|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of reported sexual assaults across the military shot up by more than 50 percent this year, an increase that defense officials say may suggest that victims are becoming more willing to come forward after a tumultuous year of scandals that shined a spotlight on the crimes and put pressure on the military to take aggressive action.
A string of high-profile assaults and arrests triggered outrage in Congress and set off months of debate over how to change the military justice system, while military leaders launched a series of new programs intended to beef up accountability and encourage victims to come forward.
According to early data obtained by The Associated Press, there were more than 5,000 reports of sexual assault filed during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, compared to the 3,374 in 2012. Of those 2013 reports, about 10 percent involved incidents that occurred before the victim got into the military, up from just 4 percent only a year ago. That increase, officials said, suggests that confidence in the system is growing and that victims are more willing to come forward.
Asked about the preliminary data, defense officials were cautious in their conclusions. But they said surveys, focus groups and repeated meetings with service members throughout the year suggest that the number of actual incidents -- from unwanted sexual contact and harassment to violent assaults -- has remained largely steady.
"Given the multiple data points, we assess that this is more reporting," said Col. Alan R. Metzler, deputy director of the Pentagon's sexual assault prevention and response office. He also noted that more victims are agreeing to make official complaints, rather than simply seeking medical care without filing formal accusations.
Source
|
crushinator the point is that sexism is not about discriminatory hiring practices in an otherwise happy nonsexist world. The point is that sexism pervades the entire social order, that's the point of the idea of patriarchy and why your point is facile, because of course sexism is rational in the way that you mean the term
|
On December 28 2013 08:26 sam!zdat wrote:
crushinator the point is that sexism is not about discriminatory hiring practices in an otherwise happy nonsexist world. The point is that sexism pervades the entire social order, that's the point of the idea of patriarchy and why your point is facile, because of course sexism is rational in the way that you mean the term
Well, the whole argument argument started when I argued that I don't think patriarchy is a useful concept, similar to the concept of rape culture, I do not think there is anything as insidious as that in contemporary western society. I was asked to explain the wage gap in terms other than patriarchy, and tried to do so. This does not mean I think all social issues about gender are solved at all. And it does not mean I think there are no cultural components to he prevalence of rape.
Though I think the cause of the wage gap is in productivity, this does not mean that there is not a problem. If my hypothesis is accurate, eliminating the social circumstances that causes women on average to be less productive is what policy makers must adress. I think the way in which society organises itself around the raising of children (government sponsored daycare, parental leave, gender roles etc.), are important in achieving further gender equality. Interestingly this is where the concept of patriarchy can come in. But rather than arguing that, apparently the mere suggestion that women are on average less productive is offensive to feminist sensibilities, regardless of the cause.
|
I'll take that as an admission that I'm right 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
some form of guiding bias of the firm belief in wage = marginal rpdouctivity no doubt. i think it's rather due to difference in leverage
|
Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ...
Link
Seems riskier than a certain pipeline...
|
On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline...
I wonder if there is some sort of coating they could lay on the lake floor over a specific route...
|
On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline...
Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline.
|
The world faces two potentially existential threats, according to the linguist and political philosopher Noam Chomsky.
“There are two major dark shadows that hover over everything, and they’re getting more and more serious,” Chomsky said. “The one is the continuing threat of nuclear war that has not ended. It’s very serious, and another is the crisis of ecological, environmental catastrophe, which is getting more and more serious.”
Chomsky appeared Friday on the last episode of NPR’s “Smiley and West” program to discuss his education, his views on current affairs and how he manages to spread his message without much help from the mainstream media.
He told the hosts that the world was racing toward an environmental disaster with potentially lethal consequence, which the world’s most developed nations were doing nothing to prevent – and in fact were speeding up the process.
“If there ever is future historians, they’re going to look back at this period of history with some astonishment,” Chomsky said. “The danger, the threat, is evident to anyone who has eyes open and pays attention at all to the scientific literature, and there are attempts to retard it, there are also at the other end attempts to accelerate the disaster, and if you look who’s involved it’s pretty shocking.”
Chomsky noted efforts to halt environmental damage by indigenous people in countries all over the world – from Canada’s First Nations to tribal people in Latin America and India to aboriginal people in Australia—but the nation’s richest, most advanced and most powerful countries, such as the United States, were doing nothing to forestall disaster.
Source
|
On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline.
Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative?
|
On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative?
You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause.
|
On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause.
Why not just have the pipeline do that?
|
On December 29 2013 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Why not just have the pipeline do that?
I don't know, I was under the impression that most of the damage from a pipeline is 'guaranteed'. E.g loss of habitat during the construction phase. If that kind of damage can be estimated and someone is willing to pay for it, sure build the pipeline. But ultimately it's up to the local governments to set the price (with active consent from their voters). If that price is too high, that just means that project isn't economically viable.
If none of the options work, then the product costs more to produce than it's worth and the logical solution is to stop producing it.
|
On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause.
Except an insurance that needs to cover billions in damage isn't realistic
|
On December 29 2013 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Except an insurance that needs to cover billions in damage isn't realistic
Again, that's just proof that the real cost is far higher and the whole venture is only profitable because a significant part of the cost is being dumped on the wider community in the form of environmental risk.
|
On December 29 2013 04:28 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Except an insurance that needs to cover billions in damage isn't realistic Again, that's just proof that the real cost is far higher and the whole venture is only profitable because a significant part of the cost is being dumped on the wider community in the form of environmental risk.
Well it is possible that the oil producers are willing to pay for the insurance but that no insurance firm is large and liquid enough to take it on at any price. In such a case government may set some tax and strict rules for safety in exchange for bearing the risk for the economically viable project.
Edit: actually you already mentioned that lol, but i doubt local government is large enough to cover it
|
On December 29 2013 04:13 hypercube wrote:
If none of the options work, then the product costs more to produce than it's worth and the logical solution is to stop producing it.
you're not going to be able to make jonny understand this, unfortunately, it goes against his entire worldview
|
On December 29 2013 04:38 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 04:28 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Except an insurance that needs to cover billions in damage isn't realistic Again, that's just proof that the real cost is far higher and the whole venture is only profitable because a significant part of the cost is being dumped on the wider community in the form of environmental risk. Well it is possible that the oil producers are willing to pay for the insurance but that no insurance firm is large and liquid enough to take it on at any price.
Probably even the biggest insurance companies would take re-insurance on something like that. I don't know what the highest possible insurance contract would be, but something up to $10bn seems very realistic.
In such a case government may set some tax and strict rules for safety in exchange for bearing the risk for the economically viable project.
Edit: actually you already mentioned that lol, but i doubt local government is large enough to cover it
I didn't think I did, but I agree.
|
On December 29 2013 04:13 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 03:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:50 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 29 2013 03:08 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 01:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Oil Company Looks To Great Lakes As Shipping Demand Booms
North Dakota and western Canada are producing crude oil faster than it can be shipped to refineries.
Rail car manufacturers can't make new tank cars fast enough, and new pipeline proposals face long delays over environmental concerns. So energy companies are looking for new ways to get the heavy crude to market.
One proposed solution is to ship the oil by barge over the Great Lakes — but it's a controversial one.
Crews are working around the clock in North Dakota, where there's a lot of oil under the Bakken Shale formation, and in the Alberta tar sands area in western Canada, where there's tens of billions of gallons more. ...
Shipping the oil by barge brings potential economic benefits and jobs. But there are special risks with heavy crude, says Lyman Welch, water quality program director of the conservation group Alliance for the Great Lakes.
"A spill in the open waters of Lake Superior would be very difficult if not impossible to clean up," Welch says. "Tar sands crude oil is heavier than water, so much of it sinks to the bottom of a river or lake water body if there is a spill." ... LinkSeems riskier than a certain pipeline... Sounds like an argument for banning the current practice, not for building the pipeline. Shipping by tanker is being proposed as an alternative to pipelines. So if we ban both, what's the new alternative? You don't need to ban tankers just force them to take out insurance up to the possible damage an accident would cause. Why not just have the pipeline do that? I don't know, I was under the impression that most of the damage from a pipeline is 'guaranteed'. E.g loss of habitat during the construction phase. If that kind of damage can be estimated and someone is willing to pay for it, sure build the pipeline. But ultimately it's up to the local governments to set the price (with active consent from their voters). If that price is too high, that just means that project isn't economically viable. If none of the options work, then the product costs more to produce than it's worth and the logical solution is to stop producing it.
Those are fine concerns but is that the issue here? The opposition to the keystone pipeline comes from national special interest groups who have extra lobbying power due to the pipeline crossing the US boarder.
|
On December 29 2013 05:28 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 04:13 hypercube wrote:
If none of the options work, then the product costs more to produce than it's worth and the logical solution is to stop producing it. you're not going to be able to make jonny understand this, unfortunately, it goes against his entire worldview
Actually what he wrote is completely in line with my worldview. Afaik, it just doesn't apply to the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
