Because if we do not transition away from carbon as our nearly sole source of energy there will be economic and cultural negatives. Primarily the result of global warming, foriegn carbon demand and supply, and air pollution. Energy use can be streamlined and made more efficient, even staying with carbon, but it must grow as the blood of our economy. I realize there are segments of our society that deny these issues exist or are massively exaggerated, usually for some conspiratorial agenda, but reality, science, history, and human nature point to a clear need to diversify our energy sources quickly.
"Continous Improvement" was the label for much such management training, and many state agencies signed on, but failed to implement. There are variations on Demmings' principal teachings published right after WWII, which the Japanese took to heart and used for decades to catch up to western industrial levels.
Should Routh have been able to buy a gun after two visits to the nervous hospital? And more on the point, should there be a system in place to confiscate his already owned guns once he had been know to be in mental distress? His father's urge to sell Routh's gun is as protective and valid a wish as a parent could have, but should the mental health system have a say in that decision? This is where the "taking our guns" smoke meets a spark. What evaluation and confiscation authority could be designed that wouldn't be open to abuse? This is a road we have to go down, in some manner or other.
Whole schools of enterprise process managment agree with you Lifer. The best eyes, those with the least investment in the status quo, and those with the most to gain from improvements in effeciency are usually at or near the bottom of of the process. Sadly, they also have the smallest voices.
I have a concern with moving Energy to DED, but it may not prove to be an issue. Economic interests in Missouri are aligned along traditional patterns of industry, agriculture, and energy production/transmission, which we need to be changing as fast as our economy and culture can tolerate. While DNR is hardly a bastion of novel energy tech transition policy, Economic Development is even less so due to its ties to the status quo. Transition from carbon to multiple primary non-carbon energy sources is going to be a critical policy arena over the next 20-50 years if we're to maintain a sound economy and recognizable culture. DED is a good choice if this needed transition is recognized and promoted by Missouri leadership, but it is built into DNR by law and design. I hope it works out, but I'm skeptical.
If the NY fee is too high, and seen as a means to reduce availability, it may well fail the reasonability test. I have no issue with that.
The analogy between cars and gun works sometimes, but not here as you correctly point out. Registration still isn't 2nd Amendment infringement. As as for the national DB on drugs? it would substantially reduce drug sales, and there's a skilled lobby that would be vocal against it, sort of like the NRA, but not.
He doesn't have, and doesnt want, your guns. John McCain just call the president of Iran a monkey, maybe your first vote was a reasonable choice.
Sorry, my post is in the wrong indent. To TickledPink's questions below: Connor's point is that those activities aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and that the proscription against "infringing" the right to bear arms is violated by any fee on gun registration. Courts have held otherwise.
You're the historian, so you should know that reasonable fees are NOT considered, by any court in nearly 200 years, to be an infringement.
Last login: Thursday, June 27, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.