another louisiana oil rig explosion

[Brian vs Shark]

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/coast_guard_responding_to_rig.html

when it rains, it fucking pours for this state

[Simulcast]

Sounds like it might be a non-producing well. Let's hope that's true.

[sweepthenation]

It wasn't a rig, and it doesn't drill. So everyone's worst fears aren't coming true.

[Brian vs Shark]

this may be true, but there is still a clean up involved. people's lives are endangered and comes the day after the drilling ban gets shot down in Federal Court.

[Simulcast]

this may be true, but there is still a clean up involved. people's lives are endangered and comes the day after the drilling ban gets shot down in Federal Court.


The drilling ban is stupid. Putting thousands of people out of work isn't the solution to this problem.

[crackedthesky]

The drilling ban is stupid. Putting thousands of people out of work isn't the solution to this problem.

But blowing up thirteen people is?

[Simulcast]

But blowing up thirteen people is?


Yes. Clearly that's what I was implying. :rolleyes:

The solution is stricter safety standards for offshore rigs.

[Scrandon]

Drilling ban? How about we work on new energy sources before we ban drilling and make ourselves completely energy dependent. Have some foresight people.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes. Clearly that's what I was implying. :rolleyes:

The solution is stricter safety standards for offshore rigs.
Or investing in something that won't run out for a few million years--like solar energy (unless you think the sun is gonna go dark)--instead of pouring money into a resource that peaked a while ago.

[Simulcast]

Or investing in something that won't run out for a few million years--like solar energy (unless you think the sun is gonna go dark)--instead of pouring money into a resource that peaked a while ago.


I'm with you. I think we need to turn towards alternatives in a serious bid to become energy independent. However I don't believe we should ban current offshore drilling to do this. Perhaps it is unwise to expand any offshore operations, but it is ludicrous to suggest we completely cutoff this energy source immediately.

[crackedthesky]

Yes. Clearly that's what I was implying. :rolleyes:

The solution is stricter safety standards for offshore rigs.

That's the issue, though.
The problem isn't that the standards aren't there, it's that the oil companies aren't following them. And letting them do internal inspections has obviously not worked. At that point, a third party needs to step in and make sure these companies are following the rules so they don't do what BP did.
Yeah, it sucks a lot that the rigs will be shut down for a while. But maybe people should get mad at the oil comapnies for not following the rules to begin with, rather than at the government for doing the oil companies' jobs for them because they're too cheap to do it themselves. It's really easy to complain about the thousands of jobs being lost because the government has to do someone's job for them due to incompetence, but what about the thousands of jobs lost because BP didn't follow the rules that were already in place? How about the already massive loss of life? Putting a moritorium on rigs isn't killing anybody. That's more than can be said for the oil companies. Perhaps those employees losing their jobs should take it up with their employers.

I'll admit that I'm not quite sure how the drill ban works, but I would go so far as to say they don't need to shut down every single rig and platform everywhere, if that's the plan. That's just silly. But I definitely believe that any one of them even remotely related to BP or the company that actually ran the rig should be, because they've already proven they aren't doing their jobs.

And I just love how companies like to be treated like they're people, but I'm pretty sure that if I blew up thirteen guys and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, putting hundreds of people out of work and causing billions of dollars in damage, I'd go to jail forever, and nobody would be whining that the government was too involved. But all that happens to BP is that their CEO gets several hundred million dollars :shrug:

[saysmydoctor]

I'm with you. I think we need to turn towards alternatives in a serious bid to become energy independent. However I don't believe we should ban current offshore drilling to do this. Perhaps it is unwise to expand any offshore operations, but it is ludicrous to suggest we completely cutoff this energy source immediately.
I don't think so--spending money on something that isn't viable is wasteful--you're the conservative here, I thought you hated waste? Now you are sponsoring it. Interesting dynamic.

[Scrandon]

That's the issue, though.
The problem isn't that the standards aren't there, it's that the oil companies aren't following them. And letting them do internal inspections has obviously not worked. At that point, a third party needs to step in and make sure these companies are following the rules so they don't do what BP did.
That's not true. In reality, the Deep Water Horizon was only held to the some of the same safety standards as other, shallow water oil rigs.

Yeah, it sucks a lot that the rigs will be shut down for a while. But maybe people should get mad at the oil comapnies for not following the rules to begin with, rather than at the government for doing the oil companies' jobs for them because they're too cheap to do it themselves. It's really easy to complain about the thousands of jobs being lost because the government has to do someone's job for them due to incompetence, but what about the thousands of jobs lost because BP didn't follow the rules that were already in place? How about the already massive loss of life? Putting a moritorium on rigs isn't killing anybody. That's more than can be said for the oil companies. Perhaps those employees losing their jobs should take it up with their employers.

I'll admit that I'm not quite sure how the drill ban works, but I would go so far as to say they don't need to shut down every single rig and platform everywhere, if that's the plan. That's just silly. But I definitely believe that any one of them even remotely related to BP or the company that actually ran the rig should be, because they've already proven they aren't doing their jobs.

And I just love how companies like to be treated like they're people, but I'm pretty sure that if I blew up thirteen guys and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, putting hundreds of people out of work and causing billions of dollars in damage, I'd go to jail forever, and nobody would be whining that the government was too involved. But all that happens to BP is that their CEO gets several hundred million dollars :shrug:
It was, after all, an accident. Do you want to do some research into hazardous occupations and discover that 13 people killed is not by any means criminal?

[crackedthesky]

I don't think so--spending money on something that isn't viable is wasteful--you're the conservative here, I thought you hated waste? Now you are sponsoring it. Interesting dynamic.

He sort of has a point, though. If we shift the energy focus (which we need to but of course won't,) we still need energy until we get another source able to sustain the need for energy. That won't happen overnight, so getting ridding of oil overnight will leave us without any energy in the meantime.

But hey, maybe that would get us off our asses and incite us to find an alternative source faster.

[Scrandon]

I don't think so--spending money on something that isn't viable is wasteful--you're the conservative here, I thought you hated waste? Now you are sponsoring it. Interesting dynamic.

What the hell do we do until a new energy source is created?

[Simulcast]

I don't think so--spending money on something that isn't viable is wasteful--you're the conservative here, I thought you hated waste? Now you are sponsoring it. Interesting dynamic.

I do, but I'm also a realist. It may not be viable in the long run, but for now it's necessary. Unless you are willing to completely transform our transportation industry overnight (by spending untold amounts of money) then the change is going to be gradual. In the meantime oil is still needed, and I believe it's more of a waste to continue to import it.

[crackedthesky]

That's not true. In reality, the Deep Water Horizon was only held to the some of the same safety standards as other, shallow water oil rigs.

This is true. They could have at least paid attention to the many warning signs, however.



It was, after all, an accident. Do you want to do some research into hazardous occupations and discover that 13 people killed is not by any means criminal?

Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaught er
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/osha.htm#Penalites

In any case, you've only proven my point. Corporations get legal rights of people, but I don't get the rights of a corporation, because they get a separate list of rules, such as they get to kill people and it gets filed as "hazardous occupation" whereas if I killed someone it would be murder.

[crackedthesky]

I do, but I'm also a realist. It may not be viable in the long run, but for now it's necessary. Unless you are willing to completely transform our transportation industry overnight (by spending untold amounts of money) then the change is going to be gradual. In the meantime oil is still needed, and I believe it's more of a waste to continue to import it.

Currently, it isn't really happening at all, outside of maybe token glances.
Not disagreeing with you, just adding a thought to your thought. It most definitely will be gradual, so we need to start now, while there's still oil to tide us over until we find something. Currently, we aren't even looking, so doing it overnight might just end up becoming reality.

[loveisdead]

I'm not getting involved in this debate haha. Jason and I did this awhile ago.

[Simulcast]

Currently, it isn't really happening at all, outside of maybe token glances.
Not disagreeing with you, just adding a thought to your thought. It most definitely will be gradual, so we need to start now, while there's still oil to tide us over until we find something. Currently, we aren't even looking, so doing it overnight might just end up becoming reality.

I wouldn't say that. I think that nuclear energy is absolutely viable. We should follow the example set by France.

[Machu505]

I wouldn't say that. I think that nuclear energy is absolutely viable. We should follow the example set by France.

Absolutely. Nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy.

[crackedthesky]

I wouldn't say that. I think that nuclear energy is absolutely viable. We should follow the example set by France.

I have some major concerns with nuclear energy. I think it's probably one of the faster and more available solutions, but I'm not sure it's the most practical. Not to mention, an oil spill feels welcome compared to what happens if a company gambles with nuclear power.

Wind and solar are much safer and cleaner alternatives, but currently, I don't believe they're viable just yet. I don't know how much of them it would take to be able to power the country, let alone the world.

But perhaps therein lies the solution: Not one base energy source, but several of them implemented as one. It'll take longer, it'll cost more, but I guarantee that far, far less people will get blown up, and it's also better for the environment and the habitation nearby.

[caveBEAR]

We could just burn the garbage in the incinerator...give this place that nice smokey smell we all like.

[Simulcast]

We could just burn the garbage in the incinerator...give this place that nice smokey smell we all like.

Love this show.

[saysmydoctor]

He sort of has a point, though. If we shift the energy focus (which we need to but of course won't,) we still need energy until we get another source able to sustain the need for energy. That won't happen overnight, so getting ridding of oil overnight will leave us without any energy in the meantime.

But hey, maybe that would get us off our asses and incite us to find an alternative source faster.

What the hell do we do until a new energy source is created?
The US maintains massive reserves of crude oil.

We could also begin investing in modernizing the national grid, investing more heavily in wind power, solar power, geothermal, hydroelectric, constituting a better transit system.

Off-shore drilling isn't the only place the US gets oil, as a matter of fact it only makes up about 30% of total production.
I do, but I'm also a realist. It may not be viable in the long run, but for now it's necessary. Unless you are willing to completely transform our transportation industry overnight (by spending untold amounts of money) then the change is going to be gradual. In the meantime oil is still needed, and I believe it's more of a waste to continue to import it.
I am. It'd be better then spending untold amounts of money on cleaning up mess after mess after mess. I imagine we'd save money long-term.
Absolutely. Nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy.
Except for all that nuclear waste.

[loveisdead]

He sort of has a point, though. If we shift the energy focus (which we need to but of course won't,) we still need energy until we get another source able to sustain the need for energy. That won't happen overnight, so getting ridding of oil overnight will leave us without any energy in the meantime.

But hey, maybe that would get us off our asses and incite us to find an alternative source faster.

Offshore drilling provides us with less than 10% of the oil we use. We'll be fine without it.

[saysmydoctor]

Offshore drilling provides us with less than 10% of the oil we use. We'll be fine without it.
This is also true.

[Machu505]

Except for all that nuclear waste. It's why technology and research are being pushed to reuse spent fuel.

[loveisdead]

1) An expansion of offshore drilling will not significantly reduce the amount of oil the United States imports, from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or from anywhere else. The EIA estimates that domestic production will increase by only a trivial figure as a result of new drilling offshore -- a 1.6 percent increase between 2012 and 2030, topping out at .2 million barrels per day by 2030. By comparison, the United States currently consumes almost 20 million barrels per day, of which over 13 million barrels per day is imported. The difference in the amount the United States imports as a result of expanded offshore drilling essentially amounts to a rounding error.

2) Because oil is a global market, whether the United States is able to produce a marginal increase in our domestic production of oil will have zero impact on the incentives for Nigeria or Angola to continue drilling for oil without environmental safeguards. The global demand for oil is currently at 85 million barrels per day, and is expected to increase by over 22 million barrels per day over the next 20 years. Having slightly less a percentage of Nigerian oil imported to the United States, as opposed to China or India, will not make the waters of the Nigerian delta any cleaner, or make the air surrounding Nigerian oil drilling any easier to breathe. What may make a difference is for the United States to lead the world in developing clean energy alternatives to oil, as well as encouraging international environmental standards for oil production.

3) A moratorium on offshore drilling might, however, make a huge difference to the lives of millions of Americans who live on the coasts of California, South Carolina, Maryland, or Florida, who do not want to suffer the horrendous damage to the environment and local economy currently being experienced by the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/in_defense_of_a_moratorium_on.html

[Simulcast]

I am. It'd be better then spending untold amounts of money on cleaning up mess after mess after mess. I imagine we'd save money long-term.



You are putting a lot on the line. Such a drastic approach has great potential to fail which would result in a huge amount of waste. I don't put my trust in the government's ability to facilitate something that wouldn't be hampered by waste.

[saysmydoctor]

Instead of worrying about what we will do without it, you should be imagining what we can do without it.

Oil is not the end all, be all of energy. France gets nearly 60% of its energy from nuclear sources. I'm not really partial to nuclear energy because of the nuclear waste portion of the equation (I understand we can store it, but frankly--I just don't want to), but oil is dirty--always.

[Simulcast]

Offshore drilling provides us with less than 10% of the oil we use. We'll be fine without it.

Yeah, but it's 30% of the oil we produce. That is a significant amount.

[saysmydoctor]

You are putting a lot on the line. Such a drastic approach has great potential to fail which would result in a huge amount of waste. I don't put my trust in the government's ability to facilitate something that wouldn't be hampered by waste.
Yeah, and we've seen the consequences of drilling off-shore thousands of feet underwater. We already put a lot on the line. What makes one risk better than the other? At least my risk, all we do is waste money rather destroy entire ecosystems for decades to come.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, but it's 30% of the oil we produce. That is a significant amount.
Production =/= consumption.

[saysmydoctor]

It's why technology and research are being pushed to reuse spent fuel.
Yeah, I'll grant you that. I just downright don't like anything with "nuclear" in it. That's probably a stupid fear of mine, but it's there nonetheless.

[crackedthesky]

The US maintains massive reserves of crude oil.

We could also begin investing in modernizing the national grid, investing more heavily in wind power, solar power, geothermal, hydroelectric, constituting a better transit system.

Off-shore drilling isn't the only place the US gets oil, as a matter of fact it only makes up about 30% of total production.

I am. It'd be better then spending untold amounts of money on cleaning up mess after mess after mess. I imagine we'd save money long-term.

Except for all that nuclear waste.

Offshore drilling provides us with less than 10% of the oil we use. We'll be fine without it.

I thought he meant oil in general, not just from drillling. My mistake, haha.

It's why technology and research are being pushed to reuse spent fuel.

Is it really worth the risk? Look at Chernobyl. People still can't go near most of the place. Besides the damage and loss of life sure to accompany the initial mess, the cost of cleanup is devastating and the site can't even be effectively cleaned. That shit takes forever to wear off.

I realize this is the extreme example, but it's enough for me. It just is not and never will be worth the risk. Especially since we've had example after example of how much these companies care about paying to prevent these things from happening.

Besides, if we make nuclear power the standard, just about every country will follow us. This will push third-world countries into the stone age, for one. And another thing, if you think countries like Iran are dangerous now, imagine what happens when they not only have an excuse to build nuclear power plants, but are required to.

[saysmydoctor]

There's also Three Mile Island, Maxey Flat, etc.

[Simulcast]

Yeah, and we've seen the consequences of drilling off-shore thousands of feet underwater. We already put a lot on the line. What makes one risk better than the other? At least my risk, all we do is waste money rather destroy entire ecosystems for decades to come.

Or potentially destroy every aspect of our economy that relies on transportation, which makes up 70% of our oil consumption.

[crackedthesky]

You are putting a lot on the line. Such a drastic approach has great potential to fail which would result in a huge amount of waste. I don't put my trust in the government's ability to facilitate something that wouldn't be hampered by waste.

...You have heard of the oil spill, right? How about Chernobyl? Are you aware that spent nuclear power rods take like a hundred years to cool off, right? That nuclear waste has the ability to remain harmful indefinitely?
I guess it's okay to waste life, money, and resources, as long as we aren't spending money on not having to waste life, money, and resources.

[saysmydoctor]

Or potentially destroy every aspect of our economy that relies on transportation, which makes up 70% of our oil consumption.
A number which can be drastically reduced by better transit planning. Increasing bus ridership, investing in hi-speed rail, etc, etc.

Look at Western Europe. Look at Japan. Look at pretty much every industrialized nation in the world. These are countries that have instituted the necessary reforms in their urban environments to bring cars out of the equation--and it's been highly successful. Their dependence on cars isn't comparable to the United States' dependence.

For too long, we've planned cities around cars. If we invest appropriately, we can change the very economics of transportation. Cars companies could become bus companies. So on and so forth.

We need a modern day Transcontinental Railroad, is basically what I'm saying.

[Machu505]

Is it really worth the risk? Look at Chernobyl. People still can't go near most of the place. Besides the damage and loss of life sure to accompany the initial mess, the cost of cleanup is devastating and the site can't even be effectively cleaned. That shit takes forever to wear off.

I realize this is the extreme example, but it's enough for me. It just is not and never will be worth the risk. Especially since we've had example after example of how much these companies care about paying to prevent these things from happening. I don't think two accidents (only one with casualties) in the history of nuclear power justifies abandoning it. Compare it to other alternative energies (to oil): among coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric, there were 11,600 deaths between 1970 and 1992. Nuclear power killed 31. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html)

[crackedthesky]

A number which can be drastically reduced by better transit planning. Increasing bus ridership, investing in hi-speed rail, etc, etc.

Look at Western Europe. Look at Japan. Look at pretty much every industrialized nation in the world. These are countries that have instituted the necessary reforms in their urban environments to bring cars out of the equation--and it's been highly successful. Their dependence on cars isn't comparable to the United States' dependence.

For too long, we've planned cities around cars. If we invest appropriately, we can change the very economics of transportation. Cars companies could become bus companies. So on and so forth.

We need a modern day Transcontinental Railroad, is basically what I'm saying.

This is an incredibly long-term solution, I'm afraid.
Not to mention, you don't seem to take into account the size of the countries, or the population density. Such a system works in Japan, because Japan is tiny and has an immense population density. The U.S., in comaprison, is huge, with vast, vast regions of it being effectively empty. I think the things you're talking about work on city-scale levels, but not country-wide. Not anytime soon.
I think the better solution is to make the cars run on something else.

[Simulcast]

...You have heard of the oil spill, right? How about Chernobyl? Are you aware that spent nuclear power rods take like a hundred years to cool off, right? That nuclear waste has the ability to remain harmful indefinitely?
I guess it's okay to waste life, money, and resources, as long as we aren't spending money on not having to waste life, money, and resources.

Well, since all of that material has a half-life that's simply not true. :-p

But yes, I have heard of these things. Accidents happen, just like they would at a hydrogen fuel plant or at the mines used to extract the materials needed for the batteries in your electric car. If people suddenly died in a couple of accidents should we then re-evaluate our energy needs? On that basis solely, I say no.

[crackedthesky]

I don't think two accidents (only one with casualties) in the history of nuclear power justifies abandoning it. Compare it to other alternative energies (to oil0: among coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric, there were 11,600 deaths between 1970 and 1992. Nuclear power killed 31. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html)

You need to check your sources. Nuclear power has only killed 31 people? Over 4000 died at Chernobyl alone. Another 60,000 are suffering from the long-term effects.
And there were far, far, FAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Lis t_of_accidents) more than two accidents and many more than one with casualties. Some happened as early as this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayapuri#Mayapuri_radiological_acci dent).

[Simulcast]

A number which can be drastically reduced by better transit planning. Increasing bus ridership, investing in hi-speed rail, etc, etc.

Look at Western Europe. Look at Japan. Look at pretty much every industrialized nation in the world. These are countries that have instituted the necessary reforms in their urban environments to bring cars out of the equation--and it's been highly successful. Their dependence on cars isn't comparable to the United States' dependence.

For too long, we've planned cities around cars. If we invest appropriately, we can change the very economics of transportation. Cars companies could become bus companies. So on and so forth.

We need a modern day Transcontinental Railroad, is basically what I'm saying.

Make it economically viable and I promise it will happen very fast.

[saysmydoctor]

This is an incredibly long-term solution, I'm afraid.
Not to mention, you don't seem to take into account the size of the countries, or the population density. Such a system works in Japan, because Japan is tiny and has an immense population density. The U.S., in comaprison, is huge, with vast, vast regions of it being effectively empty. I think the things you're talking about work on city-scale levels, but not country-wide. Not anytime soon.
I think the better solution is to make the cars run on something else.
Europe is a continent, actually.

And why aren't the US densely populated cities connected by high speed rail? Continual delay in investment in such technologies leads to....well, Southern California and the Washington DC Metro area or Atlanta. Or Orlando. Or Chicago. Or, hell, just pick any fucking major metro area in the US.

[saysmydoctor]

Make it economically viable and I promise it will happen very fast.
Modernizing your infrastructure isn't cheap--but it's clearly viable. Look at such investment at a micro, regional level and its rewards are self-evident.

[crackedthesky]

Well, since all of that material has a half-life that's simply not true. :-p

But yes, I have heard of these things. Accidents happen, just like they would at a hydrogen fuel plant or at the mines used to extract the materials needed for the batteries in your electric car. If people suddenly died in a couple of accidents should we then re-evaluate our energy needs? On that basis solely, I say no.

Do you even know what half-life is? You make it sound like it's a short amount of time. Spent nuclear fuel rods can cool off in about twenty years, if kept under water.
What I said is true. We have not discovered a way to get rid of nuclear waste. Yes, all irradiated material has a half-life. But the product of the specific material I was talking about, the product of nuclear power, has a half-life of some 160,000 years.

You're also completely ignoring the scale of such accidents. Chernobyl melted down in 1986. The city is still uninhabitable. Over 60,000 people alive todayare still experiencing the effects of it. Some of them are still dying.
A couple of car accidents is NOT an equatable example.

[crackedthesky]

Europe is a continent, actually.

And why aren't the US densely populated cities connected by high speed rail? Continual delay in investment in such technologies leads to....well, Southern California and the Washington DC Metro area or Atlanta. Or Orlando. Or Chicago. Or, hell, just pick any fucking major metro area in the US.

I assumed you meant countries in Europe. Is it an international system?
Anyway, my point still stands. I believe the U.S. is bigger than most of Europe, let alone just the western areas of it.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Delay in investment is our biggest problem, our biggest setback. Before we change anything, we need to change minds.

[Machu505]

You need to check your sources. Nuclear power has only killed 31 people? Over 4000 died at Chernobyl alone. Another 60,000 are suffering from the long-term effects.
And there were far, far, FAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Lis t_of_accidents) more than two accidents and many more than one with casualties. Some happened as early as this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayapuri#Mayapuri_radiological_acci dent). Fifty-six direct deaths AND Three Mile and Chernobyl have been the only major accidents. Plus you have to take into account that a) Chernobyl happened 24 years ago and b) Soviet nuclear technology in 1986 is ancient compared to today's.

[Simulcast]

Do you even know what half-life is? You make it sound like it's a short amount of time. Spent nuclear fuel rods can cool off in about twenty years, if kept under water.
What I said is true. We have not discovered a way to get rid of nuclear waste. Yes, all irradiated material has a half-life. But the product of the specific material I was talking about, the product of nuclear power, has a half-life of some 160,000 years.

You're also completely ignoring the scale of such accidents. Chernobyl melted down in 1986. The city is still uninhabitable. Over 60,000 people alive todayare still experiencing the effects of it. Some of them are still dying.
A couple of car accidents is NOT an equatable example.

I know exactly what it is, hence the :-p . It was a joke.

I'm not ignoring the scale of the accident, but I'm also not applying it to every nuclear power plant in existence. The Russians are stupid, and were clearly incapable of managing the operation. They also built submarines that would implode without warning, killing hundreds and hundreds of sailors. Doesn't mean everyone should stop building submarines.

I also wasn't comparing it to CAR accidents. I said:

Accidents happen, just like they would at a hydrogen fuel plant or at the mines used to extract the materials needed for the batteries in your electric car. If people suddenly died in a couple of accidents should we then re-evaluate our energy needs? On that basis solely, I say no.

Accidents at a hydrogen fuel plant or mine. Not car crashes.

[saysmydoctor]

I assumed you meant countries in Europe. Is it an international system?
Anyway, my point still stands. I believe the U.S. is bigger than most of Europe, let alone just the western areas of it.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Delay in investment is our biggest problem, our biggest setback. Before we change anything, we need to change minds.
Take for instance, the Chunnel The Oresund Bridge. These aren't localized systems, the continent is connected by high speed rail. Yes, the US is bigger--so we'll have to spend more. Fortunately for us, a lot of the infrastructure is there, it's just a matter of modernizing and creating more connections. We can't use Monroe's legacy as an excuse. It's just an obstacle.

[crackedthesky]

Fifty-six direct deaths AND Three Mile and Chernobyl have been the only major accidents. Plus you have to take into account that a) Chernobyl happened 24 years ago and b) Soviet nuclear technology in 1986 is ancient compared to today's.

No, 56 immediate deaths. The other 5000 who died from the Chernobyl disaster died from radiation they received from it. You can't tell me they would've died from radiation poisoning anyway had the meltdown not happened.
And Chernobyl and Three Mile were by no means the only accidents. But even if they were, would it matter? A small amount of accidents having happened is not evidence suggesting that none will ever happen again. Nobody ever thought Exxon-Valdez could happen again, did they? Yet here we are with the BP spill. And that's comparing 1990's technology to today's. What difference did it make? Today's spill was worse. Your reasons don't prove anything, and they aren't correct anyway.

[crackedthesky]

I know exactly what it is, hence the :-p . It was a joke.

I'm not ignoring the scale of the accident, but I'm also not applying it to every nuclear power plant in existence. The Russians are stupid, and were clearly incapable of managing the operation. They also built submarines that would implode without warning, killing hundreds and hundreds of sailors. Doesn't mean everyone should stop building submarines.

I also wasn't comparing it to CAR accidents. I said:



Accidents at a hydrogen fuel plant or mine. Not car crashes.

Okay, even taking that into account, you can't compensate for the scale of the disaster. If an accident happens at a hydrogen plant, it isn't going to kill 5000 people, infect 60,000 indefinitely, or make an entire region of the country permanently uninhabitable.

And again, I'll point to the oil spills for an example of technology. Technology has gotten far better since Exxon-Valdez, yet the BP spill was still exponentially worse.

The fact that very few accidents have happened before is not evidence that none will happen again. And even if we did switch to nuclear power and never had an accident, we'd still be creating an unlimited supply of waste that takes almost 200,000 years to stop being harmful to humans. Where in the hell are we supposed to put it? We're still holding on to the waste created by the very first experiments with nuclear power.

Until we have a way to take care of the waste, nuclear power isn't a good option. Otherwise, it probably would be (though I don't have faith that energy companies will take the proper safety precautions.) But there's no evidence that there ever will be a way to take care of the waste.

[saysmydoctor]

That's because drilling technology got better, not the oil spill mitigation/prevention/clean-up technology.

[crackedthesky]

Take for instance, the Chunnel The Oresund Bridge. These aren't localized systems, the continent is connected by high speed rail. Yes, the US is bigger--so we'll have to spend more. Fortunately for us, a lot of the infrastructure is there, it's just a matter of modernizing and creating more connections. We can't use Monroe's legacy as an excuse. It's just an obstacle.

Yes, but is it a better, faster, or cheaper alternative to finding a different energy source? The answer, of course, depends on what said alternative energy source is, but I would think that in most cases, the answer to all three would be no. Regardless, it seems the rail methods shouldn't be taken off of the table entirely.

[Simulcast]

Okay, even taking that into account, you can't compensate for the scale of the disaster. If an accident happens at a hydrogen plant, it isn't going to kill 5000 people, infect 60,000 indefinitely, or make an entire region of the country permanently uninhabitable.

And again, I'll point to the oil spills for an example of technology. Technology has gotten far better since Exxon-Valdez, yet the BP spill was still exponentially worse.

The fact that very few accidents have happened before is not evidence that none will happen again. And even if we did switch to nuclear power and never had an accident, we'd still be creating an unlimited supply of waste that takes almost 200,000 years to stop being harmful to humans. Where in the hell are we supposed to put it? We're still holding on to the waste created by the very first experiments with nuclear power.

Until we have a way to take care of the waste, nuclear power isn't a good option. Otherwise, it probably would be (though I don't have faith that energy companies will take the proper safety precautions.) But there's no evidence that there ever will be a way to take care of the waste.


I don't believe this is true.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24549/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

[crackedthesky]

That's because drilling technology got better, not the oil spill mitigation/prevention/clean-up technology.

Exactly. And considering that nuclear clean-up technology is not possible, it's safe to assume that hasn't gotten any better since Chernobyl, either.
And again, even if the safety precaution technology has gotten better, why would I believe these companies would implement them? Oil spill prevention technology has indeed gotten better, but BP chose not to implement it because they didn't want to spend money on that. Why should I trust energy companies to take a different approach with nuclear energy?

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, but is it a better, faster, or cheaper alternative to finding a different energy source? The answer, of course, depends on what said alternative energy source is, but I would think that in most cases, the answer to all three would be no. Regardless, it seems the rail methods shouldn't be taken off of the table entirely.
What 'it' are you talking about?

[Machu505]

I don't believe this is true.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24549/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Also, Bill Gates' TerraPower (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html). My older brother works for this company as a nuclear engineer.

[crackedthesky]

I don't believe this is true.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24549/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

Yeah, I read into that. At first glance, it's beautiful. Power gets recycled into more power.
But the key, I think, is in this sentence:
"The technology involves separating nuclear waste into different types of useable fuel, some of which can power conventional nuclear power plants, and some of which require advanced "fast neutron" reactors, which are being used in power plants elsewhere but not in the United States."

They conveniently left out the "some of which is still unusable, takes 20 years to cool off, and will remain harmful for hundreds of thousands of years." We can get rid of much of the waste, but not all of it. I think, and I may be wrong so don't quote me on this, but the uranium I think is specifically the problem point. Certain nuclear products just aren't usable anymore. At all. And they turn into waste that doesn't decay for a LONG time.

Even if we get rid of MOST of the waste, the some adds up. And if nuclear power becomes the leading energy source in the world, that some adds up and up and up exponentially, to the point where we run into the same problem, we just take a few years more to run into it.

[Sean Rizzo]

No, 56 immediate deaths. The other 5000 who died from the Chernobyl disaster died from radiation they received from it. You can't tell me they would've died from radiation poisoning anyway had the meltdown not happened.
And Chernobyl and Three Mile were by no means the only accidents. But even if they were, would it matter? A small amount of accidents having happened is not evidence suggesting that none will ever happen again. Nobody ever thought Exxon-Valdez could happen again, did they? Yet here we are with the BP spill. And that's comparing 1990's technology to today's. What difference did it make? Today's spill was worse. Your reasons don't prove anything, and they aren't correct anyway.
The progress and developments in nuclear technology and oil rig technology are apples and oranges.

Additionally, it can be argued that in neither accident outdated technology was to blame. Chernobyl and the BP rig both had atrocious oversight and maintenance.

If you'd like to pore over these two articles, you'll find that a large majority of the accidents were caused in whole or in part by human error, or by some other non-nuclear technological fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

[Simulcast]

Also, Bill Gates' TerraPower (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html). My older brother works for this company as a nuclear engineer.

That's pretty awesome.

[crackedthesky]

What 'it' are you talking about?

A trans-continental rail system, or a rail system in general. Basically, is finding a different means of transportation entirely better, cheaper, or faster than finding a different fuel source for the means of transportation we already have?
I'm asking because I don't know for sure, and again, I'm sure it depends on the fuel source, but I would think most alternative fuel sources would be more effective than re-organizing our means of transportation on the whole.

[crackedthesky]

The progress and developments in nuclear technology and oil rig technology are apples and oranges.

Additionally, it can be argued that in neither accident outdated technology was to blame. Chernobyl and the BP rig both had atrocious oversight and maintenance.

If you'd like to pore over these two articles, you'll find that a large majority of the accidents were caused in whole or in part by human error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was saying that the fact that technology has developed mroe since Chernobyl is irrelevant. Technology developed between Exxon and BP, but BP still happened. Therefore, the fact that technology has developed since Chernobyl does not guarantee that another accident won't happen.
And I'm not even the one who brought up technology as a reason. I agree with you completely, the source is almost always human error. That's my point. Even if the technology is better than it was in 1986 when Chernobyl happened, some idiot human is most likely going to fuck up and get a bunch of people killed. I'd rather said idiot did that with wind than with nuclear fusion :shrug:

[saysmydoctor]

A trans-continental rail system, or a rail system in general. Basically, is finding a different means of transportation entirely better, cheaper, or faster than finding a different fuel source for the means of transportation we already have?
I'm asking because I don't know for sure, and again, I'm sure it depends on the fuel source, but I would think most alternative fuel sources would be more effective than re-organizing our means of transportation on the whole.
The two still go hand in hand.

[Sean Rizzo]

Yeah, I read into that. At first glance, it's beautiful. Power gets recycled into more power.
But the key, I think, is in this sentence:
"The technology involves separating nuclear waste into different types of useable fuel, some of which can power conventional nuclear power plants, and some of which require advanced "fast neutron" reactors, which are being used in power plants elsewhere but not in the United States."

They conveniently left out the "some of which is still unusable, takes 20 years to cool off, and will remain harmful for hundreds of thousands of years." We can get rid of much of the waste, but not all of it. I think, and I may be wrong so don't quote me on this, but the uranium I think is specifically the problem point. Certain nuclear products just aren't usable anymore. At all. And they turn into waste that doesn't decay for a LONG time.

Even if we get rid of MOST of the waste, the some adds up. And if nuclear power becomes the leading energy source in the world, that some adds up and up and up exponentially, to the point where we run into the same problem, we just take a few years more to run into it.
Getting nuclear waste out of here would give incentive to the space program, if we switch over to it.

[Sean Rizzo]

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was saying that the fact that technology has developed mroe since Chernobyl is irrelevant. Technology developed between Exxon and BP, but BP still happened. Therefore, the fact that technology has developed since Chernobyl does not guarantee that another accident won't happen.
And I'm not even the one who brought up technology as a reason. I agree with you completely, the source is almost always human error. That's my point. Even if the technology is better than it was in 1986 when Chernobyl happened, some idiot human is most likely going to ****** up and get a bunch of people killed. I'd rather said idiot did that with wind than with nuclear fusion :shrug:
Oil tanker technology =/= oil rig technology.

Nuclear power plant technology = Nuclear power plant technology.

[crackedthesky]

Getting nuclear waste out of here would give incentive to the space program, if we switch over to it.

I hadn't thought about that. I'm still not sure it's a viable solution. I don't feel comfortable shooting all of our trash into space, but besides that, even if we had the ability to do it, if nuclear power was to become the leading energy source in the world, it's arguable that a lot of the countries using it may not have space programs, so we'd eventually still run into the problem.
Besides, your solution assumes we'll have both corporations and a government that takes actual responsibility without cutting corners or making shortcuts. When have we ever had either? And even if we did, I don't think we could get a majority of other countries to follow suit.

[crackedthesky]

Oil tanker technology =/= oil rig technology.

Nuclear power plant technology = Nuclear power plant technology.

You're missing my point entirely.

Two people said to me that technology has advanced since 1986, suggesting that Chernobyl can't happen again based solely on the fact that technology has advanced.
Regardless of the type of technology, the advancement of it is clearly not an indicator that an accident won't happen again.
Apply this theory to nuclear power, without comparing it to oil tankers, and you reach my conclusion. The fact that technology has advanced since 1986 is not an indicator that an accident can't or won't happen.

If it makes you feel better, I'll use a more comparable example: Technology advanced between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but both accidents still happened. Earlier, I posted another accident from earlier this year that resulted in one death and two people receiving critical radiation poisoning they'll have for probably the rest of their lives. So even comparing nuclear power plant technology to itself, the point that technology has advanced does not mean another accident can't happen.

[Sean Rizzo]

I hadn't thought about that. I'm still not sure it's a viable solution. I don't feel comfortable shooting all of our trash into space, but besides that, even if we had the ability to do it, if nuclear power was to become the leading energy source in the world, it's arguable that a lot of the countries using it may not have space programs, so we'd eventually still run into the problem.
Besides, your solution assumes we'll have both corporations and a government that takes actual responsibility without cutting corners or making shortcuts. When have we ever had either? And even if we did, I don't think we could get a majority of other countries to follow suit.
Why? Space is about the safest place you could put it.

Privatization of space travel would be pertinent to such an operation. Where there's a will and a possible dollar to make, there's a way. Of course, the government's around to make sure the corporations don't purposefully cut corners and make a shuttle blow up on the launch pad while holding radioactive material.

[Simulcast]

You're missing my point entirely.

Two people said to me that technology has advanced since 1986, suggesting that Chernobyl can't happen again based solely on the fact that technology has advanced.
Regardless of the type of technology, the advancement of it is clearly not an indicator that an accident won't happen again.
Apply this theory to nuclear power, without comparing it to oil tankers, and you reach my conclusion. The fact that technology has advanced since 1986 is not an indicator that an accident can't or won't happen.

If it makes you feel better, I'll use a more comparable example: Technology advanced between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but both accidents still happened. Earlier, I posted another accident from earlier this year that resulted in one death and two people receiving critical radiation poisoning they'll have for probably the rest of their lives. So even comparing nuclear power plant technology to itself, the point that technology has advanced does not mean another accident can't happen.

Accidents may have happened since, but not at the same magnitude as Chernobyl. This can be seen as an indicator of progress with the technology. 5,000 deaths to 5 seems like progress to me.

[crackedthesky]

Why? Space is about the safest place you could put it.

Privatization of space travel would be pertinent to such an operation. Where there's a will and a possible dollar to make, there's a way. Of course, the government's around to make sure the corporations don't purposefully cut corners and make a shuttle blow up on the launch pad while holding radioactive material.

Except they have 2/3 of the Congress telling them they aren't allowed to do that. Case in point: they want to block a moritorium on oil rigs that would allow the government to make sure the corporations haven't cut corners there.
And again, I don't think the government could be trusted there, either. Even if they were allowed to get involved in the private companies' inner workings, would they catch everything? Force it to happen the right way? It all depends on who's in power at the time. I guarantee that not every person in power will care enough to actually make sure the job gets done.

Besides, you completely ignored my other point: we aren't the only country in the world. Even if we were to regulate such a space program to the point of it being a viable solution to nuclear waste problems, what about every other country in the world?

[Simulcast]

Except they have 2/3 of the Congress telling them they aren't allowed to do that. Case in point: they want to block a moritorium on oil rigs that would allow the government to make sure the corporations haven't cut corners there.
And again, I don't think the government could be trusted there, either. Even if they were allowed to get involved in the private companies' inner workings, would they catch everything? Force it to happen the right way? It all depends on who's in power at the time. I guarantee that not every person in power will care enough to actually make sure the job gets done.

Besides, you completely ignored my other point: we aren't the only country in the world. Even if we were to regulate such a space program to the point of it being a viable solution to nuclear waste problems, what about every other country in the world?

We can dispose of their waste for them and charge a fee.

[Sean Rizzo]

You're missing my point entirely.

Two people said to me that technology has advanced since 1986, suggesting that Chernobyl can't happen again based solely on the fact that technology has advanced.
Regardless of the type of technology, the advancement of it is clearly not an indicator that an accident won't happen again.
Apply this theory to nuclear power, without comparing it to oil tankers, and you reach my conclusion. The fact that technology has advanced since 1986 is not an indicator that an accident can't or won't happen.

If it makes you feel better, I'll use a more comparable example: Technology advanced between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but both accidents still happened. Earlier, I posted another accident from earlier this year that resulted in one death and two people receiving critical radiation poisoning they'll have for probably the rest of their lives. So even comparing nuclear power plant technology to itself, the point that technology has advanced does not mean another accident can't happen.
A large portion of these "accidents", including Chernobyl, didn't involve actual human error, although it's classified as such. They involved crucial aspects of maintenance that were overlooked, or dangerous experimentation. It just needs to be managed and monitored better and more closely.

[crackedthesky]

Accidents may have happened since, but not at the same magnitude as Chernobyl. This can be seen as an indicator of progress with the technology. 5,000 deaths to 5 seems like progress to me.

Yes, and while that may seem like good evidence, that's where my other example came in. This time last year, I'm sure oil execs were saying the exact same thing when they were deciding not to put remote shut-off valves on their rigs. "Accidents have happened since Exxon-Valdez, but none at nearly the same magnitude. We've made so much progress with technology, it couldn't possibly happen again!"

See the point I'm making?

And again, to your credit, my point isn't guaranteed either. The fact that accidents have happened doesn't mean that another Chernobyl ever will happen. It's probably more likely that it won't. However, I don't think that risk is worth it. Especially in the face of nuclear waste and all of the problems that accompany it. The fact is, there are other energy sources that are far cleaner, far less harmful, and far easier to clean up. They aren't as immediate as nuclear energy, but I think that they're more efficient because we eliminate both problems of risk of accident and of ability to clean up. Especially in the long run.

[Sean Rizzo]

Except they have 2/3 of the Congress telling them they aren't allowed to do that. Case in point: they want to block a moritorium on oil rigs that would allow the government to make sure the corporations haven't cut corners there.
And again, I don't think the government could be trusted there, either. Even if they were allowed to get involved in the private companies' inner workings, would they catch everything? Force it to happen the right way? It all depends on who's in power at the time. I guarantee that not every person in power will care enough to actually make sure the job gets done.

Besides, you completely ignored my other point: we aren't the only country in the world. Even if we were to regulate such a space program to the point of it being a viable solution to nuclear waste problems, what about every other country in the world?
Easy. Lift the rather dumb moratorium. Next, appoint a static and independent third party regulator so that politics are left out of it.

For your second point, see below.

Why? Space is about the safest place you could put it.

Privatization of space travel would be pertinent to such an operation. Where there's a will and a possible dollar to make, there's a way. Of course, the government's around to make sure the corporations don't purposefully cut corners and make a shuttle blow up on the launch pad while holding radioactive material.

[Simulcast]

Yes, and while that may seem like good evidence, that's where my other example came in. This time last year, I'm sure oil execs were saying the exact same thing when they were deciding not to put remote shut-off valves on their rigs. "Accidents have happened since Exxon-Valdez, but none at nearly the same magnitude. We've made so much progress with technology, it couldn't possibly happen again!"

See the point I'm making?

And again, to your credit, my point isn't guaranteed either. The fact that accidents have happened doesn't mean that another Chernobyl ever will happen. It's probably more likely that it won't. However, I don't think that risk is worth it. Especially in the face of nuclear waste and all of the problems that accompany it. The fact is, there are other energy sources that are far cleaner, far less harmful, and far easier to clean up. They aren't as immediate as nuclear energy, but I think that they're more efficient because we eliminate both problems of risk of accident and of ability to clean up. Especially in the long run.

Gotcha. No need to debate this point further.

[crackedthesky]

We can dispose of their waste for them and charge a fee.

I thought of that, too. But there are still a lot of problems. Said countries may not have the money for it, accidents could happen during transportation, and again, there's the regulation problem. We have enough troube getting one government to check all angles and make sure something is done properly, I can only imagine how difficult this would be with two involved. Especially if it comes to countries we have sanctions against.

A large portion of these "accidents", including Chernobyl, didn't involve actual human error, although it's classified as such. They involved crucial aspects of maintenance that were overlooked, or dangerous experimentation. It just needs to be managed and monitored better and more closely.

That would be nice. But again, this country does not live under the mindset that the government should be allowed to regulate a private company. They believe a company will regulate itself just fine, even though we've seen time and time and time again that they won't.

So basically, under these arguments, our choices appear to be:

1. Use nuclear power
a. Create an entire privatized space program
i. Launch several missions per year to get rid of the limitless amount of waste being created
ii. Convince those in power to keep strictly regulating said companies
b. Lift certain sanctions against countries and collect a fee to move their waste, and just hope that they'll regulate as strictly as we will
i. Regulate the transport of such wastes across the globe from these countries to our own, also hoping that those countries will strictly regulate to make sure everything is safe

or

2. Take a little bit longer and spend a little bit more money to find a safer source of energy

I just think nuclear power might not be the way to go. At the very least, not as the leading source of energy in the world.

[crackedthesky]

Easy. Lift the rather dumb moratorium. Next, appoint a static and independent third party regulator so that politics are left out of it.

For your second point, see below.

You really think that would fly? That just opens up a whole realm of problems. What if said third-party gets paid off by the companies to overlook things? Or if they're government-funded, it'll be spun right back into being the government getting involved in private corporations.

I wish your ideas would work, I really do. But it's just not going to happen in this country, with this mindset. The government can't even make sure companies don't kill people without people compalining that they're too involved, and third-party companies never get by without being accused of leaning one way or the other, or being lobbied into doing one thing or another. In an ideal world, your solutions are perfect. But people just aren't that objective-minded.

Gotcha. No need to debate this point further.

Yeah, forgive me if I made it seem like it was likey. I don't believe another Chernobyl-sized accident would happen. It's incredibly unlikely. I just really don't think it's worth it, haha. I'll put human life over corporate moneymaking anytime, anywhere. If we started researching wind power and discovered the only way to make it viable was to do something that would make it so that wind could kill thousands of people or have indefinite harmful effects, I'd be against that, too. But I guarantee there's a cleaner, safer energy source than nuclear power, and I'm all for spending the extra time and money to find it rather than just falling back to another potentially catastrophic but quick and cheap one.

Same reason I believe cars should be made of rubber, so if they run into each other, they bounce off instead of crumpling people up inside them.

[Sean Rizzo]

That would be nice. But again, this country does not live under the mindset that the government should be allowed to regulate a private company. They believe a company will regulate itself just fine, even though we've seen time and time and time again that they won't.

So basically, under these arguments, our choices appear to be:

1. Use nuclear power
a. Create an entire privatized space program
i. Launch several missions per year to get rid of the limitless amount of waste being created
ii. Convince those in power to keep strictly regulating said companies
b. Lift certain sanctions against countries and collect a fee to move their waste, and just hope that they'll regulate as strictly as we will
i. Regulate the transport of such wastes across the globe from these countries to our own, also hoping that those countries will strictly regulate to make sure everything is safe

or

2. Take a little bit longer and spend a little bit more money to find a safer source of energy

I just think nuclear power might not be the way to go. At the very least, not as the leading source of energy in the world.
What are you talking about? Everyone believes necessary safety regulations and standards should be held. It's a proper use of governmental authority. I'm a conservative and I agree with you here, I really have no idea why you think other conservative Americans would be opposed to strictly enforced safety standards for any type of technology.

I never claimed nuclear power should be a permanent alternative. Rather, it should be the joining point between oil and solar/wind. When it comes down to it, when all the liberals are so concerned about the immediate effects petroleum based fuels have on the environment, what would they rather? Oil, or nuclear? Sure, we run the risk of more nuclear accidents, but given we can maintain tight regulations in addition to the massive steps forward in safety nuclear power has taken since the moratorium, I don't see such a huge risk.

[Sean Rizzo]

You really think that would fly? That just opens up a whole realm of problems. What if said third-party gets paid off by the companies to overlook things? Or if they're government-funded, it'll be spun right back into being the government getting involved in private corporations.

I wish your ideas would work, I really do. But it's just not going to happen in this country, with this mindset. The government can't even make sure companies don't kill people without people compalining that they're too involved, and third-party companies never get by without being accused of leaning one way or the other, or being lobbied into doing one thing or another. In an ideal world, your solutions are perfect. But people just aren't that objective-minded.
We can pass and enforce laws that restrict this, and require the third party to disclose any and all gifts or funding to get around that issue.

[crackedthesky]

What are you talking about? Everyone believes necessary safety regulations and standards should be held. It's a proper use of governmental authority. I'm a conservative and I agree with you here, I really have no idea why you think other conservative Americans would be opposed to strictly enforced safety standards for any type of technology.


Do you pay attention to Congress? Conservatives automatically stand against any form of government being involved in pretty much anything. Like now, they're opposing letting the government go in an make sure the oil rigs are safe. They're singing "big government, big government, big government." They think the corporations will regulate themselves, despite it being obvious that they won't. And again, using third parties doesn't seem to work much better.
I'm not saying it's true for conservatives across the country, but it's most definitely true for conservatives in Congress, which are the ones that actually have the power.
It's about as ridiculous as Obama hiring idiots like Tim Geithner and assuming that banks can regulate themselves. I don't understand why the words "conflict of interest" don't seem to mean anything in these situations.


I never claimed nuclear power should be a permanent alternative. Rather, it should be the joining point between oil and solar/wind. When it comes down to it, when all the liberals are so concerned about the immediate effects petroleum based fuels have on the environment, what would they rather? Oil, or nuclear? Sure, we run the risk of more nuclear accidents, but given we can maintain tight regulations in addition to the massive steps forward in safety nuclear power has taken since the moratorium, I don't see such a huge risk.

I think that's an arguably admirable approach to it. And like I said earlier, we can't just stop using oil overnight. You're absolutely right, we need to transition. But whether we really need nuclear power as a buffer between oil and something cleaner is debateable. If it did truly come down to that, I'd have to be for it. But I truly believe that if we start today, that the sooner we start, the less likely it is that we'll need that buffer.
At the rate we're going, we most likely will need one, and we most likely will just stick with nuclear and not move on to anything safer, until another Chernobyl does happen, but that's a different debate entirely.

[crackedthesky]

We can pass and enforce laws that restrict this, and require the third party to disclose any and all gifts or funding to get around that issue.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. Even transparecny doesn't necessarily guarantee a fair, objective approach. And no matter what, it most certainly won't be seen as non-partisan by Congress and by the general public. Even sources like FactCheck.Org and the Congressional Budget Office get accused of being partisan or of being paid off.

It's a wonderful idea on paper, but I really don't think it would work in real life. People just aren't that objective. Especially when in groups.

[Sean Rizzo]

Do you pay attention to Congress? Conservatives automatically stand against any form of government in pretty much everything. Like now, they're opposing letting the government go in an make sure the oil rigs are safe. They're singing "big government, big government, big government." They think the corporations will regulate themselves, despite it being obvious that they won't. And again, using third parties doesn't seem to work much better.
I'm not saying it's true for conservatives across the country, but it's most definitely true for conservatives in Congress, which are the ones that actually have the power.
It's about as ridiculous as Obama hiring idiots like Tim Geithner and assuming that banks can regulate themselves. I don't understand why the words "conflict of interest" don't seem to mean anything in these situations.
Conservatives don't "stand against any form of government in pretty much anything", just when it's outside the parameters of the Constitution. Before you try saying we need to shred the Constitution to be able to regulate effectively, let me remind you that the structure of the regulatory body isn't at fault, but rather the way it chooses to go about regulating.

Also, you're assuming that we need to have a moratorium in order for a proper investigation and regulatory sweep to take place. I don't buy into that.

I'm a conservative, I listen to conservative talk radio about every day and I read what conservative lawmakers are saying and doing online. I haven't heard of any conservative opposing necessary safety standards and regulations, neither have I heard their support of the idea that "companies will regulate themselves". From everything I can tell, the only reason they would be blocking anything is if the government were doing something either unnecessary or outside its given bounds. I don't think we should pass something with bad provisions in it solely for the sake of the good ones. Cut the pointless and/or stupid crap out and do what makes sense.

I think that's an arguably admirable approach to it. And like I said earlier, we can't just stop using oil overnight. You're absolutely right, we need to transition. But whether we really need nuclear power as a buffer between oil and something cleaner is debateable. If it did truly come down to that, I'd have to be for it. But I truly believe that if we start today, that the sooner we start, the less likely it is that we'll need that buffer.
At the rate we're going, we most likely will need one, and we most likely will just stick with nuclear and not move on to anything safer, until another Chernobyl does happen, but that's a different debate entirely.
I don't buy into this line of thought, either. As soon as someone develops solar and wind technology to the point where it's cheaper and more efficient than nuclear, that won't happen.

[crackedthesky]

Conservatives don't stand against any form of government in pretty much anything, just when it's outside the parameters of the Constitution. Before you try saying we need to shred the Constitution to be able to regulate effectively, let me remind you that the structure of the regulatory body isn't at fault, but rather the way it chooses to go about regulating.

Also, you're assuming that we need to have a moratorium in order for a proper investigation and regulatory sweep to take place. I don't buy into that.

I'm a conservative, I listen to conservative talk radio about every day and I read what conservative lawmakers are saying and doing online. I haven't heard of any conservative opposing necessary safety standards and regulations, neither have I heard their support of the idea that "companies will regulate themselves". From everything I can tell, the only reason they would be blocking anything is if the government were doing something either unnecessary or outside its given bounds. I don't think we should pass something with bad provisions in it solely for the sake of the good ones. Cut the pointless and/or stupid crap out and do what makes sense.


I don't buy into this line of thought, either. As soon as someone develops solar and wind technology to the point where it's cheaper and more efficient than nuclear, that won't happen.

I wasn't about to suggest we shred the Constitution.
It appears you and I have a bit of common thought. I think regulation, whether it be by a third party or by the government, is indeed possible and well within the means of the Constitution. And you're also right that a moritorium is probably not necessary to perform a safety inspection. When I worked in a produce department of a grocery store, I didn't have to go home when the health inspector showed up. I don't think stopping all production is necessary.

I don't know what you're listening to or reading, but that you haven't heard the "companies can regulate themselves" line troubles me. I hear it all the time, sometimes rephrased, but sometimes in those exact words, coming straight from the mouths of Congressman. And even when they aren't saying it, they're sure as hell legislating it. I'll give you an example you'll probably agree with: Max Baucus's health care bill. It offers almost no regulation of the insurance industry, and doesn't do much of a job of forcing them to actually uphold their contracts. This is because, as a conservative, he believed the government shouldn't be that involved.
And yet, people even more conservative than him still said that the bill created too much government regulation.

I don't believe the government is the solution to everything. But conversely, it sure as hell isn't the solution to nothing. You can't have a country where the government isn't allowed to ever be involved in anything, and that's what a lot of the bigger conservative mouthpieces most definitely want. That is, as long as it's in their favor. In cases like abortion, stem cell research, or Terry Shiavo, suddenly they can't get the government involved quickly enough.

Basically, I think the answer lies, as it often does, in the middle ground. There are a lot of conservatives offering extreme ideas right now, and the answer from the left shouldn't be to offer equally extreme ideas but on the opposite side. Unfortunately, that tends to be exactly what they do.

Edit: As for your second quote, what I'm saying is that, knowing how we normally operate, we'll being on nuclear power, find it convenient, and not even try to develop solar or wind to be as efficient because we'll already have nuclear power. If we were that motivated to move on to solar or wind, we'd have done it already with oil. But oil is just so much more convenient for right now, and when it's gone, nuclear will be the next most convenient thing.

[Sean Rizzo]

Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. Even transparecny doesn't necessarily guarantee a fair, objective approach. And no matter what, it most certainly won't be seen as non-partisan by Congress and by the general public. Even sources like FactCheck.Org and the Congressional Budget Office get accused of being partisan or of being paid off.

It's a wonderful idea on paper, but I really don't think it would work in real life. People just aren't that objective. Especially when in groups.
Nothing ever does, but we do the best we can, when we can.

At this point I'd like to thank you for having an honest open-minded discussion without any immature name-calling like I see so often in here. That's why I *almost* never post in here.

[crackedthesky]

Nothing ever does, but we do the best we can, when we can.

At this point I'd like to thank you for having an honest open-minded discussion without any immature name-calling like I see so often in here. That's why I *almost* never post in here.

Yeah, same to you. I actually left this forum for a LONG time because I couldn't take it, from either side. Some guy would come in with a dissenting opinion and get ripped to shreds. You can disagree or, if applicable, prove someone wrong without resorting to that. But like my nuclear power example, sometimes it's more convenient to be a douchebag. I do it myself, sometimes. Simulcast and me had a rather heated discussion in a different thread, and think we both ended up going down that road. But I'd rather avoid it where possible, and I'm glad the discussions in here have been.

[Sean Rizzo]

I wasn't about to suggest we shred the Constitution.
It appears you and I have a bit of common thought. I think regulation, whether it be by a third party or by the government, is indeed possible and well within the means of the Constitution. And you're also right that a moritorium is probably not necessary to perform a safety inspection. When I worked in a produce department of a grocery store, I didn't have to go home when the health inspector showed up. I don't think stopping all production is necessary.

I don't know what you're listening to or reading, but that you haven't heard the "companies can regulate themselves" line troubles me. I hear it all the time, sometimes rephrased, but sometimes in those exact words, coming straight from the mouths of Congressman. And even when they aren't saying it, they're sure as hell legislating it. I'll give you an example you'll probably agree with: Max Baucus's health care bill. It offers almost no regulation of the insurance industry, and doesn't do much of a job of forcing them to actually uphold their contracts. This is because, as a conservative, he believed the government shouldn't be that involved.
And yet, people even more conservative than him still said that the bill created too much government regulation.

I don't believe the government is the solution to everything. But conversely, it sure as hell isn't the solution to nothing. You can't have a country where the government isn't allowed to ever be involved in anything, and that's what a lot of the bigger conservative mouthpieces most definitely want. That is, as long as it's in their favor. In cases like abortion, stem cell research, or Terry Shiavo, suddenly they can't get the government involved quickly enough.

Basically, I think the answer lies, as it often does, in the middle ground. There are a lot of conservatives offering extreme ideas right now, and the answer from the left shouldn't be to offer equally extreme ideas but on the opposite side. Unfortunately, that tends to be exactly what they do.

Edit: As for your second quote, what I'm saying is that, knowing how we normally operate, we'll being on nuclear power, find it convenient, and not even try to develop solar or wind to be as efficient because we'll already have nuclear power. If we were that motivated to move on to solar or wind, we'd have done it already with oil. But oil is just so much more convenient for right now, and when it's gone, nuclear will be the next most convenient thing.
Just a couple last thoughts.

I don't blame them for saying there was too much regulation. A lot of the junk that gets passed off as regulation is just plain unnecessary, pointless, wasteful, and downright ineffective. Either that, or it's used as a political or ideological tool to usurp power that the legislative branch should have when passing laws. Out of everything I've heard conservative mouthpieces say, it's not that the government should do nothing, rather that it should only do what's allowed constitutionally. What I, and most other conservatives (not libertarians, mind you. I think lots of liberals tend to put conservatives in a libertarian light) would like to see is indeed less regulation, but also making the regulation that remains lean and effective so that we don't have to burden the taxpayer so much. It'd be nice if regulations didn't cost more than what it takes to print them out on paper, but there's huge amounts of overhead.

As far as the last sentence in the bold goes, what you're talking about is whether legislating morality is constitutional, not about regulations. I think it's perfectly acceptable because: First, except for rights currently outlined in the Constitution, the Constitution is morally neutral until an amendment is passed which changes that. Secondly, because of that, legislation on both moral sides is almost always constitutional, and can always be repealed whenever the majority's morality shifts via initiatives or effective representation. However, it's dangerous to take these things through the Court for both liberals and conservatives, because it opens the doors to oligarchy and gives one man or a group of men the ability to usurp the people's rule aspects of the Constitution and arbitrarily and irreversibly declare what's morally right or wrong. As we all know, Supreme Court rulings are insanely hard to overturn. That's my biggest beef with the Supreme Court ruling stating Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. In reality, neither Prop 8 nor the original gay marriage bill are unconstitutional. It's dangerous for everyone when the system is abused that way. But this is a topic for another thread.

Edit @ your edit, lol: I think we do have motivation for solar and wind technology right now. We just haven't had the technological breakthroughs to make it viable and affordable enough so that it wouldn't wreck our economy.

[crackedthesky]

Just a couple last thoughts.

I don't blame them for saying there was too much regulation. A lot of the junk that gets passed off as regulation is just plain unnecessary, pointless, wasteful, and downright ineffective. Either that, or it's used as a political or ideological tool to usurp power that the legislative branch should have when passing laws. Out of everything I've heard conservative mouthpieces say, it's not that the government should do nothing, rather that it should only do what's allowed constitutionally. What I, and most other conservatives (not libertarians, mind you) would like to see is indeed less regulation, but also making the regulation that remains lean and effective so that we don't have to burden the taxpayer so much. It'd be nice if regulations didn't cost more than what it takes to print them out on paper, but there's huge amounts of overhead.

As far as the last sentence in the bold goes, what you're talking about is whether legislating morality is constitutional, not about regulations. I think it's perfectly acceptable because: First, except for rights currently outlined in the Constitution, the Constitution is morally neutral until an amendment is passed which changes that. Secondly, because of that, legislation on both moral sides is almost always constitutional, and can always be repealed whenever the majority's morality shifts. However, it's dangerous to take these things through the Court for both liberals and conservatives, because it opens the doors to oligarchy and gives one man or a group of men the ability to usurp the people's rule aspects of the Constitution and arbitrarily declare what's morally right or wrong. As we all know, Supreme Court rulings are insanely hard to overturn. That's my biggest beef with the Supreme Court ruling stating Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. In reality, neither Prop 8 nor the original gay marriage bill are unconstitutional. It's dangerous for everyone when the system is abused that way. But this is a topic for another thread.

Both of your arguments come down to how the Constitution is interpreted, though. For example, some people interpret the Second Amendment to mean that it's one's constitutional right to, say, own an RPG, or to shoot politicians you disagree with. The problem isn't in legislating based on what the Constitution says, it's in legislating based on what the those in power think it says.
In cases of morality, the fact that the constitution allows it does not mean it should be passed. And you have to look at the document as a whole. The Constitution does not, in fact, say that gay marriage should be legal. However, article one of the fourteenth amendment does state:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Proposition 8 does arguably violate this. Because it isn't specifically stated as gay marriage, it comes down to whether or not those in power wish to interpret marriage as one of the privileges listed in said article.

Basically, it isn't as simple as taking bits and pieces of the Constitution at face value. But that tends to be what happens on both sides, so instead of establishing a new amendment to clarify, we end up using technicalities back and forth to get things passed and then unpassed, and we end up with an unending cycle. People act like the Constitution is set in stone and not to be changed, when it was meant to be a living document. The founding fathers were well aware of something both parties seem to have completely forgotten: what works for people during one time period may not work for another. I hear Reagan invoked all the time by the right. Reagan's ideas worked - for the time. They weren't meant to be written in blood. Clearly. Look at how well trickle-down turned out. Even Reagan's economic advisor who came up with it acknowledges that it doesn't work. A similar situation exists with, say, Social Security. When the age requirement was set to 65 years, the life expectancy of those alive was barely that. Now, the life expectancy is through the roof, but we're basing social security on the same figures it started with.
The same thing happens with both sides, and with the Constitution. The Constitution was meant to be amended as time went on so that it would actively reflect the will of the people of the time. It wasn't meant to enforce the will of people who died three hundred years ago for all time. That's why they explicitly wrote in the ability to alter it.

Basically, as a nation, we're all horrible at adapting as time goes on and things change. We'd rather take the safe route and not change anything, but then resort to using wording and technicalities to change laws for temporary amounts of time, resulting in laws that not a majority of people but a majority of people in certain positions get to make.

Edit at your edit: I agree that the technology doesn't yet exist for thos esolutions to be economically viable, but I don't believe we're doing enough to further those technologies. And I think there are a lot of people in positions of power who are deliberately keeping it that way.

[Sean Rizzo]

Both of your arguments come down to how the Constitution is interpreted, though. For example, some people interpret the Second Amendment to mean that it's one's constitutional right to, say, own an RPG, or to shoot politicians you disagree with. The problem isn't in legislating based on what the Constitution says, it's in legislating based on what the those in power think it says.
In cases of morality, the fact that the constitution allows it does not mean it should be passed. And you have to look at the document as a whole. The Constitution does not, in fact, say that gay marriage should be legal. However, article one of the fourteenth amendment does state:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Proposition 8 does arguably violate this. Because it isn't specifically stated as gay marriage, it comes down to whether or not those in power wish to interpret marriage as one of the privileges listed in said article.

Basically, it isn't as simply as taking bits and pieces of the Constitution at face value. But that tends to be what happens on both sides, so instead of establishing a new amendment to clarify, we end up using technicalities back and forth to get things passed and then unpassed, and we end up with an unending cycle. People act like the Constitution is set in stone and not to be changed, when it was meant to be a living document. The founding fathers were well aware of something both parties seem to have completely forgotten: what works for people during one time period may not work for another. I hear Reagan invoked all the time by the right. Reagan's ideas worked - for the time. They weren't meant to be written in blood. Clearly. Look at how well trickle-down turned out. Even Reagan's economic advisor who came up with it acknowledges that it doesn't work. A similar situation exists with, say, Social Security. When the age requirement was set to 65 years, the life expectancy of those alive was barely that. Now, the life expectancy is through the roof, but we're basing social security on the same figures it started with.
The same thing happens with both sides, and with the Constitution. The Constitution was meant to be amended as time went on so that it would actively reflect the will of the people of the time. It wasn't meant to enforce the will of people who died three hundred years ago for all time. That's why they explicitly wrote in the ability to alter it.

Basically, as a nation, we're all horrible at adapting as time goes on and things change. We'd rather take the safe route and not change anything, but then resort to using wording and technicalities to change laws for temporary amounts of time, resulting in laws that not a majority of people but a majority of people in certain positions get to make.
A few things I don't like in here.

You can't interpret the second amendment in such a fashion because it violates the right to life. Furthermore, taking life has absolutely nil to do with the right to arms ownership. I could kill someone with my bare hands if I wanted to.

Certainly not. That's why we can amend the Constitution as well as repeal and reinstate law.

I'm not sure I agree with your position on how due process applies. The due process clause exists so that a citizen can't be denied any privileges taken from them by an unconstitutional law or unconstitutionally derived mandate or law. If the process by which a law was passed defining marriage to be exclusive to one man and one woman was constitutional, then the law stands. Because that law wouldn't violate any rights that currently exist in the Constitution, it's still constitutional, and same-sex marriages could be made criminal while still respecting due process of law, because the "process" was done correctly and constitutionally. Lastly, it doesn't violate equal protection because the law would define the criteria of marriage. Since in this case gay marriage wouldn't be state defined marriage, no legally married couple would be denied equal protection.

There's nothing wrong with that cycle. As I said, over time, if the people's morality changes, it's easier to just repeal and reinstate laws rather than propose and repeal amendments or attempt to overturn judicial usurpation.

They were aware of it. As I just stated, the law can be repealed. Furthermore, the Constitution was left almost entirely morally neutral for the very reason you listed above. That makes it so laws can be passed which appeal to the way any populace feels at any given time, rather than being tangled up in amendments. On top of that, many times these things should stay state issues in state constitutions, and should have nothing to do with the federal one. That's the beauty of federalism. If you like the way one state thinks and legislates, you can go there and still be an American citizen. The truth is that the Founders left a lot of doors open for this stuff, none of which involves the Supreme Court.

For this last bold part, you entirely forgot about initiatives. We can override our representatives that way. Legislation isn't all election-based.

[crackedthesky]

A few things I don't like in here.

You can't interpret the second amendment in such a fashion because it violates the right to life. Furthermore, taking life has absolutely nil to do with the right to arms ownership. I could kill someone with my bare hands if I wanted to.


That doesn't stop people from doing it, though. That was an extreme example, but it happens on smaller scales all the time.



Certainly not. That's why we can amend the Constitution as well as repeal and reinstate law.
I'm not sure I agree with your position on how due process applies. The due process clause exists so that a citizen can't be denied any privileges taken from them by an unconstitutional law or unconstitutionally derived mandate or law. If the process by which a law was passed defining marriage to be exclusive to one man and one woman was constitutional, then the law stands. Because that law wouldn't violate any rights that currently exist in the Constitution, it's still constitutional, and same-sex marriages could be made criminal while still respecting due process of law, because the "process" was done correctly and constitutionally.



It isn't the process under question, it's the law itself. I would argue that saying a state can't make a law that denies a life or liberty to someone would include gay marriage. Even if it didn't when it was written. It seems you're applying the part that reads "without due process of law" to the entire article. But it isn't meant that way. This is evidenced by the semicolons:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Hard to see the bolded, but that first semicolon indicates the end of a statement. The "without due process" applies only to the sentence immediately before it, otherwise the two would've been separated with a comma and not a semicolon, as evidence by the other statements contained within the pairs of semicolons.



There's nothing wrong with that cycle. As I said, over time, if the people's morality changes, it's easier to just repeal and reinstate laws rather than propose and repeal amendments or attempt to overturn judicial usurpation.


Sure it is. On a state scale. But some of these issues are federal issues, and shouldn't be restricted to particular states. Especially, in my opinion, when it comes to human rights cases.



They were aware of it. As I just stated, the law can be repealed. Furthermore, the Constitution was left almost entirely morally neutral for the very reason you listed above. That makes it so laws can be passed which appeal to the way any populace feels at any given time, rather than being tangled up in amendments. On top of that, many times these things should stay state issues in state constitutions, and should have nothing to do with the federal one. That's the beauty of federalism. If you like the way one state thinks and legislates, you can go there and still be an American citizen. The truth is that the Founders left a lot of doors open for this stuff, none of which involves the Supreme Court.

For this last bold part, you entirely forgot about initiatives. We can override our representatives that way. Legislation isn't all election-based.

I don't believe moving from state to state should be required to attain specific human rights.
I wasn't referring only to Congress, either. There's a system of balance in place that has actually done more damage than good. You have the Supreme Court, a tiny handful of people, who get to decide what's what. You also have one person, one person alone, who gets to pick that handful. Should enough people disagree with that handful, then a majority of a larger handful has the power to change it. It seems largely ineffective, to me. And anyway, it isn't "easier" in the long run. It takes the same amount of Congress to overule the Supreme Court and to add an amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court, however, adds a buffer that can essentially make it law that whatever the Constitution says doesn't matter. And the Amendment method would be even easier if we did away with this filibuster nay-nay, but that makes the back-and-forth I mentioned easier, as well.

Basically, I can't think of a good way to do things. The simple fact is, the majority of Americans aren't always right. If we listened to the majority of people all the time, not only would the civil rights movement never have happened, but we'd still have slaves. Sometimes the minority is right, and in such cases, sticking to Constitutional technicalities or even just interpretations isn't a good way to go. It's much simpler to add a Constitutinonal amendment than it is to tell people "sorry, you don't technically have the same rights your fellow Americans do, but if it makes you feel better, you can always quit your job, leave your family, and move over to Massachusettes."

Long story short, the Constitution is used, these days, far more for its technicalities than for what it's actual purpose is.

Anyway, we've gone very, very far off topic, haha. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, perhaps we should make a separate thread for it.

[Sean Rizzo]

That doesn't stop people from doing it, though. That was an extreme example, but it happens on smaller scales all the time.



It isn't the process under question, it's the law itself. I would argue that saying a state can't make a law that denies a life or liberty to someone would include gay marriage. Even if it didn't when it was written. It seems you're applying the part that reads "without due process of law" to the entire article. But it isn't meant that way. This is evidenced by the semicolons:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Hard to see the bolded, but that first semicolon indicates the end of a statement. The "without due process" applies only to the sentence immediately before it, otherwise the two would've been separated with a comma and not a semicolon, as evidence by the other statements contained within the pairs of semicolons.



Sure it is. On a state scale. But some of these issues are federal issues, and shouldn't be restricted to particular states. Especially, in my opinion, when it comes to human rights cases.



I don't believe moving from state to state should be required to attain specific human rights.
I wasn't referring only to Congress, either. There's a system of balance in place that has actually done more damage than good. You have the Supreme Court, a tiny handful of people, who get to decide what's what. You also have one person, one person alone, who gets to pick that handful. Should enough people disagree with that handful, then a majority of a larger handful has the power to change it. It seems largely ineffective, to me. And anyway, it isn't "easier" in the long run. It takes the same amount of Congress to overule the Supreme Court and to add an amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court, however, adds a buffer that can essentially make it law that whatever the Constitution says doesn't matter. And the Amendment method would be even easier if we did away with this filibuster nay-nay, but that makes the back-and-forth I mentioned easier, as well.

Basically, I can't think of a good way to do things. The simple fact is, the majority of Americans aren't always right. If we listened to the majority of people all the time, not only would the civil rights movement never have happened, but we'd still have slaves. Sometimes the minority is right, and in such cases, sticking to Constitutional technicalities or even just interpretations isn't a good way to go. It's much simpler to add a Constitutinonal amendment than it is to tell people "sorry, you don't technically have the same rights your fellow Americans do, but if it makes you feel better, you can always quit your job, leave your family, and move over to Massachusettes."

Long story short, the Constitution is used, these days, far more for its technicalities than for what it's actual purpose is.

Anyway, we've gone very, very far off topic, haha. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, perhaps we should make a separate thread for it.
Yes, this. haha. Have you got aim or msn? I'm always on both of those. and I'd rather not talk out an entire thread on this topic here when I've done so on another forum and can access it all.

[crackedthesky]

Yes, this. haha. Have you got aim or msn? I'm always on both of those. and I'd rather not talk out an entire thread on this topic here when I've done so on another forum and can access it all.

I don't have either, actually. I gave up on instand messaging long ago. You can always PM me if you want to, though. Thanks again for the discussion :D