Against The Ropes, California Nuclear Power Proponents Put Up Their Nukes In New Fights

Mr. Patton,

Just in case you are not aware, your earlier article on this website from last September 10th, "Truth in Advertising? Just say No to the California Nuke Initiative" had a few blog entries, one from Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, that are in need of your attention.

Since it is rare that an elected official would respond to your issue/points/position so forthrightly AND timely, I would appreciate yourself, the original articles author, to respond to his points. As it sits now, you position there was shot full of holes by the blog responders, including an elected official who is in fact working on the issue you brought up in the first place.

In case you have any doubt, your credibility there and in your future articles is questionable by your lack of a response, let alone one that tackles the specific points brought up by Assemblyman DeVore and other bloggers.

Lets see how your rebuttal goes. Lack of one is a bad position by default.

Just how can we "conserve" water enough or get enough electrical power at the rate of population growth (legal and illegal) that California is now experiencing?

Thanks for your attention and good luck.

Jay: Stop making the same point--he has already responded n the previous article. Get a life and stop trying to tell people what they must repond to.

When Assemblymember DeVore starts voting for environmental legislation, he will have a lot more credibility with the readers of this site.

Not content to cause the largest proportion of global warming by opposing nuclear power for the past 30 years using such scare tactics as nuclear waste bogeymen, I see that Vermont, with 75% nuclear, produces a mere 5 pounds of carbon per megawatt. I also see California producing 650 pounds per megawatt.
Isn't it wonderful that California can produce political fantasies to match their Hollywood fictions? Ha, Ha, Ha, ha, ha. Thanks again for your strong contribution towards global warming by opposing nuclear power. Apparently those Asians are going to outdo the US yet again : China just began work on a nuclear plant that will produce 6000 megawatts, 95% of the time, wich is more than all f California's alternative energies put together, and at 1/4 th the cost. Thanks for raping your consumers with the highest electrical rates in the country and thanks for subsidizing your
millionaire "environmentalists'" roofs all the while.
304 new nuclear plants worldwide are now under construction, including the world's largest in France and 32 in the U.S. Keep the faith, California - and keep raping your consumers with 15 cent electricity,
highest in the land. And keep those carbon emissions flowing into our shared atmosphere. Thanks , California, I see your environmental arrogance, and your less-than-impressive results. Maybe you should
invite the Governor of Vermont to come teach you West Coast folks how to reduce carbon emissions. Wind (producing less than 2 percant) just isn't going to hack it in a world where demand increases that much each year.

By gosh Mr. Russo, you are right. After over a month of his articles posting on September 10th, I had assumed he was never going to respond. Sure enough, he did on October 14th...and not in detail.

Still, I don't see any positive ideas towards solving California's power and water issues by the left in general or Mr. Patton in particular as of late. Any new construction of dams or nuclear powerplants is thwarted or stalled significantly with no viable or timely alternatives suggested.

(Long term storage of nuclear waste in Nevada is viable logically. Politically, that is another story...).

Conservation? Will that cover an ever increasing (legal and illegal) California population base? Want no foreign entanglements over energy, no "Blood for oil"? How about increasing drilling in the US lower 48? Alaska/Anwar? Those initiatives are stopped COLD by environmentalist extremists. Ones who hippocritically drink from a human engineered flooding of the beautiful Hetch-Hechy canyon reservoir and turn their lights on at night from power generated by oil, coal and gas fired powerplants.

Mr. Russo, I think you may have (angrily?) strayed into the realm of childish in telling me to, "Get a life and stop trying to tell people what they must respond to".

By that logic, you should also "get a life" and stop trying to tell people how to THINK, especially while ignoring or literally calling folks whom you don't agree with names or use put downs.

That includes Assemblyman DeVore who, in your solo opinion, needs to vote the "right way" to gain credibility with this sites readers. He has responsibilities much larger than this sites readership and was elected to execute those responsibilities by the voters in his district and to all Californians in the comittees he participates in. He did give a timely rebuttal to Mr. Patton as someone in the process of working legislation on that very issue. Mr. Patton (and yourself) for over a month ignored that potential enlightening for all conversation and point-counterpoint. Why? Not doing so was a lost opportunity for all. Thanks for nothing.

Did you even consider Assemblyman DeVore is actually trying to reduce global warming and our human impact on the environment VIA substituting nuclear power for other, dirtier forms of energy production? Could him being a mere republican cloud that logic further with, "readers of this site"?

Kent above poses an excellent point of how much carbon footprint nuclear waste is in compairison to other forms of energy use and would effect global warming accordingly. Will you call him an extremist or someone who should "get a life"? Will Mr. Patton take over a month to respond, if at all?

Whats the point of bringing these issues up for conversation if you don't really, REALLY want to talk about them?

It really would be great to get a response -- especially as I am one of the few elected officials who actually does read and respond to blogs.

But, frankly, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Patton's complete lack of respect in ignoring my last post on his blog. On one hand, I think it shows the weakness of his argument -- just like when Assembly Natural Resources Chair Loni Hancock cut me off in mid-sentence on my opening remarks about my nuclear power bill earlier this year (see the San Francisco Chronicle story, “Nuclear power plant bill dies -- committee chair cuts off author” April 17, 2007). On the other hand, I think vigorous debate is healthy in our democratic republic.

As it is, I’ll take Mr. Patton’s silence in the face of a direct reply by a State Assemblyman who represents the people of the state of California as well as 450,000 constituents as a good sign of the strength of my arguments and the complete lack of any constructive solutions whatsoever on his part to deal with the continued growth of our state.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

When will these so called environmentalists do some new research on the current state of nuclear power plants. Around the world many environmentalists have looked into many power options and have changed their tunes.
As the world requires more "Green" power, Nuclear has proved to be the best choice in regards to "carbon footprint" and total power output. Does the PCL not realize that if California had more nuclear and less coal power plants we would have less radiation being released into our environment let alone all the greenhouse gases.
PCL please get your head out of the 1970's sand. Current nuclear power plants are as different as the Ford model T is to the Toyota Prius.

Max W.

Mr. Patton & Mr. Russo, the ball is in YOUR court...or will it be over a month again for a response?

Or, are you merely content with playing the "Chicken Little" role in making all kinds of accusations against nuclear power and then leaving the realm of discussion here? Especially when competent counterpoints to your arguments are posed including by a legislator involved in the VERY ISSUE you are "hot" on?

Funny, you would think if you wrote an article and it was published you would be very interested to see the reaction it creates in the follow up blog posts, etc. Those could actually be a forum to use in further bolstering your points. Apparently, Mr. Patton didn't care to follow up on the article(s) in question for over a month with the eventual follow up not in a detailed response to earlier questions posed. Assumption could easily be he a combination of he doesn't really care, doesn't know what he is talking about or doesn't know how to address detailed/insightful questions; all of which degrade his initial effort significantly.

Mr. Russo, do you give me "credit" for generating Mr. Patton's response to the earlier article? I have no need for flattery by myself or seeking it from others. My major bone here is the quality or lack thereof in communication from article writers. A quickie article with no quality follow up is not intellectually satisfying nor complimentary.

I's sure you will once again attempt to marginalize me as a "republican operative" (whatever that is), which I am not. It is indicative that "your side" cannot handle direct debate or point/counter-point on issues in detail and resorts to name calling/marginalizing labels in response. Everyone not in agreement with "your side" must be wrong and ignored or ridiculed accordingly.

Point of note, an article attracted a response, in this case by a legislator involved in the very issue. That potential dialog was ignored most likely because he is from the "other" party. Nice display of a lack of tolerance or respect for a differing point of view let alone the abandonment of bolstering your positions when questioned.

Your positions must therefore, by default, be weak.

My Dear Mr. Gould:

While some authors respond to some comments on these pages, I thin it is unrealistic for you to think that your comments, and even those of a Member of the Assembly, will be responded to by those who have written articles.

In a perfect world, there would be time for all of us to engage in a back and forth as each comment is made or groups of comments. I can't speak for all the other authors on this site, but I spend a good deal more than a normal work week writing, researching, editing, and seeking out articles on issues of the day here in California. We get a number of comments every day--since starting this site in March of last year, over 7,000 last time I checked. Many of them are anonymous, and I don't know your real name or who you are other than to surmise that you live in San Diego from another name you used. My guess is that you have taken the name of the entrepreneurial character from the 19th Century who some refer to as a "robber baron."

I also get a lot of requests for information as emails from a number of individuals that I can't possibly respond to without diminishing my other work on these pages and spending a bit of time with my family. Being an attorney and a former high school debater and the like, I would love to respond to a number of comments that I have to pass by. There is a wide breadth of issues that are covered here and some of the comments made, including even some of yours, would take time to research and give a good response to--other than a quick retort, which might not really move the debate forward.

I know, from the 38 comments you have posted since September 4 of this year under the name of Jay Gould and a couple of other pseudonyms with at least three of your comments that you generally do not share the sentiments of what you read here. You are free to comment. But your demand that YOUR comments be responded to or that of others that you would like to respond to is not going to cause me other likely others to necessarily respond. You are free to post comments but should lower your expectations.

I'd give you credit for Mr. Patton's response to Assemblymember DeVore, and for his communication to DeVore that he would have a specialist at PCL get in touch with him for further discussions, but I don't want to encourage you to have these expectations in the future.

Consider this site more like a magazine or a newspaper with a point of view that accepts letters to the editor and publishes them--We get a lot and all are up for all to see, with the exception of a few who have abused this along with the obvious spammers that I have to go back and delete. Many publications do not have authors respond to letters written--except for some occasions. Many blogs have a back and forth dialogue between those who post articles and comments--some of them stream of consciousness like. I'd like to comment more on the comments, but the crush of putting these pages together daily does not allow that.

If we meet someday, I would love to talk further with you about this. Who knows, maybe we have already met.

Mr. Russo,

Thank you for your reply. It was detailed and extensive. I do understand the limitations of folks who have a lot on their plate. I also understand that persons, especially yourself as you mention, have to decide what is worth your time in replying to when your time and priorities all need their share.

However, I challenge asking for low expectations. You are "off the hook" as site manager to reply to everything in my opinion except perhaps for articles that are of your own creation. That sorta goes for other article writers.

Why? Because they took the time to make an opinion known usually based on the facts as they know OR present them. To walk away from further dialog on the subject they themselves brought up isn't right: Are they unable to defend their points?

ESPECIALLY when a legislator (Mr. DeVore in this case) took time out of HIS busy schedule to reply in detail to Mr. Patton. What an opportunity for all to observe that dialog! How often does that happen on this website? Not very. That is why I "demanded" (your words) Mr. Patton reply/participate in said dialog. Mr. Patton brought it up in the first place, Mr. DeVore WORKS that EXACT issue in SAC; why not have both go back & forth?

Mr. Patton's inability to foillow up on an article he wrote in a timely fashion seems strange, especially when it would have been with said legislator involved in the issue. A lost opportunity at least, speculation is he felt unable to defend his points/positions. Perhaps we will never know...

Contrast to Assemblyman Leno's article of late saying a "Rovian plan" was at work in CA. You actually EXCUSED him from reply as I was a "republican operative" (your words) and not worthy of a reply. Were my points indefensable for Mr. Leno to deal with? Maybe he isn't good enough then to represent his constituents then OR weigh in on issues effecting all Californians...

I do understand your desire to share/exhibit viewpoints with those of similar political bent. As you noted, you have many visitors to this website with myself being very frequent. What is the ratio of "friendly" progressive visitors vs "unfriendly" "republican operatives"? They are all counted in your grand total of visitors are they not? Something to think about...

You do have the gamut of progressive thought on display here. I actually like Mr. Patton on a lot of his points (one of the reasons I "took him to task") as he does put quality effort into his thoughts. Then you have the Cavala's and Lyon's who merely spew propaganda often twisting history to fit their twisted scenarios (my opinion of course) at the same time. I know you (the general "you") are trying to rally the base, etc., but it souldn't be, but often is here, used at the expense of real history and to sway those of lesser exposures to either life experiences or a greater education background. It is a shame a guy with Cavala's alleged education/background would perform in the role of propagandist, what a waste. To his credit, he does at times readily & openly admit he is in the "game" to win, get his side elected, etc. He is willing (eager in fact!) to play this role. But as a shallow propagandist, he must be challenged by those who see the hippocracy and meaness he expouses for political gain.

Unfortunately, myself included, we get down in the mud and use the same tactics for the same goals relative to our "side" from time to time. Example: I will use Cavala tactics/style on folks like Cavala. He does it vs republicans too. Whether it "works" or not is up to the reader.

Please reference your recent article on state voter registration vs Cavala's. The analytical (yours) contrasted to the propaganda (Cavala's) versions and both referencing the same source material!

Again Mr. Russo, I appreciate your quality blog entry here and will think about it in our future dialogs.

I look forward to "seeing" you again.

Post a comment