Bill Maher: Self-Hating Islamophobe

In response to the newly released film American Sniper (which I have not seen but hope to), Bill Maher hosted a discussion in which he flatly reviled Chris Kyle – the person on whom the film is based – as well as anyone who liked the film. Citing carefully selected quotes from Kyle regarding his experiences in war, Maher presents him as a “psychopath patriot” who supposedly just loved killing people. Maher particularly liked the fact that Kyle referred to the people he killed as “savages”. (Of course, there is the question of whether or not he meant that all Iraqis or all Muslims were savages, or just the ones who were running toward him with bombs strapped to their chests. But such minor points are not convenient enough to be important for Bill Maher.)

Here’s the thing, though. While I was hearing Maher read Kyle’s quotes about Muslims, I couldn’t help but think: “Isn’t this exactly how you want people to see Muslims, Bill?” In Maher’s own words:

What it comes down to is that there is one religion in the world that kills you when you disagree with them. They say, ‘Look, we’re a religion of peace and if you disagree we’ll cut your fucking head off.’

And, perhaps more poignantly:

[Islamophobia is] a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.

The fact is that Bill Maher hates Muslims – even more than he hates people who follow other major world religions. He thinks they are savages, in no uncertain terms. To say that Muslims are characterized by their desire to cut people’s heads off or that the worldviews that are often labeled “Islamophobic” are completely justified is to say that Muslims are savages and that they should simply be killed. The feeling that he says Chris Kyle had toward Muslims is exactly the kind of feeling that Bill Maher wants the rest of us to have. In response to this accusation, Maher might say something like: “But I am not violent. I have never killed a Muslim and would never think of doing it.” However, I am sure the same could have been said of Chris Kyle before he went to war. It is clear that, if Bill Maher had ever been brave enough to put on a uniform and pick up a rifle, he would have become exactly the kind of man that he wants us to believe Chris Kyle was.

Advertisements

Society Without Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality

First, addressing a few misconceptions about Net Neutrality:

  1. I like my Internet as it is! I don’t want the government messing with it!
    Your Internet was built on a policy of Net Neutrality. The ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) are trying to change this. If you like it the way it is, you should support Net Neutrality.
  2. Net Neutrality gives too much power to the government.
    While it does make the government a regulator, Net Neutrality actually limits the government’s power over Internet speeds as much as anyone else’s. Without Net Neutrality, those in power can feasibly find a way to slow down any sites that they do not like. Even if they cannot do it directly through government agencies, they can do it indirectly through their corporate contacts, who do have the ability to effectively kill websites at will.
  3. Net Neutrality will limit Internet access to minorities.
    The basis for this argument is the idea that, by allowing ISPs to tap an additional revenue stream by charging publishers in addition to consumers, we make it more feasible for them to give free Internet to people – especially people in poor urban areas. Poor people may have to look at some advertisements, but at least they will get Internet access, right? There are numerous problems with this idea. First, there is still no guarantee that the ISPs will give anyone free Internet. Second, even if they did, they would not focus on demographics too poor to pay for their own Internet service, as such demographics would be of little value to the advertisers who would ultimately be paying for all of this. Third, the moral argument for giving Internet access to the poor – that is, giving them access to an unfettered source of information that will allow them to take an active role in public policy issues, etc. – is lost, as you have just handed the “free” flow of information over to corporate Internet overlords who are in bed with corrupt politicians.

So here is your nightmare scenario:

  1. Politicians accept campaign contributions from ISPs with the understanding that they will kill Net Neutrality.
  2. Politicians kill Net Neutrality.
  3. The ISPs continue to contribute to the campaigns of those politicians who are so nice as to help them create this new revenue stream.
  4. The ISPs demand hefty sums from all Internet publishers who want their content to actually be viewed. Small independent publishers who cannot come up with the cash see their speeds crash and their traffic evaporate.
  5. The ISPs also demand that their friends in Washington help them to solidify their regional monopolies through policy, allowing them to charge outrageous fees for slow Internet service and ridiculous customer service.
  6. Political challengers see what is happening and decide to do something about it.
  7. The incumbent politicians see the danger and tell their ISP friends that they need help.
  8. The ISPs slow down all sites criticizing them, their politician friends, or the status quo to the point that these sites cannot even be viewed.
  9. The ISPs leverage their contacts in Washington to push through a series of mergers to create a single national monopoly on Internet service.
  10. The people can only see the content that the ISPs want them to see.
  11. The ISPs sell this new-found influence over the public mind to the highest bidder – while protecting their investments in Washington by keeping their buddies in office. The Internet’s identity as the greatest democratized source of information in the history of the world is now virtually a thing of the past.

If you think that this is a stretch, please note that censorship on the part of the ISPs for the sake of killing Net Neutrality is already happening, as are the competition-killing mergers.

The EU Needs a Federal Military

Eurocorps

A recent story published by Global Post outlines the fears currently settling into Central Europe and Washington regarding Russia’s recent expansionist tendencies – and the U.S. response. Listing the complexities at play here, the article shows us how some, such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, are beginning to lean toward Moscow and statism rather than toward Washington and liberalism. Others, though not leaning toward Russia, find themselves in a position in which they are being put at risk by Vladimir Putin’s need to dig in deeper in response to Washington’s overt criticisms of his policies.

This is not a new problem for Europe. Since the aftermath of the Second World War, it has been caught in a tug-of-war between the world’s two strongest military powers. However, in the second decade of the 21st century, the fact that Europe continues to allow this to happen is simply ridiculous.

When Russia seizes land from Ukraine, a potential EU member, and threatens current EU members such as Poland and the Baltic states, why does everyone automatically look to Washington? Why not Berlin, Rome, Paris, Madrid, or London? If Russia were to threaten seizure of the Aleutian Islands from the US, Americans would not look to Europe: they would look to Washington for swift and decisive action. Any attempt to seek international support would be an afterthought.

The answer comes easily enough: Because the US is the world’s premier military power and a friend to Europe. However, that is not enough. The EU currently embodies the world’s largest economy, with a GDP of over $18 trillion (in nominal terms). Compare that to $16.8 trillion for the US, $9.5 trillion for China, and $2 trillion for Russia. The EU also has three member states ranked among the world’s top ten military powers – with Turkey, a prospective EU member, making a fourth.

Considering Europe’s vast economic, political, and military strength, why does the EU continue to cower before Russia and appeal to the US for aid? More specifically, why do Washington’s opinion, policy, and rhetoric seem more important to the states of Central Europe than do those of the EU? Why isn’t the EU’s military might seen as the prime deterrent of Putin’s border games instead of the military of a country that lies an ocean away?

Because the EU’s unity is still very loose, and because very little unity exists in military terms. While the people of Europe have largely acknowledged the benefits of building upon their mutual interests economically, they remain unconvinced that such unity in terms of military and foreign policy would be beneficial. This, of course, stems from the deep cultural divisions that remain in Europe. While the US certainly has its share of cultural conflicts, one can hardly compare the differences between Cajuns in Louisiana and surfers in California to the differences between Scots, Spaniards, and Bulgarians. After all, while the American Civil War seems to have been fought eons ago, memories of the Second World War are still fresh for many in Europe. Also note that the United Kingdom, though being the seat of what is the closest thing Europe has to a unifying language, is perhaps the least likely EU member to support any closer unity.

The difficulty is understandable, but Europe must overcome it. EU member states must come to realize that their internal differences are hardly as meaningful as the common threats that they face, of which an expansionist Russia is only one. While Europe continues to argue, and while the global influence of the US continues to wane, the bear to the east is happily turning the European powers against each other and picking them apart. In current terms alone, the personnel of a federal EU military would outnumber Russia’s active personnel by roughly two to one, while the EU’s economy – about nine times as large as Russia’s – would give it the power to either produce weapons considerably more advanced than Russia’s or quickly purchase such weapons from the US.

Some would say that the Russian seizure of Crimea was a fluke and that Putin does not at all intend to invade Europe. However, it is already happening. Expect future incursions to occur in a manner quite akin to this one: unofficial, gradual, and destabilizing. Europe needs to realize how strong it is before it becomes too late.

Net Neutrality: Has the Republican victory doomed it?

With the Republicans maintaining control of the House and taking the senate, my Facebook newsfeed has been full of posts that include things like this:

lies

Apparently, Americans are stupid and have knowingly made a choice contrary to their own best interests. While I could write a lot about a number of these oversimplified or patently false or hypocritical claims (the one about celebrity news being particularly delicious), I really think it’s important to address this claim that a vote for Republicans equates to a vote to “LIMIT OUR INTERNET FREEDOM!”

This is, of course, a reference to net neutrality. If you don’t know what net neutrality is, in basic terms, it keeps Internet providers like Comcast and AT&T from having the power to assign Internet publishers varying levels of service speed depending on their willingness to pay fees. Of course, Internet providers want to be able to do this because it introduces a new revenue stream for them. The problem that many of us have with letting Comcast and the crew do this is that it could possibly destroy the fundamentally democratized nature of the Internet as we now know it. Under net neutrality, without being rich, I can publish content to the Internet, and if my message is compelling and interesting, that content will be shared. It may eventually be viewed by millions of people. Without net neutrality, as traffic to my website or blog starts to increase, unless I pay exorbitant fees to Comcast or AT&T, anyone trying to view my content will be hampered by slow Internet speeds. (This will be true regardless of how fast my host server may be.) As a result, my influence as an independent publisher is choked, and only the giants with deep pockets will be heard. As Republicans are the more business-friendly of our major political parties, there is an assumption that putting the Republicans in charge of Congress will doom the net neutrality movement for good and leave us at the mercy of corporate Internet overlords, effectively destroying the greatest equalizing force in the sharing of ideas ever conceived in the history of the world.

But is this true?

I make no attempt to defend the Republican Party: they may very well be taking money from Comcast and AT&T in exchange for burying net neutrality. However, the idea that the Democrats are any better is utterly preposterous. Consider the following:

  1. Barack Obama has already betrayed the net neutrality movement.
    In 2008, Obama campaigned on net neutrality. And yet, his 2012 campaign received hefty donations from both Comcast and Time Warner. His extensive ties with these companies are no secret. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that he will abandon his commitment to net neutrality. And yet, despite the fact that activist groups have made a lot of noise trying to get him to do something about it, his response has been disappointing. An apologist might point out the fact that he continues to voice support of net neutrality, but despite this lip service, Obama has not actually done anything, even though it is within his power, as the FCC is in charge of these regulations and he is ultimately in charge of the FCC.
  2. Many left-leaning civil rights groups are against net neutrality.
    Ostensibly, they oppose net neutrality because it will limit the availability of Internet services in poor minority neighborhoods. (The idea is that, if the Internet providers have another revenue stream, they won’t mind giving it to people for free or really cheap. A pretty thin claim.) The truth, though, is that these groups are funded by the Internet provider giants.
  3. Comcast and the other Internet giants donate extensively to the Democratic Party.
    One of the things they seem to hope to gain from said donations, in addition to the killing of net neutrality, is the approval and completion of the proposed Comcast-Time Warner merger, which will invariably result in an even higher degree of oligopoly in the market of U.S. Internet providers, and inevitably, a continuance of the current paradigm of high fees for lousy customer service.

In short, what I see here is Democrats and Republicans both defying the will and interests of a significant majority of the people, with the Republicans doing it openly and the Democrats doing it in such a way that they can simultaneously benefit from the support of the big Internet providers while blaming Republicans for what happens.

Foreign Policy

The parts will come together.
Slice them. Saw them. Sew them. Staple them.
Make it work.
We have the spark of godliness.
We channel the powers of heaven.

Death is nothing.
Black thread weaves it all together.
Trembling hands pulling.
Bleached teeth biting.
Knotty fingers tying knots.

We shall create. It shall arise.
We shall repeat the ancient miracle –
but this time, with perfection.

A familiar face stares upward.
Blankly.
We will fix you.
We will make you more than you ever were.

Storm. Mighty storm. Lovely storm.
Birth is always bloody – and loud.
The giant waits.
Insert the prongs. Raise the rod to heaven.
Flip the switch.

This is all you lack.

The power sizzles through you now.
Our power.
Do not fear the pain.
Fear is for the unknown. Pain is clarity.
Pain is life.
Your screams are lovely to us.
Your struggle gives us hope –
makes us whole.

Precious monster, you are beautiful. You are ours. You are loved.

…but why do you break the chains we gave you?
And why is there anger in your eyes?

From Hill to Hill, Part 3: The Barbaric Other

But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose. (D&C 49:24)

This post is Part 3 in a series regarding the message and the challenge that the Restored Gospel raises against the contemporary political establishment of the United States of America.

The story of the Book of Mormon largely revolves around centuries of conflict between two peoples – the Nephites and the Lamanites. Consisting of the descendants of Nephi and those who followed him, the Nephites were a fair-skinned people who are initially characterized by a belief in the Christian God, an agrarian lifestyle, and an appreciation for written language and astronomy. After a few generations in the New World, they even abolished monarchical rule and established a republic. The Lamanites consisted collectively of the dark-skinned descendants of Nephi’s brother Laman and those who followed him, Nephite dissenters, and, most likely, transplants from other nations and peoples. They outnumbered the Nephites, and this fact led to much fear: the danger of a possible Lamanite invasion is a hammer constantly hanging over the Nephite people for much of the record. However, despite a few instances in which the Lamanites managed to pillage, enslave, and kill groups of Nephites, for centuries, the Nephite people remained largely free of Lamanite influence thanks to a stronger source of motivation, superior weapons and tactics, and the grace of God. Indeed, with two Nephite dissenters at one point rising to become successive kings over the Lamanites, it is clear that, despite their smaller numbers, the Nephites had more cultural influence over the Lamanites than the Lamanites had over the Nephites.

Some read synopses of the Book of Mormon and immediately pass judgment upon it as a racist book, as it supposedly suggests that dark-skinned people are inferior to light-skinned people. However, a more careful reading of the text shows that this is not the case. Indeed, it does not take long for the prophets among the Nephites to point out instances in which the Lamanites were actually more righteous than the Lamanites. Jacob, brother of Nephi, said that the Lamanites had stronger families than the Nephites (Jacob 3:5-7). When a large body of Lamanites – called the Ammonites – converted to Christianity and had to flee Lamanite lands to live with the Nephites, they were clearly identified as being more righteous than the Nephites. Helaman, leading their young men into battle, said that they were more courageous than any Nephites (Alma 56:45). Eventually, the Lamanites as a whole became more righteous than the Nephites (Helaman 6:1). When the Gadiantons, an organization of outlaws and manipulative conspirators, grew to become a great threat to both the Lamanites and the Nephites, the Lamanites were able to destroy the organization by either convincing them to change their ways or killing them, but the Nephites were not so successful due to their tendency to partake in the corruption of the Gadiantons (Helaman 36:37-38). While it is true that the Nephites are clearly described as being more cultured and technological in the early part of the record, one would miss the message of the Book of Mormon entirely by taking this as a suggestion that light-skinned people are superior to dark-skinned people. The true gauge of superiority is not technology or culture, but righteousness.

At a time when the conflict and ethnic strife between the Nephites and Lamanites was at its height, the sons of King Mosiah, having experienced a great change of heart due to an angelic encounter, decided to go forth among the Lamanites to preach the Gospel. Hearing of this intent, their Nephite friends tried to dissuade them. Ammon, one of the sons of Mosiah, later recounted these warnings:

For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language. (Alma 26:24)

Such concerns were not unfounded. The Lamanites hated the Nephites, having frequently expressed this hatred through countless attacks and raids. How could Ammon and his brothers have expected to receive anything but animus and abuse from a people who hated his people so much? And yet, they went. They preached, and they did suffer persecution, but by the time they were done preaching, an entire province of Lamanites – the aforementioned Ammonites – had converted to Christianity and had become the friends of the Nephites.

As the Lamanites came to learn the Gospel and grew in their understanding of the things of God, prophets began to arise from among them. Just as Nephite prophets had called Lamanites to repentance years before, these Lamanite prophets crossed over to preach to the Nephites, who had grown haughty, prideful, decadent, and vain. The most memorable of these was a prophet named Samuel. Traveling to the Nephite capital of Zarahemla, Samuel scaled the wall of the city and began to cry repentance to the people. Certainly, seeing his dark skin and his clothing, many of the people were immediately incensed at the audacity of this Lamanite. Who did he think he was? The Gospel had gone from the Nephites to the Lamanites, after all. The Nephites had heard it already. This Lamanite needed to go back and preach to his own people. And then, revulsion turned into anger as they heard a Lamanite catalog their many sins. Some were not angry, but immediately sought out their religious leaders, seeking reconciliation with God. Others decided that this arrogant Lamanite must die. Taking up their bows and slings, they shot arrows and rocks at him. By the grace and power of God, however, none of these projectiles could hit him. He continued to stand upon the wall and deliver his message. Seeing the miracle in this, even more of those hearing Samuel’s words decided to repent and seek reconciliation with God. However, there were many who still resisted Samuel’s words and resented him for speaking them. Since their arrows and stones had missed, they took up their melee weapons and went up the wall after him. At this point, he finished speaking and finally fled.

Like the inhabitants of Zarahemla listening to Samuel, when it comes to hearing the words of prophets, we can all be divided into three groups. The first group hears, immediately feels the truth of what is said, and seeks reconciliation with God. The second group hears and immediately starts firing back with objections and arguments. Upon seeing that none of these objections or arguments manage to hit the mark, though, we realize our folly and seek reconciliation with God. The third group, undeterred by failure to hit the mark with objections, simply takes resistance to the next level.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I completely believe that, while the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened, the narrative has also been structured in such a way that clear parallels are meant to be drawn with the events and concerns of our time. Like the Nephite Republic, the United States of America has stood as a paragon of innovation, prosperity, faith, and freedom. However, like the Nephites in the time of Samuel the Lamanite, we have become top-heavy, destabilized by our arrogance. We think that our philosophy of government makes us superior, though it is increasingly becoming a thing of theory rather than practice. We think that our freedom makes us superior, though we waste it on addictions and trivialities. We think that our heritage makes us superior, though we have largely betrayed it. We think that our past victories make us superior, though we continue to hollow out the strength that made said victories possible. Some of us even think that our racial identity makes us superior, even while the demographic gaps in prosperity throughout the world are rapidly closing. Most Americans would not know it, but Qatar, Singapore, and Brunei all have a higher per-capita GDP (PPP) than the United States. By 2050, Taiwan and South Korea both will have passed us up. As for China, not only will it have passed us up as the world’s largest economy (based on PPP rather than nominal currency value) by the end of the year, but it is also catching up in STEM education. China is even well on its way to having more Christians than any other country in the world. Therefore, even while I talk about my country’s inspired origins, I cannot bring myself to identify with my more jingoistic peers in the political arena. Even if this country is not on the decline in and of itself, its prominence or primacy relative to other countries is quite clearly on the decline.

The Restored Gospel’s message to the United States on this wise, then, is the same message that was delivered by Samuel the Lamanite: Repent. There is nothing intrinsically superior about us, and in various ways, the peoples whom many of us view as being backward and reactionary actually exhibit many virtues that we would do well to emulate. This is not to say that Islamic extremists in Arab countries are right and we are wrong. Rather, it is to say that, so long as we continue on our present course, our period of primacy as a society will soon come to an end. If we are to be saved, it will only be by espousing the correct principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – principles that are beginning to flourish in the hearts of other nations, even while they shrink and decay in our own.

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

The Gospel is going forth in Latin America. It is going forth in Southeast Asia and India. It is going forth in Africa. It will soon go forth in the nations that are now closed to it. It is blessing the lives of people throughout the world. Meanwhile, it has stalled in North America and Europe. As our families deteriorate, as we finance our retirements on the backs of those not yet born, as we institutionalize inverted morality, and as everything that gave us any excuse to think that we are any better than the rest of the world continues to evaporate, we can expect to see more and more instances of the supposed “backwards”, “barbarian”, “heathen”, and “heretic” populations of the world becoming stronger as we become weaker. As the blessings of God begin to pour out upon them, we will begin to see a stifling in the flow of such blessings to us. We just may live to see massive amounts of missionaries flowing from Shanghai, Mexico City, and Cairo to preach the Gospel to the heathens in Los Angeles, Houston, and London. When that day comes, the message from God will be the same as it has always been: Repent.

Documentary Review: Pandora’s Promise

In the early twentieth century, a feud arose between the visionary inventors Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla. By discovering alternating current (AC), Tesla had found a way to drastically reduce the size of the electric cables that Edison was helping to stretch across America’s cities to light its homes. Edison, always the more cunning businessman of the two, responded with a smear campaign. Playing to people’s fears of this new technology, he held shows in which he would do things like electrocute elephants to death with AC, suggesting that it was somehow inherently more dangerous than DC. These smear campaigns worked, allowing Edison to steal many of Tesla’s economic opportunities. Edison then quietly went about implementing AC throughout his grids.

As with electricity itself in its early days, nuclear power, though decades old, is still not widely understood by the masses. Fearing the horrors of cancer and hating anything related to the force that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, environmental activists across the world have fought the advent of nuclear power since its inception. As Edison did, various private parties even intentionally fan the flames of fear for their own private gain. The documentary Pandora’s Promise addresses the major concerns raised by anti-nuclear activists and shows that, even as they accuse climate change deniers of holding flat-world ideologies and clinging to baseless conspiracy theories at the expense of science, they are guilty of that very sin when it comes to nuclear power. Indeed, they accuse the UN of conspiracy even while they ridicule climate change deniers for doing the same.

The following are some of the film’s main points:

  • “To be anti-nuclear is basically to be in favor of burning fossil fuels.”
    A significant portion of anti-nuclear activism is actually funded by fossil fuel producers. The propaganda that they publish even champions solar energy because they know that an energy grid based on solar energy will always require the burning of fossil fuels – if not in the form of natural gas from “backup” generators (that actually tend to produce most of the power), then at least in the form of fuel oil, as you simply cannot heat a house in North Dakota with solar panels. Another important point on this wise is that, despite the growth in renewable energy, the fastest-growing energy source in the world is actually coal – one of the dirtiest forms of energy we have.
  • There will be no great global treaty on climate change.
    Kyoto was a failure. It will not happen. Some have said that all we have to do is make governments raise the cost of fossil fuels, but governments will not do this – especially in developing countries, which is where all of these coal plants are being built – because, in order to do it on a level that would be effective, it would hurt too many people too much. Any environmentalists who think this is going to happen are living in a fantasy land. However, there is still hope. Governments and utilities would be happy to build clean nuclear plants because the fuel is so much cheaper than fossil fuel.
  • Statistically, nuclear power kills fewer people than solar does.
    There are two matters of note here. First, at least with current technology, the production of solar panels is actually a very toxic process, and a lot of it is happening in China, where manufacturers frequently ignore environmental laws. Second, the claims that Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima together have killed hundreds of thousands or millions of people are patently false. (As is the claim that Chernobyl has rendered 40% of the European continent dangerously radioactive.)
  • Our nuclear plants are safe – and any built in the future can be much safer.
    The claim “Any of these nuclear plants could be a Chernobyl!” is completely false. Not only was the Chernobyl plant’s staff woefully inept, but it was an inherently unsafe reactor, with almost no infrastructure in place to handle or contain a meltdown. As for future reactors, the integral fast reactor (IFR) was able to handle a situation of overheating caused by a cooling failure automatically and in a completely safe manner without any action required on the part of the operators or any external systems. Basically, a meltdown in an IFR-type reactor is impossible. Also, an IFR produces far less radioactive waste because it can recycle fuel – and even use waste produced by other reactors as fuel. Unfortunately, environmentally conscious Democrats shut down the IFR program in the 90s. There were certainly problems that the IFR needed to overcome, such as safety issues with the liquids used, but these are small matters considering the potential benefits of the design.
  • Nuclear power is actually causing nuclear disarmament, not the other way around.
    10% of electricity currently produced in the United States comes from reprocessed radioactive material taken from nuclear warheads purchased from Russia.
  • People are not going to just stop using so much energy.
    Environmentalists, consider how ridiculous you think Christians are for asking and expecting teenagers to stop having sex. That’s how ridiculous you sound on this one. There will not be any great reduction in energy use. As the quality of life improves around the world, energy consumption will continue to increase. Our only hope is to make energy drastically cleaner and more efficient.

Those who seek true progress cannot be the slaves of fear. Why, then, do self-described progressives deal in blind fear when it comes to nuclear power? It is understandable that we are afraid of nuclear power, but we must come to understand its benefits before it is too late. There are not many points on which those primarily concerned with the environment and those primarily concerned with the economy can agree, but one such point should be the matter of developing nuclear energy. And yet, they instead tend to agree that nuclear energy is evil, and it is baffling. We can certainly use solar, wind, etc. to power our future, but there will always need to be a reliable, fuel-based power source, and that is nuclear. Those who believe in a looming ecological cataclysm due to carbon emissions should be the first to recognize this fact.

This was a great documentary. I would very much like to find at least one point of oversight or error, but I cannot. I highly recommend it.