Slashdot Mirror

know that other US cities have dire problems with their power grids now. I've heard of rolling brownouts in Cali. Can't imagine the extra load of thousands of charging EVs would do much to help the situation.

While charging may happen during peak demand, in CA that is when it's nice a sunny and when solar energy is abundant. And one of the reasons for the rolling blackouts in CA several years ago was because of bad regulations. The so called deregulation was not that at all, instead regulations were changed. Whereas before it happened afterwards a company could not both generate electricity and distribute it. ownership of generation and distribution were separated. Next, while distributors had a cap on how much they could charge electrical consumers, generators had no such cap on what they could charge distributors. If the price distributors had to pay was higher than they could charge their clients, they either ate the cost or they stopped distributing electricity. Meanwhile electrical generators were able to sell electricity to out of state distributors who were not capped on how much they could charge. During the blackouts a wind farm capable of generating 240 gigawatts of power sat idle. Why? Because the distribution powerlines were not there. Why would a business build powerlines if it could not sell electricity for more than what the generator sold it for?

Falcon

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are misusing the term "fascism" so egregiously that your entire post is worthless.

Perhaps, Mr. Coward, O Knowledgeable One, you would be so kind to enlighten us. I doubt very much you have any idea what fascism is about.

This just might possibly enlighten you if you give it a chance: The Real Threat of Fascism

"Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity. These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America's most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. His answer was, 'Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism.'"

And this: From the New Mercantilism to Economic Fascism

"Under fascism, business enterprises were organized into state-mandated cartels. The cartels, under government supervision, specified what would be produced, how much each cartel member could produce, at what prices they might hire labor and resources, and for what prices they might sell their output on the market."

And this: Government's Current Role in Business the 'Route' to Fascism

"A textbook definition explains that fascism embodied corporatism, which is an economic structure controlled by the government. Sowell said that's exactly what is happening in some sectors of the U.S. economy:

"Beck: So what route is that again?

"Sowell: That the private people still own the businesses but the politicians tell them what to do.

"Beck: Right, but isn't that, I'm trying to remember, that's uh...

"Sowell: That's fascism.

"Beck: Yes, I was going to say, I knew it was a bad one. And I was going to say, I think that's fascism.

Try not to fixate on whether the state controls business, or business controls the state. The easy tell of fascism is that the state and business are IN LEAGUE, and that they are conspiring off the books and for mutual benefit.

Methane trapped in/under polar ice, 3000 natural levels.

Note also it's a powerful greenhouse gas and it's expansion would produce a short term cooling period (which we were warned might be a short term effect of global climate change).

Now I imagine, this been slashdot that no one read the article... but these clouds are greated by low temperatures over the north pole.

My grandfather said we could solve the oil crisis by harvesting the natural gas deposits, I guess we're too late. He's old and mysoginist so when he says something smart my mother suggests I ignore it, but he's a scientist and it looks like he was right again.

That said, I have a very hard time sympathising with a Press Secretary who gets fired for mouthing off on controversial issues. The whole point of the "press secretary" job is managing media relations and generally smoothing PR feathers for whoever hired you. Having highly visible and controversial opinions, particularly if they oppose that of the person you are doing media relations for, seems an obvious contradiction.

Here's one press secretary I can sympathize with http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0727-05.htm

It's a good way to quit your job when you're finally fed up.

Why do you have such a chip on your shoulder?

I have a chip on my shoulder do I? And you don't? If I have one, it's because big businesses get government subsidies. And government is bigger than the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA. Yes, I'm one of those people who still believe the Constitution still means something, even if it's not followed. After my dad retired from the military I followed an older sister in joining the US Army to protect it. Another sister's son is a Marine stationed in Iraq.

Wind and solar are proven.

Then where are they? If wind and solar are as cheap as you say (and your friends say), then where are they?

Notice I said "proven" not cheaper. Many people have solar panels installed on their roofs. Solar farms are operating in Spain with more being planned and built. In the US there is more than 52 terawatts of wind capacity installed. And more capacity can be added readily. During the rolling blackouts in CA years ago there were wind farms that sat idle when they could have contributed 240 megawatts a day. Why were they idle? Because the powerlines to carry the power were not installed. Those lines would have been needed whether for wind or nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_united_states#Resurgence

As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors with applications for another 7 expected.

Ah I see you left out an important part of that article, "In recent years,there has been a renewed interest in nuclear power in the US. This has been facilitated in part by the federal government with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants, and the Energy Policy Act which makes provisions for nuclear and oil industries."

Let's investigate more:

• "The "Nuclear Power 2010 Program" was unveiled by the U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on February 14, 2002"
• "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005"

The president then was Bush and he's a big supporter of nuclear power but wasn't one for alternative energy sources. Bush excluded alternative energy, citizen's, and consumer groups from his Energy Task Force but Enron and big oil were invited.

OH! You asked for citation regarding the "Megaton to Megawatts" program. (though I don't understand why you are so snappy)

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

No, I didn't ask for citation of the Megaton to Megawatts program, I don't recall having heard of it before. I did ask for citation "that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads", cut and paste is wonderful.

You believe in the theories of nuclear power

I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between theory and fact.

Generation IV reactors only work in theory, there are none operating and supplying power to the grid now. Meanwhile current plants are having problems.

• "Owners of Oyster Creek nuclear plant may not release leak information"
• After 16 years in service Trojan Nucle

Because it is journalism's job to tell us important things and keep telling us important things, regardless of popular interest. These stories aren't important because of commercial market response. Placing commerce ahead of stories like these is what gets us to where we are now.

The contacts mainstream media covets aren't worth much to begin with. Being a stenographer to power isn't doing journalism and as more media cover-ups, lies, and dismissals are exposed the public has no reason to trust the reports they receive from these organizations. The New York Times both helped push the invasion of Iraq based on cover story lies co-written by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, and the NYT carried David Barstow's Pulitzer-prize winning expose on how the Pentagon propaganda campaign recruited over 75 retired military officers to appear on TV as "analysts" before and during the Iraq war.

Barstow couldn't get the mainstream media interested in his prize-winning story either for being a scathing expose or because he won a prestigious prize for his investigative journalism. Democracy Now! invited him on the air for what became an exclusive interview:

AMY GOODMAN: I think what's so interesting about this story is not only what the Pentagon has done; it's the lack of reporting on this by the networks. Of course, you know, that is your subject here, how the networks use them. How many times have you been invited on the networks--you just won the Pulitzer Prize for this investigation--to explain this story of the networks' use of these pundits?

DAVID BARSTOW: You know, to be honest with you, I haven't received many invitations--in fact, any invitations--to appear on any of the main network or cable programs. I can't say I'm hugely shocked by that.

On the other hand, while there's been kind of deafening silence, as you put it, on the network side of this, the stories have had--sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere. And to this day, I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world, where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.

So it's been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions, one being silence from the networks and the cable programs, and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere.

To date there has been no serious expose of NYT's lies during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. We know they're capable of such an act: they did it for Jayson Blair's stories which were far less important lies that could be framed so as to appear largely the work of one person. Back then there was a full color spread about Blair, his stories, and a follow-up discussion in an auditorium with an audience (CSPAN carried it). But back in 2004, Goodman put the NYT's Iraq run-up lies in perspective as well.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce

Um... that's nice, but it doesn't say how much. It is not uncommon to send samples of biotoxins and dangerous organisms such as anthrax to countries all over the world. This is not banned. Hell, anthrax grows naturally in the soil. The key point is "research materials". This means samples in small containers. You make it sound like we sent them artillery shells pre-loaded with sarin gas or something. From the very liberal site, CommonDreams.org:

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.

"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

From the same site:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

Wait... The CDC sent SAMPLES to Iraq? (Wait! Rumsfield didn't work for the CDC.) I thought we armed them. That's what you said, right? Here's is your quote:

I'm saying we gave him the weapons to complete the atrocities

GASP!!! Oh my goodness. You said we gave them WEAPONS to complete the atrocities. Turns out that the CDC gave them samples. You said "weapons"... Facts say "samples". Weapons != Samples. Hmmmm... Either you are ignorant of the facts or you exaggerated with the intent to mislead and place blame where it doesn't belong. That's called lying! So, tell me, are you ignorant or dishonest?

Look, it doesn't matter so there no point arguing it. I don't give a rat's ass if the CIA placed the Baath party in power in the 1960's. That was over forty five years ago. Besides, it was the Baathists or the Russians. Nikita Khrushchev was in charge of the Soviets then. Remember, the guy who tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba? Also keep in mind that this was about 10 years after Stalin's death and his iron fist still echoed rule in The Soviet Union. You remember Stalin, right? The guy that killed more people than Hitler? (Oh, wait, are you going to point out that we were allies with Stalin too? We sent Stalin weapons also.) Why were we allies with Stalin? Because he was the enemy of our enemy!!! Just like the Baathists, and just like Saddam Hussein. So are you going to say that America is bad because we were Stalin's ally?

Anyway, I don't give a rat's ass because it so friggin long ago that it doesn't matter. But you know what? I'll let you have it. Let's say we not only installed the Baathists, but we installed Saddam Hussein too (I already proved we didn't, but let's pretend). Let's even say that we completely armed Saddam, begged him to invade Kuwait, and controlled his every move up until 2002. Let's pretend all that is true. So what? Are you saying that we can no longer do anything about him? Do we let him kill his own people, rape the mothers and wives

So while there is no doubt that the administration brings a certain bias to the table, it's also hard to overlook the fact that any crack team of financial wizards is likely to include a Goldman alum.

Wizards? Under their guidance, we got where we are today.

Given that the nation did not benefit but they are still paying massive bonuses at Goldman Sachs, one can only wonder who the intended beneficiary of their "crack team of financial wizards" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0820-06.htm was.

It does not appear to have been the taxpayer.

But is it practical? It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.

Last I read there's not one "clean coal" plant in production. But there are a number of both solar and wind farms in production. Do you recall the rolling blackouts in CA in 2000? What most people do not know is that there was an idle wind farm that could have been contributing more than 200 megawatts of electricity but wasn't.

Falcon

Unfortunately, these TSA knuckle draggers are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy

Not that it's very uncommon.

If I recall correctly, there was also a situation where no power plants had been built in ages, so they had to import power from other states and growth in CA and the other states was a factor..

Did you also know that there was a wind farm in CA that sat idle when it could have generated megawatts of electricity?

Falcon

Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?

Treating utilities as utilities isn't what caused the roll blackouts in CA. Neither did deregulation. CA electric companies were not deregulated, instead some regulations were dropped and others added. One such regulation was that power generators could not distribute power, ie generation and transmission were separated. Another regulation added was that power distributors could not raise their prices, ie there were price controls. But generators were allowed to and when a transmitter has to pay more but can't charge more to cover their costs then they can't stay in business long.

Nor were they about a shortage of generation capacity, during the blackouts there was a wind farm capable of generating megawatts of power that sat idle. Why did it sit idle? Because no body would erect the cable transmission lines.

Falcon

"Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year 'had been arrested by mistake,' according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-04.htm "In February, an American military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Mr. Dilawar and his passengers had himself been detained. The commander, Jan Baz Khan, was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno himself and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said. The three passengers in Mr. Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guantánamo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed 'no threat' to American forces." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ei=5088&en=4579c146cb14cfd6&ex=1274241600&pagewanted=all

I'm not letting you drag me into an offtopic debate about nuclear power here -- let me just say I roughly support Ralph Nader's stance on this issue.

That cuts both ways though in a capitalist "free market" employers can choose to keep labor prices artificially low to line their pockets with profits stolen from labor FORCING the working person to take a very low paying job with poor working conditions just to survive. In an economy with more work place democracy and better social supports the working person has more freedom to CHOOSE the job they want and be assured that that work will provide a living wage healthcare for that worker and his or her family.

You don't understand the difference? The Libertarian version of "freedom" in practice only means "freedom" for the upper 15% of well to do people and wage slavery misery for that is no way free for the vast majority of the population. This is born out in looking at quality of life in quasi socialist countries like Sweden v.s. the U.S. hint we aren't "#1."

"No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States', ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.

The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/24

In sum try again, many of us see through the Libertarian charade about "freedom" in the workplace. Yes to Libertarians correct critiques of police state at home and empire abroad, no to laissez affaire capitalism that is naught but a recipe for a very few living living in opulent excess while many suffer without healthcare, adequate housing, or the opportunity for high quality secondary education for their kids.

I'll pick a few here:

Teh GAYS are coming to steal yer marriages!!!!11

Never heard this from a Republican

You are a liar. Bush's "re-election" (his first actual election) was won primarily because they snuck so many anti-equality laws on the ballots. The bigoted wingnuts came out of the woodwork and voted for Bush while they were there.

We're the party of fiscal responsibility!

I would have agreed with this last year. But since the current party has tripled the deficit, it turns out that it's true!

Yes, I am absolutely certain that Obama, in 100 days, managed to triple the deficit, compared to 8 years of Bush spending like a drunken frat boy.

I totally believe that, because, apparently, I am an idiot.

They're not prisoners of war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply!

Were any of these guys wearing a uniform? No? then the Geneva Convention does not apply. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because I have a soul, and the idea of shoving flashlights up little kid's asses in front of the kid's mother is abhorrent to me.

Oh, and here's a POW being waterboarded:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/

Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!

I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.

Liar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-team-peddles-911-iraq-link-torture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/lieberman-peddles-the-old_b_77198.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm

Not only that, it turns out we were torturing people to death and shoving flashlights up children's bums specifically to try and GET a fake link between Iraq and 9/11. Whoops!

"For 150 dollars an hour, a lawyer will never tell you any idea of yours is bad, even if it's suing McDonalds because your hot coffee is (gasp!) HOT, and should not have been poured all over your crotch."

For free, any number of internet denizens will propagate distortions and urban legends.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

"Third Degree Burns

Here's what the talk show pundits and columnists neglected to mention about the McDonalds coffee burn case:

79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants. "

There are plenty more I'm sure but don't have the time or energy to look more than this right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-06.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-06-nyc-protesters_x.htm
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1137

Of those sources, only one was valid, and that one was USA Today. NYCLU? Come on! I saw those guys and even talked with a few of them. The one that I remember most was the one that said that the police should not try to prosecute NAMBLA members because their lust for small boys should be considered a "thought crime", even if they act on it.

Now, for the USA Today article. Here is a snippet:

Fiore, 46, was one of 1,806 people arrested here during the four-day gathering last summer. Police used orange netting, plastic handcuffs and city buses to handle the crowd. When Fiore was arrested, she was part of a group chanting slogans against President Bush on the sidewalk across from Macy's. According to police, she resisted arrest, obstructed governmental administration and committed disorderly conduct.

But Fiore says she did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech and has challenged the city to prove otherwise in court. So have nearly 200 other protesters whose cases are making their way through the courts five months later.

That "obstructed governmental administration" charge, means that she blocked a bus or delegates. Sorry, but these people had a right to attend the convention, even if she disagreed with their politics.

The part that really got me was when she said, "did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech". That's exactly what these guys would shout as they were fighting the police that were trying to arrest them. I saw one guy get in the face of a delegate members screaming at the top of his lungs, "BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!! YOU WILL PAY FOR THE 100 MILLION DEATHS IN IRAQ!" (Iraq's total population is 20 million, btw). He was arrested because he would not allow the delegates to pass. I saw him do this for at least half an hour before they took him away. What was he yelling as they hauled him off? You guessed it: "My First Amendment rights are being violated! I wasn't doing anything!"

Another quote from the USA Today article:

Protesters who blocked a bus carrying Republican delegates to the Republican National Convention await police transport.

There are plenty more I'm sure but don't have the time or energy to look more than this right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-06.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-06-nyc-protesters_x.htm http://www.nyclu.org/node/1137

I wish news organizations were failing because the most important issues to cover were covered so poorly. How many news agencies collaborated with the US government to sell us lies about the invasion and occupation of Iraq? We saw the multi-page spread mea culpa for Jayson Blair's lies but how about the far more important lies from the front pages of The New York Times by Judith Miller (included planted stories referenced by Vice President Cheney on the Sunday morning talk shows: "There's a story in The New York Times this morning [...] and I want to attribute The Times" he said).

John Nichols reminds us "It is important to remember that, at the same time The New York Times, The Washington Post and television network news programs were cheerleading the country toward war, European print and broadcast outlets were questioning President Bush's outrageous exaggerations and outright lies.". There was and is massive failure on the part of American establishment news organizations to properly report on the most important thing a government can do—go to war. Instead of challenging the powers that be, which is a journalist's job, journalists were lining up to become "embedded" with the government and thus never got around to questioning the case for war (remember Col. Powell's lies to the UN? Remember how many news programs said that that was a "slam dunk" case for war with Iraq? A lot of them did. Too bad so few of them could muster the intellectual courage to remind us of Powell's recent lies when Powell endorsed Obama for US President).

Basic journalistic principles are left out as media consolidates. "The Market" apparently isn't doing a good job making sure the investigative journalists are finding outlets to be heard and paid for their critical muckraking. We need independent audience-funded journalism now more than ever.

Maybe he's friends with Anton Scalia:

Besides Thomas, Scalia also took part in the decision while a close relative had a substantial interest in the outcome. Scalia's son Eugene is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where one of the senior partners is Theodore B. Olson, who argued Bush's case before the Supreme Court.

Scalia refused to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore, although the lead lawyer for the plaintiff was, in effect, his son's boss. He took the same position in the various legal proceedings that accompanied the impeachment of Bill Clinton, beginning with the Supreme Court's decision to permit Paula Jones to proceed with her lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment, in which Olson provided legal assistance.

and

WASHINGTON - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused on Thursday to remove himself from a case about Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, even though their recent duck-hunting trip raised questions about his impartiality.

But then, hackery has never been much of a problem

But Scalia's liberal critics have a point: His moral views have a habit of grafting themselves onto his constitutional philosophy. No one expects him to be a libertarian; he has stressed that his opposition to expanded federal power applies only to instances in which it is explicitly limited by the Constitution. But you might at least expect him to be oppose federal intervention within the parameters of his originalist vision. Or rather, you might have expected that until Gonzales v. Raich, this year's medical marijuana case.

Scalia voted to uphold the federal government's prerogative to go after medical consumers of homegrown pot, on the grounds that this activity supposedly affects interstate commerce. This ruling prompted Thomas to note in a caustic dissent, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

...for Scalia

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.

After 9/11/2001, Bush enjoyed astronomical approval ratings.

Then you must have forgotten the vitriolic hate:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/20/protests/index.html

Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, but many thousands of protesters were in evidence

They came out in scores, co-existing on the parade route with supporters of the new president and lining Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House. Interspersed between Bush-Cheney signs and Texas flags were thousands of protest placards, bearing inscriptions such as "Bush Cheated," "Hail to the Thief," "Selected not elected," "Bushwhacked by the Supremes" and "Golly Jeb, we pulled it off!" There were also plenty of R-rated signs, like "Dick and Bush" and "George Wanker Bush." One poster included a caricature of a metaphorically toothless Bush in the image of Alfred E. Neuman.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/images/0121-01.jpg

Others were not so diplomatic. At Freedom Plaza, a protest space along the parade route at 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, thousands of protesters held up signs calling Bush such epithets as "thief" and "pig." When Bush's motorcade passed, they booed and jeered and yelled obscenities. Some held up middle fingers.

After 9/11/2001, Bush enjoyed astronomical approval ratings.

Then you must have forgotten the vitriolic hate:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/20/protests/index.html

Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, but many thousands of protesters were in evidence

They came out in scores, co-existing on the parade route with supporters of the new president and lining Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House. Interspersed between Bush-Cheney signs and Texas flags were thousands of protest placards, bearing inscriptions such as "Bush Cheated," "Hail to the Thief," "Selected not elected," "Bushwhacked by the Supremes" and "Golly Jeb, we pulled it off!" There were also plenty of R-rated signs, like "Dick and Bush" and "George Wanker Bush." One poster included a caricature of a metaphorically toothless Bush in the image of Alfred E. Neuman.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/images/0121-01.jpg

Others were not so diplomatic. At Freedom Plaza, a protest space along the parade route at 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, thousands of protesters held up signs calling Bush such epithets as "thief" and "pig." When Bush's motorcade passed, they booed and jeered and yelled obscenities. Some held up middle fingers.

"Looking at states that typically get snow, 187 of 260 weather stations have reported fewer days with snowfall since 1948," said Oak Ridge meteorologist Dale Kaiser. The decrease in snow days has been especially pronounced east of the Mississippi River, he said, which is where most of America's low-elevation ski areas are located. The trend toward fewer snow days has been most pronounced in the Northeast, but many weather stations in the West showed increases in snow.

I'd like to note that there's nothing inconsistent about the TV show I saw, the data you provide, and this last bit of data. And anyway, my whole point was that snowfall is increasing in some areas and decreasing in others, so it doesn't make sense to claim that increased snowfall or icepack in some one location proves a net climate trend. Climate is complex enough that it's even possible that globally increasing snowfall could be consistent with warming or vice versa. I don't know the answer, I was trying to point out uncertainty and that this data is interesting in itself, but not a convincing bit of information regarding larger climate trends.

Ok, in the 30 seconds I googled I found a cached Palm Beach Post artcile at Common Dreams that mentions that 20 of the 67 districts outright ignored the list (including Palm Beach itself) and also according to the Post and Miami Herald between 5000 and 6500 felons did in fact vote illegally in at least 20 other districts in the the state (can't find a cached version of those articles, just several other sites referencing the issue such as this paper on overall disenfranchisment.

And as for the poll closing, even the Wiki page has the fact that the major networks all announced poll closing times to be 1 hour earlier that they actually were in the heavy Republican Pan Handle.

The "insurgents" controlling Fallujah were overwhelmingly local Iraqis, some of which were islamists. Fallujah had for a long time been a center for the resistance to the US occupation, and some of the first larger confrontations between the occupation and the Iraqis happened in Fallujah. You may remember that the citizens of Fallujah demonstrated to get the occupation forces to leave a school, but were fired upon.

That link itself indicates that the troops were fired on first:
"A U.S. military spokeswoman said at war headquarters in Qatar that soldiers in Falluja opened fire on gunmen who shot at them with assault rifles. "Members of the 1st Battalion of the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division came upon a group of Iraqis armed with AK-47s last night," the spokeswoman said. "The Iraqis fired on them. The troops returned fire."

Of course, the cleric and residents deny anyone shot at the troops. Of course they do. Same way they denied troops were even in Iraq at first.
[sarcasm]Because our military always has a habit of just firing into unarmed crowds. [/sarcasm]

The "insurgents" controlling Fallujah were overwhelmingly local Iraqis, some of which were islamists. Fallujah had for a long time been a center for the resistance to the US occupation, and some of the first larger confrontations between the occupation and the Iraqis happened in Fallujah. You may remember that the citizens of Fallujah demonstrated to get the occupation forces to leave a school, but were fired upon.

This led to widespread anger in Iraq and particularly Fallujah. As the strength and resolve of the resistance grew, it were able to force the occupation out of Fallujah, and for a time Fallujah were controlled and rebuild by Iraqis. When the US decided to crush the rebellion, the local leaders wrote an appeal to Kofi Annan.

After the assault and massacre at Fallujah, the Iraqi resistance drew one important lesson: Taking control of an area were too dangerous for their families, because of the US onslaught. Thus, they shifted their strategy from large scale uprisings to hit and run tactics.

You mean: "Is it limited unlimited or unlimited unlimited?"

The Worst Lies of All? The Ones You Expect

And that anti-missile technology is far better in theory than in practice. Literature on the failures of anti-missile systems abound, from credible scientists, such as http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0102-02.htm. Much like North Korean missiles, US anti-missile technology is far better in theory than in practice and should not be relied on for actually stopping missiles. The major use of the 1980's "Star Wars" effort was to drive the Soviet Union to military bankruptcy, trying to keep up with crackpot schemes they didn't have the money or technical manpower to develop or even properly refute.

North Korea's potential nuclear arsenal, and the ability to deliver warheads, is extremely effective as a deterrent against the kind of "regime change" that was tried in Iraq and Afghanistan. And North Korea can sell the technologies to keep the US off-balance, especially since the sale of Pakistani nuclear technologies is being monitored much more closely now with so many US troops nearby and their previous nuclear secret sales revealed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece).

Whilst true, keep in mind that they do not need +/- 6000 nukes to do so.
A half-dozen nukes per hostile country is enough to deter most of them.

The really scary part is that a lot of nukes are over 40 yrs old and they could go off accidentally. ...of be stolen from a cold-war era depot.

The US tends to lose the occasional weapon.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0215-01.htm

Nerve agents would be extremely lethal if released by terrorists in a large building, mall or airport but, again, they are weapons of localized destruction, not mass destruction.

these nerve agents create a horrifying scary death. So while being weapons of creating mass hysteria they have never had higher kill rates/area than conventional bombs. They are a statement of the evils of the administration, but not a WMD.

Almost all big industrial processes are dangerous, it's true. Even with solar panels, people will fall off roofs when they install them. It's sometimes hard to assess benefits to whom versus risks to who else?

Still, was the TMI release safe just like the air was declared safe by the EPA in NYC after 9/11?
"EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution: White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says "
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm
"""
Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat, called for a Justice Department investigation. "That the White House instructed EPA officials to downplay the health impact of the World Trade Center contaminants due to 'competing considerations' at the expense of the health and lives of New York City residents is an abomination," he said in a news release. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an interview it was "understandable that in the midst of a crisis the White House did not want the EPA to sound alarmist." But, he warned, "If the public loses faith that things are safe when the government says so, we'll have done more damage than a pointed statement the week after 9/11 would have."
"""

As to there being no deaths related to TMI, that's not what these people say:
"30 Years and Counting: People Died at Three Mile Island "
http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman03242009.html
"""
Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas. ... In fact, the most reliable studies were conducted by local residents like Jane Lee and Mary Osborne, who went door-to-door in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst. Their surveys showed very substantial plagues of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more. ... Gundersen, a leading technical expert on nuclear engineering, says:
"When I correctly interpreted the containment pressure spike and the doses measured in the environment after the TMI accident, I proved that TMI's releases were about one hundred times higher than the industry and the NRC claim, in part because the containment leaked. This new data supports the epidemiology of Dr. Steve Wing and proves that there really were injuries from the accident. New reactor designs are also effected, as the NRC is using its low assumed release rates to justify decreases in emergency planning and containment design." ... But the Big Lie remains officially in tact. Expect to hear all week that TMI was "a success story" because "no one was killed." But in mere moments that brand new reactor morphed from a $900 million asset to a multi-billion-dollar liability. It could happen to any atomic power plant, now, tomorrow and into the future. Meanwhile, the death toll from America's worst industrial catastrophe continues to rise. More than ever, it is shrouded in official lies and desecrated by a reactor-pushing "renaissance" hell-bent on repeating the nightmare on an even larger scale.
"""

Or here:
"Startling Revelations About Three Mile Island Raise New Doubts Over Nuclear Plant Safety "
http://www.counterpunch.org/sturgis04032009.html
"""
The evidence that people, animals and plants near TMI were exposed to high levels of radiation in the 1979 disaster is not merely anecdotal. While government studies of the disaster as well as a number of independent researchers assert the incident caused no harm, other surveys and studie

...according to people who were actually at TMI. Note that they were called in to replace staff who fled when the incident occurred. Wonder why they ran off? Believe what you want, but it's an interesting read either way. Personally, I trust the nuke industry and the NRC about as much as I trusted the tobacco companies when they told us how safe cigarettes were.

Proof of claim of aerosols caused famine in Africa in the 80's? It's called google! Maybe if you have been using this internet thing for a while you should try it. But since you are too lazy I guess I will do it for you. How about:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-54622826.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-07-22-africandrought.htm
Basically all over the freaking place. I also saw it once on nova on pbs, here I think:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

They should make goldenrod the official state color all vehicles to match the governor's Hummer. Oh, wait a minute. He gave up the Hummer to go green.

I haven't heard, is he still commuting from his home in Malibu to the office in Sacramento in a private jet?

They should make goldenrod the official state color all vehicles to match the governor's Hummer. Oh, wait a minute. He gave up the Hummer to go green.

Maybe they should call California the Green State and make green the official state color. Plus I don't have to change the paint job on my car. :P

...they should look at the electronic vote-rigging in the USA?

We know the machines have misreported votes.

I *know* that it has been proven that it is often trivial to get these machines to report false information. Do we know that they have done so during an election?

The president/CEO of Diebold promised to literally do everything in his power to "deliver" Ohio's electoral votes to GWB.

Actually, the quote is "[Diebold is] committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." [0][1][2] Not that I don't think that Diebold is despicable, but it's a good thing to have discussions grounded in verifiable fact. :)

[0] http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/technology/election_diebold/
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/politics/campaign/12vote.html
[2] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

'The mathematicians found "a very subtle algorithm" that appeared to adjust the vote in Chavez's favor, Stigall said'

Shoulda got Diebold to do .. :)

'[Diebold] is "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"'

Deflect attention from the beam in your own eye and trash the democratically elected leader of Venezuela cause he won't give the OIL to the US and let it sell it back to them, like the US did in Iraq.

'Election-Fraud Website Removed Before Tuesday Recall Vote'

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/01/1225227.shtml?tid=123&tid=103&tid=1

Claims of patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Dude, learn to recognize the difference between someone reporting a fact and jumping to conclusions about what that person was thinking. (I am thinking, that quote should have said "moron" instead of "scoundrel")

Yes, in this case, it is desperation. Since 2003, enlistment has been falling (I guess kids don't want to die in the sand just because somebody had daddy issues). But it is now up. Since there is no new 9/11 sky-is-falling shit being spread around, it is a factor of the economy.

Here is the news report, and if you don't believe me, there is also this

WASHINGTON - The faltering US economy is fueling a dramatic turnaround in military recruiting, with new statistics showing that the Army is experiencing the highest rate of new enlistments in six years.

It's utter nonsense. Doctrow is a self important blowhard who, for reasons unknown, people think is actually relevant.

It's hard to see how your criticism is correct. Doctorow hedges a lot in this essay (one's "favorite medium" will be "devoured, transformed, or destroyed". That covers a lot of possibilities). But even if he's wrong in this essay, your criticism is unjustified and overly harsh: Doctorow is a writer making his money from selling books one can download free, something long thought impossible in the 'why pay for what you can get for free' philosophy. He is walking the talk showing us through his example how one can license liberally, make a living with a huge online component to one's work, and sustain this for years on end. Perhaps there's a message in there for the proprietors of movies, newspapers, TV, and music.

That the Internet can't ever replace newspapers and proper reporting.

One hopes the lecturer didn't conflate such different things as you just did. There's nothing categorically improper about the reporting going on online, and there's nothing categorically proper about reporting in print. Newspapers can switch to online publication and offer the same caliber of reporting they offer now. It's not the quality of reporting that prevents newspaper publishers from losing their print publications. The New York Times, for instance, can continue to lie about the most important issue of the day while punishing authors of far less important articles in ridiculous public displays (Judith Miller versus Jayson Blair) whether they do it in print or online. The medium can change and the reportage can remain the same.

"How many bloggers are embedded in Falujah?"

That doesn't strike me as nearly important as asking: How many reporters are independent? How many are not embedded with the military? How many are failing to present a "difficult public face for [their media organization] in a time of war" or judging their effectiveness by comparing to competitors who are "waving the flag at every opportunity"? Phil Donahue's CNBC show was cancelled for the reasons quoted in these last two quotes, according to a leaked internal memo. I don't recall most of the major news outlets telling us much about the millions on the streets of the world protesting the US invasion of Iraq before it began. I recall them getting head counts wrong and ignoring well-spoken war critics lest their contrary views gain mainstream exposure and thus legitimizing them in the views of those who consume nothing but corporate news. I don't recall good corporate news analysis of the run-up to the war before or after Col. Powell's lies to the UN. Instead, I recall seeing a strong imbalance of views on-air favoring pro-war voices. Some of the most valuable journalism about this war has come from unembedded independent journalists on far less-widely seen shows like "Democracy Now!". It seems to me that the medium isn't the critical factor here, what the news organization says is.

It's utter nonsense. Doctrow is a self important blowhard who, for reasons unknown, people think is actually relevant.

It's hard to see how your criticism is correct. Doctorow hedges a lot in this essay (one's "favorite medium" will be "devoured, transformed, or destroyed". That covers a lot of possibilities). But even if he's wrong in this essay, your criticism is unjustified and overly harsh: Doctorow is a writer making his money from selling books one can download free, something long thought impossible in the 'why pay for what you can get for free' philosophy. He is walking the talk showing us through his example how one can license liberally, make a living with a huge online component to one's work, and sustain this for years on end. Perhaps there's a message in there for the proprietors of movies, newspapers, TV, and music.

That the Internet can't ever replace newspapers and proper reporting.

One hopes the lecturer didn't conflate such different things as you just did. There's nothing categorically improper about the reporting going on online, and there's nothing categorically proper about reporting in print. Newspapers can switch to online publication and offer the same caliber of reporting they offer now. It's not the quality of reporting that prevents newspaper publishers from losing their print publications. The New York Times, for instance, can continue to lie about the most important issue of the day while punishing authors of far less important articles in ridiculous public displays (Judith Miller versus Jayson Blair) whether they do it in print or online. The medium can change and the reportage can remain the same.

"How many bloggers are embedded in Falujah?"

That doesn't strike me as nearly important as asking: How many reporters are independent? How many are not embedded with the military? How many are failing to present a "difficult public face for [their media organization] in a time of war" or judging their effectiveness by comparing to competitors who are "waving the flag at every opportunity"? Phil Donahue's CNBC show was cancelled for the reasons quoted in these last two quotes, according to a leaked internal memo. I don't recall most of the major news outlets telling us much about the millions on the streets of the world protesting the US invasion of Iraq before it began. I recall them getting head counts wrong and ignoring well-spoken war critics lest their contrary views gain mainstream exposure and thus legitimizing them in the views of those who consume nothing but corporate news. I don't recall good corporate news analysis of the run-up to the war before or after Col. Powell's lies to the UN. Instead, I recall seeing a strong imbalance of views on-air favoring pro-war voices. Some of the most valuable journalism about this war has come from unembedded independent journalists on far less-widely seen shows like "Democracy Now!". It seems to me that the medium isn't the critical factor here, what the news organization says is.

There is a definite equivalence if you knew how to use Google.

It is hyperbole, and it's completely unnecessary given that there are in fact plenty of people who claim that global warming will cause a massive amount of disaster in the future. (B) is thus not by necessity hyperbole, nor is (A).

You should stick to hammering away on the Al Gore thing, because the sibling and I don't agree on that. When you try to take the argument as a whole it only takes two Google searches to show that there is an equivalence between elements of the climate change movement and the radically religious.

And #2 is Israel. It's time to cut off all aid to them.
They seem to think we're their enemy, so I cannot fathom why we keep giving them billions of dollars every year.

You are missing the big picture here - think more "Just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!". Because - funny story, there is a THEY and they ARE out to get the Israelis.

I find it sad that you choose such harsh measures for the country of about 10 million who is your only real friend among the dozens in that part of the world. Interesting as well since an equal or larger sum of billions goes every year to all those other countries in that part of the world. Remember them - the ones that would send all your asses to hell in a camelcart? But no standards are even required to receive your "aid" whatsoever for these guys.

And the thread-relative item of bestowing "Favoured Nation" status on China. Let me guess the excuse "..and keep your enemies closer." You see those more than 1 billion people don't want just to be less dependant on you - they want to REPLACE you.

But yes - let's focus on the Israelis. How so very "balanced" you are.

And #2 is Israel. It's time to cut off all aid to them.
They seem to think we're their enemy, so I cannot fathom why we keep giving them billions of dollars every year.

So what's the solution? If you get rid of the restrictions on people moving you destroy national sovereignty and identity. If you get rid of free trade/adopt protectionism you drag the economy down a few pegs and probably destroy at least as many jobs as you save.

I beg to disagree. Protectionism and tariffs create jobs and protect the economy and nation. Economics haven't changed since the late 1700s; check out Alexander Hamilton's Advice To The Obama Administration

The solution is tariffs and protection for national industries. They work, and have worked for two centuries. It's only recently been repealed (since the 1980s) and now we are starting to witness the long-term ramifications of it.

Did I say "pay the same wage as here in the US"?

No, I said worker protection laws. Unemployment safety nets, safety/health regulations, worker compensation for on-the-job accidents, maximum working days (goes into "health" again), overtime pay past the 40-hour workweek, etc.

I never said the countries had to pay precisely the same dollar wage. But they should have to have the same environmental standards (so that the "lower cost" doesn't come at the expense of shitting up the planet) and worker protections (so that the "lower cost" doesn't come at the cost of maiming or killing thousands of people in unsafe "factories").

Was that so hard to understand, or were you deliberately being obtuse?

One other point: lawpoop below points to this, which is absolutely brilliant and spot-on. And I know precisely why so many of the "globalist" "open borders" "free trade" people hate the points brought up in it - they're not taught history in school any more, not taught math and economics anymore, and know sod-all about the world.

Your proposal is to take us back to the 1930s, which, if I might remind you, didn't work out so well.

The propsal would take us back to the 1780s, when tariffs and protectionism fostered the US's nacent industries, and built it into the industrial powerhouse that it became. What didn't work out so well was the housing bubble, stock market speculation, and banking deregulation that happened in the 1920s.

Read Alexander Hamilton's Advice To The Obama Administration . This article is about the report Hamilton delivered to the first congress, about how to grow the economy and industry in the newly created United States, and its relevance to the modern day. It's past time to get back to basics.

On worker protection: the country with the least worker protection laws in the world is the United States

This is patently false. The US has the least laws in the whole world? Can you cite a reference for this? It has less laws, than say, Zimbabwe?

First of all, that isn't true. Germans never made such an argument.

"As commander of a Nazi einsatzgruppen death squad in occupied Poland, Dr. Werner Best came to believe that the most effective response to terrorism was collective punishment. After the fall of France he went on to draft the Third Reich's counterterrorism policy for countries occupied by Germany. Towns where acts of "passive" resistance such as the cutting of telegraph cables had taken place were placed under curfews, fined and slapped with travel restrictions. "Active" resistance--the killing of a German soldier--would be met by reprisal killings of local civilians.

Dr. Best was trying to protect German troops. Rather than be cowed, however, leaders of European resistance groups saw Best's ruthless policy as their chance to radicalize moderates who were still on the fence about their German occupatiers. The insurgents stepped up assassinations of German troops. The killings prompted the Germans to shoot more local businessmen and political leaders. The cycle of violence was spiraling out of control.

Eventually Hitler himself got into the act. Convinced that collective punishment was failing because it wasn't severe enough, the fuhrer issued a September 1941 order to use "the harshest measures" against civilians in areas where the Resistance was active. Arguing that "only the [collective] death penalty can be a real means of deterrence," Hitler ordered that 50 civilians be executed for each German soldier killed.

Some in the German high command argued that punishing innocent civilians in large numbers would alienate the local population and lose the battle for hearts and minds. Although they were eventually proven correct, they were overruled. New reprisals, each worse than the last, strengthened the resolve of the resistance and gained them new recruits. By the end of the war, reprisals had assumed grotesquely lopsided ratios of murdered locals to dead Germans. Entire villages--Lidice in the Czech Republic (340 killed), Oradour-sur-Glane in France (642), Kortelisy in Ukraine (2,892)--were wiped out." - source:

I do have to chuckle at the backlash against the UAW. The UAW is evil because they "bent the big three over the table during the fat years" by demanding profit sharing, and reaping fat bonuses for their workers. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is evil because they don't provide benefits, make employees work unpaid overtime, and their management gets fat bonuses.... - I think that you will find that the people who bash WalMart are not the same people who bash UAW. For example I am always anti-union, so I was only cheering for WalMart when they closed a store here in Canada because they did want to allow a union in the doors. So this is the exception I take with your comment, everything else there seems to be fair.

So whose business did you inherit? Or whose fortune?

I know you got a big fat F on your history courses, or you would know why unions exist, and why their decline has resulted in the collapse we have today. (pro-tip: stagnant wages, thanks to the decline of unions, plus inflating prices = foreclosures).

This is basic logic. Incorporation allows centralization of bargaining power on the producer side of the labor equation. Not allowing labor to organize into equally powerful organizations is a fundamental inequality and oppression.

If you are anti-union, you should also be anti-corporate and demanding the removal of limited liability laws.

Don't think the gains unions made in getting workers out of 3x5 shacks and 18 hour shifts won't disappear when they do. Just look at wal-mart.

I do have to chuckle at the backlash against the UAW. The UAW is evil because they "bent the big three over the table during the fat years" by demanding profit sharing, and reaping fat bonuses for their workers. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is evil because they don't provide benefits, make employees work unpaid overtime, and their management gets fat bonuses.... - I think that you will find that the people who bash WalMart are not the same people who bash UAW. For example I am always anti-union, so I was only cheering for WalMart when they closed a store here in Canada because they did want to allow a union in the doors. So this is the exception I take with your comment, everything else there seems to be fair.