9132
Post by: PanamaG
http://www.ericpetersautos.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=669&Itemid=10943
President Obama may be about to slam shut - and nail down - the coffin lid on the U.S. auto industry.
It was announced on Sunday that his administration plans to give California and a handful of other states legal authority to impose their own mileage, emissions and fuel economy requirements - requirements that exceed federal standards.
The auto industry - already crippled by sales that are off as much as 30-50 percent from last year - will now have to either build two sets of cars for two different markets (California and the rest of the country) or make all their new vehicles meet the stricter "California standard" - which will be both complex and costly.
Either way, it's a devastating blow - and one that the enfeebled U.S. auto industry probably cannot withstand.
It all sounds nice on paper. Who could oppose "cleaner" cars? But the reality is not so simple. Obama is neither an engineer nor a businessman - having spent about a year of his entire career outside the government. So he probably doesn't understand that, in the first place, current-year cars are already close to emissions-free. Compared with a car built during the 1970s, a 2009 model year car produces virtually none of the noxious combustion byproducts (unburned hydrocarbons) that combine to form smog and reduce air quality. In fact, less than 2 percent of what comes out of the tailpipe is other than water vapor and carbon dioxide - neither of which have any effect of air quality.
But California regulators - and now Obama - want to go after that remaining 1-2 percent. No matter how expensive. An economist would call this pursuing diminishing returns. But Obama is not an economist; he is a politician - and he knows that people (most people) will like the sound of what he is proposing.
What they might not like, of course, is the price tag that will come with it.
It ought to be obvious - even to Obama - that in today's economy, anything that adds significantly to the bottom line cost of a new car is not going to help Detroit sell cars - no matter how "clean" they supposedly are. Fleets of unsold (but clean!) new cars sitting on dealership lots across the country aren't going to save the planet.
But they may just write the obituary of the American auto industry.
Then there's the more subtle shivving - California's intention to categorize carbon dioxide - an inert gas that plays no role whatsoever in the formation of smog - as an "emission" for regulatory purposes.
Unlike other exhaust byproducts of internal combustion (such as unburned hydrocarbons) which can be reduced by making an engine run more efficiently, there is only one way to reduce the output of C02 - burn less fuel. That will mean smaller engines in smaller cars.
If CA gets its way and a 40 MPG standard is imposed in the name of reducing C02 "emissions" - it will mean a Stalin-esque purge of virtually every vehicle larger than a current Honda Civic. Trucks and SUVs - which some people actually need for their work, don't forget - will be as quickly disappeared as Stegosaurus.
Whether 40 MPG cars are a desirable thing is not the issue. The question is: Should California be permitted to force 40 MPG cars down our throats, irrespective of the cost?
The other aspect of this that's kind of nutty is the idea of allowing California to impose its regulatory will on the rest of the country - even to the extent of superseding the federal EPA. Since when did the California Air Resources Board become, in effect, the Supreme Law Giver when it comes to regulating vehicle emissions for the entire country?
Why should states that don't have the population density - and unique air quality issues of places such as Los Angeles - have to accept massively costly regulatory poultices designed to deal with California's problems? Why should a car buyer in, say, Caspar Wyoming, have to spend an extra $500 on his next new car because California bureaucrats have a new friend in Washington?
You'd think the incoming Obama administration would be interested in helping America's ailing auto industry - not driving a stake through its heart. If GM, Ford and Chrysler die, the odds are so will what's left of the American economy.
This is madness - and if it's an indication of the way the next four years are going to lay out, we're in for interesting times indeed.
Might as well have just flushed the bailout money down the toilet. At least there would have been less suspense.
People are going to get their Holy Obongo Free Monies tm and then realize what they voted for.
221
Post by: Frazzled
That is a problem. Mayhaps we'll see car companies pull out of California.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
Indeed! That is an option that didn't occur to me. Maybe it will to GM.
Although there are several other states that are just as assbackwards liberal, so who knows.
Hang onto yer knickers!
2700
Post by: dietrich
Isn't this a debate of State rights vs. Centralized Government? The founding fathers were big on State rights. Abe Lincoln didn't believe State rights extended to withdrawl from the Union.
Living in Ohio, I have no problem with CA invoking tougher environmental regs. If it cripples their economy, that's their problem. However, if someone can show that it effects the rest of the US, then I have a problem.
People who don't like the regs can move out of CA. Car makers don't have to sell some (or any) cars in CA. If that means there are no cars to buy in CA, unless someone can show how that affects the Country, that's a CA problem.
My guess is that like many bills, this one has enough loopholes that the Governator could walk through - even the late 70's steroid-fueled version of the Austrian.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Hasn't California always had stricter emissions regulations than most of the U.S.? For that matter, states can vary widely on their emissions requirements. For instance, I know when I was living in Colorado, emissions testing was more rigorous, and more expensive than when I lived in Nashville. Knoxville doesn't require emissions testing at all. So I don't understand how California is shoving anything down our throats. Also, even when I lived in Denver, with its stricter laws concerning emissions, the rules were different if you lived outside the city limits, in rural areas. I understand people living in rural areas who actually use their trucks and SUVs having a problem with those type of regulations....that is why, in Colorado at least, an exception is made for them.
Calling CO2 an inert gas is absolutely true from a chemical perspective, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is a greenhouse gas. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with its chemical properties, but rather its *physical* properties. This article is complete crap from a scientific standpoint.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:That is a problem. Mayhaps we'll see car companies pull out of California.
Let it be colonised by Toyota.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Having said that the article is correct. By its nature you can't limit CO2 as an emission from cars without reducing the amount of fuel burned (engine size).
2700
Post by: dietrich
Or you eliminate engines that burn fuel. This could be an attempt to get CA to switch to mass electric cars. But, the greenist don't want nuclear power, and they don't want emissions for cars or coal-combustion plants. I guess solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are 'acceptable'.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No, because then you have NIMBY.
We are doomed.
5030
Post by: Grignard
dietrich wrote:Or you eliminate engines that burn fuel. This could be an attempt to get CA to switch to mass electric cars. But, the greenist don't want nuclear power, and they don't want emissions for cars or coal-combustion plants. I guess solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are 'acceptable'.
That is where I break off from the lot there, I believe that we have a working "alternative" energy source available, right now. That energy source is nuclear fission. It isn't perfect, and it has a horrible waste problem, but I think it can be an important part of our solution to our energy woes.
Frazzled wrote:
No, because then you have NIMBY.
We are doomed.
I'd rather live next to a fission plant than a fossil fuel plant, any day.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We're still doomed. The people who have junk ratings and invented the mortgage pyramid scheme we are now all suffering in are going to try to tell the rest of us what to do. Great.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
We arn't doomed, if The bill doesn't work it will get changed, loop holed, amended, and what ever else keeps any law from actually doing anything. The US car industry was finished way before this came along IMHO.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
dietrich wrote:Living in Ohio, I have no problem with CA invoking tougher environmental regs. If it cripples their economy, that's their problem. However, if someone can show that it effects the rest of the US, then I have a problem.
People who don't like the regs can move out of CA. Car makers don't have to sell some (or any) cars in CA. If that means there are no cars to buy in CA, unless someone can show how that affects the Country, that's a CA problem.
My guess is that like many bills, this one has enough loopholes that the Governator could walk through - even the late 70's steroid-fueled version of the Austrian.
well, there are alot of people in california, so the lack of money being put into the market through CA would effect industry across the country.
I grew up in Oregon, where our biggest economic output is Intel, Nike, and the logging industry. When the country's economy as a whole is up, Oregon's is way up. When its down, Oregon's is way down... So this current economic crisis is definitely hitting the state pretty hard. So, i definitely think that one state crippling its own economy through ridiculous "environmental protection" regulations effects all the other states in a sort of trickle effect..
By not selling cars in CA (in this example) the auto industry would have to slightly raise their prices to make up for the losses that the state has now just created. this would mean that in OH your car is now more expensive, because that liberal sissy was whining too much about "Carbon footprints" and didnt want an "earth destroying" "time bomb" Civic, or taurus, or focus, or malibu (whatever other cars you want to put on the list)...of course, its not as if the american auto companies werent already charging far too much (the majority of the time) for inferior crap. With the exception of the Jeep brand, i would have to say that most foreign cars are just simply put, better made cars than their american counter parts.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
sexiest_hero wrote:We arn't doomed, if The bill doesn't work it will get changed, loop holed, amended, and what ever else keeps any law from actually doing anything. The US car industry was finished way before this came along IMHO.
QFT...as i said in my previous post, most foreign cars are just better in most respects than american ones. the american auto industry needs to reinvent itself... a new "model T" needs to be brought out, something that is high quality, that the "everyday man" can afford, and enjoy.... hmm, quality AND affordability?? now theres a novel concept 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yes but the foreign car companies would be subject to the same laws ensis. I doubt Porsche has a fleet with average 40 mph. I doubt Honda has a fleet that is CO2 nuetral.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
well, technically no companies do.. however, if im not mistaken, European countries have quite strict emissions laws, and all of the American companies (and honda, from a magazine article in Car and Driver) are lagging very far behind in the Emissions and Fuel efficiency wars.
CA aside, the american auto industry still needs to look inwards and rediscover what used to make american cars so awesome, and try to get back to that (im not talking about fins, as seen on late 1950s Cadillacs though)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
It's not a California problem, so much as a national states problem.
If California can make it's own special rules, so can New Jersey. And Massachusetts. And Florida. And so on.
So instead of having 1 basic Federal target, and a California modification, you have a patchwork of regulations that form an ever-shifting baseline of what requirements are needed to be met.
This isn't so bad, except that the speed of regulation is much faster than the speed of car development. That is, you can push a new number (e.g. 40 mpg, ZERO carbon) through most legislatures within a few months.
Cars take anywhere from 2 to 5 years to redo, with massive infrastructure investement for tooling, etc. So if you take the requirements to make a car 50-state, or even 48-state legal, and then the floor changes, suddenly, the whole forecast can be messed up.
This is why deregulation here is a bad idea.
Personally, I'm all for state-by-state mileage emissions fees to be passed back by the manufacturer.
If a state wants to deviate from the Federal standards, they can expect cars to cost more.
How much more is hard to say, but you're probably looking at 15% higher to start.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Both Europe and Japan are some way ahead of the US manufacturers in terms of MPG and reduced emission engines.
If California set emission standards which the rest of the US would not adhere to, it would mean that US cars couldn't be sold in Europe and Japan, but by and large they aren't anyway, so the only real change would be that the US car industry would lose California as a market.
221
Post by: Frazzled
O look NIMBY leaps up and bites me in the face. Down boy! Down! I know those evil windfarms are trying to wreck our virgin waterways. We'll stop 'em!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28860081/
Obama faces choice on Cape Cod wind farm
President faces two political allies on opposite sides of the issue
The Associated Press
updated 1:49 p.m. CT, Mon., Jan. 26, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's enthusiasm for alternative energy is being buffeted by two political forces on opposite sides of plans to build the nation's first offshore wind farm off Cape Cod.
A leading foe of the $1 billion project is Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., an early and influential backer of Obama's presidential bid. A strong proponent is Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a close friend of Obama and a source for some of his best campaign speech lines.
The plan to erect 130 giant turbines across 25 miles of federal waters in Nantucket Sound poses an early test of the president's energy policy, on stark display Monday with Obama's order to re-examine whether California and other states should be allowed to have tougher auto emission standards to combat a build up of greenhouse gases and his directive for the government to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry.
In the final days of George W. Bush's tenure, the Minerals Management Service issued a report saying the wind farm project poses no major environmental problems, clearing the way for the Obama administration to make a final decision on whether to issue a lease for the project. Reviews by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Interior Department's inspector general are still pending.
During the campaign, Obama had expressed strong support for wind power and indicated he wanted to double renewable energy production over the next three years. But deciding the fate of Cape Wind would force him to choose sides among friends and political allies. Patrick campaigned for Obama. Kennedy, despite being stricken with a brain tumor, is a critical backer of Obama's agenda, including health care reform.
Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project.
"The interests of our state have been basically submerged to a special interest developer," Kennedy has said of the project.
Patrick has championed the wind farm, embracing it as part of a push to make his state a leader in alternative energy.
"I haven't come to my conclusions for political reasons; I've come to my conclusions because I'm convinced that the future of our economy is very much connected to the development of a vibrant industry in alternative and renewable energy," Patrick said in announcing his support in 2005 as a gubernatorial candidate.
Project backers are wary of last-minute political meddling. They cite attempts in Congress over the years to derail it, including efforts by Kennedy.
"The opponents have proven to be very crafty and to embrace a scorched-earth approach to fighting this project," said Sue Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation, a conservation group supporting Cape Wind. "Of course we are going to be vigilant."
Kennedy complained there was a rush to approve the project as the Bush administration was departing — and before federal rules for offshore wind projects have been completed.
There are hundreds of proposals for wind-energy projects across the country, including more than a dozen for offshore projects. Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Tidal power and geothermal power are the way forwards.
There must be plenty of geothermal power in Yellowstone National Park.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Kilkrazy wrote:Tidal power and geothermal power are the way forwards.
There must be plenty of geothermal power in Yellowstone National Park.
I really would hate to see power plants go up in Yellowstone.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
They have a lot of geothermal in Iceland. Electricity is free in Rekjavik and a lot of people heat their driveways during winter.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Kilkrazy wrote:They have a lot of geothermal in Iceland. Electricity is free in Rekjavik and a lot of people heat their driveways during winter.
That works in Iceland, its a very geologically active place. I'm not sure how well that would work for most of the United States. It may work out west, particularly the Pacific states, but I'm not sure about anywhere else.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It surprises me that the Japanese haven't gone in for geothermal at all. They have a lot of nuclear and they have lots of volcanically active areas.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
I miss my Stegasaurus, he was my best friend and they took him off to the glue factory. 
5534
Post by: dogma
The subject is a lie, that is not a good article on the auto bailout. A good article about the auto bailout would mention that California emissions standards do not apply to the entire nation, and that they are based on varying classes of vehicles. A Ford F-350 is not held to the same standard as a Honda Civic.
5470
Post by: sebster
As dogma said, it was a lousy article. It was lousy because it pretended emissions standards are uniform across all types of cars. It was lousy because it pretended Obama was doing something that was completely out of left field, which is just not true. This is just another Obama step to undo the work of Bush.
What Obama is proposing is to return to a pre-Bush situation, where states are allowed to regulate their own emissions. Bush had previously come down on the side of the automakers, and forced California to give up its higher standards. This appears a welcome return to state’s rights, something that’s very important to the right wing until a Democrat supports it.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I'm all for state's rights, and have no problem with states setting their own emissions and mileage standards.
I just expect that the additional costs for meeting state-by-state variances from the Federal baseline should be borne by those states.
If that means that California gets its wish of pricing cars out of the reach of common citizens, so be it.
Citizen revolt will throw the bums out and order will be restored.
Eventually.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I'm all for state's rights, and have no problem with states setting their own emissions and mileage standards.
I just expect that the additional costs for meeting state-by-state variances from the Federal baseline should be borne by those states.
If that means that California gets its wish of pricing cars out of the reach of common citizens, so be it.
Citizen revolt will throw the bums out and order will be restored.
Eventually.
No, a state says that you can sell a car here in our state if it meets our conditions. If car manufacturers don’t want to meet those conditions, they don’t have to. The state will then work with those car manufacturers that do, and if that isn’t enough then they’ll be forced to relax their laws or get people to walk to work.
That is the purest example of the free market right there.
And yes, California would pay more, because it would have cars at a higher level of design and production. But then that’s how it works, you pay a bit more to produce cleaner, healthier air.
752
Post by: Polonius
sebster wrote:As dogma said, it was a lousy article. It was lousy because it pretended emissions standards are uniform across all types of cars. It was lousy because it pretended Obama was doing something that was completely out of left field, which is just not true. This is just another Obama step to undo the work of Bush.
What Obama is proposing is to return to a pre-Bush situation, where states are allowed to regulate their own emissions. Bush had previously come down on the side of the automakers, and forced California to give up its higher standards. This appears a welcome return to state’s rights, something that’s very important to the right wing until a Democrat supports it.
that's all true. Frankly, I just assume any thread started by the OP is at best highly partisan flaming, and not really any more worth responding to than any other trolling.
5030
Post by: Grignard
sebster wrote:As dogma said, it was a lousy article. It was lousy because it pretended emissions standards are uniform across all types of cars. It was lousy because it pretended Obama was doing something that was completely out of left field, which is just not true. This is just another Obama step to undo the work of Bush.
What Obama is proposing is to return to a pre-Bush situation, where states are allowed to regulate their own emissions. Bush had previously come down on the side of the automakers, and forced California to give up its higher standards. This appears a welcome return to state’s rights, something that’s very important to the right wing until a Democrat supports it.
Not all "right wing" people are represented by the OP either
5030
Post by: Grignard
Kilkrazy wrote:It surprises me that the Japanese haven't gone in for geothermal at all. They have a lot of nuclear and they have lots of volcanically active areas.
See, I always assumed they did. That is a good question, why wouldn't they?
5470
Post by: sebster
Grignard wrote:Not all "right wing" people are represented by the OP either
Fair point, I was using a generalisation that doesn’t cover all right wingers. There are certainly right wing folk that care about environmental regulation and state’s rights, and ones that care for one or the other of those two issues. And there are right wingers that don’t care much for each, but are consistent in their beliefs and arguments. My complaint is with those folk that will be shocked at an apparent loss of state’s rights one moment, and then completely alright with it in the next situation, depending on which party is doing it.
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion? Or that the folk that said that after eight years in office, it’s too early to judge the Bush presidency, but seem to think one week into the Obama administration there’s enough info to write him off?
5030
Post by: Grignard
sebster wrote:Grignard wrote:Not all "right wing" people are represented by the OP either
Fair point, I was using a generalisation that doesn’t cover all right wingers. There are certainly right wing folk that care about environmental regulation and state’s rights, and ones that care for one or the other of those two issues. And there are right wingers that don’t care much for each, but are consistent in their beliefs and arguments. My complaint is with those folk that will be shocked at an apparent loss of state’s rights one moment, and then completely alright with it in the next situation, depending on which party is doing it.
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion? Or that the folk that said that after eight years in office, it’s too early to judge the Bush presidency, but seem to think one week into the Obama administration there’s enough info to write him off?
Yah, everyone is a hypocrite. My personal gripe with my right wing friends are that they'll rail on against the government ( I can feel that ) but then expect people to put up with all manner of abuse from private corporations. My argument that corporate bodies, public or private, are not individuals and don't have the same rights. Or that they'll stick up for 2nd amendment rights but as soon as Marylin Manson releases his next album, well, that needs to be legislated. To protect children you see.....
5470
Post by: sebster
Grignard wrote:Yah, everyone is a hypocrite. My personal gripe with my right wing friends are that they'll rail on against the government ( I can feel that ) but then expect people to put up with all manner of abuse from private corporations. My argument that corporate bodies, public or private, are not individuals and don't have the same rights. Or that they'll stick up for 2nd amendment rights but as soon as Marylin Manson releases his next album, well, that needs to be legislated. To protect children you see.....
The world is a complicated place and some hypocrisy is probably inevitable. At least your friends sound like they’re being genuine, even if their values aren’t always consistent. Compare that to someone like the OP, who picks and chooses his beliefs based on whatever he can attack the Democrats on.
By the way, JonHwangDD, I think you assumed I was talking about you in my earlier post, probably because we both mentioned state’s rights. That wasn’t my intention. I think that needs clearing up in case you think my criticism of the OP is being levelled at you as well. We disagree on most things, but I think you’re being honest in all your posts, and coming from a consistent POV. You just happen to be wrong 
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
One of the main reasons the US auto industry is such a shambles is that they have been fighting having to make 'low emissions' cars for years, whilst other companies have just done it.
China has stricter emissions regulations than California. So that is a market the US industry cannot export most of their cars to.
if they had seen the way the customers and govts had shifted the last 5-10 years, like Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, the european makers had and like them just gone out and fixed things to comply they wouldn't be whining RE: having to put up costs/lose markets.
The more I see of the US auto industry (the big 3) the more I'm convinced it is, and has been for a long time, being run by the biggest bunchof incompetents in the history of business, but who are smart enough to sucker millions of dollars in wages out of the companies.
5030
Post by: Grignard
I think one reason might be that they released substandard products for many years. If I purchased a taco salad from taco bell, and that salad was filled with fecal matter, then I probably would not do business with them again.
5534
Post by: dogma
My favorite fact about the US auto industry:
A few years ago GM commissioned a consumer survey in order to gauge the appetites of its clientele. Good business policy normally. Unfortunately, GM is not a normal business. Instead of forcing the consumer to make a choice between two desirable options the survey presented one choice which was clearly superior to the other, with a neutral response for control. One example was: Would you prefer -
A. More horsepower
B. Less horsepower
C. No preference
As you can probably imagine GM ended up with a massive collection of results that essentially indicated that either people didn't care, or wanted more horsepower. Such brilliance from the mavens of Detroit.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
The industry in the US has indeed been producing substandard product for years, yes. But, they have also been relying heavily on they "showcase" cars. ie. the Mustang, Corvette, and Viper, as well as the advertisements afforded them in NASCAR, which i truly abhor.
NASCAR is the biggest aberration to the world of automobile racing ever created. this coming from an american: i am a huge fan of F-1 and the WRC (God, i cant wait to be living in germany!)
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion? Or that the folk that said that after eight years in office, it’s too early to judge the Bush presidency, but seem to think one week into the Obama administration there’s enough info to write him off?
Thats not a correct statement. 1) I haven't changed. 2) It is too early too judge but I can comment as he goes along. So far he's batting B+ which is not bad.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Ensis Ferrae wrote:The industry in the US has indeed been producing substandard product for years, yes. But, they have also been relying heavily on they "showcase" cars. ie. the Mustang, Corvette, and Viper, as well as the advertisements afforded them in NASCAR, which i truly abhor.
NASCAR is the biggest aberration to the world of automobile racing ever created. this coming from an american: i am a huge fan of F-1 and the WRC (God, i cant wait to be living in germany!)
Hey now, NASCAR is ok...it just can hardly be called "stock car" racing anymore.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Thats not a correct statement. 1) I haven't changed. 2) It is too early too judge but I can comment as he goes along. So far he's batting B+ which is not bad.
I didn't say you'd done it, you're not the only right winger I know. Don't worry Fraz, when I've got something to call you out on, I quote you
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I'm all for state's rights, and have no problem with states setting their own emissions and mileage standards.
I just expect that the additional costs for meeting state-by-state variances from the Federal baseline should be borne by those states.
If that means that California gets its wish of pricing cars out of the reach of common citizens, so be it.
Citizen revolt will throw the bums out and order will be restored.
Eventually.
Given the easy availability of low emission vehicles from makers such as Toyota, they may actually be cheaper than American made cars as well as being cheaper to run.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Is there also not an argument here that any changes made by California/wherever also actually represents a possible business venture/gap in the market for someone to exploit ? You know-- like should happen in a capitalist society ?
From memory America is generally quite pro this concept I had been led to believe.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The down side is that:
1. California is known for being a bit wackjobbish. They could create enviro regs that cost thousands of dollars.
2. It opens the door to every other state doing the same.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
1. California is a democracy. I doubt they will really manage to outlaw cars.
2. Ditto for every other state.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion?
Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.
And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.
THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.
5030
Post by: Grignard
PanamaG wrote:sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion?
Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.
And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.
THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.
Now that you have a point on, in spite of the fact that you expressed it in manner totally lacking any civility or respect. Sure, I agree that now that the shoe is on the other foot you'll see the hypocrites come out, people who expect you to respect the office while the whole time they were saying nasty little things about the Bushes, sometimes without any relevance to the legitimate concerns about some of his policies.
If you really believe in what you talk about, then you seriously need to work on how you express yourself. You're coming off as a carciature, an antagonistic one at that.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president
except in sigs on forums presumably ?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
But they may just write the obituary of the American auto industry.
Impartial media writing at its best.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
PanamaG wrote:sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion?
Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.
And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.
THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.
You're either the best troll I've seen in weeks or a sad, depressed, and angry 14 year old. Perhaps both.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually he has a point. The amount of votriol thrown at Bush/Cheney has been historic. There was no "respecting the office of President" going on from the left, or the hard right for that matter.
Both sides have now officially do's'do'ed.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Yeah, but pimplefaced queerbacks? The hell does that even mean?
221
Post by: Frazzled
You got me. All you hooligans with your hep cat language all sound a like to me. Now get off my lawn!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
actually... doing abit of reading into that post... its "pimplefaced queerbacks drinkers"
im assuming you can figure out the pimple faced bit there... and i think id be spot on if i went out on a limb and said that "queerbacks" in proper english terms.. is "Starbucks" the Tyranid-esque coffee chain.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Actually he has a point. The amount of votriol thrown at Bush/Cheney has been historic. There was no "respecting the office of President" going on from the left, or the hard right for that matter.
Both sides have now officially do's'do'ed.
To be fair, it was already there with Republicans vs the Clintons. I remember Jimmy Carter getting widely lampooned too.
To be totally fair, the USA has had some other much-disrespected presidents in the past -- Warren Harding hit some low notes.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think it's also possible, and indeed mandatory, to seperate respect for the office, respect for the person holding the office, respect the man, and respect for his policies.
I'd argue that the office deserves a lot of respect, and a person in their role as an officer deserves respect as well. Booing at an inauguration is churlish. The person himself, well, he's not a god, or a king. He's a man that has stengths and weaknesses and they're going to be exposed, as yes mocked. Wethere it's Grover Cleveland's bastard son or Ford's clumsiness or Clinton's sex mania: these are things that are going to be mocked.
Finally, a presidents policies and actions deserve respect only to the extent that they have merit. It's every American's duty to gather as much info and form an opinion on a matter before they discuss it. There's nothing wrong with trusting your officials, but any specific defense or attack on policy should be at least a litttle informed. the whole Dubai ports thing was a classic example of people having no clue about a topic making an ass of themselves on both sides of the aisle.
As for the vitriol for Bush: some of that was inevitable, some of that was a natural progression of how politics works now, and some of that was self inflicted.
The inevitiable part arises from two close elections, in which it's safe to say roughly half the nation voted against him twice. He skewed to hard right after being elected, while virtually ignoring the crucial issues of the evangelical voters that got him into office. He was not a gifted speaker or even a particularly cunning politician, and so failed to win over the voters in a way that Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton did.
The self inflicted part of it arose from his arrogance and his seeming inabilty to listen to anybody not already in his inner circle. When people think you're a Frat Boy that got elected due to connection, you should probably work hard to eliminate that perception. He never changed his persona, and he never caved on the token issue to appeal to moderates (Clinton had welfare reform, Reagan had the ADA, Nixon had the EPA).
Based on who he was and how he wanted to spend his presidency there's little change he'd be as loved as clinton or reagan, but there are ways he could have avoided the worst of the vitriol.
5470
Post by: sebster
PanamaG wrote:Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.
Grignard already called me on this and I admitted then that I chose my words poorly and used a generalisation that wasn’t appropriate. You’ve now gone on to ignore this to score a cheap point. Good form.
And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.
THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.
I abused Bush a lot. I think he was a very bad president. I think the idea that a position of great power demands some kind of restraint in criticism is a very dangerous idea. The more powerful a position is, the more criticism it should attract. If people think Obama is doing badly, they should say ‘Obama is doing badly’. If they think he sucks they should say he sucks.
My problem was always with the folk that spent eight years attacking Clinton on every possible point, no matter how petty, but then discovered respect for the office when their guy was in the chair. Now they’re gearing up again and quickly abandoning that ‘respect the office’ thing.
You are that kind of hypocrite. You’re complaining about booing a guy at his inauguration, but your sig right now claims Obama is a village idiot, and you deny he’s your president. You are an absurdity, you can’t even keep your story straight from your post to your sig.]
5470
Post by: sebster
Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually... doing abit of reading into that post... its "pimplefaced queerbacks drinkers"
im assuming you can figure out the pimple faced bit there... and i think id be spot on if i went out on a limb and said that "queerbacks" in proper english terms.. is "Starbucks" the Tyranid-esque coffee chain.
Pimple faced… I’m guessing because he assumed the people who didn’t like Bush were young. One bad thing about being young is pimples.
Queerbucks… there’s a thing about Starbucks being for sophisticated urbanites, while rural folk prefer Dunkin’ Donuts. One of the more fun measures of whether a state will lean GOP or DNC is the Starbucks to Dunkin’ Donuts ratio. Queer, I’m guessing because PanamaG is somewhere between 12 and 15 years old, and going through that stage where everything bad gets called gay. I think it has something to do with virginal insecurity, because it’s funny how quickly it stops after people start having sex.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
sebster wrote:Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually... doing abit of reading into that post... its "pimplefaced queerbacks drinkers"
im assuming you can figure out the pimple faced bit there... and i think id be spot on if i went out on a limb and said that "queerbacks" in proper english terms.. is "Starbucks" the Tyranid-esque coffee chain.
Pimple faced… I’m guessing because he assumed the people who didn’t like Bush were young. One bad thing about being young is pimples.
Queerbucks… there’s a thing about Starbucks being for sophisticated urbanites, while rural folk prefer Dunkin’ Donuts. One of the more fun measures of whether a state will lean GOP or DNC is the Starbucks to Dunkin’ Donuts ratio. Queer, I’m guessing because PanamaG is somewhere between 12 and 15 years old, and going through that stage where everything bad gets called gay. I think it has something to do with virginal insecurity, because it’s funny how quickly it stops after people start having sex.
I think its more of a use thing. Gay doesn't have a meaning until it starts having a meaning, so it becomes a catchall insult that in effect means virtually nothing but shows slight disapproval. As the user grows and matures they learn its actual use and begin to run into situations where it is feasible to use conversationally in a non derogatory sense. Past a certain age it just becomes kind of a throwback insult only used by the ignorant or lazy (I use it all the time and have had quite a few gay friends. "Aww man thats gay" doesn't really mean that something is homosexual any more than it means its happy. It's just an inaccurate catchall.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:I think its more of a use thing. Gay doesn't have a meaning until it starts having a meaning, so it becomes a catchall insult that in effect means virtually nothing but shows slight disapproval. As the user grows and matures they learn its actual use and begin to run into situations where it is feasible to use conversationally in a non derogatory sense. Past a certain age it just becomes kind of a throwback insult only used by the ignorant or lazy (I use it all the time and have had quite a few gay friends. "Aww man thats gay" doesn't really mean that something is homosexual any more than it means its happy. It's just an inaccurate catchall.
Fair point, it’s probable people stop using once they start getting to know people that are gay. Kids do seem to start using it at the onset of puberty though, and it seems too coincidental to me that that’s anything other than an effort to prove they themselves are not gay. From there it seems to make sense that that goes away when they actually proper show they’re not gay by having sex. So it’s probably a combination of the two things.
5534
Post by: dogma
Unfortunately, I think the use of the term 'pimple-faced' implies that he is far older than should be acceptable for the use of 'gay' as a derogatory term.
Also, I read one that the main reason for the use of homosexual epithets during the onset of puberty is due a burgeoning recognition of general sexuality. Essentially the argument was that people are born sexual, not homosexual or heterosexual, and that any leaning to one side or the other is imprinted in us from a very young age. As such, pubescent boys will tend to ridicule perceived 'homosexuality' in others as a result of denying their own, similar tendencies.
There were some other interesting conclusions as well. Like the notion that a man could exhibit a sexual (because sexual really only denotes 'between the sexes')preference for men, without ever having sex with one. The obvious derivation being that anyone who prefers to spend time 'with the boys' (or 'with the girls' if the subject is a woman) is likely a homosexual.
5030
Post by: Grignard
dogma wrote:Unfortunately, I think the use of the term 'pimple-faced' implies that he is far older than should be acceptable for the use of 'gay' as a derogatory term.
Also, I read one that the main reason for the use of homosexual epithets during the onset of puberty is due a burgeoning recognition of general sexuality. Essentially the argument was that people are born sexual, not homosexual or heterosexual, and that any leaning to one side or the other is imprinted in us from a very young age. As such, pubescent boys will tend to ridicule perceived 'homosexuality' in others as a result of denying their own, similar tendencies.
There were some other interesting conclusions as well. Like the notion that a man could exhibit a sexual (because sexual really only denotes 'between the sexes')preference for men, without ever having sex with one. The obvious derivation being that anyone who prefers to spend time 'with the boys' (or 'with the girls' if the subject is a woman) is likely a homosexual.
I'm not sure I agree with that. If sexual orientation is imprinted at an early age, why are the great majority of humans heterosexual? And why ridicule those precieved homosexual tendencies if it is just something that people have? Why wouldn't those who were "imprinted" homosexual ridicule perceived heterosexual. What about cultures that don't necessarily recognize sexual orientation, or accept homosexuality amongst men as long as they remain acceptably "masculine".
4455
Post by: Envy89
Didn’t Lord obama promise to bankrupt the American auto industry when he was running for prez???
Or was that the coal industry??
I don’t know... maybe it was both.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Careful, apparently it's WRONG to disrespect the President. Or something.
5030
Post by: Grignard
reds8n wrote:Careful, apparently it's WRONG to disrespect the President. Or something.
Not wrong, as in illegal. I can call Bush a redneck or mention that Obama stocks his liquor cabinet with Kool-aid mixed with vodka. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.
In fairness maybe he ignores him ?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
actually, for someone in my position, it is illegal for me to say certain things about the nation's leaders... one of the downsides to being in the military.
(of course, there are loopholes to those regs)
5030
Post by: Grignard
Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually, for someone in my position, it is illegal for me to say certain things about the nation's leaders... one of the downsides to being in the military.
(of course, there are loopholes to those regs)
I guess he is the highest leadership in the armed forces.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I appreciate this might sound odd coming from a country where we technically have royalty, but I do find it quite odd how .....well, reverent isn't quite the right word, but how polite you are towards your leaders. I'm constantly amazed how polite your press corp were/are with your politicians and the public at gatherings.
5030
Post by: Grignard
reds8n wrote: I appreciate this might sound odd coming from a country where we technically have royalty, but I do find it quite odd how .....well, reverent isn't quite the right word, but how polite you are towards your leaders. I'm constantly amazed how polite your press corp were/are with your politicians and the public at gatherings.
Where I come from it is called civility. That is somethign you do, at least in public.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.
Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Or own the Presdident, which is even better.
"Look, Pres, I contributed $10MM to your campaign and the Democratic Party. I officially own your butt."
5030
Post by: Grignard
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.
Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?
Thats called B.S., and a parent should never tell a child that.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grignard wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.
Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?
Thats called B.S., and a parent should never tell a child that.
ahh, but anyone who's seen "Thank You for Smoking" will know that that's exactly what this country runs on, B.S.
though i whole heartedly agree that parents shouldnt tell their kids that if they want to be, they can be a rock star, or pro wrestler, or fireman.... parents should tell their kids that they need to work, that without putting in the effort and work, none of their dreams will come true, even if it is to be one of the aforementioned things.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Grignard wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.
Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?
Thats called B.S., and a parent should never tell a child that.
No little timmy, you're not good enough to be president. The country is false and you should be ashamed of living.
I much prefer the optimistic method of child rearing, where you instill the fact that with enough hard work and determination one can accomplish anything. It's the basis of the meritocratic system, and even if somewhat skewed and broken in america its still something to aspire too.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:By the way, JonHwangDD, I think you assumed I was talking about you in my earlier post,
We disagree on most things, but I think you’re being honest in all your posts, and coming from a consistent POV. You just happen to be wrong
Oops, yeah, I made that incorrect assumption.
Huh? Your worldthink doesn't allow for the very concept of "wrong" as everything is relative and contextual. I, OTOH, don't have such restrictions, so from my POV, you are wrong. 
____
Ensis Ferrae wrote:The industry in the US has indeed been producing substandard product for years, yes.
But, they have also been relying heavily on they "showcase" cars. ie. the Mustang, Corvette, and Viper
NASCAR is the biggest aberration to the world of automobile racing ever created.
i am a huge fan of F-1 and the WRC (God, i cant wait to be living in germany!)
Actually, GM and Ford make some decent cars overall. Better than a lot of what is made in Europe.
Every car manufacturer depends on "halo" cars to some extent. Nissan GT-R, Ford Mustang, Chevy Corvette, Cadillac Escalade, BMW M, Porsche 911. Toyota is what? Camry? OK.
If NASCAR were still stock(-based) car racing, like WRC / DTM / BTCC / JTCC, I'd be all for it. Actual Chevy Camaros racing against actual Ford Mustangs and Dodge Chargers would be interesting and enjoyable to watch.
I'm not sold on F-1 or GTPs, as the cars are divorced from reality. Now if you look at the GT1s, based around high-end works cars from Lambo, Ferrari, Aston, *that* is interesting.
____
Kilkrazy wrote:Given the easy availability of low emission vehicles from makers such as Toyota, they may actually be cheaper than American made cars as well as being cheaper to run.
The only reason many of these low emission vehicles are cheap is because they're subsidized by the state and the Feds. If many those cars had to stand on their own, nobody would buy them.
____
Kilkrazy wrote:1. California is a democracy. I doubt they will really manage to outlaw cars.
California does a lot of stupid things. I can easily see the left wing tax cars to the point at which they're largely unaffordable to the average consumer.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
The only reason many of these low emission vehicles are cheap is because they're subsidized by the state and the Feds. If many those cars had to stand on their own, nobody would buy them.
Yes, because volkswagon and toyota produce substandard product. And because we don't subsidize our own auto industries for meeting emissions standards.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Given the easy availability of low emission vehicles from makers such as Toyota, they may actually be cheaper than American made cars as well as being cheaper to run.
The only reason many of these low emission vehicles are cheap is because they're subsidized by the state and the Feds. If many those cars had to stand on their own, nobody would buy them.
____
Kilkrazy wrote:1. California is a democracy. I doubt they will really manage to outlaw cars.
California does a lot of stupid things. I can easily see the left wing tax cars to the point at which they're largely unaffordable to the average consumer.
I seem to remember that it was a good thing for California to be a democracy when they voted for proposition 86 or whatever it was called, the "Gay Marriage not to be called Gay Marriage" law thing.
Is it bad to be a democracy now they might vote in favour of small cars?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Shuma: I'm guessing you don't own a Prius and live in Cali. In California, they gave away *perpetual* car pool lane stickers to Hybrid owners to stimulate sales. That's a *huge* subsidy benefit that is worth more than the sticker price of the car.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The purpose of taxation and subsidies is to influence consumer behaviour -- e.g. tax on cigarettes and booze.
If government policy decides low emission vehicles are a good thing, tax on high emission vehicles and subsidy to low emission vehicles is a sensible measure.
5534
Post by: dogma
Grignard wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. If sexual orientation is imprinted at an early age, why are the great majority of humans heterosexual?
The theory is that they aren't. Instead, everyone actually functions according to a standard of bisexuality that is codified through identification with a given term. Someone who identifies as a homosexual, for instance, very likely still possesses heterosexual urges, but simply chooses to suppress them for one reason or another. Its kind of a 'best fit' picture of identity. People use words to ease social interactions by constructing boundaries of good taste. However, these words are rarely fully encapsulating, and frequently determine how a person should behave, rather than how they want to behave. For example, if I am to be straight, I should only sleep with women, even if I want to sleep with men.
Grignard wrote:
And why ridicule those precieved homosexual tendencies if it is just something that people have?
Because kids are stupid, and incapable of accepting difference as a result of both limited experience, and what tends to be a hard black/white moral upbringing. Adults, on the other hand, tend to do it either because they have been socialized in that fashion, or because they see their own internal urges as deviant.
Grignard wrote:
Why wouldn't those who were "imprinted" homosexual ridicule perceived heterosexual.
They do. I've been called things like 'breeder', or 'mundane' by any number of the homosexuals I've known, and I've know quite a lot of them. However, in adolescence, when people are first beginning to perceive their power over others, it is very difficult to go against the established grain, and in the US that established grain is Christian sexuality. Its also important to realize that children are not fully imprinted. That only happens when you have made the choice to be gay, straight, or bi, and even then the imprinting isn't total as someones sex does not fully describe what they might represent to you.
Grignard wrote:
What about cultures that don't necessarily recognize sexual orientation, or accept homosexuality amongst men as long as they remain acceptably "masculine".
That's kind of the idea behind the theory. Because sexuality is imprinted it can vary from culture to culture. There are Polynesian peoples, for example, that have what is effectively a third gender that can be described as 'feminine male'. These are men that are raised to be, for lack of a better word, prostitutes for the other men in the village. They are treated as women in day-to-day interactions, but serve a very different role in that they are exempted from child rearing, and most social responsibility. Their purpose is to remain visually appealing, and have lots of sex while side-stepping the inconvenient reality of unplanned pregnancy on an island with limited resources.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kilkrazy wrote:I seem to remember that it was a good thing for California to be a democracy when they voted for proposition 86 or whatever it was called, the "Gay Marriage not to be called Gay Marriage" law thing.
Is it bad to be a democracy now they might vote in favour of small cars?
If the issue were actually put up to a democratic vote, that would be a good thing.
California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.
As with the summer of gay marriage, emissions & mileage will not be set by the people's will, but instead will be set non-democratically by a handful of people who are not directly answerable to the people.
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the issue were actually put up to a democratic vote, that would be a good thing.
California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately, the 14th amendment makes ANY ban on the basis of identity illegal. Sorry.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
As with the summer of gay marriage, emissions & mileage will not be set by the people's will, but instead will be set non-democratically by a handful of people who are not directly answerable to the people.
You mean your representatives? Dude, you don't live in a democracy, you live in a polity/republic. The reason we don't live in a democracy is so that the majority cannot exercise a tyranny over any minority.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kilkrazy wrote:If government policy decides low emission vehicles are a good thing, tax on high emission vehicles and subsidy to low emission vehicles is a sensible measure.
I have no problem with that, provided that the policy is implemented in a sensible way.
The problem is that most of the emissions law and subsidy is based on junk science.
For example, oxygenated gasoline costs more, contains less usable energy, and has no effect because it is automatically compensated for by modern engine management systems. Same with Ethanol, which is really a sop to the farmers.
Our fuel taxes don't even cover our ongoing infrastructure maintenance, and we expect mass-transit to self-fund, while ignoring the huge automobile subsidies (i.e. roads & maintenance).
So most likely, if left to the legislature instead of the scientists, we will have more stupid law that taxes and subsidizes things that purport to support low emissions, but actually do nothing of any value or benefit.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
dogma wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately, the 14th amendment makes ANY ban on the basis of identity illegal. Sorry.
Fortunately, the 14th Amendment doesn't matter, because the California Constitution will simply require that all marriages be between a man and a woman, and is silent whether either (or both) partners identify as gay, straight, or asexual.
Therefore, it is in full compliance with the 14th Amendment.
Whether it has disporportionate impact is irrelevant. After all, we have *plenty* of examples of disproportionate impact (e.g. permanent disenfranchisement of felons), and those are all OK.
5534
Post by: dogma
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Fortunately, the 14th Amendment doesn't matter, because the California Constitution will simply require that all marriages be between a man and a woman, and is silent whether either (or both) partners identify as gay, straight, or asexual.
Unfortunately, that isn't what the text of Proposition 8 states. 'Will no longer recognize' means the annulment of previous homosexual marriages, as well as the ability to deny things like visitation rights to out of state married couples.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Therefore, it is in full compliance with the 14th Amendment.
Nope, try again.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Whether it has disporportionate impact is irrelevant. After all, we have *plenty* of examples of disproportionate impact (e.g. permanent disenfranchisement of felons), and those are all OK.
Yes, because felons lost their 'civil right' to vote by not behaving in accordance with the law. That's what a civil right is. The right to do something until you are no longer a civil individual. Homosexuality violates no law, and hence cannot be described as uncivil behavior.
8751
Post by: Papadoc
Maybe americans can stop putting V8s into everything. The enviroment will be pleased.
5030
Post by: Grignard
Papadoc wrote:Maybe americans can stop putting V8s into everything. The enviroment will be pleased.
Yes....its only Americans who put large engines into automobiles. None of the European manufacturers performance vehicles have anything at all similar, not at all.....
That isn't even apropos to the topic.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Papadoc wrote:Maybe americans can stop putting V8s into everything.
But it's so much better when Holden / BMW / Mercedes / Toyota do this?
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:Oops, yeah, I made that incorrect assumption.
Huh? Your worldthink doesn't allow for the very concept of "wrong" as everything is relative and contextual. I, OTOH, don't have such restrictions, so from my POV, you are wrong.
Don’t worry, I haven’t drunk from the fountain of left wing kool aid so deeply that I think everything is relative and all that. I’m still quite comfortable with calling you wrong .
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
752
Post by: Polonius
dogma wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the issue were actually put up to a democratic vote, that would be a good thing.
California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately, the 14th amendment makes ANY ban on the basis of identity illegal. Sorry.
That's simply not how the courts interpret the 14th amendment. If you really think it pohibits discrimination on "identity" than you need to really look into the jurisprudence, which tends to be much more originilist in it's scope than you think.
The 14 amendment states that all people born in the US are citizens, and that no person shall be denied due process of the law by their home state. The goal of the amendment was to ensure that the Civil Rights act of 1866, which was could have been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, would remain good law. The amendment was primarily concerned with the so called "Black Codes" rising up in the south. the other major effect was to extend constitutional restraints on the states, and not just on the federal government.
Courts in the 20th century haven't fixated entirely on the racial component, but it's still by far the easiest way to make a valid 14th amendment claim. The court generally asked a few big questions: was the law classifying people, and if so, was it doing so based on immutable characteristics. While Racial classification is generally held to "Strict Scrutiny" (requiring a compelling state interest, a narrowly tailored rule, and no less burdensome alternative), classifications based on gender, parental status (illegitimate children couldn't inherit by intestacy until the 60's), and nationality are generally held to what's called Rational Basis "with teeth." Rational Basis requires only a legitimate governmental interest, with means rationally related to the ends.
To give an example, a state law requiring all pit bulls to be licensed at the state level, at a higher charge than other dogs, would pass the rational basis test. The state can regulate for health and safety, and regulating dogs is at least rationally related to that. Now, that's a pretty ineffective law, but it's legal.
An example of strict scrutiny not striking down racially discriminatory laws are the use of race as a factor in law school admissions. Michigan could show that having a diverse state bar was a compelling interest, and also showed that race was used as part of the overall background of the application process, making it narrowly tailored. On the other hand, quotas in education were struck down pretty aggresively, as were systems that used points and granted points to minority candidates.
Using the 14th amendment to strike down gay marriage bans isn't a new idea, but it's destined to fail. Unlike Loving v. Virginia (that struck down interracial marriage bans) there is no racial component here, making the case weaker. Gender specific laws are upheld all the time: military service, conscription, single sex schools, etc. While these bans are pretty clearly invidious, homosexuals aren't being denied due process, as they can still marry like anyone else. Right now, no man can marry another man, not just homosexuals.
|
|
