Slashdot Mirror

Nuclear can't compete with cheap natural gas right now.

No, it's wind and solar subsidies killing nuclear power right now. Here's just one of many recent articles discussing the issue:
https://www.city-journal.org/a...

Nuclear and natural gas don't really compete with each other. Nuclear is a base load electrical source, and that's about all it can do. Natural gas is far more versatile, being used for base load power in combined cycle power plants, peaking power in single cycle power plants, as heating for industrial and residential spaces, cooking fuel, vehicle fuel, feed stock for a number of chemicals, and I'm probably missing a lot. The one other place that nuclear power is used with any regularity is a very small market, naval propulsion.

Because of the "cheap" wind and solar we are seeing natural gas power plants being predominately the quick to cycle on and off single cycle type. These are not cheaper than nuclear power. Even the combined cycle plants aren't all that cheap compared to nuclear, the margin between the two is small and it would likely take just a small shift in the energy markets to flip the two.

I keep being "corrected" on how wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources we have available to us. Okay then, what's stopping them from dominating the market? Why do they continue to demand government subsidies? Why did I see on the news tonight that a local utility was hiking their rates to pay for more wind and solar? If wind and solar is cheaper than everything else then the utilities would not be raising rates. If it's cheaper then the utilities should not be forced to raise their rates by government mandates to use more wind and solar.

Nuclear and natural gas don't compete, they overlap a bit but that doesn't define competition. Solar and wind doesn't compete with natural gas either. If it wasn't for cheap natural gas then we wouldn't even be considering solar and wind, we need that natural gas to provide power when the wind is calm and the solar panels are under 2 feet of snow.

Nuclear is being legislated out of existence. It won't work. In the end we need energy and when the promise of a solar and wind powered future fails then we will build more nuclear power plants again. We have already seen it fail to launch, even with the path cleared of the competition as best they could.

You pro-nuclear people think the only power source in the world is either Coal or Nuclear.

Given that the world has been powered by coal and nuclear for nearly a century now it's kind of difficult to imagine otherwise. Solar and wind has promised to replace both for 50 years or more. When can we expect this transition to actually happen?

If "you solar and wind people" actually believed what you claim, that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, then why the mandates for subsidies and bans on new nuclear? Let the market play out. If you believed what you say then why the need for slanting the playing field in your favor through legislation?

Riiiight, because paying more taxes will fix everything so much better than if private industry just does things to improve stuff on their own...

Paywall on wapo. But it's not just the evangelicals.

The church of progressivism is too, to wit:

Today’s identity politics has another interesting feature: it teaches students to think in a way antithetical to what a liberal arts education should do. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a Utilitarian or a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any one situation. But nowadays, students who major in departments that prioritize social justice over the disinterested pursuit of truth are given just one lens—power—and told to apply it to all situations. Everything is about power. Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult, a fundamentalist religion, a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety, and intellectual impotence.

You could see this church of progressivism as the approved cult of the ruling class, for liberal arts is a common "education" for politicians, journalists (checks and balances, baby!), and more generally for "the 9,9%".

Or, differently put, for the aspirational managerial class, that the ruling class deliberately(!) let grow too big. It is one of the reasons why the American Empire is crumbling, as are its western vassal states that did much the same thing. What is the traditional home church of the American ruling class, again?

I was thinking of that last week actually. I volunteer, give money, etc. I am not the best, but I try.

You try, which is a good start. Sometimes trying gives the wrong results and then you should stop, and perhaps try something else.

There are people who believe that merely trying, or even merely having good intentions, is all that matters and that absolves from any responsibility from (negative) outcomes. I disagree with such people.

The biggest alleged Social Justice Warriors I know are generally some of the most self centred people I know when it comes to physically, with real time and money, helping real people. They give a nickel and feel like they have saved humanity, while others give far more. They are also some of the most privileged people I know.

No surprises there. It's been long a dark secret of the charity crowd, and the stories there... eh, you got an interwebz, you can use google. I've already read more than I can stomach. But why does a director of a charity "need" to make as much as a CEO of a (not-so-)small company?

I am gay, non-white and disabled and come from a very impoverished background, single parent home with physical abuse and I see people that this SJW profile as nothing more than people who are experts at lipservice.

I'm white, straight, male (and on the dole for having become unemployable 13 years ago, ha), and I sort-of agree with you.

If you're interested, this, that and even the other migth be worth a read.

That is on a good day. It is to make themselves feel good, not fix real problems.

I think you're mixing up things a bit. There's the narcissists, who're in the charity space prancing around like they're saviours or something.

There's also the SJWs, who're into wagging fingers under everyone's noses. Those people are more of a cult, which is a different thing. (See e.g. the discussion of "intersectionality" in the "this" link above, and in same the discussion of "identity politics" taught in sociology departments.) You might not see much of the latter if you're stuck in charity land.

Talk is cheap, as they say.

For some, talk is all there is to it. To the point that others saying things they don't agree with must be shut down with shouting and possibly violence. SJWs do this, as do *cough* certain other people *cough*.

As they say, "the heretic isn't dangerous because he's wrong; he's dangerous because he might be right". And now we're talking religion, so yes, social justice-the-movement is religious in nature, full of dogma. Hence, a cult.

Worse, a cult whose fount of origin is with academia. For me reason to want to shut down entire sociology departments, fire everyone, and let's see how they survive on their own medicine.

Just being arrested is being severely harmed?

Anyone deliberately evading arrest does not want to be arrested. An arrest would be viewed as very harmful by the individual — even if it gives him a chance of redemption, paying debts to society, etc. An AI seeking to avoid harming anyone would be useless — like humans, it has to balance the different harms.

I fear for the day we're 100% efficient, since NO ONE'S innocent of everything.

I, actually, long for that efficiency — because then we'll begin abolishing the laws, that make all of us guilty today. Because today they are applied selectively and can be used against a particular individual for dishonest motives.

Consider speeding, for example. Everyone does it, few get caught — and accusations of racism are rampant (along with debunkings). Why not simply issue a ticket automatically to everyone arriving to a toll-gate too quickly? Once everyone begins getting these tickets, speed-limit will rise...

'Ramparts' you say? Here's a quote from a former writer about said publication: "The mainstream press celebrated my leftist colleagues and me as heroes of American journalism. Ramparts rise to celebrity status seemed to herald a new era of the media speaking truth to power. The reality was far less luminous, and Ramparts legacy, which a new book celebrates, was not a positive one for the country." See the following link: https://www.city-journal.org/h...

And you completely missed the part about Operation Mockingbird being a CIA RESPONSE to Russian activities: "Reporter Deborah Davis claimed in her 1979 biography of Katharine Graham, owner of The Washington Post, (Katharine the Great), that the CIA ran an "Operation Mockingbird" during this time.[2] Davis claimed that the International Organization of Journalists was created as a Communist front organization and "received money from Moscow and controlled reporters on every major newspaper in Europe, disseminating stories that promoted the Communist cause. Davis claimed that Frank Wisner, director of the Office of Policy Coordination (a covert operations unit created in 1948 by the United States National Security Council) had created Operation Mockingbird in response to the International Organization of Journalists, recruiting Phil Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry."(taken from YOUR link to the Wikipedia.)

That's only if you assume that article is the only evidence. The link was just a quick google result meant to just show the correlation, because many people who blame the legacy of slavery, or racism, or something inherent with blacks don't realize crime, poverty and single motherhood had already gotten much better 100 years after slavery, before the welfare state war on poverty. None of the "explanations" commonly given in left-wing nor in racist circles even correlate with the timeline of the facts, let alone explain them.

Here's a summary from Dr. Thomas Sowell, noted black Harvard educated (pre-affirmative action) economist. Here's a longer, more detailed look at the issue from City Journal. If you want even more detail, including academic studies and citations, the best source is Sowell's books “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics" and “Vision of the Anointed”, but I obviously can't link you to a free to read copy of those. Here's someone who tried to summarize part, including some of the references to other countries which experienced the same issue, making the theory replicable.

I think there is definitely some room for additional contributory explanations like the "war on drugs" as well, although the timing on that doesn't match up as well for an inflection point. If you think about it, lacking education and career opportunities is silly as an explanation, unless you think those were improving for black women until the 1950s, but with the Civil Rights Act and such in the 60s, suddenly it all started getting much worse? Somehow I don't think that is going to hold much explanatory power. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but you do need at least some correlation in order to consider something for such a dramatic causation. When the same correlations occur in other countries like England and among other races (like whites), the pattern becomes pretty obvious.

The impacts of similar laws are demonstrated as recently as 1999 in Britain. I couldn't find a direct link to the journal article itself, but in news article summary: 'The prestigious Journal of Economics has published "The Effect of In-Work Benefit Reform in Britain on Couples: Theory and Evidence"'showing "the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit has increased the divorce or separation rate by a staggering 160 per cent among women married to or living with a partner who either does not work, or who earns very little because he works part-time."

There is literally a ton of related evidence, not just a single correlation. Most anyone who has honestly researched the various timings, effects and related welfare system laws can see the same thing, it's not a big mystery, although it does tend to quash some people's kneejerk reactions of slavery, racism or some inherent racist characteristic.

So everyone with a Hispanic name must be an illegal immigrant!

So you're from the Cathy Newman school of argument, right? You're pathetic strawman removes all the context.

If you think the police are lenient on illegal immigrants you live in some sort of fantasy world of right-wing talking heads.

You're in Denial World, with blinders on to the current zeitgeist. Whether it's the "sanctuary" state, to the obstruction of justice tip-off mayor, to the cucked citizenry's failure to deliver even a manslaughter verdict.

If he's an illegal immigrant maybe they are going to not bother with the paperwork of citation and just deport him?

Wow, just wow. One, what makes you think they'd even be able to find him again? Two, what makes you think they have any desire to deport him, given the current zeitgeist? Three, if they wanted to deport him, the first step would have been to cite him. Driving without a license is against the law. Getting him into the system would have been the necessary first step to deportation, but only a first step, and hardly a guarantee.

You don't show any proclivity for an honest attempt at dialog, which requires reading, understanding, and acknowledging, but in the off-chance you decide to show some intellectual integrity, here's an article on the reality of deporting illegal immigrants.

You seem to have confused state with a few cities.

You seem to be woefully ignorant. A quick web search would have spared you some embarrassment.

Claims with no citations? You're either an idiot or an outright troll/liar.

A small sampling of the citations linked in the post in question:
http://www.city-journal.org/20...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
http://www.umass.edu/legal/Ben...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publ...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abst...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinf...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abst...
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...
http://www.sentencingproject.o...
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live...
That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short. That's enough citations that I then have to add in this line because the stupid post filter thinks the average line length is too short.

Is it really a stretch to say that there are 120,000 Fethullah Gulen loyalists in Turkey? Gulenists in Turkey are millions strong. Here's a good writeup of the man and what he believes. Among other things, he ran off and America gave him shelter. CIA officers vouched for his green card (ouch!). He believes in segregating women. He's huge in the charter schools movement. His charter schools replaced qualified American workers with H1Bs and then paid them more than the Americans got. By befriending Gulen and giving him shelter, we infuriate Muslims in Turkey who hate terrorism but nonetheless loathe Gulen as a power-hungry opportunist. Is it any wonder why Turkey fears him? Let's not pretend he's the good guy here because the US government backs him - in fact, that's a pretty good indication that he's on the wrong side.

Trumpers quake with the knowledge that those successful Dems will retire with their stock portfolios into their underpopulated economically devastated wastelands, create boutique little shops that tolerate LGBTQ people and hire them or their kids (who might learn it's acceptable to be LGBTQ! or to tolerate people who are different!) and then how will they be able to be dicks to them then?

So, your idea is that rich leftists will move into poor rural areas where the rich leftists will open funny little shops, offend the locals, and you're wondering what the local's reaction will be? . . . . I'm guessing the locals won't buy much from the "funny" and pretentious little shops owned by the rich leftists. And then the next question is. . . will be rich leftists be able to stay rich with nobody buying from their "funny" and pretentious little shops?

By the way . . . I heard today that the White House has confirmed that Trump plans to run again in 2020. Do you want more Trump? Because you seem to be a natural booster for his reelection.

In Oregon and elsewhere, rural residents increasingly balk at Democrats’ progressive governance.

Except all those other countries have fractional costs due to the fact that the US pays to develop all of the medical equipment, all the drugs, all the therapies, all the surgical techniques, etc. Something like 80% plus of all of the above are developed in the US and the rest of the world rips us off with generics and clones, etc. Beyond that, thousands if not millions of people world wide die while waiting for treatment in your "socialized healthcare Nirvana" around the world. In Canada, for example, doctors offices essentially shut down towards the end of the year since the money runs out before the end of the year, and Canada won't pay for life saving drugs that you can get in the US. https://www.city-journal.org/h...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

BTW, WTF do you think Medicaid is anyway? It is by definition socialized healthcare funded by the state. Most of us don't want that shitty care though, we want affordable, high quality, responsive, free market healthcare, which was the envy of the world until Obamacare shit all over it. No one is arguing that health insurance shouldn't be regulated, just that for the majority of Americans who can afford to pay for it shouldn't have to subsidize the poor with the same top end of insurance.

Stop saying a national healthcare system is a free healthcare system. It isn't. Healthcare is not a right that governments can simply dole out and it should never have been. If you need medical care, then you should pay for it out of your own pocket or through an employer-based insurance system, not because government mandates it. Not to mention we've seen what a single payer government mandate system in the US looks like, look no further than the VA system. A sheer and total failure. Socialized healthcare is a joke and should be abandoned at all costs. Even Canadians are fed up with it, but put up with it because Canada has basically made the private health insurance system illegal. Links as an example. So disabuse yourself that healthcare should be another job and entitlement for the government to give you. For crying out loud, do you not see what you are advocating is tantamount to perpetual servitude if not outright slavery? And for what? https://www.city-journal.org/h... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And then you look at other states that are failing

Other states have:

*Taxes that are devastating on people with lower incomes
*Instead of randomly belaboring a single data point, consider the whole picture, including the nastiness of total local government debt
*A regulatory and legal climate that leads to exposure to pollution and injury risks
*Decades old reports with schools that are some of the worst in the nation being hysteria to justify even worse results
*Huge backlogs of road work necessary across the country, and a refusal to pay for it
*Increasing income inequality
*Huge drug problems in rural areas.

I can drop links on you all day, don't pester California or San Francisco when you live in a glass house yourself.

It must just be the loud ones then

Yes, just like all movements, the loudest ones get the most attention.

why don't you give us some percentages if you are so sure that you talk for the majority?

I don't talk for the majority of conservatives, because I am not one. Nor did I claim to be.

If it is that easy, why not do it?

Laziness, mostly. But the Left does have a problem with science in some regards.

Of course, even if you can make the most brilliant and insightful list, it would not change my rebuttal of the original notion that conservatives are the realists "who focus much more on the cold, hard facts of how things *are*".

Okay. I know conservatives take a lot on faith. Liberals do too. Both sides think they're right, but confirmation bias is a strong force.

The Left also has problems with intellectual integrity. (Note, I don't agree with the section on climate change, and also note that I'm not a conservative.)

The Left is pretty bad about pre-conceived postulates as well, especially the social sciences. This article is quite interesting; I don't agree with his assessment of climate change, but the rest is pretty solid.

I asserted that Stern was an international communist,

Indeed you made that claim.

and produced research proving such.

No, you provided no such research. Perhaps you meant to and forgot to include a link? I'll give you a chance to provide one now.

You haven't offered one fact throughout any of this.

Then apparently you are not reading what I write. I can't fix that for you, you will choose to read what you choose to read.

.You just show up and wag your finger and lecture me about my "behavior"

Show up? I started this thread. I have pointed out many times before how hard to the right slashdot leans. You can pretend otherwise if you want. As for your behavior, you haven't provided any facts - while launching into one baseless attack against me after another - so it is about all you give me to reply to. If you would care to provide an actual fact, we can discuss it.

and pretend that your delicate sensibilities have been violated somehow by my "tone".

I never once claimed to be "violated", for whatever you think that means. You have, however, claimed more than once that I or others did that to you.

Try and add the FACT that temp data is being manipulated and corrupted to a conversation on global warming; see how that goes. http://realclimatescience.com/...

Where does the data come from? The blog claims it exists but offers no source whatsoever. Why should I believe them when they have a very obvious agenda?

Try to contradict a Black Lives Matter activist by giving proof that there is no such thing as "Driving while black" (at least in New Jersey) http://www.city-journal.org/ht... and see how that goes

First of all, that is from 2002 - it's well over a decade old. Second, it is discussing speeding on a stretch of freeway and it is discussing the rates at which drivers are pulled over for it - it is impossible to actually say how many people are speeding over a course of time as it is impossible to examine every one of them. Third, the "driving while black" pertains as much to driving through the city as anything, and more specifically is about being pulled over for a trivial - or even wholly fabricated - reason.

How in the world would you know if Slashdot was leftwing, if you've never offer a rightwing opinion?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Slashdot routinely shows itself to be hard-right. Why would I want to offer up a voice to the choir - especially when it contradicts my own beliefs?

For virtually every article on Slashdot where there is a leftwing opinion, try adding a rightwing one.

I don't have time to wait for "leftwing" articles, they show up extremely rarely here. I comment on generally 1-2 a week and I'm not going to hold my breath for the needle to fall into the haystack.

That's how lefties roll; they "moderate away" anything they don't want to hear.

You've shown repeatedly how you earn the poor karma score you have. Try discussing matters in a mature fashion, using actual facts, and we'll see what happens. Sitting around crying about your imagined conspiracy does not help you at all.

That's how they oppress.

In other words, it doesn't happen. I thought maybe you'd be able to provide facts to the contrary, but you have so far completely and utterly failed to do so. Care to try yet?

oh please. I asserted that Stern was an international communist, and produced research proving such. You haven't offered one fact throughout any of this.You just show up and wag your finger and lecture me about my "behavior", and pretend that your delicate sensibilities have been violated somehow by my "tone".

Try and add the FACT that temp data is being manipulated and corrupted to a conversation on global warming; see how that goes. http://realclimatescience.com/... Try to contradict a Black Lives Matter activist by giving proof that there is no such thing as "Driving while black" (at least in New Jersey) http://www.city-journal.org/ht... and see how that goes. How in the world would you know if Slashdot was leftwing, if you've never offer a rightwing opinion?

For virtually every article on Slashdot where there is a leftwing opinion, try adding a rightwing one. The results will surprise you. That's how lefties roll; they "moderate away" anything they don't want to hear. That's how they oppress.

I'm in favor of lawbreakers being punished no matter what group they belong to. Unfortunately "disparate impact" means that standards must always be reduced to the lowest common denominator or dropped altogether as shown here:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/suspending-kids-mouthing-off-defying-204038950.html?ref=gs

http://www.independentsentinel.com/you-will-rent-to-criminals-you-racist/

Fascinating article over at City detailing how Silver's legislative agenda was to support corrupt government because he benefited from corruption personally, including this nugget:

Silver thought the people’s money was his money. For years, he helped lead a regime in which legislators from both parties received millions of dollars to distribute as “earmarks”—money handed out directly by elected officials to favored organizations outside of the state’s regular contracting or granting process. The New York Times dubbed Silver the “king of earmarks” because he used them as a way of exercising power over members of his political caucus. In doing so, Silver was accountable to no one.... In New York, the earmark process is so corrupt that politicians can create their own nonprofits and then finance them with taxpayer money...

Fascinating article over at City detailing how Silver's legislative agenda was to support corrupt government because he benefited from corruption personally, including this nugget:

Silver thought the people’s money was his money. For years, he helped lead a regime in which legislators from both parties received millions of dollars to distribute as “earmarks”—money handed out directly by elected officials to favored organizations outside of the state’s regular contracting or granting process. The New York Times dubbed Silver the “king of earmarks” because he used them as a way of exercising power over members of his political caucus. In doing so, Silver was accountable to no one.... In New York, the earmark process is so corrupt that politicians can create their own nonprofits and then finance them with taxpayer money...

Michael Totten did, and he found a police state overseeing wrenching poverty, complete with shortages for essentials and goods of retched quality.

In short: Communism.

New York City's crackdown on turnstile jumping was part of the Giuliani Administrations implementation of broken window policing. But reducing low level disorder and misdemeanor crime, broken windows policing makes the law abiding residents of neighborhoods feel safer.

"A government’s inability to control even a minor crime like graffiti signaled to citizens that it certainly couldn’t handle more serious ones."

Stopping and arresting turnstile jumpers in particular frequently turned up wanted felons, parole violators, and gangbangers with illegal guns. Arresting them not only took criminal predators, off the streets, it encouraged other criminals to leave their guns at home for fear of having them confiscated. This further reduced their abilities to commit criminal acts in places like subways, and reduced criminal gun incidents when members of rival gangs would bump into each other.

You didn't have to prefix your post with "totally irrational," I was able to identify that quality in your post myself.

Although there may be waste in the defense budget, the defense budget itself is not waste, at least not in the world we live in. There isn't even any real question that the US needs a military to defend itself and protect its citizens. That was clear even by Jefferson's time.

There is a difference between distributing defense spending among districts and "make-work programs." Spending the money on social services doesn't get you any M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, submarines, or destroyers. That is one of the ways you can tell the difference.

No, it really isn't. Maybe you could read this and explain to me how you could hand out free bread and cheese in American cities and achieve the same affect (liberating enslaved Americans)?

Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates

Completely serious. No joke. No hyperbole.

If you want to challenge it you might start of by trying to show that the defense budget and headcount hasn't changed since 1986. It should take you no more than a few minutes to see that is false, and that both have varied considerably.

I could provide other avenues you may want to explore as well.

The fact that Ron Paul may have championed a particular concern doesn't necessarily mean that his stand on the question was either right or sound policy. The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid foreign wars and entanglements, and yet what did Jefferson do to keep Americans free that Europeans generally wouldn't?

Freedom is more important than safety. Remember how this is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? No? Then perhaps you're too trusting of the government.

Or maybe you simply ignore parts of the Constitution that aren't your favorite. If you bother to read the constitution, you see entire sections devoted to the question of providing for the security of the United States. If fact you could make the very reasonable argument that freedom of the individual citizens was assumed and it was security, national defense, that had to be explicitly provided for. Many of the specific guarantees regarding various freedoms are not in the text of the main document itself, but are "add ons" in amendments. The main text of the document, the Constitution, is concerned with explicitly describing authority related to providing national defense and powers of the Federal government.

The simple fact is that various aspects of security and freedom are tied together. A nation that is conquered by a foreign invader will not be free. A nation that has a breakaway region faces enormous questions as to its fate. If lawlessness in your city is such that you have reasonable fear for your life or limb by leaving the building where you live, what true freedom do you have? If pirates are taking your citizens as slaves, you are failing to protect their freedom, and yet it isn't clear you would be troubled by that since ".... we have to take some risks. That's what happens when you're free." Would you protect the freedoms of American citizens, either protecting or freeing them from pirates? I have no confidence in that.

On the whole I find your argument "freedom is more important than safety" to be ill considered, at best, since most people I see making that claim here tend to resolve it towards the direction of "therefore we cannot tolerate steps taken to provide for security, at all," even if not explicitly stated.

Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." I think if we look closely at the arguments of those who claim we must only have freedom, and any steps towards security are too many, that they are in effect saying, "Hang the lot of you, but stay away from me." If there was a guarantee that they would be a "canary in the coal mine," the first to be hung to give the rest ample warning, it might be worth considering. But there is no such guarantee, so we must provide for both.

The Constitution of the United States

Article. I.

Section. 8.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ....

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

The Pri

Perhaps people are just tired of warmongering governments and people who want safety above all else.

So I take it then that what you really want is peaceful danger? Good news for you! There is an entire political-religious system devoted to that! You can find details here. Some of the "fringe benefits" are amazing. I would stay away from cruise ships though, taking past experience as a guide you won't want to be forced to hang around.

The US started out with the Articles of Confederation. That didn't work out so well either. It turns out that standing armies are needed at some level, at least since 1776. Maybe you could check into Jefferson's experience with the Barbary pirates? The Militia of the several states is not a fully adequate stand in for a standing army.

Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates

The US Air Force is formerly the US Army Air Force.

The participants of the original Tea Party would remember this precedent: Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates

There's no constitutional mandate to maintain a standing army or navy. That will save you $680B right there, and just about balance the budget in one swoop.

There is authority for it. The wisdom of it was soon shown.

Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates

When armed conflict passes certain thresholds it is no longer simply a matter of criminal law to be dealt with by the police. That is why Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy after the Muslim Barbary pirates instead of constables in row boats. That is why President Obama has sent the Navy and SEAL teams to deal with the Somali pirates. That is why Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all used the armed forces to deal with al Qaida. Yes, that's right, President Clinton was using the armed forces to deal with them before 9/11. Al Qaida has trained at least tens of thousands of terrorists around the world. They have been armed with everything from pistols to machineguns, to rocket propelled grenades to long range multiple rocket launchers. They have been experimenting with, and trying to develop, biological and chemical weapons, and hope to acquire nuclear or radiological weapons. They actually did use chlorine gas in attacks in Iraq. Al Qaida is not even close to being purely a police problem. Al Qaida actually formed an elite brigade as part of the fighting forces of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. When dealing with al Qaida inside the US, they can normally be dealt with by police and investigative agencies at the local, state, and federal level since the scope of the problem is generally limited. However, the military still has to be ready to intervene internally in the event of a large attack or incident. Outside the US the military has a key role in dealing with al Qaida.

You should also keep in mind that US police forces are generally small, and locally based. Unlike many European nations, and others around the world, the US doesn't have a paramilitary gendarme like the French Gendarmerie nationale, the Italian Carabinieri, or Spanish Guardia Civil. (No, the local SWAT team doesn't count.) Even if it did, the scope of the problem posed by al Qaida and associates is too big for even a paramilitary gendarme unless it was very large, expeditionary in nature, and unusually heavily armed. At that point you might as well issue badges to the US Marine Corp.

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to foreign nationals outside of the US. So, you don't really have a handle on that.

Hear, hear! Health care should be completely decoupled from employment. That would be pro-business, and I'm always amazed it hasn't been promoted as such. It works for Canada and many other countries.

If we based our views only on what we are generally told during these discussion on Slashdot we would have to believe that nationalized medical care is a bountiful panacea with no drawbacks. For some reason we seldom hear about the problems. Pretty much every nationalized healthcare system has it's problems, often significant ones.

For example, although many Britons are proud of the NHS for the high standard of care they feel it provides, it does have its critics and issues. The same is true for Canada's system, and those of other nations. An honest appraisal should include both sides of the story when they are being advocated.

Americans pay more, it is true, but they don't end up in the long queues for treatment that often exist in those systems. There are various other implications as well in terms of available treatments, and who the system is willing to treat.

The Canadian Patients’ Remedy for Health Care: Go to America!

. The annual study “Paying More: Getting Less“ produced by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, found that government-run monopolies established in each province of Canada (simultaneously barring private operators from competing for the delivery of public health services) produce rates of growth in government health care spending that are “not financially sustainable through public means alone.” Each province’s policy of insulating consumers from price signals, such as premiums, co-payments and deductibles, has naturally led to over-consumption of medical treatment. Thus provincial governments, encountering fiscal restraints, must resort to long queues and the rationing of care.

And wait patients must. A hospital survey of five countries (United States, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Australia), conducted by Robert Blendon and colleagues in Health Affairs found that “waits of six months or more for elective surgeries were reported to occur ‘very often’ or ‘often’ by 26–57 percent of executives in the four non-U.S. countries; only 1 percent of U.S. hospitals reported this. Half of all Canadian hospitals reported an average waiting time of over six months for a 65-year-old male requiring a routine hip replacement; no American hospital administrators reported waits this long. --- more

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
The Canadian Patients’ Remedy for Health Care: Go to America!

Patients facing eight-hour waits in ambulances outside A&E departments
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
British healthcare in crisis despite massive investment
'Right to die' can become a 'duty to die'

Our founding fathers didn't fear terrorism. They feared tyranny.

Our founding fathers fought tyranny. They fought to be free of the tyranny of the mad King George. They structured the first US government, the Articles of Confederation, with that concern in mind, producing a very weak government. They went too far and the government was a failure, so they wrote the Constitution in which the federal government was more powerful, but with limits, checks, and balances. They continued to fight tyranny when it threatened Americans.

One should also keep in mind that Benjamin Franklin headed an organization that opened other people's mail, fellow colonists, for intelligence purposes. George Washington was also a spy master that had agents in many places.

War of Secrets; Spy History 101: America's Intelligence Quotient

America's history of spying began in the beginning, with George Washington, who famously declared ''the necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged.'' Washington warned that the process depended on secrecy, ''for upon secrecy, success depends in most enterprises of the kind, and for want of it, they are generally defeated, however well planned and promising a favorable issue.''

Notwithstanding the hanging of Nathan Hale before he could hand off his assessment of enemy troops, America often succeeded at divining British military maneuvers and at manufacturing misinformation. Returning to England after the Revolutionary War, Maj. George Beckwith, London's spymaster in the colonies, remarked bitterly that ''Washington did not really outfight the British; he simply outspied us!''

Many people today are ignorant of what true tyranny looks like.

Both Moses and George Washington used spies, and Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes. Do you think it is too much to ask that the US and its allies be allowed to use them in our age to prevent a surprise nuclear attack, and maybe the occasional 9/11 or bombing? Or is that just right out? Is the only "ethical" thing to do simply carting away large numbers of bodies after an attack and rebuild the airplane / stadium / city, assuming there aren't new overlords at that point who prevent it? What about the rights of the victims? Isn't the right to life the most basic right of all? What would you do for them, to prevent their being killed? Or does that not matter? Would you even approve of Thomas Jefferson's actions to prevent Americans from being taken into slavery, or as hostages?

Your strawman needs new clothes, he's becoming very recognizable. Not drinking enough of the koolaid? Or is that you COINTELPRO?

Both Moses and George Washington used spies, and Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes. Do you think it is too much to ask that the US and its allies be allowed to use them in our age to prevent a surprise nuclear attack, and maybe the occasional 9/11 or bombing? Or is that just right out? Is the only "ethical" thing to do simply carting away large numbers of bodies after an attack and rebuild the airplane / stadium / city, assuming there aren't new overlords at that point who prevent it? What about the rights of the victims? Isn't the right to life the most basic right of all? What would you do for them, to prevent their being killed? Or does that not matter? Would you even approve of Thomas Jefferson's actions to prevent Americans from being taken into slavery, or as hostages?

The ideals of people like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson have never been more relevant than they are today.

One of Thomas Jefferson's ideas when he was President was to defend Americans from being killed, taken as slaves, or held for ransom by the Barbary Pirates that attacked and enslaved according to their religious principles - the Muslim threat of his day. I can't imagine you standing for Jefferson's actions even if it meant massive violations of the rights of Americans by being killed or made slaves. Some Americans are more equal than others, apparently.

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- The cry of a free people that grows fainter as time passes. First it will be tribute, then chains. May they rest lightly upon you.

You can't think of another reason?

Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered
Dutch pledge Islamist crackdown
SPIEGEL Interview with Hirsi Ali: "We Must Declare War on Islamist Propaganda"
Violence in Holland: Jihad Behind the Dikes
Dutch anxiety over ‘Sharia triangle’ police no-go area in The Hague
Netherlands, Germany alarmed over Islamist extremists
Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent

Going back to the wiretapping, it also has been common knowledge that its a unhealthy ammount in The Netherlands, but for some reason it has never upset people enough,...

I'm sure there must be a reason or two.

Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered
Dutch pledge Islamist crackdown
SPIEGEL Interview with Hirsi Ali: "We Must Declare War on Islamist Propaganda"
Violence in Holland: Jihad Behind the Dikes
Dutch anxiety over ‘Sharia triangle’ police no-go area in The Hague
Netherlands, Germany alarmed over Islamist extremists

If he really thinks "citizens need to take the lead in solving society's problems, sidestepping government bureaucracy," he has a funny way of showing it, since he and Jerry Brown have presided over an unprecedented increase in the size and scope of California's state government, despite the state being essentially bankrupt if you add in all the unfunded liabilities for outrageous public sector union pensions.

If you're looking for more efficient government, you might want to look to Texas rather than California.

That, and I want a smaller government:

No standing army.

No standing army? That strategy pretty much ran its course in the 1700s. Same for the navy.

Head Start: Can a Failed Program Ever Be Killed?
Marriage, Family Structure, and Children's Educational Attainment

I almost missed that it was back again today. I participated in 2010, but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:

1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states. 2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would. 3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead and Molly Norris is still in hiding. Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).

4. While drawing pictures of Mohammed may be blasphemous in Islam and thereby verboten to Muslims, it's not blasphemous outside Islam, and non-Muslims are under no obligation to obey what is essentially an Islamic doctrine. Essentially, it flouts its nose against Muslim attempts to introduce Shariah law to the West and other non-Muslim countries, particularly since Shariah laws, unlike laws of other religions, is all about forcing Muslims and non Muslims to live under Islamic law. If this goes unchallenged, next thing you know, veils will be required for both Muslim and non-Muslim women, pork and alcohol will be forbidden to both Muslims and non-Muslims, FGMs will become legal in the West, and so on.

I almost missed that it was back again today. I participated in 2010, but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:

1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states.
2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would.
3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead and Molly Norris is still in hiding. Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).

In the areas of theft, robbery, and violent crime the demographic break down of convictions is very close to the demographic break down reported to the police by the victims. There is not an inherent racism in the justice system along that line. It would be just as ridiculous to say that there is inherent sexism in the justice system because the vast majority of convicts are male. Even when a crime victim identifies their attacker as a male, the police should look at women as well when searching for the assailant, just to make sure they aren't being sexist.

While it has nothing to do with racial genetics, there is an American sub-culture, largely among urban blacks, that is accepting or even encouraging of criminal activity. Thug Life ideals are just as much a generator of crime and violence as Aryan Nation ideas, yet the they have very different levels of acceptability in general society. The first step towards fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.

The mystery of the human genome was sort of like a protective lock that prevented people from engineering terrible plagues. Now that mystery is going away, with lots of well-meant good intentions to cure genetic diseases and so on. With that protective "code" widely understood, we had better be sure to learn how to be nicer to each other, and use that knowledge to build a better society rather than tear everything down.

Or, in other words:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042546/quotes
"Elwood P. Dowd: Years ago, my mother used to say to me, she'd say "In this world, Elwood, you can be oh so so smart, or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

In general, our society needs to move to "A Newer Way Of Thinking" like Albert Einstein (and now Donald Pet) talk about, given we can either use abundance to build a better world for all, or we can use it to destroy that possibility for all:
http://www.anwot.org/
http://anwot.org/blog/2011/07/10/stren-70-why-do-we-have-destructive-aggression-and-war/

And a basic income for all is part of that transition to a newer way of thinking, even though it seems all these social trends are very slow processes. I've heard that is until the trends reach some tipping point like about 10% of the population understands them and values them, and then the trend races forward. It's amazing that it was considered as much as it was in Germany recently:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_snd-basic-income.html

There really is no alternative to a newer way of thinking and related socioeconomic policy, given the power of WMDs at this point in the hands of disgruntled people at the edges of the society who may think the whole thing is grossly unfair. The miracle is that people are so peaceful anyway, and that things like blowback actually so rarely happen.

Likewise, if LENR (what was formerly called cold fusion) pans out, while it will open up many possibilities for good, it will lead to more destructive possibilities as well, and probably, after a brief spurt of new jobs, we will see massive formal-sector unemployment as energy can often substitute for labor. Related links (even if things are still up in the air, and solar panels are a proven technology also rapidly dropping in cost):
http://www.google.com/search?q=lenr
http://pesn.com/2012/01/12/9602009_NASA_Admits_LENR_Cold_Fusion_Game_Changer/
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/cold-fusion-being-studied-at-mit
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/newenergytimes-gets-three-nasa.html
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/billionaire-donates-money-for-cold-fusion-research-at-us-university
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

The words you are looking for are Black. And also Mexican. Crime in the US is almost exclusively by Black people, and Mexicans. In NYC in 2009, Blacks accounted for 80% of all shootings in NYC in the first half of 2009. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98% of all shootings. Blacks committed 70% of all robberies. Whites committed 5% of all violent crimes, and 1.8% of all shootings, and less than 5% of all robberies. Whites are 35% of the City, and Blacks 23%.

Liveable, walkable cities are simply incompatible with any large amount of Blacks or Mexicans. Europe is suffering from Muslim / North African / Pakistani street crime as well, along with imported Black variety. Witness the car-b-ques in France, the ethnic cleansing (of native Europeans) out of whole areas, targeting of native European women, etc.

Mono-racial/cultural places like Japan or (still for now) Helsinki are safe, import a bunch of people from Pakistan or Nigeria and surprise, they act as criminal in Europe or the US as they do back home. All those nice things you like, are simply incompatible with diversity. And Multi-racial societies. Pedestrian life implies safety, you can walk on the street without getting mugged, and you don't have to be Lou Ferrigno to do it, either. You can be old or frail.

Nothing comes for free. Multiculturalism costs ... all those pedestrian oriented cities. Because no one wants to be beaten to death like this White guy in Philly for ticking off a bunch of Black guys by yelling for a cab. Diversity = private cars, the internet withdrawal from public space, great social isolation, ever larger commutes from distant but safe suburbs. Big surprise, Third World people act Third World.

Uhmm ... I disagree. The banks were forced to give out loans to people THEY KNEW could not pay it back. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ... and was reinforced by Clinton in 1994 - Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown.

Actually, the United States mortgage market was working just fine until the Bush tax cuts. Suddenly, there was a flood of capital into financial markets, seeking safe haven, as the stock market was in free fall. T Bills were not the most attractive investment, since the Fed had dropped interest rates so low. What other investment had a better rate of return, and historically had been rock solid? Mortgage bonds. Suddenly, capital floods the mortgage market, and there is more demand for bonds than there is supply. Due to the repackaging of mortgages into securities, mortgage lenders were insulated from the consequences of making bad loans. There was suddenly a lot of money to be made (and therefore a lot of pressure to do so) by mortgage lenders ignoring their fiduciary duty and issuing loans they knew could not be paid back. This exacerbated the problem caused by derivatives trading, heralded by the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998. But nice try blaming it on the black people. Dick.

Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally.

Uhmm ... I disagree. The banks were forced to give out loans to people THEY KNEW could not pay it back. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ... and was reinforced by Clinton in 1994 - Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown.

They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money

And Banks did not want TARP ... because of the strings attached.

which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy.

Attacking the banks is a nice and tidy class-warfare position that may get some traction among those who are not informed, the real culprit in this case is the Federal Government. By interfering with the "invisible hand" of the economy, it places pressure to do the "wrong thing". Of course, it makes people feel good that they helped out a nice couple trying to buy a house for the first time, however, if it is KNOWN that the payments would not be able to be made ... it doesn't help anybody.

The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed.

I would argue that it is with the Government that is at fault ... the Government can screw with the economy and nearly collapse it, yet the people just hear "it's the rich's fault ... they're not paying their fair share" ... the top 1% pay >36% of the taxes ...how much SHOULD they pay? And if they don't pay ... they get thrown in jail. So ... in essence, you're saying that the "top 1%" has to be our slaves and give us their money that they earned.

what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.

That's assuming that the banks did it on their own. NOT under the threat of former Attorney General Janet Reno

over taxes and regulation. According to this blog (LOL, only "business relocation coaches" have secure employment in CA) companies leaving CA has increased 5-fold since 2009, an average of 5.4 per week! And Chief Executive magazine has again ranked California last of 50 states to have a business. 14 states have tasked their economic development agencies with luring away California companies tired of high taxes, profuse regulations, and an extortionate legal system. So let's not just make this about Amazon. Everyone is fleeing CA. In fact, WA is not even safe. With the NLRB's overreaching against Boeing, their next move might be to China.