Page 51 of 123

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:16 pm UTC
by Coyne

<sarcasm>Oh that's no big deal. Just following the good example of the United States, which never joined at all.</sarcasm>

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:29 pm UTC
by svenman
Angua wrote:This fucking government.

They are denying the visa application for someone to enter the UK to give a stem cell transplant to her dying sister.

That decision has been reversed meanwhile, fortunately.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:52 pm UTC
by addams
svenman wrote:
Angua wrote:This fucking government.

They are denying the visa application for someone to enter the UK to give a stem cell transplant to her dying sister.

That decision has been reversed meanwhile, fortunately.

The Internet helped.
Yey! Internet!

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:05 am UTC
by Angua
svenman wrote:
Angua wrote:This fucking government.

They are denying the visa application for someone to enter the UK to give a stem cell transplant to her dying sister.

That decision has been reversed meanwhile, fortunately.

Thank heavens. Though it's ridiculous that it needed to be reversed in the first place.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:53 am UTC
by sardia
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10 ... lence.html
The Philippine's Trump, Rodrigo Duterte, orders rival hunted down. Later a gun battle has 10 killed, rival, the mayor of Datu Saudi, among the dead.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:13 pm UTC
by sardia
Catholics hate abortion so much that they buy up hospitals to in order to stop it. Then claim religious freedom when challenged because nobody can make them provide abortions.
https://www.propublica.org/article/cath ... ns-of-care

If you have a religious objection to something, like say hookers, is it ok to buy up every casino in Las Vegas in order to stamp out prostitution? It seems weird on one level to seek out the thing you are against, but on another it makes a lot of sense. Too bad for all the little people caught in the middle.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:24 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
If you buy up the casinos and kick out the girls, they go to other venues. As do the Johns.

For abortion, depends on the rules. If they have stupid "women's safety" laws which require abortions to be done in hospitals "just in case" or have building codes that change every 3 months, then buying up the hospitals definitely fucks things up.

What we need is a way for the communities that do these stupid things to not have it subsidized by everyone else. Ban abortions? You have to provide the Medicaid, not the rest of the country.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:13 am UTC
by Diadem
I seem to recall a few years ago there was a Dutch feminist group called (iirc) "Women on Waves" who used to provided abortions services near countries where's abortion is legal. They had a ship, which they parked at sea, just outside a country's territorial waters. In international waters Dutch law applies on vessels sailing under a Dutch flag, so there was fuck all the other countries could do about it, except complain.

*does some googling* Looks like they are still around, though I couldn't find much on their recent activities. Apparently they only have a license for non-surgical abortions (i.e.: pills). I guess getting a license to do surgery on a boat is hard.

Anyway, I wonder if something like that could be a solution in the States. Obviously it would only work in coastal states, but there's quite a few of those. Ideally you wouldn't want to work under a foreign flag, but I don't know enough about naval law to know if a US flag would work.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:27 am UTC
by sardia
CorruptUser wrote:If you buy up the casinos and kick out the girls, they go to other venues. As do the Johns.

For abortion, depends on the rules. If they have stupid "women's safety" laws which require abortions to be done in hospitals "just in case" or have building codes that change every 3 months, then buying up the hospitals definitely fucks things up.

What we need is a way for the communities that do these stupid things to not have it subsidized by everyone else. Ban abortions? You have to provide the Medicaid, not the rest of the country.

There are no rival noncatholic hospitals within the entire state, or more commonly within a 2 hour drive. That's pretty rough on people most affected by abortion rights, poor women.
Are you challenging the nonprofit status of the Catholic hospital system? I agree with you, but they're damn scary. Church or not, they're not afraid to knife you in the back.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:00 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Not challenging the nonprofit status of catholic hospitals per se, but rather the State laws which get around Roe v Wade by "protecting women" via constantly changing building codes for abortion clinics. It's no coincidence that the states that are the most anti-abortion are also the ones that collect more out of Medicaid than they pay in.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:12 am UTC
by sardia
CorruptUser wrote:Not challenging the nonprofit status of catholic hospitals per se, but rather the State laws which get around Roe v Wade by "protecting women" via constantly changing building codes for abortion clinics. It's no coincidence that the states that are the most anti-abortion are also the ones that collect more out of Medicaid than they pay in.

Didn't SCOTUS side against The Affordable Care Act for stuff like that as a precedent? The medicare expansion was suppose to be tied to the whole enchilada, but Roberts separated it so medicare couldn't be used as a bludgeon to force states into submission. You could only give states extra money for submitting to The Affordable Care Act, but you couldn't take away all their medicare if they refused. That seems to preclude your suggestion. *

*Assuming no reversals, which seems very rare now, and assuming no appointment for a 9th member, which seems very unlikely.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:36 am UTC
by CorruptUser
That's Medicare, not Medicaid. And SCOTUS was perfectly fine back in 1984 with using the federal highway funds to bludgeon NY and VT into raising their drinking ages...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:09 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
Drinking age is maybe just slightly less controversial an issue than abortion.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:58 pm UTC
by Zohar
commodorejohn wrote:Drinking age is maybe just slightly less controversial an issue than abortion.

Yes, although I feel it's important to know current drinking age is kind of dumb. Raising it hasn't really lowered traffic accidents. And youth under 21 are just drinking in illegal ways, in unsupervised settings, without adult guidance on how to drink responsibly. While it's not controversial, most people are on the wrong side of the argument.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:20 pm UTC
by Chen
Zohar wrote:And youth under 21 are just drinking in illegal ways, in unsupervised settings, without adult guidance on how to drink responsibly.


To be fair, this will likely be the case regardless of where you put the drinking age, unless its extremely low. Even if you get a glass of beer or wine at dinner with your family, that's not how you're likely going to be drinking when you party anyways.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:44 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
sardia wrote:Catholics hate abortion so much that they buy up hospitals to in order to stop it. Then claim religious freedom when challenged because nobody can make them provide abortions.
https://www.propublica.org/article/cath ... ns-of-care

If you have a religious objection to something, like say hookers, is it ok to buy up every casino in Las Vegas in order to stamp out prostitution? It seems weird on one level to seek out the thing you are against, but on another it makes a lot of sense. Too bad for all the little people caught in the middle.


IMO, it's at least more honest if you say you're pro-health care, and anti-abortion, to get into providing the former, rather than insisting that everyone else bear the cost of adhering to your ideals.

I agree, however, that if it's coupled with laws requiring abortions to happen in hospitals, it quickly becomes very sketchy. In practice, it becomes a de facto ban. If an actual legal ban is no good, a law that amounts to a ban in practice should also be struck down.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:20 pm UTC
by Zohar
Chen wrote:To be fair, this will likely be the case regardless of where you put the drinking age, unless its extremely low. Even if you get a glass of beer or wine at dinner with your family, that's not how you're likely going to be drinking when you party anyways.

I disagree. Yes, some teenagers start drinking at 15 or earlier, and I don't think anyone's advocating that low of an age limit. However, you'll know how much beer/wine/whatever affects you, and you'll be able to go out to a bar and discuss it openly. Raising the drinking age is very much like abstinence only "sex ed".

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:05 pm UTC
by Sableagle
It's been suggested over here that enforcing the drinking age increased problem drinking among the 18-21-yr-olds, because they used to get into pubs and have a quiet drink with the older drinkers and get away with it as long as they didn't make a nuisance of themselves, so they'd be quiet, well-behaved and mostly sober in order to get to stay and they'd learn sensible, sociable, moderate drinking from their elders before they were old enough to buy their own. Once they couldn't do that, they drank Diamond White in the woods behind the railway station, got utterly paralytic, associated binge-drinking with having a good time and, at 18, marked their newfound "adult" status by going to the pub and getting loudly, obnoxiously, pissed. That's why we have "25+" pubs now. Unfortunately, some people are surviving beyond the age of 25 without getting over the idea that a good night out requires at least 10 pints of lager per person to be drunk in quick succession.

---

Today's new dark side story:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:19 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Zohar wrote:
Chen wrote:To be fair, this will likely be the case regardless of where you put the drinking age, unless its extremely low. Even if you get a glass of beer or wine at dinner with your family, that's not how you're likely going to be drinking when you party anyways.

I disagree. Yes, some teenagers start drinking at 15 or earlier, and I don't think anyone's advocating that low of an age limit. However, you'll know how much beer/wine/whatever affects you, and you'll be able to go out to a bar and discuss it openly. Raising the drinking age is very much like abstinence only "sex ed".


Pretty much on board with this view.

Most educational systems that work involve elders with experience teaching the youngsters. Not, yknow, a bunch of youngsters partying it up with zero guidance, which is what happens with an age limit. Keeping people from getting drunk is pretty hard in practice, what you actually accomplish is just driving it underground to a group in which pretty much everyone drinking is underage. You also make people want to not admit they are drunk, so it can encourage delaying treatment(or not quickly recognizing the need for treatment) in people who have alcohol poisoning, or people insisting they can drive, rather than calling a cab.

In general, the main problem with drinking isn't the age, but the style. Binge drinking is pretty awful, while social drinking's pretty fine. Pushing people into the former group is terrible.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:05 pm UTC
by Chen
Zohar wrote:I disagree. Yes, some teenagers start drinking at 15 or earlier, and I don't think anyone's advocating that low of an age limit. However, you'll know how much beer/wine/whatever affects you, and you'll be able to go out to a bar and discuss it openly. Raising the drinking age is very much like abstinence only "sex ed".


Don't get me wrong I don't think a higher age limit would really do anything. That said with a limit at 18 here, the kids are drinking at 16/17 anyways and not doing so with their parents. Any social drinking with their parents would likely be limited to a glass during special occasions (holidays usually) and wouldn't really do anything to determine how much affects you anyways. I think having it lower is still advantageous in that it pushes the "experimental" drinking earlier when kids are less likely to be on their own anyways. With the limit in the states at 21, yet kids going off to live on their own at 18, you end up with a lot of them "experimenting" without ANY real consequences, in terms of getting in trouble with their parents. That's not the case earlier since most 16 year olds still need to deal with their parents either the night of, or at least the next day when they're massively hung over.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:03 pm UTC
by Sableagle
There's probably a good argument to be made for letting people get to know that alcohol affects them before you let them own cars, too, and a counter-argument that people start thinking they "can take their drink" and that it doesn't affect them.

There's also a rather more specific point that a two-tour Iraq veteran shouldn't need a fake ID to get the only anti-stress medication* available to him. There's a Darwin Award nomination associated with that.
Spoiler:
If you see a lean, athletic, 20-ish-yr-old man in full USMC patrol gear, including face-paint, looking very twitchy and dodging from cover to cover up an alley with an AK in one hand and a 4-pack in the other, do you:
A) Invite him in for dinner and a chat;
B) Offer a classier beer;
C) Ask him to share his beers;
D) Call out a friendly greeting and leave it at that;
E) Ignore him;
F) Call 911
or
G) Try to mug him? :roll:


* addictive, carcinogenic, loaded with side-effects and generally a bad choice of coping mechanism, but probably better than nothing at all.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:57 am UTC
by Grop
I started drinking at 15; I think it's a good thing I couldn't drive then.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:37 am UTC
by sardia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/world ... .html?_r=0
Russia files fake arrest notices for "dangerous" criminals in a bid to punish political enemies. Most of the time it's caught as a fake, and rejected. But the Russian government can keep submitting trumped up charges, like terrorism, hostage taking, or stole $75 of artwork. This forces people into prison for weeks at a time until it's all worked out. Then the Russians submit another fake arrest warrant. Interpol claims
Held for nearly two weeks in a Spanish prison while a Madrid court approved his extradition to Moscow, he finally managed to phone a lawyer in Finland and contact Fair Trials International, which has campaigned against abuses of Interpol by repressive governments.

After appeals from a German member of the European Parliament and a storm of protest in the European news media, the authorities released Mr. Silaev from prison but ordered that he report to the Spanish police once a week.
Six months later, in early 2013, a Madrid court canceled Mr. Silaev’s extradition order and allowed him to return to Finland, where he spent another year pleading with Interpol to purge his name from its database.
“Interpol is a very Soviet-style organization,” Mr. Silaev said, describing it as “absolutely nontransparent” and easily manipulated by governments that regard protesters as no different from “rapists and murderers.” Interpol says it cannot publicly share information that belongs not to itself but to the member countries that provide it.

One of the many dangers of repressive regimes, taking advantage in our trust in governance. Is Russia obfuscating where these red notices come from? Why don't they just ban Russia from Interpol?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:59 pm UTC
by Sableagle
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 29921.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31216.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31361.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya ... SKBN13F0PD
At least 16 people died and 50 were wounded in Libya in four days of clashes ...

According to residents and local reports, the latest bout of violence erupted between two tribes after an incident in which a monkey that belonged to a shopkeeper from the Gaddadfa tribe attacked a group of schoolgirls who were passing by.

The monkey pulled off one of the girls' head scarf, leading men from the Awlad Suleiman tribe to retaliate by killing three people from the Gaddadfa tribe as well as the monkey, according to a resident who spoke to Reuters.

"There was an escalation on the second and third days with the use of tanks, mortars and other heavy weapons," the resident told Reuters by telephone, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the denigrating security situation.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:58 pm UTC
by Chen
Sableagle wrote:
The monkey pulled off one of the girls' head scarf, leading men from the Awlad Suleiman tribe to retaliate by killing three people from the Gaddadfa tribe as well as the monkey, according to a resident who spoke to Reuters.


WTF?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:18 pm UTC
by sardia
Chen wrote:
Sableagle wrote:
The monkey pulled off one of the girls' head scarf, leading men from the Awlad Suleiman tribe to retaliate by killing three people from the Gaddadfa tribe as well as the monkey, according to a resident who spoke to Reuters.


WTF?

When a conflict has a stupid sounding cause, then it's probably not the real cause. World war I was not because everybody cared about the Duke who was killed. Same can be applied here. Someone had an axe to grind, so they did.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:19 pm UTC
by elasto
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been given a major boost in his quest to transform Turkey into a president-led republic, after nationalists in parliament signalled their support for a controversial proposal to amend the constitution and allow him to stay in office until 2029.

Officials have also said the post of prime minister would be abolished, and the president would have two deputies as well as greater power to enact executive policies.

...

Another round of dismissals took place this week, with the government firing 15,000 civil servants, police and military officials accused of links to Fethullah Gülen, a US-based preacher whose group, Hizmet, is widely believed in Turkey to have orchestrated the coup.

In recent weeks, the government has also cracked down on opposition media outlets and arrested Kurdish members of parliament, accusing them of fomenting propaganda on behalf of terrorist groups.

Is there any political good news these days..?

link

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:25 pm UTC
by Sableagle
sardia wrote:Someone had an axe to grind, so they did.
Yeah. Scarce resources and uncertainty about the future can put inter-tribal tensions up to the cheesewire level. Then all it takes is one little stumble ...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:10 pm UTC
by addams
I don't understand.
The Rich, White Ding-Dongs had a big 'stand-off' with the Feds.
The White Ding-Dongs got away with it for ages and got what they wanted.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... dents-wary
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37795012


The American Indians are being attested.
Why? Are the US Police actions That racially driven?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/us/dakota ... rmy-corps/

Even the BBC says it is true.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37790839
Armed police in the US state of North Dakota have arrested 141 Native American
protesters and environmental activists during a tense confrontation.


ok.ok.
It is True.
Unsheltered humans Can Not withstand a Dakota winter.

The White Ding-Dongs took a US Forestry Building.
Then 'supporters' sent in snacks, toilet paper and ammunition.

I may not have a clear view. It is so Dark, I can't see clearly. What do you see?
Are my Indigenous brothers and sister STILL fighting for a place to live in North America?

Now, the fight is not for the land. They want to have clean water to drink and clean air to breath.
I am certain they would share the water and the air with those of us with pale skin and blue eyes.

I was told, The Indians were confused by the idea of humans owning The Land and The Sky.
Do you think their new president will stand up for them? For a human right to air and water?

Yeah...
Me neither.

It, just, seems so unfair.
Spoiler:
I drink clean spring water that bubbles up fresh and sweet from the earth.
(sniff-sniff) I'm White.

No! Being White is Not all Peaches and Cream.
We have had heavy rain this year.

The hillside keeps collapsing into the spring.

One day the water from my tap is darker than coffee with mud.
The next day, it does not flow at all. It is never benzine polluted.

The owner's son and other local men walk up and fix it.
Then my water runs clear, clean, sweet and fresh again.
I know Indigenous People are People, just, like everyone else.
They have faults.

They don't have a clear path back to the culture they lost.

They must re-create a 'Way'.
Then learn to live that 'Way'.

But;...Damn it!
Don't they deserve a shot at a wholesome world for their children and the children of others?
Once the river is polluted with benzine, it will not be safe for humans nor cattle nor wildlife.

That's my Dark News for The Day.
Poison water; That's damn dark.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:18 pm UTC
by idonno
addams wrote:The American Indians are being attested.
Why? Are the US Police actions That racially driven?

I suspect that a lot of it has to do with money. I'm sure contributions from big oil buy a lot more political pressure than contributions from big wildlife.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:27 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Money and a pipeline has to cut through *someone's* backyard. There's been a ton of NIMBY attitudes, and not solely with regards to the reservation. That said, they lack pull/money. Also, I understand the planned path is pretty rural. Unfortunately, the nature of these things is that more remote areas are always going to step on fewer toes per square mile, so they're going to get their toes inevitably stepped on.

Strictly speaking it isn't going through the reservation at all. It's merely going close enough to potentially affect the reservation via water, in spill scenarios. This is true for a lot of people, and was much more true for previous plans. It's difficult to envison any pipeline that long not going close enough to anybody enough to pose any risk at all. Not sure there's a better solution, really.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:27 pm UTC
by sardia
Tyndmyr wrote:Money and a pipeline has to cut through *someone's* backyard. There's been a ton of NIMBY attitudes, and not solely with regards to the reservation. That said, they lack pull/money. Also, I understand the planned path is pretty rural. Unfortunately, the nature of these things is that more remote areas are always going to step on fewer toes per square mile, so they're going to get their toes inevitably stepped on.

Strictly speaking it isn't going through the reservation at all. It's merely going close enough to potentially affect the reservation via water, in spill scenarios. This is true for a lot of people, and was much more true for previous plans. It's difficult to envison any pipeline that long not going close enough to anybody enough to pose any risk at all. Not sure there's a better solution, really.

Ask those freedom militias/ranchers out west for help?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:10 am UTC
by addams
sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Money and a pipeline has to cut through *someone's* backyard. There's been a ton of NIMBY attitudes, and not solely with regards to the reservation. That said, they lack pull/money. Also, I understand the planned path is pretty rural. Unfortunately, the nature of these things is that more remote areas are always going to step on fewer toes per square mile, so they're going to get their toes inevitably stepped on.

Strictly speaking it isn't going through the reservation at all. It's merely going close enough to potentially affect the reservation via water, in spill scenarios. This is true for a lot of people, and was much more true for previous plans. It's difficult to envison any pipeline that long not going close enough to anybody enough to pose any risk at all. Not sure there's a better solution, really.

Ask those freedom militias/ranchers out west for help?

This is not a Not In My BackYard! Put It In Your BackYard! issue.
This is a You Don't Need A Fucking PipeLine! issue.
This is a Not In AnyOne's BackYard issue.

Yes. The pipeline will make the rich, richer.
It will irreversibly damage areas larger than most European nations.

The people and the land call out for help.
Maybe; The Indians should Tweet Don Jon.

I'd Tweet him.
But, I don't Tweet.
Spoiler:
I think I need to eat.

edit:
It is time for the burning of Fossil Fuel age to end.
As the wise man said, "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of rocks."

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:54 am UTC
by addams
oops.
please excuse.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:50 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
addams wrote:This is not a Not In My BackYard! Put It In Your BackYard! issue.
This is a You Don't Need A Fucking PipeLine! issue.
This is a Not In AnyOne's BackYard issue.


Shipping it via trucks or tankers still risks spills in someone's backyard. So long as the fuel's being used, and it is, it's going to be an issue for someone's backyard. It's the nature of fossil fuels.

Pipeline probably has a lot less net risk than relying on trucks. Not that this is much comfort to the individual who face additional risks, mind you. Part of the problem with this is that nobody is looking at it reasonably. The protestors are describing it as "inevitably destroy the land". The pipeline company is saying "it's certified safe". Realistically, neither are really accurate. There's always some risk of a spill. It's not inevitable, but concern over the possibility is reasonable.

sardia wrote:Ask those freedom militias/ranchers out west for help?


I mean, they've made a point of declaring themselves unarmed. This has gone poorly for them, and has not prevented police from arming up, obviously.

The "bring all the guns" strategy obviously works better.

How you transition from one to the other, midway through, is difficult to envision, though. Police seem likely to overreact to the presence of arms while they have overwhelming force. You gotta get past that level, and present at least rough parity to provide a deterrent.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:13 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Putin spokesman's wife in row over Holocaust TV skating routine

The wife of Vladimir Putin's spokesman has drawn criticism by performing a Holocaust-themed ice skating routine on Russian television.

Tatiana Navka, a professional skater on the reality show Ice Age, was partnered by actor Andrei Burkovsky.

The couple performed in the striped uniform of concentration camp victims.

The high-energy routine saw the skating partners pretend to shoot each other, while beaming at the audience.

Their black and white uniforms included the yellow Star of David, which the Nazis forced Jewish people to wear, and fake inmate numbers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:14 pm UTC
by addams
Tyndmyr wrote:
addams wrote:This is not a Not In My BackYard! Put It In Your BackYard! issue.
This is a You Don't Need A Fucking PipeLine! issue.
This is a Not In AnyOne's BackYard issue.


Shipping it via trucks or tankers still risks spills in someone's backyard. So long as the fuel's being used, and it is, it's going to be an issue for someone's backyard. It's the nature of fossil fuels.

Pipeline probably has a lot less net risk than relying on trucks. Not that this is much comfort to the individual who face additional risks, mind you. Part of the problem with this is that nobody is looking at it reasonably. The protestors are describing it as "inevitably destroy the land". The pipeline company is saying "it's certified safe". Realistically, neither are really accurate. There's always some risk of a spill. It's not inevitable, but concern over the possibility is reasonable.

sardia wrote:Ask those freedom militias/ranchers out west for help?


I mean, they've made a point of declaring themselves unarmed. This has gone poorly for them, and has not prevented police from arming up, obviously.

The "bring all the guns" strategy obviously works better.

How you transition from one to the other, midway through, is difficult to envision, though. Police seem likely to overreact to the presence of arms while they have overwhelming force. You gotta get past that level, and present at least rough parity to provide a deterrent.

Pipeline probably has a lot less net risk than relying on trucks.

I think you are Wrong.
The list of how is long.

One truck goes down...Like Don Jon says, "Not Good."
The fucking pipe bursts...It's a fucking Disaster!

When; Not if!
When that pipe leaks, millions of lives are altered for the worse.

Where are you?
What Gold and Ivory Tower do you sequester yourself in?
You are safe? Will your Old Age save you from the poison?

This! This is one of my main arguments in favor of Religion.
People that 'believe' in reincarnation protect future self.
Mono-Theists often consider the opinion of an unseen God.

The Worshipers of Gold have only one life to worry about.
*!Their Own*!

Tyndmyr; You don't need that pipeline.
Think of all the fun you can have with all the money you don't spend on it.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:17 pm UTC
by Zohar

Wow. That's impressive. Apparently it's candid? She hopes children will learn from this or something??

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:25 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
addams wrote:I think you are Wrong.
The list of how is long.

One truck goes down...Like Don Jon says, "Not Good."
The fucking pipe bursts...It's a fucking Disaster!


People suck at comparing risks when large events are involved. It's like looking at nuclear meltdowns. Yeah, the individual events are bad, but the overall risk is negligible.

Image

Eyeballing it, Trucks are definitely worse than pipelines, always. Probably because that's the nature of highways and accidents. Everything shows a strong trendline getting better, too, except for trucks, which is...mixed.

So, we want to use as few trucks as possible. Rail looks good, here. I'm not sure that it *can* all be transported by rail at the volumes we're talking here. And it looks like if you dig deeper into rail, accidents spike badly when tracks are overly busy. Adding another 1,200 railcars daily is going to have a bad impact there. 2013 did horrible in rail, though it's not reflected in the above graph, and Canada recently had a bad railway spill. So, rail definitely doesn't scale upwards indefinitely while keeping the same risk.

I don't think there's a barge route for the whole pipeline that's reasonable.

This isn't about sitting in an ivory tower. It's about acknowledging that the risk already exists, pipeline or not. If you're burning gas, and directly or not, you probably are, you're contributing to the risk. So, how do you manage it?

addams wrote:The Worshipers of Gold have only one life to worry about.
*!Their Own*!

Tyndmyr; You don't need that pipeline.
Think of all the fun you can have with all the money you don't spend on it.


Non religious people do have ethics, yknow. *sigh*

Also, it's hardly my money or my pipeline. I'm merely acknowledging that all of us people happily burning gas have some small part in why it exists. And it, or something kind of like it, is necessary to get us the gas, and that'll have costs.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:20 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Tyndmyr wrote:People suck at comparing risks when large events are involved. It's like looking at nuclear meltdowns. Yeah, the individual events are bad, but the overall risk is negligible.
US deaths in 9/11: 2,977
US deaths in Afghanistan: 2,386
US deaths in Iraq: 4,424
US deaths because holy crap the gun was loaded I thought it wasn't loaded oh my god I am so sorry are you okay? 2002-2014: 8,167
US deaths in RTAs 2002-2015: 527,036
Be on the look-out for al-Qaeda? Fuck that. Look out for ROADS! Those things will eat your children!

Eyeballing it, Trucks are definitely worse than pipelines, always. Probably because that's the nature of highways and accidents. Everything shows a strong trendline getting better, too, except for trucks, which is...mixed.

So, we want to use as few trucks as possible. Rail looks good, here. I'm not sure that it *can* all be transported by rail at the volumes we're talking here. And it looks like if you dig deeper into rail, accidents spike badly when tracks are overly busy. Adding another 1,200 railcars daily is going to have a bad impact there. 2013 did horrible in rail, though it's not reflected in the above graph, and Canada recently had a bad railway spill. So, rail definitely doesn't scale upwards indefinitely while keeping the same risk.
Something we often hear after a rail accident is that automatic switching / signalling / braking gear was disabled, wasn't installed, hadn't been installed yet, wasn't working properly, hadn't been working for a while, was overridden by some guy or was never even included in the design in the first place. A computer that's been taught to do it properly can do it very well indeed, but the only people who ever let the computer control the trains are model railway enthusiasts. Their warehouse-sized models of Britain with every rail line and station that ever existed faithfully replicated and trains running on all of them work flawlessly. The full-size rail network with lives at stake relies on impatient human drivers. A pipeline can probably be made less susceptible to rupture in many ways, and the scale of a spill can be reduced by having automatic shut-offs at shorter intervals, but those things cost money to install and money over time to maintain.

Chief O'Hallorhan wrote:You know, we were lucky tonight. Body count's less than 200. You know, one of these days, you're gonna kill 10,000 in one of these firetraps, and I'm gonna keep eating smoke and bringing out bodies until somebody asks us... how to build them.