Skip to main content

Tesla Roadster Sport 2.5, the fourth-generation Roadster from electric carmaker Tesla Motors Inc.
That good old, free magic was brutally stifled by clunky Big Gubmint regulations this week, but the source of interference was unusual. Republican Governor Christ Christie stuck his giant special interest foot in his mouth by hamstringing car maker Tesla Motors, apparently because their product and sales vector were just too darn innovative:
The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla’s sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state. Having previously issued two dealer licenses to Tesla, this regulation would be a complete reversal to the long standing position of NJMVC on Tesla’s stores. ... This is an affront to the very concept of a free market.
Silly Tesla! The free market can only conjure up its conservative magic when it's polluting the Earth or killing poor brown people in third-world countries! See also ericlewis' diary on Tesla.
  • The pygmy polar T-rex was still a cold-blooded killer.
  • Yesterday was Pi day and it seemed like it would never end!
    Pi has been calculated to over one trillion digits beyond its decimal point. As an irrational and transcendental number, it will continue infinitely without repetition or pattern.
  • The Vaccination Intervention piece last Sunday drew lots of attention. Prof. Tara Smith, who studies infectious disease and helped edit that post, weighed in this week with why she vaccinates her kids:
    All of a sudden, you’re out of the hospital and on your own with this amazing, tiny human, and you alone are responsible for her care. You’re given reams of paperwork about feeding and sleeping, developmental milestones, red flags to look out for. You’re inundated with information you barely have time to look at. Mom is trying to heal  ...

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by SciTech.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for Science Saturday (19+ / 0-)

    you just have to laugh about how Tesla is the bad car !
    wish they would build a truck !

  •  Thanks DarkSyde (7+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:18:49 AM PDT

  •  More Free Market in Chains (14+ / 0-)

    Ok, I'm a cigarette smoker. And I frequent a tobacco shop that invested in a cigarette rolling machine that could roll a carton in about 7 minutes. They used unadulterated Turkish tobacco. And even with all the tax on tobacco in my state, the cigarettes came to about $4 a pack as opposed to the $10 a pack of big industry smokes.

    Well. The big industry folks didn't like those odds, so they got the state to outlaw tobacco shops rolling machines.

    Try to regulate industry and they scream about the free market. Let a little competitor come up, and they scream for regulation.

  •  The decimal expansion of an irrational (9+ / 0-)

    number cannot be eventually periodic, but it can have a pattern even if the number is transcendental.  Liouville’s constant is an example of a transcendental number whose decimal expansion has a simple pattern: the k-th digit is 1 if k is the factorial of a positive integer and is 0 otherwise, so the number is

    0.11000100000000000000000100... .
    The next 1 is in the 120-th decimal place.
  •  How's this for a billboard? (13+ / 0-)

        A big, ugly picture of Christie with the words: "FUCK CHRISTIE. I'M GETTING MY TESLA AT..."  And then the name of a PA or NY dealer.

       I know, you can't use "fuck" in a billboard, but you can come close enough to drive the message home...

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:22:03 AM PDT

    •  well !@@#$%$$ works nt (7+ / 0-)

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:26:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Billboards and/or Courts. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, dinotrac, SueDe, RiveroftheWest

      An ad campaign would be one approach. Tesla's business model is at stake so they'll likely go to the courts. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
      Christie's decision truly does go against anyone's notion of a free market. Perhaps a sign that Christie's given up on his presidential ambitions and is settling for local grease (this time by the NJ auto dealers).

      "One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, sourpusses." ― Pope Francis

      by GoodGod on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:40:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds about right. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoodGod

        Now that his state administration has shot his presidential hopes in the backside, he's decided just to make as big a mess of NJ law and rake in as much graft (er...campaign donations and favors) as possible before his potential presidential candidacy is pronounced absolutely dead and the embalming begins.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:17:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's not different in Texas (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buzzer, RiveroftheWest

      There are, I believe, two Tesla stores in Texas, but they can't sell cars and the "salespeople" can't tell you very much meaningful about them.  The actual sales are transacted in -- I think California.  Leases may come through Chicago.

      Big mess.
      Big hypocritical up yours to anything resembling a free market.

      Especially funny given that there are no dealers to compete with and --- best part --- insufficient service remedy to keep a dealer in business.   Service is a major revenue stream -- maybe the most profitable one -- at dealerships.  Teslas don't need plugs, oil changes, etc.

      Good for the consumer, you know.
      So -- it must be fought.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:01:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The issue for dealers is that if Tesla sells at (0+ / 0-)

        its own stores, GM, Ford, etc., may then want to do the same and displace existing dealerships.  In many states, auto dealers are well organized at the state level.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:28:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was the original intent of the laws -- to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest

          prevent automakers from muscling out dealerships after they had already undertaken substantial investments of time, money and reputation to build a business. That is a legitimate purpose.

          That also is not the case with Tesla, which has no dealerships.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:45:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why can't they tell you anything meaningful? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying the salespeople aren't trained well enough, or that it's Tesla's policy not to tell you anything meaningful, or that the state forbids conveying meaningful information to potential buyers?

        I've lost my faith in nihilism

        by grumpynerd on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:33:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  For Christie its not about the free market ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiveroftheWest

        its about the payola.

        Who wants to bet if we dug deep enough, we'd find a scheme to make Tesla pay up, and they refused.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  we only need the first 60 digits (7+ / 0-)

    One funny thing about pi is that we only need the first 60 digits or so to do any actual calculations to even the finest possible degree of precision.  

    The shortest measurable length is the "Planck Length", which is about 1.6 * 10^-35 metres.  The largest object we earthlings have to deal with is the entire observable universe, which is about 46 billion light years in diameter, or 4.5 * 10^26 metres-- or about 2.7 * 10^61 Planck Lengths.  We would only need 62 significant digits to calculate the volume of a sphere the size of the universe.

  •  I think these "bans" only help Tesla (10+ / 0-)

    As much cool as their EV's are, Tesla gets lots of free press and cache' from these bans. I'd be more concerned if their EV car for the commoner (ie $20K msrp) got banned.

    -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

    by Blueslide on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:33:10 AM PDT

  •  oh, great--now the anti-vaxxer kooks will be (9+ / 0-)

    infesting us again with their bullshit . . . .

    (sigh)

    How about next week you go for the anti-GMO folks, so at least we can get a little variety (and the anti-GMOers have the advantage of being at least partially right, though not for the silly anti-science reasons they usually present)?

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:34:28 AM PDT

    •  I'm not anti-vax (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TKO333, cville townie, RiveroftheWest

      but really, using your manner of belittlement of other people's opinions was just discussed in several diaries here recently.

      I'm not anti-vax, but I am anti-GMO, and I work with an organization that has a research aquaponics farm (indoors) and is working to create stocks of seeds that are not GMO.

      Personally, I think it's ridiculous to allow so much of our food stock to go GMO before we know long-range effects.

      What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?
      Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

      How do GMOs affect farmers?
      Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.

      and this
      Unintended harm to other organisms    Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.
      Reduced effectiveness of pesticides    Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.
      Are antibiotics a good thing? Yes. Did we understand how to use antibiotics before we began giving them out willy nilly? No. Now we have drug-resistant bacteria that are a real threat.

      Not to mention that the giant bee die-off is being connected to pesticides and fungicides. We create things like pesticides, fungicides, antibiotics, but we seem to not have the foresight about using them with caution.

      Is it possible for you to respond without slinging a bunch of mud ("infesting us with bullshit" "silly anti-science reasons") instead of having a reasonable discussion?

      •  anti-vaxxers deserve to be belittled (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caittus

        Just as flat-earthers and creationists do.  And for the same reasons.

        (shrug)

        As for GMO, show us your science.  Quit waving your arms and just show us your science.  But you have none. (shrug)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:18:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ps--as I said in my original post, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PeterHug, cville townie, ebohlman
          the anti-GMOers have the advantage of being at least partially right, though not for the silly anti-science reasons they usually present
          I'm against GMOs because of the way Monsanto uses them to expand its dominance, crush competitors, and lock the entire agricultural industry into neo-feudal dependence.

          But none of that has anything to do with science--it is economics and politics. All of the "scientific arguments" made by anti-GMOers (everything from "we'll get cancer from eating the genes!" to "it causes sickness in pigs!", is utter nonsense and shows a basic lack of scientific understanding. They just make us all look stupid.  So don't use them.

          And now I suppose the GMO crowd will all come running in to infest us this week . . .

          (sigh)

          Sorry, Darksyde.  Didn't mean to speak the name of Cthulhu and summon him.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:24:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It IS about science (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RiveroftheWest

            GMO seeds are made to resist the potent pesticides and fungicides, and are creating super weeds and super bugs. Just like overuse of antibiotics have created super bacteria we are now having trouble dealing with.

            Also, nature packs a pretty nutritious package in its foods, not only vitamins and minerals, but micronutrients. Nature's foods are bioavailable to our bodies. That's why it's better to eat nutritious foods rather than take supplements which usually lack the full, bio-available package.

            With stronger and stronger pesticides and fungicides in our soil and plants, and with seeds being manufacture to resist those toxic chemicals, the micronutrients in the soil are killed and damaged. Plants of course need good, nutritious soil in order to become good nutritious plants.

            When you change the biology of plants (and fish), you have to make certain you know all the web of nature that goes into those plants or you risk destroying what nature creates to nourish our bodies that are part of that web.

            But don't mind me. I just help out at an aquaponics research project where graduates of sustainability sciences work to study these things. Oh, and we have people touring from all over the world who are interested in what we are doing. We have lots of university folks bringing their students to tour our facility. And you'd be surprised how many of these project are going on all over the world and how many people are working in this.

            When our facility is completed, we will be creating our own energy from non-fossil fuels using an anaerobic digester, which is part of our net-zero, closed loop system which creates energy instead of sending waste to a landfill.

            •  um . . . (0+ / 0-)

              Plain old ordinary natural selection produces the same superweeds and superbugs, which are identical in every way with those resulting from GMO pesticides. That has been happening for 3,000 years of human agriculture, long before the Monsanto corporation was even a glimmer in the young Mr Monsanto's eye.

              Do you actually understand any basic biology . . . . ?

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes it is Natural Selection (0+ / 0-)

                that wouldn't create these super weeds and super bugs if these chemicals weren't overdone. Why do you think that doctors have stopped dishing out antibiotics are freely as they used to. BTW, human agriculture is at least 10-12,000BC years old, not 3,000. And super weeds and super bugs didn't start occurring until weeds and bugs were confronted with these strong chemicals. They don't evolve in that direction unless there is pressure to do so.

                And yes, I do understand basic biology and natural selection (since anthro was my major). But it seems like you do not, nor do you seem to have accurate history. Agriculture is 3,000 years old? Ha, no wondering you don't provide any real info or debate. You only HR me and pretend you know something.  

                •  OK, so you DON'T understand basic biology (0+ / 0-)

                  The weeds develop resistance whether they are genetically modified or not.  The genetic modifications don't make any difference.  None. At all.

                  It is the use of pesticides that leads to resistance, and herbicides were being used centuries before Monsanto ever modified a single seed. It makes not a shred of difference whether the plant is modified or not. If genetic engineering were banned tomorrow, in its entirety, superweeds would still go right on developing resistance to herbicides. In fact, they are already developing resistance to Roundup, which will make Monsanto's money-maker obsolete within just a few more decades.

                  Try again.

                  PS--the Egyptians were using copper salts to kill weeds 3,000 years ago. And plants were developing resistance to it.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:20:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are the one that doesn't understand (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RiveroftheWest

                    Weeds and bugs that develop resistance to things like copper salts are not the kinds of super weeds and super bugs we are seeing develop in resistance to very powerful chemicals. And the response is to develop more powerful chemicals, which makes the soil poorer, thus makes the plants poorer. Not to mention killing off the beneficial biodiversity. This puts us on a pesticide treadmill that is not ultimately in our favor.

                    Just like we've only gotten drug-resistant TB because of improper use of antibiotics.

                    Organic farmers have used the naturally occurring form of Bt (a soil bacterium) successfully for over 40 years as part of organic pest management. Because it breaks down in sunlight, selection pressure is low and insects have been slow to evolve resistance to it. Until now. The impending loss of Bt as an effective tool of the organic farmer adds insult to an already injurious system.
                    So there are ways of dealing with pests that do not increase the pressure to become resistant as rapidly as pesticides do.

                    Not only are these pesticides creating super weeds (like super strong pigweed that is breaking farmers' equipment), they are destroying natural ways of controlling pests. As for superbugs, corn root worm has become resistant to pesticides too, and now is causing a lot corn in Illinois and Iowa to rot in the ground.

                    You may think "my" science is bullshit, but this is what many agri researchers in universities and independent researchers are greatly concerned with. I suppose you are familiar with the work that's being done in this area?  You are familiar with agroecological practices such as long crop rotations, biological control, and good soil management? Or have you forgotten what caused the great Dust Bowl?

                    I can tell by your mode of "discussion" you are more interested in being right than in science (as you've mostly slung mud and not presented much real information), but perhaps you might do a bit of research before you make such silly claims.

                    So go ahead. HR me for presenting information you don't know how to refute scientifically.

                    •  resistance is resistance (0+ / 0-)

                      Resistance comes from the exposure to pesticides, not from the presence or absence of modified genes. Spraying pesticides on GMO plants produces exactly the same resistance in the weeds that spraying the same pesticides on non-GMO plants does, through exactly the same process. The presence or absence of GMO plants is utterly irrelevant to any of the process..

                      You are babbling.

                      You may think "my" science is bullshit, but this is what many agri researchers in universities and independent researchers are greatly concerned with. I suppose you are familiar with the work that's being done in this area?  You are familiar with agroecological practices such as long crop rotations, biological control, and good soil management? Or have you forgotten what caused the great Dust Bowl?
                      Thanks for confirming that everything you are griping about existed for decades before Monsanto ever modified a single gene, and will go on existing long after genetic engineering is completely banned.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:54:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The pattern of herbicide use (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MillieNeon, RiveroftheWest

                        with Roundup Ready GMOs is different from that with unmodified crops. Traditionally, weedkillers had to be used as spot treatments; if you use Roundup Ready, you can douse the crop without it dying. It's then claimed you don't have to till the crop or do any of the traditional things done to mitigate the ineffectiveness of normal herbicide use.

                        The selection pressure to create superweeds is stronger because the Roundup is the only real agent being used to control weeds.

                        •  all true, but all irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

                          The plants develop resistance to the weedkillers whether the crops are modified or not.  It's just a matter of time. The presence of GMOs may delay the process a bit, but it doesn't stop it. And the effects come from the amount of pesticide, not from the modified genes--if you sprayed the same amount of pesticide on non-GMO crops, you'd get the very same effects. GMO crops may permit the use of higher doses--but then, so does the development of resistant weeds. Indeed, some species were already developing resistance to Roundup before Monsanto even introduced its GMO seeds.

                          There is no way to win that race--but the GMOs neither hurt nor help. They are largely irrelevant. The weeds will inevitably get resistant anyway, GMOs or not. There's simply nothing we can do about that.

                          And the amount of pesticide useage would seem to be already subject to regulation, whether GMO crops or not, simply by virtue of the effect of the pesticide on the environment, no matter what it is sprayed on. If the regulations were actually effective, then the presence or absence of GMO crops would be an irrelevancy (though of course not irrelevant to Monsanto's bank account). The pesticide is the same either way.

                          This is what we keep coming back to again and again----most of the problems cited with "GMO" are problems with Roundup application, not with the modified crop genes.  The presence or absence of the genes has zero influence on what the Roundup does or doesn't do to other plants.

                          If we want to effectively regulate the level of Roundup usage, then let's do that, and leave the GMO irrelevancies out of it.

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:58:42 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ps--I'm entirely in favor of strict regulations on (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            OrganicChemist

                            usage levels for ALL pesticides and herbicides, not just Roundup. Any usage, at any level that causes environmental damage, should be stopped.  Period.  

                            But the presence or absence of GMOs is irrelevant to that.

                            And yes, I fully recognize that regulating the useage levels of Roundup may indeed make "Roundup Ready" crops completely useless, and cost Monsanto a fucking fortune.  Tough. I don't give a rat's ass about Monsanto. (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:26:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Argh (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RiveroftheWest

                        The GMO plants are engineered to withstand the pesticides. Obviously they aren't going to engineer weeds to resist, their product is made to get rid of weeds.  It's exactly the weeds that are non-GMO that are becoming super.

                        Just because you pronounce my words as babbling means nothing. You keep heaping on ad hominem, but never really refuting the points I make. Anyone can say "your argument is bs". It takes a thinker to actually refute an argument with evidence.

                        You have not presented any real evidence for your argument. I've now wasted enough time with you. So bellow on all you like about my information. I won't be responding.

                        •  no shit (0+ / 0-)

                          All of that is irrelevant. Your gripe is with the application effects of Roundup----and the presence or absence of GMO crops is irrelevant to that. If you spray the same levels of Roundup on weeds in the non-GMO field as the GMO, that level of Roundup has exactly the same effect. The presence of absence of the GMO genes makes no difference. None. At all. Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada. Nothing. The effect is solely and only because of the level of Roundup that is applied.

                          I'm all in favor of regulating the level of Roundup application  (and indeed ALL other pesticides and herbicides) to insure they are only used at safe levels. And if lowering the level of Roundup use means that Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds lose most of their advantages and nobody wants to buy those seeds anymore, then tough shit on Monsanto. (shrug)

                          But the whole GMO bullshit is irrelevant to that. If you want to argue in favor of regulating the levels of herbicide use, then do that. Leave the irrelevancies out of it.

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:38:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Then why does Monsanto (0+ / 0-)

                            make it's seed immune to RoundUp? By your reasoning it's not necessary. But the point is, their seeds wouldn't produce if they aren't immune to RoundUp ability to kill weeds. Which is why if farmers use RoundUp then they have to use GMO seeds.

                            My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that the weeds and insects that RoundUp kills are, of course, not GMO, so they get killed, except for the ones that manage to build resistance.

                            And it's "pigweed" that's the problem, not pigs. Obviously you don't read carefully. Or maybe your high or drunk.

                            You sound like the Ted Cruz of science.

                          •  Jebus fucking christ . . . . . . . . (0+ / 0-)
                            My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that the weeds and insects that RoundUp kills are, of course, not GMO, so they get killed, except for the ones that manage to build resistance.
                            No shit.

                            My point, which I can't tell if you just don't grasp or are just being obtuse, is that if you spray Roundup on NONB-GMO crops--crops that have never been within two continents of Monsanto's seeds--they also get killed *except for the ones that manage to build resistance".

                            Let me make this as basic and simple as I can:

                            If I spray Roundup on a GMO field at a particular level, the weeds that are not killed by the Roundup will develop resistance.

                            If I spray Roundup on a NON-GMO field at the same level, the weeds that are not killed by the Roundup will develop resistance.

                            The presence or absence of GMO doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The weeds still develop resistance to the Roundup, in exactly the same way.

                            Which part of this is still unclear to you?

                            Jeez.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:51:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  and you STILL seem not to grasp some elementary (0+ / 0-)

                          things. The weeds develop resistance because of the ROUNDUP, not because of the GMO genes. The weeds will develop resistance whether the GMO genes are there or not. The genes do not cause resistance--the presence of the Roundup does. Roundup sprayed on GMO crops causes resistant weeds---and so does Roundup sprayed on NON-GMO crops. In exactly precisely absolutely the identically same way. Indeed, some weeds were ALREADY resistant to Roundup before Monsanto even introduced any GMO seeds. If you ban all GMOs tomorrow, the resistent super-weeds will still continue to appear, just as they did before GMO was ever even dreamed of, because it's not the GMO that causes them.

                          Jebus, this isn't that hard to understand---unless you have an ideological reason to not want to understand it.  (shrug)

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44:09 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You STILL don't grasp (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RiveroftheWest

                            I NEVER said the weeds develop resistance because of genes. I said the GMO seeds have been built to resist RoundUp. Or else they wouldn't grow. You inserted that into the conversation by mis-reading me. I said that non-gmo weeds and bugs develop resistance. Don't believe me?

                            How about MIT. Will you believe them?

                            Roundup Ready crops are crops genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup is the brand-name of a herbicide produced by Monsanto. Its active ingredient glyphosate was patented in the 1970s. Roundup is widely used by both people in their backyards and farmers in their fields. Roundup Ready plants are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup to keep other weeds from growing in their fields.
                            Yes, RoundUp sprayed on plants not genetically modified to resist it develop resistance in natural ways. And if the weeds were already resistant before RoundUp existed, then why did the weeds have to become super weeds? They wouldn't have had to modify in order to resist RoundUp.
                          •  then for god's sake . . . . . . . . . . . (0+ / 0-)
                            I NEVER said the weeds develop resistance because of genes.
                            why the hell are you bitching about the presence of the genes, then ?????????????????

                            Are you anti-ROUNDUP, or anti-GMO? Or can't you tell the damn difference? How in bloody hell is "Roundup makes resistant weeds!!!" an anti-GMO argument if it doesn't say a damn thing about the presence or absence of GMOs ???????

                            (shakes head)

                            It becomes more and more difficult to tell if you're just not grocking this, or are just deliberately obtuse.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:57:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LF, you write many fine diaries (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MillieNeon

                            here which I rec and enjoy, but as a small farmer I need the right to grow crops and livestock without contamination from pesticides or GMOs. When those substances drift onto my acreage my products become useless in the local markets. Monsanto and other such entities should not be allowed to destroy the value of my crops; even less should they be allowed to turn around and sue me for using their patented products against my will.

                            People should have the right to know what is in the food they put on their tables; growers should have the right to produce the food their customers want. Is that asking too much?

                          •  with respect, I think you should read my comments (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RiveroftheWest

                            again.  I am not saying what you seem to think I am saying.

                            I am against GMOs precisely for the reasons you state---Monsanto uses them in a predatory fashion to crush its competition and to hook the entire agricultural sector into a feudal subordination to it. And that should not be tolerated.

                            Nevertheless, most of the "scientific arguments" made by the anti-GMO side (everything from "we'll get cancer by eating the genes!" to "GMOs produce superweeds!", are simply nonsense, and betray a lack of understanding of basic science. Those arguments only make us look like uneducated simpletons, and we should not use them.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 04:11:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I appreciate what you've written about that, LF, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MillieNeon

                            and I'm glad we agree. I'm not as confident as you are about the long-term safety of the products Monsanto and the others turn out -- safety for either humans or wildlife. Pollinators, for instance.

                            I think these products need more long-term testing before we can say that bad things aren't happening/won't happen down the road as a result of using these products, and I think the predatory behavior of their manufacturers makes it very hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.

                            In the meantime, these corporations absolutely should not be allowed to use their vast amounts of money to pass laws preventing people from knowing what's in the food they eat, nor to abuse small farmers as they do now.

                    •  now show us the "pig study", so we can all (0+ / 0-)

                      laugh at that , too . . . .  (make sure you include the raw data, so we can see for ourselves that the study doesn't even show what the anti-sciencers say it does).

                      There are plenty of reasons to oppose Monsanto.  We don't need to make stupid shit up. It just makes us look like creationists.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:59:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  It is unfortunate that the resistance genes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MillieNeon, cville townie

              were put into the nuclear genome instead of the mitochondrial one - pollen have essentially no mitochondria, and that would have prevented nearly all the gene transfer that we're seeing.

              •  true that (0+ / 0-)

                Gene transfer does of course occur naturally, through viral vectors, but there's no point in making it easier.

                I suspect Monsanto will make that change in its next product (many weeds are already developing resistance to Roundup, so the current GMOs now have a shortening shelf life and will soon be obsolete and unusable, so I assume Monsanto is already working on its replacement). After all, Monsanto doesn't care about loose genes, but it DOES care about its proprietary product being given away for free by Mother Nature (which is why they idiotically try to sue farmers whose fields they have contaminated for patent infringements).

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:26:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The replacements (0+ / 0-)

                  will increase the use of far more toxic herbicides than Roundup. Arguably they shouldn't be approved at all.

                  The best ecological argument for Roundup Ready crops is that they allow glyphosate (Roundup) to replace more toxic, more persistent herbicides, even if the Roundup can then be used in larger quantities. So it has reduced the use of very polluting, carcinogenic herbicides like atrazine.

                  2,4-D or (shudder) atrazine resistant GMOs? No thanks.

                  •  maybe, maybe not (0+ / 0-)
                    The replacements will increase the use of far more toxic herbicides than Roundup. Arguably they shouldn't be approved at all.
                    But once the weeds have resistance to Roundup (and that is already beginning to happen), then Roundup itself is useless. Monsanto will have no choice but replace it or go broke, since they won't be able to sell Roundup anymore.

                    Of course, that is equally inevitable with ANY pesticide.  They ALL have a limited useful life, and become useless once the plants develop resistance to them. (And that is true whether GMO crops are used or not.)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Belittled (0+ / 0-)

          It's easy to swag off a few nasty barbs instead of having a real discussion. Even if you think someone is a flat-earther. But there are many of us on DK that hope to do away with the nasty barb mode of discussion.

          I did include some of the science excerpts in my post. Did you bother to read them? Doesn't sound like it. Instead you'd rather accuse me of waving my arms and not talking about the science. You didn't respond to the issues brought up in my post at all.

          There's tons more on the internet if you're really interested in the science.

          •  yes, belittled (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caittus

            As in "laughed at". As in "point to and giggle"

            Just as we do to people who say "the earth is flat".

            That is not "nasty" or "mean". It is reality. We are a reality-based community, and people who abandon reality, deserve to be belittled.  We do it to goppers all the time.  And I see no reason to coddle our anti-reality contingent just because they have a D after their names.

            Your "science excerpts" are discredited bullshit. No better than creationist "science".

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:54:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Goppers (2+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              cville townie, RiveroftheWest
              Hidden by:
              Lenny Flank

              aren't part of this site. And speaking of science, show me your science that says my science is discredited bullshit. That's not a discussion. If you have science that's not supported by Monsanto and their ilk, then show me. Trusting Monsanto science on this is like trusting the tobacco industry's science on the effects of tobacco.

              •  HRd for silly accusations of shillery and CT (0+ / 0-)

                There has been an increasing trend here (mostly from a small group of acolytes, but also in areas like the Fukushima diaries, the GMO diaries and the gunz diaries) for people to label anyone who disagrees with them about anything as "paid trolls" or "corporate shills" or "NSA infiltrators" or "FBI disruptors". It is silly and stupid. It is also a deliberate attempt to shut down criticism by demonizing and deligitimizing anyone who criticizes without having to reply to (or even read) any of their criticisms.  it is no different than all the goppers who yell "SOCIALIST!!!!" at anyone they don't like. It should not be tolerated here by anyone on any side of any issue, and I for one am fucking sick and tired of seeing it.

                Anyone who makes unsupported idiotic accusations like this in order to shut down criticism they don't like, should be bojo'd.

                PS--when Monsanto says "the sky is blue", they are correct.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:39:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I did not call you a corporate shill (0+ / 0-)

                  I said believing Monsanto is like believing the tobacco industry. You have HR'd me without providing any science of your own. And you have HR'd me for an invalid reason. I did not shut you down, you have refused to provide any scientific dispute of what I have said, and you are the one to use snide remarks instead of a real discussion. I asked you to provide science that was done independently of Monsanto for the obvious reasons.

                  You are the one trying to shut me down by invalidly HRing me and only slinging mud instead of providing any science. Obviously, you don't have anything to back you up, yet calling anything I present "bullshit". You are the one who is anti-science if it doesn't support your beliefs.

                  •  you may want to have a talk with your fellow (0+ / 0-)

                    anti-GMOer below who called me a "Monsanto troll" and bitched about my "corporate masters".

                    If, that is, you have enough intellectual honesty to condemn that sort of thing from people on your own side and not just from the other side. . . .

                    Or do you follow Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment . . . .

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:08:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so from your silence I take it that you DO (0+ / 0-)

                      follow Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, and you DON'T have the intellectual honesty to condemn such things when they come from your side instead of the other side . . . .

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 12:02:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  And since when (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cville townie

                  is it CT to suggest that corporations conduct a lot of science research that will prove their claims rather show the short comings of their claims? This is traditional corporate practice, not CT. Just look at the history of drug companies.

                •  The sky is gray today. (0+ / 0-)

                  Please do not make sweeping generalizations to support your corporate masters.

                  "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

                  by jestbill on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:55:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  my corporate masters? (0+ / 0-)

                    I worked for Greenpeace.  

                    You are babbling.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:06:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Some of my best friends can see the sky. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RiveroftheWest

                      Anyone can be right or wrong on any subject.  The decisive question is whether they are in the right or in the wrong.

                      In this conversation it's not clear to me why you think this question is settled and done.

                      "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

                      by jestbill on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 04:10:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  then maybe you should have asked, instead of (0+ / 0-)

                        just stupidly shooting off your big mouth about "corporate masters!" and "Monsanto troll!". . . .

                        Or didn't you ever learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 04:58:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  The comment is not HRable (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RiveroftheWest

                  It claims neither shillery nor CT, just reliance on biased science.

                  Whether you (or I) agree or not, you cannot HR someone you are arguing with, anyway.

            •  Monsanto troll? (0+ / 0-)

              'Your "science excerpts" are discredited bullshit. No better than creationist "science".'

              Much of the time, change would not be bad if it happened slowly but catastrophic if done fast.

              The actually important argument against GMO is that there is more to understanding the world than a flip of a coin can decide.

              "Heads it's safe: Tails it's not" is not science.

              "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

              by jestbill on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:53:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  alas, I am out of HRs today, so I can't hit this (0+ / 0-)

                idiotic CT and unsupported accusation. But I'll repeat my explanation of why I'd HR it if I could (and will probably go back tomorrow and HR it).

                There has been an increasing trend here (mostly from a small group of acolytes, but also in areas like the Fukushima diaries, the GMO diaries and the gunz diaries) for people to label anyone who disagrees with them about anything as "paid trolls" or "corporate shills" or "NSA infiltrators" or "FBI disruptors". It is silly and stupid. It is also a deliberate attempt to shut down criticism by demonizing and deligitimizing anyone who criticizes without having to reply to (or even read) any of their criticisms.  it is no different than all the goppers who yell "SOCIALIST!!!!" at anyone they don't like. It should not be tolerated here by anyone on any side of any issue, and I for one am fucking sick and tired of seeing it.

                Anyone who makes unsupported idiotic accusations like this in order to shut down criticism they don't like, should be bojo'd.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:04:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hah! (0+ / 0-)

                  Don't like the accusation, don't spout nonsense.

                  Your "side" of this "discussion" was no more reasoned or adult than those of the people you claim to be against.

                  You have made blanket statements against people critical of GMO.  There is plenty of room for discussion (eg regarding the pace of change) without your attitude.

                  "Anyone who makes unsupported idiotic accusations like this in order to shut down criticism they don't like, should be bojo'd."

                  Indeed.

                  "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

                  by jestbill on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 04:02:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm anti-GMO, you buffoon (0+ / 0-)

                    Didn't you read the fucking comments?

                    I'll be back tomorrow to HR you.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 04:10:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I withdraw that. (0+ / 0-)

                      I should not have called you a "buffoon". My apologies for that.

                      But understand--I've been with the environmentalist movement since the 80's, I worked for Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, I helped form the Lehigh Valley Coalition for a Safe Environment, I worked to prevent offshore oil drilling in Florida, I was arrested as part of the anti-nuclear movement, I worked with Judi Bari as part of the IWW/Earth First! coalition. And to have someone who knows nothing whatever about me come here and shoot their mouth off about me being "a Monsanto troll" and having "corporate masters" is . . . . infuriating.

                      And that is quite apart from all the stupid accusations of "troll!" and "shill!" that are getting tossed around in too many areas of DKos, and which are nothing more than a club to shut up people we disagree with. I'm fucking tired of seeing that, I won't tolerate it anymore, and I will HR it every time I see it, no matter who it comes from.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 05:50:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  My personal issue with GMO (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest

          and by that I guess I mostly mean Roundup-Ready seeds at this point, is that it allows cultivation practices that wipe out large chunks of incidental plants (=weeds) that are actually ecologically important.

          The one that is being focused on right now is milkweed (which in turn is putting incredible pressure on the Monarch population), but there are others.

          One other potential issue that should IMO be examined is the impact of high levels of persistent soil glyphosphate on the soil microbiome.

          I am also a bit dismayed at (recently) learning that glyphosphate is widely used as a seed drying agent, but that has nothing to do with GMO.

          •  yes and no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PeterHug

            Those are issues with the pesticides themselves, not with GMO. The pesticides do exactly that same thing (kill non-targeted plants) whether they are sprayed on GMO plants or non-GMO. That is part of what makes some anti-GMO folks look silly--they are not even arguing against the genetic modifications themselves, since the GMs don't affect the things they are arguing about. Pesticides were causing huge environmental damage before GMOs ever even appeared, and they will continue to do so if GMOs get banned tomorrow. It's simply not a GMO issue.

            As I noted before, my biggest gripe with GMOs is the predatory way that Monsanto uses them to crush competition and to lock the entire agricultural industry into semi-feudal dependence upon Monsanto.  But again, that is not an argument against the genetics themselves, but against the way Monsanto uses them.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:32:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess my point is, with a Roundup-Ready (0+ / 0-)

              crop, it is possible to oversaturate the field without killing your crop in ways that was not previously possible to do, and this is having a significant impact on the rest of the NA ecosystem.

              I think we pretty much agree about GMOs...

              •  yes, I understand your point and agree with it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PeterHug

                I've worked for both Greenpeace and Sierra Club. I'm entirely in favor of strict regulations on ANY herbicides or pesticides, not just those used on GMO crops. And if that cuts into Monsanto's bottom line, tough shit on Monsanto. (shrug)

                What irks me are the anti-GMO folks who can't tell the difference between environmental damage caused by high levels of Roundup (plenty) and environmental damage caused by GMO crops (none).

                Using "Roundup makes resistant weeds!" as an anti-GMO argument is pretty damn stupid when the GMO genes don't have a thing to do with any of the resistance or any of the damage caused by the Roundup.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 02:15:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Tesla question? (4+ / 0-)

    Why does a car without an internal combustion engine and its radiator need a grill?

    Although, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and guess that there's a monster heatsink up there.

    If they want to go severe retro, have a couple of big polished aluminum fins out back to clamp those monster mosfets to. Party like it's 1959!

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:35:09 AM PDT

  •  Crying over opppresion of the 1% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kickemout

    I can't believe we are spending time defending the right of the 1% to buy their fancy cars.  What is next, the unfairness of a tax write off for trucks but not Lamborghini?  No tax deductions for second homes?

    Seriously, my problem with Tesla is they want to sell but not invest.  The same thing is happening in Texas.  I don't necessarily agree with the dealer system, but do know of several reputable high end dealers that cater to the 1%.  It seems to me that Tesla just does not want to split profits with service providers.  At the very least, it seems they might put up charging stations in states where they want to sell.

    •  So where do dealers make their money on a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike Kahlow, RiveroftheWest

      car with no oil changes and no catalytic converters, etc, etc.

      Dealers make money in the shop at least as much as they do on the sales floor. Teslas don't fit that model well.

      Besides -- why should they "split profits" with dealerships?

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:06:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  $600 a year (0+ / 0-)

        Mercedes charges $300 for MBrace, so Telsa is charging $300 for service every year.  This includes brakes and wipers, but brakes are not replaced every year.  I did not pay $300 a year in service for my car the first few years when it was new.

        Also, they charge $7,500 for a three year battery warranty, so there is clearly some money to be made there.

        Mercedes also provides software updates for free to any Mercedes at any dealer.

        With Tesla, because there is no dealer network, you have to pay $100 for a service visit.

        •  Tesla and Mercedes are different beasts. (0+ / 0-)

          It's fair to compare the costs. Note that you don't have to buy the $600 package if you want. That's simply an offering.

          As to paying $100 for a service visit, that's a consideration when buying the car, absolutely, but what has that got to do with a dealer network?  Do you miss the dealer who gives you a free diagnosis, then tells you you need an oil change and new spark plugs on your Tesla? Perhaps a new transmission because the dagnabittzers bad, then laughs all the way to the bank while tightening a ground wire.

          Which all begs the big question:

          You are free to buy all the cars you want from dealers. That's legitimate.  If you prefer them, or know one that offers sparkling service, that's what you should do.  

          Don't buy a Tesla. That's how a market is supposed to work.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:59:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  And of course it ain't just about Tesla. It's (5+ / 0-)

    about forcing EVERYONE who buys a car to have to haggle with some lying, smarmy salesman with fake pictures of his non-existent wife and kids on his desk and a record of check kiting and extortion. Now THAT apparently is the real New Jersey way to buy a car. And the ONLY New Jersey way to buy one.

    Yay, free market. All the freedom money and muscle can buy. Nice.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:37:45 AM PDT

  •  I would be in favor of the Tesla rule (3+ / 0-)

    if they would apply it to Walmart as well.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:38:59 AM PDT

  •  Autism is epidemic (0+ / 0-)

    it seems. Just saw this article today, and it's scary, because if what it says turns out to be credible, we're in for a lot more autism.

  •  NO, republicans don't really like (4+ / 0-)

    1. Free markets
    2. Non-government work
    3. Helping small businesses
    4. Educating children (potential workplace competition)
    5. Budgets without property taxes
    6. Taxation with representation
    7. Helping the poor, sick, and children

    Whatever the republican party says they're for is actually what they're against.Classic projection. I can't believe they've gotten away with it for so long.

    Did I miss anything?

    "I feel badly about the kids," the unknown person said. "I guess." [but] "They are [only] the children of Buono voters," Wildstein replied.

    by plok on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:41:42 AM PDT

  •  The Tesla sales model would eventually gut the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elwood Dowd

    car dealer business as we know it now much in the same way that Amazon has destroyed the local book seller business.

    You may not like car dealers but the local dealer model does support numerous local jobs that the direct sales model does not.

    You've not heard of how "outsourcing" has ended well-paying jobs for the middle class?

    Those are some of the few well-paying middle class jobs left and now you want to pull the rug out from under those too, just for the benefit of Tesla stockholders?  

    •  The sales model is independent of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      p gorden lippy

      the car itself.  The NJ ban would apply to a new Hummer company too.

      Does NJ still require that gas pumps be operated by a station attendant?  A terrible interference with the free market! Which results in more entry-level jobs, more convenience for the customer, and prices no higher than in neighboring states.

    •  Where do dealers make their money? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      too many people

      Bet you'll find a big hunk of it is in the service department.

      Teslas need notably less of that.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:08:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Still a used car market (0+ / 0-)

      Dealers don't make much selling new cars.  The money is in used sales and service.  The main benefit to current new dealers is the name recognition of the brand, meaning Chevy owners will likely come to you for service.  

      The jobs impact would be minimal as the manufacturers would still need salespeople to meet, discuss, and test drive the cars for the public.  The difference is the owner is now the company and not a third party.  And that third party doesn't need to pay inventory taxes on new cars.

      This actually helps protect local dealers from poor quality of the manufacturer.  It should also lower prices to the consumer.

    •  Too bad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      too many people

      Times change. No need for a dealer market unless the manufacturer wants it. Lots of good reasons to keep it for some. Protecting jobs alone is not a good reason. How many people at Kodak lost jobs because do digital cameras?

      You best believe it does

      by HangsLeft on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:45:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Given time, Pi will repeat. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. ~ expatjourno

    by ezdidit on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:49:25 AM PDT

  •  After the beating Christie took over Bridgegate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TKO333, Hillbilly Dem

    makes perfect sense that he'd rally to the defense of that most iconic, popular constituency: the New Jersey cars salesman.

    These guys aren't even trying anymore.

  •  Pi day (0+ / 0-)

    Where can I download Pi to 1 trillion decimal places?
    I need to draw some VERY accurate circles....
    ...with crayons

  •  Where have I heard this before? (0+ / 0-)
    The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process
     

    Sounds familiar. Just can't put my finger where I've seen this done before.......

    You best believe it does

    by HangsLeft on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:10:24 AM PDT

  •  Tssla also banned in NoCarolina and TX (0+ / 0-)
  •  Measles outbreak spreads in British Columbia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest
    Roughly 100 cases of the measles have been reported in the Fraser Valley east of Vancouver, prompting health officials to warn that cases have begun spreading outside of the previous school and religious groups where they first appeared.

    Previously dozens of cases had been reported at a Christian School in Chilliwack with a low vaccination rate. That school has been temporarily closed.

    http://www.cbc.ca/...

    Today's headline: "Fraser Valley measles outbreak spreads to Burnaby’s BCIT campus" http://www.theprovince.com/...

    The campus is about 1 km from the City of Vancouver border. Young people are likely to start dying when the number of infections gets into the thousands.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site