I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

Ideology and Insanity are not mutually dependent.

You can have :
Sane Ideology
Insane Ideology
Sane non-Ideology
Insane non-Ideology

The principles of an individual can be constructive or destructive, whether or not they are part of an ideology.
What matters is the specific principles, and not whether or not they are associated with an ideology.

As individuals, we have animal impulses.
These include :
- Feeling combative in the presence of a verbal threat or insult.
- Feeling combative (inclined to silence/sensor) in the presence of ideas that are at odds with one's own.
- Feeling impulse to take shortcuts to reward (eg. stealing money fast vs earning money slow).

Ideology helps to fix these things.
This includes :
- Personal feelings don't take precedence over other people's physical condition.
Words are only words, actions are what makes a tangible measurable difference. We are masters of our own emotions, only ourselves can be blamed for our happiness or malcontent.

- Inherent equality of individuals. Ideas out in the open can live or die by their own merit as determined by all people. Censoring is taking privilege over other people by predetermining for them what ideas they are allowed to consider.

- Respect for domain. Doing as we like with what is ours, and not affecting what belongs to others.


"The moon does not care" (TM).
Nothing is intrinsically universal.

There are worldly concepts native to life on earth (protecting one's children, guarding one's domain, suffering/pain response, etc), but the higher order concept of "Idea X is _unacceptable_" is a purely human invented "meta" issue.



Sanity is Rationality is Logic ... which in turn is the ability to find a path from state A to state B.

For example:
[Given A=alive]
If your desire is to survive (B=alive), then eating poison is illogical.
It would be insane then to eat poison, as it would not be a path from A to B.
But if your desire is to die (B=dead), then eating poison is logical.
It would be sane to eat poison, as it would be a path from A to B.

Point being, people like to view the world with their own goals in mind.
Given that other people invariably have different goals in mind, the judgment of sane or insane becomes relative ... that's not "just words", that's quite real.
If a miserable person with a painful disease eats poison, is it logical for a healthy happy individual to say "that's insane"?



Much of our body politic is the projection of a subset of people's standards onto a larger population, with disregard for the other people.

At this point, politically, we are mired in populism, and we lack ideology - even though we were handed a pretty good one at the beginning.

Instead of having some guiding concepts that we use to restrain emotional impulses, we [as a society] fly off chasing populist agendas fed to us by our "team" (party) of choice.

Ironically, often rooting for a position that we are at odds with. (eg. "I hate the Affordable Care Act" even though "I like having coverage for pre-existing conditions")

The constitution does a good job at laying down the rules for an equitable relationship between government and people, but it's practically a dead document these days.
Elected officials neglect their obligation to represent and instead fashion themselves as leaders.
Lawmakers pass laws in violation of the constitution day in and day out.
Judiciary enforces lower laws that are constitutionally null.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness aren't just words. They're text from the highest law of the land.
Under such a standard, you would think that it would mean that a person would be able to lead their personal life as they please. But not as it stands.

Most of our public debate, is about whether or not people should "allow" other people to do things with themselves or other consenting individuals.
"Allowing(y/n)" people to do drugs [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to have firearms [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to marry [while not involving others].
etc.

With the main objections being "I'm not physically involved, but I wouldn't do things that way if it were me, so I choose to have hurt feelings (and call that a personal involvement), and subsequently push my personal standards onto others".
It's a selfish, impulsive, capricious, predatory behavior ... lacking any meaningful ideological temperance.

-scheherazade

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

Wasn't the program he hosted with that comb-over Nightline an overreaction to terrorism?

I am really torn here, I agree that the cops are not able to test for pregnancy on the scene and ave to assume that a combative and struggling person may be lying to get a chance to escape. But I've been the husband during a pregnancy so I know that it is difficult to lay down on your stomach with a baby on board. I think the right answer would have been to cooperate calmly and ask if I could lay on my side with my hands behind my back as I am pregnant. Calmly explaining during a high stress situation would likely get through this without the risk of endangering anyone. And if it did escalate I'm very glad that they opted for taser over pepper spray. Pepper spray would likely do much more damage to the mother and the unborn child.

Comb his hair, remove the glasses and voila, you've got Clark Kent.

@lantern53
your comment is so full of ignorance you should feel shame for even posting it.
disagree with chomsky is a fine position,many do,but to imply that he is not one of the most quoted and respected intellectuals on the planet is just plain stupid.

are you suggesting what america has is capitalism?
well then i submit that what america has in NOT capitalism but rather state-run capitalism or to be more accurate:corporate socialism

the problems with capitalism are well known,well understood and well documented.the problems america is experiencing now are only a mystery to those who are ignorant and rely on the sensationalist,propagandized corporate media which does nothing to inform them but rather everything to obfuscate the reality.
why? because the very corporations who steal and plunder the american working class are the very ones who bring them their daily dose of propagandized bullshit.
lap it up doggy boy...it will help ya grow into a proud and clueless corporate slave.

chomsky is a libertarian socialist.a position he has stated over and over.the problem arises when people do not even understand the terms he is speaking about,because you are correct lantern,words have meaning and one the precepts of successful propaganda is to change the meanings of words.

we need more people like chomsky who challenge the propaganda and indotcrination.people such as chomsky are not only vital but necessary.

disagree with chomsky's premise all you like but a ad hominems and straw man do not an argument break.

he could be a full blown anarchist who dabbled in black magic but it would not make his words any less true.
just because you do not LIKE what somebody is saying does not make those statements untrue.

where is the flaw in his argument?
what inaccurate statements has he made?
what historical references did he embellish?

please understand lantern i am not attacking you in any fashion.i am simply pointing out that chomsky's work has been rigorously combed over,his sources checked and vetted and found to be exceptional in their execution.

disagree with his conclusions but do so with facts,sources and a well thought out response.
knee jerk emotional arguments make you look ill-informed.

Quick, everyone hide under the unbreakable comb.

I don't believe anyone, any council, or any government, has the right to watch me, for any reason, whether I'm doing anything wrong, picking my nose, scratching myself inappropriately or whatever.

Those people watching me are people the same as me, with no greater purpose or rights. I am against public surveillance in any form.

I don't care about arguments regarding money, catching criminals or loiterers, or what ever trumped up reasons authority or the people can come up with.

It's NONE of their dam business what I do as I walk down the street, sit on the curb or lean against a post. I don't need someone in an office somewhere going through my existence with a fine tooth comb monitoring me. I don't want to end up on surveillance tapes somewhere, archived and forgotten about just so one day they can be discovered and used for some other purpose.

If someday, I'm arrested for spitting my gum on the ground, (not that I chew gum or would spit it on the ground), but I don't want every facet of my life being dissected just so they can piece together and use past footage to create some trumped up footage that portrays me as less than I am.

This is a complete invasion of my personal rights as a human being and an individual. I truly believe this is an overstep of authority by a hierarchy that has been put in place to serve ME and the people who pay the taxes to fund levels of government.

I've got this album.
I didn't realize that was Bon Jovi though - That's awesome.
I'm going to have to listen a little closer.
One more reason to play this classic every Christmas season.

The best song on the album: What Can You Get a Wookiee for Christmas (When He Already Owns a Comb?)

I saw him and Teller couple years ago in Vegas, awesome awesome show. Except for a few tricks they pretty much explained how they did everything. Then they explained how they hate the TSA very very much, and sold wallet sized metal plates of the Bill of Rights, and a plastic knife/comb combo just to fuck with the system.

When ever I see this guy, I wonder how much he pays to get that comb-over. Then I listen to the crap he says and his attitude and wonder what he is compensating for.

Comb your hair, dumb bitch.

I remember this bit. Larry was pretty damn good for his era. I still refer to certain liquors as comb cleaner even thought I'd long forgot where I heard it.

*90s

>> ^gwiz665:

It's like saying warmongering peace.
>> ^hpqp:
quality breakdown of what secularism means, and why it's ridiculous to whine about supposedly "militant secularism".

I beg to differ on the semantics.


Militant: "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"
A "militant secularist" might be someone who actively seeks out examples of theism (such a prayer, acknowledgment of a divine power, or symbols of theist holidays in government settings) in order to protest, or one that continues their opposition despite broad support for theist behavior in the affected community. You can determine for yourself if this type of action is objectionable or laudable, but I think it's entirely possible to be a "militant secularist".