A very nice summary, ma'am. Thank you. A philosophical question - why are democrats opposed to nuclear power? It makes no sense to me. As a party, I'm sure they would poll very high in the belief that climate change is existential (bullshit, of course). But even the threat of life-ending, they steadfastly refuse to recognize nuclear's benefits.
The charitable explanation is that there's still trepidation about safety and "nuclear waste disposal" in our environment alongside claims about high costs and the time it takes to build. Less charitably, I largely think that it comes down to the idea that any non-solar and non-wind solutions are a diversion from those truly "green" sources.
Yes, "charitable" is appropriate. Thank you. My words would have been more profane.
Respectfully, however, i suggest that "green" is an after thought - the motivation lies with fear, fear of safety, fear of waste, and fear of proliferation. 'Green' just gives them an additional excuse.
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood (Marie Curie).
Thanks for your good work, and enjoy your week off!
Democrats don't want a solution, they want a problem.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.", H. L. Mencken
I have often wondered, however, if the dems problem with nuclear is that it was their party that let the genie out of the bottle? A sort of collective guilt.
A very nice summary, ma'am. Thank you. A philosophical question - why are democrats opposed to nuclear power? It makes no sense to me. As a party, I'm sure they would poll very high in the belief that climate change is existential (bullshit, of course). But even the threat of life-ending, they steadfastly refuse to recognize nuclear's benefits.
The charitable explanation is that there's still trepidation about safety and "nuclear waste disposal" in our environment alongside claims about high costs and the time it takes to build. Less charitably, I largely think that it comes down to the idea that any non-solar and non-wind solutions are a diversion from those truly "green" sources.
Yes, "charitable" is appropriate. Thank you. My words would have been more profane.
Respectfully, however, i suggest that "green" is an after thought - the motivation lies with fear, fear of safety, fear of waste, and fear of proliferation. 'Green' just gives them an additional excuse.
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood (Marie Curie).
Thanks for your good work, and enjoy your week off!
I try always to seek the "charitable" interpretation. :)
It was a hell of a week - stay tuned.
Democrats don't want a solution, they want a problem.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.", H. L. Mencken
Exactly correct, thank you. Nice quote, BTW.
I have often wondered, however, if the dems problem with nuclear is that it was their party that let the genie out of the bottle? A sort of collective guilt.