This is actually something we NEED! BRAVO MCCAIN
FROM THE AP STORY:
"... MCCAIN said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new (nuclear reactors) by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.
"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded."
Of course he couches the plan in language geared to make the fraidy cat liberals secure. Hey IT'S GLOBAL WARMING that's making us build those nukes. 'Cause you guys are going to drown in NYC when the polar ice caps melt!!!
Personally I think drowning everyone in NYC is just the earth correcting an imbalance. It's nature at its best!
And like John McCain, I always want to look for something nice in a person's religion. You know like the buddhists have pretty little chimes they use when they do their nonsensical chants. Ding! The fundy mormons really know how to braid hair. The Hindus with all those 8-armed, monkey-faced, blue gods are like a comic strip on acid. And there is nothing like watching the Shiites beat themselves up to put a smile on my face.
Sorry... I'm off the subject.
But this does put me in the mind of what Chas says about McCain's whole Global Warming thing. Some of the goals of the Global Warming Religion are very conservative: Conserve, preserve, and protect. Nothing wrong with that. Especially if it gets us nuclear power.
You can probably do 'anti global warming' things without forcing us to live without electricity and carry water from the creek. This is going to come as a shock to the Greens, though.
But anyway, even the liberals are not entirely convinced that there is some sort of problem with nuclear power. (After all THE BRILLIANT FRENCH do it!) Check out the NYT Freakonomics column. And also today.
And let us not forget that the liberals were the same chicken shit idiots who exaggerated the risk of nuclear energy in the first place. Now the libs are thinking... well it might not be so great to live in NYC without electricity.
This cheers me up because I am reminded that even liberals really, really prefer to live in civilization, though they may say otherwise.
"... MCCAIN said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new (nuclear reactors) by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.
"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded."
Of course he couches the plan in language geared to make the fraidy cat liberals secure. Hey IT'S GLOBAL WARMING that's making us build those nukes. 'Cause you guys are going to drown in NYC when the polar ice caps melt!!!
Personally I think drowning everyone in NYC is just the earth correcting an imbalance. It's nature at its best!
And like John McCain, I always want to look for something nice in a person's religion. You know like the buddhists have pretty little chimes they use when they do their nonsensical chants. Ding! The fundy mormons really know how to braid hair. The Hindus with all those 8-armed, monkey-faced, blue gods are like a comic strip on acid. And there is nothing like watching the Shiites beat themselves up to put a smile on my face.
Sorry... I'm off the subject.
But this does put me in the mind of what Chas says about McCain's whole Global Warming thing. Some of the goals of the Global Warming Religion are very conservative: Conserve, preserve, and protect. Nothing wrong with that. Especially if it gets us nuclear power.
You can probably do 'anti global warming' things without forcing us to live without electricity and carry water from the creek. This is going to come as a shock to the Greens, though.
But anyway, even the liberals are not entirely convinced that there is some sort of problem with nuclear power. (After all THE BRILLIANT FRENCH do it!) Check out the NYT Freakonomics column. And also today.
And let us not forget that the liberals were the same chicken shit idiots who exaggerated the risk of nuclear energy in the first place. Now the libs are thinking... well it might not be so great to live in NYC without electricity.
This cheers me up because I am reminded that even liberals really, really prefer to live in civilization, though they may say otherwise.
posted by Walker at 11:28 AM
2 Comments:
Walker,
Some important things to note about nuclear power. Not only does every other "first world" country get much more of their power from nuclear energy than we do, it useful to keep in mind there's only been one nuclear power plant accident in America--Three Mile Island. And that happened when the government still ran all the nuclear power plants. Since becoming "privatized" utilities (with accountability to the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, of course) but run by private companies, for profit, and staffed with private contractors, there hasn't been an accident.
The biggest nuclear power plant fiasco in history was Chernobyl, which was completely communist government run (I thought leftist centralized governments made everything perfect. Who knew?) and there are lots of great lessons to be learned from that. It was a complete meltdown, with plenty of environmental destruction--but the doomsday scenario painted by liberals didn't happen. Didn't even come close. Otherwise we'd still be getting specials on the horrible legacy of Chernobyl . . .
And Chernobyl wasn't even built to the Soviet's lax standard, and fell far short of any plant even considered in the U.S. All the plants that have been mothballed or stopped in mid-construction (at a cost to the taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars, with not a drop of energy retrieved from them) were or were going to be built to safety standards that would withstand almost any disaster, save a direct nuclear attack. And, possibly, total bureaucratic government control of the nuclear plants--they probably couldn't withstand that, either.
And nuclear power should be a cautionary tale for those who take the promises of new energy solutions seriously (from liberals). Nuclear power was/is a new technology solution. Does anyone believe that large scale deployment of solar/wind/biofuel/anything else wouldn't either (a) have real destructive consequences that outweight benefits, like biofuels or (b) be hounded with imaginary our aesthetic objections--liberals end up hating windpower in their own backyards. Kills birds! Noise pollution! Of course, there will be no further construction on hydroelectric plants--destroys the environment! Puts people out their homes! Changes the "natural" flood plains! If we had solar panels covering a few hundreds miles of desert right now, don't you think environmentalist would be objecting? We're destroying the natural beauty of the deserts! Some cacti have been displaced!
The people who are opposed to oil/gas/coal/nuclear are, in fact, opposed to energy. I believe it was Paul Erlich (he of the Population Bomb, and boy was he wrong about that) who said that giving human kind a free, abundant energy source would be the equivalent of giving a mentally disabled child a submachine gun. These folks don't want us to have "clean" energy--they don't want us to have any energy (until such time as it makes it impossible to live their lives).
BTW, I wonder if McCain wants to force or incentivize New York, that TVA, California, and some of these other states/energy authorities that have mothballed or half-built nuclear plants to open them up for business. There's a ton of money that has been lost and is being lost by keeping these nuclear plants dormant.
Post a Comment
<< Home