4 posts tagged “power”

John Armor in the Sun–Sentinel gives an excellent summary of the controversial case in California over gay marriage, where judges have ignored the separation of powers, trying to create laws from the bench. He begins:

The recent decision on gay marriage handed down by the California Supreme Court will have long-lasting and widespread effects far beyond the issue at hand. It creates a dangerous precedent justifying judicial violation of the separation of powers and demonstrates the increasing inclination of some judges to usurp the lawmaking powers reserved for the legislature and the people.
   Creating laws is clearly designated as a legislative function in both the California and U.S. constitutions. For example, it is the business of California’s legislators (or the people, in the case of a referendum) to vote for, or against, gay marriage. Enforcing the laws and applying the Constitution is the role of the courts. But as Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his dissent, in handing down this decision, “the majority places this controversial issue beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.” …
   Sadly, some of our judges have become black-robed politicians who happen not to be elected and who serve for life. They have turned their courtrooms into ad hoc statehouses, handing down laws that appear to have more to do with their personal beliefs than the Constitution.

   The rest can be read here. My view: if a schmuck like me outside the US understands the legislative function, democracy and the separation of powers, how come those four judges don’t?
   Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, this is an assault on democracy and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
   If I were an American, I’d be very worried—dodgy politicians on the one hand, and contemptuous judges on the other.

I found this page at Yahoo! Answers with an incredibly inaccurate answer—and it is not the only wrong response to the question:

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060805022928AAvpv7z

   The real answer: PS stands for Pferdestärken, a German measure for the power output of a car, equivalent to 1·01387 bhp. Any car nut could tell you that—but instead we have smart alecs tell the original poster that PS is power steering and nothing to do with power output.
   In Yahoo! Answers, an incorrect response is not a terms of service violation. Nor is being a wise ass.

I never noticed this, but my power bills from Genesis are for three-week periods. And here I was, so dumb, thinking they were monthly. Of course, I don’t notice any difference in the amounts, which means that my electricity has sneakily gone up by a third in cost.

Further to an earlier post: so how did the New Zealand Government get us folks, happily driving around in natural gas cars with a huge natural-gas network of stations nationally, back into petrol (or gasoline to our American readers) in 1996? Well, there was this ad:

If you’re going to drive a gas guzzler, shouldn’t the birds and the trees know? Sure, you can use LPG and CNG. But they don’t even smell strong. Let ’em feel the power of petrol—good, healthy petrol that really say you’ve arrived. Let your V8 make your winters warmer. There might not be many tigers left out there, but you can stick them in your tank. Petrol. In 91 and 96 octane.

   OK, so there wasn’t that ad. It was pretty easy though: the National Government had been raising the tax on natural gas for a few years. When that didn’t sway New Zealanders from using domestically made natural gas and not depleting our foreign exchange reserves, they plain turned off the tap.
   In 1996, it was announced to all the gas stations that there would be no more CNG. LPG would continue, but the stations—all with the warm, fuzzy names of Shell, BP, Mobil and Caltex (part-owned by Texaco, which forms the Tex in the name)—were somehow hazy about its availability. Panic ensued. We got rid of our gas-powered Ford Sierra. (You could switch between CNG and petrol. Most converted cars since the late 1970s were dual-fuel, since the hybrid term had not been coined for cars then. Can someone please tell me or any New Zealander why the Toyota Prius is novel?)
   As it turned out, there were still plenty of LPG stations around, but by then we were driving around and letting the birds and the trees know.
   These days, you tend to see cab drivers use LPG but preciously few other people. This is a far cry from the 1980s and early 1990s, when natural gas-powered cars were normal. All of a sudden, the Labour Government thinks E10 is revolutionary. E10, in this country, is not revolutionary.
   Since 1996, we now happily pay 50 per cent more for petrol, polluting our environment and using US dollars to do so. Go, petrol! Yay, OPEC, New Zealand politicians love you!