CA Energy Commission Seeks to Regulate Television Use

[cwall99]

There are plenty of people who disagree with your opinion on looks, myself inclulded. I happen to think that the Yaris is an attractive car, as are the Prius and the Fit.

The Mustang is pretty good looking too, but to me having a more powerful car is nothing more than a waste of fuel and an addition to the pollution problem. It goes along with why I don't have much interest in those 50+ inch televisions or 200+ watt per channel amps.

Hybrids looks are a great example of form following function. They're intended to be fuel efficient so aerodynamics play a major role and then the boxy back ends are a way to ensure maximum capacity in a tiny car.

Yeah, there are aerodynamics in Mustangs too.

But, when we start getting into arguing which car looks better, it's like me telling you your taste in music or movies sucks. It's an argument no one can win.

Well, except me.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Isiberian

Hold back those caballos a bit amigo. I sked for who has been hurt, injured, or died from nuclear power. I specifically exluded Russia because citing the would actually hurt your argument and support this thread's main argument. Remember, Clint's main point of this tread is that overreaching government regulations hurt the economy, especially when it's on a downturn. You can hardly find a more heavily regulated economy in the entire western hemisphere than that of Russia. France, Japan, and England regulate heavily too (Japan being the least of the three).

So, let's take out four of your citations. They all pertain to Russia. If you want to include them, fine. But, again, it'll support the main argument of this thread.

Now let's take these citations:

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
Winter 1957-'58

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
March 1997

That's 7 citations that report NO [direct] injuries or deaths from the reported nuclear accidents. The first specifically reports that "there were no injuries". In Britain's accidental incident t's reported as "could have". Sorry, but I accept that as deaths related to the nuclear power. And for the record, of course there's accidents; that's expected, however unfortunate. But I want to know about injuries and deaths.

So out of 17 of your posts, 10 should be eliminated. Of the remaining 6 citations, there's a reported 3 deaths (remember I exclude Russia which is way beyond the number of US deaths) and I'll go ahead and include all exposure to radiation (not inherently prejudicial to the body but, hey, I gotta give you something), even Japan's 35 "minor" exposure, is 146 (135 from Japan alone, that 92% of all reported incidents coming from one country alone).

Now read this:

HOUSTON — Oil giant BP PLC is failing to make required safety improvements at its Texas City refinery where a 2005 explosion left 15 people dead, according to the U.S. agency responsible for worker safety.

LINK

Now read this:

There are over 100 operating nuclear power plants in America and 16 non-operational power plants, and a large number of nuclear fuel and weapons facilities. The more you know about these places, the more frightened you’ll be -- and should be!

LINK (LOL, its a anti-nuclear power site, you're welcome )

And read just one more tidbit here:

The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.[5]

LINK (It's wiki but, hey, it saves time)

I just cited and sourced close to 200 nuclear American reactors (There's also many British and French nuclear ships out there). Out of the 5 decades of nuclear power in the US *one* incident in a traditional non-nuclear energy plant killed 5 times the amout of people who have died from ALL 180 American nuclear powered reactors.

Nuclear weapons are dagerours indeed

/sacr off

Arguments against nuclear.

1. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

2. So you wouldn't mind if we used your backyard for the nuclear waste?

3. How do you feel about Iran's usage of Nuclear Energy?

1) When you're the president, *you* can order troops to battle it out and drop by a at least one million long before your end goal is met. Or *you* can make a call and end it with a mere two strikes. And, it's brutal t say, so I'll phrase my comment in the form of a question. Have the Japanese learned that nuclear power can be harmful? (Don't mix this up with your position NOT to use it. When used properly, with reasonable regulations - which, apparently Japan lacks in this area - its far safer than traditional power plants).

2) ABSOLUTELY. I'd would jump at the chance to lease my back yard to bury nuclear cylinders. But, in light of the fact that with all the money I'd make from leasing my property to the local nuke power plant, I'd retire and blog all day lone, the real question is if *you* want me to bury that waste in my back yard

3) Reread your number one. You and I are in complete agreement about Iran NOT having access to nuclear power.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Non GM

Already there's two votes to buy non GM cars. This'll be an interesting next few years for the once great automotive giant.

 

[basspig]

If we are going to look at the safety of various energy forms, why has no one mentioned all the deaths from gas main explosions? Gas is a very real danger, and I would never knowingly move to a neighborhood served with gas pipelines.

Arguments about the military use of nuclear fission are irrelevant. Nuclear power plants are designed to provide electricity--not kill people.

Most of the 'accidents' on the list above occured in the early years of nuclear energy, and in countries where stifling government regulations and corruption are the rule of the day. Again, irrelevant in a rational society.

Nuclear waste? Breeder reactors can solve this issue too.

Getting back to environmentalism, the whole thing rests on the assumption of a lot of unproven data that can be manipulated either way, to support either view, for or against something, such as global warming. Thirty years ago, I remember when 'scientists' were warning about 'global cooling' and a coming 'ice age'. The public wasn't buying it, so they flipped it around in the 90s and now are touting warming. But that little fabricated story is falling on disbelieving ears, so now they're calling it 'climate change'.

The simple fact is, human activity is puny, compared to the power of the planet's natural biosphere. Anything we do can be wiped clean in a matter of days, short of detonating a score of hydrogen bombs, perhaps.

The bottom line is, Environmentalism is a movement that is not about truly protecting the enviroment, but about the transfer of huge sums of money into the pockets of certain powerful organizations. Follow the money. Only then does the truth of their motives become apparent.

For the countless lives these enviro-Nazis have destroyed, for the property rights they have violated--I reiterate my call for their demise. If there is a Hell, they belong in it.

 

[cwall99]

When you're the president, *you* can order troops to battle it out and drop by a at least one million long before your end goal is met.

Um, actually the president can't order the troops into battle. It takes an act of Congress to declare war or to allow the president to commit troops to war. FDR's "a date which will live in infamy" speech? Made to a joint session of Congress when asking them to declare war on Japan.

 

[cwall99]

That's the beauty of science, though, isn't it? It's a self-correcting process. As more and more data comes in, presumably gathered (and peer reviewed - hence the whole desire to publish papers in established and respectable and reputable journals) from more reliable sources (that same technology we love to see in our HT gear also allows for more reliable tools to gather data.

As that new data comes in, it gets assessed, analyzed, and sorted out in ways in which the people studying it can interpret in ways in which it makes sense with all other forms of research (and not just in the field of ecological studies), new patterns emerge.

So, to presume that theories postulated nearly 40 years ago would remain consistent with a broader, deeper understanding of all sciences is, to say the least, naive. Since the 70s, much more research has been done on the subject, including studies that gather data from a much broader range of locations, including an additional 35 to 40 years worth of data, including advances in other fields, etc...

It's kinda like those toys they had in the early to mid-70s. I don't know if you remember them or not, but you started out with what appeared to be a block of stone, then using the chisels that came with the kit, you knocked away the excess stone, leaving, when you were done, a mini-replica of some famous work of sculpture.

In the 70s, only a tiny block of that stuff had been chipped away. We now have four decades more worth of data, and while that may not reveal the whole thing, it reveals a lot more of what lies beneath.

So, to base an argument on 35 to 40 year old data and claim that proves something is a shaky proposition at best.

I remain unconvinced. Actually, I was going to go into a long thing about how certain parts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales were conservative efforts to make fun of newly emerging economic and political forces and, thereby, build up a degree of social ridicule to a degree that would weaken those emerging forces. But I've forgotten the term for the type of stories those were, so I'll spare everyone a lecture lifted from English 351. Still, it's a good thing Chaucer, and his political benefactors, was wrong.

 

[highfigh]

Arguments against nuclear.

1. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

2. So you wouldn't mind if we used your backyard for the nuclear waste?

3. How do you feel about Iran's usage of Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear incidents:

December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.
January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.
July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.
October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.
April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.
April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.
March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.
November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.
November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.

1. Using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of how nuclear power is dangerous, how do you feel about gasoline? Fires from intentional or accidental fires, fueled initially by gasoline has killed an awfully large number of people, too. How about cars? How many people have died in car crashes? Electricity- many electrocutions. Water- floods and accidental drownings have killed far more since WWII than nuclear materials and if you look at your examples, carelessness and accidents were the cause of the deaths and exposures, not malicious actions, like Big Boy and Little Boy. If that's all you have for nuclear danger since the '50s, I would have to say that it's pretty safe as long as procedures are followed correctly. It's a horrible way to die but so is a car crash, fire, poisoning, shooting or stabbing.

2, Nuclear waste is a problem but it's also kept below any water table and if properly implemented, is safe. They're also finding more efficient ways to reclaim the waste, which reduces the amount that needs to be discarded. Fossil fuels produce a fair amount of energy but they leave byproducts after they're used. Not ideal but they have only been used in high volume for about 150 years in liquid form. Peat and coal have obviously been used for much longer. The human animal is opportunistic, like all others.

3. Again, using the abuse by people as a rationale for saying that nuclear energy is bad doesn't work. Alcohol kills germs, is a good solvent, a decent fuel and can be used to thin finishes. OTOH, drinking ethanol has killed a huge number of people, either by physically damaging the person or the people who were the victim(s) of drunken people. Should that be banned, too?

 

[highfigh]

Well, at least in this great country of ours, we are free to have our different opinions. I think the Prius, Yaris and Fit look like silly little toys that would look better on a Matchbox track than on a public road.

Let's see, 50+ inch TV? Check. 200 watt per channel amp? Check. Gas guzzling car? Check. Man you must really hate me.

But if it makes you feel any better, I started "hyper-miling" when gas got to be about $5 a year or so ago and now it's a habit for me. I always shut my car off when I'm sitting at stoplights. My wife thinks I'm nuts. I think everyone should do it, but I know that I'm in the minority. The other day though, I did hear someone else starting their car at the same stoplight I was at.

It makes me feel better though. At least I'm doing something to reduce fuel consumption.

Re-starting a motor is one of the most wasteful things you can do if you won't be sitting for a long time and it beats the he!! out of your starter if it doesn't get a chance to cool sufficiently. Initial start-up is not an efficient state for a gasoline motor.

 

[highfigh]

Consider, for example, the following quotation from David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in his prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature:

"This [man's "remaking the earth by degrees"] makes what is happening no less tragic for those of us who value wildness for its own sake, not for what value it confers upon mankind. I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth's biota a tame planet, be it monstrous or--however unlikely--benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than another human body, or a billion of them.

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.

"It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

That was a quote from an environmentalist with the National Parks Service.

People have been here for a billion, or a half-billion years? Does he know something the rest of the scientific community doesn't?

I get the impression that this research biologist lives alone, works alone, lived in his mother's basement for far too long and lives as a hermit, with specimens lining shelves on his walls. He doesn't like people. He thinks humans are a plague and need to be wiped out. Given the opportunity, he may even help make it happen.

He doesn't seem to realize something that's important- the Earth doesn't care. It and its systems will bring balance when and where it can, in its own time. Humans won't be here in current numbers forever and when we aren't, something else will replace us as the dominant specie. We have killed off many species and locally, the population of something else always blooms for a while but balance returns, in time. Humans haven't been the dominant specie long enough for this cycle to be completed.

 

[darien87]

Re-starting a motor is one of the most wasteful things you can do if you won't be sitting for a long time and it beats the he!! out of your starter if it doesn't get a chance to cool sufficiently. Initial start-up is not an efficient state for a gasoline motor.

I based my decision off of numerous sources that note that you are burning the most gas when your car is idling.

http://homemadehybrid.blogspot.com/2007/01/techniques-for-turning-it-off.html

This website notes that if you're sitting at a stop light for more than 10 seconds, you are wasting more gas than what it takes to restart your car. Is this information incorrect?

I don't turn my car off at every single stop light. But I know the timing on the lights I hit in my daily commute, so I go ahead and shut my car off if I know I'm going to be sitting for 30 seconds or more.

 

[lsiberian]

Uranium still must be mined. There is an entire process of energy required to generate more energy. If we up capacity for mining Uranium we must take labor from somewhere else.

We currently have a great process for Coal which in the correct purity burns clean. Problem is most of our clean coal has been mined. Lignite is dirty, but Anthracite is very clean.

Nuclear is paraded as a silver bullet to our energy crises by many conservatives. But what do we do with the old power plants? How much effort does it take to build and maintain a nuclear plant? Silver bullets are dangerous things and lead to bad engineering decisions. The energy solution must be comprehensive not one solution based. The phrase you don't put all your chickens in one basket is a wise one. What about the effect of using nuclear more?

Furthermore, Climate Change is a constant regardless of human interaction. So I'm not totally convinced of the supposed human warming trend. A volcano has a much larger effect on the atmosphere than our industries. Should we mortgage our economic future on something so speculative.

Also maple syrup seems to have a bone to pick with Russia. I guess honey is all they eat over there.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Isiberian

Also maple syrup seems to have a bone to pick with Russia.

LOL.

Take care Isiberian. Good talking to you.

 

[MapleSyrup]

I based my decision off of numerous sources that note that you are burning the most gas when your car is idling.

This website notes that if you're sitting at a stop light for more than 10 seconds, you are wasting more gas than what it takes to restart your car. Is this information incorrect?

I guess the information would vary. This is what I've always understood:

Don't idle for long periods of time. Idling for one minute equals the amount of gas used to start the car's engine. If you are forced to sit at an idle, put the car in neutral. Using neutral reduces strain on the transmission and allows it to cool.

LINK

And you will never get me to agree to drive with my windows up and A/C off during the Houston summers.

Good talking with you.

 

[MapleSyrup]

highfigh

I get the impression that this research biologist lives alone, works alone, lived in his mother's basement for far too long and lives as a hermit, with specimens lining shelves on his walls. He doesn't like people. He thinks humans are a plague and need to be wiped out. Given the opportunity, he may even help make it happen.

Hey, enough with the big government propogandists.

 

[MapleSyrup]

cwall #67

Um, actually the president can't order the troops into battle. It takes an act of Congress to declare war or to allow the president to commit troops to war. FDR's "a date which will live in infamy" speech? Made to a joint session of Congress when asking them to declare war on Japan.

Yes he can, yes he has, and yes he will.

1) This is your direct reaction to my answering your bombing of Hiroshima. Under that scenario, war was declared already. But, hey, you knew that, citing FDR and all. Once war is declared, the Commander-in-Chief pretty much has a free reign on how and when to use the troops.

2) Strictly speaking, Congress only has to authorize the use of force to effectively have a war. Congress , for example, never "declared war" for Iraq; but it was still completely constitutional to go to war there since use of force was authorized by Congress and acted upon by the President.

3) The President, by law passed by Congress, may deploy the military anywhere in the world at any moments notice. Congress is to then meet and decide on funding his action. They may fund or defund the president's decision. Defunding it effectively terminates opperations.

You're welcome.

Good talking to you.

 

[highfigh]

I based my decision off of numerous sources that note that you are burning the most gas when your car is idling.

http://homemadehybrid.blogspot.com/2007/01/techniques-for-turning-it-off.html

This website notes that if you're sitting at a stop light for more than 10 seconds, you are wasting more gas than what it takes to restart your car. Is this information incorrect?

I don't turn my car off at every single stop light. But I know the timing on the lights I hit in my daily commute, so I go ahead and shut my car off if I know I'm going to be sitting for 30 seconds or more.

How much will be wasted depends on the design but there's no way idling uses more gas than acceleration or maintaining any speed above idle. That's the whole reason hybrids use an electric motor to start moving- electric motors are capable of high torque with low weight, so a vehicle that's at rest uses almost no energy (assuming it doesn't need to power many accessories at the same time), so the electric motor gets it moving and once it's at a normal speed, the gas motor starts. For low speed commuting, hybrids make the most sense. They have the longest range, use less energy than high speed and hard acceleration, they can burn very cleanly as long as steady speed is maintained are much smaller displacement than using a large motor and lower weight than a purely electric car when all of the batteries are considered.

Any time more air goes into the carb or throttle body, more gas is needed in order to maintain proper fuel/air ratio. If insufficient fuel is delivered, there's absolutely no way for the motor to produce more power/torque when it's needed.

 

[highfigh]

Uranium still must be mined. There is an entire process of energy required to generate more energy. If we up capacity for mining Uranium we must take labor from somewhere else.

We currently have a great process for Coal which in the correct purity burns clean. Problem is most of our clean coal has been mined. Lignite is dirty, but Anthracite is very clean.

Nuclear is paraded as a silver bullet to our energy crises by many conservatives. But what do we do with the old power plants? How much effort does it take to build and maintain a nuclear plant? Silver bullets are dangerous things and lead to bad engineering decisions. The energy solution must be comprehensive not one solution based. The phrase you don't put all your chickens in one basket is a wise one. What about the effect of using nuclear more?

Furthermore, Climate Change is a constant regardless of human interaction. So I'm not totally convinced of the supposed human warming trend. A volcano has a much larger effect on the atmosphere than our industries. Should we mortgage our economic future on something so speculative.

Also maple syrup seems to have a bone to pick with Russia. I guess honey is all they eat over there.

There are no silver bullets in life and from the standpoint of energy, especially nuclear energy, no corners can be cut when long term emissions standards allow for the EPA to change the levels downward over time. Car manufacturers can only guess at what the EPA will tell them as far as new gas formulations is concerned and they often change that halfway through a new vehicle's design process.

New nuclear plants are in the works for the US now, but it takes a really long time to make them happen. As I posted before, people making mistakes and being careless is responsible for most of the problems with nuclear power plant issues, not the basic design. If it was inherently hazardous in every case, we wouldn't have a single submarine or battleship with nuclear power- it would be a colossal waste of lives and money.

If warm water and steam are the main by-products of hydrogen powered cars and nuclear power plant use, it's far better than particulates and CO2, although H2SO4, CO and other exhaust components are worse, IMO. Sulfur dioxide upsets the natural PH of the planet and that causes all kinds of problems CO2 can't even come close to. The lack of comprehensiveness in the "CO2 is BAAAADDDDD!" argument is why I don't jump on their bandwagon. Every piece of carbon based organic matter that breaks down releases C02 and I see almost nothing about that when Algore gets up and talks about environmental topics he's really not qualified to deal with.

 

[cwall99]

People have been here for a billion, or a half-billion years? Does he know something the rest of the scientific community doesn't?

I get the impression that this research biologist lives alone, works alone, lived in his mother's basement for far too long and lives as a hermit, with specimens lining shelves on his walls. He doesn't like people. He thinks humans are a plague and need to be wiped out. Given the opportunity, he may even help make it happen.

He doesn't seem to realize something that's important- the Earth doesn't care. It and its systems will bring balance when and where it can, in its own time. Humans won't be here in current numbers forever and when we aren't, something else will replace us as the dominant specie. We have killed off many species and locally, the population of something else always blooms for a while but balance returns, in time. Humans haven't been the dominant specie long enough for this cycle to be completed.

He does have a rather "Ted Kaczynski-ish" feel to his prose. Though I think you overstate the case for how long people (or people wannabes) have been around. It's much longer than 6,000 years, but, from what I've read in a number of sources, it's more like 3 to 4 million years. Maybe a bit longer.

Dinosaurs died out around 64 million years ago, and despite what that creationist museum in southern Ohio would have its visitors believe (or the Flintstones for that matter), I'm pretty certain you won't find a serious paleontologist suggesting that humans and dinosaurs were around at the same time.

Still, your point is well taken.

 

[cwall99]

Yes he can, yes he has, and yes he will.

1) This is your direct reaction to my answering your bombing of Hiroshima. Under that scenario, war was declared already. But, hey, you knew that, citing FDR and all. Once war is declared, the Commander-in-Chief pretty much has a free reign on how and when to use the troops.

2) Strictly speaking, Congress only has to authorize the use of force to effectively have a war. Congress , for example, never "declared war" for Iraq; but it was still completely constitutional to go to war there since use of force was authorized by Congress and acted upon by the President.

3) The President, by law passed by Congress, may deploy the military anywhere in the world at any moments notice. Congress is to then meet and decide on funding his action. They may fund or defund the president's decision. Defunding it effectively terminates opperations.

You're welcome.

Good talking to you.

Well, okay, that's kind of splitting hairs as I was looking to be brief (as I'd probably already rambled on excessively). The point is that Congress has to authorize the use of military force. That's all, so while I may be incorrect in the letter of the law, I think our understanding of the spirit of the law lines up pretty neatly.

 

[highfigh]

He does have a rather "Ted Kaczynski-ish" feel to his prose. Though I think you overstate the case for how long people (or people wannabes) have been around. It's much longer than 6,000 years, but, from what I've read in a number of sources, it's more like 3 to 4 million years. Maybe a bit longer.

Dinosaurs died out around 64 million years ago, and despite what that creationist museum in southern Ohio would have its visitors believe (or the Flintstones for that matter), I'm pretty certain you won't find a serious paleontologist suggesting that humans and dinosaurs were around at the same time.

Still, your point is well taken.

Re: "It's much longer than 6,000 years, but, from what I've read in a number of sources, it's more like 3 to 4 million years. Maybe a bit longer.", I wasn't saying that humans have been around for the 6000 year window of some religions. Hominids may have been around for that longer period but not as we know 'homosapien'. The "environmental biologist" wrote "Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer.". That's just not accurate and can't be called 'science'.