Nuke power hits a wall
Our volunteer non-profit Californians for Green Nuclear Power believes, based on science, that nuclear power protects us best from global warming's dire consequences.
We speak at civic clubs, political clubs, technical groups and other venues. We approached the anti-nuclear Sierra Club and asked to speak and were turned down. We asked if we could publish an article in the club’s Loma Prieto chapter.
We were told the Sierra Club headquarters had to approve information given to members, and they denied our writing or speaking about nuclear power.
We approached SurfRiders and other area environmental groups and got the same treatment. They didn't want to hear the other side of the nuclear power story.
This came across like something in totalitarian countries trying to shield residents from truth. Are we qualified to speak on the nuclear subject? With the education level of our members, I suggest we are well-qualified.
There seems a prejudice against nuclear power. It exists in media and in state government that is supposed to guard citizen well-being strictly based on scientific facts.
We have seen this prejudice in the California Energy Commission, the state Water Resources Board, governor's office, Fish and Wildlife Department and other branches.
Especially in government, all decisions must be based on fact and science, especially in a threatening area like climate change and how to best fight it.
I urge all citizens to insist all branches of our democratic system study the best way to protect us against our worst threat — climate change.
Prejudice — a “preconceived opinion not based on reason, science or actual experience” — has no place in government, nor in environmental groups claiming to protect our planet.
Praise, advice for a president
Since the day he was elected, President Trump has been attacked for basically everything he has done. They are even going after his kids and his wife. Pretty low-life way of doing things.
There was a survey that showed over 90 percent of Trump news since he has been elected has been negative. Apparently, even though this was a legally-binding, fair election, some people feel they do not have to accept the results. I guess protesting, rioting and sniveling about everything Trump does is their right. Or wearing face masks and destroying property.
If you are an American, he is your president.
I do have a suggestion or two for Trump. Stop reacting to everything everybody says. Put down the Twitter feed. Get off the Republican Party line regarding climate change and Planned Parenthood, listen to scientists, not morons on talk radio.
Same with Obamacare. I get the distinct feeling the reason some want to get rid of Obamacare is because Obama's name is on it, not because they want to make it better. If Trump wants to do something good, something memorable, make it better. Add to it, don't dump it.
It seems as if Trump, being a billionaire, is used to getting his way. Stop changing the story. Stop burning down everyone who disagrees with you. The stuff a billionaire can get away with, since everyone wants their slice of the money, won’t work as president of the free world.
He is president of my country, I have to support him. But he just might be giving it all away, which won't help anyone, regardless of what political party you belong to.
Begging for prosecution?
The phrase “begs the question” is being commonly misused.
“Begs the question” is a phrase, from the Latin “petitio principia,” referring to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. The misuse can be subtle, but when you learn to listen, it can soon stand out like a battleship in a bathtub.
A well-known example of begging the question is found in this statement:
Prosecutor to defendant: “So how did you feel when you killed your wife?”
See it? The prosecutor is asking how the defendant feels, among a range of feelings available only to one who has killed his wife. The initial point assumed as true, the premise supporting the conclusion. That’s what it means to “beg the question” to also be your supporting argument.
A common misuse is found when people mean to say “raises the question” or “calls into question” following an event wherein a person’s conduct is questionable, given the immediate circumstances, or upon historical examination.
So, when someone with president asks several people in the intelligence community or law enforcement to either impose themselves to, or asks the primary investigator directly to have an open, legal investigation be dropped, it raises, not begs, the question. Why?
Relieving personal pressure or saving a “good guy” from penalty or embarrassment are simply not, and have never been valid reasons to expect a premature, inconclusive end to a legal investigation. Neither is being a political novice. That’s just silly.
President Trump, by his own admission, is likely guilty of obstruction of justice, and he should be appropriately prosecuted on that basis.