About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
 William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-01
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

Special Elections
- Bob Perry

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

NH-02: Kuster, Swett, Differ on Nuclear Energy

by: Dean Barker

Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 06:56:00 AM EDT
Meant to get to this last week.  Here is another distinct policy difference between Ann Kuster and Katrina Swett worth pointing out:
Swett identified two policy points on which she differs from Kuster. While Kuster opposed President Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, Swett said she reluctantly supported the surge. But she said that the country must begin withdrawing its troops on schedule next summer and that the people of Afghanistan must take responsibility for their national fate.

Kuster opposes expanding nuclear power because of concerns about safety and cost to taxpayers, while Swett said nuclear power should be among the country's low-carbon energy options.
Dean Barker :: NH-02: Kuster, Swett, Differ on Nuclear Energy
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NH-02: Kuster, Swett, Differ on Nuclear Energy | 73 comments
Yet another reason to "86" Katrina in the NH Democratic primary. n/t (4.00 / 1)

And President Obama, too (4.00 / 1)
Don't forget him.  Because, as you well know, he shares both of Katrina Swett's positions listed above.
[ Parent ]
Obama doesn't get a pass either. Not from me. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama doesn't have (0.00 / 0)
a primary in 2010. Be assured that I will oppose his re-election in 2012.  
[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
Personally, I kind of like comprehensive health care reform, expansion of student loans, and (impending) financial services reform.  But that's just me.

I will support President Obama in 2010.  And, while I am not in contact with her campaign, am pretty sure Katrina Swett will, too.

[ Parent ]
yup (0.00 / 0)
that's just you. Personally, I dislike the increase in defense spending, and the perpetuation of many Bush policies. (detention, torture, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping...)I dislike the fact that my tax dollars are funding civilian murders, military rapes, and mercenaries - but - that's just me.  
[ Parent ]
It's not just Dartmouth Dem... (4.00 / 5)
it's me, too.  I, along with a lot of us, am frustrated with Obama's eagerness to compromise quickly, hesitation in embracing liberals and giving a harder stance against conservatives.  However, I think we might find that in the long run we will accomplish more if we don't always exile our latest defeated candidate and crucify those we elected but don't live up to our greatest hopes.
[ Parent ]
Hardly (0.00 / 0)
We need not "86" a person because of their views. And as DD points out, those views are popular inside the beltway.


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
If we don't 86 people (4.00 / 1)
because of their views, why aren't we Republicans, Jack?

Don't we choose candidates on the basis of their views?  

[ Parent ]
Choice leads to consensus? (4.00 / 2)
We do choose candidates based on their views. Having Katrina Swett available as an option does no harm, imo.

Is Swett to the right of the "political center mass" of NH-02? Maybe, but not by much. Not enough to suggest she be "86'd."

Fran Wendleboe is the type that swears by litmus tests, screeching "purity." That is not how I view America. Actually, I feel it is detrimental to the electoral process.


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
"86ing" (0.00 / 0)
The definitions for the term that I can find use words like killing, banning, and removing.  Am pretty certain that's not what Ex-Pat meant.

Still, we might want to use other terms to describe progressives who might not be the ones we opt to support in Democratic primaries.

[ Parent ]
86'd (0.00 / 0)
is a restaurant term, generally meaning that a menu item is temporarily unavailable: "86 the salmon, I just sold the last order," or an item on special has run out.  
[ Parent ]
would you accuse a male candidate (4.00 / 1)
of "screeching" Jack? I think not. Screeching is an adjective that is only used to describe women's voices. I have no love for Fran Wendleboe, but I don't countenance sexist terminology being used against any woman.

I'm opposed to nuclear power. I have been since the 1970's. I've put my money and time where my mouth is: I've been arrested at nuclear plants a dozen times in my life. We can't build enough nuke plants fast enough to have any appreciable effect on our energy consumption. The free market has spoken on the subject of nuclear power. The market does not support the building of nuke plants, which is why our tax dollars have just been promised to the nuke industry for "loans."

As a voter, I reserve the right to reject any candidate I choose to, on the basis of their views. That includes Democrats. I don't believe in knee jerk party loyalty - that's how we get people like Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak in office.  

[ Parent ]
YES, I would. n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
you can link to the many times you've done so in the past, Jack.  
[ Parent ]
Prove my innocence? (2.00 / 2)
How about you take a flying leap?


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
Military machismo getting the best of you Jack? n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
Photobucket

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Keep going, Jack n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You're a quiche eating, (0.00 / 0)
dirty hippie, girlie man! :vP'''

Am I in the ball park of the false icon that you and Susan have crafted for me?

P.S. Sniping me over on the other thread was low budget, yo.

P.P.S. What was this thread about?  

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Nothing personal... (0.00 / 0)

Just calling you out on sexism toward women, like Susan. I've been silent about it for too long (much to my chagrin) and I've seen quite a bit directed toward her.  You're better than that. Just rein it in, that's all.

On second thought, this really should apply at all men in general. Not just at Susan, but other women as well. That's the bigger point.

As for me, I've been angry at Kathy Sullivan for a variety of reasons. I don't think I've ever used a sexist tone toward her. Have I been angry? I've acted like that. Snarky? Yes. Immature? Yes. Sexist? No. I draw the line there. All male bloggers should draw the line there.  

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (4.00 / 1)
Are you REALLY meaning to say, that because I used the word "screeching" that I was being sexist towards Fran Wendleboe? Please, is that it?

That, my friend, was Susan interpreting what I meant. Ya know, she took my words and deciphered what I really was saying. That was a distraction, nothing more. And you fell for it?

If you are going to brand me, you need to do better. God knows I don't pussyfoot around this place. I'm sure you'll find some vestiges of my working class upbringing laced into my sarcasm. Actually, I take care to stay close to my roots, in certain respects. I foster an idiom that fits well in the balance of voices here.

But if you think I will tuck tail and pucker up to the keasters of the overwrought, you are very much in error.

I DEFY you to clearly demonstrate that I am any of the things you infer. If you want to impugn my character, you better come heavy.

I've gotta say, Christian, I slightly miffed that you chose to wrap your ongoing efforts to reform the brutish man creatures at my expense. That is to say nothing of the blatant hijack of the thread.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
I don't think most women make up sexism charges up, especially Susan n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 1)
The difference between accuracy and precision.

If an archer fires 3 arrows and hits the bullseye, but all 3 arrows fall in a loose group; then the archer is accurate.

If an archer fires 3 arrows and misses the bullseye by a foot, but all 3 arrows fall together in a tight group; the the archer is precise.

Logic is like arrows.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Not buying your argument... (0.00 / 0)

I think Susan, as a woman, knows sexism when she sees it. She doesn't make these things out of thin air. Very few women do.  Sounds like your male defense mechanisms got the best of Jack. Too bad.

Just stop it with the sexist tone and sexist remarks toward Susan and set a good example from here on out. I'm not going to give you a pass anymore. If it makes you happy, my advice goes for everyone else too. Quit embarrassing our gender.

[ Parent ]
Strongly disagree (4.00 / 2)
I think Susan, as a woman, knows sexism when she sees it. She doesn't make these things out of thin air.

I don't believe that Susan's word is the be-all, end-all on the definition of sexism.  Jack is not the first person she to whom she has directed such accusations on this blog.  He probably won't be the last.

I don't think the fact that Jack said that Fran Wendelboe was "screeching" makes him sexist.  Nor do I think Real's discussion of the political realities in Nebraska merits criticism of his sensitivity to women.

Jack and I have mixed it up plenty on Blue Hampshire (especially about this particular congressional primary), and some of his language makes me wince.  But any charge of bias needs to be defended carefully, lest it poison the atmosphere of this community.  With all due respect to Susan, I don't think she has met that standard.

[ Parent ]
Eye of the beholder (0.00 / 0)
That's good looking out, DD.

Charges of "(fill in the blank)" in the political realm are normally a distraction from the points of contention. Above, when I pointed out that cries for purity were akin to those leveled by our GOP adversaries, the charge of sexism came soon thereafter.

Behold.



"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
I think she has, DD. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Lecture time? (0.00 / 0)
Dude, you got some balls lecturing me.

Oh, check that.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
OK, THAT was sexist (4.00 / 3)
Have at it, Susan and Ex-Pat.
[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
Did you really expect me to play the straight man?

This thread has devolved past the point of serious conversation. I refuse to pander to the overwrought.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
Jack (4.00 / 1)
you are such a dick sometimes...always with the sexual references

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST
[ Parent ]
Precisely. (0.00 / 0)

Jack, I don't see why you can't take a step back, acknowledge that your tone and your language is oftentimes sexist and move on from that. What's wrong with that? Certainly shows a level of maturity if you tried that. That's what I expect with all men, especially male bloggers.  
[ Parent ]
Why (2.67 / 3)
Because it isn't about me, it's about your running crusade.

You come onto the thread, cherrypick the lines that fit your agenda, then use my words to prop up your campaign. I am even sympathetic to your goal, but refuse to be whipped for your convenience.

Again, you swing into this forum, you miss half the shit that is written, but decide that the current drift fits the role that you need. And away you go.

How's this for sexist, "I ain't your bitch!"

You are hyperbolic and overwrought. You are arrogant and disrespectful of views that your high mindedness judges as unenlightened.

You, at best, are a gadfly.

Now, if you would kindly refain from summarily judging my character, I will return the favor.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

[ Parent ]
did he miss the irony ? n/t (0.00 / 0)


When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST
[ Parent ]
Jack has accused me of far worse :) n/t (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
I'll take Ben Nelson, myself. (4.00 / 2)
There's a lot I disagree with him on and a lot I would very much rather not see him do. But for Nebraska, I will any day take somebody who votes for Democrats at least half the time over somebody who never will vote with Democrats and actively wants to derail the Democratic agenda. I tend to think of Nelson more as "what Republicans would be if they were interested in helping America rather than purely focused on denying Democrats political successes." If we could elect Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, Feingold, Sanders, and other solid Democrats in every state, I would. But as much as it might irritate and frustrate me at times, I'll ultimately take the most progressive candidate available, and in some states that's not very.

New Hampshire is not one of those states. Embattled Republican establishment pick Kelly Ayotte and potential Republican primary leader Bill Binnie are both too far to the right for New Hampshire's population to be bamboozled by. Paul Hodes will make an excellent junior Senator come November!

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
Ben Nelson (2.00 / 2)
is anti-choice. That's not negotiable for me - but I understand that it's not a matter of concern for many men.  
[ Parent ]
In Defense of RealNRH (4.00 / 2)
With the exception of Bob Kerrey, every Senator that Nebraska has elected since Roe v. Wade is anti-choice.  Unlike the others, though, Ben Nelson voted for folks like Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy to control the Senate agenda -- and stop anti-choice legislation in its tracks.  He also, in the end, voted for health care reform.  And that matters.

I don't like the guy's record, but he's a hell of a lot better than any other statewide elected official that a deep red state like Nebraska could send us.  If Nelson is going to be replaced, it will likely be by someone from the extreme right.

Of course, don't let these facts stop you from accusing RealNRH of insensitivity to women.  Because there's always a place for personal unsubstantiated attacks.

[ Parent ]
get over yourself, DD (2.00 / 2)
seriously. Do you REALLY think I'd fail to make an accusation of insensitivity to women if that's what I meant? I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt, and the opportunity to ponder the subject.

That jerking male-defense knee must get awful painful.  

[ Parent ]
Really, Susan (4.00 / 1)
That's not negotiable for me - but I understand that it's not a matter of concern for many men.
 

Lots of "benefit of the doubt" there.  How could I possibly interpret that as slamming Real's commitment to choice, solely on the basis of his gender?  

Silly me for taking your words at face value.

[ Parent ]
so it IS a matter of concern for many men? (0.00 / 0)
You've stated that you support Ben Nelson.

I was making a statement of fact. Choice is NOT a matter of concern for many men. Including a huge and disappointing number of men who call themselves liberal. Given your support for Ben Nelson, I might infer that a woman's right to choose is negotiable in your view - after all, he might vote the right way on an important issue.

That said, if I intended to accuse RealNRH, I would have said, "If you had ovaries you might feel differently," or something of the sort. I don't shy away from saying exactly what I mean - something you should certainly be aware of by now.

[ Parent ]
What's your choice? (4.00 / 1)
Given your support for Ben Nelson, I might infer that a woman's right to choose is negotiable in your view - after all, he might vote the right way on an important issue.

I stated that I don't like Ben Nelson's record, but that I would support him over the right-wing, anti-choice Nebraska Republicans that constitute his sole opposition.  Do you disagree?  If so, please identify whether you:

(a) are aware of even the slightest hope of a viable, more progressive option with the ability to win Nebraska, or

(b) would instead support neither candidate, thus enabling the extreme evil by your failure to back the lesser of the evils.

And, yes, I am certainly aware that you don't shy away from saying exactly what you mean. :) I take you at your word that you were not questioning Real's commitment to choice, and I apologize for misinterpreting your comment.

[ Parent ]
Accusatory either way (4.00 / 1)
Making the statement "It's not a matter of concern for many men" is implicitly an accusation that it's not a matter of concern to me whether or not you bring ovaries into it (which is an entirely pointless addition; you make the same sexist accusation either way). You might be capable of only caring about one issue, but that is not a normal pattern of thought. I would be ripshit if Obama had appointed some anti-choice zealot to the Supreme Court regardless of their other opinions, because he can do so much better. In Nebraska, we can't, and pushing someone more progressive than the state will bear would do nothing to advance any Democratic priorities, including your own sole topic.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.
[ Parent ]
Insults are unnecessary (0.00 / 0)
You hardly convince anyone to your position by insulting their level of support. I don't believe anyone should have any right to interfere in somebody else's personal medical decisions. I disagree with Ben Nelson on that point quite firmly. If you can find a viable strategy for a pro-choice candidate in Nebraska to get elected to the Senate, fantastic, I'm all for it. I don't believe that given the state's current cultural positioning that is possible, and I see absolutely no benefit to making 'purity' stands when it won't have any impact.

Therefore, given a situation where I can either have an anti-choice person who will help on some issues and will consider voting in favor of Democratic causes even when they conflict with his stance on abortion or someone who will be outright hostile to anything under the sun that comes from a Democratic leadership, I will take the lesser of two evils. If there is a not-evil choice then I prefer that. If there is not an untainted choice, then I will pick the one that means we passed a massive (if still insufficient) upgrade to our national health insurance system, et cetera et cetera, over the one who would have tried to block it.

If someone pro-choice challenged Ben Nelson in a primary and had a reasonable chance of winning Nebraska in the general, I would support that person. If Ben Nelson made himself a major national leader on anti-choice causes (pulled a Stupak, basically) so that a seat-sacrificing primary would serve to powerfully warn other Democratic politicians not to try anything like that again, then I very probably would support that campaign (I was happy to see Stupak draw a challenge despite his conservative-tilting district for exactly that reason). But if you would prefer to yield the seat rather than run a viable candidate, then I'm just glad you're not setting national campaign strategy.

Nobody says you have to send time or money to Nelson, even if you support him in general terms. You can even quite reasonably say "Ben Nelson is anti-choice. That's not negotiable for me," and ta-da, fine. When you start adding on the frankly bitchy holier-than-thou "but I understand that it's not a matter of concern for many men" then you piss me off. Just because it's your personal purity-trolling topic does not mean it is not a matter of concern to those of us with a Y chromosome.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
Agree 100% (4.00 / 2)
But the "bitchy" comment is unnecessary and inappropriate.  You are too start to go there.
[ Parent ]
I meant "too smart to go there" (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
'Snippy, crass, and needless' instead, then. (0.00 / 0)
In that particular case, the gender association was unintentional and a poor choice of words.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.
[ Parent ]
well, dude (4.00 / 1)
when guys choose to sell women down the river in the name of "the greater good" it pisses me off.

It pissed me off during the sorry-assed health insurance bill. Stupak's grandstanding was nothing more than that, given the odious fact of the Hyde Amendment. Where were the men of the Democratic Party? They were saying this bill was going to help people, and that it was all about the greater good.

Luckily for you, your reproductive parts are not subject to the greater good.  

[ Parent ]
Answer (4.00 / 1)
Where were the men of the Democratic Party? They were saying this bill was going to help people, and that it was all about the greater good.

No.  They (and most of the women of the Democratic Party, too) were saying that reproductive feedom was going to get screwed with or without the passage of a comprehensive health care reform bill, but the former option would provide tens of millions of Americans with affordable medical coverage that they don't have now.

Sounds like common sense to me.

[ Parent ]
Wrong (0.00 / 0)
Where were the men of the Democratic Party?

They were trying to get health reform passed, and a small bloc of neanderthals interfered. Your persistent misandry only reinforces your lack of credibility as a trustworthy source, not only on this topic but on any other you address. The anti-choice changes in the health care bill were bad things. Nobody on this site is arguing that at all. Once Stupak got enough anti-choice votes behind him to scuttle the bill, it became a matter of a partial victory or a complete failure. Having to exempt abortion coverage from the high-risk pools was not the only loss, or even the largest in terms of actual human suffering involved.

If Medicaid-for-all advocates had been as rigidly insistent that not getting everything they wanted was intolerable, we would have gotten nothing done and it would have been a completely wasted effort, even though they would have been right that true national health care would have been a far better option in terms of human quality of life. Losing abortion coverage in the high-risk pools is a loss to be angry about, but it did also mean that women who will rely on the new laws to get their coverage will have access to better care and be less exposed to financial ruin in the event of problems, and that women who do choose to carry the fetus to term will have better care for the duration.

Be mad at people like Stupak, Michelle Malkin, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Kay Hutchinson, and Lisa Murkowski, but don't pretend that it was poor embattled you alone who was fighting for women's rights or who continues to do so. Democrats, men and women, tried to get full coverage included. When it became clear that enough votes were in place to prevent it, either by removing it from the bill or blocking the bill entirely, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi found a way to salvage what she could. It was ultimately her call - not those mean insensitive Democratic men you're so angry at.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
Horse hockey (2.00 / 2)
Ah, so because I don't sell womens reproductive rights out for the "greater good" I must be guilty of misandry. How very stereotypical. Whenever women argue with the dominant gender, it's always because they hate men.

As for the health INSURANCE bill, RealNRH - it was doomed from the very beginning when President Obama refused to allow single payer advocates to be part of the discussion. It is not a health care bill. It is a health INSURANCE bill, one that forces citizens to hand over their hard earned cash to insurance companies. In my case, that will be the same insurance company that tried to deny my husband care nearly every week while he was dying of cancer. I can hardly wait.

Thanks for telling me whom I can be mad at, though. I don't ever dare to be mad at anyone until a man gives me permission.  

[ Parent ]
There you go again... (0.00 / 0)
The reason you're guilty of misandry is that you keep accusing men of not considering reproductive rights as a 'matter of concern' without acknowledging that there are, in fact, quite a lot of men who do care about them, or that women like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi agreed that a health bill with unsavory limits on abortion funding was still better than no bill at all and made the hard choice to acknowledge that that was the situation they faced.

Do you understand the argument, even? Will you acknowledge that you baldly accused me of not caring about your personal purity-issue because of my gender, rather than leaving open the possibility that I just might have agreed with (ovary-equipped) Nancy Pelosi's reasoning? That is what qualifies you for the change of misandry, and it's the point you've steadily refused to acknowledge hearing.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
no, I won't (4.00 / 1)
If I'd intended to baldly accuse you of anything I would have.

Every time the label of "misandry" has been thrown at me, it's been thrown by a misogynist.

As for your accusations of "purity" - I'd rather be accused of purity than be accused of being an unprincipled sell out. Calling me stupid is a nice touch though - albeit not at all original.  

[ Parent ]
Clearly (0.00 / 0)
If you understand the point, then stop trying to dodge it. In what context does "but I understand that it's not a matter of concern for many men" in response to a man's comment on an issue not imply that the man in question is one of those who aren't concerned? That is the statement I take as a personal attack and you continue to deny that it is one and have declined all opportunities to rephrase yourself to indicate otherwise as I did when DD called me on my poor choice of words. Whether or not you explicitly stated it, your decision to add that misandrous section of the sentence blatantly implied that it applied to me.

And since you have in fact accused me, Nancy Pelosi, and everyone who supported Democratic efforts on health reform of being unprincipled sell-outs, I think we've come to the roots of that conflict; I believe that there was no path to passage of the health care bill that included full coverage of abortion and that therefore passing the bill was better than getting nothing, and you believe that either there was still some way to get the required votes or that it would have been better to leave the old dysfunctional system in place in hopes of getting a complete victory at a later date.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
Nuclear power isn't an easy call for me (4.00 / 3)
First point - if we could power everything with solar/wind/tidal/hydro/geothermal/etc, I would be all in favor of going to a fully-renewable, non-polluting American-generated source like those. I think that's probably not very controversial on BH and something to keep in mind as a common position on energy. Fusion seems like a good option too if it could be made to work.

That said, I don't think nuclear or not is an easy call. Newer nuclear plant designs (particularly pebble-bed reactors) are far, far safer than the designs people were using in the seventies, and some of them are designed so that there is no 'meltdown' scenario. In terms of actual operation, many of the newer designs are actually safer than a traditional coal, gas or oil plant (all of which have a much larger supply of conventionally combustible materials on hand). Coal-burning plants can liberate pitchblende, even, beyond what a properly-built nuclear plant would release. I don't say there's NO problems with them, but newer nuclear reactor designs are in many ways safer and cleaner in their regular operation than the current alternatives. So point in their favor for me.

The downside, of course, is the nuclear waste. Designs exist that can reprocess and reuse the waste, but sooner or later you end up with radioactive gunk that we don't have any good answers for (besides suggestions involving creative taxidermy and BP executives). Even if Yucca Mountain opens and were to prove 100% safe from New Hampshire's perspective, transporting the crap across the country is a dangerous proposition, and this just buries it, doesn't actually clean it up. But that's the same solution we're looking at for carbon, too - sequestration. Excess carbon in the atmosphere is damaging, too, and one of the solutions being suggested for carbon-generating industries is capturing and sequestering it. Ultimately, I'm not sure that it's unworkably worse to put the dangerous crap into a deep deep hole in an area safely removed from major aquifers. It's still a suboptimal idea, but I'm not convinced it's worse than fossil-fuel options.

So that's more or less my spot. It comes down to picking the lesser of two evils (unless and until we can implement a fully or mostly non-evil option like wind or solar). I feel like I've seen too much puffery from nuclear advocates and too much anecdotal hysteria from nuclear opponents to believe either side, so I'm not sure where I'd go for unbiased analysis.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

I disagree (4.00 / 1)
we're told that we must choose the lesser of two evils. I suspect that message comes from our corporate masters, and trickles down through people who like to mouth slogans.

Another thing the pro-nuke advocates forget to mention is that uranium is a finite resource.

I would also bring your attention to the fact that we have a number of leaky nuke plants around the country. The NRC is a failure as a regulatory agency.

http://www.salon.com/news/feat...

There is no way to build enough nuclear power plants fast enough to do any good at all. If you're sincerely interested in educational material, you should read Dr. Arjun Makhijani's book, "Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy."

Why doesn't the free market support nuclear power if it's such a great solution? Why must taxpayers subsidize it from the inception to the decommissioning, while private corporations reap the profits?  

[ Parent ]
So... (0.00 / 0)
You disagree that it's not an easy call for me? I'm glad you have such insight! I didn't say I preferred nuclear plants over fossil fuels, but
that it comes down to the lesser of two evils - and explained that I do not feel I have enough unbiased data to determine which one that is.

I also included the points you apparently skipped, "unless and until we can implement a fully or mostly non-evil option like wind or solar" and the entire first section on preferring other solutions:

First point - if we could power everything with solar/wind/tidal/hydro/geothermal/etc, I would be all in favor of going to a fully-renewable, non-polluting American-generated source like those. I think that's probably not very controversial on BH and something to keep in mind as a common position on energy. Fusion seems like a good option too if it could be made to work.

If Dr. Makhijani's book lays out a way to make that possible (physically and politically), that is awesome and I am all for it. That resolves the conditional statement I included and makes the nuclear-vs-fossils consideration moot.  

Only the left protects anyone's rights.
[ Parent ]
Dr. Makhijani's book (4.00 / 1)
gives us the roadmap. What we do with it is up to us. I have no faith whatsoever that we will do the right thing.

The energy companies who own our elected officials will feel somewhat differently. Profit trumps sense and the environment every time.

I repeat - if you are sincerely interested, read Arjun's book. I'd also suggest you read up on uranium mining, which is a filthy, groundwater destroying process. There's an awful lot of material out there, including information about how the French nuclear plants aren't the wondrous solution we're told they are. They are just as leaky as US plants, maybe even more so, since several of them are leaking uranium.

8 questions that need to be answered about nuclear power

Did you know that Seabrook Station is built on an earthquake fault line? Or that the NRC found in 2005 that the plant should be shut down?

[ Parent ]
Immoral (4.00 / 1)
Nuclear power is a moral choice:

For one generation's worth of electricity
do we really have the right to threaten hundreds of future generations with deadly waste?

We need a new array of smaller, decentralized
generating facilities along with a vast national commitment to reducing energy waste.

Nuclear is unacceptable, on so many levels.  

No'm Sayn?

Gloria Feldt "But sometimes when you win you lose." (4.00 / 2)
Met this wonderful woman at a fundraiser for Jeanne Shaheen in Manhattan in 2002. I had taken my mom because Hillary was the main attraction, along with leaders of every major woman's group. We are friends on FB and occasionally communicate directly... Her post yesterday is on point.
http://www.gloriafeldt.com/hea...
How Does Health Reform Affect You NOW? (Part 2 of 3)
Splitting the Health-Reform Baby: What Women Lost by Winning

Let me be clear: Had I been a member of Congress, I would have pressed the "yes" lever for the health-reform bill when it came down to the vote for final passage. It was incredibly important that we start somewhere to make health care accessible and affordable to all Americans. And we can celebrate, as Ms. magazine recounts in "What the Health Care Bill Means for Women," that contraceptives will be covered, gender rating that discriminates against women has been eliminated, and preventive services such as pap smears will be covered without co-pay under the new plan.

But sometimes when you win you lose.

I am spitting mad about the way my values-and those of so many women and men, including the band of forty or so Congresswomen, led by pro-choice caucus chair Rep. Diana DeGette, who fought valiantly against the Stupak-Pitts amendment--were callously pitted one against another. Stupak-Pitts would have written into permanent law the current Hyde Amendment ban on coverage for abortions for women whose health care is paid for by the federal government. And it would have extended the ban to the rest of us if we purchased insurance with private funds through a federal insurance exchange

This Solomon-like decision represents not the proverbial win-win compromise that politicians are supposed to seek but a net loss for women. The loss of important health coverage hurts, but I predict the political loss will ultimately turn out to be even more devastating.

In the end, President Obama himself, who during his campaign supported getting rid of the Hyde amendment, issued an executive order that implements restrictions almost identical to Stupak-Pitts.

And candidate Obama, who in 2008 enthusiastically promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act  to guarantee reproductive right including access to abortion, just a year later as president said FOCA wasn't on his legislative agenda.

As RH Reality Check put it, insurance coverage for abortion is now an endangered species.  


But sometimes when you win you lose.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST
thanks, Jon (0.00 / 0)
This Solomon-like decision represents not the proverbial win-win compromise that politicians are supposed to seek but a net loss for women. The loss of important health coverage hurts, but I predict the political loss will ultimately turn out to be even more devastating.

Apparently I'm not the only misandrist in the crowd. :)

[ Parent ]
Mendacious (0.00 / 1)
Believing that the health care bill was a net loss for women is not what makes you a misandrist. Asserting that passage of the bill with that net loss included is a particularly male failing is. You have refused repeatedly to acknowledge that female Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was responsible for creating the situation in the first place. You ignore this same quotation's first sentence:

Let me be clear: Had I been a member of Congress, I would have pressed the "yes" lever for the health-reform bill when it came down to the vote for final passage.

If you understand the point, then stop trying to dodge it. In what context does "but I understand that it's not a matter of concern for many men" in response to a man's comment on an issue not imply that the man in question is one of those who aren't concerned? That is the statement I take as a personal attack and you continue to deny that it is one and have declined all opportunities to rephrase yourself to indicate otherwise as I did when DD called me on my poor choice of words. Whether or not you explicitly stated it, your decision to add that misandrous section of the sentence blatantly implied that it applied to me.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
Enough (2.00 / 2)
I'm not dodging anything. I told you that my statement was not made with you in mind. You can't accept it. That's your problem.

If you were trying to prove that you're a sensitive guy who cares about women's issues - you've failed rather spectacularly.

[ Parent ]
Again with the malicious deliberate misinterpretation (0.00 / 0)
I proved I don't care about you. But enough of running into the brick wall of your intention to deliberately misrepresent my statements. I'll just bear in mind your history on future commentary.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.
[ Parent ]
Wait a minute (0.00 / 0)
Stupak and the majority of congressman pushing to interfere with women's health care decisions were men. Speaker Pelosi  compromised to get the bill passed. She would not have been put on that position but for Stupak and company.
Pointing that out isn't misan-whatever; it is simply stating the facts.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
Context matters (4.00 / 1)
The context of the statement was to imply that I was willing to throw away abortion rights because of my gender. If that had not been the intent, then it would have been very simple to respond with 'you are right and I phrased myself badly; this is what I meant' and that would have been the end of it - as I did when I used an overheated and inappropriate term elsewhere in the thread. There has been no similar admission of fault on susanthe's part, only continued attacks and willful misinterpretations of my arguments, and I will not accept being impugned in that manner.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.
[ Parent ]
Stupak 12 (4.00 / 1)
The website lists the 12 House Democrats as follows: Bart Stupak (D-MI), Joseph Cao (R-LA), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Steve Dreihaus (D-OH), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), and Charlie Wilson (D-OH).



"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
umm (4.00 / 1)
2nd one is an R

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST
[ Parent ]
what is sad (0.00 / 0)
but ultimately unsurprising is that some of the men on this thread have used Pelosi and other women as a justification for the fact that men did not stand up for women. Apparently men just can't do it on their own - and if women sell each other out, the men are automatically disqualified from having to stand up for women.  
[ Parent ]
archival comment (4.00 / 1)
perhaps men really can't take too wide a stance ?

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST
[ Parent ]
What is sad... (0.00 / 0)
but ultimately unsurprising is that no amount of debate or evidence will convince a zealot determined to sustain a belief in the inaccuracy of that position - or that anyone who disagrees is not automatically immoral.

Returning to the diary's original topic, Kuster and Swett disagree on whether nuclear power is clearly not fit for America's energy portfolio or whether it should be considered an option. If they were to debate each other on the topic and presented factual information to back their claims, then they and their audience could emerge with a richer understanding of the topic and make reasonable conclusions. If Katrina opted instead to declare "Many people with degrees in environmental policy don't consider human needs a matter of concern" as her central argument, that would fail to add anything positive to the debate, indicate a lack of respect to her own environmentally-conscious supporters, and be quite rightly viewed as a direct insult to Annie - even if she didn't explicitly state that Annie was one of the 'many' she was referring to, and regardless of whether her other arguments were more reasonable. Obviously Katrina Swett would not consider that a viable debate practice, any more than Annie Kuster would imply that Katrina's nuclear policy was induced by her Hungarian ancestry or Mormon faith.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

[ Parent ]
Troll Ratings (0.00 / 0)
Elwood is going to freak when he sees all the TRs on this diary.  He'll give 4s on all of them to counter the impact. . . .
NH-02: Kuster, Swett, Differ on Nuclear Energy | 73 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox