Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Anti Nuke Activists and Ancient Fears

There seems to be a new chapter in the old "no nukes" story. Recent stories tell of old time activists teaming up with younger ones to oppose nuclear power plants. Regarding the demonstrations during the 70s, a 66 year old activist said, "It was just the correct, moral thing to do."

That comment leads me to think that this person equates nuclear power with bombs, which is like saying that since there are wildfires, it is morally wrong to toss a log in the fireplace of your mountain cabin.

Yes, there have been safety issues with nuclear power, and we still don't have a perfect solution to disposal of used materials. However, any way of generating energy has a downside. When you think of coal fired plants, think of fatal mining accidents, whole mountains destroyed, trainloads of coal crossing the country and millions of tons of greenhouse gasses. Oil fired plants? Well how about the BP gulf oil spill. Hydroelectric plants? Think about inundated valleys, disrupted fish spawning grounds, massively altered ecosystems and the silting up behind expensive dams. Wind farms take up huge tracks of land and kill birds, and solar simply isn't developed enough to fill our needs.

While the debate on whether we should have dropped the bombs on Japan still rages on without closure, and while few people are coming out in favor of using nuclear weapons in the future, the issue of the peaceful use of nuclear power still seems tethered to these old images of destruction.

For years I drove past the San Onofre power plant weekly, never with the slightest fear. The only two high profile nuclear accidents happened many years ago, and France gets a major part of its energy from nuclear power. Our technology gets progressively better and more reliable, and there are many safety measures in place to prevent accidents. We have a viable way of generating the energy we all use daily, and it's high time to put ancient nightmares to rest and move on.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

vote to save our parks

It's common knowledge that our state government is dysfunctional, and it's getting so that the only way to get things done is through the initiative process, which ultimately makes state government even more dysfunctional, if that's possible.

While I can't imagine what clever ballot measure will surface to save our schools from being boarded up and abandoned, we do have the chance to at least save our state parks. A yes vote on proposition 21 in November will keep our parks open and good condition for all Californians. An additional 18 bucks when you renew your auto registration will get you in anywhere, anytime, preserving a park system going on 150 years old.

I've heard weak arguments against it. There are a very few people who claim they never go to a park and feel they shouldn't have to pay. Still, there are people who don't go to school but still pay for that. Then there are the anti tax people who don't want to pay for anything, anytime, any place.

The most interesting was the person who said it would be too expensive, as he had four cars and two motorcycles. Let's see, that comes to 108 extra bucks a year. Seems anyone who can afford four cars and 6 bikes can easily come up with 108 dollars.

True, the most popular parks, like state beaches, will have a parking problem, but that can be solved with the extra money.

Don't forget, yes on 21

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

red and blue money

Our money isn't keeping up with modern trends. We have the same dull green bills we've had for, probably forever. Green doesn't get an emotional reaction or symbolize anything. Well, I guess it could symbolize the Green party, a very small segment of Americans. We need money that reflects the rest of us.

I propose our money resemble the political maps from the last elections, where we had red and blue states. We should have red and blue money. This way, people could carry the money that reflects their political persuasion. When getting change, a republican could say, "Don't give me that blue cash. I want red."

Every time someone made a purchase, he would also be making a political statement. Also, we could start tracking how people use their money. Do Democrats make better tippers? Do Republicans buy top of the line? Which party buys which beer and how much? We could even color code our ATM cards. Soon we'd have a huge data base that could be used to target the left and right. Of course, the few people in the middle would be ignored and left out.

As this moves from ridiculous to absurd, maybe people will stop and think about what they're doing and that answers to our problems don't come in the choice of black and white, or red and blue. And that if they appear that way, we are probably asking the wrong questions about the wrong problems.