Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Liberalism, Science/Technology | Tags: Junk Science, Liberal lies, Politics
President Obama said in his inauguration speech: “We will restore science to it’s rightful place.”
President Barack Obama won’t let nuclear waste be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, rejecting the project after 20 years of planning at a cost of at least $9 billion. (…)
The new administration is starting the process of finding a better solution for management of our nuclear waste.
Radioactive waste is now spread among more than 120 sites in 30 states. Environmental groups and Nevada opponents have filed lawsuits seeking to block the project on the grounds that Yucca Mountain might be subject to earthquakes and that transporting waste across 43 states might create a hazard and a potential target for terrorists.
As is becoming a pattern, Obama is canceling something as demanded by supporters, without a clue as to what he is going to do about the problem. He’ll think of something. Or appoint a task force. The government is in breach of contract because the Energy Department did not meet a contractual obligation to take possession of nuclear waste by 1998. If they terminate the license, full breach of contract could potentially cost $100 billion.
Leftists, who are uninterested in consequences and studies, want science to fulfill their fantasies. If they would take the trouble to study the science instead of indulging in wishful thinking, we might not have to worry about just where science’s rightful place is.
Planet Gore at NRO notes that:
All of France’s nuclear waste from 25 years of producing 75 percent of its electricity is stored beneath the floor of one room at Le Hague. The lifetime output for each French citizen would fit in a soda can.
Drew Thornley also quotes Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore:
Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle.
Max Schulz examines some of Obama’s energy options here.
We can restore science to its rightful place, but it involves serious study, not platitudes and paybacks.
The Pentagon will lift its ban on media coverage of flag-draped coffins of military dead returned from war zones to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. The ban was put in place in 1991.
More than 64% of military families believe that the ban should not be overturned. Families were apparently not consulted nor their wishes honored when the decision was made.
This has always been not only an odd, but a rather smarmy debate. Grieving families understandably want their privacy uninterrupted by media lights, cameras and noisy intrusion.
The only possible reason for the presence of the media is the propaganda value to anti-war activists. Photographs of large numbers of coffins might enhance their anti-military cause. Families, quite naturally, don’t care to have their loved ones used.
The Obama administration seems childishly insistent on overturning any policy that was associated with the Bush administration, whatever its value. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reviewed the policy at the request of President Obama, and came up with the compromise of leaving the presence of media up to the families involved.
I’m with the families. There is class, and there is classless. If you were not able to see the HBO special “Taking Chance”, take a few moments to read the story on which the movie was based which was posted by Blackfive in 2004. It is a beautiful story.
Filed under: Media Bias, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear | Tags: Ministry of Truth, MSM Deathwatch, Schadenfreude
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Education, Energy, Foreign Policy, Health Care | Tags: Environment, Global Warming, Politics
Holman W. Jenkins Jr. had a splendid column in the Wall Street Journal today. Right on the button. “Obama” he said, “needs a ‘not to do’ list.”
Put away childish things, President Obama said during his inauguration. He couldn’t have found a theme more suited to the moment. The preoccupations that he and most politicians are used to running on, and that still characterize too many of his administration’s utterances, are being exposed in the global economic disaster as the soppy indulgences they always were.
Put away the global warming panic. Mankind’s contribution to rising CO2 levels raise serious questions, but the tens of billions poured into climate science have, by now, added up only to a negative finding. We don’t really have the slightest idea how an increase in the atmosphere’s component of CO2 is impacting our climate, though the most plausible indication is that the impact is too small to untangle from natural variability.
In any case , has Mr. Obama taken a gander at collapsing industrial production numbers around the world? He’s going to get a big reduction in CO2 output whether he wants it or not. Nor will the public be moved to make costly, material changes in its energy habits, especially if the recent global cooling trend continues. What we’ll get instead is already depressingly clear: climate pork, or lucrative favors for lobbying interests in the name of global warming that have no impact on global warming.
Do read the rest. It is the best piece I have read today.
Filed under: Economy, Liberalism, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics | Tags: Democrat lies, Obamanomics
Or perhaps the willing suspension of belief. That’s the only explanation for Americans attitudes as Obama’s presidency enters it’s second month.
Obama’s speech was well received by most people who watched, but the stock market took another nose dive — as it seems to do every time his administration announces new policy.
The majority of Americans now support Democrats stimulus plan even though over half of Americans think it is more likely to harm the economy than help it, and despite the Congressional Budget Office’s own prediction that it would harm the economy in the long-term.
Wall Street greeted news of Obama’s election last November with a two-day (then) record-breaking 930 point nosedive. The day Obama was sworn into office was the biggest Inauguration Day tumble in market history. He unveiled his bank-bail-out; the market plunged. The day Obama signed his behemoth big-government-stimulous plan into law, the markets lost another four percent of their value. Indeed, since Obama won the election, the stock market has lost roughly 3,000 points, and has eviscerated all the significant gains made since 1997.
And yet again, Wall Street responded to the grand plans Obama laid out last night by flushing another 2 percent down the crapper. Virtually every policy Obama and his administration have announced since winning the election has caused things to get worse, not better.
Is it any wonder that Obama has said he does not look to the markets to judge the success of his economic policies?
But the stock market represents investment! It represents jobs! It represents your retirement, your nest egg, your life savings!
So this president has made clear that your evaporating life savings is not what he is concerned with.
Congratulations, Mr. Obama! It shows.
How much longer will Americans willingly disbelieve their own eyes for pretty words and confident lies? How long until the American people begin to make the connection between their dwindling life savings and the policies that are causing it?
Let’s HOPE™ it’s sooner rather than later.
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Religion | Tags: Environment, Global Warming, Liberal lies
Iain Murray made a cogent observation today in the Corner. ” The fact is,” he said, “that the impending eco-apocalypse is permanent.” In the early 70s we were told that we were entering another ice age. Millions would starve to death, the world could not feed its increasing population.
Then there was the panic about over-population. The Chinese probably had it right with their one baby per family edict. But birthrates are in actuality declining far below replacement rate in most of the west.
Smog in our cities led to catalytic converters and cleaner fuel, and we sensibly cleaned up our air and our water. But that was not enough. If we cure one flaw, one problem, they will find an even greater threat.
Vast extinctions. Half of all species were sure to become extinct, doomed. A Google search turns up 10,500,000 results for “endangered species.”
Environmental organizations choose the most photogenic species to agonize over, never an unattractive one. Polar bears, undeniably beautiful, are supposed to serve the dual purpose of ending climate change and preventing any drilling for oil or gas.
DDT was supposed to be the cause of vast extinctions, yet in reality it was the banning of DDT that caused vast human extinction, especially children, in the developing world from malaria.
What I am attempting to point out here is not that panics often don’t pan out, which they don’t. But that there is something about the green movement that requires an ecological catastrophe. Something is wrong with our food, or our lifestyle. There is something wrong with us. And if you attempt a bit of rationality or simple common sense you are “assailed as a holocaust denier for questioning what everyone knows to be true.”
What is wrong with these people? Generous funding, too much free time, and a need for more funds.
Are their lives so empty and purposeless that they can only feel worthwhile if they are fully engaged with a threat to the planet itself?