USS Scorpion 589…It’s 1968 again.
I am just saying there is a huge ethical problem in our fleet of submarines and within our ship Yards. It is effecting our war fighting stance and is threatening a loss of another submarine such as the Scorpion.
It’s a giant breakdown in ethics based on a rationalization with cost. This process of cost, profits and quality…it training all the players to distort and lie.
Reminds me of the end of Rickover at EB!
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/12/ap_virginiaclass_071210/
Weld problems found on Virginia-class subs
The Associated PressPosted : Monday Dec 10, 2007 18:36:56 EST
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — Northrop Grumman’s Newport News shipyard and the Navy are inspecting welds on all Virginia-class submarines after finding problems with welds in those vessels.
Katie Dunnigan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command, said Monday that the Navy, Northrop Grumman and its shipbuilding partner, General Dynamics Electric Boat, started assessing completed welds through record reviews, additional inspections and testing.
The assessment is thought to have delayed the sea trials and delivery of the North Carolina, which Northrop Grumman planned to hand over to the Navy at the end of the month.
A shipyard spokeswoman said last week that delivery has been pushed
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
A little more works in progress?
At the top of this house of cards, it is inescapable…it is the object failure of the democrats. Generally they are “no nukes”…this disconnects them from having any effective influence in the nuclear industry. No wonder the nuclear establishment has been backed into the conservative republican corner. No nukes means no influence to effect the levels of safety in these nuclear plants…all you have is the power to shut down a plant and withdrawal income from the communities.
I feel sorry for the nuclear industry...in that they don’t have any effective advocator on the democrat’s side. There is just no way to inject the democrat’s ethics of transparency, truthfulness and safety into the nuclear industry under the current system. The nuclear industry is trapped into leaning on the right. We gave them no choice. So I would say the framework of the nuclear industry is just a much a fault of the democrats as the republican’s, because they defaulted into letting the republicans politically manage the industry.
It sure looks to me the nuclear industry has morphed into something bigger than providing electricity to the public. Is it political welfare, or corporate welfare, or voter welfare rewards system? It seems to me it is a white and rich old man’s hobby….rebuilding the 1957 Chevy….are they trying to recapture their youth. I mean the south has been benefited by the renaissance more than any other region. Are they getting rewarded with nuclear candy as the means of voting for the republicans? It certainly will be a huge short term burst of economic activity with 400,000 new jobs and 30 billion dollars a year…what will it turn out long term? If it is a political rewards system…does that ask if it is in the public good, will it be managed for the public good …and will it be built in the public good? If it is a political rewards. Will it be built and maintained under political campaign contribution plastic engineering standards or though public needs and safety standards. You see how slippery this becomes?
I don’t think the infrastructure of the nuclear renaissance is based on democratic principles…its base on a limited regional effort and on one political party. How come there is no new nuclear plant’s proposed on the west coast? Nuclear power started off in the wide open years with the Camelot years of Kennedy and the great society of Lyndon Johnson….it was a broad based accepted by most of society. One should notice the troubles showed up in the Nixon/Ford years…I don’t think you can call the ineffectual Carter years as a true democrat, their inapt handling with overseeing the nuclear industry until 1979 …then we had the near death experience of the nuclear industry in the Reagan years. Don’t forget the Davis Besse had its first near meltdown in 1985, with the accident associated with cost cutting after new plant construction. Of course Davis Besse hole in the head came deep within the Bush years of 2002.
There are enormous differences with the base of political approval and public support between the early nuclear years and the renaissance years of today. It initially came through a broad based democratic administration…it was initiated from the democrats. I think it diverted to some kind cult of belief…almost un-American…in that they think they need to hide behind a shield of un-transparency.
It interesting thinking about the competence of the politician’s with overseeing a nuclear plant or the industry. Does the public of the surrounding communities need to be competent, sophisticated and cosmopolitan…do they need to know how to interact at an early stage with a declining plant? The communities and politician’s are critical with keeping the nuclear industry healthy and strong. The politician’s have the power to observe the goings on of a plant…and they can interview at an early point. In many ways they are more powerful than the federal regulator. If need be, they can drag the public into troubles of a declining plant through a host of governmental tools…and clear out the dysfunction at a incipient level.
Take a look at NRC chairmen Klein’s last 10 speeches…what organization he gave the speeches to. Is he a regulator who represents the full American public…or is he a regulator who represents the extreme pro nuclear segment of our society? How come he is not giving a speech to the opposite of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture, INPO, the Baker Center or the American Nuclear Society. He giving speeches to the nuclear professional seminars and the extreme pronuclear groups…does this population represent our full community? How come he is not giving lectures to the flip side of “Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness’, INPO or the NEI…talking to the choir. Why doesn’t he have the courage to go into the lions’ den of their adversaries …or at least a group who is at neutral? How come he is not talking to the American public about the renaissance… to organizations that more represent the public? Does he need that amount of protection from the public? Fundamentally, he targets the content of his speech for the particular organization. Would the content of his speech change if he spoke to the selectmen or town counsel meetings of say of Hinsdale, Brattleboro or Keene around Vermont Yankee? I have real issues with content of his recent speeches…it verges distortion and lying.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-051.html
“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. KleinCenter for Strategic & International StudiesNovember 28, 2007Washington, DC
Excerps:
…“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
The ‘Right Way” speaks to the well known insider euphemism or code word…with saying Nuclear power will only be safe if the extreme conservative right wing republican control the political machinery of our country and the nuclear industry in general. Right, Klein is a President Bush ideologue…is he playing ideological word games like Bush!
….”Now, I would like to be clear up front that while I am happy to talk about nuclear energy—which is a subject I know something about—I am not here to “make the case for nuclear.” As a regulator, I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power. My job is to ensure the safety and security of U.S. nuclear power plants and materials.”
The NRC officials’ say this all the time…but is that truthful? Who he gives speeches for tells us exactly that he is advocating for the nuclear industry. I can’t believe his lack of integrity with saying this statement with “I am not an advocator for”. All of his professional life is about advocating for nuclear power, and the organization he chooses to give recent speeches to indicate this federal regulator is advocating for the renaissance. It interesting thinking about the 1960’s and 1970’s…would we had a more healthy nuclear industry if the NRC said they were getting overwhelmed with construction problems…where they put a stop work order on a percentage of the new construction…until the NRC and utility resources matched the amount of construction work. Would Klein have the independence to put a stop work order on the renaissance? That’s why I worry about his integrity…with his word games of “I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power” because it’s fundamentally not true and everyone knows it is the elite wink, wink game of telling half truths. It’s interesting thinking about where he learned this game from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
Many of Teller's colleagues were irritated that he seemed to enjoy taking full credit for something he had only a part in, and in response, with encouragement from Enrico Fermi, Teller authored an article titled "The Work of Many People," which appeared in Science magazine in February 1955, emphasizing that he was not alone in the weapon's development. He would later write in his memoirs that he had told a "white lie" in the 1955 article in order to "soothe ruffled feelings", and claimed full credit for the invention.
…”You have already heard Marv Fertel from NEI and some of the other speakers’…”
I bet you she is an extreme right wing republican ideologue…with most of the big player in the organization as being male and white. You got to know within the NEI, all the player got to be an extreme republican right wing ideologue organization. So where is the equivalent on the democrat’s side of the NEIS’ Mary Fertel in Klein’s speech?
…”As you may know, that first construction boom ground to halt during the “stagflation” of the late 1970s, when the predicted demand for energy consumption leveled off.”
These regulators never want to talk about what role the utilities, nuclear construction firm and architects played in the fiasco of the 1970’s. Stagflation is but a sick rationalization…did the organization of stagflation build and mange the nuclear industry. This is all about the decision of humans to bring on a quality plant and to manage the construction of nuclear plants on a national scale. People choose to do the right think….thy don’t get conned by stagflation or by the politicians…they choose to do it the right. This stagflation rationalization, you got to figure Klein doesn’t what to anger his audience…is typical with a ideologue’s attempts to distract the dumb public away from the factors that caused our greatest technological failure of the nuclear plant national implementation. You don’t see Klein making a speech about the magnitude of the faults in construction of nuclear plant’s the 1970’s and 1980’s as in:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2007/in200704.pdf
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-04: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
I don’t see stagflation mentioned in the IN or the Finnish safety report. Should we have a updated report on what went wrong with the industry in the 1960’s, 1970, and 1980’s..with Klein giving a speech on that.
…”In addition, the NRC had only recently been created, and—frankly—was not a very efficient or predictable regulator, in my view. And the only problem people had with “carbon” was that the stuff rubbed off on your fingers when you made “carbon copies” in the typewriter. The prospects for nuclear power did not appear bright. Today, of course, the situation is very different.”
What does the euphemism or code word mean of a “predictable regulator”? A “predictable regulator” is absolutely a right wing ideological tool of hating and then destroying government oversight across many economic sectors other than nuclear power. It about the selfish interest of, I have the power and let me do what I please…and not at all within the interest of our country and public interest. I could make a case that the interest with operating and constructing nuclear power plant’s…thought it was in their interest with throttling influence and resources to the developing nuclear regulators. They through that having a blinded and ineffectually nuclear regulator were in their self interest. The question is…who make the regulators unpredictable, surely not the American public…it had to come from political pressures to neuter the regulators. We should be thinking of that in the future!
…”The NRC needs to be a fair, consistent, and predictable regulator; not a roadblock. But we must also ensure that any nuclear expansion proceeds at a sustainable pace, so that safety and security concerns are adequately addressed at all times. Our standards are objectivity and sound science.”
Basically most of the above are nothing but political code words. What does being ‘fair” mean…does that mean to interpret bulky worded rules according to just some sentence structure? Fair to who, monies interest, or interest to the community and the long term interest of nuclear power? “Consistence and predictable” regulator are republican political code words, such as making the regulator follow the republican regulatory rules of non involvement even if a utility incorrectly constructs a nuclear plant through their negligence…back fit rule. You got to follow the rules of regulatory non involvement…event if they don’t make the utility fix their construction problems.
Edward Teller discussing the problem of Oppenheimer: If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance.
What does being objective mean for the nuclear industry and NRC? Teller isn’t objective and evidence based here?
“Objectivity” is another codeword… of the Three Wise monkeys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Where as example, even if you got your hands over you eyes…the kind of objectivity they speak, you must perceive a problem through your eyes and you must exactly interpret our impossible rules…in order to force a utility to fix an incipient problem that’s going to cost them money. In other words, you never gather the visual objective evidence that is necessity to take action…you have to have accident…because they forced you to cover your eyes, you need to see the visual evidence because of their rules of objective and absolute sterol logic, according to their crazy system of being republican. I am just saying objectivity become a very high hurdle…you need to prove a plant is unsafe instead of being able to prove a safety barrier has a unproven level of uncertainty. They spend tons of money on reducing the margin of safety on a barrier so that a company can make profits…while not spending a equivalent amount of money on testing for uncertainty. Another one is, the industry won’t fund an equivalent oppositional force to the special interest of the NEI or INPO…so the utilities and our political system see’s the full complexity of a nuclear problem…instead of seeing a self serving incomplete side of a problem that favors campaign contributions.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-052.html
Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture”
November 29, 2007
Augusta, GA
The fast are, that Edward Teller is a right wing pronuclear extremist…he sits way outside the middle of America on nuclear safety. So why isn’t Klein giving a speech in the main office of Green Peace, the UCS or the New England Coalition? How about the radical idea of speaking at a local selectman’s meeting or state governmental function. Where is the balance, Klein speaks of being balance…but his action speaks toward the extreme right wing pronuclear types. Is he a federal regulatory for the extreme right wing pro nuclear types…or is he a federal regulator speaking for all segments of the American public.
…”It is an honor to be here—and follow in the footsteps of such eminent figures as Howard Baker, Pete Domenici, and Edward Teller himself—to deliver the annual Teller lecture before this distinguished audience.”
Has Klein ever spoken in the terms of “followed the footsteps of such eminent figures” with any democrats or other political party members in his term of being a NRC commissioner? We know that Domenici and Teller can be looked at as being a pro republican nuclear extremist…with Baker being somewhat more moderate. Where is he sending signals that his agency is politically balanced? Where is he constantly telling the extreme left wing and right wing that our agency is going to be politically balanced…he talks about it in his speeches, and talk is cheep. Where is he actually demonstrating that his agency is going to be politically balance…that he respects our system of multi political party’s?
…“My focus is the safety and security of nuclear facilities and materials. But in that capacity, I do have interest in seeing that the general public has a fair, informed, and balanced understanding of radiological and nuclear issues. That was also a lifelong concern of Dr. Teller’s.”
You just get the idea that Klein is talking on two levels with his speeches, one to the extreme pro nuclear advocates, and then with mindless platitudes to the American public. You get that idea with his “perception is reality”…if you gives an incomplete and pleasing platitude about a organization or person’s beliefs…the public will just internalize it without the facts. What about Teller’s troubles with Oppenheimer, and his idea of digging a harbor with a hydrogen bomb or withdraw Petroleum of the oil sands of Alberta with another hydrogen bomb. All of this was unsafe and threaten our domestic nuclear industry at its heart. Does Klein think Teller would have made a good NRC commissioner chairman? I get the feeling working under Teller…the little guys wouldn’t be listened to and there would be no fundamental human rights with nuclear plant employees to report nuclear problems.
…”After the Three Mile Island accident there were a lot of popular misconceptions about what had happened, and the degree to which public health and safety were or were not jeopardized. But Teller used to say that the only casualty from Three Mile Island was himself; because he had a heart attack—which he survived—from criss-crossing the country explaining to people what had really happened! So I think Dr. Teller would appreciate that there seems to have been a real shift in public opinion, and a better understanding of these issues.”
Again, this whole paragraph is an extreme Republican code word or phrase. I mean, Klein is giving the extremist the misimpression that TMI is all about a giant popular misconception. Is he saying the public has a better understanding of these issues because TMI is now all about a lot of population misconception about what happened? What about the lessens learned coming from TMI, Davis Besse 1 and 2. How come we have to keep relearning over and over again from the lesson’s of the past. Believe me, they are pertinent today… How come Klein and his boys are reinterpreting history in a shiny new shell of irresponsibility?
How come Teller didn’t use his vast influence to get a more complete vision of what is going on in the nuclear industry and AEC pre TMI? How come he didn’t propose vast changes in the industry before the accident…risk his status and influence…put his face into the media…in order to correct the well known dysfunction in the industry? Why do these guys always come around after the accident…they always tell us the accident was all about our misconceptions and minimize the corrective action of the lessen learned. How come we spend enormous sums on money, much like this guy Teller…with realms of after accident investigation and corrective actions…and nobody has the courage to get their feet wet in the uncertainty of a pre accident organizational accident. Does everyone understand…you throw these big after accident investigation at the public…you talk it up all the dysfunction discovered in the investigation…and this is all designed to divert your attention to the clear signals that the system ignored before the accident happened. I mean you talk about that a flat tire that caused the accident….but nobody ever admits that you knew that you were riding on unstable tires and the accident could clearly be seen in your minds eyes…everyone eyes…but you knowly choose to accept this risk. I mean you talk about discovering the flat tire that cause the car crash…but nobody has the courage to admit what they knew in their minds before the accident.
It’s the Edward Teller effect…you only advocated for nuclear power in the shadow of an after a nuclear catastrophe, when you can make money and gain influence from the pro nuclear extremist with minimizing the known factors that set up the accident. You never consume your status, money and influence, in the uncertainty of the factors before the accident in trying to interrupt a known coming accident that damages the industry’s public credibility. You get into obscene game of absolute evidence, republican conservative objectivity and playing untransparency games with rules…and driving your car by only by looking through the rear view window.
I feel sorry for the nuclear industry...in that they don’t have any effective advocator on the democrat’s side. There is just no way to inject the democrat’s ethics of transparency, truthfulness and safety into the nuclear industry under the current system. The nuclear industry is trapped into leaning on the right. We gave them no choice. So I would say the framework of the nuclear industry is just a much a fault of the democrats as the republican’s, because they defaulted into letting the republicans politically manage the industry.
It sure looks to me the nuclear industry has morphed into something bigger than providing electricity to the public. Is it political welfare, or corporate welfare, or voter welfare rewards system? It seems to me it is a white and rich old man’s hobby….rebuilding the 1957 Chevy….are they trying to recapture their youth. I mean the south has been benefited by the renaissance more than any other region. Are they getting rewarded with nuclear candy as the means of voting for the republicans? It certainly will be a huge short term burst of economic activity with 400,000 new jobs and 30 billion dollars a year…what will it turn out long term? If it is a political rewards system…does that ask if it is in the public good, will it be managed for the public good …and will it be built in the public good? If it is a political rewards. Will it be built and maintained under political campaign contribution plastic engineering standards or though public needs and safety standards. You see how slippery this becomes?
I don’t think the infrastructure of the nuclear renaissance is based on democratic principles…its base on a limited regional effort and on one political party. How come there is no new nuclear plant’s proposed on the west coast? Nuclear power started off in the wide open years with the Camelot years of Kennedy and the great society of Lyndon Johnson….it was a broad based accepted by most of society. One should notice the troubles showed up in the Nixon/Ford years…I don’t think you can call the ineffectual Carter years as a true democrat, their inapt handling with overseeing the nuclear industry until 1979 …then we had the near death experience of the nuclear industry in the Reagan years. Don’t forget the Davis Besse had its first near meltdown in 1985, with the accident associated with cost cutting after new plant construction. Of course Davis Besse hole in the head came deep within the Bush years of 2002.
There are enormous differences with the base of political approval and public support between the early nuclear years and the renaissance years of today. It initially came through a broad based democratic administration…it was initiated from the democrats. I think it diverted to some kind cult of belief…almost un-American…in that they think they need to hide behind a shield of un-transparency.
It interesting thinking about the competence of the politician’s with overseeing a nuclear plant or the industry. Does the public of the surrounding communities need to be competent, sophisticated and cosmopolitan…do they need to know how to interact at an early stage with a declining plant? The communities and politician’s are critical with keeping the nuclear industry healthy and strong. The politician’s have the power to observe the goings on of a plant…and they can interview at an early point. In many ways they are more powerful than the federal regulator. If need be, they can drag the public into troubles of a declining plant through a host of governmental tools…and clear out the dysfunction at a incipient level.
Take a look at NRC chairmen Klein’s last 10 speeches…what organization he gave the speeches to. Is he a regulator who represents the full American public…or is he a regulator who represents the extreme pro nuclear segment of our society? How come he is not giving a speech to the opposite of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture, INPO, the Baker Center or the American Nuclear Society. He giving speeches to the nuclear professional seminars and the extreme pronuclear groups…does this population represent our full community? How come he is not giving lectures to the flip side of “Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness’, INPO or the NEI…talking to the choir. Why doesn’t he have the courage to go into the lions’ den of their adversaries …or at least a group who is at neutral? How come he is not talking to the American public about the renaissance… to organizations that more represent the public? Does he need that amount of protection from the public? Fundamentally, he targets the content of his speech for the particular organization. Would the content of his speech change if he spoke to the selectmen or town counsel meetings of say of Hinsdale, Brattleboro or Keene around Vermont Yankee? I have real issues with content of his recent speeches…it verges distortion and lying.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-051.html
“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. KleinCenter for Strategic & International StudiesNovember 28, 2007Washington, DC
Excerps:
…“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
The ‘Right Way” speaks to the well known insider euphemism or code word…with saying Nuclear power will only be safe if the extreme conservative right wing republican control the political machinery of our country and the nuclear industry in general. Right, Klein is a President Bush ideologue…is he playing ideological word games like Bush!
….”Now, I would like to be clear up front that while I am happy to talk about nuclear energy—which is a subject I know something about—I am not here to “make the case for nuclear.” As a regulator, I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power. My job is to ensure the safety and security of U.S. nuclear power plants and materials.”
The NRC officials’ say this all the time…but is that truthful? Who he gives speeches for tells us exactly that he is advocating for the nuclear industry. I can’t believe his lack of integrity with saying this statement with “I am not an advocator for”. All of his professional life is about advocating for nuclear power, and the organization he chooses to give recent speeches to indicate this federal regulator is advocating for the renaissance. It interesting thinking about the 1960’s and 1970’s…would we had a more healthy nuclear industry if the NRC said they were getting overwhelmed with construction problems…where they put a stop work order on a percentage of the new construction…until the NRC and utility resources matched the amount of construction work. Would Klein have the independence to put a stop work order on the renaissance? That’s why I worry about his integrity…with his word games of “I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power” because it’s fundamentally not true and everyone knows it is the elite wink, wink game of telling half truths. It’s interesting thinking about where he learned this game from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
Many of Teller's colleagues were irritated that he seemed to enjoy taking full credit for something he had only a part in, and in response, with encouragement from Enrico Fermi, Teller authored an article titled "The Work of Many People," which appeared in Science magazine in February 1955, emphasizing that he was not alone in the weapon's development. He would later write in his memoirs that he had told a "white lie" in the 1955 article in order to "soothe ruffled feelings", and claimed full credit for the invention.
…”You have already heard Marv Fertel from NEI and some of the other speakers’…”
I bet you she is an extreme right wing republican ideologue…with most of the big player in the organization as being male and white. You got to know within the NEI, all the player got to be an extreme republican right wing ideologue organization. So where is the equivalent on the democrat’s side of the NEIS’ Mary Fertel in Klein’s speech?
…”As you may know, that first construction boom ground to halt during the “stagflation” of the late 1970s, when the predicted demand for energy consumption leveled off.”
These regulators never want to talk about what role the utilities, nuclear construction firm and architects played in the fiasco of the 1970’s. Stagflation is but a sick rationalization…did the organization of stagflation build and mange the nuclear industry. This is all about the decision of humans to bring on a quality plant and to manage the construction of nuclear plants on a national scale. People choose to do the right think….thy don’t get conned by stagflation or by the politicians…they choose to do it the right. This stagflation rationalization, you got to figure Klein doesn’t what to anger his audience…is typical with a ideologue’s attempts to distract the dumb public away from the factors that caused our greatest technological failure of the nuclear plant national implementation. You don’t see Klein making a speech about the magnitude of the faults in construction of nuclear plant’s the 1970’s and 1980’s as in:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2007/in200704.pdf
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-04: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
I don’t see stagflation mentioned in the IN or the Finnish safety report. Should we have a updated report on what went wrong with the industry in the 1960’s, 1970, and 1980’s..with Klein giving a speech on that.
…”In addition, the NRC had only recently been created, and—frankly—was not a very efficient or predictable regulator, in my view. And the only problem people had with “carbon” was that the stuff rubbed off on your fingers when you made “carbon copies” in the typewriter. The prospects for nuclear power did not appear bright. Today, of course, the situation is very different.”
What does the euphemism or code word mean of a “predictable regulator”? A “predictable regulator” is absolutely a right wing ideological tool of hating and then destroying government oversight across many economic sectors other than nuclear power. It about the selfish interest of, I have the power and let me do what I please…and not at all within the interest of our country and public interest. I could make a case that the interest with operating and constructing nuclear power plant’s…thought it was in their interest with throttling influence and resources to the developing nuclear regulators. They through that having a blinded and ineffectually nuclear regulator were in their self interest. The question is…who make the regulators unpredictable, surely not the American public…it had to come from political pressures to neuter the regulators. We should be thinking of that in the future!
…”The NRC needs to be a fair, consistent, and predictable regulator; not a roadblock. But we must also ensure that any nuclear expansion proceeds at a sustainable pace, so that safety and security concerns are adequately addressed at all times. Our standards are objectivity and sound science.”
Basically most of the above are nothing but political code words. What does being ‘fair” mean…does that mean to interpret bulky worded rules according to just some sentence structure? Fair to who, monies interest, or interest to the community and the long term interest of nuclear power? “Consistence and predictable” regulator are republican political code words, such as making the regulator follow the republican regulatory rules of non involvement even if a utility incorrectly constructs a nuclear plant through their negligence…back fit rule. You got to follow the rules of regulatory non involvement…event if they don’t make the utility fix their construction problems.
Edward Teller discussing the problem of Oppenheimer: If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance.
What does being objective mean for the nuclear industry and NRC? Teller isn’t objective and evidence based here?
“Objectivity” is another codeword… of the Three Wise monkeys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Where as example, even if you got your hands over you eyes…the kind of objectivity they speak, you must perceive a problem through your eyes and you must exactly interpret our impossible rules…in order to force a utility to fix an incipient problem that’s going to cost them money. In other words, you never gather the visual objective evidence that is necessity to take action…you have to have accident…because they forced you to cover your eyes, you need to see the visual evidence because of their rules of objective and absolute sterol logic, according to their crazy system of being republican. I am just saying objectivity become a very high hurdle…you need to prove a plant is unsafe instead of being able to prove a safety barrier has a unproven level of uncertainty. They spend tons of money on reducing the margin of safety on a barrier so that a company can make profits…while not spending a equivalent amount of money on testing for uncertainty. Another one is, the industry won’t fund an equivalent oppositional force to the special interest of the NEI or INPO…so the utilities and our political system see’s the full complexity of a nuclear problem…instead of seeing a self serving incomplete side of a problem that favors campaign contributions.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-052.html
Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture”
November 29, 2007
Augusta, GA
The fast are, that Edward Teller is a right wing pronuclear extremist…he sits way outside the middle of America on nuclear safety. So why isn’t Klein giving a speech in the main office of Green Peace, the UCS or the New England Coalition? How about the radical idea of speaking at a local selectman’s meeting or state governmental function. Where is the balance, Klein speaks of being balance…but his action speaks toward the extreme right wing pronuclear types. Is he a federal regulatory for the extreme right wing pro nuclear types…or is he a federal regulator speaking for all segments of the American public.
…”It is an honor to be here—and follow in the footsteps of such eminent figures as Howard Baker, Pete Domenici, and Edward Teller himself—to deliver the annual Teller lecture before this distinguished audience.”
Has Klein ever spoken in the terms of “followed the footsteps of such eminent figures” with any democrats or other political party members in his term of being a NRC commissioner? We know that Domenici and Teller can be looked at as being a pro republican nuclear extremist…with Baker being somewhat more moderate. Where is he sending signals that his agency is politically balanced? Where is he constantly telling the extreme left wing and right wing that our agency is going to be politically balanced…he talks about it in his speeches, and talk is cheep. Where is he actually demonstrating that his agency is going to be politically balance…that he respects our system of multi political party’s?
…“My focus is the safety and security of nuclear facilities and materials. But in that capacity, I do have interest in seeing that the general public has a fair, informed, and balanced understanding of radiological and nuclear issues. That was also a lifelong concern of Dr. Teller’s.”
You just get the idea that Klein is talking on two levels with his speeches, one to the extreme pro nuclear advocates, and then with mindless platitudes to the American public. You get that idea with his “perception is reality”…if you gives an incomplete and pleasing platitude about a organization or person’s beliefs…the public will just internalize it without the facts. What about Teller’s troubles with Oppenheimer, and his idea of digging a harbor with a hydrogen bomb or withdraw Petroleum of the oil sands of Alberta with another hydrogen bomb. All of this was unsafe and threaten our domestic nuclear industry at its heart. Does Klein think Teller would have made a good NRC commissioner chairman? I get the feeling working under Teller…the little guys wouldn’t be listened to and there would be no fundamental human rights with nuclear plant employees to report nuclear problems.
…”After the Three Mile Island accident there were a lot of popular misconceptions about what had happened, and the degree to which public health and safety were or were not jeopardized. But Teller used to say that the only casualty from Three Mile Island was himself; because he had a heart attack—which he survived—from criss-crossing the country explaining to people what had really happened! So I think Dr. Teller would appreciate that there seems to have been a real shift in public opinion, and a better understanding of these issues.”
Again, this whole paragraph is an extreme Republican code word or phrase. I mean, Klein is giving the extremist the misimpression that TMI is all about a giant popular misconception. Is he saying the public has a better understanding of these issues because TMI is now all about a lot of population misconception about what happened? What about the lessens learned coming from TMI, Davis Besse 1 and 2. How come we have to keep relearning over and over again from the lesson’s of the past. Believe me, they are pertinent today… How come Klein and his boys are reinterpreting history in a shiny new shell of irresponsibility?
How come Teller didn’t use his vast influence to get a more complete vision of what is going on in the nuclear industry and AEC pre TMI? How come he didn’t propose vast changes in the industry before the accident…risk his status and influence…put his face into the media…in order to correct the well known dysfunction in the industry? Why do these guys always come around after the accident…they always tell us the accident was all about our misconceptions and minimize the corrective action of the lessen learned. How come we spend enormous sums on money, much like this guy Teller…with realms of after accident investigation and corrective actions…and nobody has the courage to get their feet wet in the uncertainty of a pre accident organizational accident. Does everyone understand…you throw these big after accident investigation at the public…you talk it up all the dysfunction discovered in the investigation…and this is all designed to divert your attention to the clear signals that the system ignored before the accident happened. I mean you talk about that a flat tire that caused the accident….but nobody ever admits that you knew that you were riding on unstable tires and the accident could clearly be seen in your minds eyes…everyone eyes…but you knowly choose to accept this risk. I mean you talk about discovering the flat tire that cause the car crash…but nobody has the courage to admit what they knew in their minds before the accident.
It’s the Edward Teller effect…you only advocated for nuclear power in the shadow of an after a nuclear catastrophe, when you can make money and gain influence from the pro nuclear extremist with minimizing the known factors that set up the accident. You never consume your status, money and influence, in the uncertainty of the factors before the accident in trying to interrupt a known coming accident that damages the industry’s public credibility. You get into obscene game of absolute evidence, republican conservative objectivity and playing untransparency games with rules…and driving your car by only by looking through the rear view window.
Geenpeace Dr Patric Moore is the equivelent to Edward Teller...in he doesn't want to get his hands dirty with correcting what's wrong with the nuclear industry.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Plan to Build Reactors Is Running Into Hurdles
Did it follow the outline of my last entry?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/05nuke.html?ref=business
December 5, 2007
Plan to Build Reactors Is Running Into Hurdles
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — For the first time in three decades, companies are getting ready to build nuclear reactors in the United States. They intend to do so under streamlined procedures meant to avoid the long delays and cost overruns that crippled the industry last time around.
But with early jockeying under way to win government approval for this new generation of plants, ominous signs are emerging that the plans may not go smoothly.
In recent years, at a time when nuclear construction was in the deep freeze, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry created a method that was supposed to simplify future planning and construction. Under it, manufacturers were to win advance government approval for a handful of reactor designs, and power companies would specify later where they would put new reactors of each type.
This cookie-cutter approach was meant to ensure that companies would not have to rip out concrete and pipes in the middle of construction to satisfy ever-changing requirements from Washington. That was one of the biggest problems when the industry foundered in the 1980s.
Now, Congress has thrown its support behind a new round of nuclear construction, and many people in the electric industry are eager to get going. Three companies have filed applications for licenses to build and operate five reactors.
But one company marched in with more than a dozen significant changes to a previously approved design. Two picked designs that have yet to win final government approval. And waiting in the wings is a fourth company that has ordered parts for a design that has not even been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“The good news is that there is a real need for power,” said Marvin S. Fertel, vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association. “The bad news is that now we’ve convoluted” the steps for getting plants approved.
Gregory B. Jaczko, one of the federal agency’s three commissioners, said it might not have enough staff members to do now what it did in the 1970s and ’80s — supervise the construction of a couple of dozen types of reactors. The commission has been hiring rapidly to prepare for a nuclear renaissance, but officials there were counting on standardization, if not quite mass production, as a way to manage the workload.
Handling applications for incomplete designs will be an additional burden on staff members that could slow approvals, he said. “I don’t think we’ve gotten to what the commission envisioned back in the late ’80s and early ’90s when we embarked on this,” Mr. Jaczko said. A second commissioner, Peter Lyons, said, “There is no application coming in today that is exactly following the process.”
Industry executives acknowledge the problem but say they are beginning this round with designs that are far more developed than the ones begun in the 1970s. They contend that the rush to build before plans are complete is unavoidable.
The Constellation Energy Generation Group is in a partnership to build a reactor in Maryland using a design pioneered in Finland and France, a design not yet certified in the United States. “The need for lower-cost electricity and environmentally acceptable electricity from nuclear has experienced so much momentum” that the company needs to move rapidly, said Michael J. Wallace, the generating group’s president.
Ideally, certification of the reactor design would occur before the company goes forward with its plans, he said. But that would slow things down by as much as three years, and Constellation wants to have the plant on line by 2015, Mr. Wallace said, adding, “The reality is we could use the plant on line in 2011.”
The industry is painfully aware of a track record of haste making waste. In the 1960s and ’70s, it broke ground on scores of reactors with plans only 20 or 30 percent complete, and later had to rip out steel and concrete as designs and safety requirements changed during construction, adding vast costs.
The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they are determined to avoid that if there is a new round of construction. In the 1990s, the commission reorganized its licensing procedure to try to move design questions to the forefront — before construction.
But NRG, of Princeton, N.J., applied in October to build two reactors of a type known as advanced boiling-water reactors at a site in Texas. The design was approved by the nuclear commission in 1997, but NRG wants permission for 16 design changes.
The Tennessee Valley Authority and a consortium of companies in the nuclear business applied to build a Westinghouse design at Bellefonte, Ala., the site of two abandoned reactor projects. The Westinghouse design was certified in 2006, but the company is amending it, closing gaps and making changes requested by customers.
On Nov. 28, the power company Dominion, of Richmond, Va., applied to build a new reactor adjacent to two existing reactors at its North Anna power station in central Virginia. The site itself won early approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Dominion chose a reactor design not yet approved by the agency. A company spokesman, Jim Norville, said, “We anticipate it will be certified well before we break ground.”
Mr. Jaczko said that by now, “the designs should have been finalized.” But they are still “evolving,” he said, and design questions may linger even as the commission begins to consider approval of particular sites.
Power company executives share his concern, although they say they are far better prepared for construction now than in the last round.
Other problems are emerging in the budding nuclear renaissance. The industry had hoped to limit the number of cookie-cutter designs to two or three, but there are five already, and more on the way.
And if the industry succeeds in winning approval for as many new reactors as it wants — 31 and counting — the capacity of nuclear suppliers is likely to be strained. By most estimates, they can fabricate enough parts for only three or four reactors a year, and the United States will be competing with other countries that want to build nuclear plants.
Some of the most important parts can be cast only by a single foundry, Japan Steel Works. “The global supply chain is going to be the pacing item,” Mr. Wallace said.
Mr. Fertel, of the trade association, said that any company that wanted to have a reactor on line by 2015 would need to have ordered some parts by now. Even in the best case, some plants on the industry wish list will take as long as 2020 to be built, he said.
As of now, the industry cannot even build the simulators it needs for the complex, time-consuming task of training new nuclear operators. “You can’t build it till the design is firmed up,” Mr. Wallace said.
David Leonhardt, whose Economic Scene column normally appears on this page, is on assignment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/05nuke.html?ref=business
December 5, 2007
Plan to Build Reactors Is Running Into Hurdles
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — For the first time in three decades, companies are getting ready to build nuclear reactors in the United States. They intend to do so under streamlined procedures meant to avoid the long delays and cost overruns that crippled the industry last time around.
But with early jockeying under way to win government approval for this new generation of plants, ominous signs are emerging that the plans may not go smoothly.
In recent years, at a time when nuclear construction was in the deep freeze, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry created a method that was supposed to simplify future planning and construction. Under it, manufacturers were to win advance government approval for a handful of reactor designs, and power companies would specify later where they would put new reactors of each type.
This cookie-cutter approach was meant to ensure that companies would not have to rip out concrete and pipes in the middle of construction to satisfy ever-changing requirements from Washington. That was one of the biggest problems when the industry foundered in the 1980s.
Now, Congress has thrown its support behind a new round of nuclear construction, and many people in the electric industry are eager to get going. Three companies have filed applications for licenses to build and operate five reactors.
But one company marched in with more than a dozen significant changes to a previously approved design. Two picked designs that have yet to win final government approval. And waiting in the wings is a fourth company that has ordered parts for a design that has not even been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“The good news is that there is a real need for power,” said Marvin S. Fertel, vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association. “The bad news is that now we’ve convoluted” the steps for getting plants approved.
Gregory B. Jaczko, one of the federal agency’s three commissioners, said it might not have enough staff members to do now what it did in the 1970s and ’80s — supervise the construction of a couple of dozen types of reactors. The commission has been hiring rapidly to prepare for a nuclear renaissance, but officials there were counting on standardization, if not quite mass production, as a way to manage the workload.
Handling applications for incomplete designs will be an additional burden on staff members that could slow approvals, he said. “I don’t think we’ve gotten to what the commission envisioned back in the late ’80s and early ’90s when we embarked on this,” Mr. Jaczko said. A second commissioner, Peter Lyons, said, “There is no application coming in today that is exactly following the process.”
Industry executives acknowledge the problem but say they are beginning this round with designs that are far more developed than the ones begun in the 1970s. They contend that the rush to build before plans are complete is unavoidable.
The Constellation Energy Generation Group is in a partnership to build a reactor in Maryland using a design pioneered in Finland and France, a design not yet certified in the United States. “The need for lower-cost electricity and environmentally acceptable electricity from nuclear has experienced so much momentum” that the company needs to move rapidly, said Michael J. Wallace, the generating group’s president.
Ideally, certification of the reactor design would occur before the company goes forward with its plans, he said. But that would slow things down by as much as three years, and Constellation wants to have the plant on line by 2015, Mr. Wallace said, adding, “The reality is we could use the plant on line in 2011.”
The industry is painfully aware of a track record of haste making waste. In the 1960s and ’70s, it broke ground on scores of reactors with plans only 20 or 30 percent complete, and later had to rip out steel and concrete as designs and safety requirements changed during construction, adding vast costs.
The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they are determined to avoid that if there is a new round of construction. In the 1990s, the commission reorganized its licensing procedure to try to move design questions to the forefront — before construction.
But NRG, of Princeton, N.J., applied in October to build two reactors of a type known as advanced boiling-water reactors at a site in Texas. The design was approved by the nuclear commission in 1997, but NRG wants permission for 16 design changes.
The Tennessee Valley Authority and a consortium of companies in the nuclear business applied to build a Westinghouse design at Bellefonte, Ala., the site of two abandoned reactor projects. The Westinghouse design was certified in 2006, but the company is amending it, closing gaps and making changes requested by customers.
On Nov. 28, the power company Dominion, of Richmond, Va., applied to build a new reactor adjacent to two existing reactors at its North Anna power station in central Virginia. The site itself won early approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Dominion chose a reactor design not yet approved by the agency. A company spokesman, Jim Norville, said, “We anticipate it will be certified well before we break ground.”
Mr. Jaczko said that by now, “the designs should have been finalized.” But they are still “evolving,” he said, and design questions may linger even as the commission begins to consider approval of particular sites.
Power company executives share his concern, although they say they are far better prepared for construction now than in the last round.
Other problems are emerging in the budding nuclear renaissance. The industry had hoped to limit the number of cookie-cutter designs to two or three, but there are five already, and more on the way.
And if the industry succeeds in winning approval for as many new reactors as it wants — 31 and counting — the capacity of nuclear suppliers is likely to be strained. By most estimates, they can fabricate enough parts for only three or four reactors a year, and the United States will be competing with other countries that want to build nuclear plants.
Some of the most important parts can be cast only by a single foundry, Japan Steel Works. “The global supply chain is going to be the pacing item,” Mr. Wallace said.
Mr. Fertel, of the trade association, said that any company that wanted to have a reactor on line by 2015 would need to have ordered some parts by now. Even in the best case, some plants on the industry wish list will take as long as 2020 to be built, he said.
As of now, the industry cannot even build the simulators it needs for the complex, time-consuming task of training new nuclear operators. “You can’t build it till the design is firmed up,” Mr. Wallace said.
David Leonhardt, whose Economic Scene column normally appears on this page, is on assignment.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
works in progress?
UPDATED 12/5/07
(I get my mistake now thanks to the NYT’S…I read it as Nei’s Mary not Marv Fertel. Sorry about the mistake…well, at least my mistake was based on hope? It was only one letter I misread?)
working on the teller speech?
At the top of this house of cards, it is inescapable…it is the object failure of the democrats. Generally they are “no nukes”…this disconnects them from having any effective influence in the nuclear industry. No wonder the nuclear establishment has been backed into the conservative republican corner. No nukes means no influence to effect the levels of safety in these nuclear plants…all you have is the power to shut down a plant and withdrawal income from the communities.
I feel sorry for the nuclear industry...in that they don’t have any effective advocator on the democrat’s side. There is just no way to inject the democrat’s ethics of transparency, truthfulness and safety into the nuclear industry under the current system. The nuclear industry is trapped into leaning on the right. We gave them no choice. So I would say the framework of the nuclear industry is just a much a fault of the democrats as the republican’s, because they defaulted into letting the republicans politically manage the industry.
It sure looks to me the nuclear industry has morphed into something bigger than providing electricity to the public. Is it political welfare, or corporate welfare, or voter welfare rewards system? It seems to me it is a white and rich old man’s hobby….rebuilding the 1957 Chevy….are they trying to recapture their youth. I mean the south has been benefited by the renaissance more than any other region. Are they getting rewarded with nuclear candy as the means of voting for the republicans? It certainly will be a huge short term burst of economic activity with 400,000 new jobs and 30 billion dollars a year…what will it turn out long term? If it is a political rewards system…does that ask if it is in the public good, will it be managed for the public good …and will it be built in the public good? If it is a political rewards. Will it be built and maintained under political campaign contribution plastic engineering standards or though public needs and safety standards. You see how slippery this becomes?
I don’t think the infrastructure of the nuclear renaissance is based on democratic principles…its base on a limited regional effort and on one political party. How come there is no new nuclear plant’s proposed on the west coast? Nuclear power started off in the wide open years with the Camelot years of Kennedy and the great society of Lyndon Johnson….it was a broad based accepted by most of society. One should notice the troubles showed up in the Nixon/Ford years…I don’t think you can call the ineffectual Carter years as a true democrat, their inapt handling with overseeing the nuclear industry until 1979 …then we had the near death experience of the nuclear industry in the Reagan years. Don’t forget the Davis Besse had its first near meltdown in 1985, with the accident associated with cost cutting after new plant construction. Of course Davis Besse hole in the head came deep within the Bush years of 2002.
There are enormous differences with the base of political approval and public support between the early nuclear years and the renaissance years of today. It initially came through a broad based democratic administration…it was initiated from the democrats. I think it diverted to some kind cult of belief…almost un-American…in that they think they need to hide behind a shield of un-transparency.
It interesting thinking about the competence of the politician’s with overseeing a nuclear plant or the industry. Does the public of the surrounding communities need to be competent, sophisticated and cosmopolitan…do they need to know how to interact at an early stage with a declining plant? The communities and politician’s are critical with keeping the nuclear industry healthy and strong. The politician’s have the power to observe the goings on of a plant…and they can interview at an early point. In many ways they are more powerful than the federal regulator. If need be, they can drag the public into troubles of a declining plant through a host of governmental tools…and clear out the dysfunction at a incipient level.
Take a look at NRC chairmen Klein’s last 10 speeches…what organization he gave the speeches to. Is he a regulator who represents the full American public…or is he a regulator who represents the extreme pro nuclear segment of our society? How come he is not giving a speech to the opposite of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture, INPO, the Baker Center or the American Nuclear Society. He giving speeches to the nuclear professional seminars and the extreme pronuclear groups…does this population represent our full community? How come he is not giving lectures to the flip side of “Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness’, INPO or the NEI…talking to the choir. Why doesn’t he have the courage to go into the lions’ den of their adversaries …or at least a group who is at neutral? How come he is not talking to the American public about the renaissance… to organizations that more represent the public? Does he need that amount of protection from the public? Fundamentally, he targets the content of his speech for the particular organization. Would the content of his speech change if he spoke to the selectmen or town counsel meetings of say of Hinsdale, Brattleboro or Keene around Vermont Yankee? I have real issues with content of his recent speeches…it verges distortion and lying.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-051.html
“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein Center for Strategic & International StudiesNovember 28, 2007 Washington, DC Excerps:
…“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
The ‘Right Way” speaks to the well known insider euphemism or code word…with saying Nuclear power will only be safe if the extreme conservative right wing republican control the political machinery of our country and the nuclear industry in general. Right, Klein is a President Bush ideologue…is he playing ideological word games like Bush!
….”Now, I would like to be clear up front that while I am happy to talk about nuclear energy—which is a subject I know something about—I am not here to “make the case for nuclear.” As a regulator, I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power. My job is to ensure the safety and security of U.S. nuclear power plants and materials.”
The NRC officials’ say this all the time…but is that truthful? Who he gives speeches for tells us exactly that he is advocating for the nuclear industry. I can’t believe his lack of integrity with saying this statement with “I am not an advocator for”. All of his professional life is about advocating for nuclear power, and the organization he chooses to give recent speeches to indicate this federal regulator is advocating for the renaissance. It interesting thinking about the 1960’s and 1970’s…would we had a more healthy nuclear industry if the NRC said they were getting overwhelmed with construction problems…where they put a stop work order on a percentage of the new construction…until the NRC and utility resources matched the amount of construction work. Would Klein have the independence to put a stop work order on the renaissance? That’s why I worry about his integrity…with his word games of “I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power” because it’s fundamentally not true and everyone knows it is the elite wink, wink game of telling half truths. It’s interesting thinking about where he learned this game from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
Many of Teller's colleagues were irritated that he seemed to enjoy taking full credit for something he had only a part in, and in response, with encouragement from Enrico Fermi, Teller authored an article titled "The Work of Many People," which appeared in Science magazine in February 1955, emphasizing that he was not alone in the weapon's development. He would later write in his memoirs that he had told a "white lie" in the 1955 article in order to "soothe ruffled feelings", and claimed full credit for the invention.
…”You have already heard Marv Fertel from NEI and some of the other speakers’…”
I bet you she is an extreme right wing republican ideologue…with most of the big player in the organization as being male and white. You got to know within the NEI, all the player got to be an extreme republican right wing ideologue organization. So where is the equivalent on the democrat’s side of the NEIS’ Mary Fertel in Klein’s speech?
…”As you may know, that first construction boom ground to halt during the “stagflation” of the late 1970s, when the predicted demand for energy consumption leveled off.”
These regulators never want to talk about what role the utilities, nuclear construction firm and architects played in the fiasco of the 1970’s. Stagflation is but a sick rationalization…did the organization of stagflation build and mange the nuclear industry. This is all about the decision of humans to bring on a quality plant and to manage the construction of nuclear plants on a national scale. People choose to do the right think….thy don’t get conned by stagflation or by the politicians…they choose to do it the right. This stagflation rationalization, you got to figure Klein doesn’t what to anger his audience…is typical with a ideologue’s attempts to distract the dumb public away from the factors that caused our greatest technological failure of the nuclear plant national implementation. You don’t see Klein making a speech about the magnitude of the faults in construction of nuclear plant’s the 1970’s and 1980’s as in:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2007/in200704.pdf
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-04: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
I don’t see stagflation mentioned in the IN or the Finnish safety report. Should we have a updated report on what went wrong with the industry in the 1960’s, 1970, and 1980’s..with Klein giving a speech on that.
…”In addition, the NRC had only recently been created, and—frankly—was not a very efficient or predictable regulator, in my view. And the only problem people had with “carbon” was that the stuff rubbed off on your fingers when you made “carbon copies” in the typewriter. The prospects for nuclear power did not appear bright. Today, of course, the situation is very different.”
What does the euphemism or code word mean of a “predictable regulator”? A “predictable regulator” is absolutely a right wing ideological tool of hating and then destroying government oversight across many economic sectors other than nuclear power. It about the selfish interest of, I have the power and let me do what I please…and not at all within the interest of our country and public interest. I could make a case that the interest with operating and constructing nuclear power plant’s…thought it was in their interest with throttling influence and resources to the developing nuclear regulators. They through that having a blinded and ineffectually nuclear regulator were in their self interest. The question is…who make the regulators unpredictable, surely not the American public…it had to come from political pressures to neuter the regulators. We should be thinking of that in the future!
(I get my mistake now thanks to the NYT’S…I read it as Nei’s Mary not Marv Fertel. Sorry about the mistake…well, at least my mistake was based on hope? It was only one letter I misread?)
working on the teller speech?
At the top of this house of cards, it is inescapable…it is the object failure of the democrats. Generally they are “no nukes”…this disconnects them from having any effective influence in the nuclear industry. No wonder the nuclear establishment has been backed into the conservative republican corner. No nukes means no influence to effect the levels of safety in these nuclear plants…all you have is the power to shut down a plant and withdrawal income from the communities.
I feel sorry for the nuclear industry...in that they don’t have any effective advocator on the democrat’s side. There is just no way to inject the democrat’s ethics of transparency, truthfulness and safety into the nuclear industry under the current system. The nuclear industry is trapped into leaning on the right. We gave them no choice. So I would say the framework of the nuclear industry is just a much a fault of the democrats as the republican’s, because they defaulted into letting the republicans politically manage the industry.
It sure looks to me the nuclear industry has morphed into something bigger than providing electricity to the public. Is it political welfare, or corporate welfare, or voter welfare rewards system? It seems to me it is a white and rich old man’s hobby….rebuilding the 1957 Chevy….are they trying to recapture their youth. I mean the south has been benefited by the renaissance more than any other region. Are they getting rewarded with nuclear candy as the means of voting for the republicans? It certainly will be a huge short term burst of economic activity with 400,000 new jobs and 30 billion dollars a year…what will it turn out long term? If it is a political rewards system…does that ask if it is in the public good, will it be managed for the public good …and will it be built in the public good? If it is a political rewards. Will it be built and maintained under political campaign contribution plastic engineering standards or though public needs and safety standards. You see how slippery this becomes?
I don’t think the infrastructure of the nuclear renaissance is based on democratic principles…its base on a limited regional effort and on one political party. How come there is no new nuclear plant’s proposed on the west coast? Nuclear power started off in the wide open years with the Camelot years of Kennedy and the great society of Lyndon Johnson….it was a broad based accepted by most of society. One should notice the troubles showed up in the Nixon/Ford years…I don’t think you can call the ineffectual Carter years as a true democrat, their inapt handling with overseeing the nuclear industry until 1979 …then we had the near death experience of the nuclear industry in the Reagan years. Don’t forget the Davis Besse had its first near meltdown in 1985, with the accident associated with cost cutting after new plant construction. Of course Davis Besse hole in the head came deep within the Bush years of 2002.
There are enormous differences with the base of political approval and public support between the early nuclear years and the renaissance years of today. It initially came through a broad based democratic administration…it was initiated from the democrats. I think it diverted to some kind cult of belief…almost un-American…in that they think they need to hide behind a shield of un-transparency.
It interesting thinking about the competence of the politician’s with overseeing a nuclear plant or the industry. Does the public of the surrounding communities need to be competent, sophisticated and cosmopolitan…do they need to know how to interact at an early stage with a declining plant? The communities and politician’s are critical with keeping the nuclear industry healthy and strong. The politician’s have the power to observe the goings on of a plant…and they can interview at an early point. In many ways they are more powerful than the federal regulator. If need be, they can drag the public into troubles of a declining plant through a host of governmental tools…and clear out the dysfunction at a incipient level.
Take a look at NRC chairmen Klein’s last 10 speeches…what organization he gave the speeches to. Is he a regulator who represents the full American public…or is he a regulator who represents the extreme pro nuclear segment of our society? How come he is not giving a speech to the opposite of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture, INPO, the Baker Center or the American Nuclear Society. He giving speeches to the nuclear professional seminars and the extreme pronuclear groups…does this population represent our full community? How come he is not giving lectures to the flip side of “Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness’, INPO or the NEI…talking to the choir. Why doesn’t he have the courage to go into the lions’ den of their adversaries …or at least a group who is at neutral? How come he is not talking to the American public about the renaissance… to organizations that more represent the public? Does he need that amount of protection from the public? Fundamentally, he targets the content of his speech for the particular organization. Would the content of his speech change if he spoke to the selectmen or town counsel meetings of say of Hinsdale, Brattleboro or Keene around Vermont Yankee? I have real issues with content of his recent speeches…it verges distortion and lying.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2007/s-07-051.html
“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein Center for Strategic & International StudiesNovember 28, 2007 Washington, DC Excerps:
…“The Right Way: Steering a Course for the Future of Safe Nuclear Power”
The ‘Right Way” speaks to the well known insider euphemism or code word…with saying Nuclear power will only be safe if the extreme conservative right wing republican control the political machinery of our country and the nuclear industry in general. Right, Klein is a President Bush ideologue…is he playing ideological word games like Bush!
….”Now, I would like to be clear up front that while I am happy to talk about nuclear energy—which is a subject I know something about—I am not here to “make the case for nuclear.” As a regulator, I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power. My job is to ensure the safety and security of U.S. nuclear power plants and materials.”
The NRC officials’ say this all the time…but is that truthful? Who he gives speeches for tells us exactly that he is advocating for the nuclear industry. I can’t believe his lack of integrity with saying this statement with “I am not an advocator for”. All of his professional life is about advocating for nuclear power, and the organization he chooses to give recent speeches to indicate this federal regulator is advocating for the renaissance. It interesting thinking about the 1960’s and 1970’s…would we had a more healthy nuclear industry if the NRC said they were getting overwhelmed with construction problems…where they put a stop work order on a percentage of the new construction…until the NRC and utility resources matched the amount of construction work. Would Klein have the independence to put a stop work order on the renaissance? That’s why I worry about his integrity…with his word games of “I am not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power” because it’s fundamentally not true and everyone knows it is the elite wink, wink game of telling half truths. It’s interesting thinking about where he learned this game from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
Many of Teller's colleagues were irritated that he seemed to enjoy taking full credit for something he had only a part in, and in response, with encouragement from Enrico Fermi, Teller authored an article titled "The Work of Many People," which appeared in Science magazine in February 1955, emphasizing that he was not alone in the weapon's development. He would later write in his memoirs that he had told a "white lie" in the 1955 article in order to "soothe ruffled feelings", and claimed full credit for the invention.
…”You have already heard Marv Fertel from NEI and some of the other speakers’…”
I bet you she is an extreme right wing republican ideologue…with most of the big player in the organization as being male and white. You got to know within the NEI, all the player got to be an extreme republican right wing ideologue organization. So where is the equivalent on the democrat’s side of the NEIS’ Mary Fertel in Klein’s speech?
…”As you may know, that first construction boom ground to halt during the “stagflation” of the late 1970s, when the predicted demand for energy consumption leveled off.”
These regulators never want to talk about what role the utilities, nuclear construction firm and architects played in the fiasco of the 1970’s. Stagflation is but a sick rationalization…did the organization of stagflation build and mange the nuclear industry. This is all about the decision of humans to bring on a quality plant and to manage the construction of nuclear plants on a national scale. People choose to do the right think….thy don’t get conned by stagflation or by the politicians…they choose to do it the right. This stagflation rationalization, you got to figure Klein doesn’t what to anger his audience…is typical with a ideologue’s attempts to distract the dumb public away from the factors that caused our greatest technological failure of the nuclear plant national implementation. You don’t see Klein making a speech about the magnitude of the faults in construction of nuclear plant’s the 1970’s and 1980’s as in:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2007/in200704.pdf
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-04: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
I don’t see stagflation mentioned in the IN or the Finnish safety report. Should we have a updated report on what went wrong with the industry in the 1960’s, 1970, and 1980’s..with Klein giving a speech on that.
…”In addition, the NRC had only recently been created, and—frankly—was not a very efficient or predictable regulator, in my view. And the only problem people had with “carbon” was that the stuff rubbed off on your fingers when you made “carbon copies” in the typewriter. The prospects for nuclear power did not appear bright. Today, of course, the situation is very different.”
What does the euphemism or code word mean of a “predictable regulator”? A “predictable regulator” is absolutely a right wing ideological tool of hating and then destroying government oversight across many economic sectors other than nuclear power. It about the selfish interest of, I have the power and let me do what I please…and not at all within the interest of our country and public interest. I could make a case that the interest with operating and constructing nuclear power plant’s…thought it was in their interest with throttling influence and resources to the developing nuclear regulators. They through that having a blinded and ineffectually nuclear regulator were in their self interest. The question is…who make the regulators unpredictable, surely not the American public…it had to come from political pressures to neuter the regulators. We should be thinking of that in the future!
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Giuliani welfare record critiqued
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/FRONTPAGE/712020311
Article published Dec 2, 2007
Campaign 2008
Giuliani welfare record critiqued
By JOELLE FARRELLMonitor staff
here-->
Dec 2, 2007
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who often touts his record on crime reduction and tax cuts when he visits New Hampshire, said last week that he was most proud of the welfare reforms he initiated as mayor.
"We moved more people off welfare than the population of most cities in this country: 640,000 people," he said at the Politics and Eggs forum in Bedford last Monday. "And we found them jobs."
Giuliani's welfare policies drastically cut the number of people on welfare, but not all of the people who left the rolls - or were forced from them - found jobs. Many were wrongly denied benefits, including food stamps, which led more people to seek emergency shelter and food, city anti- poverty advocates said.
During Giuliani's tenure, the poverty rate declined only marginally, remaining about 70 percent greater than the rate for the rest of the country, according to the independent Citizens Budget Commission. The rate of homelessness increased from 23,431 people in the shelters each night to 34,576 people, according to the Coalition for the Homeless. About 500,000 fewer people received food stamps, forcing many to turn to food pantries and soup kitchens, said New York State Sen. Liz Krueger, who oversaw a nonprofit organization that helped poor people avoid eviction and secure emergency food during Giuliani's mayoral terms.
"The data shows that he moved them off of welfare, but he did not move them out of poverty," she said. "The easiest thing in the world to do is close a welfare case. The question is what happened to the household when you closed their welfare case. Many ended up not being able to pay their rent, putting themselves at greater risk for eviction and homelessness."
Mary Brosnahan, executive director of the New York-based Coalition for the Homeless, said it's unclear how much welfare reform may have contributed to homelessness. Giuliani also discontinued a program that gave homeless families priority for low-cost housing and tightened up standards for shelter eligibility, which worsened homelessness in New York City, she said. Homelessness continues to plague the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who has put some of his own money toward poverty initiatives in the city.
"The overarching theme in his administration as it relates to poor people was get tough and crack down," Brosnahan said. "Certainly just in terms of numbers, that approach was a complete failure.
"Tonight in New York City shelters, we will have over 36,000 people, including 15,000 girls and boys," she said. "The toll it takes on those kids is just staggering. I see this as port of the Giuliani legacy."
Giuliani's campaign did not respond to requests for comment. But Jason Turner, who oversaw Giuliani's welfare policies as commissioner of the city's human resources administration, disputes the data presented by anti-poverty advocates. He said the best statistical indicator of the success of Giuliani's welfare reform comes from the U.S Census: In 1996, two years after Giuliani's reforms went into effect, 16 percent of single mothers with a high school education or less - the demographic most likely to be on welfare--were in the workforce. By 2001, that number had increased to 44.5 percent, he said.
"That's a social revolution that's never been seen before," Turner said.
Asked if those entering the workforce could still be suffering economically, working a minimum wage job, for example, Turner said that a woman with two children working a full-time minimum wage job is entitled to up to $4,600 annually with the federal earned income tax credit.
"Add food stamps, if you're still eligible, and you're above the poverty line," he said. "You have to get them on the ladder of employment and you're out of poverty. Yeah, you still have economic struggles, but this is the way out of them."
Andrew White, director of the Center for New York City Affairs, a policy institute that examines poverty issues at The New School, said wages for single mothers with only high school education decreased dramatically during Giuliani's time as mayor. People were leaving the welfare rolls, but many were still poor.
"If your measure of success is just stopping the payment of welfare, then (Giuliani's) programs were a huge success," he said. "If your measure is stabilizing families, strengthening neighborhoods and reducing poverty, then his method was too much on the inflexible and Draconian side."
Giuliani initiated welfare reform more than a year before the federal government put its own reform measures into place.
Also, the rate of welfare reduction in New York City under Giuliani was slightly lower than the national average. In New York City, welfare was reduced 58 percent, while nationally welfare was reduced 62 percent.
Working-class roots
Unlike some of the wealthy candidates running for president, Giuliani rose from working-class roots. His father, Harold, worked as janitor and a bartender. His mother, Helen, stayed home to take care of her only son, according to Wayne Barrett's biography, Rudy! Giuliani attended Manhattan College and New York University Law School before becoming a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
His background informed his view on welfare and public assistance. He and his family worked hard to make their own way, and Giuliani believes others should do the same. He thinks giving someone a check for nothing is insulting and creates an underclass society dependent on entitlements, he has said at campaign stops.
As mayor, Giuliani aimed to crack down on welfare fraud and give people a greater incentive to seek work rather than public assistance. He also required all able-bodied welfare recipients to work 20 hours per week for the city in exchange for their welfare benefits, whether they answered phones for a city agency or picked up litter by the roadside. Welfare recipients were expected to put in another 15 hours a week searching for a job or receiving training and education in order to keep their benefits.
Giuliani renamed welfare centers "job centers" and set strict standards for welfare recipients. If they missed appointments with job counselors, they could be sanctioned from the welfare rolls. If they arrived late to a workfare site or didn't show, they could also lose their benefits.
Turner said the measures were meant to teach necessary workplace skills such as punctuality and organization so that workfare employees would succeed when they entered private employment.
"In real employment, you have to go to your job on a regular basis, and you have to please your boss and get things done," Turner said. "If you take 100,000 welfare recipients and you don't ask anything of them, then next year they will be as they were the year before."
But anti-poverty advocates say some of the restrictions were impractical for people struggling to get out of poverty.
"We would tell some woman with two young children, show up in another borough at 8 a.m. to sweep the park," Krueger said. "But we won't give you child care, so you have no place to leave your 4-year-old. But if you don't show up, we'll close your welfare case. . . . Women stopped showing up because they thought their answer was a child neglect case or a loss of their welfare case."
Rejection rates for those seeking welfare soared, according to Barrett's book. In 1998, 57 percent of those who applied for welfare were denied. A Bronx facility set a record in the first four months of 1999 by rejecting 90 percent of the 3,000 people who applied for welfare; 7 percent were granted assistance, compared with 61 percent from the previous year.
Eligibility for food stamps did not change. Yet in 1997, requests for food stamps in New York City dropped 15 percent, while requests for help from food pantries and soup kitchens increased 24 percent, according to The New York Times. The U.S. Department of Agriculture warned New York city officials that requiring a two-day application for food stamps violated federal law and, in 1999, the agency told the city to offer food stamps to applicants without delay.
Krueger said Giuliani's crackdown on food stamp recipients wasn't the right way to attack welfare fraud. She called it a "cruel and even sick philosophy."
"It's $1 per meal, per person per day," she said. "That's $3 per person. Is that what would motivate you to stay home and say, 'I'll just stay home and eat bonbons?' "
"You're hungry if you're only eating on food stamps," she said. "We're still trying to undo this unbelievable damage to the food and nutrition system in New York City."
On and off the rolls
Many welfare recipients were wrongly denied benefits and requested a hearing, winning in court at least 80 percent of the time, according to news accounts.
The welfare reforms also caused a "churning" of people on and off the rolls, anti-poverty advocates agreed. A welfare case would close, sometimes causing a person to seek emergency food or shelter while the case was reviewed. Then the person would usually regain the benefits. Some argue this allowed for artificial statistics - many who were knocked off welfare were simply waiting to get back on or seeking help elsewhere, advocates said.
Giuliani frustrated academics wanting to follow the people leaving the welfare rolls to see where they ended up. He cited privacy concerns and said he didn't want to be "Big Brother," according to The New York Times.
"He refused to allow any kind of research," White said. "If he couldn't control the message, he wasn't happy about that."
The city's human resources administration did offer some information to the Times, which showed that only 5 percent, or 256, of the first 5,300 people to enter Giuliani's city job centers found employment.
And the Work Experience Program, which required welfare recipients to work for the city, rarely led to permanent jobs, White said. Of the hundreds of thousands who were on welfare, only 35,000 ever participated in the program at any one time, he said. Critics argued that the work program placed too great an emphasis on temporary work instead of helping people gain the skills and education they'd need for a better-paying job.
No one is sure what happened to the 640,000 people who left the rolls.
"People get by," White said. "Even people on welfare, many of them have found ways to earn money. Whether it's healthy for them and their families," he added, no one knows.
When Giuliani was elected mayor, 1.1 million, or about 1 in 6 New Yorkers was on welfare.
"That was crazy; it wasn't healthy," White said. But Giuliani focused almost entirely on reducing the number of welfare recipients rather than solving the problems they faced.
In Bedford last week, Giuliani spoke about his welfare policies.
"I was accused by all the liberal media of being mean, being cruel," he said. "And I would go to those neighborhoods and I would say to people, 'I'm doing this because I love you more, because I care about you more, because I actually care about you as a human being not as some kind of a statistic.' "
He added, " 'I care about you as a person that I want to see being able to work, being able to take care of themselves.' "
------ End of article
By JOELLE FARRELL
Monitor staff
Article published Dec 2, 2007
Campaign 2008
Giuliani welfare record critiqued
By JOELLE FARRELLMonitor staff
here-->
Dec 2, 2007
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who often touts his record on crime reduction and tax cuts when he visits New Hampshire, said last week that he was most proud of the welfare reforms he initiated as mayor.
"We moved more people off welfare than the population of most cities in this country: 640,000 people," he said at the Politics and Eggs forum in Bedford last Monday. "And we found them jobs."
Giuliani's welfare policies drastically cut the number of people on welfare, but not all of the people who left the rolls - or were forced from them - found jobs. Many were wrongly denied benefits, including food stamps, which led more people to seek emergency shelter and food, city anti- poverty advocates said.
During Giuliani's tenure, the poverty rate declined only marginally, remaining about 70 percent greater than the rate for the rest of the country, according to the independent Citizens Budget Commission. The rate of homelessness increased from 23,431 people in the shelters each night to 34,576 people, according to the Coalition for the Homeless. About 500,000 fewer people received food stamps, forcing many to turn to food pantries and soup kitchens, said New York State Sen. Liz Krueger, who oversaw a nonprofit organization that helped poor people avoid eviction and secure emergency food during Giuliani's mayoral terms.
"The data shows that he moved them off of welfare, but he did not move them out of poverty," she said. "The easiest thing in the world to do is close a welfare case. The question is what happened to the household when you closed their welfare case. Many ended up not being able to pay their rent, putting themselves at greater risk for eviction and homelessness."
Mary Brosnahan, executive director of the New York-based Coalition for the Homeless, said it's unclear how much welfare reform may have contributed to homelessness. Giuliani also discontinued a program that gave homeless families priority for low-cost housing and tightened up standards for shelter eligibility, which worsened homelessness in New York City, she said. Homelessness continues to plague the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who has put some of his own money toward poverty initiatives in the city.
"The overarching theme in his administration as it relates to poor people was get tough and crack down," Brosnahan said. "Certainly just in terms of numbers, that approach was a complete failure.
"Tonight in New York City shelters, we will have over 36,000 people, including 15,000 girls and boys," she said. "The toll it takes on those kids is just staggering. I see this as port of the Giuliani legacy."
Giuliani's campaign did not respond to requests for comment. But Jason Turner, who oversaw Giuliani's welfare policies as commissioner of the city's human resources administration, disputes the data presented by anti-poverty advocates. He said the best statistical indicator of the success of Giuliani's welfare reform comes from the U.S Census: In 1996, two years after Giuliani's reforms went into effect, 16 percent of single mothers with a high school education or less - the demographic most likely to be on welfare--were in the workforce. By 2001, that number had increased to 44.5 percent, he said.
"That's a social revolution that's never been seen before," Turner said.
Asked if those entering the workforce could still be suffering economically, working a minimum wage job, for example, Turner said that a woman with two children working a full-time minimum wage job is entitled to up to $4,600 annually with the federal earned income tax credit.
"Add food stamps, if you're still eligible, and you're above the poverty line," he said. "You have to get them on the ladder of employment and you're out of poverty. Yeah, you still have economic struggles, but this is the way out of them."
Andrew White, director of the Center for New York City Affairs, a policy institute that examines poverty issues at The New School, said wages for single mothers with only high school education decreased dramatically during Giuliani's time as mayor. People were leaving the welfare rolls, but many were still poor.
"If your measure of success is just stopping the payment of welfare, then (Giuliani's) programs were a huge success," he said. "If your measure is stabilizing families, strengthening neighborhoods and reducing poverty, then his method was too much on the inflexible and Draconian side."
Giuliani initiated welfare reform more than a year before the federal government put its own reform measures into place.
Also, the rate of welfare reduction in New York City under Giuliani was slightly lower than the national average. In New York City, welfare was reduced 58 percent, while nationally welfare was reduced 62 percent.
Working-class roots
Unlike some of the wealthy candidates running for president, Giuliani rose from working-class roots. His father, Harold, worked as janitor and a bartender. His mother, Helen, stayed home to take care of her only son, according to Wayne Barrett's biography, Rudy! Giuliani attended Manhattan College and New York University Law School before becoming a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
His background informed his view on welfare and public assistance. He and his family worked hard to make their own way, and Giuliani believes others should do the same. He thinks giving someone a check for nothing is insulting and creates an underclass society dependent on entitlements, he has said at campaign stops.
As mayor, Giuliani aimed to crack down on welfare fraud and give people a greater incentive to seek work rather than public assistance. He also required all able-bodied welfare recipients to work 20 hours per week for the city in exchange for their welfare benefits, whether they answered phones for a city agency or picked up litter by the roadside. Welfare recipients were expected to put in another 15 hours a week searching for a job or receiving training and education in order to keep their benefits.
Giuliani renamed welfare centers "job centers" and set strict standards for welfare recipients. If they missed appointments with job counselors, they could be sanctioned from the welfare rolls. If they arrived late to a workfare site or didn't show, they could also lose their benefits.
Turner said the measures were meant to teach necessary workplace skills such as punctuality and organization so that workfare employees would succeed when they entered private employment.
"In real employment, you have to go to your job on a regular basis, and you have to please your boss and get things done," Turner said. "If you take 100,000 welfare recipients and you don't ask anything of them, then next year they will be as they were the year before."
But anti-poverty advocates say some of the restrictions were impractical for people struggling to get out of poverty.
"We would tell some woman with two young children, show up in another borough at 8 a.m. to sweep the park," Krueger said. "But we won't give you child care, so you have no place to leave your 4-year-old. But if you don't show up, we'll close your welfare case. . . . Women stopped showing up because they thought their answer was a child neglect case or a loss of their welfare case."
Rejection rates for those seeking welfare soared, according to Barrett's book. In 1998, 57 percent of those who applied for welfare were denied. A Bronx facility set a record in the first four months of 1999 by rejecting 90 percent of the 3,000 people who applied for welfare; 7 percent were granted assistance, compared with 61 percent from the previous year.
Eligibility for food stamps did not change. Yet in 1997, requests for food stamps in New York City dropped 15 percent, while requests for help from food pantries and soup kitchens increased 24 percent, according to The New York Times. The U.S. Department of Agriculture warned New York city officials that requiring a two-day application for food stamps violated federal law and, in 1999, the agency told the city to offer food stamps to applicants without delay.
Krueger said Giuliani's crackdown on food stamp recipients wasn't the right way to attack welfare fraud. She called it a "cruel and even sick philosophy."
"It's $1 per meal, per person per day," she said. "That's $3 per person. Is that what would motivate you to stay home and say, 'I'll just stay home and eat bonbons?' "
"You're hungry if you're only eating on food stamps," she said. "We're still trying to undo this unbelievable damage to the food and nutrition system in New York City."
On and off the rolls
Many welfare recipients were wrongly denied benefits and requested a hearing, winning in court at least 80 percent of the time, according to news accounts.
The welfare reforms also caused a "churning" of people on and off the rolls, anti-poverty advocates agreed. A welfare case would close, sometimes causing a person to seek emergency food or shelter while the case was reviewed. Then the person would usually regain the benefits. Some argue this allowed for artificial statistics - many who were knocked off welfare were simply waiting to get back on or seeking help elsewhere, advocates said.
Giuliani frustrated academics wanting to follow the people leaving the welfare rolls to see where they ended up. He cited privacy concerns and said he didn't want to be "Big Brother," according to The New York Times.
"He refused to allow any kind of research," White said. "If he couldn't control the message, he wasn't happy about that."
The city's human resources administration did offer some information to the Times, which showed that only 5 percent, or 256, of the first 5,300 people to enter Giuliani's city job centers found employment.
And the Work Experience Program, which required welfare recipients to work for the city, rarely led to permanent jobs, White said. Of the hundreds of thousands who were on welfare, only 35,000 ever participated in the program at any one time, he said. Critics argued that the work program placed too great an emphasis on temporary work instead of helping people gain the skills and education they'd need for a better-paying job.
No one is sure what happened to the 640,000 people who left the rolls.
"People get by," White said. "Even people on welfare, many of them have found ways to earn money. Whether it's healthy for them and their families," he added, no one knows.
When Giuliani was elected mayor, 1.1 million, or about 1 in 6 New Yorkers was on welfare.
"That was crazy; it wasn't healthy," White said. But Giuliani focused almost entirely on reducing the number of welfare recipients rather than solving the problems they faced.
In Bedford last week, Giuliani spoke about his welfare policies.
"I was accused by all the liberal media of being mean, being cruel," he said. "And I would go to those neighborhoods and I would say to people, 'I'm doing this because I love you more, because I care about you more, because I actually care about you as a human being not as some kind of a statistic.' "
He added, " 'I care about you as a person that I want to see being able to work, being able to take care of themselves.' "
------ End of article
By JOELLE FARRELL
Monitor staff
List of the location of chairman Klein speechs....since 4/07
Who NRC commissioner Klein gave speech’s to since 4/16/07
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture”
Center for Strategic & International Studies
INPO
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials (PATRAM) Conference, U.S. DOE, NRC and U.S. DOT in cooperation with the IAEA and INMM…who sponsored
Baker Center for Public Policy
Digital Instrumentation and Control Workshop
IAEA General Conference
Global 2007: Advanced Fuel Cycles and Systems
ANS Utility Working ConferenceAmelia Island, FL
Women in Nuclear Conference, ANCAnaheim, CA
Canberra User’s Group, Areva
Society of Nuclear Medicine
Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Law Enforcement Conference
NEA Forum
GE Nuclear Innovations Conference
Goizueta Leadership Center, INPO, as we call it — the National Academy for Nuclear Training, and the Goizueta Business School at Emory University
Nuclear Energy Assembly, NEI
Before the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (Icone 15)JAIF Annual Conference…4/16/07
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness “Teller Lecture”
Center for Strategic & International Studies
INPO
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials (PATRAM) Conference, U.S. DOE, NRC and U.S. DOT in cooperation with the IAEA and INMM…who sponsored
Baker Center for Public Policy
Digital Instrumentation and Control Workshop
IAEA General Conference
Global 2007: Advanced Fuel Cycles and Systems
ANS Utility Working ConferenceAmelia Island, FL
Women in Nuclear Conference, ANCAnaheim, CA
Canberra User’s Group, Areva
Society of Nuclear Medicine
Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart
Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Law Enforcement Conference
NEA Forum
GE Nuclear Innovations Conference
Goizueta Leadership Center, INPO, as we call it — the National Academy for Nuclear Training, and the Goizueta Business School at Emory University
Nuclear Energy Assembly, NEI
Before the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (Icone 15)JAIF Annual Conference…4/16/07
Friday, November 30, 2007
NRC chairman Klein is pulling a Giuliani!
NRC chairman Klein is pulling a Giuliani!
I am getting to the point of saying NRC commissioner Klein and his agency are showing clear signals that they are seeing the world through a ideological lens. I frankly think they see the world partially through a lens of filter….they deny the evidence coming from a big part of the world.
At its core, it’s so sickening anti nuclear…it’s a lens seen through a system of self protection… dress up as being pro nuclear....that it’s a disservice to the nation, global warming, the nuclear industry and to all the honest workers who are desperately trying to define human dignity and nuclear safety…with a system in crisis…and a hint that better days may be on the horizon.
Now is the time to tell the truth no matter what the consequence.
Can any organization perform a RCA if they have a severe ideological dysfunction?
As far as feedback…I won’t put it in a manager/employee format…power over one with less power…I frame it completely unjudgmental…the only job of feedback is trying to creating a mental picture or video of what went on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp
Citing Statistics, Giuliani Misses Time and
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”
An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light. “He’s given us a lot of work up until now,” said Brooks Jackson, the director of Annenberg Political Fact Check, which is part of Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania that has corrected statements by candidates in both parties.
I am getting to the point of saying NRC commissioner Klein and his agency are showing clear signals that they are seeing the world through a ideological lens. I frankly think they see the world partially through a lens of filter….they deny the evidence coming from a big part of the world.
At its core, it’s so sickening anti nuclear…it’s a lens seen through a system of self protection… dress up as being pro nuclear....that it’s a disservice to the nation, global warming, the nuclear industry and to all the honest workers who are desperately trying to define human dignity and nuclear safety…with a system in crisis…and a hint that better days may be on the horizon.
Now is the time to tell the truth no matter what the consequence.
Can any organization perform a RCA if they have a severe ideological dysfunction?
As far as feedback…I won’t put it in a manager/employee format…power over one with less power…I frame it completely unjudgmental…the only job of feedback is trying to creating a mental picture or video of what went on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp
Citing Statistics, Giuliani Misses Time and
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”
An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light. “He’s given us a lot of work up until now,” said Brooks Jackson, the director of Annenberg Political Fact Check, which is part of Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania that has corrected statements by candidates in both parties.
The monster running around in a nuclear plant...in our heads?
The monster running around in a nuclear plant...in our heads?
I will never discover the full truth, or the truth is infinity...but I will always be looking for it...always test everything, always be looking for god....always make sure me and everyone's mental model is correct.
----- Original Message ----From: Michael MulliganTo: rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.comSent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:34:04 AMSubject: The monster running around in a nuclear plant...in our heads?
This comes from a compilation of a recent conversation with three different Vermont Yankee nuclear plant employees. The gist is…could it be hindsight bias, I don’t think so.
The “cooling tower accident” was absolutely probable in their eyes before the accident. Everyone thinks the categorization of plant systems into nuclear safety, half nuclear safety and non safety…is a false distinction. The object of being a non safety and nuclear safety system ends up morphing into prioritization system based on a financial consideration. All of these guys think it was based on the group think at the time…they were worried before hand…they could see the increasing degradation of the plant…that the cooling tower collapse type accident is right around the corner. I find it amazing that a significant amount of the population of employee’s at that plant thought the corporate behavior was asking for an event.
The question that drives me crazy…why couldn’t the employees create a dialog with somebody before the cooling tower or valve accident…in the corporation, the NRC, INPO, to outsiders…who should have prevented the accident?
They told me they are glad the NRC was onsite…they couldn’t imagine the terrible corporate behavior based on a warped nuclear magic philosophy…nobody could understand the resource priorities…if the plant could get away with what they wanted independent of the NRC. Their idea is the corporation is just trying to maximize profits…I think it’s a lot more complex than that…it’s just the rationalization that’s easy to understand.
I find it fascinating they don’t think Entergy’s ethic’s with nuclear safety is sustainable without governmental oversight. It’s not that they would risk a meltdown…hiding secrets… for making a few pennies of profits. It’s that they will side into a predictable event based on a crazy group think rationalization. Then nobody would have the horsepower to break the trance until a public accident gives the insider’s the leverage to bring the maintenance back up to an acceptable level. They were worried with the runaway and disconnected offsite corporate culture that wasn’t aware of the physicalities of the maintenance of the plant.
They all tell me there is significant soul searching going on at the plant with what occurred.
Everyone thinks this is normalized throughout the domestic nuclear industry….it’s not a localized to Vermont Yankee.
Two employees’ chided me about the legacy of the Bush’s regulatory philosophy with safety…and the dynasty of the republican hold on our national regulatory structure for many years. They are republican's.
They are intimidated into engaging into a controversial debate…whomever; internal, NRC, INPO and outsiders… about the general reliability and safety of their plant! They can’t organize and display the information that could bolster their idea of the condition of the plant…especially if it is controversial to the group think of the corporation.
It’s like they got an unstoppable monster running around in their plant…everyone can see it…can predict the negative results of it, looking down the road with predicting the kinds of the damage this can do. Everyone is resigned to the fact that they are powerless to engage and stop the monster’s action. They feel if they engage the hypocrisy of the monster…it will destroy them and their family without doing any good.
Hmmm…who has more wage slavery pain and terrorism….a man walking on the black hole edge of employment…absence wages and benefits and having any meaningful power of any influences in work….or an employee making $80,000, excellent benefits and a ineffectual Union …who is intimidated and hurts more, if the floor is threatened to be removed from underneath them?
I mean i lose nothing when i get fired...can you imagine the lost of the magnitude of the world a nuclear middle manager or operator with 25 years at the plant has? I wonder what this would be in dollar terms. I think it easier for me to speak truth to power...what the hell do i have to lose.
These events have changed the public's perception of safety with this nuclear plant on a regional based. It's a public relation meltdown! They are telling me VY's whole page ad in the local paper is a result of my investigation.
Entergy's tells us through this their first three priorities are ...SAFETY...SAFETY....SAFETY thru this local newspaper advertizement.
Thanks,
mike
I meant, what is the optimal "state of mind" in a person in a complex system? What and who should i work for in defense of human dignity...is human dignity safety....is human dignity profit maximization in the long term. I am not against profits.
Is the search for truth the prize no matter what the consequences ...maybe we should have no consequences?
I will never discover the full truth, or the truth is infinity...but I will always be looking for it...always test everything, always be looking for god....always make sure me and everyone's mental model is correct.
----- Original Message ----From: Michael MulliganTo: rootcauseconference@yahoogroups.comSent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:07:32 PMSubject: Re: [rootcauseconference] Re: Human Behavioral Technology
Oh, man…doesn’t Chomsky make that phrase come alive, that words have meanings. I got this jerk at work telling me my language is sloppy….and he is right. Chomsky justified my existential fears…of who should I trust? How do I come up with whom should I trust a lot and who should I trust a little? Do i trust someone with a predictable repeated behavior or do i trust somebody who is creative?
I just never had the vocabulary to express my knowings and feelings. Now I understand why everyone hates Chomsky:
http://www.chomsky.info/
That there isn't much difference between slavery, and renting one's self to an owner, or "wage slavery." He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that destroys and undermines our freedoms. He holds that those that work in the mills should run them.
You should see it from the bottom step of the employment ladder….I mean there is no fall back job underneath me and my cohorts….just a dark hole of unemployment.
We were forced into doing a corporate chant last night at work. The emotional force of not doing what everyone else was doing was so strong. One young and new manager was somewhat balking, saying why am I being punished with you choosing to make me lead the chant…with the top manager coming back with, that is why you joined the management team. It couldn’t be expressed more perfect. It is a soft demonstration of force in front of everyone.
At the bottom rung of the ladder, you should see how easy it is for people to sell their soul and individuality…being nothing through all their years of employment…to become “somebody” such as a manager…who can assert some amount of power over the weak. Are you somebody if you can assert some level of power over another in an organization! Why is power so addictive? What are the attributes of good assertion of authority or power and a bad one...does power restrict visibility or increase visibility? Should you use power to punish people or increase visibility?
At the bottom end of the ladder, the hopeless and sitting right next to unemployment chaos…you should see how easy it is to sell your integrity and your soul, your humanity. You should see how good it feels to dehumanize your self and your peers. You should see how easy this becomes with people who have a limited vocabulary.
“To be or not to be, that is the question”….? To be someone…in the eyes of a manager higher than you?
I mean, that is the fundamental question of life…of human dignity…human rights…. "whom am I" ...of less human errors?
They have gone to extraordinary lengths to surveil me at work.
What is the optimal “state of mind” in a complex system…in human error analysis?
I will never discover the full truth, or the truth is infinity...but I will always be looking for it...always test everything, always be looking for god....always make sure me and everyone's mental model is correct.
----- Original Message ----From: Michael Mulligan
This comes from a compilation of a recent conversation with three different Vermont Yankee nuclear plant employees. The gist is…could it be hindsight bias, I don’t think so.
The “cooling tower accident” was absolutely probable in their eyes before the accident. Everyone thinks the categorization of plant systems into nuclear safety, half nuclear safety and non safety…is a false distinction. The object of being a non safety and nuclear safety system ends up morphing into prioritization system based on a financial consideration. All of these guys think it was based on the group think at the time…they were worried before hand…they could see the increasing degradation of the plant…that the cooling tower collapse type accident is right around the corner. I find it amazing that a significant amount of the population of employee’s at that plant thought the corporate behavior was asking for an event.
The question that drives me crazy…why couldn’t the employees create a dialog with somebody before the cooling tower or valve accident…in the corporation, the NRC, INPO, to outsiders…who should have prevented the accident?
They told me they are glad the NRC was onsite…they couldn’t imagine the terrible corporate behavior based on a warped nuclear magic philosophy…nobody could understand the resource priorities…if the plant could get away with what they wanted independent of the NRC. Their idea is the corporation is just trying to maximize profits…I think it’s a lot more complex than that…it’s just the rationalization that’s easy to understand.
I find it fascinating they don’t think Entergy’s ethic’s with nuclear safety is sustainable without governmental oversight. It’s not that they would risk a meltdown…hiding secrets… for making a few pennies of profits. It’s that they will side into a predictable event based on a crazy group think rationalization. Then nobody would have the horsepower to break the trance until a public accident gives the insider’s the leverage to bring the maintenance back up to an acceptable level. They were worried with the runaway and disconnected offsite corporate culture that wasn’t aware of the physicalities of the maintenance of the plant.
They all tell me there is significant soul searching going on at the plant with what occurred.
Everyone thinks this is normalized throughout the domestic nuclear industry….it’s not a localized to Vermont Yankee.
Two employees’ chided me about the legacy of the Bush’s regulatory philosophy with safety…and the dynasty of the republican hold on our national regulatory structure for many years. They are republican's.
They are intimidated into engaging into a controversial debate…whomever; internal, NRC, INPO and outsiders… about the general reliability and safety of their plant! They can’t organize and display the information that could bolster their idea of the condition of the plant…especially if it is controversial to the group think of the corporation.
It’s like they got an unstoppable monster running around in their plant…everyone can see it…can predict the negative results of it, looking down the road with predicting the kinds of the damage this can do. Everyone is resigned to the fact that they are powerless to engage and stop the monster’s action. They feel if they engage the hypocrisy of the monster…it will destroy them and their family without doing any good.
Hmmm…who has more wage slavery pain and terrorism….a man walking on the black hole edge of employment…absence wages and benefits and having any meaningful power of any influences in work….or an employee making $80,000, excellent benefits and a ineffectual Union …who is intimidated and hurts more, if the floor is threatened to be removed from underneath them?
I mean i lose nothing when i get fired...can you imagine the lost of the magnitude of the world a nuclear middle manager or operator with 25 years at the plant has? I wonder what this would be in dollar terms. I think it easier for me to speak truth to power...what the hell do i have to lose.
These events have changed the public's perception of safety with this nuclear plant on a regional based. It's a public relation meltdown! They are telling me VY's whole page ad in the local paper is a result of my investigation.
Entergy's tells us through this their first three priorities are ...SAFETY...SAFETY....SAFETY thru this local newspaper advertizement.
Thanks,
mike
I meant, what is the optimal "state of mind" in a person in a complex system? What and who should i work for in defense of human dignity...is human dignity safety....is human dignity profit maximization in the long term. I am not against profits.
Is the search for truth the prize no matter what the consequences ...maybe we should have no consequences?
I will never discover the full truth, or the truth is infinity...but I will always be looking for it...always test everything, always be looking for god....always make sure me and everyone's mental model is correct.
----- Original Message ----From: Michael Mulligan
Oh, man…doesn’t Chomsky make that phrase come alive, that words have meanings. I got this jerk at work telling me my language is sloppy….and he is right. Chomsky justified my existential fears…of who should I trust? How do I come up with whom should I trust a lot and who should I trust a little? Do i trust someone with a predictable repeated behavior or do i trust somebody who is creative?
I just never had the vocabulary to express my knowings and feelings. Now I understand why everyone hates Chomsky:
http://www.chomsky.info/
That there isn't much difference between slavery, and renting one's self to an owner, or "wage slavery." He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that destroys and undermines our freedoms. He holds that those that work in the mills should run them.
You should see it from the bottom step of the employment ladder….I mean there is no fall back job underneath me and my cohorts….just a dark hole of unemployment.
We were forced into doing a corporate chant last night at work. The emotional force of not doing what everyone else was doing was so strong. One young and new manager was somewhat balking, saying why am I being punished with you choosing to make me lead the chant…with the top manager coming back with, that is why you joined the management team. It couldn’t be expressed more perfect. It is a soft demonstration of force in front of everyone.
At the bottom rung of the ladder, you should see how easy it is for people to sell their soul and individuality…being nothing through all their years of employment…to become “somebody” such as a manager…who can assert some amount of power over the weak. Are you somebody if you can assert some level of power over another in an organization! Why is power so addictive? What are the attributes of good assertion of authority or power and a bad one...does power restrict visibility or increase visibility? Should you use power to punish people or increase visibility?
At the bottom end of the ladder, the hopeless and sitting right next to unemployment chaos…you should see how easy it is to sell your integrity and your soul, your humanity. You should see how good it feels to dehumanize your self and your peers. You should see how easy this becomes with people who have a limited vocabulary.
“To be or not to be, that is the question”….? To be someone…in the eyes of a manager higher than you?
I mean, that is the fundamental question of life…of human dignity…human rights…. "whom am I" ...of less human errors?
They have gone to extraordinary lengths to surveil me at work.
What is the optimal “state of mind” in a complex system…in human error analysis?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Denial Makes the World Go Round
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/health/research/20deni.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all#
November 20, 2007
Denial Makes the World Go Round
By BENEDICT CAREY
Excerpts:
Everyone is in denial about something; just try denying it and watch friends make a list. For Freud, denial was a defense against external realities that threaten the ego, and many psychologists today would argue that it can be a protective defense in the face of unbearable news, like a cancer diagnosis….
Yet recent studies from fields as diverse as psychology and anthropology suggest that the ability to look the other way, while potentially destructive, is also critically important to forming and nourishing close relationships. The psychological tricks that people use to ignore a festering problem in their own households are the same ones that they need to live with everyday human dishonesty and betrayal, their own and others’. And it is these highly evolved abilities, research suggests, that provide the foundation for that most disarming of all human invitations, forgiveness.
In this emerging view, social scientists see denial on a broader spectrum — from benign inattention to passive acknowledgment to full-blown, willful blindness — on the part of couples, social groups and organizations, as well as individuals. Seeing denial in this way, some scientists argue, helps clarify when it is wise to manage a difficult person or personal situation, and when it threatens to become a kind of infectious silent trance that can make hypocrites of otherwise forthright people.
“The closer you look, the more clearly you see that denial is part of the uneasy bargain we strike to be social creatures,” said Michael McCullough, a psychologist at the University of Miami and the author of the coming book “Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct.” “We really do want to be moral people, but the fact is that we cut corners to get individual advantage, and we rely on the room that denial gives us to get by, to wiggle out of speeding tickets, and to forgive others for doing the same.”….
It is a mistake to underestimate the power of simple attention. People can be acutely aware of what they pay attention to and remarkably blind to what they do not, psychologists have found. In real life, to be sure, casual denials of bad behavior require more than simple mental gymnastics, but inattention is a basic first ingredient.
The second ingredient, or second level, is passive acknowledgment, when infractions are too persistent to go unnoticed. People have adapted a multitude of ways to handle such problems indirectly. A raised eyebrow, a half smile or a nod can signal both “I saw that” and “I’ll let this one pass.”
The acknowledgment is passive for good reasons: an open confrontation, with a loved one or oneself, risks a major rupture or life change that could be more dire than the offense. And more often than is assumed, a subtle gesture can be enough of a warning to trigger a change in behavior, even one’s own.
In an effort to calculate exactly how often people overlook or punish infractions within their peer groups, a team of anthropologists from New Mexico and Vancouver ran a simulation of a game to measure levels of cooperation. In this one-on-one game, players decide whether to contribute to a shared investment pool, and they can cut off their partner if they believe that player’s contributions are too meager. The researchers found that once players had an established relationship of trust based on many interactions — once, in effect, the two joined the same clique — they were willing to overlook four or five selfish violations in a row without cutting a friend off. They cut strangers off after a single violation.
Using a computer program, the anthropologists ran out the simulation over many generations, in effect speeding up the tape of evolution for this society of players. And the rate of overlooking trust violations held up; that is, this pattern of forgiving behavior defined stable groups that maximized the survival and evolutionary fitness of the individuals…..
Nowhere do people use denial skills to greater effect than with a spouse or partner. In a series of studies, Sandra Murray of the University of Buffalo and John Holmes of the University of Waterloo in Ontario have shown that people often idealize their partners, overestimating their strengths and playing down their flaws.
This typically involves a blend of denial and touch-up work — seeing jealousy as passion, for instance, or stubbornness as a strong sense of right and wrong. But the studies have found that partners who idealize each other in this way are more likely to stay together and to report being satisfied in the relationship than those who do not.
“The evidence suggests that if you see the other person in this idealized way, and treat them accordingly, they begin to see themselves that way, too,” Dr. Murray said. “It draws out these more positive behaviors.”
Faced with the high odor of real perfidy, people unwilling to risk a break skew their perception of reality much more purposefully. One common way to do this is to recast clear moral breaches as foul-ups, stumbles or lapses in competence — because those are more tolerable, said Dr. Kim, of U.S.C. In effect, Dr. Kim said, people “reframe the ethical violation as a competence violation.”
She wasn’t cheating on him — she strayed. He didn’t hide the losses in the subprime mortgage unit for years — he miscalculated.
This active recasting of events, built on the same smaller-bore psychological tools of inattention and passive acknowledgment, is the point at which relationship repair can begin to shade into willful self-deception of the kind that takes on a life of its own. Everyone knows what this looks like: You can’t talk about the affair, and you can’t talk about not talking about it. Soon, you can’t talk about any subject that’s remotely related to it.
And the unstated social expectations out in the world often reinforce the conspiracy, no matter its source, said Eviatar Zerubavel, a sociologist at Rutgers and the author of “The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life.”
“Tact, decorum, politeness, taboo — they all limit what can be said in social domains,” he said. “I have never seen tact and taboo discussed in the same context, but one is just a hard version of the other, and it’s not clear where people draw the line between their private concerns and these social limits.”
In short, social mores often work to shrink the space in which a conspiracy of silence can be broken: not at work, not out here in public, not around the dinner table, not here. It takes an outside crisis to break the denial, and no one needs a psychological study to know how that ends.
November 20, 2007
Denial Makes the World Go Round
By BENEDICT CAREY
Excerpts:
Everyone is in denial about something; just try denying it and watch friends make a list. For Freud, denial was a defense against external realities that threaten the ego, and many psychologists today would argue that it can be a protective defense in the face of unbearable news, like a cancer diagnosis….
Yet recent studies from fields as diverse as psychology and anthropology suggest that the ability to look the other way, while potentially destructive, is also critically important to forming and nourishing close relationships. The psychological tricks that people use to ignore a festering problem in their own households are the same ones that they need to live with everyday human dishonesty and betrayal, their own and others’. And it is these highly evolved abilities, research suggests, that provide the foundation for that most disarming of all human invitations, forgiveness.
In this emerging view, social scientists see denial on a broader spectrum — from benign inattention to passive acknowledgment to full-blown, willful blindness — on the part of couples, social groups and organizations, as well as individuals. Seeing denial in this way, some scientists argue, helps clarify when it is wise to manage a difficult person or personal situation, and when it threatens to become a kind of infectious silent trance that can make hypocrites of otherwise forthright people.
“The closer you look, the more clearly you see that denial is part of the uneasy bargain we strike to be social creatures,” said Michael McCullough, a psychologist at the University of Miami and the author of the coming book “Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct.” “We really do want to be moral people, but the fact is that we cut corners to get individual advantage, and we rely on the room that denial gives us to get by, to wiggle out of speeding tickets, and to forgive others for doing the same.”….
It is a mistake to underestimate the power of simple attention. People can be acutely aware of what they pay attention to and remarkably blind to what they do not, psychologists have found. In real life, to be sure, casual denials of bad behavior require more than simple mental gymnastics, but inattention is a basic first ingredient.
The second ingredient, or second level, is passive acknowledgment, when infractions are too persistent to go unnoticed. People have adapted a multitude of ways to handle such problems indirectly. A raised eyebrow, a half smile or a nod can signal both “I saw that” and “I’ll let this one pass.”
The acknowledgment is passive for good reasons: an open confrontation, with a loved one or oneself, risks a major rupture or life change that could be more dire than the offense. And more often than is assumed, a subtle gesture can be enough of a warning to trigger a change in behavior, even one’s own.
In an effort to calculate exactly how often people overlook or punish infractions within their peer groups, a team of anthropologists from New Mexico and Vancouver ran a simulation of a game to measure levels of cooperation. In this one-on-one game, players decide whether to contribute to a shared investment pool, and they can cut off their partner if they believe that player’s contributions are too meager. The researchers found that once players had an established relationship of trust based on many interactions — once, in effect, the two joined the same clique — they were willing to overlook four or five selfish violations in a row without cutting a friend off. They cut strangers off after a single violation.
Using a computer program, the anthropologists ran out the simulation over many generations, in effect speeding up the tape of evolution for this society of players. And the rate of overlooking trust violations held up; that is, this pattern of forgiving behavior defined stable groups that maximized the survival and evolutionary fitness of the individuals…..
Nowhere do people use denial skills to greater effect than with a spouse or partner. In a series of studies, Sandra Murray of the University of Buffalo and John Holmes of the University of Waterloo in Ontario have shown that people often idealize their partners, overestimating their strengths and playing down their flaws.
This typically involves a blend of denial and touch-up work — seeing jealousy as passion, for instance, or stubbornness as a strong sense of right and wrong. But the studies have found that partners who idealize each other in this way are more likely to stay together and to report being satisfied in the relationship than those who do not.
“The evidence suggests that if you see the other person in this idealized way, and treat them accordingly, they begin to see themselves that way, too,” Dr. Murray said. “It draws out these more positive behaviors.”
Faced with the high odor of real perfidy, people unwilling to risk a break skew their perception of reality much more purposefully. One common way to do this is to recast clear moral breaches as foul-ups, stumbles or lapses in competence — because those are more tolerable, said Dr. Kim, of U.S.C. In effect, Dr. Kim said, people “reframe the ethical violation as a competence violation.”
She wasn’t cheating on him — she strayed. He didn’t hide the losses in the subprime mortgage unit for years — he miscalculated.
This active recasting of events, built on the same smaller-bore psychological tools of inattention and passive acknowledgment, is the point at which relationship repair can begin to shade into willful self-deception of the kind that takes on a life of its own. Everyone knows what this looks like: You can’t talk about the affair, and you can’t talk about not talking about it. Soon, you can’t talk about any subject that’s remotely related to it.
And the unstated social expectations out in the world often reinforce the conspiracy, no matter its source, said Eviatar Zerubavel, a sociologist at Rutgers and the author of “The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life.”
“Tact, decorum, politeness, taboo — they all limit what can be said in social domains,” he said. “I have never seen tact and taboo discussed in the same context, but one is just a hard version of the other, and it’s not clear where people draw the line between their private concerns and these social limits.”
In short, social mores often work to shrink the space in which a conspiracy of silence can be broken: not at work, not out here in public, not around the dinner table, not here. It takes an outside crisis to break the denial, and no one needs a psychological study to know how that ends.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Wanna Talk Values
http://www.tompaine.com/print/wanna_talk_values.php
Wanna Talk Values?
Rhonda Soto, TomPaine.com
November 26, 2007
Rhonda Soto is the Race/Class Intersections Project Coordinator at Class Action, a national non-profit based in Hadley, Massachusetts.
African Americans have broken two new barriers, according to the Pew Charitable Trust Economic Mobility Project’s new report. Almost half the children of middle-class blacks have fallen into the lowest income bracket in the last 30 years, the first generation in a century to lose so much ground. And for the first time, a majority of African Americans polled say that blacks are responsible for their own economic situations, and that the values of poor and middle-class blacks have become more different over the last generation.
Yeah, right, it’s the values. Those middle-class African Americans whose children are now in poverty—rotten parents, every one of them. While going out to work every day, they were obviously telling their children not to do the same. The black unemployment rate in October was double the white unemployment, 8.5 percent versus 4.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employers of all races, with their superior values, no doubt rejected those black pavement-pounders because they could see the poor work ethic a mile away. The quarter-million drop in the number of U.S. jobs in October, and all the offshore outsourcing of the last decade must be “a poor black values thing.”
It was poor black values that led neighborhoods of color to be targeted by predatory lenders. It wasn’t the secondary mortgage industry that started the current tsunami of foreclosures now evicting people, disproportionately black and Latino people—it was the homeowners’ bad values. Higher interest rates charged to borrowers of color with identical credit rating are obviously payback for their poor behavior. And the mostly white executives who made millions off discriminatory sub-prime lending, they deserved that reward for their exemplary moral character.
The drop in unionization from 20 percent to 12 percent in the last 25 years wouldn’t have happened, and the American labor force would not have lost 265,000 black union workers, if those workers’ values had been better. The professional union-busting consulting firms, who advised companies how to illegally fire pro-union workers—they’re role models of the American work ethic.
Similarly, the mostly white Congress members increased their own paychecks over $50,000 with multiple raises since 1990 while blocking an increase in the minimum wage for a record-breaking decade. And the mostly all-white billionaires on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans who are $290 billion richer than last year — they must have finest values of all.
Prison sentences are longer for blacks and Latinos than whites convicted of the same crime because judges can just see the difference in moral fiber between defendants of different races. And of course employers and health insurance companies are not insuring 7.2 million black people—nearly 20 percent—because their moral failings have made them too sickly.
The re-segregation of schools, and the widening gap in class sizes and per-pupil spending between mostly white and mostly black schools? The roll-back of affirmative action in higher education? All due to the character flaws of African American students.
Are values really the explanation for the racial income gap? Or do we too often assume that the American dream of equal opportunity is a reality? Do we overlook growing structural obstacles that block the path of some more than others among us?
Employed African Americans on average work more hours per week than employed white people. Blacks are slightly less likely than whites to use illegal drugs. They are more likely to be affiliated with a religious congregation. Poll after poll shows no difference between races in attitudes towards education, paid work, or expectations for children’s advancement. Where are these famous bad values?
As a former teacher I know that some young people have self-destructive attitudes and behaviors—some black and Latino youth, some white youth, and some youth of 30 years ago. Far more young people have talent, ambition and a work ethic that go underutilized, especially working-class youth of color in this 'have and have-nots' economy.
We as people of color are used to noticing racism and putting it into words. We’re less accustomed to naming classism—but it’s rampant among middle-class people of color. Is this what racial progress has come to: more middle-class blacks taking up the previously white sport of blaming the victim?
Wanna Talk Values?
Rhonda Soto, TomPaine.com
November 26, 2007
Rhonda Soto is the Race/Class Intersections Project Coordinator at Class Action, a national non-profit based in Hadley, Massachusetts.
African Americans have broken two new barriers, according to the Pew Charitable Trust Economic Mobility Project’s new report. Almost half the children of middle-class blacks have fallen into the lowest income bracket in the last 30 years, the first generation in a century to lose so much ground. And for the first time, a majority of African Americans polled say that blacks are responsible for their own economic situations, and that the values of poor and middle-class blacks have become more different over the last generation.
Yeah, right, it’s the values. Those middle-class African Americans whose children are now in poverty—rotten parents, every one of them. While going out to work every day, they were obviously telling their children not to do the same. The black unemployment rate in October was double the white unemployment, 8.5 percent versus 4.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employers of all races, with their superior values, no doubt rejected those black pavement-pounders because they could see the poor work ethic a mile away. The quarter-million drop in the number of U.S. jobs in October, and all the offshore outsourcing of the last decade must be “a poor black values thing.”
It was poor black values that led neighborhoods of color to be targeted by predatory lenders. It wasn’t the secondary mortgage industry that started the current tsunami of foreclosures now evicting people, disproportionately black and Latino people—it was the homeowners’ bad values. Higher interest rates charged to borrowers of color with identical credit rating are obviously payback for their poor behavior. And the mostly white executives who made millions off discriminatory sub-prime lending, they deserved that reward for their exemplary moral character.
The drop in unionization from 20 percent to 12 percent in the last 25 years wouldn’t have happened, and the American labor force would not have lost 265,000 black union workers, if those workers’ values had been better. The professional union-busting consulting firms, who advised companies how to illegally fire pro-union workers—they’re role models of the American work ethic.
Similarly, the mostly white Congress members increased their own paychecks over $50,000 with multiple raises since 1990 while blocking an increase in the minimum wage for a record-breaking decade. And the mostly all-white billionaires on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans who are $290 billion richer than last year — they must have finest values of all.
Prison sentences are longer for blacks and Latinos than whites convicted of the same crime because judges can just see the difference in moral fiber between defendants of different races. And of course employers and health insurance companies are not insuring 7.2 million black people—nearly 20 percent—because their moral failings have made them too sickly.
The re-segregation of schools, and the widening gap in class sizes and per-pupil spending between mostly white and mostly black schools? The roll-back of affirmative action in higher education? All due to the character flaws of African American students.
Are values really the explanation for the racial income gap? Or do we too often assume that the American dream of equal opportunity is a reality? Do we overlook growing structural obstacles that block the path of some more than others among us?
Employed African Americans on average work more hours per week than employed white people. Blacks are slightly less likely than whites to use illegal drugs. They are more likely to be affiliated with a religious congregation. Poll after poll shows no difference between races in attitudes towards education, paid work, or expectations for children’s advancement. Where are these famous bad values?
As a former teacher I know that some young people have self-destructive attitudes and behaviors—some black and Latino youth, some white youth, and some youth of 30 years ago. Far more young people have talent, ambition and a work ethic that go underutilized, especially working-class youth of color in this 'have and have-nots' economy.
We as people of color are used to noticing racism and putting it into words. We’re less accustomed to naming classism—but it’s rampant among middle-class people of color. Is this what racial progress has come to: more middle-class blacks taking up the previously white sport of blaming the victim?
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Growing Up Giuliani
http://www.newsweek.com/id/72121
Growing Up Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani was raised to understand that fine, blurry line between saint and sinner. The making of his moral code.
By Evan Thomas and Suzanne Smalley
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 3:14 PM ET Nov 24, 2007
On Sept. 16, 1992, the police in New York City held a rally that spun out of control. The cops wanted a new collective-bargaining agreement, and they were angry at Mayor David Dinkins for proposing a civilian review board and for refusing to issue patrolmen 9mm guns. More than a few of them tipsy or drunk, the cops jumped on cars near city hall and blocked traffic near the Brooklyn Bridge. According to some witnesses, they waved placards crudely mocking Mayor Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York, on racial grounds, while at the same time chanting "Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!" to welcome Rudy Giuliani, the crime-busting former U.S. attorney who had arrived in their midst to shore up his political base.
It is not clear Giuliani knew exactly what he was getting himself into—he later denied that he did—but video shows him wildly gesticulating and shouting a profanity-laced diatribe against Dinkins. The next day the New York newspapers were sharply critical of Giuliani (a Daily News editorial called his behavior "shameful"), and Dinkins, years later, accused him of trying to stir up "white cops to riot." At the time, Giuliani refused to back down or apologize for his remarks, saying only: "I had four uncles who were cops. So maybe I was more emotional than I usually am." Giuliani's performance that day lost African-American voters, some permanently, but it guaranteed the informal backing of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the policemen's union, which helped him get elected mayor in 1993....
Growing Up Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani was raised to understand that fine, blurry line between saint and sinner. The making of his moral code.
By Evan Thomas and Suzanne Smalley
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 3:14 PM ET Nov 24, 2007
On Sept. 16, 1992, the police in New York City held a rally that spun out of control. The cops wanted a new collective-bargaining agreement, and they were angry at Mayor David Dinkins for proposing a civilian review board and for refusing to issue patrolmen 9mm guns. More than a few of them tipsy or drunk, the cops jumped on cars near city hall and blocked traffic near the Brooklyn Bridge. According to some witnesses, they waved placards crudely mocking Mayor Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York, on racial grounds, while at the same time chanting "Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!" to welcome Rudy Giuliani, the crime-busting former U.S. attorney who had arrived in their midst to shore up his political base.
It is not clear Giuliani knew exactly what he was getting himself into—he later denied that he did—but video shows him wildly gesticulating and shouting a profanity-laced diatribe against Dinkins. The next day the New York newspapers were sharply critical of Giuliani (a Daily News editorial called his behavior "shameful"), and Dinkins, years later, accused him of trying to stir up "white cops to riot." At the time, Giuliani refused to back down or apologize for his remarks, saying only: "I had four uncles who were cops. So maybe I was more emotional than I usually am." Giuliani's performance that day lost African-American voters, some permanently, but it guaranteed the informal backing of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the policemen's union, which helped him get elected mayor in 1993....
Friday, November 23, 2007
Broken Windows, Broken Hearts
NRC broken windows
I happen to like this model of controlling a complex system:
A new design for healthcare delivery
By Steven J. Spear and Donald M. Berwick
November 23, 2007
Excerpts of speech concerning “broken windows” of NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein:
"Past, Present, and Future: Reflections on the State of the Nuclear Renaissance"
INPO Atlanta, GA
November 15, 2007
“First, carelessness in small things may lead to carelessness about bigger things. In the early 1980s, the sociologist James Q. Wilson pioneered the so-called "broken windows" theory of law-enforcement. The idea was that when small signs of disorder or decay—such as vandalism, graffiti, or even excessive littering—are allowed to persist, it leads to bigger crimes, because people assume that the neighborhood does not have any standards, and that no one is enforcing the law.
It is a theory that was actually put into practice in several major cities, and led to major reductions in crimes. One lesson we can take from that is: Perception leads to reality.’
If the public believes that standards at nuclear plants are not being enforced, it leads to an erosion of public confidence in the whole nuclear energy industry. On the other hand, when industry does its job, it leads to public confidence in nuclear power more broadly—which lends credence to the work of the NRC. And when we, in turn, hold the utilities to a high standard of safety and security, it enhances confidence in the job you are doing."
I guess I have troubles with the phrase… "if the public believes”…how does the public know, if the regulators see events through a ideological lens. How do we know the NRC is holding the utilities to high standards…who over sees the overseers?
The NRC and nuclear industry should fund a seminar about NYC'S broken windows…invite a group of experts to explain it and the results. How about seeing broken windows through the eyes of a black man and through the eyes of the mentally ill? They should think of broken windows and inner city disorder as a complex problem. We all should get an idea of what’s true with this metaphor…and what is an illusion. I happen to think this is a great case study issue…and it would help the NRC and nuclear industry with helping them understand cause and effect in a complex system….and inaccurate political rhetoric. A independent regulator should be above inaccurate political hyperbole.
It is so astonishing…NRC commissioner Klein…is recklessly playing with a road-side cultural and racial IED bomb with talking about the “broken windows” theory of causes with problems and incidences. Effectively, he knowingly or unknowingly was speaking in racial code or class warfare words…to a group of white men of INPO. I am not sure he has a full understanding about the undertones…but as a US governmental official…he should have fully understood the terms of these code words. He should have had somebody on his staff who understands how this phrase was politically developed. I hope he doesn’t look at all nuclear plant problems…problems across many plants…in such simplistic ideological and distorted political terms. Can you imagine the nuclear meltdown of the Renaissance being implemented exclusively though the ideological lens of race and class?
I like to know what the racial and gender percentage is of INPO with this private nuclear organization. INPO is a southern based organization with their headquarters located in Atlanta Georgia. Is he telling the nuclear executive’s to “rule out” those nuclear minority employees…as the means to remove the heat from the whites? Whom are the minorities, those that don’t have your exclusive special ideology of true belief…that cover-up of the magnitude of disorder in the nuclear industry. Basically giving tickets and arresting vagrants in the broken windows theory (panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed)…is that how Klein sees nuclear industry with increasing problems through the lens of a violations of rule or code? What is going on below the rules or equipment breakdowns…why is bureaucracy allowing this? Is he normalizing the problems in the nuclear industry…where he should be thinking this disorder is the beginning of the death rattle of the Renaissance. One wonders if the events are so numerous…that these executives only has the time to digest these problems through a interpretation of a rule violation?
Is Palo Verde and Vermont Yankee there“panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed"…who is their corporate vagrants' and graffiti artist? I have issues of when we see disorder…do we punish the lower class with legal troubles…or do we see the complexity of the whole system? Do we have a mostly complete model of the component interactions in our heads before we began to correct complex system problems? Is our operative mental model…is it simplified in order to blame one class of people... then to shield blame from another group of people? I have real issues with this “broken window” theory, as Klein has extraordinarily simplified with what is causing the troubles with the inner city problems. His conclusion of lower levels of crime as a result of the ideological "broken windows" is absolutely disconnected from the results of lower levels of crime.
Doesn’t it bother people that nuclear plant profits are the only source that is powering corporate profits? If nuclear profits are so important for the bottom line of the whole corporation…are they spending enough money to keep the plants away from small troubles relative to their importance for the organization? If the nuke’s are so important for keeping corporate ship from sinking…does that equate to having to keep the plant’s connected to the grid without maintenance?
“Perception lead to reality” is a mind blower to me….does he mean that if we believe that minor law violations of the lowest class people is at the root of the problems with the disorder of our nation. Does he mean if we believe his (NRC) and nuclear industry disclosed perception of industry’s problems…everyone would internalized it…our perceptions will become the public reality independent of the real evidence and facts? Is the Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) the illusion created “perception”…with the deeper truths hidden underneath it? Obliviously “Perception leads to reality” is a class code word/phrase…I like to understand more deeply what this means through the lens of his class of people. What is the NRC’s definition of “perception leads to reality” and how did our culture come up with this phrase…what does it really means? Is he saying the current problems in the industry aren’t significant…is he talking about a type of over confidence or willful blindness…in the face of the nuclear Renaissance. Are they as enlightened as the Renaissance implies?
Everyone who has studied the nuclear industry over a number years understands there always has been a periodicity (3 to 5 years) with large reactor accidents and corruption charges against the industry….are we at the next incipient stage of the new accident that wrecks once again the credibility of the nuclear industry? Are we at a particularly critical time with shortages and high cost of energy, we are at war and a president has lost his popularity, both the House and Senate are controlled by the democrats…the next presidential election may go democrat…would a TMI or Davis Besse style accident have a bigger political outcome than past accidents?
In the “broken windows metaphor”, whom are the “panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed” in the nuclear industry…who are the self righteous corrupt police (Keric) managers and political executives with Gucci shoes making deals with the mafia? Who is telling the truth and who is creating a political illusion? Are the nuclear “panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed”….the lower level plant operators, maintenance people and troubled NRC inspectors. Is he saying, if you only finger these low level nuclear malingers with simple rules and code violations the whole industry will correct itself? Is he telling the nuclear executive’s to come up with a political scape goat…an illusory tool as Giuliani’s white broken windows …where we absolved the high level executives and regulators with a fancy social theory …and we put the mentally ill in prison? Don’t we remember prior to 9/11 Giuliani’s private life and his political life was in tatters...the whole broken windows theory was in disrespect because of the way he managed his being a mayor?
The broken windows theory shows absolutely no correlation with the reduction crime in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Many cities including San Francisco showed even lower reductions in crime than New York City in the same timeframe…. with SF having no broken windows theory. Basically the crime rate of the US population has been declining since the 1990…..the implementation of the broken windows occurred during a reduction of crime rates. “Unlocking America: Why and How to reduce America’s Prison population”…basically shows us the increasing jail population had nothing to do with the crime rates…an increase or decline.
There is no doubt in my mind that Giuliani was playing the poor, racial polarization and unjustified crime wave illusion as a mean to polarize the population against each other in his mayoral election campaign of NYC. It was profoundly undemocratic. The Klein “broken windows metaphor” only brings to the nuclear table nothing but confusion and disorganization with understanding what’s wrong in the industry. If our community is the whole nation…how can we blame one class of people for the chaos cause by us all? How come we haven’t figured out law violations for the police and political managers who allowed increasing chaos from our troubled population. It is a discredited narrow finger pointing conservative republican ideological and political tool. Giuliani/Keric’s broken windows class metaphor has no place being within an independent federal regulator’s speech concerning nuclear safety. Here is the lie:
City Homicides Still Dropping, to Under 500
By AL BAKER
Published: November 23, 2007
“The low number of killings by strangers belies the common imagery that New Yorkers are vulnerable to arbitrary attacks on the streets, or die in robberies that turn fatal.”
And there is a disgusting hint of race baiting in a white organization…real or unintentional. There is just no question that “broken windows” and the southern republican strategy is an ideological code word of winning elections while dehumanizing large groups of people. Giuliani aim was to create fear in the white minds about rising black and inner city crime in order to push the white’s into voting. It did not express a profound truth. There is no doubt in my mind that mayor Giuliani with the “broken windows” social theory was playing the great white Republican southern strategy of president Nixon and Reagan in New York City. He was picking on the littlest and most troubled population of people…creating a political illusion of threatening crime and disorganization…in order to create fear in the white population and get them to vote Republican. You put people into jail and give them police tickets as the means to gain political office…white people get into political office and black people go to jail …you don’t get down to the factors that demoralized groups of people. Who does the metaphor represent for the black and mentally disturbed people in the current nuclear industry…who is going to get fingered with the chaos in the industry today?
What would be the more appropriate non class and non race based term that we can use instead of “broken windows…because I believe our upper and privilege class of people is creating magnitudes more disorder than our disadvantaged people. Here we sit sub prime mess…$500 billion at last count…I’d say that is a lot more chaos than what the poor and low level criminals have done. The hopeless poor break widows and litter…while rich breaks bank's such as Citigroup and dries up liquidity for us all.
Op-Ed Columnist
Republicans and Race
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 19, 2007
Excerpts:
The G.O.P.’s own leaders admit that the great Southern white shift was the result of a deliberate political strategy. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” So declared Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.
And Ronald Reagan was among the “some” who tried to benefit from racial polarization.
True, he never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”
You can’t get away from the conservative Bush people has turned out to be one of the most undemocratic administration in the history of this country. It certainly has turned into an administration that has become immensely disliked across both the American public and the Republicans themselves. The ethic’s of the NEI, INPO and the whole nuclear industry has to be questioned with cleaving to the undemocratic Bush people so closely.
I have spoken in the past…and I will say it clearly again…the nuclear industry has shown their true colors with backing this undemocratic and untransparent administration. This is so ethically dysfunctional…this ranks up there as the nuclear industy’s greatest failure…bigger than the early days of the 1960 and 1970’s. They have shot themselves in the foot and the executives in the industry has poorly served their employees, the utilities and the American people….long term this is going to be horrendous. I don’t think these guys know what ethic’s means…except following a corrupt untransparant leader. Remember, this whole Renaissance has been backed by this failed Republican ideology….its based on having an extreme Republican administration for a far as the eyes can see. What would the industry…past and future…look like through an extreme reactionary liberal and the democrat’s lens? You see how fragile the utility executives have made this?
That’s when we, and the nuclear industry are going to regret their Bush’s years.
Its interesting thinking what the NRC has become…nuclear power is so politically powerful…it’s become a protection system for both the Republicans and the Democrats. The politician’s are so afraid a nuclear event will taint their administration and media cycle.
All I can say is a system who demands this amount of protection…un-transparency…is a danger to everyone in the USA. Opaque is dangerous and transparent is safe.
Thanks,
mike
I happen to like this model of controlling a complex system:
A new design for healthcare delivery
By Steven J. Spear and Donald M. Berwick
November 23, 2007
Excerpts of speech concerning “broken windows” of NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein:
"Past, Present, and Future: Reflections on the State of the Nuclear Renaissance"
INPO Atlanta, GA
November 15, 2007
“First, carelessness in small things may lead to carelessness about bigger things. In the early 1980s, the sociologist James Q. Wilson pioneered the so-called "broken windows" theory of law-enforcement. The idea was that when small signs of disorder or decay—such as vandalism, graffiti, or even excessive littering—are allowed to persist, it leads to bigger crimes, because people assume that the neighborhood does not have any standards, and that no one is enforcing the law.
It is a theory that was actually put into practice in several major cities, and led to major reductions in crimes. One lesson we can take from that is: Perception leads to reality.’
If the public believes that standards at nuclear plants are not being enforced, it leads to an erosion of public confidence in the whole nuclear energy industry. On the other hand, when industry does its job, it leads to public confidence in nuclear power more broadly—which lends credence to the work of the NRC. And when we, in turn, hold the utilities to a high standard of safety and security, it enhances confidence in the job you are doing."
I guess I have troubles with the phrase… "if the public believes”…how does the public know, if the regulators see events through a ideological lens. How do we know the NRC is holding the utilities to high standards…who over sees the overseers?
The NRC and nuclear industry should fund a seminar about NYC'S broken windows…invite a group of experts to explain it and the results. How about seeing broken windows through the eyes of a black man and through the eyes of the mentally ill? They should think of broken windows and inner city disorder as a complex problem. We all should get an idea of what’s true with this metaphor…and what is an illusion. I happen to think this is a great case study issue…and it would help the NRC and nuclear industry with helping them understand cause and effect in a complex system….and inaccurate political rhetoric. A independent regulator should be above inaccurate political hyperbole.
It is so astonishing…NRC commissioner Klein…is recklessly playing with a road-side cultural and racial IED bomb with talking about the “broken windows” theory of causes with problems and incidences. Effectively, he knowingly or unknowingly was speaking in racial code or class warfare words…to a group of white men of INPO. I am not sure he has a full understanding about the undertones…but as a US governmental official…he should have fully understood the terms of these code words. He should have had somebody on his staff who understands how this phrase was politically developed. I hope he doesn’t look at all nuclear plant problems…problems across many plants…in such simplistic ideological and distorted political terms. Can you imagine the nuclear meltdown of the Renaissance being implemented exclusively though the ideological lens of race and class?
I like to know what the racial and gender percentage is of INPO with this private nuclear organization. INPO is a southern based organization with their headquarters located in Atlanta Georgia. Is he telling the nuclear executive’s to “rule out” those nuclear minority employees…as the means to remove the heat from the whites? Whom are the minorities, those that don’t have your exclusive special ideology of true belief…that cover-up of the magnitude of disorder in the nuclear industry. Basically giving tickets and arresting vagrants in the broken windows theory (panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed)…is that how Klein sees nuclear industry with increasing problems through the lens of a violations of rule or code? What is going on below the rules or equipment breakdowns…why is bureaucracy allowing this? Is he normalizing the problems in the nuclear industry…where he should be thinking this disorder is the beginning of the death rattle of the Renaissance. One wonders if the events are so numerous…that these executives only has the time to digest these problems through a interpretation of a rule violation?
Is Palo Verde and Vermont Yankee there“panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed"…who is their corporate vagrants' and graffiti artist? I have issues of when we see disorder…do we punish the lower class with legal troubles…or do we see the complexity of the whole system? Do we have a mostly complete model of the component interactions in our heads before we began to correct complex system problems? Is our operative mental model…is it simplified in order to blame one class of people... then to shield blame from another group of people? I have real issues with this “broken window” theory, as Klein has extraordinarily simplified with what is causing the troubles with the inner city problems. His conclusion of lower levels of crime as a result of the ideological "broken windows" is absolutely disconnected from the results of lower levels of crime.
Doesn’t it bother people that nuclear plant profits are the only source that is powering corporate profits? If nuclear profits are so important for the bottom line of the whole corporation…are they spending enough money to keep the plants away from small troubles relative to their importance for the organization? If the nuke’s are so important for keeping corporate ship from sinking…does that equate to having to keep the plant’s connected to the grid without maintenance?
“Perception lead to reality” is a mind blower to me….does he mean that if we believe that minor law violations of the lowest class people is at the root of the problems with the disorder of our nation. Does he mean if we believe his (NRC) and nuclear industry disclosed perception of industry’s problems…everyone would internalized it…our perceptions will become the public reality independent of the real evidence and facts? Is the Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) the illusion created “perception”…with the deeper truths hidden underneath it? Obliviously “Perception leads to reality” is a class code word/phrase…I like to understand more deeply what this means through the lens of his class of people. What is the NRC’s definition of “perception leads to reality” and how did our culture come up with this phrase…what does it really means? Is he saying the current problems in the industry aren’t significant…is he talking about a type of over confidence or willful blindness…in the face of the nuclear Renaissance. Are they as enlightened as the Renaissance implies?
Everyone who has studied the nuclear industry over a number years understands there always has been a periodicity (3 to 5 years) with large reactor accidents and corruption charges against the industry….are we at the next incipient stage of the new accident that wrecks once again the credibility of the nuclear industry? Are we at a particularly critical time with shortages and high cost of energy, we are at war and a president has lost his popularity, both the House and Senate are controlled by the democrats…the next presidential election may go democrat…would a TMI or Davis Besse style accident have a bigger political outcome than past accidents?
In the “broken windows metaphor”, whom are the “panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed” in the nuclear industry…who are the self righteous corrupt police (Keric) managers and political executives with Gucci shoes making deals with the mafia? Who is telling the truth and who is creating a political illusion? Are the nuclear “panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed”….the lower level plant operators, maintenance people and troubled NRC inspectors. Is he saying, if you only finger these low level nuclear malingers with simple rules and code violations the whole industry will correct itself? Is he telling the nuclear executive’s to come up with a political scape goat…an illusory tool as Giuliani’s white broken windows …where we absolved the high level executives and regulators with a fancy social theory …and we put the mentally ill in prison? Don’t we remember prior to 9/11 Giuliani’s private life and his political life was in tatters...the whole broken windows theory was in disrespect because of the way he managed his being a mayor?
The broken windows theory shows absolutely no correlation with the reduction crime in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Many cities including San Francisco showed even lower reductions in crime than New York City in the same timeframe…. with SF having no broken windows theory. Basically the crime rate of the US population has been declining since the 1990…..the implementation of the broken windows occurred during a reduction of crime rates. “Unlocking America: Why and How to reduce America’s Prison population”…basically shows us the increasing jail population had nothing to do with the crime rates…an increase or decline.
There is no doubt in my mind that Giuliani was playing the poor, racial polarization and unjustified crime wave illusion as a mean to polarize the population against each other in his mayoral election campaign of NYC. It was profoundly undemocratic. The Klein “broken windows metaphor” only brings to the nuclear table nothing but confusion and disorganization with understanding what’s wrong in the industry. If our community is the whole nation…how can we blame one class of people for the chaos cause by us all? How come we haven’t figured out law violations for the police and political managers who allowed increasing chaos from our troubled population. It is a discredited narrow finger pointing conservative republican ideological and political tool. Giuliani/Keric’s broken windows class metaphor has no place being within an independent federal regulator’s speech concerning nuclear safety. Here is the lie:
City Homicides Still Dropping, to Under 500
By AL BAKER
Published: November 23, 2007
“The low number of killings by strangers belies the common imagery that New Yorkers are vulnerable to arbitrary attacks on the streets, or die in robberies that turn fatal.”
And there is a disgusting hint of race baiting in a white organization…real or unintentional. There is just no question that “broken windows” and the southern republican strategy is an ideological code word of winning elections while dehumanizing large groups of people. Giuliani aim was to create fear in the white minds about rising black and inner city crime in order to push the white’s into voting. It did not express a profound truth. There is no doubt in my mind that mayor Giuliani with the “broken windows” social theory was playing the great white Republican southern strategy of president Nixon and Reagan in New York City. He was picking on the littlest and most troubled population of people…creating a political illusion of threatening crime and disorganization…in order to create fear in the white population and get them to vote Republican. You put people into jail and give them police tickets as the means to gain political office…white people get into political office and black people go to jail …you don’t get down to the factors that demoralized groups of people. Who does the metaphor represent for the black and mentally disturbed people in the current nuclear industry…who is going to get fingered with the chaos in the industry today?
What would be the more appropriate non class and non race based term that we can use instead of “broken windows…because I believe our upper and privilege class of people is creating magnitudes more disorder than our disadvantaged people. Here we sit sub prime mess…$500 billion at last count…I’d say that is a lot more chaos than what the poor and low level criminals have done. The hopeless poor break widows and litter…while rich breaks bank's such as Citigroup and dries up liquidity for us all.
Op-Ed Columnist
Republicans and Race
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 19, 2007
Excerpts:
The G.O.P.’s own leaders admit that the great Southern white shift was the result of a deliberate political strategy. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” So declared Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.
And Ronald Reagan was among the “some” who tried to benefit from racial polarization.
True, he never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”
You can’t get away from the conservative Bush people has turned out to be one of the most undemocratic administration in the history of this country. It certainly has turned into an administration that has become immensely disliked across both the American public and the Republicans themselves. The ethic’s of the NEI, INPO and the whole nuclear industry has to be questioned with cleaving to the undemocratic Bush people so closely.
I have spoken in the past…and I will say it clearly again…the nuclear industry has shown their true colors with backing this undemocratic and untransparent administration. This is so ethically dysfunctional…this ranks up there as the nuclear industy’s greatest failure…bigger than the early days of the 1960 and 1970’s. They have shot themselves in the foot and the executives in the industry has poorly served their employees, the utilities and the American people….long term this is going to be horrendous. I don’t think these guys know what ethic’s means…except following a corrupt untransparant leader. Remember, this whole Renaissance has been backed by this failed Republican ideology….its based on having an extreme Republican administration for a far as the eyes can see. What would the industry…past and future…look like through an extreme reactionary liberal and the democrat’s lens? You see how fragile the utility executives have made this?
That’s when we, and the nuclear industry are going to regret their Bush’s years.
Its interesting thinking what the NRC has become…nuclear power is so politically powerful…it’s become a protection system for both the Republicans and the Democrats. The politician’s are so afraid a nuclear event will taint their administration and media cycle.
All I can say is a system who demands this amount of protection…un-transparency…is a danger to everyone in the USA. Opaque is dangerous and transparent is safe.
Thanks,
mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)