there has been talk about using nuclear power as another source of energy. some people feel that it is a safe effecient energy source, because of the improvements that has been made. It has been 30 years since the accident at unit 2 of three mile island nuclear generating plant. one of the questions that it mentioned in an article, should we consider using facilities that generate electricity from unranium or some other radioactive fuel. When the chernobly plant in ukraniun had a near meltdown on march 28 1979 along with the explosion, it halted the move toward generated elctricity in the united states. There was only a handfull that allready were under construction 30 years ago. In the united states 104 nuclear reactors generated only one fith of the electricity produced, while other countries are using this technology. They are able to produce three quarters of electricity that they consume. The problem is that some states will see an increase in electrical bills because restrictions are due to expire. People do want to find some long term investment in low cost power. There are arguments on both sides whether we should try it again. People who favor it point to the fact that there are nuclear plants operate safely around the world with no lives lost. people believe that we have created better technology because of the lessons we learned from the accidents and point out that it doesnt pollute the air. The other side of it is there is a potential environment issue. They feel that another accident has the potential to release radiation into the atmosphere. The other problem is long term storage of waste material. There is also a problem with nuclear power because it isnt a renewable source of energy like oil, coil, and it is expensive to build nuclear reactors. so far the federal government has stayed out of it. I think there is always a serious risk when dealing with nuclear power, because it does pose a potential risk to the environment and people. I think one of the things we have to think about is if something seriously happened we cant just go back and fix the damage. i think it would solve are energy problems but i guess we have to decide is it worth the risk getting involved with nuclear energy. I think if we did try it we should try to eliminate as many risks as possible. I think that fear will always be on the back of peoples minds. i think people need to ask themselves would they be comfortable with a nuclear plant next to them. I wouldnt mind trying it if you could eliminate the risk of nuclear power.

Pakistan: Our Next Big Problem

We often hear about the United States efforts to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but we're only hearing about half the problem. The other half of the issue lies just miles across the Pakistani border. There are more Taliban and al-Qaeda groups living in Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan. If our true intention in Afghanistan is to weed out these groups, aren't we fighting in the wrong country? 

President Obama will meet with President Asif al-Zardari of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan Wednesday morning at the White House. On the top of the agenda- a collaborative military effort in the border region of the NorthWest Frontier Territory against insurgent forces. 

“The possibility is now real that we will see a jihadist state emerge in Pakistan — not an inevitable outcome, not even the most likely, but a real possibility,” said Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution scholar. 

With a larger population of insurgent forces in a country with nuclear capabilities, it is only a matter of time before this ticking time bomb of a situation explodes. 

Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday, “this isn’t about ‘can do’ any more; this is about ‘must do.’ ”

As David E. Sanger of The New York Times sees it President Obama has three objectives to keep in mind: we must work with the Pakistani and Afghani governments to support a cooperative military effort in the tumultuous  border region, we must increase covert ground actions, and finally, we must keep the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal as our number one priority. 

SCOTUS Nomination for POTUS

Perfectly set as the cherry on top of President Obama's first one hundred days, Associate Justice Souter announced he was resigning from the high court in order to pursue a more simplistic life in his NH home where he apparently does not use electricity, or even a typewriter for that matter. I am personally pleased with many of the decisions Souter has made, except for one or two such as Kelo v. New London where he sided with the majority in a gross expansion of the government's power of eminent domain.

After perusing the political media it appears that they have already settled upon a favorite of Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals. She is obviously viewed as a triple threat by Democrats as she is a woman, hispanic, and liberal leaning in her decisions. In addition to those aspects she also has a life story that could be appealing to Obama, who said during the campaign he wants not only a legal scholar but some with real life experiences and "empathy" for regular folks. Sotomayor is a single divorcee who grew up in a working class neighborhood and lost her father at a young age. This as well as other aspects which will fill in the blanks could bode well for her.

An interesting article with a more critical look at Ms. Sotomayor, where I obtained some of my information Sotomayor can be found here:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

Mainly, the article questions her temperament and intellectual prowess when it comes to interpreting the law and handing down opinions, overall a good read.

As this first appointment saga goes on I will be interested in who Obama pays homage to by leaking his short list. This is a common way of flattering and thanking someone for their support even if you have no intention of choosing them. Being mentioned as a possible candidate for the SCOTUS can be more valuable to someone than any position awarded by the President. If all goes as planned though it appears Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Justice (though that in itself is debateable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo ) And Obama will solidify the Hispanic bloc behind him as the precursor to the immigration debate, forcing the Republicans to capitulate in at least some way during that debate so they do not lose the Hispanic vote permanently.

Good times.

Money isn't Clean: Swine Flu

Well here we are again.

We were all little once and we all had piggy banks, too. For those of us Jewish boys and girls that were unable to have pigs in the house due to religion, we used tootsie roll cartons. Regardless, I remember when I would come home and dump my change into the banks. Of course, when you're little, you run all over the house looking for loose change to put in the bank - not just your own money.

Then, when its heavy enough, you tell mom that you're going to count all of the money that you had collected. And mom knew where all that money came from - especially when you're seven and you have over twenty dollars after just an hour.

After we're all done counting our money - and before mom takes it to the bank - we are told right away to wash our hands because we don't know where the money has been.

So here's my thinking: has globalization made us more prone to illness? According to Andrew Marshall of Reuters - Yes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/has-globalisation-made-us-more-catastropheprone-1674848.html

Mr. Marshall works with the concept of what globalization has done to world traveling and how the global economy is so entwined with everything else that its considered capable of withholding the effects or small ripples. But in actuality its a stand together or fall together system.

With airplanes flying out of every region of the world every minute it takes only hours or a day to spread a disease from one corner of the world to the next. In the past, it would have taken diseases weeks, months or even years to get across the globe.

I caught word of the Swine Flu a few days ago and watched as there were reports of it all across the globe. First was Mexico, then a few border states in the United States, then a school in NYC. Hours later it was popping up in Europe. This morning, I read that there was a suspected case in Israel - that's not kosher.

Perhaps it is true - globalization is a double edged sword and we are most definitely feeling the blade.

So where does this put Obama?

Rather, what can a President really do?

Diseases are the biggest enemy to the United States. Bigger then terrorists, rogue states, and pirates combined. Why? Because for all of our successes in mankind's history, we can't cure the common cold - let alone a rogue flu.

Rhetoric alone is not going to help President Obama. The government is going to have to fund drastic research into the CDC and other disease prevention institutions. I'm not a fan of big government, but its not like we're bailing out anything and placing it under government control.

If that doesn't work, President Obama could always follow in the footsteps of Bush-43: With a new type of enemy comes a new type of war.

"The War on Terror-ble Diseases"

Obama: Expanding Government by Preventing TARP Re-Payment

Wow. Just wow.

Words cannot describe the utter disappointment in the American people for not being able to see the blatant attempt at expanding government far beyond its necessary reach. While most of America blindly supports President Obama, I worry about how he is shaping the Presidency.

My biggest fear during any tough economic time is the ability of the masses to rally behind someone who makes promises to them. Why? Because it is the same way that Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many other dictators came to power. No, I'm not saying Obama is going to mass-murder millions, I'm simply stating the point that the American people, when in times of uncertainty, will openly give up their rights for a sense of security (Remember the atrocity called The Patriot Act?).

When FDR and his government loaned billions of tax payer money to major industries to help them afford the conversion from civilian to military production, there was a plan in his notes to return the industries to their pre-war sovereignty.

So here I am reading about the Obama Administration not willing to accept re-payment of the TARP funds. Why? Because if a bank is being supported by tax-payer money, then that bank is no longer sovereign over itself. Instead, its controlled by the government - expanded government.

I see the point in the counter-argument made by the Administration: TARP money comes with a stipulation on limits of payments and bonuses to executives. In these trying times the American people do get frustrated and angry when we hear about executives and CEOs receiving the "Golden Parachute."

Its not the greatest of things but its really only noted now because the blue-collars are in tough economic times. It is the ugly side of capitalism - but you wouldn't move away from capitalism because of one bad thing.

It would be like the human population not having sex anymore because they couldn't guarantee that both parties would be sufficiently satisfied each time. We know thats not going to happen because despite the less joyful parts of sex, the pros far outweigh the cons.

As is the case with free capitalism...

Center for American Progress and Green Energy

As our country moves ahead with new technologies leading the way for a more profitable and habitat able place we ask our selves the question of whether or not we are ready to make such a transition. In an article titled, “ENERGY: The Green Energy Revolution May Already be Underway,” states that we have the possibilities and infrastructure to install such green energy plans that will profit the country.
Of course, many people cannot afford such new technologies because of the high cost and low demand but the (CAP) Center for American Progress assures that there will be a great influx of jobs that would power this market of solar and wind energy, as well many cash incentives for those who dive into the green revolution.
The CAP was founded in 2003 by former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, John D. Podesta. This website is dedicated to revolutionizing new policies and plans in convergence with media to provide a useful avenue of new information. Now back to the issue. This new energy plan would cost an initial 100 billion dollar input (1/7 of the financial bailout), but would create an upwards of 2 million jobs. The interesting thing about these 2 million jobs is the diversity. People would be providing weatherization of new homes and schools, construction of solar and wind power, and lastly water infrastructure.
In addition to the construction of new energies this potential plan would authorize a cash refund for old used cars so that we could reduce pollution. Similarly, the new push for “cap and trade” to reduce carbon admissions is on its way. This nationwide carbon reduction ideal would take some time as does anything being pushed with legislature but the benefits would be greatly appreciated for those with open minds and a will improve our economy and environment.

Global Update

In response to the anti-missiles put into Poland last year, Russia has invaded Georgia, a close US ally.  After the Cold War had ended finally in the 1990s, the world was beginning to see present Russia in a new way.  However, now they seem to be falling back into their old ways, into their old political way of handling things.  According to the US Department of Defense, U.S. and Russia relations went on hold and was described as, "Business as Usual," (US Dept. of Defense).  What will come from this dispute between one major world player and one wannabe major world player?

First, one first must delve into why Russia was insulted in the first place.  To introduce my reasoning would to explain past relations with Poland.  Poland was the second country in the world to draft a Constitution.  However, being surrounded by repressing political societies Poland had to give up this dream.  Poland in turn invaded Moscow and stripped them of their identity, which left Russia is dismantle.  Second, there are past relations between Russia and the U.S.  Russia seemingly will always be perpetually tied to their past.  After the end result of the Cuban Missile Crisis and now the retaliation of putting anti-missiles in Russia, it's easy to see why Russia would be insulted.  Russia seemingly cannot change the view that the world has attached to them.  Russia's ultimate goal is to try to become a major world player and even more so to join the EU but with transaction, they were forced into retaliation and now with NATO being disconnected on the next step, could Russia being even further now from reaching these goals?  

What are other global networks saying?  According to ABC News, "it could be about oil."  This would make sense, however, it would not align itself with the political agenda of Russia.  Russia wants to expand energy conservation and development, which is a huge part of their public policies in their national interest.  Although, the evidence could be moving towards that direction, I do think it would be out of character.