Don't forget how it's HORRIBLE TO TAKE A LIFE when it's a 4-week-old fetus, but traveling halfway around the world to kill brown people is something WE HAVE TO DO.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
Shows what you know. You really should read a newspaper sometime.
John H. Bryan Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, **SARA LEE CORPORATION** Director since 1993
I guess now we know where the ETHANOL nonsense came from! I say we will never be rid of ethanol until we remove all sugar pushers from our board rooms!
As another commentator pointed out here, a microwave beaming system would be seen by other countries as a potential space weapon, spurring a space arms race that we might not want to start right now. I think the only completely unobjectionable method of getting power down from orbit would be transmitting it along a space elevator a la Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars. But I suspect that before a space elevator would be feasible, the human race will have already perfected fusion power, which would rather solve our energy needs, wouldn't it? Indeed, fusion is always 30 years away, but a recent BBC report makes me optimistic.
This may sound childish, but I'm sick of waiting for the future.
As you say, Fusion is always "30 years out". Though I have been a supporter of Nuclear Fission in the past, this seems to offer all the Pros of Nuclear Fission with none of the Cons (though I consider the cons of fission to be minor, I can not deny they exist).
If it is truly possible to do something like this in 10 years, then I say full speed ahead.
I mean, my God, we built the atom bomb in less than 5, and they were practically writing the physics books as they went along!
As I understand it, these Power Satellites require no new technology, just a massive re-tasking of currently available technology (Large enough launch vehicles, Microwave power transmission, etc.)
Yes, because we all know how much attention the United States pays to the UN.
Democrat or Republican, the United Nations is nothing but LIP SERVICE.
We go to the UN when we really don't want to do anything because that is the UN's specialty, DOING NOTHING.
That is precisely why President Bill Clinton bypassed the UN and went directly to NATO when we decided we were sick of their (the UN) inaction on the Genocide taking place in Yugoslavia.
It is also precisely why President George W. Bush bypassed the UN when he decided to put an end to Saddam Hussein's reign.
You can judge these actions as good or bad (as I'm sure a lot will), but they both show that it doesn't matter who is in charge, a Conservative or a Liberal, the UN is still utterly WORTHLESS in doing anything but talking.
This sudo-christian (I say sudo because their is NOTHING in the Bible that backs up this patch-work quilt of prophecies people begin spouting whenever times get a little tough) obsession with the United Nations being some type of,...hell I don't know...some type of uber-secret society monster in disguise IS LUDICROUS.
NO country will ever give it's sovereignty to such a group of useless talking heads and too convince ones self otherwise is LUDICROUS.
P.S. I'm sorry I jumped in and ruined you Global Warming/Climate Change discussion. I just get very angry because I AM a person of deep belief in God and I get extremely pissed when people like this pop-up and make the rest of us look crazy.
Believing in God IS NOT crazy (as some here have claimed). Believing God to be a Genie who will WHISK YOU AWAY! from all your problems (much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz) IS Crazy.
Obama has a child-like view of the world. The notion that everyone can be reasoned with isn't diplomacy, it's stupidity. Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
And George W. Bush had a view of the World analogous to Karl Childers from Sling Blade.
What Conservatives have NEVER understood is what made the United States such a terrific force in the World, mainly the fact that we were HUMBLE.
Everyone and their brother knew that eventually the United States and the Empire of Japan were going to fight, it was simply unavoidable. You can't have two big kids on the block and not eventually have a fight to the finish.
But, knowing that, we STILL DID NOT ATTACK JAPAN FIRST. We played FAIR AND SQUARE. The Japanese attacked and that was a tragic loss of life (speaking of Pearl Harbor), however it was COMPLETELY APPARENT who the attackers were and THAT is why the United States was (and this IS something the Conservatives have correct) COMPLETELY justified in utterly crushing the Japanese Adversaries.
Barack Obama is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing. Talking nice and soft to countries like Iran. Iran isn't stupid, they are *well* aware that regardless of what we say, we are more than capable of destroying them utterly. This will *never* be in doubt, do not worry.
An example would be that *one* of our Ballistic Missile Submarines, ONE, is more than capable of turning Iran into the World's largest self-illuminating, glass floored parking lot.
If Iran (and, again, I cannot fathom that they would be this stupid, but for sake of argument...) were to attack Israel, a very well known and supported U.S. Ally (I would go so far as too say Israel is as strong an Ally in the Middle East as Great Britain, Germany, or France is in Europe), I am COMPLETELY confident that under President Obama's current administration, it would take him less than the five minute flight time (which is about how long a long-range missile would take to travel from Iran to Israel) to make the decision to strike Iran *decisively*.
By decisively, read with a limited Nuclear Weapons strike aimed at effectively *shattering* Iran's agility to make war for a great period of time.
Now, let's look back. What's the difference between George W. Bush's attitude toward World Diplomacy and Barack Obama's?
The difference is George W. Bush (this will be ironic, considering you have prescribed this attribute to Barack Obama) was VERY naive in the ways of Governing. I believe the United States to be a force of good in the World. That DOES NOT mean the United States hasn't made tragic mistakes in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but I truly feel we have proceeded with the very best of intentions even if the end result has sometimes been less than perfect.
But that doesn't automatically mean the rest of the World is going to see it that way. To quote Ray Liotta's character in the movie "Cop Land", "BEING RIGHT ISN'T A BULLETPROOF VEST!" Just being right isn't enough and this is what Barack Obama understands and George W. Bush does not.
It's not enough to just be right, you have to convince the World that you are right AND THE BEST WAY to convince the World is through superior action.
In 1962, the United States faced off against the Soviet Union over the island of Cuba. The Soviets installed Nuclear Missiles in Cuba as a way of (in their own minds, at least) counter balancing our stationing of Nuclear Missiles in Turkey. In the mind of the Soviets, this was a completely proper tit-for-that maneuver, they didn't understand why the World reacted with almost universal solidarity (taking into account, of course, the division of the World at that time between East and West) with the United States, considering that the United States had placed missiles in Turkey first.
Would you like me to tell you why, it is really very simple. Because the United States DID NOT attempt to hide the fact that we were placing missiles in Turkey. Now I'm no
There is more to say; back your false statements up with some numbers! You could find an expert (as I did) and ask them and get yourself informed.
Simply put my ignorant friend:
Government greatly subsidizes nuclear power and did for the whole history of it along the whole chain from the ground to waste storage. Without government welfare it couldn't be profitable without raising the price of energy. Not to mention the high regulation and security costs involved that are a mandatory part of the industry which government pays for as well.
Cheap nuclear is forever 5 years away. I want it proven; 60 years of scamming the public demands it.
Which I would find interesting if I didn't know the Nuclear Industry PAYS A TAX ON EVERY WATT of power generated in order to PAY for "the chain from the Ground to Waste Storage".
That's something Greenpeace Scientists (which are just about the only one's to pass on this dribble) never seem to get to in their LONG-WINDED diatribes.
I weigh this against the MASSIVE SUBSIDIES wind and solar get everyday (which they are NEVER required to pay back) any day of the week.
You really should look in the mirror before pointing the "ignorant" stick at others, you know.
One of those pictures shows the "Wolfe Creek": http://www.geocities.com/zlipanov/impact_craters/wolfe_creek-australia.jpg, which is a "relatively well-preserved crater that is partly buried under wind blown sand. The crater is situated in the flat desert plains of north-central Australia. Its crater rim rises ~25 meters above the surrounding plains and the crater floor is ~50 meters below the rim. Oxidized remnants of iron meteoritic material as well as some impact glass have been found"
Damn! If someone would just pickup that really weird guy who's been killing hikers, I bet we could do some REAL science there!
It's got nothing to do with "what we want" in the sense of procedure.
It's got to do with what's best for the country. What's best for the country is ZERO time between the "Changing of the Guard", so too speak.
Of course he should take the oath, but he is IN NO WAY relieved of any authority OR responsibility if it doesn't happen exactly five minutes after.
I also do not think he is "swearing allegiance to the country". He is swearing to "uphold his responsibilities as President". He has already proven his allegiance to the country by being an American Citizen.
I've heard that claim before, HOWEVER I'm not sure those studies take into account the enormous return on investment in the amount of energy produced.
I've seen studies that show the Plant repays it's cost in energy (meaning how much energy went into the building of the plant) in the first 3 - 6 months of operation.
If that were the case, then Nuclear (while not perfect) would have a FAR larger return on energy investment than most other sources.
Well, it certainly doesn't replace responsible planning, but I don't think anything so simple should be discounted.
IF it worked (if being the important word) then it would make for a cheap way to 'take the edge off' let's say.
And, because the effect is so temporary, it wouldn't really hurt to try it on a mass scale, save from the potential wasted money if it turned out it didn't work.
The most benign project I've seen is to attempt to spur plankton growth by seedy the oceans with iron.
I actually thought that was a pretty decent experiment since it would most likely be a slow run up to the growth of the plankton, there would be time to modify it before we found ourselves in an ice age.
I am a strong supporter of Nuclear Power because it is the only proven technology that could replace Coal right now (without any technological leaps. Lots of money, for sure, but not technology)
However, I think this is the first TRULY renewable energy technology that could replace Coal, Natural Gas, AND Nuclear Energy in one swoop.
If we could figure this out, it would be a pretty nice advantage over any potential rivals. (Not that I'm saying we shouldn't share, of course:)).
They would certainly deserve it for willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did, but this is the US were talking about. The only people who will see any benefit are the lawyers. The rest of the world will get a voucher at the Apple store online or some other equally lame appeasement.
Willfully bricking my ASS.
They told EVERYONE days before the update was released it would brick unlocked phones and the morons who screwed around with them installed it anyway.
The problem with Iraq is that the war was/is based on lies. Lies about WMD, about ties to Al Quaeda, lies about oil and more. The problem is Bush lied to the people and has used those lies to line the pockets of corporate friends at the expense of the American public's financial well being and the Iraqi people's lives and well being. Maybe Iraq will become a better country in the future, but this mess has been about as poorly handled as it could have been at the executive level.
I believe (but can not know) that Gore would have focused on the real issue in Afghanistan. I believe Gore would have focused on reducing national debt, not increasing it. I believe we would mostly be better off if Gore had been elected. All except Gore and many of the wealthiest Americans.
InnerWeb
Bull.
While I will not disagree that we would have been better served to focus on Afghanistan, the Iraq War was perfectly winnable.
People are already tagging George W. Bush as creating America's newest Vietnam (something I actually wouldn't argue with), but that leaves out the fact that, unlike Vietnam, the Iraq War wasn't destined to come to the end it has.
In my opinion, the war went this direction when the Administration (and this is where George's responsibility comes into play, because AS PRESIDENT he is responsible for whatever goes on under his people) chose to stop making decisions and made having a single-track mind a virtue (lest we forget the infamous "Stay the Course").
Having a single-track mind is exactly what you want in a bookkeeper. You want that person to focus ONLY on financial manners. It is also something to look for in a delivery person. Always good to think the person delivering stuff for you is focused on their job.
Unfortunately, this is close to useless in a Managerial Position (which, I think we can all agree, being PRESIDENT is). You don't have the luxury of being single-minded when you have to make decisions over an infinite range of situations.
Deciding beforehand to dismiss the Iraqi Army (when everyone and their brother new the Army was going to be the single, most useful tool to foster Nationalism in OUR favor), dismissing out of hand Donald Rumsfeld's suggestion to IMMEDIATELY get a civilian government together (instead of the farce that was the Coalition Provisional Authority).
People critisied Donald Rumsfeld for these actions (and, no doubt, he has PLENTY of blame to shoulder for his own less than perfect ideas), but I find this to be a scapegoat.
George W. Bush was the President and ANY mistakes made by those in his charge ARE HIS RESPONSIBILITY. ALL of the major posts (Secretary of Defense, Treasury, etc.) are nominated by the PRESIDENT. Regardless of how many nominations he/she is forced to make (Congress after all appoints them), the PRESIDENT is ALWAYS the person who nominates them. To me, that means they hold responsibility.
This is one reason I find it amusing when people speak of a "Liberal Media Bias". Now, to be fair, I do think the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) do lean to the left by some margin. I was surprised at how blatantly Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann fawned over Barack Obama.
Now, to make my positions clear, I fully intend to vote for Barack Obama. I think he is clearly a superior choice to deal with the leavings of the current administration, but he is still a politician and is far from infallible. Hell, six years from now we might find he is another Richard Nixon (:)), but we can't vote for what MIGHT BE, we need to vote on WHAT IS.
John McCain MIGHT (I say that VERY loosely) return to his Maverick style if he wins. He might very well be playing the conservatives for all they're worth (between you and me, I think that would be poetic justice for the *so called* Conservative movement who, in my opinion, have always tried to hide from the present by clinging to the past and calling *THAT* Conservative).
You mean taking advantage of a situation removes all blame from you? You really think the US companies are dumping this waste without knowing full well what will happen to it? I doubt it.
Then again, we could have another Mattel-lead-paint situation, where they got it done for cheap overseas, without fully looking in to how bad the situation really was.
Because people like you and me LIKE cheap shit.
I shop at WalMart because it is CHEAP.
They (the companies) would say it isn't their responsibility to do the Chinese Governments job of overseeing the enforcement of their own laws regarding the environment.
You know what, I would kinda argue the same thing.
Who am I to NOT buy from someone in China if the product looks exactly the same as one I'm currently buying from Canada, accept is cheaper.
NOW! IF the Chinese product is shown to be a danger (such as being tainted with lead, or plastic, etc.), then I have a VERY GOOD reason to go back to buying the more expensive product (higher quality).
But, without a good reason, cheap will almost always rate higher than non-cheap.
What are the other countries doing accepting the waste? USA shouldn't be responsible for other countries' not acting responsibly.
I don't see why this was marked Troll.
The poster asks a perfectly valid question. Why should we in the United States be held to account because countries such as India and China aren't disposing of waste correctly?
They are taking responsibility for it by accepting money. What they do with it is really their problem at that point.
The old saying "You bought the ticket, now ride the ride" comes to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
potential tow-headed youngsters
I'm intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Tell me, what do you know of these children with Anti-Tank weapons mounted on their heads?
For those who do not get the joke, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW
Don't forget how it's HORRIBLE TO TAKE A LIFE when it's a 4-week-old fetus, but traveling halfway around the world to kill brown people is something WE HAVE TO DO.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
Shows what you know. You really should read a newspaper sometime.
They're NOT brown, more of an olive color.
The nerve of some people.... :)
I KNEW IT!!!
John H. Bryan
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
**SARA LEE CORPORATION**
Director since 1993
I guess now we know where the ETHANOL nonsense came from! I say we will never be rid of ethanol until we remove all sugar pushers from our board rooms!
If CD Players and DVD players are your guide, the price of electric cars will come down when they're mass produced in China and sold in Wal*Mart.
I kinda like his idea.
As another commentator pointed out here, a microwave beaming system would be seen by other countries as a potential space weapon, spurring a space arms race that we might not want to start right now. I think the only completely unobjectionable method of getting power down from orbit would be transmitting it along a space elevator a la Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars . But I suspect that before a space elevator would be feasible, the human race will have already perfected fusion power, which would rather solve our energy needs, wouldn't it? Indeed, fusion is always 30 years away, but a recent BBC report makes me optimistic.
This may sound childish, but I'm sick of waiting for the future.
As you say, Fusion is always "30 years out". Though I have been a supporter of Nuclear Fission in the past, this seems to offer all the Pros of Nuclear Fission with none of the Cons (though I consider the cons of fission to be minor, I can not deny they exist).
If it is truly possible to do something like this in 10 years, then I say full speed ahead.
I mean, my God, we built the atom bomb in less than 5, and they were practically writing the physics books as they went along!
As I understand it, these Power Satellites require no new technology, just a massive re-tasking of currently available technology (Large enough launch vehicles, Microwave power transmission, etc.)
Yes, because we all know how much attention the United States pays to the UN.
Democrat or Republican, the United Nations is nothing but LIP SERVICE.
We go to the UN when we really don't want to do anything because that is the UN's specialty, DOING NOTHING.
That is precisely why President Bill Clinton bypassed the UN and went directly to NATO when we decided we were sick of their (the UN) inaction on the Genocide taking place in Yugoslavia.
It is also precisely why President George W. Bush bypassed the UN when he decided to put an end to Saddam Hussein's reign.
You can judge these actions as good or bad (as I'm sure a lot will), but they both show that it doesn't matter who is in charge, a Conservative or a Liberal, the UN is still utterly WORTHLESS in doing anything but talking.
This sudo-christian (I say sudo because their is NOTHING in the Bible that backs up this patch-work quilt of prophecies people begin spouting whenever times get a little tough) obsession with the United Nations being some type of,...hell I don't know...some type of uber-secret society monster in disguise IS LUDICROUS.
NO country will ever give it's sovereignty to such a group of useless talking heads and too convince ones self otherwise is LUDICROUS.
P.S. I'm sorry I jumped in and ruined you Global Warming/Climate Change discussion. I just get very angry because I AM a person of deep belief in God and I get extremely pissed when people like this pop-up and make the rest of us look crazy.
Believing in God IS NOT crazy (as some here have claimed). Believing God to be a Genie who will WHISK YOU AWAY! from all your problems (much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz) IS Crazy.
Obama has a child-like view of the world. The notion that everyone can be reasoned with isn't diplomacy, it's stupidity. Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
And George W. Bush had a view of the World analogous to Karl Childers from Sling Blade.
What Conservatives have NEVER understood is what made the United States such a terrific force in the World, mainly the fact that we were HUMBLE.
Everyone and their brother knew that eventually the United States and the Empire of Japan were going to fight, it was simply unavoidable. You can't have two big kids on the block and not eventually have a fight to the finish.
But, knowing that, we STILL DID NOT ATTACK JAPAN FIRST. We played FAIR AND SQUARE. The Japanese attacked and that was a tragic loss of life (speaking of Pearl Harbor), however it was COMPLETELY APPARENT who the attackers were and THAT is why the United States was (and this IS something the Conservatives have correct) COMPLETELY justified in utterly crushing the Japanese Adversaries.
Barack Obama is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing. Talking nice and soft to countries like Iran. Iran isn't stupid, they are *well* aware that regardless of what we say, we are more than capable of destroying them utterly. This will *never* be in doubt, do not worry.
An example would be that *one* of our Ballistic Missile Submarines, ONE, is more than capable of turning Iran into the World's largest self-illuminating, glass floored parking lot.
If Iran (and, again, I cannot fathom that they would be this stupid, but for sake of argument...) were to attack Israel, a very well known and supported U.S. Ally (I would go so far as too say Israel is as strong an Ally in the Middle East as Great Britain, Germany, or France is in Europe), I am COMPLETELY confident that under President Obama's current administration, it would take him less than the five minute flight time (which is about how long a long-range missile would take to travel from Iran to Israel) to make the decision to strike Iran *decisively*.
By decisively, read with a limited Nuclear Weapons strike aimed at effectively *shattering* Iran's agility to make war for a great period of time.
Now, let's look back. What's the difference between George W. Bush's attitude toward World Diplomacy and Barack Obama's?
The difference is George W. Bush (this will be ironic, considering you have prescribed this attribute to Barack Obama) was VERY naive in the ways of Governing. I believe the United States to be a force of good in the World. That DOES NOT mean the United States hasn't made tragic mistakes in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but I truly feel we have proceeded with the very best of intentions even if the end result has sometimes been less than perfect.
But that doesn't automatically mean the rest of the World is going to see it that way. To quote Ray Liotta's character in the movie "Cop Land", "BEING RIGHT ISN'T A BULLETPROOF VEST!" Just being right isn't enough and this is what Barack Obama understands and George W. Bush does not.
It's not enough to just be right, you have to convince the World that you are right AND THE BEST WAY to convince the World is through superior action.
In 1962, the United States faced off against the Soviet Union over the island of Cuba. The Soviets installed Nuclear Missiles in Cuba as a way of (in their own minds, at least) counter balancing our stationing of Nuclear Missiles in Turkey. In the mind of the Soviets, this was a completely proper tit-for-that maneuver, they didn't understand why the World reacted with almost universal solidarity (taking into account, of course, the division of the World at that time between East and West) with the United States, considering that the United States had placed missiles in Turkey first.
Would you like me to tell you why, it is really very simple. Because the United States DID NOT attempt to hide the fact that we were placing missiles in Turkey. Now I'm no
There is more to say; back your false statements up with some numbers! You could find an expert (as I did) and ask them and get yourself informed.
Simply put my ignorant friend:
Government greatly subsidizes nuclear power and did for the whole history of it along the whole chain from the ground to waste storage. Without government welfare it couldn't be profitable without raising the price of energy. Not to mention the high regulation and security costs involved that are a mandatory part of the industry which government pays for as well.
Cheap nuclear is forever 5 years away. I want it proven; 60 years of scamming the public demands it.
Which I would find interesting if I didn't know the Nuclear Industry PAYS A TAX ON EVERY WATT of power generated in order to PAY for "the chain from the Ground to Waste Storage".
That's something Greenpeace Scientists (which are just about the only one's to pass on this dribble) never seem to get to in their LONG-WINDED diatribes.
I weigh this against the MASSIVE SUBSIDIES wind and solar get everyday (which they are NEVER required to pay back) any day of the week.
You really should look in the mirror before pointing the "ignorant" stick at others, you know.
One of those pictures shows the "Wolfe Creek": http://www.geocities.com/zlipanov/impact_craters/wolfe_creek-australia.jpg, which is a "relatively well-preserved crater that is partly buried under wind blown sand. The crater is situated in the flat desert plains of north-central Australia. Its crater rim rises ~25 meters above the surrounding plains and the crater floor is ~50 meters below the rim. Oxidized remnants of iron meteoritic material as well as some impact glass have been found"
Damn! If someone would just pickup that really weird guy who's been killing hikers, I bet we could do some REAL science there!
That's why I'm glad to live in my fine sovereign southern state. NO vehicle inspections, period!
I'm currently celebrating by making plans to stick a big ass, 502 Ramjet big-block V8 in my 89 GMC Sierra.
I guess WE truly believe in freedom :).
I'm afraid you'd be in a small party if those are your feelings.
To anyone claiming Nuclear Power was never profitable, I'd point to the 60 year history of Nuclear Energy in the United States.
'fraid there isn't much more too say.
It's got nothing to do with "what we want" in the sense of procedure.
It's got to do with what's best for the country. What's best for the country is ZERO time between the "Changing of the Guard", so too speak.
Of course he should take the oath, but he is IN NO WAY relieved of any authority OR responsibility if it doesn't happen exactly five minutes after.
I also do not think he is "swearing allegiance to the country". He is swearing to "uphold his responsibilities as President". He has already proven his allegiance to the country by being an American Citizen.
You know, not to get off topic, but I've always wondered if Aluminum lining wasn't the answer to hydrogen embrittlement?
I bring it up because that has always been (among other things) one of the big barriers to the so-called "Hydrogen Economy".
Uh, I'm not sure I agree with that.
I've heard that claim before, HOWEVER I'm not sure those studies take into account the enormous return on investment in the amount of energy produced.
I've seen studies that show the Plant repays it's cost in energy (meaning how much energy went into the building of the plant) in the first 3 - 6 months of operation.
If that were the case, then Nuclear (while not perfect) would have a FAR larger return on energy investment than most other sources.
Well, it certainly doesn't replace responsible planning, but I don't think anything so simple should be discounted.
IF it worked (if being the important word) then it would make for a cheap way to 'take the edge off' let's say.
And, because the effect is so temporary, it wouldn't really hurt to try it on a mass scale, save from the potential wasted money if it turned out it didn't work.
It's been so long since I first read it that I'm not sure this is the actual project, but if it isn't I bet it's close.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002056.html
The most benign project I've seen is to attempt to spur plankton growth by seedy the oceans with iron.
I actually thought that was a pretty decent experiment since it would most likely be a slow run up to the growth of the plankton, there would be time to modify it before we found ourselves in an ice age.
Fire the ADMINISTRATOR!
I am a strong supporter of Nuclear Power because it is the only proven technology that could replace Coal right now (without any technological leaps. Lots of money, for sure, but not technology)
However, I think this is the first TRULY renewable energy technology that could replace Coal, Natural Gas, AND Nuclear Energy in one swoop.
If we could figure this out, it would be a pretty nice advantage over any potential rivals. (Not that I'm saying we shouldn't share, of course :)).
enemy has not yet revealed themselves.
BTW, I really would like to know who had Frankie Pentangeli killed.
They would certainly deserve it for willfully bricking unlocked iPhones the way they did, but this is the US were talking about. The only people who will see any benefit are the lawyers. The rest of the world will get a voucher at the Apple store online or some other equally lame appeasement.
Willfully bricking my ASS.
They told EVERYONE days before the update was released it would brick unlocked phones and the morons who screwed around with them installed it anyway.
I'm a FIRM believer in personal responsibility.
The problem with Iraq is that the war was/is based on lies. Lies about WMD, about ties to Al Quaeda, lies about oil and more. The problem is Bush lied to the people and has used those lies to line the pockets of corporate friends at the expense of the American public's financial well being and the Iraqi people's lives and well being. Maybe Iraq will become a better country in the future, but this mess has been about as poorly handled as it could have been at the executive level.
I believe (but can not know) that Gore would have focused on the real issue in Afghanistan. I believe Gore would have focused on reducing national debt, not increasing it. I believe we would mostly be better off if Gore had been elected. All except Gore and many of the wealthiest Americans.
InnerWeb
Bull.
While I will not disagree that we would have been better served to focus on Afghanistan, the Iraq War was perfectly winnable.
People are already tagging George W. Bush as creating America's newest Vietnam (something I actually wouldn't argue with), but that leaves out the fact that, unlike Vietnam, the Iraq War wasn't destined to come to the end it has.
In my opinion, the war went this direction when the Administration (and this is where George's responsibility comes into play, because AS PRESIDENT he is responsible for whatever goes on under his people) chose to stop making decisions and made having a single-track mind a virtue (lest we forget the infamous "Stay the Course").
Having a single-track mind is exactly what you want in a bookkeeper. You want that person to focus ONLY on financial manners. It is also something to look for in a delivery person. Always good to think the person delivering stuff for you is focused on their job.
Unfortunately, this is close to useless in a Managerial Position (which, I think we can all agree, being PRESIDENT is). You don't have the luxury of being single-minded when you have to make decisions over an infinite range of situations.
Deciding beforehand to dismiss the Iraqi Army (when everyone and their brother new the Army was going to be the single, most useful tool to foster Nationalism in OUR favor), dismissing out of hand Donald Rumsfeld's suggestion to IMMEDIATELY get a civilian government together (instead of the farce that was the Coalition Provisional Authority).
People critisied Donald Rumsfeld for these actions (and, no doubt, he has PLENTY of blame to shoulder for his own less than perfect ideas), but I find this to be a scapegoat.
George W. Bush was the President and ANY mistakes made by those in his charge ARE HIS RESPONSIBILITY. ALL of the major posts (Secretary of Defense, Treasury, etc.) are nominated by the PRESIDENT. Regardless of how many nominations he/she is forced to make (Congress after all appoints them), the PRESIDENT is ALWAYS the person who nominates them. To me, that means they hold responsibility.
This is one reason I find it amusing when people speak of a "Liberal Media Bias". Now, to be fair, I do think the mainstream media (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) do lean to the left by some margin. I was surprised at how blatantly Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann fawned over Barack Obama.
Now, to make my positions clear, I fully intend to vote for Barack Obama. I think he is clearly a superior choice to deal with the leavings of the current administration, but he is still a politician and is far from infallible. Hell, six years from now we might find he is another Richard Nixon (:)), but we can't vote for what MIGHT BE, we need to vote on WHAT IS.
John McCain MIGHT (I say that VERY loosely) return to his Maverick style if he wins. He might very well be playing the conservatives for all they're worth (between you and me, I think that would be poetic justice for the *so called* Conservative movement who, in my opinion, have always tried to hide from the present by clinging to the past and calling *THAT* Conservative).
But, I don't see the wisdom in voting for someo
You mean taking advantage of a situation removes all blame from you? You really think the US companies are dumping this waste without knowing full well what will happen to it? I doubt it.
Then again, we could have another Mattel-lead-paint situation, where they got it done for cheap overseas, without fully looking in to how bad the situation really was.
Because people like you and me LIKE cheap shit.
I shop at WalMart because it is CHEAP.
They (the companies) would say it isn't their responsibility to do the Chinese Governments job of overseeing the enforcement of their own laws regarding the environment.
You know what, I would kinda argue the same thing.
Who am I to NOT buy from someone in China if the product looks exactly the same as one I'm currently buying from Canada, accept is cheaper.
NOW! IF the Chinese product is shown to be a danger (such as being tainted with lead, or plastic, etc.), then I have a VERY GOOD reason to go back to buying the more expensive product (higher quality).
But, without a good reason, cheap will almost always rate higher than non-cheap.
What are the other countries doing accepting the waste? USA shouldn't be responsible for other countries' not acting responsibly.
I don't see why this was marked Troll.
The poster asks a perfectly valid question. Why should we in the United States be held to account because countries such as India and China aren't disposing of waste correctly?
They are taking responsibility for it by accepting money. What they do with it is really their problem at that point.
The old saying "You bought the ticket, now ride the ride" comes to mind.
Or a pharmacist.
Hah!