Sunday April 20, 2014
Jump to content
Our electrical codes here have multiplied many times over, in the last 10 years, because of government oversight (Federal). This city and many like it have adopted international codes as part of their own. So far, the state hasn't tried to regulate the impact of those adopted codes.
Which is strange, because it lends itself to a lot of variances. Now, the state does have it's own requirements, which are usually less than the city codes; and as long as the city codes exceed those of the state, then they apparently have no problem with it.
Contracts that used to be 15 pages long, are now well over 100. Not quite a 10 to 1 ratio, but close. And, a large part of that has to do with OSHA, LEED and IECC changes. Of course some of it is due to politically driven directives from the other Federal sources as well.
I think this law is really a good start, but it appears to lack something. Maybe that something in the translation??? :-)
Yeah, I'd like to do that. It's an interesting period for me,
Thanks for the info. :-)
Your points are well made. See you in article 738
At first blush, I see an inconsistency in the situation you described. If almost half of the states were affected by bad politics, why did they so readily (and obviously jointly) accept this 'compromise', seeing it meant the end of their struggles to overcome, within each state? And, presuming that is exactly the case, did they not toss the baby out with the bathwater?
I'll research this some more, but there's two sides to every story, and as Churchill said "History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it." Meaning, that we are hearing the afterwards recital of how it went down, written by folks who obviously appreciated the effect, i.e. one man, one vote; whereas history, not just the framers, had conclusively shown that pure democracy (one man, one vote) can not, and does not work, as evidenced by our current predicament, and the demise of those other democracies the framers referred to.
So, had they forgotten the hard lessons the framers had learned, from history, and their own experiences? I think the majority in states voting so, did forget, or disregard those hard lessons.
Consider, the problems of representation within the states, that caused those problems of deciding who, within each state. If they states, individually, had such an issue, then the folks within that state, obviously had the right to change it. And,this concept that once bums are in power, you can't get them out, is not correct. For, each state has a system of gov't similar to that of the Federal Republic, at that time.
Rather, it is the people themselves, who are slow to kick them out, by voting them out, or calling special elections to do so. They could have done so, at any time. Therefore, we can't say that these folks were in there falsely. Now, maybe they were crooks, and maybe they didn't deserve to be there, but that was a function of the states themselves.
To ask the gov't to step in and overrule the constitutional authorities of those states to decide within themselves smacks of the Progressives of the times, seeing a chance to kill a large chunk of liberty, and did it. Just as they have now seen a chance to destroy even more, and have now gone a long ways towards that.
I don't see it as the overthrow of a worthless system for something that worked, but rather the successful overthrow of a republic, by a conglomerate of Progressives who saw their chance and took it.
Do you have records on the dissenting opinions of the time? Or, has all that been washed away?
While not necessarily close to home, :-) I think this law has too many loopholes in it. The IECC rules are driving the construction industry nuts. Do this, but don’t do that. Prove you are LEED certified. Follow all the LEED rules. (LEED means Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, which is promoted by the USGBC—U.S. Green Building Council—which itself is a U.S. response to IECC goals and objectives, as well as other global efforts.)
IMHO, IECC ‘directives’ are an insidious effort on the part of the global forces, including the UN, to infiltrate many aspects of each country’s infrastructure. We see the same thing in our National Park systems, where they adhere to the IUCN’s directives. While not directly connected to the UN, the IUCN has very close links the UN.
It all comes back to the globalization, and our puny efforts to resist. Even as the Fed. Gov’t has infiltrated every aspect of our lives, rendering the states as vassal states to the central gov’t, so too does the global effort (Some UN, and some not) reach into our very homes to ‘direct’ how we live, what lights we use, which potty to sit on and etc.
I have seen quail fly because of the hopping of a rabbit, or a gust of wind moving a tree limb. In like manner people become distracted (An easy ploy by those who would benefit) and vote in an irrational manner, whereas, if they had not been distracted or scared, they would have voted correctly. This happened in the last presidential election. The vote was being influenced by desire for more secure freedoms. But, in the last days, the story got around that the economy was about to tank, and everyone suddenly voted in a way to hopefully secure their jobs. That was a contrived scare, and it worked.
In the same way, laws have been passed that should not have been passed, because the people in both houses were of a like mind, reacting to political poll taking, instead of what is best for the country.
Re-read what Madison (Or, Hamilton) said above, regarding “tyranny of their own passions” and you see my point on why the nation needs to be a republic instead of a democracy; and therefore, why the senate should not be elected by popular vote.
Sorry, got hung up in a bunch of work. Deadlines, meetings to schedule, coordination efforts, reports to get out....
Suffice to say I think you're right, about it getting lengthy; but I didn't want to turn loose of this one without posting some on the concept pf 'Tyranny of the Majority'. Here's a dribble I dug up, while waiting for my computer to catch up to me. :-)
And, this is why I think it imperative to have a republic, rather than just a democracy. (That is defacto what you have if you don’t allow the states to elect senators, seeing that the same people elect the senators as who elect the representatives.) And, this explains why John Adams first used the term in public thought in 1788, in his arguments concerning the necessity for a house of the Senate. I’m sure the term was common in the colloquial usage of the time. (See The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with A Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations written by his grandson Charles Francis Adams Vol. VI. Page 63.)
This an excerpt from # 63 of the Federalist Papers, written by either Madison or Hamilton. No one has ever really determined, but I lean towards Madison, since the style is more his:
"The circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate …
may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, …
[to]ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people,
stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or
misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call
for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready
to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will
be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of
citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the
blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason,
justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?
What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often
escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard
against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might
then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same
citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next."
In this, it is clear why the senate was designed to be purposely isolated from the direct influence of the people. The reason being that the people, become infatuated with this or that concern, and like a covey of quail, flit from point to point, determined by every influence of environment, regardless of how necessary, or practical.
I noticed you don’t appreciate the undue influence of the rich. I find it not the most attractive part of our process, but I don’t begrudge the rich of their desire to influence, either. I used to work for a very rich man who thought he helped put congressmen and local politicians in office. I remember he called our congressman up and said ‘Now Chet, I put you in the office, and I expect you to …’. I could hear the other end of the conversation, and Chet was making this excuse and that. So, in spite of his money, and his influence, he didn’t get any more out of Chet, than did the old widow down the road.
I’m also reminded that not only the republicans have rich influencers, but the dems as well. George Soros, the Hungarian who became an American and lived the American dream; has spend billions on creating organizations that have effectively changed the point of view of what America is, and should want. Personally, I see him as doing more to destroy our nation, than any other. He has over twenty national and global organizations dedicated to that prospect. So, should I not hate the rich influence more than you? :-)
But, I do not. We have always had the influence of the rich, and I don’t think that we should restrict their abilities, any more than anyone should restrict ours. I find that there are rich who agree with me, even as there are rich that hate what I stand for. Unlike many, I find that if we restrict the rich, then we make it possible for the poor to be similarly restricted. Then, were does it stop?
Did not this country become strong by the influence of both rich and poor? Of course it did. Therefore, it isn’t the rich that are to blame for votes going the wrong way. Rather, it is the tyranny of the majority that is destroying our nation. The vacant minded, who text and surf, the drones who swallow any rubbish fed them, these are the enemies that kill our freedoms and subject us to the tyranny of their votes. Men at the top of government can’t resist the chance to grab more power. How many could be as strong willed as George Washington, who turned down the dictatorship the current president strives for?
Therefore, the rich are entitled to their expressions, even as we are. This is balanced out by the few of them, versus the many of the rest of us. It isn’t the rich, but the gullibility of the many that enslaves us. There lies the cancer that rips the soul out of our government. There is what makes it OK for a city council to take my land, and give it to someone that can put money in their pockets. Graft and corruption are allowed because we allow it. Then, not believing we could be the problem, we want to blame this one or that one. This group or that group.
“We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Walt Kelly 1971 in the comic strip, Pogo.
"[If I didn't get that quite grammatically correct, please forgive me. It's my first shot at Olde English.] :-)"
Not bad. :-)
"who can we trust?" Ah, now that is an excellent question.
The framers of the constitution purposely constructed the government because of that exact issue. They knew that politicians would be for self, to the exclusion of those they represent. Therefore, they made the division of powers so that the selfishness of one could not overpower the people.
But, when the ‘progressives’ of the late 1800’s came on the scene in a big way, and eventually perverted the constitution beyond repair, in 1913. By passing the 16th amendment in one seemingly benign move they, made it possible for the government to separate and thereby prefer one class of people over another, and punish those not in their favor.
By the 17th amendment, they took the balance of power from the states, rendering the government, suddenly, a democracy, rather than the intended republic that had allowed the nation to grow so mightily. The framers wanted to avoid the traps of democracy, seeing that none had been successful, to that time.
Do you remember the phrase that Democrats used to banter around, when they were the underdog, as did the Republicans when they held that status? It was ‘Minority rights.’ The loss of this concept has resulted in another old phrase that was to be avoided by all. ‘The tyranny of the majority’. This is the result of a democracy, the devolved republic. And, this is so terrible, because, as you noted “Anyone who thinks that the underlying principles are not as important as his or her idea of how something should run.”; but, they don’t care about those principles.
Everyone is so busy with the busyness of life that they can’t see the danger to those lives. And as you imply, the problem with this nation is in their lack of concern. If they were concerned, then the thugs in city governments would not steal from one to give to another, via eminent domain. And, our President and the thugs in congress would not steal from our pockets to put it in other pockets.
You're exactly right about some of us more motivated to see justice done, and the government reigned in. That is, speaking more of those who aren't so motivated, than we who do. I think that most of us could care less, because their lives are so full of soccer games, PTA meetings, life groups, church, plays, and how much they can text and see on their I pads, I phones or whatever.
It's like standing in a rushing stream and with nothing to aid; you are trying to hold the water back. But, then, you should still do what you can.
In the old days, you simply took the crooked politician, poured some tar on him, tossed in some feathers and rode him out of town on a rail, along with the cronies who backed him. So, why are our people so afraid of our collective shadows? Can you imagine today's citizens doing such a barbaric thing? :-) When did we turn into a bunch of wimps? But, you can’t deny that is what we’ve devolved into.
Thinking along those lines is it any doubt as to why we’ve already allowed ourselves to lose most of our freedoms? And, that, in turn, begs the questions ‘How can such a cowed people deserve any form of freedom?’ And, ‘Are we not mere fodder for the imperial whim?’
So, to cut to the chase, why not just make an additional law (The primary one) saying no entity could condemn (Take away) or restrict a person's usage of his own land, unless it was 1. Approved by something like a grand jury for civil issues; 2. And if it stands that test, run it past a state oversight committee, and; 3. If it continues to move forward, automatically be forced into court (Providing legal support for the land owner—to prevent his surrender of his rights because he can’t afford the fight.); and allowing that to proceed upwards through the court system to the state Supreme Court, presuming either side wanted to carry it that far?
Meanwhile, allow for this law to be enacted to provide the relief it is obviously intended for. That covers the bases; whereas, as good as this law appears, by itself, it is really just a Band-Aid on festering sore.
I dropped a few words. My brother, who was in Saudia Arabia, had said (While watching the Branch Davidian mess unfold on that first day) "Hey, guys, that's my sister! And, like I said, no one believed him. That was some of the only tidbit of humor I saw out of all that mess.
Last login: Thursday, April 17, 2014