The Japanese earthquake and tsunami have killed upwards of 10,000 people. The problems at the Fukushima nuclear power plant? They've killed just one person, who died in a crane accident, thus far. Read my piece @ FrontPageMag, where I wonder if there is something terribly obtuse about the media obsession with one nuclear power plant when there are thousands dead from a one-in-a-lifetime natural disaster.

Well, we got the word yesterday from El Presidente, once he emerged from his bunker only long enough to talk about his B-Ball picks, that while we're all doing our brackets, we should also take a look at the news about Japan.

Good Government.

The demonizing of nuclear power goes on. The Left abhors nuclear power and the Leftist media is more than happy to go along with any story smaller than a breadbox that they can feature and create fear around.

Volcanos, earthquakes, Tsunamis kill thousands and are great for MSM ratings but there is no political clout to be had with a natural disaster. But something man-made is evil and right up the Leftist's alley.

There are so many stories to be told here, and the media is only fixating (as you point out in your excellent article) on the nuclear power boogie man (I prefer that spelling, thank you).

Aside from the fact that most the reporting is from the "how does this affect ME?" perspective, there are so many questions the media is totally disinterested in asking. For starters, how about: WHERE THE F*** are the Russians? How about the CHINESE? How about the KOREANS? How about the INDIANS? How about MOST of EUROPE? You guys are flush with cash, what are you doing???

When the floods hit Pakistan, we were the only ones giving out food. We're basically the only ones STILL in Haiti. Most of the aid to Sudan is from the U.S. On and on. Whenever these disasters hit, we give the most, help the most, do the most. The U.S. always bears the lion's share for helping out in these situations. WHERE ARE THE REST OF YOU!?

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

asdf wrote,

The demonizing of nuclear power goes on. The Left abhors nuclear power and the Leftist media is more than happy to go along with any story smaller than a breadbox that they can feature and create fear around.

Do you know the first thing about nuclear power? For example, how much water does it take to keep a nuclear reactor cooled per year? What safety mechanisms have been implemented at each reactor and are they sufficient to protect surrounding residents in the event of a natural disaster or sabotage? Have the private corporations that won contracts to construct these reactors cut corners to boost profits? Have pre-eminent scientists and engineers resigned in protest during the building and certification phases of these reactors?

There's a correct way to utilize nuclear power, one that protects the health and safety of nearby residents, and an incorrect way. It's not an overly simplified, binary, either/or issue. Although your common stock conservative stimulus response bungler may want to frame the debate in those terms.

Honestly? I know about as much about nuclear power as your better than usually informed average Joe. And I expect that you too are in that category.

But of course, this is not about cheap, clean and efficient energy for folks like you. It’s all about those evil fat cats and their profits and how government has to shut them down through onerous regulation and obstructive legislation.

What tickles me about the class warfare loving leftists is their discovery and revelation that business is in business for profits. Well, what else are they in business for if not for profits. So you would be correct on that point. But where I would completely disagree with you pretty much across to board is that you believe that somehow the quest for profits naturally equates to cost cutting shoddy production at the expense of humans. How long would business be in business if they had zero concern for the people who might benefit from their product and pay for the privilege?

I think it’s naïve to believe that an altruistic government is looking out for us and really wants to protect us more than those who would PROFIT off of having people safe and comfortable.

You obviously can't answer particular, clear, and distinct questions, so there's absolutely no need to continue the discussion with you. You spoke in idiotic, Glenn Beckerhead, corporate-addled generalities to score ideological points which was completely counterproductive. But I hope it made you feel better.

Maybe it's you that does not understand clear and logical thinking.

Your obfuscation often times reads like another language anyway.

After all - liberalism IS a mental disorder.

LOL! You respond to my assertion of idiotic generalities with more idiotic generalities. Also, don't play dumb because you're not dumb. It's intellectually dishonest, and in your case, manipulative and straight-up dishonest. You're playing dumb to score ideological points because you don't have a case and you know you're wrong.

And to crown your shameful conservatism, you cap it off by quoting Michael Weiner, a guy who sodomized Allen Ginsberg in the West Indies. Good job!

Michael "Savage" Weiner (pronounced "weener", not "whiner") published an autobiographical novel called Vital Signs in 1983. Michael Weiner as "Samuel Trueblood" admits to being attracted to "masculine beauty", straying from his wife by having sex with women who look like men, and savagely attacks and brutalizes a cop. I guess the transition to Michael "Savage" Weiner in the 90s belies an extreme inner turmoil, sense of guilt, and derangement that manifests itself in Freudian projection and weekly if not daily abuse of his listeners who call in to his show.

Michael "Savage" Weiner
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/05/savage

I'll give you one - "Have the private corporations that won contracts to construct these reactors cut corners to boost profits?"

I don't know. You must have the answer if you asked the question. But do YOU have proof to back up a statement like this? Didn't see one.

Generalities indeed.

And you sure seem to know a lot about Savage. The difference between me and you is that his alleged homosexuality seems to really bother you. As a secure Conservative man, it doesn't matter to me one iota.

Of course, that's because I am intellectually honest and not one molded from a social or political philosophy that pretends to care and be accepting of others no matter what their preferences then hypocritically uses their supposed weaknesses as props.

I'm going to take back my statement that you aren't dumb. I don't have concrete evidence that you are indeed not dumb, and with posts like these you're doing everything you can to prove that previous good faith and generous statement wrong.

The amount of stupidity in your last post is so egregious that I'm forced to waste time breaking it down point by point, because I can't let this level of disgusting and logically invalid calumny stand.

asdf wrote,

I don't know. You must have the answer if you asked the question. But do YOU have proof to back up a statement like this? Didn't see one.

Yes. Three prominent scientists from GE refused to certify the Fukushima reactor. Here's the conclusive proof that was reported four days ago:

Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287

Keep in mind, this is an historical fact, not an opinion.

And you sure seem to know a lot about Savage. The difference between me and you is that his alleged homosexuality seems to really bother you. As a secure Conservative man, it doesn't matter to me one iota.

Of course, that's because I am intellectually honest and not one molded from a social or political philosophy that pretends to care and be accepting of others no matter what their preferences then hypocritically uses their supposed weaknesses as props.

This was a crude display of a cheap, lawyerly rhetorical tactic, and its utterance denotes extreme stupidity. If you're capable of remembering events that have taken place less than 24 hours ago, you capped off your idiotic response by quoting Michael "Savage" Weiner by charging those who hold liberal positions and attitudes as having a mental disorder. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Michael "Savage" Weiner is a man who routinely abuses listeners who place phone calls to his program. He is a hateful, disgusting, cowardly human being who has heaped scorn and invective on a wide array of individuals, from homosexuals to the protesters in Egypt. Conversely, he has praised the regime of Hosni Mubarek, a proven murderer and torturer! How do I know these facts? Because I make it a point to listen to his program, along with fatass Limbaugh, Glenn Beckerhead, and as the savage weiner might say, Sean Vanity. Why? Because there is an overwhelming dearth of conservative political leaders of any caliber, let alone conservative intellectuals. George Will and David Brooks are pseudo-intellectuals who make me puke (who hold inconsistent views and are very poor thinkers), and quite frankly conservatives detest academics and scholars anyway, so the standard-bearers are the disgusting propagandists on radio and television.

I'm a political liberal, and therefore I owe it to myself to fully explore all aspects of conservatives and to fully understand conservative arguments. Sadly, most rest on either false premises or the conclusion of the argument is not entailed by otherwise true premises. But to be honest, to engage in disinterested curiosity, I have to hear the arguments. I can't stick my head in the sand or plug my ears.

A well-known liberal said it best:

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” -Bertrand Russell

Michael "Savage" Weiner was fired from MSNBC for telling a caller to his program that he "should get AIDS and die, you pig." A few years ago, MSNBC was a conservative news outlet that fired several prominent liberals, including Ashley Banfield and Phil Donahue, which is why the Savage Weiner was hired in the first place. I have no problem with the LGBT community, and I fully support equal treatment under the law for every precious human being, including full access to marriage rights and the right to adopt. I pointed out the Savage Weiner predilection for Freudian projection regarding homosexuality because he has been a disgusting slanderer of homosexuals throughout his heinous radio career, which demonstrates his complete and total hypocrisy and shows him for who he really is, a fat, hideous, hateful hack.

I used the word sodomize to twist the Savage Weiner's words against him. I have no problem with consenting sodomy or those who sodomize with consent.

The popular radio talk show host who did a weekend TV show for the cable channel referred to an unidentified caller to his show Saturday as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm

Uh oh. I just looked up the word sodomy, and it includes bestiality. I DO have a problem with that, but not with any non-violent behavior involving consenting adults.

Let's get serious for a moment, shall we.

If not nuclear - what?

There are risks involved in every human endeavor and probably more so when it comes to energy development and production. And contrary to what leftists would like us to believe, nuclear energy is still the safest and most efficient when considering the inherent dangers of coal, oil or natural gas exploration and the energy yield risk ratio.

And what is the alternative of nuclear power? Wind? Solar? Yes, and they are wonderful sources of minuscule amounts of difficult to reap resources that currently supply a mere 1% of our energy and supply 0% if the wind just happens not to be blowing or the sky is cloudy. So the best alternative then is fossil fuels. But the left hates those dirty nasty forms of energy as well (then again, what don’t they hate?). We’re back to pixie dust and unicorn hair.

So, let's all stop acting like hand wringing children and get real when it comes to our immediate needs and what the best alternatives to supply those needs are.

Btw – Our ‘alleged’ Presidente who postures that he hates fossil fuels so much that he’s pretty much made it impossible to mine or exploit coal and gas and has lied and taken domestic energy companies to court to stop all coastal and gulf drilling for oil has no problem allowing his administration to give foreign companies rights to drill and hold thousand of barrels of OUR product in dangerous underwater storage facilities.

Now, it all fits since $8 billion of the Stimulus went to George Soros to help with development of Brazil’s Petrobras.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/

Why does he not just do us a favor and stay in Brazil?

We should have done away with natural gas after the 1906 quake.

I hear too that running with scissors is dangerous. We need to outlaw them too.