Again, good luck with that.

See how long you stay in office after you tax energy usage to the point where the average American starts to take notice. And how do you plan on taxing the rest of the developing world when they don't follow suit? Once they realize they like having life with reliable electricity and all the conveniences and comforts of modern living, my guess is you will have a hard time getting them to reduce their energy demands. It's only a matter of time.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Do you honestly think they would reduce other taxes? More likely you'd end up just paying your existing taxes and the city would be drawing additional revenue from 'people who can't drive' (hint: this is nearly everybody), with the end result being no net gain in safety (the supposed goal of these cameras).

Houston. A ticket from a cop here is a $200+ traffic violation that goes on your driving record. A red-light camera ticket is (was, they got rid of the system) a $75 civil fine.

Don't be silly. If a person was going to run a red light while you have a green, a $75 dollar civil fine wasn't going to stop them - they were probably drunk or not paying attention. All these fines do is hit people who guess incorrectly about the length of the yellow or (correctly or incorrectly) think they won't be able to stop before it turns red. You know, everyday minor driving errors that happen to all of us and rarely hurt anybody - the kind of thing most cops won't even write a ticket for, even if they witness it.

I don't really consider it a problem. I consider it a test of our commitment to the very idea of free speech.

Right, then those educated people will leave to somewhere else that doesn't have such ridiculously high taxes that are paying for schools they don't have kids in. I should know - my fiance is one of them. They could get away with this when there was a lot of established business in the area, but this is no longer the case.

It's unfortunate, really. Most people want good schools, and don't mind paying a bit higher in taxes to get it, but there is a point of diminishing returns that is often just blown right by once you get bureaucrats into the mix who start dominating politics and realize they can just raise taxes whenever they want... and you end up in an economic free-fall. It's sad because the area is nice and the schools are good. They just can't afford to keep going the way they are.

In this you are likely correct (to some extent). It doesn't help that he has the most punchable face known to man. I dare you to look at it for too long and not feel the urge to start hitting the screen. :-)

Most people I know (all over the political spectrum) don't say they haven't done anything useful. Most think they could have done their job better and the organization could be more successful if it was more about transparency and whistleblowing and less about Assange and satisfying his ego.

You still didn't...

I've always thought the best way to govern is to favor incentive over punishment. I'm sure she could think of a way to get you moving...

Any producer or provider will not 'ultimately do this' as long as the market barrier-to-entry is not too high. This can occur for a few reasons, one of which is actually the existence of regulations that favor the existing businesses (e.g., Regulatory Capture). Another reason is that the infrastructure required to support the service is incredibly expensive, which serves as a 'natural' limitation to the number of players. It seems in this case we have a bit of both. The only viable solution I see (solution being something that benefits both the market and the consumer) is to not allow the person who owns the lines to also provide service, only rent out the lines in a neutral fashion.

First, I would not like to be one of the researchers / technicians / soldiers stuck underground and trapped for an indeterminate period of time after a bomb like this drops the only entrance. Depending upon how long it takes, its entirely possible that destroying the entrance could kill off a lot of the talent necessary to make the weapons as they all starve to death or suffocate deep underground. It's a hell of a deterrent.

Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).

Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.