The all things Political topic -In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie

[Zoraptor]

8 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Intense lobbying from the oil industry?

There's lobbying from a lot more than just the oil industry against it, any industry that relies on oil lobbies against it too. And that's a lot, not just obvious ones like transport but also anyone who uses plastic.

And, of course, you have issues like the massive deforestation occurring in Indonesia so that they can grow palm oil for 'green' biofuels... And of course of course if you wanted to switch to 'green' plant based plastics you need a lot more land to grow them on as well... ...

Basically after anything more than a cursory glance at the reality of the situation: we're completely screwed and simply aren't capable of fixing things without there being maybe a 3/4 reduction in population which is the one thing no politician will touch with a pole of any length, since it would require a fundamental shift in economic theory and application let alone the ethical considerations. Fortunately, we have Bill Gates and his microchipped 5g population control vaccines for that.

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

Or like in the case of Australia, outright owned by the coal, oil and mining industry...

What was the figure that came out recently, fossil fuels in Australia are subsidised at the rate of 16,000 AUD per second or something?

Edited April 26, 2021 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I don't know why but it always seems like you are fishing for reasons to validate your dislike of BLM. BLM isn't about gangs and gang related violence and if you don't want to support them because of their focus on police brutality and racially motivated violence then that's perfectly fine. There are many other organizations and movements for you to support that focus on gangs if that's what you're interested in.

Thanks for responding, I appreciate your opinion on topics because I respect your journey and lived experience, even if you dont have that view of me. I have realized years ago that sometimes my views are misunderstood on forums and some  people have  a strange negative view of what I mean or what defines my ideological views 

The main reason for this is the fact I am not able to explain my intent as its a forum so people will respond to what I say and obviously I sometimes dont frame things the correct way

Also I dont need to fish for support because my opinion on this is not going to change but I am always interested in responses to the question I asked. If I didnt like BLM I would just say it and explain it, its not something that would require such a duplicitous approach

So for example your post highlights this misunderstanding, this is actually why I am asking the question about gang on gang violence

1. Its a question that Americans can comment on as you guys live in the country
2. Its gets raised by some Republicans as a way to highlight inconsistencies with BLM outrage 
3. I dont know why people arent  concerned with the killings of 20 African Americans in gang violence in 1 weekend , its a lot and I would be concerned if it happened in SA
4. Again this type of outcome is something I see in SA so I am interested in what Americans think

So the question is still the same, why do you think gang on gang violence does not achieve the same attention? I am well aware the 2 have different reasons for how people respond. And finally I have  no idea what most  people think on this forum about BLM and gang violence and thats exactly what I want to understand

Finally I am building a series of views on these topics and all views matter in my own understanding of certain events 

So in other words dont see any question I ask as having ulterior motives or being disingenuous , the post is just about different opinions people have and anecdotal opinions help build a comprehensive explanation 

[ShadySands]

27 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

So for example your post highlights this misunderstanding, this is actually why I am asking the question about gang on gang violence

1. Its a question that Americans can comment on as you guys live in the country
2. Its gets raised by some Republicans as a way to highlight inconsistencies with BLM outrage 
3. I dont know why people arent  concerned with the killings of 20 African Americans in gang violence in 1 weekend , its a lot and I would be concerned if it happened in SA
4. Again this type of outcome is something I see in SA so I am interested in what Americans think

So the question is still the same, why do you think gang on gang violence does not achieve the same attention? I am well aware the 2 have different reasons for how people respond. And finally I have  no idea what most  people think on this forum about BLM and gang violence and thats exactly what I want to understand

The problem is that you're suggesting that BLM, and not for the first time, be something that it is not. As I've said, there are many groups dedicated to gang violence.

1 and 4. You've gotten feedback on this before from me and a few others and most of the people that you're getting more outrageous feedback from aren't American. 

2. This is silly. Heart disease kills more black people than anything else, why aren't BLM talking about that? They're not about black lives after all so what are they really about??? It's like the joke about showing up to a breast cancer march with signs that say all cancers matter. Again, BLM is about a certain set of issues, that's it. Even if they did decide to be about this issue then they'd just get attacked for that as well. Like, if police brutality and racial violence are really issues then why are they now talking about gang violence.

3. What makes you think that nobody is concerned? Because BLM hasn't changed it's goal to combat this issue? Just because the groups that champion this fight aren't in the spotlight doesn't mean they don't exist or that there aren't many of them.

There are probably a lot of reasons why gang violence doesn't get the same level of attention. It's not a polarizing issue, nobody is pro gang violence or denies it exists or whatever.

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

The problem is that you're suggesting that BLM, and not for the first time, be something that it is not. As I've said, there are many groups dedicated to gang violence.

1 and 4. You've gotten feedback on this before from me and a few others and most of the people that you're getting more outrageous feedback from aren't American. 

2. This is silly. Heart disease kills more black people than anything else, why aren't BLM talking about that? They're not about black lives after all so what are they really about??? It's like the joke about showing up to a breast cancer march with signs that say all cancers matter. Again, BLM is about a certain set of issues, that's it. Even if they did decide to be about this issue then they'd just get attacked for that as well. Like, if police brutality and racial violence are really issues then why are they now talking about gang violence.

3. What makes you think that nobody is concerned? Because BLM hasn't changed it's goal to combat this issue? Just because the groups that champion this fight aren't in the spotlight doesn't mean they don't exist or that there aren't many of them.

There are probably a lot of reasons why gang violence doesn't get the same level of attention. It's not a polarizing issue, nobody is pro gang violence or denies it exists or whatever.

Thanks for the points, some make sense

But I have created the wrong impression on some points or you misunderstanding me but either way if you dont mind responding  I would appreciate it as it helps with how I can be cogent 

1.  When you say I am suggestion  that BLM is something its not I am not sure what you mean. People who support BLM may not support support gang violence at all. But people who do support BLM could also support  gang violence but outside BLM? 
2. Heart attack is not the same point as gang violence but I see what you mean by BLM being about certain objectives. I have to add I didnt mean BLM must necessarily raise gang violence but its not a stretch on a BLM protest to raise this, BLM is also about the lives of black people being killed in unnecessary ways so gang violence could be part of the narrative and message 
3. Yes I agree, I did mention their are people who care but its not  on the mainstream which I watch
4. Good point that its not as polarizing as maybe gang violence which  universally condemned
5. Finally do you feel BLM objectives are undermined or criticized unfairly and if so what would be an example of this ?

[Malcador]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:09 PM, BruceVC said:

But I want to be clear, this post is not a way to dismiss the legitimate concerns around BLM.

Always know people's true intentions from what they say they're not.

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

I dont know why people arent  concerned with the killings of 20 African Americans in gang violence in 1 weekend , its a lot and I would be concerned if it happened in SA

I'm not American, but I'll give you my unsolicited thoughts anyway

If you edit your sentence a tiny bit, like removing one word, you may have answered your own question

"I dont know why people arent  concerned with the killings of 20 African Americans in gang violence in 1 weekend , its a lot and I would be concerned if it happened in SA"

The answer could be, because the killings aren't racially motivated?

Maybe It's a socio-economic problem (which could be racially related), that gang violence is so bad in parts of the world? Any country ought to be worried if 20 people got killed in one weekend in gang related violence. I know Denmark was concerned a few decades ago when lots of people got killed in gang related violence (when Bandidos and Hells Angels had a go at each other over market shares of the drug market)

[BruceVC]

Just now, Malcador said:

Always know people's true intentions from what they say they're not.

That can be true but also this type of comment I always add because I dont want people to think this is about me trying to actually criticize BLM surreptitiously. I cant say BLM people dont care about gang violence because  I have no  data or research but I am basing it on what people say about BLM on CNN and the gang violence doesnt come up as much ?

 

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I'm not American, but I'll give you my unsolicited thoughts anyway

If you edit your sentence a tiny bit, like removing one word, you may have answered your own question

"I dont know why people arent  concerned with the killings of 20 African Americans in gang violence in 1 weekend , its a lot and I would be concerned if it happened in SA"

The answer could be, because the killings aren't racially motivated?

Maybe It's a socio-economic problem (which could be racially related), that gang violence is so bad in parts of the world? Any country ought to be worried if 20 people got killed in one weekend in gang related violence. I know Denmark was concerned a few decades ago when lots of people got killed in gang related violence (when Bandidos and Hells Angels had a go at each other over market shares of the drug market)

Good points raised, I agree with most of what you saying. You have also raised an interesting view, maybe this is about the fact the killings are racially motivated but I would find it hard to believe families would not grieve and be very upset about either reasons for deaths so the responses could be the same ?

In SA that would be a huge number in 1 night but yes it would be discussed and analyzed

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Sometimes I wish the BLM that lives in the heads of some people was real. Kinda like if Biden really was going to make patriots have a taxpayer funded gay vegan halal wedding to an illegal alien or whatever the dip**** brigade said would happen if their daddy lost the election.

Sadly, BLM is a bunch of various things, some of which conflict with each other, and not some homogeneous organization out to replace us ignore the legitimate concerns about gang violence or abortion being the real danger to black people. So it's weird to see some people say BLM doesn't or does X, when you can find BLM groups with very different takes on various issues and how to go about things. About half the time people go on like this it's bad faith concern trolling and obfuscation that uses hundreds of words when fourteen would have made the same point.

[Gorth]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

Good points raised, I agree with most of what you saying. You have also raised an interesting view, maybe this is about the fact the killings are racially motivated but I would find it hard to believe families would not grieve and be very upset about either reasons for deaths so the responses could be the same ?

I'm fairly sure the grief and outrage would be the same regardless of why a son, a brother, a father (and girls too get killed in gang wars), but it's my impression that BLM's cause d'etre is people getting killed because of their skin colour, not their gang affiliation. Not going to list them, but a google search for groups against gang violence comes up with a number of initiatives against (especially youth) gang violence. Do they get the same media exposure? definitely not. I think that's more of an issue really. Not that BLM gets media attention, but that other, also very important initiatives don't.

[Azdeus]

16 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

This might be an intriguing piece

https://www.aier.org/article/the-ignorant-world-and-what-to-do-about-it/

I Rosling.

Rest in peace.

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 

Guys lets be fair, these are factors that do influence how quickly you move away from them. So for example would you suggest we shut down oil refineries in any country if that is what Pidesco means is a source of pollution

But more important and relevant is how in  some countries, like SA,China  and Poland, most of the countries energy grid is driven by coal refineries. And we have had massive issues with Eskom, our national energy provider,  with corruption in tenders around coal production and failure to build new coal stations or them taking 10 years instead of 6 

So even though I agree coal is dirty and pollutes the environment you cannot remove stations until we can diversify our power grid so we keep using coals stations

But you guys are raising a " first world problem " in a normal way.  Countries that created alternative energy grids like Sweden can correctly dismiss coal as a polluted but for many countries coal is an unfortunate necessity 

 

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

No idea what Sweden is up to these days (@Azdeus would probably know), but my old country used to be all coal powered. My old hometown had a large coal power plant, easily recognizable in the flat coastal terrain with it's huge blocks build for the turbines and a 250m chimney which you could probably see from 30km in the completely flat landscape. Now, this is based on childhood memories (the original powerplant was built in 1965 I think, which had two shorter chimneys, so even before old greybeard here was born), but I could have sworn at some time having gotten the impression that all that coal was shipped by boat from South Africa (just musing out loud because now of the coincidence of sharing this with a South African)

It's going to be demolished and torn down now, being decommissioned (first part of it, "block3 " to be shut down in 2022 , as Denmark moves more and more towards renewable energy.

https://denmark.dk/innovation-and-design/clean-energy

"Clean energy is a Danish passion, and in Denmark 30 percent of all energy used already comes from renewable sources.
Wind energy is well-established in Denmark, which long ago decided to put the Danish climate’s constant breezes and blusters to practical use. Now Denmark produces almost twice as much wind energy per capita as the runner-up among industrialised countries in the OECD.
But you may be surprised to hear that wind energy isn’t the most widely used renewable energy source in Denmark. First place actually belongs to bioenergy, followed by wind, solar and geothermal energy."

Yes, Denmark is a "first world country", but I suppose this works as a proof of concept that it's doable if the will is there. Denmark once produced so much oil they would likely have been accepted by OPEC

Edit: The reason I seem to remember it coming from SA was because it was controversial at the time, those guys having something down there called "apartheid", which this young schoolboy here had no clue what was, but it was apparently not the right thing to buy stuff from SA in the 60's and 70's

Sweden has never really depended on coal or oil, we had some gas powerplants early on, but we're lucky in that we have pretty good natural resources in the form of water, so early on we built hydropower. Come the 60's we had basically all our power from water, and then people got tired of ruining the rivers and destroying the fishlife and we had protests against further building of hydropower and shifter the focus to Nuclear Power instead, we had some oil as stopgaps and emergency reserves while waiting for nuclear to come online, but come the 80's we had ~45% of our power production from water and ~45% from nuclear, and the rest are from miscellaneous stuff like burning woodchips and trash for heat and power. We've got some coal and oil powerplants that are for emergencies and are rarely used.

We have massive problems with moving about electricity from the hydroplants in the north to the south were people live, and we're closing our clean nuclear powerplants, so we export alot of our clean energy and import coal power from Poland instead. In the 80's after Harrisburg there was a referendum about nuclear power with three no options, surprisingly the vote fell on no more nuclear power and after Chernobyl there was a "thought ban" on nuclear power, meaning no plans whatsoever are allowed when it comes to nuclear power including a ban on mining uranium.

We've built some windpower farms now, but they're a real small part of our power production still and that is basically were the plans are. Wind and water, all of it.

I'm a bit tired right now so there might be some errors in the exact numbers and my despise for our current route is pretty overwhelming, but there it is. We need to get our heads out of our asses and build more nuclear, especially since Swedish Steel production is going to move from fossile to green production come the next decade and eat up basically all the northern water power for their steel production, and nuclear power over it's lifetime is much more clean than even wind and safer aswell.

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

..BLM's cause d'etre is people getting killed because of their skin colour..

I'd probably specify it as being an 'institutional' type killing too. A fight between a mexican gang and a black gang might be colour related as well, but it's between two equivalent groups. Police killing someone due to colour is a lot different since the police are a representative of Government, as would be the judicial system if they let police off lightly or failed to punish crimes against one racial group equivalently to others.

In a more general sense people care a lot less about gang warfare type deaths because there's an expectation that if you have gangs they will be involved in crime, and sometimes that involvement will result in violence between competing groups. That's always been the case to greater or lesser extents. A cop deciding to kneel on someone's neck for ten minutes until they die while being filmed isn't quite as normal though.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

I'm fairly sure the grief and outrage would be the same regardless of why a son, a brother, a father (and girls too get killed in gang wars), but it's my impression that BLM's cause d'etre is people getting killed because of their skin colour, not their gang affiliation. 

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

I'd probably specify it as being an 'institutional' type killing too. A fight between a mexican gang and a black gang might be colour related as well, but it's between two equivalent groups. Police killing someone due to colour is a lot different since the police are a representative of Government, as would be the judicial system if they let police off lightly or failed to punish crimes against one racial group equivalently to others.

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/at-least-50-people-were-shot-in-chicago-over-memorial-day-weekend-the-next-day-another-23-were-shot-including-a-5-year-old-girl-standing-with-her-family/ar-BB14FxJS

Just to make an important point  the gang killings in the USA  I am talking is mostly black civilians being killed

I would agree that if its just  gang members being killed it would not be such a concern as gang members choose a certain path but I should have been clear. I am talking African American civilians and Gorthfuscious its not the word   Americans that you use because this is specifically in the African American communities 

[ShadySands]

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

The gang killings I mentioned in the past are often not gang on gang killings meaning  its civilians who get killed in crossfire

Zora made a valid point that when  gangs go to war gang members get killed and that is something that can be hard to resolve. But when civilians get killed by gang wars then its much more serious

So society should respond in a much more concerned way by this type of outcome

[Gorth]

26 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

So society should respond in a much more concerned way by this type of outcome

I thought that was what I said? Gang wars needs to be addressed and get more media attention

 

Edit: Or rather, initiatives to prevent gang violence needs more awareness (and support, although I didn't use that word)

[BruceVC]

58 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I thought that was what I said? Gang wars needs to be addressed and get more media attention

 

Edit: Or rather, initiatives to prevent gang violence needs more awareness (and support, although I didn't use that word)

Yes okay, I wasnt sure if you were saying the killings are only gang members and not civilians 

But you saying the logical solution which is gang violence must stop. But now you look at the US and see the areas where gang violence occurs and you will see this has been going on for years and still occurs or flareups despite attempts by civil society 

[ComradeYellow]

5 hours ago, Azdeus said:

I'm a bit tired right now so there might be some errors in the exact numbers and my despise for our current route is pretty overwhelming, but there it is. We need to get our heads out of our asses and build more nuclear, especially since Swedish Steel production is going to move from fossile to green production come the next decade and eat up basically all the northern water power for their steel production, and nuclear power over it's lifetime is much more clean than even wind and safer aswell.

The Russians are actually dabbling in clean nuclear power.  Their state industry Rosatom in championing it.

20th century: Nuclear power means death, destruction, and environmental catastrophe.

21st century: Nuclear power means clean, efficient, and perfectly safe power generation.

Take that 20th century dinosaurs still lusting over vanquishing their adversaries with nuclear waste.

[Gorth]

You don't have to have coloured skin to be the subject of violent cops in the US...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56897186

US police officers are seen mocking a 73-year-old dementia sufferer as they watch video of her shoulder going "pop" during her forcible arrest, according to footage released by her lawyer.

Karen Garner was detained on 26 June last year after she walked out of a Walmart in the state of Colorado without paying for $13 of items.
Her elbow was fractured and shoulder dislocated, says her attorney.
An investigation has been launched into the Loveland Police Department arrest.
In the footage released on Monday from the booking area of the police station on the day of the arrest, officers are seen fist-bumping one another as they review body camera video of the incident.

Video from inside Ms Garner's nearby holding cell shows the frail-looking grandmother slumped handcuffed to a bench while the officers joke about the incident, says her lawyer.

"Ready for the pop? Hear the pop?" one of the officers says at one point, referring to Ms Garner's shoulder.

As they continue to watch the footage, the same officer says: "I love it."

The Garner family hired a sound engineer to enhance audio of the officers' remarks.
Their lawyer has filed a federal lawsuit against the department, alleging the officers violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and "violently assaulted" Ms Garner.
Attorney Sarah Schielke says her client went six hours without medical help while confused and crying in pain after an arrest that amounted to "torture".

"They failed Karen Garner," Ms Schielke said in a press release. "They failed the community. And they did it all on camera."

 

edit: for good measure

The release of the footage comes amid a nationwide reckoning over police brutality, especially against African Americans, although Ms Garner is white.

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, ComradeYellow said:

The Russians are actually dabbling in clean nuclear power.  Their state industry Rosatom in championing it.

20th century: Nuclear power means death, destruction, and environmental catastrophe.

21st century: Nuclear power means clean, efficient, and perfectly safe power generation.

Take that 20th century dinosaurs still lusting over vanquishing their adversaries with nuclear waste.

They are dabbling nuclear power, but it is far from clean. But much better than coal, especially old coal plants.

Rosatom's nuclear plant projects seem to face multiple problems. 

• Currently their best reactor VVER-1200, is only capable to produce 1,198 MWe of power, which is 300-400 MWe less than its competitors reactors
• Single reactor plant still cost lot (Rosatom's estimate for their single VVER-1200 reactor plant in Finland is 7 billion euros [estimated building time 7 years after 11 years of project planning]), compared to Areva's 1600 MWe EPR reactor plant which was estimated to cost 3.2 billion euros, although it costs  increased to ~10 billion euros because building it took 12 years more than Areva estimated.
• Financing Rosatom's plants is difficult thanks to sanctions put in by USA

So nuclear power gives cleaner and some what safe power generation, but it isn't that efficient as you can build much more power generation and faster with same money by building wind turbines. 

Small modular rectors (SMRs) would be much better choice if you want efficiency, although they are best suited to heat generation instead of electricity. Because they don't need massive plants around them, which make it possible build them into cities. And because they can be in middle of city, it is much easier to connect them to city's district heating.

 

[Elerond]

Sorry for double post.  Even though video is 30 minutes long I would recommend to watch it as it gives nice insight what industrial partnerships may cause

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

So nuclear power gives cleaner and some what safe power generation, but it isn't that efficient as you can build much more power generation and faster with same money by building wind turbines. 

Eh, they are both really good and destroy other sources.  The drawback of turbines is mostly space, whilst nuclear plants leave lots of room for more research into safer and more efficient ways.  Lot's of potential here.

https://energypost.eu/15052-2/

Also Rosatom and China's CNNC are state owned, so that gives them a huge geopolitical advantage to strategically setup shop and influence as they see fit, as Americans are still way to obsessed with privatization.

https://hir.harvard.edu/rosatom-the-cnnc-and-the-nuclear-energy-arms-race/

Unless the U.S. pulls their head out of their backwards rear end this could really haunt them later on. 

[Elerond]

33 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

Eh, they are both really good and destroy other sources.  The drawback of turbines is mostly space, whilst nuclear plants leave lots of room for more research into safer and more efficient ways.  Lot's of potential here.

https://energypost.eu/15052-2/

Also Rosatom and China's CNNC are state owned, so that gives them a huge geopolitical advantage to strategically setup shop and influence as they see fit, as Americans are still way to obsessed with privatization.

https://hir.harvard.edu/rosatom-the-cnnc-and-the-nuclear-energy-arms-race/

Unless the U.S. pulls their head out of their backwards rear end this could really haunt them later on. 

There are other drawbacks in turbines than space. Like for example it is more difficult to control how much electricity is produced and you need temporal storages, like batteries, hydrogen etc.. Also noise pollution and turbines killing birds are problems. Need to build in windy locations, which creates its own challenges for transmission. Also repair routes and recycling materials from the mills need to be taken in account.

Nuclear plants also take lots of space and they need much more additional infrastructure. Like for example hundreds of kilometres of tunnels to store the nuclear waste. Massive cooling systems (which of course can be utilized in district heating). Uranium mines, storages for uranium ore. Processing plants for uranium ore, urania/yellowcake, uranium hexafluoride,uranium oxide and nuclear fuel (uranium rods). Storage spaces for ore, intermediate products and fuel/rods. Transportation for ore, intermediate products and fuel/rods. Cooling storages for used rods. Transportation for nuclear waste. Also you need lots of work force and automation from start to end of the supply line. Also you need to have complex repair plans and workers with know how to repair such complex systems. And addition to that you need natural disaster and force major plans. Also transmitting so much energy quite lot infrastructure and controlling systems. 

It isn't that easy for Rosatom and CNNC and they also need to work with lots of private companies and state owned actors in their projects. 

[Malcador]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

You don't have to have coloured skin to be the subject of violent cops in the US...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56897186

US police officers are seen mocking a 73-year-old dementia sufferer as they watch video of her shoulder going "pop" during her forcible arrest, according to footage released by her lawyer.

Karen Garner was detained on 26 June last year after she walked out of a Walmart in the state of Colorado without paying for $13 of items.
Her elbow was fractured and shoulder dislocated, says her attorney.
An investigation has been launched into the Loveland Police Department arrest.
In the footage released on Monday from the booking area of the police station on the day of the arrest, officers are seen fist-bumping one another as they review body camera video of the incident.

Video from inside Ms Garner's nearby holding cell shows the frail-looking grandmother slumped handcuffed to a bench while the officers joke about the incident, says her lawyer.

"Ready for the pop? Hear the pop?" one of the officers says at one point, referring to Ms Garner's shoulder.

As they continue to watch the footage, the same officer says: "I love it."

The Garner family hired a sound engineer to enhance audio of the officers' remarks.
Their lawyer has filed a federal lawsuit against the department, alleging the officers violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and "violently assaulted" Ms Garner.
Attorney Sarah Schielke says her client went six hours without medical help while confused and crying in pain after an arrest that amounted to "torture".

"They failed Karen Garner," Ms Schielke said in a press release. "They failed the community. And they did it all on camera."

 

edit: for good measure

The release of the footage comes amid a nationwide reckoning over police brutality, especially against African Americans, although Ms Garner is white.

Good thing those cops will be severely punished over this.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

There are other drawbacks in turbines than space. Like for example it is more difficult to control how much electricity is produced and you need temporal storages, like batteries, hydrogen etc.. Also noise pollution and turbines killing birds are problems. Need to build in windy locations, which creates its own challenges for transmission. Also repair routes and recycling materials from the mills need to be taken in account. 

Exactly correct. There is no such thing as “green” energy... yet. The same problem exists is solar energy. Solar power creates DC electricity. It’s used to charge batteries that are connected to inverters. Inverters are by their nature inefficient and batteries decline over time. Even the best have 10 year lifespans and are costly to replace and VERY environmentally unfriendly to manufacture. My home solar system I calculated to be 68% efficient, meaning at full sun I am only capturing 68% of the panels theoretical production. The inverter is the big choke point. So even solar isn’t all that “green”.

Out of all the available power sources nuclear is the cleanest relative to the capacity it can produce. The one advantage nuclear power has is it can be placed anywhere there is a water source for cooling. Geothermal is only available in places there are no cities to power. Wind and solar cannot be placed just anywhere and capacity is a real problem. At best they can supplement traditional fossil fuel power production