelming number of regulations and mandates contained in the latest comprehensive climate bill. The Chamber’s chart, which maps out the regulatory process and implementation of H.R. 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” can be viewed at http://www.uschamber.com/media/pdfs/waxmanmarkey.pdf.

The 1,200-page bill, which consists of (1) a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, (2) a federal renewable electricity mandate and (3) a suite of new mandatory energy efficiency standards, will impose 397 new federal regulations (which require traditional agency rulemakings) and 1060 new mandates.

...cap & regulate: (see the link above for the PDF which you can magnify).



Seth says
MR 2009-06-28 09:19:32 12155
This link is a better copy from the internet for reading of the regulatory impact of HR 2454 or the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009 whatever it mutates into. The orange part in the middle is readable, but on a 1680 x 1050 screen still small.

Still too small to read the guts of the text.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-27 08:49:28 12155
The diagram in the pdf from the Chamber of Commerce which opposes HR 2454 might be interesting if we could read it; but even if you zoom in as far as you can in the pdf, it still is unreadable.  Was their intention to communicate, or to just give the impression of communication?

THat is probably enough, but not my intent. Perhaps I can find it later.  HR2998 was what 2454 mutated into. HR 2998. Details are there.

Seth says
Well i will agree with you that the mechanizations in the corridors of power in Washington and in particular the Congress suck big time.  They are not conducive to public involvement with the process.  But this is nothing new and there is nothing in this bill which is exceptional in the way it has evolved ... it is just business as usual.  Flushing or rebooting congress might be a good idea.  But me thinks that the same old power plays would rapidly reestablish themselves.  First you need to cause the way we have political dialogue to change ... we have find some way to stop the partisan bickering.  Perhaps also the way political campaigns are funded to lessen the power of lobbyists.  Not by some new legislation but by some other grass roots movement.  And politicians have to stop twisting each other words and start grappling with the problems that beset us.  IOW, I don't see how just starting over with new people will necessarily change the basic predicament.

Mark de LA says
This link is a better copy from the internet for reading of the regulatory impact of HR 2454 or the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009 whatever it mutates into. The orange part in the middle is readable, but on a 1680 x 1050 screen still small.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-27 11:14:50 12155
Key Provisions of HR 2454.  The opposition, see above, is mainly focused on debunking global warming and of course to any governmental spending and meddling in the economy whatsoever.  From my point of view we need this bill to make a deflection point from sucking on the industrial yolk of fossil fuel, to implementing sustainable ways to create our own energy.  The fossil fuel industry is just not going to do that on its own.  Some force must be applied. 

My biggest question is, by the time this is passed by the Senate, if it is, will it be so watered down that it doesn't do that job?
We've talked before about bait & switch & lying to the public to get a crisis going & then making a bureaucracy to do something else. This will do nothing for global warming. The cap & trade part is the biggest opportunity in the history of the country for fraud. Follow the money carefully if you can (remember TARP) where has it gone? Remember medicare fraud is up in the billions.  Badmouthing the oil, gas & coal industries without infrasturucture & alternatives ready to roll out immediately is stupidity without end. Not much hope & change - just stirring the same old pot of soup.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-27 10:03:24 12155
MR 2009-06-27 09:26:23 12155
seth 2009-06-27 08:49:28 12155
The diagram in the pdf from the Chamber of Commerce which opposes HR 2454 might be interesting if we could read it; but even if you zoom in as far as you can in the pdf, it still is unreadable.  Was their intention to communicate, or to just give the impression of communication?

THat is probably enough, but not my intent. Perhaps I can find it later.  HR2998 was what 2454 mutated into. HR 2998. Details are there.
Hmmm ...  It was HR 2454 which passed in the house yesterdayHR2998 has been referred to the Committee since 6/23.  I have no idea what relationship they bear to each other.
From Thomas yesterday morning I read the text of HR2998 & it said essentially what this report is saying.  Not only are the members of Congress not reading what they are voting on but the bill itself moves every time you try to look at it.  You may keep your head in the sand & hate the messenger, but do you want your government voting on things that it has to hide by quick change artistry?
source: ...

[I]n lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2998, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.

This means that H.R. 2998, which will be considered as an amendment in the form of a substitute, will include an additional 300 pages approved by the Rules Committee that will not be voted on. Let me see if I can run this down quickly and succinctly:

  1. The original bill, H.R. 2454, approximately 1,000 pages, was reported out of the Energy & Commerce Committee.
  2. It was replaced this week by H.R. 2998, 1,201 pages, which will be voted on as an amendment in the form of a substitute.
  3. The Rules Committee, last night, released a committee report that includes a 300-page amendment to H.R. 2998. This 300-page amendment, the Waxman amendment (#121), is considered as adopted upon an affirmative vote for H.R. 2998, the amendment in the form of the substitute.

..., WTF - I ask why the urgency?  Why ram it down the throats of the American People - were the votes slipping away from Pelosi?
Can anyone explain this form of representative government?

Mark de LA says
Here, it took a while, the Waxman Amendment. Or here is what appears to be the Whole amendment attached to a bunch of procedural stuff.
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/RuleRpt/111_hr2998_rpt.pdf (somewhere around pdf pg 21)
I suspect that coming on the heals of July 4 holiday that nobody really knows what's happening here.  Hopefully the Senate can repair the damage already done by the House, but I'm not holding my breath.


Mark de LA says
Through out as many as are incumbents in one election & you will get results.  Keep doing it until they get the point. One might point out the way with what they are doing that is wrong. This particular Congress is the most egregious in decades if not centuries. Spending most money in history & showing little results; sometimes not even knowing where all the money is going. IOW a mandate for doing real transparent government. How about a NASA or "Manhattan Project" to reform government first.
BTW, partisanship is only in the mind of the beholder.  If you seem to be winning the other side is partisan for not going along with you.  If you are losing it is because the partisans on the other side are not listening to you. SOS.  When the media, the president & the members of Congress are all of one party then those who did not succumb are the partisans.  You should have nothing to complain about.


Mark de LA says
If you really want to see how bad government functions, read the Congressional Record for the day of the voting on HR 2454 pg H7475 & beyond.  Apparently some parts of the bill were received at 3 in the morning the night before.  Rush even described it as being still written while they were voting on it.  I tried to verify that by looking through the record, but the dates & times of bill receipt don't seem to appear anywhere. To me, laws should be versioned & time-stamped.


Mark de LA says
BTW it should have been easy for all the scientists on the side of global warming to collect the prize.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-30 10:18:52 12155
source: MR above
Why ignore the rest of the science?
I think that most of the climate scientist are on the other side.
The word climate scientist was born out of ecopolitics.  Before that there were mostly meteoroligists, geologists & the like.  The current crop has a big horse in the race including funding & prestige & political posts. Suppose suddenly grey haired red heads became in high demand because of a gene or DNA that could save the World from something - would you spend a lot of time trying to dispute it particularly if there were some kind of scientific facts or just arguments to support it?


Mark de LA says
MR 2009-06-25 17:49:43 12155
Here is little Obama the younger forming his philosophy :


It was just the beginning of

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-30 08:57:55 12155
source: Paul Taylor concluding Ecopolitics Primer
What environmentalists don’t want you to know is that today all human activities come under some environmental regulation, and that most environmental problems are solved, or are under active management. Moreover, the ubiquitous costs of environmental protection are embedded in every product, service and activity we engage in our daily lives.
While it is true that in this country we have made some progress in caring for our environment, there is much more to be done.  Those who think to profit from fouling our nest need to be carefully watched. We cannot leave that to bureaucrats.  For example there are regulations on the books to prevent runoff from concrete from polluting our streams - yet this is still being done in the eyes of Taylor's "active management".  I wish i had the courage to pursue this infringement myself.  I do not care for Taylor's tone.  Perhaps he should go live in China.
What does Taylor's active management have to do with you polluters in Washington state?
Of course you don't like Taylor's tone - it interrupts your smugness in thinking you are actually doing something about the Earth when in fact you are just a fellow-traveler of Enviroplitics.

Mark de LA says
MR 2009-06-30 08:34:50 12155
source: ...
Ecopolitics have become the central front in the war on individual freedom and capitalism. 21st century environmentalism has abandoned scientific rigor because the packaging of partisan political narratives is a more powerful propaganda tool in an age of superficial pop-cultural politics and gullible media complicity.
...see also EPA suppresses report calling into question global warming science - no opposing views will be tolerated, WH & EPA busy spinning & making the story go away. It will it's a big holiday coming up & the country continues to go to sleep.
BTW, Gorby was well aware of the potentials of Ecopolitics way back when the environmental movement was much younger. He didn't call it that at the time, though. He found a better way to take over the world.
night, night y'all  
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
- Thomas Jefferson

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-30 09:33:51 12155
MR 2009-06-30 09:26:48 12155
Yep, told you about the spin before you bothered to megaphone it!

Oh, why is your article any more reliable than mine?  Did you read both of them? 
I read several articles from your side of the chasm & when yours began to sound like them I knew I had enough of the spin.


Mark de LA says
MR 2009-06-30 09:26:48 12155
Yep, told you about the spin before you bothered to megaphone it!

BTW, Lisa P. Jackson head of the EPA is not an environmenatal scientist nor a climatologist she is a politician with a chemical engineering background
Hmmm... is she qualified to throw out opposing points of view?

Mark de LA says
The amusing thing about the science is that AlGore & the enviropoliticians don't want to debate global warming (or environmental change vis-a-vis CO2).  They have been spreading the meme & declaring the debate is over so that they can enact their draconian empire upon the USA, the free market & capitalism.  And yet challenges such as that from Steve Malloy have gone unclaimed! Why? A cool 1/2 million$$$ can be pocketed & Steve would have to shut up (he is one of the most believable of all the opposition because he understands how statistics can lie).  Now the Obami are on the final leg of censoring the other side & twisting arms & practicing goonery & bribery on the 100 senators left that can block this fiasco & Con-job.
ibid: ...

Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, document.write('');document.write(ageClock());document.write(''); 3 years, 5 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 53 minutes, and 51 seconds have elapsed.


...Why? Why the hurry? Why ignore the rest of the science? HR 2454 will do nothing for global warming or environmental change because the Russians & the Chinese won't ruin their own economies.


Seth says
MR 2009-06-30 11:31:08 12155
seth 2009-06-30 11:07:05 12155
source: MR above
The word climate scientist was born out of ecopolitics.  Before that there were mostly meteoroligists, geologists & the like.
The climate deniers confusion between climatology and meteorology is one of the biggest reasons why i can't take anything they say about science seriously.  
I am not confused about it are you? It's as clear as people talking about futurology. What is unclear to me is how climatologists can call themselves scientists in the classic sense when what they are studying what happened too long ago to measure directly and it's effects are too far in the future for the scientists to show any accountablity. It's similar to measuring the edge of the Universe or speculating about the 11th dimension & M-brains & M-theory; the mathematics of which is fascinating yet unlikely to describe anything real except imaginations.
Indirect measurements is what science does.  We judge it by how accurately it predicts.  Because the Earth is so large and its processes have so much momentum; if anything is to be done, we must act before we can go out and measure it directly with our personal thermometers.  The time frame of reference that scientists are using here with climate change is spot on.  The only question I have is whether they have underestimated the complexity of the system, and whether their science has actually predicted anything yet.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-30 11:07:05 12155
source: MR above
The word climate scientist was born out of ecopolitics.  Before that there were mostly meteoroligists, geologists & the like.
The climate deniers confusion between climatology and meteorology is one of the biggest reasons why i can't take anything they say about science seriously.  
I am not confused about it are you? It's as clear as people talking about futurology. What is unclear to me is how climatologists can call themselves scientists in the classic sense when what they are studying what happened too long ago to measure directly and it's effects are too far in the future for the scientists to show any accountablity. It's similar to measuring the edge of the Universe or speculating about the 11th dimension & M-brains & M-theory; the mathematics of which is fascinating yet unlikely to describe anything real except imaginations.

Mark de LA says
How about lending me a million bucks & I'll pay you back in 500 years. Climatology is the new religion. I have about as much respect for it & the priests of it's cult as you have for the older religions.


Mark de LA says
... & this was how it was done:
source: ...

They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted - a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state's Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, included the Kaptur project in a 310-page amendment to the legislation unveiled at 3 a.m. Friday, just hours before the bill was to be debated on the House floor. The amendment was packed with other vote-getting provisions, both large and small, that had been sought by dozens of wavering Democrats.

....

Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hourlong speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.

"We do it today," he said. "We are doing it already."

... just a payoff!  The 3AM amendment is here.  You might also consider bribes to corporations as a kind of money laundering.  Case in point is GE (owns M$M NBC as well) described well in the Green Hell Blog.
As I see it, government without any reigns on it's power will rob the people blind insuring their incumbency by buying votes in this manner. Now with the clown senator in Minnesota completing the 3-ring circus the end is very near: government without end - bread & circuses my friends.


Mark de LA says
The above source is from the Washington Times here.


Seth says
source: repeated by MR above
Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hour long speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.
I wonder what Boehner means by "electricity already flows well through Ohio" ?  I mean is he reaffirming Ohm's law for Ohio?  Btw, Bonneville is doing pretty well here - i have no complaints - hydroelectricity is king.  How do they make electricity in Ohio?

In other related issues: I don't think it was a good idea to suppress this report.  Rather it should be analyzed and perhaps rebutted or let stand.  Politicizing it, from either side of the aisle, is not a good idea.  What was the EPA thinking?

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-07-01 08:17:12 12155
source: repeated by MR above
Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hour long speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.
I wonder what Boehner means by "electricity already flows well through Ohio" ?  I mean is he reaffirming Ohm's law for Ohio?  Btw, Bonneville is doing pretty well here - i have no complaints - hydroelectricity is king.  How do they make electricity in Ohio?

In other related issues: I don't think it was a good idea to suppress this report.  Rather it should be analyzed and perhaps rebutted or let stand.  Politicizing it, from either side of the aisle, is not a good idea.  What was the EPA thinking?
He was probably talking about the infrastructure is OK. Anyway to answer where it comes from this website has a chart (mostly coal). The environmenatlists have been pissed off about dams for years, mainly complaining that they interfere with fish spawning etc. Wikipedia has more & you can google.

Mark de LA says
For those of you who are unrefined enough to believe that there may be more than one point of view on global warming & CO2 here is the Manhattan Declaration signed by ~500 scientists on the subject opposing the crisis nature of the subject.
source: ... 
 

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

..... for more follow the link.

Mark de LA says
My question for the day is What happens if after converting the World to all renewable energy & power global warming is not affected at all? ... Or a new Ice Age is introduced?
Hmmm..... Will all the politician-scientists pay back the trillions pissed away?

Mark de LA says


Mark de LA says
~If Obama would admit that global warming is a boondoggle & scale all the CO2 tax back to zero ; restructuring the energy bill to represent energy independence rather than something which is not happening & won't be affected by the bill (India & China refuse to go along) then public support might come back, who knows? He can't let it go simply because it represents a new source of income which he & congress can spend on anything.  He has UN support simply because they want to spend out of the new pot for the same reasons.


Mark de LA says
-snip- source: ... (Seth)
Again the vectors of disparate voices in Washington and the special interest lobbies come away with a bill which ends up not doing what is necessary.
...
You are still on the kick of not wanting opposition to bad policy.  Wait until your own ox is gored!


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-07-11 09:03:58 12155
source: MR above
He can't let it go simply because it represents a new source of income which he & congress can spend on anything.
You should fact check that.  It is supposed to be revenue neutral.
Yeah, and the stimulus bill was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% (thus the crisis mentality) & the UN's Iraq Oil for Food program was supposed to constrain Saddam but ended up as a slush fund....etc. Go check your own facts. Show us in the bill itself or regulations derived from the bill where it will be kept revenue neutral. Obama's pronouncements have a truth-half-life which is close to the length of the public memory - sometimes shorter.


Seth says
seth 2009-07-11 09:03:58 12155
source: MR above
He can't let it go simply because it represents a new source of income which he & congress can spend on anything.
You should fact check that.  It is supposed to be revenue neutral.
Actually the bill (HR 2454) as passed by the House, is not revenue neutral.  According to the Congressional Budget Office it will "increase federal revenues by about $846 billion".  A lot of that goes to the "Energy Refund Program to give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act". 

I would have preferred a simple cap and trade, i don't see why the government needs to get involved with the actual transaction at all.  All the government needed to do was to establish the cap, issue the licenses to emit which were to be traded, and enforce and administer the program.  Again the vectors of disparate voices in Washington and the special interest lobbies come away with a bill which ends up not doing what is necessary.

Mark de LA says
Here is some information on the Science czar John Holdren. Although you may not like to use WND as a source, still the concerns raised are worth further investigation.  If the content is mostly true it justifies why World governance & the practice of using czars outside the confirmation process are dangerous. Imagine, for example, that the UN decides that the US should control it's population and instigates a China like policy (one child per family + forced abortions otherwise) because they decide our population is making too much CO2, eh?

<=Wikipedia

Seth says
MR 2009-07-12 09:26:13 12155
-snip- source: ... (Seth)
Again the vectors of disparate voices in Washington and the special interest lobbies come away with a bill which ends up not doing what is necessary.
...
You are still on the kick of not wanting opposition to bad policy.  Wait until your own ox is gored!

My observation about the vectors operating in Washington has to do with understanding a systemic problem.  At this point i have no idea what to actually do about it except to say that all the petty carping is just static to the process and absolutely unhelpful.  For example twisting the opposition's words and intentions is an abominable part of that process, eg your saying "He can't let it go simply because it represents a new source of income which he & congress can spend on anything".  That is absolutely not their intention.  In most cases the bill itself specifies how the revenue is to be spent.  Your behavior is to be distinguished from standing up for beliefs and voting accordingly.  Fine if you are for no more taxes, if you believe that attempting to prevent climate change is unnecessary, then by all means vote your conscience.  But there is more than that going on in Washington and in our politican dialogue.  I say, cut away the bull shit static and get down to the real disaggreements. 

In other words don't misrepresent my intentions. I most certainly am not "on the kick of not wanting opposition to bad policy".  That kind of rhetoric is static and gets in the way of understanding what i am saying, which is simple vector math. 

Mark de LA says
Your use of the term vector & vector math are spurious & ludicrous. Someday learn math or politics but don't mix the two.  Has someone on the WH propaganda websites begun to use the word or are you looking for coin?  I know that static & distraction are part of the Obama teleprompter repertoire.
Follow the money & you will find that governments at all level pass appropriations that get used for other purposes. An appropriation is not fixed in concrete it is like a budget. The actual money used can be many times the original appropriation or less & then balanced out other ways. The actual spending of money out of TARP is a recent example. Read this TIME article to grasp the mess you & I are paying for.

Mark de LA says
With global governance The UN could now have an excuse to control the Internet if this CNN article has any merit:
  • Every second spent web-browsing generates 20 milligrams of CO2
  • Estimates that the Internet will produce 20 percent of the world's GHGs in 10 years
  • Data centers often labeled worst offenders; many taking steps to reduce emissions
  • 'Ultimately IT is an efficiency tool, better to move electrons than atoms,' say Google
  • This is a case of hot-air being produced by hot air.


    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-12 10:31:05 12155
    source: MR above
    Your use of the term vector & vector math are spurious & ludicrous. Someday learn math or politics but don't mix the two.  Has someone on the WH propaganda websites begun to use the word or are you looking for coin?
    Actually, as far as i know, that is my own original thinking.  We can make good use of vector math wherever it applies, the self absorbed static of you glee to insult me not withstanding.
    Well it doesn't apply if you knew the subject.  Anyway, it securely puts you in the language forum with the hockey mom & lipstick on a pig.  It's officious, pseudo-academic sound belies that you are still trying to get rid of opposing points of view - an anathema to real Americans.


    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-12 12:28:53 12155
    source: MR
    Poll your family & see if anyone there understands what the hell you are talking about!
    ... or maybe you should just review the nature of how different forces pulling in different directions cause results and how vectors are simply a way to describe that and then perhaps you can understand what i am saying instead of just playing rwg. 
    Or perhaps you could acknowledge that the Universe has both yin & yang and opposing forces all the time no matter where you look & that if your ideas are meeting with resistance perhaps your ideas are not as good as your Ego thinks they are. Ditto for Obama. Ditto for Congress. Ditto for Democrats & ditto for Republicans.


    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-12 14:00:17 12155
    Your confusing the metaphysics of yin and yang with forces acting in different directions.  Forces acting in different directions will produce a result that is the vector sum of the forces.  A good example would be the stimulus package where conservatives wanted tax cuts and liberals wanted spending.  What did we get?  We got a bill that involved some tax cuts and some spending.  Unless you can show some actual comprehension of this idea and its application and some real critizism of it and not me, then consider this my last word.
    Nope! You are confusing math & politics.  Hopefully this is your last on the subject. There is always an opposite for each distinction whether a tax cut or a treasury spend. For every good there is a bad. You flunk Zen!


    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-12 10:58:18 12155
    MR 2009-07-12 10:39:14 12155
    seth 2009-07-12 10:31:05 12155
    source: MR above
    Your use of the term vector & vector math are spurious & ludicrous. Someday learn math or politics but don't mix the two.  Has someone on the WH propaganda websites begun to use the word or are you looking for coin?
    Actually, as far as i know, that is my own original thinking.  We can make good use of vector math wherever it applies, the self absorbed static of you glee to insult me not withstanding.
    Well it doesn't apply if you knew the subject.  Anyway, it securely puts you in the language forum with the hockey mom & lipstick on a pig.  It's officious, pseudo-academic sound belies that you are still trying to get rid of opposing points of view - an anathema to real Americans.

    Please tell me how it does not apply.  Vectors apply to the results of noisy statistical events as well as the clean cut ones with which you are familiar.
    Poll your family & see if anyone there understands what the hell you are talking about!


    Seth says
    Your confusing the metaphysics of yin and yang with forces acting in different directions.  Forces acting in different directions will produce a result that is the vector sum of the forces.  A good example would be the stimulus package where conservatives wanted tax cuts and liberals wanted spending.  What did we get?  We got a bill that involved some tax cuts and some spending.  Unless you can show some actual comprehension of this idea and its application and some real critizism of it and not me, then consider this my last word.

    Seth says
    MR 2009-07-12 15:50:06 12155
    seth 2009-07-12 14:00:17 12155
    Your confusing the metaphysics of yin and yang with forces acting in different directions.  Forces acting in different directions will produce a result that is the vector sum of the forces.  A good example would be the stimulus package where conservatives wanted tax cuts and liberals wanted spending.  What did we get?  We got a bill that involved some tax cuts and some spending.  Unless you can show some actual comprehension of this idea and its application and some real critizism of it and not me, then consider this my last word.
    Nope! You are confusing math & politics.  Hopefully this is your last on the subject. There is always an opposite for each distinction whether a tax cut or a treasury spend. For every good there is a bad. You flunk Zen!

    We are not talking about opposites and the zen of the other side of the coin.  We are talking about multiple forces acting on a situation.  You have this Zen stuck in your mind, but this is not Zen, this is push and pull. 

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-12 17:34:31 12155
    MR 2009-07-12 15:50:06 12155
    seth 2009-07-12 14:00:17 12155
    Your confusing the metaphysics of yin and yang with forces acting in different directions.  Forces acting in different directions will produce a result that is the vector sum of the forces.  A good example would be the stimulus package where conservatives wanted tax cuts and liberals wanted spending.  What did we get?  We got a bill that involved some tax cuts and some spending.  Unless you can show some actual comprehension of this idea and its application and some real critizism of it and not me, then consider this my last word.
    Nope! You are confusing math & politics.  Hopefully this is your last on the subject. There is always an opposite for each distinction whether a tax cut or a treasury spend. For every good there is a bad. You flunk Zen!

    We are not talking about opposites and the zen of the other side of the coin.  We are talking about multiple forces acting on a situation.  You have this Zen stuck in your mind, but this is not Zen, this is push and pull. 
    Good..you are talking about something else - put it on a different node of your own.
    It's all the same, though you are still flunking Zen.


    Seth says
    MR 2009-07-12 17:39:39 12155
    seth 2009-07-12 17:34:31 12155
    MR 2009-07-12 15:50:06 12155
    seth 2009-07-12 14:00:17 12155
    Your confusing the metaphysics of yin and yang with forces acting in different directions.  Forces acting in different directions will produce a result that is the vector sum of the forces.  A good example would be the stimulus package where conservatives wanted tax cuts and liberals wanted spending.  What did we get?  We got a bill that involved some tax cuts and some spending.  Unless you can show some actual comprehension of this idea and its application and some real critizism of it and not me, then consider this my last word.
    Nope! You are confusing math & politics.  Hopefully this is your last on the subject. There is always an opposite for each distinction whether a tax cut or a treasury spend. For every good there is a bad. You flunk Zen!

    We are not talking about opposites and the zen of the other side of the coin.  We are talking about multiple forces acting on a situation.  You have this Zen stuck in your mind, but this is not Zen, this is push and pull. 
    Good..you are talking about something else - put it on a different node of your own.
    It's all the same, though you are still flunking Zen.

    Go back to Seth: 2009-07-12 09:16:00 which does apply to this node.  All subsequent arguments have just about you not understanding what i said there.  Point is that with Democrats, Liberals, Conservitives, and Republicans all pulling in different directions and having to compromise their principals ends up with watered down bills that are poor legislation.  It is a systemic problem.   This is probably going to be more important on the health care bill ... they will probably in the end get a bill passed but it won't do shit. 

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-13 05:50:11 12155
    Another way to say it is: "too many cooks spoil the broth". 
    So how does your wonderful tritism solve anything or explain how our American Democracy should work.  One party rule frustrates checks & balances even if it is somewhat benign. Another tritism (we'll get some dueling tritisms going now) is absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The problem with the economy is essentially a lack of confidence in what the government is doing. In the UK & some strictly parliamentary democracies they throw out the government when there is a lack of confidence in how things are being run.  This government exacerbate the problems with the economy by screwing with some of the fundamental institutions which have made it a success. Apply your own tritism to the economic problems & you will find there are too many so-called economists in this administration who think they have the answer & yet they are continuously surprised that things aren't working. It's still going to get worse as they ponder a second stimulus.  Then after the stimulus it gets a little better again until it isn't working again...... (to infinity & beyond!).  Giving away money never has worked to bootstrap an economy - never, ever (in the long run)! Increasing the cost of energy to everyone & putting it under the control of a vast bureaucratic UN rather than committing to energy independence in a smooth transition will only multiply the problems ten-fold.  That, my friends is common sense - something lacking in this administration. Calling CO2 a pollutant, something that is breathed out by humans & breathed in by plant-life is not common sense! It's a con-job! I applaud when government does nothing - especially when the alternative is something worse.

    ~

    Seth says
    source: MR above
    So how does your wonderful tritism solve anything or explain how our American Democracy should work.
    Nope it doesn't solve anything.  It is just an awareness that there is a systemic problem with the way legislation becomes enacted in Washington.  And it indicates the nature of the systemic problem.  It's kind of like you saying "throw the bums out".  Point is, knowing that too many cooks are spoiling the broth, begs the question how do we get some of the cooks out of the kitchen.  In other words, how do we decrease the influence of lobbyists.  How do we get a bill that is written from one coherent point of view.  If you decide that you want to reduce green house gases, how do you actually write a bill that accomplishes that.  If the electorate decides that it wants affordable health care, how do you write a bill which accomplishes that.  I believe that there are people and processes which could write such bills.  How can we get from here to there, i don't know.  I'm just becoming aware that the current system for creating legislation is broken because it favors going in multiple directions at the same time.  How to fix that and not cause a whole host of different problems?  I have no idea.

    Mark de LA says
    Well, I don't accept your premise, but it has been obvious since the current Congress was formed that it wasn't really working for the people.  That there are polarities & not everyone agrees has been there since 1776 - a quick taste of the times was presented in the John Adams HBO movie.  Embrace the polarity & move on from there.  Define the possibility that inspires all the population. You can get elected with an electoral majority, but the last election did not carry all the population. Nearly half voted for the other guy. The other key is integrity. If you say what you are going to do & then do what you say you generate confidence in your leadership; making nuances, shifting in time, blaming predecessors, changing the context, lying etc. (i.e. politics as usual) don't work.
      


    See Also

    1. Thought Cap & Trade = Cap & Spend with 3 viewings related by tag "cap and trade".
    2. Thought Cap & Trade Your Sovereignty and Your Future! with 0 viewings related by tag "cap and trade".
    3. Thought Obama Never Wasting a Crisis .... Energizer Bunny Incarnation with 0 viewings related by tag "cap and trade".
    4. Thought Phony Celebrity Environmentalists with 0 viewings related by tag "environment".
    5. Thought about: China to Announce Cap-and-Trade Program to Limit Emissions with 0 viewings related by tag "cap and trade".
    6. Thought American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 with 0 viewings related by tag "hr2454".