In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy.
Last I checked, the "divisive partisan rancor" present in Congress actually does "weaken our democracy" because it shifts the focus on issues from ones of importance to ones of high visibility. Case in point: in the middle of a war, an energy and economic crisis, and a massive loss of faith in the practices of the Federal government, legislators found the issue of whether gays could marry sufficiently important to halt all other matters and consider writing discrimination into the constitution. Aren't those other issues more important? I sure as Hell think so, and I am a gay man who wishes to marry soon.

Well, I cant do that because partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracys weakness, but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative.
Talk about a complete lack of understanding for the nature of partisanship. Properly understood, partisanship reflects a growing divisiveness in government over superficial issues such as who proposed what and for what reason, rather than what the proposal actually means and how, if ever, it should be implemented. It also encourages moral legislation rather than rational legislation, or legislation which makes sense outside the context of the personal values of one or more people. Do you still think moral legislation is valid? Consider for a moment that your morals come largely by inheritance, and their popularity comes by simple dissemination rather than their intrinsic value. Now imagine that history had occurred differently and your moral compass places you in the minority. Are you still comfortable with having someone legislate your rights away without being able to give you a good reason for it? I thought not.

Liberalism, after all, whatever you may think of its merits, is a political philosophy and a proud one with a great tradition in this country, with a voracious appetite for growth. In any place or any time on any issue, what does liberalism ever seek, Mr. Speaker? More. More government, more taxation, more control over peoples lives and decisions and wallets.
Really? Last I checked, liberals weren't trying to legislate my rights away by banning marriage between two men. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones voting for the DMCA. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones trying to support telecom companies in surcharging Internet access. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones trying to pass censorship laws. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones passing the USA PATRIOTS Act. Last I checked, liberals weren't the ones creating the largest budget deficit since the founding of our country. True, Republicans haven't increased taxation to meet the demands of government spending, but holding to a party platform is no excuse for bad government. Mr DeLay's backhanded compliments and specious assertations do more to make him look like an idiot than twenty-two years in office being suddenly ended by a corruption scandal ever did.

If conservatives dont stand up to liberalism, no one will.
Libertarians will, and so will Greens and quite a few Independents, such as Ross Perot. But presenting liberalism as some amorphous enemy is just as rational as a "War on Terrorism" anyway, so we needn't counter that since liberalism needn't be stood up to, then perhaps conservatives should also not be in office. I wonder if Mr. DeLay actually thought about his statement before using it. If he did, then he is in serious denial about the current problems both liberals and conservatives face in government.

On the previous blog post, one of my readers posted this interesting little number:

Your letter is good but you have to realize the kind of "logic" someone like our beloved fearless leader is operating under.

1. Any socialist system is inherently unstable and doomed to failure; capitalism is the only truly functional and stable economic system for an industrialized nation.
2. All homosexuals are inherently promiscuous, and therefore no social incentives will increase monogamy within the homosexual population. IE: the only way to have fewer promiscuous homosexuals is to have fewer homosexuals.
3. AIDS is God's punishment on the homosexual population for living an immoral lifestyle
4. Most scientists are atheists and therefore outside the will of God and not to be trusted
5. Russians are still not to be trusted, and we must be capable of defending ourselves form the communist nations of China and North Korea in the event of a nuclear attack.
6. Things like poverty and hunger are natural consequences of original sin and can therefore only be solved by God and not through human actions.
7. The United States of America is the most democratic and free nation on Earth, possibly a little too free, the most prosperous and the most powerful nation on earth, due to it's Christian heritage, and therefore any violations of the rights of non-Americans or people in this country who are un-American to protect this status is totally acceptable.

Posted by Carey on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 at 9:21 AM

Oh, I understand the logic here all too well. So, let's explode the myths our current presidency operates under, which you have so kindly enumerated for me:

1. Socialism is not inherently unstable. People are, at least when they desire power. The only reason socialism doesn't work is because humans are still greedy little bastards - well, most are. The Iroquois had an intricately-balanced socialist society before Europeans came about and screwed it all up.
2. All humans are inherently promiscuous, not just homosexuals; face it, sex feels good. The only way to be less promiscuous is not to get addicted to sex. And the only way not to be addicted to sex is not to repress the desire for it until you can binge. This is analogous to the difference between how most of Europe treats alcohol as opposed to the way we do here in the U.S.
3. If AIDS is God's punishment against homosexuals for living an immoral lifestyle, then why do straight people get it, even the ones who are innocent of any lifestyle which could remotely be called "immoral"? Maybe the fact that we are currently in a war, have an energy crisis on our hands, and are currently the enemy of most industrialized nations in the world is also God's punishment - for electing Bush. Or maybe it's because Bush is an idiot and we are for having elected him. Imagine that - a rational explanation! Maybe AIDS gets spread because it's a disease!
4. There has been no study of scientists to show that most are atheists. Even so, a scientist who is theist can tell you the difference between science and theism. And even most atheists (scientist or not) will just leave a theist to his or her beliefs. Of course, you do have the radicals - just like the theists who stop you on the street and ask if you have accepted Jesus as your lord and savior.
5. The issue is not one of trust. The issue is of whether or not we blow our lovely planet to smithereens. If we don't trust someone, that is no reason to have an RPG under our pillows at night. We simply don't rely on him or her to act in our best interests.
6. So, that means the people who are rich and always have something to eat are absolved from original sin? But all humans are subject to original sin. So, by definition, those people are not human. Interesting how such an inhuman statement can come from a non-human. Also, I distinctly remember the Bible somewhere having the passage "God helps those who help themselves." I guess that either means the rich are supposed to give to the poor or the poor should simply take from the rich. Wait...I also remember that "the meek shall inherit the earth." Ah. Case closed.
7. Yes, the United States has a Christian heritage. We also have a history of witch burning. Aside from that, though, anyone who thinks that this country is founded upon the Bible simply hasn't read their history. Go look up "Thomas Jefferson," "Benjamin Franklin," "Alexander Hamilton," "John Jay," and other of our most influential founding fathers, and you will note that most of them are spiritual humanist at best. That means "Agnostic" for those of you who aren't following. Besides which, I distinctly remember that the Declaration of Independence cited the "God of Nature" as its inspiration - not the "Son of Man" or "Holy Father" or any other references to the Christian God, which follows Enlightenment thinking, of course. Look that up, too, by the way. Oh, and while we are at it, why not look up the definition of "American." Either it means being a resident of the Americas or (as an adjective) being a citizen of the United States of America. If you take it figuratively, it means "one who is espoused of the values of the United States of America." So, being non-American in a figurative sense would mean being opposed to democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other things that United States citizens tend to take for granted. How, exactly, does forstering public debate and fighting for freedoms (the very thing upon which this nation is founded) un-American? If you're George W. Bush, I guess that means someone disagrees with you. Sounds like he's either trying to be a pope or a king. Either way, he doesn't belong in office with that attitude.

   Any questions, class?

I was just in the cafeteria getting breakfast a while ago (they opened a short time ago, folks - this isn't laziness!), and, once again, they had TNT tuned in on the big screen. This time, they were playing their 10-part miniseries Into the West, which was produced by DreamWorks Television and Steven Spielberg. Yeah, I know - the combination doesn't sit right with me, either. TNT also had a hand in the production of the series as well, which might explain why it is so bad.

Why do I say this? Well, not only is the acting way off-base and over-the-top (I blame that on Spielberg), and not only are the effects standard at best (not usual for DreamWorks), but the plot is just foul, and (OH MY GOD) the history is completely incorrect!

Perhaps I should explain myself - according to the "research" done for the movie, the last character to die (Jack Wilson/Wokova) was in 1932; yet, in one part of the show I was watching, some of the characters erect the "Fifty Stars and Thirteen Bars" Unites States Flag to let Union troops know they are friendly. Does anyone see what's wrong here? How about the fact that by the time that character died, two states had not been admitted into the union? (That's Alaska and Hawaii, both in 1959, and which had not even been considered for admittance yet.) Given the time period of the show I was watching, it was considerably before then - I think I was watching Custer's Last Stand, which was in 1876, but to be conservative, I'll say 1889. If the year was actually 1889 (when North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington were admitted), then there would have been even fewer stars on the flag.

Doesn't anyone pay attention to what they are producing? Fie on you, TNT - that's two strikes against you! DreamWorks, what were you thinking? And I never liked you anyway, Steven Spielberg. Why don't you just do us all a favor and retire? I mean permanently, as in not one more motion picture for the rest of your life.

ASSHOLES

I don't really have the time for a detailed update of what's going on here, and for those of you wondering, I do actually intend on uploading some good pictures. I have over 90 of them, in fact, but I am currently editing them so they look nice. But enough of that...

1. Any nuclear power plant in the United States is designed to withstand external forces well in excess of the winds of an F5 Tornado.
2. The nuclear reactor is not the big tower you see. The nuclear reactor is underground, buried under several feet of reinforced concrete and shielding material, and then again under another layer of it. The reactor is buried so deep that a tornado can't hit it, and a bomb would have a very hard time doing any damage. The shields on a reactor can withstand more than the force of a cruise missile.
3. SCRAM procedures on a nuclear reactor in the United States are not computer-controlled. By law (and procedure), all SCRAMs are carried out using mechanical interlocks. If the reactor had to SCRAM (forced and immediate shutdown), it would not matter that there was no computer control, nor would it matter about power. In fact, if power is lost at the reactor (especially the pumps!), the rods in the reactor would drop, cutting all power production.
4. If a reactor shuts down, the control operators will know it and will initiate cooldown procedures. You don't need pumps for this - you just open a few valves (which, by procedure, by protocol, and by law, are open anyway) and let convection create a fluid current across the fuel rods. Loss of power doesn't stop a reactor from shutting down at all. It is possible for a well-protected person to enter the reactor chamber (that's inside the primary shield, not the reactor vessel) and open the valves, if need be. It is also possible for a protected person to manually drop all rods, if need be, but that is a significant health risk. But essentially, a malfunctioning reactor can always be shut down as long as it has been properly maintained and controlled. (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and SL-1 are all examples of violations of maintenance and control procedures).
5. If a reactor were to go critical, that just means the reactor is producing power at a stable rate. A SUPERCRITICAL reactor is the one that is producing power at an increasing rate. I really wish people could get their terminology right.
6. A critical or supercritical reactor won't necessarily lose control. There are very few things that will do that, namely: loss of coolant (pressure, motion, etc.), stuck rods (not likely at all), and prompt critical reactions (the rods are extracted too fast). Only one of the above has ever happened in practice, and that's a loss of coolant (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl), and only one was not recovered in time (Chernobyl), but that's because the design of the reactor prevented it. United States reactors do not suffer from this flaw. SL-1, the first power-producing nuclear reactor (located in Idaho), suffered from a prompt critical reaction, and that was before it was known such things could happen, and the problem resulted from an operator not following established guidelines.
7. A reactor that produces uncontrollable power won't create a nuclear bomb - it's not physically possible. What happens is a steam explosion - if you heat a sealed container filled with water, it explodes, right? Some (but not a large amount) of nuclear material can be released then, but that has happened only on a small scale (except for Chernobyl and SL-1 in Idaho), and has been controlled thereafter (except for Chernobyl and SL-1).
8. Nuclear reactors are probably safer than you think. An operator standing outside the secondary shield gets more radiation from the sun than he would from the reactor inside the secondary shield. Nuclear reactors do not produce pollutants (like fossil-fuel plants), only waste (and fossil-fuel plants create both!). The waste can be taken care of, can now serve purposes in daily life, and are of use to science. More research needs to be done, but we don't do it because we (mistakenly) think nuclear by-products are all bad, possibly worse than fossil-fuel by-products. Not true.

So, can we please stop crying about how nuclear power is a bad thing? We need something other than fossil fuels, and one (small) nuclear reactor puts out more power than a similarly-sized fossil-fuel plant, produces less waste, and harms the environment less. No, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have - most well-developed countries in Europe already know this, so why don't we? Films like Atomic Tornado just make the problem worse by making people fear something that's relatively safe. Look up the statistics yourself. Get an education. Do something! Just don't watch a movie and think you know everything. Look up Chernobyl, SL-1, and Three Mile Island for yourself - Wikipedia has some great articles on these incidents.

Shame on you, TNT, for showing such a bad flick!

I'm not really feeling like doing the full update I had promised, but I can at least give a funny little bit on my stay so far.

What the Hell is up with hoodies and shorts, and with socks in sandals? What??

The rest hasn't been so funny, like waking up at 1:30 this afternoon hungry as Hell, finding out I had missed breakfast and having to pay for really bad Subway. Ick.

Alrighty...time to move on for a bit. I'll try to be back on later tonight.

So. Here I am supposed to go with my dad to the airport, but we have to move my sister instead. So that sucked. Then my mom had to drive me to the airport, but my flight got canceled and I was pushed to another time that had me arriving in Pittsburgh past midnight.

By the way, I really do recommend traveling as a medical professional (I am an EMT) if you can - the flight crew all really appreciate the offer of help.

So, my flight out of Atlanta (layover) was delayed by 30 minutes or so, so I arrive in Pittsburgh to find out that the $2.50 bus service to the University had stopped at midnight, leaving me to pay $40 for a cab. And now I am utterly beyond tired, so I am going to bed. And by the way, I don't have internet service in my room yet - I had thought they were supposed to set it up already, but I guess I was wrong.

But it's so good to be here! Yay!

And now I will go to sleep before I fall over onto the keyboard. Good night!