Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jimmy Carter has died

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 879 posts

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#801

Post by bb88 »

jmclnx wrote: post #726
bb88 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three Mile Island and then Chernobyl kinda killed that dream. Both had bad actors trying to cover up the leak, and caused the nuclear scare to go even worse. France also has majority ownership of the nuclear plants, something that would never fly in the US (because Socialism!). Even when I was an intern at a power company, the leaders there saw the nuclear power plant the company owned as an "albatross around their n…

Plus you forgot the 1978 Seabrook Protests. Most of the hate was due to where it was built, not the fact it was built. It was really NIMBY on steroids plus a poor choice of location. So even conservative people in NH hated that plant due to its location. But the press spun it as hate towards nuclear power. So that put a big black mark on the industry, maybe even more so because both Liberals and Right Wing people cam…

So where should we put nuclear reactors then? Should we put a new California nuclear reactor in downtown San Francisco or Los Angeles? If nuclear proponents are saying nuclear technology is safe, then it shouldn't matter where we put it. It's just an education issue, right?

The problem is, that nobody really trusts nuclear, or more specifically nobody really trusts corporations with nuclear power. I will point out there's a high correlation between a given nuclear accident and a coverup of that nuclear accident.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#802

Post by tim333 »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #794
mhb wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's his blog and his opinion. His opinion is based on the references he cites. What else is expected?

Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence. Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/mid…

The relevant Carter quote is

"… even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist."

which I think suggests he was naive in thinking they'd change and become nice guys, rather than condoning their violence.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#803

Post by fargle »

mmooss wrote: post #622
fargle wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the center. you know, the existence of which just changed the course of the latest election...

Why do you say that? Where is the evidence? Otherwise, these are just circular claims, unchecked by reality.

i think you miss my point. trump is obviously further right than either biden, kamala.

whatever the relative left-ness of those choices where, it was obviously so much so too far left for about 2million+ people who, to be gracious, decided to hold their noses.

so i'm left completely flumoxed why it's not blindingly obvious. at least at this point in time, those candidates' platforms seriously missed the mark. if those folks that were centrist-ish enough to even consider "holding their noses" to vote for trump, i can't imagine how they'd be supportive of anything even further to the left of the choices they had available and fairly rejected.

how would moving further left capture those voters? (those willing to vote trump, perhaps marginally)

i know it's not just right vs. left, but in this case all the other things seem to either be trump disadvanges (personality) or about the same for both of the two poles. nobody in the whole election seemed to be able to string a coherent sentence together, for example.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#804

Post by zizee »

bb88 wrote: post #800
zizee wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk. The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power…

What's super interesting along this line of thought are the events that happened in Flint, Michigan circa 2014 when the local government (who were unelected emergency managers) decided to switch the water source of Flint. This water reacted with the lead pipes causing lead levels to spike in the water supply. It's not the outsized risk of lead levels people are necessarily worried about. It's the outsized risk of som…

Well, back to my original point that the challenges are political in nature.

Nuclear has one of the lowest mortality rates per megawatt hour. It would be even better if only modern reactor designs were considered.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#805

Post by acdha »

HaZeust wrote: post #500
acdha wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).

A bit more nuanced than that; the NRA didn’t become the hardline defender of minimal gun regs until its 1977 leadership shift. Reagan’s 1967 Mulford Act as Governor targeted the Black Panthers, and then he signed 1986 FOPA as president, which relaxed some rules but banned new machine guns. It was a broad compromise package from the start.

My focus was really the hardline individual right stance: I know people who left the NRA over that because they were sportsmen or retired military who thought it was quite reasonable to have civilian restrictions, especially mental / proficiency restrictions.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#806

Post by mhb »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #796
mhb wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing the Times as some sort of impartial arbiter of what's going on in the Middle East is laughable.

So random blog posts are then? Edit: anyway, I've seen this discussion a million times. Not interested in engaging further.

No one was claiming that a random blog post is impartial or authoritative despite it's being right.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#807

Post by acdha »

gadders wrote: post #754
acdha wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note “a factor” - you could say the same about the peaceful space program, computer age, biotech, etc. Most of the world was advancing faster than the USSR in every way and there’s no reason to think that arc wouldn’t have continued under a second Carter administration.

I mean you can guess that might have happened, but I can't imagine a weak president like Carter saying "Tear down that wall" or calling USSR the evil empire.

He didn’t have Reagan’s stage presence to be sure, but did either of those really change what actually happened to the USSR? I’m pretty certain most of the work was being done by socioeconomic factors which weren’t affected by sound bites.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#808

Post by otterley »

mhb wrote: post #781
klik99 wrote: post #537

I know a few people, one a good friend, who work in the Jimmy Carter Center in Atlanta - until health stopped him (and a bit afterwards) he was in there daily putting the work in. Despite if you agree with his views or methods I hope everyone can know he worked well into his 90s to leave the world a better place. I don’t believe any other president was as selfless as him. Rest in peace, he was a great man

Jimmy Carter's pioneering support for Hamas: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2024/12/29/jimmy-carters-p...

It is possible for people one doesn't agree with to be democratically elected, whether it be here or in a foreign land. Having respect for democracies as a principle means one should accept the will of the people--whether you like it or not--so long as the outcome doesn't abrogate human rights.

The U.S. has a sordid history of intervening in the affairs of foreign nations when it suits their interests, from the overthrow of Madero in Mexico in 1913 to interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, and Congo in later years.

President Carter definitely wasn't perfect, but he had a lot more respect for the democratic process than either his predecessors or his successors did.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#809

Post by nioj »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #715
GuardianCaveman wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote out a snarky response based off what I understood and then I did more research and he had a big impact. This is a better article to link to in my opinion though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_wi...

These articles aren't painting the condemning picture I think you are thinking they do. If someone becomes president, and a foreign government is already falling apart, and you talk about options and what might become the new government, does that automatically make it your fault? The Shah wasn't a saint, and kind of created the situation. If you want to place blame for Iran, it might need to go further back to Eisen…

I think you meant to type WW1 instead of WW2

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#810

Post by bhouston »

siltcakes wrote: post #798
edanm wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to his views on annexing Gaza, the West Bank or other views. You're asking a different question. In addition, that survey is from half a year ago. Surveys today show a majority of Israelis wanting a ceasefire-for-hostages deal.

I’ve not seen results that sound anything like that. Do you have a link to support your claim?

When he says "Surveys today show a majority of Israelis wanting a ceasefire-for-hostages deal" he is right. But Netanyahu isn't likely to allow it to happen unless forced by an outside party.

When one is close to a hostage deal Netanyahu does something to torpedo it, like this recent statement of his:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-alarming...

So there probably won't be a hostage deal.

Post reply on HN