There's a nuclear reactor in Japan that is melting down. It is going to explode and the cloud of radioactive death ninjas will spew forth, slaying everything in their path. Those on the West Coast of the US should lock their doors, ensure that their houses are marked with the blood of a lamb, and maintain a strict diet of iodine pills in order to ensure they don't instantly sprout a third arm. (Illegal immigrants are exempt from the last one. Three arms means that many more hands for picking vegetables!)
At least, that's the picture it seems some people are drawing. With Geiger counters selling out in Paris and iodine pills running for $15 a pop in Vermont, it's clear that a great many people worldwide are deathly afraid of the effects of their exposure to the Japanese based radiation. Is it really so dangerous?
Probably not. Please direct your attention to this pretty chart put together by XKCD creator, Randall Munroe.
The basic message is this. Fukishima is dangerous inside and immediately surrounding the plant. Once you leave the immediate area (which has long since been evacuated), the threat of radiation drops to something almost non-existent. A single mammogram dwarfs the daily extra dose given by being nearby. Fun fact: The amount of extra radiation witnessed in your average near-Fukishima town is roughly equal to that gained by eating 35 bananas.
Better watch out for that grocery aisle.
Of course this disaster is not exactly a good thing. But Chernobyl it is not. Lest we forget this plant was hit with the largest earthquake in Japan's history, then with a massive tsunami, both of which could not possibly be predicted...yet glowing Japanese citizens did not ensue.
President Obama gets kudos for me for sticking by his plan, announced in February, to expand nuclear power in the US when it would have been all too easy for him to use the Fukishima incident to run and hide behind a windmill somewhere...probably in the dark, since the lights would be wind powered. This decision contrasts somewhat with his striking of the Yucca Mountain dump site early on in his Presidency. Still, a rational decision I approve of wholeheartedly (The nuclear part, not the let's drop 20 years of work on a safe storage solution for nuclear waste part).
I mean, France gets 80% of their power from nuclear energy. Since when do we let the French beat us in anything?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Obama to Libyan Rebels: Hey, good luck with that!
The good news: The UN has finally decided to take decisive action involving Libya! They are now engaged in talking about maybe implementing a no-fly zone.
The bad news: The UN got involved at all.
A few weeks after the initial uprising in Libya which were followed by rapid gains, Qadaffi has all but won back control of his nation. Through the enlightened strategies of firing upon his own people, calling air strikes against protesters, and executing peaceful protesters he has nearly restored his benevolent dictatorship to pre-revolution conditions.
There is but one stronghold left, a town by the name of Benghazi. It is packed with fearful rebels who vow to fight to the death, but the situation is grim. The easy progress Qaddafi's well funded troops have made proves yet again that air superiority is often all that is required for victory.
The United Nations could possibly approve a no-fly zone, though it means that both Russia and China would have to at least abstain from the vote. Unfortunately, it is far too late for that to be helpful. Simply ordering a few air strikes to punch holes in runways and force any planes out of the sky will do little for the beleaguered rebels now. Perhaps even more tragically, it could very well have been a guarantee of victory had it occurred only a few weeks ago when the opposition forces were advancing on Tripoli and Qaddafi was on the ropes.
Morale is very important in any battle, and the knowledge that foreign nations such as the US back your enemies could very well have been enough to cause another round of defections. Very few people wish to be on the receiving end of that kind of stick.
As it is, the Libyan people now see first hand that for all the US governments posturing about supporting democracy, they will get no aid when it comes to overthrowing their dictators.
I will be the first to say that we cannot be the World Police. Not every dictator deserves our attention, and we do not have the ability nor authority to remove every person who oppresses his people.
But, when the people of a nation are already in active revolt against a brutal, anti-American dictator and are actively appealing for our help, should we not also weigh the valuable thanks that would result from us tipping the scales in freedom's favor? When other Arab nations saw a dictator toppled by his own people, it could very well have acted as a catalyst for change across a region that has troubled us here and abroad.
As it is, this entire debacle shows that the best way for a dictator to remain in power is to slay all those who oppose him because he can do so without fearing any reprisal from the West. It also shows that the opinion of the White House (e.g. Obama's declarations and calls for Qaddafi to step down, the comments about a "tightening noose") carries no weight behind it. Finally, it shows the people of the Middle East and beyond that if they want freedom, they better be prepared to die, because there isn't any cavalry on the horizon.
The bad news: The UN got involved at all.
A few weeks after the initial uprising in Libya which were followed by rapid gains, Qadaffi has all but won back control of his nation. Through the enlightened strategies of firing upon his own people, calling air strikes against protesters, and executing peaceful protesters he has nearly restored his benevolent dictatorship to pre-revolution conditions.
There is but one stronghold left, a town by the name of Benghazi. It is packed with fearful rebels who vow to fight to the death, but the situation is grim. The easy progress Qaddafi's well funded troops have made proves yet again that air superiority is often all that is required for victory.
The United Nations could possibly approve a no-fly zone, though it means that both Russia and China would have to at least abstain from the vote. Unfortunately, it is far too late for that to be helpful. Simply ordering a few air strikes to punch holes in runways and force any planes out of the sky will do little for the beleaguered rebels now. Perhaps even more tragically, it could very well have been a guarantee of victory had it occurred only a few weeks ago when the opposition forces were advancing on Tripoli and Qaddafi was on the ropes.
Morale is very important in any battle, and the knowledge that foreign nations such as the US back your enemies could very well have been enough to cause another round of defections. Very few people wish to be on the receiving end of that kind of stick.
As it is, the Libyan people now see first hand that for all the US governments posturing about supporting democracy, they will get no aid when it comes to overthrowing their dictators.
I will be the first to say that we cannot be the World Police. Not every dictator deserves our attention, and we do not have the ability nor authority to remove every person who oppresses his people.
But, when the people of a nation are already in active revolt against a brutal, anti-American dictator and are actively appealing for our help, should we not also weigh the valuable thanks that would result from us tipping the scales in freedom's favor? When other Arab nations saw a dictator toppled by his own people, it could very well have acted as a catalyst for change across a region that has troubled us here and abroad.
As it is, this entire debacle shows that the best way for a dictator to remain in power is to slay all those who oppose him because he can do so without fearing any reprisal from the West. It also shows that the opinion of the White House (e.g. Obama's declarations and calls for Qaddafi to step down, the comments about a "tightening noose") carries no weight behind it. Finally, it shows the people of the Middle East and beyond that if they want freedom, they better be prepared to die, because there isn't any cavalry on the horizon.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Wisconsin Senators pass Collective Bargaining bill 18-1
In case you haven't been following this story in the news, here's the recap:
Wisconsin is facing a severe budget crisis. As part of their budget repair bill the Republicans in the Senate there included provisions that would hamstring unions in Wisconsin in order to save the state cash. These provisions included things like making union dues voluntary, forcing regular votes by members to keep unions operational, severely cut back their options on collective bargaining, etc.
The Republicans have enough votes to pass said bill over the Democratic Senators' objections. Their solution was to literally flee the state and refusing to return until their demands were met. This denied the majority Republicans the quorum necessary to have a vote. They literally took their ball and went home...well...fled home. They left, anyway.
For the last two months the negotiations raged, and protesters flocked to the capitol. Last night, however, the Republicans decided that the talks were going nowhere. So, they stripped all the financial portions away from the bill. Wisconsin law requires a quorum only for fiscal bills, and since this bill no longer had any fiscal, it no longer required the Democrat's input. It passed. The bill removes collective bargaining power from the public unions and also allows them to be fired if they strike during a state of emergency.
Detractors, such as our good friend Michael Moore, say this is an assault on the working class. In a bit of delicious irony, a common chant among protesters was "This is not democracy", which begs the question: What do you call it when representatives simply choose not to vote?
One wonders what the response would be next election cycle if the situation were reversed. Let us say that the Democrats are in charge and they propose a bill on gay marriage. If the minority Republicans fled the capitol to avoid the vote and stop the bill, I am absolutely convinced that the Left wouldcall for their immediate execution remain consistent and praise their noble acts in defense of their closely held values.
Wisconsin is facing a severe budget crisis. As part of their budget repair bill the Republicans in the Senate there included provisions that would hamstring unions in Wisconsin in order to save the state cash. These provisions included things like making union dues voluntary, forcing regular votes by members to keep unions operational, severely cut back their options on collective bargaining, etc.
The Republicans have enough votes to pass said bill over the Democratic Senators' objections. Their solution was to literally flee the state and refusing to return until their demands were met. This denied the majority Republicans the quorum necessary to have a vote. They literally took their ball and went home...well...fled home. They left, anyway.
For the last two months the negotiations raged, and protesters flocked to the capitol. Last night, however, the Republicans decided that the talks were going nowhere. So, they stripped all the financial portions away from the bill. Wisconsin law requires a quorum only for fiscal bills, and since this bill no longer had any fiscal, it no longer required the Democrat's input. It passed. The bill removes collective bargaining power from the public unions and also allows them to be fired if they strike during a state of emergency.
Detractors, such as our good friend Michael Moore, say this is an assault on the working class. In a bit of delicious irony, a common chant among protesters was "This is not democracy", which begs the question: What do you call it when representatives simply choose not to vote?
One wonders what the response would be next election cycle if the situation were reversed. Let us say that the Democrats are in charge and they propose a bill on gay marriage. If the minority Republicans fled the capitol to avoid the vote and stop the bill, I am absolutely convinced that the Left would
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
News Flash: Michael Moore, still a moron.
Michael Moore once again surfaced today to show what a deep respect he has for the rights of all people*, everywhere.
* - Note: Those with money aren't real people, and as such don't have rights like the ability to own property.
More GRITtv
This video is full of lovely gems of wisdom but here's the best one (Right around the 6 minute mark), which follows a question about the solution to Wisconsin's budget problem:
Side note, completely and absolutely unrelated Michael Moore's net worth: $25 million USD.
To begin with, the idea that the Rich aren't taxed enough is absurd. From The American:
Lastly, to have the supposed virtues of the poor working class extolled, and those of the rich vilified, by a man who is himself fabulously wealthy is a delicious irony. Let me be clear: I do not care how much Michael Moore is worth. If he can make a bajillion dollars by producing a product that some people, for reasons that I cannot understand, want to pay for then fantastic! More power to him. That money is his to spend as he likes, and if he believes the government can do such a great job with it I am positive the IRS takes donations.
Unfortunately, I also support the right of the other wealthy Americans to spend the money they have earned however they see fit. There is this strange belief that circulates at times that purports that because the Rich have so much money, they cannot have earned it, and even if they did, they have less right to it because they have so much. In Moore's terms, it's a "National Resource".
Let's analyze the condensed version of Moore's position:
The Rich are not choosing to spend their money in a way that benefits other people. Therefore, the government should take their money from them and spend it for the Public's benefit.
First, remember we are all citizens and hypothetically equal under the law. This is guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment, which is pulled out of its dusty shelf by liberals whenever they wish to tout gay rights, among other things. What applies to one applies to all.
Second, the status of your citizenship does not hinge on the money you make. There are no "Upper Class" citizens in the eyes of the law.
Third, while the government has used its power of taxation in a graduated fashion which discriminates based on total wealth, these levels are not fixed. In other words, the definition of "Rich" is fluid.
This means that if we accept the principle behind Moore's statement, namely that the government has the positive right to dictate how people spend their own money and utilize their own property if it's not benefiting other people enough, then Moore's statement truly becomes this:
American Citizens are not choosing to spend their money in a way that benefits other people. Therefore, the government should take their money from them and spend it for the Public's benefit.
Beware, ye would be class warriors. The chains you give to the government to bring down the mighty above you today will be the same that bind you into servitude tomorrow.
* - Note: Those with money aren't real people, and as such don't have rights like the ability to own property.
More GRITtv
This video is full of lovely gems of wisdom but here's the best one (Right around the 6 minute mark), which follows a question about the solution to Wisconsin's budget problem:
"To me the solution is quite simple. First of all, we are not broke. This country is not broke. State of Wisconsin is not broke. There's a ton of cash in this country...but it's a finite amount. There is only so much cash. What's happened is we've allowed a vast majority of this cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people...Those mean, dirty Rich people! How dare they have their money and spend it the way they wish! How dare they not give the money to the government who knows how to spend it better anyway?
They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it...
I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. They need to -- we need to see these jobs as something we some, that we collectively own as Americans and you can't just steal our jobs and take them someplace else."
Side note, completely and absolutely unrelated Michael Moore's net worth: $25 million USD.
To begin with, the idea that the Rich aren't taxed enough is absurd. From The American:
"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."Second, economies are cyclical. That means that no matter how well run a business is, or how booming an economy, it will eventually have some sort of downturn. Provided that there is not a restrictive environment or some other outside influence, the natural greed of people will drive them to work through, find solutions, so that they can earn more money. It boils down to a simple principle, elucidated by Henry Ford:
"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.If I had a chicken that laid golden eggs, I would naturally wish to retain this chicken. If said chicken laid better eggs if I fed it higher quality feed, I would naturally wish to do this. Not out of any altruism or gratitude towards the chicken, but rather because I wished to have larger hunks of egg shaped gold. Greed motivates success for everyone involved.
Lastly, to have the supposed virtues of the poor working class extolled, and those of the rich vilified, by a man who is himself fabulously wealthy is a delicious irony. Let me be clear: I do not care how much Michael Moore is worth. If he can make a bajillion dollars by producing a product that some people, for reasons that I cannot understand, want to pay for then fantastic! More power to him. That money is his to spend as he likes, and if he believes the government can do such a great job with it I am positive the IRS takes donations.
Unfortunately, I also support the right of the other wealthy Americans to spend the money they have earned however they see fit. There is this strange belief that circulates at times that purports that because the Rich have so much money, they cannot have earned it, and even if they did, they have less right to it because they have so much. In Moore's terms, it's a "National Resource".
Let's analyze the condensed version of Moore's position:
The Rich are not choosing to spend their money in a way that benefits other people. Therefore, the government should take their money from them and spend it for the Public's benefit.
First, remember we are all citizens and hypothetically equal under the law. This is guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment, which is pulled out of its dusty shelf by liberals whenever they wish to tout gay rights, among other things. What applies to one applies to all.
Second, the status of your citizenship does not hinge on the money you make. There are no "Upper Class" citizens in the eyes of the law.
Third, while the government has used its power of taxation in a graduated fashion which discriminates based on total wealth, these levels are not fixed. In other words, the definition of "Rich" is fluid.
This means that if we accept the principle behind Moore's statement, namely that the government has the positive right to dictate how people spend their own money and utilize their own property if it's not benefiting other people enough, then Moore's statement truly becomes this:
American Citizens are not choosing to spend their money in a way that benefits other people. Therefore, the government should take their money from them and spend it for the Public's benefit.
Beware, ye would be class warriors. The chains you give to the government to bring down the mighty above you today will be the same that bind you into servitude tomorrow.
Now that nobody is looking...
It's time for me to start posting again! In true Capitalist fashion, I've responded to my increased expenses and debt burden by printing off unlimited amounts of money and running massive defecit!
Oh wait, that's the government's response.
I've responded by getting a third job and working enough hours to kill an elephant. I only have to do this for...Oh...the foreseeable future in order to scrape my way out of the hole. No big deal.
Anyhow, much of my mental faculties are geared towards not going insane and trying to salvage some vestige of a social life. What's left over I'll try to keep giving to the blog so the ten of you that read this stuff can remain entertained. What can I say, I'm a giving person.
Oh wait, that's the government's response.
I've responded by getting a third job and working enough hours to kill an elephant. I only have to do this for...Oh...the foreseeable future in order to scrape my way out of the hole. No big deal.
Anyhow, much of my mental faculties are geared towards not going insane and trying to salvage some vestige of a social life. What's left over I'll try to keep giving to the blog so the ten of you that read this stuff can remain entertained. What can I say, I'm a giving person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
