Slashdot Mirror


Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy"

An anonymous reader writes "Of all the 'mainstream' forms of renewable energy, it seems that geothermal power is always left in the shadows compared to solar and wind power. However, that looks set to change with news that the US Department of Energy will fund geothermal projects in northwestern Nevada and southeast Oregon. With funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the DOE has stated a 'conditional commitment' to provide a partial guarantee for a rumored $98.5 million loan to the Nevada Geothermal Power Company (NGP). According to US Senator Harry Reid, 'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'"

369 comments

  1. According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that kind of kills it for me. Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt. Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

    1. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is in danger of losing his long-held seat. He needs the pork badly, and the administration is more than willing to help him out.

    2. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Those two things may be related. Nuclear waste needs to be cooled down somehow.

    3. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      What, you mean it isn't anymore? Last time I was there (in '87 or so) the locals were packing to drive out to the desert to witness an underground nuclear test. Those people who live in Nevada, they're quite special from what I saw. Perhaps related to Floridians.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    4. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by m2shariy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      And that is exactly what makes it the source of geothermal energy

    5. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to many studies (look up Nevada Heat Flow on the web) Nevada has some of the highest earth heat flows and thus warmest ground temps in the US. The basin and range country is being pulled apart bringing hot rock closer to the surface than elsewhere. Drilling results show hot water not to deep in the basins in NV. (There is another big advantage in that most of these areas are completely empty (see loneliest road in america). So yes there is a resource there but again you have to get the power to CA who of course don't want any new power lines in their backyard.

    6. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Don't be too quick to disregard this as a joke, since breeder reactors have been outlawed for some time here, it not an unreasonable suggestion. Of course, as far as breeders are concerned, past political boondoggles are certainly a major issue.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    7. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by nebaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It makes me wonder, if Senators bring in pork to their state to get re-elected, do you think there would be more pork in general if we repealed the direct election of senators, which some claim would give states more say in the Federal government? As is I think the fact that so much party money is on the line to keep representatives 'pure', which greatly distorts the idea of local elections.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    8. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste

      Yes, but we haven't seen the Hilton sisters in several months.

      Zzzzzzzzzing!

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    9. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      And water that is 100% free of bacteria. Oh that? We don't know what THAT is, isn't he kinda cute? But the radiation killed all the bacteria...OH MY GOD WHA

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting argument and I'm hearing more and more about that coming out of the houston area. Do you have any links you'd like to share?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    11. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      That's where the the geothermal energy comes from;)

    12. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      And/Or; how much of that 98 million is directed into his golden parachute fund for getting the loan?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      Actually, none of it. The deal is between NGP, their financiers, and DOE. The loan backstopping is part of ARRA. So far as I know, loan selections were made by DOE, which Harry Reid does not have any influence in.

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    14. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Radres · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't senators then be forced to take actions that benefit those in the house, thereby corrupting the system in a different way?

      "You voted against all my bills! I'm not voting for you!"

    15. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      And nuclear waste is warm right? We keep it in cooling ponds. This seems like two things that go great together. You got your nuclear waste into my geothermal power installation, no you got your geothermal power installation into my nuclear waste.

    16. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      And if fucking should be.

      I'm not saying this because I think Nevada should be the nations landfill, it shouldn't. I live in Vegas and love it there. (Vegas IS a dump btw.)
      I'm not saying this for economic reasons either. I'm not associated with any of the contractors or anything.

      But the shit they are (were) putting there is pretty benign. Just because it has *nuclear* printed on the side of can, doesn't mean it's ultra dangerous.

    17. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know about how much Reid is in danger. His opponent is on record for a variety of...odd positions: eliminating the US Department of Education, pulling out of the United Nations, getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare; wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water, similarly wants to get rid of alcohol, thinks global warming is a hoax and is for drilling for oil here, there, everywhere. Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea. All Reid has to do is frame the campaign that way and it's pull the lever for the nutter or pull the lever for Reid. He'll beat her by 10 points. That's how bad of a candidate Reid is--she should manage the 25% dead-enders at best. Still bringing in more federal dollars isn't a bad idea for Reid, pork or legitimate (but well-timed).

    18. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Harry Reid meant more than one thing by "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy"...

      In addition to floating on the vast sea of crude that makes them our bestest ever buddies, for as long as they are willing to sell, Saudi Arabia is home to some... aggressively retro sentiments.

    19. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The senators would be appointed by their state legislatures in a manner that's up to them -- in the 19th century the state legislature would hold a vote, or the governor would make an appointment subject to state senate advice and consent, or whatever.

      The problem with this approach was that it made senate seats a form of patronage for governors and state political machines, and while the people appointed might have been worthy there was zero democratic accountability, and senate appointment was a notoriously corrupt institution -- take the recent Rod Blagojevich nonsense and imagine it were the norm. Eliminating the direct election of senators in order to control "pork" or earmarks, which are themselves only about 2% of the federal budget, and are at least as big a problem with House members, is a pretty extreme solution.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    20. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by e9th · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, Angle is not the candidate the Republican Party wanted. But the latest poll I know of shows Reid trailing.

    21. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1, Informative

      You *really*

      Really

      Really

      Don't know about Reid's opponents this time around do you?

      Sharron Angle is fucking crazy.

      Opposes fluoridation, the UN and the Department of Education.

      She's got a lot of tough questions ahead of her.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    22. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting idea, however Senators were previously appointed by their state's legislatures and I don't like the idea of going back to that system. It'll probably make them even more beholden to pork barrel projects to please their state legislators. I fear the problem would become even worse.

    23. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Informative

      She is not crazy at all and if you think huffington post is a reliable source of information on conservative candidates then you are crazy.

      How about having her describe her opinions instead instead: http://www.sharronangle.com/issues/

      Or how about the opinion of the people of Nevada: Angle: 50% Reid: 39%

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    24. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1, Troll

      She's got a lot of tough questions ahead of her.

      Maybe. As we all learned a few years ago, when a reporter asks a politician what newspapers or magazines they read, it's a vicious partisan attack. Angle and that unaccredited quack Rand Paul, after some initial missteps, are never going to appear on a news program again, and will simply use the internet and the odd Fox News interview to do their public relations.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    25. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by nebaz · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I didn't clarify my position originally more. I am not at all in favor of going back to that system, as I agree that it would be even more incentive to play the "everything for my state" game. Personally, I think we should have term limits, but that will never fly as Congress itself would have to approve it. I also don't like having committee chair status based on Senate seniority, it gives even more incentive to stick with the incumbent.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    26. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm just tired of politicians. ALL of them.

    27. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Traze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's an interesting argument and I'm hearing more and more about that coming out of the houston area. Do you have any links you'd like to share?

      Link
      One of the foremost references on the Constitution. It includes letters and speeches by some of the founders about each clause. Beware the advanced language usage.
      The link is direct to the clause in question with links the the writings about why the Senators are chosen the way they are. (At least in the physical text that's the way it is.)

    28. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Traze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Real Link
      Sorry about that. O_o

    29. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      That, and considering how the vast majority of states are financially in the red these days, I would think that they'd just encourage more state-gov't bailouts by the feds. Talk about opening the floodgates!

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    30. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Rasmussen isn't a pollster. It's an arm of the Republican party bent on shaping public opinion via horribly, horribly skewed polls in a race of interest, but only early on like now. Early polls aren't verifiable, but over time Rasmussen will adjust their polls to be increasingly in-line with legitimate pollsters so their overall ratings are alright. Now, they're just interested in creating a narrative--one to their liking. That Rasmussen (or Raspublican as it's often called) only dares to give Angle a lead of 11 points means she's toast and they know it. Even a politician as disliked and weak as Reid will be able to beat her. Remember, he hasn't even started to campaign against the nutbar yet. You can bank on Reid by 10 in the final count, and only because he's that shitty of a politician.

    31. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Aside from the "fucking crazy" part, which is subjective, I find no inconsistency between her site and Tetsuya's claims.

      Do believe there is one? Was this misreported:

      Before the vote, Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno, sought to postpone the vote so she could add an amendment to block fluoridation in Washoe County. The Washoe County Commission in 1992 rejected fluoridation, and Angle said the Legislature should not approve fluoridation in her county without a vote of its people.

      Her website itself plainly states she wants to eliminate the department of education and social security. If she were a slashdotter she'd be a troll of the first order. These crackpots have been with us for decades, and they'll run us into the ground if we let them. Do you really want this particular person on in front of reporters everyday holding forth on her beliefs about who Republicans are and what they want?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    32. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some of those "Controversial" issues you state might actually have some merit, despite your leftist slant:

      1) The use Department of Education is notoriously inefficient at financial planning; All US public schools must spend their entire budget each year, and cannot store money for future renovations, et al.. This is why when schools need to improve their fascilities, it ALWAYS comes as a bond issue. The reason for this "Cannot save money, MUST spend all of the yearly budget!" is presumably to curb imbezzlement of education dollars. Personally, I think this is silly, as it promotes excessive waste of education dollars, and inefficient spending of education dollars. I would much rather see the primary education system of the US enable a 3 to 5 year budgeting system, whereby school administrators can plan for expansions, rennovations, etc, and would be part and parcel with a complete financial audit at the end of every budget cycle, as the means of curbing both problems. This would keep the Department of Education busy, (nobody said all schools need to be audited simultaneously) and would reduce the number of absurdly expensive bond issues that current are needed.

      2) Pulling out of the UN; I agree! this is a GREAT idea! I admit that I am an isolationist; Being an isolationist country that keeps to itself is MUCH better than being a country that exports toxic waste (both physical, and in terms of law enforcement and political treaties) to other countries en-mass. Ending the affiliation with the UN would make it INSANELY less profitable for US corporations to outsource labor, etc, and would strongly promote the rennovation of internal infrastructures that have been in decline since the 50s.

      3) Social Security(TM) has become the personal piggybank of our BigGovernmentOverlords(TM) for the better part of the century now. When originally created, this was not the case. Current social security has been too heavily compromised by government hentai tentacles to ever be fixed. It DOES need to be scrapped, and re-created with proper safeguards in place. People's retirement savings are NOT the property of the US government, GOD DAMNIT.

      4) Emerging research suggests that people get more than enough fluoride for proper dental health from fluoridated toothpaste and other fluoridated products (Some chewing gums, mouth washes, flossers, etc.), and that additional fluoride in drinking water can actually promote dental DISORDERS, such as Fluorosis, which in addition to making permanently weakened dental enamel, also contributes heavily to late-life osteoporosis, and certain bone cancers. Naturally, the ADA doesnt want to admit that its massive fluoridation projects might actually be DETRACTING from public health, rather than improving it. For a VERY long time, it was taboo to even mention enough criticism to SUGGEST raw research, let alone to point out that it {fluoridation) might not be a good thing to begin with. Urban centers, with access to good dental infrastructure and proper hygine products do not need fluoridation. Places like Apelachia (however you spell that), where people STILL dont have electricity--- are the kinds of places where flouridation is still needed.

      As for the other items, No-- I am against those things. GLobal warming is not a farce, it is easily demonstrated experimentally in a greenhouse. Getting rid of alcohol was proven to be unconstitutional, and caused horrible problems in the prohibition era; (much like what is happening now with the "War on drugs"...) and I don't think I need to explain why increased oil well production is NOT a good thing.

      As for violent overthrow of the "legitimately elected" government; I think there is a rather nice quote there.. Goes something like this:

      The tree of liberty needs to be watered, from time to time, with the blood of tyrants.

      Last I checked, our two party system does not constitute a true democratic election, since our choices are pre-screened by established political groups with deeply rooted agendas. Sounds like as good a time as any to do some "watering."

    33. Re: According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      How about having her describe her opinions instead instead: http://www.sharronangle.com/issues/

      Is that the page that was hurriedly revised by party hacks who wanted to move her toward the center when she won the primary?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    34. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt.

      According to US Senator Harry Reid, 'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'"

      Any politician named Senator Harry Reid (D)NV making such proclamations about his own pork must be par for the course.

      There, fixed that for ya.

      p.s. Storing nuclear waste is now considered innovative. You know, like BP storing their excess production capacity in the Gulf.

    35. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by harley78 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some bacteria can survive quite high levels of radiation, in fact, thrive even.

    36. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, the Harry Reid's "fluoride" strategy. Sure, that will work. I don't know or care about fluoridation in Washoe County but the only information you have is a quote from Reid's team that has been passed around to the media and I don't tend to trust that very much.

      As for the social security, it's an unsustainable system that will have to be reformed soon anyway. She is just being honest about it. And no she does not want to abolish it over night, she wants to phase it out for people entering the workforce now (anybody who paid into the system will still receive the benefits) and replaced with an actual interest bearing retirement savings account which will provide MUCH higher income in retirement for the same payment (12.5% of income) than social security does.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    37. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he means the funds going into his golden parachute that will not
      be on the table, but under the table.

      There are private dinners and payoffs are not made with checks
      or credit cards, untraceable unofficial money.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    38. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some bacteria can survive quite high levels of radiation, in fact, thrive even.

            Oh really?

            Not at the doses I am thinking about...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Well their goes any respect I had for citizens of that state. That bitch is nutty.

    40. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      It's early yet. The Republicans just had their primary whereas Reid hasn't started campaigning yet. If he's still trailing in September then I'd say he's at risk.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    41. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's crazy about letting a county decide if it wants to fluoridate it's own water source? What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits (getting it out of Education)? What's wrong with pulling out of an ineffectual world body that's really good at spending our money and writing strongly worded letters?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    42. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The US Department of Education is not all that old, a couple generations now. We existed just fine without it. There is NO credible evidence that having it has improved public education at all. On the contrary, on global measuring standards, the records show a drop almost across the board since its inception. We have hundreds of thousands of almost complete illiterates "graduating" high school now. Colleges and universities have to offer remedial courses just to get a lot of freshmen up to what were junior high standards in the 40s and 50s.

      Social security is a ponzi scheme, basic econo 101 will show you that, it started at 35 inputting to one withdrawing, and in a few years will be less than 2 inputting to one withdrawing. It's broken, do the math, it's a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable. And there is no separate social security fund, that is long gone, looted by other bloated Federal schemes and boondoggles. It is a failure and it will not work for the boomer generation and beyond. The only way it and other entitlement programs are working today is the power of the printing press, and the rest of the planet is getting wise to the US just printing up money. In all the papers the last two years, perhaps you might have noticed a headline or two...

      Fluoridation is not needed if you eat healthy foods and brush. If you disagree, please cite an academic reference that shows fluoride and what the minimum daily recommended levels for intake should be for a normal adult, similar to the levels they have for other minerals and vitamins. Go ahead, I dare you to provide one single reference showing fluoride is a nutritional requirement.

      If you stay away from soda, junk food, etc, over processed and over packaged and adulterated foods and eat just a lot more normal vegetables and fruits, including a lot more raw vegetables and fruits, you won't have many problems with your teeth at all. You go look at some third world nations where they don't eat as much junk food at all and just eat a lot of local grown simple basic foods, and just get normal well water. You'll see better teeth than in most rich western "developed" nations, with no fluoride intake at all. You can see it when aboriginal peoples switch from traditional diets to "modern" diets. They get huge health problems, especially with their teeth because it shows up so fast.

      Go back and look at the earliest uses of fluoride in the water. You simply won't believe where it was used first, and for what purpose. hint: used at ww2 death camps. Go do your own research to find out why they used it.

      I have one recommendation for people who parrot government and big corporate propaganda..you are being used and abused and have been brainwashed. Stop drinking their kool aid and think and research for yourself for a change. Approach each controversial subject with a neutral stance, and you'll find you have been programmed to believe a certain way, especially in the federally controlled public schools.

      As to the UN..mixed bag, some good, a lot bad, going way way back. Perhaps-just for one point, there are hundreds really showing how corrupt and incompetent they are- revisit the H1N1 scare and how the scare promoters at the UN abused their scientific positions of authority and profited handsomely by pushing it as a hyper dangerous emergency epidemic, when it wasn't. Yes, it killed people, but not as much as the "normal" flu, and their shots didn't work very well anyway. They keep that part hidden, try to find real stats anyplace showing follow up studies that included people who received the vaccine, compared to the vaccinated. There is almost no difference at all in infection or mortality rates. It was a multi billion dollar conjob. Run and pushed by the UN.

      The planet needs something like the UN..but the current incarnation is broken beyond repair. For every success they have a dozen expensive failures. When some nation like the Sudan can lecture western nations on human rights, or Zimbabwe..that's prima facie evidence that it is broken beyond repair.

    43. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Washoe County Commission in 1992 rejected fluoridation, and Angle said the Legislature should not approve fluoridation in her county without a vote of its people.

      All that indicates to me is that she supports checks and balances between state and local governance, not that she opposes fluoridation.

      Her website itself plainly states she wants to eliminate the department of education and social security.

      Does that mean she's philosophically opposed to education and safety nets for the poor, or -- more likely, I think -- does it mean she supports decentralization of government (i.e., where the state or local governments would control education and provide social safety nets)?

      I don't know anything about this person beyond what I've just read in this thread (and not being a citizen of Nevada, I don't particularly care), but she sounds merely like a supporter of [federalism|checks and balances|states' rights], not a crackpot.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    44. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 1

      I really have to laugh when I hear about how hot the Republicans are to get rid of Reid. Perhaps they would prefer Barney Frank or Barbara Boxer be majority leader?

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    45. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All US public schools must spend their entire budget each year, and cannot store money for future renovations, et al.. This is why when schools need to improve their fascilities, it ALWAYS comes as a bond issue. The reason for this "Cannot save money, MUST spend all of the yearly budget!" is presumably to curb imbezzlement of education dollars

      This is the same for all government organisations and its got nothing to do with embezzlement - its simply the idea that you are given a bucket of money to spend on education and its your job as an administrator to take that money and turn it into education. Now the idea that this hinders capital projects it quite frankly retarded. How about instead of paying it up front from one year's budget they pay it over several years from current and future budgets. What you say? That is how its actually done? No shit. If this cannot be done it is because they dont have enough money to build new facilities and maintain current ones rather than budget inflexibility.

      I would much rather see the primary education system of the US enable a 3 to 5 year budgeting system, whereby school administrators can plan for expansions, rennovations, etc, and would be part and parcel with a complete financial audit at the end of every budget cycle, as the means of curbing both problems.

      This basically already happens.

      Ending the affiliation with the UN would make it INSANELY less profitable for US corporations to outsource labor, etc, and would strongly promote the rennovation of internal infrastructures that have been in decline since the 50s.

      Are you thinking of the WTO? That's not really related to the UN... Not to mention that world trade is a big boon for the US overall, and a return to isolationism would probably destroy the economy.

      Social Security(TM) has become the personal piggybank of our BigGovernmentOverlords(TM) for the better part of the century now. When originally created, this was not the case. Current social security has been too heavily compromised by government hentai tentacles to ever be fixed. It DOES need to be scrapped, and re-created with proper safeguards in place. People's retirement savings are NOT the property of the US government, GOD DAMNIT.

      The government borrows money from the fund and pays interest on its loan. I dont particularly think this is the best way of going about things but its better paying interest to American ppl then to pay it to someone else.

      Naturally, the ADA doesnt want to admit that its massive fluoridation projects might actually be DETRACTING from public health, rather than improving it. For a VERY long time, it was taboo to even mention enough criticism to SUGGEST raw research, let alone to point out that it {fluoridation) might not be a good thing to begin with.

      Not a dentist so I cannot comment on what the research says but since the ADA doesn't have any interest in maintaining the fluoridation of water other than for public heath I cannot imagine they would really give a shit if it was stopped based on research.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    46. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The pork, especially on giant new power plants (or nuke waste dumps) gets spent on giant corporations in that state. The replacement of direct election of senators by the old way, election by the state's legislature, would just hide the bribery and patronage under that less direct election.

      If you're against democracy, you're against direct election of senators.

      If you want more democracy, you want the Senate to make the filibuster extremely rare, instead of the current Republican practice of filibustering every single Democratic bill, which changes the Constitution's majority (50%+1) requirement into a forced supermajority of 60+.

      And if you want real democracy, instead of people in small states like Wyoming having something like 70 times the voting power in the Senate (and therefore in the Electoral College for president) of big states like California.

      There's a lot we can change to make Congress more democratic, more of a legitimate republic. Giving up our power to vote for our senators is a giant change backwards into the 1800s.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    47. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who quotes the Huffington Post is fucking crazy.

    48. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      What do you think will make the ground so warm?

    49. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      most of the interested voters in Nevada are largely in Las Vegas and Reno. They also happen to be out of state transplants.

      So yes, Harry Reid's strategy is pretty sound.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    50. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by pgmrdlm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just like Fox news is not a valid source to link to because it is pure republican bull shit. So is the mother fucking huffingtonpost.com. Its the liberal view wrapped in a different name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

      The Huffington Post, also referred to as HuffPo[2] or HuffPost[3], is a liberal/progressive American news website and aggregated blog founded by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti, featuring various news sources and columnists.[4] The site offers coverage of politics, media, business, entertainment, living, style, the green movement, world news, and comedy, and is a top destination for news, blogs, and original content. The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a commentary outlet and alternative to conservative news websites like the Drudge Report.[5]

      Don't be a fucking hypocrite. If your going to provide a link, try to find an unbiased link. IN other words, your link is bull shit. Not a valid source. Next

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    51. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      It's early yet. The Republicans just had their primary whereas Reid hasn't started campaigning yet. If he's still trailing in September then I'd say he's at risk.

      He'll start campaigning when he gets his share of the kickback from the loan. My question is about who owns the land that NGP sits on. I thought that most of Nevada was owned by the government. I'm sure there was no collusion there.
      How do you tell when a politician is lying?...

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    52. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm just tired of politicians. ALL of them.

      True, true, but I believe that all politicians should serve three terms. Two in office and one life term in prison to counteract the two terms in office. And no more Club Fed minimum security. Right to San Quentin or Ft. Leavenworth. Someplace really nasty where they truly belong.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    53. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I think that is a move in the wrong direction. We need to make additional efforts to weaken the grip of the powers of be and strengthen the voice of the people. You are suggesting letting the puppets of the powers at be select additional puppets.

      Essentially, that would let them get their federal senators for the purchase price of their state senators.

    54. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water"

      You had me up to here. That an odd reason but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen and there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe. Even if it did I'm not sure that benefit would compare with the fact there is plenty of reason to think that same regular exposure saturates our bodies with a mutagen.

    55. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1
    56. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe

      Look it up on google scholar - its a free service, and most of the important and popular papers have pdf links to them that are free. This way when you make a statement of scientific inquiry you can put a little [1] next to them and link them to a paper. Neat - and it pre-empts accusations that you have no idea what you are talking about.

      http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    57. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by moosesocks · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It makes me wonder, if Senators bring in pork to their state to get re-elected, do you think there would be more pork in general if we repealed the direct election of senators, which some claim would give states more say in the Federal government? As is I think the fact that so much party money is on the line to keep representatives 'pure', which greatly distorts the idea of local elections.

      Weird. I'd say the exact opposite. With the past election cycle notwithstanding, I've noticed that local politicians in the states where I've lived have been elected on a "getting shit done" basis, rather than an ideological one.

      Ideally, the bicameral legislature should be balanced so that the members of the House duke it out over domestic and more "local" issues, while the Senate focuses on issues of equal importance to all 50 states (foreign policy, etc). In other words, your vote for senator should be the most "purely ideological" vote that you cast, as the senate should be involved in the least amount of micromanaging. (This is not the case, which is why pork happens. If big states got their proportional share of resources (or some close approximation thereof), I suspect that few of us would be complaining about it.)

      Of course, this brings up the inconsistency that nobody really knows what the states are supposed to do anymore. Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today). In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.

      Unfortunately, the states' rights debate has been poisoned by a number of very loud proponents with completely untenable ideas. While I think we can agree that it's completely unacceptable for one human to own another (some southerners still haven't let this one go), there's a reasonable debate to be had over the fact that states like New Jersey get just $0.50 on the dollar back from their federal tax outlays. (The disparity between New York City and New York State is similar). Ironically, it's the blue states that rarely complain about "wealth redistribution" that get hit the hardest.

      There are also areas where the state lines (as drawn) make no sense. I wake up in Washington DC, ride my bike to go to work in Virginia, and then hop on a subway train to eat dinner in Maryland. Finding a scheme to govern and fairly tax this clusterf$*#k is a nightmare. Lately, the VA and MD governments have even been using DC's transit system as a political pawn, and threatening to shut it down or withhold funding (which I might add, is primarily used to ferry VA/MD residents into DC for work, an arrangement from which VA/MD benefit vastly, as DC has no tolls or commuter tax). Can you reasonably defend this system?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    58. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      You're being too kind. He should be pounded with rock salt.
      In effigy, of course :)

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    59. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      If you disagree, please cite an academic reference that shows fluoride and what the minimum daily recommended levels for intake should be for a normal adult, similar to the levels they have for other minerals and vitamins. Go ahead, I dare you to provide one single reference showing fluoride is a nutritional requirement.

      Jesus Christ, did you not even look up wikipedia? Its in the first paragraph for fuck's sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
      And here is the reference for it: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_846.pdf

      What do I win?

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    60. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you want real democracy, instead of people in small states like Wyoming having something like 70 times the voting power in the Senate (and therefore in the Electoral College for president) of big states like California.

      How is that theoretical democracy more "real" than the democracy we have which is, you know, real?

    61. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hes been in danger of losing that seat for 20 years. yet my fellow nevadans keep reelecting him, no matter how much we bitch about it. im convinced its to keep his sorry ass out of the state and away from the governorship.

    62. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      That may be so but showing that adding some substance to the water supply is beneficial in some way is not a sufficient argument for doing so.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    63. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Negatives don't require citations, positives do. Thus far, nobody has been able to cite studies backing their assertion that fluoride strengthens teeth in low dose brief exposure. The default is that it does not.

      However, I did state fluoride is a mutagen which is a positive assertion. Your search engine turns up plenty of support for that:

      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+mutagen&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000001&as_sdtp=on

      Even if I conceded that fluoride strengthens teeth it doesn't change that it is well established to cause mutations and chromosomal aberrations (especially in mammalian eggs).

    64. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      Well their goes any respect I had for citizens of that state. That bitch is nutty.

      But not as nutty as her opponent!

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    65. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by H0D_G · · Score: 1

      Reference FAIL- that's a quote from Dr. Strangelove.

      --
      Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
    66. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Third+Position · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      That would certainly go a long way in explaining Harry Reid.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    67. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why should I want more democracy? There's nothing particularly sacred about democracy. That's the point of the Senate, the founders recognized that mobs can get carried away by stupid ideas, and that's why the Senate was intended to act as a buffer to the House of Representatives. Now, we effectively have two Houses of Representatives, and what's the point of that?

      Further, consider the priorities of an elected official. He gets into office by whoring for votes. His priority is the next election, not how his actions will affect the country decades into the future.

      The point is, elected officials and unelected officials have different incentives. That's why the government was designed to have components of both.

      I actually think it was a mistake to allow direct election of the president. It causes people to concentrate on the election of one politician on whom they have little influence, rather than their local representatives where the views of a relatively few people actually can have significant influence.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    68. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Negatives don't require citations, positives do.

      So I assume my paper saying that the sky is not blue will be accepted into nature without any citations?

      Its really quite simple - when you make an assertion of any kind you have to provide evidence for it.

      Your search engine turns up plenty of support for that

      I am glad that you have mastered its use and look forward to more citations in your posts.

      Thus far, nobody has been able to cite studies backing their assertion that fluoride strengthens teeth in low dose brief exposure.

      FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    69. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ya really.

      Deinococcus radioduransshrugs of acute doses of 10000 Gy and thrives under a constant 60 Gy/h. That's way beyond what your puny machine will offer...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    70. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In the US case it seems to have been done to specifically split the power of government. If big business feels they are losing control of the senate they can focus on the congress and president. Lose control of congress, focus on the senate and president. All to make sure that nothing happens or if it does that it suits their profit and power base.

      Mass media via corporate sponsors have of course turned the Presidency into a political spectacle in order to focus peoples attention away from the senate and congress. The US president is just the administrative, they work within the laws they are given. The senate and congress set those laws and set the bounds within which the president operates and they can even change the means by which a poor preforming president is removed.

      One side of politics in the US seems determined to bring down the government regardless of the consequences seemingly only so they can get back in power and get rich doing, they don't seem to care what they will do once they get their as long as they get rich once they are there. Democracy, we don't care whether you want it or not, it is the will of the majority, suck it up. Don't like what is happening then put in the time and effort to make it better

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    71. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder, if Senators bring in pork to their state to get re-elected, do you think there would be more pork in general if we repealed the direct election of senators, which some claim would give states more say in the Federal government?

      Why should States have more say than their citizens? What, exactly speaking, does having n layers between your vote and some high-up position of power do besides give said high-ups n opportunities to keep you from holding them responsible for their actions?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    72. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Might as well. The Senate is just a sad copy of the British House of Lords, so indirect appointment of political creatures would seem appropriate.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    73. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      You're citing the Huffington Post? Seriously?? Here's a tip: HuffPo was designed -- literally -- as a left wing version of The Drudge Report. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course, but you can't go around citing it in polite, informed conversations with people who aren't DailyKOS readers with any credibility.

    74. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah and I guess you got a good excuse for why Rand Paul won ?

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    75. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harry Reid isn't smart enough to vote for his own damn bills.

      Harry Reid is the poster boy for detestable politicians everywhere, he is a liar and tyrant.

      And he doesn't know one damn thing about energy production.

    76. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by chapstercni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You say "eliminating the US Department of Education" like it is a bad thing!

      I'm all for it.
      I'm for pulling out of the United Nations.
      I'm for getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
      Floridation of water? Debatable. But, a local gov't issue.
      Alcohol? Local issue.
      Global warming? It IS still being debated. And then, not proven that it is man-made warming.
      Drilling for oil? Please, lets! I am for keeping dollars in the USA, instead of being sent overseas.
      Really, the States Rights vs. Federal Rights is the pivotal issue.

      In the words of Thomas Jefferson, whom helped found the USA.
      ""Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792. "

      http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm

    77. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is Social Security?

      Do you understand that they have spent the damn money already? They stole it from you and spent it.

      It's only a name, a sham, there is no Social Security program you fools.

    78. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want more democracy, you want the Senate to make the filibuster extremely rare, instead of the current Republican practice of filibustering every single Democratic bill, which changes the Constitution's majority (50%+1) requirement into a forced supermajority of 60+.

      Why is a majority threshold "more" democratic than a supermajority theshold?

    79. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Of course! The two go hand in hand. Bury enough nuclear waste there and you just get more geothermal energy!

    80. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      As Churchill noted, democracy sucks, but it's the only thing that's ever worked.

      The Constitution didn't give elements of both elected and nonelected officials to installing congressmembers. The Senate isn't nonelected in the original Constitution. It was elected by each state's legislature. So all of your points, which aren't the only factors in elected officials' priorities, were true about senators' constituencies in their state's legislature. Which meant that electing them was a purely partisan affair, measured by the partisan majority in the legislature. That method was so abused that we amended the Constitution to put the power in the people's hands.

      The Constitution split the Congress into one chamber representing the people, the other chamber representing the states (the states' governments). The founders were transitioning us from government in which the state had all the power, the people had practically none (if the state excluded them). The original formulation balanced the people against the state. And indeed at that time, with few in the new country experienced with matters of government, it might have been prudent to give states equal power to the people. Though the Senate has more power than the House in some ways, like ratifying treaties and confirmations to Executive Branch and Judicial Branch nominations among others, even if the House has nominal origination of spending laws and the rarely exercised power of impeachment (after which the Senate tries and convicts/acquits). But again, Americans outgrew that dilution of democracy and took the power through the legit means of amending the Constitution, nearly a century ago, after just over a century of the original way.

      The president is still not elected directly, either. The Electoral College is the same kind of structure as the original Senate election system, though the College has no other function while legislatures legislate. And indeed that dilution of democracy is notoriously treacherous. And in exactly the same ways as the legislature electing its senators: an ultimately purely partisan basis for election, an interference with the transparency that is paramount to any honesty and accountability, and a way for votes to be bought and sold defying the people's statement of our desired representatives.

      Once elected by the people, the influence from other, more local representatives you desire is still at work in our current system. Presidents and senators must get agreement from the House representatives to pass and execute laws, and refrain from the most egregious behavior to avoid impeachment.

      The biggest problems with the Senate are its departures from democracy. The majority rule has been replaced by minority tyranny through abusing rules that protect minority rights to influence (but not control) decisionmaking. That's the automatic and universal filibuster at work, along with "holds" placed by single senators interfering with a system retooled to rely on unanimous consent for too many decisions. And the simple inequity of a few people in a small state like Wyoming each having something like 70x the power over Senate decisions than each of the many people in a large state like California. An inequity repeated in the Electoral College by the same allocation.

      If you prefer officials to be chosen by secret deals inside private political clubs, the minority privileged to more power than the majority, obscure rules giving minority political clubs power over much larger majorities, you want to move further from direct election of senators. You want to protect the way the Senate gives minorities the power to stop the majority from governing at all.

      But most Americans, when we know how the system works, prefer to vote for (or against) the people who make decisions on our behalf. The Constitution's evolution reflects that gradually increasing knowledge, and indeed should continue in the same direction. Progress, not regression.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    81. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "So I assume my paper saying that the sky is not blue will be accepted into nature without any citations?

      Its really quite simple - when you make an assertion of any kind you have to provide evidence for it."

      Accepted into nature? Papers in nature are not assertions, they are documentation of observations.

      The gentleman who claims the sky IS blue is left with the burden of evidence. In this case a rather difficult burden since the sky is composed of colorless gas (a claim which could use a citation).

      "FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation [wikipedia.org]"

      Troll. You demand I provide citations. When I suggest others do the same you suggest I get off my tail and find their citations for them. Make up your mind.

    82. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Oh blah blah blah.

      HuffPo's got it's problems(Vax denier writing about how vaccines are evil but vitamins and minerals are a cure all? WTF), but that article was the best i could find that summed up Sharron Angle's crazy, and it did it in a way that backed up it's claims.

      HuffPo can't be a liberal version of the Drudge Report. HuffPo's layout doesn't make my eyes hurt.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    83. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by tmosley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Department of Education was founded to foster a better educational system in America. Now, 30 years later, American public schools are the laughingstock of the world, and we are at the utter BOTTOM of the list of quality educators in the world, even as our university system, which is NOT under their supervision, is the BEST in the world. It seems to me that we are throwing our money at a problem, and making it worse.

      And of course, you are also making a lot of shit up. I can't believe anyone modded you informative--more like a troll.

    84. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Funny

      His opponent is on record for a variety of...odd positions: eliminating the US Department of Education, pulling out of the United Nations, getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare; wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water, similarly wants to get rid of alcohol, thinks global warming is a hoax and is for drilling for oil here, there, everywhere. Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea

      So, that's what he means with Nevada being Saudi Arabia!

    85. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      How do you tell when a politician is lying?

      Well, when his lips are moving, of course!

    86. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      The gentleman who claims the sky IS blue is left with the burden of evidence.

      I specifically said NOT blue to illustrate the absurdity of your previous statement.

      Troll. You demand I provide citations. When I suggest others do the same you suggest I get off my tail and find their citations for them. Make up your mind

      Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you, then you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof. As an added bonus I introduced you to the wonderful world of wikipedia where you can learn more about such topics. Where in this am I saying you need to find citations for other people???

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    87. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Course, 'cause we all know states have done a bang-up job in providing safety nets for their citizens. Just look at ....
      Well, there aren't any examples but I'm sure if the feds would just give them all the money earmarked for Social Security and Education the states would get right on it.

      And when that happens may I be the first to to yell 'Suckers!' at all of you who wanted it.

    88. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because democracy is when the majority of the people rules. A majority is 50%+1. When the +1 is not enough, that is not as democratic. In the extreme case, a 100% requirement means a minority of 1 interferes with the majority rule. The closer the majority requirement to 100%, the further from 50%+1, the further the rule from the majority. Ergo further from democracy.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    89. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).

      Only because the Supreme Court has declared it so. They decided that the federal government could tell you how to grow food, even if it wasn't going to leave your state or EVEN YOUR HOME, because it COULD leave.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    90. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      That, and considering how the vast majority of states are financially in the red these days

      A small minority of states are in the red. Most states are fiscally responsible and live within their means. Some states even have constitutional requirements to maintain balanced budgets.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    91. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why should States have more say than their citizens?

      Straw man. States have the least power they have ever had. We're only talking about returning one they used to have-- that doesn't constitute "more say". As for the "why", well, we've been told by the progressives since birth (for anyone who went to public school) that "democracy" is best. The founders knew this was RUBBISH, as they had researched historical democracies and knew why they failed. We have democracy in the form of popular vote, but the indirect elements of a republic protect the interest of groups of people in their States. If you don't like how things are run in your state, at the least you can vote with your feet.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    92. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... but she sounds merely like a supporter of [federalism|checks and balances|states' rights]...

      OMG! It's a libertarian! She wants to take over the government and leave you the hell alone!

    93. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Maybe we should drop all pretense, and require a 3/5 vote to pass anything. BTW, let's not bring partisanship into this: the Democrats have no qualms about using filibusters when they're in the minority position.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    94. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by sorak · · Score: 1

      Because it causes every democratically elected official to be less effective. They have to fight harder to promote a bill that nobody would have a problem with, when "you have the wrong letter after your name" is already a deal-breaker fro most.

    95. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Democrats did occasionally use filibusters, as every minority has. But Republicans have used filibusters 3x as much as Democrats did when Republicans had a slimmer minority before them, and far more than usual. Republicans even threatened to eliminate the privilege they now abuse specifically to prevent Democrats from stopping long-term judicial appointments, though Republicans prevented more judicial appointments before that, under Clinton.

      As usual, though Democrats might not be so good, Republicans are far worse. Saying "they both do it" is a false equivalency that hides Republicans being so bad that they paralyze governement. Right when Democrats are working to fix things Republicans broke with their majority.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    96. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative
      James Madison specifically (even sarcastically) cited a public education system as a potential result of abuse of the "general welfare" clause, so I content that opposing the byzantine and wasteful Department of Education is, in fact, quite reasonable. The report that she wants to outlaw alcohol is false. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the point of her controversial statement was, but Prohibition was a progressive fiasco and I highly doubt that this TEA Party-supported candidate would call for its return. I'm chalking it up to be a stumbling block that even good candidates have: one dumb campaign issue. After all, evoking memories of the organized crime explosion and widespread civil disobedience during Prohibition in defense of the continued ban of marijuana has the exactly the opposite desired effect.

      wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water

      I'm pretty sure she never made such a stupidly worded statement. Why do you have to make up a straw man? She's simply stated she's against it, and there's scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is bad for one's overall health. Is it really that difficult for people to brush their teeth in the 21st century USA?

      Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea.

      [citation needed] BTW, so did Thomas Jefferson.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    97. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rasmussen isn't a pollster. It's an arm of the Republican party bent on shaping public opinion via horribly, horribly skewed polls in a race of interest

      Poisoning the well fallacy, AC. Just because you don't like the organization (or man) doesn't mean they're invalid. If Rasmussen polls were garbage, they wouldn't be used much because, frankly, some people depend on the numbers.

      Early polls aren't verifiable, but over time Rasmussen will adjust their polls to be increasingly in-line with legitimate pollsters so their overall ratings are alright.

      [citation needed]

      That Rasmussen (or Raspublican as it's often called) only dares to give Angle a lead of 11 points means she's toast and they know it.

      Or, they're a legitimate organization with accurate numbers. If they were Republican-controlled, wouldn't they want to give her a slightly bigger lead?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    98. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, she wanted to honor the county's right to self-determination. THAT'S REALLY CRAZY!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    99. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      In this case, I doubt it. That project was a front runner for DOE loan guarantees without the influence of Harry Reid. Considering they would have got the loan anyhow, golden parachute allocations would just be a waste of money.

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    100. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm still hoping Barney Frank could somehow be removed from office for his lies concerning the stability of Fannie and Freddie; they will be delisted this week. He opposed improving oversight back in 2003 and 2005, then when something was done (too late) in 2008, he blamed the response on Bush-- who had recommended better oversight back in 9/11/2003. I'm looking at the article in the NYT RIGHT NOW. "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae". He was, and is, on the financial services committee. If he couldn't see it, he's either crooked or incompetent. Boxer? Fiorina is a rather flawed candidate, but she still has a great chance against that conceited, incompetent, hypocritical buffoon.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    101. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do not effectively have two Houses. If that were the case, Obama could have passed much of his agenda on the first day.

      A wish.

    102. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Democracy, we don't care whether you want it or not, it is the will of the majority, suck it up.

      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    103. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      This isn't pork.

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

      If he voted to keep an unneeded military project so they can make a part in his state, then that would be pork. well, any project, not just military.

      Getting a loan from the feds to build a needed project is good government.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    104. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rasmussen? lulz. That's like asking Steve Jobs his opinion of Apple products.

      The RCP average (which includes Rassmussen), is 44-41 Angle. Somewhat of a different story.

    105. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no, she's crazy... or an idiot. Based on the writing in her blog, I'd go with both.

      I means he want's ti burn more coal for Christ sake.

      The only thing she talks logically about is Nuclear power. But it isn't worth the rest of the crap and stupidity she want's to bring to office.

      All her subjects listed shows she is very ignorant on those issues.

      I read up on her becasue I am very interested in getting Nuclear power back on track. I'm not so blinded by wanting nuclear power that I can ignore her other 'qualities'

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    106. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It means she has actually studies eduction or Social security.

      She is someone just echoing what her party says, and not someone who actually understands or thinks.

      She's a crack pot. She uses checks and balances as an excuse to stop things she doesn't like, but doesn't want them when they get in the way of what she wants.

      I am no longer a citizen of Nv. but I care because every states senator impacts every person in the country.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    107. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Water sources can effect many counties, and sometimes states.
      Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.

      Should people vote on hos much chlorine is used to keep the water safe? should they vote on how much UV to use to help clean the water? of course not. No more the people should vote on how to design a bridge.

      Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people. It means more ignorance. It means no standards, it means universities have no common way to measure the quality of incoming students. It means less progress in education. An educated populace means less crime, more jobs, healthier people, more technological developments. It is the lynch pin the keep society from coming apart. It is the sole reason we became a super power and aren't living in mud huts.

      "What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
      it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    108. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't mean the link is bad. You just need to check references.

      in fact, Angle said she believed most fluoride used in water supplies could contain "lead, arsenic, [or] mercury." All of which is crazy talk.

      She supports making alcohol consumoption illegal.

      She thinks it's her job to 'protect' people. which from my reading means 'make them behave the way my belief dictates.:

      “I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana,” Angle offered. “I feel the same about legalizing alcohol.
      “The effect on society is so great that I’m just not a real proponent of legalizing any drug or encouraging any drug abuse,” she continued. “I’m elected by the people to protect, and I think that law should protect.”

      http://rmcpac.com/viewpoints/new-angle-giving-harry-reid-boot-sharon-angle

      So she doesn't want people to be able to choose to drink alcohol, or ANY drug.She want's her faith determine other peoples behavior. How Anti American is that?

      Yeah, the Huffpo is questionable in many areas, and down write stupid in science. But follow the links, and rad up. That SPECIFIC article is an accurate one.

      She thinks BP
      s disaster is a good reason to deregulate the oil industry. Crazy, ignorant and stupid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    109. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by oatworm · · Score: 1

      First, as even your link attests, Republicans haven't used filibusters 3x as much as Democrats did - they're just on pace to, which is very different; keep in mind that many of those cloture votes were used to stall the health care bill. Also, if you take a look at another graph on your reference, you'll notice that cloture votes have been trending up for over a decade as both parties use every rule possible to get their agendas enacted and their opponents' agenda disrupted. It's because of this trend that senators of both parties have brought up the so-called "nuclear option" from time to time.

      The insane part about those votes is that filibusters and 3/5 majorities have nothing to do with the Constitution. All the Constitution says is that the Senate has the right to set its own floor rules. The entire reason cloture exists at all is because somebody decided it was a good idea to throw it in over 200 years ago.

      Then again, if you want some true madness, there's always the "disappearing quorum" trick.

    110. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      In other words, your vote for senator should be the most "purely ideological" vote that you cast, as the senate should be involved in the least amount of micromanaging.

      We should go further than that. Senate votes should be completely national and completely partisan. Each party gets a vote proportional to their share of the popular vote in the last election, and the people who show up for debates are simply party employees.

    111. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Each party gets a vote proportional to their share of the popular vote in the last election

      Which one? House? President? How are the actual reps chosen? How would this solve any of the issues which caused the legislature to split into two in the first place?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    112. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Zot+Quixote · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because its not like renewable energy is a good idea or anything.

      And its sort of tragedy that Reid is in danger of losing his seat. If this country were any dumber it would need a wet nurse to wipe the drool off its chin.

    113. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      You say "eliminating the US Department of Education" like it is a bad thing! I'm all for it. I'm for pulling out of the United Nations. I'm for getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Floridation of water? Debatable. But, a local gov't issue. Alcohol? Local issue. Global warming? It IS still being debated. And then, not proven that it is man-made warming. Drilling for oil? Please, lets! I am for keeping dollars in the USA, instead of being sent overseas. Really, the States Rights vs. Federal Rights is the pivotal issue. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, whom helped found the USA. ""Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792. " http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm [virginia.edu]

      Pulling out of the UN? how much Glen Beck have you been watching?
      Now the UN might survive without the US, but I have my doubts. The UN manages to prevent all sorts of minor issues from turning into real conflicts. The UN steps in (though not often enough) to stop genocide bosnia, sierra leone, east timor . The WHO (branch of the UN) ended smallpox.... so yea that needs to stop.

      Global Warming -- the science is there, it's real, and a good chunk is man-made. Even if it werent anthropocentric we still need to deal with it, throwing up our hands and saying not our problem seems like the right choice?. Global warming isnt a real debate among climate scientists, it's like saying evolution is still debated by biologists... total bs

      Storm

    114. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Which one? House? President?

      That would be the senate vote.

      How are the actual reps chosen?

      The actual reps are just employees of the party, and may be replaced by the party at any time.

      How would this solve any of the issues which caused the legislature to split into two in the first place?

      One of the reasons for splitting the legislature was to over-represent small states; I'm opposed to that one.

      The other reason was so that the power would be derived by different means. The senate was supposed to be a matter of successive filtration, like the electoral college. People designated someone they actually knew whose judgment they trusted, those people did the same, and so on, up through the various levels of government. Election of the senators by state legislatures was to be the last level of that filtration. That idea didn't really work out, but the goal of making different parts of the government work differently still has some merit, and designating one house as operating by party is a similar differentiation.

    115. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      Well their goes any respect I had for citizens of that state. That bitch is nutty.

      But not as nutty as her opponent!

      Oh yes, she it quite nutty compared to her opponent.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    116. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      "but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen..."

      It's been my experience that in off-the-wall medical studies "probably" is just an euphemism for unproven and the world is full of unproven conspiracy theories.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    117. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      She is not crazy at all and if you think huffington post is a reliable source of information on conservative candidates then you are crazy.

      How about having her describe her opinions instead instead: http://www.sharronangle.com/issues/

      Or how about the opinion of the people of Nevada: Angle: 50% Reid: 39%

      You mock the parent using huffingtonpost.com as a source of information on conservative candidates and then say shes ahead using rasmussenreports.com as your source?

      I think that makes you two even.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    118. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harry Reid's mouth is the Saudi Arabia of BULLSHIT!

    119. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Water sources can effect many counties, and sometimes states.

      Yes, and I've never heard of people complaining that an upstream user ISN'T adding stuff to the water. Is your contention that other counties in Nevada are being negatively affected by another county NOT adding treatments to their potable water system?

      Should people vote on hos much chlorine is used to keep the water safe? should they vote on how much UV to use to help clean the water? of course not. No more the people should vote on how to design a bridge.

      That's not what is being done here. The people of the county have voted already for their leadership, who have decided what should be done. What is the right of the Federal Government to come in and force a county to add something to the water that the people have not needed - nor is required for health - for the last 100 years?

      What Constitutional authority does the Federal Government have in forcing a county to ADD chemicals to its potable water system?

      Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people. It means more ignorance. It means no standards, it means universities have no common way to measure the quality of incoming students. It means less progress in education. An educated populace means less crime, more jobs, healthier people, more technological developments. It is the lynch pin the keep society from coming apart. It is the sole reason we became a super power and aren't living in mud huts.

      Except that universally test scores in the US have fallen as Federal involvement has increased. Enrollment in the sciences has plummeted as Federal dollars have kicked in.

      And again, what's the Constitutional justification for the Federal Government dictating and funding education?

      >"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits " it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

      OK, educate me. Tell me what's the constitutional basis for the Federal government mandating treatment of potable water prior to discharge into public waterways.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    120. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by liquiddark · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      And in related news, it is now the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy. Turns out toxins and nuclear waste are really, really exothermic!

    121. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      ... that kind of kills it for me. Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt. Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      The difference between then and now is that Nevadans didn't want nuclear waste dumped there but once they know about geothermal they probably will want it developed. I don't know how much geothermal energy can be harvested there, TFA does not say and neither does Harry Reid, but according to MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands "the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."

      Falcon

    122. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Why should States have more say than their citizens?

      Straw man. States have the least power they have ever had.

      No, it is very pertinent, why should states have more power than citizens? States already appoint the electoral college. All state citizens can vote for federally is their representative. And saying they can move doesn't cut it. If you believe differently you are free to move yourself, to China, Cuba, or Zimbabwe. You'll probably find local governments have more say in those places than citizens there.

      Falcon

    123. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      True. But most all the states are scrambling to make up budget shortfalls because the recession has hit them hard. Of course, less state government spending hurts local businesses and hurts the economy still more. A few states have a rainy day fund, but they're generally too small to amount to much in the face of the current economy.

      Paul Krugman described the situation as "Fifty Herbert Hoovers."

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    124. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).

      Except that's not true, the USA Constitution sets specific limits on what the federal government can do, if a power is not enumerated it does not have that power. The "Jeffersonian philosophy is clearly one of reason, individualism, liberty, and limited government--all of which are, in different ways, anathema to modern liberals and conservatives." James Madison said "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis ours)". Quotes from others on that page also support the constitutional idea that the federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it. Federalist #45, mentioned above states:
      "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

      Quite simply states had to be convinced the federal government would not have unlimited government otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution.

      In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.

      Health is one of the things individual states pretty much control, that's in part why there are problems with the affordability of medicine and health care. Each state decides who can sell insurance in the state, and what the insurance must cover. If I, living in one state, cross the state line and find cheaper insurance in another state I can not buy that insurance to use in the state I live in. There is no free market in insurance, but did the Health Insurance reform bill congress passed and Obama signed change that? No.

      Falcon

    125. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      When you require a supermajority, you're essentially saying that the opinion of the minority is more important than the opinion of the majority. There may be good reasons for structuring a decision-making process in precisely that way, but it does go against the principle of "one person, one vote."

      Further, imagine an extreme situation, where the supermajority had to be 100% - 1. That would clearly be anti-democratic. Closer to a dictatorship, perhaps.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    126. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons for splitting the legislature was to over-represent small states; I'm opposed to that one.

      Not quite, representatives are there so large states will not dictate to small states. If a state were to be dictated to why would it want to approve the Constitution and join the union? To be dictated to? Few states, or people, want to be dictated to but they love being able to dictate to others.

      Falcon

    127. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Further, consider the priorities of an elected official. He gets into office by whoring for votes. His priority is the next election, not how his actions will affect the country decades into the future.

      So do unelected officials.

      I actually think it was a mistake to allow direct election of the president.

      You're in luck then, the president of the USA is elected not by a direct election but by the Electoral College.

      Falcon

    128. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If big business feels they are losing control of the senate they can focus on the congress and president. Lose control of congress, focus on the senate and president.

      The Senate is part of Congress, not separate from it. There are 3 part of the federal government. The legislative or congressional part is made up of the House of representatives and the Senate. The executive actually runs the government. And the third leg is the Supreme Court, and other lower courts congress and the president agree to. Man, if public schools in the US aren't teaching that anymore they are really failing.

      Falcon

    129. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      What would you say is the cause of our poor educational system? It's not enough, after all, to show that the Dept. of Education exists, and that poor schools exist. You have to show how the first causes the last. Otherwise, axing the department might make things worse.

      You could make an equally persuasive case that our schools are so poor because the department is underfunded. According to Wikipedia: "It is by far the smallest Cabinet-level department, with about 5,000 employees."

      Further:

      Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act).

      Our poor educational performance certainly predates NCLB.

      And they don't do accreditation either.

      And much of the money they do get goes to Pell Grants, and to grants to colleges, etc. Unlike the k-12 system, our colleges are supposedly a beacon to the world. If you want to preserve those funds to schools and students, then killing the DoED isn't going to save much money at all.

      So the lack of a strong education department may be what's doing us in. Though recent studies have shown such a strong correlation between income inequality and educational performance, that it may be that the fastest way to improve academic achievement would be to tax the hell out of the rich and give it to the poor.

      Lastly, aside from the "bodily fluids" thing, which is just a half-kidding Strangelove reference, what did the GP actually "make up" about Sharon Angle?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    130. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The majority rule has been replaced by minority tyranny through abusing rules that protect minority rights to influence (but not control) decisionmaking. That's the automatic and universal filibuster at work

      If you really believe filibusters are bad then you need to watch the movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington with Jimmy Steward. Talk about corruption, that is what the filibuster is for, to fight against corruption.

      Falcon

    131. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Winning a primary is very different from winning a general election, as Mr. Paul will be discovering soon enough.

      Still, his strategy is good right now. The longer he spends away from real reporters asking real questions about his actual positions, and the more time he spends fielding FOX News softballs, the better his chances are.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    132. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Rasmussen does lean toward Republicans, though there are lots of potential reasons for this.

      My feeling is that Angle is relatively unknown to the bulk of the electorate right now, so people being asked "Reid or Angle" right now are choosing between someone they know they don't like and someone they know nothing about. But people will start paying more attention as the midterms come around. Reid may still lose, but an Angle 10 point blowout is really unlikely.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    133. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      James Madison specifically (even sarcastically) cited a public education system as a potential result of abuse of the "general welfare" clause, so I content that opposing the byzantine and wasteful Department of Education is, in fact, quite reasonable.

      I'm curious, do you have a reference? Googling I found James Madison supported public education. Here's a letter Madison wrote to William Taylor Barry when Barry asked for advise from Madison. It's said Madison's reply was his strongest support for public education, he wrote:
      "The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

      Perhaps you meant a federal public education system, because he did support state systems.

    134. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It's not enough, after all, to show that the Dept. of Education exists, and that poor schools exist. You have to show how the first causes the last.

      No you don't, what you have to do to justify a federal department of education is show the US Constitution authorizes it. And no matter how many tymes I search it I do not find "education" anywhere in the Constitution. And yes, the Constitution does grant limited powers not limitless powers to the federal government.

      Falcon

    135. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      The appointment of senators by the state legislatures was meant to act as a check on the federal governments power by making sure that senators who were elected respected the individual states interests. One of the issues the current system creates is the problem of unfunded mandates, where the federal government will mandate that the states implement a particular policy and don't provide any funds to do so.

    136. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof.

      How can I, you, or anyone else proof a negative? Say you claim you gave me $1 millions, how do I prove you didn't? No matter what I say or proof I provide you can always say I got the money another way or did something else with it. No returned but canceled check, you gave me a money order or something else. No deposit in my accounts that big? I deposited it in another account. Or I cashed it and took money. I was given cash, now how do I prove I was not given cash?

      Trying to proof a negative can be impossible.

      Falcon

    137. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1
      Never argued that she wasn't a whack job.

      My point is, if your going to try and point out the faults of a specific politician, doing so with supporting links from opposing party media sites is not acceptable

      The liberals posters on /. would never accept a link fro NRO, Fox, or any other conservative web site. Don't expect myself or any other individual that holds conservative views to accept links from liberal leaning web sites.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:double+standard&sa=X&ei=wxocTJSFKsn8nAei55H_DQ&ved=0CBQQkAE

      Definitions of double standard on the Web: an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
      The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
      The situation of two or more groups, one of whom is tacitly excused from following a standard generally regarded as applying to all groups; The sexual mores applied to men (who are permitted to wander) vs. those of women, (who are expected to be chastely faithful) en.wiktionary.org/wiki/double_standard
      The idea or standard, which relates that one group has more options or privileges then another group within society. www.sexoteric.com/dix/D The application of a principle that is unequally based on arbitrary considerations. www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    138. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.

      If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.

      Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.

      The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.

      Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.

      "What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
      it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

      No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.

      Falcon

    139. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      5,000 employees with a mere $68 BILLION dollar budget. That's just a million dollars per employee. Those poor, underfunded bastards! Not only that, we tie for first with the Swiss in terms of spending per capita on students, yet we fall in the mid-bottom among developed countries in terms of quality of students in math, science, and reading.

      Also, they formulate policy with relation to public schools. They don't have anything to do with higher education.

      As for other things that were made up: she does not want to "get rid" of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, she wants to PHASE THEM OUT. As in not drop them in an instant and throw the elderly out into the street. It has to be done, because all of those programs are insolvent, or fast on their way, and there is no way to bring them back to solvency in a reasonable manner (ie without a 50% income tax). She doesn't personally like alcohol, but she is not in favor of prohibition.

      Further, violent revolution IS a good idea when you are in an otherwise intractable state of oppression. Or do you think we should still be an English possession? Slaves should just "take it"? Allow me to roll my eyes.

    140. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      yeah because mutagen isn't bad enough

    141. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you,"

      You are misreading. Here is my original post. Note, there is no mention of anyone providing citations.

      "You had me up to here. That an odd reason but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen and there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe. Even if it did I'm not sure that benefit would compare with the fact there is plenty of reason to think that same regular exposure saturates our bodies with a mutagen."

      Here is your original post (in reply to the above) where you "recommended" I use google scholar and provide citations:

      "Look it up on google scholar - its a free service, and most of the important and popular papers have pdf links to them that are free. This way when you make a statement of scientific inquiry you can put a little [1] next to them and link them to a paper. Neat - and it pre-empts accusations that you have no idea what you are talking about."

      Here is you both congratulating me for coming into compliance for your demand of citations and then telling me to get off my arse and look up the citations for others in the same post:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1690078&cid=32610134

    142. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If I claim there is an invisible unicorn in the room the burden is on me to prove it. Not on you to prove there is not. The negative is the default lacking evidence of the positive.

    143. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but a wolf by it's nature only sees other wolves and sheep, human beings as part of a human society acknowledge they are part of that society and not that the society is part of them to be exploited well at least not the psychopaths and narcissists (the wolves) being part of a human society is accepting that society must decide key issues together. Those of course suffering from genetic cerebral defects do not see this, they only see other predators and prey (right now this minority has wildly excessive influence over human society via mass media, the insane promoting the ideals of insanity).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    144. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      The idea that a state should have rights apart from those of the people who live there is just perverse.

    145. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I've watched it. But if you think it's "fighting corruption" now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will. Or they use any of the many points in the legislative path to refuse "unanimous consent" to some rule erected to create that option, and derail the process.

      Nobody ever stands up and speaks for days on end. The corruption at work is the filibusterer. And indeed, there's nothing stopping a filibusterer from being the corrupt one.

      Mr Smith is a movie character. The Senate is real. Really corrupt. Abusable rules like the filibuster help keep it that way.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    146. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If I claim there is an invisible unicorn in the room the burden is on me to prove it. Not on you to prove there is not. The negative is the default lacking evidence of the positive.

      Not exactly, quite the opposite. Claiming there's a unicorn is a positive, claiming I was not given money is a negative. Or to correspond to you giving me money, it would be relatively easy for you to show based on preponderance of evidence that I was given money. A canceled check that was deposited in my banking account for instance. That is a positive.

      Falcon

    147. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The idea that a state should have rights apart from those of the people who live there is just perverse.

      I agree but the reason states supposedly had rights was because states would not have agreed to join a union if the union could dictate to them.

      Some signers of, and states that ratified, the Constitution of the USA only agreed to do so if a bill of rights was ratified. They were afraid a federal government would run roughshod over the states, which is what is happening now. Others such as Alexander Hamilton opposed enumerated rights because they believed a right people innately enjoyed would not be enumerated. In Federalist No 84 he wrote a bill of rights was "unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." Further, "it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

      Falcon

    148. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I've watched it. But if you think it's "fighting corruption" now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will.

      So, Democrats did the same when Republicans were in power. Why the filibuster is OK for Democrats but not for Republicans tries explain why filibusters are okay for Democrats but not Republicans. Do you say that Democrats can use them but not Republicans?

      Falcon

    149. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We're talking about abuse.

      That article demonstrates that when Democrats have used the filibuster, their Senate minority represented a majority of Americans. But Republican filibusters represent a minority of Americans.

      So what you've done is underscored how the Senate's disproportionate representation is anti-democratic, especially when considering the filibuster. Except when Democrats have filibustered, where the filibuster has let a minority of representatives protect the majority of people, who they represent.

      I haven't said that filibusters are OK for Democrats but not Republicans, even though you just offered evidence of that. What I've said is that filibusters are abused more by Republicans than by Democrats. And that the disproportionate Senate is an abuse of democracy. And that both are serving the country very badly.

      You have just agreed with me with your citation.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    150. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      yeah because mutagen isn't bad enough

      Everything you eat and drink contains substances that under the proper conditions are "mutagens".

      Using a different topic as an example, I remember in the 70s and 80s when it was shown that the British Meat Packing Industry had mixed hundreds of tons of meat contaminated with Mad Cow Disease into the general food supply, scientist from all over the world predicted a mass epidemic of cases in humans.

      If I'm not mistaken, it is still to this day forbidden to import meat from Great Britain into the United States (I could be wrong about it being meat, but I know there are still things regarding medicine that can't be done in the United States if you are shown to have consumed meat in Great Britain during that time...perhaps it's donate blood/organs?)

      The moral of the story is that for all the concern (and I'm not making fun of the concern, mind you, at the time -- as now, for that matter -- we knew very little about Mad Cow Disease other than it was possible for it spread to humans...how likely or too what degree were and are still an unanswered question).

      Anyway...for all the concern expressed, the actual number of Human cases of Mad Cow disease that can be directly attributed to that incident are virtually inline with the amount of people who might have contracted the disease in general.

      Nothing like what was feared is my point.

      Getting back to this conversation,...I'm not saying that under certain conditions, fluoride might not have adverse effects, but the effects from adding it to drinking water are so unlikely to cause any of them as too really not even be considered.

      Much like Nuclear Energy...can a nuclear reactor suffer a catastrophic meltdown and fatally contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania...of course. Anything can happen under the right circumstances.

      But the likelihood of it happening in our lifetimes is far less than being struck and killed by a meteor from outer space.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    151. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are confusing the separation of powers, the legislative (make the laws, broken into two parts, basically propose and approve in the US also presidential veto a very non-democratic thing design by moneyed interests to prevent anti profit, pro citizen legislation), the administrative (administer the government based upon the laws provided (some weird crap with memos and secret orders and, national security bullshit threatening proper democratic procedure went on here for eight years) and, the judicial (arbitrate over the laws, this area has been distorted by politics with some appalling party political interpretations and judgements). Each part has further components and in the US system, the states also add their additional parts.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    152. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the "per employee budget" figure has anything to do with, well, anything. Essentially, these employees are tasked with spreading this money through several different educational systems. The total K-12 budget *alone* is about half a trillion, according to The National Center for Education Statistics. The federal contribution here is so paltry that I'm happy to argue that there is not enough federal support for education.

      You are entirely wrong about the ED only being involved in K-12. They're involved in pre-school. They're involved in higher education. They're involved in technical/vocational training. The Pell Grant program is sponsored and administered by the Department of Education, as is the federal work-study program.

      Also, according to their own budget, the figure is $46B, not $68B.

      Angle doesn't want to "get rid of" SS and Medicare, she wants to "phase them out." You must see the contradiction there.

      Explain to me exactly where I described myself as "pro-slavery." In fact, show me where anyone, anywhere on this thread described themselves as "pro-slavery?" Yes, violent revolution is necessary sometimes. But only you, Glenn Beck, and those idiot militia people who were planning to ambush cops think that now is one of those times.

      Do you consider yourself to be in a state of "intractable oppression?" Why? Because the government takes some of the money that society supported you in earning, and uses it to support others, under laws passed by your fellow citizens in a democratic system? Dude, you aren't oppressed. In fact, you're being grossly insulting to people who are.

      The old Tea Party slogan was "no taxation without representation." It looks to me like the new Tea Party took a sharpie and scribbled out those last two words.

      Back on topic: I looked up what Sharon Angle actually said about violent revolution, and it's pretty clear that she believes that, when Thomas Jefferson talked about violent revolution against oppressive governments, the current Democratic government is exactly what he had in mind. That's short of the characterization in the original post, but not very. I don't imagine that these public statements of hers are going to endear her to the people of Nevada.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    153. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm only interested in the issue of whether the existence of the Department of Education worsens educational outcomes. I'm well aware that, according to conservatives, the government isn't authorized to do anything except print money and bomb brown people. Frankly, I'm not interested in such arguments. I don't think the founders had any idea about the issues that modern nations face, or that the system they set up for changing the Constitution is flexible enough.

      In other words, the country is running on obsolete code, hammered out by a handful of powerful white guys over the course of a summer, under the political realities of the day which required the ratifying states to believe that the government would let them keep their sovereignty, that demands damned-near-unanimous consent before applying patches. No wonder our country is so dysfunctional in comparison to most industrial societies. And no wonder our society as a whole has decided to interpret the Constitution creatively, and put so much emphasis on the phrase "general welfare" (which, I would add, shows up under the enumerated powers of Congress as well as the Preamble of the Constitution).

      "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

      I sometimes do the (inevitably self-serving) thought experiment of imagining what the founders would think if they were brought forward to the modern age. I think they would be surprised by how many roles the government performs, and how much it takes in taxes. But I'd like to think they'd be more horrified by the fact that the "common defence" was interpreted as "let's spend as much on bombs and soldiers as the rest of the world put together" than that the "general welfare" phrase was used to establish social programs. And mostly, I think they would realize that they had done a pretty poor job of writing a document suitable for our time.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    154. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Not exactly, quite the opposite. Claiming there's a unicorn is a positive, claiming I was not given money is a negative. Or to correspond to you giving me money, it would be relatively easy for you to show based on preponderance of evidence that I was given money. A canceled check that was deposited in my banking account for instance. That is a positive."

      How is that the opposite? It is exactly what I said. The burden of proof is on the positive claim and the negative is the default state lacking that claim.

      The person claiming the unicorn has the burden of the proof as the positive claim. In your example, again, the person who claims money was given, the positive claim, has the burden to prove it. Lacking that proof any coherent system must assume the negative. In this case, that no money was given.

    155. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Getting back to this conversation,...I'm not saying that under certain conditions, fluoride might not have adverse effects, but the effects from adding it to drinking water are so unlikely to cause any of them as too really not even be considered."

      And what is the basis for you making this claim? There are number of fairly solid studies showing fluoride to be a mutagen that directly affects mammal eggs. A search for peer reviewed papers reveals quite a few. There are papers where little mutation is seen with fluoride but they either do not involve mammals or do not involve ingestion.

      Fluoride is harmless when used as a contact agent with tooth enamel like a treatment at the dentist. But the evidence I have seen does not suggest it is safe to ingest, especially for female mammals.

      Make no mistake. I fully support Fluoride as a dental treatment and really don't see any reason it shouldn't be provided for home treatments as part of a dental health regime. But to date, there is no solid evidence to show that brief contact even strengthens teeth and there is evidence of possible dangers. Last but not least there is certainly no reason to believe putting the stuff in the water supply would yield a benefit to someone who used prolonged fluoride treatments as part of a regular dental care plan.

      Even if you interpret the evidence differently and believe it is a small risk, there is a far smaller chance of benefit and a certainty of expense. How could that possibly add up?

    156. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      How is that the opposite?

      You're right, my mistake. Rereading your post see that I somehow switched what you said around or something. I wish I were better even if nobody is perfect.

      Falcon

    157. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You, and others, leave the impression that anyone who even thinks about revolution is nuts under ANY circumstances, which is itself nuts. The government currently takes a greater share of our production that feudal lords took from their serfs, and only slightly less than plantation owners took from 18th century slaves.

      Also, thanks for the ad hominem attacks, you fucking collectivist. If you want to bend over and take it from your big pals in big government, feel free. Or rather, don't. Just submit to constant monitoring, allow yourself to have everything you own stolen from you via taxes, inflation, and civil asset forfeiture. Allow yourself to be tortured by police with electric torture devices for the terrible crime of not moving fast enough, or for the unthinkable act of terrorism of not getting up when they tell you to AS THEY ARE TASING YOU. Don't complain when your grandmother is murdered by police executing a no-knock drug raid on the wrong house. Let them kill your dogs. Let them take naked pictures of you, your wife, and your children in the airports. Let them do whatever the fuck they want, because WE elected them, except that we have a choice between two sides of the same coin.

      Yes, you are pro slavery, because you allow yourself to be a slave, and you ridicule anyone who wants to fight for your freedom, and believe any lie told to you by your oppressors.

    158. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      How can I, you, or anyone else proof a negative? Say you claim you gave me $1 millions, how do I prove you didn't?

      Why would you have to prove it? If I make any kind of assertion I have to prove it not you. This is not really related at all.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    159. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      You are misreading. Here is my original post. Note, there is no mention of anyone providing citations

      You are quite right, I have confused you with another conversation. Apologies.

      Here is you both congratulating me for coming into compliance for your demand of citations and then telling me to get off my arse and look up the citations for others in the same post:

      The wikipedia link was not about looking up citations for others, note that I dont ask you to do so, but for informing yourself. Here it is again:

      "FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation"

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    160. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Making it 100% would be essentially the exact opposite of a dictatorship. That's just consensus which is used in lots of situation - Cabinet decisions in the Westminster system, The P5 security council members veto power is almost the same thing too.

    161. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It means she has actually studies eduction or Social security.

      Huh?

      She is someone just echoing what her party says, and not someone who actually understands or thinks.

      Since when did the Republican party support states' rights or small government or any of the other 'crackpot ideas' you're accusing her of? I wish the Republican party were like that...

      She's a crack pot. She uses checks and balances as an excuse to stop things she doesn't like, but doesn't want them when they get in the way of what she wants.

      Can you give an example?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    162. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      True. But I've never seen consensus systems that worked well in practice. In theory, all parties are supposed to step aside and allow decisions to pass unless they truly believe that the decision is bad for the group (not just for them). In practice, the temptation to block anything you oppose is usually too great, and you end up with a system where the most stubborn individual dictates how things are going to run.

      I'm not saying that consensus decision-making is impossible to get right. But it's very difficult, and when it fails, it does seem to devolve into a sort of tyranny.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    163. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing I wrote above can properly be characterized as an ad hominem attack. Nothing I have ever written could be characterized as supporting police brutality, or of "letting the government do whatever the fuck they want." Clearly, you don't have any idea what I think about, well, anything. I'll attempt to enlighten you.

      Yes, I am in favor of "big government." But I'm not in favor of government corruption, government abuse of its citizens, or government enforcement of laws that criminalize essentially harmless behavior (drug laws, laws against gay marriage, etc.) I demand that laws be written and enforced in an evenhanded manner, by an enforcement system that demands the highest levels of professionalism and accountability from its agents (police officers, attorneys, judges). I exhibit a high level of outrage when these standards are not met.

      Do you really think that the only solution to government corruption is smaller government? Because that is where we part ways. I don't consider taxes a burden, when they're used in ways that benefit the entire citizenry.

      The thing is, liberals have models they can point to that show big, benevolent, transparent, responsive government works. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Japan all have "big government" as you would describe it. Their governments are also extremely transparent by most any measurement. And while none of them is as wealthy as the United States, they perform much better than we do on just about any metric of social well-being (crime, educational achievement, obesity, levels of social trust, women's equality, life expectancy, etc.)

      Teabaggers, on the other hand, can't name an industrialized nation that A) has lower government spending than the United States, and B) is a place they would want to live.

      As I wrote elsewhere:

      Now, make a list of the ten countries you could see yourself spending the rest of your life in. Now cross-reference that list with this one, showing government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. With the possible exceptions of Hong Kong and Singapore, every country you would think of as "industrialized" or as "having a health care system I would willingly subject my dog to" spends a higher fraction of their national wealth on government services. Brazil might be fun to live in for a few years, but not for reasons that have anything to do with "jobs, opportunities, and freedom."

      Of course, plenty of hellholes on the list also have high shares of government spending. But consider this: France and Moldova have about the same share of government spending, and France is clearly the better place to live. The Republican assumption that government spending has a powerful negative effect on the quality of life of its country is really hard to justify.

      Now, I forgot to account for the right-winger assumption that, wherever they landed, they would immediately start a hugely successful business and rocket up the socioeconomic ladder to become one of the country's elites (so long as they didn't get much "government interference"). But overall, I think you can see my point.

      I want to see some numbers on the proportion of wealth extracted by slaveholders from their slaves. It seems like 100% would be the reasonable number there, especially if (as you apparently do) you count money that the extractor takes away from you, which is then spent on things that the extractor thinks you need or want. In other words, I think your attempts to paint yourself as a victim of an injustice akin to 19th century southern slavery is, once again, ridiculous and insulting. Those slaves clearly had the greater injustice done to them, and had no other avenue than rebellion, and therefore had the right. If you believe that a rebellion under today's circumstances is justified, you have a pretty diff

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    164. Re:According to US Senator Harry Reid ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about how much Reid is in danger. His opponent is on record for a variety of...odd positions: eliminating the US Department of Education, pulling out of the United Nations, getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare; wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water, similarly wants to get rid of alcohol, thinks global warming is a hoax and is for drilling for oil here, there, everywhere. Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea. All Reid has to do is frame the campaign that way and it's pull the lever for the nutter or pull the lever for Reid. He'll beat her by 10 points. That's how bad of a candidate Reid is--she should manage the 25% dead-enders at best. Still bringing in more federal dollars isn't a bad idea for Reid, pork or legitimate (but well-timed).

      Maybe you should go to Sharron Angle's website and read what she proposes instead of taking Reid's talking points and lies to the bank. Do you really think the Dept of Education has done such a wonderful job? How useful is the UN? The govt has been robbing the Social Security bank for years, Angle wants to turn into Individual Accts, weaning it out of the govt's hands. Global Warming is a hoax, all they want to do is tax you, while they get richer, Gore, Pelosi and the rest of them on Capital Hill have already invested towards this and if they pass their Global Bill, they'll be sitting higher on that Hill, letting you pay for it. What has Reid done for Nevada during this whole recession. We have the highest Unemployment, Chap 7 Bankruptcy, and foreclosures. Have you heard anything from him, NO, but now that he wants to be re-elected, he's getting money to help employ people, which I'm not seeing here in Vegas, have you? Read the facts before you decide. An, how's that healthcare reform helping you, got your govt health plan picked out yet? No, cause you won't have a choice, you'll get what you get and then, you'll wait, who are you going to complain too when you dr can't see you or doesn't agree with you? Why does everyone come to the US for health care now? It's not perfect but it's better than anywhere else in the world!! Well, it was!

  2. Las Vegas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Las Vegas is the Saudi Arabia of prostitution, booze, gambling, and insane energy use.

    It looks like Harry Reid is trying to use the Saudia Arabia of geothermanl energy to power the Saudi Arabia of prostitution.

    As long as nobody tries to put a veil on the hookers this plan sounds good to me.

    1. Re:Las Vegas... by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Las Vegas is the Saudi Arabia of prostitution, booze, gambling, and insane energy use.

      "Forget your Saudi Arabia! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack! In fact, forget the energy! Aaw, screw the whole thing!"
      - Harry Reid

    2. Re:Las Vegas... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Las Vegas is the Saudi Arabia of prostitution, booze, gambling, and insane energy use.

      Prostitution is illegal in Clark County, NV, where Las Vegas is located. You are completely correct on the booze, gambling and insane energy use, however.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:Las Vegas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What Turnip Truck did YOU just fall off of?

      There are Prostitutes all over Vegas.

      Just because it's "illegal" in Clark Co., doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

    4. Re:Las Vegas... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Just because it's "illegal" in Clark Co., doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

      True enough, but you could say that about any large American city. In any case, because prostitution is not legal in Clark County, the true Saudi Arabia of prostitution would be either Pahrump or Elko, Nevada, both places where it is legal.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    5. Re:Las Vegas... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that their insane water use will bite them in the ass first.

      They have plenty of sun, lots of hot rocks, coal is cheap(if you don't mind huffing mercury and fly ash); but Nevada doesn't even have a convenient body of salt water to desalinate, much less enough of the fresh stuff.

      Las Vegas' exoticism will certainly be increased if everybody is running around in stillsuits and shouting "Long live the hookers!" and "The Dice Must Flow!"; but it'll be pretty much all downsides from there(remember, whatever you do, when you are near the Nevada Test Site, Walk. Without. Rhythm.).

    6. Re:Las Vegas... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Illegal, but rampant. Last time I was there, we were walking the strip and on just about every street corner people were trying to give us flyers and cards for either strip clubs or escorts. Yes I looked, no I didn't go. My girlfriend and I were taking care of all the sexin' we could handle in the comfort of our own hotel room. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Las Vegas... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Vegas is the only place I've ever been in respectable places (the Venetian and MGM Grand), where escorts have come up to me asking if I wanted a date, where I didn't appear to have any intention to solicit.

          It may be more rampant there, because you have drunk men who (may have) won extra expendable cash. It makes them much easier targets.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:Las Vegas... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Sigh, Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal. What do they teach kids today.

    9. Re:Las Vegas... by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Prostitution is illegal in Clark County, NV, where Las Vegas is located.

      And yet there are billboard advertisements for it in Vegas.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    10. Re:Las Vegas... by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Agreed. New tag: SaudiArabiaOf

      It's the new Library of Congress!!

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    11. Re:Las Vegas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Saudi Arabia used to be a country, now it has become an adjective.

    12. Re:Las Vegas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for legal businesses in Nye County, most just outside Pahrump's city limits, if I recall.

      Prostitution in Nevada is largely left to local governments. Those places that become too Californicated (such as Reno and Vegas) outlaw it.

    13. Re:Las Vegas... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with advertising a legal business in a different county.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Las Vegas... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You must have looked like you had money. I got drunk every time I went to Vegas and I was never propositioned by a prostitute of any kind.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Las Vegas... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I usually don't look like I have money when I'm traveling, and those weren't exceptions. I wear t-shirts and jeans, except when it's a business trip. Even then, it's only usually during the business event and for the flights. Wearing nice clothes gets you through the TSA checkpoints easier than casual clothes. I've experimented with that a lot. T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers will get you a secondary checked a lot easier than button up shirt, slacks, and nice shined shoes.

          Looking like you aren't carrying lots of money or expensive gear makes you less of a target.

          In both instances, I was in my unimpressive plain t-shirt and jeans mode.

          Maybe it's because I'm attractive. Even prostitutes don't want to sleep with ugly people, even though they will do it. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  3. The problem with geothermal by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is that unlike wind and solar, it's always on. This makes it much more difficult to explain why it won't meet baseline demand.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:The problem with geothermal by peterofoz · · Score: 3, Funny
      NEWS FLASH 4/1/2015

      Federally funded Nevada geothermal plant sponsored by Harry Reid triggers massive earthquakes in San Francisco and causes the giant Yellowstone caldera in Wyoming to rise another 50 ft.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/15/swiss-geothermal-power-earthquakes-basel

    2. Re:The problem with geothermal by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with geothermal is that after you extract the heat from the rocks, it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created. This places a natural limit on the rate you can extract heat energy from a geothermal well, thus making it unsuitable for high population density areas like cities. The geological formations in some areas provide their own natural flow of subterranean water, thus constantly carrying in heat from other distant rocks to your geothermal well. But those are exceedingly rare.

      Regardless, I am very optimistic about geothermal for meeting the energy needs of low population density areas. On top of that, geothermal heat pumps for heating and air conditioning, while not an energy source, improve efficiency so much that in both hot and cold regions of the country, they will typically pay for themselves in 3-7 years.

    3. Re:The problem with geothermal by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created. This places a natural limit on the rate you can extract heat energy from a geothermal well

            While I'm no expert in the field I daresay that there's a "natural limit" to anything, including the energy produced from an oil burning plant. Surely the output of the plant is an engineering issue, and it's simply a matter of design.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:The problem with geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that unlike wind and solar, it's always on. This makes it much more difficult to explain why it won't meet baseline demand.

      Actually the same reasoning should be applied to solar thermal generation - see heat storage (e.g. liquid salt) - and wind power - what matters is the average generation over the plants (the variance can be dealt with by distributing your generators over a significant geographical area). Hell even non-baseload power generation can be stabilised using techniques like pumped-water storage. The problem is that certain people have a vested interest in fostering the popular misconception that green energy can't provide baseload power.

    5. Re:The problem with geothermal by toygeek · · Score: 1

      The problem with Geothermal is that its *not* always on. That is, its always on until it isn't, at all. Earthquakes (which Nevada is prone to, not as much as socal but we get them plenty!) and other movement of the earth can cause whole geothermal areas to go cold.

      There is one thing I can tell you for sure about Nevada. We have tons of open space, and if its not *windy*, its *sunny*.

    6. Re:The problem with geothermal by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes yes! My geothermal plant design involves burrowing down through the core of the earth and out the other side to the center of the Sun, where it's always warm. I'm currently awaiting a grant to conduct further study, and with luck we can break ground by 2009.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:The problem with geothermal by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      This places a natural limit on the rate you can extract heat energy from a geothermal well, thus making it unsuitable for high population density areas like cities.

      Unless you build your city on top of Yellowstone, or something. Of course, that probably wouldn't end well...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:The problem with geothermal by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Federally funded Nevada geothermal plant sponsored by Harry Reid triggers ... earthquakes ...

      Not completely a joke.

      High pressure injection of liquids into faults makes them act as hydraulic jacks with piston cross-sections measurable in square miles, pushing the faults open. If the faults are under even slight crosswise stress that cause earthquakes. (This was first discovered in Denver when the Rocky Mountain Arsenal used a deep injection well to attempt disposing of chemical warfare waste, later researched and documented.)

      Doing it with a liquid that can boil when the rocks are hot means you have less control over the process once the liquid is in place and being expanded by the heat. (IMHO there's also a possibility of activating a volcano.)

      While setting off quakes in northwestern Nevada probably won't bother the faults in San Francisco or Yosemite, it wouldn't be all that friendly to the people within a few tens of miles of the site.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:The problem with geothermal by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      You mean you can't shut it off? Why that's no better than Deep Horizon!

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    10. Re:The problem with geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think San Francisco would be more worried about this place if geothermal was really a problem, being that it's practially in their backyard and all. Still if you look on an earthquake map, it's pretty easy to locate where the place is located. But I doubt too many people are bothered by level 3 local magnitude or less quakes.

    11. Re:The problem with geothermal by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Klamath falls, in Southern Oregon is already very much Geothermally active.

      My Alma Mater, Oregon Institute of Technology is now the only school 100% powered by renewable energy. None of those sissy offsets or credits purchased like other schools, they dug a geothermal well in a parking lot, and generate their own power. They sell their spare power to the hospital next door. The whole college has been geothermally heated since it was built, and before the power plant was built, they spent something like $15k a year to heat and cool 800,000 sq. feet of buildings.. The big stair cases on campus, are also geo-thermally heated to keep ice off them. Downtown Klamath Falls has a geothermal heating grid, and they heat most downtown buildings, sidewalks (for winter snow), and a high school for the cost of running some well pumps. Many houses on the north side of town also have their own geothermal heat

      Nevada has very long ways to go to catch up.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    12. Re:The problem with geothermal by kcelery · · Score: 1

      It might not be a bad thing to cause a series of small earthquakes. If the stress underground
      could be released in small steps, it might avoid the big one.

      Such approach is used in controlling forest fire. Areas chosen were burn off to lower the
      fuel level of a big forest fire.

    13. Re:The problem with geothermal by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with geothermal is that after you extract the heat from the rocks, it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created.

      The problem with geothermal power is cleaning up the toxic waste.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again: geothermal power is a total failure on all levels. I live within shootin' distance of The Geysers, the most geothermally active region known to exist on Earth. We have a geothermal plant here which is continually over budget and under-producing. The turbine blades are built by Halliburton, which is a disaster in itself. After they have been in service for a certain period of time, they must be cleaned of buildup of toxics like Arsenic which are released from the vent along with the steam. Most of the hot springs in town have measurable Arsenic content. This is simply pressure-washed off, and the slurry stored in open pits for evaporation. After this process has been repeated a sufficient number of times the pit is covered over and the walls raised. They used to put it in drums and bury them in a field on one of the roads out of town but the drums started leaking and cows were being born with two heads and that sort of thing, so they "cleaned it up". Oh, sorry, THEY didn't clean it up, we did. It was a superfund site; we still have one of those operating in town, for similar compounds. The "solution" was to dig it all up, put in a rubber liner, and bury it again.

      There are other types of geothermal power options, like heat pipes, but all you have to know about them is that they are terribly inefficient (not that any geothermal plant in the world is producing any amazing amount of power) and they don't last, just like the turbine blades in our example. You're always digging things up and replacing them, which is terribly impractical. The simple truth is that solar panels could repay the energy cost of production in under seven years back in the 1970s and if all the money spent on geothermal plants was spent on even PV solar plants we would have produced a lot more power for the same amount of money.

      Anyone promoting Geothermal power for low environmental impact is either ignorant or trolling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:The problem with geothermal by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      The problem with geothermal is that after you extract the heat from the rocks, it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created.

      There will be a follow-on request for more funding (pork) to use solar heating to warm up the rocks.

    15. Re:The problem with geothermal by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Anyone promoting Geothermal power for low environmental impact is either ignorant or trolling.

      Or they live in Iceland where 54% of the countries power comes from geothermal energy. I guess not every hot spring is naturally toxic now, is it?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    16. Re:The problem with geothermal by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      So you've got an example of an open-system style geothermal plant that creates toxic waste.

      Aren't most modern plants all closed systems?

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    17. Re:The problem with geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like someone hasn't heard of a heat exchanger.

    18. Re:The problem with geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. Most systems are closed to the atmosphere, but are open in the ground.

    19. Re:The problem with geothermal by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      This has been considered. (Pumping water OUT helps temporarily lock the fault against quakes, too, though not against stress buildup.)

      There was a plan under consideration to relieve the stress on the San Andreas by drilling a bunch of wells, then working down the fault locking pairs of sections and jacking the section between them, to ease off the tension in a set of minor (under 4.5) quakes.

      Among the downsides:
        - Would have to be repeated every 6 months or so.
        - Appreciable fraction of a $billion to drill the necessary wells.
        - No guarantee that the quakes would be limited to = 4.5 and might set off something much larger that was just waiting to happen.
        - Possible liability issues for damage, injury, and deaths from the artificially-triggered quakes.
        - Not clear that the program, even if successful, would do less total damage than just letting things be and having a few big ones or whatever the faults would normally produce.

      So "More Study Needed" to nail down the science and engineering before such a program will be attempted.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    20. Re:The problem with geothermal by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I've said it before and I'll say it again: geothermal power is a total failure on all levels.

      Oh really? So geothermal doesn't really supply Iceland with approximately 24% of it's electricity? It didn't supply California with 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2007? Geothermal in Hawaii doesn't provide 20% or 30 MW of the Big Island's electricity? And it doesn't provide the Philippines with 27% electricity? Oh, and MIT scientists are lying when they say GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands?

      Falcon

    21. Re:The problem with geothermal by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Actually, maybe it would... Perhaps drawing heat away from the magma dome under Yellowstone would help to settle it down. Or maybe not. Either way, from what I hear it is already due for another eruption.

  4. About time! by migla · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are far too many women driving around in Nevada!

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    1. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Oriental women

    2. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not so sure being the Saudi Arabia on anything is such a good idea.

    3. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jihad on solar!

    4. Re:About time! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't think he means it like that, he's talking about it being the place the money comes from to fund people to fly into tall buildings one continent over. Look out Tokyo!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:About time! by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      And in case of Vegas they expose far more than their eyes.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  5. Naturally by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course it is. Since it's your state, Mr. Reid, it couldn't possibly be anywhere else, right?

    That's one of the things I always hated about politicians. They always think their state is the best at ::insert arbitrary thing here::. I got news for you, bud: it's America. Hardly anything here is the best. A lot of it is very good, some of it is even awesome, and some things are even legendary in how amazing they are...but I think saying best is generally pushing it.

    -American who loves his country, which is why he can be honest about it

    1. Re:Naturally by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I wouldn't worry too much about Harry's opinions, he's fading in to history pretty darn soon.

    2. Re:Naturally by e9th · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Once the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupts, what remains of Wyoming will take over from Nevada.

    3. Re:Naturally by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's one of the things I always hated about politicians. They always think their state is the best

      It's not a problem with politicians, it's a problem with the system. The constitution says that a senator represents a state, a congressperson a district. If you want it to be different, we need to have a body that is elected by the American people as a whole.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having geothermal energy potential is not a matter of skill or investment. It's merely related to local geology. He doesn't just have an opinion that his state's the best, he's making an assertion which can be falsified. Show me a state, or for that matter a region of the world, which has greater potential to produce geothermal energy than northern Nevada, and you'll prove Mr. Reid wrong.
      (You'll have a hard time. Nevada is a geologist's playground, very seismically active and very empty.)

    5. Re:Naturally by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Did this suddenly turn into a fever swamp? Where's Marcos?

    6. Re:Naturally by khallow · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Once the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupts, what remains of Wyoming will take over from Nevada.

      You'd want to catch Yellowstone before it erupts since it'll lose a lot of energy in the process.

    7. Re:Naturally by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 1

      Too lazy to Google, eh?

      If you actually had a clue about geothermal, you would know that Nevada is basically sitting on top of an extremely atypical geothermal anomaly that is defined almost by the boundaries of the state, extending a little bit into surrounding states like Utah. There is nothing else quite like it in the world, certainly not on that scale. Large sections of the state have semi-crystallized magma very close to the surface.

      Nevada has been called "the Saudi Arabia of geothermal" for about as long as people have cared about geothermal power. The theoretical geothermal power generating capacity of that state is astounding, we simply don't exploit it.

    8. Re:Naturally by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      America is the best at mediocrity!

      --
      Not a sentence!
    9. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, Nevada does have the highest average geothermal gradient of any state, so, pork or not, Nevada is one of the best places to do geothermal power in the United States. There are also substantial areas of elevated geothermal gradient in Oregon (already mentioned in the article), Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and California, but Nevada is arguably the best of them. Even on a global scale the southwestern parts of the USA are fairly good because this is an area of the Earth's crust that is being tectonically stretched and thinned. There are certainly other parts of the world that might be better overall (e.g., Iceland), but the area still rates highly.

    10. Re:Naturally by cowscows · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what? Every state/district/neighborhood deserves to have people fighting for it. The USA is such a large stretch of land with such a diverse bunch of people/communities, that for many problems there isn't just one solution that's "best for the country."

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  6. Geothermal energy ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only if you've never been to Iceland (everything is expensive there except electricity and hot water).

    1. Re:Geothermal energy ignored? by inanet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here in New Zealand (only the most thermally active place in the world with people living on it) we use quite a bit of geo-thermal energy, but apparently we are only utilising the tip of the iceberg, although there are plans for more plants to be built... one of the great things about geothermal energy is "waste gold" that builds up in the pipes ;) ... unfortunately along with sulphur and all sorts of less desirable bits and pieces...

      --
      "This is my Sig. there are many like it but this one is mine."
    2. Re:Geothermal energy ignored? by macraig · · Score: 1

      one of the great things about geothermal energy is "waste gold" that builds up in the pipes ;) ... unfortunately along with sulphur and all sorts of less desirable bits and pieces

      Well you're only supposed to puff at the damned thing, not inhale it. Haven't you learned anything from our American politicians?

    3. Re:Geothermal energy ignored? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Interestingly (to me, anyhow), the state of Nevada is actually larger than New Zealand. Only about half as many people, though:

      Nevada: 110,567 sq mi (286,367 sq km), 2010 pop. 2,600,000

      New Zealand: 103,737 sq mi (268,680 sq km), 2010 pop. 4,296,756

      This could mean that Nevada has a larger potential for geothermal energy.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    4. Re:Geothermal energy ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "only the most thermally active place in the world with people living on it"

      Then what is Iceland? They're pretty much 100% powered by geothermal power.

    5. Re:Geothermal energy ignored? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      If you are using tips of icebergs, you are doing it wrong.

  7. Saudi Arabia? by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    How much is that in sensible scientific measurements like Libraries of Congress or Football Fields per Square Barleycorn?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the equivalent of one Ron Jeremy penis.

    2. Re:Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saudi Arabia is much hotter than Nevada and is therefore the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Saudi Arabia? by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Las Vegas/Saudi Arabia==1.453 harryreids (non U.S. conversion: 1 harryreid==.74555648 cheesewheels)

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
  8. Geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Geothermal isn't really that renewable!

    1. Re:Geothermal by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Geothermal isn't really that renewable!

      Once we suck all the heat out of the Earth's core, the mantle will solidify: fusing all the tectonic plates and ending earthquakes and volcanoes once and for all.

      Win/win.

    2. Re:Geothermal by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Once we suck all the heat out of the Earth's core, the mantle will solidify: fusing all the tectonic plates and ending earthquakes and volcanoes once and for all.

      Win/win.

            Assuming that were possible (don't worry, it's not), you end up losing the dynamo effect of a liquid mantle, the Earth's magnetic field vanishes, and the solar wind blows the atmosphere off into space. Yeah, really win.

            Nerd card revoked.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Geothermal by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, you misunderstood. I was speaking on behalf of the Earth.
      Win 1: No more painful earthquakes and embarrassing volcanoes.
      Win 2: No more disgusting fungi and parasites mucking about on the surface.

    4. Re:Geothermal by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess I'm being too literal. The codeine isn't taking the pain away anymore. My bad. You can have your nerd card back but first you have to let go of that female.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Geothermal by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Thats not win win is it? Win/win means everyone benefits.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:Geothermal by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Thats not win win is it? Win/win means everyone benefits."

      I thought "Win/win" means "Bill Gates/bill gates" benefits.

    7. Re:Geothermal by Cwix · · Score: 1

      And what the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    8. Re:Geothermal by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry parasite, the Earth cannot hear you over Mars's incessant taunting. It thinks it's sooo grown up just because it shed it's biosphere a billion years earlier. Well you know what, Mars? Everyone acts like they don't notice that enormous mountain when they talk to you, but they do. We all do. We even have a name for it.

    9. Re:Geothermal by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 3, Funny

      But I've never been this close to one before! :(

    10. Re:Geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off entropy!

    11. Re:Geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For what it's worth, the Earth's magnetic field is generated by a self-exciting dynamo driven by circulation of the liquid outer core, not the mantle. The mantle is generally a solid that circulates, very slowly, through plastic deformation, except for a few parts that contain a small percent of melted rock.

      Although unrelated to those facts, the upper mantle is generally pistachio green with some black and emerald green specks. Old subducted plates that haven't made it too far down are green with blood red lumps.

    12. Re:Geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates and Warren Buffet:
      Friends with Benefits?

    13. Re:Geothermal by slick7 · · Score: 1

      And what the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

      ...boiling water?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    14. Re:Geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, we put an end to Global Warming!!!!!

  9. Yellowstone Caldera? by mindbrane · · Score: 1

    I don't pretend to any knowledge on the subject, but wouldn't the Yellowstone Caldera be the picture perfect place for the development of geothermal energy?

    --
    ideopath @ play
    1. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what i was going to say. I'm willing to believe it if someone can provide some numbers from a reputable geologist, since i don't know a lot about the field myself, but until then i'm far more willing to believe that Wyoming would be the US's "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" than i would Nevada.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by nephilimsd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, as a resident of Reno (it's not as bad as it sounds.. really) I can definitively say that there is more geothermal energy over a wider area here than in Yellowstone. My understanding is that Yellowstone has a very strong, but very locialized pocket of usable energy, whereas the entire greater Carson-Reno area is tappable for energy. There have been quite a few apartment complexes and neighborhood groups who have pitched together to fund geothermal wells in this area, and effectively end up paying about 15k as a one-time cost to eliminate an electric bill for life (well, the life of the well, anyway). Best part is, because more energy is generated than can reasonably be used by 15-20 houses, the rest gets sold back to the electric company, and NV Energy takes care of maintenance on the well in exchange.

    3. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      > Yellowstone Caldera

      Drill baby, drill!

    4. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by macraig · · Score: 1

      i'm far more willing to believe that Wyoming would be the US's "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" than i would Nevada

      Based on a few articles in National Geographic you read as a kid and a few PBS specials on volcanic activity, right? We all know those sources are authoritative and complete and never exclusionary, right? It's good that you want testimony from an expert(s), especially since your presumption is based on such an incomplete survey in the first place.

    5. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This!
      I don't understand for the life of me why nobody is tapping the volcanoes for geothermal!
      1) IT IS HOT
      2) FREE
      3) YOU CAN SELL IT
      4) IT WILL OUTLIVE YOU
      5) You might potentially stop a future eruption if you are smart about the design of the piping system.

      Apparently the people in Yellowstone would rather have a timebomb park than powerhouse and, well, STILL A PARK, WITH SOME MORE BUILDINGS AROUND...
      Don't want Old Faithful to die? USE ALL THAT FREE ENERGY YOU'RE GETTING TO FAKE IT! BOY, ITS A MILLION DOLLAR IDEA!

      I'm glad i'm nowhere near that thing when it goes off. At least i'll have a chance. (especially since the chamber seems to be shrinking in size in general over the many years it has popped its top)

    6. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, Wyoming is the Iraq of geothermal energy and Texas is the Afghanistan of geothermal energy.

      Wait, what are we talking about?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      1) IT IS HOT

      This is the problem. Hot is good, but magma is a bit too hot. Ideally for geothermal you want something quite a bit cooler. You want it to, for example, boil water and push steam through a turbine, but you don't want it to actually melt the turbine.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      $15K each (per house), or $15K for the whole thing (per apartment building)?

    9. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Even at $15k per family seems pretty cheap. AC eats up a ton of power in place like that.

    10. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Based on a few articles in National Geographic you read as a kid and a few PBS specials on volcanic activity, right?

      Given that the opposing opinion comes from a pork-rolling blowhard Senator, those sound like pretty credible sources.

    11. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by macraig · · Score: 1

      Nope. The content was just as selective and exclusionary, if for different and less nefarious reasons.

    12. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Conversely:

      5) You might potentially cause a future eruption if you are stupid about the design of the piping system.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      Is that 15k per household or 15k per well?

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    14. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      They don't actually have to drill all the way to the magma, do they? The rock should be hot enough a safe distance away from it. If the steam still comes back too hot, there are ways to cool it before it reaches the turbines.

    15. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      If it's 15K per well, I might just move there and become an energy magnate!

    16. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You just don't want to see what Spill, baby, spill looks like on that PARTICULAR well.

    17. Re:Yellowstone Caldera? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      AS a former resident of Reno, yes it is as bad as it sounds. Unless you like brown.

      I'd like to see a link to your claim.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Dear USDOE by Ixokai · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    On behalf of California, I'd like to ask you to please restrict your funding of drilling holes into the crust to the other side of the country, or maybe like the middle, y'know? Really far away from fault lines, basically.

    If you accidentally tick off The Big One and Southern California falls into the ocean, all you'll have left are those crazy Northern California people, and we'll -so- become a Red State.

    Trust me, your boss doesn't want that.

    Yeah, I know its possible to do geothermal energy safely. Its also possible to make earthquakes with it. Let's side over on the cautious end in the west coast, shall we?

    1. Re:Dear USDOE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck California.

    2. Re:Dear USDOE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On behalf of the rest of the country, I'd like to say...
      DRILL BABY, DRILL

    3. Re:Dear USDOE by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

      If you accidentally tick off The Big One and Southern California falls into the ocean, all you'll have left are those crazy Northern California people, and we'll -so- become a Red State.

      Ever been to Berkeley? San Francisco? California only becomes a Red state if Orange County and San Diego are all that's left.

      Or did you mean Red as in Commie? That would be a real possibility.

    4. Re:Dear USDOE by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      It was a joke, not to be analyzed quite so literally. (Flamebait? Really?)

      That said: Yeah, I've lived in SF :P I don't think San Francisco quite gets lumped into Northern California when people are discussing it. I'm talking around Sacramento and north. Surely San Fran would fall over into the sea too. Berkeley would probably end up The New San Francisco then.

      You're right about the O.C. They'd elect G.W. again if they could.

      But San Diego isn't so bad. The city at least has sense.

      Then again, California's districts are so utterly screwed up by design, you end up with a point even if the city isn't all that bad. Its practically impossible by design for the Republicans to get control of the Assembly, but its also practically impossible for them to actually lose any of their seats. Ah, well.

  11. water? by bugi · · Score: 1

    And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

    1. Re:water? by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

      1) Suck up all the water from the Gulf
      2) Burn off the oil to produce power
      3) Ship the cleaned water to Nevada
      4) Profit!
      So simple, it doesn't even need a ?????? step!

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    2. Re:water? by beej · · Score: 1

      And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

      Same place they're getting the heat, I should imagine.

  12. Do you know what the Nevada of Saudi Arabia is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nevada.

  13. I take politician pronouncements seriously! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How baked was he? Seriously, was the bong still in his hand?

  14. Among other places by overshoot · · Score: 1

    I don't pretend to any knowledge on the subject, but wouldn't the Yellowstone Caldera be the picture perfect place for the development of geothermal energy?

    Or central New Mexico (the Socorro Seismic Anomaly), where there's another honking huge magma chamber. Or pretty near anywhere in the Cascades, or any of Arizona's volcanic fields, or anywhere near Pacific subduction zone, or ...

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Among other places by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      or ... KABOOM!!!!

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  15. Silly by overshoot · · Score: 1

    And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

    From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas. Whenever the wind is headed out of state they can just use that for coolant.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Silly by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      Many of the geothermal projects are air-cooled. Those that are water cooled are in areas where you can actually get water rights. Water is not the limiting factor in geothermal development.

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    2. Re:Silly by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

      From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas. Whenever the wind is headed out of state they can just use that for coolant.

      Read the article - they're talking Northern Nevada. That's about 450 miles from Las Vegas. The only time Reno is near Vegas is on CSI. And that's no credible source; half of the cast can't even say "Nevada" correctly.

    3. Re:Silly by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      It's hard for me to believe the Colorado could contribute to any more significant infrastructure/industrial projects -- the flow has been damed and diverted so many times it doesn't even consistently reach the ocean anymore.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    4. Re:Silly by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What is the proper way to say it?

    5. Re:Silly by bugi · · Score: 1

      Salton Sea

    6. Re:Silly by HonestButCurious · · Score: 1

      Water is not the limiting factor in geothermal development.

      It is too, especially when you're talking "new" geothermal, which works on lower-temperature deposits. - please turn to this very interesting IEEE Spectrum article for more details.

    7. Re:Silly by rts008 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Nevada"

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    8. Re:Silly by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      What is not mentioned in that article is that binary systems can also be air cooled. The down side of air cooling is that it doesn't work very well in the summertime, when there is higher demand for electricity.

      The limiting factor is the resource, not the cooling.

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    9. Re:Silly by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

      From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas.

      You want to start another civil war? Take water away from the other 6 states making up the Colorado River Compact. Then deny Mexico of it's treaty guaranteed water too and watch for more fun. If I lived in Colorado I'd start it myself, by building cisterns to capture and store rainwater for my garden.

      Falcon

  16. Soo... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    In Saudi Arabia geothermal energy pushes Harry Reid?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  17. i hope it powers trains ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool!

  18. Nevada Solar? by nickrout · · Score: 1

    You guys should read "Solar" by Ian McEwan.

    1. Re:Nevada Solar? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Reading?

      Stop talking like a fag!

  19. Stop the presses! by dcmoebius · · Score: 1

    'conditional commitment' to provide a partial guarantee for a rumored $98.5 million loan

    News, huh?

  20. Dear Ixokai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please be assured that it is statistically unlikely that drilling holes to capture geothermal energy will cause a large enough quake to send southern California into the ocean.

    Additionally, please be assured that, should an earthquake send southern California into the ocean, we will ensure northern California follows. With nuclear weapons, if need be.

    Sincerely,
    US Department of Energy

  21. In 1981 by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    I was part of a crew that put in a geothermal installation at New Mexico State University the still provides hot water to the dorms and heats the 2 swimming pools. Four and a half miles of insulated pipe, a heat exchanger and a 25,000 gallon hot water tank. The University Presidents house has it's own system. So this isn't all that new. The only things that would improve it are better piping and shallower hot water. We had wells delivering 142 degrees F at the wellhead but they were in the 950 foot range and that is expensive.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  22. If the Yellowstone Caldera goes... by voss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Earthquakes in San Fransisco will be the least of your worries. The last eruption of the Yellowstone caldera 640,000 years ago
    shot 240 cubic miles of rock and dust into the sky.

    1. Re:If the Yellowstone Caldera goes... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 4, Funny

      The last eruption of the Yellowstone caldera 640,000 years ago

      Wow, I saw you had a low ID, but I never realized they went back that far!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  23. Geothermal energy is everywhere by grandpa-geek · · Score: 1

    Geothermal energy is everywhere. The Earth has about 5000 years' supply. The skills and equipment for getting it are the same as drilling for oil. The only downside is that geothermal production brings up nasty stuff (such as sulfur) that has to be handled.

    Geothermal would be a good activity for the oil drillers displaced by the moratorium on gulf drilling or more generally if we switch to electric cars and alternative fuels.

  24. That is one really stupid proclamation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geothermal is not always on. It turns off, once the heat is drained to a level where it needs be re-heated from deeper down in earth. And that re-heating is so slow that renewable Geothermal will always be a small-sized contribution in the energy mix:

    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c16/page_96.shtml

  25. Next to Solar, Geothermal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has the coolest fucking name. . We are lacking in specific security concerns with Geothermal, however. It is clean, and available everywhere, but we are not fully prepared for the inevitable moleman and oversized fire-breathing and/or acid spitting lizard contingencies. But these risks are nothing compared to 20 cascading boneheaded mistakes at a nuclear power plant.

  26. Re:Probably auditioning for a lobbyist job come 20 by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    another republiCUNT.

    Seriously... if you only see failure in the party you hate, you're not seeing the whole picture.

    Take that hate, and hate them ALL with us. Not just Obama, or the democrats... but the republicans to.

    Lets put aside "Jesus" and "Abortion"... and lets actually pick up shovels and start filling the fucking hole left by the these criminal con artists we call elected representatives.

  27. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so is this one!

  28. Re:With Blackjack, and hookers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Arab world doesn't need prostitutes. They just rape any woman they feel like and if she kicks up a fuss, they sentence her to death by stoning for allowing herself to be raped and shaming her family. It's a very efficient system.

  29. Weak analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you take geothermal energy, put it in a container and ship it to Atlanta? Saudi Arabia it is not. But more power to Nevada if they want to sustain their own state and nearby neighbors with geothermal.

    1. Re:Weak analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can, all you have to do is use the generated electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen and ship the tanks

  30. Hot Rocks by EEPROMS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually when it comes to Geothermal energy production you don't actually need volcanic activity at all. Another method of collecting and converting geothermal energy is the hot dry rocks (HDR) method. The advantage with HDR is that you dont have to install power converters in geologically unstable environs like in iceleand etc thus you can imagine the insurance costs are way lower.

    1. Re:Hot Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another method of collecting and converting geothermal energy is the hot dry rocks [wikipedia.org] (HDR) method.

      Why is it that everytime I hear about Reid in the news, he busy making an idiot out of himself? There couldn't be two more different places in the wolrd than Nevada and Saudi Arabia. Could you imagine the Burlesque in Hijab's? If the people of Nevada were transplanted to Saudi Arabia they would be handless and headless in no time.

  31. Well, that settles it by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Sharron Angle is fucking crazy. [huffingtonpost.com]"

    Well, if the HuffPuff said it, then I'm sold.

    BTW, if you think Sharon Angle is crazy for wanting to eliminate several departments in the Federal government, and phase out Social Security as it currently exists, then you're going to be mighty shocked at how many crazy people there are.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Well, that settles it by h4rr4r · · Score: 0, Troll

      The rest of you nutbags want to make alcohol illegal too?

    2. Re:Well, that settles it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, she wants to get the government out of the education business, and into the marriage business.

      Batshit Bible-thumping nutjob with no more regard for the Constitution than the next Republican fascist.

    3. Re:Well, that settles it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ignorant would be better word.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  32. Re:With Blackjack, and hookers? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    That seems far less useful, she won't even know what to do. The whole point of a pro is that they are pros.

  33. National Antelope Reserve is there by Mspangler · · Score: 1

    The Sheldon National Antelope Refuge is that area.

    The environmentalists will fight it to the end. The land outside the refuge is all Federal, and it will take 10 years to permission to begin the EIS. then another 10 years minimum to finish that and be ready to start construction.

    If we are lucky, Congress will decide to start selling all that Federal Land so they can fund their pork and/or SS for awhile longer, then you might see some activity.

    There is a lot of nice scenery out there, once you calibrate to desert values. I used to live in Winnemucca, and still sort of miss it. I'd move back for a geothermal project.

    1. Re:National Antelope Reserve is there by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      it will take 10 years to permission to begin the EIS. then another 10 years minimum to finish that and be ready to start construction.

      That's okay, Harry Reid just needs five months so that he can get re-elected by saying "Look at this delicious pork I brought you! Mmm, bacon!" After that he couldn't care less what happens to it.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  34. Another sad thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's had 40 fucking years to make Nevada "the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy". Now all of a sudden he wants to?

    Just another pitiful politician saying anything to win.

  35. big money for big corps! by xmorg · · Score: 1

    power companies, some of the most profitable industries around, ie they will always be making money because you need your lights on, are getting a subsidy! this goes to show you how corrupt the US really is. If Geothermal was the next fossil fuel, it would be making so much profit it wouldn't need the government to inject imaginary money into it. The little guy would never get 98 million. What if you came up with element zero in your garage and could solve the worlds energy problems? no $$$ for you, and you would be quickly regulated out of business by special interest controlled politicians.

  36. The Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

    "Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy""

    Plenty of cheap energy, but they cut your nuts off if you're caught kissing in public. Isn't the crazy theocracy thing supposed to be the Republican's shtick?

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  37. The ban changed nothing by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative

    Current generation (ie. already built) breeders are also utter crap in terms of energy production and only really useful for making material for nuclear weapons if you don't already have a huge stockpile of that material or other ways to make it. Iran and North Korea might contemplate them but nobody else would bother - other nations with nuclear ambitions are happy enough with CANDU since they won't need a lot of bombs in a hurry.
    Upcoming technologies such as accelerated thorium on the other hand are reported in the press as breeders but are completely different to dead ends like superphoenix (the French extended a middle digit in the direction of the ban as they can be depended on to do).

  38. China's building GenIV nukes by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1

    They're building 2 BN-800's over the next few years. We know that Integral Fast Reactors eat nuclear waste. We could shut down uranium mining and still run the world for 500 years just burning today's 'waste', which is actually now a $70 trillion dollar resource. Today's nuclear power can also burn nuclear weapons. 10% of American electricity comes from old Soviet nuclear weapons.

    The final IFR waste product burns itself back to safe levels in just 300 years. GE has a plan for the S-PRISM 300 MW reactor which can be cheaply mass-produced on the production line (where one can go to town on inspection standards) and is then delivered to the site off the back of a truck! This smaller reactor is also ideal for smaller 3rd world electricity grids. Want to replace a large coal plant? Just order 5, and you might even get free fries!

    The IFR is the silver bullet that could solve peak oil, global warming, and our nuclear waste problems in one hit. It's taken me 6 years of greenie activism and reading to realise that renewables just can't cut it on their own, and that we need a new approach. This is it, my old arch-enemy, nuclear power! Who woulda thunk it?

    1. Re:China's building GenIV nukes by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies.

      "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

      Falcon

  39. Re:With Blackjack, and hookers? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    The Arab world doesn't need prostitutes. They just rape any woman they feel like and if she kicks up a fuss, they sentence her to death by stoning for allowing herself to be raped and shaming her family. It's a very efficient system.

    So much for civilized government and an educated society.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  40. I'm no dentist either, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but apparently it's a deadly neurotoxin.

    And here like sheep we simply drink it. Well I don't, I have an reverse osmosis water filter.

    1. Re:I'm no dentist either, by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Yes, which is why everyone who drank it is dead. For a less-retarded look at the safety concerns see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation#Safety

      Note that even the article you linked to makes clear that current research supports the levels found in tap water.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  41. You may have missed the memo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Burglar Class runs our nation now. See, as one minor example, this excellent narrative of the highly profitable takedown of Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64824). This means that no measures that actually would diminish the role of money as the prime determiner of national outcomes will be allowed to be passed, or if passed, enforced. It's over. Change will happen only when we crash hard against the wall of reality, after which perhaps some will be able to make something of the fragments. Reality is not of the opinion that money = merit. And as a consequence, we and the other kleptocracies are going down. Changing direct election of senators is only a minor rearrangement of deck chairs. It's nothing more than a shiny object offered to keep attention directed at the delusion.

  42. Spill by kcelery · · Score: 1

    If we get a spill, could we break the record of 190 km in length.

    http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article156753.ece

  43. Molten Salt Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, come on already - Nevada Salt Flats - Sun - Mirrors, Salt - Salt - Salt - let's get some salt a molten

  44. Potable Water as an unintended consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The recent issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine passes the engineering trade offs between energy and fresh drinking water. Isn't Nevada somewhat deprived with the chunk of the Lake Meade aqua resources heading into California?

  45. Lying Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The actual state most likely to qualify as a "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" is Wyoming. Remember the Yellowstone supervolcano? The caldera is tens of miles wide. We need to drill into the magma at a thousand places and extract heat, not only for the energy , but also because reducing the temperature down there relieves the pressure, and makes it less likely that the volcano will go off!

    1. Re:Lying Senator by sjs132 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or you could end up with a bad movie where drilling results in the volcano going off... Hmmm.... :)

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  46. IANAD by tivoKlr · · Score: 1

    I am not a dentist either, although I did just take both of my kids to the dentist today, and got a sweet estimate for 1400 bucks worth of work on baby teeth (woo hoo!). Gotta love private medicine.

    The little mountain town I live in does not fluorinate the water, maybe this has something to do with my kids teeth issues. Maybe it's genetics. I don't know, but regardless, we have some very clean water, as indicated by the annual water quality report I received a couple of days ago. The water tastes pretty darned good and given the generally low temperatures here year round it's quite cold right from the tap, which is a plus.

    I do run RO/DI for my aquarium, and considered dual purposing the RO portion for drinking water, but opted not to, as I don't like the taste of RO water. To each his own.

    --
    Ocean is land, covered with water.
    1. Re:IANAD by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't drink RO water. Some mineralisation is needed or else the water will corrode the minerals in your body, causing osteoporosis and other issues.

  47. No democracy by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    ...and if you think huffington post is a reliable source of information...

    And if you look around, nearly all the radio stations that were around 30 years ago are now gone completely or their call letters used by Cumulus, ClearChannel or similar propaganda engine. If you look around at newspapers, you'll see that nearly all the newspapers have disappeared in all but title. Some still kind of exist, but are something more like the bare minimum to expect from a high school paper. How can any country have open and democratic elections with out a forum for discussing facts and debating positions?

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:No democracy by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And if you look around, nearly all the radio stations that were around 30 years ago are now gone completely or their call letters used by Cumulus, ClearChannel or similar propaganda engine.

      Propaganda engines like Air America, a progressive but not liberal radio station. Because it could not compeat with other stations it had to shut down in January 2010. Now if you look at how long network ownership lasts, in 30 years ClearChannel may be gone too. In the '70s ABC, CBS, and NBC were the big networks. Cable and satellite TV came along in the '80 with WGN in Chicago, Ted Turner's stations, and others coming to dominate broadcasting. The '90s came and cable stations mushroomed. Now we have internet based programming. I bet in 20 years the media giants will not look like they do now.

      If you look around at newspapers you'll see that nearly all the newspapers have disappeared in all but title.

      Nearly but not all. Some newspapers are actually expanding. They are doing it by offering what people want. I couldn't find it online but a couple of weeks ago CNN had a story about a newspaper in AZ. It was going under, out of business, when this guy scrapped all the money he could then bought the paper and brought it back to life. Residents liked what was printed so they subscribed. Then with subscriptions growing advertisers started advertising.

      Give enough people what they want and enough will pay for it.

      How can any country have open and democratic elections with out a forum for discussing facts and debating positions?

      How did Jessie "The Body" Ventura become the governor of MN in 1999" How did Ron Paul raise millions in campaign contributions in days? By using the internet. With the internet it's easy to create meeting spaces. Look at Move-over.org and Meetup.

      Falcon

  48. Beware of Nevadan Jihadists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I guess we should expect geothermal jihadists from Nevada blowing up BP (occupiers of the Nevada holy land) gas stations with Ford Expeditions. So beware of Nevadans who want to learn how to drive but not park.

  49. Saudi Arabia again ? by bytesex · · Score: 1

    That whole 'Saudi Arabia' thing is getting to be a tad overused. I, for one, am the Saudi Arabia of sexytime. Ladies, please. Not all at once. Mecca is down there, if you know what I mean.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  50. Why the comparison to Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Reid intend to pretend to develop geothermal energy in Nevada while discreetly funding terrorist drilling platforms? Reid is a giant douche. He is exactly what's broken about politics, and now that he's about to get his ass handed to him by the voters who are no longer interested in being bribed with pork he's grasping at whatever he thinks can save him. Guess what, Harry? You're finished. You had your chance to be a public servant and you chose to serve yourself and your own massive ego instead. You might as well just step in front of a train tonight, you worthless bum.

  51. Dear California, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goodbye. I'm moving to a state that doesn't punish me for being successful. I can live like a king in FL or TX instead of the $800k shit shack I currently live in in LA, and I'm sure they'll welcome the revenue my small business will bring.

    Sincerely,
    Millionaires

  52. Partial guarantee by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    What the FUCK is a partial guarantee?!

  53. Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He thinks it's full of beer-dodging polygamous fundies? That's totally unfair.

    He must have it mixed up with Utah.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  54. Campaign contributions by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

    According to Open Secrets Reid was the #1 campaign funds recipient from alternative energy. At $52,730 he garnered over 4 times as much as the second place recipient, Barbara Boxer.

    Perhaps that has something to do with Mr. Reid's sudden interest in geothermal energy.

  55. Hookers in Burquas and No Booze in Vegas by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that in Las Vegas they will force all of the hookers into Burquas? I mean I guess this could be an improvement in some of the seedier parts of town. But the No Booze thing will totally kill the Casinos. Maybe they will ban gambling too. I know maybe instead or thousands of people circling the big squar black stone they can circle the big black pyramid that is luxor.

    Of course with all of the money from the new energy source will they start sponsoring terrorists in other states?

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  56. small scale by confused+one · · Score: 1

    While he's making statements about Nevada being the Saudi Arabia of Geothermal... remember that all these geothermal plants are in the 10's MW range. We build coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants on the scale of 100's and 000's of MW. We need to replace 1000's MW of ageing coal and nuclear plants. Please, let me know when the geothermal plants are being built on that scale.

    1. Re:small scale by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      While he's making statements about Nevada being the Saudi Arabia of Geothermal... remember that all these geothermal plants are in the 10's MW range. We build coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants on the scale of 100's and 000's of MW. We need to replace 1000's MW of ageing coal and nuclear plants.

      You like so many others want the One Big Thing when many small scale things can do as well if not better. Of course small scale projects take away the power of the fascists, er corporate socialists.

      Falcon

    2. Re:small scale by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm fine with them building small plants. Problem is they generally only build one 50MW plant here... One 30MW plant there... If your goal is to replace coal fired plants with renewables, then you have to think on the scale of a coal fired plant -- 300MW to 1000MW. They need to put these small geothermal plants in in clusters capable of replacing the typical coal plant; and, I'm not seeing that happen in many places. One exception seems to be The Geysers in CA, a complex of small plants with a combined ~1500MW capacity.

      Some numbers: Total US geothermal production as of 2010, 3086 MW from 77 plants. That compares to >3700MW generating capacity in Hampton Roads VA, where I live, and >1,000,000MW capacity (2009 DOE estimate summer capacity) in the US.

      There is an enormous amount of geothermal energy available in the western half of the US. We're doing a poor job of taping into this resource.

    3. Re:small scale by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm fine with them building small plants.

      If that's what you meant, I didn't get that, then I agree. Myself I have said I wanted solar panels installed on roofs, wind turbines in back yards, geothermal and solar thermal heating, and such.

      If your goal is to replace coal fired plants with renewables, then you have to think on the scale of a coal fired plant -- 300MW to 1000MW.

      Elsewhere I've mentioned how the capacity from wind turbines could replace, or negate the reason to build, nuclear power plants. These power plants take years and years to build. And not just in the US. However if you erect 20 5 megawatt wind turbines, there are bigger ones, a month in 10 months you've added 1 gigawatt of potential capacity. Need more, erect more. Use solar, geothermal, and others as well. Use whatever can be used to generate electricity in a given area.

      Falcon

  57. Yes, I am by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...then you're going to be mighty shocked at how many crazy people there are.

    Oh, believe me - I AM shocked by how many crazy people there are.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  58. Stop Making Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post is inadmissible on /.

    Please stay withing the accepted norms of hyperbole, divisiveness, and exaggeration.

  59. Confirmation by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    I can confirm that this is true.
    There is at LEAST an equal amount of planet Earth underneath Nevada as there is underneath Saudi Arabia.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  60. Uh oh, someone mentioned 'Harry Reid' by Zot+Quixote · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to read page upon page of bashing. The evil have successful pulled the wool over the eyes of the ignorant in this country yet again.

  61. I checked out her site... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Sharon Angle sure likes to see the words Sharon Angle on Sharon Angle's webpage.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  62. Pffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You say 'Nevada' I say 'Nevada'

  63. According to US Senator Harry Reid by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'

    Neither the TFA nor Harry Reid back up that claim. Until facts such as how many terawatts geothermal can generate in Nevada versus California and Hawaii then Nevada will remain behind CA and HA in capacity. As for a Saudi Arabia of Geothermal energy, that title belongs to Iceland. However TFA MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands says:
    "You'll be happy to know that the United States is ahead of the rest of the world, being the largest producer of geothermal energy. And, according to Nafi Toksöz, a geophysicist at MIT, the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."

    Falcon

  64. changing the constitution by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think we should have term limits, but that will never fly as Congress itself would have to approve it.

    Congress does not have to approve an amendment to the constitution. Two thirds, 34, states can call for a convention. No congressional approval needed. Then three quarters of the states, 38, can approve the amendment.

    Falcon

  65. Sharron Angle is fucking crazy. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Opposes fluoridation, the UN and the Department of Education.

    Good, I'm not sure, and good.

    Fluoridation causes a few health problems from weak, stained, teeth and skeletal damage, to cancer, fluoride is a mutagen.

    I don't really care much about the UN. I especially don't like it when people say the US has to follow UN rules, even when they are unconstitutional and deny sovereignty.

    The federal Department of Education? Where is it mentioned in the Costitution of the USA? It isn't so it isn't authorized.

    Falcon

  66. Nuclear getting much cheaper by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1
    That article is debunking something on the basis of economist "Tuft's" study, but we don't seem to be given access to his work.

    Basically, show me the study. I mean, did you spot the error in this paragraph?

    A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).

    Where did he get the quote for 'clean coal'... the coal industry? Show me ONE full scaled "clean coal" plant in operation today! THAT's the industry that is a myth.

    Now don't get me wrong: there have been nuclear cost blow outs on a massive scale. As the pharmaceutical companies say in their defence, "These pills might only cost 20cents each, but the first one cost us a billion!" Same with new technology nukes. However, climatologist Professor Barry Brook has been studying nuclear power avidly the past year or so, and documents his findings on the price of today's technology here.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/23/recent-nuclear-power-cost-estimates-separating-fact-from-myth/

    let alone the enormous benefits of putting smaller, modular 300MW IFR's on the production line and then mass-producing them with world's best standards inspections, putting them on the back of a truck, and delivering them on site. If you order 4 you might even get free fries with that. ;-)

    GE have a plan for a small version that could be produce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM

    Don't get me wrong: I love renewables. But for that portion of the grid that just HAS TO be reliable, baseload power, independent of the fickle nature of the weather or less sunlight due to the wrong SEASON, I say we use nukes that can be built cheaper than coal, actually deal with the legacy of nuclear waste left to us from the previous generation's inferior plants. Add electric cars and fast rail to the mix and these could solve global warming, peak oil and nuclear waste in one hit!

  67. You have just agreed with me with your citation. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No I didn't. I pointed out how both parties use filibusters but you only want Democrats to use them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You however only fault Republicans as if only Democrats can use them. As for my use of the citation, I used it because it was the second result for filibusters democrats republicans, the first being wiki. Another result says how Democrats used filibusters to block 10 Bush judicial nominees from a yes-or-no vote in 2003. Why is it alright for Democrats to use filibusters to block yes-or-no votes but not Republicans use of it for health insurance reform? You say how the article I first posted agreed that more people agreed when Democrats used filibusters than when Republicans do, but you neglected the health bill. A majority of people opposed the bill but Nancy Pelosi decided to ram it down people's throats anyway. She didn't care what voters wanted, and I hope she loses here seat because of it. Along with other Democrats.

    Falcon

  68. Re:You have just agreed with me with your citation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    No. You are now creating several straw man arguments. I did not say that Democrats can use it but Republicans cannot - you did, and I pointed out already that straw man. I also didn't say it was OK to use it to block judicial nominees but not healthcare reform. Indeed I said nothing about the uses to which it's put.

    I also didn't make the argument that Democratic use of the filibuster is OK because Democrats represent more people. You did, when you offered that article which consists entirely of that argument. I only agreed that argument has some validity, and that it certainly doesn't make the point you keep trying to make - it makes the opposite point.

    There are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of those straw men you offer, like how the republic part of our governmental system is designed precisely to give representatives power to lead even when an action is not popular. I could back it up with polls showing that now that HCR is law, and opponents have stopped pumping time and money into fighting it (while proponents have stopped doing so to boost it), people actually learning about the actual law and its actual effects have reversed those earlier polls. HCR is now now popular than unpopular, growing in popularity faster than it became unpopular, and following the exact same trend as every other healthcare or other social protection programme, from Medicare to Social Security to universal education to universal electric or telephone service. Right down to Republicans filibustering it on the argument that it's "armageddon", while Democrats manage to eventually pass it.

    All votes are "yes-no" votes. Republicans filibustered many more Clinton or Obama judicial appointees than Democrats filibustered Bush's or Reagan/Bush's, while only Republicans tried to "ram them down our throats" by trying to eliminate the filibuster itself.

    But again, those are straw men. I debunk them only to show the weakness of even the fallacies you offer. If the best you can do is fallacies, evidence that argues against you but you offer because it's the second Google result (failing at even cherrypicking results), and chanting Republican buzzwords, you're not going to convince anyone of anything. Only your fellow Republicans will agree, and they'll obviously stick together on anything - that's how filibusters work.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  69. Re:You have just agreed with me with your citation by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No. You are now creating several straw man arguments. I did not say that Democrats can use it but Republicans cannot

    Going up the thread this is where you say "I've watched it. But if you think it's 'fighting corruption' now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will. Or they use any of the many points in the legislative path to refuse "unanimous consent" to some rule erected to create that option, and derail the process." As if only Democrats can use filibusters. You do not explicitly state it, it is implicit (implied though not directly expressed;).

    Falcon

  70. Re:You have just agreed with me with your citation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    No, I am not implying that. You are inferring that.

    What I am explicitly saying is that Republicans have abused the filibuster, and that the filibuster rules must be changed to prevent its abuse. I have said it over and over again. I have also rejected your inference that the legitimacy of its use is determined by which party.

    In fact what I have said over and over is that Republicans abuse the filibuster, so the rules must be changed.

    You are the one who keeps trying to turn that into a purely partisan argument, that only X Party can/cannot use the filibuster. Because you are a Republican, Republicans like you always want special rules beneficial to your party and prohibitive to the other, and you want Democrats prohibited from using the filibuster just like your Republican Party wanted to eliminate it when Democrats had it available.

    That's enough. You're just part of the pool of Republicans who want special privileges, and then blame Democrats when you don't get them.

    Goodbye.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  71. constitutional parts of government by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

    Falcon

  72. Why would you have to prove it? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    If I make any kind of assertion I have to prove it not you. This is not really related at all.

    Do you not recall what you said? Or do you not understand? I included it in my post. Specifically "I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof." If I assert you did not give me a million dollars, a negative assertion, I can not prove it.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Why would you have to prove it? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1
      To be fair this is what you said:

      Say YOU CLAIM you gave me $1 millions, how do I PROVE you didn't?

      my emphasis. So my response was about that. In that situation its up to the YOU person to prove it.

      To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period. Think about what you would do if you really were in that situation and had to show to a judge that someone did not pay their debt to you. You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    2. Re:Why would you have to prove it? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period.

      You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.

      Quite simply it can be impossible for me to prove you did not give me money.

      You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.

      See above about not making a deposit. If I don't make one a bank statement will not help me. You have not thought this through obviously. And yes, I know about cashing checks I've been given instead of depositing it. I am on disability but my sister gets the money as my representative, most of the tyme she then writes me a check. Now if that check is from the representative account, it is from the same bank my account is in. Even though the 2 accounts are in the same bank if I deposit a check I still have to wait at least 2 days for the check to clear. However if I cash the check then deposit cash, which is what I do, the cash is available immediately. Or, because my disability income is being messed with, my sister sometimes writes me a check from her own account, in another bank. In that case I go to her bank to cash the check, then again deposit cash into my account. In either case I do not deposit the same amount as the check I cash, I keep some cash then I go grocery shopping and or go make a payment on my cable bill for instance.

      Falcon

    3. Re:Why would you have to prove it? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.

      You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    4. Re:Why would you have to prove it? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).

      Yes I use "you" and "I", in English Composition it is informal and generic. "You" specifically is Objective Third Person

      Not being able to rationally debate with me you resort to accusing me of the wrong use of "I" and "you" as specifically you the person I am replying to and I who is replying, when you yourself gets it wrong in your accusation, I see no reason to continue this conversation. In both cases my use of "I" and "you" are in the third person.

      Falcon

    5. Re:Why would you have to prove it? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1
      Ok so I apologise for failing to explain this properly. Its a bit confusing as "you" and "I" are used in several different ways here. I was not objecting to any rules of grammar, nor was I talking about "YOU" and "I" as falconwolf and CC respectively. I put them in capitals to distinguish the real you from the YOU in the story. To retaliate your example:

      You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.

      Now to avoid confusion lets give YOU and I names. Say You = john, I = frank.

      john can say frank deposited it in another account, how does frank prove frank do not have another account?

      etc.. you get the idea.

      Now to bring this whole saga back into context; it has been about assertions and backing them up with evidence. Do negative assertions require evidence? The poster I was previously discussing with stated that they did not. I was of the opinion that they did. I gave the example of asserting that the sky is not blue. Does this assertion require any evidence as it is negative?

      Now you joined this conversation late and on a somewhat tangent point. So finally the reason I was objecting in my previous point was because in your example John makes the assertion, but its up to Frank (ie. the you and I part) to prove it. This has nothing to do with the discussion as it is up to John to prove his own assertions, not Frank.

      I hope this makes things more clear.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly