Letters to the Editor
NapalmGod
Published Letters: 9 Editor's Choice: 4
-
A thought.
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action.
This could actually be applied to a great many things; the first to come to mind is the anti-abortion movement. They've planted bombs and shot doctors before.. Under this definition, they would inherently become terrorists.
Of course, this administration would not apply it like that. We know that because of the 2007 Austin Woman's Health Center bomb. A bomb made up of 10 pounds of gunpowder and nails was left in the parking lot, and luckily failed to explode. The bomber was sentenced to 40 years after being charged with "Attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, malicious attempt to damage a building and property by means of explosive and fire, possession of a destructive device by a convicted felon" and two counts of use and carrying of a destructive device in relation to a crime of violence.
While the "weapon of mass destruction" charge is amusing (in terms of it typically being applied to nuclear/chemical/biological devices), you should note the lack of any terrorism charge. How deeply did they probe into his contacts to ensure that he was a 'lone gunman'? Did they use wiretaps and informants? How deeply involved was he in the anti-abortion movement?
Notice that Briana Waters is facing a 40-year sentence as well (20-years for arson, with a 'terrorist-enhancement' of another 20-years). Holding a walkie-talkie in a bush during the arson of an empty building is the equivalent of attempting to blow up a woman's health clinic full of people.
From the tone of this article, it appears that the lengths they are willing to go for ecoterrorists is much farther than they will go for anti-abortionists.
-
Marriage - Some thoughts
[Read the article: A band of gold]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all.. Congrats!
Second, when I think about this, I'm not sure that the constitutional amendment can be made to retroactively dissolve your marriage. Having it declared invalid because of technical legal issues, like last time, is one thing, but retroactively canceling thousands of marriages would be interesting.
Third.. I think we're going about this wrong. "Marriage" is actually two entirely separate things. It's a religious function *and* a civil one. Right now, everybody treats them the same, but realistically, they're different. Perhaps we should be pushing to separate the two functions and remove the state from regulating the religious function of "Marriage". In other words, the state should be issuing 'civil union' licenses to anyone who wants one, while 'marriage' is done at a religious level, based on what your religion says.
Tip: Anytime someone says "Marriage is a sacrament" then they are supporting this argument. Separation of church and state should apply here.
Just my thoughts.
-ng
-
Unfair and obviously biased
[Read the article: Nuclear bomb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In fact, from 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs -- mainly materials, labor and engineering -- have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October.
$4 billion in gasoline in 2000 would cost $15 billion last October. You have discovered inflation.
Also, you leave off quite a few things that could change your equations, such as advancements in nuclear technology, which is relatively new, versus wind technology, which isn't going to have any massive leaps. Take a look at what the South Africans are doing with pebble-bed reactors. It's neat, cheap, very safe, and fairly close, I think.
The problem is that your alternatives sound good on the surface, until you get down into the details. Yes, solar can be incredibly cheap to operate. You would also have to cover about 1/3rd of Arizona to get anywhere near meeting the current energy requirements of the U.S. I would dearly love to see the environmental impact study that discusses essentially pitching a tent and blocking out the sun from the ground of 1/3rd of Arizona. Something tells me that most environmentalists would prefer drilling in Alaska.
Ohyeah.
And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy? Moore's statement is like saying "My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don't include the mortgage."
That's a cheap shot. Moore was being very clear that he was talking about the average cost of generation, and not the total cost of ownership. Eventually, the mortgage gets paid off.. Generally in 15-30 years. Design life for a nuclear reactor is probably 60-80 years, given that a bunch were built in the 70's are expected to remain in service until 2030 or so. That's 30-50 years of 1.6-cent-per-kw.
Finally (there are so many gaping flaws in this article that I'm having to limit myself), Duke isn't keeping the cost of the Carolina plant secret out of some nefarious plot. It's currently negotiating costs with contractors. Yes, when contractors hear "Duke expects to pay $X billion for the plant", they start thinking "Oh, well, I can pad this estimate a bit then.". The article expressly states Duke plans to release the estimate in 6 months after it's locked in pricing with the contractors.
I recommend you step back and re-think your approach, preferably something without as many exclamation points.