Am I psychic? Or are these anti-nuke morons that predictable?

The no-nukes crowd haven't surprised me.

The Japanese are still fighting a valiant fight against a reactor that threatens to melt down, possibly at the cost of plant workers' lives, and these limp-wristed panty-waists are ever so ready to say they told us so.

Really?

I listened to a liberal guest on Hannity's radio program this evening argue against building more nuclear power plants in the U.S., citing the drama going in Japan right now.  Never mind that the power plant was hit with a 9.0 Richter scale earthquake followed by a tsunami.  Not something that happens every day.  Hannity wisely framed it in the context of risk versus reward.

It seemed as though his guest, however, prefers to live in a world where everyone is safe all the time.  But that world doesn't exist.

I've never understood why the global warming folks aren't behind nuclear power.  Pound for pound, it has the smallest carbon footprint for the most energy produced.  Beyond the machinery used to build the power plant and the mining of the uranium fuel, the plant has no carbon footprint.  The cloud of vapor you see coming out of the nuclear power plant's cooling towers?  That's gaseous dihydrogen monoxide, a lethal chemical referred to in the Bible as having nearly wiped out mankind in the days of Noah and his ark.

It seems liberals have unrealistic expectations when it comes to many forms of alternative energy:

• Solar power requires sunshine, lots of it, to generate low current.  For somewhere like Arizona, it's ideal, provided you can convince the environmentalists to give up hundreds of square miles of desert to power a small town.
• Wind energy is great provided you live somewhere that's windy.  But ironically, the wind turbines are stopped and the blades feathered in strong winds to prevent damage.
• Geothermal energy is by far the most sustainable, but we're limited by where we can drill to relatively shallow depths, because the deeper you drill, the longer it takes for the investment to pay for itself.  Geothermal advocates say the energy can sustain civilization for centuries.  It may take that long to pay for itself.
• Hydro-electric energy is good.  Hoover Dam can meet the electricity needs of the American Southwest, but again, there is location and cost.

Sure, we could switch to these technologies tomorrow.  What do we do in the meantime?  Without on-demand power generation like coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, our civilization will starve.  Its development will be retarded.

Hannity's guest also commented on he wanted to see our energy consumption stay where it's at, alluding to adoption of the Volt as a way to do that.

*face-palm*

1. The Volt costs around 80k to make, Government Motors sells it at a loss for 40k.  Consumer Reports wasn't impressed.
2. If a majority of Americans buy the Volt, we will double the load on the electric grid.  Where are we going to get the extra electricity to supply that power?  Windmills?  No, we'll have to burn more fossil fuels.  In fact, after factoring in the step-down transformers between the power plant and your wall outlet, even using optimistic figures for the efficiency of the transformers, you'll probably burn more fossil fuel per year than if you just got a non-hybrid gas car.

Nuclear reactors continue to get safer.  Newer pebble-bed reactors use impermeable laws of physics rather than electro-mechanical devices to control the reaction.  The Fukushima reactor is 40+ years old.  I'm reminded of how environmentalists stopped construction of the Big Stone II power plant in Minnesota.  It was a coal power plant that had newer, more efficient scrubber technology that would've actually resulted in more efficiency and less pollution than staying with Big Stone I alone.  But environmentalist dogma trumped facts.

It's getting to be a mantra around here:  "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

Silly me

Silly me, expecting logic and rationale in a "debate" where neither were invited.

I routinely read White Noise Insanity, a VERY liberal blog.  I don't go there to educate myself about the other side's viewpoint.  I go there to check and see if the other side's viewpoint has a foundation in facts and logic.

I keep looking.  So far, nothing.

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives voting to defund NPR, a Democratic Congressman who thought he was being clever (Who am I to pull him out of Dream World?) proposed pulling funding for advertising on Fox News Channel in retaliation.

KayInMaine at White Noise Insanity made a post about it, commenting "Let the reich wing hissy fits begin!"

Well, hardly.  We evil conservatives don't rattle easily over some so trivial as federally funded advertising on a cable news ratings giant that gets plenty of money from other advertisers.  I politely pointed this out:

I doubt Fox News Channel would miss the ad revenue much, even though that advertising is largely recruiting commercials for the U.S. Armed Forces. Advertising on the cable news channel with the highest ratings just makes good business sense, especially when trying to drive enlistments. If you accept the premise that most members of the military are politically conservative, it’s an even more sound business decision, because it’s a target audience.
But if we’re to deny government funding of advertising on news outlets on the basis of those outlets’ bias, then should any of them get any money?
Why should I, as a conservative, see my taxes go to fund NPR or PBS when their own executives admit to a liberal bias? You wouldn’t want Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity to be subsidized with your taxpayer dollars, would you?

KayInMaine with this talking point:

 As a liberal, why should my tax dollars pay for wars that I don’t support?

OK, slight difference:  The Armed Forces are for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.  In fact, the Constitution also mentions providing for the common defense as one of the reasons the States originally formed a "more perfect union".  To answer her question, even though she didn't really answer mine, providing "for the common defense" is actually in the Constitution, and federally funding politically-biased media is not.

KayInMaine's writings indicate her consistency in being anti-war, especially in light of the most recent actions against Libya.  I'm unsure what we're doing over there myself, but while we may not support this war or that, people like her voted for Mr. Obama, and he's the one executing the orders as Commander-in-Chief.  She and her fellow voters entrusted him with that responsibility from 20 Jan 2009 until 20 Jan 2013.  Now on Libya, I question the constitutionality of Mr. Obama committing troops to a military engagement with the approval of Congress, but that is a another topic for discussion.

Some fact-challenged commenter named cliff then scribbled this out:

"Advertising on the cable news channel with the highest ratings just makes good business sense, especially when trying to drive enlistments."

Among senior citizens who are the majority of the Fake News delusional audience, yea that stupid comment makes sense to a conserv-o-tard.

Nice.  Remember how I said I was polite?  Why did I waste my time?  Something tells me cliff's bravery in implying I'm a "conserv-o-tard" would vanish if he had the opportunity to say it to my face.  Mind you, name-calling amuses me, since it tells me the other guy just lost.  Just so we're clear, brave ol' cliff has nothing to fear in physical violence from me.  After all, I'm not a union sympathizer!

As for the argument cliff was trying to make, the median age of Fox News Channel viewers is around 67.  For those who are mathematically declined, a normal, or Gaussian distribution includes a wide variety of ages, including twenty-somethings.  Interestingly enough, if we re-visit the demographics five years from now, that age will hardly shift at all.  Why?  The older people in the standard deviations to the right are dying off, but the younger crowd in the left standard deviations is moving towards the center, and being replaced with others.  Another way to read the distribution is to acknowledge that many young people are "changing their spots" as they age.

Most likely, cliff probably thinks I'm an old fuddy-duddy.  Wouldn't surprise me, since cliff has already so much as declared "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"

And then KayInMaine rounds out the thread with this "pearl of wisdom":

I’ll never forget the time WHITE NOISE INSANITY was mentioned by Sean Hannity on his Fox News program a couple years ago. Guess how many hits I got to my blog after he said it, Clif? Not even 200! LOL I guess those who are watching Fox are at LEAST 80 years old and don’t own a computer! 

Another possibility is that those under-80, computer-literate Hannity viewers don't need nor want to waste time on visiting your hateful little blog.  Go ahead and draw your self-deluding conclusions.  Me?  I thrive on chaos.  I love watching you lefties nourish yourselves with your hatred.  It's cute.  And nothing you say will ruin the perverse pleasure I derive from your fits of impotent rage.

*evil maniacal laugh*

Ok, my curiosity got the better of me.  I just had to see the context in which Sean Hannity would give free traffic to White Noise Insanity.  Here's the link: Katy Abram Responds to Liberal Attacks.

Sean Hannity quote:  And that's not all the left-wing blogosphere went in overdrive accusing Katy of everything from stupidity to racism. Now the blog White Noise Insanity argued, quote, "With a black man in the White House she's just feeling like the founding fathers would be livid because they wanted white power to the end."

Yeah, hard to believe they didn't stampede over to your blog, KayInMaine, with racist drivel like that.

UPDATE, 23 Mar 2011,0155 GMT

Ah, we have another contestant.  Grant in Texas wrote:

The military is made up of MANY Latinos, blacks, and poor whites from UNION families who at least grew up in Democratic homes. Since my partner was from a Democratic family he enlisted in the US Navy as a “Democrat” at age 18. He now realizes that over the years he had been brainwashed to be a conservative by his OFFICERS. He started voting straight Republican due to his commanders’ influences. He had heard over-and-over the BIG LIE that liberals “hate” the soldier and sailor. Since retirement, his mind has opened again and now realizes that the REICH actually cares little about the “boots on the ground”….even VA benefits for the retired. The GOP mostly cares about the rich, fat-cat MILITARY/Industrial contractors! Wearing a flag pin, wrapping up in a flag at a NASCAR opening ceremony or Country Music awards show is not really “supporting” the real military.

OK, Grant may not know this, but you can be a conservative Democrat.  They do exist.  More often these days, they prefer to be called "libertarians".  The line about Grant's partner amuses me:

...he enlisted in the US Navy as a “Democrat” at age 18.

Really?  I'm unfamiliar with that rank.  Does that outrank a seaman?

...he had been brainwashed to be a conservative by his OFFICERS.

Brainwashed?  Really?  They had to force Grant's partner to embrace things like small government, reduced spending and taxation, and family values?  You know what this means?  He is/was either weak-willed or saw something interesting in the political viewpoints.

He had heard over-and-over the BIG LIE that liberals “hate” the soldier and sailor.

Curious, I've never heard this, I'll have to check the connections on my terminal bringing me feeds from the Evil Conservative Network.

* wiggles wires*

Ah, loose connection.  Ah, here we are:

Code Pink defaces Berkeley military recruitment office
Military recruiters, confronted by crowd, leave campus job fair / Anti-war protesters at university block doors to building
ROTC, Military Recruiters Off Campus Now!
Protestors lay seige to US Capitol, smash window at military recruiter

Hmm, must be my fellow evil conservatives posing as unhinged anti-war leftists!  Those wacky guys!

Since retirement, his mind has opened again and now realizes that the REICH actually cares little about the “boots on the ground”

Funny that your partner is so open-minded that he's with a bigot like you, who refers to the GOP as the "REICH".  Hope he's not much more open-minded:  His brains might fall out.  Oh, and the right doesn't care about the boots on the ground, eh?

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Troops in Baghdad

The GOP mostly cares about the rich, fat-cat MILITARY/Industrial contractors!

You know, the contractors providing high-paying jobs designing and building new technologies that save American lives and actually cost fewer enemy lives because of their decisive impact in warfare.  That darned selfish GOP, trying to save the lives of American citizens!

Wearing a flag pin, wrapping up in a flag at a NASCAR opening ceremony or Country Music awards show is not really “supporting” the real military.

Curious how liberals are always telling us how not to support the "real" (vs. fake?) military, but do they ever tell or show us how we should support the military?

Never mind, they've already showed us.