>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html



I'm sorry are you comparing death rates between Coal and Nuclear Reactors? What if there's a meltdown or a terrorist attack and suddenly there's 50,000,000 people dead? It only takes one reactor outside of LA to do catastrophic damage you cannot compare the two NOW when we don't have a Fuckton of Reactors near population centers.

Comparing the two at this point in time is just ridiculous, the numbers are so skewed it's not even funny.

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.

You completely, utterly lack any historical perspective. No civilization on the planet prospered as well as the US did in the last century. I'm not crediting Congress for it all, but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role. Just because debts were run doesn't mean they made poor decisions.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.

I'm sorry, but no. I'd take even the foolish budgetary decisions of the last 10 years than allow the general public to allocate the federal budget. They're clueless.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).

My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.

While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.

Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.

MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.

Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.

For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)

Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.

I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

I have seen the results of other people testing it. Again, the scientific method intrinsically tests it for me, so I don't have to spend my life doing it.

The scientific method is not some entity doing some ethereal quality control on scientists' results. In practice, it's a set of principles and guidelines that not everyone follows or even interprets in the same way.

When you say you have seen the results, you sound like a xtian describing the sun rising or a banana.

I don't know that nuclear reactors actually work, I can't really test it because I don't have one available, but I think they do work, because I can see the results of them. Saying I have "faith" that they work, is misrepresenting what is actually going on.


So then, you're a scientific agnostic?

How is what you're saying about nuclear reactors any different than some xtian who thinks that there's an angel inside powering the nuclear reactor? You just have a 'logical' basis for your faith.

http://videosift.com/video/V-for-Vendetta-Are-You-Like-a-Crazy-Person

I have seen the results of other people testing it. Again, the scientific method intrinsically tests it for me, so I don't have to spend my life doing it.

I don't know that nuclear reactors actually work, I can't really test it because I don't have one available, but I think they do work, because I can see the results of them. Saying I have "faith" that they work, is misrepresenting what is actually going on.

>> ^longde:

The point is you haven't tested the results and the evidence.
It doesn't matter why or how or by what mechanism you have faith; you still have faith. Somehow, though, your faith is of more quality than someone else's. You reasoned out your faith, so it's OK.
"Assumption"? Let's not play semantics, here.>> ^gwiz665:
This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.
We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.
The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.
I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jill
ette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716
Assumption is not the same as faith.
>> ^longde:
Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.

No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!

Sorry after you said Noam Chomskys argument was destroyed I stopped considering you as someone who knows anything about anything. Fuck off.


Well said.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.

No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!


Sorry after you said Noam Chomskys argument was destroyed I stopped considering you as someone who knows anything about anything. Fuck off.

>> ^Yogi:

I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.


No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.

And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.

Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!

Not WIRELESS smart metres!? Why, that's exactly like having a NUCLEAR REACTOR in your basement!

These are the same kind of assholes who complain that wind turbines cause micro-vibrations which cause them stress and make them sick. They're also the same assholes who tell people not to vaccinate their kids.

*sigh* How come these people don't complain about the FM signals they've been bombarded with all their lives? Or microwave transmitter towers? How about cosmic radiation? Do people realize electromagnetic radiation also comes from wires?

I love how people are like "oh, but the code says buildings have to derpa derp so therefore this could never happen".

Stuff happens. I work in the insurance claims industry - everything goes wrong.

Cars are supposed to behave certain ways in low speed collisions, but they often don't. Sometimes you'll see a car take massive damage from low speed collisions that happen to go a certain way, especially if that car has been on the road for 20 years. In general: batteries explode, nuclear reactors melt down, things break off everything, plumbing is a nightmare, backups fail, bridges fall, and buildings rot and collapse. Inspectors are lazy, plans are varied, builders are cheap, materials are inconsistent and degrade over time, and high temperatures + time messes everything up.

Throw Siftbot in there and you will see Boris and Natasha meltdown faster than a Japanese nuclear reactor.

@goemon

I think you misread what I said. I wasn't praising them for showing up, I was praising them for their calm response to 2.5 hours of grandstanding by a bunch of groups that clearly showed up with the intent of trying to make the government look as bad as possible so they could make this misleading video and further promote their agendas. I was also praising the genuine compassion that several of the representatives showed in response to the few local people who actually stood up to tell their stories.

Do you have links to the statements you made above? Nothing in your post seems to be hyperlinked...and Japanese-only is fine. If you're up on current affairs in Japan, then you're aware of the scandal involving Kyushu Electric and its shady campaign to get the nuclear reactors down there started up again. I haven't seen anything credible yet though about the government covering things up.

Why should the meeting have been locals only? Well, the meeting was entitled "Negotiating the rights of Fukushima disaster victims" which implies that the people doing the speaking should have been the locals and not a bunch of anti-nuclear groups looking to make a name for themselves. The "outsiders" weren't there to negotiate, they were there to record themselves making speeches against these government representatives and then edit out the representatives' replies later on. That's what pissed me off about this clip.

Again, I'm not saying Fukushima people don't have anything to be angry about. But shady tactics like this by people who aren't even in the disaster area are not helping things at all.