what are you burning to produce a flame?
Except that the "impossible" happens every day outside the US. Actually, IIRC, even in the US there are states that frequently have independents, third parties or non-partisan candidates in their legislatures, aren't there? Local governments may be even more diverse.
There seems to be something peculiar about either the US federal system, the American people, or both.
It's your cynicism and tendency to wild generalizations with little to no evidence. Also gratuitous capitalization.
One example? Really? I have no trouble believing that the powers in the US are unhealthily interested in maintaining those powers, but one example (and kind of an iffy one at that) doesn't mean much. It's also irrelevant to the point: the reason there aren't third parties in the US (and the reason the two ruling parties get away with things they shouldn't) is that Americans don't vote for third parties.
You're essentially claiming that both you and your AR-15 are at least as accurate as the gold medalist in the 50m rifle at the 2012 summer games was while firing whatever piece of art was crafted for him by Anschutz. You can imagine how one might be incredulous in the face of this claim. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a valid response.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
if you have a "thermoelectric engine" then what is producing the heat to power the thermoelectrics?
point granted, the "powered by" slope is a slippery one. but saying the car is powered by thermoelectrics is like saying it's powered by suspensions.
once again, no. honda vs. lexus. source: my brain.
the entire bay area is like an inflamed pimple of overpriced housing. SF is the crusty white head on that pimple.
ok but then the car is still powered by fuel. in your scenario you would still need an external combustion engine to produce heat.
Rather it is the one document higher than the Constitution, the document that affirms that none of these rights are provided by laws. And that one always has the right to replace the government or constitution when it fails to work.
the magna carta?
here's the deal. california cities use very little water. 80% of the water in this state is used by agriculture. only 10% by people. An a large part of the agriculture water is used to grow stupid crops, like rice or feed for chinese cows. if farmers in california grew climate appropriate crops then everybody whould have enough water.
It's not a "re-examination". It's a butchering.
You say that like it's necessarily a bad thing.
We've got to stop acting as if the Founding Fathers were like Moses descending from Mount Sinai with the Constitution chiseled on a couple of stone tablets. They were brilliant, enlightened men for their day, but the Constitution is not a document of divine inerrancy.
The US Constitution is the COBOL of constitutions. Yes, it was a tremendous intellectual innovation for its time. Yes, it is still being used successfully today. But nobody *today* would write a constitution that way, *even if their intent was exactly the same* as the founders.
For one thing it's full of confusingly pointless ("To promote the Progress of Science") and hoplessly vague ("securing for *limited times*") phraseology that leaves courts wondering exactly what the framers meant, or whether they were just pointlessly editorializing ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State").
It's also helplessly out of date. The Constitution was drafted before the existence of mass media and advertising; before photography even. It was the appearance of photography in newspapers that woke people up to the idea that they might have privacy rights that were being threatened. A Constitution written in 1900 would almost certainly have clauses explicitly recognizing a right to individual privacy and empowering the government to protect that right. A Constitution written in 2000 would almost certainly have clauses restricting the government from violating individual privacy.
And then there is slavery, an outright *evil* which is enshrined in the founder's version of the Constitution. That alone should disqualify any claim they may have had to superhuman morality.
So if we take it as given that the US Constitution is not divinely ordained, it's not necessarily a bad thing that the current generation should choose to butcher what the founders established. Would you re-institute slavery? Allow *states* to deprive citizens of liberty and property without due process? Eliminate direct election of senators?
So it's perfectly reasonable to butcher anything in the Constitution when you're proposing an *amendment* to the Constitution. That's the whole point. We should think for ourselves. In doing so, we're actually carrying on the work the framers themselves were doing. Every generation should learn from its predecessors, but think for itself.
technically, you would still need an energy source (gasoline, natural gas, batteries) to power the cars. thermo electrics could make it more efficient by recycling waste heat. but the thermoelectrics themselves would not power the cars.
the availability of housing in mountain view has exactly zero impact on the availability of housing in SF. SF is a hip urban city while Mtn View is a suburban community. If you're priced out of housing in mtn view then you're definitely not moving to SF. If you can afford to live in SF, then you live there because you want to and not because you couldn't find a place in mtn view.
SF does not feel the ripple from mountain view!!!!! stop being illogical!!!!! you're saying that if the price of a honda accord went up $2k it would drive people to buy a lexus.