Politics As Usual

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Cocaine from Colombia may support terrorism and violence, but not against Americans...

...

But maybe you have some factual basis for what you are saying.

Oh my. In the headlines this weekend, I read about 3 American G contractors being held hostage in Columbia.

In the headlines every weekend, I read about large numbers of inner city homicides. A simple majority of urban homicides are tied to the narcotics trade, or at least in some cities a simple majority of urban homicides are tied to the narcotics trade.

I'll take your prospective oil-terrorism, and raise you by perhaps 10K actual murders per year in America. Or are those murders okay because the dead people are usually criminals?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...10365589c.html

Will's writing this column must've been like taking off his bow tie and rolling around in catnip. To get to write about Alexander Hamilton and quote Casey Stengel in the same article?

Actually, I liked this quote best , from Pat Roberts (R-Kan):

Liberty cannot be laid down like so much Astroturf.

It's interesting. I've reflexively believed the Jeffersonian precept that democracy is universal, and still think that there's truth to that argument. But Will is the first I've seen to cogently argue that (a) this may or may not be true, but in any event (b) is it truly our job to be messianic about it?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And I believe that Hummers are exempt from the guzzler tax now, because of their size.

That's outrageous. Are there any legislative efforts to change that?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
That's outrageous. Are there any legislative efforts to change that?

They're classified as light trucks because they're so heavy.

I'm sure there's a legislative proposal, but the guys driving the heavy pickups and small dumptrucks, not to mention the mini commuter buses, might get a bit cheesed when the ol' rig is subject to the guzzler tax.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's interesting. I've reflexively believed the Jeffersonian precept that democracy is universal, and still think that there's truth to that argument.

I do, too, but I also think that lust for power is universal or at least far too common.

Originally posted by Gattigap
But Will is the first I've seen to cogently argue that (a) this may or may not be true, but in any event (b) is it truly our job to be messianic about it?

In the case of Iraq, I don't think we are being messianic about it. I think we are acting in our own self-interest. However, if we had the resources to impose democracy on the rest of the world, I think it is our moral imperative to do it. We don't have the resources to impose it, though.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They're classified as light trucks because they're so heavy.

I'm sure there's a legislative proposal, but the guys driving the heavy pickups and small dumptrucks, not to mention the mini commuter buses, might get a bit cheesed when the ol' rig is subject to the guzzler tax.

I think you could write the legislation to exempt those who used the vehicles for certain commercial uses if that was necessary. I mean a real estate agent cannot legitimately claim to need to use a hummer in his or her business, but a farmer has a legitimate reason to use a heavy truck.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think you could write the legislation to exempt those who used the vehicles for certain commercial uses if that was necessary. I mean a real estate agent cannot legitimately claim to need to use a hummer in his or her business, but a farmer has a legitimate reason to use a heavy truck.

Come on, you know that however it's written, 95% of people will be able to get themselves qualified. Or, some enterprising farmer will buy a huge number of these tax free and resell them. That's assuming GM allows it to happen.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Why would it be expected? Most organization don't want their employees using drugs, and the overwhelming amoung of jail time for narcotics is for dealing, not using.

So are you saying that dealers aren't also often users? That is ridiculous if you are saying that. Many of them deal to afford their drug habit. Dealers aren't all the big guys.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You really aren't playing dumb, are you? There is a difference in the definitions of correlation and causation. There is an area of overlap between the two also.

You are the dumb one. All causative relationships are also correlative relationships, but not all correlative relationships are causative relationships.

I agree that some violent crimes are made more likely to occur if the person is drinking or doing certain drugs, like domestic violence. But this depends on the particular drug. Pot does not make people more likely to act violently and neither does heroin. Alcohol and amphetamines do. Moreover, there has to be a predisposition to the violence to begin with. Female alcoholics are far less likely to be violent when they are drunk than male alcoholics.

Would you deny that alcohol increases violent tendancies? Anyone who has ever seen a bar fight wouldn't. If reducing violent crime is your goal, then outlaw alcohol.

BTW - do you have any stats on how many people who are arrested for violent crimes test positive for alcohol?

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
Oh my. In the headlines this weekend, I read about 3 American G contractors being held hostage in Columbia.

In the headlines every weekend, I read about large numbers of inner city homicides. A simple majority of urban homicides are tied to the narcotics trade, or at least in some cities a simple majority of urban homicides are tied to the narcotics trade.

I'll take your prospective oil-terrorism, and raise you by perhaps 10K actual murders per year in America. Or are those murders okay because the dead people are usually criminals?

You confuse me.

All this time, I thought that quaffing brews and munching on my hot dog and garlic fries at the game this weekend was to honor our war dead.

But now you have me wondering if, by buying the tickets from some scalper next to the Mays statute, the terrorists actually won.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You confuse me.

All this time, I thought that quaffing brews and munching on my hot dog and garlic fries at the game this weekend was to honor our war dead.

But now you have me wondering if, by buying the tickets from some scalper next to the Mays statute, the terrorists actually won.

Meat* is murder.

*I know, I know. Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Meat* is murder.

*I know, I know. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Indeed.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Come on, you know that however it's written, 95% of people will be able to get themselves qualified.

I think you could write the legislation so that far less than 95% of people would get themselves qualified. However, I think people would lie and dealers would lie to get people who shouldn't be qualified qualified. The solution to that is better enforcement of the law and high penalties if the law is violated.

I don't think it will happen, though, because too many people in this country are like Hello and they have little social conscience when it comes to energy use.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or, some enterprising farmer will buy a huge number of these tax free and resell them. That's assuming GM allows it to happen.

You could tax resales of the vehicles to those who weren't qualified to avoid the tax if they were the initial purchaser.

The issue would be enforcement, though.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


The issue would be enforcement, though.

Exactly. It's easy to enforce now, because the tax is paid by the manufacturer, not at the point of sale. They just pass it along to the purchaser. On cars that qualify of course.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Indeed.

As our experience with the UN demonstrates, you don't win friends with salad.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Exactly. It's easy to enforce now, because the tax is paid by the manufacturer, not at the point of sale. They just pass it along to the purchaser. On cars that qualify of course.

Apologies if this is redundant to the above thread, but I've been ... um ... skimming it so far. After Not Me's clarion cry of "Saudi Arabia's going to be incinerated in a huge fireball, and we're all going to hell, and it's because of you, you wasteful SUV-driving pigfuckers!!"*, I had a sense of where this conversation was going, and tried to triage my time accordingly.

In any event, David Ignatius covers the obvious ground of political cowardice in dealing with the problem, but also shines the light (solar powered, naturally) on a plan I hadn't seen before, and kinda like:

The best plan I've seen for doing the politically impossible comes from an energy economist named Philip Verleger. He has spent much of his adult life arguing for a sensible increase in gas taxes. He first proposed such a plan in December 1973; the Ford administration considered the idea, then rejected it. He supported a 50-cent-a-gallon tax during the Carter administration; it got just 35 votes in the House of Representatives. He continued arguing for a tax hike through the 1980s and '90s and, as he says, members of Congress "just rolled their eyes." President Clinton finally embraced the idea and got a tax passed -- but it amounted to just 4.3 cents per gallon.

Now Verleger favors what he calls a "prospective gasoline tax," which would allow the country four years to get ready to do the right thing. Congress would enact a stiff tax of $2 per gallon, to take effect in January 2009, with further increases of another dollar in each of the following three years. To cushion the blow, the Treasury would borrow against the expected tax revenue to buy back the public's gas guzzlers (defined as vehicles getting fewer than 25 miles a gallon) at their 2004 value.

Verleger estimates that this program could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 2 million barrels per day in the program's first year and as much as 10 million barrels per day by 2020. At a stroke, that would reduce the power of the OPEC cartel and America's vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East. As a bonus, it would also reduce emissions that contribute to global warming and increase employment in the auto industry as all those gas guzzlers are replaced.

There's one big problem with Verleger's idea. It's too sane. America likes roaring down Thunder Road, playing chicken with the oil cartel.

Gattigap

* AON, I (finally) watched the South Park movie the other night. Watch this space for an endless stream of horribly dated references until the fever passes.