Shelters people we need them sooner rather then later.

What we need to build, and not in 20 years, but in the next 10.

Goldenhill luxury mansion comes complete with nuclear shelter for £7.5 million

Naveen | May 30 2009

goldenhill mansion

Complete with its very own 15-berth nuclear shelter, a 34-seat cinema and an underground aquarium, the Goldenhill is the crowning jewel of A&B Homes’ luxury developments. Attention has been paid to every detail of the property, including its position, orientation to the sun, use of materials, landscaping of the grounds and eco-friendly sources. The palatial property is up for grabs for a cool £7.5 million (more than $12 million). A&B Homes are billing Golden Hill as an “exemplary residence, which affords the occupants every conceivable comfort and convenience.” The luxury mansion has even impressed England and Chelsea football captain John Terry. Unfortunately, the football star didn’t like the location. For £7.5 million, you get 10 bedrooms, 17 bathrooms and seven kitchens. Other lavish amenities include a 50-foot master bedroom, 52-foot swimming pool and orangery with spa, sauna and steam room, poolside gym area, pool hall with bespoke bar, tennis court, intelligent lighting control, underground garage for 10 cars, 100m long lake, private grounds of 100 acres and an outside summer house with an underground aquarium view of the lake.

Continue reading

Has the media portrayed an accurate depiction of a nuclear holocaust?


Has the media portrayed an accurate depiction of a nuclear holocaust?

Over the years since the presence of the atomic bombs were first made globally public at the end of the second World War many ideas have sprung up about what such a powerful weapon was capable of. These ideas range from small affects to a global affect of these dangerous tools of destruction. Though these stories are represented in many different forms and tell their own stories in different ways they all share one idea, the event of a nuclear apocalypse or holocaust.


The idea of a nuclear holocaust has been represented in many different forms of media like books, movies and video games. These works of fiction have shown up since soon after the bombs were first dropped on Japan to very recently. as time has past though, and the amount and production of nuclear bombs in the world has increased drastically since the 1940s, these works are getting closer to being reality, but are they actually realistic depictions of what the world would be like in a post-nuclear war society?

One of the first publications of these ideas to come out was a novel by the title of On the Beach. It depicted the world after a global scale atomic war (World War III) and shows that most of the world is left barren and inhospitable and only small pockets of humanity are left like Australia. The novel was later produced into a film in 1959. Another portrayal of nuclear attack was the TV film titled The Day After though it focused on a much smaller scale. The film showed what became a large populated city after it was bombed by nuclear bombs and what happened to the city and its remaining inhabitants in the days following the bombing.


One of the most recent forms of this idea that was released came in the form the video game Fallout 3 which of course is part of the Fallout series that all focus on this idea of a nuclear holocaust. The game depicts Washington D.C. as a barren wasteland in which only small societies of people survive. Although the game focuses less on a global affect and more on only one part of the world it takes other aspects and ideas to the extreme. The game is full of completely mutated animals as a cause of the radiation from the bombs and even goes so far as creating certain new species as a result from heavy exposure to radiation, like green mutant humans and other such oddities. Though certain aspects of the game go off on a bit of a tangent and feel more sci-fi than realistic but it holds certain aspects that are common in a post-nuclear apocalypse works of fiction.


Speaking not of works of fiction but more scientifically, there are certain things that are thought to happen after a global atomic war. Many scientists hypothesize that the earth would go through two major phases following the war; nuclear winter and nuclear summer. Nuclear winter would first occur from the destruction caused by the bombs releasing smoke and soot into the atmosphere which would then block the sun’s rays and cool the whole planet; scientists believe this would last for anywhere between months to a few years.


After the soot and smoke has left the atmosphere the world would go into nuclear summer. This is where the atmosphere and ozone are actually left clearer and full of more water vapor which would actually increase the affect of the sun’s rays. This would leave large portions of the world barren and unable to support life. This idea of large inhospitable areas of the world is almost essential to the forms of media representing a case like this since just about all books, movies, and video games take place in or mentions large, barren parts of the world that can’t support life. In that aspect, the media has done a good job depicting the world after a global nuclear holocaust.

Killing Republicans Is OK for the Left?

Killing Republicans Is OK for the Left?

by Henry Percy

Last Friday my wife and I went out to eat at our favorite restaurant. As we sat down I did not pay attention to the table behind me, but as I ate I began to feel under assault, for the man facing me had a loud voice. After “the Republicans … healthcare … insurance” washed over my ears several times I started listening. “You shouldn’t lose your health insurance just because you lose your job … My friend’s on Medicare now and loves it. Lot better than a money-grubbing private insurance company … They had 25,000 at the protest, and no one knows how many of them were illegals. Probably a lot … Wonder why they don’t arrange to have someone shoot Sheriff Joe [Arpaio] and have a plane standing by. Hustle the guy on the plane and take him down to Mexico City and he could disappear-they’d never find him … Yeah, Joe would get what he has coming.” Delivered not in a what-if attitude of speculation but an if-only tone of regret. The speaker was serious, dead serious.
Since we were sittings just blocks from a large state university, I assumed they must be scraggly college kids enrolled in Anarchy 101. So when they got up and left I had a shock: two bald headed gentlemen in their 60s, in conservative, casual dress.
Now come columns on CNN and the Huffington Post urging President Obama to “go gangsta” and “break kneecaps.” These are the people that waxed hysterical about Bush “shredding the Constitution,” over waterboarding of terrorists, but kneecapping Republicans or killing a sheriff? Sure, for the greater good. What is it about peaceniks that makes them so violent?
Henry Percy is the nom de guerre for a technical writer living in Arizona. He may be reached at

Give Me Tenure or Give Me a 9mm: the Tenure Killer

Give Me Tenure or Give Me a 9mm: the Tenure Killer

Ralph Alter
Despite the cold-blooded, calculated multiple acts of murder alleged to have been committed by failed Professor Amy Bishop, the forces of political correctness continue to try to envelop the tenure-denied killer in a cocoon of protective reporting and spin. As facts roll in about the combative, murderous past of Bishop however, it becomes increasingly more difficult for the PC troops to sugar-coat the narrative.

Her three colleagues on staff at the University of Alabama, Huntsville weren’t the first victims of the Tenure Killer’s unbridled rage. The New York Times reports that Angry Amy murdered her own bother in 1986:
“On Saturday afternoon, the police in Braintree, Mass., announced that 24 years ago, Dr. Bishop had fatally wounded her brother, Seth Bishop, in an argument at their home, which the Boston Globe first reported on their website. The police were considering re-opening the case, in which she was not charged, and the report by the officer on duty at the time were no longer available, said Paul Frazier, the Braintree police chief.”
Bishop was also a suspect in the attempted pipe-bombing of Dr. Paul Rosenberg, a Harvard M.D. who was evaluating her doctoral work. The tenure killer was known to quarrel with Rosenberg, who escaped harm as the bomb was unable to detonate.  The police chief in Huntsville is working with the FBI to determine more about Bishop’s involvement in the bombing attempt.
As we learned when the belligerent Skip Gates was arrested on his doorstep in the academic community of Cambridge Mass., the locals in the Harvard University area have been cowed into treating students and faculty at the Ivy League college as though they have academic immunity from prosecution.
Three dead professors at the University of Alabama, Huntsville paid the price for the Braintree officals’ malfeasance in the Amy Bishop fratricide. While the incident was officially recorded as an accident, the police chief himself suggests special treatment and a cover-up:
“But Chief Frazier said in his statement that the officer on duty, Ronald Solomini, remembered that Dr. Bishop had shot and killed her brother after an argument. She fired another round from the shotgun into the ceiling as she left the home, the officer said, and fled down the street with the shotgun. The officer also remembered her pointing the shotgun at a vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop….Another officer, Timothy Murphy, seized the shotgun, and Dr. Bishop was handcuffed and transported to the police station under arrest.” (ibid NYT)
Despite a mother lode of complaints and evidence of Bishop’s irascibility, inability to teach or relate to students and consistently sociopathic behavior, the New York Times attempts to soften her image. They describe her as “a respected scientist,…a grant-winning scientist and mother of four,…(whose) business prospects seemed bright.”
They portray her attempts to have Harvard’s president censured as some sort of student advocacy effort and minimize her aberrant behavior as
“perhaps a little quirky, but no more so than most scientists.”
Really? While scientists like Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla were certainly eccentric, there is a big difference between quirky and homicidal. It appears that the tenure killer’s extreme left-wing politics were also confrontational. Her obsession with Barack Obama was reported in the Boston Herald article cited earlier.
This case highlights the fact that our academic institutions in America have developed an alternative universe view of morality and performance. While it is nearly impossible to get fired once tenure is obtained, even a combative, insular, incompetent wack-job like Amy Bishop was kept employed as a professor when it was clear that she had no business interacting with other students or faculty.

As a matter of fact, she should have been in prison. While the reformation of our educational institutions is an essential component of the resurgence of conservatism in America, the elimination of tenure and the establishment of regular performance reviews for teachers and professors at every level is absolutely necessary.
Ralph Alter blogs at Right on Target

Liberals Say U.S. Is Ungovernable. Again.

Liberals Say U.S. Is

Ungovernable. Again.

By Christopher Chantrill

Liberals are at it again. They are worrying that the U.S. is “ungovernable.” Political scientist Jay Cost has the details:

Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America’s “political instability” was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed “obstructionist Republicans,” “spineless Democrats,” and an “incoherent public” for the problem.
Liberals were saying exactly the same thing in 1980, thirty years ago, in the darkest days of the Carter administration. The mess of inflation, recession, Iran hostages, and gas lines, they decided, was not a direct result of stupid Carter administration policy. It was a sign that America’s best days were behind us, and that there was nothing to do but decline gracefully.
You’ll remember that U.S. voters in the fall of 1980 had a different idea. They decided to elect a B-movie actor to the presidency. Yes, that’s what liberals called Ronald Reagan back then. Clark Clifford, the “wise man of Washington,” hadn’t even thought of calling him an “amiable dunce.” Not yet.
The Amiable Dunce proceeded to cut tax rates. He strengthened the dollar and cut government spending. It wasn’t so much governing as getting government out of the way. The result was a twenty-year boom. And now here we are back where we started, with a nasty economy, a soft dollar, a failed presidency, and another generation of liberals complaining that the U.S. is ungovernable.
To call a nation ungovernable is as ignorant as calling an airplane in which you are the pilot “unflyable.” When Tex Johnston made the first flight in the eight-engine YB-52 bomber in April 1952, he found on climb-out that the control force needed to apply bank with the ailerons made it impossible to turn the airplane. Did he give up and bail out of this unflyable airplane? Not according to the story he tells in Jet-Age Test Pilot. He tried the rudder pedals and found that he could yaw the airplane — and the secondary effect of yaw, as every pilot knows, is bank. So Tex brought the prototype YB-52 in to land using the rudder pedals, directed the engineers to make some adjustments, and the rest is history.
Tex’s problem with the B-52 ailerons is the same as the liberal problem with the filibuster. Liberals are finding the Senate’s controls too heavy. It’s almost impossible, they complain, to get the Senate to turn on command. So they want to change the rules to make it easier for them to do a cram-down on partisan legislation.
Don’t they realize that the founding fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution precisely to make it hard to control the Senate? The founders wanted to restrain momentary Pelosian majorities in the House of Representatives with regional power in the upper house. They set the controls to make the U.S. almost ungovernable — by design.
Our liberal friends have helped in one area.  Their postmodern professors have taught us that history is nothing more than a self-serving narrative dictated by the powerful. Radical historians like the recently departed Howard Zinn in A People’s History of the United States have made fortunes out of exploding the notion of European civilization by recounting the nasty things white European males have done to “the people” all over the world. Noam Chomsky has made himself a rich man penning screeds about American imperialism.
Our left-wing friends never seem to have thought that their narrative of injustice, which exposed the hypocrisies of the world bourgeoisie and global corporations, applies exactly to them and their progressive project.
When you look at the great government programs, you can believe the liberal narrative about helping people, or you can believe the liberal postmodernists and assume that it’s all about power. Every regulation is a bid for power; every dollar of spending is a payoff to supporters. You can make a case that the Obama administration’s program of stimuli, bailouts, tax “agnosticism,” and crony capitalism is all about hope and change for the people. But in the modern age, stripped of superstition and Platonic “likely stories,” we believe in the simple, elegant explanation. Nah, it’s all about power.
Stripped of its narrative myth, every government is an armed minority occupying territory and subjugating its population. That’s why the Audi Green Police commercial is so mordantly funny. In the United States in 2010, the police power can fine you for not separating your garbage correctly. But an armed minority does not just sic the police on its middle-class citizens. It must reward its supporters. That’s why government spending has gone from 7 percent of GDP to 45 percent in a century. That’s why government workers earn more than private-sector workers.
So when liberal wring their hands because the U.S. seems to be ungovernable, we conservatives chuckle. That’s not a bug, liberals; that’s a feature.
Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his and His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition

Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition

2010 February 17

by lornakismet

By STEPHEN POWER And BEN CASSELMAN / FEBRUARY 17, 201 / Wall Street Journal

Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Reuters BP PLC and two other major firms quit a lobbying group focused on shaping global-warming policy.

Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin’s push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ’s Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won’t renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry’s main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.

The administration had worked hard to persuade industry groups to climb aboard its major legislative initiatives—a tack many business interests saw as sensible following the Democrats’ big gains in the 2008 elections. But “unlikely bedfellows make for breakups,” said Kevin Book, managing director of Clearview Energy Partners, a consulting firm.

More on Climate Change

Spokesmen for ConocoPhillips and BP said the companies still support legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but believe they can accomplish more working outside USCAP’s umbrella. Caterpillar said it plans to focus on commercializing green technologies.

ConocoPhillips’s senior vice president for government affairs, Red Cavaney, said the USCAP was focused on getting a climate-change bill passed, whereas Conoco is increasingly concerned with what the details of such a bill would be.

“USCAP was starting to do more and more on trying to get a bill out without trying to work as much on the substance of it,” Mr. Cavaney said.

A spokesman for USCAP said it intends to continue its work. More than 20 other large companies, including oil company Royal Dutch Shell PLC and industrial heavyweights General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc., remain in the coalition with environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. The USCAP said it expects to add new members in coming months.

“We think there’s momentum to get [a climate bill] done,” USCAP spokesman Tad Segal said. “President [Barack] Obama’s State of the Union address made it clear the administration is behind us.”

But experts said the companies’ decision to withdraw from USCAP is a sign the politics of climate change is shifting in Washington. When Mr. Obama took office, Congress appeared to have momentum for a climate bill that would push the economy toward lower-carbon alternatives. But as the economy soured, support waned.

The Obama administration says it will curb greenhouse-gas emissions using the Clean Air Act if Congress doesn’t act, and the Environmental Protection Agency has been pushing ahead with rule making.

When USCAP was founded in 2007, leaders of big U.S. companies had grown concerned that Democrats in Congress were preparing to put strict limits on industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to climate change. Many executives decided it was better to be part of the debate in a united front.

“The saying in Washington is that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” said Whitney Stanco, an energy policy analyst for Concept Capital, a Washington research firm.

The big-tent approach boosted USCAP’s influence. In January 2009, the group released its recommendations for legislation. Many were incorporated into legislation, adopted by the House, that would require companies to reduce carbon emissions or buy pollution credits from firms that did.

But not all of USCAP’s members supported the bill. Caterpillar objected in part because it would impose tariffs on goods from countries that didn’t match U.S. efforts to combat climate change. BP and Conoco opposed it on the grounds that it didn’t treat energy producers equally.

As long as climate legislation appeared imminent, companies were willing to paper over their differences and continue to work together. But by late last year, momentum had stalled in the Senate as Washington turned its attention to health care, the economy and the midterm elections. Few experts expect a bill to pass this year.

USCAP isn’t the only group to be roiled by the issue. Last year, several members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quit the group over its stance against the climate bill.

View interactives HERE.

Write to Stephen Power at and Ben Casselman at