Or, you could stop bitching about him not circumventing how our government is supposed to work for your pet issue and actually work towards getting a Congress elected to legalize it the RIGHT way.
What part of the law already allows Obama to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III without Congressional action did you not understand? Such a move wouldn't be circumventing Congress - it would be following legislation already passed by Congress.
This is the same sort of apologetic crap that accompanied Obama's eventual, half-assed repeal of DADT, rather than halting the discharges with the stroke of a pen right away and pushing for full repeal later, following his choice of two existing laws already passed by Congress: either via a stop loss order, or under DADT itself which allows the Secretary of Defense to state that the discharges would not be in the 'best interests of the military'. An immediate repeal would have established facts on the ground that there is no problem with gay military service - just as easing restrictions on marijuana would have established facts on the ground that the hysteria over "reefer madness" should have died out decades ago.
So, stop your bitching and do your best Bart Simpson impression and write "existing law already passed by Congress allows reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III" as many times as necessary until it "clicks".
The fact that unions think they are there to protect jobs, rather than do them, is the root of their problems.
Except: one of the things you anti-union wankers like to bitch about is union seniority. But with more seniority comes more profit-sharing, which means the better the company does, the more profit-sharing the workers will get.
Hmmmmm.
Besides, it's not like you mercenaries give a shit about the company you work for - one bad quarter or a 3% increase in pay to jump ship and you're out the door. You're just there for a paycheck....as opposed to those commie pinko union guys....
And it does not help that they focus all their attention on workplaces that are easy to unionize, and not on occupations that are genuinely underpaid or otherwise exploited.
So how would you unionize a company like Wal-Mart when company bosses are willing to shut down a store before a union could be recognized?
while I agree with you. the problem of having people in a union who can't ever be fired for not doing any work makes the concept of a union look bad.
Drivel. There's nothing about unions that prevent workers from being fired with cause. Nothing.
Besides, have you thought about your storyline for two seconds? If some union worker isn't doing his job, that means that his fellow union members have to pick up his slack. What makes you think they would have any more patience than you would for the exact same behavior at a non-unionized company?
Speaking of, if you've worked at any non-unionized company of any size for any length of time, you've seen your share of people "not pulling their weight" or getting away with behavior that would have gotten your ass shitcanned in a hot minute. Where were your anti-union canards then?
Actually, the pension funds were quite fictional until the financial industry screwed everything up, which exposed that fact.
Actually, that's totally ignoring the fact that right wing politicians decided to make "deferred payments" on pensions so they could pass tax cuts for the rich. Sort of like how Republicans spent 30 years slashing taxes for corporations and hedge funders, and use the resulting Who Could Have Predicted deficit problems to demand cuts to food stamps and Medicare.
But that's okay, pensions are only contractual obligations for working stiffs, so they don't count. It's the workers own damned fault for not having landed jobs at a bank or AIG.
From what I've seen, it's not the rank and file workers who benefit, it's the higher up people who make six figure salaries for holding a fancy title for a pointless internal bureaucracy,
And the CEO of Wal-Mart makes more in two weeks than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her entire lifetime. But, by all means, focus on your alleged "union bosses" making six figures if that's where your priorities are...
Are you saying that because your career and retirement plan sucks, mine should as well?
Or because he's bought into crab mentality. That's what has teabaggers making $10 an hour w/o benefits screaming that teachers making $30k a year need to give up their "cushy" pensions and health care.....
Horses and buggies served to provide essential transportation. The question is not whether unions were once beneficial, but rather whether they are beneficial today.
Do you have the same Concerns over food safety laws now that The Jungle is more than 100 years old? How about seat belts? Gosh, that was a long time ago, too.....
It's that they don't police their own membership, and instead make it very difficult to get rid of the worst workers.
Tried anti-union horseshit. There's nothing about unions that prevent workers from being fired for cause.
Nothing.
If you've worked for a non-unionized employer of any size, you've seen workers that weren't "pulling their own weight" or "got away with murder without being fired" and all the other canards that are thrown around against unions. Where were all your concerns then?
Picture making the rounds on Facebook addresses this tired canard rather well:
"I called the Chamber of Commerce today and asked to join without paying any dues.. They said that's not fair to the other dues paying members of the chamber and denied me. How is that different from Right to Work?"
Conceivably, that's gross, archaic framing. Because pejoratives should be aimed at kids, because it's totally their responsibility to make sure their parents are married before the sperm meets the egg. In advance, or something.
that is one issue where Obama is probably not a hypocrite
Unless Obama taught that "states rights" was a valid defense of Jim Crow in his Constitutional Law class, of course he's a hypocrite.
...are far more significant than whatever pretty words are coming out of his mouth on any given morning. He also promised to back off state-based medical marijuana, only to prosecute more than 10 dimes the number of medical pot facilities in four years than Bush did in 8.
Obama is a hypocritical pot smoking, "a little blow" using jackass who has no problem ending the careers of future Obama's by throwing their asses in prison for the same offenses that he committed with gusto when he was a young man.
And before someone uses the "but he's gotta enforce the laaaaw" excuse, where are the prosecutions of Bush officials that ordered torture and bankers that stole people's homes? Finally, the Controlled Substances Act allows Obama to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III without having to go through Congress, changing it from contraband to regulated drug overnight.
He can't definitely say "I'm not wasting federal resources and money on that shit"
But he can say "after scientific review by the FDA, I am moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act" without any action from Congress. Existing law already allows Obama to stop persecuting marijuana users, growers and dealers.
and the President is constitutionally bound to follow the laws established by Congress.
Then where are the prosecutions for Bush's wars and torture (something REQUIRED by the U.N. Convention Against Torture, signed by that hippie Ronald Reagan) and fraud committed by the banks? Glennzilla:
HSBC, too big to jail, is the new poster child for US two-tiered justice system
Over the last year, federal investigators found that one of the world's largest banks, HSBC, spent years committing serious crimes, involving money laundering for terrorists; "facilitat[ing] money laundering by Mexican drug cartels"; and "mov[ing] tainted money for Saudi banks tied to terrorist groups". Those investigations uncovered substantial evidence "that senior bank officials were complicit in the illegal activity." As but one example, "an HSBC executive at one point argued that the bank should continue working with the Saudi Al Rajhi bank, which has supported Al Qaeda."
On Tuesday, not only did the US Justice Department announce that HSBC would not be criminally prosecuted, but outright claimed that the reason is that they are too important, too instrumental to subject them to such disruptions.
By coincidence, on the very same day that the DOJ announced that HSBC would not be indicted for its multiple money-laundering felonies, the New York Times published a story featuring the harrowing story of an African-American single mother of three who was sentenced to life imprisonment at the age of 27 for a minor drug offense
Obama constantly makes a mockery of the rule of law. If he's going to ignore it, he could at least do it for non-violent non-criminals as opposed to banks that have stolen millions of homes and government officials that tortured over 100 people to death.
It's Obama trying to have it both ways....his modus operandi on everything but expanding Bush's Unitary Executive power grabs. There he's balls to the wall on telling the press or Congress to fuck off if they suggest the power of the presidency should be limited.
Of course, talking out of both sides of your mouth is Obama mocked Hillary for during the '08 primaries, where she tried to have it both ways on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Sort of like how he mocked McCain for wanting to tax your health care benefits, only to strongly back excise taxes in his Health Insurance Profit Protection Act.
If Republicans were slightly less corrupt and incompetent, they could have mopped the floor with Obama this year.
...on same-sex marriage. If our press was as adversarial as it is in England, we might see questions like:
"Mister President, where do you think you would be in life if you had been convicted for felony drug possession when you were a young man?"
and
"Mister President, if your parents had been married when you were conceived, they could have been arrested in half the United States for violating interracial marriage laws. As a former professor of Constitutional Law you know this full well - so how can you, in good conscience, endorse a "states rights" position on same-sex marriage bans?"
A thousand-year tornado is laughable, and makes you sound like you believe the bullshit weather movies on the Syfy channel.
That's just the sort of belligerent hubris that I'm talking about. You're still prattling on about how it's stupid to plan for the worst disaster to hit a plant's area within the last thousand years right after a once-in-a-thousand years earthquake fucked up Fukishima?
As someone who lives in Minnesota
As someone who lives in Minnesota, you'll be well familiar with the 48 tornadoes to swing through Minnesota in one day in 2010, and the flooding in Duluth that washed away homes and roads.
And that's the last two years. What's the worst natural disaster Minnesota's had in the last thousand years?
F5 is as high as they go, and they happen pretty routinely.
50 over a period of 60 years, two in Minnesota. That's not "routinely" for you.
Earthquake? You've got me there. The last earthquake in Minnesota hit in the neighborhood of 100 - 150 years ago and was a 6.something.
You mean 5.0 in 1975? Of course that's not an earthquake to worry about, but of course that means you need to plan for eathquakes even in Minnesota.
So, most of your post is fanboi denialism. Before you double down, the point isn't that Dayton should shut down all the nuclear plants in Minnesota because the next storm system will result in a meltdown. It's that nuclear plants need to be massively over-engineered before you can talk about how safe they are with an honest face. And no, going by the penny pinching corporate bean-counters definition of over-engineered is not going to cut it. Plan for the worst disaster your area might face, and for fucks sakes get the profit motive out of the equation.
But NO, there is NOT the same chance of a major earthquake happening in Minnesota, as there is of one happening in southern California.
Just how stupid are you, really? The point - the obvious one that you somehow managed to miss - is that even "safe" areas like Minnesota can still have the occasional earthquake or F5 tornado, and your plant had better be able to handle it.
"But but but those kind of disasters are soooo rare that you're a fool to worry about it" fanboys like yourself bleat - like you did five minutes ago in an awesome display of dumbfuckery.
Well, sure, the chances of such a disaster striking any one plant are pretty low. But when you have ~100 nuclear power plants like the U.S. has, the chances of such a disaster striking rise dramatically when the plants run for 40+ years. And what if we double the number of plants to phase out coal power?
It's not rocket science here, which is a good thing for you. Before you go Beliebing in how safe and awesome nuclear power is, plants need to be built to handle the sort of disasters that only come along once ever thousand years, and the profit motive removed entirely, at minimum. Plant managers and nuclear power regulators could be required to live on plant grounds, just for good measure.
Why hello, fanboi! You're right, nuclear power cannot fail, it can only be failed! Each meltdown, whether it's Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukishima, is a No One Could Have Predicted disaster that in no way means we should re-examine the safety of nuclear energy!
Your bleating is ignoring the fact that nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man. Refining the ore, plant construction, plant maintenance, and of course waste disposal. We're literally talking about hundreds of billions here, money that could be spent on constructing renewable power that doesn't have a risk of meltdown and high-capacity long-distance power conduits to get around fanboi concerns over "baseload power". And that's before we ever get to the cleanup costs of Fukishima or Chernobyl.
Thank you for providing the textbook demonstration of the human nature of completely fucking up risk assessment. I couldn't have said it better myself. You pointed out all the things that are wrong with demand driven disaster planning, right down to the complete misunderstanding of what terms like "once-in-a-thousand-years" means. Kudos!
Thanks for the projection. The last time Fukishima was hit with an earthquake of that magnitude was around a thousand years ago. The chances of "rare" disaster like happening to any given nuclear power plant increases with the number of plants and the area across which they are located. Arkansas and Missouri were hit by four earthquakes above a 7.0 magnitude just 200 years ago, for example.
So, when you have hundreds or thousands of plants spread across the planet, the chances of a once-in-a-thousand years disaster happening to one of them across their 30, 40, 50 year lifespans starts to get a lot higher. We're talking remedial level statistics here. And each time it happens, the nuke fanbois will run around crying that there is no problem with for-profit nuclear power, that the problems that caused the disaster at that plant were an isolated freak occurrence that wont happen again, no matter that there might be dozens of other plants that share the same problem - just like Fukishima?
So, do use a Death Star for your projection? Do you keep your head up your ass, jeff, for the warmth, or because it's a comfortable position for you, or what?
You just shot your own argument in the foot, dumbass.
You just reinforced, it fuckwit.
Excessive over-regulation by the NRC.
You mean the NRC run by once-and-future nuclear energy execs? The NRC that just forced out it's chair because he wanted tighter (but less profitable) safety standards after Fukishima? Way to reduce your credbility to zero right out of the gate, Slick, and that's before you call the already-weak sauce oversight "over-regulation".
And if not nuclear, then what? Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power *combined* cannot ever account for more than about 1% of the total US electrical demand - it's fundamental physics.
Fundamental fuckwittery. Germany gets 3% of it's power from solar alone, despite getting the same amount of sun as Alaska. You can throw up gigawatts of renewable power for the cost of ore refinement and plant construction alone, much less the cost of insurance + waste disposal, much less the recuperated 50 year old costs of nuclear power.
No shit Sherlock. Of course the new roof faces the same hazards - that's why I put the new roof on in the first place.
Then why is your head buried so deep in your ass, Watson? Too busy engaging in four-letter projection to notice that the point was to debunk the "ohhh but new reactors are soo much safer!" canard - which you just agreed with?
It was "just as fine" as other for-profit nuclear power plants run around the world. You came sooooo close to cigar of the real problem with nuclear power: the profit motive. As long as there is a buck to be made, corners will be cut, especially when you put the industry in charge of it's own oversight....like what's happened in the U.S. and Japan.
nor was it hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster.
It's been around a thousand years since an earthquake of that magnitude hit that area. Is our children learning?
It was a poorly maintained plant, with a history of safety issues.
Which is no different from plants in the U.S. that have cut earthquake sensors and drills to save that buck. The difference between those plants and Fukishima? The American plants weren't hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster.
Oh yeah, and if there are 7.0+ earthquakes or tsunami-type flooding in Minnesota or Indiana, we have much more serious concerns than a nuclear meltdown, as apparently the Apocalypse has occurred.
There was a 5.0 earthquake in Minnesota in 1975. There were four earthquakes above 7.0 across Arkansas and Missouri in 1812. That's within the last 200 years...what about a once-in-a-thousand-years earthquake or storm?
Projecting to ignore the problems in your article of faith, are you?
Are Republicans every bit as eager as Democrats to extend copyrights for the benefit of big business: yes or no.
Do studios have more money than Streisand and Baldwin: yes or no.
Are most of the world's problems solved by white men with guns: yes or no.
Ignoring reality undermines your credibility.
global contributions by members of the *IAAs bear that out
The same slight of hand sophistry as looking at who reporters vote for while ignoring who owns the companies they work for, and who sets the editorial direction.
Until you or somebody else comes up with an equivalent red herring to jump through my bullshit red herring hoop
FTFY. Hollywood is Big Business, if there's one thing Republicans love even more than Democrats, it's Big Business.
I know this was just snark but here goes: There is a significant variation in the US when it comes to disasters. Everyone likes to think that disasters are truly random, but then again everyone (in general) is terrible at assessing risk. You don't have to look very hard to find areas that receive significantly fewer damaging hurricanes, damaging tornadoes, damaging earthquakes, damaging floods/tsunamis, damaging wildfires, etc. Do you really think that everywhere in the US is as prone to calamity as, say, Southern California? Give me a break.
Wait, who needs a break? As if disasters only happen in Southern California. Fukishima was just fine, until it was hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. Well, how many once-in-a-thousand-years disasters are you going to have in one year in a country of moderate size? How many in 10 years? 50 years?
So you build your reactors in Minnesota, which has plenty of fresh water and no hurricanes. What if your reactor gets hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years tornado, flood, or earthquake? Or the plants in Minnesota don't get hit with it, maybe your plant in Oregon does. Or Vermont. Or Indiana.....
Slashdot Mirror
What part of the law already allows Obama to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III without Congressional action did you not understand? Such a move wouldn't be circumventing Congress - it would be following legislation already passed by Congress.
This is the same sort of apologetic crap that accompanied Obama's eventual, half-assed repeal of DADT, rather than halting the discharges with the stroke of a pen right away and pushing for full repeal later, following his choice of two existing laws already passed by Congress: either via a stop loss order, or under DADT itself which allows the Secretary of Defense to state that the discharges would not be in the 'best interests of the military'. An immediate repeal would have established facts on the ground that there is no problem with gay military service - just as easing restrictions on marijuana would have established facts on the ground that the hysteria over "reefer madness" should have died out decades ago.
So, stop your bitching and do your best Bart Simpson impression and write "existing law already passed by Congress allows reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III" as many times as necessary until it "clicks".
Except: one of the things you anti-union wankers like to bitch about is union seniority. But with more seniority comes more profit-sharing, which means the better the company does, the more profit-sharing the workers will get.
Hmmmmm.
Besides, it's not like you mercenaries give a shit about the company you work for - one bad quarter or a 3% increase in pay to jump ship and you're out the door. You're just there for a paycheck....as opposed to those commie pinko union guys....
So how would you unionize a company like Wal-Mart when company bosses are willing to shut down a store before a union could be recognized?
Drivel. There's nothing about unions that prevent workers from being fired with cause. Nothing.
Besides, have you thought about your storyline for two seconds? If some union worker isn't doing his job, that means that his fellow union members have to pick up his slack. What makes you think they would have any more patience than you would for the exact same behavior at a non-unionized company?
Speaking of, if you've worked at any non-unionized company of any size for any length of time, you've seen your share of people "not pulling their weight" or getting away with behavior that would have gotten your ass shitcanned in a hot minute. Where were your anti-union canards then?
Actually, that's totally ignoring the fact that right wing politicians decided to make "deferred payments" on pensions so they could pass tax cuts for the rich. Sort of like how Republicans spent 30 years slashing taxes for corporations and hedge funders, and use the resulting Who Could Have Predicted deficit problems to demand cuts to food stamps and Medicare.
But that's okay, pensions are only contractual obligations for working stiffs, so they don't count. It's the workers own damned fault for not having landed jobs at a bank or AIG.
And the CEO of Wal-Mart makes more in two weeks than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her entire lifetime. But, by all means, focus on your alleged "union bosses" making six figures if that's where your priorities are...
Or because he's bought into crab mentality. That's what has teabaggers making $10 an hour w/o benefits screaming that teachers making $30k a year need to give up their "cushy" pensions and health care.....
Do you have the same Concerns over food safety laws now that The Jungle is more than 100 years old? How about seat belts? Gosh, that was a long time ago, too.....
Tried anti-union horseshit. There's nothing about unions that prevent workers from being fired for cause.
Nothing.
If you've worked for a non-unionized employer of any size, you've seen workers that weren't "pulling their own weight" or "got away with murder without being fired" and all the other canards that are thrown around against unions. Where were all your concerns then?
Picture making the rounds on Facebook addresses this tired canard rather well:
"I called the Chamber of Commerce today and asked to join without paying any dues.. They said that's not fair to the other dues paying members of the chamber and denied me. How is that different from Right to Work?"
Conceivably, that's gross, archaic framing. Because pejoratives should be aimed at kids, because it's totally their responsibility to make sure their parents are married before the sperm meets the egg. In advance, or something.
Unless Obama taught that "states rights" was a valid defense of Jim Crow in his Constitutional Law class, of course he's a hypocrite.
...are far more significant than whatever pretty words are coming out of his mouth on any given morning. He also promised to back off state-based medical marijuana, only to prosecute more than 10 dimes the number of medical pot facilities in four years than Bush did in 8.
Obama is a hypocritical pot smoking, "a little blow" using jackass who has no problem ending the careers of future Obama's by throwing their asses in prison for the same offenses that he committed with gusto when he was a young man.
And before someone uses the "but he's gotta enforce the laaaaw" excuse, where are the prosecutions of Bush officials that ordered torture and bankers that stole people's homes? Finally, the Controlled Substances Act allows Obama to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III without having to go through Congress, changing it from contraband to regulated drug overnight.
But he can say "after scientific review by the FDA, I am moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act" without any action from Congress. Existing law already allows Obama to stop persecuting marijuana users, growers and dealers.
Then where are the prosecutions for Bush's wars and torture (something REQUIRED by the U.N. Convention Against Torture, signed by that hippie Ronald Reagan) and fraud committed by the banks? Glennzilla:
Obama constantly makes a mockery of the rule of law. If he's going to ignore it, he could at least do it for non-violent non-criminals as opposed to banks that have stolen millions of homes and government officials that tortured over 100 people to death.
It's Obama trying to have it both ways....his modus operandi on everything but expanding Bush's Unitary Executive power grabs. There he's balls to the wall on telling the press or Congress to fuck off if they suggest the power of the presidency should be limited.
Of course, talking out of both sides of your mouth is Obama mocked Hillary for during the '08 primaries, where she tried to have it both ways on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Sort of like how he mocked McCain for wanting to tax your health care benefits, only to strongly back excise taxes in his Health Insurance Profit Protection Act.
If Republicans were slightly less corrupt and incompetent, they could have mopped the floor with Obama this year.
...on same-sex marriage. If our press was as adversarial as it is in England, we might see questions like:
"Mister President, where do you think you would be in life if you had been convicted for felony drug possession when you were a young man?"
and
"Mister President, if your parents had been married when you were conceived, they could have been arrested in half the United States for violating interracial marriage laws. As a former professor of Constitutional Law you know this full well - so how can you, in good conscience, endorse a "states rights" position on same-sex marriage bans?"
Christianist islamophobe should try Googling "Crusades" and "Trail of Tears" before firing artillery shells from within his glass dome.
That's just the sort of belligerent hubris that I'm talking about. You're still prattling on about how it's stupid to plan for the worst disaster to hit a plant's area within the last thousand years right after a once-in-a-thousand years earthquake fucked up Fukishima?
As someone who lives in Minnesota, you'll be well familiar with the 48 tornadoes to swing through Minnesota in one day in 2010, and the flooding in Duluth that washed away homes and roads.
And that's the last two years. What's the worst natural disaster Minnesota's had in the last thousand years?
50 over a period of 60 years, two in Minnesota. That's not "routinely" for you.
You mean 5.0 in 1975? Of course that's not an earthquake to worry about, but of course that means you need to plan for eathquakes even in Minnesota.
So, most of your post is fanboi denialism. Before you double down, the point isn't that Dayton should shut down all the nuclear plants in Minnesota because the next storm system will result in a meltdown. It's that nuclear plants need to be massively over-engineered before you can talk about how safe they are with an honest face. And no, going by the penny pinching corporate bean-counters definition of over-engineered is not going to cut it. Plan for the worst disaster your area might face, and for fucks sakes get the profit motive out of the equation.
Just how stupid are you, really? The point - the obvious one that you somehow managed to miss - is that even "safe" areas like Minnesota can still have the occasional earthquake or F5 tornado, and your plant had better be able to handle it.
"But but but those kind of disasters are soooo rare that you're a fool to worry about it" fanboys like yourself bleat - like you did five minutes ago in an awesome display of dumbfuckery.
Well, sure, the chances of such a disaster striking any one plant are pretty low. But when you have ~100 nuclear power plants like the U.S. has, the chances of such a disaster striking rise dramatically when the plants run for 40+ years. And what if we double the number of plants to phase out coal power?
It's not rocket science here, which is a good thing for you. Before you go Beliebing in how safe and awesome nuclear power is, plants need to be built to handle the sort of disasters that only come along once ever thousand years, and the profit motive removed entirely, at minimum. Plant managers and nuclear power regulators could be required to live on plant grounds, just for good measure.
Why hello, fanboi! You're right, nuclear power cannot fail, it can only be failed! Each meltdown, whether it's Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukishima, is a No One Could Have Predicted disaster that in no way means we should re-examine the safety of nuclear energy!
Your bleating is ignoring the fact that nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man. Refining the ore, plant construction, plant maintenance, and of course waste disposal. We're literally talking about hundreds of billions here, money that could be spent on constructing renewable power that doesn't have a risk of meltdown and high-capacity long-distance power conduits to get around fanboi concerns over "baseload power". And that's before we ever get to the cleanup costs of Fukishima or Chernobyl.
Thanks for the projection. The last time Fukishima was hit with an earthquake of that magnitude was around a thousand years ago. The chances of "rare" disaster like happening to any given nuclear power plant increases with the number of plants and the area across which they are located. Arkansas and Missouri were hit by four earthquakes above a 7.0 magnitude just 200 years ago, for example.
So, when you have hundreds or thousands of plants spread across the planet, the chances of a once-in-a-thousand years disaster happening to one of them across their 30, 40, 50 year lifespans starts to get a lot higher. We're talking remedial level statistics here. And each time it happens, the nuke fanbois will run around crying that there is no problem with for-profit nuclear power, that the problems that caused the disaster at that plant were an isolated freak occurrence that wont happen again, no matter that there might be dozens of other plants that share the same problem - just like Fukishima?
So, do use a Death Star for your projection? Do you keep your head up your ass, jeff, for the warmth, or because it's a comfortable position for you, or what?
You just reinforced, it fuckwit.
You mean the NRC run by once-and-future nuclear energy execs? The NRC that just forced out it's chair because he wanted tighter (but less profitable) safety standards after Fukishima? Way to reduce your credbility to zero right out of the gate, Slick, and that's before you call the already-weak sauce oversight "over-regulation".
Fundamental fuckwittery. Germany gets 3% of it's power from solar alone, despite getting the same amount of sun as Alaska. You can throw up gigawatts of renewable power for the cost of ore refinement and plant construction alone, much less the cost of insurance + waste disposal, much less the recuperated 50 year old costs of nuclear power.
Then why is your head buried so deep in your ass, Watson? Too busy engaging in four-letter projection to notice that the point was to debunk the "ohhh but new reactors are soo much safer!" canard - which you just agreed with?
WTF? WHOOSH much?
It was "just as fine" as other for-profit nuclear power plants run around the world. You came sooooo close to cigar of the real problem with nuclear power: the profit motive. As long as there is a buck to be made, corners will be cut, especially when you put the industry in charge of it's own oversight....like what's happened in the U.S. and Japan.
It's been around a thousand years since an earthquake of that magnitude hit that area. Is our children learning?
Which is no different from plants in the U.S. that have cut earthquake sensors and drills to save that buck. The difference between those plants and Fukishima? The American plants weren't hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster.
There was a 5.0 earthquake in Minnesota in 1975. There were four earthquakes above 7.0 across Arkansas and Missouri in 1812. That's within the last 200 years...what about a once-in-a-thousand-years earthquake or storm?
Projecting to ignore the problems in your article of faith, are you?
Are Republicans every bit as eager as Democrats to extend copyrights for the benefit of big business: yes or no.
Do studios have more money than Streisand and Baldwin: yes or no.
Are most of the world's problems solved by white men with guns: yes or no.
Ignoring reality undermines your credibility.
The same slight of hand sophistry as looking at who reporters vote for while ignoring who owns the companies they work for, and who sets the editorial direction.
FTFY. Hollywood is Big Business, if there's one thing Republicans love even more than Democrats, it's Big Business.
Deal with it.
Wait, who needs a break? As if disasters only happen in Southern California. Fukishima was just fine, until it was hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. Well, how many once-in-a-thousand-years disasters are you going to have in one year in a country of moderate size? How many in 10 years? 50 years?
So you build your reactors in Minnesota, which has plenty of fresh water and no hurricanes. What if your reactor gets hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years tornado, flood, or earthquake? Or the plants in Minnesota don't get hit with it, maybe your plant in Oregon does. Or Vermont. Or Indiana.....