More on Nuclear Power
In light of the dangers that have arose around the nuclear power plants in Japan following the earthquake, many US politicians have begun calling for a moratorium on any future nuclear power plants being built in the US and to have those currently in existence closed. This to me is just another example of typical American alarmist, knee-jerk reactions that don’t completely make sense.
There are serious and significant risks associated with every type of power that humans produce - oil refineries, gas tanks, chemical plants, treatment plants. They all run the risk of leaking or exploding and causing general catastrophe in the event of negligence or natural disaster. Outlawing nuclear power plants will not prevent disasters from happening. In fact, there is no such thing as a “natural” disaster. The only reason why natural occurrences are disastrous is human presence. We choose to built in flood plains, along fault lines, along shores, at the base of volcanoes and that’s why there is an immense loss of life whenever nature follows its often violent course. There is no way to avoid that so long as we continue living as we do.
I’m not trying to diminish what is most definitely a tragedy of immeasurable proportions, but it is ridiculous to simply say “oh no! bad thing happened due to extenuating circumstances, we better get rid of it all together…but none of the other things that pose the same risk.” If you’re going to get rid of nuclear power plants because they could blow up, you should close down everything else too.
It’s a matter of being smart about it. Don’t put nuclear power plants or other energy plants in areas known to have geological upheavals. Make sure that proper safety measures are in place. Make sure to develop the technology enough before implementing it so that, in the event of a disaster, things can be kept somewhat under control rather than having things escalate to ever larger levels of catastrophe.
Nuclear power is still far beyond human control and we still have a lot of learning and developing to do. But if we are able to accomplish that learning and development, we could have an incredible source of sustainable and cleaner energy on our hands. Right now, simply closing down nuclear power plants would probably be the worst possible decision since there needs to be proper care taken to contain the materials currently in there, which the US government has proven that it sucks at time and time again.
I don’t think that the knee-jerk, panic-mode reaction is the best option to go with, but at the same time I do not think that this country is ready as yet to handle the nuclear responsibility. I think that option needs to be kept open until we have a better handle on it so that once we do, we can benefit from it.
Book Worm: The Case against Kindle
To Kindle or not to Kindle (or Nook or what have you)?
I’ve started to consider the option of getting a Kindle, but for someone who loves reading a book with a pencil in hand underlining quotes and adding thoughts to the margins like myself, it’s not an easy decision. I like to actually have a book in hand, I like the smell of the pages, I like the tactile element to them, I like being able to really read a book and make it my own copy as I read it. I can’t really do any of that with a big flat computer book.
On the other hand, there are a lot of perks to the Kindle. I don’t have to worry about accidentally closing it and losing my page. It can hold far more books than my bookshelf can. Buying E-books is significantly cheaper than buying paper books, particularly hardcovered new releases.
But the Kindle also eliminates the ability to lend books out. I like being able to suggest a book to a friend and follow it up with “I have a copy if you’d like to borrow it.” In addition, as someone who was never read to as a child, I want to read to my children, instill in them a passion for reading and learning, and be able to say “here is a copy of my favorite book from when I was ___”. I can’t do that if it’s on a piece of technology that may even be obsolete by that time.
I suppose I feel that reading and writing books is an art form. I think that reading a book is not only partaking in the art created by the author but also contributing to it, by marking up the pages with things that are meaningful to you. Did you know that there are people who actually study old books for the notes that have been added by the readers to analyze the relationship between the reader and the literature - how the reader’s identity affected their reading of the book? What did the social and historical contexts contribute to their connection with the meat of the book? Are there trends in how certain people react to books on certain topics? I think that’s a wonderful thing that is lost in electronic books. I was very privileged to have gone to Smith College where I could examine books read by women like Sylvia Plath and see what she had to say about the words they contained. It can lead to a better understanding of significant people and relatively insignificant people. To computerize books is to depersonalize the acts of reading and writing. It diminishes a way to understand ourselves and others. You become separate from the book, not engulfed in it.
I think that’s the sticking point for me. I want that engulfment. I want that personalization. And for now I’m willing to spend a few extra bucks for it.
Yet another reminder that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Studies like this trouble me because they do not underscore strongly enough that these results are not definitive and that other factors must be closely considered. The majority of people who read this are going to think “oh, OK, my children have behavior problems because of radiation from cell phones, not because I don’t pay any attention to them and sit them inside in front of the TV all day.” There is a linear relationship here between cell phone exposure and behavioral problems. Yes, that means there is a correlation between radiation and behavior, but also the more a parent is on the phone, the less time they are devoting to their children which causes the children to act out. There needs to be more emphasis placed on the fact that there is more to this than radiation so that we’re not just making more excuses for bad parenting.
Huh?
OK wait, I’m confused.
So things like universal healthcare are Nazi policies, but book burning and targeting an entire group based soley upon their ethnicity and religion are OK?
Well, crap. Clearly I have some studying to do because apparently my ENTIRE education up until this point has been a lie.
![thedailywhat:
Signe Wilkinson.
[c|b.]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5eq13zpol1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
“Borders on homophobia” is an understatement in my opinion. The scenarios described in these questions and the responses to them re-create actual instances of discrimination against homosexuals in the military. Beyond that, they promote homophobic sentiments and perpetuate homophobic stereotypes.
For example, the question asking what a soldier would do if he/she were to have to share a room or tent with a gay or lesbian servicemember assumes that the individual being asked knows the sexual orientation of their bunkmate. How would they know this? It either implies that the service will be disclosing the sexual orientation of its members, which, if it is at all savvy about avoiding law suits, it would not, or it implies the stereotype that you can just tell when people are gay - that there are inherent clues that someone is a “fag”.
Furthermore, as a matter of simple research construct and validity, these are not the questions of a survey that truly seeks to gauge the attitudes of current servicemembers about the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. If you truly seek to gauge opinion, you do not ask leading questions, which these are, and you do not provide responses that lean in either direction, which these do. If they truly sought an impartial gauge of opinion, these questions would be worded quite differently and ideally would allow the respondent to provide his/her own answers. They could even provide an “other” option. How about focus groups? Those can be an effective means of research when done properly.
I fear the consequences widely distributing a survey like theis could have: namely, ripening the environment for homophobia and discrimination when homosexuals can openly enter the military. Actually, it begs the question, can they ever openly enter? Will they, in fact, have to keep their sexuality a heavily guarded secret as they always have had to?
Allow me to provide my biased opinion about the attitudes servicemembers will take - not individually, but what I believe will be the generally sentiment. This is America. This is a nation ruled by fear and hatred. It has been since its inception. The only thing that has changed is which group is most hated, most feared, or most oppressed. This is an inherently homophobic nation. We are far behind other countries in the world in terms of equality, rights, and tolerance. We are a largely ignorant and stubborn country. The military is governed by conservative ideals. To this day, it champions machismo as a measure of a person’s dedication and worth. Homosexuals will not be a welcome addition to the military and it is going to take a long time before they can enter the military openly without fear of discrimination and violence. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is one of many, many steps involved in bringing about equality for all sexual orientations in this country. This is a change that has to occur not only within the government and its various programs, but within American society as a whole, which, as history will overwhelmingly show, is remarkably resistant to change. History will also show, however, that it is capable of change - it is just a painstakingly slow process. Do I think that there can be an end to homophobia in the future? Yes. Do I think it will happen while my generation is still alive? Probably not, and it deeply saddens me to say so.
Patriotism in Poverty
As we’re coming upon the Fourth of July, Governor Schwarzeneggar of California has announced that he intends to decrease the hourly wage rate of state workers to minimum wage. I am not contending that state workers are more deserving than anyone else who makes minimum wage, but this is particularly problematic to me.
Fact: it is impossible to live off of minimum wage, state or federal. True, California’s minimum wage of $8 is among the highest in the nation and is higher than the federal of $7.25, but when you are grossing $8 an hour, how much is left to take home after taxes? Furthermore, the cost of living in California is very high, making it even more of a struggle to subsist off of minimum wage.
In an era where there is an overwhelming push by state and federal governments to decrease the dependence of Americans on public benefits, I fail to see how this could aid in that mission, much less close that budget gap this change is purported to remedy. Indeed, I guarantee that California will see in influx in homelessness, those collecting foodstamps, welfare benefits, and other state and federal public benefits. This is eliminating a state cost only to increase other state costs.
Beyond that, state workers are the gears that keep the state working efficiently. If they are pushed to defection, how will California be able to maintain the projects and improvements that are promised to benefit the public?
Governor Schwarzeneggar, I understand your need to close the budget gap, but is it worth harming even larger numbers of your constituents? I fail to see how this is the state staying true to it s constitutionally-delegated responsibility to the health, safety, and well-being of the public.
