Pat Wilde, a 1974 graduate of Wayland High School, a friend and a serious basketball referee over many years, told me not long ago that in his humble opinion the best news broadcaster in the journalism business is Ana Kasparian.
He also swore that it wasn’t just because she’s easy on the eyes.
An unabashed progressive, she has provided me with the real example of “fair and balanced” in the field during an age in which some can make that same claim and then poop all over it when they present news and views.
I watched a couple of solid examples earlier this month, and, like with Wilde, it solidified my perception of her as “fair and balanced,” even though she tells viewers she’s a lefty.
Kasparian issued a public apology for her coverage of the Florida woman who claimed she was told to lie about Gov. Ron DeSantis and his activities, which led to her firing. Kasparian admitted she found the woman’s testimony credible, but later found some troubling evidence to the contrary.
She apologized for not checking into her more deeply and finding errors in what she said and did, and even accused herself of letting her personal bias get in the way of “fair and balanced” reportage.
A more recent example came earlier this week when she presented editorial comment lamenting the single-mindedness of the “no nukes” political movement. Noting that Germany now has totally turned its back on nuclear power by shutting down all generators and plants, she opined that perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea to go all the way.
Kasparian maintained that in countries in which nuclear power has been forsaken, they have had to turn back to oil and coal to fill energy needs in the meantime.
This has been reflected in Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s suggestion that the Palisades nuclear plant be restarted, all in the interests of providing the people with clean energy while they await the coming of solar, wind and other newer forms.
Kasparian acknowledged the risks, such as the ones we have seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima, but they do not occur often and there’s a certain amount of risk in living every day. The key is to be vigilant in regulating these plants and finding safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste.
Kasparian rightly insists some clean nuclear energy still be made available in a transition period between “dirty” and “polluting” oil and coal and the promise of the future with solar and wind.
I personally thank the unabashedly progressive Kasparian for her sincere attempt to be in earnest “fair and balanced.”
Finally, we are seeing a glimpse of common sense from Governor Whitmer.
Then we have the energy secretary, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm wanting all military vehicles to be electric by 2030…………….This certainly will “Blow us away.”
Two questions:
1- Army Bob, how well will this work in battle?
2- Mr. 2030- Will this matter if we are all done in 2030?
Cheers!!
Mr. Wilkens,
Good question. War is 95% logistics; the ability to transport, store and charge electric vehicles for military mobility use is very far off. The amount of fuel to operate the generators necessary and the number of batteries to keep a 76 ton up-loaded M1 main battle tank operating at maximum mobility is not even in the conceptual stage. The ability to quickly replace or charge the massive batteries necessary to power a heavy military vehicle is not even close to reality. If an electric combat vehicle was limited to the range of current and projected electric vehicles, transporting the weight necessary to operate in a combat environment and with the recharging period is as projected for the next seven years, the operational readiness status would be a real logistical nightmare. Also keep in mind the military operates in many areas, to include very cold environments, not friendly to batteries.
We are dependent on China for much of our electric vehicle technology and that will not change in the next six years.
This is the silly season; with the Presidential election coming and our former Governor playing to the base of the Socialist/Progressive party. Electric up-armored combat vehicles may be possible, but not in the next six years and eight months. The cost of replacing all military vehicles with electric by 2030 would be staggering, some seven trillion just for main battle tanks. Add in the 225,000 other vehicles and we are looking at a much larger number than $7,000,000,000. for the M1A1 Abrams. And we have not looked at the production capabilities of the electric vehicle manufacturers to produce that number.