Another reason ...

Yeah, our freedom to ruin everything without regard for the consequences.

Think about what would have happened if the US government had, after WW II, FORCED auto makers to gradually improve fuel mileage at a "reasonable" rate. The world would almost certainly be quite different.

Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.

It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic vitality.

That's all well and fine how ever, after seeing who is running the show these days, do you really think we would be in good hands if we gave up those freedoms?

Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up so bad?

They know the time they have left in office or at least one or two of them, its a good cover up for they're problems.. Just like blaming BUSH and all the prior leaders before him .. THat does not sit right with me. Most of us do not want to hear the past, we want to make it go away. Using the past as an excuse for not getting equality for man kind sounds more like Bible thumping.. And you should know that politics and religion do not mix!

Nothing gets done with bible thumpers other than pointing the finger at the other guy for all their problems. They seem to thieve on it. And with out elaborating on that, I'm sure you know what I am referring too.

Come on now, do you want to be the first to give up your freedoms to our leaders? Especially those that are in power at the moment?

I will admit that something's we do have, made it a little easier than it should be to gain access to funds that are diverted where they should not be. Who is the blame for that? our freedoms? I don't think so.

Remember, its not just a little, it's all or nothing! I don't really think you are prepare to just turn over and die!

If we didn't have any FREEDOM thumpers. You'd be in a world of shit and long time ago...

The first thing that needs to be done is to remove those off the program that don't belong on it, especially those that are not even legal to start with! You talk about FREEDOMS, its those people that are doing the most damage by threatening our FREEDOMS. Because they are using up all the resources our country created for those that are legally born here and worked for it.. If you do the math, one of our greatest problems is those on the system illegally..

Next on the list is to get the peoples hands out of each others pockets. That includes all the entitlements and pay outs from big business.. This all comes to a bottleneck at some point and the bottle has broken!

No, Its not our FREEDOMS that are the problems, its those governing them and don't want us to have them because they don't know how to manage it and keep their nose out of area's where they don't belong with out them or their buddies getting a cut some where.. Most of those guys are there for the wrong reasons, not the reasons we put them there for.

And don't forget that.

the

country

vitality.

Uh... you obviously didn't read what I wrote.

Seconded. Nail on head and all that. As I have said before, they are a substitute not a replacement technology, at this point in their development.

Arfa

But it is not of "less than zero importance". We are talking of a principle here, and you can't have a principle that's valid for one set of ideas, and not for a different set that don't suit your particular views. A principle must be valid right across the board, otherwise, it's not one ...

You can disagree with some aspects of the way a principle is applied to life, but you can't invalidate it for those conditions, just because of that disagreement.

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:ibng6s$r7b$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

are you familiar with CAFE? Corporate Average Fuel Economy law,that manadates higher MPG for passenger vehicles?

the one that was responsible for more people buying TRUCKS AND SUVs with far worse fuel economy,and for clogging our roads with even bigger landbarges.

That was government's way of forcing better mileage. It didn't work very well.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:ibnge2$rve$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

I disagee. the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation. They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and prosperity.

And government is not the best for determining what is best for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious. FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be. there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution. to repeat; if you want to force people to do what you think is best for them,then move somewhere else. Please.We dont need any communists here.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:iboisb$7mt$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

you wrote a bunch of nonsense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE OUTLAWED? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.

Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your conservative Weltanschauung?

The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that Americans have traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to FORCE people to buy smaller cars.

I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so that people won't be forced to purchase products that might be dangerous to their health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety Commission. After all, the best way to find out if your child might strangle itself in a crib is to give the child a chance and see what happens.

One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But of course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a /terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?

FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the Federal government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is typical. Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution or Bill of Rights /actually/ say.)

You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books that controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy, how many pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase. This was necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and supplies they needed. DO YOU OBJECT?

We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of our energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of WW II. What would you have us do about this? Wait until energy becomes so expensive that people are forced to use less -- and American industry is further damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to use less NOW?

When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy your precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.

-----------------------

Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or the bulbs themselves.

It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government to prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based tungsten lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for them /right now/.

However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps (especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in a refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on only briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in replacing such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't consume anywhere nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.

CAFE is a problem, but that wasn't the original reason for consumers to buy over SUV/truck monsters. It was the "gas guzzler tax" of 1978.

The buyer of a new vehicle pays $1,000 to $7,700 in taxes to the feds if it doesn't get at least 22 mpg. However, if the vehicle is over

6000 lbs GVW, it's exempt as a light truck and no taxes are charged.

For a 6000 lb GVW behemoth SUV, that should pay the $7,700 tax, at $3/gallon, that's 2000 gallons of gas. With a 12 mpg typical gas mileage for a big SUV, that's 72,000 miles. The average driver burns

12,000 to 20,000 miles per year. Not paying this tax would therefore pay for all the gasoline consumed in the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of operation. Since this tax generates considerable revenue, the feds wouldn't even think of fixing the counter incentive problem.

It's quite a sales pitch: Buy this new oversized gas guzzler, and the money you save will pay for the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of driving.

What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated, but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload, passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:ibp13d$sno$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

show me where I said that you said any of that.

why do you ASSume things that have not been said?

that Safety Commission is one more thing(of many) Federal government should NOT be involved with. If people want those services,companies will spring up to provide them,like Consumer Reports.

Bullshit. regulating TRADE between the states has nothing to do with auto fuel economy. that Interstate Commerce clause has been abused almost as much as the "provide for the general welfare" comment on the Preamble.

There was a WAR being fought. there's provision for that,it makes sense,and it was for a limited time.

DEVELOP OUR OWN ENERGY SOURCES. Instead of blocking them off.

Our nation is being "reduced to third-world status" by people like you,who have government interfere in everything. Our status began dropping when we began accepting socialism.

I disagree. the Federal government has NO BUSINESS in this area.

Yeah,force people to change instead of building more nuclear power plants and having cheap reliable electricity.

You need to move to commie-land. Then you can force people to do as you want them to do.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking. I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands, some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short warm up cycle others have longer ones. I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs. If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?

--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline, and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and would have went up at 6200 pounds.

--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Have you ever seen stone wheels on a car, and cartoons don't count? Do you ever think before posting stupid, meaninless analogies?

--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

I wasn't referring to real commercial vehicles. My comments are in reference to what would normally be considered a large passenger car (such as an SUV or crew/family pickup), that has been "fattened" to exceed 6000 lbs to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax.

My long gone 1972 Internationl 3/4 ton 1210 pickup, with service boxes, had a GVW on the stick of 6300 lbs. However, when I weighed it empty for the weight sticker at the dump, with 24 gallons of gas, and all the tools and junk I could hide inside the boxes, they gave me a sticker for 6200 lbs. If I had been in the drivers seat, it would have hit 6300 lbs.

A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth is at:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

The StepVan was my service truck. it had a 292 inline six, and got more that 22 miles per gallon with a couple tons of cargo.

The down side is it makes you look like an impotent fool when you drive one. 'Viagra on wheels!' :)

--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

And where did I ever say "one bad bulb" ? I actually said, if you took the trouble to read the post properly, " - but my continuing experience, judged from when they first appeared, right up until now - "

Does that perhaps suggest to you that I have been trying different types from all manner of manufacturers in all sorts of countries, for the last 15 years or more ? Yes, some do have a 'short warm up period' but that is still massively long compared to an incandescent, which reaches its maximum light output in a few mS - for all intents and purposes, instantly. There are some places where CFLs have their uses, but for me, not many of them are inside the house. If you like them, and want to fill your house with them, that's fine. I however, don't.

But more than anything, I object to self-obsessed greenie politicians, trying to force me to use them, based largely on a misconceived notion that the things are 'eco-friendly'. If countries embraced nuclear power generation in the way that France for instance, has, then there would not be any need to mandate this nonsense, nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy windmills, and now to carpet the rest of the countryside, in ridiculously inefficient photovoltaic panels ...

Arfa

Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of aircraft, etc.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.