Springfield’s proposed coal-fired powerplant, Southwest 2, has been a hard issue for me to deal with … that is until tonight. I have read what my blog buddies have said, the News-Leader’s op/ed, and letters to the editors as well as the literature being passed around by both sides. I just could not make up my mind.
After a good movie at The Moxie and a dinner with friends and wife afterwards at Adobe, we talked about Southwest 2. My friend Paul asked me simply:
Paul: “If we build this powerplant are you willing to live next to it?”
Jack: “No.”
Paul: “If we built a nuclear plant, would you live next the plant or it’s waste dumping ground.”
Jack: “No.”
Paul: “Then how can you vote for it?”
He was right. Setting aside the politics and economics, it boiled down to one issue for me: Am I willing to live with the High Price of Low Cost? I don’t want to live next to a coal plant and subject my family to the numerous medical issues related to coal. If we built a nuclear plant, as suggested by Ron at Chatter, I would not want to live next to the nuclear dumping ground along with the three-eyed fish. If I am not willing to do that, then I should not be willing to give that fate to others. Speaking only for myself, that would be an immoral and unethical decision.
So I am voting against the power plant on Tuesday, June 6, and I am refusing to take part in the High Cost of Low Price.
Interested in what others have to say:
Chatter by Ron Davis
Rhetorica
Holy Grail Press
After a good movie at The Moxie and a dinner with friends and wife afterwards at Adobe, we talked about Southwest 2. My friend Paul asked me simply:
Paul: “If we build this powerplant are you willing to live next to it?”
Jack: “No.”
Paul: “If we built a nuclear plant, would you live next the plant or it’s waste dumping ground.”
Jack: “No.”
Paul: “Then how can you vote for it?”
He was right. Setting aside the politics and economics, it boiled down to one issue for me: Am I willing to live with the High Price of Low Cost? I don’t want to live next to a coal plant and subject my family to the numerous medical issues related to coal. If we built a nuclear plant, as suggested by Ron at Chatter, I would not want to live next to the nuclear dumping ground along with the three-eyed fish. If I am not willing to do that, then I should not be willing to give that fate to others. Speaking only for myself, that would be an immoral and unethical decision.
So I am voting against the power plant on Tuesday, June 6, and I am refusing to take part in the High Cost of Low Price.
Interested in what others have to say:
Chatter by Ron Davis
Rhetorica
Holy Grail Press
Posts
3 comments:
You had me more convinced until I read what Granny just wrote. See Granny you are influencing me a little bit.
Too bad that both sides of the power plant issue used deceitful tactics to make their respective points. That served to confuse the community and make this decision very difficult.
So Granny, would you live next to the coal-fired plant and support building a school next door to it. There are so many studies that show the terrible impacts of coal on the health of children and adults.
I know you support nuclear as well? Would you live next to the nuclear waste dumping site?
As for the "No" vote actually votes for dirtier air, I am not sure how that works. You need to explain that to me. It would see that by voting "no" there will be no plant at all and that does not increase our dirty air. So how does "no" equal Springfield's air becoming dirtier? I would really love to know. If I am wrong, then I need to be corrected.
I've been very frustrated at this issue, because it seems it is so clouded and smokey that I have a hard time determining what is right.
I have to tell you, the fact that self-proclaimed liberals such as Ron and Granny are supporting it, it makes it even harder for me.
Firstly, I want to appologize for applying a label to you. That was out of turn. As one who does not like labels slew about, shame on me for falling prey to that.
Secondly, let me state that the term "liberal" is not a bad or dirty work in my view.
Thirdly, I also view myself as someone who falls on both sides from time to time, giving myself the label: "Demublican."
So, many pardons for my transgression.
I would never vote yea or nea just because the cool guy down the street said to, and I want to be just like him. I agree with you that we should vote our conscious. However, when I see intelligent, well spoken persons speak up on an issue, then I will listen to them and consider their points. The fact that some folks (and Ron did use the term liberal on his blog) vote in favor of the coal plant surprises me. That makes me ponder, hmmm, is there something I am missing here?
So when you and Ron support the coal plant, it makes me rethink my issue and to reconsider it again. That does not mean that I am voting one way or another because you too did, cool though you may be.
But, I don't think you should assume that I am voting for something just because I listen to your thoughts and reconsider my position. That would be labeling me.
Besides, the world might be a better place if those in control would re-examine their view points now and again and really listen to the opposition.
Admittedly, I do not know much about coal. My experience there is very limited. And I have stated that this issue was hard for me. I am still struggling with it (even though I voted.)
Post a Comment