Morning Reads – Thursday, July 11, 2013

On this day in 1782, the British evacuated Savannah, Georgia and headed for Charleston, South Carolina.
And this, because regular hula hooping is just plain boring.

Peaches

Jimmy Carter

Sweet Tea

Liberty Drum 

And if you’re not busy this weekend, head over to the new Atlanta hamster wheel. It’s only $15.

25 comments

  1. John Vestal says:

    Some slanderous hijinks going on over on the twitter over #gasolar. Hacked accounts. Falsified RT’s. Folks using “BBQ” as a verb. Madness.

  2. saltycracker says:

    Obamacare
    Run with the personal mandate
    let the state’s sort out the qualifications for them paying for someone’s policy
    Allow healthcare providers the right of refusal except emergency stabilization on the uninsured
    Open doors of competition in the industry

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Scott65, July 11, 2013 at 9:23 am-

      Thanks for the excellent video link.

      “Red States CAN build transit”

      …Yes they can, but there’s a world of difference between Salt Lake City, Utah (metro population 1.1 million) and Atlanta, Georgia (metro population 6.1 million).

  3. Dave Bearse says:

    I was reminded that some conservatives don’t simply disdain energy efficiency, they disdain the environment itself, after reading that the US House voted yesterday to block the enforcement of light bulb standards that would effectively force people to buy more energy efficient light bulbs. The efficient light bulb thing was signed into law in 2007 by President Bush but didn’t become creeping totalitarianism until the President Obama came along.

    A study a few years ago found that providing feedback on energy use can actually backfire with some Republicans, causing them to increase consumption: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=not-so-conservative-saving-energy

    A recent study that found conservatives less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/23/9314 Some conservatives go out of their way to hurt the environment.

    .
    I also read that Texas Rep. Jodie Laubenberg’s anti-abortion bill passed the state House yesterday. Tuesday Laubenberg said:

    “What we’re talking about today truly is about the health and safety of a woman who would undergo an abortion, but also, I want to point out, we are talking about an unborn child,”

    Flashback to 2007 Laubenberg asserting her amendment that sought to cut prenatal care from the Texas Childrens Health Insurance Program didn’t remove any children from the program:

    “But they’re not born yet.”

    A fetus is a child, except when it’s not.

    • TheEiger says:

      Saying that all conservatives hate the environment is like saying all liberals want to kill babies. Absurd and dumb.

      “US House voted yesterday to block the enforcement of light bulb standards that would effectively force people to buy more energy efficient light bulbs.”

      The key word in your statement being FORCE. Some of us prefer the carrot rather than the stick method. That is what is wrong with you liberals. You prefer to force people to buy or do things that they do not want to do. The world will not end because I buy a cheaper light bulb. The government is already telling me what heath insurance to purchase, how much money I can put into my 401k, where I can a loan for my college education and now they want to tell me what kind of light bulbs I can buy for my house.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        Try using a “Find” tool. The word “all” isn’t in the comment, but I intentionally used the word “some”.

        What carrot do you propose to encourage use of energy efficient bulbs?

        • saltycracker says:

          Carrot?
          Cost efficiency and effectiveness.
          It’s really improving and my conservative approach is to use them in frequently used locations. The outdoor daylight bulbs are sweet.

          Imagine the top buyers are conservatives as liberals looking for the government to provide would not spend money to buy.

          • Dave Bearse says:

            I agree they’re improving, but there are yet some applications where I favor incandescents. Hopefully the technology will continue to improve.

        • TheEiger says:

          That was my bad, sorry. My gripe was more with your desire to force people to do things that they don not want to do. I’ll be honest. When it comes to light bulbs I don’t think we need a carrot or a stick. Let people buy what they want.

          The nanny state idea is infuriating. Why do I need to be forced to buy a certain light bulb? Why should I be told that I can only put $17,500 a year in my 401k? Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to save for their own retirement? Why is it that you can only get a loan for college from the government now? What if I wanted to get a better rate from the local bank? Why should I have to purchase a costly heath insurance plan when a high deductible catastrophic plan works just fine for me? The idea that the government can force the people to do anything it desires is what pisses me off.

          • Dave Bearse says:

            One of my issues with market price arguments to oppose environmental regulation is that market prices typically don’t include public costs of production. (One source of conservative disdain of environmentalists may be that the environment is a collective public asset.) There are significant public costs associated with energy generation and consumption that are not born by energy producers (and thus ultimately energy users)—air pollution, atmospheric carbon in the case of fossil fuels, waste in the case of nuclear power, water (mercury), heat, mining costs, etc. Electricity is subsidized by the public. Inefficient electricity users receive bigger subsidies.

            I’m generally on board with people buying what they want, providing they’re paying for everything they get. That’s just not the case with incandescent bulbs. (It’s also why I oppose sales and property taxes instead of fuel taxes financing roads!)

            The carrot was a trick question. I disapprove of tax credits for energy efficient bulbs (and other energy efficient products). It’s an attempt to level the field with another and different sort of subsidy. I anticipate you’ll hate the suggestion, but a tax that reflects the public and incremental power generation costs makes sense. (Plus tax credits are more inefficient to administer and more subject to fraud.)

            Markets are generally powerful, self-regulating and good. Conservatives in my opinion in often thinking these are inherent characteristics.

            I say democratic government is generally powerful and good, but I certainly don’t think those characteristics inherent.

  4. pettifogger says:

    I’m crying huge crocodile tears for Wendy Davis and Co.

    I know, rape culture, women dying in the streets, no control over their own bodies, etc.

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    Alaska Senator Mark Begich’s remarks about Sarah Palin being out of state so much will lose steam now that Palin’s back at Fox News. I understand her return was contingent on a Wasilla studio.

    That’s not the complete perk you may think it is because Fox can count the studio as a foreign bureau since you can see Russia from Wasilla.

  6. D_in_ATL says:

    Would just like to recommend the PBS documentary “Two American Families”. I thought it was really eye-opening and pretty much left the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

  7. sockpuppet says:

    @Dave Bearse:

    1. The abortion restrictions in Texas do not threaten Roe v. Wade or reproductive freedom.
    2. Further, they place our abortion laws in line with abortion laws in progressive Europe.
    3. Further, they are pro-science, in line with the latest medical research on fetal development, including a study on fetal personality development study at our own Georgia State University.

    I thought 1-3 were all objectives of progressives. Except when they are not I suppose …

    Put it another way. If similar laws to this were not in effect in Pennsylvania, there would have been no legal basis for putting Kermit Gosnell in jail. Also, the existing regulations in Pennsylvania were not enforced as inspectors either failed to inspect Gosnell’s clinic or failed to report them. Result: women who either died or suffered severe, life-changing injuries. If want evidence that failing to properly regulate the private sector harms private citizens, well there you go.

    So, progressives want regulation of businesses to protect people: except when they don.t.
    Progressives support making abortion safe, legal and rare to protect women’s lives and health: except when they don’t.
    Progressives support common-sense restrictions and regulations (i.e. with businesses and with firearms): except when they don’t.
    Abortion is a medical issue, a personal choice between a woman and her doctor? Well fine then. Why not have abortion subject to the same regulations as every single other medical procedure, and why are not abortion providers and doctors subject to the same regulations as all others?
    Don’t claim that it is about women’s health because if you want to open a clinic to screen for breast cancer, they will have to meet far more regulations than abortion clinics do. Which creates this unusual situation where Planned Parenthood clinics, which do screen for breast cancer, are exempt and basically unregulated because they also perform abortions there. But if you were to open a breast cancer screening clinic without offering abortions, you have to meet the same regulations as everybody else. How does that help women’s health?

    It is about pro-choice ideology, plain and simple, not women’s health, women’s reproductive freedom or women’s self-determination. For example, abortion clinics could easily comply with this law by co-locating in (generally public) hospitals and having the same ob/gyns who work in the hospitals perform the abortions.

    Look, the impetus of this law was a Kermit Gosnell-type operation that harmed the health of women was found in Texas. They were unable to charge him because they lacked the laws that Pennsylvania has that was used to shut Gosnell’s anti-woman clinic down and charge him with crimes against women. And if this law is not passed, there is nothing preventing more Gosnell type clinics from opening in Texas and continuing to financially exploit low-income women. So opposition to this has nothing to do with protecting women. It is all about pro-choice ideology that abortion alone among all medical procedures should not be subject to state regulation (which incidentally was the position expressed by the only thing that Barack Obama actually wrote for the Harvard Law Review). Why not just come out and admit it?

    • Dave Bearse says:

      My opinion is prohibiting wholly elective abortions after 22 weeks, so I’m not very far from Texas’ 20 week standard. 20 weeks is within the range of scientific consensus (unlike climate change where the scientific consensus is the human activity is a significant contributor), but it’s toward the low end.

      You’re mistaken in stating that abortion is less regulated than other medical procedures. Courts intervene and find there’s no medical necessity or significant benefit associate with some of Texas’ and other states restrictions and requirements. Courts then rule the practical application is the restrictions and requirements is to unnecessarily infringe on the abortion right (in the same manner unnecessary restrictions and requirements infringe on the right to bear arms). Packaging the 20 week standard with unnecessary restrictions and requirements may cause some Courts to conclude the purpose of the legislation is to infringe a right which would tend to color other elements like the 20 week restriction.

      Clinics unnecessarily co-locate near hospitals? Your comment below is devoted to people being forced by government to do things.

  8. sockpuppet says:

    @David Bearse part 2:

    On the light bulb nonsense, conservatives react negatively to things that are “for the environment” the same way that liberals reflexively react against anything that is “pro-family.” If a policy uses a buzzword that liberals coin and use to beat the opposition over the head with, then of course the opposition is going to be suspicious of the policy’s motivations and effectiveness.

    Liberals could easily avoid this problem by ceasing to refer to conservation, alternative/renewable energy issues etc. as “for the environment” and instead start labeling it as “for the economy” or “for technology and innovation.” Honestly, people aren’t against “the environment.” People are against environmentalists, particularly the tendency of environmentalists to use “the environment” as an excuse to push regulations and try to dictate lifestyle choices that A) progressives supported long before they were tied to the environment and B) have questionable benefit to the environment.

    That is the problem with the solar energy measure with Georgia Power right now. The best way to make sure that this measure never passes is to continue to go around saying that people who oppose it hate the environment. But if you tell people that supporting it would create jobs in Georgia in the short term, and produce innovation and research in Georgia that would lead to even more jobs and hopefully a home grown industry down the line plus lead to more choices and freedom by consumers, then it makes support for things like that, and opposing the people who are either bought and paid for by the oil/gas/coal lobbyists or are influenced by them a lot easier. But instead of making a pro-business argument, you try to cram environmentalism down their throats. It is like winning the renewable/alternative energy/conservation battle isn’t REALLY a win unless it is based on environmentalism. So the true goal isn’t alternative energy/conservation at all but changing people’s ideological worldview. That is what really stinks about the whole deal for people like me, who aren’t as motivated by “helping the environment” as we are the economic benefits and the potential for new technology that expands beyond the energy industry. And if it results in cleaner air from less oil and coal burning and less nuclear waste to have to store for a billion years, hey that is an excellent benefit too. I know people with asthma who would benefit greatly from fewer coal-burning power plants. I also used to live in an area where nuclear waste was being stored and the folks were terrified about the canisters cracking and that stuff leaking into the groundwater. I get it. But you have to make your case in a way that doesn’t compel people to consent to Greenpeace thought.

    And as far as a “carrot” idea: tax credits, a favorite GOP staple. Offer tax credits for the light bulbs and other energy efficiency measures. Point out how it is pro-business because it saves money over time, both energy costs and replacement costs for old fashioned bulbs. It is rather easy and simple to come up with when your true agenda isn’t trying to force everyone else into your little ideological box.

  9. saltycracker says:

    If a business can save say $250k a year by putting LED lights in a parking garage – what is the tax credit for other than paying the initial changeover ?

Comments are closed.