Used uranium is removed from reactor cores and chemically manipulated to restore its radioactivity. This process creates new fuels—and only small amounts of waste byproducts. The process can be repeated a third time and perhaps a fourth.
Yet in the United States, where reprocessing was invented, used uranium is simply discarded.
The result is highly wasteful: The once-used uranium still retains 96 percent of its energy potential. The result is likewise highly dangerous: That 96 percent potent uranium also retains a corresponding proportion of its toxicity to human life. So why do we not reprocess?
The decision was not made by accident. Back in the 1970s, the U.S. made a conscious policy decision to shut down its reprocessing facilities. The decision had nothing to do with energy policy, and everything to do with that era’s arms control illusions.
One of the byproducts of reprocessing uranium is plutonium. The plutonium produced by a civil reactor is not weapons-grade. It can be used as a fuel itself, and in France it is. But theoretically, this low-grade plutonium could be reprocessed again and again and enriched to a point where it could be used as a weapon.
On the basis of this fact, the Carter administration decided that the U.S. must eschew reprocessing altogether. It reasoned as follows: If the U.S. civil nuclear program permitted any reprocessing, even for fuel purposes only, that would compromise U.S. efforts to persuade other countries not to reprocess. And (the reasoning continued) an across-the-board ban on reprocessing was the only way to ensure against nuclear proliferation.
This reasoning lacked cogency, to put it very mildly.
First, even assuming that other nations cared about the example set by the U.S. civil nuclear program, they were bound to notice that the U.S. also maintained a military nuclear program. "Do as we say, not as we do," is not a principle likely to carry much weight.
Second, the notion that other nations would forgo nuclear weapons because we set them an example was naïve at best, narcissistic at worst. Does Iran care that the U.S. does not reprocess? Does North Korea? States make their nuclear decisions for their own reasons.
States that have drawn back from the nuclear threshold—Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa being the outstanding examples—have done so because a) new, democratic governments replaced nondemocratic governments and preferred to spend their money in other ways; and b) they feared inspiring counter-proliferation by their immediate neighbors. The only other motive that seems to work is c) the direct application of force, as with Israel against Iraq.
Gandhian self-sacrifice, by contrast, has had zero effect.
As the cap-and-trade bill has progressed through committee -- a draft is expected any day now -- more and more pollution rights have been allotted in advance to favored interests, free of charge. The final committee bill will probably give away at least 50 percent of all allotments, maybe even 75 percent. The freebies blow a huge hole in the budget plans of the White House, which has been counting on cap-and-trade payments from industry to help cover the enormous deficits the administration will run in coming years...Cap and trade's political viability is the same as the political viability of tax deductions: it creates a complex system that gives politicians the ability to pick winners and losers and favor certain constituencies and technologies over others.
Cap-and-trade legislation will not only be contorted to favor the Democrats’ regional loyalties. In addition, it will be skewed to favor the preferred energy sources of the Obama administration -- wind and solar. These two sources face daunting technological hurdles and unforgiving economics on their own. Consequently, the measures to promote them must be hidden from sight, since no Congress would pass the taxes otherwise necessary to make them viable.
Waxman’s committee looks likely to include a straightforward quota for wind, solar and other renewable power. Utilities will ultimately be required to derive up to 25 percent of their power from these sources -- without regard to cost or the existence of cheaper, non-carbon emitting alternatives. The massive extra cost will be spread across power bills in ways that consumers will never see.
Over the longer term, [the GOP] needs to retool itself so it can become competitive in the Northeast, Midwest, and California. In my view, that means four things: 1) a more-relevant economic message with health care at its core; 2) an environmental policy based on science; 3) a softer tone on social issues; 4) a renewed emphasis on competence in government.I've heard many other pundits express concern that the GOP now regional party of the South and East of the Rockies. And this looks apparent on a standard map:
There are people in the party who are pointing in this direction, most notably Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah. It’s not a message the party wants to hear right this moment, but I think it’s the direction we will see the party taking.
Critics, such as the one featured in this Politico article, fail to comprehend terrorism as a strategy. Thus, they are locked into counterproductive policies like secrecy and torture.Yglesias and Frum marvel at conservative paranoia.
Let’s start with the strategic logic of terrorism: By goading strong powers into overreaction and error, terrorism weakens those powers and strengthens itself. Among other things, overreaction and misdirection on the part of the strong power draw sympathy and support to terrorists as it confirms the terrorist narrative that they are in a struggle against evil powers.
(more)
school prayer and discouraging teaching evolution has been declared dead. Prospects don't look good for a proposal to require ultrasounds for first-trimester abortions. Same goes for a bill to make marriage licenses more expensive for couples who don't take a premarriage education course.WSJ: Fight piracy with convoys?
1) A man from an SSM state buys a condo in a non-SSM state. He marries another man back home—but he dies before he can write a will. Who inherits the condo?I think it'll be much simpler once Democrats get around to repealing DOMA. I actually think DOMA is already unconstitutional per the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But once DOMA is repealed then it'll be easier for the courts to figure out how to apply the clause and whether there should be a 'public policy exception' for any of the above issues.
2) Two women from an SSM state marry. One of them becomes pregnant. The couple splits up, and the woman who bore the child moves to a non-SSM state. The other woman sues for visitation rights. What should the state’s courts do?
3) A man in an SSM is accused of stock fraud. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas his spouse. The spouse claims marital privilege and refuses to answer the SEC’s questions. May the SEC compel him to answer anyway?
4) Two women marry in an SSM state. The relationship sours. Without obtaining a divorce, one of the women moves to a non-SSM state and marries a man. Has she committed bigamy?
5) Two married men are vacationing in another state. One of them has a stroke. The hospital concludes he will never recover. Local law requires the hospital to ask the next of kin whether to maintain life support. Whom should it ask?
6) A man from an SSM state marries a foreign visitor of the same sex. Should the foreigner be entitled to U.S. residency? What if the foreign man has also adopted the American man's child?
7) A family in a non-SSM state sets up a trust for their son. The son moves to an SSM state, marries a man, and then gets divorced. The trust is the son's only financial asset. Should the courts of the SSM state take the trust into account when dividing up the couple’s assets? If yes, what happens when the trustees back in the non-SSM state refuse to comply?
8) A woman married to another woman wins a lawsuit against a corporation in a non-SSM state. The successful plaintiff dies without a will before she can collect her debt. Her closest blood relative demands that the corporation pay the relative, not the surviving spouse. Who gets the money?
For more information on how the Full Faith and Credit provisions of DOMA affect SSMs, here's an article by a Pennsylvania law professor. It was written before California Prop 8, but the analysis definitely applies to the four equal marriage states we have today.The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act; child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B); and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for challenges to the DOMA.
As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the majority's decision in that case might destroy "the structure... that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissenting opinion holds true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal situation in which all states might eventually be obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.
In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that, "Oklahoma's adoption amendment is unconstitutional in its refusal to recognize final adoption orders of other states that permit adoption by same-sex couples."[15]
A lawyer in Spain -- who did his legal studies while serving over seven years in prison for kidnapping and terrorism -- has engineered a complaint accusing the U.S. government of systematically torturing war-on-terrorism detainees. He filed this complaint with Baltasar Garzon, an activist magistrate famous for championing the "universal jurisdiction" of Spanish courts. That magistrate is now asking a Spanish prosecutor to bring criminal charges on this matter against former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, four other former Bush administration lawyers, and me....it does seem rather ridiculous. As much as I fear what these Bush lawyers did was atrocious, we should release the memos and set up a truth commission before calling an inquisition. May cooler heads prevail.
The allegation is not that any of us tortured anyone. And it is not that any of us even directed anyone to commit torture. The allegation is that, when we advised President George W. Bush on the Geneva Conventions and detainee interrogations, our interpretations were wrong -- in the view of the disapproving Spaniards. According to the complaint, these wrong interpretations encouraged the president to make decisions that led to torture.
The Spanish magistrate apparently believes that it can be a crime for American officials to offer the wrong kind of advice to a president of the United States and, furthermore, it can be a crime punishable by a Spanish court.
"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."Drezner:
[...] On style, Obama does get an A-. I loved this bit from Helene Cooper's NYT story: "In a rare show of emotion from the international press, many in the room stood up and cheered after Mr. Obama was done [with his press conference]." C'mon, an American was on the global stage and not one shoe was thrown? Man, times have changed. Meawhile, as for Michelle Obama, there's this priceless AP quote from a Buckingham Palace spokesman: "We don't issue instructions on not touching the queen."WSJ: U.S to Lift Some Cuba Travel Curbs...
President Barack Obama plans to lift longstanding U.S. restrictions on Cuba, a senior administration official said, allowing Cuban-Americans to visit families there as often as they like and to send them unlimited funds.reason: Too Crazy to Fail...
The gesture, which could herald more openness with the Castro regime, will fulfill a campaign promise and follows more modest action in Congress this year to loosen travel rules.
The dynamic duo of global finance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan jefe Hugo Chavez, cut the ribbon on the Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank today. Speaking in Tehran, Chavez spoke of his economic model: "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."David Frum: Obama's formula for disaster...
[...] In these and so many other ways, President Obama is building an economy for the 21st century of accreting waste and inefficiency, massive bureaucracy, slower productivity growth, and lagging prosperity.I second that.
I don’t blame him for borrowing the money to blast the U.S. and world economies out of their current rut. I blame him for accompanying his borrowing with a slew of long- discredited statist interventions. These will hugely burden those future Americans who inherit the job of paying off his debt.
HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.Seems only the recently elected chairman of the RNC can get away with saying that. But good for him. It's not an ego thing: Steele knows the GOP can't appeal to moderates -- and can't win -- if Limbaugh is the face of the party.
STEELE: No, he’s not.
HUGHLEY: I will tell you what …
STEELE: I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
HUGHLEY: You know what? I can appreciate that. But no one will actually decry down some of the things he says. Like when he comes out and says he wants the president to fail. I understand he wants liberalism to fail. Like, I get it’s not about the man. But it is still about the idea that he would rather have an idea fail so his idea can move to the forefront. And that would succeed. And that to me is destructive.
STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?
HUGHLEY: You’re absolutely — let me say something. You’re absolutely right.
STEELE: So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”I thought there was a limit to this "criticize Rush than be forced to apologize" but now we see it pervades the Republican party from the Chairman on down. Only guys like David Frum are able to break from it.
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
E.D. Kain adds:A federal bank takeover is a bad thing obviously. I wonder though if we conservatives understand clearly enough why it is a bad thing. It’s not because we are living through an enactment of the early chapters of Atlas Shrugged. It’s because the banks are collapsing. Obama, Pelosi, et al are big-spending, high-taxing liberals. They are not socialists. They are no more eager to own these banks than the first President Bush was to own the savings and loan industry – in both cases, federal ownership was a final recourse after a terrible failure. And it was on our watch, not Obama’s, that this failure began. Our refusal to take notice of this obvious fact may excite the Republican faithful. But it is doing tremendous damage to our ability to respond effectively to the crisis.
Exactly right, and more conservatives need to be saying this if they want to be taken seriously.
On January 21, the day after Barack Obama's inauguration, Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan and Nick Gillespie sat down with David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, author of Comeback, and New Majority impresario and Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation and The Washington Note to talk about the new president's speech, the tone of Washington, and much more.And here's some shoe throwers:
Political Browser | washington
