Love and worship a child? My parents love me, but I think support would be a better word than worship. I like the term 'approve'. My parents will always love me, they'll even support most of my decisions, but their true approval is reserved for when they agree with my actions.
The case of 'approval' for killing varies. My parents are prepared for the case of me killing somebody, as I am military. They acknowledge a difference between killing for wrongful reasons(murder), killing in self defense, killing to defend others, and killing as an act of war. For that matter, the possibility of their child killing a person is something any parent of a police officer has to face. Being a police officer, upholding the law, keeping the peace is considered a good occupation, at least for many parents. It doesn't pay the best, but then again, it's usually a good steady career choice. Police don't often get laid off without some significant cause.
Society teaches parents to approve of military service? Then why is the Army having recruiting difficulties? According to the articles I've been reading, the major problem the recruiters are having are not with the young adults(who are as eager to join up as ever), but with the parents nixing the idea.
Besides, military service is a fairly rare occupation today. Per the CIA factbook, 3.3% of GDP is dedicated to the military, and that there are 108 million people considered fit for military service(both male and female). Of that, 1.4 million are active duty. That's 1.3% of the eligible population. Out of the whole population of 295 million, about.5%. Most military members are support, not combat ops. Police are about.2% of the population in the USA. There is a statistical significant overlap between police officers and reserve/guard service.
Spamming and debt collection, interesting choices. Spamming as a career is very new. Still, most kids don't grow up saying 'I'm going to be a Janitor!'. Most spammers don't get rich, and debt collectors, from my understanding, actually tends to run in families. Still, remember I seperate love, support, and approval. Good parents will love their spamming son, maybe support him in his choice of career(not throw snit fits over it), but not approve(Dear, I'd prefer for you to find a new career path).
Actually, if you research the background on this particular case, you'll find out that, if you were the parent of the girl, you were donating your girl to this man.
I've read the story on multiple major news sources, such as CNN, and even a local source, the Burlington free press. If this is true, well, sheeesh. The 'parents', if this is true, don't deserve to be. Still, looking at the statistics, most pedophiles pick kids of parents who are 'enablers'. Whether they outright allow it, are incompetent, or are simply too trusting of an authority figure(priest, teacher). The vast majority of parents wouldn't have given this guy the opportunity to even start.
Ah, sorry about that. Read your post the wrong way.
Yeah, it's infuriating for me to talk to people who refuse to see logic. I've seen the statistics. Flying is safer than driving per mile, except in the smallest planes on the shorter hops, because statistically speaking, taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts.
Of course, When they go "Would you like a nuclear plant or waste disposal facility in your backyard?" I go "Yep, I'd love it, great paying jobs for the community.", they don't have many arguments left.
It'd be a little different if we had an absolutely effective birth control means, and have eliminated STD's. Still, in this case the contact was when she was 6-10 years old.
"Nobody can really compare a relationship in which the victim is 15 years old to one where she's 6," said Steven Wright, Cartner's lawyer. "While both criminal, they're very different circumstances."
Statutory rape can be a bit iffy for the older teenagers. I have alot more sympathy for a sub 25 year old sleeping with a 15 year old than a 38 year old doing it to a 6 year old. Still not happy with them, but it wasn't too long ago that 15 year olds could marry in most states. Given the better nutrition, girls are maturing quicker, and you pretty much need to check ID's to tell. Between fake ID's, alchohol, and a willing girl, and it's a situation I can see happening to a unwary guy. The way most laws are written, the girl is pretty much allowed to try to trick you in any way she can, and it's still your fault if you fall for it. The idea with statutory rape is that the kid is too young to realize the consequences of his or her actions in an adult fashion. The difference between many 15 year olds and 18 year olds is often very slim today in that regard.
If that is indeed true, it sounds almost worse than letting your kid stay with Michael Jackson.
That would indeed be a sticky trial. Were the parents stupid, suckers, incompetant(criminally), or negligent? Probably a combination of the above, but in what porportions?
Actually, the judge increased it to only 3 years. I was like, the man molested her for four years, he should get at least that amount of time. Then again, I think 10 years per is more fair, but I'm not the judge.
I can see the judge's point about the treatment, but like other posters have stated, if it was my daughter, I'd have killed him. I won't try to justify it as anything but murder with revenge as the motive.
The whole 'At least he can't do it to anyone else' is a meager excuse after the fact.
And my point is, Coal is better than this how? They were talking about putting in a new coal plant up here to sell power on the market. Promised benefits: Jobs and income for the state. Detriments: Air pollution would increase lung cancer risks for everybody within 50 miles of the plant, to that of 'former smokers'. Asthma increases they estimated as 'significant'.
As the workers in Japan who decided to mix nuclear materials with a steel bucket rather than using the multimillion dollar machine designed to do the mix safely demonstrated, you do have to be careful about the stuff, but the same can be said for things like poisonous animals, poisons, and even many household chemicals. They had the training, but chose not to use it. They had procedures they didn't use. If they'd survived the accident and not been so contaminated that they could still work in the nuclear industry, they still would have been fired for violating dozens of regulations and rules.
Compare that to the 12 miners who recently died because of a fire not even where they were working, from what I understand.
Radiation levels decrease 'significantly'(50%) within the first twelve days of being removed from the reactor. After a while, the overall half-life increases to a year.
The requirements for the waste are outragous, though I'll agree that Yucca Mountain is flawed. If we're to use that site, we'll have to use dispose* of significantly lower radioactive materials there, or have some better middle storage methods. Letting the waste sit in above ground casts for ~50 years combined with glass fusing techniques should work great. The longer you let the fuel rods sit, the less radiation they emit, reducing strain on the final containers.
*I still think that rather sooner than later we'll end up pulling the stuff back out for more use.
Sarcasm aside, when I'm talking about 'Major Systems', many of them are completely mechanical or physical in nature. Stuff like pumps and containment structures.
Every computer in the plant could fail and they'd still be able to safely shut down the reactor. Rather easily, as a matter of fact.
Let's put it this way. Even if you had a nuclear trained terrorist in the control room trying to make it go boom, he would be unable to do so.
In order to have a chernobyl style event in a modern, properly designed reactor*, more than 12 major systems have to simultaneously fail. Heck, 3MI, which was built before Chernobyl, was a better design.
*Chernobyl was more flawed than the Galaxy class's warp core;)
Please note: Use breeder style reactors by preference
Current reactors in the US only uses about 5% of the heavy elements. Using breeder reactors increases efficiency by a factor of about 10, meaning you can have 10 times as many plants for a given amount of waste.
Combine this with reprocessing, re-enrichment, and neutron bombardment reactors, the problem reduced to the point that even a Yucca mountain equivalent wouldn't be necessary.
Close down all the coal plants and replace them with modern efficient nuclear reactors. Use breeder style reactors by preference. I won't object to wind or solar or anything else if it's competative.
'looking at it on a screen might intice you into doing it for real' thing.
I do disagree with this line of reasoning, at least for competant adults. I was just keeping the post short. There's plenty of people out there trying to ban violent video games because of the exact same logic. In actuality, the statistics work out the opposite in many cases. People use the games as a form of catharism, working the violence out of their system. By that logic simulated porn could actually help the pedo control his or her impulses, avoiding commiting the greater crime.
At least in most movies, commision of illegal acts are eighter punished or explained away as the 'greater need'. Vigilante justice and such.
That's the only reason I could see giving the guy the minimum... When the father's waiting for him on the outside. (Well, any relative or concerned individual would do).
This is a somewhat scary decision, as much as I like the nailing Pedophile's balls to walls. For example, that case in Vermont that made the news about the judge giving the guy 60 days, I'd have given him 40 years.
As for point three, I believe that that the law, at least about totally generated art, was struck down. It doesn't matter about the 'computer', it's the whole no minors being involved.
Then again, there's the whole 'looking at it on a screen might intice you into doing it for real' thing.
Of course, being at work, I'm not exactly going to search wide and far for it.
I tried to reply earlier, but lost my post to a 500 error.
Of the two major meltdown accidents, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl, but involved crews mostly experienced with coal power. This is fine for dealing with the steam side of the house, but in 3MI they didn't realize the importance of maintaining cooling flow to the reactor. They starved the reactor of water, which then started to boil, forming voids and hydrogen gas.
The accident did spur a requirement for another level of security. It relives me to know that, even in a chernyobl full meltdown situation that radiation would have been far more contained at 3MI, because of the extra containment structure.
Very much true. You see, research is expensive, and often doesn't pay out. Thus, CEO's and boards that are looking simply at the bottom line tend to cut research. They also cut products that are making profits, but 'not enough'.
But if you're not looking to stay ahead, then somebody will pass you by. Just look at Japanese auto industry compared to the American one. Heck, Sony and the IPod.
Cutting 'low profit' services can also harm you, as it erodes options and 'brand loyalty'. If I can't get the service I want from my traditional company, I'll move, and then be tempted to move all my other systems over. I use the american railroad system for this one. By cutting the low profit lines, they actually hurt themselves because many companies with cargo to move went entirely to trucks, cutting traffic even on profitable lines. The new system of having modular cargo containers helps now, but it really hurt them in the time of the box cars where you had to unload and reload onto trucks. Personally, I'd of loved it if they did some research into highly automated short trains. Small locomotive run by 1-2 guys, still carrying several times what a tractor trailer can haul, at the substantially higher fuel economy of a train.
The problem with ethanol is, ironically, that it is compatible with the existing vehicle fleet. That fleet has an average tank-to-wheels efficiency of 14.9%. Lead-acid batteries are about 70% efficient, Li-ion is closer to 95%. We are far better off going plug-in hybrid than wasting our money on ethanol.
How about going with ethanol fuel cells? That way you get increased efficiency and can use ethanol
Of course, Corn is relativly poor for conversion into ethanol. I'll say that even though I come from a cornbelt state. Sugarbeets and such are far, far better. Still, that the entire corn crop could come so close is suprising.
Maybe for countries like the United States, or between European and non-european countries, but most borders in the world are very loose.
Radar surveys don't do much good when the stuff you're looking for isn't stored in easily recognizable containers. And, being a chemical, you can store the stuff in practically any gas or chemical container. A little goes a long way. The containers don't even have to be metallic, which would seriously limit their radar profile.
And I'm flattered that you think we can read newspaper headlines from orbit. Even so, it becomes a matter of: You're searching an area the size of California for disguised, possibly buried materials that would fit into a couple trucks.
No, 9/11 was not the excuse to invade Iraq. WMD's were the excuse for invading Iraq.
In this case, We beat up Sam(his dog ran away and hasn't been found yet), for his dog, and we beat up Dan for not letting us check his garage for dangerous chemicals like he agreed to because he's dangerous with them.
As for invading Iran or Saudi Arabia to get the terrorists rather than Iraq, again I'll say that Iraq wasn't about terrorism, though it has become a magnet for terrorists in the region. It's yet another proxy war. Back on the subject of invading Saudi Arabia or Iran, well, one is a major supplier of our oil, and the other is militarily far more capable than Iraq was at any point. It's kinda like how going in and taking out Kim Jong of North Korea would be nice, but he's got enough military power to make that a far more expensive proposition.
The problem with exporting oil is that it concentrates the funds too much. It's relativly easy to punch a few hole on a couple acres of land, import a few dozen to hundred workers, and have a relativly small number of people in the country take all the profit.
When it comes to ethanol, well, you have the factory(cheaper than sending the raw stuff over), but you also have all the farms, that have to be run by people. You also have the equipment, and it's cheaper to produce your own after a certain point. Chemicals for fertilization, though they'll have to find a different source than oil byproducts.
But it's my firm belief that 9/11 delayed Iraq, rather than spawning it. Our move into there was spurred by Saddam's continual disregard of the conditions of the ceasefire. The WMD, which I'm more of the opinion was moved out of country or destroyed before we found it, the human rights violations, the genocide. Those are the reasons for Iraq.
Even Bush said that Iraq and Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11.
Not entirely true. There are a few more products that are commercially viable. Car batteries and steel cans come to mind, even cars can be 'recycled' at junk yards.
Anytime you come up with a fairly large mass of fairly pure metal it's worth it.
And I replied to your post up above, and I will do so again.
Look at the TWO WORST nuclear power accidents in the world.
Three Mile Island, with no recorded fatalities.
Chernobyl, of which I studied fairly extensivly in high school, was a combination of a number of factors: 1. Dangerous experimental design
it's RBMK design had a positive void coefficient, and quite a high one. US reactors, other than some small early test reactors are not allowed to have this. In US reactors are designed so that the loss of cooling results in the reactor shutting down. In the RBMK design, the opposite happened.
It was a weapon reactor, power was to be a side benefit
2. Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear. The technictians came from the soviet nuclear submarines, which were a much safer design(see void coefficient). They weren't trained on the differences. 3. A test was being done, resulting in the bypass of a number of safety systems. 4. No containment dome. US reactors are housed in concrete containment domes that will limit release of radiation if all else fails. Chernobyl doesn't have it. Instead it has the sarcophagus which was placed after the fact, quickly, in hazardous conditions. It suffers from this.
Basically,Nuclear power has been shown to be extremely safe when handled correctly. For a severe disaster, the flaws would have to start in the very construction of the plant. Modern reactors would be orders of magnitude safer and efficient than our old reactors that still beat coal power in safety and pollution.
Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have huge impact and could make huge areas uninhabitable for decades.
Like what various purely chemical disasters have done? All of the various superfund sites?
Truth is, nuclear power would need several accidents on that scale to even catch up with coal.
"What if" is generally all I hear out of those who oppose nuclear power. My first thought is generally "Stop being a luddite and examine the evidence".
For example, look at Bush's decision. We're going to spend some money, and rather than mine more radioactive materials, we're going to take it out of the storage pools and recycle it into more fuel, thus reducing the amount of hazardous stuff around. And we get nice clean power out of it!
Slashdot Mirror
Love and worship a child? My parents love me, but I think support would be a better word than worship. I like the term 'approve'. My parents will always love me, they'll even support most of my decisions, but their true approval is reserved for when they agree with my actions.
.5%. Most military members are support, not combat ops. Police are about .2% of the population in the USA. There is a statistical significant overlap between police officers and reserve/guard service.
The case of 'approval' for killing varies. My parents are prepared for the case of me killing somebody, as I am military. They acknowledge a difference between killing for wrongful reasons(murder), killing in self defense, killing to defend others, and killing as an act of war. For that matter, the possibility of their child killing a person is something any parent of a police officer has to face. Being a police officer, upholding the law, keeping the peace is considered a good occupation, at least for many parents. It doesn't pay the best, but then again, it's usually a good steady career choice. Police don't often get laid off without some significant cause.
Society teaches parents to approve of military service? Then why is the Army having recruiting difficulties? According to the articles I've been reading, the major problem the recruiters are having are not with the young adults(who are as eager to join up as ever), but with the parents nixing the idea.
Besides, military service is a fairly rare occupation today. Per the CIA factbook, 3.3% of GDP is dedicated to the military, and that there are 108 million people considered fit for military service(both male and female). Of that, 1.4 million are active duty. That's 1.3% of the eligible population. Out of the whole population of 295 million, about
Spamming and debt collection, interesting choices. Spamming as a career is very new. Still, most kids don't grow up saying 'I'm going to be a Janitor!'. Most spammers don't get rich, and debt collectors, from my understanding, actually tends to run in families. Still, remember I seperate love, support, and approval. Good parents will love their spamming son, maybe support him in his choice of career(not throw snit fits over it), but not approve(Dear, I'd prefer for you to find a new career path).
Actually, if you research the background on this particular case, you'll find out that, if you were the parent of the girl, you were donating your girl to this man.
I've read the story on multiple major news sources, such as CNN, and even a local source, the Burlington free press. If this is true, well, sheeesh. The 'parents', if this is true, don't deserve to be. Still, looking at the statistics, most pedophiles pick kids of parents who are 'enablers'. Whether they outright allow it, are incompetent, or are simply too trusting of an authority figure(priest, teacher). The vast majority of parents wouldn't have given this guy the opportunity to even start.
Ah, sorry about that. Read your post the wrong way.
Yeah, it's infuriating for me to talk to people who refuse to see logic. I've seen the statistics. Flying is safer than driving per mile, except in the smallest planes on the shorter hops, because statistically speaking, taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts.
Of course, When they go "Would you like a nuclear plant or waste disposal facility in your backyard?" I go "Yep, I'd love it, great paying jobs for the community.", they don't have many arguments left.
These guys have it: Statutory rape can be a bit iffy for the older teenagers. I have alot more sympathy for a sub 25 year old sleeping with a 15 year old than a 38 year old doing it to a 6 year old. Still not happy with them, but it wasn't too long ago that 15 year olds could marry in most states. Given the better nutrition, girls are maturing quicker, and you pretty much need to check ID's to tell. Between fake ID's, alchohol, and a willing girl, and it's a situation I can see happening to a unwary guy. The way most laws are written, the girl is pretty much allowed to try to trick you in any way she can, and it's still your fault if you fall for it. The idea with statutory rape is that the kid is too young to realize the consequences of his or her actions in an adult fashion. The difference between many 15 year olds and 18 year olds is often very slim today in that regard.
If that is indeed true, it sounds almost worse than letting your kid stay with Michael Jackson.
That would indeed be a sticky trial. Were the parents stupid, suckers, incompetant(criminally), or negligent? Probably a combination of the above, but in what porportions?
Actually, the judge increased it to only 3 years. I was like, the man molested her for four years, he should get at least that amount of time. Then again, I think 10 years per is more fair, but I'm not the judge.
I can see the judge's point about the treatment, but like other posters have stated, if it was my daughter, I'd have killed him. I won't try to justify it as anything but murder with revenge as the motive.
The whole 'At least he can't do it to anyone else' is a meager excuse after the fact.
And my point is, Coal is better than this how? They were talking about putting in a new coal plant up here to sell power on the market. Promised benefits: Jobs and income for the state. Detriments: Air pollution would increase lung cancer risks for everybody within 50 miles of the plant, to that of 'former smokers'. Asthma increases they estimated as 'significant'.
As the workers in Japan who decided to mix nuclear materials with a steel bucket rather than using the multimillion dollar machine designed to do the mix safely demonstrated, you do have to be careful about the stuff, but the same can be said for things like poisonous animals, poisons, and even many household chemicals. They had the training, but chose not to use it. They had procedures they didn't use. If they'd survived the accident and not been so contaminated that they could still work in the nuclear industry, they still would have been fired for violating dozens of regulations and rules.
Compare that to the 12 miners who recently died because of a fire not even where they were working, from what I understand.
Radiation levels decrease 'significantly'(50%) within the first twelve days of being removed from the reactor. After a while, the overall half-life increases to a year.
The requirements for the waste are outragous, though I'll agree that Yucca Mountain is flawed. If we're to use that site, we'll have to use dispose* of significantly lower radioactive materials there, or have some better middle storage methods. Letting the waste sit in above ground casts for ~50 years combined with glass fusing techniques should work great. The longer you let the fuel rods sit, the less radiation they emit, reducing strain on the final containers.
*I still think that rather sooner than later we'll end up pulling the stuff back out for more use.
Sarcasm aside, when I'm talking about 'Major Systems', many of them are completely mechanical or physical in nature. Stuff like pumps and containment structures.
Every computer in the plant could fail and they'd still be able to safely shut down the reactor. Rather easily, as a matter of fact.
Let's put it this way. Even if you had a nuclear trained terrorist in the control room trying to make it go boom, he would be unable to do so.
Yeah, extreme accidents like the 56 deaths from Chernobyl totally outweigh non-nuclear events such as the Bhopal chemical spill which killed a mere 3,800 people. Heck, it outweighs the average US death rate from coal mining of 45 a year.
;)
In order to have a chernobyl style event in a modern, properly designed reactor*, more than 12 major systems have to simultaneously fail. Heck, 3MI, which was built before Chernobyl, was a better design.
*Chernobyl was more flawed than the Galaxy class's warp core
Please note:
Use breeder style reactors by preference
Current reactors in the US only uses about 5% of the heavy elements. Using breeder reactors increases efficiency by a factor of about 10, meaning you can have 10 times as many plants for a given amount of waste.
Combine this with reprocessing, re-enrichment, and neutron bombardment reactors, the problem reduced to the point that even a Yucca mountain equivalent wouldn't be necessary.
I have what I think is an even better solution.
Close down all the coal plants and replace them with modern efficient nuclear reactors. Use breeder style reactors by preference. I won't object to wind or solar or anything else if it's competative.
Then, to replace vehicles, build a PRT system.
That should make us pretty carbon neutral.
'looking at it on a screen might intice you into doing it for real' thing.
I do disagree with this line of reasoning, at least for competant adults. I was just keeping the post short. There's plenty of people out there trying to ban violent video games because of the exact same logic. In actuality, the statistics work out the opposite in many cases. People use the games as a form of catharism, working the violence out of their system. By that logic simulated porn could actually help the pedo control his or her impulses, avoiding commiting the greater crime.
At least in most movies, commision of illegal acts are eighter punished or explained away as the 'greater need'. Vigilante justice and such.
That's the only reason I could see giving the guy the minimum... When the father's waiting for him on the outside. (Well, any relative or concerned individual would do).
This is a somewhat scary decision, as much as I like the nailing Pedophile's balls to walls. For example, that case in Vermont that made the news about the judge giving the guy 60 days, I'd have given him 40 years.
As for point three, I believe that that the law, at least about totally generated art, was struck down. It doesn't matter about the 'computer', it's the whole no minors being involved.
Then again, there's the whole 'looking at it on a screen might intice you into doing it for real' thing.
Of course, being at work, I'm not exactly going to search wide and far for it.
I tried to reply earlier, but lost my post to a 500 error.
Of the two major meltdown accidents, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl, but involved crews mostly experienced with coal power. This is fine for dealing with the steam side of the house, but in 3MI they didn't realize the importance of maintaining cooling flow to the reactor. They starved the reactor of water, which then started to boil, forming voids and hydrogen gas.
The accident did spur a requirement for another level of security. It relives me to know that, even in a chernyobl full meltdown situation that radiation would have been far more contained at 3MI, because of the extra containment structure.
Very much true. You see, research is expensive, and often doesn't pay out. Thus, CEO's and boards that are looking simply at the bottom line tend to cut research. They also cut products that are making profits, but 'not enough'.
But if you're not looking to stay ahead, then somebody will pass you by. Just look at Japanese auto industry compared to the American one. Heck, Sony and the IPod.
Cutting 'low profit' services can also harm you, as it erodes options and 'brand loyalty'. If I can't get the service I want from my traditional company, I'll move, and then be tempted to move all my other systems over. I use the american railroad system for this one. By cutting the low profit lines, they actually hurt themselves because many companies with cargo to move went entirely to trucks, cutting traffic even on profitable lines. The new system of having modular cargo containers helps now, but it really hurt them in the time of the box cars where you had to unload and reload onto trucks. Personally, I'd of loved it if they did some research into highly automated short trains. Small locomotive run by 1-2 guys, still carrying several times what a tractor trailer can haul, at the substantially higher fuel economy of a train.
The problem with ethanol is, ironically, that it is compatible with the existing vehicle fleet. That fleet has an average tank-to-wheels efficiency of 14.9%. Lead-acid batteries are about 70% efficient, Li-ion is closer to 95%. We are far better off going plug-in hybrid than wasting our money on ethanol.
How about going with ethanol fuel cells? That way you get increased efficiency and can use ethanol
Of course, Corn is relativly poor for conversion into ethanol. I'll say that even though I come from a cornbelt state. Sugarbeets and such are far, far better. Still, that the entire corn crop could come so close is suprising.
Maybe for countries like the United States, or between European and non-european countries, but most borders in the world are very loose.
Radar surveys don't do much good when the stuff you're looking for isn't stored in easily recognizable containers. And, being a chemical, you can store the stuff in practically any gas or chemical container. A little goes a long way. The containers don't even have to be metallic, which would seriously limit their radar profile.
And I'm flattered that you think we can read newspaper headlines from orbit. Even so, it becomes a matter of: You're searching an area the size of California for disguised, possibly buried materials that would fit into a couple trucks.
No, 9/11 was not the excuse to invade Iraq. WMD's were the excuse for invading Iraq.
In this case, We beat up Sam(his dog ran away and hasn't been found yet), for his dog, and we beat up Dan for not letting us check his garage for dangerous chemicals like he agreed to because he's dangerous with them.
As for invading Iran or Saudi Arabia to get the terrorists rather than Iraq, again I'll say that Iraq wasn't about terrorism, though it has become a magnet for terrorists in the region. It's yet another proxy war. Back on the subject of invading Saudi Arabia or Iran, well, one is a major supplier of our oil, and the other is militarily far more capable than Iraq was at any point. It's kinda like how going in and taking out Kim Jong of North Korea would be nice, but he's got enough military power to make that a far more expensive proposition.
The problem with exporting oil is that it concentrates the funds too much. It's relativly easy to punch a few hole on a couple acres of land, import a few dozen to hundred workers, and have a relativly small number of people in the country take all the profit.
When it comes to ethanol, well, you have the factory(cheaper than sending the raw stuff over), but you also have all the farms, that have to be run by people. You also have the equipment, and it's cheaper to produce your own after a certain point. Chemicals for fertilization, though they'll have to find a different source than oil byproducts.
Still not perfect, but it can add up.
But it's my firm belief that 9/11 delayed Iraq, rather than spawning it. Our move into there was spurred by Saddam's continual disregard of the conditions of the ceasefire. The WMD, which I'm more of the opinion was moved out of country or destroyed before we found it, the human rights violations, the genocide. Those are the reasons for Iraq.
Even Bush said that Iraq and Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11.
Not entirely true. There are a few more products that are commercially viable. Car batteries and steel cans come to mind, even cars can be 'recycled' at junk yards.
Anytime you come up with a fairly large mass of fairly pure metal it's worth it.
Paper, glass, and plastic are tough.
Look at the TWO WORST nuclear power accidents in the world.
Three Mile Island, with no recorded fatalities.
Chernobyl, of which I studied fairly extensivly in high school, was a combination of a number of factors:
1. Dangerous experimental design
2. Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear. The technictians came from the soviet nuclear submarines, which were a much safer design(see void coefficient). They weren't trained on the differences.
3. A test was being done, resulting in the bypass of a number of safety systems.
4. No containment dome. US reactors are housed in concrete containment domes that will limit release of radiation if all else fails. Chernobyl doesn't have it. Instead it has the sarcophagus which was placed after the fact, quickly, in hazardous conditions. It suffers from this.
More at Wikipedia
Basically,Nuclear power has been shown to be extremely safe when handled correctly. For a severe disaster, the flaws would have to start in the very construction of the plant. Modern reactors would be orders of magnitude safer and efficient than our old reactors that still beat coal power in safety and pollution.
Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have huge impact and could make huge areas uninhabitable for decades.
Like what various purely chemical disasters have done? All of the various superfund sites?
Truth is, nuclear power would need several accidents on that scale to even catch up with coal.
"What if" is generally all I hear out of those who oppose nuclear power. My first thought is generally "Stop being a luddite and examine the evidence".
For example, look at Bush's decision. We're going to spend some money, and rather than mine more radioactive materials, we're going to take it out of the storage pools and recycle it into more fuel, thus reducing the amount of hazardous stuff around. And we get nice clean power out of it!