Poor decisions that affect others? Really??

Wellhouses across the northern tier are typically heated by a single 100w incandescent light bulb. This provides both heat and light, and prevents frozen pipes and pumps.

A decision is made from afar to ban incandescent bulbs.

Now wellhouses either freeze (meaning these people have no water in their houses all winter, and occasional 4-figure bills for split pipes and fractured pumps) or require secondary heat, which is generally only available as sources running at 500w or above.

[Not to mention that CFLs don't work in cold temps, so northern barns are now dark in winter. LEDs are not yet practical.]

Tell me again how this decision harmed no one??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
more download links
http://donttalktocops.com/

And as it happens I just looked up the major funding source for Sourcewatch, and lo and behold it's George Soros.

Draw your own conclusions.

I think the answer to that might be market dilution because there are so many more ways now to hear/see those industry stars.

Used to be The Concert was a big deal. That big Star only played your local venue once a year, if that, and you got to see that Star on TV only once or twice a year, for two songs on the Ed Sullivan Show. It kept the Star publicly perceived as being on a pinnacle of success, rare and remote as a being from another planet.

Now, we have MTV and endless music videos from everyone who ever sang a note. So the perception has degraded to "anyone can be a Star" which of course dilutes the impact of stardom.

You may think you were joking, but I once spoke with someone who'd escaped from Nazi Germany, and he told me that "drop your pants!" was a common Nazi method for identifying covert Jews, since few other males were circumcised.

Right-o about the other stuff, but re the GPS thing:

Supreme Court decision on privacy vs GPS devices, from a recent newsletter:

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
===
The Supreme Court has decided "Antoine Jones v U.S." You won and The State lost, 9-0. The High Court ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant before they can attach GPS tracking devices to your
vehicles.

This is an historic decision and DC Downsizers merit much of the credit. You've helped fund many previous Supreme Court briefs, but never before has your influence been so clear. We had an impact with two different briefs at two different stages of the case . . .

  First, we filed the ONLY brief asking the court to hear the case.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-amicus-brief.pdf

  Then we filed a brief making a uniquely principled argument. http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-second-amicus-brief-final.pdf

In the Petition brief, we urged the court to take the case, re-examine its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and restore the property basis of
the Fourth Amendment. We wrote, "The original objective, property-based text and purpose of the Fourth Amendment should be revived and applied."

The Court responded directly. "Petition GRANTED. In addition... the parties are directed to brief ... Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent." (Emphasis added)

That's YOUR victory.

But the second victory was even better. It may change judicial reasoning far into the future.

Our briefs asked the Justices to restore the 4th Amendment's protection of your property rights. For the past 43 years the Court's 4th Amendment decisions have been based on a right to privacy, NOT property. But the privacy protection is a much weaker standard. Our briefs, and ONLY our briefs, specifically aimed to restore the property right protection.

Our argument prevailed! Look at what Justice Scalia wrote in his majority opinion . . .

"The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to 'the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures'; the phrase 'in their persons, houses, papers and effects' would have been superfluous."

This was our point exactly.

Four other briefs mentioned property in passing. Ours majored in it. Only we asked the Court to make a fundamental course correction. Our
strategy prevailed. As a result, the Jones decision even includes a frank admission of how far the Court has strayed from the Constitutional text:

"Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century (but) our later cases... have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach" in favor of a more flexible, modernist analysis based upon the Court's perceptions of a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

This too shows the influence of our briefs. We explained the history of 4th Amendment jurisprudence and specifically argued for a return to the original text. This "history lesson" contributed to the majority decision:

"The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical
intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."

In addition, we ALONE asserted the valiant proposition that it was NEVER possible for the government to attach a GPS to an automobile for
the purpose of gathering general evidence. The Fourth Amendment does not permit "fishing expeditions." The author of another brief told me
our position was "extremist." At this link you'll see why I thanked him for the compliment.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-unique-role-youre-playing-in-the-supreme-court

Here's the key issue . . .

Throughout history, The State has been fond of issuing general warrants. Such "warrants" were fishing expeditions designed to quell and intimidate potential opposition. That's why the Framers specifically wrote the 4th Amendment to prohibit general warrants. Instead, warrants must be based on a specific and probable cause. They
must also be particular about where the police can look and what is
being sought.

Our brief made these points by focusing on a crucial English case from 1765, Entick v Carrington. This case was well-known to the Founders. It's been cited in two previous Supreme Court cases. Justice Scalia's majority opinion celebrates Entick as a "monument of English freedom," that explains "in plain terms the significance of property rights in search and seizure analysis."

Scalia continued: "Our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbor's close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbor's ground, he must justify it by law."

Scalia is echoing our UNIQUE historical argument based on Entick v. Carrington.

[See also] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-makes-a-course-correction-2012-02-02

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
(http://www.DownsizeDC.org)
and Downsize DC Foundation (http://www.DownsizeDCFoundation.org).

Support the "Educate the Powerful System" at:
http://www.downsizedc.org/contribute/

Feel free to forward or reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included.

====

According to someone I know who lived in Egypt and Saudi Arabia... the leaders do indeed indulge in 'magical thinking' of the sort where "if we have what Western Country A has, we too will be a [insert desired status here]."

This is why Egypt built the Aswan dam, to the complete (and accurately predicted) detriment of their farmland and fisheries. Egypt used to feed half of Europe; now it has to import most of its own food, and the dam is almost entirely to blame (because it destroyed the critical farmland and delta nutrient replacement that derived from the Nile's annual flood pattern). But even tho Egypt's leaders were told that would happen, they HAD to have a dam, to prove Egypt Is A Modern Country Too.

I expect it's the same with arms: "If we had a nuclear bomb, we'd be Big Bad Boys in the World too, and everyone would Respect Us like they do America and Russia."

Already happened here in California. I do wonder if the licensing requirement (the license is moderately expensive, and applies to the business, not the individual tech) might have contributed to the demise of the small computer repair shop industry, by being just one more barrier to entry while not actually ensuring that the tech knows anything.

Technically, California already has this sort of licensing, at least for computer techs (and a broad interpretation could include just about any sort of computer-related job).

http://www.bearhfti.ca.gov/
It is illegal in CA for an unlicensed person to perform repairs on a computer.

And the state runs sting operations:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/press_releases/2007/0928_sting.shtml

And when they start shooting, no one will be able to shoot back.