3% to 3.5% of voters are gay, and not all of them are wanting to get married. 35% to 65% (depending on who's numbers you use) of voters are Evangelical Christians.
You sacrifice the 3% to gain the active 30%. That is how you win elections. This is the math that the Republican Politicos use. This is the math that the Democrat Politicos use. President Clinton used it when he signed DOMA. President Obama used it during his first election.
But a strange thing happened as more and more gays came out of the closet. Unlike other minorities, they did not all go into the same ghetto. Sure Key West and San Francisco and other towns or parts of towns did become centers where homosexuals concentrated. Like anyone, they wanted to be with people like themselves, and politically it is a good idea. Instead of being 3% of a large population, they became 30% of a smaller population, and elected their candidates.
The down side to being a minority district is that while you have some clout in your area, you have less clout in the nation as a whole. Gay problems were the problems of San Francisco, not Duluth.
As more and more of that 3% came out of the closet, a new thing happened. They had made friends with non-gay people. Soon everyone knew a gay person, had a gay friend, went to school with, had in the family, was good friends with a gay person--and that gay person was nothing like the monsters, the conniving dangers, the evil anti-home and hearth villains being described by the Evangelicals and their politicians.
Once every one of that 3% had 10 or more family and friends who backed them, that 3% became 30%, and much of that 30% was taken from the Evangelicals.
There is little chance that granting Marriage Rights to homosexuals will win 1 gay vote to the Republican party. But denying that right is costing them many votes from the friends and family of those seeking marriage.
Its this, say 30%, that the Republicans can win back if they simply find another culture war to fight. How they back out of this one with honor is the difficult point.
My questions is, can t his tactic be repeated. There are millions of illegal workers in this country, but they are all separated from society. They hide to save from being departed, and have massive walls of language and culture that separate them from those without a Latino heritage. Would it be possible for the illegal immigrants, the undocumented workers, to find a way to make friends with folks in this country, to show by example that they are not the dangerous, drug-running, lazy, dirty villains that Republican Reactionaries make them out to be?
Republicans do not want to create a path to citizenship for millions of Democratic voters-to-be, and there is little for them to win in doing so. Perhaps if they had something to lose, like the votes of millions of friends of Undocumented Workers, they would be motivated to help.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
They already do, the attitudes present vis a vis illegal immigrants has widely affected legal immigrants and their extended families. Many Latino Americans feel that the Republican Party simply doesn't want them in the country, the GOP has effectively lost 2-3 generations of Latino's.
Nominating a Latino or sending "representatives" to Latino communities as weak efforts of "outreach" while not at all formulating policies or appealing to their core interests will not at all help the GOP regain the demographic for many yeas.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The political math is a no brainer.
3% to 3.5% of voters are gay, and not all of them are wanting to get married. 35% to 65% (depending on who's numbers you use) of voters are Evangelical Christians.
Of the population. Not of voters. Maybe. Although I would find those numbers dubious (the Evangelical part).
Anyway, evangelicals obviously vote in stronger numbers in certain states- the picture of evangelicals versus single-issue gay voters is going to be fraught with problems. Gays are evenly dispersed at birth, and cluster in population later on. Evangelicals are clustered at birth, and remain so.
quote: There is little chance that granting Marriage Rights to homosexuals will win 1 gay vote to the Republican party
Why? My uncle was a hard-core Republican, a congressional staffer in California for a Republican, who only re-registered as an independent because of the party's stance on gay rights. It turns out, he is gay.
ETA: On a completely personal note, while my uncle was too ethically and morally stringent as a person to subject any women to sham relationships or marriages (thankfully for him), he blames his many years of denial and hiding from his orientation partly on his Catholic upbringing, and partly on his own politics. It wasn't ok to be gay in the professional circles he was in, and it wasn't ok to be gay and be a Republican. That's sad, really. For him, and for Republicanism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Often times I have listened to conservative pundits and the publications of the most influential conservative think tanks really talk up the 'native conservatism' of our latin american immigrants due to elements like their staunch catholicism.
It is like they sincerely did not believe that their reliable antipathy to immigrant and nonassimilationist cultures (to say nothing of the chronic defunding of systems that protect low income families, which first and second generation immigrants tend to be, which keeps them stratified into low realms of the socioeconomic ladder) was going to reliably turn immigrants liberal, with stronger and stronger tendencies as you went forward through the immigrant generations.
Compound that with the fact that the Republican party is most pronouncably visible to latinos as the very "we don't like your type" party — when problematic and downright racist elements like the freaking Minutemen show up in force as conservative elements, they either get support from conservative pols or a big resounding refusal to deal with or reject the problematic elements.
And lo, this is why we're talking about this in an era in which I can't remind people enough that the Republican party has lost out essentially permanently on this front. It's over. This can't be covered for by them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh, I don't think it's that dire. It's not like Western Mormons didn't find a way to be Republican even if Evangelicals couldn't stand them.
The Republican party has Latinos in its ranks ala Marco Rubio, and it's not like they couldn't use the classic, "You guys are welcome here, but do you want all these new immigrants competing with you for jobs?" line of reasoning to shore up support. As cynical as that would be.
The best thing for the Republican party would be about 8-12 years of Democratic dominance in politics, that way people can see all the kinks in the Democratic Party, and the Republican party can form itself around those weaknesses. Right now their strategy of hamstringing the Democrats and then acting like the government's failure to act is indicative of the problems inherent in government hasn't yielded fruit. It would be much better if they took a breather, and let the Democrats write their playbook for them.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I think the Republican political math on same-sex marriage may not be quite so clear with the current situation in their party. If they attempt to embrace gay marriage, they will lose a large percentage of Evangelical votes as well as experience a backlash within their own primaries, nominating even more unelectable candidates. If they choose to remain hard-line against gay marriage, they will lose more general election votes. There is no clear political exit strategy for them.
To simplify their political math, the best thing that could happen for Republicans would be a sweeping decision by SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage nationwide. It's in their best interest to have the fight removed from the political sphere.
Anything less, which sadly seems likely--like repealing DOMA and invalidating Prop 8 in a way that can only apply to CA, or rejecting one or both cases on standing without reaching the merits--will leave our nation to continue the current state-by-state battle that is widening the fracture in the Republican party. If that battle is left to continue, Republicans will pull themselves apart faster than if the gay marriage fight is taken off the table.
Politically, gay marriage seems a lose-lose for Republicans, no matter how they try to play it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Oh, I don't think it's that dire.
quote:The Republican party has Latinos in its ranks ala Marco Rubio
These two statements are at odds with each other.
Additionally, if you are credibly arguing that the present situation entails that the best thing that could happen for the Republican party is a decade of failure that leaves the opposition essentially unopposed, how is this not supposed to be considered an extremely dire situation for them?
They're screwed. Whether or not what comes out of the ashes retains the name "Republican," it won't be the same party. Its present incarnation is doomed.
Some of them have been more or less staring the reality of this in the face long enough to try to start a war on the 14th amendment in the hopes of saving themselves. Remember "terror babies?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Politically, gay marriage seems a lose-lose for Republicans, no matter how they try to play it.
At this point I don't even mind what they try to do to keep up the whole utterly terminal farce that has been their cultural opposition to gay marriage. I most particularly enjoy watching people blow a gasket over increasingly more and more astoundingly trivial things. Like people who have a fundamental opposition based on, of all things, language concerns. Like "b b but marriage is between a man and a woman! that's what the word meeeans. you can't tell me that language evolves, telling me that same sex couples can marry is claiming the word for yourself and denying it from meeeeeeeeeeeee"
There is really just nothing more awesomely pathetic.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The best thing for the Republican party would be about 8-12 years of Democratic dominance in politics, that way people can see all the kinks in the Democratic Party, and the Republican party can form itself around those weaknesses. Right now their strategy of hamstringing the Democrats and then acting like the government's failure to act is indicative of the problems inherent in government hasn't yielded fruit. It would be much better if they took a breather, and let the Democrats write their playbook for them.
I think they're afraid that, if they just let go, they'll never get control back again. Maybe.
I also think that the Iraq War, Halliburton nonsense, and all the other related messes have made Americans afraid of what happens when you let Big Oil and the military-industrial complex have free reign. We were still in Iraq up until a couple years ago. I think the pendulum swing is going to take longer than that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The best thing for the Republican party would be about 8-12 years of Democratic dominance in politics, that way people can see all the kinks in the Democratic Party, and the Republican party can form itself around those weaknesses. Right now their strategy of hamstringing the Democrats and then acting like the government's failure to act is indicative of the problems inherent in government hasn't yielded fruit. It would be much better if they took a breather, and let the Democrats write their playbook for them.
Funny, I've been saying the exact same thing about the Republicans for years. But then, they did, to a degree, and it worked beautifully. Republicans were in charge for six whole uninterrupted years with total control of the government and comparatively little in the way of Democratic obstruction, and they got tossed out in 2006 and 2008.
Now if the GOP would grow up and govern, we might actually see how the system is supposed to work. If not for the damage that would be done, I'd almost like to see Republicans have control of the whole gov't again with their "new" ideas just to see how badly they messed it up so Dems could win again, but it wouldn't matter with the new Scorched Earth policy of the GOP.
As to the OP, I think you have it backwards. Republicans were tripping over themselves in December to come up with new immigration plans because Romney's was terrible and as McCain said flat out, they have to change their immigration policy if they want to win elections. Democracy in action! But as for gay marriage? Only a handful of GOP politicians are on board. In fact, they're leading the charge against it, still! I think if you swapped the two issues in the OP, you'd be on board. They've already changed their song on immmigration, but demographics will force a shift in their position on gay marriage in a few years because the issue has so stunningly turned around in the general population. As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Dan Savage recently said something particularly enlightening on the subject of why gay rights is moving so much faster than other civil rights groups have before. Gay people are not just a minority, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are literally living with the homophobic voters and politicians.
Unless a republican senator finds out that his daughter is secretly a latino and won't return his calls until he stops asking her to stop being a latino... the gay rights fight will keep having an accelerated advancement.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Gay people are not just a minority, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are literally living with the homophobic voters and politicians.
This is true. My step-grandfather cried hard when his gay grandson died of AIDS. I don't think there's a single non-white person on the planet whose death he would ever have mourned.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Dan Savage recently said something particularly enlightening on the subject of why gay rights is moving so much faster than other civil rights groups have before. Gay people are not just a minority, they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are literally living with the homophobic voters and politicians.
They also financially pretty well off more often than not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us. We mostly intrude into their money.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
Liberals and Conservatives actually agree, by and large, on the principle of both intrusion and hands-off. The difference is in what things we think should qualify. Conservatives thing we should take people's money to pay for a massive military, should decide who they can marry, who they can have sex with, what they're allowed to smoke, etc. etc. Liberals think the government shouldn't be involved in those aspects of our lives, and that the military should be scaled way, way down.
But Liberals think we should take people's money to pay for schools, health care and other social programs. And that the "right to bear arms" means something a little less destructive, and also that it's not a suicide pact. We also see the destructive power of an unbridled free market, and seek to put reasonable restraints on it for the benefit of all.
So both sides are okay with the mechanisms, we just disagree on how to apply them. Young people pretty much universally agree that the government shouldn't be telling us who to marry and what to put in our bodies. You would think that's a Conservative principle, but Conservatives are the ones we're fighting against.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us. We mostly intrude into their money.
It's interesting that you separate "lives" and "money" when justifying government intrusion. Money, despite one's wishes to the contrary, is a very big part of life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
A libertarian fever dream where liberals banned salt consumption.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
I don't think his point is completely without merit. There have definitely been serious pushes for taxes on plastic bags, banning McDonalds Happy Meals, banning Big Gulps in New York, and virtually all buildings, including bars do not permit smoking, you have to go to special designated rooms.
Salt, I'm not sure where that is coming from, but you can bet that if it was in vogue to hate on Salt, liberals would find a way to get it out of society to some degree.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
They're just about all either against the law or the attempt was made and overturned, yeah.
I live in the SF Bay Area. Some of those are, in fact, somewhat local, though not all of them.
In several counties around here, plastic grocery bags are illegal (and paper bags now come with a government mandated charge). San Francisco proper tried to ban happy meals, but I think that got overturned.
New York was the place that had ban-happy leftists try to ban salt in restaurants. To go alongside the large soda ban, I guess. You can look it up and everything, Parkour! I mean, are you cutting them slack for their ideals because they failed to enact them? Do Republicans only count as opposed to gay marriage if they successfully ban it?
Also, for fun, I'll throw in a freebie: LA has banned bacon-wrapped hot dogs.
Riding in a car without a seatbelt is federal, isn't it? I can't recall if smoking is or not. Can you open a smoker-friendly bar in some parts of the country?
I guess high fructose corn syrup is the only one not against the law, and without any recent legislative attempts made against it. But there are lots of groups who'd like to! Where do you expect they fall in the political spectrum?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I don't believe liberals have tried to ban salt, no. and if some did, it will be more of a fringe than conservatives who have tried to do things recently that beat the pants off of that in terms of invasions of personal autonomy.
your choice: liberals that "ban salt" or conservatives that try to make christianity the state religion so they can work on banning extramarital and homosexual sex again. which one is worse i wonder?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't know what you want me to say, man. It's not terribly fringe. They've banned trans-fats and large sodas. There are members of the NYC assembly that also want to ban salt in restaurant cooking.
That's not the same thing as banning all salt in the city or anything. But it's still pretty bad.
But yeah those evil Republicans are theocrats, totally. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
They're just about all either against the law or the attempt was made and overturned, yeah.
I live in the SF Bay Area. Some of those are, in fact, somewhat local, though not all of them.
In several counties around here, plastic grocery bags are illegal (and paper bags now come with a government mandated charge). San Francisco proper tried to ban happy meals, but I think that got overturned.
New York was the place that had ban-happy leftists try to ban salt in restaurants. To go alongside the large soda ban, I guess. You can look it up and everything, Parkour! I mean, are you cutting them slack for their ideals because they failed to enact them? Do Republicans only count as opposed to gay marriage if they successfully ban it?
Also, for fun, I'll throw in a freebie: LA has banned bacon-wrapped hot dogs.
Riding in a car without a seatbelt is federal, isn't it? I can't recall if smoking is or not. Can you open a smoker-friendly bar in some parts of the country?
I guess high fructose corn syrup is the only one not against the law, and without any recent legislative attempts made against it. But there are lots of groups who'd like to! Where do you expect they fall in the political spectrum?
There is no federal law requiring you to wear a seat belt. It's a state level law.
There is no federal law banning smoking. It's a state level law.
As for all the other stuff you mentioned, none of it is banned around here. And none of it is banned back where I'm from.
I don't think it's necessary to ban salt, but high sodium content in food costs this nation tens of billions of dollars a year in higher health care costs. And Happy Meals are just one example of the problem of childhood obesity. I don't think that means we need to outright ban either of them, though. I also don't have a problem with taxing plastic grocery bags. Sin taxes are a time-honored practice in this country going back to literally its very first hours.
My general theory is that I'm generally not in favor of any laws that restrict your actions so long as your actions can ONLY harm YOU. When your actions can harm ME, then you're fair game.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't know what you want me to say, man. It's not terribly fringe. They've banned trans-fats and large sodas. There are members of the NYC assembly that also want to ban salt in restaurant cooking.
That's not the same thing as banning all salt in the city or anything. But it's still pretty bad.
But yeah those evil Republicans are theocrats, totally.
Dan, sometimes I agree with you, but...have you been out on the street in SF smoking crack?
Nobody will ever seriously try to ban all salt. It's a necessary nutrient. And who cares if it's banned during the cooking process? Add it at the table, if you want some. THAT'S pretty libertarian, controlling your own salt intake, instead of giving someone else power over it.
And trans-fats are nasty. We've harmed NO ONE by banning them. The same for those monstrous sugary drinks. Getting rid of the worse foods in our diet is a GOOD thing.
How come your libertarian ideals don't extend to your diet? ROFL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, by now I am absolutely positive I am not the only one who is pretty much absolutely positive by now that even though it was what was initially suggested, there has been no attempt to ban the consumption of salt by ~leftists~ and that this is more than a bit of hyperbole.
Either way you could take every single instance of the grotesque attempted violation of our inviolate Rand-granted salt rights (which at this point I expect is a single bill and/or rider which probably never made it up to vote and was doubtlessly not passed even with the help of a liberal majority) and you could counter with several instances of .. yes, republican theocratic engineering of much more profound intent and scope.
Hell, NC is doing that crap right now.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (which at this point I expect is a single bill and/or rider which probably never made it up to vote and was doubtlessly not passed even with the help of a liberal majority)
You say that as if I presented it as something else. Of course it was a single bill. And yeah, it didn't pass. Good god, how could something so specific be anything other than a specific bill?
I'm so confused. Kate said that leftists only want to intrude on your money, and not any other aspect of your life. I cited a bunch of examples of them wanting to intrude in other areas. What are you missing? On an individual level the plastic bag ban pisses me off way more than any of the food bans. But they're all illustrative of my only point, which is that Kate was completely wrong.
Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?
I posted. Was it not worth a response?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tried to argue with you too, did I not do a good enough job?
I can be contrary! I swear!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?
yeah I think you're mostly getting that these little things that you are talking about like "banning salt" aren't really indicative of any majority level liberal proposals in any state, but extremely much more ugently concerning violations of personal liberty continue to be worked on by republican state legislature and governors. It's like, we can sit here and go "oh my god my salts! my plastic bags!" while meanwhile yes north carolina is legitimately trying to make state religion a thing, deny women the right to abortions, suppress the votes of multiple demographics, try to restrict people from the ability to divorce. Or hell you can go over to walker-land and see entire cities having the democratic process overturned and have fiat appointments running things. Like literally nothing you have mentioned here is anything I can see being representative of something which shows that the liberals are the people I need to watch out for when it comes to ridiculous intrusions on personal rights.
BUT hey thanks for calling it "pointless equivalence crap" I am glad to know you value our input enough to handwave it away as that!!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "oh my god my salts!
Salts?!! Salts??1!! Not...my Epsom TOO!!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I tried to argue with you too, did I not do a good enough job?
You did a fine job, sorry for not responding sooner.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us.
Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
All those things are against the law?! Where do you live?
They're just about all either against the law or the attempt was made and overturned, yeah.
I live in the SF Bay Area. Some of those are, in fact, somewhat local, though not all of them.
In several counties around here, plastic grocery bags are illegal (and paper bags now come with a government mandated charge). San Francisco proper tried to ban happy meals, but I think that got overturned.
New York was the place that had ban-happy leftists try to ban salt in restaurants. To go alongside the large soda ban, I guess. You can look it up and everything, Parkour! I mean, are you cutting them slack for their ideals because they failed to enact them? Do Republicans only count as opposed to gay marriage if they successfully ban it?
Also, for fun, I'll throw in a freebie: LA has banned bacon-wrapped hot dogs.
Riding in a car without a seatbelt is federal, isn't it? I can't recall if smoking is or not. Can you open a smoker-friendly bar in some parts of the country?
I guess high fructose corn syrup is the only one not against the law, and without any recent legislative attempts made against it. But there are lots of groups who'd like to! Where do you expect they fall in the political spectrum?
There is no federal law requiring you to wear a seat belt. It's a state level law.
There is no federal law banning smoking. It's a state level law.
Fascinating corrections! Thanks. Not sure how that changes the content, though.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As for all the other stuff you mentioned, none of it is banned around here. And none of it is banned back where I'm from.
I don't think it's necessary to ban salt, but high sodium content in food costs this nation tens of billions of dollars a year in higher health care costs. And Happy Meals are just one example of the problem of childhood obesity. I don't think that means we need to outright ban either of them, though. I also don't have a problem with taxing plastic grocery bags. Sin taxes are a time-honored practice in this country going back to literally its very first hours.
My general theory is that I'm generally not in favor of any laws that restrict your actions so long as your actions can ONLY harm YOU. When your actions can harm ME, then you're fair game.
This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:
If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.
And for the record, it's not a tax on plastic grocery bags. They are literally banned in one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area. Grocery stores can't carry them. The sin tax is on paper bags. And neither of those make any sense whatsoever. Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful.
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't know what you want me to say, man. It's not terribly fringe. They've banned trans-fats and large sodas. There are members of the NYC assembly that also want to ban salt in restaurant cooking.
That's not the same thing as banning all salt in the city or anything. But it's still pretty bad.
But yeah those evil Republicans are theocrats, totally.
Dan, sometimes I agree with you, but...have you been out on the street in SF smoking crack?
Nobody will ever seriously try to ban all salt. It's a necessary nutrient. And who cares if it's banned during the cooking process? Add it at the table, if you want some. THAT'S pretty libertarian, controlling your own salt intake, instead of giving someone else power over it.
And trans-fats are nasty. We've harmed NO ONE by banning them. The same for those monstrous sugary drinks. Getting rid of the worse foods in our diet is a GOOD thing.
How come your libertarian ideals don't extend to your diet? ROFL
You're contorting.
Unsurprisingly, I think people should be allowed to cook with what they like, and buy what they like, etc. If you want someone to stop cooking with salt or trans-fat, persuade them. If you can't, leave them alone.
[ April 05, 2013, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like, to what extent? Would you be in favor of removing all food regulation / the FDA etc and just going full caveat emptor on a revolving door of food suppliers, dining establishments, etc?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (which at this point I expect is a single bill and/or rider which probably never made it up to vote and was doubtlessly not passed even with the help of a liberal majority)
You say that as if I presented it as something else. Of course it was a single bill. And yeah, it didn't pass. Good god, how could something so specific be anything other than a specific bill?
I'm so confused. Kate said that leftists only want to intrude on your money, and not any other aspect of your life. I cited a bunch of examples of them wanting to intrude in other areas. What are you missing? On an individual level the plastic bag ban pisses me off way more than any of the food bans. But they're all illustrative of my only point, which is that Kate was completely wrong.
Anyone care to actually argue with me, or am I just going to get more pointless equivalence crap?
Plastic bags don't harm just you. Smoking in public doesn't harm just the smoker. Liberals don't particularly care what you smoke in your own home - even it is pot. Nor do we care what you cook at home. Environmental laws are because, libertarian or not, the rest of us are using the same space that you want to trash.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Unless they want to use a plastic grocery bag, or give their kid a happy meal, or eat salt, or ride without a seatbelt, or eat high fructose corn syrup, or let people smoke in their building, or...
Welcome to the 21st century industrialized developed nations.
This is pretty much the norm and thinking their is some atrocious infringement on your principles is just something that will hold you back and make you die young of heart disease.
It's the gov't's prerogative to tax things to encourage or discourage behavior, always has been and always will be.
e: Aside from salt, which is pretty cookie.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
For what it's worth, I don't understand it either. I would think the libertarian diet would be pretty much "eat whatever the hell you want."
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Since Libertarians insist that the market is inherently self regulating and there is no need for regulations, laws, taxes and so on which will lead to the optimum result. (With the "Gilded Age" being apparently a result of too much government intervention...) It is fair to suggest that if you are a libertarian and this extends to government regulation of people's diets (through taxes and subsidies) than it is fair for you personally to uphold those principles and regulate your own diet.
If you cannot personally manage your own diet (maybe because of outside factors beyond your control HHHRM???) then how can corporations be expected to better regulate themselves? Its unreasonable to suggest that corporations are inherently more virtuous than individual people and thus not need to be held to a lower standard than you the individual.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From: Dan_Frank This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:
If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.
And for the record, it's not a tax on plastic grocery bags. They are literally banned in one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area. Grocery stores can't carry them. The sin tax is on paper bags. And neither of those make any sense whatsoever. Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful.
Dan I don't want you to feel dogpiled, so if you don't want to respond, I'll understand.
I guess I see a problem with the connection you tried to make there. There's actual documented evidence that poor decisions one person makes impacts the overall price of healthcare. So it's not a matter of personal opinion that someone's bad choice has a negative effect on the community. Gay marriage, however, is some amorphous ooky gooey FEELING that the gays are lurking out there ruining your marriage simply by existing. One is based on empirical evidence. One is feelings based.
Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?
And we DO use persuasion, it's called democracy. If people in SF don't like all these rules you're talking about, then they should vote for other city council members and get those ordinances overturned. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests not enough people care that much about it. But again, if you're doing something dangerous to my health and I can't persuade you to stop just by talking, then you really leave me no choice. I'm not sacrificing my health for your right to be a douche.
I'm iffy on the whole plastic bag thing. Studies show that if you use those canvas bags, it IS better for the environment than constantly creating plastic bags in terms of the sheer amount of oil necessary to create them, but also because of the huge, huge landfill problem they create. But you have to use those bags EVERY time for years in order for the environmental benefit to really take hold over the materials it takes to make the canvas bags. I'm not sure banning is necessary, but I don't have a problem with using a tax as a stick to get them to stop using them. And at that point, it DOES make environmental sense to switch.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It's a little funny reading "Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful." Since it seems to imply there isn't a "right headed" green environmentalist perspective, so I don't think Dan has really read any of the previous arguments levied in these forums.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure he's aware of most of them though he might not be sympathetic to them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Yeah, I still don't understand. Your diet is bizarre and mock worthy, but if someone tried to ban it I'd be right there with you saying such a thing was a violation of your rights. Is that what you needed to hear?
Or, yes: bizarre diet fads are also popular with many libertarians! Though not with me. Is that what you wanted?
Matt's pretty much got the right of my opinion on the matter.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Yeah, I still don't understand. Your diet is bizarre and mock worthy, but if someone tried to ban it I'd be right there with you saying such a thing was a violation of your rights. Is that what you needed to hear?
Or, yes: bizarre diet fads are also popular with many libertarians! Though not with me. Is that what you wanted?
Matt's pretty much got the right of my opinion on the matter.
Yes, Dan, I already knew your take on diet was shallow.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From: Dan_Frank This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:
If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.
And for the record, it's not a tax on plastic grocery bags. They are literally banned in one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area. Grocery stores can't carry them. The sin tax is on paper bags. And neither of those make any sense whatsoever. Even from a wrongheaded, green environmentalist perspective they are completely ass-backwards and unhelpful.
Dan I don't want you to feel dogpiled, so if you don't want to respond, I'll understand.
I guess I see a problem with the connection you tried to make there. There's actual documented evidence that poor decisions one person makes impacts the overall price of healthcare. So it's not a matter of personal opinion that someone's bad choice has a negative effect on the community. Gay marriage, however, is some amorphous ooky gooey FEELING that the gays are lurking out there ruining your marriage simply by existing. One is based on empirical evidence. One is feelings based.
Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?
And we DO use persuasion, it's called democracy. If people in SF don't like all these rules you're talking about, then they should vote for other city council members and get those ordinances overturned. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests not enough people care that much about it. But again, if you're doing something dangerous to my health and I can't persuade you to stop just by talking, then you really leave me no choice. I'm not sacrificing my health for your right to be a douche.
I'm iffy on the whole plastic bag thing. Studies show that if you use those canvas bags, it IS better for the environment than constantly creating plastic bags in terms of the sheer amount of oil necessary to create them, but also because of the huge, huge landfill problem they create. But you have to use those bags EVERY time for years in order for the environmental benefit to really take hold over the materials it takes to make the canvas bags. I'm not sure banning is necessary, but I don't have a problem with using a tax as a stick to get them to stop using them. And at that point, it DOES make environmental sense to switch.
Posting from phone so forgive errors please.
On the bag issue: doesn't this also ignore the energy cost in regularly washing those reusable bags? And if they aren't washed regularly they are a non-trivial health risk, according to studies I've seen. And what landfill issue are you referring to?
I'll respond to your other points later, they're good.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Dan, I asked YOU about YOUR diet, not anyone else. You're the one who's being inconsistent. You preach what libertarians preach, but you don't eat what they eat. I'm just pointing out a ginormous inconsistency. It's your choice as to what you do about it. Do yo think that's fair?
I don't understand this post. If you want a response you need to clarify it.
Well, since you made such a big deal about mocking my diet recently, yes, I think I deserve an explanation. Either retract your libertarianism, or change your diet, or explain why you're OK with the inconsistency. That's fair, right?
Yeah, I still don't understand. Your diet is bizarre and mock worthy, but if someone tried to ban it I'd be right there with you saying such a thing was a violation of your rights. Is that what you needed to hear?
Or, yes: bizarre diet fads are also popular with many libertarians! Though not with me. Is that what you wanted?
Matt's pretty much got the right of my opinion on the matter.
Yes, Dan, I already knew your take on diet was shallow.
Um. Okay? So I answered your question?
Also I'll totally retract my Libertarianism! I'm not actually a Libertarian, Steven.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't actually seen anything about washing reusable bags, could you point me in the direction of something on that? My guess would be that reusable bags still come out way ahead because the water and energy that goes into making plastic bags is so extreme and they're used in such incredible numbers.
And the landfill issue, of course, is that very few people recycle their plastic bags (and even the recycling process is energy and water intensive, it actually recovers very little usable product, it just keeps them out of landfills). Billions of plastic bags end up in one of two places: Landfills, where they sit for thousands of years because they don't degrade, where they eventually begin to emit toxic gases. The ocean, where they float for years before the sun slowly breaks them down, where fish eat them, and are in turn eaten by larger fish, and then eaten by us, so those chemicals end up in our food chain.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Okay? So I answered your question?
Also I'll totally retract my Libertarianism! I'm not actually a Libertarian, Steven.
Mmkay...I'm done torturing you, anyway, either way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And trees. Don't forget the trees.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What about trees?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't actually seen anything about washing reusable bags, could you point me in the direction of something on that? My guess would be that reusable bags still come out way ahead because the water and energy that goes into making plastic bags is so extreme and they're used in such incredible numbers.
And the landfill issue, of course, is that very few people recycle their plastic bags (and even the recycling process is energy and water intensive, it actually recovers very little usable product, it just keeps them out of landfills). Billions of plastic bags end up in one of two places: Landfills, where they sit for thousands of years because they don't degrade, where they eventually begin to emit toxic gases. The ocean, where they float for years before the sun slowly breaks them down, where fish eat them, and are in turn eaten by larger fish, and then eaten by us, so those chemicals end up in our food chain.
I'll get you a link for the health hazards of not washing reusable bags later. Far as I know there aren't any studies on energy costs of washing, though, since most people don't.
I'll also post a link to a broad comparison, because I think you are overselling your side a little. By my recollection it takes 300+ reuses just for reusable bags to break even with plastic bags (especially when you consider the reuse of those bags, which is common and convenient).
And as far as I know you're overstating the landfill "problem". There is plenty of room for landfills. What toxic gases are you referring to? The same that any landfill produces? We have mechanisms for capturing and using those for productive purposes. Or is there some other gas that will be released in X number of years?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Plus they end up in trees.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Your links are entertaining, Kate. I'll try to respond to them later, when I'm at a computer and can more easily chop in quotes and stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And those are just the first three the came up when I googled. Really, do you think the plastic bags enhance the trees?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Really, do you think the plastic bags enhance the trees?
They enhance human lives, which is a lot more important.
What actual, concrete problem are they causing for trees?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Garbage all over the place may not bother you, but it is unpleasant for the rest of us.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
And putting garbage all over the place is already illegal.
But it sometimes happens anyway. So lets ban one of the items of garbage? That'll solve the problem!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because it is so very easy to catch and stop litterers.
One of the most prevalent and unnecessary items and one that isn't as easily picked up as litter on the street. And no one has banned it, merely presented incentives for not using it. What an enormous hardship it must be for you to have to share the world with the rest of us.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate, the whole start of this conversation involved me telling people how Alameda county, one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area, has in fact banned plastic grocery bags in grocery stores.
If you weren't so preoccupied with sniping at me maybe you'd have noticed that?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
I think it depends what you want to smoke.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'm thinking laws that ban smoking in public areas. Just normal cigarettes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You will forgive me if, for all the gross injustice it has done to you, I don't find Alameda County to be representative of the larger whole.
Nasty intrusive liberals. All conservatives intrude on are who we marry and women's health decisions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
I think it depends what you want to smoke.
Now that you mention it, I have no idea if the Michigan smoking ban came from the left or the right when it passed here. But it passed in 2010, so at the very least the measure had to make it past a Republican legislature in the state. While the South in general seems to be a bastion of free smoking wherever you wish, the vast majority of the country has some form of a smoking ban (South excepted), which suggests it's something of a bi-partisan issue.
Likewise, every state in the country has some form of seatbelt legislation, and in fact, heavily conservative states in the South seem to have just as many restrictive laws as the liberal states. Only New Hampshire has no enforcement law for adults, and most states have primary enforcement laws. These laws would not have passed in most of these states without conservative support. Surprisingly, Texas actually has the most onerous punishment for not wearing a seatbelt. I wouldn't have thought that.
So the idea that these laws are passed primarily by liberals seems to be a misnomer. Maybe some of the oddball stuff that happens in parts of SF or Berkley or NYC is led by liberal governments, but that's not necessarily indicative of nationwide patterns.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't even live in Alameda county, Kate.
But good lord, there are pools of contempt and condescension forming around your posts. Is it really that hard to talk to someone who disagrees with you? No wonder your posts look like you don't actually read the words of the people you're arguing against.
You're welcome not to talk to me if you find me so awful, but... Why do it and then be so hate-filled? What's the purpose? What are you getting out of the interaction?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
I think it depends what you want to smoke.
Now that you mention it, I have no idea if the Michigan smoking ban came from the left or the right when it passed here. But it passed in 2010, so at the very least the measure had to make it past a Republican legislature in the state. While the South in general seems to be a bastion of free smoking wherever you wish, the vast majority of the country has some form of a smoking ban (South excepted), which suggests it's something of a bi-partisan issue.
Likewise, every state in the country has some form of seatbelt legislation, and in fact, heavily conservative states in the South seem to have just as many restrictive laws as the liberal states. Only New Hampshire has no enforcement law for adults, and most states have primary enforcement laws. These laws would not have passed in most of these states without conservative support. Surprisingly, Texas actually has the most onerous punishment for not wearing a seatbelt. I wouldn't have thought that.
So the idea that these laws are passed primarily by liberals seems to be a misnomer. Maybe some of the oddball stuff that happens in parts of SF or Berkley or NYC is led by liberal governments, but that's not necessarily indicative of nationwide patterns.
Yeah smoking and seatbelts definitely became ingrained in the culture after a certain point. I agree they're largely bipartisan these days.
Also, I mean, Bloomberg is ostensibly a republican. Nannyism isn't localized to just the Democratic Party.
But remember, I was originally disputing your suggestion that hippie lefties want fewer government intrusions in our lives. I mostly stand by that. They just want different intrusions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:But remember, I was originally disputing your suggestion that hippie lefties want fewer government intrusions in our lives. I mostly stand by that. They just want different intrusions.
And in my next post I agreed with you entirely. Hippie lefties DO want fewer government intrusions in our lives, just like conservatives do. They just want completely different intrusions from each other and for different reasons.
But that doesn't make the original statement any less true.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us. We mostly intrude into their money.
I'm going to back this conversation up a bit, because I think things have gotten bogged down in Dan's nanny-state examples being pushed in specific localities like San Francisco and New York City.
Obviously you have a squishy caveat with 'when it doesn't concern us' which can be pretty broadly interpreted, but earlier in the thread Lyrhawn points out a few intrusions I've mainly seen liberals champion (compulsory health insurance, gun control, consumer protection regulations) to which I'll add higher minimum wages, campaign finance laws, affirmative action, fair trade, and resistance to genetically modified foods, because they think these abridgements of individual liberties broadly improve our standard of living.
I think it's undeniable that there are libertarian and communitarian impulses in both parties, which was part of what Lyrhawn was saying. For Republicans, sacrificing individual liberty for the greater good usually revolves around maintaining a traditional morality, whereas for Democrats it seems focused on establishing an egalitarian morality. I imagine that, for many Democrats, 'equality' is a good enough reason to impinge on personal liberty, just as perhaps 'tradition' is a good enough reason for many Republicans.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think that's a good assessment, yeah.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would say equality is a bit part of it. Pragmatism is the other part, but that's not universal among liberals. It's certainly my personal liberal philosophy.
Generally though, that might be a fair way to describe it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One of the things world travelers most frequently notice when they enter certain countries or crappy parts of the united states is that suddenly plastic bag litter is now omnipresent, all over the ground in cities and along roads and just generally everywhere. plastic bags are such a scourge that specific bans on them can tend to go a long way in beautification efforts and making your city not look like a horrid trashpile.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know I often wonder what most US cities look like to visitors from other countries. I think every city has its nice parts, but by and large just driving around even downtown areas or up and down freeways, all I see is crumbling concrete and large amounts of litter.
Then again, that's mostly Detroit, so, that might be an outlier.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So Peter (it is Peter, right, SenojRetep? I feel like I've asked you this before.) had a succinct summary of the situation. But I left a few comments of yours hanging, Lyr, so I'm gonna respond now. Also I find the plastic bag issue in particular to be really fascinating, because even by the priorities of environmentalists (which I disagree with) the ban is not good.
So, here's some more bag blather:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't actually seen anything about washing reusable bags, could you point me in the direction of something on that? My guess would be that reusable bags still come out way ahead because the water and energy that goes into making plastic bags is so extreme and they're used in such incredible numbers.
Okay, here are a few things. Here's an article that talks about some studies, and here's one of the mentioned studies as well. This pertains to the danger of reusable bags, and the fact that most people admit they don't regularly wash them. There were notable increases in foodborne illnesses in areas that enacted the plastic bag bans. I tend to look critically at correlational studies like this, but it seems to me they are the environmentalist movement's bread and butter. So what's specifically wrong with this one?
And anyway, if it's wrong, and people do regularly wash them, of course, that increases the "environmental impact," too. Washing takes energy!
Also, good study about the comparison between reusable and plastic bags can be found here. My recollection of 300+ reuses to break even was slightly off, in that it assumes everyone is reusing plastic bags one time (e.g. as a trash can liner.) The more conservative estimation of 40% reuse means a reusable bag needs to be used 173 times to break even. But, again, this is not factoring in the cost of washing.
Finally, here's a handy list of bag myths. Like the use of oil in manufacturing plastic bags, for example.
I want to reiterate that all of this is engaging with the issue on the environmentalist's terms. It's ceding a lot that I, personally, do not cede. Like how important "environmental impact" is compared to useful, efficient products that save time and improve human lives. You already know that, though. I care about the environment insofar as it impacts humans, not for any inherent value. We don't agree on this, and I think that's okay for this discussion right now. I'm more interested in analyzing the anti-bag environmentalist position based on its own priorities and morality.
Okay, I also said I'd respond to some of your earlier points. Here goes:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From: Dan_Frank [b]This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:
If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.[b]
Dan I don't want you to feel dogpiled, so if you don't want to respond, I'll understand.
I guess I see a problem with the connection you tried to make there. There's actual documented evidence that poor decisions one person makes impacts the overall price of healthcare. So it's not a matter of personal opinion that someone's bad choice has a negative effect on the community. Gay marriage, however, is some amorphous ooky gooey FEELING that the gays are lurking out there ruining your marriage simply by existing. One is based on empirical evidence. One is feelings based.
Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?
I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but it's still a lot murkier than you think.
For example, on the issue of plastic bags, here are some of the responses we've seen in this very thread:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Garbage all over the place may not bother you, but it is unpleasant for the rest of us.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: One of the things world travelers most frequently notice when they enter certain countries or crappy parts of the united states is that suddenly plastic bag litter is now omnipresent, all over the ground in cities and along roads and just generally everywhere. plastic bags are such a scourge that specific bans on them can tend to go a long way in beautification efforts and making your city not look like a horrid trashpile.
These are aesthetic arguments, not empirical ones. These are based, as you put it, "ooky gooey feelings."
And it can go further than this, too. As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us. So what if we have empirical data that shows X practice measurably improves human life but also measurably harms nature? That decision can't be made simply by empirical or pragmatic means. There are other judgments that you have to make in interpreting the data you have.
Also, an important quibble: You don't prove things in science, with or without empirical data. You disprove things, or you fail to disprove them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And we DO use persuasion, it's called democracy. If people in SF don't like all these rules you're talking about, then they should vote for other city council members and get those ordinances overturned. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests not enough people care that much about it.
Just a quick comment here: You're right that a liberal democracy uses persuasion more than any other form of government. That's what makes it a good system of government!
But, fundamentally, the "persuasion" you're describing here is collective. If a sufficient number of people are persuaded of something, then everyone is forced into it. Persuasion on an individual level is not necessary for a democracy to function. But that's the best kind of persuasion. Whenever possible, people should be free to do as they choose, and if you disagree, either persuade each other or leave each other alone.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But again, if you're doing something dangerous to my health and I can't persuade you to stop just by talking, then you really leave me no choice. I'm not sacrificing my health for your right to be a douche.
Right, this is where "...or leave each other alone" is very important. As important as persuasion, even. If the other person refuses to leave you alone and won't be persuaded, then yeah, at that point they aren't leaving you any choice.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh yeah and I said I'd reply to this. I don't get the impression you actually care, though, Kate, so I don't think I'll go to the effort of writing up some of my beefs with the garbage patch.
For now I'll just point out that even bringing up the garbage patch is a huge non-sequitur, because the vast majority of the plastic found in it is polystyrene.
But plastic bags are made of polyethylene. So... there's that. Pesky facts.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Liberals do not infringe on your liberty, because liberals follow something closer to Stuart Mills Utilitarianism where your 'liberty' is not in fact infringed; and in some ways does not exist as commonly understood. This is where the notion of negative and positive rights usually enter the equation. You have rights FOR certain things but also the right to not be INFRINGED by certain other things. They are not intrinsically the same to each other.
Thus, the "Liberals" infringing on your "money" is not equivalent to moralism because moralism doesn't hold up to scrutiny when comparing ethical systems.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I honestly don't understand anything you just said. Sorry. I'll try reading it again later.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Or maybe read some John Stewart Mill.
Or just try harder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's my overall, thematic beef, Dan: I don't find fault with the notion that we ought to be concerned with the environment for reasons other than improvement of human lives, rather than aesthetics or 'ooey gooey feelings', even though there's a case to be made that improving human convenience is something of an ooey gooey aim of itself. But I do see where you're coming from.
My criticism is this: the condition of the environment, and I mean that in every possible facet, has enormous impact on human lives. It's our habitat, after all. But that habitat is not actually a series of small factors that we can easily observe and control and modify to suit whatever the current human desire might be. In fact it's a vast interconnected system which we're discovering, the closer and longer we study it, is not at all as predictable and easily managed as we might think.
Therefore, there is a very real very selfishly (and I don't mean that word in a bad way) human interest in minimizing the impact we have on the environment when we have a poor understanding of what that impact actually will be. Which is, well, let's just say often and call it an understatement.
So basically, it seems to me, there's a very real human interest in trying to put fewer dings and stains in the environment, and it's got nothing to do with some sort of reverence for nature or ooey gooey feelings. Of course a precarious and wavering balancing act is required, but as for human interest? It doesn't seem to me that your scope is concerned *enough* with human interest.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
I'll get back to the bag thing later if you like, since I want a little time to read all the links you provided before responding. Though I will say that, I'm not the one making the beautification argument. I will say, however, that if a local city council wants to make a law pertaining to city beautification, I think they have a right to, since that's pretty much exactly what they're there to do (among other things).
quote:From Dan: And it can go further than this, too. As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us. So what if we have empirical data that shows X practice measurably improves human life but also measurably harms nature? That decision can't be made simply by empirical or pragmatic means. There are other judgments that you have to make in interpreting the data you have.
Well, I actually think that generally, things that harm nature actually harm us as well. Though of course I disagree with you and think there is intrinsic value in nature. I don't think most people would be on board with strip mining the Grand Canyon or Mammoth Caves, for example, were that a possibility.
But I agree there are non-empirical considerations to be made, you're right. I think the other side has a far greater habit of ignoring the numbers and going with "the feelings" though. That is, however, just a feeling on my part.
quote:Also, an important quibble: You don't prove things in science, with or without empirical data. You disprove things, or you fail to disprove them.
We're not doing science here, we're doing politics, so that's not really relevant. But thanks for the tip!
quote:Just a quick comment here: You're right that a liberal democracy uses persuasion more than any other form of government. That's what makes it a good system of government!
But, fundamentally, the "persuasion" you're describing here is collective. If a sufficient number of people are persuaded of something, then everyone is forced into it. Persuasion on an individual level is not necessary for a democracy to function. But that's the best kind of persuasion. Whenever possible, people should be free to do as they choose, and if you disagree, either persuade each other or leave each other alone.
I'm not sure I see the problem with the distinction you're drawing. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree. If that was the standard, we wouldn't be a country. The whole point of the country is majority rule with respect for minority rights. I suppose we can quibble over what minority rights are, but this country has never been about unanimous consent. Surely you must know me well enough to know that I'll argue (persuade) with anyone as best I can for as long as I can to try to get them to genuinely see my side of the story. I'd rather they agree with me than not, but if they don't, well, they aren't leaving me any other options. But I agree it's important to try.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Dan, in your response in which you quote me, I don't think you know who you are responding to. Additionally, your axioms about what does or does not have value has no bearing on the idea that there is potential tangible benefit to cities for severely restricting the dispensation and typical use of plastic bags. Ones which go into practical city utility well beyond ooky gooey feelings (i seriously have no idea where that quote comes into this)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
addendum
quote: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value.
Because you don't breathe oxygen, I take it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Dan, in your response in which you quote me, I don't think you know who you are responding to. Additionally, your axioms about what does or does not have value has no bearing on the idea that there is potential tangible benefit to cities for severely restricting the dispensation and typical use of plastic bags. Ones which go into practical city utility well beyond ooky gooey feelings (i seriously have no idea where that quote comes into this)
I wasn't responding to you, I was using your quote as one of two examples for something I was saying to Lyr. I think that's clear in full context, but I can see how it would be confusing if you scanned my mega-post to see if I'd said something just to you.
Sorry for the confusion!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: addendum
quote: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value.
Because you don't breathe oxygen, I take it?
Really? I mean, good god. How about don't hack off the next sentence and get your answer from the same post you just quoted:
quote: Originally posted by Dan: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us.
I just... That was a pretty low hatchet job, man. Please tell me you just weren't paying attention, and it wasn't intentional. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Also, an important quibble: You don't prove things in science, with or without empirical data. You disprove things, or you fail to disprove them.
We're not doing science here, we're doing politics, so that's not really relevant. But thanks for the tip!
Well, I brought it up because you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?
This is when you were talking about how you should base stuff on empirical data and not feelings. If we're really going to be using empirical data in this way, it should be data gathered scientifically. So my comment about proofs was relevant to this, I thought.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan - I'll get back to the bag thing later if you like, since I want a little time to read all the links you provided before responding. Though I will say that, I'm not the one making the beautification argument. I will say, however, that if a local city council wants to make a law pertaining to city beautification, I think they have a right to, since that's pretty much exactly what they're there to do (among other things).
Doesn't matter if you get back to it, I just figured you might still be curious about the claims I'd made. Don't feel an obligation to continue that discussion for my sake. And/or feel free to start a new thread or email me or whatever.
Also: I know you're not personally making the beautification argument. But it's being made. By people on "your side," inasmuch as you have a "side." I was just observing that making decisions based on such standards is very common to everyone. Which, to be clear, I don't actually think is a bad thing. I have no problem with arguments not specifically based in empirical data. By the same token, I don't think it's inherently bad for conservatives to make tradition-based arguments against gay marriage. I happen to disagree with most of their arguments, but not simply because they lack much empirical data.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Dan: And it can go further than this, too. As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us. So what if we have empirical data that shows X practice measurably improves human life but also measurably harms nature? That decision can't be made simply by empirical or pragmatic means. There are other judgments that you have to make in interpreting the data you have.
Well, I actually think that generally, things that harm nature actually harm us as well. Though of course I disagree with you and think there is intrinsic value in nature. I don't think most people would be on board with strip mining the Grand Canyon or Mammoth Caves, for example, were that a possibility.
Aesthetics have value. Those places are aesthetically interesting and unique. People enjoy seeing them! So... yeah. They have lots of human-centered value, actually.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But I agree there are non-empirical considerations to be made, you're right. I think the other side has a far greater habit of ignoring the numbers and going with "the feelings" though. That is, however, just a feeling on my part.
Yeah, they say the same thing about you.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Just a quick comment here: You're right that a liberal democracy uses persuasion more than any other form of government. That's what makes it a good system of government!
But, fundamentally, the "persuasion" you're describing here is collective. If a sufficient number of people are persuaded of something, then everyone is forced into it. Persuasion on an individual level is not necessary for a democracy to function. But that's the best kind of persuasion. Whenever possible, people should be free to do as they choose, and if you disagree, either persuade each other or leave each other alone.
I'm not sure I see the problem with the distinction you're drawing. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree. If that was the standard, we wouldn't be a country. The whole point of the country is majority rule with respect for minority rights. I suppose we can quibble over what minority rights are, but this country has never been about unanimous consent. Surely you must know me well enough to know that I'll argue (persuade) with anyone as best I can for as long as I can to try to get them to genuinely see my side of the story. I'd rather they agree with me than not, but if they don't, well, they aren't leaving me any other options. But I agree it's important to try.
I'm not talking about unanimous consent, per se. Don't forget the equally important second option of "leave each other alone."
We don't have to agree. But... let me paraphrase William Godwin: If you fail to persuade someone that your argument right, that is the worst possible justification for forcing them to comply.
You know what, I'm going to find the quote. Here it is:
quote:Originally posted by William Godwin: If he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is weak.
I think this is an incredibly valuable and underappreciated observation about persuasion, argument, and force. And I think it's just as relevant in the context of a government as it is on an individual basis.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there is value in that, but ignores the Douchebag Corollary.
Sometimes people simply want what they want and don't give a crap about other people.
quote:This is when you were talking about how you should base stuff on empirical data and not feelings. If we're really going to be using empirical data in this way, it should be data gathered scientifically. So my comment about proofs was relevant to this, I thought.
I see what you brought that up, but my point still stands. This is a lot closer to a court of law than to science. I'm an historian. I read all the information, all the evidence I can find, and then I use that information to produce a thesis, then I write out a story/argument based on that thesis using the evidence to support me, explaining how the weight of that evidence leads me to my conclusion and how competing evidence isn't strong enough. It's literally what I do on a daily basis.
No one is ever going to hear an argument that history is science. At the end of the day, I could be right, and I could be wrong. I look for evidence, and go where it leads me. If the evidence is good enough to change my mind, then I'll change my mind, though it may be that if I have an idea particularly firmly entrenched, it might take more evidence to convince me than someone else, and I'm always pleased when I find new evidence that backs up my thesis. But that's usually what sways me. I use studies, numbers, science, if you will, to back up my points where applicable, but the standards of a thesis-driven argument in history are a bit different than they are for science. I don't run experiments to try to disprove my thesis, not that explicitly, though you'll certainly find bad historians out there who ignore solid evidence that doesn't support them. The standards and practices are just a little different, which is why your bringing up science doesn't really apply to my thought process on policy making. And I would add to that, that the social sciences, where a lot of studies on government policy come from, also do not share the same standards of a hard science like astronomy or something.
If we did it that way, we'd implement policy not having any idea how it worked, and then tried to prove it wrong. That might be how you prove a hypoethesis in a lab, but it's not how you run a functioning society and government.
(sorry this might be a little meandering. I'm pretty tired)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It made sense to me. I largely agree with your assessment of how things are "proven" in social sciences and history. Maybe disagree on the consequences of that assessment, but yeah. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think this is an incredibly valuable and underappreciated observation about persuasion, argument, and force. And I think it's just as relevant in the context of a government as it is on an individual basis.
This is of course very well put and it's something to keep in mind, but we must also keep in mind as Lyrhawn alludes to that it's by no means necessarily true in each instance. You would perhaps apply that quote with reference to the trash bags, but perhaps you would not with respect to people agitating against a nuclear plant opening.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
China is a pretty good example of where people focus on whats good for people only to end up harming people through pollution.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: addendum
quote: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value.
Because you don't breathe oxygen, I take it?
Really? I mean, good god. How about don't hack off the next sentence and get your answer from the same post you just quoted:
quote: Originally posted by Dan: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us.
I just... That was a pretty low hatchet job, man. Please tell me you just weren't paying attention, and it wasn't intentional.
Right, so if it comes down to it, if people in general do something to nature or our localized environment which makes our lives worse in the long run, should they be regulated?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well by Dan's own reasoning, the answer would be an obvious 'yes' given your inclusion of the phrase 'makes lives worse'.
My question is what do you do, on which side do you err, when that aspect is often unpredictable and only spotted after the damage has been done, building up to some saturation point before it starts showing up?
----
Also, appreciate you mentioning that, Elison (I will try and remember to call you that). It was an example that occured to me quickly, but I was frankly wary of mentioning it, a concern that was mistaken as it turns out.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The pollution in China is catastrophic in every sense of the word, river and water table pollution in particular. I don't see how Dan can see how the US can avoid becoming like that by putting in less government effort than the Chinese are currently investing to avert it.
Green energy, green materials, biodegradable stuff, nuclear power; they are taking it seriously why shouldn't the United States?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be surprised if Dan didn't easily agree that the PRC example of unfettered (or poorly fettered) pollution such as happens there is an obvious example of things that make human lives worse and need to be examined. I'd be surprised if he didn't consider that pretty simple, too, I mean it fits with what he's said.
As for taking it seriously, eh, it's still news that the government is openly discussion the question or allowing discussion, so I would be a ways off from saying they're taking it seriously yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The US is taking it pretty seriously. Keep in mind that, while the US might spend less on green energy stuff per capita, it's still a world leader in basic R&D funding, and it's installing new wind turbines and such at a prodigious rate, if not as fast as China where they are flush with state cash and can create whole cities on a whim.
The Navy is almost single handedly propping up the green fuels industry during its infancy now. The DoE is turning out billions of dollars in loans to green energy companies, and as much for basic research, which is still needed.
And for that matter, we passed the Clear Air Act, the Clean Water Act, created the EPA, etc., a few decades ago, and all those things made a huge difference. The Chinese need to do the same, but won't, because it will probably nudge up the cost of doing business just enough to really hurt their manufacturing output at a really crucial moment.
Also, the United States is one of the few countries to actually reduce its greenhouse gases in the last few years, largely due to fracking, but that's another argument. Air quality in most places has been generally improving, and as coal fired plants go offline, air quality will continue to improve tremendously.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I was referring to China.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, I was answering Elison.
Forgot to add that at the top.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know I often wonder what most US cities look like to visitors from other countries. I think every city has its nice parts, but by and large just driving around even downtown areas or up and down freeways, all I see is crumbling concrete and large amounts of litter.
Then again, that's mostly Detroit, so, that might be an outlier.
I've been doing, fortunately, a fair amount of business travel to the States in the last couple of years. I can probably answer this ... except for a few cases, it isn't an outlier.
Surprisingly (to some), entry into the States by plane isn't actually that big a deal. The major hassle with the TSA is getting out of the States, but I'll get to that. Pre-clearance is done on the Canadian side of the border by, AFAIK, American staff, but American staff who seem much more mellow than their American-based counterparts. I've never flown from a different country to the States or without visa-free status, so I can't speak to that but I suspect that could be pretty painful.
When you're flying, simply avoid flying with American carriers, especially United. There are the illustrative first and second examples, but this is really just the tip of the iceberg. By and large, it seems to me that Americans have largely forgotten that flying should be an enjoyable affair. There are a few countries that I've had flying experiences almost as bad (Italy, for example), but not nearly as consistently.
When you land, American airports are usually pretty old, inefficient, and decrepit. There are a few shining counter-examples. I found Denver to be extremely well-run, decently clean, and efficient. But I've had more experiences like La Guardia where you step off the plane and you have to do a double-take to make sure you're in a first world country.
When you're travelling toward the city from an airport, many North American cities don't look particularly attractive. The decaying infrastructure is one thing, but what stands out more to me are the large differences in income and the larger racial divides. It can be a pretty stressful exercise figuring out which areas to simply avoid and how to deal with aggressive beggars and/or religious crackpots. Or it just feels weird to hit the urine smell in New York's subways and then pop out into areas that are ridiculously expensive.
To go back to the beginning, the real hassle is actually flying out. The TSA is much more of a pain on this side of the border. As an example, if you opt-out of the rape-scan they (as I strongly suspect) penalize you. I had this bizarre experience where after opting out, their machine (a mass spectrometer?) claimed that I has been exposed to explosives. Their agent frisked me (while giving a long lecture on how I could avoid all this if I just got scanned, which is kinda weird) and then their machine came up with the same result. Then they let me on the plane. It's just baffling and unprofessional at times.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for taking it seriously, eh, it's still news that the government is openly discussion the question or allowing discussion, so I would be a ways off from saying they're taking it seriously yet.
I feel like there are two questions here.
a) Which population is more allowed to discuss the problem? b) Which government is doing more about the problem)?
What you're addressing is a) and for sure there is no question about the fact that Americans can talk about the problem a lot more. But that doesn't actually address the problem (in fact, all the hot air could make it worse ). It could very well be the case that the population that is able to talk about it more has a government that does less, which seems to be the case.
In fact much of the media and netizen coverage on the Chinese side leads me to believe that less would be done with more discussion, not more. Mind you, this could very well be a good thing! For example, slower and safer construction of high-speed trains might be better for people's safety, but it definitely slows down displacing emissions from plane flights. As another example, the debate between the Republicans and Democrats pretty much rules out a national carbon tax in the US, but China is projected to take the hit on a carbon tax with the current five-year plan, possibly as early as next year.
China has built high-speed trains all across the country, displacing hundreds if not thousands of high-emissions flights. High-speed is basically still a pipe dream in the US. China has built dozens (maybe hundreds) of subway stations displacing a huge number of car trips. The US is effectively stuck in this regard. China is building more nuclear reactors than any other country, even adjusted per capita compared to the much richer US.
Also as an aside, China doesn't have the "advantage" of an economic recession which did more than anything else to reduce US emissions. See:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, the United States is one of the few countries to actually reduce its greenhouse gases in the last few years, largely due to fracking ...
and
quote:This is not to claim that the problem is solving itself. An even bigger factor in the reduction in fuel use was likely the economic recession itself. The Economic Report of the President estimated that 52% of the decline in U.S. CO2 emissions could be attributed to the economic recession, 40% to fuel switching, and 8% to improved energy efficiency. As the economy recovers, the EIA is expecting U.S. emissions to resume their historical climb if there are no new policy actions.
This is not to claim that everything is hunky dory, China clearly has an extremely serious pollution problem. I don't mind this being emphasized. But this fact doesn't really detract from the point that China has been working on the problem a lot more seriously and with a lot less resources than the US for a good while now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
An interesting point I hadn't included, but it doesn't disprove my point.
I would argue that China has a lot of advantages the United States does not in this regard, but yes, I largely agree that they have been much more aggressive about it.
Despite that, China is building coal-fired plants at an alarming rate. They're taking the situation more seriously, perhaps, but they also have a much, much larger hill to climb in many ways.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
On the other hand they put a quota on the export of rare earths in an effort to restructure that industry, (the second world's most nastiest pollutant industries in their damage to human life, the first is rocket fuel.) so that it isn't as damaging to the environment.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Despite that, China is building coal-fired plants at an alarming rate. They're taking the situation more seriously, perhaps, but they also have a much, much larger hill to climb in many ways.
Well, it depends on which hill you're referring to. The two that I can think of that are important is first, China's much poorer position. With a GDP per capita of roughly $8000 to the US's $48,000, it is indeed going to be a while before China truly has enough money to start doing cutting edge research. The other hill would be the 7.2 tonnes per person emissions of the average Chinese person versus the 17.3 tonnes per person in the US, so there's that hill.
So how does that affect building coal fired plants? Well, in some ways that's something to be pretty excited about. You're talking about power for basic sanitation, for heating, for lighting, more many of the basic living improvements (and thus productivity improvements) that are available for poor peasants in the provinces. That's how you build wealth to tackle the real problems. But if current trends continue (say China continues to grow at 9% and the US stabilizes, despite the growth forecast of that EIA report) then China's 7.2 tonnes will overtake the US in about 12 years and lose its leadership position in that sense.
But there's a lot of assumptions there and lots of low-hanging fruit to bend the curve here. For starters, the Chinese economy isn't terribly efficient and uses more energy per dollar of output, there are large gains to be had by learning about energy efficiency from the US in areas such as agriculture or manufacturing. China can also import policies such as those used to combat acid rain, policies that are well studied and known. Want to reduce car trips in Beijing? Well, build more subways (and they are!) which are a tried and tested technology. Go up the value chain and you produce less of the world's goods, become a more mature economy and you grow slower, etc.
Meanwhile, the US largely has to forge new ground in order to make progress. Without the political agreement needed to make real sacrifices, you need technological innovations to reduce emissions from cars, to explore new less polluting technologies, etc. That's a different kind of hill to climb, so I'm more optimistic about China's path in this regard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess what I meant was, they have a population four times as large as ours, which means the only way to quickly produce vast quantities of cheap energy is to build a lot more coal fired plants than we ever had to because they simply have more people to take care of. That wasn't a knock against them so much as it was crediting them with a bit of leeway since getting to their goal of a higher standard of living will almost have to entail massive amounts of pollution to do so. They have the benefit of learning from a century of ours mistakes, but let's not pretend that's going to be a magic wand to solving their problems.
The US is making pretty good incremental progress, but I actually think we're on the cusp of a big shift. Obama rather quietly poured a huge amount of money into renewable energy in 2009, and it's paying dividends the media largely ignores. Plus new EPA standards on things like air quality for coal fired plants and tail pipe and MPG standards for cars are set to take effect in the next decades. Costs for a lot of things are going to go up in the next decade, but we should see a dramatic fall in pollution and rise in air quality, coupled with a lot of new technologies coming online.
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: On the other hand they put a quota on the export of rare earths in an effort to restructure that industry, (the second world's most nastiest pollutant industries in their damage to human life, the first is rocket fuel.) so that it isn't as damaging to the environment.
And you, you're adorable. You think they restricted their exports of REMs for environmental reasons?
Tell me another bedtime story. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: he other hand they put a quota on the export of rare earths in an effort to restructure that industry, (the second world's most nastiest pollutant industries in their damage to human life, the first is rocket fuel.) so that it isn't as damaging to the oenvironment.
uhhhhhhhh dude, they didn't restrict rare earths to ...v ..
oh, i can't do it.
nooo. common, this isn't what you believe??
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It's a reason, which is fine for me. The other being to rise prices for cutthroat capitalist reasons which I'm sure Dan would have no objections to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It's a reason, which is fine for me. The other being to rise prices for cutthroat capitalist reasons which I'm sure Dan would have no objections to.
Given their shall we say reluctance to reign in industrial damage to the environment in other areas, it's tough to see how asserting an environmentalist ideal here is much more than the latest in rose-tinted glasses.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I wouldn't nessasarily say there's a reluctance per se, at least not in the sense of denial that's going on in the states, but more a measure of "can we do this and keep the 30 million jobs a year we need?" With it now apparent they can't do that any more; NIMBY is now becoming a Chinese "thing" as well and people are just as angry about dying if they drink the river water as they are about maybe not getting a job.
So now there's funding and the will, the hard part is getting compliance from the local fiefs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It's a reason, which is fine for me. The other being to rise prices for cutthroat capitalist reasons which I'm sure Dan would have no objections to.
It's a completely obvious and transparent crap reason.
Like what's going on here is that the reason you provided us is propaganda I would have been surprised to learn anyone here actually bit hook, line, and sinker.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)