He will never be PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
no matter how he rises. Is it not that pitiful???
On Apr 21, 8:05 pm, JTEM <jte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Saw John Kerry today, together with his lovely wife,
> during a talk/signing session for their new book on
> the environment.
>
> For anyone afraid he's trying to squeeze into Al Gore's
> territory: Relax. Al Gore wrote the forward for the book.
>
> I have to say that I was a little surprised by John Kerry.
> Then again, if us native New Englanders who've known
> him since his days as Lt. Governor rarely see him
> without the same media filters that the rest of the nation
> see him through. Anyhow, this was exactly the John
> Kerry you were routing for in 04, and thought you only
> wished existed.
>
> This was a strong John Kerry, unafraid to tell people
> what they didn't want to hear, but an intelligent &
> articulate John Kerry who could (and did) offer very good
> reasons for doing so.
>
> The most relevant (for alt.atheism) example was when
> someone asked him about selling/phrasing the environment
> as a moral issue.... a rather obvious strategy for reaching
> the Reich wing crowd. As John Kerry pointed out, that only
> works if they believe the science. If they don't believe the
> science then there's no issue in their minds to speak of,
> moral or otherwise.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with the Senator on that one. I mean,
> he's right about the wing nuts not believing the science,
> but he's doubting (or seriously downplaying) the hearding
> instincts of the Reich wing sheep. That is, if they hear
> enough people phrasing the environment in moral terms
> then, for them, it becomes a moral issue.
>
> Still, I have to admire his giving an answer that was clearly
> not desired.
>
> Other issues, though far less relevant here, where a local
> issue concerning a wind farm & nuclear energy... both of
> which I agreed with him on, though perhaps not entirely
> for the same reasons.
>
> I won't bore you with the local issue, but he told a large
> crowd (one that I would conservatively estimate to be
> close to 90% anti-nuclear) that, yes, nuclear energy was
> going to be a part of our near-term national energy strategy.
> We simply have no choice.
>
> Not his words -- he spoke more generically -- but one
> reality I can think of is how the promise of ethanol has
> already raised food prices across the Americas (both
> continents), yet is still incapable of so much as meeting
> our annual increase in demand for oil... never mind replace
> any oil we are already im****ting.
>
> Anyways, talking about nuclear energy to this crowd may
> have taken some guts, but what took real balls was the
> fact that he didn't sugar coat it in the least. He told everyone
> flat out that, long term, with all the expense of building
> nuclear reactors & storing the waste, there's no way that
> nuclear energy will be able to compete with future
> technologies. It's just plain too expensive.
|
