WIP

When did Jonsa become an atheist? What he describes of his beliefs in that other thread is a closer match to agnosticism or perhaps deism. I'm guessing that his notions are a little too nuanced for your liking, since your attempts to save his soul apparently failed. Actually, that's one of the few things we all agree on, so how much have you actually been paying attention here? If you know of an atheist creationist could you provide a name and a possible source? You should have noticed the things we don't agree on: what sort of values to live by, whether or not religious beliefs should be considered delusional thinking etc....if you were really reading what atheists have written you would already be aware of this, and the fact that we do agree on basic scientific consensus, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection. Well, I seen enough in the first video. I doubt anyone can put up with viewing all 7. This bimbo doesn't even grasp the basics of biology which she is trying argue about with a biologist who has researched the field for many decades of his life. She is objecting to the evidence of human origins because it conflicts with her religious beliefs and doesn't like her imagined implications that it reduces the position of man to being just another product of evolution instead of her wish of special divine creation. Well, even if there is a case that believing in evolution makes people utilitarian (as if that's a bad thing), it doesn't change the facts on the ground. The scientific evidence of human origins cannot change to match the wish-fulfillment of religionists; the evidence leads to where the evidence leads, just like a proper murder investigation. Christians who want to remain relevant in the 21st Century have to harmonize their religious beliefs with the scientific evidence, not try to make the evidence fit their notions of how it should be! I didn't find his irritations with this imbecile to be that outrageous! What were you expecting...Mr. Spock? Sure, we all have emotions, it's part of the brains basic hardwiring to receive neurochemical inputs from the amygdala; but fyi, if you want evidence that Richard Dawkins is dogmatic, you would find better evidence in his writings on religion and philosophy than his books on evolutionary theory.

And, in the end if someone wants to identify themselves as a Christian who follows the social gospel that is taught in most of the New Testament, it's not going to matter whether there are verses that contradict those teachings. It seems simple enough that we are not all intended to think the same way or find meaning from the same things in life. I noticed an article recently on Tom Rees's Epiphenomena blog: Why we are all different (and not all religious) which picks apart the notion of a god-gene, similar to his other critiques of god virus arguments. Our individual religiosity or irreligiosity may be more of a reflection on our basic psychological makeup and which belief system suits our needs best: Atheists are disagreeable and unconscientious

I want to get away from the constant drumbeat of abortion for a moment to mention an author who caught my interest when I listened to a podcast interview of him on the Dallas NPR station - KERA. On the podcast page of the program "Think", click the header "How Biology Explains Warfare & Terrorism," to hear the interview with Dr. Malcolm Potts, one of the authors of the book "Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World.". Dr. Potts observed a lot of the worst evil that can be done while serving as a physician for Doctors Without Borders. With his non-medical training as as a research biologist, he has come to the conclusion that the worst evil is committed by "team aggression" - where small groups of young males band together to commit acts of aggression. This is a primal behaviour that has existed right from hunter/gatherer times, and likely even pre-existed our branching off into modern humans, since team aggression is also observed in our closest primate relatives - the chimpanzees. Dr. Pott's observations are that this behaviour may come from primal urges, but that doesn't make it inevitable. Young men who have good family relationships and have a sense of purpose in their lives are not the ones who end up in street gangs. Reducing real evil is more of a matter of channeling young boys towards productive lives, rather than the direction many fear their energies will be directed towards....as cannon fodder for those who need armies to go off and fight wars....which of course are where we find the worst examples of evil and barbarism!

And if a liberal position on sexuality that promotes the teaching of birth control information leads to societies that have fewer teen pregnancies, lower STD rates, and even fewer abortions than the conservative abstinence-only states (which they do btw) then what does that tell you about the wisdom of trying to force rigid rules and standards of behaviour on people? I could also show you stats that consistently demonstrate that the most religious states have the highest divorce rates, and liberal states like Massachusetts have the lowest! If a standard, such as expecting horny teenagers to behave like priests and nuns until they get married in their mid-twenties, is unattainable for the vast majority of people, it may as well not be there and is apparently a source of harm in itself. There was a recent study which identified Utah as the state with the highest consumption rates of internet porn pay sites. I'm thinking that all of the bottled up obsession created by sexual abstinence demands has a little something to do with their high porn consumption. A more relaxed attitude about sex would be more helpful. Here's the situation! Back in the 70's, there were a number of U.N. agencies that were successfully distributing birth control information in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Since that time, the Catholic Church, along with Muslim nations and U.S. Republican administrations teamed up to make efforts to defund these NGO's and push them out of many countries where they were operating. And in many third world countries, this has caused a rebound to higher birth rates that had been dropping for many years. If we take one egregious example that the Catholic Church is responsible for: The Philippines...where the population has doubled in the last 30 years, they are already in a situation where one quarter of the adult population is working outside of the country most of the year to support their families back home. Even at that, they are within 20 years of reaching a point where they cannot feed their population. If the Philippines finds itself in a situation of mass starvation and a dying off of large numbers of people, how culpable is the Catholic Church because of their fight against birth control? What sense does it make to be worked up about the possibility that fertilized eggs do not reach human potential, when existing people are given a death sentence because of overpopulation? These are simply ethical rules that increase misery and suffering, rather than provide anything of benefit. Except that, unlike the anti-abortion lobby, the anti-smoking campaign never sought to ban smoking...just to keep minors from buying the product, and to keep non-smokers from having to put themselves at the same health risk as smokers....so screw whatever private property rights some smokers feel they have lost! I couldn't even ban smoking within my own family....since my wife secretly took up the habit for god-knows-why back when we started living together many years ago. Even though smoking has contributed to her present health problems, she has kept going back to it after every attempt to quit, and every warning from her doctor....so what can I do...aside from say 'take it outside...which is the point of the anti-smoking rules, not banning and criminalizing the product!

Canada is not likely to be the optimal location for solar power arrays...wind farms are a more viable option; but there's no reason why areas like the American Southwest can't supply enough energy from solar panels, giving their location and the number of cloud-free days per year. Another issue that needs to be considered on this thread is whether it is even desirable to try to maintain high rates of energy usage we have become accustomed to because of globalization and economies based on continual growth. Global warming plus the fact that we will soon pass peak oil production levels can provide an incentive to fixing alot of what's wrong with modern societies. A move from globalization to re-localization could improve the quality of life for most people, and do it with less energy and consumption of natural resources.

Righwing blinders enable the individual conservative to ignore any progress made in the development of renewable energy sources, and keep a steady focus on oil, gas, coal, and ofcourse nuclear power; meanwhile....Stanford researchers develop new technology for cheaper, more efficient solar cells Applying an organic layer less than a nanometer thick improves the efficiency of certain solar cells threefold. The technology could lead to cheaper, more efficient solar panels.

I'm wondering why the Palin cheerleaders are so quiet all of a sudden, now that she is being thrown under the bus by top Republican power brokers?

Are there really that many people here who have a stake in the nuclear power industry? Or are they paying bloggers and forum commenters to advance their propaganda like the oil-funded lobby groups have been accused of doing? I'm noticing many articles such as the following, which highlight the malfeasance of the Japanese nuclear industry, that is only becoming a big story now because of the disaster: Bungling, cover-ups define Japanese nuclear power (AP) – 2 days ago TOKYO (AP) — Behind Japan's escalating nuclear crisis sits a scandal-ridden energy industry in a comfy relationship with government regulators often willing to overlook safety lapses. Leaks of radioactive steam and workers contaminated with radiation are just part of the disturbing catalog of accidents that have occurred over the years and been belatedly reported to the public, if at all. In one case, workers hand-mixed uranium in stainless steel buckets, instead of processing by machine, so the fuel could be reused, exposing hundreds of workers to radiation. Two later died. "Everything is a secret," said Kei Sugaoka, a former nuclear power plant engineer in Japan who now lives in California. "There's not enough transparency in the industry." ...............The legacy of scandals and cover-ups over Japan's half-century reliance on nuclear power has strained its credibility with the public. That mistrust has been renewed this past week with the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant. No evidence has emerged of officials hiding information in this catastrophe. But the vagueness and scarcity of details offered by the government and Tepco — and news that seems to grow worse each day — are fueling public anger and frustration. ................The United States, Japan's close ally, has also raised questions about the coziness between Japanese regulators and industry and implicitly questioned Tokyo's forthrightness over the Fukushima crisis. The director of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. ambassador this week issued bleaker assessments about the dangers at the plant than the Japanese government or Tepco. Competence and transparency issues aside, some say it's just too dangerous to build nuclear plants in an earthquake-prone nation like Japan, where land can liquefy during a major temblor. "You're building on a heap of tofu," said Philip White of Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, a group of scientists and activists who have opposed nuclear power since 1975. — At least 37 workers were exposed to low doses of radiation at a 1997 fire and explosion at a nuclear reprocessing plant operated in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo. The operator, Donen, later acknowledged it had initially suppressed information about the fire. — Hundreds of people were exposed to radiation and thousands evacuated in the more serious 1999 Tokaimura accident involving JCO Co. The government assigned the accident a level 4 rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 7 being most serious. — In 2007, a powerful earthquake ripped into Japan's northwest coast, killing at least eight people and causing malfunctions at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant, including radioactive water spills, burst pipes and fires. Radiation did not leak from the facility. Tepco has safety violations that stretch back decades. In 1978, control rods at one Fukushima reactor dislodged but the accident was not reported because utilities were not required to notify the government of such accidents. In 2006, Tepco reported a negligible amount of radioactive steam seeped from the Fukushima plant — and blew beyond the compound. Tanaka says that, true to Japan's dismal nuclear power record, officials bungled the latest crisis, failing to set up a special crisis team and appoint credible outside experts. Associated Press writers Joji Sakurai and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

No, I've had it up to here with all of the rightwing talk of the virtues of competition, self-interest, exploitation and consumption over the last 30 years. Cooperation is also a virtue, and one that is badly needed to counteract the elevation of selfishness as a virtue. And, on that specific point of whether someone is going to be motivated by greed to build windmills...sure they will, if there's big money to be made in building windmills and solar panels, but the point you are missing is that the greed I am talking about is greed that puts selfish, short-term financial interests above all else! The Wall Street ponzi schemers didn't care what the long term effects of repackaging risky mortgages as secure mortgage securities were...they were just interested in creating CDO's and collecting the highest commissions...making a fast buck before everything collapsed around them; B.P.'s top executives knew that deep sea drilling operations were risky, but they insisted on taking high risk shortcuts to get the well into production as soon as possible; and on the grander scale, BP, Exxon, and other oil and coal companies decided 15 to 20 years ago to start a massive disinformation and propaganda campaign to prevent any effective government action to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions...here again, men who are motivated solely by the short term accumulation of vast wealth have decided to play russian roulette with the future of civilization...so, why should we be surprised that the builders and operators of nuclear power stations take risky shortcuts to save money and maximize profits? No, nuclear was not the only option for Japan! Japan’s wind farms save its ass while nuclear plants founder While Japan's water-dependent nuclear power plants suck and wheeze and spew radioactive steam, "there has been no wind facility damage reported by any [Japan Wind Energy Association] members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami," says association head Yoshinori Ueda. Even the country's totally badass Kamisu offshore wind farm, with its giant 2 MW turbines with blades big as the wings on a jumbo jet, and only 186 miles from the epicenter of the largest quake ever recorded in Japan, survived without a hiccup thanks to its "battle proof design." As a result, the nation's electric companies have asked all of its wind farms to increase power production to maximum, in order to make up for the shortfalls brought about by the failure of certain other aging, non-resilient 20th-century technologies

We are learning that Canada's nuclear industry is a financial boondoggle, since the Conservative Government has been unable to sell the Crown corporation -- AECL, largely because they haven't made a sale in ten years, and cost Canadian taxpayers close to a billion dollars last year CBC news, but when it comes to getting information about near accidents and radiation leaks, there doesn't seem to be the network of outside watchdog groups sifting through available information like there is in the U.S. and some other countries. Which might be an argument supporting the premise that small-scale nuclear reactors are safer than the behemoths that power large generating stations. Still, all it takes is one accident, and it's potentially a major hazard..depending on where the sub or aircraft carrier is located.

When it's all said and done, the nuclear power industry is a government subsidized game of russian roulette! I don't know what the numbers are in Canada, but apparently in the U.S. nuclear power utilities are only required to carry 12 billion dollars worth of insurance against possible liabilities for damage. A U.S. nuclear plant located near an earthquake fault line such as Diablo Canyon in California, or the worst apparently - the Indian Point Nuclear Station close to the New York Metropolitan area would cause billions of dollars worth of damage if there was a meltdown. The chance of a core damage from a quake at Indian Point 3 is estimated at 1 in 10,000 each year. Under NRC guidelines, that's right on the verge of requiring "immediate concern regarding adequate protection" of the public. What are the odds? US nuke plants ranked by quake risk So much for San Andreas: Reactors in East, Midwest, South have highest chance of damage So, what were the odds that Japan was going to get hit by a category 9.0 earthquake? I think the problem here is that we are seeing the same players motivated solely by greed, who act with careless and reckless disregard for risks that we saw in the deregulated financial meltdown on Wall Street two years ago, and the rush to war in Iraq with carefree abandon. This notion that the only alternative to coal and oil is to go nuclear, is a false choice provided by large corporate players who want to make sure that any post-oil economy has to depend on large institutional sources of power. The so called "nuclear revival" that has been claimed in recent years wouldn't even exist without government-backed loans and guarantees of limited liability before construction can start on a new nuclear facility.

I've been away for a few days, so I haven't had time to check all of the posts over the last 6 or 7 pages, but this looks like a good place to jump in because the timeline of information released by the Japanese Government, and the media coverage over here (except for Rachel Maddow) has consistently chosen the minimum estimates of present and future risks when making their assessments of the situation. Japan nuclear crisis: Timeline of official statements Your assessment of how much radiation has spread in the region around the plant is disputed by nuclear critics in Japan who point out the incestuous relationship between governments and mega-corporations...not much different than here I suppose...but the point is that there are no independent agencies allowed to monitor radiation or evaluate risk levels. Not much was said when the U.S. Navy rushed their carrier fleet away from the coast a few days ago, but obviously they were picking up radiation readings that were much more severe than the Japanese Government was claiming. Also, the effects of radiation on people and the environment depend on radiation level X the length of exposure. The radiation levels in the area around the plant, and outside of the danger zone are going to increase since radiation will keep leaking from the damaged reactors and spent fuel containment ponds until the place can be entombed in sand and concrete - just like Chernobyl. Yeah, will see about that! This is what they've been claiming all along, but as of the present time, it's still not known whether cooling systems can be re-established. From what I've read, these reactors at this plant are larger and contain more fuel rods than the Chernobyl reactor that exploded; and independent nuclear experts indicate that there is no way of knowing beforehand what the force of such an explosion will be. In other words, it was possible that Chernobyl could have been worse than it actually was.

Looks like Republicans have to apologize to Palin now! Former McCain Campaign Chief: Sarah Palin Made 'Short List' Because Of Gender Palin 'becoming Al Sharpton'?

Okay, call it 'acting like the men who dominate the corporate hierarchy' then. So what does it mean to act like a CEO? I've heard it mentioned more than a few times that women in management feel expected to appear tough and aggressive, but fear being called bitches for doing so. A male boss may be able to get away with showing a sign of weakness more than a woman can. I just had a thought about that drunken asshole John Boehner, who became the leader of the House of Reps, and how he cries over everything, every time he gets up to make a speech. It may have a lot to do with being a booze hound, but even though he has been the butt of jokes lately, what would have happened if former House Leader Nancy Pelosi acted like this fool? I can't recall hearing about her crying over anything in public, and the first occasion would have likely ended her career.

Well, evidence so far seems to indicate that Japanese Government officials have minimized the dangers since problems started on Friday, so how do we take their word now that the problem is manageable? Latest news is not encouraging. Latest report carried on CTVNews: Japan ordered emergency workers to withdraw from its stricken nuclear plant Wednesday amid a surge in radiation, temporarily suspending efforts to cool the overheating reactors. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the workers, who have been dousing the reactors with seawater in a frantic effort to stabilize their temperatures, had no choice but to pull back from the most dangerous areas. "The workers cannot carry out even minimal work at the plant now," Edano said, as smoke billowed above the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex. "Because of the radiation risk we are on standby." So, what are they saying here? Throw in the towel! How bad will it get if they can't do anything to cool the reactors?

I'm not a financial expert, but it seems to me that governments end up paying the majority of the costs of major disasters. Until there is some idea of the scope of this nuclear crisis, there is no way to tally up the costs yet.

One difference though, is that the U.S. was in a much better financial situation 15 years ago than they are today. Clinton turned in a couple of balanced budgets around that time, the Cold War was over, and there were no major military ventures equivalent to the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, with the U.S. national debt growing, and no apparent serious attempts to deal with the major expenditures, a major sale of U.S. debt by Japan would raise the cost of borrowing, and then it's worth asking whether a big sale by Japan could prompt China and other major investors to start reducing their holdings.

I was away for awhile, and you seem to have stolen my thunder re: Moonbox's comment. I'm not going to pretend that I am not also swayed by a woman's appearance, but at some point, especially regarding serious issues, we men need to use the higher levels of our brains to do our decision-making, rather than the primal, impulse driven regions that surround the brain stem. And, needless to say, the same standard that Moonbox tries to apply here regarding Elizabeth May's imagined level of health and fitness is not applied to male politicians or media pundits....otherwise conservatives wouldn't be getting all of their talking points from fat bastards like Chris Christy, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, judging from who wrote the OP, but a shifting of the continental plates has nothing to do with divine judgment. And making stupid, uninformed comments about how they are suffering divine judgment now because of their pride and greed is in bad taste, and likely racist as well! But, as for whether this is the end of an empire...well first of all, Japan lost their empire in 1945 and became absorbed into the U.S. Empire; and what we are now learning, is that just as with the oil industry, people who have large financial stakes in an industry cannot be trusted to manage it safely without effective GOVERNMENT oversight! Reuters is now carrying a story that some bloggers had picked up from RT last night, quoting Russian nuclear specialist Iouli Andreev on the lessons that should have been learned (but weren't) after Chernoby. Andreev sees the primary fault as putting money ahead of public safety, and blames both the Japanese Government for not standing up to the industry, and surprisingly also - the IAEA, which he declares is also co-opted by the nuclear industry, and is not a neutral governing body as it portrays itself. Cost-cutting took precedence over safety in decisions such as storing spent fuel rods next to reactor buildings was one of those mistakes, since we now learn that one of the fires occurred when spent fuel rods in a basin, were exposed to the air after one of the containment buildings exploded and evaporated the water where the rods were kept. Next question: can we trust the government public safety reports on the nuclear power industry here not to be doing similar high risk strategies? Nuclear power stations are located near large bodies of water such as lakes and rivers, because of the high volume of water needed for cooling reactors. A meltdown almost guarantees that nearby waters will be contaminated....as we will learn about soon from Japan. Also, many nuclear power stations have been built near earthquake fault lines, so how safe are nuclear stations in North America in the event of an earthquake? Unfortunately, there's only one way to find out. When it comes to the economic fallout of this disaster, I will be interested to see what Japan decides to do in the coming weeks to cover the billions of dollars in costs to deal with this disaster. Japan is the 2nd largest holder of U.S. government debt after China; if they decide to sell billions of dollars worth of T-bills to keep their economy afloat, where would that leave the U.S. Dollar? I'm willing to bet right now, that this is the primary concern of the U.S. Government.

I could care less if Elizabeth May wore a potato sack! The problem with you conservatives is on parade the way you fawn and lust over your favourite MILF - Sarah Palin. Do you want someone in politics who actually knows what they are talking about, or someone who can look good on camera reading her hand notes? And as for the debate...if May was rude, too bad; Harper was a total liar throughout the debate as we have seen with his actions in government since then.

How secure are those rights such as access to abortion in Canada...if you've been watching what conservatives have done in the U.S. by any chance? Women may make up half the electorate in theory, but women do not turn out to vote as often as men, even among the under 30's, where voter turnout is falling off the cliff -- Examining Declining Voter Turnout Among Canada's Youth Yesterday, when I listened to a podcast edition of The Current episode, one of the points a CBC executive made was that CBC's main political discussion show - Power and Politics, only has a 20% female audience. So, the anecdotal experiences that many men feel...that women aren't interested in politics...seems to have some basis in fact. If there are relatively few female political office holders, politics is seen as a male thing at a subconscious level, if not an actual belief. So, one way to remedy the gap would be to force the backroom players in politics to go out there and get more women as candidates for elected office. When it comes to the youth gap...that's a whole nother problem entirely. Even a lot of us who are older, are disillusioned and frustrated with the political process, so I can't blame the under 30's for seeing it as a waste of an afternoon or evening to go the polls. Women in management are expected to act like men, so it should come as no surprise that ambitious Carly Fiorina - types decide that they have to be twice as ruthless as men to rise to the ranks of CEO.

These "choices" may explain part of the reason for wage gaps, but it doesn't tell the whole story. I can see no.1 being a factor to some extent; but since my workplace went co-ed about 20 years ago, there seem to be plenty of young women who will take a dirty job that pays better than the usual female occupations. But no.2 - biology - is exactly why a decent system of childcare is necessary. If something as basic as the fact that women have the babies...isn't part of the calculus, then that's as far as progress will go towards becoming an equal society. I noticed from a quick look around link link that some basic factors that are hard to quantify - like the tendency for men to be more aggressive than women - are likely a big part of the reason why young female university graduates are working for 20% less money than men with the same education. If men tend to be more assertive, and more aggressive in their demands, they may either get fired, or actually get what they want...squeaky wheel gets the grease etc.. Of course this sort of dynamic can play out during times of low unemployment; in the last couple of years it's hard to see relatively inexperienced 20 somethings barging into the boss's office demanding more money!

Seems like the fascists are having a big celebration over the further crippling of public broadcasting in the United States. For the record, the defunding of public broadcasting in the U.S. is not only a hit against PBS and NPR (the only radio worth listening to there), it is also going to threaten the survival of small community access broadcasters...so we can see this as nothing more than another naked attempt to stifle non-corporate speech in the US of A. From what I heard last night about this ugly piece of shit's latest hit piece, NPR rejected the bogus Muslims' bogus contribution, but the comments by the CEO about the tea party clowns got him suspended. And the woman who was supposed to be taking over the job of CEO, has also resigned. So, why would they capitulate when O'Keefe's mission was a fail? My guess is that as public funding has declined, PBS, NPR, PRI etc. are even more dependent on corporate donors than before. The U.S. hasn't had a real public broadcaster since Newt Gingrich tried to cut off all funding 20 years ago. There were likely a few phone calls from reps of big money donors after that story became public, and that's why the leadership has been forced to capitulate.....which NPR had already done in their news coverage a long time ago!

Right! The Saudis are not upping production to keep prices stable because they can't do it anymore. A local blogger in Hamilton - Ryan McGreal, has posted several articles on oil and gas prices over the last year - Raise The Hammer - and shows us that, because of continued demand, the supply curve becomes inelastic as soon as the price per barrel goes past the mid $80.00's. That sudden inelastic supply curve is a tell-tale sign that supply can't match the demand. All of the whining about OPEC and gouging and price fixing is useless chatter -- the crucial issue is something that many oil industry analysts have been trying to tell the public for the last 10 years -- the high grade, easily accessible oil is running out, and the crap that replaces it to keep an oil-based economy going is more expensive to access and produce, so all of you who kowtow to the Oil Lobby STFU and take your medicine!