Plasmus Maximus
Sep 18, 2009 Political
In the olden days, way back when, so far back that you would have to have studied history in order to grasp the timeline, (so that omits many liberals, who went to a college where history was not required), there was, in the city of Rome, a place called the Coliseum – a place where violence was waged on a regular basis.
This was the place where the populace had their escapist entertainment, their gladiators facing the wonders of the world, lions and tigers and elephants, oh my- all brought from the corners of the Roman Empire in order to placate the mob, which is the term the Roman “elites” gave to their populace (they just loved the people- you can always tell from the pet names). The Coliseum was the escapist entertainment that kept the population from noticing the way the Caesars and Senators were governing, or not- depending on the Caesar du jour.
The Coliseum was their Discovery channel, their Nascar, their football games. We have TV– that is our Coliseum, our “Circus Maximus”- often, that is all we look forward to, coming home after a hard day’s work at a job that might or might not suck like a wind tunnel. Our little window on the world. As much as things cost nowadays, this is it for many.
And now government wants to shrink our window- and this is a bad idea that rivals or possibly exceeds all the bad ideas this administration has had so far- the day is young, however, with the Resident in office less than a year. Admittedly, this idea begins in California- the Cereal State, Land of fruits,nuts, and flakes, but this is a small demonstration of what our Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wants for the rest of the nation.
Concerned that the growing popularity of big-screen televisions could make it harder for California to keep pace with electricity demand, state energy regulators are poised to crack down on energy-guzzling sets despite opposition from a powerful electronics trade group.
The first-in-the-nation TV efficiency standards would require electronics retailers to sell only energy-sipping models starting in 2011. Even tougher efficiency criteria would follow in 2013.
The California Energy Commission is slated to unveil the new standards today, followed by a 45-day public comment period. The commission is expected to approve the measure in early November.
The rules, which took more than a year to develop, are designed to shave $8.1 billion off Californians’ electricity bills over a 10-year-period. That works out to $30 per set per year, according to commission officials.
latimes.com/business
Now, I am all for efficiency, but how efficient are these sets, really? Will they actually have picture quality as good as the others? Because I gotta tell you- if I can’t see the blood fly in slo- mo, while watching a Tarantino film- that is not good enough for me- nor will it be for anyone else who will have to shell out more money (What? You didn’t think these new “greener” TVs would be Less expensive, did you?)
Oh yeah- this is how the regulatory Czar works- write a few regs that restrict the energy usage, or size, or whatever reason he wants to justify the shrinking of our lifestyle- and it will happen. Just imagine how the populace in ancient Rome would have reacted to the downsizing of the Coliseum- the riots and revolutions would have commenced forthwith.
It will also help California utilities head off the need to build more power plants just so residents can watch “American Idol” and other shows. TVs already account for 10% of residential energy use in California, driven largely by surging demand for large-screen TVs. Strict state mandates for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are further pressuring officials to act.
“Increased efficiency is the most cost-effective way of meeting our renewable-energy goals,” commission Chairwoman Karen Douglas said.
Environmentalists have applauded those efforts. But some industry groups, including the Consumer Electronics Assn., dispute the notion that the new efficiency rules would benefit consumers.
About a quarter of currently available television models would have to be pulled from store shelves, said Doug Johnson, senior director for technology policy with the Arlington, Va., group that represents TV makers, distributors, retailers and installers.
That could raise television prices, put home theater installers and wholesalers out of business and destroy jobs, he said.
The association contends that the regulations would force TV buyers to buy banned sets from out-of-state dealers over the Internet, depriving California retailers of customers and state and local governments of needed sales tax and corporate income tax revenue.
latimes.com/business
Don’t you just love those inhibiting regulations- instead of building more power plants, we’re going to downsize our life. There is a lack of common sense here- after all, unless John Holdren, Hussein’s Science Czar, succeeds in putting sterilants in our drinking water, (which I doubt, but which he did advocate), there are going to be more people, which should mean, in the land of Common Sense, that there would be more power generating stations, be they coal, hydro-electric, wind, or nuclear- but no! Instead, let’s downsize the TVs (That’s a good first step)- next, we’ll take control of how much total power you will be allowed to consume (already in the works), the size and kind of car we have to drive (check that one off of our list- done), and the kinds of food you will enjoy (enjoy is a subjective word- it might be better to say endure). Just remember the proposed tax on sodas and fruit drinks- that one’s coming.
But we will all be so much healthier, if not happier, if we just step aside and let these government people get on with our lives- it’s for our own good.
At least four out of five government goons say so.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: downsizing, freedom of choice, government intrusion, regulations, smaller TVs
We’re Gonna Get Your Mind Right (and tax you, too)
Jul 29, 2009 Political
Because we have, in this country, a little thing called Freedom of Choice, some people make bad choices. That’s okay, they have the freedom to be less than smart- at least for now. But if Hussein and his bevy of Czars have their way, we will have so much less in the way of freedoms and choices.
Like cattle in the chute, our path is narrowing, and soon we will have nowhere else to go but in the direction they are herding us. All in the name of control and taxes.
First up on the tax agenda was cigarettes, in the name of “sin” taxes- I mean, those bad old cigarettes, who could possibly object to the persecution of those misguided sinners? I am sure that beer and liquor are coming up fast, but since sodas and fattening foods are more prevalent, there is more to be made from taxing these, and the body police can make the case that this will help the healthcare costs. I am dubious, since, if one wants, most of these things can be made at home.
Still, here come the food taxes, like it or not, as these people “nudge” our behavior ( “Nudge” is a behavioral theory propounded by one of Hussein’s Czars, Cass Sunstein) towards what they perceive to be the “ideal” way to live, which they will dictate.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that’s their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
“Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America’s state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%,” the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile — almost 50 years from the first surgeon general’s report on tobacco in 1964 — to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway — as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child’s classroom certainly knows.
latimes.com
Perhaps instead of banning the cupcakes, people might consider the choice of healthy foods at home, but to disappoint children by not having cupcakes on a special occasion is a fairly mean- spirited thing to do, all in the name of fitness. But indeed, fitness is but a strawman argument for these “Czars” and their policies.
It is really all about raising money for their repressive policies and behavioral theories.
Key among the “interventions” the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for “sinful-food” taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful “intervention” — one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity — would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: “With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another,” the reports says.
latimes.com
Yes, these Socialists are making a list and checking it twice. They are going to make you skinny by taxing you so much that you have no money left to make a bad choice with.
Except the bad choice that was made with the last election.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: fascism, fast food, freedom of choice, taxes
You say Smartgrid, I Say Intrusive
May 30, 2009 Political
I have had an ongoing discussion with several people who have advocated for the smartgrid technology, while I have had many reservations, especially since it appears that this technology will attempt to alter your consumption habits whether you want to or not. This limits freedom of choice, and is but one manifestation of how the government believes it knows what is best for you than you yourself do. Incredible. They can’t chew gum and walk at the same time and they want to tell us how to act?
In the newest issue of my Electrical Co-op magazine, (I live in the country, hence the Co-op), which is intended to educate the consumer, the author expounds on the new “smart house”- the house that communicates with the power plant, ostensibly to exchange information about electrical usage. There is a problem in River City with this scenario, however.
The “smart” grid, which is in constant communication with your electrical generator, can accurately predict if the system is approaching peak capacity. The grid informs your distribution co-op about unusually high energy usage.
By prior arrangement, has provided you with a programmable thermostat with the understanding that the co-op can take control of the system and cycle it on and off for short periods on very hot or cold days.
Texas Co-op Power, June 2009
Wow- it’s so wonderful that my government takes such an intrusive interest in my life that it knows just how hot or cold I need to be, or, more to the point, want to be. But wait- there’s more!
You can, in this smart” house, have a refrigerator, washer, dryer, and dishwasher who will tell you when you may do the chores. If you choose to do the chores on your schedule, you will have to override the “high- tariff” warnings that will blink on their electronic readouts.
That has a chilling effect on me- “high- tariff”- this means in addition to the regular price you pay for your electricity, now you will have a “punishment” payment, in effect, a tax on your”excessive” usage. If you do not use the electricity that you pay for in a way the government approves of, you will have to pay more money, on top of the rates you already pay.
Does anyone other than me believe this is an intrusion into our Right to privacy? The government doesn’t need to know anything about when I wash my clothes, or turn the thermostat lower, as long as I pay my bill. The government doesn’t need to be in the power business- private markets should take care of this need. What the government wants is a source of data- mining, where the government collects information on its citizens and then sifts through it for what it might consider useful. That is a Constitutional No-No.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has looked to the Electrical Co-ops to take the lead in this smart technology, and admittedly, even now, there’s just 16% of the Co-ops who have this technology, but you can believe that this will snowball in a hurry, as the socialists in the government want to know all they can so they can control you all they can, because after all, they know what’s best for you.
The FERC defines “advanced metering” as a system that records customer consumption on at least an hourly basis and provides at least a daily transmittal of measurements over a communications network to a central collection point.
Texas Co-op Power, June 2009
This is a path we should tread with extreme care- our right to privacy is in peril, and for those who do not believe this, remember one thing- change is incremental, and what seems like a little thing now can be used as precedent, and enable the next step to be taken with less outrage.
The government does not need to know any of this information, and certainly should not be telling us how to live our lives- if we want to turn the thermostat lower, or wash our dishes at an odd time, that should be our business, and we should not be penalized for this. Not everyone lives their lives like everyone else, and to use a “tariff” to punish any power usage different from what the government considers the “norm” is punitive and excessive, and possibly unconstitutional.
But we have come to expect unconstitutional behavior from this administration.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: data mining, freedom of choice, power, right to privacy, smart grid