I'll keep it short today. A few links of note. First is James Wimberley's post at The Reality-Based Community about the surreal policy of pre-emption, That old-time sophistry
If France and Britain had wanted to fight Hitler before they actually did, they would not have needed any dubious theory of pre-emption or prevention. They only needed to stick by their treaty commitments….
This subject is already choking on analogies so using a considerable amount of self-control I'll try at least for today to avoid the couple I have in mind. Pre-emption in twenty-twenty hind sight is a little too easy and in most of the examples, like WWII that the right is fond of using is lacking in facts as James points out. The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was both avoidable and ultimately unneccessary. The Iraq quigmire has revealed much about the insecurity of many American's about our military might, the insecurity of conservatives in particular. Just in terms of fire power America could have squashed Saddam and the entire middle-east like a bug. To portray Saddam or any nation state in the middle-east as a threat to America is or was absurd, and probably delusional. I say this well aware of the boiler-plate rhetoric of the Clinton administration. Not in anyway to minimize the lost of life that first week in Iraq, but it was a cakewalk. Can a rational person really imagine that Saddam ever committing a true act of aggression directly toward the United States even with crude nuclear missile. It would have been an act of suicide. Now we are stuck in the middle of an insurgent quaqmire, something we will face with any other ill concieved notions of pre-emptions in the middle-east. For those that have no qulams about wiping out hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent civilvians in a nuclear strike the mid-east puzzle is easily solved. For those with a conscience pre-emption is just a nice word for thoughtless aggression planned by pale white males that are better at shooting their friends in the face then they are at keeping the world safe and secure.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.
"In a conventional reactor emergency, you have only seconds to make the right decision," Zhang notes. "With HTR-10, it's days, even weeks – as much time as we could ever need to fix a problem."
This unusual margin of safety isn't merely theoretical. INET's engineers have already done what would be unthinkable in a conventional reactor: switched off HTR-10's helium coolant and let the reactor cool down all by itself. Indeed, Zhang plans a show-stopping repeat performance at an international conference of reactor physicists in Beijing in September. "We think our kind of test may be required in the market someday," he adds.
Some folks are already getting their dainties wrapped too tight over this issue. Relax, nothing in the way of new reactors dotting the landscape like cheesy all-nite markets is going to happen tommorrow or the next few years for that matter.
The Slideshow has more on who is crazier, conservatives or liberals,
There is nothing in what Mary Scott posts at My Left Wing, or in what The Great Rude One posts at The Rude Pundit, that sinks to the level of nastiness that appears on right-wing blogs – and I do mean on the blogs, not just in the comment sections. (It's fascinating to me that newspaper people never quite get it that comment sections are like letters to the editor of a newspaper – before they have been edited and a few selected for the op-ed page. Since of late WaPo is continually telling us that the comments they get are vituperative, abusive, and full of nasty language, mightn't we also surmise that the WaPo is just as deranged as the blogosphere?) You'd be hard-pressed to find a liberal blog that has a post on its front page advocating killing right-wingers, for example. But right-wingers do indeed advocate killing liberals, not just on their blogs, but on television and in books.
Maybe the right is just using the whole anger issue to deflect from the fact that they just can't seem to win the Great Debate on the issues.
Well, Miss… I would say… I
would say, yes. Yes, he's crazy.
I thought so.
Is he in an asylum?
Oh, I see. He was a very sick man.
That's what I told his mother. And
she said I was crazy. Her son ate
the whole fucking light bulb and
she said I was crazy.
I don't know anything about that,
Miss. I would have to examine you
from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Bo Goldman, Lawrence Hauben and Ken Kesey 1975