What's in the news?

[Dashenka]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-releases-final-report

This is the final report as far as I know. Expanding the two current runways, not adding a third.

[gaggedLouise]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-releases-final-report

This is the final report as far as I know. Expanding the two current runways, not adding a third.

Hmm, actually I think they *are* recommending adding a third runway at Heathrow.

The Commission’s recommendation is a fundamentally different proposition from previous proposals to expand at Heathrow. It delivers a full-length runway, maximising the connectivity gain. It is situated further west than the current runways, which will help to reduce the number of people affected by noise. And it is accompanied by strong measures to limit the impacts on those living nearby, including:

   a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period from 11.30pm to 6.00am, which is only possible with expansion
    no fourth runway: the government should make a firm commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further - there is no sound operational or environmental case for a fourth runway at Heathrow
    a legally binding ‘noise envelope’ putting firm limits on the level of noise created by the airport
    a new aviation noise levy to fund an expanded programme of mitigation, including noise insulation for homes, schools and other community facilities
    a legal commitment on air quality that new capacity will only be released when it is clear that compliance with EU limits will not be delayed
    a Community Engagement Board, under an independent chair, with real influence over spending on mitigation and compensation and over the airport’s operations
    an independent aviation noise authority, with a statutory right to be consulted on flightpaths and other operating procedures at all UK airports
    provision of training opportunities and apprenticeships for local people, so that nearby communities benefit from the jobs and economic opportunities

The Commission’s recommendations will ensure that an expanded Heathrow can be a better neighbour for local communities than the airport is today, while strengthening international connectivity, enhancing access from the UK’s nations and regions, improving productivity and delivering substantial long-term economic and strategic benefits for the country as a whole. The government can and should use ‘public service obligations’ to support a widespread network of links from Heathrow to other UK airports.

You could argue of course that if all of that list of preconditions would be filled, no one will have to bother about the side effects of a new runway and more traffic in that place, but with projects of this kind, sometimes that kind of "caretaker watchlist" becomes just lip service in the long run.

For the record, I totally agree London does need more airport traffic capacity.

[Ephiral]

Couple days old now, but this still strikes me as significant: Birth control will be covered under the ACA, even for employees of religious companies.

[consortium11]

Couple days old now, but this still strikes me as significant: Birth control will be covered under the ACA, even for employees of religious companies.

When the Hobby Lobby case was decided this was a point that I and the now departed Valthazar made repeatedly; the case wasn't about denying people cover, it was about determining who would fund that cover.

[Ephiral]

When the Hobby Lobby case was decided this was a point that I and the now departed Valthazar made repeatedly; the case wasn't about denying people cover, it was about determining who would fund that cover.

The problem is, at that point in time religious employers were treating a requirement to notify that they wouldn't be providing this coverage, so that alternative sources could be arranged, as onerous and tantamount to providing it themselves. This solution also has a requirement of notification; it remains to be seen whether they'll find it acceptable.

[gaggedLouise]

50 Cent files for bankruptcy after being fined five million bucks in a lawsuit over his posting a sex tape with a woman (and himself?) online - and hiking to the tune of a couple of more millions in legal assistance fees. Tut, tut.

[Dashenka]

New Horizons is making pictures of Pluto.

They already have pictures of Charon, the biggest moon, and NASA is expecting the first pictures of Pluto itself to arrive in the night from tuesday to wednesday.

Also they could tell Pluto is slightly bigger than everybody thought so far and they hope to find out what the planet and its moons are made out of.

Fascinating stuff.

[Dashenka]

So the Iran nuclear deal agreed that Iran will in term terminate their nuclear programme in return for a full obsolving of all the bans against Iran.

It pissed off ALL Republicans in the Congress because they can no longer go to war in Iran when a republic wins the elections and the Israeli government... because they have never heard of justice in their lives.


*celebrates quietly*

[Oniya]

It pissed off ALL Republicans in the US Congress because they can no longer go to war in Iran when a republic wins the elections

Sucks to be them.  *waves the Bernie banner*

[TheGlyphstone]

So the Iran nuclear deal agreed that Iran will in term terminate their nuclear programme hide their nuclear program even better and pretend they terminated it in return for a full obsolving of all the bans against Iran.

It pissed off ALL Republicans in the Congress because they can no longer go to war in Iran when a republic wins the elections and EVERYBODY in Israel... because they are Israeli's and never heard of justice in their livesknow their psychotic next-door neighbor won't give up that easily.


*celebrates quietly*

Altered for accuracy, because no one is going to honestly believe Iran will just happily abandon its nuclear weapons program just to get the West off their backs. And there's no way this will undermine the Republicans, they already live in their own private universe that filters outside input - if they want to invade Iran the next time they get into power, and think they can get away with it, they will find an excuse.

And while your anti-Israelite/anti-Semetic opinions have been well-established, Dashenka, can you honestly sit there and say - assuming you are right and Iran honestly stops its nuclear research - that those evil Israelis are upset that a country whose leader refuted the existence of the Holocaust and stated that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' is no longer developing weapons capable of instantly doing that wiping?

[Dashenka]

Altered for accuracy, because no one is going to honestly believe Iran will just happily abandon its nuclear weapons program just to get the West off their backs.

That's the deal and the reason given by the BBC who are generally well informed.


Israel is angry because they want Iran to stop every nuclear activity IMMEDIATELY so they (Israel) can have the sole right of nuclear weapons in the middle east.

And while your anti-Israelite/anti-Semetic opinions have been well-established, Dashenka,

I don't see how stating that is relevant to making a point? No need to get personal?

[Lustful Bride]

EVERYBODY in Israel... because they are Israeli's and never heard of justice in their lives.

To me this is what hurts your argument the most. And lets be honest, the region is not the most stable. Especially now with ISIS running around, adding in more nuclear materials to the region might not be the best idea.

[Dashenka]

I'm not even getting into the discussion why ISIS had a chance to get so big and run rampant through war torn nations in the first place.


Just happy for Iran they got a deal they wanted and the sanctions against them are lifted.

What I mean by 'Israel' is the government that allowed the bombing of a UN controlled school in Gaza used as a safe shelter for women and children.

Also, do I need to remind any of you that no country but one has ever actually USED a nuclear bomb in warfare?

[Lustful Bride]

I'm not even getting into the discussion why ISIS had a chance to get so big and run rampant through war torn nations in the first place.


Just happy for Iran they got a deal they wanted and the sanctions against them are lifted.

What I mean by 'Israel' is the government that allowed the bombing of a UN controlled school in Gaza used as a safe shelter for women and children.

Also, do I need to remind any of you that no country but one has ever actually USED a nuclear bomb in warfare?

Well then if you meant the government you should say "The Israeli government" instead of "Isrealis".

Also: And? So what if my country is the only one to have used a nuke in warfare? How does this pertain to what I was saying earlier about the region not being the most stable place to have nuclear materials roaming about?

Edit: You know what, fuck it :P Political arguments are like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend. Im gonna go back to roleplaying and hanging out with friends.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Dashenka]

I have changed my earlier post.

Apologies for my language and tone. I got a bit carried away. Offending people is never my intention but I realize I sometimes do just that. I'm sorry.




Lustful Bride, what I meant was that the fear of a country using a nuke is a bit irrational. So Israel being afraid of Iran using a nuclear bomb against them, is irrational. I should have been more clear on that. Sorry for that as well :)

[TheGlyphstone]

I have changed my earlier post.

Apologies for my language and tone. I got a bit carried away. Offending people is never my intention but I realize I sometimes do just that. I'm sorry.




Lustful Bride, what I meant was that the fear of a country using a nuke is a bit irrational. So Israel being afraid of Iran using a nuclear bomb against them, is irrational. I should have been more clear on that. Sorry for that as well :)

Fair enough, and I'll withdraw my own comments about anti-Semetism....and while you might think it's irrational, I think they're right to be worried because of how irrational some people in that region can be. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weaponry - for them, this is a good thing because every single other nation in the Middle East has either threatened to annihilate them (Ira, Iran), or actually tried to annihilate them (Egypt, Syria, Jordan). They've basically spent three generations and sixty-plus years as a nation under siege because some Western politicians decided the best place to put a 'Jewish Homeland state' was smack in the middle of a bunch of extremely hostile and anti-Jewish Arab polities. Their paranoia on this particular topic is, IMO, entirely justified; only one nation has ever been subjected to nuclear attack, they really don't want to become #2.

[Lustful Bride]

I have changed my earlier post.

Apologies for my language and tone. I got a bit carried away. Offending people is never my intention but I realize I sometimes do just that. I'm sorry.




Lustful Bride, what I meant was that the fear of a country using a nuke is a bit irrational. So Israel being afraid of Iran using a nuclear bomb against them, is irrational. I should have been more clear on that. Sorry for that as well :)

You know what?

Apology accepted and Hugs on the way

Hug.Exe

[Oniya]

Frankly, the crazier a country's leadership is, the more I worry about them using a nuke.  While the 'major powers' have pretty much settled to the point that such usage is unlikely, some of the smaller countries are treading the line.  North Korea scares me in particular.  If ISIL gets hold of nukes, that would be another one.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Altered for accuracy, because no one is going to honestly believe Iran will just happily abandon its nuclear weapons program just to get the West off their backs.

You are right. No one does (or at least should) believe they are abandoning their nuclear program happily. But "getting the West of their backs" also translates into having sanctions lifted that do hurt their economy and population. Will the Iranian government be better of with nuclear weapons or with a population that is content and not planning an uprising? What do you think the leadership of Iran considers more important - war abroad or peace at home? I know which alternative I would chose if I wanted to keep in power.

[TheGlyphstone]

Frankly, the crazier a country's leadership is, the more I worry about them using a nuke.  While the 'major powers' have pretty much settled to the point that such usage is unlikely, some of the smaller countries are treading the line.  North Korea scares me in particular.  If ISIL gets hold of nukes, that would be another one.

I imagine ISIL getting their hands on a nuclear weapon is deep in Israel's worst nightmares - they would nuke Tel Aviv without a second thought, and justify the retaliatory megadeaths as 'martyrs'.

NK would be sort of comical at this point if their leadership weren't so utterly, obviously insane. The only saving grace there is that they're more or less a client state of China by this point, and China has very strong vested interest in not seeing Asia dissolve into nuclear war (unless they start it, at least).

You are right. No one does (or at least should) believe they are abandoning their nuclear program happily. But "getting the West of their backs" also translates into having sanctions lifted that do hurt their economy and population. Will the Iranian government be better of with nuclear weapons or with a population that is content and not planning an uprising? What do you think the leadership of Iran considers more important - war abroad or peace at home? I know which alternative I would chose if I wanted to keep in power.

I'm certain they will appear to dismantle it, and maybe even take genuine steps towards such for exactly those reasons. I just don't believe these will be more than surface/face efforts, though - the programs won't go away, just get mothballed or buried even deeper in secret black projects.

[Oniya]

I imagine ISIL getting their hands on a nuclear weapon is deep in Israel's worst nightmares - they would nuke Tel Aviv without a second thought, and justify the retaliatory megadeaths as 'martyrs'.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of Israel as the probable target. 

NK would be sort of comical at this point if their leadership weren't so utterly, obviously insane. The only saving grace there is that they're more or less a client state of China by this point, and China has very strong vested interest in not seeing Asia dissolve into nuclear war (unless they start it, at least).

It's the very insanity that makes them a danger in my mind.  With what we now know about nuclear war (q.v. a certain '80s movie involving tic-tac-toe), a country would have to have certifiably nut-bar leaders to launch one.

[TheGlyphstone]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of Israel as the probable target. 

It's the very insanity that makes them a danger in my mind.  With what we now know about nuclear war (q.v. a certain '80s movie involving tic-tac-toe), a country would have to have certifiably nut-bar leaders to launch one.

And it's kind of scary to know that China is their only real check. But that's what keeps them only at 'comically dangerous' and not 'knee-knocking terrifying' in my mind, because China is as coldly rational as North Korea is bat-shit crazy, and there is currently no gain for them in NK becoming more than a shrill annoyance.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of Israel as the probable target. 

It'd depend on their goal. If they just want to nuke Washington or another Western city as a political statement, they could. But firing at Israel would likely kill the largest number of 'infidels' and 'apostates' between the strike in Israel and Israel's retaliatory launches (because you know they will shoot back), whereas the US is far less likely to go nuclear in response since it's not a MAD situation for us.

[Dashenka]

The thing is... Iran could stop all it's production of enriched uranium and nuclear material. The west is happy and allows them to trade again and Moscow is happy because they have someplace to ship their uranium and nuclear shit too.

It will be controlled (by Russia) and Iran could still run it's nuclear plants. I genuinely don't believe the current Iranian government would use nuclear bombs on any country. If it had still been Ahmedinejad, then yes, I would be a little more worried but still, every world leader knows better than to launch a nuclear missile into another country. The new, softer, Iranian government I believe has no intentions whatsoever to go to war with any other country.

I think it's all still the effects of years and years under the rule of that nutjob.

Obama is doing a great job internationally speaking of walking a softer line. Iran is now 'free', Cuba is welcome again. All of this is a good thing. The Republicans don't like it. They still see Iran as a threat, they still see Russia as a threat, etc. etc.

Israel is upset now because they wanted full and utter capitulation of Iran and the immediate stop of that countries nuclear programme. Now, in regards to my recent posts, I'll try to keep it civil but Israel has become one of the greatest factors of unrest in the middle east, aside from IS of course. Netanyahu's warmongering is only matched by George Bush so far and his landgrab is only matched by Putin.

[Ironwolf85]

If I had to guess the hardliners in iran are fucking pissed right now, just like the hardline republicans are going to try (and fail) to sink the deal.

From what I've read, and yeah the deal is open to the public... we obviously don't trust them and with good reason (support for terroritst acts, use of proxies, Hyperbollic politicans.). They don't trust us also with good reason (thanks CIA fuckups during the cold war and hyperbollic politicans)
So we crammed a fuckton of inspectors up their ass to make sure the stick to it.

Only time will tell if the iranians will stick by the deal, but we've done our best. As the prez said "We made deals like this with the soviet union to make the world a safer place. You don't make deals like this with your friends."

Let's face it the sanctions have done all they can so now that they've done their job, time for diplomacy.

I'm happy with this deal... Time will tell if the iranian's will hold up their end.

[kylie]

     Exxon has continued to fund climate change denial for around 7-8 years now, despite telling shareholders it would not.  Article goes on with mentions of some specific recipients.

Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists.

“In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.

But since 2007, the oil company has given $1.87m to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change and an additional $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), according to financial and tax records.