Reply #193: Brain Picking

[Meliorist]

Since you are the only person who has seen fit to even comment in any way on my questions, I feel obliged to reply to your questions.

1. In short, yes. I have long felt that we were long ago sold a bill of goods; that being the assumption that we either have a choice between "the left" (socialists, communists, progressives, Democrats, or however you wish to define them) and "the right" (conservatives, fascists, religious fundamentalists, Republicans, or however you wish to define them). Presenting such a complete dichotomy to the voter, while ignoring the fact that the only thing driving the vast majority of people who are actively engaged in seeking electoral positions is the lust for power, encumbered only by the bare minimum level of pretensions to any principle needed to appear electable.

What must be understood is that the only thing driving most politicians is the need for power, and whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The left/right definition is only used to manipulate the voter; if you look at the actual record, neither "side" has, in reality, much to distinguish between them; neither is responsive in any significant way to the concerns of the general populace; both are utterly beholding to those who have financed their campaigns; and none of them is anything less than perfectly willing to do whatever will insure that they attain, and retain, power. Lying, manipulating, character assasination, cheating-these are the everyday tools of everyday political figures; it makes no difference whether you apply these to Bush, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich, Kerry, Schwarzenegger, Cheney, Powell, or whomever you wish to-it is how they have behaved in their determination to assuage their lust for power.

Since we are rarely presented with any potential candidates who have not been long term seekers of power, when a Schwarzenegger, or Clark, or Powell, who have not been obvious seekers of power, comes along, we are engaged by their very appearance of being disconnected from the "machine politics" that we normally are faced with-and the chance to elect them becomes quite attractive. Note that in Clark's case, in particular, he has made many statements that evidence his willingness to become part of whichever party will give him the chance to attain power; in this we see the true face of the seeker of power. If there is any real difference between these apparent outsiders and the rest of the power-seeker class, I have failed utterly to discern it; and this is at the heart of our dilemma.

Is the two-party system the problem? Yes, and no. There are certainly worse answers; single party and proportional representation come immediately to mind. Party politics, in general, regardless of number or kind, are at the root of the problem; but people seem to be drawn to tribal structures-and, let's not kid ourselves, these are just modern tribes-and there seems to be no way of negating that fact without utterly violating some basic human rights.

I would far prefer that we were able to choose from a smorgasboard of principles, and nominate and elect our officeholders based upon their promises to represent those while in office; coupled with strict term limits; draconian punishments for corruption; transparency for sources of campaign financing; five year prohibitions against returning to private employment, coupled with matching stipends to compensate for loss of income, and, again, draconian punishment for accepting money or favors for personal enrichment from individuals or groups seeking to influence legislation, regulation, or enforcement of either; and possibly a few other additional checks and balances to protect against the powerseeker mentality, we could regain the citizen's control over the actions of the government that should be our birthright.

2. Under the current laws governing the generation of power by nuclear means, it is not cost efficient to do so; regulation must be changed before it will become cost efficient-currently, government effectively controls the design of those powerplants, and does not allow for innovations such as either the pebble-bed or CANDU designs, let alone some safer, more efficient design that may become available in the future. In addition, one of the trade-offs that the nuclear industry has willingly accepted is that regulation in return of an assumption of liability by the government; liability should be a matter for private insurers, who have long demonstrated that they will far more effectively make certain that all neccessary steps will be taken to avoid potential litigation costs, in order to preserve their own profits.

Regarding the wastes, I prefer the glassification and storage scenario; we aren't capable of seeing into the future and knowing whether or not those remains of fission power generation may be valuable and needed in future technologies; so dumping it into space or the sun is not an option I would want to see. Remember, 100 years ago, petroleum producers were burning off the gasoline fractions of their refinery products; they found no use for them.

Thanks for your interest in these questions; I'm somewhat surprised that no one else has seen fit to comment upon or propose any answers to my questions. I don't know whether that is because they either don't care to, or are incapable of, or are intimidated by them. I had hoped for better than that, from people who are self-proclaimedly "smarter than the rest of us".