2009-8-5 03:55:00
[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.]
JJ:
These anti nuclear people remind me of the "Luddites" of old who were against progress or perhaps those who think the earth is 6000 years old.
The amount of radiation one would get from plutonium contamination of the aquifer is less dangerous than the radiation from the dial of your watch.
Bernard Cohen, one of the most highly acclaimed nuclear scientists in the world (also a Democrat), tells us that pound for pound plutonium is no more toxic than caffeine and was so confident of this he challenged Ralph Nader [American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, and candidate for President of the United States as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008, and a Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000] to a duel. Nader would consume caffeine and Cohen would ingest pure plutonium. He claimed that he could consume more plutonium by weight than Nader could caffeine. The reason is its half life is a long one making the radiation level low.
JJ:
When I saw the headline of Tom's letter I thought it must be from some lefty because they seem to love to complain about hate from the Right. However, they have a different idea than the Right as to what hate is. They think that if someone does not tow the orthodox line or disagrees with them that they must be haters.
As I looked at the headline I also thought, "If this is some lefty complaining about hate then he is not looking around at his own kind for the Left are the ones that spews forth the real venom." Even on this forum you see much more name calling and attacks from the Left than from the Right.
I was therefore pleased to see the first letter I have seen from the Right in the Statesman justifiably complaining about hate from the Left. About time. Maybe it will make a few of them think. Maybe not.
"Boiseriver" wrote:
"One person's hate is another person's criticism."
JJ:
No necessarily. As a whole the Right does not hate anyone for mere criticism or discourse. This comes almost exclusively from the Left. Evidence abounds even in today's letters where "Camerafan" accused O'Reilly, Rush and Hannity of hate when they do not hate at all, but merely express opposing opinions. To "Camerafan" and many other of the Left an opinion that does not agree with the mainstream liberal view is pure hate.
I have never seen one example of hate actually quoted from these three men, though O'Reilly does lose his temper about once every three years.
The Left thinks that if you disagree with them you hate gays, minorities, and liberals in general. Rush was dating a liberal anchor from CNN a while back and has trusted an African American screen all his calls for 20 years so he obviously does not fit the mold the Left has attempted to make for him.
"Grandjester":
"Which side is gunning down people in churches?
"Not the Left."
JJ:
Typical assumption by a lefty that this guy was right wing. His name was Terry J. Sedlacek and the media does not identify him as a right or left winger which usually means he is a lefty. He was not a member of the church he shot up.
As evidence of his possible left leaning the news reported that he shot the pastor's Bible into confetti before he shot the Pastor.
Who hates the Bible that much? Not the Right.
JJ:
Mr. Faddis says we pay twice as much for healthcare as anywhere else in the world. And who's fault is that? Before the government tried so hard to help us out, the costs were very reasonable. In 1958 my hospital room for a month's stay was $8 a day and I paid off a good portion of the medical bills by mowing lawns. My mother paid the rest working for near minimum wage.
A while back Dr. John Muney of New York attempted to bypass the government's "help" and offered his patients unlimited health care including in house surgery for $79 a month plus $10 per visit. It wasn't long before he had thousands of patients and was making excellent money while giving affordable service.
Then the good ole helpful government stepped in and told him he wasn't charging enough to include all his services. To stay in business Muney then had to charge his patients additional money.
Obama now wants to step in with government assistance to reduce costs. All I can say is watch out!
JJ:
Then Faddis says: "Surveys show that over 70 percent support a public system that will allow almost everyone to be able to afford good health care."
Not "surveys" plural but a survey by the New York Times wherein only 25% of respondents said they voted for [US Senator] McCain. They insisted their poll was fair because many people cannot remember who they voted for. The only people I know that are confused about who they voted for were Democrats in Florida who weren't sure if they voted for [American conservative political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, politician and broadcaster] Buchanan or [Al] Gore. I can't find any record of a Republican being confused about his vote.
The Washington Post, an equally liberal paper, showed some interesting results in their recent poll: Only 37% would favor national healthcare if it meant that some insurers would go out of business and the majority were concerned that Obama's reforms would lead to higher costs. The majority are justified in their concern.
Mr. Slack writes:
"We are a doomed nation because we allow corporations to control Congress, destroy the environment, exploit workers here, overseas and those that are coming in."
JJ:
He has this backwards. It is Congress that is controlling corporations and business of all kinds, not business controlling Congress.
It would be nice if business had more say in legislation as then we would have better tax breaks and we would not be doing this outrageous stimulus spending and going trillions in debt. Every successful business has enough common sense to know you cannot borrow your way to wealth.
Right now left wing groups are controlling Congress much more than business is.
We could pick any successful business at random and if we turned the country over to them we would get better results than we are getting now.
"ConservoDem":
"73.2" (JJ), I knew you were not too bright, but I never would have predicted this level of stupidity.
"Anyone who cannot see that the US gov't is a corporate owned organization would probably believe that burning fossil fuels doesn't increase atmospheric CO2."
JJ:
Anyone who thinks that the business world as a whole is happy with the Obama administration has to believe in the tooth fairy. Al Gore's business is one of the few that is gleeful.
I don't think anyone is saying that burning fossil fuels doesn't increase carbon dioxide (C02), certainly not I.
The only way your sad ego can tell itself it is getting the best of me is to attack me on something I did not say and that which I do not believe.
The article you suggested has some contradictions. On one hand, a source says nuclear energy is not a solution and then "Lovelock" criticizes environmentalists for being in the stone age for rejecting it. I'll go with "Lovelock" on that issue.
"Skepticplease" wrote:
"The National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and every single other science-based source I have checked states categorically that the evidence is in and conclusively points to temperature rising as a result of increased carbon dioxide which is due significantly to human activities."
JJ:
The first problem is the atmospheric temperatures have not risen since 1998 and the ocean temperatures which account for 80% of global warming has cooled since 2003 when they placed enough monitors to take accurate temperature readings.
So how scientific is it to conclude that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the warming when it is cooling?
Also I have never seen a scientific explanation as to why it cooled from 1940-1978 during the first great surge of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the planet.
While it is a scientific fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) causes some greenhouse effect, how much that effect is on the planet has never been proven.
-- End Of Part One --
Go To:
Next article in series: Local Posts #28, Part Two
Previous article in series: Local Posts #27, Part One
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved