|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 5, 2022 9:27:57 GMT -5
Unfortunately, they'll take you and me and everyone else with them, the bastids. Yup. Anyone know what the Whitehouse is heated with? With this crew, probably a mountain of dried cow patties.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 5, 2022 9:14:54 GMT -5
Just heard on Varney that in response to the court's hit on EPA, EPA is taking 40% of the Permian Basin oil field off the market (no drilling) which should raise oil to over $200/bbl. The greenies will freeze to death in the dark this Winter, finally. Unfortunately, they'll take you and me and everyone else with them, the bastids.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 5, 2022 9:12:23 GMT -5
I played a Strat for a year or two with our duo. A really nice model loaned to me by a friend during one of the many times my wife has ended up dissatisfied with the rig I've had for 40 years. I'll try to post a picture here from Facebook and see if I can get it to work. I can't recall the model but it was fairly high end (American made and had all the little string trees at the nut and the noise cancelling pups in HSS configuration, etc.) and a mid-90's vintage. A perfectly good player and worked well but here are the things I remember (gave it back to the guy when we quit the first time). The longer scale (I've always played short scale Gibsons) was nice and serviceable. Nothing to get me to switch permanently but not complaining at all. And if you're coming from acoustics, you'll just have to get used to different necks regardless. The wang-bar bridge (I never use a wang-bar) had trouble with intonation. It's not fixed, though it can be (I didn't want to mess with the guy's guitar too much so I never anchored it). When I got it, the gentleman only had 3 of the whammy springs installed. I added the other 2 (they were in the case) and it tightened up but was never really solid. That's important when you're backing someone with my wife's ear (it's why I love the TP6 fine tuners on the 335). Wound up tuning and retuning a bunch comparatively. When I got it it had 0.009 strings on it, much thinner than the 0.012's I use on my guitars. 9's are like playing wet spaghetti and they break a lot. So I switched to 0.010 Markley's which are on my S1 (which actually is fitted with the shredder frets I like and a nice locking wang-bar and coil tapped Jeff Beck Dimarzios that will do a perfectly reasonable Van Halen impersonation. It's a shame the wife hates it more than any other guitar I have). Again, perfectly serviceable but also adding to the existing tuning problems. Like all my electrics, Strats have a single volume knob. When I using my normal rig everything's wide open and volume is controlled by the amp set up. During that period my wife came to loath my amp set up and I started to use an array of pedals and the guitar volume knob for volume control. Most common Gibsons come with separate volume knobs for each pickup and there's a whole science for changing pot settings to get different tones. However, that tends to be too much thinking that gets in the way of playing as a sideman so I love 1 solitary volume knob. Overall, the tone tends to be brighter than I like but the whole thing was pretty good. Wife offered to buy me one a couple years ago but it turned out to be a "Look, squirrel!" moment and that thought went away as fast as it came. And one more thing. Gibson cases tend to be form fitting to the guitar. The Strat had the big rectangular traditional case. Great for carrying miscellaneous nonsense but kind of a PITA to fit in a normal car with lots of other stuff.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 4, 2022 18:03:18 GMT -5
Doesn't Chicago have one of the strictest gun control laws in the country?
Isn't that supposed to prevent this?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 2, 2022 22:36:23 GMT -5
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to do these calculations after three or four gin and tonics? I gave up after coming up with Chevy owing the DOT three goats and a pound of lutefisk for something to do with the Corvette. You're close. Except they owe DOT that for the Chevy Geo. But DOT would probably settle for a Vette.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 2, 2022 20:44:30 GMT -5
OK, gig is done and judging by the ensuing discussion a pretty substantial dose of reality can actually do some good. So back to the 2 agencies doing the same regulation.
So DOT (through their sub-agency the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration known as NHTSA) was the first to the table with fuel economy/CO2 regulations known as CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) in about 1975. Prior to 2010, they'd peaked out at a corporate average of 27.5 mpg for cars and about 24 mpg for light trucks. They reached that peak in the mid-80s and under the protection of the automotive patron saint of the automotive industry, the late Democrat Congressman John Dingell, who never allowed NHTSA to raise those numbers denying the agency the funding to do it. Dingell's widow Debbie currently occupies his seat since he died in 2015 and seems to be thoroughly undistinguished in any aspect.
Although the DOT CAFE program is still in place, in 2010 EPA with thier newly granted authority through the Supreme Court decision in EPA v. Massachutsetts (2007) took over practical administration of the program. Prior to this, CO2 had never in history been considered a criteria pollutant that EPA was authorized to regulate. Once granted authority, EPA took over and dictated the CO2/fuel economy standards which NHTSA simply copied and inverted. The Obama administration launched the first updated united standards of 40 mpg. Through a technicality of administrative sloppiness, Trump bumped them back to about 34 mpg. Biden has now currently raised them to 49 mpg.
So now for the challenge to all of you. I'd like you all to find out what the penalties for non-compliance are under both the DOT and EPA frameworks. It's a specific question that limits a lot of complexity and should be relatively easy to uncover. The Congressionally authorizing legislation is the latest amended version of the Clean Air Act. Although I can't recall the specific legislation authorizing the original DOT CAFE requirements (I've seen it a number of times), a very similar provision was included in a 2009 budget bill authorizing a medium and heavy duty CAFE program.
To make it as specific as possible, assume for argument's sake that you are an automaker who is preparing next year's regulatory disclosures and you discover that your fuel economy/CO2 numbers for that year are all 10% high. 10% is chosen to make the math really simple- if the standard is 10, you're getting 11. That's 10 percent. Now no automaker would do this, they are all smarter than that, but it sets up a simple question- which agency would you prefer penalize you?
You really don't need a law degree or any special search skills to find this out. Although the websites of EPA and NHTSA both suck as general websites, they should have all the information you need.
Because of the pretty stark differences in how Congress authorized both of these agencies, the differences should be fascinating and give you a very real understanding of what the non-delegation doctrine really means in the real world, not some self-appointed expert's opinion of what it means is. And it will allow you to decide for yourself how this applies.
As usual, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Or you can all continue to argue around the point. Makes no difference to me. It's done and I know what it means. Knock yourself out.
And by the way, even though the decision was based on a since defunct stationary source question, the SC takes very few cases every year and focuses more on interesting legal theory questions with broad application beyond the specific case. So this certainly applies to automotive even though it was decided on stationary source regs. And the specific case was merely the first to get to that level which is why it was chosen.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 2, 2022 11:14:26 GMT -5
My interest was piqued by the " nondelegation doctrine" (Guardian link ) aspect of the W.Va v EPA ruling which Prof. Richardson spoke of. I'm at least up to my nose now! I saw this and thought it would be a great topic to check out the real world practical aspects of what the "nondelegation doctrine" actually means. To keep a very complex issue as simple as humanly possible (any math will be as easy as possible) I'm going to propose an actual thought experiment that y'all can work through. There's no right or wrong (yes, my opinion is obvious, but that's due to professional experience that you can take with whatever size grain of salt makes it palatable). Also, when I reference anything specific, it's based on memory, which having been out of that game for 12 years might be technically wrong but certainly close enough. We're going to go through 2 regulations that regulate the exact same thing from 2 different Federal agencies and look at the different penalty provisions concieved through 2 different Congressional authorizations. The first is the Deparment of Transportation (DOT), a relatively old Federal agency that grew out of the old Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) still referenced in country songs by Sawyer Brown and the like. The second is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the last Federal agency created in 1972 under Richard Nixon. The nut of the question is to compare and contrast fuel economy (DOT) and CO2 (EPA) regulations which technically are exactly the same thing. Miles per gallon is physically the exact inverse of grams of CO2 per mile. You can work the math out yourself if you're a glutton for punishment. The Department of Energy (DOE) website has all the conversion factors you'll need. And along the way we'll look at the various Congressional authorizations which vary substantially. Some more technical information that will probably be useful to keep you from wandering off in an impossible fog is to know how various vehicles are sorted in this country. Everything from cars to lawnmowers to semitrucks to airplanes to bulldozers to ships are generally considered "vehicles" for regulatory purposes where similar but specific to vehicle type emission requirements exist for all of them. We're cutting that down to only "on-highway" vehicles here. And DOT has various classes of on-highway vehicles based on Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) which is the most the vehicle can weigh including fuel, passengers, and all cargo. Motorcycles are also not counted here. There are 8 classes from small to enormous. "Light duty" vehicles are classes 1 and 2. Everything above 14,000 lbs. GVWR are considered medium and heavy duty and are regulated engine only and not vehicle based. An F350 is light duty. And F450 is medium duty. So, in short we're only dealing here with light duty cars and trucks. Heavier vehicles can be ignored. Alright, looks like it's time to get ready for our gig this afternoon. I'll be back later to finish up. Feel free to ask any questions you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 22:23:50 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. My very best guess is that you are going to be disappointed. And that James will be disappointed. I am convinced by contacts, near contacts, and best reasoning and hunches, that this country is irrevocably set upon a path of reducing CO2 emissions in energy production. This path will proceed at a pace a good a bit slower than Greenpeace et al are calling for, but by the same token it will not fade or go away. The path is set and it will be followed at a pace that emerging technology allows it to. It is a done deal. It might be a too slowly done deal for some and a too unnecessary done deal for others, but it is a done deal. It is not going away. And when the dust is settled, the planet will be fine for some and not as fine for others, with Russia and Canada pleased and some islands and coastal areas gone. I am willing to place a quite large bet on this, but as I will be long dead before the tale is told, I don't think I will. And you may be right. Energy production is only tangentially my thing. I just suspect that spending boatloads of money on things that don't tangibly produce anything will eventually get old.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 21:54:48 GMT -5
Well, when the hand wringing and bell ringing are done with, a certain reality will set in for both sides. The EPA's clean power plan that never went into effect and now due the Court never will has not been a factor in power generation in this country. So, nothing will change. The "rules" governing power generation, in absence of any EPA oversight, have been, and will continue to be set by the states... and most states, especially the ones that have all the people in them, have energy plans in place. Some, like California, New York, and a few other NE states, have plans in place that are tougher than the ones EPA was proposing. And their market place muscle is huge. They affect car production and mileage standards. They even affect corn growers in the Midwest, where many states are working on plans to remove and sequester the CO2 released during ethanol production so that they can sell "green" ethanol to the California Coalition. And as North Dakota power plants sell 60% of the energy they produce to Minnesota, if they want to continue to sell to Minnesota, they must meet Minnesota's energy laws, which right now require 25% of the electricity a plant provides to come from renewable sources with various future targets set in place. So North Dakota is putting up wind generators (and is investing in technologies that remove and sequester the CO2 released by coal plants in case Minnesota discovers renewables can't keep up with their projections and decide a little clean scrubbed coal might be a useful addition to the mix). And unlike the EPA, the energy plans put in place by the states are put in legislatively, not by agency fiat. And unlike the Federal Government, state governments representation is determined solely by population... and most don't have filibusters (13 do, of which, only Texas has a population of consequence). So, in a way, both recent Court rulings are same, it's now up to the states. And the states that have all the people in them are pretty green. Automotive is my game so I'm not real sure about power generation but I've got a feeling you're a little too cavalier about the impact there. Yes, states may make their own rules but if both the carrots and sticks that EPA has to influence everything (and that's all they do have) disappear, you're probably going to see states back off of "green" requirements like renewables once they get in to the reality of how sketchy that can be both in terms of reliability and cost minus vanishing Federal subsidy dollars since the EPA now needs to back out of that area of regulation. Not really sure, but just a sneaking suspicion. In automotive, the dream of CO2-free is pretty much dead. There are only 2 sets of regulations- Federal and California, and California can only set stricter standards than Federal, not an entirely different set of emissions (which is what CO2 is). The 2 standards are joined at the hip, seperated only because of the slightly earlier adoption of California standards. CO2 out federally, it's out in California too. Now certainly states can declare what can be sold in their state like Washington just did (no sales of combustion engines starting in 2030) but unless they somehow adopt some prohibition on licensing them in the state, which would be a major cluster, everybody will just buy from out of state (time to buy Carvana stock). If they continue on and decide petroleum to put in regular cars can't be sold in the state it's overnight "Hello barren wasteland of population!" And as far as Biden's 49 mpg mock-CAFE requirements in 2026, that's way too complicated to get into here in depth, but that's what I worked on when I worked for the Federal DOT (NHTSA specifically) and I can safely say that it's effectively blown up. Incidentally, now that EPA's CO2 authority is toast I'm now facing the real possibility that I may get to be employed with DOT again after 13 years. Funny how shit seems to work out sometimes. And finally- as a concrete example of how Federal sticks and carrots fall apart- as part of EPA's emissions standards addition of CO2 as a "criteria pollutant" (a complete misnomer in the real world) they've set up their standard credit trading program among manufacturer's during the implementation period (I think the next round of EPA regulations drop in 2026 and I think we are currently in the phase-in period). The way the programs work is that each manufacturer gets a certain amount of credits to account for technology phase in and they can buy and sell among other manufacturers to account for established long lead products. Pretty standard and relatively easy to understand so far. With regard to zero CO2 standards, who do you think is the only manufacturer who already meets those standards for their entire product line? That's right- Tesla. How has Tesla finally been able to turn a profit recently for the first time in it's 15-20 year history? That's right- selling every single EPA credit they have which gives them free money. Who right now is struggling financially to bring 2 new factories on-line? Tesla. Who as of this moment overnight has no more credits to sell? Tesla. Watch for a Tesla bankruptcy maybe by the end of the year. Who no longer has any major reason to develop electric vehicles? Everybody! If you want to sell them, you can. But my money is on all the incentives drying up quick. And electric vehicles have ever only managed about a 4 percent share and that's with a boatload of government subsidy whose reason for being is now gone. No, this is not like Dobbs which simply leaves the decisions to individual states. This crushes the Deep State. It's a reversal of FDR's blackmail threat to expand the Supreme Court that let much of the New Deal survive while terrorizing the SC enough to fundamentally change Constitutional interpretation to one of a living document that says whatever the Left believes it says. This will cruise through most of the 430 Federal agencies and the laws and regulatory schemes they rely on. It may not be instant, but it certainly opens the government up to a slew of on-going destruction. Having had my life almost destroyed by the out-of-control and vindictive Deep State, it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of pricks.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 17:52:45 GMT -5
NEW YORK (Onion News) — In an effort to raise awareness of the medical procedure after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Sesame Workshop released a public service announcement Thursday on preventing unwanted pregnancies that featured Elmo receiving a vasectomy. “There was a little pinch, but that was okay,” said Elmo, who explained to viewers that the elective surgical procedure for male sterilization was safe and over 99% effective in preventing pregnancy, making it a great option for people who don’t currently want to have children. “Elmo was real scared at first, but the nice nurse told Elmo that the doctor can reverse the vasectomy when I’m ready to be a daddy. It only took 15 minutes to make the two incisions on my scrotum, and then snip! Elmo’s infertile now!” Elmo then asked some local children to help him count up to seven to show viewers how many days of recovery he would need before being able to have sex again. Strange how Elmo couldn't just figure out how to keep his dick in his pants.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 17:39:38 GMT -5
Some of the Soundhole moderaterin' coming into focus. It's taken you that long to see it?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 17:38:16 GMT -5
I stand by my comments and make no apology for a bit of hyperbole Figured. That's why we're happy to keep driving you nucking futs.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 15:10:56 GMT -5
We will soon have the same freedoms the people have in Iran, with one-party, one-man rule. The majority of Republicans want Trump to be the Ayatollah. That would be hilarious if it weren't so venal, self-centered, and absolutely vicious to half your fellow travellers on this sphere. To that end here are some choice quotes from WV v. EPA. In there is a wonderful bit about the godfather of American progressivism. Maybe it'll give you more insight into what a Trump fan actually is. Woodrow Wilson
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 7:43:44 GMT -5
Not everyone wants to preserve democracy. Well, you don't live here so the fact that you don't want to preserve democracy is pretty much irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 7:09:35 GMT -5
Gotta love it!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 6:03:05 GMT -5
No epaul, you don't quite get the full scope.
Congress never gave EPA specific authority to regulate CO2. Or any other supposed greenhouse gases. None. Any EPA regulation of CO2 is now, or will be shortly, null and void. Your wife's facility no longer has the power of government mandate behind it. These ridiculous gas mileage mandates driven not by DOT as has been the case since the mid 70s, but by EPA since 2007, are toast and will need to be reset. Tesla's entire run of recent profits driven by the sale of CO2 emissions credits to gas engine manufacturers, are done. Given that and Tesla's recent plant start up problems, they may go under by year's end.
And the tentacles of this extend to all kinds of Deep State programs going back at least to FDR's New Deal.
This is the great reset.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 21:34:23 GMT -5
DOJ certainly could take Trump to trial (and remember, only an actual conviction will prevent Trump from running again and the committee doesn't have actual prosecution authority themselves) but that's quite a risky move for Democrats. Remember, Trump's made fools of them through 2 impeachments so far. A bit of honest introspection is probably wise considering the list of potential defense witness' that could be called to testify and be cross-examined publically about their role in this whole thing that so far, the commitee has seemingly missed. And always remember, perjury really matters in a real court of law as does hearsay, etc. which seems to be all they've got. Cassidy Hutchinson wouldn't see the light of day if she's smart, but so far I haven't seen any indication she is. Given how badly the Deep State and media have treated Trump supporters (not even a shred of an attempt to unite the country) I'm sure the fireworks of a televised Trump trial would probably make the ratings of even the Depp-Heard trial look like child's play. Which would be humiliation heaped on humiliation for this piece of crap set of hearings. And finally, since the evidence of election corruption has never really had a hearing, it would also force Trump (hey, goes to motive) to run through ALL of that in primetime must watch TV. That seems to me to be quite a risk for Democrats to take and I'm wagering they just settle in the end for some kind of bullshit boring report that doesn't draw much attention to itself. So I say go for it! Nothing would be more fun. And as a bonus, Biden and the Democrat's chances in 2024 would pretty much be over. I hear there's some quibbling among the commitee about whether or not they'll refer anything to DOJ. Come on guys, no guts no glory.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 18:43:04 GMT -5
I don't much care whether he faces charges. I do care that the truth comes out. Some people will deny it no matter what but a lot won't. You certainly won't get any of that from this Soviet inspired show trial. They have a real problem even spelling the word "truth".
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 12:56:12 GMT -5
She's got an awful funny definition of a "Constitutional crisis".
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 12:54:40 GMT -5
You think Dobbs drove the Marxists nuts, wait until they digest the meaning of this. Kind of restricts executive orders to enforcing actual laws. That should piss off Democrats. You have no idea how bad this will hurt them. Same principle can affect "laws" going back to the New Deal when FDR first threatened to expand the SC and put this country on it's leftist track. It's going to hurt a lot more than leaving abortion decisions to the states. I have a feeling there's some excessive alcohol intake in store for tonight.
|
|