waitforufo

The burden of proof for cons out on parole is different than for those not under control of the criminal justice system. The 16 UN resolutions were in place. Now imagine if Saddam had assigned Uday to one UN investigation unit and Qusay to another investigation unit. Also imagine if these investigation units were allowed to search where they liked unannounced. Then image that at every gate, door, file and safe, Uday or Qusay would have said, no don't delay, open it right now and then they were opened immediately. Then instead of the video we did get where searches were delayed and inhibited, searches were quick and uninhibited. Under such a scenario don't you think it likely that Saddam would be in power today?

The Bush administration clearly articulated that in a post cold war, post 9/11 world, the United States was no longer operating under the need for conclusive proof when dealing with destabilizing nations like Iraq. The United Nations had already passed 16 resolutions against Iraq. The burden of proof was Iraq's. Hans Blix said that Iraq had not proven that it had destroyed its WMD or it capability to produce WMD. Prior to the invasion, Saddam once again let in UN inspectors only to again thwart their investigation. No matter how weak or contrived the evidence for Nigerian yellowcake, there was evidence, if not confirmed by the CIA, believed by our allies (the 14 words). So again, it was Iraq's responsibility, particularly under UN resolution, to prove that it did not have or attempt to purchase Nigerian yellowcake. Nigerian yellowcake may have gained high public importance but it was only one of many reasons for invading Iraq. Some may not like this history, but it is the history, and there are no lies within it. The Bush administrations only real mistake was putting the burden of explaining this to the nation and the world in the incompetent hands of Collin Powel. A man that history will not remember kindly.

Thanks. Hitchens always makes you think. Also, you did capture my favorite bit. I went to Catholic school through the 8th grade. I recall a very old a very frail nun teaching my religion class how easy it was to pick out Christian hypocrites. She said it would be obvious that they had never read the epistle of James. James includes the following. So as Hitchens points out, Warren fails even the Christian test and is indeed a true hypocrite.

A well written rebuke of Warren by Christopher Hitchens some might find interesting. http://slate.msn.com/id/2207148/

Washington State has an initiative process. I don't believe we can change our constitution by initiative however. I certainly hope not. Many states have no initiative process at all. I doubt I would miss ours if it were removed. I can only recall once in my life voting in favor of an initiative. Generally, even when I have been in favor of the principal, I find the law promoted poorly written. Also, they are often found unconstitutional so what's the point. I agree completely with the above well written comment.

Your point is well made and certainly appropriate in the politics section of science forums. My argument was that CO2 should be treated separately from other pollutants. I see no reason why it could not be regulated separately under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore laws like the clean air act exist at the pleasure of the people. Draconian regulation would likely lead to a quick repeal or significant modification of the act. If the currently elected set of politicians were unwilling to make such a change, new ones would be elected. Most politicians are pragmatists and understand this. They also understand that the people will not tolerate a significant impact to their standard of living. This is particularly true when such draconian measures are not necessary. I know that we differ significantly on the urgency of increasing global CO2 concentration. My guess however, is that an incremental approach less to your liking will be implemented.

I still fondly remember when we called it the news. Sometimes a half hour of local and a full hour of national news seemed like too much. The real news was delivered to your front porch every morning. Since that document, unlike the internet, was finite in length, you actually had to read articles that conflicted with your personal point of view if you wanted to keep reading until you finished your fruit loops, toast, and coffee. Reading those stories gave you a broader perspective. Today we have the media. It's on the tube 24/7 on several channels. Don't like Fox, turn to MSNBC. I really don't think most people appreciate that the goal of 24/7 media is keep you glued to the set and provide you only enough courage to venture out on occasion to purchase the soap they are boosting. Whenever I watch the media I try to keep score on what is news and what is opinion. My conclusion is little news and lots of opinion. With regard to the internet, it's just too easy to avoid opinions contrary to your own. The volume of information that supports your own point of view is just too huge. If you don't go out of your way to look for contrary opinions you get tunnel vision rather quickly. With regard to Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, I find their programs entertaining but I think some rely on them too much. Jon Stewart freely admits his program is fake news and Steven Colbert boasts of his programs truthiness. Sarcasm has its place in providing perspective but too much isn't a good thing either. Stewart and Colbert at times remind me of programs that "expose the evils" of the pornography and sex trade businesses. Those programs always get good ratings, but aren’t they just cashing in on the pornography and sex trade business trade as well?

I was not trying to suggest that you had put aside the CO2 question completely. Prior to my last response to you however, your focus had been on stack emissions other than CO2. I was simply trying to respond to those posts. The History Channel had a Modern Marvels program on power plants. If I recall correctly, a significant segment of the program was on coal fired power plants. For a program geared to the general population, I thought it presented all issues from CO2, acid rain, stack scrubbing, and fly ash disposal reasonably well. I tried to find a link to it, but failed. They rerun those programs ad infinitum so it should come up again. With regard to CO2 and other emissions from coal fired plants, I do believe the two issues should be separated. Technology for removing traditional polutants and particulate from stack emissions exist. Waste solids can be processed and buried. (Disposing of these waste solids is a significant problem and should not be trivialized.) CO2 emissions are not a pollutant in the traditional sense and should not be treated as such. Isolating the CO2 emissions issue in this way does not mean they should be ignored. Isolating it could lead to greater focus, attention, and action. The opening post included the following. From this opening there seems to be two lines of reasoning; all-or-nothing, or incremental improvement. The environmental movement seems to be full of people in the all-or-nothing camp. They seem to hold that all pollutant concentrations should be zero. They also seem to fight the incremental approach because any approach that does not insist on zero is a waste of time. This fight does succeed in inhibiting incremental progress. I'm obviously in the incremental camp. I would like pollutant concentrations at zero, but will accept concentrations shown to cause no harm. Why am I willing to accept this? Well, I like the lights to come on when I flip the switch, and after paying my power bill I would like to have money left over for other things. Things like enjoying a comfortable standard of living.

I was simply responding to Pangloss. In his last few post he has set aside the question of CO2. I have discussed CO2 in my other posts on this topic.

Prop. 8 passed by a 2% margin. I believe it is possible to overturn Prop 8 in the next general election two years from now. The real societal victory would be to overturn Prop. 8 at the ballot box. I hope this opportunity is not missed due to a court decision.

My understanding is that you are correct including your cost figure. Stack emissions can be scrubbed of fly ash, acid, and acid producing chemicals. Coal fired power plants primary waste product after that is fly ash which can be acid neutralized and buried. There is however a huge volume of this solid waste product. The technology for making all of this happen has been around for at least two decades.

Good things happening in Germany? I googled "planned coal fired plants germany" and found the following. Seems to me that Germany likes burning coal and plans to burn more in the future. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html http://www.projectfinancemagazine.com/default.asp?page=7&PubID=4&ISS=25186&SID=714556 http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/19122008/323/factbox-german-coal-fired-power-plant-projects.html I can't find anything on Germany decommissioning power plants in favor of solar or wind. With regard to my statement below, lets just use a bit of logic. Note that I said "when operating at peak output." Solar power operates when the sun is out, and wind operates when the wind is just right (high wind is definitely a problem). So for significant periods of the time these sources of power are providing nothing. Fossil fuel plants operate almost 24/7, with brief periods of downtime maintenance. You are just not going to replace that with wind and solar. Yes, you can reduce fossil fuel consumption and that in it self is a very good thing. With regard to grid power storage using batteries, currently these plants are in the 10 to 40 MWh range. That would work out to what, minutes or perhaps an hour of back up? These battery systems are used to level out power fluctuation based on wind variability and clouds. Such batteries are not used for make it today and use it tomorrow or next week load leveling. If batteries were so easy and such a good thing why are they not used more today? If one could store grid power during off peak times and put it back in during peak demand one could make money today. That is if the batteries were cheap to build and maintain. So why don't I see or hear about battery plants going up everywhere? Please don't give me that conspiracy theory BS regarding the oil companies suppressing technology.

Unless replaced by nuclear power, fossil fuels including coal will continue to provide a significant portion of our electrical power generation capacity for the foreseeable future. Even with significant increased nuclear power plant construction and operation, that will likely remain the case. Currently, wind and solar power generation is primarily used to reduce fuel consumption at conventional fossil fuel burning plants and to some extent hold water behind dams for later use. This energy consumption reduction is important and further wind and solar power generation should be encouraged and will likely naturally occur due to economic viability. To date however, I don't know of a single conventional fossil fuel power plant being decommissioned due to increased wind and solar power generation capacity. Wind and solar power are just not reliable power sources. If today we were to build wind and solar power generation systems that were capable when operating a peak output of matching all power generation created by fossil fuels, we would still need to continue operating the fossil fuel plants. We would likely not decommission any fossil fuel plants even under this scenario. The power generated just isn't reliable enough. If you agree with the above, and believe man made CO2 emissions should be reduced, carbon sequestering technology must be encouraged. If you believe that man made CO2 emissions should be essentially eliminated, hope you are a very patient person.

You should have just made up some sciencey-sounding word or words. Come on its engilish class. English majors eyes glaze over whenever science comes up. You would have easily gotten away with it. Those with science backgrounds or interest would have just thought it was funny.

As I have said, I do believe the privilege of marriage should be extended to include gay couples. I can see nothing but societal benefits from making such an extension. No, I do not believe people should just wait ignoring the suffering all around them. There have been protests and there should be more protests. Acts of passive resistance should also be used. Perhaps long lines of gay couples applying for marriage licenses only to be denied would make a nice news segment. Such a segment could also include hetro couples complaining about not being able to get a license because of the long lines. I believe the people of California can be persuaded to overturn Prop. 8. When they are persuaded, meaningful change will take place. This in my opinion would be better than a court decision, not that court decisions are always bad. It was a court decision that created Prop. 8. The success of Prop 8 will, I hope, embolden people to push for real change. That real change will be convincing the people to support gay marriage. I do hope that President Obama has a true epiphany and then uses his bully pulpit of his office to promote equal rights for gays. That epiphany will likely only occur through the persuasion of the gay rights movement. If he does have such an epiphany, he will pay politically for it. There will be lots of talk about flip flopping and vote pandering. Politicians however, like all of us, should be provided the opportunity to grow morally and intellectually. Until that growth occurs, he should stick by his convictions. When it does occur, since his new position will be contrary to his previous political position, he should take time to explain it to the people.

The constitution only requires that the president elect recite the oath of office before witnesses. There is no requirement for public ceremony, invocation, or for the President Elect to touch the Bible while giving the oath. These are simply traditions. In high school I was taught that during Washington's first inauguration, there was no Bible available when the time came for the President to say the oath. The proceeding was delayed until they found one. This however may be a myth. One might ask to whom is the President Elect swearing or affirming this oath, but the swearing or affirming is required. So your answer is yes, Mr. Obama also has a worthless character? You also mention that Mr. Obama's "willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pixie." This is obviously rhetoric. Can I assume that you actually believe that both his stated Christian religious belief and his position against gay marriage were actually vote pandering? Did you really expect him to later fall back on his true hidden ideals once he was in office? I hope those that hold such a sentiment are wrong, because Mr. Obama really would have a worthless character if this were true. Personally, I question the character of anyone who believed Mr. Obama was just pandering for votes. Haste can also lead to suffering. Look at the long list of people who gave their lives in the civil rights cause. Their sacrifice made Mr. Obama's election possible. Too much haste can lead to backlash, and such backlash can last a long time.

My comments were directed at the paper and its author. Thank you for your feedback and I will reduce the tone of my rhetoric.

Increasing the number of nuclear power plants in countries currently producing most of the man made CO2 would increase the probability of limited nuclear exchange by zero. They all have nuclear power plants now. Considering it is stupid.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081215-good-news-for-wind-bad-for-ethanol-in-major-energy-study.html from bascule OP. How does "limited nuclear exchange" legitimately impact a study on cleanliness of nuclear power? If the US replaced all of its coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants would the world be more likely to have a limited nuclear exchange? How about China or India? To even consider nuclear exchange is just stupid. Talk about stacking the deck to suppress a viable technology.

Why does it surprise anyone that President Elect Obama would pick a minister to give is inaugural invocation who holds and promotes the same opinion that the President Elect holds regarding gay marriage? Did you not listen to the man when he was running for office? If you missed it, just goggle "Obama Gay Marriage." You will find plenty of YouTube links you may have perhaps missed. Did you really believe that the man was simply pandering for votes? Do you really hold Mr. Obama in such low regard? Does this then also mean that Mr. Obama's character is worthless? Please explain how it does not. Please note that I personally believe gay marriage should be legal. I have stated this opinion often in several different science forum topics.

As an electrical engineer my favorites are when they discuss electrical potential in amps, current in volts, power in volts and voltage in watts. They do this all the time. The only reason I can come up with for getting these basic units wrong is that big numbers sound more impressive. So ten thousand volts of power (wrong units) sounds more impressive than 1 kilowatt. The number 1 is small, the prefix kilo requires explanation, and the average person has no idea what an amp, volt, or watt is anyway so why bother using the correct units? When watching a program that does this I can let it go a few times but after a while I just have to change the channel. EDIT: Cross posted with ajb

When I was in high school, Washington State required all high school seniors to take an aptitude test. The results from mine said I should bend neon glass tubes for a living.

One of the largest and most politically active unions in the US is the school teachers union (NEA, National Education Association). The amazing part of this is that some see no causation between poor student performance and the power and influence of this union.

You only need to fan a single action revolver. The fanning action is to cock the weapon. Double action revolvers don't need to be fanned. This guy is not fanning.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI No not everone can do this, but with a little practice most can produce speed and accuracy.

To bascule's point, the definition of terms often gets in the way of gun ban legislation. I mention revolvers because the primary goal of any assault weapons ban is to eliminate from the public rapid fire weapons. In fact, revolvers can be fired more rapidly than semi-automatic handguns. The secondary goal of any assault weapons ban is to eliminate from the pubic rapid fire weapons capable of holding a large capacity of cartridges. Revolvers fail this test but it brings in to consideration other weapons like pump and lever action weapons. Pump and lever action weapons can be fired rapidly and can carry a large number of cartridges. The Henry Rifle was used in the civil war with devastating results. The original weapon did not include a forend and those that used it often complained about the barrel being to hot to hold during the required rapid fire of combat. This weapon evolved into the commonly used Winchester 30-30. Also consider the common Remington 870 wingmaster shotgun. The hunting versions of this weapon are commonly built with a 5 round capacity (w/one round chambered) of three inch cartridges. A 3 inch 12 gauge 00 buckshot round holds 12, 38 caliber lead balls. So this common hunting weapon can very quickly fire sixty 38 caliber bullets. I mention all this because assault weapons bans will never achieve their goals. They will always be based on silly cosmetic features on weapons. They should stop calling them assault weapon bans and simply call them ugly weapon bans. The ugly features are then easily removed. Don’t like bayonet lugs? The lugs are simply ground off. Don’t like barrel shrouds? Just take them off. Don’t like pistol grips? Remove the pistol grip and stock and replace with a thumb hole stock. If the Democratic Party wants to fall into this bottomless pit, I as a Republican welcome them to it. Finally, since it is Thanksgiving Day, I would like to thank the founders of the United States for the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I would also like to thank the US Supreme Court for the Heller decision.