It's being reported today Vitter's indiscretion occurred before he ran for the senate.  Wonder what a Louisiana boy was doing in DC?

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Hey, has anyone seen Sarc around here lately? I think he accidentally set his cloaking device to overdrive.

/weak attempt at humor Off

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.

Thanks for your advice on viewing preferences. By the way, your check is in the mail!

Live Earth was not a fund drive. No pledges for money, only pledges by individuals to act more responsibly and work toward improving our envirnonment. Sponsors dollars and ticket sales for the events went to offset costs of the event.

double post

Sadly the weather here in east Texas was mostly rainy but got the chance to do some bike riding and enjoy a park for at least half a day.

After the killer bike ride (all of 12 miles) I think my wife wishes it had rained all day. Heh!

We can sit around for years weighing the pros and cons of nuclear energy, but the fact is that we already have the manufacturing facilities and the technology to build these plants. Arguing on the basis of what resources will be necessary to build the facilities doesn't make sense. The final result is worth the investment.

Foreign companies are currently ahead of the U.S. in the number of plants online. We can't go forward fast enough on our own. There are American companies already signed on with the U.S. NRC and the DOE once the orders start coming in. The fact that our government must consider certain agreements with foreign companies is a result of the threat of litigation that hangs over any enterprise in the U.S. that the media and the enviros deem "dangerous".

"At best, nuclear power's contribution to reducing CO2 would be short term and very expensive."

Why do you say "short term"? As far as expensive: Are we to disregard any solution because it might be "too expensive"? Either it's worth the effort or it's not. If the planet is in the sort of danger that Al Gore & Co. claim, shouldn't we be willing to do what we can to solve our energy problem? Raising awareness and skimping on toilet paper aren't real solutions. The problem won't be solved by retreating into the past.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

Investment (construction and maintenance) and mining costs spread out over a 30-60 year operational cycle of a power plant are worth it, considering the energy produced over its life-cycle. A nuclear facility also has a relatively small footprint when compared with solar and wind. And, solar and wind require storage facilities since they do not produce constant output -- and the manufacturing of these storage facilities decreases their "green" qualities.

In addition, nuclear is a proven commodity. It is clean. And there are safe ways to dispose of the nuclear waste. So far, after many, many years, solar and wind have proven to be problems -- so many, in fact, that they still aren't practical for serious, large-scale continuous operations.

But my point wasn't to compare solar, wind, and nuclear. My point was that nuclear is purposfully left off the list by lefties because they think it is "bad". This is a full-fledged political statement that completely ignores the benefits of nuclear in favor of political correctness. In my opinion, it totally disqualifies the "greenies" from helping this country make energy decisions. Until they stop their one-sided and biased arguments, they should be relegated to observers and not active participants. Who are they to tell me that nuclear isn't good?