Liberal Lies: Common Sense on Nuclear Power

In ironic fashion, Minnesota politicians are working to overturn a Minnesota moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Finally.

Seriously, does it get more boneheaded than prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants? It's one thing, albeit very lame and devoid of foresight, for liberals to oppose drilling in ANWR and off the our coasts and construction of new refineries, but to prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants? That's something altogether.

According to the Winona Daily News, "Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, and Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Wabasha, have been political opposites and one-time enemies. But on the issue of nuclear power in Minnesota, the two have become unlikely allies.

Murphy and Drazkowski both back an initiative they say is gaining momentum: an effort to repeal Minnesota’s moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants. They say Minnesota, which last year set aggressive goals to reduce carbon pollution, must join other states and countries to embrace nuclear power as a non-polluting domestic energy source."

Naturally, liberals are skeptical and obviously reticent about overturning the ban. Why? They're concerned about the toxic waste disposal and it's impact on the environment.

Sigh.

Because of their undying devotion to the Environmentalist Church, the green movement would rather place life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the backburner while misguided excuses for civil servants (see: Nancy Pelosi) wage a pathetic effort to "save the planet."

According to Barclay G. Jones, professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois, states that "nuclear energy is good for the environment."

"Understand this: For the past quarter century, nuclear energy has been the nation's most important source of clean power for avoiding airborne emissions that result from burning oil, natural gas and coal.

According to a new study by Washington-based Energy Resources International, nuclear energy - by substituting for fossil-fuel power plants - has prevented 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 98 million tons of nitrogen oxides from being discharged into the atmosphere since 1973.

For years it has supplied trillions of kilowatt-hours of clean electricity without earning tradable credits under the Clean Air Act. Congress must rectify this oversight by allowing utilities to receive credits for nuclear plants, thereby boosting the value of nuclear plants and helping the ensure their continued operation in a competitive, restructured electricity industry."

When a professor, such as Jones, states that nuclear power is good for the environment, why won't liberals accept such claims?

Primarily, the boneheads on the left have preconceived notions regarding nuclear power, courtesy of rare accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Furthermore, said idiots clamor that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Great idea; I think most clear-minded, lucid individuals would agree. Yet, since the Left clings to the notion that gasoline is bad, how are we supposed to achieve this end? According to the Leftist propaganda sites like "WagingPeace.com," the waste resulting from creating nuclear power will adversely affect the environment.

Sigh...again.

Who would rather listen to? Groups with a clear agenda like "Waging Peace," or a REPUTABLE group like the Scientific American, "Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste."

Furthermore, according to John McCarthy, professor at Stanford University, nuclear power plants can expect to operate for HUNDREDS of years, thus outlasting oil fields, wind generators, and solar panels.

Also, McCarthy states that the notion of nuclear waste is completely overstated:

"When fuel rods are removed from the reactor they contain large quantities of highly radioactive fission products and are generating heat at a high rate. They are then put in a large tank of water about the size of a swimming pool. There they become less radioactive as the more highly radioactive isotopes decay and also generate less and less heat. The longer the spent fuel is stored, the easier it will be to handle, but many reactors have been holding spent fuel so long that their tanks are getting full. They must either send the rods off or build more tanks."

According to a 1998 report, there has never been a release of radioactivity when it's stored in large pools of water.

" Once the fission process has slowed, the fuel rods are replaced. The spent fuel rods contain highly radioactive fission products and must be stored safely. These used fuel rods are considered high level nuclear waste. Currently all high level nuclear waste is stored in large pools of water at the power plants where it was generated. Seven to ten feet of water is enough to stop all radioactivity (Keeny, 1998). Since the late 1950's, high level nuclear waste has been stored in this form, and there has never been any release of radioactivity. There is actually a relatively small amount of high level nuclear waste. All of the waste ever produced in the history of commercial nuclear power production in the United States would cover the area of a football field four yards high (NEI: High-level waste, 1998). "

Unfortunately, we shut down our reprocessing plant during the 1970's.

In Minnesota, it's the Democrats, naturally, that oppose the construction of nuclear plants. It's not surprising.

Muslim women: Dress code violates faith

As I mentioned in previous posts, I live in pseudo-Sharia Minnesota. This article, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, typifies the coddling this state, and our nation by extension, we've performed on those of the Islamic faith.

When is this country going to STOP adhering to every demand from these people? It's time for those who don't like our laws, our customs, or our culture to either stop complaining and assimilate one's self, or return to his or her country of origin.

Living in this country is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

Here's the entire piece:

A group of Muslim workers allege they were fired by a New Brighton tortilla factory for refusing to wear uniforms that they say were immodest by Islamic standards.

Six Somali women claim they were ordered by a manager to wear pants and shirts to work instead of their traditional Islamic clothing of loose-fitting skirts and scarves, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that is representing the women.

The women have filed a religious discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"For these women, wearing tight-fitting pants is like being naked," said Valerie Shirley, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. "It's simply not an option."

CAIR issued a press release calling on Mission Foods to reinstate the women in their jobs. However, the group declined to disclose the names of the women and would not make them available for interviews Tuesday.

Gruma Corp., the Irving, Texas-based parent company of Mission Foods, released a written statement Tuesday denying that any employees were terminated or disciplined at the New Brighton plant. However, the company made clear the six women have been relieved of their responsibilities for the time being, and may ultimately lose their jobs if they don't wear uniforms.

"Should these employees choose to adhere to the current Mission Foods uniform policy, they may return to their positions with the company," the company statement said. "However, these positions will need to be filled as soon as possible and cannot be held indefinitely."

A company spokeswoman said she could not provide photographs of the uniforms.

Latest dispute

Such disputes have intensified as the American Muslim community grows in numbers and becomes more politically organized, said Thomas Berg, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas. "After 9/11, both the number of conflicts arose but also the sense among Muslims that they needed to stand together -- at least to oppose unjustified actions," he said.

Last year, some Muslim cashiers at Target Corp. were shifted to other positions inside stores after they refused to scan pork products because doing so would violate their religious beliefs. And in 2005, 26 workers were either fired or suspended by an Arden Hills electronics manufacturer for violating the company's prayer rules, which set limits on the times they could break for prayers.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 says employers must accommodate workers' religious beliefs, so long as the requests are "reasonable" and do not create "undue hardship" for the company. But the definition of what's reasonable and what constitutes hardship can vary dramatically from one case to the next.

A security firm, for instance, may have a prudent reason for requiring workers to wear uniforms, while a doctor's office might not. "Each of these cases turns on the facts," Berg said.

For many Muslim women, wearing loose-fitting clothing is a religious requirement. Clothing that highlights parts of a women's body or accentuates curves is often considered immodest. A headscarf, or hijab, is seen by many Muslim women as a way to express their faith and avoid unwanted sexual attention.

At the Mission Foods plant, the Muslim workers had already made some accommodations, said Shirley, the CAIR spokeswoman. They had agreed to wear coats over their scarves, but the company took them away before imposing a new dress code that involved trousers and shirts, she said.

The women's traditional clothing was loose-fitting but never posed a safety risk, Shirley said, because the six women put tortillas in packages and did not work near machinery. "Tortillas came down a conveyor belt onto a table and they packaged them with their hands," she said. "There wasn't even the potential of a safety hazard."

Chris Serres • 612-673-4308

Shameful Minnesotan of the Day

In the past, I've targeted those on the Left who have committed acts or uttered nonsensical sayings that are downright shameful. As I live in the Leftist stronghold of the Twin Cities, I thought I would profile Minnesota native Jessica Lange.



In the piece below, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Lange admonishes the Bush Administration and by extension, those of us on the Right, for waging an illegal and usurping our rights.

One of Lange's tenets was that our government has taken away the right of habeus corpus; I've heard this liberal clamor before. My first questions to them is, "have you EVER had your habeus corpus rights violated? Are your phones bugged? Are your emails read by faceless government agents?"

The answer is inevitably, NO. Despite what the liberals would have us all believe, our phone calls are not being monitored; our books, our emails, etc are NOT being seized by the government.

Ironically, the Democrats are moving a hate crime through committee currently to enact a hate crime law, which would make any statement or belief uttered against anyone representing non-Christian religions (i.e. Islamists) or alternative lifestyles, not to mention anyone that has a beef with traditional America. Furthermore, the Democrats are covertly working on legislation that would attempt to eliminate our only mouthpiece against mindless Liberalism: talk radio.

I always find it comical when I hear Liberals screaming that conservatives are stealing their rights; but have you ever noticed that if you disagree with a Liberal, generally they either attempt to shout you down or resort to name-calling?

BRONXVILLE, N.Y. - Oscar-winner and Minnesota native Jessica Lange bashed the Bush administration and denounced the war in Iraq during a commencement address at Sarah Lawrence College.

The star of "Tootsie" and "Blue Sky" was applauded by students Friday at the small liberal arts college after comparing the conflict with the Vietnam War. She said the graduates have "a heavy burden" to chart a new path for the country.

"We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list," Lange said.

Lange asked the graduates, including her 22-year-old daughter Hannah Shepard, to commit themselves to the "pursuit of peace." Lange, who was born and raised in Cloquet, also lived with her family for many years in Stillwater.

Minnesota Liberals and Illegal Immigration

Here in Minnesota, the Liberals are leading the pack in demonstrating typical "progressive" behavior. I spied the piece below from the Liberal Mouthpiece known as the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Here, in quasi-Sharia Minnesota, the Democrats naturally control the state legislature. Spurred on by Governor Tim Pawlenty, a bill was to be crafted, cracking down on the illegal immigration in our state. Instead, the state legislature focused their attention on menial bills, avoiding an all-important.

Was it because they were lazy? Perhaps. Or was it because the Democrats intended to pull a "fast one" on the citizens of Minnesota, further advancing their ridiculous Progressive ideology, one that includes welcoming all "comers" under the multicultural umbrella.

When the 2008 Legislature adjourned last week, one order of business was noticeably absent from its list of accomplishments -- an immigration crackdown.

Tougher penalties for identity theft. A ban on so-called "sanctuary cities." New penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. They were among proposals declared a priority by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in January, and all went nowhere.

"We had time to debate whether dogs should be allowed to eat in cafes. We had time to debate hockey as the state sport. But we didn't have time to stop identity theft or human trafficking," said an irritated House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall.

"This is one of the greatest disappointments of the session."

But House and Senate leadership, which did not give the bills public hearings, said the session was short and packed with more pressing matters. Plus, the governor never really went to bat for the bills, they said.

"I found that property taxes, lack of investment in transportation and in education were the big issues affecting Minnesotans' lives," said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis. "My impression is the immigration issue is one that [Pawlenty] dusts off for his national aspirations. I don't have people calling me, asking me to do something about illegal immigrants."

Pawlenty's office, however, says the issue is very real.

"If you need evidence that illegal immigration is a real problem in Minnesota, you need to go no further than the recent arrest of 15 illegal immigrants in a van in Lakeville," said Brian McClung, spokesman for the governor. "It's time that DFLers stop ignoring this problem and work with us to address it head on."

The governor's proposals, laid out during a high-profile news conference in January, included establishing a crime of "aggravated forgery" for people who create fake IDs for illegal immigrants and strengthening human trafficking laws. They also would have prevented cities such as Minneapolis and St. Paul from enacting so-called "sanctuary" ordinances that bar police officers from asking questions about immigration status during routine police work.

"I thought the ID theft [legislation] would be an easy thing to come together on after the Cottonwood bus crash," said Seifert, referring to an accident in which four children were killed after their school bus was struck by a van allegedly driven by an illegal immigrant.

"This gal [the alleged driver of the van] initially misidentified herself to police and had false documentation," he said.

But new laws involve court costs and corrections costs, said Sen. Mee Moua, chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She said the Legislature needed more time to examine the proposals and their potential impact. In addition, immigration law is overwhelmingly a federal issue, she said, and the federal role needs to be factored in.

"The session was short; the deadlines were short," Moua said.

Amendments fail to catch on

Without committee hearings, legislators supporting an immigration crackdown resorted to attaching amendments to existing bills.

An amendment to the Senate's omnibus tax bill, for example, would have barred so-called sanctuary cities from getting Local Government Aid. An amendment to a veterinarian licensing bill would have the license expiration dates for foreign veterinarians match their visa expiration date. Both amendments failed, as did a proposal to make English the official language of Minnesota.

If Pawlenty were serious about cracking down on immigration, his supporters wouldn't have had to resort to this, said Javier Morillo, president of Service Employees International Union Local 26.

"What the governor made as his priority -- whether it be a new state park in northern Minnesota or the Central Corridor -- happened," Morillo said.

New rules for employers

The most significant change in immigration policy this year resulted not from legislative action but from an executive order by Pawlenty. It requires thousands of Minnesota contractors and subcontractors to verify the legal status of their employees through a controversial federal electronic verification system.

The move is being closely watched by employers, immigration advocates and lawyers: The use of E-Verify has faced legal challenges in other states. Similarly, the Minnesota Legislative Auditor will be monitoring E-Verify for its accuracy and its impact on businesses.

Another development was the creation of an immigration caucus, which intends to hold public meetings around the state sometime this summer, said Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria. Likewise, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold summer hearings on issues such as human trafficking, Moua said.

The hearings signal that the contentious issues of immigration will be back next session. Said Seifert: "We're not going away."