how is it pro-nuke to debate how much the bloody things cost?
It boils down to this: some of us are technocrats. some more eager and some more reluctant. But from a technocratic point of view, the heated debate makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe De and DoDo are recovering technocrats (like DoDo calls himself a recovering interventionist). Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
I'm not sure I am not a technocrat -- not with rail; and I think even building & maintaining a decentralised energy production structure would need elements that can be called technocratic -- say grid planning, balancing (energy storage) network, boosting production and technology export. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Most of the most vociferous opposition to nuclear isn't. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
the simple issue being how to provide as much power as cleanly as possible to as many people, cleaning up our ancestors mistakes, and busting people who pretend to be logical and dispassionate, but are really indulging in intransigence, for the ego-thrilling sake of it.
it's interesting how the tone (polemic, superior) reveals almost always more than the melody ( the wake of the mind's tacks), except in certain poignant occasions, to wrap it in a musical metaphor.
i think of a gorgeous strain, hissing and crackling through a rusty, semi-shorted reciever, and still breaking your heart.
some melodies can do that, beat even shitty tone....exception that proves the rule!
when it comes down to trusting my eyes or my ears, i always trust the latter, it connects more deeply.
can you 'hear' tone in the posts here at ET?
i sure can...life's too short to waste reacting to bristly pedants. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
