Local Posts #29 (Part Two)

2009-8-8 03:19:00

[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog. These exchanges were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]

  

July 21, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Suppose I made a statement from my perspective using Sotomayor's mindset. Could I even get elected to dogcatcher?

Take a look:

"I would hope that a wise white guy like myself with the richness of my experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a non white female who hasn't lived that life."

  

July 21, 2009 -- Post #2

"ConservoDem" wrote:

"Judge Sotomayor will become Justice Sotomayor by a wide margin (as she should). People who believe the rightwingnut lies about her are just too partisan or to lazy to seek the truth."

JJ:

Where are the lies except in your fertile imagination?

Are you making a feeble attempt to say that the following quote from her was made up by Republicans?

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I have news for you. These are her actual words. No one has to lie.

  

July 21, 2009 -- Post #3

JJ:

"Grandjester" and others regurgitates words like "Faux Noize," [Fox News], Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc., as if they have an uncontrollable Tourette's Syndrome.

What is it about these outlets that cause the Tasmanian Devil reaction from these folks? Why is it that they immediately reject anything from them as being false even though their facts are more reliable than NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

I'll tell you why.

It is because they do the job reporters did in the old days and give both sides of the issues. In giving both sides they reveal facts that are not reported and swept under the rug by the other media.

Their bellyaching is not because data is not correct but because it does it agree with their preconceived notions. Unfortunately most of these haters would trash the First Amendment if they could silence them.

  

July 21, 2009 -- Post #4

"Run" says:

"Joseph, since you're hellbent on perpetuating the misunderstandings of her comments and ignoring what she [Justice Sotomayor] goes on to say, how about actually reading the text? Make sure you get all the way to the part where she says, 'I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions, and perspectives...'"

JJ:

And what misunderstanding have I perpetuated except one in your imagination?

Her [Justice Sotomayor] whole speech was about race with emphasis on the virtues of being Latino and how their thinking will help, not Americans, but Latinos.

Right after that quote you took out of context she said:

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

I do not recall the Supreme Court telling judges their prejudices are "appropriate."

  

July 22, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

I tried to look up the article in question by Wayne Hoffman and it appears that the [Idaho] Statesman does not archive any of Hoffman's articles. I wonder why that is.

Unfortunately I cannot look up the article to see if Mr. English is justified in being in such a tizzy.

If I remember right Hoffman was complaining that the Shakespeare Festival [here is Boise, ID] should not have been first on the list for stimulus funds. Why that would be hateful I do not know as they charge a reasonable amount to attend and should be fairly self-sufficient.

It always amazes me how intolerant the Left is of an opinion not in complete harmony with their own. Fortunately, the Right is not as bad. If they were there would be ten times as much complaining because the Left permeates the media with their own attacks.

  

July 22, 2009 -- Post #2

"Grandjester" wrote:

"Wayne, Atilla, Joseph... All again show gross ignorance of history, without the state most of the great art of humanity simply would not exist. The Greeks built Amphitheaters, the Papal state gave us the works of Michelangelo, the French gave us the Statue of Liberty, here in the US the list is endless, with dirty New Deal "Stimulus" dollars helping to pay for Mt. Rushmore and thousands of other projects. "The wonders of the world, the great works of art and music, would be but a minuscule shadow of what we now enjoy if enlightened cultures and heads of state did not sponsor them. I, for one, would not want to live in such a world."

JJ:

Wow! You would not want to love in a world that does not fund art through Right Wing religious extremists in the church as happened with Michelangelo? That's kind of a surprise coming from you.

Also the French were not part of the U.S. government.

The Romans built amphitheaters as we understand them today, not the Greeks.

http://qanda.encyclopedia.com/question/built-first-amphitheaters-79626.html

Mount Rushmore was a good investment because it has paid for itself several times over.

Creating a work of art in stone that will last centuries and pay for itself has lasting value whereas channeling funding to entertainment (as if we do not have enough choices) is usually not necessary as good entertainment can charge the public and pay for itself. In ancient times the production of plays were the equivalent of modern day Hollywood.

I enjoy going to the Shakespeare Festival productions [in Boise, ID] and would be willing to pay more if that's what is needed to keep them going.

  

July 22, 2009 -- Post #3

JJ:

To "Grandjester";

I have no problem with the government assisting in projects that make sense, but channeling money to the arts and entertaining that should be self sustaining makes no sense when people are hurting so much through unemployment.

A thousand years from now the great entertainment art of our time will not be the Shakespeare theater, but the Beatles, Star Wars and Star Trek. None of these were financed by the government.

  

July 23, 2009 -- Post #1

"DrPeterRickardsDPM" wrote:

"95% of the plutonium remains in this flood zone, over our water...."

JJ:

That sounds so scary to those who know nothing about nuclear energy. A little knowledge should dispel some unfounded fears:

We have low levels of natural radiation all around us and many believe that low-level radiation is actually good for us.

  

July 23, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

The headline reads:

"Cycles Of Greed Have Led To Our Financial Mess"

I have news. There is no such thing as cycles of greed. Greed is a constant factor in human nature. Any change in the amount of greed in human nature occurs as an evolutionary factor over thousands of years.

To blame any financial problem on a cycle of greed is nonsense. There are only cycles of opportunity to manifest greed caused by thoughtless policies promoted by unthinking politicians.

Do you think that offering loans with nothing down or money back will bring out borrowers that cannot pay the loan back?

Of course. But this has nothing to do with a cycle of greed, just a cycle of stupidity.

  

July 23, 2009 -- Post #3

"DrPeterRickardsDPM" wrote:

"Hi Joseph, you must get your 'information' on plutonium from lobbyists like Butch or Andrus or Gillispie! RE: 'so any particles entering water sink.' WRONG!

"http://www.aps.anl.gov/Science/Highlights/Content/APS_SCIENCE_20080424B.php

"'Scientists Discover How Nanocluster Contaminants Increase Risk of Spreading APRIL 24, 2008- For almost half a century, scientists have struggled with plutonium contamination spreading further in groundwater than expected, increasing the risk of sickness in humans and animals. SNIP Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Notre Dame, used high-energy x-ray beams from the X-ray Operations and Research/BESSRC 11-ID-B beamline at the Argonne Advanced Photon Source to finally discover and study the structure of plutonium nanoclusters. [snip] Our current understanding has been based on the free-plutonium ion, creating discrepancies between what is expected and what is reality.'"

JJ:

Anything considered large enough to compose a particle would sink. The tiny nanoclusters you mention as well as plutonium ions can get mixed in with sediments. The ions are constantly filtered out of water by rock and plant life.

Your article does not say how prevalent the nanoclusters are so without that knowledge one cannot say they create a problem.

99.99% of plutonium that does get ingested through drinking is excreted in a few days so overall its toxicity is not any more than drinking coffee.

Plutonium breathed in through dust in the air is 5000 times more dangerous than drinking it, but even I cannot find any consumer death attributed to this.

The bottom line here is that it is ridiculous to be sweating over global warming destroying life as we know it when we have a very safe solution to CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions -- nuclear energy.

  

July 23, 2009 -- Post #4

Peter writes:

"The DOE, and science textbooks claimed plutonium is an actinide, that binds to clay, and thus never moves with water. Dr Kersting discovered that the plutonium particles indeed bound to clay, but broke off in submicron particles, light enough to float with the slow moving desert aquifer! The particles moved one mile in 30 years! Previously declared 'impossible'!"

JJ:

I do not recall in any of my studies (which includes nothing from the Governor) which says it is impossible for a few atoms to break off and move with colloidal particles. Of course, you reveal no documentation of the percentage of plutonium that is moved in water this way which I suspect to be inconsequential.

I never see any evidence from anti nuclear people of anything that poses any real danger. All I see is alarm over an infinitesimal amount of radiation that poses an infinitesimal threat.

  

July 23, 2009 -- Post #5

Peter:

"Joseph, RE: Your claim 'of course, you reveal no documentation of the percentage of plutonium that is moved in water this way which I suspect to be inconsequential.' Well, Joe, the exact percent that will move as a colloid is still unknown, and appears to change with different water chemistries, site to site. The plutonium 'clean up' plans state the worst case scenario is bad, but chose to continue believing 'plutonium will bind with the clay and not move.'"

JJ:

As I understand it the cleanup you are talking about is from nuclear testing which is quite a different animal than nuclear power plants.

I do not see any data that indicates that the colloidal particles are prevalent enough to cause any danger. If you could supply anything I'd be happy to look at it.

"Run":

"Don't bother, Peter. Joseph has told me that he doesn't take any data from a government agency (in my case, NOAA and NASA) seriously because of the potential for 'rogue' scientists fabricating data. He'll find something to nitpick about with any DOE data. He's a loon."

JJ:

Looking in the mirror again, I see. I haven't said anything close to what you accuse. Why are you fabricating a belief I do not share? I've never rejected anything from NASA or NOAA.

  

-- End Of Part Two --

  

Go To:

Next article in series:  Local Posts #30, Part One
Previous article in series:  Local Posts #29, Part One