You can too. There will be a vote next week.
My submissions:
Technorati Tags: Texas,Kay,Bailey,Hutchison,Governor,stickers,submissionsYou can too. There will be a vote next week.
My submissions:
Technorati Tags: Texas,Kay,Bailey,Hutchison,Governor,stickers,submissions| Reactions: |
Well, I suppose it helps if you, first, don’t know what Federalism is.
There’s a spate of people supportive of the recent move by California to impose stricter vehicle emissions than current Federal law requires. One of the arguments that they advance is that this is a Federalism issue, or a “States Rights” issue.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Federalism and States Rights are about the sovereignty of the states in the Federal Union, and their right to decide how to regulate themselves rather than simply obeying rules formulated for every all states from Washington DC.
So, you say, it is a Federalism issue. Not so fast. Look at what the outcome of this would be.
First, you have to realize that California is a big state and contains several important markets. The Auto makers, already not doing well, will not give up on this market and they will make their cars to meet those new stricter standards. What they will not do is build cars that are for the California market and other cars that are for everywhere else with the different standards. Even if the “49 state” cars would be cheaper to produce, one-to-one, having to maintain two, nearly, but not quite, identical sets of infrastructure increases costs.
That makes cars more expensive, which makes them harder to sell, which is a bad thing—especially when you are already having some trouble selling your product.
Instead, they will make all their cars to meet the California standards. Won’t matter if Texas would allow the looser standards or not the cars will meet the California rules.
So. What difference does it make if California sets higher standards or DC does? If you answer anything but “none,” you’ve failed to pay attention.
If this were Delaware or Rhode Island, it might be different—the auto makers might be able to reasonably do some kind of add-on for the relatively small number of cars sold in those markets. Or they could, reasonably abandon those markets—depending on the additional costs, it might not matter. Delaware residents who want new cars might well go buy cars in Maryland to avoid the additional costs and thus kill off the dealerships at home anyway.
California is big enough to be a bully and they’ve done this before. When standards are forced on a state, it is NOT Federalism. The only thing California will accomplish by this, especially since the standards they wish to promulgate are based on junk science, is to provide political cover to Congress and the EPA who can claim that it’s “not our fault.”
The Raving Crowd:
Josh Nelson at The Seminal: “How dare California insist on improvements to vehicle efficiency? The nerve! Those with a sense of history will remember that California’s requirement that all vehicles sold in the state have catalytic converters eventually brought about the requirement in all 50 states. This improvement has saved countless lives and has drastically reduced emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.”
Response: The catalytic converter effectively changes harmful pollutants into carbon dioxide and water. And that’s what you want, huh? Yep. California Leads the Way! Please note that Josh offers no support for his “life saving” claim.
The Constitutional Accountability Center: “Automakers would then have to start manufacturing cars that meet the new standards, which call for a phased in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from new cars and light trucks between 2009 and 2016.”
Response: Pretentious name, but at least they make no bones about it. Have bought into the junk science but they know how to cite legal precedent.
Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress: “I’d forgotten about the Bush administration’s idiosyncratic take on states’s (sic) rights and air pollution until I read about how we’re going to start heading in a non-insane direction.”
Response: It’s “non-insane” if you don’t know what the words mean, yeah. But, hey, whatever gets him out of his funks.
Jordan Ballor at Power Blog: “Why not give federalism free reign on environmental issues, let states compete against each other, and see how things play out? If California wants to experiment with enacting tougher restrictions while attempting to remain economically competitive, why not see if the state is able to pull it off?”
Response: Because not all state are equal in market share, population and wealth distribution. Bust California up into two or three states and I’d consider the idea. Well, not for long.
Technorati Tags: States' Rights,Federalism,California,vehicle,Federal,Auto,infrastructure,science,efficiency,Automakers,
greenhouse,precedent,pollution,emissions,pollutants,cars,carbon
| Reactions: |
The Senate today voted to delay conversion to the loooong planned switch from analog to terrestrial digital television broadcast by an additional four months.
Dumb.
They say the problem is that many people haven’t yet purchased the digital converter boxes. Many people are procrastinators too and they won’t get theirs until the deadline is nearer yet than it is, or even not until after it’s passed. There may even be people who just aren’t going to make the switch at all. But once again, Congress wishes to play nanny to people who aren’t taking care of themselves.
Dangerous.
The analog spectrum freed up by the move to digital television is intended to go, primarily, to public safety purposes. The 9/11 Commission (in one of its recommendations I actually agreed with) pointed out that many emergency responders were not able to communicate between agencies and even intra agency communications worked poorly or failed under different and changing circumstances. The Obama Administration, which has asked Congress to make this delay, has also made much, wrongly and inappropriately, (if far from singlehandedly) of the supposed poor performance of federal response during Hurricane Katrina. Today, with ice storms threatening to paralyze large sections of Oklahoma and Texas, they are still willing to contemplate pushing these enhanced communications capabilities back yet farther.
…oh and also Wasteful.
Broadcasters have been required to have their digital signals up and running since 2002 and at full power since 2004. They have been waiting for he chance to turn off the extra transmitters for years now. Instead the Congress and President which have bought into the Green obsessions have made the choice to continue burning energy that didn’t have to have been. This has been planned since 1996 (timeline here) and now it’s yet another delay. Senator Rockefeller said today that this process has been mismanaged. No kidding. I’s been mismanaged by a Congress that he’s been part of since the beginning.
Technorati Tags: Dumb,Dangerous,Senate,conversion,television,deadline,spectrum,Commission,emergency,
agency,communications,Obama,Administration,analog,digital,Wasteful,President,energy,Senator,Broadcasters
| Reactions: |
The old saw says not to pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. President Obama, like President Clinton before him, seems unaware that Limbaugh doesn’t need ink to get his message out. Just the three hours five days a week that he’s on the air. He doesn’t even buy the air—he gets paid to fill it.
I’m sure Rush will thank the President for the additional free publicity and any rise in listenership from the newly curious tuning in.
Technorati Tags: Rush,Limbaugh,President,Obama,Clinton| Reactions: |
Technorati Tags: Positive,News,Iraq,January,endeavors,Multinational,Drawdown,White,House,American,Forces,Service,WASHINGTON,President,Obama,Defense,
| Reactions: |
Maggie’s going to be in a new show. It’s a Cole Porter\George Gershwin Review.
Online ticket sales are now live at http://www.transfiguration.net over a secure connection, with no service charge.
| Reactions: |
| Reactions: |
RTO: On Drudge there’s a headline: “Pelosi: Bush leaving DC 'felt like 10-pound anvil lifted off my head'... “
Maggie: I didn’t know she could still feel her head.
| Reactions: |
I’m not going to volunteer for the recently offered Afghan mission.
There’s a lot going on at work and it, possibly, involving moving to a new account. Would be bad form, I think, to show up and then say, “see ya in a year.”
In addition, the rumors are that the Brigade will be getting an Afghanistan deployment in 2010, which I’d likely miss if I go on this one.
So, for he time being, anyway, I’ll be staying home and cursing the servers I ride heard on.
| Reactions: |
Here’s hoping that bureaucracy and large government works for us in preventing too much change, too fast.
I’ll be updating this thought all day.
UPDATE 1: The new Commander-in-Chief wants to “slow down” development of Future Combat Systems. How much control over the Pentagon can he assert? How fast?
UPDATE 2: From the Inaugural Address: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” Is that really the question? My question is when these functions became the responsibility of government and if they should be.
UPDATE 3: I’m just not inclined to trust people with clean desks. Granted it’s the first day, but surely he’s got a coffee mug or a cup of pens, or something. A blotter?
UPDATE 4: President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order Thursday to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center within a year and halt military trials of terror suspects held there, a senior administration official said. Alright. Close the detention center—That’s just another “Meet the New Boss” kind of thing—they’ll only open a new detention center somewhere else. (Substance remains the same but the symbol’s are the thing—like an inversion of Transubstantiation.) But the trials have been held up by dilatory tactics in the Congress and the courts ensuring that justice has been anything but speedy. And now they want to start again and undoubtedly to grant the detainees the same rights that US citizens enjoy.
UPDATE 5: Fidel Castro believes in President Obama. So. You know. He’s got that going for him.
UPDATE 6: Before anyone starts throwing around the “m” word, is it possible that there might be a bit more resistance to Hope & Change than people believed yesterday? Take a look at this:
Number 8 of the last 17 elections as a percentage of popular vote and number 11 by electoral margin. To be fair there are lots of points to be made each way based on these numbers.
UPDATE 7: For “the wolf”: In Alexandria, VA you can get a Chicago style pizza with decent reviews at Buggy’s. http://www.bugsyspizza.com/bugsysrestaurant.htm
But I don’t think they deliver.
UPDATE 8: A few years ago I put up a post titled, “It’s not Reform if You Didn’t Piss Everyone Off.” I’m wondering how much reform there’s really going to be. The administration is already writing loopholes for itself regarding today’s Executive Orders restricting lobbying. From that link:
“When you set very tough rules, you need to have a mechanism for the occasional exception,” this official said, adding, “We wanted to be really tough, but at the same time we didn’t want to hamstring the new administration or turn the town upside down.”
UPDATE 9: From Darleen Click writing at Protein Wisdom:
So, was it youth, caffeine or lack of learning anything from all the “research” that delivered up this bit
our security emanates from the justness of our cause,
Say what? The good always prevail? Evil is always defeated? As long as we are “just” we will have “security”?
FINAL UPDATE: I’m going to close this by saying that the above, ultimately, for me, doesn’t matter. I am a Soldier and I took an oath to obey the orders of the President. The man in that role has changed once before for me, and I’ve had many years pursuing a mission I wholeheartedly believe in—many Soldiers, I imagine, can’t say that. If my military career runs the way I hope, I’ll see that change again, perhaps several times. I would not indulge in the garbage of “not my President” anyway, despite that the decisions I have made make that impossible.
| Reactions: |
All Soldiers have until March 15, 2009 to complete a brief, self-assessment of their foreign language skills. This mandatory for both active and reserve components. A portion of the survey allows Soldiers who speak only English to submit that information. Soldiers can access the self-assessment survey on the Army's Human Resources Command website. https://perscomnd04.army.mil/langsurv.nsf/langsurvcentopen?openform
For more information, contact the U.S. Army Human Resources Command in Alexandria, Va. at (703) 695-7697 or DSN (312) 225-7697. https://perscomnd04.army.mil/langsurv.nsf/langsurvcentopen?openform
| Reactions: |
Beginning Jan. 1, 2009, the State of Oklahoma exempts disabled war veterans or their surviving spouses from personal property taxes. To qualify, a veteran has to be head of the household and have an honorable discharge with a permanent disability contracted while on active duty. For more information, contact your local tax assessor's office in Oklahoma or contact the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs at 405-521-3684.
| Reactions: |
I’ve been offered another deployment.
It’d be for a year, with train up to start this Summer. The mission, to deploy as a Security Force, platoon sized element to provide security for the agricultural training mission (which readers of my Positive News posts will already be familiar with) in Afghanistan.
There are a lot of attractive elements to this:
The usual detractors apply. I have to be a way from my wife for a year. I have to be away from my job—though I know it’ll be here when I get back. My Company Commander from C Co in the BSTB has been pushing for me to get reclassed to 25B so I can come back to C Co, which I’d like to do. This would put that off for a year, but if I can get promoted to E-7 relatively quickly, C Co has E-7 slots for my current MOS.
| Reactions: |
Ever wondered if that”Cool Guy” stuff in the PX meets standards? PEO-Soldier is trying to help.![]()
They have developed a "certification process" to help Soldiers identify that stuff that DOES meet the Army's standards for safety, performance and durability. Under the Program Executive Office (PEO)-Soldier Certification Program, Approved Product Lists (APLs) have been developed and adapted to incorporate various types of equipment as requirements are identified. Once certification is obtained, the Army Team Soldier Certification logo will appear on issue items to help ensure Soldiers are not misled into purchasing knock-off items. For more information, visit the PEO-Soldier--FAQs webpage.
https://peosoldier.army.mil/faqs.asp#Q75
| Reactions: |
Click the picture for the website or use the URL below.
Military OneSource is once again offering free tax preparation and filing services for filing your federal and state taxes this year. For more information, visit the Military OneSource website or telephone 1-800-342-9647.
| Reactions: |
If you are a Guard or Reserve service member and your employer goes the extra mile to support you, you should nominate them for recognition of that support:
The Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve organization (ESGR) is accepting nominations for the 2009 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. National Guard and Reserve members and their families are eligible, and encouraged, to nominate employers who have gone above and beyond in their support of military employees. The 2009 recipients will be announced in the spring and honored in Washington, D.C. at the 14th annual Freedom Award ceremony on Sept.17, 2009. The nomination deadline is Jan. 19, 2009, and nominations at the Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award website at http://www.FreedomAward.mil.
| Reactions: |
Bit of a flap at Gateway Pundit who had a post up referencing total military fatalities during the Clinton Administration and Combat fatalities in Iraq. I’ve got to admit that it’s not a particularly fair or meaningful comparison, but it raises the question of what a better analysis would show.
Based on the DoD figures (see link) and adjusting the categories for total deaths, accidents, homicides and suicides, as percentages of the full Military (listed as "Total Military FTE") the casualty rates remain remarkably consistent. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/ pers...Death_Rates.pdf (My spreadsheet showing this follows immediately—click for larger image. A graph is further below.)
If you subtract the OIF fatalities from total deaths, the elevated percentages come into line with the normal rate but slightly elevated. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/pers...al-by- month.pdf
If OEF fatalities are also subtracted, total deaths are right in line with normal. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/pers...TY/ oefmonth.pdf
It is impossible to normalize for accidents, homicides or suicides, however, the trends for the actual numbers display a very stable rate.
The take away is that the prosecution of the war has not had a deleterious effect on fatalities in the US military with respect to all areas other than fatalities directly attributable to hostile action. We are no more prone to suicide, murder or accident than before the war.
To be completely fair, most of these categories have been trending downward due to command emphases put in place during the Clinton administration and those trends continue, even with the war.
The fact is that at 10,946 total fatalities between 2001 and 2007, we are on track to end the Bush administration with a non-combat zone related count only slightly lower than the total during the Clinton Administration.
| Reactions: |
| Reactions: |