Afghanistan War Forever

Dear Friends,

Once again, President Obama has let me down.  I continue to hope that he will actually make the right decision based on values instead of politics, and for some reason I am surprised and let down when he doesn't.

We went into Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda.  We accomplished that years ago, but we some how decided that the Taliban and al-Qaeda could be interchanged as a reason for continuing the war in Afghanistan.  Of course killing Osama bin Laden (note he was in Pakistan, not Afghanistan) should have made it clear that our mission such as it was had been accomplished.  Nevertheless, President Obama has decided that we should keep having our military personnel killed and wounded and their families destroyed and disrupted for another half a decade while we wait for a central government run by a corrupt despot that has no influence outside of Kabul to build a national army to somehow hold the fighting war lords who are continually engaged in a five sided civil war together.

If his decision weren't so amoral, it would be laughable.  So now we will continue to let people in the United States die from lack of housing, food and medical care while we waste billions of dollars in Afghanistan.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and Nuclear Power

Dear Friends,

I have written before about President Obama's support for nuclear power even though candidate Obama was against it unless certain very specific requirements were met.  In an earlier post here is how I summarized candidate Obama's position on nuclear power.

So President Obama had it right - no nuclear power until (1) they are safe, (2) the waste storage problem is solved, and (3) they do not need huge government subsidies. 

In the wake of the nuclear disaster in Japan, you would think that President Obama might move back toward the position that candidate Obama took.  Unfortunately, things keep getting worse.

Yesterday the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran an article from the Associated Press with the headline "Nuclear plants face ever lower standards" (here).  The  first few paragraphs read:

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

The end of the article summarizes the main problem areas.

Four areas stand out:
BRITTLE VESSELS: For years, operators have rearranged fuel rods to limit gradual radiation damage to the steel vessels protecting the core and to keep them strong enough to meet safety standards.
It hasn't worked well enough.
Even with last year's weakening of the safety margins, engineers and metal scientists say some plants may be forced to close over these concerns before their licenses run out — unless, of course, new compromises with regulations are made. But the stakes are high: A vessel damaged by radiation becomes brittle and prone to cracking in certain accidents at pressurized water reactors, potentially releasing its radioactive contents into the environment.
LEAKY VALVES: Operators have repeatedly violated leakage standards for valves designed to bottle up radioactive steam in the event of earthquakes and other accidents at boiling water reactors.
Many plants have found they could not adhere to the general standard allowing each of these parts — known as main steam isolation valves — to leak at a rate of no more than 11.5 cubic feet per hour. In 1999, the NRC decided to permit individual plants to seek amendments of up to 200 cubic feet per hour for all four steam valves combined.
But plants keep violating even those higher limits. For example, in 2007, Hatch Unit 2, in Baxley, Ga., reported combined leakage of 574 cubic feet per hour.
CRACKED TUBING: The industry has long known of cracking in steel alloy tubing originally used in the steam generators of pressurized water reactors. Ruptures were rampant in these tubes containing radioactive coolant; in 1993 alone, there were seven. Even today, as many as 18 reactors are still running on old generators.
Problems can arise even in a newer metal alloy, according to a report of a 2008 industry-government workshop.
CORRODED PIPING: Nuclear operators have failed to stop an epidemic of leaks in pipes and other underground equipment in damp settings. The country's nuclear sites have suffered more than 400 accidental radioactive leaks during their history, the activist Union of Concerned Scientists reported in September.
Plant operators have been drilling monitoring wells and patching hidden or buried piping and other equipment for several years to control an escalating outbreak.
Here, too, they have failed. Between 2000 and 2009, the annual number of leaks from underground piping shot up fivefold, according to an internal industry document obtained and analyzed by the AP.

Then today the Associated Press published another article (here) which started as follows:

Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows. The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.

Clearly federal regulators are not doing their job, and the nuclear power industry is willing to risk nuclear leaks and disasters in order to improve profits.  The nuclear power industry is however willing to spend money on lobbying and political contributions in order to continue their unregulated drive for profits at the expense of people and the environment.  Here are a few paragraphs from an article on Politico (here).

Facing its biggest crisis in 25 years, the U.S. nuclear power industry can count on plenty of Democratic and Republican friends in both high and low places.
During the past election cycle alone, the Nuclear Energy Institute and more than a dozen companies with big nuclear portfolios have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to lawmakers in key leadership slots and across influential state delegations.
NEI, the industry’s biggest voice in Washington, for example, spent $3.76 million to lobby the federal government and an additional $323,000 through its political action committee on a bipartisan congressional slate, including 134 House and 30 Senate candidates, according to data compiled by the CRP.

The article goes on to list the many politicians who have received significant contributions from the nuclear power industry.  Our politicians are being bought and our safety is being sold, all in the name of profits.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and Jobs

Dear Friends,

What this country really needs right now is jobs.  In The New York Times today there were no articles in the first section about jobs.  How can that be?  The reason is quite simple.  The Republicans only solution to the lack of jobs is to lower taxes.  Trickle down economics has never worked so they don't want to talk about that to the mainstream media.  The Democrats have adopted the Republican narrative that we need to reduce the Federal deficit immediately.  Once you have adopted that narrative, you have taken away the best way to increase jobs which is increased government spending particularly on badly needed infrastructure repairs and maintenance.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich explains the problem with the economy in 2 minutes and 15 seconds and does a great job.  If you have not seen the clip here it is.


Mr. Reich concludes that we need a strong middle class in order to have a robust economy.  The only way to have a strong middle class is to create jobs.  The only way to create long term sustainable jobs is to create long term sustainable demand.  But you cannot create demand if people have no money and people will only have money if they have jobs. 

As you can see there is a circular problem here.  The only way to break the cycle is for the government to spend money which stimulates the economy.  The most effective and the least inflation producing way for the government to stimulate the economy so that jobs and demand are created is through infrastructure spending - lots of construction jobs and lots of jobs making the machinery that is needed for the construction.  I should note that a construction job for a domestic construction site is a job right here in the United States.  Since the infrastructure of the United States has been neglected for so many years, there is an almost never ending supply of projects that we need done.  Once the jobs have been created through the government spending, then the middle class will create demand because they will want things and new houses and remodeling old houses, etc. 

I should also point out that once the economy is moving again and people have jobs, tax revenue will go up (unless we are so stupid as to give more tax breaks to the rich), and we can begin to address the deficit.  The solution is not rocket science, but it requires the Democrats starting with the President to advocate for stimulus of the economy by the government.  So far President Obama and the Democrats have failed to stand up for the values that have made the Democratic Party great in the past and for the proven methods of spurring economic growth.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and the War Powers Act

Dear Friends,

President Obama's position on the hostilities in Libya and the War Powers Act is outrageous, intellectually dishonest and certainly in violation of the Constitution.  The New York Times editorial on June 17th (here) is essential reading on the subject.  The following are the first few sentences:

It would be hugely costly — for this country’s credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya — if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya. However, Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation.
The White House’s argument for not doing so borders on sophistry — that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops,” and thus are not the sort of “hostilities” covered by the act.
This country’s involvement in the air campaign is undeniably limited. Since the United States handed off command to the Europeans in early April, the Pentagon has provided refueling and surveillance for NATO planes, hit air defenses and sent in armed, remotely piloted drones.
But the 1973 act does not apply solely to boots-on-the-ground, full-out shooting wars. It says that 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress of the introduction of armed forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission.

As the end of the quote above says, "the president must receive Congressional authorization or terminate the mission."

Write the President (here).

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and Afghanistan

Dear Friends,

We need to get our troops, CIA agents and hired mercenaries out of Afghanistan now.  For most of the time that we have been fighting in Afghanistan, there has been no rational basis for being there.  We are supporting a corrupt despot who on a regular basis publicly criticizes our efforts in Afghanistan and says that we should leave.  What better reason do we need to leave than when the head of the country says publicly that we should get out?

In the paper edition of The New York Times today on page 12 there were three headlines that said it all - "Karzai Says U.S. Is Talking to the Taliban, and He Lashes Out at Allies", "Gunfight Shatters Calm Spell in Kabul" and "Looking Back, Gates Says He's Grown Wary of Waging 'Wars of Choice'".

Now is the time for us to get out.  Our war in Afghanistan is hurting our reputation, is not helping our national security and is using money that certainly could be better spent at home. 

Write President Obama (here).

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and Same Sex Marriage

Dear Friends,

There is an article on the front page of the paper edition of The New York Times today about President Obama and his position on same sex marriage (here).  There are a number of disturbing aspects to the article.  Read as a whole, it appears that President Obama's actual views on same sex marriage are not what is driving the debate about whether or not he should come out in favor of same sex marriage.

As a candidate for Illinois State Senate he was for same sex marriage and said he would fight for it.  That support sounds like his support for unions where he said he would walk the picket lines with the union members but when the opportunity arose in Wisconsin he was deafeningly silent.  As a candidate for President, he was obscure about his position, but the reality is that if you are not actively fighting for equal rights then you are supporting the status quo which in this case denies the right to marry to same sex couples.

President Obama is out raising money, and he is looking to the GLBT community for financial support.  While some good things have been done during his time in office, like repealing don't ask, don't tell, President Obama can really not be given credit for leading the way in protecting the rights of GLBT persons.  It appears that the calculus for President Obama as to whether or not to support same sex marriage is how much support will he get for endorsing it, how much support will he lose by failing to support it and whether he will net any votes one way or the other.

It seems to me that the change and hope candidate should base decisions on his beliefs.  Ensuring full rights to all people including GLBT persons is an issue about the values that one espouses.  Either you believe that all people deserve equal rights or you don't.  If you do, you should say so and work to bring equal rights to all.  You do not count votes and dollars when making choices that involve your core values.

I believe that President Obama does support equal rights for all.  I certainly hope that he will come out in vigorous support of the New York same sex marriage bill and all others like it and that he will condemn all the hateful laws and state constitutional amendments that would enshrine bigotry by outlawing same sex marriage.

Write to President Obama (here).

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal