People are running to cooperate with China and Europe and Russia, not because of their military might, but because they've figured out how to do the speak softly part.
No, they're running to China and Russia because, after decades (or centuries), of deprivation, these countries are starting to expand economically and have huge pools of cheap labor, lax environmental laws, low corporate taxes, and a budding middle class to buy consumer goods. The US has had these things since the 1950's and has become relatively saturated by comparison. Businesses go where the markets are, and right now they're not in the US.
As for people running to cooperate with Europe, I'm not sure where you get that idea. The Euro bailouts have created a toxic climate for business investment in Europe, and Greece, Spain, and even France are still tottering on the edge of a fiscal cliff. Not that the US is doing much better, but Europe isn't drawing nearly as much business as Russia and China are these days.
If Japan can go from nuclear recipient to friends of their attacker in such short order, brokering a peace with someone whose main point of contention is believing in a different bearded sky-fairy should be fairly easy.
I can only hope you're being trite, because if you're being serious you have a very poor grasp of the real situation.
The main differences between Imperial Japan and the US circa WWII were economic and political, fed on the Japanese side by a healthy dose of nationalism and Japanese-style "manifest destiny." Flags and currency are things people easily flock to but just as easily shun when things go sour.
The differences between the modern West and Islam are rooted in religious beliefs that, at least to most Muslims, are non-negotiable. There is no compromise with the hard-line Islamist: they believe the world should run according to Islam, women are subjugated, non-believers are enslaved or killed, and freedom takes a back seat to dogma. In many ways they are the modern equivalent to the Japanese kamikaze in that their belief system glorifies death to accomplish a goal, with a promise of reward in the afterlife. You can't reason with a people who are prepared to die to serve a religious belief that tolerates no dissenting views. You must defeat them or be defeated. They've been at it for thousands of years. They'll never stop, never tire, and never give up so long as they think they can win. The surest way to disabuse them of that notion is to show them we're prepared to eradicate them to the uttermost extent of our ability, to be more ruthless than they can even imagine. Such thinking brought Japan to the treaty table despite their dogma. It's time we returned to that mode of thought.
Every reunification of a nation was an act of diplomacy.
Every treaty signed by two nations, mutually agreeing to stop fighting, was an act of diplomacy.
Every ceasefire was brought about by force, usually two relatively-equal forces. There's very little incentive for a massively-winning side to sign any kind of ceasefire with the losing side. Better to vanquish them completely. Your "treaty" description is functionally the same as a ceasefire and falls into the same category.
As for "reunification" being an act of diplomacy, I wonder what the former residents of South Vietnam would have to say about that. Or are you being simplistically Euro-centric and thinking only of East/West Germany? That reunification would've been quite non-diplomatic had the Berlin Airlift not succeeded, a success that would've been impossible with American military might and a demonstrable resolve to use it. The argument can be made that Germany's reunification would never have happened had the U.S. not stood firm against the Soviets, long enough for their own internal economic weaknesses to bring them down without a costly hot war.
You act as if Stalin were quietly sitting in his chair not bothering anybody when the evil Western powers started meddling in the Russian Civil War. The reality was Stalin was preaching violent overthrow of all free capitalist countries and actively seeking to spread that ideology abroad via whatever means he could devise.
If your neighbor greets you every day with "I'm going to kill you as soon as I can find a way to get away with it", do you sit idly by and let him arm himself, recruit accomplices, reconnoiter your home, and stalk your movements? Or do you try to stop him? The analogy isn't exact because that's usually a job for the police, but on the global stage there is no police force to call upon. It's survival of the fittest on the world stage. If Stalin didn't want the West as an enemy, he probably shouldn't have treated them as such from the moment he grabbed power.
Not sure guns and bombs *really* solve problems either.
Yeah, WWII got rid of the Nazis and the Japanese warlords, but it set us up the Cold War and lots of regional crises.
And our Reagan-era Cold War military strength arguably prevented a real, "hot" World War III with the Soviets. Or you could argue that if war wasn't inevitable, it prevented a serious decline in American influence on the planet as a whole. And no matter whether you love or hate the USA, it would be a stretch indeed to say the would would have preferred a single Soviet superpower as opposed to the American one it got when the Soviet Union collapsed.
There comes a time when you have to admit that the USA, while nowhere near perfect, is a darn sight better at leading the world than anyone else who could potentially have claimed (Germany, Japan, Soviets) or want to claim (China) the title of World Superpower. Throw stones at us all you want; you're allowed to. If you'd tried that in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia, or even modern-day China, you'd be made to disappear.
What's even uglier is I've had some very candid conversations with black friends of mine who would engage me in a political conversation. Every one of them who voted cast a vote for Obama, with the remaining ones abstaining from voting for anyone. Most leaned heavily Democrat to begin with, but some were almost what I'd call slight right-of-center, yet they voted for Obama. Most could not cite any specific policy of his they agreed with as a reason to vote for him. They cited personal charisma ("he's a good speaker" or "he's young and energetic") a lot, but there was something even more prevalent: more than one said they voted for Obama "because he's one of us." They seemed utterly unashamed of such a comment, at least until I pointed out that, as a white male, if I'd said the same thing about a white candidate, I'd be cast down and stoned to death by public opinion within seconds.
Likewise, non-black friends who I've talked to who voted for Obama again cited no specific policy of his they agreed with. Their rationale seemed centered around "he's not Bush." But another theme that seemed disturbingly notable was "I'll vote for the black guy so people won't call me racist." So it's true to say some whites voted based on race, but not in the way race-baiters want to spin it.
And, yes, this poll was completely unscientific and does not purport to represent the population as a whole. But the themes were constant enough throughout a somewhat diverse array of people that it definitely deserves consideration.
It is profoundly sad that so many Americans are so ignorant of a common voting pattern in their society that has persisted for decades, and so proud of their ignorance that they repeatedly trumpet it on popular websites like/.
Nowhere did I state I was ignorant of this voting pattern, so the trope of being proud of said ignorance is deflated immediately. Yes, I'm well aware that blacks have historically voted Democrat, but only since the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Prior to that the Democrats were the party of segregation, bigotry, and racism (and, yes, perhaps you should take the time to understand there is a world of difference between racism and bigotry instead of treating them as one and the same). Republicans had much more sway with blacks prior to that. Must've been something to do with that whole "civil war" thing, but hey, that's just a wild guess on my part.
Are your racist fellow travelers who will no-doubt go on to repeat your silly question another dozen times on this story still wondering?
How quickly you devolve into ad hominem. One supposes it's because your argument has no merit and you have no other venue open to you.
Considering Obama carried 95%+ of the black vote, I wonder why nobody's bothered to do a study to see how many votes racial intolerance cost McCain. Why is it considered perfectly acceptable to charge one side of the equation with racial intolerance but totally unacceptable to even *consider* looking at the other side for similar -- perhaps even more egregious -- motivations?
And before anyone decides to accuse me of being a shill for McCain, the GOP, or narrow-minded bigots with a racial chip on their shoulder, I thought McCain was a crap candidate and voted Libertarian.
BlackBerry has always been a multi-purpose tool that did everything poorly except email, and even that is done poorly these day. What on earth are you talking about?
I've heard of rats deserting a sinking ship but this is the first time I've heard of them being *cast overboard* as well!
I had a co-worker who left a great position at a good company to go work for RIM about a year ago. Everybody told him he was nuts. I get the feeling he's regretting that decision right about now.
On the other hand, assuming programmers are grouped in with IT, it could be a bad thing. You'd want them to know what they're competing with, and to understand why a rival's product is so popular.
Given that Apple products still occupy less than 10% of the market share (excluding educational markets where Apple is grossly over-represented), the whole "product is so popular" argument falls kinda flat.
Considering NASA's record of launch failures (in the 1960's), I hope they stick with unmanned flights for many years to come. God forbid they try something crazy like putting a man into orbit using one of these things. All this "put a man on the moon before this decade is out" talk is a bunch of hooey.
The above sarcasm was brought to you by Intelligent Thinking Processes. Nobody starts out in the space business with perfect success on day one. NASA's failure record early in the space race was so awful it was embarrassing. The success of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo only came after years of horrific failures which -- thankfully -- claimed very few lives on the ground and none at all in space. The Soviets had similar failures. SpaceX's record is fantastically better than either one of these organizations were back when they were first lobbing capsules into orbit.
To replicators, of course. Star Trek-style replicators, not Stargate-style replicators, for those of you inclined to think every new technology is going to destroy humanity.
Granted, assembling a few atoms in a lab is a far cry from replicating food, parts, and so forth, but the principle is the same. Fabrication at the sub-atomic level gives us the ability to replicate damned near anything. Once can only imagine how disruptive such a technology will be when things like gold, diamonds, and currency can be perfectly replicated by anyone with access to such a machine.
"War" satellite? Umm...the article speaks mainly of imaging missions. This is a "recon" satellite. I guess the temptation to scream "war" just won out, eh? Sounds much more sensationalist that way.
particularly Wikipedia, which in 11 years has helped replace the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds.'
No bitterness in *this* part of their press release. No sir, we're not bitter one little bit because of those fuckers at Wikipedia. We'll even feel a little emotion here and there while they roast in hell like they so properly deserve.
From my point of view being pro-gun and pro-hunting tend to go together.
Then allow me to provide a contrarian example. I'm a former U.S. Marine, I have numerous firearms in my home, my cars, and on my person at any given time. I've never been on a hunt. Not once. And I have no real desire to do so. I would kill an animal for food out of necessity, but the thought of hurting or killing an animal for sport is something I find repulsive.
Humans, on the other hand, tend to be a bit more deserving of being shot from time to time. Much less of a moral conundrum there.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
And that's where you ran off the rails. One side has data, models, and research, and they've drawn conclusions from it. The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made, and they have their own data, models, research, and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts. But that's *not* the case because the AGW proponents can't *prove* their case any more than the opponents can disprove it. Their data have at times been suspect, their models are gross oversimplifications of the real world, and their research -- as is the case with all grant-funded research -- is subject to potential ideological and financial bias in either direction.
What turns me off from the whole AGW camp is their smug elitism, claiming they've got all the data and all the answers and how dare you question them. Science is *about* defending your claims, and incredible claims require incredible evidence. Every time an AGW supporter says "but we have all we need to know," I just tune them out. You *don't* have all the data. Your models *aren't* accurate simulacrums of our biosphere. Your research *is* subject to bias. If you'd just admit it then perhaps you'd gain more supporters. Instead, you get more shrill every time somebody doesn't immediately toe the AGW line regardless of *why* they're skeptical.
Cue the environmentalists to come running out of the woodwork, filing every lawsuit they can find, protesting the work site, and in general trying to slow down and interfere with the construction of said nuclear power plant.
The level of public ignorance never ceases to amaze.
You're overlooking something huge: no matter what the images showed, there was nothing that could be done to save Columbia short of launching another shuttle on a rescue mission. There was a heated debate post-disaster that management decided not to do the photorecon because they'd already decided nothing could be done even if the photos showed damage. The engineers said they might've been able to throw something together for a rescue mission for the crew; Columbia was deemed irrepairable by even the most optimistic engineers.
While one can't question the bravery of anyone attempting such a rescue mission, the logic of it is tough to reason out. Launching another crew on another shuttle that could easily suffer the same damage is questionable. Then you'd have two dead crews and two lost shuttles.
Oh yeah, it's just that easy. You've got the whole problem solved in one paragraph!
You'd have to eliminate all unessential government programs, and replace social security and medicare with government run lower cost options.
Have fun getting anyone to agree on what an "unessential" government program is. Replace Social Security? Tried that. The Democrats screamed "you want old people to die, don't you?" and shot it down. Replace Medicare with a government-run option? Welcome to Obamacare, which nobody likes and has doctors and nurses running for the exits, straining an already understaffed healthcare system.
For example you could offer free government housing, but make the housing all double occupancy studio apartments.
First, let's get past this "free" thing you speak of. Nothing is "free" in this world. If you're getting something without paying for it, it means someone *else* paid for it. Those people are known as "taxpayers" and they're damned sick of providing "free" food, clothing, housing, and medical care for people who seem to enjoy living off the backs of others who actually work for a living.
And you could offer free health care, but only provide low cost proven procedures, have doctors do only work that can't be done by anyone else, and give out only generic medications.
Won't work. "Low cost proven procedures" don't include the latest, most-expensive, life-saving medical procedures, therefore somebody who could have been saved by them will eventually die on this "budget plan" you're advocating. The relatives of this person will be paraded in front of Congress as an example of a heartless system that lets poor people die, Congress will allocate more and more money to The System, and we'll have a system that's every bit as expensive as we have now only with government ineptness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency as an added bonus.
Hell, you could even throw in free food, as long as it's all long shelf-life products that are completely healthy.
Sure, because we all know that "long shelf-life products" never contain tons of additives and preservatives which *allow* them to be long shelf-life in the first place, right? Healthy stuff indeed. Flavored with unicorn tears, I hear.
Do you see what I'm doing? I'm making sure the stuff I'm giving away isn't as good as the stuff people could buy for themselves.
Which leads to the "poor" people on your program to bitch and whine and moan that the rich are getting all the good stuff while they're left with the dregs. And these "poor" people vote. Which guarantees some whore of a politician will come along and promise to "spread the wealth around" in the name of fairness and give these whiners more...and more...and more...until you end up with Greece.
Look, I know you mean well. Idealists always do. The problem is the real world bears absolutely no resemblance to what you'd like it to be. Give people free shit and they complain that it's not *enough* free shit. Give them nicer shit and they *still* complain that other people have nicer shit than them. And if you *give* it to them, they have no concept of earning it, no idea of the value of work. They just feel entitled. And they tend to riot if you don't keep feeding their addiction despite the fact that it will eventually destroy the economy, the country, and everything around them.
Isn't that what the government is for? To spend a little money at the right time to make people happy, help build community and protect individuals? Brilliant!
Uh, no. Ideally, that which governs least governs best. The government exists to protect my basic individual rights such as life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness. Government does not, should not, and cannot *ever* "make people happy." It is up to The People to make *themselves* happy.
A government powerful enough to "make people happy" is powerful enough to make a lot of people unhappy, too.
Slashdot Mirror
People are running to cooperate with China and Europe and Russia, not because of their military might, but because they've figured out how to do the speak softly part.
No, they're running to China and Russia because, after decades (or centuries), of deprivation, these countries are starting to expand economically and have huge pools of cheap labor, lax environmental laws, low corporate taxes, and a budding middle class to buy consumer goods. The US has had these things since the 1950's and has become relatively saturated by comparison. Businesses go where the markets are, and right now they're not in the US.
As for people running to cooperate with Europe, I'm not sure where you get that idea. The Euro bailouts have created a toxic climate for business investment in Europe, and Greece, Spain, and even France are still tottering on the edge of a fiscal cliff. Not that the US is doing much better, but Europe isn't drawing nearly as much business as Russia and China are these days.
If Japan can go from nuclear recipient to friends of their attacker in such short order, brokering a peace with someone whose main point of contention is believing in a different bearded sky-fairy should be fairly easy.
I can only hope you're being trite, because if you're being serious you have a very poor grasp of the real situation.
The main differences between Imperial Japan and the US circa WWII were economic and political, fed on the Japanese side by a healthy dose of nationalism and Japanese-style "manifest destiny." Flags and currency are things people easily flock to but just as easily shun when things go sour.
The differences between the modern West and Islam are rooted in religious beliefs that, at least to most Muslims, are non-negotiable. There is no compromise with the hard-line Islamist: they believe the world should run according to Islam, women are subjugated, non-believers are enslaved or killed, and freedom takes a back seat to dogma. In many ways they are the modern equivalent to the Japanese kamikaze in that their belief system glorifies death to accomplish a goal, with a promise of reward in the afterlife. You can't reason with a people who are prepared to die to serve a religious belief that tolerates no dissenting views. You must defeat them or be defeated. They've been at it for thousands of years. They'll never stop, never tire, and never give up so long as they think they can win. The surest way to disabuse them of that notion is to show them we're prepared to eradicate them to the uttermost extent of our ability, to be more ruthless than they can even imagine. Such thinking brought Japan to the treaty table despite their dogma. It's time we returned to that mode of thought.
Correction: should read "would've been impossible without American military might"
Every ceasefire was an act of diplomacy.
Every reunification of a nation was an act of diplomacy.
Every treaty signed by two nations, mutually agreeing to stop fighting, was an act of diplomacy.
Every ceasefire was brought about by force, usually two relatively-equal forces. There's very little incentive for a massively-winning side to sign any kind of ceasefire with the losing side. Better to vanquish them completely. Your "treaty" description is functionally the same as a ceasefire and falls into the same category.
As for "reunification" being an act of diplomacy, I wonder what the former residents of South Vietnam would have to say about that. Or are you being simplistically Euro-centric and thinking only of East/West Germany? That reunification would've been quite non-diplomatic had the Berlin Airlift not succeeded, a success that would've been impossible with American military might and a demonstrable resolve to use it. The argument can be made that Germany's reunification would never have happened had the U.S. not stood firm against the Soviets, long enough for their own internal economic weaknesses to bring them down without a costly hot war.
His paranoia was justified. [wikipedia.org]
You act as if Stalin were quietly sitting in his chair not bothering anybody when the evil Western powers started meddling in the Russian Civil War. The reality was Stalin was preaching violent overthrow of all free capitalist countries and actively seeking to spread that ideology abroad via whatever means he could devise.
If your neighbor greets you every day with "I'm going to kill you as soon as I can find a way to get away with it", do you sit idly by and let him arm himself, recruit accomplices, reconnoiter your home, and stalk your movements? Or do you try to stop him? The analogy isn't exact because that's usually a job for the police, but on the global stage there is no police force to call upon. It's survival of the fittest on the world stage. If Stalin didn't want the West as an enemy, he probably shouldn't have treated them as such from the moment he grabbed power.
Not sure guns and bombs *really* solve problems either.
Yeah, WWII got rid of the Nazis and the Japanese warlords, but it set us up the Cold War and lots of regional crises.
And our Reagan-era Cold War military strength arguably prevented a real, "hot" World War III with the Soviets. Or you could argue that if war wasn't inevitable, it prevented a serious decline in American influence on the planet as a whole. And no matter whether you love or hate the USA, it would be a stretch indeed to say the would would have preferred a single Soviet superpower as opposed to the American one it got when the Soviet Union collapsed.
There comes a time when you have to admit that the USA, while nowhere near perfect, is a darn sight better at leading the world than anyone else who could potentially have claimed (Germany, Japan, Soviets) or want to claim (China) the title of World Superpower. Throw stones at us all you want; you're allowed to. If you'd tried that in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia, or even modern-day China, you'd be made to disappear.
How they think we can cure racism with more racism is a mystery to me.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
What's even uglier is I've had some very candid conversations with black friends of mine who would engage me in a political conversation. Every one of them who voted cast a vote for Obama, with the remaining ones abstaining from voting for anyone. Most leaned heavily Democrat to begin with, but some were almost what I'd call slight right-of-center, yet they voted for Obama. Most could not cite any specific policy of his they agreed with as a reason to vote for him. They cited personal charisma ("he's a good speaker" or "he's young and energetic") a lot, but there was something even more prevalent: more than one said they voted for Obama "because he's one of us." They seemed utterly unashamed of such a comment, at least until I pointed out that, as a white male, if I'd said the same thing about a white candidate, I'd be cast down and stoned to death by public opinion within seconds.
Likewise, non-black friends who I've talked to who voted for Obama again cited no specific policy of his they agreed with. Their rationale seemed centered around "he's not Bush." But another theme that seemed disturbingly notable was "I'll vote for the black guy so people won't call me racist." So it's true to say some whites voted based on race, but not in the way race-baiters want to spin it.
And, yes, this poll was completely unscientific and does not purport to represent the population as a whole. But the themes were constant enough throughout a somewhat diverse array of people that it definitely deserves consideration.
It is profoundly sad that so many Americans are so ignorant of a common voting pattern in their society that has persisted for decades, and so proud of their ignorance that they repeatedly trumpet it on popular websites like /.
Nowhere did I state I was ignorant of this voting pattern, so the trope of being proud of said ignorance is deflated immediately. Yes, I'm well aware that blacks have historically voted Democrat, but only since the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Prior to that the Democrats were the party of segregation, bigotry, and racism (and, yes, perhaps you should take the time to understand there is a world of difference between racism and bigotry instead of treating them as one and the same). Republicans had much more sway with blacks prior to that. Must've been something to do with that whole "civil war" thing, but hey, that's just a wild guess on my part.
Are your racist fellow travelers who will no-doubt go on to repeat your silly question another dozen times on this story still wondering?
How quickly you devolve into ad hominem. One supposes it's because your argument has no merit and you have no other venue open to you.
Considering Obama carried 95%+ of the black vote, I wonder why nobody's bothered to do a study to see how many votes racial intolerance cost McCain. Why is it considered perfectly acceptable to charge one side of the equation with racial intolerance but totally unacceptable to even *consider* looking at the other side for similar -- perhaps even more egregious -- motivations?
And before anyone decides to accuse me of being a shill for McCain, the GOP, or narrow-minded bigots with a racial chip on their shoulder, I thought McCain was a crap candidate and voted Libertarian.
A commission set up by Obama rates the Obama administration highest of all. And this comes as a surprise to...who exactly?
Of course, they couldn't give Obama an A. That would just be gratuitous bootlicking.
BlackBerry has always been a multi-purpose tool that did everything poorly except email, and even that is done poorly these day. What on earth are you talking about?
FTFY. Again.
Wow, that's terribly uninformed. Go see what RIM has done since 2008 that anybody gave a damn about or bothered to use.
FTFY.
I've heard of rats deserting a sinking ship but this is the first time I've heard of them being *cast overboard* as well!
I had a co-worker who left a great position at a good company to go work for RIM about a year ago. Everybody told him he was nuts. I get the feeling he's regretting that decision right about now.
On the other hand, assuming programmers are grouped in with IT, it could be a bad thing. You'd want them to know what they're competing with, and to understand why a rival's product is so popular.
Given that Apple products still occupy less than 10% of the market share (excluding educational markets where Apple is grossly over-represented), the whole "product is so popular" argument falls kinda flat.
Now if you're talking smartphones you've got a point. Unless you work for Google, that is, since Android garnered 52% of the worldwide smartphone market last November.
The only place Apple is unchallenged is with tablets.
Considering NASA's record of launch failures (in the 1960's), I hope they stick with unmanned flights for many years to come. God forbid they try something crazy like putting a man into orbit using one of these things. All this "put a man on the moon before this decade is out" talk is a bunch of hooey.
The above sarcasm was brought to you by Intelligent Thinking Processes. Nobody starts out in the space business with perfect success on day one. NASA's failure record early in the space race was so awful it was embarrassing. The success of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo only came after years of horrific failures which -- thankfully -- claimed very few lives on the ground and none at all in space. The Soviets had similar failures. SpaceX's record is fantastically better than either one of these organizations were back when they were first lobbing capsules into orbit.
To replicators, of course. Star Trek-style replicators, not Stargate-style replicators, for those of you inclined to think every new technology is going to destroy humanity.
Granted, assembling a few atoms in a lab is a far cry from replicating food, parts, and so forth, but the principle is the same. Fabrication at the sub-atomic level gives us the ability to replicate damned near anything. Once can only imagine how disruptive such a technology will be when things like gold, diamonds, and currency can be perfectly replicated by anyone with access to such a machine.
"War" satellite? Umm...the article speaks mainly of imaging missions. This is a "recon" satellite. I guess the temptation to scream "war" just won out, eh? Sounds much more sensationalist that way.
particularly Wikipedia, which in 11 years has helped replace the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds.'
No bitterness in *this* part of their press release. No sir, we're not bitter one little bit because of those fuckers at Wikipedia. We'll even feel a little emotion here and there while they roast in hell like they so properly deserve.
From my point of view being pro-gun and pro-hunting tend to go together.
Then allow me to provide a contrarian example. I'm a former U.S. Marine, I have numerous firearms in my home, my cars, and on my person at any given time. I've never been on a hunt. Not once. And I have no real desire to do so. I would kill an animal for food out of necessity, but the thought of hurting or killing an animal for sport is something I find repulsive.
Humans, on the other hand, tend to be a bit more deserving of being shot from time to time. Much less of a moral conundrum there.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
And that's where you ran off the rails. One side has data, models, and research, and they've drawn conclusions from it. The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made, and they have their own data, models, research, and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Now if this were *real* science, one side or the other would be able to unequivocally silence the other with incontrivertable facts. But that's *not* the case because the AGW proponents can't *prove* their case any more than the opponents can disprove it. Their data have at times been suspect, their models are gross oversimplifications of the real world, and their research -- as is the case with all grant-funded research -- is subject to potential ideological and financial bias in either direction.
What turns me off from the whole AGW camp is their smug elitism, claiming they've got all the data and all the answers and how dare you question them. Science is *about* defending your claims, and incredible claims require incredible evidence. Every time an AGW supporter says "but we have all we need to know," I just tune them out. You *don't* have all the data. Your models *aren't* accurate simulacrums of our biosphere. Your research *is* subject to bias. If you'd just admit it then perhaps you'd gain more supporters. Instead, you get more shrill every time somebody doesn't immediately toe the AGW line regardless of *why* they're skeptical.
Cue the environmentalists to come running out of the woodwork, filing every lawsuit they can find, protesting the work site, and in general trying to slow down and interfere with the construction of said nuclear power plant.
The level of public ignorance never ceases to amaze.
You're overlooking something huge: no matter what the images showed, there was nothing that could be done to save Columbia short of launching another shuttle on a rescue mission. There was a heated debate post-disaster that management decided not to do the photorecon because they'd already decided nothing could be done even if the photos showed damage. The engineers said they might've been able to throw something together for a rescue mission for the crew; Columbia was deemed irrepairable by even the most optimistic engineers.
While one can't question the bravery of anyone attempting such a rescue mission, the logic of it is tough to reason out. Launching another crew on another shuttle that could easily suffer the same damage is questionable. Then you'd have two dead crews and two lost shuttles.
Oh yeah, it's just that easy. You've got the whole problem solved in one paragraph!
You'd have to eliminate all unessential government programs, and replace social security and medicare with government run lower cost options.
Have fun getting anyone to agree on what an "unessential" government program is. Replace Social Security? Tried that. The Democrats screamed "you want old people to die, don't you?" and shot it down. Replace Medicare with a government-run option? Welcome to Obamacare, which nobody likes and has doctors and nurses running for the exits, straining an already understaffed healthcare system.
For example you could offer free government housing, but make the housing all double occupancy studio apartments.
First, let's get past this "free" thing you speak of. Nothing is "free" in this world. If you're getting something without paying for it, it means someone *else* paid for it. Those people are known as "taxpayers" and they're damned sick of providing "free" food, clothing, housing, and medical care for people who seem to enjoy living off the backs of others who actually work for a living.
And you could offer free health care, but only provide low cost proven procedures, have doctors do only work that can't be done by anyone else, and give out only generic medications.
Won't work. "Low cost proven procedures" don't include the latest, most-expensive, life-saving medical procedures, therefore somebody who could have been saved by them will eventually die on this "budget plan" you're advocating. The relatives of this person will be paraded in front of Congress as an example of a heartless system that lets poor people die, Congress will allocate more and more money to The System, and we'll have a system that's every bit as expensive as we have now only with government ineptness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency as an added bonus.
Hell, you could even throw in free food, as long as it's all long shelf-life products that are completely healthy.
Sure, because we all know that "long shelf-life products" never contain tons of additives and preservatives which *allow* them to be long shelf-life in the first place, right? Healthy stuff indeed. Flavored with unicorn tears, I hear.
Do you see what I'm doing? I'm making sure the stuff I'm giving away isn't as good as the stuff people could buy for themselves.
Which leads to the "poor" people on your program to bitch and whine and moan that the rich are getting all the good stuff while they're left with the dregs. And these "poor" people vote. Which guarantees some whore of a politician will come along and promise to "spread the wealth around" in the name of fairness and give these whiners more...and more...and more...until you end up with Greece.
Look, I know you mean well. Idealists always do. The problem is the real world bears absolutely no resemblance to what you'd like it to be. Give people free shit and they complain that it's not *enough* free shit. Give them nicer shit and they *still* complain that other people have nicer shit than them. And if you *give* it to them, they have no concept of earning it, no idea of the value of work. They just feel entitled. And they tend to riot if you don't keep feeding their addiction despite the fact that it will eventually destroy the economy, the country, and everything around them.
Isn't that what the government is for? To spend a little money at the right time to make people happy, help build community and protect individuals? Brilliant!
Uh, no. Ideally, that which governs least governs best. The government exists to protect my basic individual rights such as life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness. Government does not, should not, and cannot *ever* "make people happy." It is up to The People to make *themselves* happy.
A government powerful enough to "make people happy" is powerful enough to make a lot of people unhappy, too.