How many words, how much time do you need to waste saying something anyone who saw it already knew? It's like being trolled, in allowing yourself to be you have validated the troll. Seeing the movie was time that I'll never get back. Now they've made a pointless documentary about how bad it was, throwing good time after bad.

We're talking billions of tons of contaminated soil, water, radioactive waste, old landfills. What do you propose is done with it? Where is it going to go when they "clean it up"? Personally, I love this idea. Renewable energy, and using otherwise unusable resources? I don't see what's not to like.

Or, more accurately in this case, you buy it, we break it.

In Cat's Crade, in the guise of Dr. Hoenikker "Any scientist who cannot explain his work to an eight year old is a charlatan." If you can't separate scientific process from opaque jargon, you'll never be able to engage the layman. As such, IMO, the burden falls on every one of us to try and make scientific knowledge as accessible as possible to anyone who cares to listen. Also, spending some cash on science education (maybe as much as we spend on athletics...) to get good teachers, and engaging materials and activities might help. Or maybe another Star Trek TV series. It worked for me when I was growin' up.

It makes me wonder if, over time, all that added gravitation might not start to degrade the orbit somewhat, to say nothing of a possible single large impact.

A game is a game, even a grandmaster at Chess isn't necessarily going to be good at anything else. I would argue that anything that beats the other player (short of cheating/exploting/etc) comprises skill at that game. Of course, that doesn't do you any good outside of the game, so I hesitate to call it a skill. Unless you're one of the few who makes money as a professional gamer, being good at CS/WoW/SC/whatever is just being good at killing time.

That's what I want to see. Too long has the government attempted to fight the free market by throwing money at enforcement. We've spent too many billions on punishing otherwise nonviolent, law-abiding taxpayers. For all the time and treasure we've spent, is there any end in sight? Is there anyone who believes that drug enforcement is reducing the demand for drugs?

In Mexico right now, we've got drug cartels fighting a paramilitary war with the police and Mexican army; that's ongoing. In California, we have national parks and public water supplies being polluted by unregulated growing operations.

We have an out of control national debt, and an opportunity to create a domestic industry, tax it, and stop spending the billions on enforcing these out of date laws. Pretending what we're doing is working, or pretending the problem doesn't exist, doesn't change the facts of the situation. The longer we wait, the more powerful the organized crime syndicates get (just like the mob during alcohol prohibition).

Tax it, regulate it, don't sell it to minors, and bust people for driving under the influence of it. Just stop pretending you can beat it by cracking down on suppliers or users; supply exists where demand exists, and demand will always exist, because people are human.

Don't forget industrial hemp, too, because there's a lot that could be done with it. That would be a huge boon to the country, especially considering that we need new energy mediums and materials for various applications; hemp has one of the longest track records in human civilization as a useful industrial material, and prohibiting it because of marijuana is simply pointless.

That's why I want to see Prohibition 2.0 (hemp/marijuana) ended. I'd also like to see a complete end to the War on Drugs, because like the War on Terror, it's not a war we can ever win. But, that's another post for another time.

Saying that the truth won't necessarily prevent the past from repeating itself is a weak argument against fighting for the truth in the first place, in my opinion.

If nothing else, full disclosure of the activities of this administration would force the American public to see the truth of the past eight years, and would likely result in at least some high profile convictions of the outgoing administration.

Just because we can't see to it that they get as good as they gave, doesn't mean we should let them ride off into the sunset unmolested.

It's important for us to know every gory detail, if only for historical posterity; not that we're likely to be able to recover any of these emails at this point. After all, they likely contained incriminating evidence, and were destroyed for that reason. However, I still feel it's important for historical accuracy, and as a warning to all future presidents, that every last piece of dirty laundry of this administration be made public, and finally when that's all said and done, and the office of the presidency is muddy, bloody and dishonored, then we prosecute the criminals for their willful disregard of the rule of law, to the full extent of the law. If we do not take these steps, we are inviting future chief executives to do exactly the same thing as BushCo did. Not to mention the million innocent Iraqi souls who would still be alive if not for the pointless war we've waged over there; they deserve justice, as much as BushCo deserves to be brought to it.

As obviously correct as you are, I see the counter to that tactic as being one of emphasizing that we are, effectively, funding the "Enemy" in the War on Terror with the War on Drugs. It would be funny to see one side screaming "Think of the Children!" while the other side was screaming "Support the Troops, not the Enemy!"