For more than 20 years the federal government had been building a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Built deep underground, the facility was never popular with Nevadans who didn’t want it “in their back yard”. Haven’t heard of Yucca Mountain? Not surprising that you wouldn’t have, unless you’re a true news junkie as nuclear fuel storage isn’t something a great many think about on a daily basis. Or are concerned about for that matter.
Yet nuclear storage was then, and is even more so now, of grave importance. The United States has 65 Nuclear power plants, with 104 reactors. Each of those reactors use nuclear fuel that must be exchanged every so often with fresh fuel. The old fuel is highly radioactive and must be stored in special containers in a secure environment for protection of the surrounding communities, but also to protect it from terrorists that would love to get their hands on it. Federal law requires the Federal government to provide a permanent storage for the used fuel, which will take thousands of years to become inert. But they’ve never done that, as Yucca Mountain has been mired in politics for all of that twenty year period. So the spent fuel is stored at each of the Nuclear power plant facilities in make-shift storage areas. Instead of one centralized location which can be guarded the country must instead deal with 65 separate storage sites that are near communities.
President Obama campaigned on shutting down Yucca Mountain, and instead of treating this like all of his other broken promises, he’s actually followed through. He shut down Yucca Mountain. Yet we as a country are too dependent on foreign oil, and the vast majority of our power plants are coal fired, which are rather dirty by nature. Coal fired plants also produce fly ash, which is cancerous and if not disposed of properly, can allow heavy metals to leech into ground water and soil. It’s no wonder many have wanted to re-emphasize nuclear power in the United States, but because of 3-mile island have not been able to since the late 1970’s. However that is beginning to change with the uptick in the price of oil over the past two years.
Today comes notice that the Obama administration is moving forward with loan guarantees for building of new nuclear power plants. Hurrah, except the problem with the permanent storage of the spent nuclear fuel. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away Mr. President. And it certainly doesn’t make it less risky for those communities either.
People have been right to criticize the Republicans and their political posturing and obstructionism. Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and others were right to openly mock the way Republicans have seemingly overnight changed their views on historic planks of their platform just because Obama was putting forward those ideas. Obama was correct to plead with them with calm, reasoned explanations on how they were politically shooting themselves in the foot in the long term and freezing the work that needed to get done in this country. It was right to speak of Republican Senators that had absurd and asinine holds on Obama’s nominations as holding the government “hostage”. In short, it has been right to describe Republicans as “obstructionist”, and not for principle, but for politics. I personally resonate more with historic “conservative” visions of the government, but I have been disgusted by the abhorrent politicking that Republicans have been doing merely in the name of re-election. As Obama put it, far more concerned with their own job security than ours.
We have been right to cry out, editorialize, mock, rally against, be shocked by, and call for the end of these Republican political antics that have no basis in reason, discourse, or benefit to the American people or process.
But, how should we respond when those we disagree with “come back to the fold” a bit? What do we do when they finally relent their madness for the sake of principle? When reasoned discourse sways them a bit more toward sanity? We do not respond, I contend, in the way that the Huffington Post did with a recent Politico article that they aggregated at HuffPost did. As shown in the picture above, this article was the major banner front page article at HuffPost all last night. I think this is just as shameful and just as much of an example of trying to win political points at the expense of political progress as anything the Republicans did.
The article, by Mike Allen of Politico, tells the story of how after Obama talked to Republican leadership, mainly Mitch McConnell, they removed the hold they had over many of the 60+ nominations, thereby allowing 27 confirmations to occur in one session. They relented. The responded appropriately to the reasoned words of Obama. They acted responsibly in light of their childish antics being exposed. They finally put the priorities of the American people in the right place, even if it was in the briefest of moments. They should be treated with grace. They should be applauded. They should be encouraged to continue this trend to get more done. They should be given the respect they deserve for doing even the little bit they have done.
But no. Allen writes: “Democrats say that McConnell blinked. Republicans contend that the list [of approved nominees] shows they’re not obstructionist.” The Huffington Post takes this quote and build an entire sensationalist gloat by plastering the phrase “GOP Blinks” accompanied by dopey-looking pictures of Mitch McConnell all over their site last night. This perpetuates a certain kind of “we were right, you were wrong”-type atmosphere that does not invite further progress by the GOP. McConnell should be praised and thanked for stopping at least some of the political games. True, the nominees were only released from their hold in a deal to keep Obama from doing recess appointments, and they still have holds on nearly 40 more nominees, but this is still a start. It should be lauded.
Many times, when we are in an argument and we at some point realize we are wrong, that twist of pride we feel in our stomachs isn’t so much over being wrong, but rather over the potential gloating and derision that may follow from our opponent. This can cause stalemates to last infinitely longer than needed. If the Huffington Post was as interested in civil discourse and progress as they seem to be, they would continue to mock and call out when politicians don’t act in our best interest, but would begin to applaud and act with gratitude toward them when they did act in our best interest. This would be the kind of reporting that would serve the purpose of the media.
So, in short, be biased — don’t hide it. But give credit where credit is due. This is the heart of true diplomacy.
Brokaw, to make light of McClellan’s charges, also declares that “all wars are based on propaganda.” He even mentions World War II. For Brokaw, who has embraced the notion of that being the “good war,” to put the Iraq invasion in the same class is outrageous. There is a huge difference between admitting that there is a propaganda element to every war – and pointing out that certain wars are mainly based on propaganda and that a country has been misled, or lied, into war.
Me: I would go further and say that much of the American political debate is based on propaganda. Health care ‘debate’, the bank bailout, it’s getting nigh on impossible to get a decent rational discussion going in this society.
And that will be part of the ruin of our society — devolving into a bunch of uneducated pissed off people screaming at each other led by fools like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I can’t wait, we’re almost there.
AP is reporting today that the new Jobs Bill that Obama is trying to put together is not likely to have much effect beyond adding another $33 billion to the deficit. Obama is hoping that the bill will provide a bi-partisan solution to our economic woes and will buy him back some of the credibility he once enjoyed. The main highlight of the bill is a tax credit for the 6.2% employer portion of Social Security on payroll for hiring someone who has been unemployed for 60 days.
The problem is that once again Obama is addressing the symptoms but not the real problem. Who is going to hire someone, pay them salary, health insurance and other benefits for a 6.2% tax credit just so that person can sit in their office and play solitaire while the phone stays silent? The reason people aren’t hiring is that there isn’t work. The issue isn’t that employers are drowning in work but can’t afford the payroll taxes. And with Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and the end of the Bush tax cuts on the horizon, no employer is going to hire someone they don’t need for a credit on their payroll taxes.
The bill is considered bi-partisan because it extends about $33 billion in popular tax deductions that Democrats let expire while fighting each other over health care. Republicans might consider voting for the $33 billion in ineffective payroll tax cuts in order to reclaim the $33 billion in tax deductions for state sales tax, teachers buying school supplies, tuition, etc.
The other reason Republicans might vote for the bill is because the Democrats, who complained for six years about the Patriot Act, have re-authorized it in this jobs bill. It will be interesting to see if the Left actually notices.
Obama and his progressive lunatics have attempted to blame Bush for just about everything. One of Obama’s favorite lines is to claim that when he came into office, Bush left him with a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. It was so bad that Bush made Obama spend $1.4 trillion in 2009 and another $1.6 trillion in 2010. But, Obama’s spending is not Bush’s fault…its Obama’s
The Washington Times reports:
Even more staggering than the mountains of snow in the capital are the deficits the Obama administration plans for the next decade. Huge spending increases will add about $12 trillion to the national debt for budget years 2009 to 2020. The scariest part is that these deficits are based on unrealistic budgeting assumptions; the real fiscal outlook is much bleaker.
In the proposed 2011 budget, the White House defensively attacks the “irresponsibility of past” deficits. For example, the 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion is blamed on the George W. Bush administration as if President Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package and more than $400 billion supplemental spending bill had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama’s planned 2010 budget deficit rises to an even higher record level of $1.6 trillion. By comparison, all of Mr. Bush’s deficits from 2002 to 2008 – the seven years during which his team had the most control over the budget – produced a combined deficit of $2.1 trillion.
Hey lefties…did you see that last line? Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 7 years. Obama’s BIOB (Blame it on Bush) defense just won’t work anymore.
The media is buzzing in anticipation of the impending launch of Operation Moshtarak in Marja, Afghanistan. It will be the biggest military operation of the war so far, and, in many ways, the first fruit of President Obama’s repeated choices to add more troops and firepower to the mess that is the Afghanistan war. Marja is fairly densely populated area in Afghanistan: 85,000 in Marja proper and about 45,000 in the surrounding region. Missteps or neglegence on the part of the military could be tragic, to say the least. U.S. commanders are talking out of both sides of their mouths, promising the revelation of the oft-promised humane war while promising to rain death on our enemies.
What’s got me the most worried is the spadework being done for some sickeningly familiar hand-washing. One could announce one is about to attack a given location to reduce civilian casualties. One can also give said announcement if one plans on taking the gloves off–that way when innocent people die, you can say, “They were warned. They should have left when they had the chance.” The most vulnerable victims can fall into your trap of moral exculpation.
Marja. Fallujah. New Orleans.
Recall Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004:
Before the second Fallujah offensive, Willingham remembers seeing American planes drop flyers ordering citizens to leave the city.
“The flyers let them know we were getting ready to start bombing the city, (and) anyone who stayed we assumed was an insurgent,” Willingham said.
The Fallujah attacks created more than 200,000 internally displaced people and thousands of civilians were killed (predictable, considering that everyone remaining inside the city was treated as an insurgent). Estimates of the dead vary widely. Some exceed 6,000 people. Dispute the exact numbers if you like. The Fallujah operations were a fiasco. The coalition forces devastated the city. They killed many innocent people. Remember that. That’s what happens when you give an evacuation order to a populated area and then treat those left behind as if it’s their fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Remember New Orleans in the face of Hurricane Katrina. Remember that residents were warned to flee. Remember that despite notice of the oncoming storm, some couldn’t leave.
The world watched helplessly as thousands of New Orleanians were caught in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. While some blamed public officials for not responding soon enough, others blamed the victims for not evacuating when they knew the hurricane’s arrival was imminent. One fundamental insight of social science is to understand the illogic of blaming the victim (Ryan 1976)…
New Orleans is a city in which 27.9 percent of residents live below the poverty line, 11.7 percent are age 65 or older, only 74.7 percent are high school graduates and 27.3 percent of households do not have cars. Furthermore, a larger than average percentage of residents have disabilities: 10.3 percent of 5-20 year olds, 23.6 percent of 21-64 year olds, and 50.1 percent of those age 65 and older have disabilities according to the 2000 U.S. census. In addition, 77.4 percent of New Orleans residents were born in Louisiana and have lived most of their lives there. These statistics alone go far to explain why tens of thousands of the 500,000 residents of New Orleans did not evacuate; in so many ways they were more rooted in place than the average American. …New Orleanians’ plans for evacuation were strongly shaped by their income-level, age, access to information, access to private transportation, their physical mobility and health, their occupations and their social networks outside of the city. These social characteristics translated into distinct evacuation strategies for different sectors of the population.
…
Low-income residents had fewer choices with respect to how to prepare for the imminent arrival of Katrina. Since the storm was at the end of the month and many low-income residents of New Orleans live from paycheck to paycheck, economic resources for evacuating were particularly scarce. …[L]ow-income New Orleanians are those who are least likely to own vehicles, making voluntary evacuation more costly and logistically more difficult. …Although most of these residents joined the flow of traffic out of the city on Sunday, many remained in their homes hoping for the best, and others headed to the Superdome rather than taking the few city buses available to out of town shelters (Filosa 2005).
…Not everyone can evacuate the city, even in a mandatory evacuation. Doctors, nurses, hospital employees, police officers, and other essential city and state employees remained in the city to perform their jobs. …As hospitals closed down and evacuated patients, doctors, nurses, and hospital staff were often stranded. Some of these workers were evacuated from the Superdome and Convention Center, while others managed to get back to their homes and cars and drive out of the city. …Accounts from this group of people are harrowing and heroic and go far to explain why a total evacuation of the city was impossible.
…People living in social isolation and poverty, especially the elderly, the disabled, and those with chronic diseases, have scarce economic resources and social networks that are more locally concentrated and connect them to people in similar socioeconomic circumstances. Therefore, they are less able to use these social networks to evacuate before a hurricane or recuperate their losses after such an event.
Now, consider the poverty of Afghanistan. The country is one of the ten poorest in the world. GDP per capita is about $425 per year, and more than a third of that meager sum is consumed by corrupt officials demanding bribes, to say nothing of the illicit taxes the Taliban levy on goods. The adult literacy rate is just over 28 percent. We like to say Afghanistan is a “tribal” society, but in reality it is an atomized society, with geographically isolated social networks having been pulverized by decades of war. If many in New Orleans found it hard to evacuate, the residents of Marja will find it doubly so.
Judging by the L.A. Times article on the upcoming operation in Marja, the U.S. commander is saying all the right words when it comes to the issue of insulating the non-combatants from the carnage:
…[I]n the weeks leading up to the imminent offensive to take the Helmand River Valley town of Marja in southern Afghanistan, the Marines’ commander, Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, sat with dozens of Afghan tribal elders, drinking endless cups of sweet tea and offering reassurances that his top priority will be the safety of Afghan civilians.
“In counterinsurgency, the people are the prize,” Nicholson said in an interview at Camp Leatherneck, the U.S. base in central Helmand province that is the main staging ground for the offensive.
That would be reassuring if Nicholson weren’t talking out of both sides of his mouth:
US Second Marine Expeditionary Force commander Larry Nicholson said that the evacuation of most civilians would give commanders leeway to use air-to-ground missiles, declaring that he was “not looking for a fair fight.”
ABC News quotes Nicholson explaining some truly worrisome logic:
Nicholson underscored the point saying a heavy handed approach will reduce the chance for civilian casualties.
“Our feeling is if you go big, strong and fast, you lessen the possibility of civilian casualties as opposed to a slow methodical rolling assault. You go in and you dominate. You overwhelm the enemy,” he said.
Okay, let’s put these two things together. Nicholson is telegraphing he’s letting the air strikes off the chain and that he intends to use rapid, furious attacks in Marja, and somehow that is supposed to lead to reduced civilian casualties. Well, that would be great if we didn’t already know that the single greatest cause of U.S.-caused civilian casualties was airstrikes in support of troops involved in intense firefights.
Now, one should give people the benefit of the doubt. Nicholson is gearing up for a fight, and when he speaks, he’s got at least two audiences: the Afghan public and his troops. So, one could just write this off as (pardon my French) a little bit of dick-swinging machismo meant to get his troops fired up and his enemies scared. But the problem is that he’s talking trash about using the tactic most responsible for U.S.-caused civilian casualties in a densely populated area, and if he follows through on his swagger, lots of people not a party to the conflict will be torn to pieces by U.S. munitions.
Oh, and “leaflets have been dropped in the Marja district, urging residents to get out of the area.” In a country with 28 percent literacy rates.
As residents flee Marja in advance of this operation, some that remain behind will be members of armed opposition groups like the Taliban. They will be mixed, however, with the poor, the elderly, the sick and the heroic who stay behind to help them.
Members of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, for God’s sake, remember Fallujah. Remember New Orleans. Remember who is really in those buildings. Remember that many of them are trapped, and that many of the trapped got there through a life of misery. Love your neighbor as yourself. Remember the least of these. And as for your enemies, remember, with God watching you, that you must love them, too.
For those of us here in the United States – remember those who are in the path of the hurricane. And remember that the hurricane is us.
As I watched some of C-SPAN’s coverage of the Tea Party Convention last night, I was disturbed by references again questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s birthplace. Here is a clip exemplifying this (starting around 4:23):
As posted before, this conspiratorial thinking is not good for the cause of conservatives and libertarians. Once this dubious issue is brought up by Obama critics, anything else they say is often ignored — and maybe rightfully so. Despite facts debunking the claims of these “birthers,” this conspiracy theory is still alive and well.
Obama critics would do well to stick to legitimate criticism of Obama’s policies (of which there are many) and avoid this type of conspiratorial thinking that is typical of the misleading half-truths and outright lies often found in chain emails. If something sounds too good to be true, it often is.
