BTW, I'm not so amazed that people like you exist. There's been a lot of your kind throughout history, many who ended up on the wrong side of the question.
You are right that the Tsunami was the issue here, not the earthquake, which the plant survived largely in one piece.
However, I take exception to you description of the plant as being "smoldering in its ashes". Not exactly...
The plant survived largely in one piece, sans the emergency generators and stuff that the sea water fouled. They have had some difficulties with keeping the reactors cooled and we have seen significant releases of radioactive materials into the environment because of the core(s) that melted, one apparently extensively. It's not a pile of rubble, and it's not smoldering in its ashes.
Actually, the radiation exposure has been limited given the scope of the problems they've had, but this accident is not nearly the worst accident, especially in terms of deaths, for the industry.
Now Chernobyl, THAT was a smoldering wreak after the accident.
In case of a nuclear accident, the industry will always downplay and deny everything that is not perfectly obvious. Has always been, and probably will always be. This is the main reason I do not trust nuclear power that is run for profit.
So Chernobyl was ok with you? Yikes, you might want to rethink that..
Actually, we are waiting for the radioactive components to decay so we can safely get close enough to deal with this. Robots may help us get a jump on the clean up and containment efforts, but they won't be able to do much of the work.
That is why there is such a disconnect between the public and scientists (and the scientifically literate) on these matters. It's easier to scare someone about strangers molesting their children than it is about their children dying or having a worse life because of global warming, even though the former is a remote probability and the later is almost inevitable.
You had me until that thing about global warming.... That sir, is still debatable, at least in terms of being "man made" and what the future dangers might be.
A large amount of radioactive material was released into the ocean where it will remain in the food chain for decades.
what isotopes are you talking about.. Some of this stuff is centuries before it goes away... Oh, and never mind that in Japan they currently occupy the only two locations where nuclear weapons have been used.... So, I'm not so sure this is as totally bad as folks claim.
No, I'm not sure if we're frightened enough. I think if you polled most american's right now, The number one fear would be gluten, followed by vaccines.
Actually, right now you need to put Ebola on the top of the list, but that's just for the next few days. Once the media stops covering it, your list is about correct.
Maybe we should also talk about the costs then? Nuclear is EXPENSIVE.
Compared to natural gas? You got that right. At least for all the really old nuclear plants here in the US of A, which is why they are starting to shut them down
Snowden didn't jump into the cage as your example suggests, he lost his footing and fell in, he didn't mean too. But the question is why was he in a position to fall into the cage? Why did he climb onto the top of the cage and start waving his arms around for the reporters to get pictures? It was either fame, pride or a combination of both, combined with shortsighted stupidity common in youth that got him on top of the cage and the reporters who egged him into dancing around up there. They got their story and Snowden is lost in the cage being used as a weapon by one beast to bludgeon another.
So you tell me, why did he climb up the side of that cage again? He knew he was risking his life up there, I just don't believe it was for the cause he said it was, I think he thought he was going to get away with it by making a media circus out of it, which was pretty stupid. Now, he's all consumed with saving his life so he aligns himself with Putin? That's being a coward. He knew his life was on the line when he climbed the cage and waved to the press cameras, he claimed it was because of his conviction over this one issue, still does, yet he is unwilling to own what he did in court where it would serve his convictions further? Now he cares about his life so he's forced into aiding the very embodiment of what he supposedly so hates?
I'm not buying that Snowden is a patriot, brave or has a worthy cause. He is a coward, running scared in a vain attempt to preserve the appearance he has a life, freedom, or a cause worth the cost. After all, he's not willing to pay what he knew could be demanded of him, so it's apparently NOT that important to him.
Oh trust me, if he had betrayed the intelligence gathering systems of Russia to the USA, he'd be in a whole lot more trouble than he is now. They consider such an act a crime too, only there would be NO trial and they would have likely had him killed just as soon as possible. So no, had the situation been reversed, he'd be dead and nobody would have been talking about him in the media, and even Obama wouldn't have been talking to him on the evening news, even if he wasn't pushing up flowers some place.
Right now, Russia (i.e. Putin) only tolerates Snowden in so far as he proves useful. Once he becomes a liability, you can bet they will cut him loose without delay. How do I know? Because they haven't given him citizenship yet. They are reserving the right to kick him out, so they keep letting him stay for a limited time. If he really was what some claim, they'd be falling all over themselves to issue him citizenship, but as it is they are biding their time and using him as a PR tool when possible. Eventually (I'm thinking sometime after the next presidential election in the USA) he will loose his value and involuntarily find his sorry self on an airplane in handcuffs back to the states, barring that, he's stuck in Russia for the duration or until he turns himself into the US embassy and finds himself in handcuffs on a plane back to the states. My bet is the former, sometime in 2017.
In the USA they would have been charged with trespassing and possibly a number of other minor offenses but not jailed doing hard time. In Russia, you don't do jail time very often because they are horrible places and serve as a deterrent. Here in the USA we entertain "Cruel and Unusual punishment" complaints if the inmates are served bologna sandwiches more than once a week, or if the inmate is forced to wear pink underwear. We even have inmates who commit crimes and PURPOSELY get caught so they can get back in jail with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep on. But that's a whole different argument now.
My point stands, even if my example wasn't the best. Russian treatment of it's citizens who politically disagree with those in power has a pretty bad track record (it's pretty bloody too). Their surveillance of their citizens by law enforcement and spying agencies are not nearly as hampered by law as ours is. Although they may not be technically capable of doing some of what the NSA can, they have a lot fewer legal impediments and would gladly do everything the NSA does and more if they had the money and technology to set it all up. If they had the capacity, you KNOW Putin would love to use it for political advantage.
I'm totally amazed at how naive people are sometimes, So Snowden is throwing his lot in with Putin and Russia? It figures, he's a traitor, that's what they do.
We disagree then. I think it is important that he has now helping Putin's PR machine and I think it betrays who this guy really is. He's a self indulged, self important young man who thought to highly of himself, choose to break the law for the fame and has now come to realize it wasn't a very good idea because his life is ruined now. I hope he grows up and realizes the error he made when he decided to take the law into his own hands and break it to make his point. I hope he regrets not having exhausted all his options before committing treason because it was a stupid thing to do. You never burn the bridges, until you have no other options and he nuked the whole river before he crossed the bridge.
Mark my words carefully. Once Putin cannot extract any more PR gains, Snowden will be out in the cold either literally (as in Siberia for life) or figuratively (kicked out of Russia into US hands.) One way or the other. But he will have nobody to blame but himself IMHO. If he goes to trial he will be found guilty, not because the courts are unfair, but because he broke the law.
I've made my position clear multiple times now. I'm done debating this with you (or anybody else who responds to this post.) I will read any replies, but I'm unlikely to waste any more time responding.
So, he flees from the USA to Russia in protest of NSA surveillance? What does Russia do to it's citizens? Tell me how that makes sense? Also tell me how that doesn't cheapen the plight of the North Korean refugee who faces certain death just for leaving without permission and knowing that any family he leaves behind will be dealt with harshly just because they are related? Sorry but I find comparing Snowden's situation to that disgusting.
Finally, an admission that it's not that the system has demonstrated it's unfair, it's because we are afraid it would be. It's not that it's happened before, we just think it might happen this time. This is logically similar to "He was found guilty so the trial was unfair" which is usually hogwash.
So can we dispense with the "unfair trial" canard and just say what these people really need to say that they disagree with the law? Please? Because THAT we can debate... This claim that "the courts are unfair" has no real historical evidence and is all conjecture with no real evidence to support it.
If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong.
Lying to avoid being eliminated from the jury because you're more informed about jury nullification is quite alright. (snip)
You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie and subvert the system though deceit, so I can no longer trust what you say as you are not an honest actor.
We are done here... Or at least I'm done here with you as long as you maintain the above position....
Well, he is.... Break the law to make your point, then run off to Russia to escape punishment and complain that it isn't fair? If he really was dedicated to the cause of getting the laws here in the USA changed, we'd not be entertaining this "Poor Snowden, look how he's been oppressed and faces an unfair trial" garbage. Nor would he be in Russia basically helping a government which has a human rights track record that is MUCH worse than his native country in it's PR campaigns to damage his country.
What seems to have happened is Snowden is in self preservation mode now. It was all fun and games when he was collecting and leaking stuff, but now that the deed is done and he's been caught he is unwilling to face the music. He ran off to Russia and got himself stuck between Putin's PR machine and just turning himself in to the USA. He decided to aid and abet the adversary in a vain effort to save his skin. Which is all he's ever really be about, his own skin.
Perhaps not, but remember we are discussing their belief that the court system is bad and that would lead to an unfair outcome for Snowden if he faced a trial for what he did. I am not side stepping the question with a logical fallacy, but illustrating that their assertion that because Snowden is likely to be found guilty the courts are inherently unfair. I'm asking them to explain that if the US's system isn't fair, what system *would* be fair.
You see, the real issue I'm driving home is that this "The courts are not fair" claim is garbage and unsupported by the facts and the REAL issue for these people is that they don't agree with the actual law the court is obliged to interpret. I've claimed that the law, as written, and given the public information about Snowden (what he claims to have done as recorded in the press) it is clear he would be found guilty in a fair trial in a fair court. Others have said that he won't get a "fair trial" which is NOT true. The courts in this country have an excellent track record for fairness, not perfect, but better than any other system of which I'm aware. So I'm asking them for a better system.
If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong. But apparently that doesn't matter to you, only the "cause" you support matters. If anything messes up the court system here it is the willingness to do stuff like that.
So it's not the laws which are wrong in this case, but your willingness to subvert them with a lie to support your cause.
In the USA, if you don't like the law, you have the right to petition and lobby to get it changed. I suggest you exercise your RIGHTS to their fullest extent. If you fail to fix the problem you see using your rights, then you can resort to breaking the laws you have moral objections too, but understand that you must do so fully willing to accept the punishment prescribed by the law. If you haven't exercised your RIGHTS first, or you are unwilling to endure the punishment to make your point, I personally don't have much sympathy for you. Which is why I have no sympathy for Snowden. He didn't exhaust his rights, nor was he willing to face trial and accept the punishment.
Oh there are SOOOO many ways your comparing Snowden to a defector from North Korea breaks down and you cheapen the plight of the people who have managed it by comparing Snowden to them.
Snowden is no political refugee, he is not being unfairly accused and he was not justified taking the law into his own hand. He's obviously NOT willing to pay the price, but he is willing to be used by a government which is worlds worse in the very area he protests is unfair here in the US. That alone tells me that this is not about being morally right with Snowden. If it was, he'd be turning himself in to the US so as not to lend material support to a government which is much worse about doing warrant-less surveillance of it's population and decrying their practice too. He's a hypocrite of the highest order and/or self deceived.
You want to compare him to a real case of fleeing a country like North Korea? That's disgusting.
Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results.
Depends on whether you define the "right results" as convicting anybody who breaks a law. If the law is wrong, then enforcing the law is just as wrong.
So then the issue is with the law, not with the question of if Snowden broke the law. Which it is obvious that he did. And that he's likely to be convicted of breaking the law is not a case of the criminal courts making the wrong choice by convicting him like a fair trial would.
So can we dispense with this "He cannot get a fair trial" garbage and say what you really mean "The law is bad"? They are separate issues.
You just said that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. What the hell is wrong with you?
I don't figure that either of us will be on the jury, having already formed our opinions. You get removed from the pool by the prosecution, I by the defense. So the system is fair, despite your claims. IMHO I believe your issue is with the law, not the criminal courts, so this whole "He won't get a fair trial" thing is garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, your mind is closed. Gotcha.
BTW, I'm not so amazed that people like you exist. There's been a lot of your kind throughout history, many who ended up on the wrong side of the question.
You are right that the Tsunami was the issue here, not the earthquake, which the plant survived largely in one piece.
However, I take exception to you description of the plant as being "smoldering in its ashes". Not exactly...
The plant survived largely in one piece, sans the emergency generators and stuff that the sea water fouled. They have had some difficulties with keeping the reactors cooled and we have seen significant releases of radioactive materials into the environment because of the core(s) that melted, one apparently extensively. It's not a pile of rubble, and it's not smoldering in its ashes.
Actually, the radiation exposure has been limited given the scope of the problems they've had, but this accident is not nearly the worst accident, especially in terms of deaths, for the industry.
Now Chernobyl, THAT was a smoldering wreak after the accident.
Still is a reactor in a glorified barn, just a bigger one now. It's on a really big farm too!
In case of a nuclear accident, the industry will always downplay and deny everything that is not perfectly obvious. Has always been, and probably will always be. This is the main reason I do not trust nuclear power that is run for profit.
So Chernobyl was ok with you? Yikes, you might want to rethink that..
Actually, we are waiting for the radioactive components to decay so we can safely get close enough to deal with this. Robots may help us get a jump on the clean up and containment efforts, but they won't be able to do much of the work.
That is why there is such a disconnect between the public and scientists (and the scientifically literate) on these matters. It's easier to scare someone about strangers molesting their children than it is about their children dying or having a worse life because of global warming, even though the former is a remote probability and the later is almost inevitable.
You had me until that thing about global warming.... That sir, is still debatable, at least in terms of being "man made" and what the future dangers might be.
A large amount of radioactive material was released into the ocean where it will remain in the food chain for decades.
what isotopes are you talking about.. Some of this stuff is centuries before it goes away... Oh, and never mind that in Japan they currently occupy the only two locations where nuclear weapons have been used.... So, I'm not so sure this is as totally bad as folks claim.
No, I'm not sure if we're frightened enough. I think if you polled most american's right now, The number one fear would be gluten, followed by vaccines.
Actually, right now you need to put Ebola on the top of the list, but that's just for the next few days. Once the media stops covering it, your list is about correct.
Maybe we should also talk about the costs then? Nuclear is EXPENSIVE.
Compared to natural gas? You got that right. At least for all the really old nuclear plants here in the US of A, which is why they are starting to shut them down
Snowden didn't jump into the cage as your example suggests, he lost his footing and fell in, he didn't mean too. But the question is why was he in a position to fall into the cage? Why did he climb onto the top of the cage and start waving his arms around for the reporters to get pictures? It was either fame, pride or a combination of both, combined with shortsighted stupidity common in youth that got him on top of the cage and the reporters who egged him into dancing around up there. They got their story and Snowden is lost in the cage being used as a weapon by one beast to bludgeon another.
So you tell me, why did he climb up the side of that cage again? He knew he was risking his life up there, I just don't believe it was for the cause he said it was, I think he thought he was going to get away with it by making a media circus out of it, which was pretty stupid. Now, he's all consumed with saving his life so he aligns himself with Putin? That's being a coward. He knew his life was on the line when he climbed the cage and waved to the press cameras, he claimed it was because of his conviction over this one issue, still does, yet he is unwilling to own what he did in court where it would serve his convictions further? Now he cares about his life so he's forced into aiding the very embodiment of what he supposedly so hates?
I'm not buying that Snowden is a patriot, brave or has a worthy cause. He is a coward, running scared in a vain attempt to preserve the appearance he has a life, freedom, or a cause worth the cost. After all, he's not willing to pay what he knew could be demanded of him, so it's apparently NOT that important to him.
Oh trust me, if he had betrayed the intelligence gathering systems of Russia to the USA, he'd be in a whole lot more trouble than he is now. They consider such an act a crime too, only there would be NO trial and they would have likely had him killed just as soon as possible. So no, had the situation been reversed, he'd be dead and nobody would have been talking about him in the media, and even Obama wouldn't have been talking to him on the evening news, even if he wasn't pushing up flowers some place.
Right now, Russia (i.e. Putin) only tolerates Snowden in so far as he proves useful. Once he becomes a liability, you can bet they will cut him loose without delay. How do I know? Because they haven't given him citizenship yet. They are reserving the right to kick him out, so they keep letting him stay for a limited time. If he really was what some claim, they'd be falling all over themselves to issue him citizenship, but as it is they are biding their time and using him as a PR tool when possible. Eventually (I'm thinking sometime after the next presidential election in the USA) he will loose his value and involuntarily find his sorry self on an airplane in handcuffs back to the states, barring that, he's stuck in Russia for the duration or until he turns himself into the US embassy and finds himself in handcuffs on a plane back to the states. My bet is the former, sometime in 2017.
In the USA they would have been charged with trespassing and possibly a number of other minor offenses but not jailed doing hard time. In Russia, you don't do jail time very often because they are horrible places and serve as a deterrent. Here in the USA we entertain "Cruel and Unusual punishment" complaints if the inmates are served bologna sandwiches more than once a week, or if the inmate is forced to wear pink underwear. We even have inmates who commit crimes and PURPOSELY get caught so they can get back in jail with 3 meals a day and a bed to sleep on. But that's a whole different argument now.
My point stands, even if my example wasn't the best. Russian treatment of it's citizens who politically disagree with those in power has a pretty bad track record (it's pretty bloody too). Their surveillance of their citizens by law enforcement and spying agencies are not nearly as hampered by law as ours is. Although they may not be technically capable of doing some of what the NSA can, they have a lot fewer legal impediments and would gladly do everything the NSA does and more if they had the money and technology to set it all up. If they had the capacity, you KNOW Putin would love to use it for political advantage.
I'm totally amazed at how naive people are sometimes, So Snowden is throwing his lot in with Putin and Russia? It figures, he's a traitor, that's what they do.
We disagree then. I think it is important that he has now helping Putin's PR machine and I think it betrays who this guy really is. He's a self indulged, self important young man who thought to highly of himself, choose to break the law for the fame and has now come to realize it wasn't a very good idea because his life is ruined now. I hope he grows up and realizes the error he made when he decided to take the law into his own hands and break it to make his point. I hope he regrets not having exhausted all his options before committing treason because it was a stupid thing to do. You never burn the bridges, until you have no other options and he nuked the whole river before he crossed the bridge.
Mark my words carefully. Once Putin cannot extract any more PR gains, Snowden will be out in the cold either literally (as in Siberia for life) or figuratively (kicked out of Russia into US hands.) One way or the other. But he will have nobody to blame but himself IMHO. If he goes to trial he will be found guilty, not because the courts are unfair, but because he broke the law.
I've made my position clear multiple times now. I'm done debating this with you (or anybody else who responds to this post.) I will read any replies, but I'm unlikely to waste any more time responding.
So you are OK with Snowden giving material aid in Putin's PR machine and damaging the USA's interest world wide? What a joke.
He's not furthering his aims in exile, he's saving his skin by working at cross purposes to his stated aim by helping Putin's PR machine.
So, he flees from the USA to Russia in protest of NSA surveillance? What does Russia do to it's citizens? Tell me how that makes sense? Also tell me how that doesn't cheapen the plight of the North Korean refugee who faces certain death just for leaving without permission and knowing that any family he leaves behind will be dealt with harshly just because they are related? Sorry but I find comparing Snowden's situation to that disgusting.
Finally, an admission that it's not that the system has demonstrated it's unfair, it's because we are afraid it would be. It's not that it's happened before, we just think it might happen this time. This is logically similar to "He was found guilty so the trial was unfair" which is usually hogwash.
So can we dispense with the "unfair trial" canard and just say what these people really need to say that they disagree with the law? Please? Because THAT we can debate... This claim that "the courts are unfair" has no real historical evidence and is all conjecture with no real evidence to support it.
If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong.
Lying to avoid being eliminated from the jury because you're more informed about jury nullification is quite alright. (snip)
You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie and subvert the system though deceit, so I can no longer trust what you say as you are not an honest actor.
We are done here... Or at least I'm done here with you as long as you maintain the above position....
Well, he is.... Break the law to make your point, then run off to Russia to escape punishment and complain that it isn't fair? If he really was dedicated to the cause of getting the laws here in the USA changed, we'd not be entertaining this "Poor Snowden, look how he's been oppressed and faces an unfair trial" garbage. Nor would he be in Russia basically helping a government which has a human rights track record that is MUCH worse than his native country in it's PR campaigns to damage his country.
What seems to have happened is Snowden is in self preservation mode now. It was all fun and games when he was collecting and leaking stuff, but now that the deed is done and he's been caught he is unwilling to face the music. He ran off to Russia and got himself stuck between Putin's PR machine and just turning himself in to the USA. He decided to aid and abet the adversary in a vain effort to save his skin. Which is all he's ever really be about, his own skin.
Perhaps not, but remember we are discussing their belief that the court system is bad and that would lead to an unfair outcome for Snowden if he faced a trial for what he did. I am not side stepping the question with a logical fallacy, but illustrating that their assertion that because Snowden is likely to be found guilty the courts are inherently unfair. I'm asking them to explain that if the US's system isn't fair, what system *would* be fair.
You see, the real issue I'm driving home is that this "The courts are not fair" claim is garbage and unsupported by the facts and the REAL issue for these people is that they don't agree with the actual law the court is obliged to interpret. I've claimed that the law, as written, and given the public information about Snowden (what he claims to have done as recorded in the press) it is clear he would be found guilty in a fair trial in a fair court. Others have said that he won't get a "fair trial" which is NOT true. The courts in this country have an excellent track record for fairness, not perfect, but better than any other system of which I'm aware. So I'm asking them for a better system.
How do you folks sleep at night...
If you intend to lie to get on a jury, I remind you that is illegal, immoral and wrong. But apparently that doesn't matter to you, only the "cause" you support matters. If anything messes up the court system here it is the willingness to do stuff like that.
So it's not the laws which are wrong in this case, but your willingness to subvert them with a lie to support your cause.
In the USA, if you don't like the law, you have the right to petition and lobby to get it changed. I suggest you exercise your RIGHTS to their fullest extent. If you fail to fix the problem you see using your rights, then you can resort to breaking the laws you have moral objections too, but understand that you must do so fully willing to accept the punishment prescribed by the law. If you haven't exercised your RIGHTS first, or you are unwilling to endure the punishment to make your point, I personally don't have much sympathy for you. Which is why I have no sympathy for Snowden. He didn't exhaust his rights, nor was he willing to face trial and accept the punishment.
Oh there are SOOOO many ways your comparing Snowden to a defector from North Korea breaks down and you cheapen the plight of the people who have managed it by comparing Snowden to them.
Snowden is no political refugee, he is not being unfairly accused and he was not justified taking the law into his own hand. He's obviously NOT willing to pay the price, but he is willing to be used by a government which is worlds worse in the very area he protests is unfair here in the US. That alone tells me that this is not about being morally right with Snowden. If it was, he'd be turning himself in to the US so as not to lend material support to a government which is much worse about doing warrant-less surveillance of it's population and decrying their practice too. He's a hypocrite of the highest order and/or self deceived.
You want to compare him to a real case of fleeing a country like North Korea? That's disgusting.
Ok.. Strike the last sentence as an incomplete unrelated thought. Snowden did it for the fame. Leave it at that.
Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results.
Depends on whether you define the "right results" as convicting anybody who breaks a law. If the law is wrong, then enforcing the law is just as wrong.
So then the issue is with the law, not with the question of if Snowden broke the law. Which it is obvious that he did. And that he's likely to be convicted of breaking the law is not a case of the criminal courts making the wrong choice by convicting him like a fair trial would.
So can we dispense with this "He cannot get a fair trial" garbage and say what you really mean "The law is bad"? They are separate issues.
He broke the law, everybody knows it.
You just said that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. What the hell is wrong with you?
I don't figure that either of us will be on the jury, having already formed our opinions. You get removed from the pool by the prosecution, I by the defense. So the system is fair, despite your claims. IMHO I believe your issue is with the law, not the criminal courts, so this whole "He won't get a fair trial" thing is garbage.
Snowden didn't do this for money, he did it for fame.. He's a coward.