Latest in Nuke News

Last week, we interviewed Mary Olsen (of Nuclear Information and Resource Service) on Occupy the Microphone. (For the best in recent nuke news, check out NIRS.org)



Some of the news Mary shared with us:

[] In March, the NRC denied a third reactor to Calvert Cliffs nuke in Maryland:

The five-member commission [that oversees the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission] upheld an earlier Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruling on the Calvert Cliffs 3 new nuclear reactor application, which had denied UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC’s application because of its failure to meet NRC foreign ownership requirements for US power reactors.

On Aug. 31, the three-judge ASLB denied a license for the proposed Calvert Cliffs unit 3 project because UniStar was bought out by Electricite de France in November 2010, resulting in 100-percent French ownership of UniStar.

[] In April, the Crystal River nuke in Florida was permanently shut down due to cracks in the containment dome and other problems; it has been offline since 2009 and has been a long-term headache for Duke Energy ever since:

The Crystal River plant in Citrus County, Florida, is operated by Progress Energy Florida. A failed repair to its thick reactor containment building led to repeated problems with cracking concrete in the structure.

Duke cited differences with merger partner Progress Energy last year over Crystal River’s condition. Progress CEO Bill Johnson, who was fired as chief executive of the combined companies, had favored repairing the 36-year-old plant.

But a Duke-commissioned engineering report late last year concluded that, while repairs were feasible, they could cost up to $3.4 billion in a worst-case scenario.

[] In May, the Kewaunee nuke in Wisconsin was permanently shut down:

The Kewaunee plant, which opened in 1974, was sold in 2005 to Dominion, based in Richmond, Va., by its owners, the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Wisconsin Power and Light. In the past, the lengthy decommissioning process that nuclear power requires was in the hands of local companies, which have had the option to go to a public service commission and ask for a rate increase to pay for the job if it proved unexpectedly difficult.

But Kewaunee was a “merchant” plant, a sort of free agent on the grid, selling its electricity on contract, at a price set by the market, not by the government.

...

Earlier this year, [Rep. Edward Markey] pointed out, the owners of the Crystal River 3 plant in Florida decided to retire it rather than repair its containment structure, because of unfavorable economics. Industry experts say that several reactors are operating at a loss while their owners wait for the glut of natural gas to disappear. How long that will be, and how many will last, is not clear.

“Once these old nuclear reactors shut down — as we’re seeing now — it will take 60 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to decontaminate them,” Mr. Markey said in a statement. “Taxpayers should have assurances that these nuclear relics don’t outlive their corporate owners and their ability to fund nuclear cleanup costs, leaving ordinary Americans to foot the bill.”

[] The NRC denied a license to Nuclear Innovation North America LLC for their proposed South Texas 3 & 4 Project (a joint venture between NRG Energy and Toshiba) because Toshiba owns a controlling interest in the nuclear reactors, in violation of US law:

The federal regulator denied the application of Nuclear Innovation North America LLC for a license to build the reactors, noting that Toshiba’s ownership stake in and “overwhelming financial contributions” to the project afford it a degree of control over the nuclear power plant that exceeds the limits of the Atomic Energy Act.

“The staff has determined that Toshiba, a Japanese corporation, through Toshiba American Nuclear Energy Corp. … its American subsidiary, is the sole source of financing for NINA,” the commission said in a letter denying the license.

[] Nuclear plant San Onofre 2 & 3 in California, has been shut down permanently, due to one disaster after another:

[The] nuke plant’s two operating reactors had already been shut down since January 2012. Southern California Edison’s decision to give up the ghost can be traced to its pattern of extreme mismanagement of plant operations, consequent huge financial losses, and the tenacious opposition that rallied local communities to take action to keep the unsafe plant shut down.

San Onofre is the largest nuclear power plant to be shut down in the US. One reactor was retired in 1992. The other two, just cut loose, formerly generated 2200 Megawatts of electricity to 1.5 million households. Located between San Diego and Los Angeles, the plant supplied power to 1.5 million households. 8.7 million people live within 50 miles of it. The two reactors at San Onofre had been scheduled to operate until 2022.

...

Long before Fukushima, San Onofre had already been having its own problems.
Reactor Unit 1, started up in 1968, had to be shut down in 1992 after problems with equipment that came back to haunt Edison with a vengeance in recent years at its other reactors.

In 2006 workers found radioactive water under Unit 1 that was 16 times more radioactive than EPA permitted levels for its presence in drinking water. And this was 14 years after that reactor had been shut down.
In August 2008 the Los Angeles Times reported “Injury rates at San Onofre put it dead last among US nuclear plants when it comes to industrial safety.” Later that year it emerged that a battery system, key to providing backup power to pump water to flood Unit 2’s reactor in case of a potential meltdown “was inoperable between 2004 and 2008 because of loose electrical connection,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported.

And also in 2008, the Radiation and Public Health Project reported, in the European Journal of Cancer Care, that the counties nearest San Onofre, had the highest child leukemia mortality rates, of counties near nuclear power plants studied for the years 1974-2004.

...

All this led to 2009 and 2010, when Edison found it necessary to replace the four massive steam generators in San Onofre’s units 2 and 3. The original steam generators lasted over a quarter century, though they were supposed to last for the life of the reactors, 40 years. Steam generators facilitate the creation of steam to turn turbines to generate electricity in the type of nuclear plants most common in the US. Water pipes run through reactors and are heated by nuclear fuel. But this water also picks up lots of radioactivity. The steam generators have tubes that pass on the heat to another set up pipes that make the steam, while not passing on the radioactivity, which otherwise would escape into the environment and contaminate it. Thus the steam generators are key to keeping these nuclear plants running safely. Edison reportedly spent $680 million on the replacement steam generators. Since the plant was not originally designed to need replacements, the utility had to cut huge holes in buildings to get them inside.

And then they turned to junk in just a few years.

In a March 2012 report , Arne Grundersen, of Vermont’s Fairewind’s Associates, a former nuclear industry engineer, described the decisive moments when San Onofre’s shut down began in January 2012: “Unit 3 was operating at full power and experienced a complete perforation of one [steam generator] tube that allowed highly radioactive water from inside the reactor to mix with non-radioactive water that was turning the turbine. As a consequence, an uncontrolled release of radiation ensued, and San Onofre was forced to shut down due to steam generator failure.”

[] And finally, Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy has shelved all plans for a nuclear reactor in Iowa, opting for wind turbines instead:

MidAmerican Energy has scrapped plans for Iowa’s second nuclear plant and will refund $8.8 million ratepayers paid for a now-finished feasibility study, utility officials said Monday.

The utility has decided against building any major power plant: “We opted for what was in the best interest of our customers,” MidAmerican vice president for regulatory affairs Dean Crist told The Des Moines Register.

Mid­American will focus on its plan to build up to 656 wind turbines in a $1.9 billion project across Iowa, which also will trim power bills by saving fuel costs.

Thanks to Mary for coming on our show; she will be revisiting us soon.

Bachmann Bails

At left: Cover of The Madness of Michele Bachmann by Ken Avidor, Karl Bremer and Eva Young.


Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign is history. Those of us who planned elaborately-amusing blog posts making fun of her husband's pray-away-the-gay therapy are profoundly disappointed. I was looking forward to at least a few more weeks of the Michele-and-Marcus follies. Gone after the Iowa caucus? She can't even make it to New Hampshire? Lightweight!

Bachmann placed sixth in Iowa. How Michele Bachmann went bust is explained by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post:

What happened in the 144 days between those two dates was a mix of bad luck, bad strategy and a candidate who opted for a national rather than Iowa-focused campaign, according to a series of conversations with former strategists and advisers to the Minnesota Republican. That series of factors created a potent concoction that left Bachmann out of money and options less than 24 hours after the first vote of the 2012 presidential primary.

“At the end of the day, voters liked her but didn’t see her as the party nominee or their president,” said Ed Rollins, Bachmann’s one-time campaign manager. “She didn’t make the sale.”

What's next for Michele Bachmann? asks Alex Pareene of Salon:

Michele Bachmann, a deeply deluded and irresponsible religious fanatic who until this week was apparently seriously running for president of the United States, has slunk back home to her oddly shaped Minnesota congressional district to brood on her future.

Politico declares her a “lock” for reelection, but that depends on whether or not she runs. She effectively promised not to, but that promise may have been predicated on her remaining a legitimate presidential candidate. (Minnesota law prohibits running for two federal offices at once.)

Bachmann is not a lock because she’s particularly beloved in her district — as longtime Bachmann critics have been at pains to point out to the national media, she never wins Stillwater, her district’s largest city, and she has tended to win tight races with help from third-party spoilers — but because she is hugely popular outside her district, with a nearly endless supply of Christian right cash.

It’s fun (“fun”) for political observers to imagine her going up against Sen. Amy Klobuchar, but that would be nuts even for Bachmann. If she couldn’t beat Ron Paul in Iowa among Republican voters, she’s not going to win a statewide election in more-liberal Minnesota against a popular incumbent.

What I wanna know is, how did we ever get stuck with this person on the national stage? People like this are usually consigned to the outback, aren't they? How could anyone take her seriously as a presidential candidate?

Pareene mentions that:

It has been honestly disturbing to watch as a woman who was a local joke when I left Minnesota years ago rose to become not just a larger joke but then suddenly a national figure of some influence and seriousness, and that her rise was abetted by precisely the qualities that made her a joke in the first place — her vicious small-mindedness and bigotry and self-evident idiocy — is what makes people deeply cynical about the intelligence and decency of Other Americans not like themselves, to the detriment of our politics. So to see her roundly rejected is cause for some small celebration, even as hateful troll Rick Santorum rides his resentment-fueled momentum into the next contests.

So, honestly, who cares what Bachmann will do next? The future Bachmann deserves is one of total obscurity. It would almost be appropriate if this avowed “non-politician” remained an uninfluential absentee House of Representatives backbencher. Though it’d be much more satisfying if, say, Minnesota legalized gay marriage and Marcus divorced her to marry Ted Haggard at a wedding officiated by Keith Ellison.

Bachmann may not be making any detailed plans for the future, considering that she believes she’ll be raptured away any day now, which both I and her apocalyptic death cult would likely agree would be a good thing for all involved.

We could never get that lucky... although I think she'd be great on a reality TV show: Praying Away The Gay with Michele and Marcus.

Oxygen network? Lifetime?

Almost curtains for Newt? We can only hope

You can click to enlarge. (Thanks again to Yellowdog Granny!)

And for those of you who believe we jest, here is Jonah Goldberg's National Review column (you've been warned!) quoting and further analyzing Newt's statements about putting poor kids to work, scrubbing toilets.

Apparently Newt is unaware that lots of us have already had those jobs, and now they go to the undocumented immigrants he wants to keep here in the country working on the cheap. (Does he understand that this is a fundamental contradiction, like most of what he says?)

If I can figure this much out, maybe *I* should be the one running for president.

The Iowa Caucus (not primary, as I incorrectly stated previously) is tomorrow, and hopefully, Newtie will go away after that. However, there is a monster-sized NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT sign down near the mall, so I expect him to do fairly well here in the Palmetto State.

Stay tuned, sports fans!

US Blues, update

What does one make of people who are poor and aging, yet apparently don't believe they will ever need health care that is currently priced way beyond their means? Is this garden-variety old-age denial or Tea Party-Republicanism run amok? Why would people be against their own interests? Is a party principle really more important than your life, or the lives of your loved ones?

As I see it, this is the crucial difference in the political debate right now. We are now arguing over our own lives, not some hypothetical situation that may or may not arise. And yet, here in the conservative south, poor people who consistently vote Republican continue making all manner of theoretical right-wing noise instead of fully comprehending that the wolf is at the door.

Example: I used to get out there and protest other people being unemployed, and now I am the one who is unemployed.

And maybe tomorrow, you will be.

This isn't academic. Not for me. It was, once, and now it is an immediate reality. What to do with people who refuse to see it that way? Who smugly believe they will stay employed, and receive the Social Security that they don't want other undeserving people to receive?

For instance, two people who made money off the GOVERNMENT, now say nobody else should: Michele Bachmann, ex-IRS stooge fattened off of farm subsidies (i.e. welfare) and our congressman, Trey Gowdy, who made his living as a prosecutor (with starring roles on FORENSIC FILES and DATELINE, for catching bad guys). How can Trey have a career in government while railing against the government that has fed and clothed him very well? Why does Michele want to cut off welfare for actual poor people, but she is allowed to rake in $251,973 of OUR hard-earned money? (screams)

I think this is called, talking out of both sides of your mouth. As Rand Paul treated patients funded through Medicaid, and made MONEY off of Medicaid, but now wants to limit/abolish it for others. (He's made his money, so now he's through with it. Nice work if you can get it!)

And Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll. (screams again for emphasis)

I'd love to hear some opinions about this rather twisted southern phenomenon, if you got any. For one thing, I'd like to know, is this sorry situation a purely southern one? Do any poor people besides southern whites consistently vote against themselves?

It's enough to make you tear your hair out.

~*~

Great introductory animation on this one! Enjoy!

US Blues - Grateful Dead



~*~

And just listen to this! I have no idea where or when it was recorded, but I would say from the looks of their hair (touch of gray, ha) that it was late 80s/early 90s.

Star Spangled Banner - Grateful Dead



Jokey comments about how they couldn't let Phil sing for this one, LOL.

GOP still snoozing in SC

From Politico, comes the best non-story of the upcoming election season:

GREENVILLE, S.C. — In the first two presidential states, the GOP picture is clear enough: Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann top the polls in Iowa and Romney is the candidate to beat in New Hampshire.

As for South Carolina, the other critical early state, it’s anybody’s guess.

The first-in-the-South primary couldn’t be any more unsettled. By this point in the 2008 campaign, the Republican contenders had the state’s top consultants locked up, expansive staffs on the ground, and extensive rosters of endorsements. Voters had already been inundated with TV ads. A variety of pollsters had been in the field for months.

This time around? Crickets.

There’s been very little polling, no ads have been aired, and the campaigns are barely staffed up. Just one of the state’s top consultants — who play a unique and exaggerated role in Columbia’s political culture — has signed up with a major candidate. A Fox News debate in May turned out to be a dud, since most of the best-known presidential prospects skipped it.

And almost all of the state’s key endorsements — Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Jim DeMint, almost all of the state’s congressmen, most of its state lawmakers — are still sitting on the sidelines.

If that doesn’t sound like the South Carolina of GOP primary lore, that’s because it isn’t.

In four short years, the Republican scene here has been dramatically reordered, leaving the state’s political class and the GOP field uncertain about the South Carolina electorate—and what kind of candidate is best suited for it.

In just the last election cycle alone, the state has emerged as one of the nation’s tea party’s strongholds, electing a conservative African-American to Congress in Charleston, ousting an insufficiently conservative GOP House incumbent Upstate and putting a female Indian-American in the governor’s office.

“It’s wide open — and there’s a big question mark about [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry getting in, among the infrastructure types and the activists,” said Katon Dawson, a former state GOP chairman.

DeMint, a tea party standard bearer who endorsed Romney last time around in January 2007 , has spent the early primary months calling his state’s congressmen, big donors and state legislators to explicitly ask them to wait until after Labor Day to pick a candidate. DeMint’s supporters are privately calling themselves the “Keep Your Powder Dry” caucus as they organize a candidate forum scheduled for Labor Day weekend.

Read the rest here.

Michele Bachmann received $251,973 in public farm subsidies

It's right there on Wikipedia! Why is no one calling out hypocritical Miss Tea Party on her anti-government yammerings?:

Bachmann also has an ownership stake in a Waumandee, Wisconsin family farm. From 1995 through 2006, the Bachmann family farm has received $251,973 in federal subsidies, chiefly for dairy and corn price supports.[17] Since the death of her father-in-law, the farm and its buildings are rented to a neighboring farmer who maintains a dairy herd on the farm.

Pretty good welfare, Michele! I could use bucks like that, but after my only foray into AFDC back in the early 80s (thanks to your president), I try not to live off of other people, as you do.

Not only does she take big money from taxpayers, without apology (via her nice salary and her farm subsidies), she actually MADE HER CAREER by DEFENDING THE INFERNAL REVENUE against THE PEOPLE! Do you believe this? And she continually presents herself as the brave anti-tax heroine of the right?

Liar, liar, pants on fire:

From 1988 to 1993, Bachmann was a U.S. Treasury Department attorney in the US Federal Tax Court located in St. Paul. According to Bachmann, she represented the Internal Revenue Service "in hundreds of cases"[10] (both civil and criminal) prosecuting people who underpaid or failed to pay their taxes.

Why would someone who (supposedly) believes the federal government is a bandit, professionally defend the government against hardworking folks who can't pay off the bandits? Sounds like someone is just another common political opportunist!

And of course, by now, you have heard that she has re-written history?

Speaking at an Iowans For Tax Relief event, Bachmann (R-MN) also noted how slavery was a "scourge" on American history, but added that "we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

"And," she continued, "I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

It's true -- Adams became a vocal opponent of slavery, especially during his time in the House of Representatives. But Adams was not one of the founders, nor did he live to see the Emancipation Proclamation signed in 1863 (he died in 1848).

See, folks, this is why it's bad to attend a "college" like Oral Roberts "University"... yes, that's her alma mater, are you surprised?

I knew it had to be something like that.

~*~

NOTE: Above graphic from HYPERVOCAL, who had more to say about Michele and her rather shaky grasp of American history.

Eat your veggies! (Michael Pollan interview excerpts)

I just read an interview with Michael Pollan in last month's Mother Jones (better late than never!) and thought it was so great, sharing some of his insights here.

This is also BLOGGING AGAINST DISABLISM DAY, which I forgot all about. Then I thought, you know, this fits perfectly. People are getting sicker and sicker because our food is GROSS. Profits before people is always on topic regarding disability and health care.

Some excerpts:

Michael Pollan: [Our] food system is implicated in climate change. I don't think that has really been on people's radar until very recently. Al Gore didn't talk about it at all; 25 to 33 percent of climate change gases can be traced to the food system. I was also surprised that those diseases that we take for granted as what will kill us—heart disease, cancer, diabetes—were virtually unknown 150 years ago, before we began eating this way.

...

MJ: When you first wrote the mantra "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants," did you have any idea what kind of reaction you'd get?

MP: Well, I studied my poetry in school, and I knew there was something about the way it sounded that made it easy to remember. After writing The Omnivore's Dilemma I wanted to write a book that got past the choir, that got to people who didn't care about how their food was grown, but who did care about their health. I wanted to make it almost billboard simple. It started out as just "Eat food." But then I realized, Eh, not quite good enough. You've got to deal with the quantity issue. And then plants; the more you looked, the more you realized that the shortage of plants in our diet could explain a lot. Not that I'm against meat eating. I think we're eating too much. That's why I said "mostly plants."

...

When Obama announced his pick for agriculture secretary I was disappointed, and I said so in some interviews. I got calls from very prominent activists saying, "You should really keep your powder dry because we want to have access to this guy." Who is this "we"? I felt like Tonto. And I realized that if you are an activist, you do respond tactically. But as a writer you have a pact with your readers that you'll be really straight with them.

...

MJ: So what do you think of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack heading Agriculture?

MP: There's reason to be very concerned. He oversaw a tremendous expansion of feedlot agriculture and confinement hog production, ruining the Iowa countryside, ruining the lives of many farmers. He helped gut local control over the siting decisions. He has also been very friendly toward Monsanto and genetically modified products and was named governor of the year by bio, the big biotech trade organization. But people I respect say that he will listen to food activists and is interested in helping Iowa to feed itself. It's a food desert, weirdly enough. All the raw material leaves the state and comes back in processed form. Putting the most positive spin I can on it: He's no longer governor of Iowa, and I'm hoping that as a politician, when he senses where the wind is moving, he'll move with it.

MJ: How much of our current agricultural policy can we lay at the feet of the Iowa caucuses?

MP: You can't be elected president without passing though Iowa and bowing down before corn-based ethanol, before agricultural subsidies. I mean, even McCain was a critic of ethanol, but when he got to Iowa he was singing a different tune. But this time around the candidates learned there is a progressive farm lobby. Iowa came close to electing a woman organic farmer as its agriculture secretary—until the Iowa Farm Bureau came after her. And Obama said he saw the importance of local control. That idea that there is a monolithic farm bloc—I wouldn't say it's starting to crumble, but there are interesting cracks. The challenge for the food reform movement is to make those cracks bigger.

...

MJ: The food activism community is criticized as being elitist, blind to the issues of cost. How do we democratize better quality?

MP: It is the important question. One of the problems is that the government supports unhealthy food and does very little to support healthy food. I mean, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup. We subsidize hydrogenated corn oil. We do not subsidize organic food. We subsidize four crops that are the building blocks of fast food. And you also have to work on access. We have food deserts in our cities. We know that the distance you live from a supplier of fresh produce is one of the best predictors of your health. And in the inner city, people don't have grocery stores. So we have to figure out a way of getting supermarkets and farmers markets into the inner cities.

MJ: By mandates?

MP: When we give people on the WIC [Women, Infants, and Children] program or food stamps farmers market vouchers, lo and behold, the farmers markets show up in those neighborhoods. That said, one of the best things that Obama could do would be build 12-month farmers markets, especially in inner cities, those beautiful glass buildings you see in Barcelona or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia. It would drive economic development and local agriculture.

The other way that you democratize the food movement is pay enough for the school lunch system to buy local food, fresh food, because right now it's all frozen and processed. You will improve the health of the students and the local economy. Supposedly it would take about a dollar per student per day.

MJ: Does WIC still specify that you buy dairy?

MP: Yes. We had a huge fight to get a little more produce in the WIC basket, which is heavy on cheese and milk because the dairy lobby is very powerful. So they fought and they fought and they fought, and they got a bunch of carrots in there. [Laughs.]

MJ: Specifically? Who knew: the carrot lobby?

MP: Specifically carrots. The next big lobby. But there is also money in this farm bill for fresh produce in school lunch. The price of getting the subsidies was getting the California delegation on board, and their price was $2 billion for what are called specialty crops—fresh fruit and produce grown largely in California.

MJ: Should we be trying to go as quickly as possible toward organic and local, or can the perfect be the enemy of the good?

MP: That's why I don't know if organic is the last word. It's sort of an all-or-nothing idea. People getting it partly right is very important. Getting your chickens out of those cages is important, even if you're not getting them organic feed. Those will not be organic eggs, but they will be so far superior. There are many varieties of sustainable agriculture we should support; it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let's see what works. The whole problem of industrial agriculture is putting all of your eggs in one basket. We need to diversify our food chains as well as our fields so that when some of them fail, we can still eat.

...

DEAD AIR always did like Iowa!

Once again, listening to the ever-fabulous Frank On Friday...who gives me the courage to confront the right-wing bobbleheads running my state. Sometimes I wonder what he would say if he were still here. Frank Zappa, your country needs you.

Moving to Montana soon
Gonna be a dental floss tycoon

And speaking of Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer has just caved in time and has accepted his state's stimulus funds.

That leaves us.

South Carolina. The first state to secede from the Union, sweet schoolchildren are frequently reminded!

(((fumes)))

Yes, our beleaguered state is still fucked, as previously written... the deadline for accepting the disputed $700 million is tonight, and Head Dick, Governor Mark Sanford, is still holding quite firm on not accepting it. A press conference/brawl ensues within mere minutes, down in Columbia, and as the infamous Texas Chainsaw Massacre trailer asked: Who will survive, and what will be left of them?

As Kia, commenting on my previous thread, stated: "Surely it's a sign of the apocalypse when Lindsey Graham is a voice of reason."

I couldn't have outlined the situation any better.

Frank, we need you man. Come back, come back...

~*~

I've been a busy little bee this week, but as always, managed to catch some interesting internetz action.

Lindsay Beyerstein attempts to discuss the very serious subject of clitorectomy in New York State and the laws pertaining (or not) to its continued practice:

According to one estimate, 41,000 women in New York are at risk of being cut, or have already been subjected to genital cutting. This estimate is based on data from the 2000 census, so clearly more up-to-date information is needed.

Female genital cutting can range in severity from a harmless ritual pinprick to the complete surgical removal of the external genitals. These procedures can cause acute and chronic infections, loss of sexual sensitivity, difficult labor, and PTSD.

According to a lawyer quoted in the article, no one has ever been charged under New York's anti-FGM statute or its federal equivalent since the laws were enacted in the mid-nineties. The last state-level FGM outreach program in New York took place a decade ago.

Scary stuff.

And of course, before you can say FORESKIN, various obnoxious males show up and hijack the thread: WHAT ABOUT MALE CIRCUMCISION?!

((((reads post back))))

Well, what about it? That was not the TOPIC, assholes. Guys were not the subject. I realize this is disorienting for you, since GUYS ARE ALWAYS THE DAMN SUBJECT. (Of course, if Lindsay had issued a "no guy zone" statement on the thread, they would undoubtedly start screeching about that, too.) Lindsay writes:

Can we ever have a discussion of FGM without the neonatal anti-circumcision crowd hijacking it? This has happened about four times already, and I'm getting sick of it. I'm sympathetic to your position, but folks, please don't commandeer every single thread about female genital cutting. Have some perspective, here. You're cheapening your own cause by hijacking FGM discussions.

Yes, there exist variants of FGM that are roughly anatomically analogous to neonatal hospital circumcision--but they are more like points in logical space than health concerns. The main, pressing, public health problem of FGM is analogous to removing the entire penises of male adolescents (and, sometimes, turning the whole bleeding, unsterile mess inside out and stitching it back together).

There are extremely active forums for you to discuss the evils of neonatal foreskin docking. Please take your concerns there.

And did they? Ha, are you kidding?

As if on cue, typhonblue, a well-known and tedious internet-obsessive on the topic of MALE circumcision, shows up and starts preaching and monopolizing the subject on behalf of the poor oppressed men. (Because you know, men are just more important than women, and don't you forget it.) Even after being politely asked NOT TO.

Some people just don't have any decency; their basic sense of overweening entitlement and abject rudeness just take over everything.

Lindsay is far nicer and much more tolerant than I am.... if any of you assholes show up hijacking HERE, I will eat you for a nice little snack (burp). And I am in a rather contentious mood and kinda hungry, with all this calorie restriction... so bring it, you unsuspecting penis-obsessed pseudo-trolls!

Yum, yum!

~*~

Longish thread at Astarte's Circus, titled Be the President or Marry the President, brings up fascinating questions about whether being a First Lady is something to aspire to, in and of itself. Admittedly, I am rather clueless concerning some of the comments. I don't think Octo was criticizing Michelle Obama, per se, but questioning the whole First Lady cult...of which I am also periodically critical. But check out the thread and comments and see what you think.

Can we criticize the "First Lady culture" without also criticizing the woman who is First Lady? This echoes several old (and unresolved) feminist questions: can we criticize the housewife cult, the Playboy Bunny cult, the supermodel cult, etc etc without criticizing women who have personally made these choices? How to criticize the male-dominant culture, without hurting or disrespecting women within that culture?

It is like we don't quite have the language for what we are trying to say, and what we seek to do...

~*~

And the GOOD NEWS:

The Iowa Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of same-sex marriage!

YES! Congratulations on your progressive politics, Hawkeyes! Alas, a blog, and Feministe are also presently discussing the ruling.

~*~

It's bloody embarrassing how many of my previous musical posts are missing their centerpiece. Warner Music Group, bad capitalists extraordinaire, have taken away so many of my YouTube presentations--they are as bad as WalMart for stealing neighborhood fun away.

Nonetheless, I plow onward... let's hope some brave tunes remain!

Meanwhile, here is the song I can't get off my mind/official earworm for this week, which also helpfully fits into our Hawk motif:

Jayhawks - Waiting for the sun (1992)

Cry me a River

Left: photo from New York Magazine.

I wasn't going to write anything about Hillary's so-called meltdown, including her now-legendary teary moment, until the New Hampshire primary was over. If the girlie-tears hurt her campaign, that would be a pretty predictable story.

But they didn't. They DIDN'T! I'm actually quite stunned.

On Politico.com, Mike Allen writes:

Senator Clinton on "Good Morning America," from Chappaqua, on whether the teary moment in Portsmouth made a difference with older women, who went for her 57 percent: "Well, I think it could well have been. Certainly people mentioned it to me."

"WHO'S CRYIN' NOW?" asks the New York Daily News. "Hillary slows Obama Express with stunning N.H. victory."

It would seem many Democratic votes were undecided until fairly late. The tears were definitely a factor, in that case:

AP on the exit poll: "The New York senator went from narrowly losing the women's vote in Iowa to Barack Obama to swamping him in New Hampshire among females, 46 percent to 34 percent. ... Independents were a strength for Obama, the young senator from Illinois, who won 41 percent of them in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But while Clinton attracted less than one in five of them in Iowa, she garnered nearly a third of independents in New Hampshire, eating into his advantage. ... People who chose their candidate in the final three days were also kinder to Clinton in New Hampshire, where she and Obama each got more than a third of their vote. In Iowa, the late-deciders had favored Obama by 33 percent to 22 percent."

What does it mean that shedding a few tears helped Hillary? Would similar tears help a male candidate? Is it because of her ice-queen persona?

Frankly, I found the tears rather calculated, although my co-workers thought she just looked tired and frazzled. A female caller on local talk-radio said that Hillary has always seemed guarded and finally appeared emotionally accessible, ending with the statement, "You just can't trust a woman who holds her emotions in. Hillary finally looked human!" Interesting that men are expected to hold THEIRS in, but a woman politician who does the same, is seen as calculating and guarded in a way that a man is not. I found the tears calculated, whereas it appears most people find her usual presentation calculated, and the tears genuine. (I just find her very wonky and somewhat boring.)

Pat Buchanan (who won the GOP New Hampshire primary in 1996), commenting on MSNBC, believes that the Iowa/New Hampshire early-primary rivalry also made a difference; people in New Hampshire will often vote contrary to Iowa voters, in an "Oh, yeah?!?" sorta way. Also, they habitually prefer underdogs, and Hillary shedding tears obviously tapped into that.

Domenico Montanaro at FIRST READ, writes:

Here’s the question that has to be on everyone’s minds: Did Clinton tearing up on Monday change the dynamics of the race? One thing is for sure -- women flocked to her in droves. The fact is, Clinton partisans had just as little clue about their actual chances as the rest of us. They are pointing to the choking up moment, as well to the ABC debate in which Edwards ganged up on her. We noted yesterday the anecdotal evidence from our mini-focus group of professional Democratic women, who were not happy with how quickly this race was ending. Well, apparently, these anecdotes were telling. Clinton pointedly noted in her victory speech that New Hampshire helped her "find her voice." The more emotionally open Clinton is probably the Clinton we'll see for the rest of this primary. Are we looking at a battle between Clinton and her army of women versus Obama and his army of independent crossover voting men?

Again, I repeat, I am stunned the tears helped. And it was women who made the difference. Is this a feminist moment? I'm not sure.

Discuss.

~*~

Real or calculated? You decide.

Why Obama won in Iowa

On this triumphant day for Barack Obama, let's give credit where it is due!

IT'S THE RETURN OF OBAMA GIRL!

~*~

The Political Playoffs have begun!

Left: Is Mike Huckabee the next president?

~*~

Well, you gotta start somewhere. And so, we begin in Iowa, the center of the country. The political playoffs start TONIGHT!

The vote is so close on BOTH sides that campaigns are openly offering baby-sitting, transportation and sandwiches for whoever comes out and stands up (literally) for their candidates. (Wouldn't that kind of accommodation be great for the GENERAL ELECTIONS, too?) The Iowa caucuses are actual meetings in which people must publicly vote for their favorites, not quietly disappear into a voting booth. This raises the stakes, considerably.

As Obama said recently, Iowa's up-close-and-personal vetting process gives voters a chance to look under the hood and kick the tires, so to speak. The people in Iowa get the longest and most in-depth opportunity to inspect presidential wannabes. If they don't know them, none of us do. Politico.com reports:

In 1,781 precincts across the frigid face of Iowa, Republicans and Democrats start meeting in early evening — most caucuses start at 7 p.m. (8 p.m. EST) — to begin winnowing tightly bunched fields in both parties and start setting the contours of what is likely to be an unparalleled nomination sprint.

The candidates were up late — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee showed up on late night television — and rose early for one last day of stump speeches and rallies designed to bolster the faithful and woo the undecided.

"I feel good, but it depends on who comes out, who decides to actually put on their coats, warm up their cars and go to the caucuses," Clinton said in a taped appearance on CBS’s "The Early Show."

About 120,000 to 150,000 people were expected to come to the Democratic caucuses and 80,000 to 90,000 to the GOP meetings.

And as more than one pundit has recently commented, 80,000 votes is nothing in a place like Los Angeles or Manhattan. Yet, the people of Iowa are very savvy; they've been through it all before. For example, many will not "declare" at all, right up until the vote. They've seen candidates repeatedly blow it, like, the very day of the caucuses. Hidden scandals, clueless and/or stupid statements to the press, flared tempers, anything could tip the scales at this late hour. And they are watching.

The big news will be Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, possibly floating to victory on a fundamentalist Christian vibe and general evangelical adulation. Nothing seems likely to touch him right now. It's Wars of Religion on the right: Mormon Governor Mitt Romney vs. Baptist preacher Huckabee. Senator John McCain may throw a monkey wrench into the works, tapping some of the Republican Hawk vote.

On the left, the constantly-shifting polls show a near three-way tie, with Senator John Edwards mere percentage points behind Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Women have promised to come out for Hillary in droves, while the idealistic college kids are feverish for Obama. The working-class populists, traditional old-style Union Democrats, are solid behind Edwards.

Meanwhile, Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul, another wild card, may skim substantial libertarian, anti-war votes from both sides. And when it's this close, every single vote counts.

The playoffs! Can you FEEL the excitement!? Stay tuned, sports fans!

-------------------
Listening to: Passions - I'm in Love With a German Film Star
via FoxyTunes

NATIONAL ENQUIRER: JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL!

Oh dear God, no. This is the last thing anyone needs right now. But when I saw the hand-wringing, scandal-commentary posted over on Slate, I knew it was tabloid story of the month, courtesy of the National Enquirer:

Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught up in a love child scandal, a blockbuster ENQUIRER investigation has discovered.

The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Rielle Hunter, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier this year, is more than six months pregnant — and she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!

The ENQUIRER's political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle, who formerly worked on his campaign and told another close pal that she was romantically involved with the married ex-senator.

The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is expecting, but that she's gone into hiding with the help of a former aide to Edwards. The visibly pregnant blonde has relocated from the New York area to Chapel Hill, N.C., where she is living in an upscale gated community near political operative Andrew Young, who's been extremely close to Edwards for years and was a key official in his presidential campaign.

And in a bizarre twist, Young — a 41-year-old married man with young children — now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby! But others are skeptical, wondering if Young's paternity claim is a cover-up to protect Edwards.

Meanwhile, Edwards' cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth has joined him on the campaign trail.

In a statement issued to The ENQUIRER through her attorney, Rielle said: "The fact that I am expecting a child is my personal and private business. This has no relationship to nor does it involve John Edwards in any way. Andrew Young is the father of my unborn child."

But a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcée says Rielle has told a far different story privately: "Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant, she said he was the father."

Read the whole thing.

Also see: Spotlight turns to Edwards--no mention is made of the breaking scandal, but this gives you an idea of how close the Iowa race is.

----------------
Listening to: Death Cab for Cutie - This Temporary Life
via FoxyTunes

Mitt Romney has his cake, eats it too

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave his "John Kennedy" speech recently, promising that his Mormonism would not be an issue as President of these United States. At the same time, he talked up faith (generic faith in God, or Christian faith specifically?) as important and crucial. Huh?

Well, Governor, if it is, you have just given everyone the right to question you about it.

In his speech, Romney said:

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

All very well and good. And then, he said:

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?"

Say what? What is he talking about? Isn't this a contradiction? Slate's John Dickerson explains:

Will the pitch work politically? It's a long shot. There are better ways to go after Mike Huckabee: Romney is not going to out-God a Baptist minister. He could do more damage by spending the days on which he'll now be answering for his religion on blasting Huckabee's tax and immigration record. The speech also raises expectations for Romney's performance in Iowa, because it is the biggest dramatic moment he can create to change the political dynamic. By investing in this way, he makes a possible caucus loss to Huckabee all the more dramatic.

If Romney skirts specific doctrinal questions, he'll get himself out of talking about "reformed" Egyptian hieroglyphics and explaining his view on the afterlife—but also limit his chance to win over voters who want to know about just those things. Vague is bad for Romney: It can make him look calculating and insincere, which is already the rap against him. That's what tripped him up when he talked about the Bible in the debate. He seemed to be dancing around an issue that evangelicals think should be in his heart. Elites mocked George Bush when he said in a debate that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, but to evangelical voters, the quick answer from Bush's gut showed he was really one of them.

I decided I didn't like Romney when he got the endorsement from Bob Jones III. If Pope Bubba likes him, count me out. That tells us all we need to know about him, doesn't it?

In Iowa, as the New York Times reports, the Wars of Religion continue:

On Monday, Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, raised the stakes when he began broadcasting an advertisement in Iowa that emphasizes his faith and declares him to be a “Christian leader” — all in capital letters — which some might view as a shot at Mr. Romney.

Chip Saltsman, Mr. Huckabee’s campaign manager, said the campaign had no intention of making any kind of allusion to Mr. Romney’s being a Mormon, saying the idea was simply to introduce Mr. Huckabee to Iowans.

“It’s not like this is a new issue for him,” said Mr. Saltsman, referring to Mr. Huckabee’s faith. “He’s talked about this issue everywhere he goes.”

Mr. Huckabee’s advisers admit privately they are cognizant of how Mr. Romney’s religion can work against him and how Mr. Huckabee’s evangelical roots are to their advantage at least among some voters. They pointed out, however, that all candidates have aspects of their biographies that can be beneficial or not, depending on the audience.

The issue is a delicate one for Mr. Huckabee. He has waffled in recent interviews about whether he considers Mormons to be Christians. The Southern Baptist Convention, the denomination he is a part of, does not consider Mormons to be part of historic Christianity.

And meanwhile, down in Columbia, Romney is charging Mike Huckabee with being too liberal. (And if that doesn't give you chills, nothing will.)

Romney Assails Huckabee as "Too Liberal"
By Michael D. Shear, Washington Post
December 18, 2007

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney joined the Republican contest this year by pitching himself as the only true conservative.

Now, he finds himself desperately trying to convince people that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee -- a Baptist minister with a staunch pro-life record -- doesn't deserve that label more than he does.

As he began a week-long barnstorming of three early states by plane, Romney assailed Huckabee as a liberal, adding his own voice to television commercials and mailings that his campaign has begun churning out.

Romney told reporters that voters will conclude Huckabee has been "too liberal on immigration," "too liberal on crime" and that he has "too liberal of a spending record and too liberal of a tax record."

On immigration, Romney cited Huckabee's support for a bill that would have granted in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. On crime, he highlighted the 1,033 pardons and commutations Huckabee granted as governor. And on the economy, he said Huckabee presided over a budget that grew from $6 billion to $16 billion.

"I'm convinced that as people take a close look, that the good, conservative Republicans of South Carolina will be supporting a conservative candidate like myself and they won't be supporting governor Huckabee," Romney said. "But time will tell."

A poll out overnight put Romney ahead slightly in South Carolina after another poll had shown him slipping behind Huckabee here, as well as in Iowa. Romney planned to head back to the Hawkeye State for two days of campaigning starting Wednesday.

Romney unveiled a tough, new ad in Iowa attacking Huckabee on the pardon's issue.

"Romney got tough on drugs like meth. He never pardoned a single criminal," the ad says. "And Mike Huckabee? He granted 1,033 pardons and commutations, including 12 convicted murderers."

Huckabee called the ad "desperate and deplorable."

Romney has 16 days to turn things around. Take out Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Eve and New Year's day, and that leaves 12 days. Twelve days to regain the leads in Iowa and New Hampshire that he has spent $20 million of his own money to achieve.

On the plane trip, his first during the primary campaign, Romney is squiring a dozen national reporters around South Carolina, and then on to Iowa for two days and then back to New Hampshire for three more days.

It's part of a last-ditch effort to regain momentum in a race that seemed well-in-hand a month ago. But that was before Huckabee knocked Romney off his Iowa pedestal, where he had ruled for months.

Romney aides now say they they don't have to come in first in Iowa. But they acknowledge that coming in second would force them to win outright in New Hampshire four days later despite a flood of negative press that would inevitably develop.

The Mitt Romney signs are everywhere here in the upstate, but I saw my first Huckabee bumper sticker yesterday.

Trouble in paradise?

----------------
Listening to: AC/DC - Money Talks
via FoxyTunes

Iowa caucus debates: Adventures in Snoozeville

Left: Alan Keyes, from Race 4 2008.




Will someone tell me why Alan Keyes was allowed to participate in the Iowa caucus Republican debate, but Dennis Kucinich was not permitted to participate in the Democratic debate? Certainly, their numbers are about equal; Kucinich might even have a larger percentage than Keyes. True, they are both way out on the wings of their party, but so what?

Am I to understand that the Republicans are more inclusive than the Democrats?

Nope, according to The Campaign Spot at right-wing National Review Online, it's all the Des Moines Register's fault:


Des Moines Register Weeds Out Only the Democratic Fringe

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not participating in this week's Des Moines Register debate. The newspaper's standards for participation include at least 1% in its statewide poll and an office and paid staff in Iowa.

Kucinich's state office works out of his home. Yeah, that's why they're keeping Smeagol out.

Alan Keyes is participating. Alan Keyes has paid staff in Iowa? He has an office? He's past 1 percent?

There's no good reason for Keyes to participate, and I say that as a guy who likes Keyes. The only reason one would include Keyes at this point is because he's just about guaranteed to declare the rest of the field "inauthentic conservatives." (Perhaps he'll declare Vice President Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" as well.) The one percent standard is way too low. We've had nine Republican debates so far, and fifteen Democratic ones. If you haven't broken out past the margin of error by now, it's not gonna happen.

A debate time that already gives about one-eighth to Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo is now going to be split nine ways. This is a disservice to the other candidates who actually have a shot of getting more than an asterisk's worth in the caucuses.

In a year of lousy debates, this one is set up to be a train wreck on par with CNN's YouTube debate for the Republicans.

I'll say. It was terrible. Even worse, it was boring. I'll admit, Alan Keyes isn't boring, as Kucinich wouldn't be either. As usual, Ron Paul tried to liven up the proceedings, but when the other candidates started yammering, it lapsed back to somnambulism.

Alan Keyes would make a great Shakespearean actor, with his rhetorical flourishes and first-class command of language; indeed, it would seem talk radio was made for him. (And he has had several radio and TV shows.) Instead, for some inexplicable reason, he keeps running for president over and over. It is interesting to remember that he was a hired gun for the GOP, and moved to Illinois simply to run for the Senate in 2004 against Barack Obama, whom it was thought no one could beat. And alas, no one could.


Photo of Senator Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey (left) from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Democratic debate wasn't much better. The CNN-talking-heads consensus is that Senator Hillary Clinton is now trying to "humanize" herself with references to weight loss, Chelsea, her mother, "eating her way across Iowa," etc. Her poll numbers have dropped alarmingly in the face of Barack Obama's incursions, courtesy of Oprah Winfrey joining him on the campaign trail, and filling Williams-Brice stadium here in South Carolina. (The last person I can remember doing that was Pope John Paul II.)

For his part, Senator John Edwards sounded great and highly focused, as Hillary and Obama took veiled digs at each other. There is also a mild scandal trying mightily to develop: it appears Obama may have taken a toke as a teenager. OMG! (I doubt this story will go anywhere, but you never know about things like that.)

Who will take the Iowa caucus? Stay tuned, sports fans!

----------------
Listening to: Sleater-Kinney - Off With Your Head
via FoxyTunes