Return of Questioning the Power

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Last year, we passed a bill creating a monthly questioning session. Unfortunately, these sessions proved fruitless and there was no interest in posing real questions, so they fell by the wayside.

     However, this region is now experiencing a revival of interest. In light of this fact and the ongoing campaign, I think that now is high time to revive this practice so that the citizens can pose their questions to the incumbent Emperor.

     Any takers?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since it mostly applies to the regional government itself, I have no real objections to it. The regional government only operates the Government Complex, state government buildings, and the Regional Buildings, so it should be quite possible for us to meet the goals outlined in the bill (maybe with an extended deadline for the 2013 ones) under a thrifty budget.

     I would hope to excise the reference to "carbon footprint", though. Of all environmentalist slogans, that may be the most annoying one. I've known quite a few people who say that they are quite concerned about the environment, but cannot stand environmentalists. Cutesy terms like that probably do more harm than good to any type of conservation movement.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Your Imperial Highness-

In the last region election there was a situation where numerous voters had their votes challenged. Does situation serve as yet one more indication of a larger problem regarding "election law awareness" and should action be taken to address this problem? Should that action be from some level of the Gov't, or from the parties?

     I think that it is important for the Legislature to clarify the laws, so problems like this do not arise. Since Atlasia is primarily an election simulation, extant laws often take a backseat to the excitement of newly-elected Legislators looking to make an impacy. While this excitement is a positive thing, it can lead to a muddled and hard-to-use statute. In my time on the throne, I have worked to make progress in this area.

     One example of this is the regional voter rolls, which have drawn interest from time to time, but currently are rather neglected. We passed several different laws regarding the rolls, which didn't always reference each other or relate in an obvious manner. In order to eliminate the potential for confusion, I authored the Imperial Registrar Protocol Bill, which took the language of four different bills and initiatives and combined them into one clearly laid out law.

     I'll admit that that was a bit of a tangent, but my point is that the laws should be user-friendly. We shouldn't have obscure provisions emerging from the mist and biting well-intentioned citizens. In general, I think one of the most important duties of the regional government is to create a sensible code with few surprises. Many of us followed our common sense and did not mark the contest when there was only one on the ballot. If the law can be interpreted so as to punish us for that, then that is a problem.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since it mostly applies to the regional government itself, I have no real objections to it. The regional government only operates the Government Complex, state government buildings, and the Regional Buildings, so it should be quite possible for us to meet the goals outlined in the bill (maybe with an extended deadline for the 2013 ones) under a thrifty budget.

     I would hope to excise the reference to "carbon footprint", though. Of all environmentalist slogans, that may be the most annoying one. I've known quite a few people who say that they are quite concerned about the environment, but cannot stand environmentalists. Cutesy terms like that probably do more harm than good to any type of conservation movement.

Your Highness, Chief of the Executive of our glorious region:

I'd like to know what's the problem with the term 'carbon footprint'. Do you question it or simply you want to replace it with another of your taste? I don't see where the environmentalist cause might be damaged by the use of a concrete terminology.  As for environmentalists, such generalizations are improper of a head of regional government. I can't stand certain people, sometimes even I can find some coreligionists unbearable. Nonetheless the sense of civility often prevents me from giving free rein to personal antipathies. Being a Chief of the Executive, you will have to deal with some environmentalists occasionally; it would suit for you being more diplomatic. On the other hand I estimate your disposition to support this proposal limited to the area of the governmental buildings, also I'd like to know your position on lowering  the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in a wider level, let's say the whole region.

     I find that "carbon footprint" is an excessively cute term that I do not see to be fit for usage in discourse by adult humans. It's a minor point and an anecdotal one as well, but I have observed negative reactions to its usage. As an alternative, I would suggest an actually concrete term, such as "ecological impact".

     I do not believe that I made any generalizations about environmentalists in my post, though I did describe negative generalizations made by others and commented that their opinions were related to the term in question. Could you point to these generalizations that I have made?

     I am open to such a notion, but I fear that it would be both expensive and intrusive. Our region is hamstrung by federal tax rates that threaten our ability to compete economically, and this gets in the way of many different projects. I don't know much about other sources of renewable energy, though I do know that solar power is very expensive, mainly because of the cost of installing solar panels.

     In short, I am open to a plan that reduces levels of carbon dioxide and methane, if it is reasonably budget-friendly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agreed that it's a minor point. I don't think much of the term and I'd rather pass a bill that does not contain it, but I don't really care one way or the other. It certainly does not affect my inclination towards signing the bill in question.

     Was that meant to be a direct quote? I do not recall that I have ever said "I can't stand ecologists". In short, I expressed distaste for the term in question and noted that there are other people can't stand ecologists. It's not my fault if I know folks who generalize about the green movement.

     I agree, there always have to be priorities in assigning spending, or else it would be impossible for us to function as a government. The environment should also receive higher priority than it has in the past, since ignoring it will cause significant problems down the road. I am not a climate change expert, so I cannot easily estimate the costs. Hopefully, we can shuffle some things around and make such a program work under the budget.

[Associate Justice PiT]

To be honest, I'm not particularly attached to one terminology or another. But I find it very encouraging that we are here discussing about those matters with a Federalist Party member Emperor, because I'm not sure we could be doing so so openly with some of his fellow party colleagues...

On another note, could you present us with the current infrastructure of the Government of our region ? I mean : buildings, own means of transports, other real estate or properties, etc. Maybe they are listed somewhere, I just don't have the time to search.

     I don't consider myself to be very political, to be honest. While I certainly have opinions, I care more that laws are well-written and well-conceived than that I agree with them on an ideological basis. As for the environment specifically? I don't consider myself an environmentalist per se, but I do agree that we should be doing more to conserve it.

     As far as I know, nobody has ever really compiled a list of those things. Off the top of my head, the buildings that the region owns should amount to:

Government Complex (in Memphis, TN)
Regional Buildings (in every city with a real-life Federal Building, for tracking convenience)
State government facilities, including State Buildings (since we subsumed all of
of the state governments into the regional government for budgetary convenience)

[Associate Justice PiT]

To be honest, I'm not particularly attached to one terminology or another. But I find it very encouraging that we are here discussing about those matters with a Federalist Party member Emperor, because I'm not sure we could be doing so so openly with some of his fellow party colleagues...

On another note, could you present us with the current infrastructure of the Government of our region ? I mean : buildings, own means of transports, other real estate or properties, etc. Maybe they are listed somewhere, I just don't have the time to search.

     I don't consider myself to be very political, to be honest. While I certainly have opinions, I care more that laws are well-written and well-conceived than that I agree with them on an ideological basis. As for the environment specifically? I don't consider myself an environmentalist per se, but I do agree that we should be doing more to conserve it.

     As far as I know, nobody has ever really compiled a list of those things. Off the top of my head, the buildings that the region owns should amount to:

Government Complex (in Memphis, TN)
Regional Buildings (in every city with a real-life Federal Building, for tracking convenience)
State government facilities, including State Buildings (since we subsumed all of
of the state governments into the regional government for budgetary convenience)

I think we need GM if we were also to look at current disrepair etc.

     Indeed, this sort of request would be best handled by the GM. In the past we had to do this ourselves, along with doing whatever else the region demanded. It really made it difficult to keep things going. The creation of the regional budget comes to mind as a fine example of this.