Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRecently, I wrote about the No Nukes crowd fighting to remove $50 billion worth of nuclear industry subsidies from landmark energy legislation. Indeed, an upwelling of grassroots opposition – including 130,000 signatures collected by Nukefree.org – has kept the Energy Bill to be voted on in the House this week nuclear subsidy-free
"There are no subsidies for nuclear industry in the bill," Brendan Daly, spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, confirmed for me yesterday.
"We're celebrating a partial victory," said Harvey Wasserman, co-founder of Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) and editor of Freepress.org. "But we're not out of the woods yet."
That's because – like nuclear waste itself – the industry and its cronies never go away. $50 billion is enough to fund 25 plants, and despite the fact that so few people want these monstrosities that can't pay for themselves and are environmental and security nightmares to boot – Big Nuclear will not walk away from bundles of free taxpayer money without a fight.
Senator Pete Domenici is expected to fight the Energy Bill's 15 percent renewable portfolio standard (the amount of electricity utilities must produce from renewable sources) and perhaps condition his support on including the $50 billion nuclear bailout. And with every piece of legislation requiring 60 votes to overcome the seemingly permanent Republican filibuster, Domenici & Friends will wield their power like a radioactive weapon. If the Nukes fail there, there will probably be another battle on the Appropriations bill, or even the Lieberman-Warner climate legislation where the nuclear industry has already submitted a "wish list" of amendments to the bill.
The coalition working with NukeFree.org includes the core of the environmental movement, as well as TrueMajority, MoveOn.org, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and others. The Union of Concerned Scientists has circulated a separate petition, and the Cato Institute and Forbes magazine have voiced strong opposition to the subsidies as well. Look for the coalition to continue to reach out to conservatives, libertarians and taxpayer rights groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense, Grover Norquist, Paul Gigot (editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page), the American Enterprise Institute and other free marketeers and fiscal conservatives.
Representatives John Hall (a MUSE co-founder, longtime anti-nuke activist and great musician formerly of the band Orleans) and Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas are circulating a letter for their colleagues to sign onto – addressed to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid – which reads in part, "Given [its] record of risk and nonperformance, expanding taxpayer support for nuclear power would be throwing good money after bad. In order to truly make the most progress possible toward a clean, profitable, independent energy future for our nation it will be more effective to devote maximum federal support to renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal as well as new technologies and improvements in efficiency…. We urge you to take one more step by removing new taxpayer supports for nuclear power from the final legislation that will be considered by Congress…."
Moving forward, it's clear that continued vigilance will be needed – even if NukeFree.org and its allies are successful on the Energy Bill which Wasserman expects to be "a real cliffhanger, with our future in the balance." But, he says, vigilance isn't a problem: "We've won this much and are committed to continuing the fight as long as it takes."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Thanks Katrina, for a great post on an immensely important subject.
Coincidently, Tom Dispatch just published an interview with Jonathan Schell this afternoon, The Bomb in the Mind [tinyurl.com].
Also, I strongly recommend to readers here the Charlie Rose interview with John Edwards [tinyurl.com].
It's one of the more refreshing presidential candidate interviews in a long, long time.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 7:58pm
They've got a point. Nuclear has proved to be among the most expensive forms of energy to date. It has worked in other places - but like Health Care (among other things) we cannot figure out how the rest of the civilized world manages it. In act, it has been my experience that nuclear power (in the US) is comparable in cost to sources like wind and solar - only with all the added waste costs!
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/04/2007 @ 8:24pm
B_Kool
For "purty colors" when doing links after the "a" but before the "href" go style=color:(insert color name here without parantheses)
I've used red, aqua, magenta, blue, green, yellow, orange, maroon - and I think you can use hex color codes separated by commas
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/04/2007 @ 8:26pm
BTW, "Left of Center", I've been curious about the html protocol you used for the colorized links.
How'd you do it?!
Thanks in advance.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 8:29pm
You read my mind, dude! Now that's a really cool trick! LOL.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 8:30pm
Two points...
1. 78% of France's electricity comes from nuclear. Making THEIR (and other countries') compliance with any future "Kyoto", much easier than ours.
And oddly, when the "social safety net" comes up...we're supposed to emulate France.....when it's energy...not so much?!?!?
2. It'll pass with the nuclear subsidies. Same reason earmarks are still being earmarked and almost the same reason funding for Iraq keeps getting passed.
Posted by Mask at 12/04/2007 @ 8:39pm
it was i who originally asked
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/04/2007 @ 8:40pm
Posted by ZERO 12/04/2007 @ 9:11pm
i've been playing around with this, trying to find more html tags that will work.
nothing yet.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/04/2007 @ 9:17pm
The color code thing is a great idea.
Until everyone starts using it. Kinda like nukes;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 9:41pm
B_Kool & Frosty
you can also add a "target" field to open into new window so it would be (without the greater / less than brackets)
a target=_blank style=color:purple href=http://www.internetweekly.org/images/wingnuts_adventure.jpg> b them silly wingnuts /b /a
them silly wingnuts
or you can use an HTML 6 character color-picker this one is F9A34F
creamsicle orange
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/04/2007 @ 10:06pm
Zero..chill my friend. These are just innocent add-ons for the link properties. Actually the Nation uses a rudimentary blog engine, not out of security so much as "just because" it was easy to implement. (Have conversed with tech support before) These colors and target tags are "no worries". Not like we're pasting JavaScript or something....
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/04/2007 @ 10:11pm
I'm curious, why does the private sector need the government handout again? Aren't the investors supposed to provide the working capitol?
Posted by Will C. at 12/04/2007 @ 10:29pm
Zero..chill my friend.....
LOC
Funny, I thought zero was kidding --"Let's not talk about it anymore" seems a bit over the top. But I think you might be correct that he was being totally serious. I'm not quite sure.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/04/2007 @ 10:34pm
Warning, warning......this site has become radioactive....iridescent colors everywhere!
Posted by Happy at 12/04/2007 @ 10:53pm
the colors make him happy
Posted by Will C. at 12/04/2007 @ 10:54pm
Frosty, you've got way too much time on your hands......must be cold up there...it's gonna be cold down here, too.....down to 60F ...(heh,heh)
Posted by davebarlett at 12/04/2007 @ 11:22pm
CHERNOBYL THRIVES!
DAMN!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/04/2007 @ 11:50pm
MASK:
You said:
1. 78% of France's electricity comes from nuclear. Making THEIR (and other countries') compliance with any future "Kyoto", much easier than ours.
And oddly, when the "social safety net" comes up...we're supposed to emulate France.....when it's energy...not so much?!?!?
My response:
Pure sophistry, at its most base. Just because they get some things right (health care, welfare, culinary arts, the Enlightenment) does not mean everything they do is worthy of emulation (the Terror, nuclear energy, Napoleon). No one is perfect. But it would be pure hubris and stupidity indeed to think we have nothing to learn from others.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/05/2007 @ 04:45am
I'm curious, why does the private sector need the government handout again? Aren't the investors supposed to provide the working capitol?
Posted by WILL C. 12/04/2007 @ 10:29pm
I agree.
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/04/2007 @ 11:53pm | ignore this person
And yet, Maasch, you continue to support the Republicans... funny.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/05/2007 @ 04:48am
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/05/2007 @ 04:45am
Pure sophistry, at its most base. Just because they get some things right (health care, welfare, culinary arts, the Enlightenment) does not mean everything they do is worthy of emulation (the Terror, nuclear energy, Napoleon). No one is perfect. But it would be pure hubris and stupidity indeed to think we have nothing to learn from others.
It's fascinating how the ignorance of the left feeds on itself. Of course the left is religiously opposed to nuclear power! It makes too much sense in the real world! And who is advising them on energy matters? Musicians! Of course!
Absolutely hysterical that you folks consider yourselves intellectuals. You people couldn't even feed yourselves without a modern society to support you.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 05:48am
Posted by MASK 12/04/2007 @ 8:39pm
1. 78% of France's electricity comes from nuclear. Making THEIR (and other countries') compliance with any future "Kyoto", much easier than ours.
And oddly, when the "social safety net" comes up...we're supposed to emulate France.....when it's energy...not so much?!?!?
2. It'll pass with the nuclear subsidies. Same reason earmarks are still being earmarked and almost the same reason funding for Iraq keeps getting passed.
MASK, you have got WAYYY too much common sense to be hanging out with these people. They'll NEVER listen to you, you realize that, right? It's a religion with them. You might as well go argue with the Pope about his catholicism. Nuclear power? Oooooooohhhh. Dragons be here! We don't need it, our MUSICIANS say that we'll do just fine with windmills and solar panels! Someday! SOOOOMEDAYYYYYYY! Oooh yeah ain't that a catchy tune? We got our love to keep us warm!
JORCHEIM, you have on occasion exhibited an aptitude for a certain amount of ratiocination. Regrettably, it is utterly absent on this thread.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 05:53am
You lefties aren't intellectuals, you're neo-Luddites.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 06:20am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 05:48am
Aside from the fact that nuclear is relatively expensive (due to the costs of the hardware) let me posit a single, simple question: What do we do with the waste?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/05/2007 @ 06:24am
Monday, July 16, 2007 -- Alexander Cockburn -- CounterPunch
'...In fact, when it comes to corporate sponsorship of crackpot theories about why the world is getting warmer, the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the Greenhouser fearmongers and the nuclear industry, now largely owned by oil companies, whose prospects 20 years ago looked dark, amid headlines about the fall-out from Chernobyl, aging plants and nuclear waste dumps leaking from here to eternity. The apex Greenhouse fearmongers are well aware that the only exit from the imaginary crisis they have been sponsoring is through a door marked "nuclear power," with a servant's side door labeled "clean coal." James Lovelock, the Rasputin of Gaia-dom, has said, "Nuclear power has an important contribution to make." I refer those who rear back at the words "imaginary crisis" to my last column on this topic, where I emphasize that there is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend....'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/05/2007 @ 08:38am
What do we do with the waste?
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/05/2007 @ 06:24am
to infinity and beyond!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 08:41am
KVH,
Good stuff. So, our choice is, invest in future technologies and lead the world, or invest in old, expensive, dangerous technologies laddled with corruption in the highest levels of government and become followers in the world.
It's a no brainer, but then again, we have a lot of people out there with no brains. They'll point to France and say, well, France does it, but then again, the people wishing to follow the French example can't stand the French. How ironic can you get.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/05/2007 @ 09:04am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/05/2007 @ 09:04am |
if the u.s. (and canada, if you lop off alberta; don't get any ideas, condudes) is going to thrive economically,
it must become a net exporter of energy (through technology) instead of a net importer.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 09:30am
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/05/2007 @ 04:45am
JORCH...how do they POWER the system that allows them that health care and social welfare?
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 09:37am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 05:53am
Well, remember PONTI, that typically you view my common sense as seemingly "to run out" when it comes to the debacle in Iraq.
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 09:38am
MASK, you have got WAYYY too much common sense to be hanging out with these people...
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 05:53am
This is so funny! You can't make this stuff up, LOL... PONTIFICUS unwittingly belittles his own common sense... I love it....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/05/2007 @ 09:54am
'if the u.s. (and canada, if you lop off alberta; don't get any ideas, condudes) is going to thrive economically, it must become a net exporter of energy (through technology) instead of a net importer.' -- Frosty Zoom
Some OPEC members: Algeria Iran Iraq Libya Nigeria Saudi Arabia Venezuela
Some other energy exporters: Russia Kazakhstan
Some net energy importers: France Japan Germany Austria Italy USA Taiwan South Korea
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/05/2007 @ 10:14am
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 12/05/2007 @ 10:14am
yep.
that's now.
oil's drying up.
people will still want to move.
whoever has energy technology ready and sellable will profit handsomely.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 10:25am
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/05/2007 @ 09:54am
Somehow I have the feeling that PONTI will retract that statement...next time a discussion on Iraq comes up!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 10:58am
Pontificus, you Bush dupe, you don't have any standing to say who is an intellectual or not. You're wrong about Bush, you still are, you still support the disaster in Iraq. You want the government to give money to the private sector to build nuclear reactors? How about using some of the trillions of American dollars being burned in a Socialist Debacle in Iraq?
George Bush's energy plan for Iraq is to generate electricity by burning crates of freshly-minted 100$ US Bills!!! And they haven't even succeeded in generating any electricity?
George Bush's energy plan is to block fuel efficiency standards and sue the state of California for trying to increase theirs. Even Arnold Schwarzenneger is ANGRY at the idiot George Bush. You want to talk about states rights?
France at least runs their reactors through the government, instead of putting up a bunch of free money for private investors who don't want to invest their own money. No insurance company will insure a nuclear reactor in America.
France at least has CREDIBLE regulators, instead of regulators who look the other way. We got mothballed nuclear plants here that were headed for completion the way Iraq is headed for victory.
Pontificus, the musicians, and I don't know what you have against musicians, the musicians ARE RIGHT ABOUT BUSH. They're RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ. Intelligent Americans want to end the Socialist Debacle in Iraq!!!!
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 11:31am
Who's a neo-Luddite? Lvliberty's the one who wants to get rid of social progress across the board. Why, he's willing to get rid of oil, nukes, agriculture, and even business - as long as he gets to get rid of education. No subsidies means no nukes by the way. Yes it does. Without subsidies there are no nukes.
You support Iraq? Enlist. You support nukes? Invest your own money.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 11:43am
I would support nuclear plants if we can get France to run them for us.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 11:49am
...whoever has energy technology ready and sellable will profit handsomely.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/05/2007 @ 10:25am
You Canucks are doing quite well.....truckers making C$100k, welders making up to C$200k, in the oil sands region of Ft. McMurray where real estate values tripled in 5 yrs.....read today's WSJ....a long article on the pampering Big Oil is undertaking to get/keep workers....3 lbs. of steaks per worker per week, private room/bath, recreatonal leagues for baseball, continuing education, etc........Shit, I'm even tempted....wonder if my forklift driving skills from when I was 18~19 would look good on my resume.....for the adventure of course!!!
Posted by Happy at 12/05/2007 @ 11:56am
In fact, there's the grand compromise: (forward to Hillary)
The Left will support nuclear power, if the Right will let the Government of France run the plants.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 11:57am
Ponti-The vast majority of people on the right could not feed themselves without societies help.Few people can these days.I have fed myself without any help from society.Have you?You claim to be an intellectual and I'm wondering if you could,please,show some evidence of that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 11:57am
But I tell you, if the Left is going to support nuclear plants, they better be French-built, with French parts, on French-owned property, with French inspectors, with French administrators, French scientists, and French people going to French jails if they violate French safety rules. Pay for it by getting out of Iraq.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 12:02pm
French security guards - anything I forgot to mention has to be French too.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 12:03pm
Ponti-You used the term Luddite incorrectly.Find out what a Luddite is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 12:05pm
From Wikipedia
The term resource curse thesis was first used by Richard Auty in 1993 to describe how countries rich in natural resources were not able to use that wealth to boost their economies and how, counter-intuitively, these countries had lower economic growth than countries without an abundance of natural resources. However, the idea that natural resources might be more a curse than a blessing began to emerge in the 1980's. Numerous studies, including a notable one by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner, have shown a link between natural resource abundance and poor economic growth. This disconnect between natural resource wealth and economic growth can be seen clearly by looking at an example from the oil-producing countries. From 1965-1998, in the OPEC countries, gross national product per capita growth decreased on average by 1.3%, while in the rest of the developing world, per capita growth was on average 2.2%. Some argue that financial flows from Foreign Aid can provoke effects that are similar to the Resource Curse.
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/05/2007 @ 12:07pm
Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 11:57am
CS, you really think the Left would EVER support nuclear power?...are you crazy or joking?
(wait a minute...forgot who I was talking to....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 12:20pm
Aside from the fact that nuclear is relatively expensive (due to the costs of the hardware) let me posit a single, simple question: What do we do with the waste?
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/05/2007 @ 06:24am
Easy,
Let's put in on Bush's ranch in Texas.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/05/2007 @ 12:36pm
I would support nuclear plants if we can get France to run them for us.
Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 11:49am
That's the problem. France just wants to build them here and leave it to Ray Bob the idiot to run them. That's what kills me about Ponti and Livberty, they are supporting European companies. Look at the companies involved in the nuclear power industry sometime. Westinghouse is one, but the remainder are European companies and the French have the inside track with the Bush administration.
So, while they wave the flag with one hand, they are supporting other countries profitting off U.S. tax dollars to make us expensive and un-safe power sources.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/05/2007 @ 12:45pm
France still has a nuclear waste issue despite reprocessing spent fuel.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml
Posted by Metteyya at 12/05/2007 @ 1:05pm
Thank God for those lefty environmentalists! Now they're suing to stop us all from becoming in thrall to...BIG WIND!!! Next up: the war to stop BIG SUN!
Coalition sues Land Office over wind farms Groups, including King Ranch, want to require extensive environmental review of wind projects. Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen
By Robert Elder AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Wednesday, December 05, 2007
The famed King Ranch and a coalition of environmental groups sued Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in federal court Tuesday, seeking to require extensive environmental review and public comment on two planned wind power projects along the Gulf Coast in Kenedy County.
The coalition, the Coastal Habitat Alliance, also sued over the wind project in state District Court in Travis County. That suit claims that the state's Public Utility Commission illegally denied the alliance's request to participate in permit hearings for the wind project's transmission line.
The lawsuits threaten to delay or stop the two massive wind projects, which could place more than 600 turbines on 60,000 acres near Laguna Madre, south of Corpus Christi. Part of the wind projects would place about 250 turbines just east of a portion of the sprawling King Ranch.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:06pm
Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 11:31am
Pontificus, the musicians, and I don't know what you have against musicians, the musicians ARE RIGHT ABOUT BUSH. They're RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ. Intelligent Americans want to end the Socialist Debacle in Iraq!!!!
LOL? I question the sanity of anyone who would look to musicians to give advice on national energy policy, and you ask me what do I have against musicians? You guys are a laugh a minute!
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:09pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/04/2007 @ 8:24pm
They've got a point. Nuclear has proved to be among the most expensive forms of energy to date. It has worked in other places - but like Health Care (among other things) we cannot figure out how the rest of the civilized world manages it.
Well, I'm guessing that it's because we don't have a lot of people who look to musicians when they seek advice in how to shape national energy policy. That would be a start.
In act, it has been my experience that nuclear power (in the US) is comparable in cost to sources like wind and solar - only with all the added waste costs!
Oh, really? And what exactly would be your experience with regard to nuclear energy? Do you play the violin? Most of the costs of nuclear power in this country are additional, unnecessary costs the industry has been saddled with by excessive bureaucratic hurdles and excessive regulatory costs added by environmentalists. Nuclear power is commerically viable in France and elsewhere becuase other governments have the sense not to listen to you nuts.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:15pm
Ponti-I see from your post that your intellectual self doesn't know what an environmental impact study is.Your claim that people only know about their particular occupation is incorrect.Musicians and others typically do know about more things than just their occupation.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 1:16pm
Pontificus, at least the "musicians" are RIGHT about the major issues of the day: Iraq, Bush, and the looting of the treasury. While you continue to be wrong about Iraq and Bush, at least "musicians" are RIGHT about the major issues of the DAY.
The George Bush energy policy was to invade and occupy Iraq. Dick Cheney's secret meetings, where they went over how they would divide up Iraq's oil. The George Bush energy policy has been a disaster. George Bush has tried to generate electricity by burning 100$ US bills by the crate!!!!
And you want to be taken serious about energy policy? The "musicians" never supported George Bush's energy policy - going into Iraq - Iraq is the worst Socialist Debacle, the worst Socialist Looting of the Treasury, that our country has ever seen.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:20pm
Ponti-There are wind projects all over the country and we support them,but you're trying to,weakly,claim that we don't because some group wants a study done on this one project.That is very dishonest on your part.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 1:21pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/05/2007 @ 1:16pm
Ponti-I see from your post that your intellectual self doesn't know what an environmental impact study is.
Oh, I know what they are all right. I just think that most of them are unnecessary, ludicrously expensive wastes of time, and that it is you lefty environmentalists who are responsible for making us do them, and it is these types of things that make nuclear power expensive and infeasible in the US compared to other countries like France.
Oh, and you'll never hear me describe myself as an intellectual like you folks do.
Your claim that people only know about their particular occupation is incorrect.Musicians and others typically do know about more things than just their occupation.
Lots of people know lots of things, but I don't let my plumber fill the cavities in my teeth, and I don't listen to musicians or Barbra Streisand when it comes to formulating a sensible national energy policy. I presume you do.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:21pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/05/2007 @ 1:21pm
Ponti-There are wind projects all over the country and we support them,but you're trying to,weakly,claim that we don't because some group wants a study done on this one project.That is very dishonest on your part.
Just this one? What about the one Senator Teddy killed because it affected his view from his verandah in Hyannisport?
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:23pm
Mask, yes I know the Left will support nuclear power plants, provided that FRANCE builds them, runs them, and is responsible for them.
I trust France to run nuclear power plants. Republicans here want to start pre-emptive wars! Republicans here think the most efficient way to generate electricity, is to burn crates of freshly minted 100$ bills and boil blood to create steam - it hasn't worked!!!! You need intelligent and responsible people to run nuclear plants!!!!
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 1:24pm
I trust France to run nuclear power plants...You need intelligent and responsible people to run nuclear plants!!!!
We don't have qualified people to run nuke plants? How about the National Symphony Orchestra, when they're not holding concerts? Couldn't they run them? No? What do you have against musicians?
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:27pm
If France would build and operate all the nuclear power facilities in America, I would withdraw my opposition to nuclear power.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:27pm
Pontificus, you're a well-known Bush dupe, that means anything you say is automatically BS.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:29pm
I'm pretty sure Prince is available. Sinead O'Connor could surely use the work. Definitely the Steve Miller Band. Should we give them a call?
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:29pm
Mask, yes I know the Left will support nuclear power plants, provided that FRANCE builds them, runs them, and is responsible for them.----Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 1:24pm
Ask them if that's true. Guarentee if we put in a French-style system, even French management, they won't.
Now...try to get serious, huh?
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 1:30pm
BTW, PONTI
Any comments on the NIE?
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 1:31pm
Ponti-I caught you lying,again.Just the other day you were claiming to be a highly educated person with a high IQ.If my plumber knew how to fill cavities then I'd let him.Why wouldn't I?If a musician was an expert on some subject then I'd listen to them.Only a complete idiot wouldn't.If someone knows about something or knows how to do something then I listen to them even if it isn't their occupation.I learned how to survive in the wilderness from a grocer and have survived in the wilderness based on what the grocer taught me..
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 1:33pm
But Mask, if the Government of France is responsible for the whole thing end-to-end, you would get most reasonable Leftists to support it.
France runs their nuclear program Socialistic - Government run - that's why their nuclear program is so accepted by the French.
Mask, if France were forced to take an American-run nuclear program, nearly all French would reject nuclear power in an instant.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:34pm
Ponti-Sen. Kennedy isn't an environmental group.He's a spoiled rich kid like Bush.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 1:35pm
Let's see how many Rightists in France would accept an American-run nuclear program.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:35pm
Posted by MASK 12/05/2007 @ 1:31pm
Any comments on the NIE?
I find it curiously timed, which apparently makes me better informed than Huckabee.
First, consider the source. The CIA? When have they ever been right about anything, at least since the early 90's? Not saying they're not right on this one, necessarily, but still. These guys have a lot to prove.
Secondly, if it's true, isn't it curious that according to the NIE the Iranians stopped their program in 2003? Hmmm...what else happened in 2003 that might have affected their decision?
Third, a lot of people are saying this embarrasses Bush. I'm not sure about that at all. The lefties are all atwitter because they though Bush was hell-bent on bombing Iran, because that conforms to their paranoid and distorted world view. I think Bush would be more relieved than anyone if Iran was not a nuclear threat. The last thing he wants is another war.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 1:37pm
Pontificus, you have a proven track record of being wrong about Bush, and you still are wrong about Bush, and you're wrong about Iraq. The 2 most pressing issues by the way, in the world.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:39pm
Ponti-Nothing happened in 2003 that would have affected Iran's decisions.Had they done this in 2004 then,maybe,you could try and link it to Iraq,but obviously,they would not have made any immediate decisions.They would have waited to see how the attack turned out before making any decisions.Bush doesn't want more wars?What planet do you live on?
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 1:42pm
How about George Bush's Man to Mars project? Sending a man to Mars might indirectly do some good and would certainly make more sense than sending the entire Armed Forces to a very well-known and well-marked quicksand trap!!!!
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/05/2007 @ 11:56am
my nephew is already out there working in ft. mcmurray.
however,
read this:
Producing crude oil from the Alberta sands is an energy-intensive process. Giant digging and transportation machines use commensurately large amounts of fuel. Refining and welling technologies consume roughly 30* cubic meters of natural gas per barrel of recovered oil. Environmental watchdogs estimate that, as a result, producing a barrel of oil from the Alberta sands releases two to three times the volume of greenhouse gases that traditional oil production would. By 2015, production from the oil sands is projected to release 94 megatons of greenhouse gases.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/16059/
and this:
Big oil interests are barreling ahead with a plan to sell Americans on a growing practice that is dirty and destructive, even by the standards of the oil industry: scraping away hundreds of thousands of acres of one of North America's wildest remaining forests--the Boreal--to mine the soils underneath for thick, low-grade petroleum. Producing what is known as tar sands oil consumes large amounts of natural gas and generates three times as much global warming pollution as conventional crude oil production. But there are far better, cleaner ways to meet our energy needs without destroying forests: efficiency and renewable fuels.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/060607a.pdf
and this:
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/Local%20News/295973.html
By RENATO GANDIA staff// Fort McMurray Today Friday March 23, 2007
Destruction of the Mackenzie River watershed, hundreds of dead adults and sick babies in the Deh Cho First Nation. That's the scenario a Northwest Territories chief is predicting if oilsands development is not slowed. Grand Chief Herb Norwegian wants immediate action from the Alberta and N.W.T. governments to protect the quality and quantity of water that flows downstream from the oilsands.
http://mostlywater.org/deh_cho_wary_of_tar_sands_demand_action
SCRAP YOUR PICKUP
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 2:16pm
If a musician was an expert on some subject then I'd listen to them.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/05/2007 @ 1:33pm
hey i'm a musician AND an expert on grammar.
"if a musician WERE an expert on some subject [,] then I'd listen to HIM/HER.
just teasin'
PONTIFLOGICUS IS INCORRECT; THE SUBJECT IS IRRELEVANT.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/05/2007 @ 2:20pm
PONTIFLOGICUS IS INCORRECT; THE SUBJECT IS IRRELEVANT.
Well argued, as usual FROSTY. As a musician, are you an expert on nuclear power too?
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 1:37pm
So basically...
1. "It's probably not true."?
2. "If it's true, Bush needs to get credit for it for invading Iraq."?
and 3. "Its release is an attempt to embarass Bush."?
Boy, that just about covers all bases for you, doesn't it?
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 2:26pm
FrostyZoom-My wife is an expert on grammar so I'm used to having my backwoods speak and improper grammar corrected.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 2:39pm
Posted by MASK 12/05/2007 @ 2:26pm
1. "It's probably not true."?
No, didn't say that or imply it. I would really LIKE for it to be true, but I'd like to hear it from someone that has a better track record of prognostication.
2. "If it's true, Bush needs to get credit for it for invading Iraq."?
That would certainly make sense, yes. Did you give him credit for Libya, or did you rationalize that one away?
and 3. "Its release is an attempt to embarass Bush."?
Hah. If you're so deluded by Bush Derangement Syndrome that your worldview is such that you have convinced yourself that Bush is a psychopath bent on bombing Iran for various deep, dark Halliburtonish reasons, perhaps this makes sense in a twisted way. Meanwhile, back in the real world, however, if you're like most sane people, you're duly concerned about what might happen if a group of religious fanatics gets a hold of a nuclear weapon, and perhaps follow through on their well-advertised intention to use it on another country, like say, Israel. Nevertheless, you're a little hopeful that they can't or they won't, but you don't want to be guided by wishful thinking. Believe it or not, there are many people in this world who might like to avert a nuclear war, even if doing so risks the hazard of not making Bush look bad.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 2:39pm
Hey, does anyone have a good email address for Britney Spears? Ever since I read this article by KVH, I've been trying to get her opinion on the relative merits of the Tokamak versus the inertial impingement designs for the next generation nuclear fusion reactor. Her publicist says she will have to get back to me. Should I try Cristina Aguilera?
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 2:43pm
All right-wingers raise your hand if you trust an American nuclear plant in your backyard more than a French one?
See! Not one right winger raised their hand.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 2:44pm
Ponti-bush didn't do anything that mattered to Libya.Why do you believe that Bush is sane,but the Iranians aren't?Because you support Bush.Blindly support Bush.There is little difference between Bush and the Iranian whacko and the quicker you figure that out the better off you'll be.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 2:45pm
Any French people posting here from France today?
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 2:46pm
Ponti-I'm not surprised that you'd look to Spears or Aguilera since you do support Bush.Most politicians you support have nothing in their background that makes then experts that can run America.Bush/Cheney know how to avoid military service,but know nothing about military operations,but you trust them to run our military despite the fact that they know nothing about the subject.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 2:49pm
People of France, how many of you, if I were to deposit 150 Trillion Euros in your personal bank account - and you were to wake up tomorrow and all your nuclear reactors were being run by Americans - how many of you would take my offer?
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 2:49pm
ponti-Israel has nuclear weapons and can defend themselves.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 2:52pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/05/2007 @ 1:42pm
Ponti-Nothing happened in 2003 that would have affected Iran's decisions.Had they done this in 2004 then,maybe,you could try and link it to Iraq,but obviously,they would not have made any immediate decisions.They would have waited to see how the attack turned out before making any decisions.
The Iraqi Army was routed and major combat operations were over in 2003. This led to Libya giving up completely its nuclear program. And you say Iran would have reasoned differently? Why do you say this?
Bush doesn't want more wars?What planet do you live on?
A saner one. Have you really convinced yourself that Bush wants and seeks unnecessary war? For what, personal enjoyment? Personal profit that has never existed except in your imagination? You are a lost soul, my friend.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 2:52pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 2:23pm
Well argued, as usual FROSTY. As a musician, are you an expert on nuclear power[,] too?
Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.
sorry about the generalization. that was unfrostish.
all of us here have our little specialities, even FRANSH*TZ!!!!!!!! IN THE USE OF THE BIG LETTERS.
as to nuclear power, unless one is posting under the names of HOMER_J_DOH! or MONTYBURN$, i doubt any of us are "experts" in new, clear power.
so we read what the experts say and guess, i guess.
off to work*.............
*yes, we do that here, too.
BTW:
would you like to live near a nuclear plant? why or why not?
this essay will take 15 minutes, after which papers will collected. essays will be graded on style, form, grammar and, of course, substance.
hope i got them commas right.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/05/2007 @ 3:02pm
Ponti-You live in a fantasy world and fantasy worlds are not saner.Bush has looked for one excuse after another to start another war in the middle east as all people who listen to him speak know.Major combat operations did not end in 2003.Ever hear of the surge of 2007?Libya had no nuclear arms program and gave up nothing.You're desperate to believe that the Iranians gave up a nuclear program because Bush attacked Saddam,but no link between those two can be made and there is no reason to believe that the Iranians would acted before knowing the outcome of the war in Iraq.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 3:03pm
Pontificus, you are wrong about Bush and Iraq, and Libya has always been noted more for it's apparent role in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing than for it's nuclear programs. You're just wrong anytime you comment on anything. You're just joking when you claim to believe George Bush isn't hell bent to attack Iran - I don't believe you - nobody is that dumb - to believe George Bush doesn't want to launch more pre-emptive wars? No no, I can't believe it, I call your bluff, it must be some damn right-wing joke. For me to take your nonsense seriously, would be inhumane.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 3:03pm
Ponti-Bush already started an unnecessary war so there is no reason to believe that he would not another one.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 3:05pm
Pontificus you've convinced me, from now on when a Bush / Iraq War supporter comments on anything, I am just going to assume it's a joke, or a satire. I have too much faith in humanity to believe that anyone could be dumb to such a degree as to support Bush.
Posted by conshame at 12/05/2007 @ 3:06pm
Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 3:03pm
Libya has always been noted more for it's apparent role in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing than for it's nuclear programs.
Yes, and Hitler was always noted more for his Panzer divisions than for his Luftwaffe bomber fleet.
You're just wrong anytime you comment on anything.
Well argued.
You're just joking when you claim to believe George Bush isn't hell bent to attack Iran - I don't believe you - nobody is that dumb - to believe George Bush doesn't want to launch more pre-emptive wars? No no, I can't believe it, I call your bluff, it must be some damn right-wing joke. For me to take your nonsense seriously, would be inhumane.
So, your premise is that Bush is a madman who wants war at every turn, and all of your conclusions stem from that premise? That would explain a lot!
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/05/2007 @ 3:05pm
Ponti-Bush already started an unnecessary war so there is no reason to believe that he would not another one.
Sooo.....the 50 million Americans who voted for Bush in 2004...they're all warmongers too?
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 3:10pm
Ponti-Bush already started an unnecessary war and there is no reason to believe that would not start another one.Many bush voters are war mongers.Others are easily scared people who lack courage.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 3:12pm
We don't have qualified people to run nuke plants? How about the National Symphony Orchestra, when they're not holding concerts? Couldn't they run them? No? What do you have against musicians?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person
Ponti, while I disagree with just about everything you say, I had to post the fact that this comment of yours made me laugh out loud.
On a different note, Bush relied on intelligence (not his own, obviously but that's another story) when he claimed Iran had aspirations of making a nuclear weapon, right? Why is the newest intelligence different? Other than the fact that it differs. Why can he accept as truth one form of intelligence and not accept as truth another?
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/05/2007 @ 3:12pm
Ponti-You trust two draft dodgers to run the military so why not trust musicians?
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 3:14pm
The last time nuclear power came up at thenation.com, someone (Kool, perhaps) either linked to or posted an expose that had rocked the French nuclear power industry; namely, the revelation that rather than re-using most of its waste, it was shipping tons of it to Russia every year. I find it interesting that Mask, who can apparently find posts from regular posters here going back years, would have forgotten that rather crucial bit of information, among others.
So spare me any talk of nuclear power, French or not, until the waste problem is solved once and for all. Export and burial - at sea or underground - are not viable options.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/05/2007 @ 3:26pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/05/2007 @ 3:12pm
Ponti, while I disagree with just about everything you say, I had to post the fact that this comment of yours made me laugh out loud.
And I laughed when I wrote it. The atmosphere here is very stimulative to humor. Any suggestion that musicians have anything to say of particular merit with regard to nuclear policy is laughable, and I can only conclude that KVH gets away with it because she bought the magazine with her dad's money.
On a different note, Bush relied on intelligence (not his own, obviously but that's another story) when he claimed Iran had aspirations of making a nuclear weapon, right?
Right.
Why is the newest intelligence different? Other than the fact that it differs. Why can he accept as truth one form of intelligence and not accept as truth another?
First, why do you presume that Bush would reject it? Because you believe that Bush somehow likes or enjoys unnecessary wars, or profits from them in a way that no-one has quite been able to figure out, and he therefore starts them at random? Aside from the fact that events in the real world contradict this premise (so far he has only started two wars, and which a majority of the US voters both agreed with), it's paranoid and weird. Probably it stems from the fact that you folks refused to acknowledge the good reasons for which we went to war with Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan, and your only conclusion is that Bush, if not the world itself, is insane, when the reverse is closer to the truth.
Aside from that, any piece of intelligence has to be weighed according to the source. The CIA has been notoriously wrong in just about every instance for many years, not only factually but also passively in failing to give adequate warnings. Further, there is an obvious degree of politicization at the AGency since Clinton gutted it and replaced the management with his political cronies, a number of which have been fired for selectively leaking classified info meant to damage Bush. Given this, anyone with any sense would take any intelligence from them with a grain of salt.
As I said, if the NIE is reasonable, I think an attack on Iran is highly unlikely, and believe it or not, we all would welcome that.
Posted by pontificus at 12/05/2007 @ 3:36pm
Ponti-No one has come up with any good reasons for Iraq.The arguments you people come up with are easily shot down.It's child's play particularly following 9/11.Radical Islam attacked us and that's who you eradicate,but they're doing just fine.In fact,they must love safely hanging out in Pakistan stirring up trouble there since Pakistan has nuclear weapons.Saddam wasn't doing anything and couldn't do anything,but was keeping Iran in check and Iran was keeping him check since the Iranians hated him and since Saddam feared them..You put the guy on the back burner and keep tabs on him,but then you go out and take out the people who attacked you and who are a true threat.You do not get yourself bogged down and weaken your military and weaken your economy with the war debt by attacking some powerless third world dictator.And don't give me anymore of your nonsense about how you people deeply care about the poor oppressed Iraqis and wanted to free them.For one,you killed tens of thousands of these people,next is the fact that they voted to oppress themselves with their religious law.They're self oppressing.We never hear you people talking about the oppressed anywhere in the world until after Bush attacks them and then you claim that you cared.It's really sad and pathetic,but you guys are desperate.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/05/2007 @ 4:11pm
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html Oak Ridge National Laboratory Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger By Alex Gabbard
'...Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.
Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and exhaust produced by coal combustion contain fissionable fuels and much larger quantities of fertile materials that can be bred into fuels by absorption of neutrons, including those generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen, nitrogen, and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using known technologies. These nuclear materials have growing value to private concerns and governments that may want to market them for fueling nuclear power plants. However, they are also available to those interested in accumulating material for nuclear weapons. A solution to this potential problem may be to encourage electric utilities to process coal ash and use new trapping technologies on coal combustion exhaust to isolate and collect valuable metals, such as iron and aluminum, and available nuclear fuels....'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/05/2007 @ 4:18pm
Ponti, I guess my question is if the intelligence Bush got and was relying upon (I'm assuming the CIA - regardless of how incompetent they may or may not be) said Iran was pursuing the creation of nuclear weapons, and the same sources of the intelligence are now telling him that they agree with the NIE report, why is he considering what they said earlier as truth rather than what they are telling him now?
I don't think Bush enjoys unnecessary wars. I do think that his definition of 'necessary' differs from the majority of the American public. I think he's too quick to pull the trigger rather than exhausting, and I mean exhausting, all diplomatic avenues. It's not just him. He has a whole staff of advisers that are just as much to blame.
Afghanistan was legitimate, Iraq wasn't. Iran isn't.
I presume Bush is rejecting the NIE report because he has said in so many words, 'it doesn't matter.' He feels Iran is a threat, was a threat and will always be a threat. That sort of stance isn't conducive to any type of diplomatic relation.
Let me put it this way, if I felt that Bush was always wrong along with all his supporters, then I wouldn't ask your opinion on this. I'd just assume you would tout the party line and move on. I'm genuinely interested though because even though I disagree with a lot of your positions, I still mull them around and see if they resonate with how I personally feel. Sometimes, I can see your points or at least how you draw your conclusions and it helps me to understand where you and others are coming from, even if in the end I don't agree.
I hope that makes sense.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/05/2007 @ 4:33pm
PONTI, if somebody says "The Sun is yellow" and you say "Well, consider the source. Might be true, but they've got a lot to prove"...does that not IMPLY that you think it's un-true?
Posted by MASK 12/05/2007 @ 2:26pm
1. "It's probably not true."?
No, didn't say that or imply it.----Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 2:39pm
"First, consider the source. The CIA? When have they ever been right about anything, at least since the early 90's? Not saying they're not right on this one, necessarily, but still. These guys have a lot to prove." ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 1:37pm
Here's the deal...if the NIE was "good news" for you ("Iran ready to go nuclear in 5 months if we don't bomb the crap out of them like Dubya wants")....you wouldn't disparage it or "hint" that the CIA as author couldn't be trusted.
But it doesn't. And Bush and Cheney just lost a BIG chunk of their "We gotta plan on leveling 1000 targets in Iran or else the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud" (Hmmm? that sounds familiar)
2nd...since the Iran attack is probably dead, you've got to go with Plan B...."Iran didn't go nuclear because they got too scared when Bush invaded Iraq"...which is moronic.
Since Bush didn't invade North Korea (who HAS nukes) the main way for Iran to PROTECT ITSELF FROM BUSH...would be to get the bomb factories going and the centifuges running day and night.
But it didn't. So that falls apart.
Third, you've got to claim the release of the report is it "embarass Bush"...which means you have to accept two equally moronic ideas...
1. That a report bouncing around D.C. since LAST November (2006) didn't reach Dubya's attention...which IS embarassing, cuz it means he's out of the loop.
2. That "bad news" (Iran has no nuke program for 4 years) which YOU just said should be a "credit" to Bush...is embarassing to him?!?!??! Uh, why is it embarassing?...
unless he's been doing something in OPPOSITION to the findings of the NIE, and thus setting himself up for embarassment at being proven wrong...or disengenuous.
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 4:38pm
BTW, PONTI...
I don't have "BDS"...I don't hate the man. I think he's been a monumental failure, not some malefactory manipulator. I think he's incompetent...not evil.
BTW, there's another side of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" besides libs who hate the guy.....con/neo-cons who love him and defend him from EVERYTHING.
Posted by Mask at 12/05/2007 @ 4:40pm
No no, I can't believe it, I call your bluff, it must be some damn right-wing joke. For me to take your nonsense seriously, would be inhumane.
Posted by CONSHAME 12/05/2007 @ 3:03pm
Maybe the Pontificator is actually Cheney?!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/05/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/05/2007 @ 1:15pm
Easy Ponitificator - I am an Assitant Professor of Earth & Environmental Sciences, and have previously worked in both the oil (exploration) and solar (domestic hot water) industries. Where do you draw upon for your own expertise in the area?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/06/2007 @ 08:55am