THE LEFT SAYS: ‘Iran’s Nuclear Power Is Just Dandy…But Not for America’
Progressives told us there was a crisis that required we rethink how America uses energy. We, as a nation, went all in. Companies like Solyndra received tax dollars. Zealots like Van Jones — now a CNN pundit but previously a member of S.T.O.R.M. and proponent of “greening the ghetto” — were given quasi-cabinet level positions in the name of green energy.
Solar was the way to go. So was wind. The progressives told us that too. When solar and wind got to close to deep blue R&R spots like Martha’s Vineyard, progressives adopted a NIMBY (not in my backyard) approach and ensured that neither Kennedy nor Obama nor Secretary of Personality Kerry would ever have to actually see a gigantic windmill operating offshore. And all the while they avoiding discussing the environmental impact of solar which kills thousands of birds each year.
We could have any type of energy we wanted except for two. Oil because it was oil. And nuclear. Nuclear because. Because. Ummm. Oh yeah, because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and nuclear waste. That’s despite the fact that a good number of Americans already receive their electricity from nuclear power plants. If one were to calculate the number of hours of safe nuclear plant operation, the figure would certainly climb well into the thousands if not millions. Being liberal though is all about being shrill and hysterical over any and everything. So the progressive crowd rejected nuclear outright.
That’s why we haven’t seen a nuclear power plant constructed in the United States since at least the Carter administration.
Iran though is building a nuclear power plant. More than one most likely. And progressives tell us it’s a good thing.
It’s good because Iran needs nuclear power they say.
It will help their economy they say.
It will ween them away from oil they say, thus helping the Islamic Republic to go green almost just like we wish we could.
In other words, it’s perfectly ok in the progressive mind for Tehran to have nuclear power but it’s a cardinal sin if Topeka were to do the same.
If it’s a matter of economics, why do Iranian economic needs trump ours? If it’s a matter of sustainable, clean energy, why aren’t we placing ourselves at the head of the queue for new reactor construction?
In which location is an American most likely to be taken hostage, Tehran or Tacoma? Which location is most likely to produce the largest amount of support for transnational terrorism, Bushehr or Boston?
And where do progressives want to see nuclear reactors in full-scale 24/7 operation?
How come?
Image: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/192937/IAEA_to_report_standstill_
in_Iran_nuclear_issue_diplomats