iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) Frankly, the existing power transmission infrastructure can't handle what it's being asked to do right now, and we need to spend on the order of hundreds of billions just to keep it going. Eh....honestly, it is vulnerable, and some areas are pressed more than others, but it's actually pretty darn reliable for the most part. It could certainly benefit from investment, but what infrastructure in this country wouldn't?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) Can the existing power transmission infrastructure handle that? Or are we talking multi-billions/trillions for revamping the whole damn thing? All depends on the resources we develop. If they can find a way to store intermittent energy sources in batteries, or as compressed air, where it can be released reliably, the existing grid would probably not need that much work. However, if you're talking about having a very large percentage based on intermittent sources with nothing but fossil fuel units used as backup, you're probably going to need a much more advanced grid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) The problem being that the "cheap" energy has a bunch of externalities that we get to pay for down the road, and that's something taxing carbon would capture. Very true. The problem is that when the utilities stop delivering the cheap energy, the public tends to stop caring about climate change.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) Any idea of what sort of technologies are being pursued to turn wind/solar into baseload power? From what I understand, they think they can store compressed air underground or even underwater that can be released when the wind stops blowing. Some companies are working on batteries. Some think it can be stored in ice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) I think any comparison with China's spending on the subject makes the case quite well. Yeah, maybe so. But it also helps that they are building resources for the first time for a large part for their growing population. They are also building coal plants left and right. For us, you're talking about replacing cheap energy with energy that is 5 to 10 times more expensive, and those units you are replacing are in many cases fairly new. In China, they are building needed resources for the first time. It's a little different.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) I totally agree that they'd work if we were committed to doing so...but we're not. What do you call being committed? The current RPS's are pretty strong, with 2/3 of the country having them and all but 5 of those being mandates, not goals. The south, not surprisingly, is lagging behind.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) No, you actually specifically said...regarding this case..."I would say it makes a strong case for better parenting." in response to a post where I said I could spell out explicitly how better gun regulations would have saved lives here. Let me spell out exactly how stronger gun regulations would have saved lives in this situation. The shooter used a high capacity magazine that was banned under the Assault weapons ban. He didn't have the means or ability to go far out of his way to arm himself. He took the first shot at the Congresswoman, then emptied 30+ rounds into the crowd of assembled people. The moment he stopped to reload, either he struggled to reload correctly or the bystanders just jumped him first. Someone hit him in the head with a chair, and they were able to wrestle him to the ground before he was able to start shooting his second clip. Had he been unable to legally purchase that expanded magazine, he would have only been able to fire 10 shots, rather than 30+. The Assault weapons ban would have saved lives in this case. You can argue with my interpretation if you want, but there is a specific argument as to how a policy change could have affected the shooting spree. I don't think it's unfair to say that if you're going to state that improved parenting could have prevented this shooting, I ask what exactly you're basing that on, and what exactly the parents did wrong? It's entirely possible that in 2 weeks, we'll have a 19 item bullet point list of things they did wrong, but I don't think we have that yet. I was responding to your comment about mental health, actually. I have absolutely no problem with expanding gun control. And I wasn't even disagreeing with you, either. It was more intended to be in addition to what you said. Edit: And if you want to ask me to prove to you how his parents could have prevented him from doing this, I guess you've got me there, Balta. I guess it is impossible to make general statements anywhere near Balta, because you will be asked to provide empirical data to prove it. I hereby propose a new law...anyone within 1000 feet of Brian Balta must now have empirical data on his person prior to making any statement in which said empirical data could be utilized to prove its veracity.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) I don't think there's any point that I've said that Sarah Palin had any impact on his behavior and I'm pretty sure I criticized the person in this thread who suggested that. I think my point has always been that the sort of eliminationist rhetoric we've been seeing was inappropriate the whole time...but it's especially inappropriate when viewed in light of these events. It could well be that he was influenced by his parents and I'm sure they'll have more than a few issues to deal with here. That's different than what I've been trying to say though. Hey, all I said was that we need to improve our parenting in this country. There was a reason I tried to evade your picking at anything in anyone's posts that can possibly be debated - because now we are here. Instead of the issue at hand.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) I misspelled it. A person can definitely be both, and in fact that's a strong positive relationship. Crazy people are easily set off by things going on around them. Parents could be partially to blame, neither you nor I know. And now is the time to start adjusting our behaviors for the crazy people?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) If it is true that this shooter has genuine psychological issues...and is perhaps a legitimate psychotic...I doubt that there are very many parents anywhere who would understand how to recognize the development of those problems as the shooter was growing up, and even fewer who would be able to provide the necessary treatment on their own. These sort of legitimate mental breakdown issues are the sort that it's hard for everyday people to recognize, even harder for people who are close to them every day. Alright then, so which is it? If his parents have absolutely no influence over his behavior, I am supposed to believe that Sarah Palin did? I have no problem just taking the guy for being completely crazy. But you can't argue on one hand that our politcal rhetoric is nurturing this sort of violence, and then on the other hand claim his parents had no hand in his development as a person. He's either crazy or he's not. He can't be crazy for purposes of exonerating his parents but deeply capable of being influenced when it comes to political rhetoric.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Link I thought that was what he was referring to, but he put Rosa, which is the name of some data protection company or something. I was thoroughly confused at first

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) I'll grant its entirely plausible that you're right...I just don't have the information at present that would allow me to make the step that you made. Out of the truly violent, sociopathic killers that we have in recent history...some have come from bad homes, some have been from fine circumstances. The Columbine killers, for example...they were from seemingly normal homes. I understand that. And I wasn't trying to insinuate that his parents are to blame in any way for what their son did. I was making a general statement that, instead of always trying to throw money at the symptoms or the peripheries of the problem, we need to look more at the root of it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) So, you are a tabula rosa guy then, eh? ? Tabula Rasa?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) So what exactly did the parents do wrong then? I'm not even going to engage you in this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) What information are you using to judge their parenting skills? The fact that their son killed several people at a grocery store for no reason other than that he did not agree with their political beliefs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) You are correct, there is a proposed bill that would ban using violent symbols when referring to members of Congress. I would oppose said bill. However, I would say that this event makes a strong case for expanded gun control and expanded mental health services. I would say it makes a strong case for better parenting.

But that's just treating a symptom of the problem, a cough caused by the virus that is the current state of politics in this country. When will that virus be treated, instead of just the symptoms of that virus?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) Do you have proof of this? Because this is the part I don't agree with. This is the part where I think the media (both sides pointing the finger at the other side) is making s*** up. Palin and politicians don't belong in this conversation, period. This guy was crazy. End of story. That's the only conclusion here. Until some EVIDENCE comes out that he was motivated by that crap, it has nothing to do with it. Bringing up the "let's use this tragedy to tone down the rhetoric" is just a cop out. It's blaming what some asshole did on how we speak about/to one another. It's fabricated bulls***. I point back to my quote of Thomas Jefferson. Blame him. Blame Obama for using a gun quote. Blame US history. I can bring up a million examples and somehow relate it to this tragedy, but it doesn't mean it's the cause or that it played any part WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Continuing to bring this s*** up is purely political. You want to point the finger and say "these assholes on the right/left are the reason this happens. If they only spoke nice to each other this stuff wouldn't happen." BULLs***. It would, because some people are just CRAZY. See, this is just so perfect. A woman has been shot by a lunatic. Both sides are tripping over one another to see who can feel worse about it....for 30 minutes or so...then they immediately revert back to blaming the other for who spews the vitriol more, thereby being somehow responsible for this mess. The system is just out of control. It's not violent imagery or metaphors that are to blame for this, BUT THE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES that are. The lack of common sense and decency in order to maintain "party ideals" or whatever the hell republicans and democrats are claiming they are fighting for these days is what is responsible for this.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) You really can't see a scenario where someone who's lost their job and is struggling keeps getting told "take your country back!", "reload!", "they're going to kill your grandmother!", "Death panels!", "communist/nazi/socialists are taking over!" might somehow be affected by that being beaten into their head? And hearing/seeing something like this at a political rally: Honestly, it's idiots like these that cause me to avoid politics altogether, Sqwert. I can't tolerate the lunacy. It just irks me that when something bad happens, everyone looks around with shock and horror that something such as this was possible, when it has been clear for sooooo long that common sense and decency have been entirely absent in politics well before it came to this.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) we really need gun imagery in politics? we need to be able to say things like "make [my opponent] afraid to leave his house"? Don't get me wrong, I am NOT trying to defend some of the ridiculous things that woman does and says. But we are never going to be able to use a target metaphor anymore? I can never say "I have him in my sights" or "within the crosshairs"? Honestly, those metaphors are so commonplace people rarely even associate them with guns anymore. I've never shot a gun in my life, and yet, I think the metaphor is a quite valuable one. I'm not advocating the use of symbols the way she used them in the map; I am willing to admit that was a bit vitriolic and morbid. But at what point do you draw the line then? Where does the censorship stop? What metaphors are ok to use and which are not, and how and who draws that line?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:49 AM) i'm saying she's part of the culture that can lead these things to happen. this guy was/is insane, and the political climate may or may not have caused him to kill. that being said, why shouldn't we take this opportunity to tone it down? i guess is my real point in all this... See, I just disagree with that. There is a point where some people are just absolutely bats*** crazy and are going to do bats*** crazy things, because they got some thought put in their mind somehow, some way. In the meantime we are going to all curb our rhetoric and behavior until we can hardly express ourselves anymore, because someone might misunderstand it and go running around with a gun and kill someone. Terrible things happen in this world, and when you become a politician, you put yourself at a much greater risk to take the brunt end of it, unfortunately.

I think it's just grasping at straws to try and figure out why this guy did what he did. Some people are just crazy.

I just don't care for the entire system....the super long layoff, the lack of a playoff, the constant controversy, the NCAA legislation....I just can hardly stomach it anymore... Now NCAA basketball....now that, they have right...

On a more serious note, I would love for the Bears to get their hands on that WR from Oregon, that Maehl guy....

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) A guy on ESPN this morning said something along the lines of "The FBI is still investigating. they may be slow, but they are thorough." THen went on to say that when this is all over it will be VERY muddy. I dunno what you guys are talking about...Cam said he was an instrument of God!