Archive - Feb 13, 2008 - topic

Date
Type
B-52
The Associated Press

Are there nukes in there?

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 6 days ago

How safe are America's nukes?

It's 2008: Do you know where your nukes are? The Department of Defense says it does -- but then again, it lost track of a half-dozen cruise missiles for 36 hours last year. Now a Defense Science Board task force says that incident was indicative of broader problems. "The decline in DoD focus has been more pronounced than realized and too extreme to be acceptable," the task force said in a report.

Why is the U.S. letting nuclear safety slip? What can be done?

Read More

Ben likes: Are nuclear weapons boring?

Gabriel Schoenfeld/Connect the Dots

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. nuclear forces, including the units responsible for care of the weapons, have been reduced in size, there have been no modernization programs, and responsibility for nuclear forces has been dispersed throughout the Pentagon; there is no one command with overall authority over the weapons.

These factors helped to underpin the “Broken Arrow” episode of August 30, 2007, in which the Air Force essentially lost control of a handful of nuclear-armed cruise missiles, with a B-52 flying them across the country under the mistaken belief that the warheads were disarmed or carried conventional explosives.

This is frightening stuff. And doubly frightening because there is no quick fix.

Read More

Joel likes: Getting the military out of the nuclear business

William Arkin/Washington Post

In a way, the Air Force's nuclear workforce crisis mirrors that Army's own recruiting crisis: No doubt there are many who are in uniform because they are patriotic and desire to serve the country, but for many who serve in the military, it is increasingly an occupation, one hampered by the fact that the national pool and commitment is lacking.

The true solution to the problem is that we need to abandon the notion that uniformed military officers have to maintain the nuclear weapons force, a force that is essentially in "caretaker" status.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
gasoline pumps
The Associated Press

More pain at the pumps?

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 6 days ago

Is gasoline about to hit $3.40 a gallon?

The federal Energy Information Administration on Tuesday projected the price of regular gasoline, now averaging $2.96 a gallon nationwide, will hit a monthly average near $3.40 by spring.

What will higher gasoline prices mean for Americans' driving habits? What will it mean for the economy?

Read More

Ben likes: Ethanol fetish leaves bellies running on "E"

David A. Ridenour/Investor's Business Daily

A region that once produced much of American's food and sent its surpluses to feed the world's hungry is now producing grain for automotive fuel — the beneficiary of earmarks from the Capitol Hill friends of prairie farmers.

"Nearly $93 billion in subsidies will flow to ethanol and biodiesel producers by 2012," says Tom Tanton, a fellow in environment studies at San Francisco's Pacific Research Institute. The subsidies will cover about 50% to 65% of ethanol's market value alone — sticking taxpayers for a tab they will have to pay again at the gas station pump.

Read More

Joel likes: Frying pan or fire?

Matt Yglesias/The Atlantic

I think it's increasingly clear that totally irrespective of global warming the quest for alternatives to to the gasoline economy is going to be on in a big way. Absent some economic calamity in the developing world, demand -- and thus, prices -- seem destined to keep trending basically upwards. But while gasoline is hardly environmentally friendly, burning it's not the worst thing one can do for the planet either. The question is, will the replacement be a step forward or backwards?

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
Jyllands-Posten

Worth killing for?

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 6 days ago

Muhammad and the cartoonists: Is satire now a capital offense?

AFP

It was two years ago this month that the Islamic world erupted over 12 Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The message: the cartoons are blasphemy and blasphemy is a crime punishable by death. The blogosphere rallied to the cartoonists' cause, but very few Western newspapers published the offending images for fear of further backlash.

The cartoonists went into hiding, and for good reason. On Tuesday, Danish police said they had arrested three people suspected of plotting to kill Kurt Westergaard, the man who drew the iconic cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Should religious sensitivity trump free speech? Are the cartoons a poke in the eye or a blow for free expression? And does the murderous response to the cartoons create a greater rift between Islam and the West?

Read More

Ben likes: Solidarity

Ed Morrissey/Captain's Quarters

The latest incident has clarified issues regarding Islamic aggressiveness in intimidating people into silence. CNN notes that the arrests have made it clear to Europeans that Islamists intend on suppressing speech in order to keep criticism of their actions to a minimum.

Unfortunately, American newspapers and media outlets do not appear interested in expressing the same solidarity.

Read More

Joel likes: The cartoon bomb

The Nation

Defending free speech means defending the rights of those with whom we disagree most profoundly, whether they are cartoonists who would have us believe that Muhammad is the forefather of today's suicide bombers, marchers who argue that "blasphemy" is not covered by freedom of speech or Holocaust revisionists on trial in Europe, where some speech is not protected.

The cartoon scandal is about much more than freedom of speech. At its heart the controversy is about power -- the power of images; the power that divides Muslim and non-Muslim Europeans, the West and the Middle East; the power of radical Islamists to silence more moderate voices -- and the responsibility that comes with power.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
Mike Mukasey
The Associated Press

Mike Mukasey wants to stay tough.

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 6 days ago

Should crack cocaine receive tougher sentences?

Federal sentences for crack cocaine have long been 100 times harder than for powdered cocaine -- and the Bush Administration wants to keep it that way. Attorney General Mike Mukasey has asked Congress to reinstate those sentencing guidelines that were recently rescinded by the U.S.

Read More

Ben likes: Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee

Michael Mukasey/U.S. Department of Justice

Retroactive application of these new lower guidelines will pose significant public safety risks. Many of these offenders are among the most serious and violent offenders in the federal system and their early release, without the benefit of appropriate re-entry programs, at a time when violent crime has increased in some communities will produce tragic, but predictable results. Moreover, retroactive application of these penalties will be difficult for the legal system to administer given the large number of cases eligible for resentencing, now estimated at upwards of 20,000, and uncertainties as to certain key legal issues remain unresolved.

Read More

Joel likes: Mr. Mukasey's false fear

Washington Post

Lawmakers should reject Mr. Mukasey's appeal. The attorney general failed to mention that not a single prisoner will be released before a probation report is produced, a federal prosecutor has a chance to weigh in and a federal judge signs off on the reduced sentence. The judge may take into account a host of factors in making his determination, including a prisoner's criminal history, his conduct while in prison, and whether he has completed pre-release programs meant to help with assimilation into a community. Moreover, a prosecutor who objects to early release will probably be able to appeal a judge's decision to a federal appeals court, adding yet another layer of protection for society.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
Roger Clemens
The Associated Press

Roger Clemens takes The Hill, not the mound.

Featured Topic | Posted 40 weeks 5 hours ago

Clemens to testify before Congress

Roger Clemens goes before Congress today, accused of taking steroids during a baseball career that made him one of the most decorated pitchers in the sport's history.

Why is Congress involved in baseball? What do today's hearings mean for the future of America's pasttime?

Read More

Ben likes: Clemens' drama worthy of "Sopranos"

Steve Henson/Yahoo Sports

If Clemens indeed took performance-enhancing drugs, why is he risking a federal perjury charge by denying his use under oath?

Call it a hunch, and here's where the jokes take a temporary respite, but I believe Clemens is less concerned about the court of public opinion, about getting into the Hall of Fame, about the sanctity of his 354 victories and 4,672 strikeouts than he is about the faces at his dinner table.He has four reasons to fight for his good name and pray McNamee or anyone else lacks proof that he took steroids, four reasons to take his denials into reckless territory, risking a conviction and jail time. Koby Aaron, Kory Allen, Kacy Austin and Kody Alec. They are Roger and Debbie Clemens' sons. They are ballplayers.

Read More

Joel likes: Desperation pitch

Jon Heyman/Sports Illustrated

When Clemens gets to the long-awaited hearing on Wednesday, he better have more than signatures and photo ops for the folks connected to the committee. Because in the end, truth will rule the day. Clemens is used to all sorts of folks rolling over for him. But that won't happen here, no matter how many autographs he signed on his meet-and-greet session.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote