What a travesty!

It's clear to me from this video that the world is now headed for a disaster of biblical proportions! I mean Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Pittsburgh Steelers dominating the Cleveland Browns at the end of the first half! Human sacrifices! Cats & Dogs, living together! Mass hysteria!

Dan Rather has some well thought out comments on this topic with his forty years of observations as a prominent journalist, and the role of American Media in the US War Machine.

http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Rather-Body-of-War-full-speech

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Oh yeah. Two blocks away, an oak I'd guess was about forty feet tall was ripped out of the ground and fell across the street and onto a poor Subaru. Aside from that, there were a lot of limbs ripped off the trees all the way up and down State Street. Kinda looked like a scene in <ahref="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113497/">Jumanji.
>> ^ant
Any damages in your area?



Dang. No damages for your stuff I assume?

Oh yeah. Two blocks away, an oak I'd guess was about forty feet tall was ripped out of the ground and fell across the street and onto a poor Subaru. Aside from that, there were a lot of limbs ripped off the trees all the way up and down State Street. Kinda looked like a scene in <ahref="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113497/">Jumanji.
>> ^ant

Any damages in your area?

The American "poor?"

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


By all means, don't let the facts get in the way of a good crusade on behalf of the richest poor in the world.

You are gay if your mind lines up gay and such. If you have sex with men, and are a man, and then wash your hands forty times with bleach and kill the other men, then you are not gay. You are psychotic...

Unfortunately, for every family like this, that teaches the truth of the wonder of the universe to their children, there are forty that force their children to watch Glen Beck.

I love civil disobedience, and Flynt was one of the best at it. Today being locked up for publishing an indecent magazine may seem crazy, but at one point this sort of tyrannical statism sounded commonplace. In forty years future generations will think our society was barbaric, too.

Also, I have something for Blacksphere's Uncle T. Junior here:
http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/caliver_ambrose.jpg

Of course I could have pulled a picture of FDR in a crowd with some black people in it, but I thought something like this would be more interesting:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed an unprecedented number of African Americans to high positions. By mid-1935, forty-five had positions in cabinet offices and New Deal agencies. In 1936, this group began calling itself the Federal Council on Negro Affairs. Although these leaders were not officially cabinet members, their role in advising the President on black employment, education, and civil rights issues led the press to refer to them as FDR's "Black Cabinet" or the "Black Brain Trust."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Cabinet

It's not "audiosift", it's a video of rotting fruit!

Lyrics translated by Norsuelefantti:

"Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, twenty four, twenty five, twenty six, twenty seven, twenty eight, twenty nine, thirty, thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, thirty four, thirty five, thirty six, thirty seven, thirty eight, thirty nine, forty, forty one, forty two, forty three, forty four, forty five, forty six, forty seven, forty eight, forty nine, fifty, fifty one, fifty two, fifty three, fifty four, fifty five, fifty six, fifty seven, fifty eight, fifty nine, sixty, sixty one, sixty two, sixty three, sixty four, sixty five, sixty six, sixty seven, sixty eight, sixty nine, seventy, seventy one, seventy two, seventy three, seventy four, seventy five, seventy six, seventy seven, seventy eight, seventy nine, eighty, eighty one, eighty two, eighty three, eighty four, eighty five, eighty six, eighty seven, eighty eight, eighty nine, ninety, ninety one, ninety two, ninety three, ninety four, ninety five, ninety six, ninety seven, ninety eight, ninety nine, one hundred, one hundred and one, one hundred and two, one hundred and three, one hundred and four, one hundred and five, one hundred and six, one hundred and seven, one hundred and eight, one hundred and nine, one hundred and ten, one hundred and eleven, one hundred and twelve, one hundred and thirteen, one hundred and fourteen, one hundred and fifteen, one hundred and sixteen, one hundred and seventeen, one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and nineteen one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty one, one hundred and twenty two, one hundred and twenty three, one hundred and twenty four, one hundred and twenty five, one hundred and twenty six, one hundred and twenty seven, one hundred and twenty eight, one hundred and twenty nine, one hundred and thirty, one hundred and thirty one, one hundred and thirty two, one hundred and thirty three, one hundred and thirty four, one hundred and thirty five, one hundred and thirty six, one hundred and thirty seven, one hundred and thirty eight, one hundred and thirty nine, one hundred and forty, one hundred and forty one, one hundred and forty two, one hundred and forty three, one hundred and forty four, one hundred and forty five, one hundred and forty six, one hundred and forty seven, one hundred and forty eight, one hundred and forty nine, one hundred and fifty, one hundred and fifty one, one hundred and fifty two."

@bcglorf

About 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles are generated in Canada each year.

As of December 32, 2007, there were over 2,000,000 nuclear fuel bundles in Canada.

(source)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
High Level Waste

Over 99 percent of the radioactivity created by a nuclear reactor is contained in the spent fuel. An unprotected individual standing one metre from a CANDU fuel bundle just out of the reactor would receive a lethal dose in seconds. This intensely radioactive material is called high level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel contains hundreds of radioactive substances created inside the reactors: (1) when uranium atoms split, the fragments are radioactive; these are the "fission products"; (2) when uranium atoms absorb neutrons without splitting, they are transmuted into "transuranium elements" such as plutonium, americium, and curium.

Due to the presence of these toxic materials, spent fuel remains extremely dangerous for millions of years.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Decommissioning Wastes

Structural materials in the core of an operating reactor become radioactive from neutron bombardment. The cost of dismantling such a radioactive structure approaches the cost of building it in the first place.

Current plans are to wait forty years, then use underwater cutting techniques to minimize radiation exposures to the workers. Hundreds of truckloads of radioactive rubble will result from each dismantled reactor.

(source)

And I'd like to see your work regarding the claim of how dirty or dangerous solar cells are.

And let's keep in mind cells are not the only form of solar energy.

And don't try to deny the fact that your solution to replace a dangerous, dirty energy technology (coal & oil) was to use an already existing dangerous and dirty energy technology (nuclear).

Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

Funny, I got the impression you were the one opposing nuclear power as a solution. It seems your criticism of every solution is to define it as part of the problem.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf.

And I never said any of that. I called you out for claiming that solar panels are clean and tidy compared to nuclear, and safe from systematic problems that come with major corporations cutting corners on a massive scale. The most efficient solar cells today contain heavy metals in them like cadmium. If you replace the world's current electric capacity with nothing but solar panels, the disposal of old panels will NOT be a problem one can ignore. The temptation to save costs by disposing of them cheaply and ignoring contamination will be as great as it is with any other industry you decry today. Sure, the disposal is a problem that can be easily handled, but so is the disposal of old nuclear fuel...

"One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years."

When you say 'deadly', I say 'useful'. Here in Canada we run our nuclear reactors on fuel rods made from American nuclear 'waste'. Simply put, any waste that still has high radioactivity is also still useful as a power source. It's not waste to be stored for eons, it's future fuel being stored for later use.

"Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy."

Right, and your the one suggesting we trust Bubba not to dump his cadmium filled solar panels in his backyard somewhere to save a few bucks.

Both solar and nuclear have their own issues, but we have methods of handling those problems for nuclear already, today. For solar the biggest unsolved problem is that they just don't work well enough at a reasonable price. Maybe someday they'll improve enough to supplement the nuclear delivered base load, but until then nuclear is a very desirable replacement for coal and oil.

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

>> ^Arg:
Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

Here's what wikipedia says on the matter:
"The use of riders is prevalent and customary in the Congress of the United States, as there are no legal or other limitations on their use.

When the veto is an all-or-nothing power as it is in the United States Constitution, the executive must either accept the riders or reject the entire bill. The practical consequence of the custom of using riders is to constrain the veto power of the executive.

To counteract riders, forty-three of the fifty U.S. state constitutions allow the use of line item vetos so that the executive can veto single objectionable items within a bill, without affecting the main purpose or effectiveness of the bill. In addition, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed to allow the President of the United States to veto single objectionable items within bills passed by Congress, but the law was struck down by the United States Supreme Court as unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York."

It sounds like there is nothing stopping someone from adding whatever rider they want to any legislation. I'd be interested to hear otherwise.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're a conservative under forty you may be a douche.”
-- Winston Churchill
>> ^blankfist:

A special thanks to @burdturgler for the idea to make the title a viral commercial.