Greenpeace got their 100% fair-trade hemp pants around their ankles today when they inadvertantly exposed their real way of thinking on nuclear power:
Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.
“This volatile and dangerous source of energy” is no answer to the country’s energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the “threat” posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.
But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE].”
Well, not as if that’s any surprise to anyone. We already know Greenpeace’s opposition to nuclear power is kneejerk and irrational – this just shows how cynical it is as well.
More horrendous jobs numbers……
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060602/bs_nm/economy_jobs_dc
You were right, Jay. This economy is amazing!!!
Since when is adding 75,000 new jobs “horrendous” – especially when the overall unemployment rate went down?
The “natural” rate of unemployment in the US is somewhere between 5-6% based on previous history. We’re at 4.6%. You’re not going to see an economy below its natural unemployment rate add 250,000 jobs/month – unless you’re in an unsustainable bubble like we were in the 1990s.
We had a major spike in wages in April, a Fed that raised interest rates to combat inflationary worries, and we’re still dealing with high gas prices. And yet we still added 75,000 new jobs in May.
Calling that “horrendous” can only be done by someone with a profound ignorance of economics…
Jay, Mark has a lot invested in seeing things as horrendous. He can’t see the good, it would destroy him.
If we made our way to 100% employment, he’d gripe unless every job paid a ‘living wage’–no matter whether it was full or part time. If we passed that hurdle he’d gripe if every job didn’t offer full comprehensive benefits at little or no cost.
It will never be enough for Mark. Even a perfect society will bring gripes if its creation does not stem from leftist ideals.
Jay, it’s typically said that somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 new jobs per month have to be created simply to keep up with population growth. You would champion the success of 10 new jobs so long as the number is in artificially positive territory….that is, as long as a Republican was President.
Which assumes that we’d have a natural rate of unemployment higher than what we have now. At 4.6%, that indicates that we’re below the natural level. When you average job growth over the year, we’re still making more than 150,000/month. Q1 was very strong for job growth, and it’s only natural that you’d get a slow month after several months of steady increases.
And you’d bitch if it were a million new jobs that they weren’t good enough. That’s why people who understand economics use actual figures and citations to support their arguments.
And what does this have to do with the topic at hand, anyway?
Yet again, Greenpeace has reminded me of why, despite being a former environmental activist who still supports environmental causes, I am forced to turn them away when they come looking for donations. I refuse to support any environmental organization that is opposed to nuclear power; it’s the only clean and practical energy source that we have that can potentially replace fossil fuels in the near term. The fear of it is based on misunderstanding; few modern reactors are built like Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island (the latter of which only exposed residents in the area to the equivalent of a single doctor’s office x-ray); new Canadian, French, and Chinese (!) reactors are meltdown-proof and many times more efficient than those primitive designs. Along with a safe place to temporarily store nuclear waste (which will likely be fuel itself in a few decades), nuclear energy is considerably safer to the health of humanity and our environment than the carbon-based fuels we’re burning now.
…AND WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH WANTING WORKERS TO EARN A LIVING WAGE??!!
Unless Mark was being ironic with his “living wage” statement… in which case I would retract my rant. Something tells me the concept of irony is a bit above this guy, though…
Word up, Nicq. I agree 100%.
As Nicq said, what does a living wage have to do with Greenpeace?