Yesterday I attended the all Candidates Debate in Calgary East. I'm not going to do an actual report as if it was anything more than a mickey mouse version of the leaders debate. It was however entertaining to watch politics in action and witness the local media coverage and spin.
The only agency to cover the debate was Global Calgary. I'll get to the expected media bias of the actual segment but it seemed to me that the programming editor arranged to have nobody at all see it. I don't really ever watch Global Calgary so I can't really say if it's normally so off-putting.
The big story of the day was the weather. Snow! Somebody snapped a picture of a bird in the snow. Awe. They came back to the story 6 or 7 times over the hour. I wasn't counting. The debate segment was right at the end of the hour. It was right behind a story about a lady who didn't like her sofa. I'm not kidding. Who will pay for the sofa? The lady doesn't like it. It wobbles. It sinks too deep. Wow. Anyone still watching by this point must have been on the phone or in the bathroom.
Finally, the debate coverage! What was covered? A ruckus caused by an unkempt and disheveled heavy set man at the back. Him and a co-ordinator for the seniors hall sitting next to him could not keep quiet during Deepak Obhria's opening remarks. The co-ordinator would let out load moans and sighs while the unkempt man was more vocal.
"My ears hurt!" He was shouting over our MP. "Let him speak." Others were saying. He also said that the Deepak's statements were "pressing him into his seat." He felt like "his chair would soon fall over backwards." Three rows ahead of the man, I felt no such effect.
That was it. Global didn't show any of that. They showed arguing. Its amazing to me that there can be a dispute about being quiet during opening remarks of a debate but there you have it. The controversy according to Global. Nobody is watching anyway.
The rest of the debate was very silly. The various antics of the opposition staff had me tempted to throw a word grenade of my own into the mix, but I still have honour. I'm a partisan. I want to hear the people speak... in between the antics of the desperate partizan's in the room.
The NDP candidate was pretty entertaining. He said voting NDP "is like playing baseball."
"Sometimes you hit a home run. Sometimes you have to take one for the team."
I will hit my home runs for me and I won't be taking one or ten for any NDP team, thanks.
He also said that Jack Layton was from Toronto, making him especially attuned to the needs of Calgary East.
He would pull our troops out of Afghanistan and somehow return to "when Canadians stood like Giants of peacekeeping."
He said he would not stop the Tar sands but impose a Cap and trade carbon tax and raise corporate taxes to 19% . Then he complained about gas prices ans oil subsidies, as if NDP promises would make gasoline cheaper.
You get the feeling the NDP will say anything and knows nothing.
The Liberal lectured the audience on the structure of the UN a if we were in her class and then later called Conservatives "reckless teenagers." Standard stuff. She did get quite a laugh from the crowd when she claimed Liberals would get a majority in this election or the next. It is pretty funny.
The Greens did a lot of talking but nobody is listening.
Deepak Obhria was himself. He is a seasoned campaigner of 14 years. He laid out the familiar Conservative vision of a safe and strong economy. He also warned against the Coalition. On the question of the UN seat Deepak masterfully shot down the Liberal by saying "we will not compromise Canadian values for the sake of a security council seat." Many general assembly votes in the corrupt UN belong to autocratic dictators like Colonel Gaddaffi or Mubarak of Egypt. The Liberal even mentioned Egypt by name.
I'm glad we didn't pander to the likes of them. Liberals want Canada to be a doormat for every misogynistic racist, lets say it: evil, abusive tyrant of the middle east and the world. The UN is an unelected and corrupt body that is showing visible signs of decay. But that's my opinion.
That's what I heard and saw. It was worth attending and I would do it again. I much more appreciate door knocking. Its nice to talk to people one on one in their homes; unscripted and less the phony antics of the desperate parties and their biased media friends. Politics happens on the doorsteps of constituents. The rest is just manipulated media circus and people are tuning out.
Update: Calgary Herald had a similar story. Heckler, personal remarks heat up Calgary East forum
Showing posts with label green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Safe Nuclear Power
Let me first just say that I support Nuclear Power and I have always supported Nuclear Power. I also want to express my sincere condolences to the Japanese. The earth itself attacked them, leaving devastation that few military powers could match.
The calamity is ongoing as we know. Containment buildings seem to explode daily and we are constantly soothed that this is not a big deal. At least Its not as bad as Chernobyl so far.
"What the hell do you know about Nuclear Power?" That's a question you might be asking me and its a fair one. Well I grew up in a nuclear town. I spent most of my formative years living in Pickering Ontario. Kids in Calgary grow up with the Rocky Mountains on the horizon. My Rocky Mountains were the containment buildings and vacuum building of the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant. We all called it the Pickering Nuke, The Nuke or just The Nuke Plant. I use the term affectionately, but I know others use it the same way some use the term "Tar Sands."
The Nuke's main power-lines ran right past my subdivision. A little park at the end of the street led to an old apple orchard where the towering pylons hummed with power. If you stood directly beneath a set of two power lines you could sometimes feel the power in the air. If the barometer and humidity were just right you could touch another person and feel an odd buzzing vibrating sensation. It was like magic, but the rows of pylons gave us a clear line of sight all the way to the source. (I never found out exactly what that effect was but I'm sure it had to do with the magnetic field generated by flowing electricity over my head)
It was awesome to me. I would ask my dad to take me there on weekends when there was nothing else to do. Behind gates and barbed wire they had an Educational Center that was like a free local Science Center. It had full size mock-ups of the CANDU core and of fuel rods. It also had games and Geiger counters and miniature models. Needless to say I became an early supporter of Nuclear Power.
That of course put me at odds with the mindless do-gooders like Greenpeace. I was already familiar with that crowd from the save-the-whales craze. I argued for Nuclear power in the face of ignorance time and again. When Greenpeace tried to ban Chlorine, an abundant element necessary for life, I argued against that too. When they started arguing against Coal and Oil to stop Global Warming, I was right there with harsh dose of reality and perspective for them.
Then a strange thing happened. Eco-nuts started declaring that nuclear was safe. 'Well yeah' I thought. I've only been telling them for so many years. Let's not get carried away here. They are safe if and only if they are well designed, well operated and well maintained. To make nuclear safe, a great deal of care must be taken that is frankly not required when operating a Coal power plant.
When eco-nuts began touting nuclear power as the safe alternative to coal power or even natural gas it gave me a huge sense of foreboding. It was divide and conquer and some good people took the bait. I supported nuclear power, but the last thing I wanted was a nuke plant on every corner.
These facilities will be dangerously radioactive for 10,000 years. To give you some perspective the pyramids at Giza are 8,000 years old. That's the age of pyramids plus the time since Christ walked the earth. Nothing lasts that long. No one can make predictions that far into the future, especially at the accelerated rate that history seems to move in these times. I'm not saying we can't handle it. I'm saying, lets just keep in mind the scores or generations that we volunteer as eternal custodians to our energy needs. I'm sure that good engineering could extend the life of a nuclear plant for 60 or even 80 years at most. How does that compare with the 10,000 year tomb that must remain un-violated? I'm in favor of larger nuclear plants, not more of them (though we could probably do with a few more big ones). Look at the 10,000 year tombs we have already. I hope somebody has etched this map into stainless steel and plans to defend them from all the nasties who haven't even been born yet. We can neither forget or ignore these sites now that they exist.
Nuclear is also non-renewable. Sure there is plenty of it, but it can only ever be a part of the energy mix. Nuclear cannot replace fossil fuels or we'll just run out of fissile material quicker. Nuclear should be used to conserve fossil fuels and reduce the overall cost of energy.
At the peak of the ridiculous Global Warming Hysteria people were actually talking about nuclear drilling rigs (nuclear-electric rather than diesel-electric). That's right, some bright lights wanted to circumvent a carbon tax by deploying portable miniature nukes to roam the countryside. Can you see a little problem with that idea? Can you see the problem in the green ideology that leads to these ideas?
This is why it distresses me when some proponents of nuclear power use green ideology to push nuclear safety. Surely you must realize that the eco-nuts will turn on you eventually. How sad that some in the nuclear industry would temporarily befriend their old enemies to get an edge on their energy competitors. Shame.
Drilling and nuclear power intersect again in yet another hysterical example eco-mania in the faux controversy over fracing. It's too large a subject to discuss fully here, but one method of mining for Uranium involves In-Situ Recovery (ISR) in a process very similar to fracing in hydrocarbon wells. Some American company botched their well and it led to the fear mongering we see today in Quebec. It's the same old pattern from environmentalists over and over again.
Drilling rigs are safe, but with their wide use a BP disaster was statistically bound to happen. Nuclear Power plants are safe and so scaling up their use and playing down their risks will probably lead meltdowns given enough time. The triple partial meltdown and explosions in Fukushima was the result of extremely bad luck. Suddenly everyone remembers the risks in nuclear power.
Does this mean we should abandon nuclear power? Does the BP spill mean we should not drill for oil? Does the botched well in Pennsylvania mean we should stop fracing? No, absolutely not. We should proceed with caution in all of these endeavors including the high degree of caution required for safe nuclear power. Some times bridges fail and planes crash. Does it make sense to ban bridges or airplanes? Does it even make sense to ban bridges vs airplanes in lieu of one over the other depending on some nonsensical safety comparison? No, but this is exactly the argument of green nukes vs gas or coal power plants. It's nonsense and nobody should tolerate it, not even for short term tactical advantage. When you play with green ideology just remember that you yourself might be the next target of self-righteous green de-marketing.
The calamity is ongoing as we know. Containment buildings seem to explode daily and we are constantly soothed that this is not a big deal. At least Its not as bad as Chernobyl so far.
"What the hell do you know about Nuclear Power?" That's a question you might be asking me and its a fair one. Well I grew up in a nuclear town. I spent most of my formative years living in Pickering Ontario. Kids in Calgary grow up with the Rocky Mountains on the horizon. My Rocky Mountains were the containment buildings and vacuum building of the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant. We all called it the Pickering Nuke, The Nuke or just The Nuke Plant. I use the term affectionately, but I know others use it the same way some use the term "Tar Sands."
The Nuke's main power-lines ran right past my subdivision. A little park at the end of the street led to an old apple orchard where the towering pylons hummed with power. If you stood directly beneath a set of two power lines you could sometimes feel the power in the air. If the barometer and humidity were just right you could touch another person and feel an odd buzzing vibrating sensation. It was like magic, but the rows of pylons gave us a clear line of sight all the way to the source. (I never found out exactly what that effect was but I'm sure it had to do with the magnetic field generated by flowing electricity over my head)
It was awesome to me. I would ask my dad to take me there on weekends when there was nothing else to do. Behind gates and barbed wire they had an Educational Center that was like a free local Science Center. It had full size mock-ups of the CANDU core and of fuel rods. It also had games and Geiger counters and miniature models. Needless to say I became an early supporter of Nuclear Power.
That of course put me at odds with the mindless do-gooders like Greenpeace. I was already familiar with that crowd from the save-the-whales craze. I argued for Nuclear power in the face of ignorance time and again. When Greenpeace tried to ban Chlorine, an abundant element necessary for life, I argued against that too. When they started arguing against Coal and Oil to stop Global Warming, I was right there with harsh dose of reality and perspective for them.
Then a strange thing happened. Eco-nuts started declaring that nuclear was safe. 'Well yeah' I thought. I've only been telling them for so many years. Let's not get carried away here. They are safe if and only if they are well designed, well operated and well maintained. To make nuclear safe, a great deal of care must be taken that is frankly not required when operating a Coal power plant.
When eco-nuts began touting nuclear power as the safe alternative to coal power or even natural gas it gave me a huge sense of foreboding. It was divide and conquer and some good people took the bait. I supported nuclear power, but the last thing I wanted was a nuke plant on every corner.
These facilities will be dangerously radioactive for 10,000 years. To give you some perspective the pyramids at Giza are 8,000 years old. That's the age of pyramids plus the time since Christ walked the earth. Nothing lasts that long. No one can make predictions that far into the future, especially at the accelerated rate that history seems to move in these times. I'm not saying we can't handle it. I'm saying, lets just keep in mind the scores or generations that we volunteer as eternal custodians to our energy needs. I'm sure that good engineering could extend the life of a nuclear plant for 60 or even 80 years at most. How does that compare with the 10,000 year tomb that must remain un-violated? I'm in favor of larger nuclear plants, not more of them (though we could probably do with a few more big ones). Look at the 10,000 year tombs we have already. I hope somebody has etched this map into stainless steel and plans to defend them from all the nasties who haven't even been born yet. We can neither forget or ignore these sites now that they exist.
Nuclear is also non-renewable. Sure there is plenty of it, but it can only ever be a part of the energy mix. Nuclear cannot replace fossil fuels or we'll just run out of fissile material quicker. Nuclear should be used to conserve fossil fuels and reduce the overall cost of energy.
At the peak of the ridiculous Global Warming Hysteria people were actually talking about nuclear drilling rigs (nuclear-electric rather than diesel-electric). That's right, some bright lights wanted to circumvent a carbon tax by deploying portable miniature nukes to roam the countryside. Can you see a little problem with that idea? Can you see the problem in the green ideology that leads to these ideas?
This is why it distresses me when some proponents of nuclear power use green ideology to push nuclear safety. Surely you must realize that the eco-nuts will turn on you eventually. How sad that some in the nuclear industry would temporarily befriend their old enemies to get an edge on their energy competitors. Shame.
Drilling and nuclear power intersect again in yet another hysterical example eco-mania in the faux controversy over fracing. It's too large a subject to discuss fully here, but one method of mining for Uranium involves In-Situ Recovery (ISR) in a process very similar to fracing in hydrocarbon wells. Some American company botched their well and it led to the fear mongering we see today in Quebec. It's the same old pattern from environmentalists over and over again.
Drilling rigs are safe, but with their wide use a BP disaster was statistically bound to happen. Nuclear Power plants are safe and so scaling up their use and playing down their risks will probably lead meltdowns given enough time. The triple partial meltdown and explosions in Fukushima was the result of extremely bad luck. Suddenly everyone remembers the risks in nuclear power.
Does this mean we should abandon nuclear power? Does the BP spill mean we should not drill for oil? Does the botched well in Pennsylvania mean we should stop fracing? No, absolutely not. We should proceed with caution in all of these endeavors including the high degree of caution required for safe nuclear power. Some times bridges fail and planes crash. Does it make sense to ban bridges or airplanes? Does it even make sense to ban bridges vs airplanes in lieu of one over the other depending on some nonsensical safety comparison? No, but this is exactly the argument of green nukes vs gas or coal power plants. It's nonsense and nobody should tolerate it, not even for short term tactical advantage. When you play with green ideology just remember that you yourself might be the next target of self-righteous green de-marketing.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Conspiracy Confirmed: leaked CRU documents show coordinated effort to discredit AGW skeptics.
Wow everybody except the MSM is talking about it. You would think that a fact like all the climate models being wrong would get some attention in the MSM. Nope. Real news passes them by. Why?
Well there is a clue in these leaked emails and other files out of CRU. The same MSM that defamed Catholic priests and made them synonymous with child molesters has elevated climate scientists to sainthood. Their vaunted impartial objectivity is no more. The climate science of AGW is nothing more than PR and now we have the proof. Peer review panels are stacked in favor of AGW. Its a lot like stacking a jury to influence a verdict. Peer reviewed journals are kangaroo courts where only palletable papers are allowed to be published.
I strongly suspect that the reason the MSM keeps pushing AGW is because their editorial boards are as biased as the CRU cranks and possibly worse. If institutions and scientists can be infultrated then what makes the media so impregnable? Nothing! News is not news, its views.
Update: green socialists have been thrown in jail this morning after occupying Environment Minister Jim Prentices office. Terrorists hold lives hostage, while socialists hold property hostage. Thier demands were that Canada sign a treaty that would reduce harmelss CO2 emmissions to 25% below 1990 emmissions.
I've got a better idea. Why don't the green socialists reduce their income to 25% below their collective 1990 average? Oh no that kind of draconian measure only applies to us proles, not to our new lords and masters: the econazis. Hitler started with blackshirts and protests. Stop the green shirts! Time to push back!
Well there is a clue in these leaked emails and other files out of CRU. The same MSM that defamed Catholic priests and made them synonymous with child molesters has elevated climate scientists to sainthood. Their vaunted impartial objectivity is no more. The climate science of AGW is nothing more than PR and now we have the proof. Peer review panels are stacked in favor of AGW. Its a lot like stacking a jury to influence a verdict. Peer reviewed journals are kangaroo courts where only palletable papers are allowed to be published.
I strongly suspect that the reason the MSM keeps pushing AGW is because their editorial boards are as biased as the CRU cranks and possibly worse. If institutions and scientists can be infultrated then what makes the media so impregnable? Nothing! News is not news, its views.
Update: green socialists have been thrown in jail this morning after occupying Environment Minister Jim Prentices office. Terrorists hold lives hostage, while socialists hold property hostage. Thier demands were that Canada sign a treaty that would reduce harmelss CO2 emmissions to 25% below 1990 emmissions.
I've got a better idea. Why don't the green socialists reduce their income to 25% below their collective 1990 average? Oh no that kind of draconian measure only applies to us proles, not to our new lords and masters: the econazis. Hitler started with blackshirts and protests. Stop the green shirts! Time to push back!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)