What’s Up with Japan and those pesky nuclear reactors; Or who cares?

Today I hit the usual spots looking for some news on the disasters that are the Japanese nuclear reactors. I recalled hearing something  in the last couple of days about plutonium, (half life 8.08 x 10 to the seventh power, that's what, like 8 billion years? Somebody correct me if I am wrong.), being found in the ground or water outside one of the plants. 

Unfortunately, I guess plutonium really isn’t that big a story. Even though it will be with us for the next 8,080,000 years, (yes, folks, you read that right 8 billion years). I didn't even find any mention of it in more than a passing manner. Like, "Oh, in the interests of full disclosure, this house is built on ground contaminated with plutonium. Just thought we'd mention that."

What I did find was a puff piece about how our reactors compare to the Japanese reactors – in the third section of the Miami Herald. Slate did a nice piece on how no one can agree on how to measure radiation. 

Then Slate's "Hive" section shared solutions solicited from readers on how to solve the problem with the Japanese reactors. One reader suggested dropping the fuel rods into the ocean. Another reader suggested filling the core with sand. I am sooooo happy that Slate.com thinks crowd-sourcing is a good way to figure out how to avert such a monumental disaster.

In the New York Times, (I am still not going to pay to get through your paywall), Top Five Stories for the week, the only Japanese related article was one that showed aerial photos of the damage from the earthquake and tsumani.

So, what did make the news, today?

The Feds arrested 49 people on weapons and drug charges in Arizona. Sadly, none of the weapons they found were the weapons they let walk out of a Phoenix gun store and get trafficked to Mexico. Operation Gunwalk, continues to be Operation 'oh, shit we lost those guns and one of them was used to kill a Border Patrol Agent'.

As usual, the fact that the ATF didn't track these weapons is being blamed on lack of funding. Right, it had nothing to do with competence. Give us more money and we can more easily traffic weapons to Mexico is the cry from the ATF.

So, I guess I'll have to write about Libya and the unfolding disaster there. Also known as "Obama has no foreign policy, so don't expect much."

It appears that some people in Washington are getting worried about the CVs of some of the people we are giving weapons to. I am glad somebody is thinking about this, but wouldn't it have been better to think about this before we started handing out the AK47s and anti-armor missiles? Doesn't anyone remember us giving the Afghanis Stinger missiles and how well that worked out for us? Only now are people realizing that, maybe, the weapons are going to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah? [Will someone in the Obama administration get thrown in jail for material support of terrorism over this? Will Obama?]


Update: Go here for a more complete break down of just whom we are giving AKs to...

The New York Times reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admits the makeup of the rebels is still a "mystery".  A 'mystery'? This isn't a game of 'What's My Line'. We are talking about anti-tank and anti-armor weapons. Weapons that can be used against us. [Sort of like the M1A1 Abrahms tanks we let Egypt build.] Al Qaeda must be laughing their asses off right about now. We are, potentially, arming the same people who blew up the Twin Towers!

Most of the buzz is about Obama's speech last night. As I have no television, I have to turn to other web journalists, such as myself, for information on the speech. And, uniformly, the information is... ...well... ...confusing. Obama seems to have put forth a speech that is tailor made for what we are doing in Libya, while claiming it encompasses American foreign policy all over the world.

Quoting from the New York Times, here, Obama reportedly said, "He would take action, he said, if vital national security interests were at stake. He would consider it if economic interests were threatened, or if there was a humanitarian crisis so deep it could not be ignored. But in those two instances, he would hesitate unless there was international participation, and the cost was not too high."

In the same article in the Times, David J. Rothkopf, the author of “Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power,” interpreted, [my paraphrase], Obama's speech as saying we have "American Values" and we will defend those values, unless it is too big an inconvenience. Then we won't.

I have to agree with Mr. Rothkopf. We want to protect civilians. Protecting them from their own government is okay, too. But, if any sovereign nation decides to kill civilians, we are going to put them into the Hurt Locker. However, this doesn't apply to Afghanistan or Iraq, because, you know,  a couple of dead babies is nothing in the grand scheme of 'nation building'. 

You can, also, get away with killing civilians if you are on our 'side'. Which is a euphemistic way of saying, "An enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Then you can kill all the civilians you want. And we won't say a thing.

Slate.com's throw down on the President's speech was this, as they tried to describe Obama's foreign policy using his own words: 

"Muammar Qaddafi was about to slaughter the residents of Benghazi; the international community was asking for U.S. assistance, as were the anti-Qaddafi forces within Libya; allowing Qaddafi to crack down would have weakened the pro-freedom movements in other Middle Eastern and North African countries; the authority of the United Nations was in question."

Which says to me, "If we don't like you, we can bomb the shit out of you for imaginary reasons having absolutely nothing to do with Raytheon wanting to sell us more cruise missiles or Boeing's desire to sell us more F/A-18s.

Interesting how he couched his universal foreign policy on specific incidences involving daffy duck, (AKA Qaddafi). And his concern for emerging "pro-freedom movements" in the Middle East and North Africa. So, in the beginning he really didn't mean it when he tried to, if not support,  but encourage the Mubarak regime to make concessions to remain in power. That was just an oversight. Won't be doing that anymore. It's straight to the JDAMs and cruise missiles.

Obama pretty much invoked the dead dog presidency of George Bush when he said, "There will be times … when our safety is not directly threatened but our interests and values are,"

Another way to say, "If we disagree with your politics, catch you killing civilians and/or you are threatening American interests, we will bomb you back to the stone age." Of course, in this case, the American interest that is being threatened is the 2% of the world's petroleum stocks buried beneath Libya.

The only sane voice in the Times piece came from Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Levin is concerned about who we are arming and what they will do with those arms after the 'rebellion' against daffy duck is over. He wonders if, in that case, the weapons will be used for nefarious purposes. Thank you Senator Levin. You just proved someone in Washington has a grasp on reality.

Oh, BTW, I don't like the idea of spending American treasure and/or the death of American soldiers to make foreign countries conform to American values. Which, if you think about it – sending the American military to invade a third world country is pretty much doing exactly what we don't want other countries to do. 

In other breaking news, Slate had this interesting piece on women funeral directors. And the social group "Funeral Divas, Inc." formed to further their interests. Apparently, Slate.com thinks you can  look forward to more female funeral facilitators, (sorry, couldn't waste the illiteration).

And the New York Times ran a piece on how season 5 of Mad Men will be delayed.

Like I said, I don't have a TV. So maybe I am messing something here. What is it about this series that makes it compelling enough to warrant mention in the NYTimes? It's a TV show. It isn't really important. It's just drivel to fill up your mind while you veg out with a martini or a joint in hand in front of the TV at the end of the day. There will be something there to replace it on AMC. I guarantee it. So, why is this so newsworthy?

Update II: Time has a very good piece on who the rebels are and the chances they will succeed in toppling daffy duck. I have to agree with the piece's author, Tony Karon, when he points to the unlikelihood of a wholesale rebel victory. I think the chances are pretty slim that this is going to a quick in and out. The long war – so loved by the MIC – is going to be played out in Libya, as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. 


That is, if we decide to put our two cents worth in. I think the presence of American AC130 gunships and A10 ground attack aircraft sends a pretty strong message that we will. Spooky isn't anti-aircraft weapons platform and neither is the Warthog... [Thanks WaPo for the info.]