Write your representative
kdt...@yahoo.com
should let their representative in Congress know.
Although they are intent upon the impostition upon our civil and human
rights by their programs, there may be some value in letting them know
that their is very real and VALID opposition.
The proponents of AGW have money and organization and promote their
propaganda with no problem. But the opposition who knows the facts of
their fraud, does not have this funding and organization at this
time.
The movement of AGW is mainly based upon denigration of their
opposition and reliance upon faith and belief in the opinions of
corrupt and inept 'scientists'.
Whatever programs are put into place, WILL EVENTUALLY BE REPEALED.
With this will come proper understanding of the fraud and criminal
negligence of those complicit in this provable crime.
In the meantime, those that rightlfully deny that AGW has any
scientific merit and is a REAL threat to American citizens, should
voice their concern to their proper representative or senator. And
should tell others to do the same, in hope of perhaps some mitigation
of the tyranny of the carbon tax.
KD
marcodbeast
"They're coming to get you, Barbara!"
Cwatters
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9b3214d-bf77-49e5...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> For what it is worth, those opposed to the insanty of the carbon tax
> should let their representative in Congress know.
>
> Although they are intent upon the impostition upon our civil and human
> rights by their programs, there may be some value in letting them know
> that their is very real and VALID opposition.
>
> The proponents of AGW have money and organization and promote their
> propaganda with no problem. But the opposition who knows the facts of
> their fraud, does not have this funding and organization at this
> time.
What's that? Have the oil companies have run out of money? Oh no wait I
forgot, they now agree that CO2 causes GW.
softsofa
<colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>What's that? Have the oil companies have run out of money? Oh no wait I
>forgot, they now agree that CO2 causes GW.
Ask around, take a poll, adjust thermometers, problem solved.
[]softsofa[]
What A. Fool
<colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
The oil companies are investing billions in alternate energy,
why wouldn't they support AGW, just like any other company hoping
to increase revenue.
Did I hear Exxon had revenue of over 400 Billion?
The public should not talk against AGW, they should
suggest the climatologist see a shrink.
Rock Brentwood
> For what it is worth, those opposed to the insanty of the carbon tax
> should let their representative in Congress know.
Since this is the physics group, we'll make this a physics issue.
A parable: if the paper on which the US Constitution were originally
written were to be stretched to 30 times its original size, it would
begin to exhibit tears and cracks within it that were not originally
present, but which appear solely as a consequence of the fact that the
fabric of the Republic is not invariant under transformation of scale.
A representative, today, has on average 700,000 constituents. Around
the time of the founding of the Republic, there were somewhere around
30 times fewer people and a scale more along the lines of an
altermanic district today (50,000 to 100,000) was the size of
representation.
If you were to take every second of the 2 years a representative is in
Congress and divide it equally among the constituents (about 62-63
million seconds) that would come out to about 90 seconds of audience
time per person. And this is assuming the representative is awake 24
hours a day, every day, and is doing nothing but meeting with their
representatives.
When you factor in overhead -- and factor in the time for the
representative to actually DO their job in Washington -- a figure more
like 5-10 seconds would be reasinable.
To even so much as spend more than 5-10 seconds paying attention to
you or to any other individual the representative represents is
something that can only be done at everyone else's expense.
> Although they are intent upon the impostition upon our civil and human
> rights by their programs, there may be some value in letting them know
> that their is very real and VALID opposition.
Because of this bottleneck, the very premise of one vote one person
and the premise of represntative parliaments is -- to its very core --
UNdemocratic. It doesn't matter whether its your issue or any other
issue. The very existence of Congress lies at the root of the problem
that has emerged progressively over the past 100 years and more as a
direct consequence of the fact that the fabric of the Republic has
outgrown its original scale and is now completely torn to shreds.
This is an edited version of a letter I sent to Dr. Kauffman (shortly
following my appearance at his seminars at UI-Chicago) regarding
matters we had briefly discussed, pertaining to this issue (and to the
larger issue it is a part of), before we parted.
Scale-noninvariance in political structures
Dr. Kauffmann,
As promised, I wanted to describe my perspective on what's been
happening to
the US since last September. Much of what's gone on in 2008-2009 I've
been
expecting and (literally) waiting for since before 2006. The events
are, in
no way, surprising or unexpected.
In 2006, Toffler came out with the 4th sequel to Future Shock, a book
called
"Revolutionary Wealth", which described in some detail just what the
end of
the 20th century monetary system would entail. This book is an
addendum to
the 1980 Third Wave (itself, the first sequel to Future Shock) in
which the
outcome of the "Post-Industrial" revolution is described in some
detail.
Much of what's described there is already here (particularly since the
rise
of wireless, cell phones, Cyberspace, virtual economies, social
networking,
etc.)
The 2006 book may be thought of as an expansion of the "21st Century
Democracy" section of the 1980 book (in which, by the way, was
described the
2000 electoral impasse that was then still 20 years in the future).
The 2006 book spelled out in some detail what's gone on in 2008 (even
making
scathing reference to the well-known 2008 catch phrase "the
fundamentals are
sound" in its section "The Deep Fundamentals").
I read the book in more detail a few months after we met and it fully
jibes
with what I started to describe regarding the future of the US
economy.
At the time I didn't explain in full my understanding of what's going
on,
other than to point out that I suspected that it was all grounded
ultimately
in the budgetary insolvency of the US. Time has borne that out
dramatically.
The nature and source of the impasse, itself, can be easily
understood,
however. It's not at all complicated. But the conclusions are
dramatic.
The first place you see this is to tabulate how much time each
constituent
has with their representative, if the time is divided equally 24/7. At
an
average of 700,000 people per rep (3,000,000 for senators) at 63
million
seconds, it's about 90 seconds per person.
Hence -- the twin problems of (a) the Bottleneck -- the decision-
making
Bottleneck of the representatives having to make decisions on behalf
of
700,000 people and (b) the Disconnect: the people are out of touch
with
Washington and the purse-string decisions that involve the money they
pay in
taxes.
The root of the problem is that the structure of the government is
not
scale-invariant. A parable illustrates the point: if the paper the
constitution were orginally written on were to be stretched to 30
times its
original size, it would begin to exhibit cracks and tears in it that
were
not originally present, but which arise solely as a consequence of the
fact
that the fabric of the Republic is not invariant under a change of
scale.
The US is 30 times larger than it was at its founding. A more suitable
scale
for representation was explicitly described in the constitution
(50,000 or
above). We're well past that point.
The consequences of the bottleneck and disconnect problem are that
(a) the "redress of grievances" that is the constitutional exercise of
power
granted to people can only be done through a funnel to fit in through
the
bottleneck.
(b) the "pursestring decisions" that representatives are obliged to do
can
only be done en masse on the other end of the bottleneck.
This leads to (a) the funnelling of redresses collectively into
"special
interest groups"; and (b) the emergence of such measures as "earmarks"
-- spending clauses that are added in without direct debate.
If one were to directly debate all the 2009 earmarks (around
5000-10000 of
them) it would take the better part of a decade. Yet that's only 1% of
the
budget.
So, there is a simple breakdown that has arisen solely as a
consequence that
the very structure of the government is not scale-invariant and has
been
completely outstripped by the size of this country.
Correspondingly, there is a disconnect of the people. Another parable
illustrates the point: Each person has attached to them 2 ropes. One
rope
pulls them out to the horizon toward Washington which they resist with
all
their effort. The other rope also goes out toward the horizon.
They're
trying to pull on it to get stuff from Washington and the rope's not
moving.
The Disconnect is that the people cannot (or will not) look far
enough
beyond the horizon to see why one rope is pulling them in, while the
other
rope which they're pulling on refuses to budge. If they look beyond
the
horizon they will see that the rope yanking on them goes to
Washington,
wraps around the pillars of power, and comes back as the rope that
they're
yanking on.
So, every representative who goes to Washington, on account of the
Disconnect problem, is faced with the losing proposition of trying to
bring
goodies back home from Washington (or else they lose the next
election),
while simultaneously trying to avoid having their people taxed for it
(or
else they lose the next election).
What started out as small budgetary impasse in the 19th century grew
larger
and larger as the 20th century passed on. By the end of World War II,
especially with the Cold War (a.k.a. World War III) upon us, it became
an
annual deficit.
Consequently, every year since 1959 when Nixon was Vice President, the
US
has had a budget deficit. Nixon lost the 1960 election largely because
of
the 1959 surplus.
His defeat was an omen heralding the arrival of the Disconnect
problem.
So every year for the past half-century there has been a deficit.
This
includes the so-called "surplus years" of 1999-2001. There was no
surplus.
The OMB, since 1997, simply quit using the actual numbers reported by
the
Bureau of Public Debt. That's why "surpluses" suddenly emerged a
couple
years later.
Only the Bureau of Public Debt contains the actual bottom line. In
2000 the
debt was actually about 40 million higher than the previous year -- a
40
million dollar deficit. That's close break-even. But it's still a
deficit.
So, by the end of the 20th century the progressive decline of the
problem
had reached a head. The growth of the problem, overall, over the past
150
years mirrors the growth of the scale of the nation. It's partly by
that
account that you can see the link with the issue of scale and scale
breakdown.
A similar situation occurred in Europe c. 1000-1200. A huge
population
explosion took place, along with a substantial rise in prosperity.
Pretty
quickly things got to be so big, that it outstripped the ability of
any
monarch to effectively control. The scale breakdown inevitably led to
the
rise of several equivalents of Magna Cartas over the continent, not
just in Britain.
It was only because in the 1300's that the population dropped (because
of
the Plague) that things even had a chance to temporarly revert back to
the
earlier phase. But the phase was crossed once again by the 1400's
onward,
this time irreversibly. So, by the 1500's-1800's parliaments took the
place
of kings and queens.
Now, our situation is similar and serves as a book end to that
evolution.
It's now the parliaments that have become outstripped by the change
in
scale. Now they are the ones who, like the kings and queens of old,
have
become completely impotent. This nation -- and others like it in the
world -- is simply too big to be run with a representative legislative
body.
The root of the budgetary problem in the US (and in many other
countries in
the world) is the very existence of Congress. The solution -- whatever
it
may be -- will necessarily involve Congress to cease to exist and for
all of
its pursestring powers to be revoked and brought back directly to the
general population over Cyberspace.
Hence Toffler's "21st Century Democracy" of the 1980 "Third Wave".
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
> When you factor in overhead -- and factor in the time for the
> representative to actually DO their job in Washington -- a figure more
> like 5-10 seconds would be reasinable.
>
> To even so much as spend more than 5-10 seconds paying attention to
> you or to any other individual the representative represents is
> something that can only be done at everyone else's expense.
>
>
representitives are apprised.
If enough of their constituents contact them, they do pay attention.
It does not take individual attention to each submission.
There is value in writing to Congress.
As it is, there are many more people who do not believe in AGW and
understand it to be profit driven, than those with their starry eyed
beliefs in the doomsday scientists. But they have no voice. If the
average person were TRULY educated in the basis of AGW and the actual
programs and effects these programs will have, there would be
overwhelming opposition.
Yet the proponents have the money for their propaganda. And although
they represent a very very small minority of the actual people
concerned, they have the TV ads and direct lobbying with congress
people in which the distort, evade and omit the truth. These
representitives get most of their basic beliefs from this lobbying
than they do from testimony or evidence of hearings.
It is only on this basis that the representitives feel they have a
mandate for the insanity of the carbon tax and the futile attempt of
carbon regulation and self economic strangulation that Obama says is
'being a leader'.
In any event, any AGW programs WILL BE REPEALED. They are sheer
nonsense and the science behind them is a house of cards which cannot
stand the upcoming winds of the storm that the impact upon society
will bring.
KD
hhc...@yahoo.com
KD, boy or girl, are you are termially stupid, and likely your will
never realize this. Nice to worry about minutia like the carbon tax,
but don't loose sight on the big ball. Idiot!
Harry C,
tad...@comcast.net
It is evident that none of them can read.
They were all asked after they passed the 'stimulus' pork package
whether they had read the bill (which committed the US to over
$700,000,000,000 debt, the biggest (and for that reason alone probably
the most important) single spending package ever to come out of
Congress.
Not one of them had read it.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Marvin the Martian
Our buddy President Obama said that his carbon tax will "bankrupt" the
coal producing states, shut down coal, and make electricity too expensive
to use.
Minutia? Since when is bankrupting entire states and making electricity
too expensive to use "minutia"?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/
obama_bankrupt_the_coal_industry/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2203569/posts
Oh, and your childish ad hominems are repugnant to intelligent life
forms.
--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
> KD, boy or girl, are you are termially stupid, and likely your will
> never realize this. Nice to worry about minutia like the carbon tax,
> but don't loose sight on the big ball. Idiot!
>
Say what you will, you can't change the fact that any program of AGW
will be repealed by the American people.
It is just a matter of reducing the effects of this bullshit on
innocent people until that time.
KD
Eric Gisse
What have you done to fight for your cause?
I mean other than rant endlessly on an unmoderated newsgroup.