I pity the fool

that even THINKS about touching MY thermostat. Here in the humid Texas desert wasteland the aircon is more important than food. Any attempt to externally control a privately owned machine and Bertha will speak, and when Bertha speaks she speaks very loud. Bertha is black and not  really very big but what a voice !

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 379 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM
 

Riding the slippery slope to hell...

...and without the benefit of a comfort controlled atmosphere.

I doubt that many people thought about the Big Brother-esq implications of forcing their fellow Californians out into the wilderness to have a cigarette. Is this new wrinkle in your state's fucked-up list of priorities anything less than the next step along the slippery slope to Big Brother hell? I mean!

Wouldn't it make more sense to improve the electrical infrastructure? Is that so difficult? After the ass ramming y'all endured as Enron played ping-pong with the prices for electricity, one would think that the powers that be realized perhaps the problem wasn't the users, it was the system. Someone with common sense might have realized the problem, and started taking steps to fix it.

In Texas, or should I say at least here in Big D, our electrical infrastructure is second to none. Why? Well, because someone was smart enough to realize that an overloaded system is a system destined to fail. Even in the worst of the most hellish summers here, not once has anyone in the state of Texas had to endure rolling blackouts, or any of the other shit which has proved how inadequate Cali's electrical infrastructure is. Nope, instead of thinking up Big Brother-esq schemes, we have people investing in and strengthening our grid.

But no, infrastructure improvement is far too simple a solution...and it lack that "we know what's best for the people, so we are going to force them to endure our will" je ne se quoi for which Cali seems famous.

Keep your fucking hands off my thermostat? Nope, how about "do your fucking jobs, you low life, communist fucks!" To me, that seems to be the rallying cry that needs to spring up from Baja to the Cali-Oregon border.

It's that whole common sense thing again. Does it make more sense to fix the real problem, outdated electrical infrastructure, or is it better to once again, have government play the scolding parent, or the ever watchful Big Brother?

I guess when it comes to Cali, you have answered the question.

I bet that Ahhh-nold isn't going to have one of those gadgets placed in his home...what do you think?

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 2:03:20 PM
 

"Emergency" = the argument of tyrants + the creed of slaves

Hello folks

When invoking "emergency" and "Necessity" and "national Security" in relationship to the war on terror, people (except smarter people on this and other forums) " bought it" and still do.

 But here comes one very concrete proof of the point that the term "emergency" here is being used as an excuse to tyrannize our lives.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. And since the EPA itself opposes global warming improvement matters, obviously that is not their concern.

Regardless, to control the thermostats in our own homes is as you point out Sandy (Thank you!!) an invasion of privacy, a medical risk to the physically ill, and who knows what else. Bravo Sandy! Well said.

WHAT"S NEXT?

In Russia, the government controlled peoples' thermostats and hot/cold water supplies. Even the food supplies were controlled.

Is that what we are in for?

The former Iron Curtain border was dotted with graveyards all the way to the horizon of victims shot by border guards. Why? Because they were all condemned spies. I myself, at nine years old, was gunpointed just because we stood at the border for ten minutes.

So much for "Necessity". After all, they were "protecting" the country from spies! Just as we are "protecting" the country from terrorists.

Is this the scenario we have to look forward to at the proposed border wall?

Okay, back to the point.

WHAT"s NEXT?

Control of food supplies? COntrol of hot/cold water to our homes?

These bastards have no climate concerns in mind: They are merely tyrannical.

And we've got to stop this NOW! Because if we don't, who knows what's next.

I don't know what underlies the desire to control a nation's food supplies et al: If we find out, it would be helpful so they don't label us "conspiracy nuts" and dismiss the case being made.

I believe the case to be valid.

 "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants: It is the creed of slaves". ---Paul Revere, House of Commons

by Kathryn Smith (85 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 323 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 2:56:14 PM
 

more of the same

although this is much worse because it invades personal privacy, it is somewhat similar to a bill last year in California which required faucet manufacturers to reduce the lead in faucets.  Of course it was purported to make people safer.  The reality however is that the majority of lead you ingest from drinking water comes not from the faucet, but from the ancient municipal infrastructure (old pipes, old valves).  of course, it was easier for California to force the issue onto private manufacturers and confuse the matter, rather than just fix what is wrong.

by Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 4:14:17 PM
 

A better way to reduce energy use.

I agree with you, Sandy, but not for the same reason. If taking away your personal freedom would make a significant dent in energy use, I would be all for it. But. like automobile CAFE standards, it won't work, and it will be a political football.

You touched on the solution, though, when you noted that California has steadily reduced its per-capita energy consumption. California ranked 4th lowest in energy consumption per capita in 1997. In 2003 it ranked lowest. The reason is pretty simple - your energy costs a lot more than most people's, and you have learned to respect it.

Higher costs lead to reductions. It is that simple. But higher prices through price gouging by energy producers will not be beneficial in the long term.

The way to reduce energy consumption without taking away people's ability to choose is to shift taxes away from more benign sources to energy use. Then, by paying something more representative of the true cost of energy, we would all begin respect it. Interestingly, this would give you Californians an advantage as the rest of us learn what you already understand.

by Stephen Hart (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 2:49:11 PM
 

Thanks to...

...Pappy, Kathryn and Stephen.

You all gave me ideas I will borrow if I write about this again.

SS

by Sandy Sand (131 articles, 0 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1230 comments) on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM