Nukes: Not the Answer

As the dire consequences of climate change become apparent to even its most ardent deniers, the need to develop alternate sources of energy is becoming clear. The fact that we have not been working furiously to develop alternative energy for the last 50 years is an example of short-sightedness on the global scale.

There is an exception to the above as one type of alternate energy has received enormous dollars over the years. Unfortunately, that one source is nuclear energy. Trumpeted as unlimited energy at minimal costs the truth is quite the opposite. Nuclear energy is costly and has not proven to lower energy costs.

But forget the costs, let us look at the other two claims made for nuclear energy: safe and clean. Safe, compared to what I always wonder. Even in the nation, France, which seems to have figured out the most efficient way to produce nuclear energy, safety remains a problem. According to a BBC report, France has 59 nuclear plants and produces 75% of its energy with nuclear power. The same report noted that four separate leaks occurred in a two week period in the summer of 2008 and that there had been a ten-fold increase in accidents in the recent past.

Japan is the other nation comparable to France in its reliance on nuclear power. According to a report by Sarah Buckley of the BBC in March of 2006, Japan has 55 reactors that produce one third of its power. Buckley noted that the nuclear industry, despite a national reputation for safety and efficiency, has a very spotty safety record when it came to nuclear power. Three Mile Island, Love Canal and Chernobyl all provide examples of safety problems in other areas of the world.

Any industry that involves human employees is destined to have accidents. With nuclear reactors, the possible risks from accidents simply exceeds the benefits. Even if we could somehow eliminate all human error and all possibility of an accident that would still not guarantee safety. Remember the earthquake that his Japan in July of 2007 which caused leakage of radioactive materials.Throw in deliberate sabotage by terrorists, revolutionaries and others and the safety factor begins to loom as a leviathan.

The other claim made for nuclear power is that it is "clean." Again, by what standard? The spent fuel rods provide a problem for which there is currently no viable solution. Even moving them for disposal creates difficulties that are nearly insurmountable. How about a wrecked truck carrying fuel rods? Plutonium has a half-life of forever. Any efforts to dispose of it must take that into account.

It is true that the planet is in desperate need of solutions for climate change and energy production. Cold analysis of the facts surrounding nuclear power strongly suggests that it is NOT the answer. The call for nuclear power is just more of the same old thinking that created our problems: energy production controlled by private sources paid for with public money. Solutions must not be prioritized based on the potential to generate profit for transnational corporations. That's what the nuclear buzz is really all about.

Remember the Environment?

Remember the Environment? Global warming, scarcity of energy resources, peak oil, collapsing ice shelves? Any of this sound familiar?

Why aren't we talking about it anymore? Is it because the price of gasoline has fallen a few cents?

The problem did not go away just because the price has dropped. The addiction to cheap oil still exists. The dealer just found that we weren't quite as addicted as believed. The price went up so fast that people actually began to change their habits and wean themselves (if a two percent drop can be called "weaning,"). So the price is back down. The dealers, both the transnational and nationalized oil companies, are trying to make sure the junkies keep feeding their addiction to oil.

Discussion of the crisis in energy supplies seems to have abated. True, there is a focus on so many other things as the economy collapses and the new administration comes to power. However, the fact remains, as I continue to say - Oil is Over! What are we doing about it?

Now is the time to begin to advance alternative energy. The future is clear. An oil based economy is doomed. If we do not change, our carcasses will be the future oil.

He's Not! But What if He Was?

No, not a Muslim. A socialist. Lately the McCain-Palin Campaign has taken to tossing the word "socialist" around when discussing Barack Obama. His health care plan is "socialized medicine," his tax plan is cast in class warfare terms, and there is an obvious attempt to pretend that he is the reincarnation of Karl Marx.

Such statements demonstrate just how stupid the right wing of America believes the populace to be. Were Obama's health care plan socialist, the doctors would be employed by the government and there would be no insurance. The savings in paperwork alone (Sarah Palin might call these "cost efficiencies"), would substantially lower the cost of health care, but that is not the point. When it comes to the tax plan, it is complete claptrap to imply that tax credits to those who earn so little that they don't pay taxes, is somehow "wealth redistribution." But again, that is not the point. The point is that Obama is NOT a socialist and the McCain camp knows better. It is an utter disgrace to John McCain that he is running such a dishonest campaign and is attempting to smear Obama with what is a clear lie.

In confronting the lies and smears of McCain-Palin, a larger issue is nearly lost. Just as Colin Powell rightfully questioned the line of attack against Obama that attempts to smear him as a Muslim by asking "What if he was?", the same question can be asked of the attempted socialist smear. WHAT IF HE WAS?

The idea of America is that everyone has the freedom to believe in whatever they wish. You may worhip Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah or a tree. You may even worship money and call yourself a member of the state religion-capitalism. And yes, you may even call yourself a socialist.

The turning of the term liberal into a pejorative by Reagan conservatives, caused such a shift in the public perception that leftists disappeared. Political identification as socialists or communists or any other group to the left of moderate Democrats became political suicide. As a result, the nation ignored it's history and shifted dangerously to the right. The result has been massive military intervention abroad, usurpation of civil liberties, politicization of the legal system and economic chaos, among other problems.

It is time for a New Left to appear in American politics. Rather than running from labels such as "Socialist," it is time for a resurgence of ideas from the other end of the political spectrum. The last time America was willing to experiment with ideas that even approached what might be legitimately called socialism, was when another administration of free market robber barons nearly destroyed the country and had to be bailed out.

America was built by Socialism. The interstate highway system, the mass inoculation programs, the building of the very infrastructure of this country were all due to socialist ideas. Public utilities, national parks and government monuments are all socialistic by nature. The few programs that do anything for the poor and elderly, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, could easily be seen as socialist triumphs.

Except for one thing. Everyone is afraid to use the label as anything but a negative. That, unfortunately, is what is holding us back from the change that we really need. What America needs is some good old fashioned Socialism. We need health care run for people, not for profit. We need massive investment in infrastructure. Our bridges are falling, our roads are crumbling and our parks are neglected. A massive public works program to address these needs would also have a stimulatory effect on the economy. Developing alternative energy sources would not only free us from petrol slavery, it would also boost the economy and lead to true energy security. It's much easier to shut down a power plant than 100 million buildings with solar panels providing independent energy.

So why not socialism? Ralph Nader states that his father once told him the reason that capitalism would always exist is that socialism would always bail it out. Does socialism exist only to bail out capitalists? It seems so in this country. Privatizing the profits while socializing the costs seems to be our natural instinct. Witness T. Boone Pickens plan for wind power. What he neglects to point out in his advertising is that the most expensive infrastructure necessary for his plan will be picked up by the taxpayers at the public utilities. T. Boone just picks up the money. Even in the bailout, after finally agreeing to take equity stakes in the banks, the government makes it clear it will sell those shares as soon as they become profitable. Wouldn't capitalists see that as bad business?

Let's be clear on what socialism really is in America. It is the willingness to work together for the common good. It is the unwillingness to let the common wealth of the nation and people be taken by the greedy and self-entitled. Right now America needs a healthy dose of socialism.

Having said the above, it's too bad Obama is not a socialist.