nuclear energy

Nothing is lamer than when one of the “reasonable” conservatives tries to make a fact-based argument about politics.

Say what you will about him being a crazy religious bastard, and perhaps he can't be believed, but I wish there was an American politician that would point out the simple truth that in the last 60 years nuclear weapons have done nothing but expend billions upon billions of dollars (4 trillion+ according to some estimates) on technology that will, in most likelihood, never be used.

Sean Braisted points out that John McCain is expressing admiration for France’s nuclear power program — a nationalised effort:

The Maverick™ from Arizona announced his bold, ambitious, super-duper fantastic empty wish-list plan to provide energy security to America, the most prominent position besides unnecessarily giving more federal land away to the oil and gas companies that they won't use, is to

From the Free Press:

Former Knox County Clerk Mike Padgett, who is hoping to be U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander’s Democratic opponent in the November Senate race, is big on nuclear energy.

So much that he disagrees with his party’s Senate leader.

I followed closely the arguments about the Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade bill which was defeated in the U.S. Senate today. One of the things that surprised me was the lukewarm support from environmentalist and liberal activist for this legislation. I would have assumed they would have made a big push to get this bill passed and would have rallied the troops.

Precious, isn’t it?

I must say I do agree with the blushing bride on this statement:

There is no doubt that news out of Iran, that they will be installing more centrifuges, is going to re-energize the marching band leading us to a war with Persia. However, before jumping into the fear-monger express, is it really such a big deal?

Thank you, Bart Gordon:

Tennessee Congressman Bart Gordon is urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to allow foreign rad