The National Weekly Atlasian

[Verily]

Phasing out incandescent light bulbs is not "extreme."  I'm not "banning light bulbs."  I'm hoping to phase out an energy inefficient form of them to replace them with newer, environmentally-friendly bulbs.

Other countries have taken this step.  It is not "extreme."

I never knew that the mercury in fluorescent bulbs was environmentally friendly before.  More seriously, there are some application where color quality is of sufficient importance that I do not support a complete ban on incandescent bulbs, though I could support a tax to reduce the apparent cost advantage to those who don't factor in the savings in electricity and longer life of the alternatives into their buying decisions.

The mercury in flourescent light bulbs is considerably less than the mercury released by power plants producing the extra electricity needed to power incandescent light bulbs, assuming that at least 6/10ths of the power is coming from coal plants (and that's true Atlasia-wide right now).

Still, a ban on incandescent light bulbs seems a bit extreme. On the other hand, I can't really see them as contraband, so it's not a situation where banning has the effect of creating a black market.

[Verily]

AndrewCT would make sense, but he might be too liberal for a guy like Fezzy [very conservative] to appoint. Then, I could be wrong.

I thought of that too, but how many conservatives are left in the Northeast?  Even DWTL moved out.

All I can think of is Rin-chan. He could appoint himself, too, couldn't he?

[Verily]

Everyone, especially those opposing DWTL, really need to back up and take a breath. I'm not defending some of DWTL's comments here, but it's difficult to say you view the position as non-partisan when you're running and "anti-DWTL" candidate.

Is he active? Check. Is he a well known Senator? Check. Does he follow procedure? Check.

Al made a joking jab at SPC in one of the bills he presented and referred to SPC's introductions of legislation after he was elected as a "Spamming session." Who cares about these things? Silly junk like that didn't keep Al from the position.

I wish we could stop pretending this is about "maturity" or "activity" and just admit this is about DWTL personally and his party. For goodness sakes.

But it's not. That you support DWTL and see it that way is one thing. But there are many, many people who oppose DWTL for what they believe are genuine concerns, and on issues that really are more important than "getting personal". Belittling, dismissing or simply denying those concerns does not in any way address them--or convince anyone. You're not raising the dialogue by doing so; you're lowering it.

The chief concern I see and hear--and perhaps you have missed it--is that DWTL will make the position a partisan one. You stated in another thread that you do not consider the PPT to be a partisan job. If this is the case, you should at least be able to see where the opposition is coming from, regardless of whether you believe DWTL is extremely partisan. (I myself have been highly concerned by the sense that DWTL is "owed" the position, by MasterJedi for being a member of his party, by Bacon King and HappyWarrior for having supported them in long-past races, etc. That strikes me most of all of partisanship.)

[Verily]

Al's Rag is just what it says it is: an intentionally ridiculous parody of tabloid journalism. For that it is permitted some, ah, artistic license.

In any case, such statements did not take place on the Senate floor. You could at least cite things Al posted there.

(For the record, it's more than just what is posted, but also the attitude with which it is posted. Al is absurd but harmless, although certainly he harms his own cause among the self-righteous more than he helps it.)