People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

On Uranium Mining In Pittsylvania

Three points.

1) Pay no attention to those at the Southern Environmental Law Center.  They're hysterics.  And you're not going to die.

2) Uranium is successfully and safely mined every day of every week of every year around the planet.  And no one is dying in the process.  (And no one is dying in mysterious and even nefarious ways in order to keep Big Nuclear doing its dastardly deed, as Hollywood would have you believe,)

3) In order to allay any unwarranted, latent fears, the government of Virginia should do some thoughtful (okay, I'm trying to keep a straight face here) research, deliberation, and reasonable regulation-setting.  As proposed by this morning's Roanoke Times:
Develop uranium mining regs first

Any day now, maybe even by the time you are reading this, the National Academy of Sciences will issue a report on the potential impacts of uranium mining in Virginia. Its findings will influence the General Assembly as the commonwealth debates whether to lift its moratorium. Before Virginia makes that decision, it first should write the rules and regulations that would govern mining.

The idea came up at a forum on uranium mining held last week in Richmond. State Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, suggested lawmakers could direct state agencies to write the rules and postpone a decision on the moratorium.

That makes eminent sense. [link]
It does indeed make eminent sense (which makes me wonder if some alien has taken over the Roanoke Times editorial boardroom).

Because it makes eminent sense, expect the Democrats in Richmond to work tirelessly to nix the attempt.

But make no mistake, uranium mining in Southside is going to happen.  With or without the radicals' acquiescence.

Ours is an energy-starved world.  And an even more energy-starved USA, what with Obama being in charge.  With an estimated 60,000 tons of precious nuclear power fuel sitting beneath the surface over in Coles Hill, the time is now to get moving on its harvest.

An Editorial Without a Theme?

I expected, when I read "It’s more than Virginia Tech’s tragedy" in the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post this morning, to be confronted with another hackneyed call for another layer of gun control measures to be ladled upon those that already exist here in the state of Virginia and in the nation.  I expected, too, to respond to that tired utterance with the reminder that the location where that Virginia Tech tragedy occurred - on campus - already has a complete ban on the possession of firearms (and Virginia has laws dealing with aggravated murder - see VA Code § 18.2-31 ), thus making such a call a bit weird.  Or desperate.

But the Post editorial disappoints.  It doesn't call for anything.  It simply laments the loss of law enforcement life in America in 2011.  A position with which no one can disagree.

This is so unlike the irrational editorialists there that I wonder if the other shoe - WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!  JUST LOOK AT VIRGINIA TECH! - isn't to drop tomorrow.

Or maybe not.  Maybe the deep-thinkers there have finally seen the light.  Maybe they've come to understand that all the laws in the world aren't going to stop bad people from doing bad things.

Whatever the case, the Washington Post isn't on its high horse this morning.  Will wonders never cease.

On The Tech Shooting Itself ...

... no one is coming up with a motive.

My immediate response, when Paula asked me on the phone if I had heard the news about the shooting, was to suggest that the gunman was insane.

But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Nor is it the case that the shooter knew the officer he shot.

Nor did he seem to be a disgruntled right-wing - or left-wing - zealot.

Not hard-up for money.

Not despondent.

Not a loner.

Not a fugitive from justice.

No apparent reason.

A police officer is dead.  And we don't know why.

Politics Can Bring Out The Worst In Us

Ann Coulter is out there doing interviews in which she's touting Mitt Romney as a conservative. She may be right, of course.  But RomneyCare and past support for state-funded abortions and strict gun control* sure don't lend themselves as support for such a notion.  She tells us that the Romney of that day is not the Romney of today.

Didn't we hear the same thing about Obama not long ago?  That the leftist Bill Ayres/Jeremiah Wright sycophant of previous years wasn't the saint that Mr. Wonderful had become by 2008?  Now that he's been elected ...

But this post isn't about Coulter or Romney or Obama.  It's about Glenn Beck.  And his Coulter-like need to make something of a candidate that doesn't appear to be there.  And, in doing so, trashing us for being us.

Question: Did Beck actually say this?  And did he mean it the way it came across?

Glenn Beck: The Tea Party Supporting Gingrich Over Obama ‘Must Be About Race’

Really, Glenn? Really?

- - -

I listened to Beck's interview of Newt Gingrich on his radio show the other day.  Unlike William A. Jacobson, I thought Beck got the best of him and that Newt came across as being ... less than conservative in the past - which was Beck's intention. But a "progressive"? Seems to be a gross stretch. For every "progressive" pronouncement that Gingrich has made in the past, he's also been out there promoting conservative positions. That's why it's so difficult to get my brain around the man.

That aside, why did Glenn Beck feel the need to attack me? What did I do?

- - -

* Said Romney in a gubernatorial debate back when his target voter was of a different breed: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts.  I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Reuters Still In The Tank For Discredited 'Science'

In a report on the unearthly negotiations going on at the latest U.N.-sponsored "climate conference" (see Reuters dispatch - "Draft U.N. climate accord emerges, debate turns ugly") we learn that negotiators are close to a deal that will transfer wealth from countries like the U.S. - which has a government that operates like it has wealth but is, in fact, the most bankrupt entity on the planet - to small countries that see a sweet deal when they can get it.

Don't get too worked up, though.  Nobody at this grossly irrelevant shindig believes that any decision made over the next few days will be adhered to by its participating members.  It's a show.  And nothing more.

But this weblog post isn't about the conference.  It's about Reuters. The article - get this - includes this set of "facts":

"A warming planet has already intensified droughts and floods, increased crop failures and sea levels could rise to levels that would submerge several small island nations, who [sic] are holding out for more ambitious targets in emissions cuts."*

To be charitable, if that is not a lie, it's certainly an untruth. There is no evidence that the planet, having warmed 0.6° C. over recent decades (after having cooled in previous centuries), has intensified droughts and floods or increased crop failures. None. There is only educated conjecture.

But the "reporters"** believe - or want us to believe - that it's fact.

Shame on them.

- - -

* A pet peeve:  "Nations who"?  How about "nations that."  It's annoying, admittedly, because I catch myself using the wrong pronoun on occasion.  "Who" always refers to people.

** Question: Why does it take six reporters to produce a 657 word article? More importantly, did all six reporters sign on to this embarrassment or did majority rule?

Party On, Wayne. Party On, Garth.

And speaking of those "climate talks," here's the outcome of The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011. Participating nations have agreed to start negotiations on an agreement.

Say what?

You wouldn't know that, of course, if you didn't read beyond the completely disingenuous Associated Press headline and the first paragraph. The header:

Climate conference approves landmark deal

First paragraph:

"A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change."


Too bad someone at the AP felt it necessary to follow that bit of blarney with an actual fact. The second paragraph discloses the guts of that "landmark deal":

"The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest."

The negotiations resulted in an agreement to start negotiations.

That would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that you and I are paying dearly for these perpetual negotiations and for the thousands of negotiators-for-life.

So you know, The 2012 UN Climate Change Conference, COP 18/CMP 8 (the 18th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, plus the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol), will take place in Qatar from 26 November to 7 December 2012.


Where a guy can go and have his wildest dreams come true.

Funds are being secured necessary to make this a good time had by all.

By the way, it's not too soon to be thinking about a 2013 UN Climate Change Conference, COP 18/CMP 8 (the 18th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, plus the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol). I'm thinkin' New Orleans. Hookers. Gumbo. Drugs. Jazz. Booze.

Shoot, how do I get in on some of that climate change action?