In the 70′s the SO2 concentrations in coal burning plant exhaust was sufficient to produce detrimental effects on both the populace and the environment in the form of Acid Rain.  There were several attempts to find ways to solve this but no legislation could move forward because the cost to industry was considered far to high.  Several economists, using different economic models went through many variations on methods and means to achieve the noble goal of the end of acid rain.  All of these models included some form of restriction on emissions, enforceable by the EPA, but it wasn’t until one of these economists considered a secondary economy of transportable credits that could be traded between emitters that they came upon a model that was economically feasible.  Thus Cap & Trade was born.  This economic model was put into fashion by a bipartisan group that agreed on the problem, and decided to find a feasible solution.  And in 1990 G.H.W. Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, capping SO2 emissions and creating a barter system that rewarded efficient companies and innovators that could find ways to reduce their emissions, and leaving the majority of the burden of the price tag on those companies that could not change.  Of course some portion of this increase in the cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer but since the goal was noble and everyone essentially agreed that the problem needed to be fixed everyone was willing to accept the additional costs and move forward.  And it was very successful (when the EPA effectively enforced it) and acid rain has been drastically reduced.  NOx emissions were next, and also very effective.

Now we get to the current debate.  The GOP has been fighting hard against these controls being applied to CO2 emissions, and that is the real issue.  They are actually arguing that controls on CO2 are too costly, why you ask, because they don’t believe that man made CO2 has the harmful effects that the IPCC or most of the rest of the world has agreed upon by consensus.   That’s right, they do not believe in Climate Change, and this is why they oppose Cap & Trade.  It is not that the Cap & Trade policy is bad, it has been proven as an effective tool in reducing emissions, providing incentives to innovate and change, and at the least effective cost to the consumers/tax payers and industry as a whole.  Some members of the GOP will still say that they don’t believe but since the media mocks them and tries to show them as radical conservatives or loons, most no longer are willing to step out from the herd like that.  So they argue against bills or measures that would actually make strides towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and avoid the subject as to what their real motivation is.  If they bought into climate change, they would be applauding the application of Cap & Trade as the most effective means that can be provided at the least cost.

Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue.  It is the manner in which these people that represent us that matters.  The GOP has effectively blocked this legislation, and though, not officially, this bill is dead.  CO2 will continue to be unregulated which is the GOPs real intent.  The threat to put it under EPA jurisdiction is just that, a threat.  The EPA cannot act unilaterally and declare something controllable without an expected back lash, and subsequent lawsuits.  It is just a matter of time until this happens.

Chris

Share on Facebook

 The arguements against gay marriage usually fall along one of three points:

The basis of marriage is about procreation:  This is false, many people get married and not only don’t have children, but they have no intention in having children.  Should these marriages be negated?  Should any woman be allowed to marry after menopause?  If a guy has a vasectomoy while married should he be automatically divorced because of this?  These are the absurd questions that can crop up when we use this as the primary basis for marriage, which, incidentally, is currently the only arguement being used to defend Proposition 8 out there on the left coast.

The basis of morality:  This puts the institution of marriage more soundly in the realm of a religious institution and not a legal one.  Religion and philosophy are the foundation of moral teachings and the State has no place in the defining of morals.  If a gay person wants to get married they should petition their church, not the State.  This is where civil unions come in as a tool of the State, but I will get to this piece of legal documentation later.

The basis of harming the existing institution of marriage:  This is my favorite arguement used and the worst of the bunch.  There is nothing that cheapens or weakens my marriage other than the decisions my wife and I make, any argument otherwise is absurd.  And there is very little anyone can do to convince me that anything harms the institution of marriage like divorce does.  This single act of breaking your vows and throwing out the promises that make up the union of marriage is what harms it, not two other people getting married, regardless of sexual orientation.  Until the religious right can make it so hard to get divorced that people stop and think before getting married I won’t be convinced that they are interested in protecting the institution of marriage.

The arguements for gay marriage are simple, but they are as fruitless as the opposition to them.  Gay people want to be accepted for who they are.  This is a desire that almost all people want and it is both understandable and a fair request.  The problem that they run into is that too many people believe that the acts that they commit as a part of their lifestyle are grievous or mortal sins and therefore they believe that they cannot accept the person as they are or they will be seen as condoning the behavior.  Of course people of the G.L.B.T. community do not like the fact that a portion of the population, regardless of how big this portion is, thinks they are evil, corrupt, lost, or just plain wrong for being who they are.  The compromise has been to offer Civil Unions in place of marriage certificates or licenses.  The G.L.B.T. community disagrees with this on the principle that it reduces them to a second class citizen and they are “equal but separate” adding to the concept that this is a civil rights issue.   Every one of the legal protections afforded by this piece of paper are already accessible in the current system but it requires a few extra hoops and comes at a slightly higher price, which is a penalty for a lifestyle, again pushing this in the direction of the arguement that this is a civil rights issue. 

The proper compromise is simple, the State should only issue Civil Union licenses or certificates, period.   No more Marriage Licenses!   A wedding is a religious ceremony and a marriage is a partnership, two separate things.  But because the average American does not separate these two things they can no longer accept the idea that the legal protections provided by this certification of their partnership has nothing to do with the arguements listed above regarding morality or anything else.  If any two people want to form a personal, legal bond then this should be allowed, it says nothing in regards to the actual nature of the relationship nor the acts that they perform in the privacy of their homes.   Of course once you enter into any partnership, if you choose to leave it you have to go through other legal hoops to disolve the legal partnership you have created, but that is a different discussion.  This solution is fair and will provide equal treatment for all, and it will still provide the State with a small revenue stream.  For the time being, members of the G.L.B.T. community will still be treated as second class citizens in one way shape or form, as do almost any minority population, that is human nature and is not likely to change just because you cram it down your oppositions throat.

Share on Facebook

In this I agree, but it goes far beyond gun control.  Left and right both use tragedies and accidents to further their agendas.  This is opportunistic and has been going on in some way shape or form since the Agricultural Revolution thousands of years ago.  This is an issue of human nature, those we agree with can do no wrong until they go off message, and those we oppose can’t seem to get anything right, no matter how much we may agree with them.

Gun control just happens to be the issue of the day, situations such as the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech had arguments on both sides.  Those that want stricter gun laws cited the types of guns used, the ease of access and the overly violent video games that ‘desensitize’ today’s youth  to the violence demonstrated.  Those that oppose gun laws cried about restrictions against possession of guns and lack of concealed-carry permits by staff and teachers that could have resolved the situation more quickly or may have deterred the violence in the first place.

Both sides choose extremes when the actual resolution needs to be somewhere in the middle.  Both sides are opportunistic and will weigh in on articles such as the one Rich started from, but both will continue to miss the mark.  The second Amendment states: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  This is the most hotly contested part of the Constitution but its origin comes from Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776, originally drafted by George Mason, which states: “That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”   For one reason or another the drafters of the Bill of Rights left out much of the language, and they made few statements as to why.  George Mason’s thinking is clear in that those trained with arms should be allowed to carry guns, a Militia would be a step up, but private citizens should still be allowed to protect themselves and provide for the common defense of their State.

Rich is right in that those that fail to recognize social norms should not be reduced to ‘crazy’ or ‘nut job’ because they are exercising their rights.  But the argument lacking in his statement ignores the common sense restrictions that should be put into law.  Licensing should include mandatory demonstrations of competency and training, and restrictions against assault rifles and any weapon that can be configured for fully automatic operation should be denied the public, but hunting weapons and handguns have a very valid purposes within our society.    The strongest opposition to these policies should be the strongest proponent for responsible gun ownership and practical legislation but the NRA has argued that this is a ‘slippery slope’ to hand away all gun rights and I am sick of that position.  This is the position of everyone that cannot think of a cogent argument that is based upon substance…fear of what may come.  Get off your high horse and see the world that we live in, there is no legitimate justification for assault rifles in the hands of a private citizen, nor is there any valid argument to suggest that required training for a  license shouldn’t be implemented.  We require it for anyone operating a motor vehicle which has more uses than killing something or someone. (Guns don’t really have any other purpose, we can claim they do, but at their core, their design is to do just that, kill.)

But lets be clear here, the majority of gun related violence comes from those that obtain weapons illegally, and the incidents of domestic violence that end in gunfire would still be played out with similar ends, with or without a handgun, those situations just don’t get sensationalized.  Many of us recognize the potential harm that a gun represents, we can also recognize the inherent usefulness in these tools in regards to hunting and home defense, but at some point we need to acknowledge that there are some people that should not have guns, and there are some guns that no one but those trained and working in an organized unit, be it police or military, should have.  Until we can all acknowledge that we cannot move forward and make any real strides that will guarantee the rights protected by the Constitution while providing us with common sense policies designed to protect the public from those that would do wrong.

Chris

Share on Facebook