OPPOSING VIEWS ARE WELCOMED!

Please feel free to leave relevant links with your comments or posts. If you are interested in joining this blog as an author or need to contact me for any other reason you may do so here: Contact David Scott


Friday, March 20, 2009

Bush Administration Tortures and Kills Whales

It has always been my position that the Bush administration and the Republican party in general are enemies of environmental protection and the protection of human rights. I have been citing a lot of articles in the San Francisco Chronicle lately, and there were a couple I noticed today which support my position.

As if we didn't already know it, the Senate Armed Services Committee has confirmed that the Bush administration has been in favor of and encouraged the torture of political and war detainees (prisoners) in contravention of international law and the Geneva Convention.

Also, only six weeks before leaving office, Bush and his gang of war criminals are also doing everything they can to ease restrictions designed to protect endangered species in favor of big business and the oil industry. Is anyone surprised? This kind of thing is consistant with the activities Republican politicians all over the country and at all levels of government.
December 14, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene

Nuclear Power

Recently, I have heard a lot of conservatives talking about how "safe" nuclear power is. Is it possible that they don't remember the nuclear-meltdown that is still affecting the Town of Chernobyl? They don't remember the Three-Mile Island debacle? Can it be that the never head about what happened in Japan a number of years back? Nuclear power is not safe. It has never been, and never will be safe to use on Earth.

However, nuclear power could be safely generated in space. Space is already radioactive, so there would be no harm from the radioactive by-products that result from generating nuclear power in space. Nuclear waste could be fired out of the solar-system or into the Sun, and it wouldn't hurt anybody. The energy generated could then be be transmitted to a receiving station on Earth, via microwave.
November 4, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
The Three Mile Island accident affirmed how well the western world designs and builds their nuclear power plants. Even in a worst case accident, US reactors' containment and other design enhancements will protect the public. If Russia (or Ukraine) built an inferior naval ship, we would conclude that America can build better ships. However with nuclear power, people want to lump all nuclear power globally together, when there are different standards in the western world. All of the used nuclear fuel produced in the united states in the past 40 years (that has provided 20 percent of our nations electricity) could be placed in an area the size of a football field and would only be seven stories high. Critics of nuclear power often cite the weight of the used fuel instead of the volume, because weight sounds worse than volume. Used fuel is made of some of the heaviest metals known to man. Fossil fueled plants do not have to pay for what they emit. Nuclear power has no emissions from the generating unit. In fact it only has small amounts of emissions from fossil fueled generators on site that are run periodically for a few hours for testing, but their only operational purpose and use is for emergency support of the plants safety systems.
Scottdavene, not only is space radioactive, radioactivity is all around you. Everything has a certain level of natural radioactivity. Though we can communicate using a wireless medium, we can not efficiently transfer energy through wireless means. Transmitters and receivers employ an external power supply to allow signal processing to occur.
It is unfortunate that nuclear power has not been more widely used globally, because it's benefits to mankind are overwhelming. Nuclear proliferation is a large concern, but we need to own that risk and manage it, not treat nuclear power as unnatural. We have the capability to produce proliferation resistant fuel and sell it to developing nations, so that they can benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear power without acquiring the deadly capability to produce nuclear weapons. There is a wealth of technical knowledge and ideas behind nuclear power, just waiting for the people to become educated enough to allow and promote its growth. Nuclear power plants have a large upfront cost to build, but once they are online they drive older fossil fueled plants offline that are significantly more expensive to operate than a nuclear power plant. Our environment deserves the best source of energy that money can buy, and nuclear power is the only emission free source that can offer that on a large (baseload) scale. Nuclear power plants are almost always producing 100 percent power, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/
November 6, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterNot believing, knowing
Thank you for your comment, Bel Air, Maryland.

However, I noticed that you didn't address the reason I say that nuclear power is not safe, and never will be safe on Earth. Never mind the very real possibility of a nuclear meltdown which you brush a side so casually, you have not addressed the problem of how we dispose of the deadly nuclear waste that your power plants will produce. Further, you pretend that you can accommodate or nullify any nuclear disaster, and fail to realize that a similar disaster in any other country would be just as deadly to the entire planet, regardless of where it occurs.

Please elaborate, and tell me why you can't build your reactors in space instead?
November 6, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
It takes a lot of work to perform this labor of love, please help to keep this site on the web

Election Tampering

There is only one way the Republicans can win this election--If they steal it, like they stole the last two elections.

The world is in deep doo-doo, if they do...
October 31, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous
I hope that any type of voter fraud that allows McCain/Palin to win the election is met with such fierce intolerance that Americans will stand up and protest in ways that have not been experienced since the 60's. I for one will not stand back and be silent.

On the other hand, if Obama is elected I will for the first time in my adult life, raise an American flag in front of my home. Hell, I might even buy a bumper sticker.....
November 2, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda

Security Guards in Hardhats

Watching Palin's speech on CNN this morning, I noticed that her bodyguards were dressed up as construction workers. I have never seen that in an election before. Ironic, coming from a person who spent $150,000 on wardrobe...
October 27, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene

Attack on Syria, the Republican "October Surprise"

Oh come on. Are you kidding me? At virtually the same time the press was reporting that the only issue McCain has a lead on in the polls is Iraq, we go in and stage a preemptive strike on Syria? I thought the news of the Holocaust flyers was disgusting enough. But the only surprise here was that it wasn't Israel attacking Iran.

I for one have contacted my representatives to express my concern and disgust at what appears to be a last minute attempt to to sway undecided stupid Americans to vote for McCain....at the cost of the lives of innocent people.

It's shameful.
October 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda
....at the cost of the lives of innocent people....you enjoy your freedom today because we killed the British.
You do not believe in preemptive strikes... Of course you always warn your bad neighbor before you hit?
Let's wait for the media or the rest of the fact like why it happened?
Of course the WTC victims were killed by BUSH and McCain.
Obama wants to attack Pakistan unilaterally and you have no problem with that.
Your euphoria with Obama is like Jim-Jones, without a second a guess you will take the Kool-Aid when he will ask you!
October 26, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterverbum
How casually you discuss war. Don't you understand that children are murdered in these situations? Oh, but not to worry--they aren't exactly like our kids, so aren't quite human. Bombs away!
October 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRosemary Molloy
I think he said if 'we have actionable intelligence'. He also said he would enter into discussions before he would use military action. And besides, that wasn't the point. The point was using military action to further his pathetic struggling campaign.

No, I do not prescribe to the Zeitgeist theory of the WTC, but I will be a prouder American if Mr. Obama is elected. You strike me as someone who ran out and put a flag on their pick up truck 3 days after the attacks on the World Trade Center.

One generalization deserves another.........
October 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda
Verbum is totally wrong. There is a big difference between defending your own country on your own soil and invading a peaceful, non-aggressive country.
October 30, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
It takes a lot of work to perform this labor of love, please help to keep this site on the web.

Fox News - Where Will They Go

Will Fox News start changing their bent towards the democrats? Being owned by Murdock..and knowing that it's all about money, I for one see a slight change in their coverage of the debates. Will they fold to what will bring in more viewers and more moola? Hmmmm. I'm wondering.
October 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda Funk
Brenda,
Thank you for your insightful comment. I have observed that before Bush came to power, the Fox network was perceived by most to be liberal. I was surprised, after the rise of neo-conservative movement that they moved so hard to the right. I wouldn't be surprised if, as you suggest, they now go back towards the left again.
Although, I personally am so far to the left that even the even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing," I certainly hope that they win this election. If they don't I fear that this country, indeed the entire planet is in serious trouble. The war that the conservatives have rekindled against the Muslim nations is already likely to last for years, if not centuries. Hopefully, Obama can do something to ease the tension.
This war is really a continuation of the holy wars that began so many thousands of years ago. And unfortunately, it appears that religion has shown itself to be the biggest catalyst of hatred that the human race will ever see.
October 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous
Hey "Anonymous" you have some very relevant comments there: "And unfortunately, it appears that religion has shown itself to be the biggest catalyst of hatred that the human race will ever see."

A few years ago, there was a National Debate Forum that chose the following question to discuss: "Which has been more destructive in the history of civilization........................RELIGION or SCIENCE?"

It really made me think. I can't remember which side of the question won, but I know in MY mind that it would definitely be RELIGION! Thanks for reminding me.

BE A SUCKER FOR THE RICH...........................VOTE REPUBLICAN!
October 25, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJNH88KR
Yes, JNH88KR. Definitely, Religion has been more destructive in human history. I actually see science as the beginning of civilization. Before humans became self-aware and started to study their surroundings, we were basically wild animals. Unfortunately, that same self-awareness "I exist" led to question "How did I come to exist?", so perhaps Science and Religion were born at the same time and are somewhat interconnected.

I astonishes me how many poor and middle class people are Republicans, when it is obvious that the Republicans are doing everything they can to benefit the wealthy at their expense. Maybe it is a matter of lack of education...
October 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous
Interesting that this has taken a religious bent. I would recommend a very good book for thinking through the falicies and tragedies of Religion--Richard Dawkins - The God Dillusion.

For those who would say that religion is a personal and private issue, I would vehemently disagree. When it affects political and financial decisions in this country...it becomes public domain and can and should be criticized by every rational thinking person in this county.

No only has it been the cause of suffering and intolerance in the past....religion and the belief in a supreme being, no matter what the religion, is alive and well in this country. Religious zealots in this country are JUST AS frightening as fundamentalists in any other country or culture.

October 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda
I'd rather be rich so that I can help the poor without violence but with money.
(October 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous said "I personally am so far to the left that even the even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing,"......The war that the conservatives have rekindled against the Muslim nations " ) <------------ Rich Muslim nations should stop supporting Muslim terrorist all nations w/ Muslim terrrorist group. Race and religious agenda using our political groups must be exposed.
October 26, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterverbum
I'll agree with the way this thread seems to already be headed and concur that more EVIL has been done in the name of GOD than any other point of focus period. It would be so nice if we could all somehow live in harmony complete with all our diversity. It would be so nice, if as a society we could agree that certain good things are just GOOD and not have to create a corresponding BAD to try to kill off with laws and wars. I too am so far left of center that I'm completely off the charts. It's good to have a place to vent a bit of it. Maybe this place and others like it can be the root source and drive of some of the change our world so badly needs.
December 2, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterFrank

$750 Billion Bailout

Why don't we spend $750 billion on building schools and improving the infrastructure? That would create jobs and solve a lot of other problems. At the same time it would build the economy from the bottom up. Rich people are tight fisted, we know they aren't going to spend money for no reason. The poor and the middle class have to spend every dime they have, just to stay alive, so making money available to them is the best thing we can do to ease the economic disaster that the morons in Washington and on Wall Street have created.
October 13, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
Everybody wants to be rich. But people who defrauded the banks and now our taxes should pay back what they took. Now the same people may get more money because they are failing. Jailing will just cost us more money. We spend more wisely when we earn it. Free money knows no limit, until the giver get bankrupt.
I got this from e-mail:
Here goes
> Investment Advice If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one
> year ago, it would now be worth $49.00. With Enron, you would have
> $16.50 left of the original $1000.
> With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left. If you had
> purchased $1000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have $49.00
> left. If you had purchased United Airlines, you would have nothing
> left. But, if you had purchased $1000.00 worth of beer one year ago,
> drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum
> recycling refund you would have approx. $214.00. Based on the above,
> the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.
> This is called the 401-Keg Plan.
October 26, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterverbum

World War III

As I predicted, Bush has started World War III. If Palin (and McCain) get elected, we will see an escalation of this war and continued financial disaster for the entire planet.

As usual, the Republicans can't win an election on the issues, so they have resorted to personal attacks--something they said they wouldn't do. Unfortunately, there are enough blindly patriotic sheep in this country that they might actually win again.
October 6, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
www.pocm.info

Palin is the Taliban

The referenda to stop gay marriage is NO different from the Taliban.
October 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBruce Becker
Thank you for the comment.
I know little about the Taliban, but I do believe that the neo-conservative movement can be compared to fascism.
October 23, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
I agree with your comment about neo-cons using fascist techniques. We see that from Congresswoman Bachman, setting up the House Un-American committee in her fantasies.

Nevertheless, relative to the use of Biblical scripture to rationalize legal stances such as the slew of anti-gay referenda on the ballot right now, the Taliban analogy is apt:

A fundamentalist group uses its forms of force, to make its points of view the law of the land, in an erstwhile non-religious society in our case. The religious right are making claims that 'the Bible' was always the law, and that the founders were Christian.

My point of view on the force of the BIble to make law, is best represented by www.POCM.info

Happy day.
October 23, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBruce Becker
Bruce,

I agree with you completly. I will check out your web suggestion.

B
October 31, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda

Palin - Biden Debate

Palin is one scary lady. Together with McKain, they could set this country's civil rights progress back by 150 years.

Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence in the Democrats either, and I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. Although I am a registered Green, I will probably vote for independent, Frank Moore. He is a write-in in California, and most of the northern states.
October 5, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
Understandable that you would feel that way. Sometimes making a statement is the most important thing. However it's the principles of the democrats that I am voting for. There is a long tradition of corruption in both parties, but I still feel that the dems have a more honorable world and domestic view. It is SO critical that we end the republic regime and try to regain a balance that is desperately needed. I am prety convinced that given the opportunity, and keeping the house and senate a majority, Obama will look for a modern day New Deal to stablize the current situation the best he can and to promote service an hope.
October 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda
Kudos Brenda, I agree...........thanks for explaining it that way......O'bama all the way!
That is the realistic way to look at this.
October 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJoni

Financial Bailout

The Democrats and Republicans will push the financial bailout through, no matter what Americans really want. They threaten us by saying that we won’t have credit anymore, as if we are supposed to be grateful for the ability to pay interest on everything we buy. Why? They are the owners of the lending institutions that are failing. They pretend to be against it, but they are heavily invested in the lending industry and they will spend tax-payer dollars to save it. This is organized crime at its highest level.

The financial bailout bill only benefits the wealthy. If we are going to socialize any industry, it should be health care.

The hard reality is: we cannot continue to spend money on wars that we can’t afford, and which offer no economic returns.
October 1, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene
Ok if this doesn't spark some conversation, I don't know what will:
Why would anyone admit to being a Republican? To do so is to admit that you are in favor of:
Increased government spending
Interference in individual freedoms
Global Warming
Corporate Greed
Polluting and destroying the environment
Killing whales and other endangered species
Illegal pre-emptive war
Invading peaceful countries
Killing innocent women and children
Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich
Stifling free speech
Raping the planet for coal and oil
Forcing your children into loveless marriages
Racism

Republicans have consistently acted against:
Freedom and privacy of the individual
Peaceful co-existence with other countries
Better education
Clean alternative energy
Conserving the environment
Peace
Improving the countries infrastructure
Protecting endangered species
Cultural, religious, and ethnic tolerance

I know somebody out there must disagree with me!
September 27, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene

Replies

So what's up with your google ad ....... yes on 8?
October 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda
Brenda,

Thank you for your comments on these pages.

I don't have control over the ads that Google puts on my website. Google puts ads on the site based on the content of the pages upon which they appear.

Best Wishes,

Dave
October 26, 2008 | Registered CommenterScottdavene

Presidential Debates

At the presidential debates they gave the audience little hand-held devices to moniter their reactions to what the candidates were saying. I noticed that generally the three little lines came together when Obama spoke, and they fell apart when McKain spoke. I also noticed that Mckain had trouble looking Obama in the eyes, even when Obama was gazing right at him. From his speech, it appears that McKain wants to invade Iran. Send a Warrior if you want to make war,and Peacemaker if you want to make peace...