Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
No time to go into this today...
But this is not really a states' rights issue (rather, it's a clarification of an interstate compact and a relationship with a private entity; most references to "states rights" refer to states' relationships with the federal government). Which is also probably why you're confused by Senator-elect Lee's position on this.
|
I guess this is true. Though if the compact (an organization I don't know sufficient enough about to intelligently comment on) was designed to protect the states involved (based on that shared desire of protection) with the consent of the joining state, then it would be pretty clear that at least Energy Solutions was going against the will of the state. And of course with how vague the Tea Party has been in running campaigns in favor of States' rights I still think this move would seem paradoxical to others.
Quote:
But let's be fair to Senator-elect Lee - the fact that he represents EnergySolutions does not necessarily mean he shares their stances on issues. Part of an attorney's job is to represent clients, irrespective of their own beliefs (there'd be nobody to defend murderers if this wasn't the case, and you'd be forced to conclude that my past work makes me a sprawl-lover! ).
|
This is true, but I think Mike Lee was in a position at that point in his life as a lawyer to be able to pick and chose. He was far from lacking in status and money. His father founded the Law School at BYU.
Quote:
Not to argue with Vanessa Pierce at all (Exec. Dir. of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, quoted in the article - she's an old friend from high school). She's right that it's the right decision, I'm just nit-picking her characterization of the issues.
If I were you, though (and Utah isn't the only state with these concerns, by any stretch...NV, SC, etc etc), I'd worry about what happens now. I can count on one hand the issues I think President Obama and the new Republican House might come to some agreement on, and nuclear energy is one of them. Assuming they decide to look at the issue of waste (more likely they'll all just continue to ignore it), eventually Congress is going to have to step in and force some state (or all states) to take the waste. And because it's not technically a states' rights issue, they certainly can legislate the issue if they grow the balls to do it. Because really, no state is going to want the waste. And somebody has to have it. I suppose that's what the federal government's job is - stick it to somebody for the greater good, eh?
|
Again, showing my lack of background in this area, I have done just a little research on the Nuclear energy option. I do think it's a viable option for power, but the United States needs to revamp how we are doing it.
First of all, from what I understand most countries that have reactors use the rods until they hit a certain level of depletion and at this point have two options.
Option A: Reprocess the rods into a more compact usable form that greatly diminishes its size when it's ready to be dumped.
Option B: Dump the rods after they are initially depleted.
America (as I understand it) chooses option B. I'm not sure if it's cheaper or if something else motivates this.
Also many nuclear plants in Western Europe are built with a giant deep shaft and tunnel structure deep under the structures that are planned to be sufficient enough in size so as to accommodate all of the waste storage space required.
I don't see why people couldn't just accept the responsibility for their own nuclear waste in their own state using all of the options we currently have on the table involving nuclear power.
Again, I'm far from feigning a sound argument on this issue.
Quote:
Are you planning to go to law school? You seem very interested in this stuff, I just assume you are...?
|
Right now I'm absolutely fixated on and fascinated by philosophy (I'm addicted to the rush that comes from making my ideas more clear). I'm working on reviving American Pragmatism (Mostly focusing on William James and John Dewey) and I'm pretty obsessed with the later work of Wittgenstein.
As far as political science goes, it's my second major, but further from my heart and I have much further to go in finishing it than I do in my philosophy major (which is why I really am woefully inadequate in arguing matters of law and policy at this point).
If I felt I had what it took to not be a hack and actually add to the field of philosophy in getting my PHD I would do it.
At this point I'm not convinced I do and Law School is looking like a great option.
Really, at the bottom of it all, I just really enjoy arguing with people and refining arguments. I would prefer to do that in academia, but I think it would suit my personality and interests well to go into Ligation.