The images coming out of Japan concerning the earthquake and Tsunami of March 11th are devastating to see. Japanese citizens staring at water-scoured landscapes that were hours ago homes, villages, and roads. The images also show a universal calm and order among the Japanese people as they move forward in spite of Mother Nature’s recent offensive. No looting, for example. Orderly lines of folks waiting for water rations, another.
Sadly, when this could be an inspirational story of an undaunted people who must rebuild yet again, the binary American media chose instead to fan flames of panic, indeed exploit mass suffereing, all to promote a “Green” energy agenda that is decidely anti-nuclear. In fact, a quick Google news search of the recent crisies in Japan result in such headlines as:
Japan nuclear crisis now seen worse than Three Mile Island
Japan’s nuclear situation similar to Chernobyl Nuclear meltdown
And my favorite:
Japan Faces Nuclear Disaster Somewhere between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
Well… somewhere between the only two major nuclear situations is a pretty safe bet.
But why the hysteria? Why does every major news source send a reporter to the scene to stand there and report live?
As now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste”, the media is most certainly living up to that motto. The comparison of the problems Japan is dealing with is nowhere near Three Mile Island or Chernobyl but rather it’s own crisis that does not need the American media making it into something it’s not.
Three Mile Island led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.” Here’s the estimate of how much exposure was around Three Mile Island according to the documents at NRC.gov.
“Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a chest x‑ray is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100‑125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.”
Would you like another source? The World Nuclear Association website report on the incident states:
The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was 0.08 millisieverts, with no more than 1 millisievert to any single individual. The level of 0.08 mSv is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 1 mSv is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year.
So, if no one died and no one was harmed at Three Mile Island, if the actual amount of radiation that people were exposed to was equal to a chest x-ray, why is the American media losing their collective minds?
Why are the media comparing the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant to Three Mile Island as a negative? The containment systems worked at Three Mile Island. No one was harmed. Why and how does Three Mile Island fit the narrative? It couldn’t be because the media forced the narrative that Three Mile Island was an awful terrible accident, sensationalizing the event just as they are doing today? Could it be that many on the left, despite their almost religious fanaticism to green energy, do not include nuclear power? Could it be that many believe nuclear is evil and scary because it’s potentially toxic and we have seen too many movies where if you accidentally spill your coffee into the computer, the whole reactor will shut down and we’ll vaporize half the country.
If we are going to have an energy independent America, we need to honestly look at where our energy comes from and the inherent risks involved in capturing that energy. We have to approach energy aquisition scientifically, not in the happy hippy mindset that says the only energy we should have is solar, wind or biofuels.
And speaking of energy alternatives, what is President Obama’s energy policy? Other than seriously crippling America’s energy needs by passing Cap and Tax, taking profits from the oil companies to supposedly deliver to the American people in a rebate by raising taxes on the Oil companies, and helping organizations such as GE and General Motors with huge subsidies to invest in green technology, what is his plan? Vague, pie-in-the-sky hopes at best.
He would also like to “Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025” according to his speech in August of 2008. Does wind, solar and geothermal, the renewable sources the President would like is to move to have the energy we need to keep our homes illuminated?
According to the World Nuclear Association, The United States in 2008, “generated 4,119 billion kilowatt hours of net of electricity, 49% of it from coal-fired plant, 22% from gas and 6% from hydro. Nuclear achieved a capacity factor of 91.1%, generating 805 billion kilowatt hours and accounting for almost 20% of total electricity generated in 2008.” “Wind power accounts for just 3% of the country’s electricity”, according to the LA Times. That’s a lot of land devoted to a lot of wind farms when one could just build a clean coal, natural gas or nuclear plant.
Wind power is not going to give us the source of energy that our country needs and desires to power the cell phones, the IPads, the laptops or even our high efficiency washers and dryers. Energy is the future and our future is bright if we embrace energy independence that includes nuclear power. Despite the media’s hyperventilating over the possible meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, Nuclear power is still safe, it’s still economically sound and it can get the US the electric power the country needs so that we can work on other alternatives to coal and oil based products. We can choose to move forward, into the future with a sound energy policy that is free from media sensationalism of the boogie man lurking to kill us all and includes nuclear as a major player, or we can all just sit in the dark. It’s certain he news networks wouldn’t like that.
President Obama’s speech following the tragedy in Pima, Arizona was a call to action for everyone to stand down from invective, derisive speech. As I listened to President Obama admonish those who would be derisive rather than seek a more civilized common ground, my mind wandered…
I quickly realized that President Obama had pulled an Eddie Haskel; after creating much fuss and havoc he suddenly stands back, alter-boy style, completely aghast at the discourse now frothing about him.
The truth is President Obama, despite his pledge to rise above political division (“There are no red states or blue states; just the United States”), has done the opposite. Despite campaign pledges to be a post-partisan leader, President Obama has led with all the tricks and techniques of a Chicago community activist.
Was it not Obama who instructed his flock, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”? And in referring to the midterm elections, did he not implore his minority constituents, on the radio, to vote so as to “punish our enemies.”? Keep in mind that this is the same man who laughed uproariously at a White House Press event when comedian Wanda Sykes spoke of how she did not like Rush Limbaugh, or his hope that Obama failed, and said, “I hope his kidneys fail. How bout that?”
To round out my point on abrasive comments coming from President Obama, here are just a few more:
“I want you to argue with them and get in their faces!” Barack Obama, September 2008
“Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got – they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.” Barrack Obama on American Banks, March, 2009
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Barrack Obama on ACORN Mobs. March, 2010
“We talk to these folks…so I know whose ass to kick.” Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010
“A Republican majority in Congress would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’ on Capitol Hill for the next two years; threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy.” Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
And who can forget President Obama’s characterization of Midwest “folk” who cling to “guns and religion”.
I mention these quotes because they were spoken from the same man who spoke to the entire country following the Pima, Arizona massacre, imploring citizens to refrain from polarizing rhetoric. I ask, does this ring true to you?
I offer an alternative sequence of events. Even as Paul Krugman was accusing the radio right of being responsible for a madman’s killing spree, without a single fact to support his thesis, though written within hours of the tragedy, one wonders who really needs the lecture on civility.
As a former liberal, there were many “minor details” left out of my training. For example, the man that killed John F. Kennedy was a Marxist, someone who was so enchanted by both the Soviet Union and Cuba that he tried defecting to both. And for the record, President William McKinley was murdered by the left-wing anarchist Leon Czolgosz.
The campus unrest of the 1960’s and 1970’s was understandable, given an unpopular war. But what should resonate to anyone who studies recent history is that all of the madness was caused by left-wing zealots; not a conservative among them.
You see, the big difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals can commit monstrous acts, such as Bill Ayer’s bombing of the Pentagon, so long as they believe they are just in their inhumane actions. Conservatives, on the other hand, work within the system, rather than throw Molotov cocktails and hang Presidents in effigy.
Therein lay the difference between the recent and modern Left and Right of this country. The left feels no shame in acts of violence so long as it leads to the ends they favor. Conservatives work within the system, and by doing so, often appear weak as they dodge both literal and figurative bombs.
Yes, we are a divided country. Lines have clearly been drawn. On one side is the left who admonish us to be compassionate, to provide for the weakest among us. Saintly, no? And on the right you have folks who proudly quote a true Democrat, assassinated by a Marxist, who once proclaimed, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
How times have changed.
No one is arguing that when the federal government confiscates money from one sector of the economy and gives it to another, re: stimulus, there may be a temporary result. Cash for Clunkers was herald as an immense success by the liberal media, yet they did not mention that during the following fiscal quarter car sales dipped considerably.
In other words, people who were planning on buying cars, bought them a little sooner, because the government was giving away money. It did not create jobs, engender businesses to hire more employees or do anything of a sustaining economic nature that would assist in leading our country out of a formidable economic morass. It was less effective economic policy than it was pop magic.
A similar situation occurred with the first time home buyer incentive. Once again, the government confiscated, taxed and then gave monies from one group to another, in an effort to spur home buying. A blip on the housing screen does not translate into a trend; it only reflects the temporary effects of redistributing money. There is also the poorly managed and ultimately impotent Obama Mortgage Assistance Plan.
What the Obama administration does not understand is that business owners do not like uncertainty. They especially do not like massive new legislative initiatives that create fear of new taxes, such as the Obama Heathcare bill. As an act of self-preservation, small and large businesses alike would rather remain in a holding pattern and hoard their cash, rather than even remotely consider growing their business in a climate which they feel, more and more each day, is anti-business.
One of the ironies of the Obama administration, and one of the reasons for the perennial appeal of Ayn Rand’s books, is that Liberals never seem to take stock in “Where the money and jobs come from”. It’s almost as if these educated, beard-stroking intellectuals that Obama has surrounded himself with have truly no clue regarding the amount of risk and effort that is involved in starting, maintaining or growing a business. The money just magically ”appears” and, as such, must be brutally taxed and redistributed to people who do not create jobs, risk their own money or start new businesses. (All of the latter being the stuff jobs come from, in case you were unsure).
Do you see where this is all going? Apparently much of the electorate does, too, as evidenced by virtually any poll one has looked at in the past several months.
When you take from the Haves and give to the Have Nots, you have a fairy tale and a very unhealthy economic model.
Be advised, it is often said that Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. That is not entirely true. In the actual story, Robin Hood took from the daunting and confiscatory British tax collectors and gave back to those who, frankly, were just trying to make a living.
Apparently, even fairy tales are not safe from Liberal rewrites. Vote in November and pay attention to your representatives.
(Thank you and God Bless. If you liked this article, please follow us on The Persistent Conservative podcast. Free at iTunes).
The blind fervor and national maelstrom that was the lead-up to Obama’s historic inauguration promised not just Hope and Change, but there also existed a profound, vitriolic, in-your-face righteousness from the rabid left that, finally!, a smart man would be in charge of governing this great country; an educated intellectual would finally put us on track to great things, right prior wrongs, and present us with a thoughtful, post-racial, post-partisan path that would maximize the full scope of what a people can do if governed well.
Not so fast.
During the past 18 months we have witnessed an unequivocal failure of leadership in matters both great and small. Whether it’s campaign promises that have proven to be without depth or substance, (Gitmo, transparent governance, Paygo, etc…), or the simple matter of being in sync with at least some of what the vast majority of Americans want, this administration is an instructive display of what you get when a collection of socialist-leaning academics and partisan theoreticians, with zero real-world experience running anything, are put into positions of power and find that stroking their beards in thoughtful retrospection will not stop the oil spill, that Hoping the best for our international adversaries does not show strength, that foisting enormous deficits upon a population that has not yet been born is immoral, et al.
Take as one example the worst environmental distaster in American history: The BP oil spill. Obama did not cause the oil spill of course, but his administration DID provide BP with a waiver to drill, even though BP holds by far the worst record for oil drilling violations. Where in the media has anyone considered the Obama Administration’s culpability as it relates to allowing a company with such a horrendous safety record the right to drill and threaten an entire ecosystem? Where is THAT news story? 
Oh wait, the Minerals Management Services (MMS) was busy watching porn on their computers. Sorry, my bad.
When Obama finally became aware of the BP oil spill, it was too little too late. He did what he always does: He gave a speech. And, in keeping with the mindset of the academics and theoreticians who surround him, he dispatched lawyers to the Gulf, rather than summon the best and brightest minds who could oversee BP’s clean-up efforts. Indeed, to this day the much abhorred BP remains in charge of “fixing” the problem, with no genuine oversight.
Worse still, while many nations offered help as early as three days after the pipe exploded, the Obama administration refused such assitence, and the result is what he now owns: pristine beaches being destroyed by oil.
All of this could have been prevented had someone welcomed the offers of our international friends, was willing to cut through absurd bureaucratic red tape and get the job done. “Get’r done” is not part of Obama’s vernacular. It’s not written on the teleprompter and no where near his belief system. He simply has no experience solving problems. Period.
Whether you choose to discuss trying terrorists in New York City, the health care bill which succeeded by subverting the will of the voting public, the moratorium on oil drilling, or our current position and treatment of Israel, it is clear that Obama is governing against the will of the people and making choices that will only exacerbate existing problems while creating new ones.
Regarding Obamanomics specifically, the notion of Keynesian economics in our current situation has proven a disaster, and Obama was made a fool at a recent G20 meeting where much of the European nations beraded him for even suggesting they consider more spending. How far must we have come that we are now being lectured by our European friends about the need to be prudent and thoughtful in matters of government spending.
Whether you consider domestic issues or foreign policy, national crises or the rights of U.S. citizens, Obama has proven that talk and good looks, as any college kid entering the job force will tell you, only gets you so far. At some point you need to demonstrate competency.
Obama cannot demonstrate competency and friends, the Emperor clearly has no clothes……..or gonads.
All of our current political issues boil down to one question: What is the role of government?
It is the persistent and instructive Locke vs. Rousseau question: Do our rights come from God and celebrate the individual, or do they come from the State and celebrate the group? Locke argued the former, formidably. Rousseau argued the latter, with brilliant intellect.
However, speaking as one who does not have a Mensa-level IQ and cannot safely navigate a simple calculus problem, I nonetheless am smart enough to know that government should play a limited role, that solutions should be sought from family and all corners of the community prior to government ordinance.
In short, government should always be a last resort and never a reflexive first response.
Think of how stark this current administration stands in relation to such a concept. In every attempt to solve a problem, the Obama administration has offered only Big Government solutions, without so much as a nod to the pioneering spirit that launched this nation and allowed it to prevail and prosper. This administration never considers how the landscape of free markets or the nature of communities has, repeatedly, satisfied the problems they endeavor to leave to Bi9 Government.
Indeed, they oddly hold suspect the attributes and underpinnings that have made the United States a beacon of freedom in a world of dictatorships and subjection.
One might assume that the argument against big government would be obvious and not require such intellectual effort in a day when individual states are going bankrupt and where our government must now humbly request funding from countries who, at best, are a ‘distraction’ to human rights.
It is challenging to remind people of history and how we arrived at our current situation. In matters of governance it is instructive to remember that all powers granted to the federal government originally came from the states. Yet today is seems that states are punished if they do not follow the mandates laid down by the ‘thoughtful’ leaders in D.C.
Is that what The Founders intended?
Today we are witnessing a massive expansion of the federal government, often conducted through the execution of arcane laws which have been broadly misinterpreted and in spite of an overwhelmingly disapproving electorate.
When have you seen the current administration encourage, or even acknowledge, the brilliant role small business plays in our economy?
If one presupposes that “the bigger the government the smaller the citizen” (Dennis Prager) is true, then our collective voices ring more silent with the passage of each new and massive federal mandate.
So again I ask, what should the role of government be? Should the individual concede to the group? If so what does that mean for personal liberty and freedom?
Democracy and free markets are an American hallmark. With a nod to the professorial class, we are a “Representative Republic”, with an active electorate, yes, yes. Describe it however you wish. But consider that today, those nations which have a positive GDP are those which have embraced capitalism, even as we shrink from the mere mention of it. Throughout the world, leaders of countries whose economies are growing have more in common with Reagan than Stalin. Socialism is so very 20th century.
But here in the United States, where it all started, we are regressing. At the helm is a President, a novice to governing, who believes we are what is wrong in the world.
Expect taxes to increase, liberties to decrease and the further diminution of the individual.
If you believe that the role of government is to provide for a subsistent and safe life for all citizens, so be it. But be warned that such “cradle to grave” thinking renders tepid the dreams of inventors, obviates the entrepreneurs and provides roadblocks to all who dare pursue their dreams.
If you choose government as a solution, be warned that a brave new world is neither.
Until 2012.
