waitforufo

So if a politician said he supported the rights of opera singers, would you then assume he supported the freedom of speech? Would you even think he was talking about freedom of speech? Well, now you know how a firearms rights advocate feels when some politician says he "supports the rights of hunters." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I appreciate this answer, but in a free society, not all problems have a solution. When choosing between freedom and safety, most will choose freedom.

Gun control certainly functions as a wedge issue. Many people who lean left politically are indeed gun owners and or support firearms freedoms. Those that lean politically right (Republicans) are certainly going to exploit the missteps of their political opponents (Democrats) for electoral advantage. Creating, promoting, and supporting gun control legislation or repealing gun ownership protections (Tiahrt Amendment) does indeed open a wedge opportunity. So why is Obama doing it? I believe that was in part the point of Bascule's OP. As I mentioned in my last post "For the last 4 if not 8 years the majority of the political left has recognized that this is a third-rail issue for many voters." In other words, gun control cannot function as a wedge for the Democratic Party if they don't work to reduce gun freedoms. Again, from the OP, they just can't seem to help themselves. With regard to the NRA, it ranks all politicians with regard to their support of firearm freedoms. There are currently several A rated Democrats. The NRA strongly encourages there members to vote for these candidates. As I mentioned, the NRA strongly encouraged Washington State voters to vote for then speaker of the house Tom Foley (Democrat) right up to the point where he voted for the Brady bill. Tom Foley's defeat in the 1994 Congressional elections made him the first sitting Speaker since 1860 not to win re-election to Congress. By the way, that same year, Republican John Kasich from Ohio, another politician with an NRA A rating also lost his seat in the house. Need I further mention Bob Dole, an A rated NRA politician lost his election bid for the presidency after voting for the Brady bill. I mention all this because the NRA works hard to bring down any politician that does not support firearms freedoms, particularly turn coat politicians. They are quite good at it. With regard to hunting, it has nothing to do with our second amendment guaranteed right to bear arms. The second amendment is about personal protection from both criminals and tyrants (see Heller). I bring it up because of the quote below. I don't know Sisyphus's life circumstances but I would guess that life circumstance does not include farming, ranching, or wildlife management. Enjoying a steak is just taking pleasure out of killing animals by proxy. Sport hunters have and will continue to bring many benefits to the United States. They are too numerous to mention here, and can be easily discovered with little effort.

Why is gun control such an important issue for the political left? Politically it has been a persistent loser for them. Even within their own base there are a significant number of pro-gun voters. In Washington State we voted out the then speaker of the house, Tom Foley, because he went against this long pro-gun voting record (NRA, A rated politician) by voting in favor of the Brady bill. For the last 4 if not 8 years the majority of the political left has recognized that this is a third-rail issue for many voters. Why try touching it again?

I don't know about Hansen and Savannah River but I know the N-Reactor at Hanford was shut down due to Chernobyl like concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_reactor I doubt confinement would have worked with a Chernobyl like explosion. The reactor was shut down in 1987 (Chernobyl was in '86) I do think one should differentiate between reactors that have plutonium as its primary product with power as a byproduct and those that are designed for opposite purposes. Also, I think we do learn from our mistakes. Three Mile Island is an interesting case. Bad reactor design, human controllers made every bad decision conceivable, still only minor radiation leaks. Good thing they had a containment building.

One well supervised experience of firing live rounds will teach any child that firearms are dangerous and easily discharged. If this training were performed with a 20 gauge shotgun, the lesson will be well learned. Many firearms accidents involving children occur because the children are attempting to figure out how the weapon works. Teach them and their curiosity is satisfied.

My point is you have less to worry about from the likes of me, and those like me, then you do about the people showcased in this NOW program as environmentalists. Wind, solar, and geothermal power generation, I'm all for it. You want to give these industries tax breaks, okay with me. I'm all for tax breaks as long as the government is not refunding tax credits that these companies never paid. You want to cover acres of useless desert wasteland with a solar grid, I'm happy you made this land productive. You are never going to hear me give sympathy to some pretend cowboy that is upset that his view now includes a power line. You are never going to here me insist that miles of power line be buried in an environmentally conscious way, causing project cost to skyrocket. I would rather see that money spent building a bigger power grid with more power plants (renewable or not). I'm all in favor of increasing our power generation capacity. I may not be in favor of mandating a fixed percentage of new power generation coming from renewable sources, but I'm also not going to stop renewable projects by nuisance lawsuits and increased government regulation. The environmentalists showcased in the NOW program will actively work to stop the development you want. These people are not your allies. If you believe that CO2 reduction is critical now, these people are not your friends. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFrom http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/governator.html A third source.

There is also a VERY real chance that there were no prosecutable crimes. Look at Scooter Libby for example. The man was convicted for lying about a crime for which no one was prosecuted.

It is precisely this comment that is the problem. Countries with good economies not only worry about the environment, but actually do something about improving it. When the economy is bad or in countries with perpetual bad economies the environment is damaged. The worse the economy, the worse the damage. You cannot separate these two things. You can't put the economy in the back seat. What part of that don't you get? What needs to happen is for the environmental movement to accept gradual gains. The environmental movement today would rather persist with the status quo rather than accept marginal or even significant improvement. They hold out for 100 %. They are their own worse enemy. In most cases significant improvement from the status quo can be achieved with marginal cost. For some however significant improvement is not enough.

The NOW program describes how a power company wants build major power grid infrastructure right through the middle of land ideal for wind, solar, and geothermal power development. This power grid infrastructure is described as essential for the success of these renewable energy systems. Are the environmentalist groups happy? No. Why? Well because electrons don't care about the energy source that pushes them around on this grid. That means that those evil power companies are just trying to pull the old bait and switch. The environmentalists say the real reason the power company wants the grid is so they can import fossil fuel produced electricity from Mexico. Yet California requires that 30% of new power generation comes from renewable resources, so power companies will have to invest in renewable sources regardless of importation from Mexico. This is still not good enough. The environmentalists want the power companies to sign an agreement that the majority of power on this new grid will come from renewable sources. The power companies tell the environmentalists to bring that up with the utility commission. The power companies have to do what the utility commission dictates so that’s where such requirements should be set. But the power companies have too much influence on the power commission the environmentalists cry. But that’s not all they cry about. Power lines are ugly. Power lines have to be maintained. This means the power companies will have to build roads. Nature should be left wild and pristine. (By keeping nature wild and pristine people cant get there so no one can enjoy it.) These environmental activists will fight the construction of this power grid every bit as hard as they would fight the construction of a new coal fired power plant. Why, because to them new power grids mean new coal fired power plants will be built. Also, more power means more people and people are bad. I wonder if they also worry that less regulation in Mexico will also mean that it will be easier to build wind, solar, and geothermal energy sources in Mexico. Wouldn't it be hilarious if this power grid was built and all the renewable energy plants were also built in Mexico because US firms could not overcome environmentalist court challenges to build them in California? Just think of all the environmental challanges this project would create.

You asked for another source and I provided it. My point in making these posts is that while environmentalists say they want to do things they are constantly thwarted by their own self imposed zero tolerance goals. What level of a pollutant is acceptable? Only a concentration of zero is acceptable. How much of the "natural" environment can be disturbed to put in a power line. Only zero disturbance is acceptable. One of the environmental advocates in the NOW program off handedly states that she is for improved power grids as long as they are built to environmentally conscious standards and are underground. Underground? I guess the cost of construction is not part of her equation. Then another environmental activist states that if a plant is killed during the construction of the power grid, that plant is lost forever and can never be replaced. Talk about zero impact. How does such a person tread the earth? Why would anyone take these people seriously? Why aren't leading environmentalists calling these people idiots? Instead, the NOW program lets them speak this nonsense without challenge thereby granting such opinions validity.

Okay, here is a program from NOW on PBS about renewable energy in Southern California. To provide renewable power however they need a better power grid. The program examines in particular the Sunrise Powerlink project. Environmentalists came out strongly against this new power grid for several reasons. One the grid itself would be an eyesore and the construction and maintenance would disrupt the environment. Another, the power grid could also carry power generated by non renewable methods. There was a lot of concern that the power grid would connect fossil fuel generation plants in Mexico to the California. So there you go. There is another source. Environmentalists are for doing nothing. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/503/index.html

They must have been rather skinny, exposed, and sexually frustrated if reasoning was required for the activities you mention. How did we ever survive to the age of reason?

The things you write of are bad, and the people responsible for bringing them about should be held accountable. I think Hamas is 100% responsible for bringing them about. Why am I wrong?

I hope I'm wrong too. My post yesterday was really just to point out facts of which Hizbulla must also be aware. Metula by the way is a great place. Great steak house call Hatahana (if I remember), an Irish pub I don't remember the name of, and very friendly people. I hope nothing bad happens there.

Hamas has just received a serous beating. Israel has its military fully activated. The Arab states are tired of their Persian enemy Iran having client armies in their back yard. Tzipi Livni of Kadima still wants to beat Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming election. By the time the Israel's airforce has softened up Lebanon, their army can easily move their tanks from Gaza to Metula. No time like the present.

Why restrict that comment to Social Security, the same could be said of most of socialism. Socialism's motto could be easily stated as "From each at the bottom of the pyramid to each at the top of the pyramid.";) On a more serious note, the primary difference between Social Security and a ponzi scheme is that people voluntarily participate in ponzi schemes.

With regard to the Miami Herald article, it is currently estimated that Social Security will start having more money going out then coming in 2012. Since the Social Security lock box is filled with US savings bonds, in 2012 the Social Security Administration will have to start cashing in those bonds. Where is that money going to come from? If we simply print money, that will cause inflation, and Social Security payments are indexed to inflation. Not to worry however, both the Mayans & Nostradamus predict the end of the world in 2012, so we should be fine.

Aircraft reactor engines were built as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment If you ever find yourself in and around Idaho Falls, Idaho you can visit this site. As you drive down the highway there is a sign that says "Historical Site Ahead." They are just sitting there and you can climb all over them if you want. A little further down the road you can visit EBR-I. I think they have a park ranger there, but they mostly let you roam around as you like both inside and out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBR-I

The above simply is not true. Modern Zionism really got rolling after the first world war. The movement was dominated by atheists and socialists who shared a common ethnicity. This ethnic group originated in the geographic area referred to as Palestine by the Romans. Since this ethnic group was forcibly removed from Roman Palestine and distained or hated in the areas in which they currently lived, they chose to return to the land of their origin. Prior to 1948 very few modern Zionist moved to Israel for religious reasons. They moved there to join their ethnic clan and to participate in a socialist experiment. The vast majority of Arabs living in Palestine at the time were at best peasants but better described as surfs. They belonged to the land owned by feudal lords of the Turkish caliphate. At the end of word war one, this caliphate as eliminated and divided into European administered colonies. The former feudal lords became land owners and the surfs became tenants. The land owners sold their land to Zionists. The Zionists, in the main, paid a premium to have the tenants relocated. The land owners did not relocate their tenants. They felt no feudal obligation to do so since their former surfs were now legally tenants. When Arab Palestinians talk about a "right of return" they include it that the right to return to land they once belonged to as surfs. These Arabs in part complain about Zionists because when the Zionists bought the land on which the Arabs lived, the Zionists, like the former feudal lords, did not respect the former feudal obligations to the people that belonged to that land under the former Turkish caliphate. The origins of this problem are political not religious. Even today, the majority of Jews living in Israel are atheists or religiously non observant. The religious aspects of this conflict did not really begin to dominate until after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

A similar article I recall reading in a doctor's office several years ago. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss Includes the following.

At least the Mayans were smart enough to pick a date so far in the future that those that picked the date will be long dead before the date arrives. I hold that the punishment for wrongly predicting the date of end of the world, universe, days, and the like should be death.

Pangloss & iNow, Do you ever read the The Christian Science Monitor? Spend a few minutes on their website. I don't think you will find it to be either religious or politically conservative.

I accept your point. Forgive my sardonic appreciation of how a black cloud can be found for every sliver lining. Perhaps the author of the article in the OP (repeated below) should have considered the potential addition of coal fired power plants which could be built as a result of building wind power. This seems legitimate in light of the fact that the author included limited nuclear exchange (detonation of 50 fifteen kiloton bombs) as a potential cost of additional nuclear power plants. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081215-good-news-for-wind-bad-for-ethanol-in-major-energy-study.html

The following article essentially says that environmentalist aren't happy with wind power because it encourages burring more coal. You just can't make environmentalist happy. http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/29/montana%E2%80%99s-got-wind-needs-power-lines/

bob000555, In response to the analogy of Iraq under Saddam being comparable to an convict on parole you wrote. My post was direct to your analogy below. How is your analogy not comparing a sovereign nation to an individual living under the social contract provided in the US? I was simply showing how, under your own analogy, that Iraq could and should have been treated differently that a person not under justice system control. You mean like the decade of UN sanctions that Iraq was subjected to? Sanctions that crippled the Iraqi economy and their medical care system. Sanctions that were marginally relived through the UN humanitarian food-for-oil program. The same food-for-oil program that caused near complete corruption of the UN. The same UN that did not think that violations of its previous 16 sanctions was an adequate reason for war. Sisyphus, I did not call the Nigerian yellowcake evidence "inconclusive." I said that some suspected Iraq of trying to purchase yellowcake and that it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that it did or had not. Also I disagree with our comment on the resolutions. Resolutions against Iraq were part of the secession of hostilities at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Violation of those resolutions meant that hostilities could resume.