Shady CroupiersA concerted effort is underway, by the public relations arm of all the local Democrats, to make the notion of an Independent Safety Assessment seem inocuous, and helpful in the matter of the Democrats' obsession with Indian Point. This is just a step or two less malicious than a campaign of outright lies. It is, in fact, a seemingly earnest, but manipulative misuse of an established body of existing PR lies, now referred to as "public concern".
The Democratic officials have not concocted new lies about Indian Point, but they never critically investigated exaggerations served up to them by their staff, and paid fear-creators in the big-charity foundation-funded "movement". The paid PR perpetrators acted at one remove, calling themselves "watchdogs", but in reality sowing mistrust, smearing people of good will, misleading thousands with junkscience misinterpretations, and the staff people of all major Democratic figures worked closely with them, to pull in whatever votes could be gleaned from their impressive set of mailing lists.
The collective set of lies is now misnomered as "public concern". It is not public, and it is not concern. It is the private skewing of facts by professional PR people planted in the green movement by big oil foundations, specifically targeting all things nuclear. I have made an effort to identify and name the main operatives, and they number no more than 50-75 people nationwide. This is the single source of 99% of so-called "public concern". In point of fact the public is apathetic or uncommitted to these mock-issues, as a quick glance at local chatrooms will show. The public cares about taxes, illegal immigration, bad roads, schools, and half a dozen other topics, with Indian Point seldom mentioned.
But..... it is a way for unconnected Democratic rivals to connect with each other, garner bootstrapping momentum against Nancy Pelosi and others within the Democratic ranks, and to begin the 2008 campaign on an aggressive PR note.
Now let me explain what is so ludicrous about an Independent Safety Assessment. It is a duplication of ongoing inspections already underway at Indian Point. In a series of 100 inspections, specifically demanding inspection number 101 simply shows that the requestors are obviously not reading the results of all the other inspections. A further inspection on top of the last 100 inspections can not turn up anything, good or bad, that the other inspections have not looked at. So no new data will come from a special new inspection.
Then why not do it as a reassurance to the public? To that I say: Why not compile and broadcast the results of the existing 100 inspections to reassure the public? To that Democrats will say "But the public does not care about or trust the other 100 inspections".... To which I reply "It was you, who acted as if mistrust was warranted, and who so browbeat the issue that the public ceased to care.... so it might as well be you, the perpetrators, who remedy that".
And..... once the logical fallacy of ignoring 100 inspections, and all their confirmed data, and rolling the public's dice on a single inspection, (with doubtful data) is clearly pointed out...... there still remains the distinct possibility of hidden malice, and hidden malicious agendas, buried within the seemingly inocuous call for one more inspection.
What do I mean?
It just may be, that someone on the staff of the hand picked new inspection team will have been delegated as "Hit Person"..... assigned the task of skewing results, creating a bogus problem so as to close Indian Point, and thus deprive 20 million people of a rightful service on the whim of 4 congresspeople, a dozen staff members, and a single malicious antinuke mole, outside any public deliberative process.
We have learned how Jamie Garelik was planted on the 9-11 commission staff to quash Clinton mistakes along with national archives vandal Sandy Berger , and therefore we know that the capability of hatching a malicious plot to sabotage a public investigation is well within the capabilities of the Democratic party.
Should we risk regional viablility and affordability, along with future prosperity and security on a dice-roll?
A dice roll by croupiers already implicated in past skulduggery?
