Spathy's WunderBlog |
|
| Posted by: spathy, 02:24 GMT le 22 Mars 2012 | +1 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
weather gardening and pets.
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
74 ° F
Ciel dégagé
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Demandez votre Weather Sticker® gratuit |
 |
Téléchargez vos photos |
 |
Weather API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Devenez un membre du site |
 |
Trouvez-nous sur Facebook |
 |
Suivez-nous sur Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | À propos de nous - Contact - Soutien - Emploi - Communiqués de presse - Conditions de service - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index
Really, how does this fit in the equation or models that drive world wide policy ?
You just don't get it...........
http://www.livescience.com/15733-mystery-ingredie nt-influences-cloud-formation.html
Out>>>>>>>
I believe that Congress actually voted on CO2.
And the Supreme court (wrongly in my opinion) upheld it.
That has little to do with the many regulations that the Congress has Not DIRECTLY voted on.
For instance.
Congress voted that CO2 is a pollutant.
Then the EPA passed penalty backed regulation in response to the vote.
But Congress did not put forth the direct legislation that outlined the regulation and penalty.
I do believe that in the decision of the Supreme court that they stated the ruling could not consider any regulation that resulted.
The Supreme Court could only rule on Congress deciding that CO2 was a polutant.
Therefore if the regulation that carries a penalty is not directly voted on by our ELECTED officials it is not LAW!
It is Unconstitutional Regulation that usurps our representational form of Governance.
Resulting in disenfranchisement.
EPA cant legislatively do anything.
Congress voted on CO2.(I think)
Congress voted that CO2 is a pollutant.
The EPA then usurped the process(Congress allowed it)(the Congress disenfranchised we constituents)by mandating penalties that had not directly been voted on by our representatives that were voted into office.
I was not assuming what you were referring. Where you were leading the conversation towards was allowing CO2 to remain unregulated simply based on the presumption (actually, we all have good reasons for your presumption) that other pollutants were not being fully regulated or enforced. Should I be wrong about this, then tell me where you had planned to take the conversation.
"Are there regulations that the EPA has "passed" without the Congress Voting in favor of?" - No. The EPA does not "pass" regulations. The EPA determines what regulations are needed to enforce the laws that Congress passed when Congress created and passed The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act. The regulations that the EPA create are also under Congressional oversight. Congress has modified or eliminated regulations that the EPA has implemented. So the EPA is under Congressional oversight.
When the Bush Administration tried to block the EPA from regulating CO2, by bringing their case before The Supreme Court, the EPA was effectively reviewed by ALL three branches of our government. You may suggest that the EPA acts as it own separate entity and makes its own laws, but this is a completely wrong suggestion to make. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that supports that suggestion. None.
This would also serve as my response to your post #102.
Congress does not decide what is a pollutant. The scientific evidence does.
Anyone?
Gotta love ya Some1.
I dont wish to nitpick......
BUT!
Only Spathy could contradict himself in so few words.
"I was not assuming what you were referring. Where you were leading the conversation towards was ".....
Thats too fun,and I love ya for it :O)
No, Ossqss. You do not get it.
World wide politics does not determine what The Laws of Physics are. Observations are made, theories are made to try to explain these observations and then tests are conducted to see if the theories can explain what has been observed to determine what The Laws of Physics are. The theory that will best explain what is being observed will stand as the accepted theory. This will be until a better theory comes along or the accepted theory has shown that it does not explain what is being observed.
The discussion of world politics is a non player in the determination of what the actual Laws of Physics are. So, The politics will not try to enter The Laws of Physics into the equation when the a politically based answer is what they pursue. The actual facts are seldom used when it comes to politics. There is ample evidence of this.
But, this is not what you want to hear, is it, Ossqss? You want a political answer, do you not? Fine. Here is your political answer:
When the people decide that they do want to live in a polluted environment, then they will move the politics of the nation into helping to assure that they do not have to do so. How does this move to world scale? I will this as an analysis;
Your back yard is polluted. You remove the pollution so that you do not have to live with it. Pollution does not understand borders, language, nationalities, governments or "No Pollution Allowed!" signs. Your neighbor has a chicken/pig farm and runoff from these activities gets on you property and your backyard gets polluted again. Bummer!
Let us step it up a scale. Texas wants to make a serious effort to clean up its pollution. I know. A totally ridiculous example, but this for debating purposes only. Texas enacts laws to clean up the environment and are making great progress at doing so. Then a northern wind comes through and polluted air enters Texas and the air that Texas has been trying hard to keep clean becomes polluted again. What is worse is that a hurricane comes through along the TEX/LA border and LA's polluted water pollutes Texas again with all of the flooding.
Do I need to step this up to national efforts, or do you see where this is going? We are heading around the world with this, when the pollution from one area can broadcast around the world.
Out, as well.
Take care and be safe, to all.
Asa result I didnt see all of my show and I was unable to carry out my responsibility's as a blog host.
Ahhh.... sue me or rag on me later.
Such is life. And ah what a good life it is.
I have always said to myself.
If regrets make you sad?
You didnt do your best.
If regrets make you snicker,,,,,,,
Than you know you gave it your best shot.
I do admire your spirit, Spathy. I hope that you always retain your spirit. I wish I had as much spirit as do.
Out for real. Stay safe!
Now that I am wide awake beyond my bedtime I feel I must chime in on this.
The laws of physics are not just the physical laws.
The state of Mankind also follow Human Laws of Physics.
This is a concept that must be understood by the voting public and our elected Representatives.
Our modern Governance and previous attempts at Governance fail to acknowledge this reality.
Our founding fathers did not fail at setting up a system that acknowledged this flaw in humanity.
They knew precisely where humans were fallible and where Governance had gone astray throughout history.
Our founding fathers were quite learned in history.
More so than I and most of the voting populace today.
Benjamin Franklin knew the progression of freedom.
And predicted where we are today.
Thankfully it took a little longer to get beyond the tipping point.
The point we are at now..
NUMBER: 1593
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.
Its good reading.
Try a sample.
THE SECOND BOOK ON
THE DUTY OF MAN AND CITIZEN
BY
SAMUEL VON PUFENDORF
CHAPTER I
On the Natural State of Men
Link
That says a mouthful there, Spathy. I marvel at the foresight of our founding fathers. While they could not fully envision the technology we use today, they did understand the level of man. They also understood that man could destroy what was so carefully crafted to benefit man and that no degree of planning could prevent this. What I find most disheartening is that there is a level of man that tries to destroy beneficial plans before they realize the benefits of such plans. ... Such is the level of man. Sometimes the examples of rule by a mob mentality will show how little man has progressed beyond the other mammals of the world.
So whom is OK with there not being a regulation that prevents your local butcher shop from dumping his rotting meat and blood into the stream that goes past your house?
LOL! Yes, I agree. A better choice of words could have been used. I was trying to say that what you were referring to was something that I had not already assumed that you would try to use as a position in your debating tactics. In other words, you caught me off guard with your beginning line of progression in the debate. I had not assumed that such a line of reasoning would be attempted to be used.
Some pollutants are not fully or equally enforced through the regulations by the EPA (this is what you referring to) and therefore CO2 should be given a free ride. (I never assumed that you would lead the debate to try to make this point in your debate, but this is what you were leading up to)
Well, now you know that you can expect to see me make a mockery of the English language when I have deprived myself of rest. ... Sometimes even when I am well rested. ;-)
That is it? Are we moving towards word association or do you have something else to say behind this?
Do I have to keep on talking till I can't go on
While you see it your way
Run the risk of knowing that our love may soon be gone
We can work it out
We can work it out
Think of what you're saying
You can get it wrong and still you think that it's alright
Think of what I'm saying
We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night
We can work it out
We can work it out
Life is very short, and there's no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend
I have always thought that it's a crime
So I will ask you once again
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While you see it your way
There's a chance that we may fall apart before too long
We can work it out
We can work it out
Life is very short, and there's no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend
I have always thought that it's a crime
So I will ask you once again
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While you see it your way
There's a chance that we may fall apart before too long
We can work it out
We can work it out.
While I did skim through, I'm not going to get involved in the dialog this time. If I did, I'd be certain to tick someone off and I'd rather not go there, except to say that 24-hour talking heads over the past 15 years or so have maybe done more harm than good. People get so fired up. The politicians will do what big money pays them to do and we don't have much say about it any more, except to vote out incumbents and hope someday for legislation that forbids unlimited spending on political campaigns. So I'll keep my mouth shut and concentrate on happier thoughts. Like what's growing around your yard these days? Should be something in bloom at this time of year.
Thanks for all the lovely and touching and encouraging words you left in my blog the past few weeks. I don't care what they say about you (just teasing!), you're a wonderful person, Spathy, and I'm the richer for it.
Happy Friday to you.
Enjoy your weekend; suppose to be another nice one.
Photo not showing up here either!
Have a Blessed and Happy Easter Weekend!
Easter Christian Graphics
You were asking about my watermelons..I've tried 10 or 12 varieties over the years. The best are the small sugar babies. The first year I planted 12 or so, 6 produced, three were save worthy.
2nd generation I got a watermelon off each from this point on about 3/4 are seed save worthy. I did this another five years or more.
Last year I planted a few seeds from a FL seedless I'd bought..It crossed & gave less seedy ones. Had some weird blight that didn't affect watermelons but I didn't collect seed & planted from my previous years seed this year.
As for the pipeline. Alot of wild horse blood has been spilled over that already, though that matters less than taking people's land.. those pipelines leak &/or gush eventually..it's inevitable & they are targets for attack. Refineries should be built at entry points instead of piping across the country to refine it then put it on a truck & drive it back... Tar sands overall is a lose-lose, piping it across the middle of the country is even worse.
The only reason to pipe it across is to refine it in TX & put it on a ship to sell to another country. Which is exactly what is happening we are exporting he heck out of gas..people's land should not be taken so these companies can export more while the price goes up here as we buy up tar sands & open more US fields than ever.
This is the reason I asked about the Watermelon seed.
If you are ordering over 1/4 oz of seeds, you will need to read our Watermelon Waiver, and check off that you agree to its terms on our checkout page when you place your order. We regret that we cannot ship watermelon seeds to South Carolina or Florida.
http://www.highmowingseeds.com/organic-watermelon -seeds.html
Link
And the sugarbaby is the one I was going to plant.
Can you save the seed from ready to eat melons or does the fruit need to start to rot first?
Why arent they just building a local refinery?
Is it the NIMBY syndrome?
Environmental regulation essentially prohibits it?
Are refineries difficult to operate in colder climates?
If it was just the desire to ship refined product overseas they could just build a pipeline part way into the US and ship it out down the Mississippi via tanker.
It seems to me it must be that building a new refinery is close to impossible(monetary/regulation). So they must utilize existing refineries.
AND!
I do not like the taking of land from a non willing person!
NOT AT ALL!
They can go around or compensate for land use loss without the taking of land.
Viewing: 101 - 129
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index