Why Environmentalist hate nuclear power.

While speaking with a student recently, I broached the subject of the positive aspects of nuclear power. He immediately asked what we would do with all of the nuclear waste? I asked him “all of what waste”? This is essentially the rejoinder most people should be asked when they mention nuclear waste. It shocked the young man when I told him that all the nuclear waste generated in the U.S. for the next 100 years could fit in the hole left by one days coal mining. This is but one of many facts that show the environmental movement for who they are; more on that point later. Nuclear power has so many environmental advantages over all other sources of energy it is no longer deniable by the more self-effacing honest people in the environmental movement. Unfortunately fear mongering and the politics of environmentalism have held the facts about nuclear energy hostage. It is a fact that burning any coal will release more radioactive particles into the atmosphere than all the U.S. nuclear plants put together. It is also true that one pound of nuclear fuel releases the same amount of energy as nearly three hundred tons of coal. It is also a fact that the electric generating plants in the U.S. produce over two billion pounds of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) every day as well as oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, mercury, carbon monoxide as well as radioactive particulate. These and other carcinogenic (cancer causing) and mutagenic (can change your gene structure and affect you offspring as well as you) compounds are released into the atmosphere daily. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html While nuclear power plants emit essentially none of these compounds in their power generating tasks. The environmental impact of the afore mention emissions should be enough to make any thinking person clamor for nuclear power. The only argument remaining is safety especially as it pertains to melt-down as is what happened at Chirnobyl. New pebble bed reactors now make meltdown impossible.

Given this, one is left to wonder why the bulk of the environmental movement cannot get behind this seemingly perfect solution to our energy needs. But there-in lies part of the answer. Some in the environmental movement are actually jealous leftists who despise and abhor the American lifestyle even though they live like the majority of the people in the country and not anything like H.D. Thoreau asthey would like you to believe. The second major pillar to their opposition is that in this country private companies would build and operate these plants. These leftists have violent reaction to the phrase “privately operated nuclear power plant”. For that matter they have a violent reaction to anything privately held. Lastly, so many people are misinformed about nuclear energy that public opinion has been with the environmental left for over thirty years. It is my hope that their duplicity show through to at least you the reader and those you can now inform. As it seems for all their talk about the environmental, they would rather subject the rest of us to asthma, radiation, silicosis, mercury and greenhouse gases than allow the building of any more nuclear power plants. This anti-humanitarian position gives them no credibility in the public discourse and it is up to us, those who are truley environmentalist, to show them for who they are.

Democratic sycophants: Duplicitous or just dumb?

Democratic sycophants: Duplicitous or just dumb? At the "Take Back America" conference, AKA “We Still Hate the U.S. Bongo Fest”, former Presidential waffler and Boston Brahman, John Kerry (AKA-“Is this where I buy me a hunt’in license?”) along with several other liberal intellegencia notables received an avalanche of cheers when they called for a date to be set for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Movie star/Foreign-Service lightweight Joe Wilson called for this as well but cautioned Democrats from being baited into a vote for immediate withdrawal in a pending House Resolution. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060615c.html

Ironically, left-wing darling Hillary Clinton seems to be taking the moderate position of agreeing with the President in not setting a definite date for essentially the same reasons that Bush has continually iterated. The logic of this seems to not be able to penetrate the hard-core leftists' hatred of Bush as they booed her on this single point at the conference. But logic and consistency is not one of their strong points, as a matter of fact, I believe it would be considered a disability, possibly covered by the ADA. Case-in-point would be Kerry’s waffling since the election of 2004 on his vote for the war in Iraq. At the conference he now apologizes for his vote; As no one who takes his own political philosophy and views seriously can be anything but amused by a person such as Kerry, one can only be entertained by his continual “nuancing”. Despite the entertainment value of watching the rutterless, graceless leftwing wax disingenuously about their motives for their otherwise duplicitous positions, one must keep in mind the left’s investment in our failure in all we do while anyone other than a Democrat has any say in foreign or domestic policy. Unfortunately real American lives are at stake while the subversive rhetoric is promulgated. Now we are beginning to learn that Zarqawi himself said the American media gave his operation more credit and standing than he himself thinks he deserved; And if what is beginning to come out is true, he seemed to think his efforts were faltering. This is outright scandalous when set against the remarks of many Democrats and media outlets of the past two years. This same aid and comfort 35 years ago by the media and leftist politicos is exactly what a Vietnamese General recently attributed their takeover of South Vietnam to. Conservative estimates for those killed directly and indirectly by the Vietcong after they took over the South are 1.5 million. John Kerry in the 1971 debate with Paul O’Neill on the Dick Cavett Show (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040510083458318 ) claimed 4 or 5 thousand people might be killed in political retribution if we left Vietnam. As history proves again, these leftist ideologues never get it right. Knowing this, there is only this question: Are their subversive statements political investments or mere stupidity? The former is certainly treasonous, but their logic leads me to believe their motives are half opportunistic and half stupidity. (The opportunism part counts on the stupidity of others.) Thomas Payne argued against the appeasement of the British, Lincoln would not appease the rebelling states, Churchill argued against the appeasement of the Nazi’s and Reagan refused to appease the Russian Communists. If these facts do not sufficiently persuade someone as to what free, thinking people think about appeasement then remember the fact that the U.S. allowed the appeasers to guide us out of Vietnam and millions died without an apology from a single vocal leftist.

Notes to self:
1. Don’t hide $90,000 in the freezer of your legislative office.
2. Don’t allow defense contractors to buy you a yacht or a condo.
3. Crashing your car, killing or raping someone or punching Congressional Security Staff in the face is not a criminal offense when you’re named Kennedy.
4. Change your name to Kennedy.

Snopes.com The liberal truth is easy...

This is an excerpt from an email I received from DS(J.D.) as a result of discussing misguided liberals/leftists. DS exposes the outright and expansive nature of leftwing apologies pedaled by Snopes.com :

Perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 45-pound cat someone emailed you isn’t a doctored photo. Maybe you want to know if Proctor & Gamble’s logo is really satanic. Snopes.com (hereafter “snopes”) is good for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don’t count on them being “fair and balanced” when it comes to anything political or religious. Although Snopes hasn’t any political philosophy explicitly stated on the website, snopes’ selectivity and analysis of political emails oozes with partisanship. Religious emails don’t fare much better and typically get a liberal hatchet job. In a nutshell, although snopes has to reluctantly admit that most of the conservative political and religious emails are “true” as far as snopes can determine, there is always a caveat, disclaimer, footnote, or lengthy oratory explaining why everything from crime statistics to reports from Iraq must be viewed and understood through snopes’ lens. Some examples and links follow:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
An email made its way around the country recently showing a picture of John Kerry at an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda. If a picture is worth a thousand words, Snopes thinks ten thousand words is the only antidote to spinning this photo that Snopes had to admit was true. Indeed, Snopes has gone into high gear to rescue John Kerry from being associated with the extreme left. Snopes uses extensive quotes from Jane Fonda to demonstrate that John Kerry was not as much of a foaming at the mouth liberal as she herself was [is]. Snopes also quotes extensively from New York Times (and thought better perhaps of using their sources at Pravda and Granma) to prove what the “atmosphere” was like at these love-fests that Kerry participated in and spoke at. A small unexplained B&W photo appears on the right hand side of the screen depicting a cleaner-cut John Kerry being decorated in an apparent attempt to show he did in fact do something noteworthy and wasn’t simply a hippie as depicted in the larger, color photo.
Snopes said the derogatory photo “purports” to show John Kerry, only to reluctantly admit in the next sentence that indeed the photo is real. Get your index finger and mouse ready to scroll down the pages and pages of voluminous material on Snopes beseeching you to ignore the photo and get to know the real John Kerry.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp
Snopes seems to have been exhausted by all the time it spent trying to exonerate Kerry that it lacked the energy to investigate a photo that is also real. In a photo depicting a soldier shaking hands with Hillary Clinton, the soldier crossed his fingers (visible in the photo) to memorialize his displeasure with being used in a photo-op by the hippie-turned-senator. Try crossing your finger right now the way the soldier did it in the photo. It’s not a reflexive position and must have been deliberate on part of the soldier. Hillary made only one trip to see our troops, so it is not a Herculean task to track down the person who took the photo as well as the soldier in it.

Some more food for thought:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Verifies quotes from democrats were true but
goes on and on trying to defend democrats.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/mystic.asp
Attempts to speak to veracity of email urging boycott of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins’ movies since they are Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden sympathizers. Snopes says “still under investigation Nov 2003.” I could wrap that investigation up in about 2 minutes. Those 2 are bona fide liberals and whackos (or is that redundant?)

You may have received this email yourself. It is an amazing and true litany of accomplishments of the US military in Iraq. Snopes can’t seem to utter the words “it’s true” so it gets a half green, half red light. It’s truth is called into question by “an Iraqi citizen” A link to the criticism is provided, and just to prove to yourself how absurd it is, you should click on it. A sample: the pro military email rightfully asserts one accomplishment as: the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. The rebuttal to this fact: “We certainly hope so, but no one is sure about that yet.” This invincible evidence seems to be enough to persuade snopes.com that the whole email is suspect and worthy of caution. Another example: Email lists another accomplishment of the US military as: “All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.” To which the best argument the detractor can come up with is:
“That’s true. But every now and then, a school gets a warning about a bomb, so many parents are afraid to send their kids to schools, and when they do so, they will be deeply worried.” Again this vague and fuzzy “counter argument” is flawless logic and enough to satisfy the good people at snopes.com that the whole email is dubious and, to be on the safe side, the hapless visitor to snopes.com should remain anti-war and believe that nothing has been accomplished in Iraq. Visit snopes.com for yourself to really laugh out loud. I simply can’t do it justice here.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
A very similar email went around with quotes from leading Democrats attesting to their belief that Sadaam Hussein did in fact have WMD. Snopes naturally had to admit the quotes were true, but always with the caveat, quickly opined that, “some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them.”
Please! We’ve all gotten emails like this. You use a quote to get a point across. You can’t make people on your email forward list sift 35 pages of Medeline Albright in order to put her quote “in context” Just another example of snopes’ “bend-over-backwards” policy to rescue Democrats from their own words.
Meanwhile, don’t expect an snopes investigation to proceed much further, snopes is busy crafting explanations for Kerry’s $25 million worth of real estate which is one of the biggest whoppers this web site unashamedly pulls.

Like baptism, being a liberal cleanses you from all stain in the mind of snopes. Former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd got just such a catharsis and gets an open mic on snopes. Email snopes was “investigating” was “Senator Robert Byrd delivered a fiery floor speech condemning President Bush's calls for military action against Iraq.” Was it true? Sure was, says snopes, which then proceeds to reproduce the whole speech (for the 9 people in America who want to read it). Instead of a caveat, such as ALL conservative emails get as a matter of course from Snopes, snopes can’t contain itself and adds it’s own 2 cents, “[Byrd’s] eloquence in putting forth his opinions and arguments on this issue has captivated many like-minded members of the anti-war movement.” I see a hyperlink to MotherJones.com coming any day now.

Many emails are forwards from soldiers, judges, or military officers who are, or were, in Iraq. They all have the individual’s name, hometown etc. in the email. Sue enough, snopes investigates and finds out the person exists and the email is true, but, never quite happy, snopes adds the disclaimer: “although true, the email resembles another email sent by someone else” etc. The reader is left to conclude that plagiarism or some form of falsification has occurred. Nonsense. With thousands of our servicemen and civilians in Iraq, many are bound to witness the same events or accomplishments and report on them individually. Snopes needs a basic course on hermeneutics.




In AGOSTON v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
340 U.S. 844 Oct 09, 1950

“Denial by Supreme Court of a writ of certiorari merely means that as a matter of sound judicial discretion fewer than four members of the court deemed it desirable to review a decision of a lower court and such denial imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.”