Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).
<The paper these articles were drafted from was original written Spring 2016 – it has not been updated for any modifications or new developments taking place since then.>
The practice of cabotage – defined by Merriam Webster as “trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace or between two points within a country” has been a key legal aspect of trade for centuries around the world. In the strictly maritime realm, this practice is often referenced using the term “short sea shipping” to refer to coastwise traffic and inland waterways, while “cabotage” is being utilized more frequently in reference to the associated regulatory policies.
Although there has historically been a potential for international conflict arising from government-imposed restrictions, the last century is notable for both the imposition and review of unwise or shortsighted economic policies that are arguably responsible for net economic losses in a country’s domestic population in spite of documented evidence.
The United States and the Jones Act (quick recap on themes referenced in previous articles)
Recognized worldwide simply by name, the Jones Act – formally The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 – has become synonymous some of the most with severe restrictions on trade emanating from a government-mandated cabotage policy. From a strictly legal background, Yost (2013) (excellent paper – HIGHLY recommended for anyone looking for more legal discussion) begins with a detailed review of the Jones Act – and examines the degree that legal decisions have deviated from the original stated intent of the legislation (big surprise?) in the aim of maintaining apparently protectionist stances that have generally been harmful to the overall economy. As a matter of perspective, the author is careful to note that the Jones Act by itself is not a formal tariff (technically-speaking – “the best kind of ‘speaking’”), but functions in a similar fashion as a barrier to entry, limiting competition and protecting the existing participants. (Yost, 62) The higher capital costs lead to higher costs for the customers across the board. While noting that Jones Act compliant shippers are not receiving formal federal subsidies in the way that Amtrak does (specific to the Jones Act alone, not considering additional federal retainer payments), Yost recognizes that the barriers to entry are so steep that the handful of companies providing shipping services to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are essentially operating as government-sponsored monopolies protected from competition. (Yost, 66) In an interesting comparison, the author demonstrates that the current protectionist aspects and legal restrictions are not dissimilar from that of the PRC or Japan and serve no positive purpose towards stimulating domestic economic growth, and in turn advocates transitioning towards a middle-ground policy between Australia’s licensed shipping cabotage policies and the trucking cabotage policies of the EU (Yost, 76).
Approaching the issues raised by the Jones Act with respect to their economic consequences, Lewis (2013) (referenced in previous articles – highly recommended again) relates a number of studies on various aspects of the Jones Act and related legislation. Through his own calculations, he determines that the net domestic gain through repeal would be between $578 million and $685 million annually. While there would be a significant loss of domestic mariner jobs initially, many of those would be replaced by a steep intake of port services jobs around the country. A clear distinction is recognized between the inland waterways shipping industry – in which a healthy domestic competition has developed, and the vastly more capital-intensive coastal and overseas routes, including Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico in which a very small number of companies have developed near-monopolies due to the restrictions imposed by the Jones Act and associated legislation (Lewis, 83). Lewis is also quick to note that while the trucking and railroad industries both faced heavy regulations earlier in the 20th century, the loosened restrictions in the last several decades vastly increased market participation while simultaneously driving down costs to shippers and consumers and there is no reason to doubt a similar outcome from addressing the maritime regulatory environment (Lewis, 92).
<Although here again, we’ve recently seen how “re-regulating” the trucking industry is potentially going to lead to a loss of all those gains.>
Finally, Lewis, like Yost, points to the EU’s maritime deregulations regarding coastal commerce as an example to be considered in adjusting long-term policies – keeping in mind the government’s push to incentivize and increase short sea shipping as a counterpoint to increased road and rail traffic (Lewis, 101).
Perakis and Denisis (2008) provide a compelling summary of the benefits of short sea shipping as an alternative to road and rail transportation in the United States. The primary concern of the authors here is to present it as both economically and environmentally efficient – with a focus on the intermodal aspects of such transportation – shifting the containers arriving from overseas from the central coastal ports to more local shipping facilities. There are two types of short sea shipping considered – one involving direct loading of containers (TEU (20 Foot Equivalent Units) or FEU (40 Foot Equivalent Units)) onto barges or similar vessels to be transported for further distribution, and the other involving direct roll-on/roll-off movement of 53ft semi-trailers (Perakis, 593). In both cases, the end state is intended to significantly decrease traffic congestion both in the vicinities of the ports, but also on the feeder interstates associated with the ports. Further assumed benefits include decreased air and noise pollution, decreased expenses associated with infrastructure repair in addition to fuel cost savings in moving tonnage further by shipping than trucking or trains (Perakis, 605).
On the whole, this analysis appears to be largely predicated from the public policy perspective. The majority of the arguments appear to be focused on decreasing activities that affect public spending outlays negatively or that represent potential public backlash for local or state governments. The actual economic functions as they apply to individual companies potentially more concerned with costs or scheduling are largely relegated to shorter discussions at the end of the paper. Indeed, there is no mention of the Jones Act – much less any other current legislative barriers – aside from its inclusion in a listing of potential obstacles hindering short sea shipping (Perakis, 608). To their credit, the authors do recognize in their conclusion that “SSS needs customized solutions for every emerging transportation market in congested trade corridors. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be effective.” (Perakis, 612).
Some links don’t work based on library links – base article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:
Comments
244 responses to “A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 1 (of 3)”
Cabbages?
Throwing cabbages into the automated looms?
Step one in Ned Ludd’s Coleslaw – shred the cabbages.
So much this. I understand wanting a streamlined process, but sometimes it’s just not realistic. A case-by-case approach would solve a lot of problems, I’d bet.
Fascinating article. I always marvel at the breadth of topics available on this site. It sounds like there is a big possibility for de-regulation, but I don’t see that being a sexy cause that many people are going to take up.
Right? I don’t often have a lot of time to play in the comments, but I think I actually learn something new here every day.
I learned about unicorns yesterday.
I learned We are friends
I’m somewhat insulted that you just learned that.
Just somewhat?
You’re going to have to try harder, Yusef.
😉
Now that you now about them let me know if you find any 🙂
It’s pretty damn cool.
I mostly come here to be snarky and let off steam. Meatspace people don’t handle the remarks as well.
I’ve learned that meatspace people often don’t like being called meatspace people. The more you know, I guess!
*stares blankly*
Unpossible.
I’ve always been a fan of Bender’s “Sausage link”
Meatspace sounds like a social networking platform for gay bodybuilders.
Don’t be absurd. Clearly it’s a slaughterhouse.
Or a space based pron.
meat popsicle
NEGATIVE!
“maritime deregulation is so hot right now”
I wish any de regulation was hot. The only way Trump has snuck any through is with twitter smoke screens.
Which brings to mind, I haven’t been able to identify the actual newsworthy item being ignored by Trump initiating a Twitter war. Granted, I haven’t really been looking either.
No prob:
Assuming he’s in Evil Genius mode, and not Blundering Oaf mode, the current twitter war is distracting from the Repub’s struggles to do something, anything, about ObamaCare.
That’s a given. Seems almost too obvious if he’s in evil genius mode. I’m going with blundering oaf.
Listen all a y’all, it’s a cabotage.
our backs are now against the wall
I can’t stand it, Jones Act planned it
I’mma set it straight, this water freight.
I can’t stand docking when I’m in here, cause your shipping fleet ain’t shipping there.
I’m curious how negatively the Jones Act impacts the cruise ship industry. I mean, I know it’s bad, but how bad?
I’ve noticed that one leg of the cruise always involves a foreign country. Wanna go to Alaska? You’re leaving from Vancouver. Wanna leave from Alaska? You’re ending up in Vancouver. Southern California? You’re stopping in Mexico. Florida? You’re stopping in the Bahamas.
I’m curious if, in the last (almost) 100 years, a passenger liner has been stuck out to sea somewhere on the East Coast during a hurricane, unable to come to port because of stupid regulations.
Air travel as well, although I’m not familiar with the legal basis for the cabotage ban there if it’s the Jones Act or some other legislation. At least for air travel, cabotage violations aren’t strictly if a foreign carrier flies between two US airports but if they alllow/sell travel between those two points. Qantas flies between JFK & LAX but doesn’t sell tickets on that route, only for travel to/from Australia or other points. DOT can also issue cabotage waivers in special limited circumstances.
Yeah, I’ve seen both Quantas and British Airways do that.
It might not be the Jones Act, but it has to be something equally stupid.
It was always my impression that the Jones Act was primarily introduced to protect freight transportation, although, I seem to remember there was a further element that all “shipping” to or from US ports must be undertaken with US-built hulls.
Cunard of the UK, CGT of France and HollandAmerica (at the time a Dutch company) all had regular routes from Europe to the US in the 30’s, post-enactment of the Jones Act, so it’s probable that the laws didn’t treat passenger liners in the same way.
I’m sure there are a few factors. Flags of convenience come to mind.
If you go overboard on a Disney cruise, Liberian Maritime Law has your back.
Libertarian Maritime Law?
Fail. You didn’t link the Simpsons clip with the monkey knife fight in international waters.
He ain’t pretty no more
Isn’t the stated motive of the Jones Act something to do with national security? The idea being that you have to have a naval fleet, shipyards and American crews that you can press into service in times of war. At least, I seem to remember something about all that.
It sure does cost us a lot, though. How much less would shipping cost if you could move stuff from NY to New Orleans and Miami by cheap Asian shipping companies?
How much more efficient would the entire industry be if ships could move from port to port as is best for efficient shipping, instead of having to ship everything to a single port for loading? A big container ship could stop at 3 west coast ports in the US, plus Vancouver and then hit a port or two in Mexico before heading out to China. The same goes for the reverse trip. The result might be much more frequent carrier access to various locations.
That’s absurd, how would the longshoreman unions every capture so many ports?!
It would cut prices in Hawaii in half.
Hanjin comes from China to here (Los Angeles/Long Beach), they offload, the Hawaii bound cargo goes over to the Matson terminal, sits there for a few days, and then goes right back out into the Pacific.
Cargo to Honolulu travels an extra 5000 miles and requires an additional ship. it’s fucking ridiculous.
Our blockade of Hawai’i clearly isn’t effective enough if cargo is still getting through.
How much does it take to get them to declare indepenance?
so it’s predicated on large naval engagements and the draft?
HO LEE SHITBALLZ
We have slightly different jargon in the trucking business.
Back when I was still running all over the continent, every once in awhile we would have to break the rules a little to get back to Canada. For instance, I had emptied in L.A. and I had a backload booked out of Houston. That’s a lot of deadhead miles, so I found a loud out of Compton over to Albequerqe, and then another from Lubbock to Houston, and then I got my home bound load to Ontario. Sightseeing my way around weigh scales and ports of entry was fun.
Some call it cabotage, some call it interstating, we called it ‘repositioning’.
And to your point about re-regulating trucking – what they’ve done is completely opened up the market to any player (Thanks Jimmy C) but hamstrung the operational end with so many rules it is fast becoming the exclusive playground of those on the inside of regulatory capture.
Aren’t the weigh stations on CA Interstates nearly impossible to avoid? You have to plan 50 miles ahead and be prepared to take your semi on a dirt road.
We used to make fake bills of lading for such situations. In general, however, if I can route around scales, dirt roads or not, I’m going around. Fuck those Slavers.
I’m still a wanted man in California. Didn’t pay a speeding ticket in 2000 that I was issued somewhere around Fresno, and given the exchange between Cdn and USD at the time, I didn’t really want to pay it.
They closed the scales near me. Carson Station on the 405.
It was too easy to beat. All you had to do was get off one exit early and drive through a mall parking lot.
Are the weigh stations ever open? I recall one on I-91 in Vermont and the running joke is that it was never open.
How long ago was that?
Is the system still designed to be wildly inefficient?
If it’s .gov you know it’s inefficient on purpose.
On purpose? No. It’s a congestive failure.
Also, you are missing form ID-10
2002.
And yes, the trucking business is still wildly inefficient. Between the 80,000 federal gross weight limit, no coast to coast tandem or triple trailer routes, the cabotage rules, and not allowing Mexican trucks the same access as those from Canada, the trucking business is still an extremely inefficient system.
And then there are the labour issues.
What does a UK Political Party have to do with trucking in the US?
Was replying to Raston Bot.
You were the one who brought up Labour.
We use The Queens English in the civilized world, sir.
*laughs*
*falls out of chair*
How will you reach your cup of tea from down there on the floor, you silly Yank?
I only drink tea when contemplating mercantilism and how best to implement it.
Just the assertion that any country in the Anglosphere is “civilized” is a real knee-slapper.
*Pours tea on UCS*
No tea for Mercantilists!
What sort of crazy land do you live in where you deny someone something by providing it for free?
*Contemplates Canadian Health Care*
Nevermind…
They might as well pour the ‘health care’ on us like that, for all the good it does.
Although, given I’m now subject to ObamaCorporatist Care, I’m not sure yet which is worse.
“what they’ve done is completely opened up the market to any player (Thanks Jimmy C) but hamstrung the operational end with so many rules it is fast becoming the exclusive playground of those on the inside of regulatory capture.”
So true!
The fucking teamsters. Obama gave them plenty of regulatory gifts to screw independent owner-operators. People don’t realize just how much the driver regs add to the cost of everything they buy. The goddamned truck driver shortage is the desired result of teamster lobbying.
Well, the good news for the Teamsters is they’ll soon be replaced by robot trucks. Oh, wait…
I though this was about cabbage. Now I want some cabbage…
“what is the least used sentence, Alex.”
Cabbage and Bacon?
Nope, doesn’t work.
Disagree. Finely chopped cabbage fried with bacon = delicious.
Well, since cabbage doesn’t work at all, I’ll have to disagree.
Ve haff vays uff maken sie lieben de kraut
Oh, right, turning it into saurkraut, then putting it in a rueben sandwich. Thanks, Not Adahn, I’d forgotten that.
Pass on the massive gas play that cabbage will cause..
Q is right on the money…I usually use polish sausage though. Bacon is precious and not an everyday occurrence.
Finely chopped cabbage fried with bacon
My favorite side on the Lee’s Chicken Lunch Buffet! And Cole Slaw too!
Love the stuff, but it gives me deadly farts
So wildly OT, I apologize.
But, my closest and oldest friend has recently gone through a divorce (it was for for the best, he’s crazy, but she was CAH_RAY_ZEE), he’s finally pulled out of the post divorce sad slump at least some what and is trying to get back out there. We’ve been talking and he’s found a girl he’s interested in, but she has a kid and some baggage. Nice girl from what I hear and their wacky lines up pretty well.
So what I’m asking is any advise to pass along for a man getting into a relationship with a women who has a kid and a probably deadbeat baby daddy?
Based on your avatar I can only assume you’re describing a recent episode of Rick & Morty.
I wish, at least then I’d be able to portal away if things go south.
He should force the kid to call him daddy on the first date.
“He should force the
kidfemale to call him daddy on the first date.”FTFY
Hawt.
“Daddy on the first date” does have a ring to it.
how much does he love kids? he loves kids, right? because he better love kids if he’s going to date a single mom with sole custody.
OMWC signal lit.
You see, gentlemen, an OMWC’s love is very different than that of a square.
One of the drivers of his divorce was his desire for kids and her desire to never be a housewife.
“We’ve been talking and he’s found a girl he’s interested in, but she has a kid and some baggage.”
Yeah after 5 years of having me some fun i can attest that they are all going to be bringing some serious baggage if they are alone, and even more so if alone with a kid. And the longer they have been alone, the more telling it is that you are dealing with major baggage.
is her baby daddy a cop?
No he’s not. He’s just a typical bluegrass asshole.
all major hurdles cleared. may they be happily ever after.
I say steer clear. Maybe I’m overly cautious, but single moms always seem to have too much drama, and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for creating even more instability in the kid’s life. Plenty more fish in the sea without kids.
That’s tentatively my thinking, but the dick wants what it wants. I want a kernel of wisdom for him, but then thinking about, I’m not sure he’d listen.
Do you know of a penis with ears?
There is always more pussy out there. I know it’s hard for someone coming off a big break-up/divorce who’s finally found someone he’s interested in, but he’s gotta think longer term than how he can fuck her. When there’s a kid involved, there are bigger issues to think of IMO. Of course, like you said he’s probably not going to listen to you either way, but that’s my 2 cents.
That’s why he shouldn’t get serious for at least a couple of years. It’s a bad deal all around. And if he’s near a major metropolitan area, there’s so much pussy he could literally drown in it.
I get ya. I’m waiting for the right moment. I’ve tried to warn him off crazy before, but he seems drawn to it.
“We’ve been talking and he’s found a girl he’s interested in, but she has a kid and some baggage.”
Let me say this again: if they are single late in life, and more so if they are single with a kid or more, there will be some serious baggage to contend with. No exceptions. Period.
Yeah. If he wants a normal family, he’s going to have to steal someone else’s.
The up-side is that there are lots of mid- to late- 20’s girls whose baggage is relatively light and rather like guys who are back on the circuit.
He should make sure he doesn’t look too hungry, and they haven’t got too much ink.
Yeah, men can usually afford to be far pickier than they are in practice.
if a guy can meet a superficially pleasant woman with kids, he can meet one who is equally pleasant without kids. Then he can concentrate on figuring out all the stuff he has to in order to see if she’s a good partner.
I agree on the steer clear warning.
If he already had his kids too it might different. But if not, I’d say there are plenty of fine women out there without the baggage of an ex, baby daddy and whatever other issues.
Also, never get into a serious relationship coming out of the divorce slump. Never. Never. Never.
I was handed this rule by no less than five different guys when I went through my divorce. Being divorced makes you crazy for a while. Like, seriously zero judgement crazy. Do not date at all for a year. Just don’t do it. And then do not date anyone you’d consider a long-term prospect for another year.
3 of those five guys met really hot women coming out of their divorce and thought they had been sent an angel from heaven. 6 months later they figured out they violated the “never stick it in crazy” rule and now they have a kid with a crazy lady.
Divorce seriously messes up your brain. You will not be a normal human again for two years, minimum. You will go through bouts of emotions that come upon you for reasons you can’t understand. Among these will be an intense need for companionship. Know this and play it safe. Pick ladies to hang out with that you are not interested in until you are human. Then take it slow. Date safe for a while. Then, when you figure out how to have common sense again, you can date for real. But don’t rush it. You can’t get better any faster – time is the only thing that makes it better.
“he’s finally pulled out of the post divorce sad slump”
Took me about 2 weeks. At first it was just weird, because I’m in this house in the middle of nowhere, by myself and the silence was just too weird. So for about the first week, I slept on an air mattress in front on the TV in the living room. Week 2 I started to get used to it. By the middle of week 2 I started liking it. By the end of week 2, I was the happiest I could remember being since I was little kid.
Your friend should be very reserved and aloof about the dating. Women, great thing to help forget about the old failed marriage, but be very careful about getting serious right off, too much chance of making the wrong choices on the rebound. I’d suggest staying out of any serious relationship for at least 2 years. I mean it’s not like I’m coming up with any great revelation here, I think it’s sound advice that lots of others have already discovered long before I started saying it.
Person with baggage and kids? RUN!
2 weeks? Man your marriage must have really sucked.
That’s why I filed for divorce.
I’ve had hangovers that last longer than that!
You know, you’re not really able to drink your way out of a hangover.
bullshit
I’ve had a few that seemed to last a week, or at least 3-4 days. After I was older. When I was younger, I’d get a horrible one and it would last until the next afternoon and I’d be ok.
The marriage had really been dead for a few years already. Was trying to hold out until certain things happened, but I didn’t quite manage to make it. So getting over it was a foregone conclusion. I was already over it. It just took a couple of weeks to get used to being in a house alone.
So what you’re saying is you were already divorced, but just needed to file the paperwork.
For the last year or so, yes, that’s basically it.
It just took a couple of weeks to get used to being in a house alone.
that strange feeling is called “happiness”. it’s weird, i know, but enjoy it while it lasts.
It actually lasted. I got married again 3 and a half years after and it’s been a dream come true compared to the first time. I’ll credit that to a few things. No children in the house, so complete freedom for the 2 of us, except when I have to work. Both of us have been through a failed and more mature now. And she’s a traditional old fashioned girl from an old traditional family with traditional values, no feminist bullshit in our house. Coming up on 7 years now.
That’s great news, the statistics normally are pretty bleak for divorced adults.
“Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience”
I’ll pass that along. He likes sticking it in crazy for some reason. His ex was always on a new obsession, whether it be UFOs, reincarnation, crystals, some pyramid scheme. I’m glad he’s out and I don’t want him to fuck it up again.
How old is your friend? I mean, can he find a woman of child bearing years? I think it’s much better to have his own children, if he can, instead of opting for pre-made instant family. I’ve seen too many problems happen in that situation. In fact, I don’t even know of one of the many people I’ve known in that situation, where it lasted. Resentments start to creep in. Kids resentful that it’s not their real dad for one. But every time I’ve seen this, it blew up badly.
He’s 29, intelligent and a bit crazy. Good catch imho, but we grew up together so I may be biased. He’s got time just looking to fill a void that the habit of having another body around created
29? That’s too young to be playing daddy to someone else’s kids. Move on.
Don’t get me wrong; I had kids at 27. But I wanted them.
Yes. Full stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Even if she is the right woman, he isn’t the right guy yet. And he has time. Lots and lots of time.
I managed to make it work, but it helped that the ex was a shit-bag that the youngest kid didn’t even remember being in the house.
Crazy fucks like a champ. I keep telling people this but no one ever listens.
My BF can attest to that, he’s got war wounds from some throw down that are impressive. But he also married crazy.
Advice.
As a guy who has married 2 different women with deadbeat babydaddies here is what I say.
You gotta decide quick whether this relationship is likely to be one you want long term or not and if it is not looking like a good choice for going the long haul get out as soon as possible. This isn’t for you or her benefit but the kids. That kid has already had 1 father figure abandon him/her you need to do everything you can to not make it a second.
If you are going to be around for the long haul, take some time to develop a relationship with the kid. Optimally it should build towards as close to father-child as possible but that is not strictly necessary and will obviously be influenced by logistical factors (How involved is the bio dad, how far along is your relationship with the mom, how old is the kid when you start dating her, etc.) the key is you don’t want to be just this random dude hanging out with mom and remain standoffish to the kid. Don’t force the relationship on the kid either, the key is it has to be built over time like any other relationship.
When you are dating, make sure you take her child care needs into account. She is likely not going to be able to be as spontaneous and flexible as a child free person is and your understanding that sometimes date night just means Netflix on the couch with no chill because the kid is sleeping between you is gonna buy you more brownie points than you can imagine.
If things progress and you end up in a serious LTR with her (marriage or not) understand, she and the kid come as a package deal, that means that you need to think of that kid as if they were your kid. You should be comfortable with the idea of eventually reaching the point where you never utter the phrase “step child” because for all intents and purposes the kid is yours.
Never try to come between the kid and the bio dad, don’t try to replace him, just be there for the kid when they need you.
Always fight to make the other guy live up to his obligations he owes that child support to the kid, not to the mom but never hold it against the kid if he doesn’t.
since some of you fuckers are lacing the comments with juvenile cabbage jokes, i’m going to OT it with slow motion video of an acrylic-cased suppressor.
http://www.guns.com/2017/09/25/testing-a-trio-of-see-through-suppressors-in-slo-mo-video/
*shakes fist at heavens*
CURSE YOU ZSCALER!
Love the handle and picture. Put a beating on some Cybermen for me.
The best. The brightest
Governor Jerry Brown has expressed an interest in barring the sale of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. The earliest such a ban is at least a decade away, she said.
Brown, one of the most outspoken elected official in the U.S. about the need for policies to combat climate change, would be replicating similar moves by China, France and the U.K.
“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’” Nichols said, referring to China’s planned phase-out of fossil-fuel vehicle sales. “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”
“Why do I not have unrestricted dictatorial powers over the entire planet? What kind of pathetic half-assed state is this, anyway?”
Of course, instead of tweeting a looping gif of Bugs Bunny saying, “What a maroon,” Mary Barra and the rest of the spineless retards in Detroit and elsewhere will rush to California to kiss Brown’s ring and tell him how brave and smart he is, and how much they’d love to accommodate his pathetic delusions.
The sooner those fuckers secede from the union, the better.
Focused “Disappearances” might work best.
Who wants HELICOPTER RIDES?!
No tears now, only gravity
Can you power a helicopter with solar?
No, it runs on liberal smug
Effectively unlimited fuel, at least.
Fuck that fucking prick.
This reminds me of Congressman Retard (aka Polis) running for gov in Colo saying that we will have 100% renewable energy by 2040. He clearly has a corral behind his home housing a whole bunch of unicorns whose farts are being collected 24/7.
I’m gonna hide that Barchetta of mine in that old barn up in the back 40. They’ll never find it there,
Is it…red by any chance?
Why yes, so it is, and while I have no children of my own, my siblings have boys.
So, are those electrical cars going to be powered by coal fired power plants, or unemployed Californians on treadmills?
Our confiscated orphans!
We could solve the energy crisis and the obesity epidemic SIMULTANEOUSLY!
And make the environment more beautiful! Cali, put them muffin tops on the spinner!
Treadmills are too complex. Just burn the fatties for fuel.
*looks down, looks up, buys more ammo*
Nah it’s not like that, you’re cool
*holds out fist for fist-bump*
No?
*goes to http://www.luckygunner.com/ *
On a related note, I am stoked Lucky Gunner skated by the VA firewall.
Fuck that… when they run out of fatties we are next..
It is certainly within power of the California legislature to demand all vehicles be powered by Mr. Fusion by 2020. I mean it was due 2 in production years ago.
Clearly Exxon and the Koch brothers have been doing whatever they can to fuck with clean energy. They started way back when they set up DeLorean for the cocaine bust.
“No vehicle sold across state lines, or used in interstate commerce may be held to a more stringent standard than that described in federal law. No state may ban the sale of a vehicle in compliance with these standards.”
I’m pretty sure California is already violating that with their CARB compliance bullshit.
It’s not actually a law, it was a proposed law I mooted a while back that was commerce clause compliant so as to put an end to these California tantrums hurting the country.
Ah, got it. Kind of like that law that says that people legally transporting legally owned firearms can’t be imprisoned or prosecuted for travelling through a jurisdiction with stricter gun laws? That one that gets violated every freaking day in the northeast? A law like that?
Hey, it will let companies selling to the rest of us ignore the california mandates. It might not help the Californians, but there’s more to this nation than them.
I thought California emissions were given a special indulgence by the feds.
Fusion, lol. Not lol at Fusion itself, but lol that progs will ever accept it as a solution for power. They’ll treat it the same way they do nuclear now, no matter how efficient, renewable, or clean it is. You can’t just think ‘ok, fusion is now here and it’s going to be great’. Progs don’t care about facts. Look at their hysterical opposition to GMOs for instance. There’s no logic there, just hysteria.
I’d like to see someone do a simple calculation. If you covered one half the surface of the state of CA in solar panels, how much of the current power demand would that cover? And I say that knowing that it’s impossible. But let’s just say it is possible to cover half the surface of CA in solar panels. Will that meet the current demand?
Its more likely those panels will be located conveniently in AZ with the circuits travelling west. To answer your question I doubt it would meet current demand.
They don’t want something that will actually provide efficient energy, they just want something to mask their desire for everyone to go back to subsistence living. Except for the overlords (themselves), of course.
speaking of Leftist authoritarianism and cognitive dissonance, i’m giddily awaiting the one-child policy proposal to combat overpopulation so i can carpet bomb it with pictures of Chinese women being hauled off for forced abortions.
If you think that would phase anyone on the left you’re insanely naive.
despite its faults, one-child policy has really advanced abortion medtech.
I’d suggest we just go ahead and sterilize all the progs of pro-creation age, right now. That should fix it. And they want to solve carbon footprint anyway, that’s a WIN/WIN.
The one-child crowd is probably 100% a pro-abortion crowd, so they’ll probably just add it to their PowerPoint deck anyway.
A fetus for fuel!?
Nice alliteration, and it fits on a bumper sticker.
All electric cars for everyone in CA! (and trucks and trains, too, of course) …
… but on hot days we’re supposed to set the a/c to 78 degrees and use no major appliances during the day because the electric grid is that fucking weak already.
This state , and Jerry Brown in particular, is so mind-bogglingly STUPID. And they’re just getting dumber.
And yet, the people keep re-electing them.
Sad.
If he really wanted to do something he’d make all state employees give up their cars.
Nathan Wind as “Cochise”
OT:
catching up w/ lunchtime reading
–
from the AM links: the Cavanaugh piece is good and people should read it
I was skimming a biography of Tom Wolfe. He did a PhD @ Yale on the influence of communist politics on american journalism in the 1920s-1940s. a sentence describing his thesis jumped out at me:
“”The Yale grad student had treated the deeply held political conviction of these great American artists as—well, as a ploy in a game of status seeking.””
aka “Ostentatious lefty-politics as virtue-signalling/cultural social-capital”. I think it has always been thus. Most of all w/ journalists, who want to be seen as moral nobility… but also with many others. Left politics is not really political – its deeply and essentially social.
He seemed to have stuck with this idea for at least a few more decades. “Radical Chic” was basically how rich people flirt with left politics. “Bonfire” has some similar themes about ‘pretended virtues’.
If there is a theme which i think explains most of what social-media has done to American culture, it is “status concerns”. It permeates everything.
::changes relationship status to ‘it’s complicated”::
OT
Who the FUCK is Gloria Anzaldua, and why the fuck does google think I hive a shit about her 75th birthday?
“Gloria Evangelina Anzaldúa was an American scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory.”
Obviously not woke. *Puts #6 on re education list.*
::#6 reconfigures VPN so he can’t even get to google’s search engine, even if he types the URL in.::
Muahahaha! YOU FOOL! Now we know your precise location! *Presses button, releases shock troops*
Christ I fucking hate google.
I have no complaints with duckduckgo really. I can find everything I need via that:
* Deals on metamucil
* Ammo
* Soft toilet paper
* Depends
Is this a recent thing, or has this been a thing – like it is for me – for a long ass time already?
What? Pushing SJW icons and so on? it’s been going on a while.
Here’s an interesting thing. Hit google and search for:
American Inventors
And tell us what strikes you about the results.
So brave. So woke.
I tried it on Bing. Lots of black folk I never heard of. I’m sure that’s because of my white privilege.
Same search on Duckduckgo. At least the first 1000 images are black guys. So Duckduckgo are totally woke and they hate women. Actually the results are about the same.
For me, 14 of the first 20, were African American.
Now, I know of the valuable contributions that African Americans have made to American society and science, but it’s baffling that the list was ordered that way, it’s almost as though the names, dates of birth, locations, or the thing they invented wasn’t important, and some other mechanism was at play.
So confused.
Number 6 ain’t woke!
I tried Google. Looks like they more woke than anyone.
Certainly, early on, ddg made extensive use of anonymized calls to google.
My configuration of ddg skips all the fancy scrolling marquees of content, so all I get is a text page with links, the first of which is to americaninventor.com, and the second to wikipedia. I don’t like busy UIs, so this looks like a trip back to Altavista.com but with better font support.
not seeing anything noteworthy
oh. I typed “investors”
lol i see now https://imgur.com/a/G4qyM
I dunno, Gilmore, you mush have the White Privilege-Free version. As i noted, there’s a rotating marquee of photos at the top of my page and it looks like a panoramic graduation picture from Howard U. Class of 1936.
Fucking Edison.
“”a well-tanned Alexander Graham Bell in 9th place,””
funny i noticed the same thing. their pic of AG Bell has him looking like Uncle Ben
Just like the MSM has already done, all they accomplish is destroying their own credibility. As I’ve said many times before, nothing is invincible and wrecking their own reputation for free and unfettered information is a good way to self-immolate.
What are you referring to? Google sucking? DuckDuck go as an alternative? Ugly Mexican feministas?
Remember, Google is suffering from Stage 3 SocJus parasitism – They’ve become a skinsuit.
May Goolag die by their SJW sword one day.
Right? That’s forward thinking
Another Tuesday, another lunch truck that didn’t show up.
Fuck these people I’m going to lunch.
We had that problem at my warehouse, it got to the point that site leadership cancelled all four trucks and won’t revisit the issue at all
Blumenthal: ‘99 percent sure’ of Flynn, Manafort indictments – POLITICO
https://apple.news/AkD3xDpePRSaOIHGzNG-ueg
OT but CNN is having a field day
Yeah, indict enough people for bullshit and watch the yokels fall in line and kiss the ring instantly.
These people are clueless.
Politico says something 99% sure. That makes me think there’s 0% chance of it happening.
Blumenthal?
so you’re saying there’s zero chance. okay, got it.
Here’s the thing about a criminal indictment:
You have just handed the accused the authority to engage in broad discovery. Manafort will be entitled to demand a full accounting, for example, of the unmasking of him and others related to the investigation, to attack the legality of the evidence underlying the indictment. I have my doubts that even Mueller wants that.
We’ll see, of course, but a criminal case like this can lead to lots of rocks being turned over by the defense.
It’s just going to be perjury traps and obstruction of justice bullshit, all the way down. We know how these things play out by now.
that’s how they got Martha.
As Ross Ulbricht how that worked out for him.
Yeah, but the press were totally against Ulbricht. He had no support from the media at all!
/derp
If you covered one half the surface of the state of CA in solar panels, how much of the current power demand would that cover? And I say that knowing that it’s impossible.
Well, if it entails bulldozing the entire Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, I say we have an obligation to try.
1. If it saves one red-legged frog, it’s worth it
2. ???
3. Profit!
Some quick back of the envelope math says it would be about 3 times our peak capacity demand.
About 12 – 18 million acres would be enough to meet current demand (in theory) , half of California is 52 million acres
Did you include someplace to store all those joules?
Next article in the New York Times editorial section: “How Nazism brought purpose to disaffected young men”.
Article after that: “How the Bolsheviks weren’t such bad guys after all”
No, no, it’s Communism Apologia week, so it’ll be something like how Cuban Healthcare is the BEST. Or Kim Jong-un is just misunderstood
“All the people slaughtered by Pol Pot died for a noble cause so it wasn’t in vain!”
They wore glasses. They had it comin’ to them.
The Onion, further blurring the line between comedy and reality:
Nation Begs Disaffected Youth Gravitating Toward Neo-Nazism To Get High And Play Xbox Instead
In re: the “Nazi” who got punched in Seattle
It was pretty clear that he was deeply mentally ill, and in the middle of some sort of psychotic break. Nobody seems to want to acknowledge that, because it’s not sexy to go around punching the mentally ill. Instead, a bunch of Antifa hippies get to act out their D-Day fantasies.
It reminds me of the time that I was at a Special Olympics fundraiser with my older brother. He beat a bunch of special needs athletes to win a stuffed animal for his wife, and acted like it was an accomplishment. I told him at the time: “Dude, you’re not a hero. You’re a fucking asshole.” Same thing here.
Link?
20 minutes. Playa hasn’t had internet since the Cal game.
I think the reference is to this one
I forgot about that narrative.
They didn’t “track down” anyone. Yeah, the guy got mentioned on social media, but he just ended up getting punched by a passerby.
Jesus Christ the New York Post acting like the puncher just saved a bus load of muslim kittens or something. Yikes.
he does look like he might be a little handicapped mentally.
Even if you ignore everything he said, there are still very obvious clues.
He was alone, even though getting your NAZI on is a group activity. He brought his friends along inside his head.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-police-respond-to-viral-video-of-man-wearing-swastika-getting-punched/
I hadn’t kept up with the story.
A man in an armband being punched so hard it knocks him out sounds like “Friday in Chicago”. As I noted immediately after, ‘real NAZIs’ tend to like authentic regalia, and those who can’t get it usually work hard to make reliable facsimiles, and that armband looks like he bought it on ebay from Taiwan, or from the “White Pride” section of etsy.
So, unprovoked assault on people wearing clothes you don’t like is ok now? I guess I’ll be beating up some fat girls in yoga pants soon.
“Juicy? I’ll show you juicy, bitch!”
Thought experiment:
Person A wears a swastika armband.
Group B assaults person A because he’s a “Nazi”.
Person A pulls out CCW and kills one or more of Group B.
What does the prosecutor do? I assume this to be in a “stand your ground” state.
Hey, how do you know how I spend my Saturdays down at the mall?
By their logic, if it’s OK to punch a NAZI, it’s damn sure OK to punch a communist 10 times or more.
I’m going to drag this over into the PM links.
No, it’s worse than that, but related.
If an image worn by a person can be considered an assault, a sympathetic judge might consider the wearer to have effectively issued “fighting words”, and in defense of themselves against imminent battery, Group B initiate a ‘defensive’ beatdown.
I dunno about Naziism, but certainly the NYT would do it for ISIS et al.
Liberals must taste delicious because these fuckers cannot help but eat their own.
By co-opting a movement started by black players, NFL owners have defanged anthem protests.
I bet it doesn’t taste as good as this schadenfreude salad I’m having over here. Needs a little more salt though.
WaPo – Working to re-elect Trump everyday!
Somebody here called it. Make the protest about Trump and not whatever it is Kaepernick is protesting they will lose.
Apparently Shackelford is trying to muscle in on your turf
http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/25/hey-congress-if-you-really-want-to-help
THANK YOU CAPTAIN PLANET
Way late to the party, but definitely appreciate the feedback on this article – far better than I got the first time around.
Seriously though, for Jones Act specific stuff, take a look at the links in this portion – esp. the legal one referenced at the beginning as well as the links back to my previous posts on the topic at the very beginning of this article – it’s all good reading, and they’re better writers than I am too. Yeah, the Jones Act was originally just commercial shipping and morphed into everything transpo – related because FYTW! (like the Commerce Clause).
I do think it’s eye-opening to see what some other countries do (parts 2 and 3 – I need to upload tonight) – although frankly due to geographic variations, nobody’s exactly the same. My biggest thing with the Jones act is real, legit inconsistency – ie. non-citizens allowed in Navy, Coast Guard, etc – but not on a cargo vessel. Or BS re: exemptions here and there for national security then massive fines on people trying to follow the rules who are forced to apply for waivers that get denied simply due to lack of available physical materiel, etc. No room for good faith in many cases. And our pathetic lack of shipbuilding capacity right now…..
Hey Lt – do you know a lot about GMDSS? I work for a company that has an interest in it and the history of the regulations about it (as told to me by expert colleagues) seems like a classic case of cronies creating barriers to entry, with some hefty conflicts of interest thrown in.
Acronym doesn’t ring any bells right now but I’ve got a few beers in me and just made a comic video…..
seriously though (wiki scan), I’d have to do a little more digging re the overall details. Certain things have already been enshrined via International Maritime Org and USCG guidelines for decades – ie. mandatory AIS for ships over 300tons (other than when Navy ships are turning it off for OPSEC purposes – useful in some cases…but NOT in a major shipping lane in a non-warzone). VHF (channel 13, etc) for bridge to bridge communications should be mandatory for emergency communications, etc.
I’ll research a bit more tomorrow – haven’t heard about any kind of industry monopolies for those. EPIRBs, etc are pretty much common sense, etc. (see also John Ringo’s “Dark Tide Rising” series – great stuff).