The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.
Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.
While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower
HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST
THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf
Greetings President Obama lovers and supporters: We do love him, do we not? What a ride that was, it's taken me nearly 4 months now, to come completly back to my senses, sort of.
It was a real out and out dog fight, but we prevailed. One for the good guys. So I felt I'd just give a couple of my thoughts on what has taken place so far. For my local hamlet here in Northern CA called
Redding, CA.
Unemployment here must be 20% by now. The figures, I'm told do not count those that have already
fallen from the unemployment rolls, or the nearly 30,000 GI's returning home nearly every month. I'm sort of happy about the winding down of the Iraqi war but the gearing up in Aftganistan concerns me, as war is not peace, is it.
I applaud President Obama and his crew. No president has done so much, so fast with so little. Of course locally he is under attack in the local Record Searchlight paper's opionion section, "he will spend us to death" they say. Well I have to continully remind them, so we each owe $45,000, but we owed $39,000 of it before Bush even got out of office, at least this time some money went for
health, welfare, transportation, education, conservation and renewable energy generation, Instead of some big black hole somewhere in the world.
Cheney is really pissing me off. Someone needs to tie a can to his tail and send him back to the
hole he crawled out of. I hope Joe keeps banging on him everytime he resurfaces.
As to the energy plan for America. I found a project, sent info to to Whitehouse, Sent info to the
Progress for America people, sent info of my renewable plan to the people spreading stimulus funds around in St. Louis County and then to the Democratic party in St. Louis...All communication
went unanswered, in spite of the fact, I, a 30 year pioneer in conservation and solar generation
actually had a plan, I'm sure could put thousands of Americans back to work...I get no answer from anyone. Not too impressed with that response. We did better by them, when they asked us to
respond to their needs...
Make sure you all check out my Energy Blog at <http://yeswecansolveit.blogspot.com> that's
YESWECANSOLVEIdotblogspotdotcom for the latest renewable energy news, training for eco-consultants, energy auditors, financing renewable energy projects, leasing commercial and
industrial projects, the California MDU, Multi-Family Unit Market and Google News Searches
Make sure to Google Down to Niel Young's new Video called FORK IN THE ROAD, where he sings
'there's a bailout coming, but it's not for you." Smile _Green Earl
keep the faith
American Energy Conservation Group
Redding, CA
Still Producing NegaWatts..Since 1981
I am working on a new GLOBAL problem! PLEASE, visit to share, teach, OR tell us how youAre helping!
By hearing how YOU are helping, we can thank you, compliment you, & find ways, we can be doing more! T
hankYou, LisAnne
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatecrises/
Look at this link on how those green car companies can do little to help the environment http://www.newenergyearth.org/greencarcommercials.
Where are you calcars.org? Show these ole hokey green cars how you roll
I like some of the details of the Barack Obama 10 year energy plan, but it is too long for us. We need to implement some changes right now. If we don't, this world will not be here too long. This is not a game. We have destroyed the arctic wildlife to the point where the polar bears are becoming extinct. Now to some it would be easier to just ignore it and say that it won't affect us. But don't you understand that one species affects the other? If one dies off, it affects others. If we let the earth die, we die with it. It is not up to us to determine how we are to affect life on this planet. It is up to the man above. How are we to become stewards of the land if we don't care.
We think we have 30 years before the melting of the arctic affects the human race. But how do we know that? Don't you know that the speed at which ice melts increases with time? This means that the arctic is melting at an exponential rate. We must plan to live in a different climate. Some land that is dry will become non-existant.
So if being at the mercy of the cost of a barrel of oil is hurting us, why don't we become less dependant on foreign oil? Foreign oil? Well I hate the break the news to you honey, but there is no such thing as foreign oil. Oil is a commodity. The price of oil is the same accross the whole wide world honey. And when the dollar is "worth" less than half of what it was 3 years ago, you can't pay the same amount for a barrel of oil as you did then. Please don't be fooled by low gas prices now.
Gas prices are low. So who cares about alternative energy. As long as we can put put gas in our cars for less than two bucks a gallon, who gives a damn about the environment or anything else?
Many have heard and felt that the above statement rings true for them. When you have only two dollars left in your savings account after bills are paid, who cares about what some tree hugging hippie has to say. Less money at the pump means more money in your pocket. That's real life when you have barely enough money to feed your family. That's real life when you own a small trucking company that will go bankrupt from rising fuel prices.
But we must learn to look beyond the here and now. I may sound like I am taking a jab at oil companies, but it must be said. When you depend on mainly one source of fuel, you are at the mercy of that one source. Our economy is heavily affected by what we and the transportation industry pays for fuel. Trucking can do all they can to keep the consumer from getting hit, but they can only do so much. It is the trucking company and owner operator that deliver the loads to the grocery and department stores. The trucking companies must eventually pass the cost to their customer which are your local grocery stores. Then the grocery and department stores pass the extra cost directly to the consumer. Wether gas is 10 cents or $10 a gallon, why take that chance?
Some analysts say oil will definitely go back up to $100 a barrel sometime next year. So you say, let's wait until it goes back up again, then maybe we'll know for sure that the governmnet will be so concerned that it will do something other than have a 10 year plan that will have little or no effect on the current situation.
Well who do I think I am? Do I think I can do a better job than the president of the United States? OK honey. Just pretend that my name is President Robin V. Williams. President Robin V. Williams will take a good chunk of those billions of dollars and invest it in companies that have already looked into alternative sources of energy and food production. Look at http://www.calcars.org, look at http://www.wheelabratortechnologies.com/ and look at http://www.solarcity.com . I will invest in programs that would offer paid training those who have lost there jobs in this economic mess and put those people to work in the type of companies that will make the future safer, our economy strong and our environment better. Billions of dollars will be invested in local transportation that has more frequent and efficient routes. Well, people hate to use mass transit, they say. Well, I don't mean to oversimplify this, but I believe more people will ride the bus if the bus came more than once an hour.
But there is a whole lot more out there than green cars and alternative energy for homes and businesses. Visit New Energy Earth's home page at http://www.newenergyearth.org for more information.
Originally posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/92
What if the supreme court had not stopped the recount and Al Gore really did win the 2000 election. How the last eight years would have been different. The United States definitely would have been in a different situation than it is in today. The nation's military involvement, its debt, dependence on foreign oil, and even the current political race would be drastically different.First of all we probably would have been attacked on September 11th. It is possible that a President Gore would have acted differently than Bush and would have taken actions to prevent it, but let us assume nothing could have changed that. Without doubt, contrary to the rhetoric of some conservatives, he would have ordered us to take military action in Afghanistan. However, we definitely would not have attacked Iraq, a President Gore would not have had the predisposition demonstrated by Bush and his allies, to attack this country. Without doubt the primary reason why Bush and his allies “read” the intelligence in a manner which led us to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was because they wanted to find something to justify an attack. Without the Iraq distraction, the United States would have, by now, captured Bin Laden and been able to complete its mission there. Furthermore we would have rebuilt that country, transferred power back to its people, and our soldiers would be home.Without the enormous costs of these wars our national deficit would not be what it is today. Furthermore, a President Gore would not have given the richest, in this country, the tax breaks which Bush handed out (and Palin-McCain are calling us “socialists” for wanting to reverse them). These two facts alone would have significantly reduced, if not eliminated, the incredible increase in the US national debt. The national debt is what is causing the dollar's value to decline and does have an impact on oil prices. Simply put, as the dollar declines, the price of oil increases. The declining dollar is not the only reason why oil prices spiked last summer but it is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the demand for oil and the United States does import 70% of its oil.Under a President Gore, we would have, without doubt, seen a decrease in our dependence on oil. Al Gore has been a strong advocate for reducing green house gases and eliminating our dependence on oil. Under his leadership this nation would be further along in its need to utilize alternative energy sources. The carbonites (those who advocate continued use of fossil fuels) have relentlessly attacked people like Gore, claiming that moving to alternative energy sources is too costly. However, the price of energy is definitely a reason why this country economy is in a downward spiral. It may cost us, in the short term, to switch over but if we do it then we never again will be dependent on foreign nations for our energy needs and our economy would be protected from the actions of foreign entities like OPEC. Eight years ago we all made choices, some chose to vote for George Bush, some for Al Gore, some for another person, and many chose to not vote at all. Many who did not vote believe that there was no reason to do so because it would not make a difference and there are some who believe that today. I would ask you to carefully consider how things would have been different had Al Gore won in 2000. How different the world would be today without the Iraq war, how our nation debt would not have gone from five trillion to ten trillion dollars, how the war in Afghanistan would be over, and how oil energy prices would not have caused enormous financial pain. Without doubt the world would be different, that is why on November 4th it is important to vote. On November 4th, you will have the choice between voting for the status quo or to vote for someone who will make a change. Make no mistake, Palin-McCain claim to be agents of change, however all you need to do is examine their record in this race to see they are no different than Bush. The fact that they will question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with their stances, call people terrorists for holding a differing political view, and calling them “socialists” for having a tax policy that taxes the rich and not the poor. While John McCain may have been a “maverick” he has forfeited any right to continue to make that claim. He has allowed his campaign to be consumed by rhetoric which has become the cancer of this great country during the Bush administration. It is no longer a campaign based on the principals he claimed to believe in at its beginning, instead it has been preempted by Republican neo-cons under the leadership of Sarah Palin. This November 4th be sure to vote and remember your vote does matter, the only way we can put this country back on track is to put Obama into the white house!
To My Fellow American,
We environmentalist have been fighting long and hard the last eight years to make sure that our environment, the environment we will pass down to our children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren is still a good and healthy environment with nature given a chance to flourish and man right with nature because we are a part of nature.We environmentalist and conservationists are not anti business or industry. We need to work, and we also like to have our cars and other things that businesses and industries make and sell just like anyone else, but we have to sometime just slow down and stop and think, do we need to pollute that river or kill those animals or worsen global warming to help business. There are ways that we can help business and not harm our environment.
John McCain, it seemed like the last few years has seemed to change his attitue concerning the environment. Before 2000, McCain was a very traditional Conservative Republican Senator from Arizona. After losing in two thousand to Bush, he seemed to pull a different attitude especially towards the environment. He and Sen. Lieberman wrote a bill to help combat global warming. Although it was a weak bill it still was a bill to get things started. Lateley he seems to be going back to his old ways. The League of Conservation Voters lifetime score for John McCain is a low 24%. The best score he has recieved from that organiations was from the early 2000"s of 53%, which is not a great score either. McCain's stance on off shore drilling certainly doesn't say that he is a strong environmental advocate. McCain'sstance on nuclear energy is a little worrismoe too. Nuclear does not add any pollution to global warming there is always the concerns of a meltdown is always justified. If you asked anyone at the Department of Energy what are the chances of a meltdown, they might answer not as high as it was in the seventies with three mile island but it certainly isn't zero either. Plus the question of what we do with the spent fuel afterwards id a question that the answer is still being sought out. McCains is against the spent fuel rods from going through Arizona on its way to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. What does that tell you? I have my doubts about Nuclear. I am not against it, I just have my reservation about it.
Several months ago, John McCain, after recieving a big endorsement check from the oil companies, is when John McCain seemed to change his stance on the subject of drilling off shore 180 degrees.Therefore, I am taking everything that McCain says, especially on the subject of the environment, with a grain of salt.
Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Nuclear Mutagenesis. Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4397307903287515932
Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Excessive Cost: "When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!
"These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio. (courtesy of rmi.org)
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program has said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."
Here is the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.
Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower
Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.
The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No.
1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: "Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. The power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change." Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines."
2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document "that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants." Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer.
3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal."
4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."
Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower
Can I brag? She thought up this answer all by herself. Next stop: the Bill O'Reilly show! See the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re8oKYCe7BE
Nuclear Power is not a good option.
“A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.
“That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.
“Yet the more decisively nuclear power is humbled by swifter and cheaper rivals, the more zealously its advocates claim it has to serious competitors. The web of old fictions ingeniously spun by a coordinated and intensive global campaign is spread by a credulous press” and boosted by the new nuclear enthusiasts.
http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf
Global warming from the carbon in coal, all the other air pollution from coal burning, and the destruction of Montana, Wyoming and Appalachia are all a part of a steamroller bearing down on us, one that if we act and act now, we can dodge to a fair degree. But there will soon be a worse steamroller bearing down on us if you and I let it happen. A planet so poisoned with radioactivity that all life will be sickly.
Nuclear Power is a dinosaur. But not just any dinosaur. It is unsafe, and it is too expensive. And during the nuclear cycle, plutonium for nuclear weapons is produced.
Regardless of the steady propaganda recently pumped into the major media outlets by the nuclear power industry, nuclear power’s time is past. Come on over to our side. We currently are staring at 2 steamrollers, and nuclear power apologists would have their steamroller BIGGER??
Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option. The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No. 1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: “Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.” Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines." 2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document “that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants.” Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer. 3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal." 4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."
Here is the NRDC's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.
Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.comgroup, Nuclear Power?, here:
I gotta say, when the opposition candidates can be so grossly shameless in their lying, I am losing my patience with post-partisanship. THOSE BASTARDS WANT TO HURT AMERICA. It's right out of Naomi Klein's "disaster capitalism" playbook. They WANT the majority of Americans to suffer. That's how they make their profits and "save" their souls.
Senator Obama and Senator Biden, if you f' this up, I might have to be through with the Democratic Party. Any political party that can throw away what should be a totally guaranteed landslide is useless to the people of the country. Partisan politics is no good when it is for the sake of partisanship, but the opposition today is beyond dangerous. They are downright pathological. They MUST be defeated, and if that takes anger and accusatory language, then so be it. Today, there is a GOOD REASON to be partisan--the other party will hurt America and the American people, and much of the rest of the world while they are at it. Undecided voters must know that Obama and Biden will not sit idly by while McCain and Palin lie and cheat and steal their way to the White House and the nuclear button.
You won't sit idly by, will you? Sirs, we have got to know that you mean business, that you are LEADERS who can face down the challenges that face this country. Right now, the biggest challenge is the prospect that McCain and Palin will win--and in so doing, doom us all. I want to hear you say that, loud and clear. Please don't let all of us down.
It looks like Mcain and the Republicans are making a comeback, and this time they are attacking where Obama looks the weakest, Iraq. The Republicans are taking control of the war issue by claiming that obama has no experience and now by saying that Biden was selected because of his foreign policy experience. It makes obama look really bad. It makes obama look like he needs advice. Something everyone knows an exgeneral will never need in times of war.... Why would they elect the second best when the general is ready at hand?
The Obama campaign needs to make it plain that Obama does not need help. THat Obama has the correct vision for America that considers the needs of the populace that elected him. That Obama will not make the same mistakes the experts have been making in Iraq.
THe Republicans have taken advantage of his hesitation to do this and made it all about the war. Just like the Fascists who claim that the state is the most important thing because it protects the individuals, the Republicans have made the war on terror the principal priority instead of those who are paying for tht war. They use fear and terror to stake America and her economy out in terrorist ridden Iraq. THe result is that they want to win at whatever the cost, even if it breaks the American economy. They are turning our own country into a giant suicide bomb to destroy all terrorists.
This is the weak link in Mcains campaign that Obama must attack, the fascist right of America. He must reveal the fear for what it is and present to us in its place reason, hope, and a real strategy for security both militarily and financially for all Americans.
Please share this with all your friends and start making a differnce today for a safe, free America.
PLAN A
http://barackobama.com/isuues/energy
http://www.localpower.com
http://alternativeenergy.com
http://yeswecansolveit.blogspot.com
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/YESWECANSOLVEIT
http://www.solarpowerconference.com
PLAN B
http://www.breitbart.tv/html.127983.html
"The most pitiful among men is he who turns his dreams into silver and gold." - Kahlil Gibran
No one cares what your dreams are because they’re your dreams and only you can actually make sense of them. And let’s face it: listening to someone retell a dream they’ve had is a bit like someone taking their cell phone into the bathroom stall with them. I’m not sure what exactly that analogy may mean, but it sprang to mind, so I put it in. In any event, I had this dream last night and think it more than befitting to tell as it certainly caused some reflection on our times:
So, picture, if you will, a small outdoor McCain pep rally complete with a stage. The back of the stage is lined by many suits filled with assorted pasties (and no, that was not meant to be “pastries”... though that would’ve presented far better buns than those in this dream. Read on to see what I mean...)
A funny older man with white hair in a white jumpsuit who looks oddly enough like Governor Charlie Crist (who is oddly enough oddly looking) is commanding a microphone and therewith doing his best to amp-up the audience through some humorous and boisterous joking and cheerleading. It is apparent that he is rather successful in his rousing, even though the crowd has turned out for this event in what appears to have been a rain-soaked day. The stage is wet and a bit slick and as Crist introduces John McCain, Crist turns and runs toward McCain to quickly and enthusiastically embrace him. The standing water on the stage foils his plans, however, as Crist slips and thereby begins to set off a series of comedic dominos by wiping out McCain... which somehow results in McCain losing his pants... which begets more and more laughter... As the crowd and the politicians try to laugh-off the embarrassment (without much success... and let’s face it, are they ever really successful at anything except the ironically comedic where they are caught with their pants down?) the dream thus far still has the air of a recoverable disaster to it (and I stress, thus far). However, the dream is temporarily taken over by the point of view of an errant CNN camera on stage whereby McCain is captured on film from behind in bare behind.
Don’t worry, I’ve already wondered times too numerous to count why on earth I would: a) have a dream about McCain’s derriere; and b) have to learn how to un-see what has been seen; and c) now question greatly a God who would so unjustly visit upon his children such visions; d) measure the severity of my mental illness, whether established before or as a result of what was seen in this dream (it just won’t wash off!).
But I digress (which is rare for me, so you should treasure it while you can)... it was upon the camera’s capture of McCain’s posterior that the feeling of the silly event became weightily relevant. It was then that this dreamer realized that the embarrassment was not McCain’s alone. It would be shared by all those who were there and would be watching and laughing. And it would become the downfall of John McCain and us all. Sure, none of this actually happened, but the poignancy – and perhaps the point – of the dream became very clear... nay, painfully clear: John McCain, like so many politicians, has become a joke. Not because he was pantsed in the dream, and not because Charlie Crist looked strangely like a cross between Vanilla-Ice-chic and Miami-retirement-home-Wii-party-whimsical, and not even because there was the vast dullard morass, simpleminded fan base that claps enthusiastically when someone presents them the opportunity to participate. What was truly telling about the dream was that somewhere along the way, the farcically harmless becomes dangerously inept. We’ve seen it often in history and all too often in the Bush administration. At some point, the stupidity gets people hurt, ruined, or even killed... while above them towers blithely, incompetence and indifference. All because someone who doesn’t know what they are doing, is doing something anyway.
Firstly, I wish McCain no ill will. I don’t wish him the presidency, but I certainly don’t wish him going commando in a kilt on a windy day in front of a live camera. And I certainly don’t wish him a career ending moment such as the one in the dream (though, it may make things absolutely clear to our brethren who are currently sitting the fence in search of a president). It’s not that getting pantsed in the political sense is a bad thing, it’s that sometimes people, rather than change their minds, will ignore the embarrassing pantsing in order to not have to justify their choice. It’s a bit like the earthquake we just had here in Los Angeles. Business was being conducted in the office in which I work when the building began to move. There were many looks of concern around me (myself included)... but in one corner, a person was continuing their telephone conversation without change (I should note that I work in the film biz, so there is perhaps nothing more self aggrandizing than Hollywood types, the heavens be damned). Later, when I noted how odd it was for that person to have simply chosen to not acknowledge the seriousness of an earthquake, someone said, "It’s a defense mechanism. The brain keeps the person doing what they’re doing regardless of the dangers around them. Basically, their brains choose not to deal with bigger situation." So I’m just wondering: is this what were getting with John McCain: mindlessness?
Look, politicians are certainly never immune to this flip-floppery or (douche-baggery as it may be) as they constantly display monumental shifts in order to meet perceptions or realign themselves or get votes. McCain, the maverick of old, now finds himself in the midst of people who wronged him eight years ago and maybe longer still, and yet, he continues on as though the person he once was, has no bearing on who he is now. I’m sure he loves his title "maverick" because it’s about as cool as you can get in politics without having to produce a libertarian membership card. But let’s face it: the tag "maverick" is about as dated for McCain as the 1986 movie Top Gun in which Tom Cruise enjoyed that same call sign as a fictitious, playboy, Navy pilot (and don’t get me started on the Navy pilot stuff. I’ll just say this: 4 planes crashed should assure you a nice job in the Navy that doesn’t involve, you know, planes). A maverick Republican is an oxymoron. It could be argued that if there is such a thing as a maverick Republican that Joe Lieberman is it because he’s a Republican who simply refuses to call himself a Republican (and the bar is low to begin with: you buy the jacket, you’re in).
McCain has pandered his way into this nomination that was promised to him by the RNC back in 2000 when Georgie boyle stole the primary (and eventually the presidency). For every maverick move he’s ever made, whether it have been heralded as great or condemned as wrong, John McCain has negated them all in every bent knee or courteous bow to the enigmatic dunderheads of the Republican party and the inhumane antisocial corporations that own it. And for what? The presidency, plain and simple. But what does that presidency mean? It means something entirely different to the Republican party. It means, first and foremost, that McCain has become the chief pick of the Republican party to go about the playground to do one thing: to grab and horde any and every toy so the Democrats can’t play with them. In so doing, McCain has forgotten the very ideals which make the playground a sacred place for having fun.
McCain, rather than celebrating his awkward outside status, has donned the golf pants and sweater vests to stand with the snotty rich kids who detest the rest they won’t feign to accept. It’s all so very Mean Girls that the best looks of contempt are simply lost on those who strangely enough can’t figure out why they are being urinated on. It’s almost a state of disbelief in the rest of us that there can still, in this day and age, be people who will simultaneously take your money while telling you that you should keep more of it.
Back on point and I’ll conclude: ignorance has some degree of innocence to it. Take racism, for example: saying a racist is simply ignorant, is far too dismissive of a racist’s willful idiocy. There can be no excuse for blatant disregard, and it can carry no innocence. McCain has come part and parcel as a Republican candidate precisely because he shows no remorse for the better (if only slightly) principles he once championed. It is precisely because of this empty build up of speed that McCain, the candidate, has gone so shamefully far and yet so terribly awry; shedding his soul in the process. And since the Republican party proclaims the monopoly on decency, the soul, and the branding of American saints - and a vast number of American’s will gleefully trust it - the Republican party will knowingly accept John McCain without his soul... pants or no. And if he does become president, I will not be laughing.
"Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth." - Jean-Paul Sartre
