Sunday News Shows

We watched Chris Matthews, parts of Meet the Press and ABC Sunday Morning (I’m still mad at WSIL TV out of Carterville, Illinois, for changing the time for broadcasting ABC Sunday Morning so that it now conflicts with Meet the Press.) 

Chris Matthews had the exact same panel as last week. It’s not a bad panel, but I have to say I’m not that much of a fan of Gloria Borger. I’ll just leave it at that. Basically, the Matthews show focused a good bit of its time on what the first year of an Obama and McCain presidencies would look like. I thought it was an interesting discussion. 

The question was put forth as to, if Obama wins the election, what will be his very first actions as president. Eugene Robinson, African American columnist from the Washington Post, gave the first answer, and he said, very astutely, that Obama’s first move would be to, even if only the action is small enough to be in practicality a symbolic move, he will bring some troops home from Iraq. I agree with Robinson on that. Obama built his campaign and his upset of the Democratic establishment on his position on Iraq. 

After that, it was agreed by all of the panelists that it will depend on the economic conditions at the time he takes office. If the economy continues to worsen, as many are predicting, or least saying is a possibility, such as both former Sec. of Treasury under Clinton, Rubin, who was speaking on behalf of Obama, and Fiorini, former CEO of HP, speaking as a McCain economist on Face the Nation (I’ll get to that later), then it is agreed that both Obama and McCain would have to set aside issues such as health care, energy, and the environment and focus on protecting what is left of our economy. It seems to me that the candidate that rolls the economic issues up in energy, health care, and the environment so that they all get addressed in an economic saving package will have a better chance of attracting voters. 

Race as an issue came up in every show. The clip of Obama saying to a crowd that his opponents would try to scare the public by a variety of methods, including the fact that he doesn’t look like the other presidents that have been on a dollar bill, was played in about every show. Only on the ABC roundtable discussion, did Donna Brazille reveal, and I would assume that it is true because no one tried to refute her, that McCain, at least in some markets, had already run a TV ad which put Obama’s image on a $100 bill. That fact seems so relevant to this discussion that I’m surprised that not one of the mainstream reporters include that tidbit in their analysis of what Obama said. I’m surprised Obama didn’t include that fact in his statements, because that would have immediately put the discussion back in McCain’s camp. Nevertheless, McCain was able to dodge the race issue and point back at Obama, which did put him on the defensive on an issue that he should always be on the offensive. Obama has to eliminate these kind of mistakes or he could lose.

The “Bradley effect” was discussed, and everyone agreed that it was a factor. George Will said that the polls are missing the young voters and the high probability of a massive African American turnout, which could help produce a wide margin of victory for Obama not being reflected in the still close polls. Donna Brazille was the only pundit I heard that actually said that Obama has to talk about race, the, as she called it, “800 lb. gorilla in the room.” She did note that he has to talk about it gently and not accusatory. I agree with Brazille. 

David Gergen was on the roundtable on the Stephanopolous show on ABC. In a discussion about VP picks, he actually said both what I have written more than once and am becoming more and more convinced of as time goes on, which is that Obama needs Hillary Clinton on the ticket. If Clinton will do it, he needs to pick her. Not one other pundit even mentioned it as a possibility, but Gergen, acknowledging that the conventional wisdom now has it that Clinton isn’t in the running for the VP, says that this CW needs to be revisited. He stated that Obama could use a fighter like Clinton to go and do Obama’s dirty work of taking on McCain, and allow Obama to stay above the fray and talk about issues. No doubt, we all learned that Clinton is indeed a fighter, and I agree, for a number of reasons, that Obama needs her. He needs to be pragmatic in this decision and not personal. While a lot of the pundits say that having Clinton as a running mate will undercut Obama’s theme of “change” and being a new voice in DC, I believe that Obama could simply say that Clinton, with a high probability of becoming the first female VP, along with an (at least part) African American president, is change just by virtue of being the first female VP. I think Obama needs to think about it carefully.

Finally, I said that I would revisit the FACE the Nation discussion. Bob Schieffer, who tries to come off as the totally objective, sweet, loving grandpa of the Sunday News Shows, seemed to lean strongly Republican today. Oh, he started out objective, having Robert Rubin, former Sec. of Treasury under Pres. Clinton, speaking on behalf of Obama. In response to him, Schieffer had Carly Fiorini, former CEO of HP, speaking on the economy on behalf of McCain. Fair enough. But then, for the last segment of the show, he had David Brooks on alone, and acted as if Brooks was some kind of objective voice. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and Brooks took advantage of it, spending his time basically smearing Obama, at the same time trying to come off as some kind of objective analyst. So, Schieffer gave the Republicans two bites at the apple in response to Obama’s representative, and gave the Obama campaign no rebuttal at all. Shame on you Shieffer.

McConnell and Lunsford

I hate to say it, but I think Bruce Lunsford, Democratic candidate for a Kentucky U.S. Senate seat against Republican Minority leader Mitch McConnell, is pretty close to being "toast" as far as as the campaign goes. 

McConnell, who got his senate seat some twenty plus years ago as the result of an incredibly clever TV ad campaign in which a group of country boys with several hunting hound dogs were running thru the woods and an announcer was saying that then Democratic Senator Huddleston couldn't hide from his record and that they were going to track him down, now has embarked on another nasty but no doubt effective TV ad campaign. This is what will become known as the "automatic gas tax" "Thanks Bruce" campaign. It's a bunch of bull, as most of the state's newspapers have observed, but it's a very effective TV ad, especially for a candidate in which a tie means a win.

Lunsford was days late responding, at least in the Paducah market. His response was OK, but not great, and McConnell immediately responded with an ad crushing Lunsford's response. Lunsford, who probably wouldn't give us anything much different than McConnell as far as policy goes except that he would sit on the Democratic side of the aisle, which according to one of my good friends, Tom Buchele, is one of the most important act a U.S. senator makes. But, unless Lunsford cranks up his ads, and comes up with a better ad campaign, (and he doesn't have a lot of time) he's done for, a victim of "automatic gas tax increases," whether it's true or not.

I have suggested in the past, and still continue to suggest, that Lunsford run the same damn hounds ad against McConnell that he ran against Huddleston. I think it could very effective, and could turn around the campaign. McConnell has a long record that he can't hide from, and it should be enough to turn on McConnell and at least make the race interesting. But Lunsford, who is big money and may not really be for the worker as much as he is for big business, hasn't seemed like he really wants to take the gloves off against McConnell. Maybe he really doesn't want to win. Who knows?

But, being a U.S. Senator is an exclusive club, and it's a big deal to get in the club. Lunsford may covet that seat, but if he really wants it, he has to respond firmly to McConnell, and like the next day after McConnell's attack ads begin. With today's technology, it isn't impossible. Even a week lag is too long. It allows the "thanks Bruce" message to sink in, and Lunsford can't afford that, being the big time underdog. He needs to the be the one on the offensive, and as of yet, he has failed that test.

Prejudice is not a Christian value

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. – Some white folks still can’t bring themselves to support Sen. Barack Obama for president because he is African American.

“A lot of them are good union people,” Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer, told the United Steelworkers of America. “They just can’t get past the idea that there’s something wrong with voting for a black man.” 

Trumka confronted prejudice head-on in a headline-grabbing speech at the Steelworkers’ recent annual convention in Las Vegas. He didn’t pull punches.

“…There’s no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism – and it’s something we in the labor movement have a very, very special responsibility to challenge,” said the ex-president of the United Mine Workers of America.

Delegates interrupted Trumka, a third generation Pennsylvania coal miner, with a number of standing ovations. 

The Nation called the speech “incredibly significant.” Trumka challenged “ignorance and fear” while “calling on the House of Labor to identify and reject the politics of race in order to elect an ally to the presidency,” the magazine’s John Nichols wrote.

Excerpts of Trumka’s remarks are on You Tube, the popular Internet site. Go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50. 

Trumka said racism is not just wrong, it’s dumb -- doubly dumb if you pack a union card.

“There’s not a single good reason for any worker, especially any union member, to vote against Barack Obama,” he said. “And there is only one really, really bad reason to vote against Barack Obama and that’s because he’s not white.”

Obama, the soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, has a 98 percent pro-labor voting record, according to the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education. Few senators score higher.

On the other hand, not many senators have a lower COPE rating than John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president. His is 16 percent. 

Even so, McCain expects to win over some Democrats – including union members – who voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s main rival in the presidential primaries. 

The “straight talk” Republican would never admit it, of course. But it seems obvious the Clinton voters his campaign most has in mind are white people who rejected Obama because he’s black.

Trumka talked about one of them in his speech. He said he met her when he returned to Nemacolin, Pa., his hometown, to vote in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. 

Trumka said he had known the woman for years. “She was active in Democratic politics when I was still in grade school…We got to talking, and I asked if she'd made up her mind who she was supporting, and she said, ‘Oh absolutely, I'm voting for Hillary, there's no way that I'd ever vote for Obama.’” 

Trumka said he asked her why not.

“She said, ‘Well, he's a Muslim.’

“And I said, ‘Well, actually, he’s Christian just like you and I, but so what if he’s Muslim.’

“Then she shook her head and said, ‘He won't wear that American flag pin on his lapel.’ And I looked at my lapel and said, ‘I don’t have one, and, by the way, you don’t have one on either. But c'mon, he wears one plenty of times. He just says it takes more than wearing a flag pin to be patriotic.’”

The woman was unconvinced, claiming, “‘Well, I just don't trust him,’” according to Trumka. “And I said, ‘Why’s that?’ And she drops her voice a bit, and she said, ‘Because he's black.’

“And I said, ‘Look around this town. Nemacolin's a dying town. There're no jobs here. Our kids are moving away because there's no future here. And here's a man, Barack Obama, who's going to fight for people like us and you want to tell me that you won't vote for him because of the color of his skin – are you ought of your ever-loving mind, lady?’”

I suspect many, if not most, Clinton supporters, including union members, will follow the former First Lady’s lead and get behind Obama. Even so, Trumka warned that “we can’t tap dance around the fact that there are a lot of folks out there” like the bigot from his hometown. 

They live in every state. They’re in my hometown.

Mayfield has been dying a slow death for a long time. We just lost a huge tire plant. Before that, three clothing factories and a plant that made air compressors closed. Thousands of good union jobs disappeared.

But I know there are white people here who won’t vote for Obama because he is black.

I imagine most of them, like the Pennsylvania woman, call themselves Christians.

I wonder what they’re getting out of church. Growing up Presbyterian, I learned that prejudice is not a Christian value. Jesus said we are all God’s children. Like a good parent, God loves us all the same.

Also in the Bible, Jesus admonishes us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Christians call it the Golden Rule. But the same principle can be found in other religions, including Judaism and Islam.

Like Trumka, I wouldn’t care if Obama were Muslim. I’ll take a compassionate, open-minded person of any faith over a religious bigot any time.

It is mainly religious bigots, notably Internet nut jobs, who are spreading the lies that the Christian Obama is a Muslim who was sworn in as a senator on the Koran. One of my union brothers calls them “the Christian Taliban.”

Anyway, I’d bet the farm that Obama would be the first person to say it is also wrong for anybody to vote against McCain just because he’s a white man -- or vote against Clinton just because she’s a white woman.

I’m sure Trumka would say the same thing.

While Trumka conceded that there are racists in the House of Labor, he added that “…the labor movement – imperfect as we are – is the most integrated institution in American life.”

Convention delegate Jeff Wiggins of USW Local 9447-5 agreed. “Unions believe in ‘do unto others,’” said Wiggins, a Baptist who is president of the Paducah-based Western Kentucky Area Council, AFL-CIO, and sits on the Kentucky State AFL-CIO Executive Board.

“But we don’t just preach brotherhood and sisterhood,” Wiggins added. “We practice it every day. In a union everybody is equal.”

So what should union leaders do “to identify and reject the politics of race” in the House of Labor?

“Now, I don’t think that we ought to be out there pointing fingers and calling them racists,” Trumka said. “Instead, we need to educate them that if they care about holding on to their jobs, if they care about health care, if they care about their pensions and their homes – if they care about creating good jobs with clean energy, child care [and]…pay equity for women workers” they should vote for Obama.

It’s as simple as crunching the numbers: Obama 98 is percent pro-labor; McCain is 16 percent.

Sunday News Shows

For the most part, I missed the Sunday news shows last week. But this morning I saw Chris Matthews, over half of Meet of the Press, a good portion of the “roundtable” on the ABC Sunday Morning, and Face the Nation. 

Chris Matthews had an interesting panel this morning. Gloria Borger, from CNN, was the most conservative. Eugene Robinson, from the Washington Post, gave a nice counter opinion to Borger. They started off the panel talking about why, in the face of a pretty much picture perfect overseas trip by Obama, along with the unpopularity of the Bush administration, along with the economic problems facing most people in this country, Obama is only a few points ahead in the latest NBC poll? I think that is a very good question. 

Eugene Robinson actually brought up, as he described it, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the fact that Obama is black. And, the so called “Bradley Effect” came up in the discussion. I was glad to see this discussed. None of the other shows discussed it this morning, at least what I saw. The Bradley Effect is an expectation that a black politician will receive several percentage points less than what the latest polls show because there is a certain percent of the population that won’t admit that they won’t vote for a person because of race but when they get in the privacy of the voting booth, will in fact, let race guide their selection. This is a very sensitive issue, because not only does it demonstrate that fundamental racism is alive and well in the US, but also that there is dishonesty about it. 

I actually believe it. I think racism, at least among a certain percent of the U.S. population, is alive and well. And I believe that this does account for the polls being somewhat close when conventional wisdom would tell us that it should be a blow out for the democrats. Since Matthew’s show did address it, and was the only one, I single it out for good journalism today.

The topic de jour of course was the debate over Iraq/Afghanistan. Obama says that we need to pull out troops from Iraq and send at least some of them to Afghanistan. McCain continues to try to get Obama to say that the surge actually worked, but hasn’t been successful yet in getting Obama to admit it outright. Obama says that the so called Sunni Awakening, which the media reports as Sunni leaders in Anbar province turning against Al Quaeda and joining with the US media, but which we, as recipients of media propoganda, have no idea what the real truth is, as occurring before the surge and, in combination with the Sadr militia on cease fire, had as much to do with the reduction in violence in Iraq than the “surge.” 

Some of the media criticized Obama for not coming out and admitting that the surge was a “success.” Personally, I don’t blame him, cause it all depends how you define “success.” The U.S. lost 22 soldiers this last week in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t call that a “success.” And, a rational look at what has occurred leads me to believe that the hard core insurgents in Iraq all packed up and went to Afghanistan when we beefed up our troop numbers in Iraq. I think Obama is right not to be too quick to call the surge a success. Remember Bush and his “Mission Accomplished” disaster? The people of the middle east have been around as a culture for a lot longer than we have in the U.S. They have experience in expelling occupying forces. Whereas we tend to take snapshots and try to label them, you can’t always label a snapshot accurately if things are in movement when you snapped it. And that is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I think what has gotten McCain’s goat is that he has had to respond to Obama’s call for more troops in Afghanistan, even in the face of not being able to get Obama to admit that the surge was a success, by also calling for more troops in Afghanistan. Of course, the left wing of the Democratic party is not happy with Obama’s apparently war mongering in regard to Afghanistan and Iran. We shouldn’t be using the military unless there is some imminent threat to our national security. It’s hard to understand how a poor country like Afghanistan can be a threat to our national security. So one might wonder if Obama is catering to the more militaristic side of our populous. If that is the case, then it’s just politics as usual. However, if he knows things about a real threat being posed by our enemies in Afghanistan, he should make an attempt to convey that to the public. I’m a little worried that he is losing as many as he is gaining by his militant leaning visa vis Afghanistan.

Another issue that was discussed on several of the shows was the notion that Obama is an elitist, a chardonnay sipping, brie eating, ivy leaguer that is out of touch with the everyday U.S. working person. It’s a total distortion, but Obama needs to respond to it now, because, in conjunction with McCain’s vicious attact TV ads already running in various places, Obama could be successfully swiftboated. It’s amazing though, that the Republicans have the nerve to totally distort the facts and try to create a reality that is totally opposite of the truth. They did it with John Kerry in regard to his military service and his purple hearts. Now they are trying to do it with Obama’s low income upbringing. If either of the two candidates can relate to being poor and growing up with disadvantages, it has to be Obama. But the Republicans are trying to paint him as being an uppity arrogant ivy leaguer that wouldn’t understand at all. This campaign is meant to compliment the already partially successful whisper campaign that Obama is a muslim, was educated in muslim schools, won't salute the flag, etc etc. These are all attempts to paint Obama as something he isn't - it really is malicious and dirty, but it's what republicans do and do well.

All one has to do is look at the TV ads that McCain is running right now. They couldn't be any dirtier and slimier. McCain should be ashamed. But we all know how desperate the republicans are to keep hold of the executive branch. They'll do anything, including, probably, stealing the election. Afterall, didn't they do it before? So Obama better start responding and responding firmly and not wait. If he doesn't respond immediately, these notions start sinking in, and they take root. It won't take too many percent of the population to really start believing this sleazy smear campaign before Obama will lose the election. 

On the VP front, I still think Obama will pick Sen. Clinton if she wants it. I'm out there on my own in this regard, but I'm sticking by my prediction.

 

Ancient Amazonians Practiced Carbon Sequestration.

Recently archeologists have discovered that 2000 years ago Amazonians were practicing carbon sequestration on a massive scale in the Amazon Basin of Bolivia. 

In the process they turned one of the most desolate soils on earth into one of the richest. It’s called terra preta de indio or indian black earth. Terra preta is so fertile that it regrows itself as reported by families who’ve mined it for generations.

Because of political instability, climate, extreme conditions, no roads, anti-American feelings caused by the DEA; the uninhabited Bolivian savannah had remained virtually unexplored by geologists and archeologists until the late sixties with the advent of oil exploration. Small islands of lush jungle dotting the savannah were seen from the air by oil geologists and documented in trade journals. Alert academic scientists then began to mount expeditions into the area and have been surprised if not amazed at what they’ve found. 

What they’ve discovered has validated the Spanish Conquistador, Francisco de Orellana, when in 1542 he spoke of the land of El Dorado after returning from exploring the area. 80 years later when Spaniards returned they found the region barren and uninhabited so they concluded that Orellana had been delusional. They couldn’t know that Orellana had sown the seeds of the Amazonians destruction with the diseases he brought with him. Amazonians had never experienced a human to human disease, not even a cold. He was the first and last European to see them. Mother nature took over and destroyed any trace of their civilization.

Scientists still don’t know the exact formula for terra preta but they do know that it involved massive amounts of charcoal being tilled into the soil.  Carbon sequestration? They also know that the charcoal had been pulverized to particles no larger than 2 microns. Contrary to conventional wisdom, which claims that charcoal is bad for the soil, the Amazonians found a way to use it to enrich soil to the point that a sophisticated and complex culture able to feed a larger population than any in Europe, existed for thousands of years. They literally turned a desert into El Dorado.

Because results from early research promises green energy, soil restoration and greenhouse mitigation from an affordable technology that can remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than is released, Congress has taken terra preta serious enough to appropriate $500 million to its research in the last agriculture bill. There’s more but I’ll leave it to the reader to explore the subject further by using the hyperlinks provided. It’s worth the effort. 

The reason I mention all of this is to draw the contrast between a culture that is wise as opposed to a culture that is just clever. A wise culture does not continue to do the same thing expecting different results. If we continue to believe that our smart people will eventually develop a technology to allow us to continue to burn fossil fuels with impunity then we’ve forsaken wisdom for what Wendell Berry calls, “…a collective delusion of grandeur”.

Evidence of this “collective delusion of grandeur” can be found in recent editorials of the local ultra-conservative Paducah Sun. It has been recently reported that a multi-billion dollar “clean” coal manufacturing plant is to be located in McCracken County which will sequester carbon in our aquifer. Even though we're reassured that the aquifer is already dirty with salt, one can't help but conclude that this is just another example of industry using the commons as their capital. 

The captains of industry and their media collaborators tell us that the technology is proven, safe, nothing to worry about. These are the same snake oil salesmen who told us that nuclear energy would be so cheap that electric meters would be eliminated. And now they resort to the euphemism of "clean coal" to sell us the same snake oil. In the process they accuse anyone, especially environmentalists, of knee jerk reaction when we question the unsustainable solutions being offered. All the while they fail to mention that environmentalists have been proven right time and again on environmental issues in our area. The Paducah Sun never learns but instead continues with business as usual expecting different results.

Never mind that the editorialist never mentions the other problems created by coal such as mountain top removal, coal mine deaths from cave ins and black lung, coal sludge ponds, strip pits, etc. Or that one of the worst environmental disasters in our nation, second only to the Valdez oil spill in Alaska, occurred at Inez, Ky when an earthen dam failed to hold back a massive coal sludge pond. Or that there are many more such ponds on the verge of being released with more being created yearly. And to date there are no solutions for these problems in sight. 

The fossil fools would have us believe that the climate crises is a hoax therefore we can continue to dig the fossil fuel hole we’re in. This is a false premise if for no other reason than such a policy is not sustainable simply given the limited reserves of oil, coal and uranium along with the intractable waste problems created by these energy sources. 

On the other hand, we presently have the technology to make every home in the nation a net energy producer instead of a net energy user. In the process we could eliminate CO2 emissions by ridding ourselves of fossil fuels, decentralize the grid thus improving national security, convert to an electric plug-in fleet of autos, get us out of the quicksand of the Middle East and put us ahead of the curve for 21st century jobs. But it will require leadership and both national and individual sacrifice. 

Other nations are already well on their way to such a future after having broken the stranglehold of fossil fuel special interests over their governments. I have faith that the American people can do the same. Over the last eight years, corporations and their lobbyists have taken over the very agencies that were created to regulate their greed and lawlessness. To cure our addiction to fossil fuels and reclaim our democracy -- at least a government worthy of that name -- will require a great deal of effort and creativity on our part. We cannot afford to allow the last word to industry sycophants as represented by the Paducah Sun. There's too much at stake.

In the same amount of time and expense that it would take to build unsustainable nuclear reactors and the oxymoronic “clean” coal plants to provide for our energy needs, we could be getting 100% of our nation's electricity from renewable and truly clean energy sources within 10 years. 

So the question is, which technology do we choose? Should we take the Sun’s editorialist, David Cox's, advice and use technology to improve the buggy whip? Or do we follow the lead of the ancient Amazonians and wisely choose the technology that solves the myriad problems from using fossil fuels by eliminating them entirely for a more sustainable future?

Time will tell.

Obama to come to Fancy Farm picnic?

Local and regional media outlets have started reporting that Sen. Obama is seriously thinking of coming to the Fancy Farm picnic. The Fancy Farm picnic is an annual picnic that dates back about 130 years. It is one of the last of the old time political picnics left in the country. It is located in Fancy Farm, Kentucky, a very small town, quaint, scenic village, dominated by a large catholic church, nestled off the beaten path in the rolling hills of far western Kentucky. The history of the picnic can be found at http://www.fancyfarm.net/picnichistory.html. Many a firey political speech has been made there, and it's an historic event that has attracted big political names. It always gets a lot of media attention.

Obama would not be unwise to come to Fancy Farm. For one thing, it's become increasingly clear over the years that this part of the U.S. is good for media, because one appearance can get you media coverage in 5 states - Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, and even Indiana. 

Also, Kentucky I believe is going to be more up for grabs than most people are thinking right now. Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate minority leader, is up for re-election this year. He's been in a long time, and while his opponent, Bruce Lundsford, probably isn't a heck of a lot better, he would sit on the democratic side of the aisle in the Senate - which is the bottom line here. 

Lundsford has deep pockets - um...he's really rich. So McConnell won't be able to just buy the election through advertising and travel. And with the bad economic conditions, and the war, all coming to fruition under McConnell's leadership, he has a lot to answer for. Based on recent polls, it is reported that Lundsford is within reach of an upset.

Western Kentucky had, up the Newt Gingrich "contract with america" republican surge in 1994, been strongly democratic. In fact, the 1st District congressional seat had been held by a democrat the entire history of the district until 1994. Since that time, the seat has been held by republican Ed Whitfield. But, that doesn't change the fact that the district is historically democratic. 

Obama already drew a substantial crowd a couple from Western Kentucky a couple years ago, and got myriads of press coverage, when he held an open town meeting in Metropolis, Illinois, right across the river from Paducah. So, he is well known in Western Kentucky. His appearance here could make a difference. And, he would reach Missouri, an acknowledged swing state. He was in Cape Girardeau a couple months ago, but it was a private affair, and there was some consternation about that. He could help to repair some of the damage that the "not open for the public" appearance there did.

I recommend that he do it.

Sunday News Shows

I watched Chris Matthews, ABC Sunday Morning, Meet the Press (alternating, cause they both come on at the same time now), Face the Nation, and I also watched McGlaughlin Group and part of Washington Week in Review on Friday evening. 

It was a bit of a different panel on Matthews, thankfully. O'Donnell, Rather, Tucker, and Feinman. Not that these are necessarily new to the show, but at least they different than the ultra conservative panels he's been having lately. 

Like usual, all the shows for the most part touched on the same kind of themes. Those included (1) Bush's reported pullout of troops from Iraq and how that would affect the campaign; (2) The candidate "surrogate" gaffs of the last week; (3) The candidates' VP choices.

Also, several of the shows started off by reporting new polls on the presidential race. Those polls were showing Obama ahead by a few percentage points. Wow. That shocked me. The last polls I had heard showed Obama up by double digits. I have no idea how to explain this. I know that the left of the Democratic party has been hurt by Obama's move to the center lately. He can deny it, but it's like denying that he's running for president. The really polarizing event was his vote for immunity for the telecom companies that helped Bush spy on us. 

Sure, he can say that he voted for the amendment to strip the immunity from the bill, but that was all a sham. It was a done deal before that ever came up. But what I wonder is what does Obama perceive as any advantage going along with Bush at the end of the worst presidency in history? Why alienate your energized base to support Bush? It makes no sense, and his explanation on his website rings hollow.

He also fudged on the war and supported another Bush initiative that is questionable...the so called "faith based initiatives." That one could be forgiven probably, but in the context of these other things, it really turned off a lot of progressives. And then there is, of course, his rejection of public financing. All of those things bug progressives, who are expecting more. But, of course, the Dems always have felt they could walk on the progressives and still get most of them in the tent because they were the only viable alternative. But now that Cynthia McKinney has gotten the Green party nomination officially (something not one news show announced this morning), Obama had better be careful about who he blows off. 

But surely the poll results that were announced this morning, with Obama up like 44 to 41, didn't take into account the reaction to Sen. Phil Gramm's comments that Americans were "whiners" and that our economic troubles were "mental." That's got to hurt McCain. 

But, in the context of Obama's fallen fundraising in the last 3 months, and this fall in the polls, he better be looking at what is causing this. If he isn't honest with himself about what he's doing, he could lose. And the main thing that would make him lose is if an image of him actually being just another politician rather than someone young, new, fresh and with big time changes at the top of his agenda, he will lose. And that's what's been happening lately to the average person's thinking, or so I believe. 

In regard to the VP picks, most of the pundits are still saying Obama will not Clinton. In fact, NBC was reporting that a major Clinton donor had gone to the press after a supposed conversation with Obama in which he said that he was still considering Clinton, but was concerned about Bill and how he would affect things should Clinton get the VP. But really got me suspicious was that on Meet the Press, Republican pundit Murphy said that the Republicans wanted Obama to pick Clinton but were sure he wouldn't cause it would be the stupidest thing he could do. He went on to say that they feared Kane more than anyone. That's silly. Kane has no name recognition and Clinton got as many votes as Obama in the primaries for the most part. I think the Republicans are very afraid of an Obama/Clinton ticket. We'll just how this all plays out. 

I already wrote about some of the surrogate gaffs this week. Everyone agreed that the consequences of the gaffs was strongly in favor of Obama. I agree with that also. 

I had already written a couple months ago about how the Iraq war was becoming much less of a prominent issue in the presidential race. Now, if Bush starts a pull out (which of course, Maliki is demanding as part of any long term troop status agreement with the US) that will make the Iraq war even less of an issue. But that seems to me to help Obama. That's because McCain's number one issue is that he supported the surge, and traditionally, larger numbers of the public think the Democrats help them on the economy. McCain already said that he didn't understand economic issues well enough, and recently, his man, Sen. Gramm, said that the recession was mental and that American's were whiners. 

That's why I can't really understand these new polls. Something seems wrong, or troubling. The Democrats better take this serious and look at where they are going. We don't need flip flopping, politically manipulative campaign strategies aimed to please everyone. That's old politics. If Obama wants to really convince people that he is different and new, he needs to really be different and stand up for what he believes. If he doesn't, he could lose. If that means a McCain victory, then that means continued downslide for most of the American people.

Obama and African American males and the mental recession

Wow. What a two days. First, Jesse Jackson makes his comments about Obama, (says he wants to cut his nuts off cause he's "talking down to black people") and then Phil Gramm, (former Republican senator from Texas) McCain economic advisor, said that our current recession is a mental recession and that Americans are a bunch of whiners. 

So who came out better here? Geez. That's like asking who came out better in a gunfight with Sheriff Matt Dylan on Gunsmoke. This could be an election loser for McCain, and the Jesse Jackson thing may actually set up as a benefit to Obama. But if you watch the film of Jackson actually delivering the lines to the Fox News dude, it looks contrived to me. Was it all planned? Who knows. Probably not. But one can't help thinking. I mean, isn't Jesse Jackson smarter than that? To lean over and whisper to a Fox news guy in front of a mic? Um, this guy is not an amateur. Oh well, let's just leave it where it is. But sure seems strange to me.

But the Phil Gramm statement is just mind boggling. It isn't that he can claim that he was misquoted or anything - he said it on video! And while McCain tries to distance himself from those idiotic comments, there are all kinds of videos going around where McCain says that Graham is great. Amd McCain already said a couple months ago that he didn't know that much about the economy. Since that time, the economy has taken an even more severe nosedive. For Gramm to make such statements just shows that he is totally out of touch with regular working people. That's exactly what the Republicans don't need, cause it reinforces old stereotypes. 

This is the worst economic conditions in my life. If McCain and the Republicans can't recognize that Bush's policies have resulted in the significant lowering of most everyone's standard of living, then they are doomed. Yet, I don't think they are capable of admitting it. That's a real problem for McCain.

On the other hand, the fact that Obama pissed off Jesse Jackson probably scores a few points with some white people. And the fact is, and believe me, I'm not trying to speak for African-American people, cause I really don't know, but from the church services, and meetings that I have attended where black issues have been paramount in my rural area, I have heard black leaders over and over again talk about personal responsibility. This isn't some revolutionary concept. In the African-American community, I think that the social issues are a given, and their ability to control them are somewhat limited. But that doesn't mean they aren't recognized. 

Oh...they are. But what isn't out of control of the local community is individual behavior, or at least so they think. So they focus on it. No different than what Obama did. And not only that, but there is a lot of disagreement with Jesse Jackson with African-Americans out in the rural areas, and I believe they more agree with the Obama message of increased personal responsibility. So, all in all, I don't think this will lose Obama much support in the African-American community, but it may bolster his image as not being a hard core black activist. That would work to his advantage with those "Hillary" voters. 

So good two days for Obama - bad bad bad day for McCain.

 

Quilt Show staying in Paducah

The Quilt Show is going to stay in Paducah. That's a good thing, really. It seems to be based on the takeover of the Big E (see post "Paducah Quilt Show to Move?") by another corporation that seems to be mostly owned by Mr. Singh. 

WPSD, the NBC affiliate from Paducah (Paxton Media) has reported that this new corporation is going to fix up the Executive Inn, and that the work has begun. They even had a few very short clips on their news showing dry wall being torn out of some room somewhere, reporting that the great renovations that are going to save the quilt show into the future have already begun. We'll see. But that's here things stand at the moment.

Elephants in the Bluegrass

by Craig Rhodes

FYI, this is my response to the criticism from conservative, Republican blog "Elephants In the Bluegrass" of Mark and his blog regarding McConnell's misleading political ads that distorts his record regarding environmental issues at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. I have uploaded this to Elephants In the Bluegrass and hope they will post it.

Mark's blogs on McConnell can be read here:
Mitch McConnell's political ad about the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant workers not accurate at all!
http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/92

Another Strike Against McConnell's Nuclear Worker compensation TV Ad
http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/110

Where in the World Was Sen. Mitch McConnell
http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/97

Elephants in the Bluegrass' criticism of both Mark and his blog can be found here:
http://elephantsinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2008/04/mcconnell-paducah-ad...

=================================================================

I served with Donham on the Citizen's Advisory Board at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) for 7 years so I have some insight into his qualifications on this issue.

First off, for the sake of accuracy, Mark Donham is not a former worker at the plant. Has never worked there. Nevertheless, he is considered by many in our area, region and nation, including his opponents, as being one of the most knowledgeable people on this issue around. The Washington Post article that you referenced which finally exposed what was being done at the PDGP, quoted and vetted Donham's information on this extensively.

In essence you downplay Donham's criticism of McConnell based on the false assumption that McConnell and everyone else was "in the dark" about the issue of plutonium at the PGDP. Both history and facts, not just Donham's opinion, speak otherwise. 

For instance, it's worth noting that the Paducah Sun, which you also reference and which is deservedly considered to be the most conservative daily newspaper in Kentucky, had years to do what the Washington Post finally did. It wasn't until the Sun's hand was forced by the Post that they then began to defensively report the story of workers being exposed to plutonium. For years prior to that the Paducah Sun had been receiving reports from workers about the issue but instead of reporting it they covered it up. Therefore, your quote from the Sun, "...that the Washington Post story was the "first allegation of plutonium use at the plant", is not true. 

You never raised the obvious question; why did it finally take a newspaper outside the region to break this story instead of our local media which has had decades to report on PDGP issues as well as access to the same sources that the Post used? At this point The Paducah Sun in particular and their owners, the Paxton Media Group in general, have very little credibility on this issue so your use of them to bolster your argument is a non-starter. 

Regarding Rep. Ed Whitfield, as a member of the Citizen's Advisory Board and eventual Chairperson, I met with Ed Whitfield when the Post article came out. Not only did he not know about the plutonium issue, but he didn't know much of anything else about the PGDP either. Considering that the PGDP is the only plant of its kind in the nation and one of the largest economic engines in the state I found Whitfield's ignorance of it to be shocking especially considering that the PGDP is in his district. At that point, it was the first and only time that Whitfield ever met with the Citizen's Advisory Board.

Donham made the correct observation that the Kentucky Congressional delegation in general and McConnell in particular, knew little about plutonium at the plant even though they had ample opportunity to do so. But even worse, based on my experience, they knew next to nothing about the plant in general including the myriad environmental disasters outside of the plutonium issue. The question you never ask is why our elected officials, both Democratic and Republican, were so ignorant of the PDGP in the first place? 

Contrary to your opinion, thousands of us in the area knew what was going on long before the Post's expose and after years of the Paducah Sun's blackout of the issue so we were not, as you claim, "in the dark". Furthermore, we had repeatedly complained about it to our Congressional Delegation including McConnell but to no avail. Their willful ignorance and inaction is not Donham's fault but the fault of our elected officials including McConnell who is now playing CYA while pretending that he saved the day.

And in Donham's defense against your ad hominem attacks...he works tirelessly for the environment. In that regard he supports any politician from any political party who will work with him on that issue. It's not his fault that, more often than not, it is the Republican Party that takes anti-environmental positions. McConnell, who is the de-facto leader of the Congressional Republicans, takes the lead on their destructive policies. Which explains Donham's principled opposition to McConnell in contrast to your false charge of partisanship. If McConnell were a Democrat, Donham would still oppose him. And since you brought it up, for that obvious reason Donham isn't opposing Ford because Ford is a Democrat but because he isn't the one running for office.

Moreover, you never noted that Leon Owens' praise of McConnell came long after the fact that prior to the Washington Post article McConnell was AWOL regarding environmental issues at the PGDP. It wasn't until the political pressure from the article forced McConnell's hand, did he begin to finally take note of what was happening in Paducah. So Owens was speaking to McConnell's belated, opportunistic involvement not his prior negligence.

So to paraphrase; your own partisan "screed" against Donham was unfounded. Your efforts would be better served if you put McConnell under the same scrutiny.

Sunday News Shows

I watched Chris Matthews, parts of Meet the Press and a larger part of ABC Sunday morning, and Face the Nation. For me, the most interesting discussion of the day was the roundtable on ABC Sunday morning. The major topic of the day was of course the presidential race. The major subtopics of the days under that heading was Obama’s move to the center recently in conjunction with his flip flop on campaign financing, Obama and the Clinton’s, and as far as McCain goes, his upcoming trip to Mexico, and his continued efforts to completely tie his campaign to national security. 

Chris Matthews had another conservative panel. Again, Katty Kay, from BBC, who to me isn’t that well known of a journalist out in the heartland of the U.S., continues to appear every week, and to sit nearest to Matthews. It’s just interesting, if you ask me. She seemed to the be most liberal member of the panel today - the others being David Gregory, Gloria Borger, and David Brooks. I would rate this panel definitely on the conservative side. 

I guess the highlights of the Matthews show was the discussion about Obama’s VP pick. The three most conservative pundits, Gregory, Borger, and Brooks, all said that Obama is going to or should pick Biden. That makes no sense to me. Why would Obama pick Biden, who only got a handful of votes for president, when Clinton got as many votes as he did for president? That means that a lot more people want Clinton for president than Biden. All that would do is inflame the Clinton supporters, the last thing that Obama needs. Only if Clinton has bought into someone like Biden and is willing to go to her supporters and say that she agrees with it could such a thing work. But all of the above said that they didn’t think that Obama was going to pick Clinton. In fact, Gregory says it’s not a possibility. They might be right. We’ll see.

Meet the Press had three western governors at the beginning of the show. One of the interesting things that I noticed was that in the intro of the show, a list of problems facing the west was given by NBC which would be discussed. Missing from that list, very interestingly, was public land management. Yet, a good deal of the discussion with the three governors focused around public land management - and a good deal of it was spent talking about the environmental effects of increased drilling and gas production on public lands. As they were reading off this list at the beginning, I turned to Kristi and said, “what about public lands?” It’s a huge issue out west because the public land is so prevalent. One has to wonder why NBC omitted it from their synopsis of western issues?

Also, Stephanopolous interviewed Ralph Nader briefly. Nader basically said that those on the further left that still supported Obama even though they agreed more with Nader were being disingenous, and should follow their true beliefs in voting. He gave Nation magazine as a the prime example. 

The roundtable on the Stephanopolous show was different. It was Vander Heuval from Nation, Hewitt from Townhall.com, an ultra conservative blog, Huffington from the Huffington post blog, and Byron York from the National Review. It started out with Stephanopolous asking Vander Heuval, from Nation, about Nader’s comments. Basically Vander Heuval said that Nader shouldn’t run. She also tried to deflect the issue by saying that she thought that the Bob Barr libertarian candidacy was going to hurt the GOP more than Nader would hurt the Dems. For the life of me, I don’t know why they don’t mention Cynthia McKinney, presumptive nominee for the Green party nomination. She is building more support than Nader, I am pretty sure. But the Dems (nor the media) want to even mention her candidacy. 

Vander Heuval also tried to stick up for Obama’s conservative moves in the last week - voting for immunity for the telecoms and at least in part supporting the Supreme Court decision giving a right to individuals to have at least a pistol and rifle in their homes. Huffington did challenge Vander Heuval on her what seemed like complete capitulation to whatever positions Obama took. She said that Obama had made his name by being different - someone that wouldn’t change positions just out of political expediency. She said that he is risking spoiling his “brand” of being different by doing the same thing that other politicians have always done. I think that is right. 

This Hewett dude was far out. But Huffington got the best of him when she read what she said was an exact quote from Hewett in an interview this week. The quote had to do with Obama and national security, but I can’t remember exactly what it was. But, it came off so extreme that Hewett was flustered by it and didn’t have a good answer. In my opinion, Hewett came off really bad. 

Face the Nation had Lieberman and Wesley Clark. Lieberman was hawking for McCain. What a turncoat. Schieffer asked him about how he felt about McCain’s top advisor, Black, who was quoted last week as saying that if we had another terrorist attack in the U.S. before the election, that it would help McCain. Lieberman of course, like McCain, said, oh, he shouldn’t have said that. Then getting down in the mud with the best of them, did go on to say that the terrorists were going to test a new president, and listed various bad things that have happened to presidents in their first term - clearly insinuating that there was a good chance that something bad was going to happen to the U.S. if Obama was elected. That’s just about as low as Black’s comments. 

Wesley Clark didn’t do that great of a job defending Obama. He did do a decent job of defending a pullout of troops from Iraq, and he spoke well defending Obama’s call for more talk between us and our adversaries and friends in the region. All in all, McCain probably got the better of that exchange, but not by a lot, because I think many people are turned off by Lieberman now, both because he has turned against the Democrats, and because many feel he was a poor choice for VP by Gore, and helped cost him the election. But he is an intelligent and articulate man, and that’s why he is such a problem for the Dems.

Brokaw spoke with Chuck Todd at the end of Meet the Press. Todd made one interesting observation about whether or not Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic convention. He said he thought that they would go along with him introducing Hillary, who will be speaking. But, he said, he wasn’t sure Hillary wanted that. Todd said that he thought maybe Chelsea would introduce Hillary at the convention, thus passing the torch down to the next generation of Clinton. He did say that he thought a tribute film to Bill’s career was probably the most likely portrayal of Bill Clinton. I think the Dems need to be careful about how they handle Bill. He did take a beating during the primary campaign, (because he said a number of really stupid things) but he is an ex-two-term president who still has a lot of supporters. 

I think Obama is making a big mistake with his “move to the middle.” I think Huffington is right on with her insights. Too much of this and the excitement that Obama is generating as being the possibility of something really new will dissipate. If that happens, the large, motivated turnout that is needed to sweep a virtually veto proof majority in the legislative chambers will be in jeopardy. If that happens, even if Obama squeaks out a victory, he won’t be able to get much done and his legacy will be that of just another politician. I don’t think he wants that, and the country doesn’t need it.

Paducah Quilt Show to Move?

I have to comment on a local issue of great importance to my region - the potential (what is looking now as likely) move of the Paducah international Quilt Show, sponsored by the owners of the National Quilt Museum in Paducah, Kentucky, to another city. The quilt show has become the premier event for Paducah and had begun to help define the city as something other than the "atomic" city. 

I like the quilt show, and attend almost every year. The quilts are stunning in their colors, patterns, and craftmanship. Kristi and I don't have any huge financial stake in the show remaining in Paducah other than the general overall cloud that it casts on Paducah and the region. But, when you consider that there is a significant number of businesses, especially mom & pop businesses, who have come to rely on a large percentage of their annual income from the quilt show, then there is a huge financial stake in the aggregate community for the show remaining in Paducah. In that regard the Paducah Oligarchy's foot dragging and indecision on this issue over the years has done great harm.

The reason the Quilt show is leaving (supposedly) is because the "Executive Inn," the monstrosity of a motel that is built along the riverfront in downtown Paducah, connected to the convention center which is where the quilt show is held, is in such disrepair that it is becoming an embarassment. It's true that the "Big E" as we call it is in disrepair. It's pretty much a dump. 

In fact, the situation was so bad with the Big E that about 3 or 4 years ago, the city, desperate to find an owner that actually might invest some money in improving it, let it go for a song to an Indian (from the country India) businessman, Bhupinder Singh. Now Mr. Singh has become the whipping boy and a convenient excuse for the city leaders that are letting their jewel slip away. And, no doubt that Mr. Singh has tap danced on ice about actually investing in the facility. But, the problems with the Big E go back to the beginning.

It was built in the early 1980s. We were here and watched the whole thing unfold. Paducah gave a sweetheart deal to a businessman, Bob Green, who hired non-union labor to build the giant facility. In (at least at the time) a strong labor community like Paducah, this went over like a lead balloon. It was very controversial, and there were pickets and the like. But, from the very first time that we entered the place, we thought that it was shabbily built. It's really a shame, because it's the only hotel/motel in Paducah with a riverfront view, and it could have been so good.

Over the first two decades of ownership, it went down quickly. Once, back in the late late 1980s, we got my parents a room there so they could have a river view. Although there weren't that many visitors in town at the time, and there were probably hundreds of empty rooms, my parents were given a room in which the carpet was soaked with water, sour, and decomposing - smelling terrible and being uninhabitable for the most part. Of course they complained and got a different room, and it was better, but still kind of dumpy. Yet, this was supposed to be the signature destination for visitors to downtown Paducah, and this was when the facility was still pretty young. 

The city came in and built the convention center on the north end of the facility for the quilt show several years ago. In a way it was putting the cart before the horse, throwing good money after bad. The facility was already so run down that making it a quality facility was so expensive that it was for all intents and purposes cost prohibitive. The problem of the condition of the original motel should have been dealt with first, but it wasn't. 

There's been talk of condemning the property and demolishing it to make way for a more modern facility. Geez, after less than 30 years in existence? It would take a pretty big landfill just to dispose of the demolition debris. There also was talk of allowing a competitor to build another convention center in another part of downtown, but that's turned out to be a bunch of blowhard malarky, at least up to this point.

It's a sad tale of neglect, back stabbing, and politically incorrect behavior over a period of decades. City leaders have gone out of their way to drag Singh's name through the mud in local media, threaten him with condemnation, make it easy for a competitor to come in, and on and on - all at the same time that they are publicly calling him a liar, blaming him for the quilt show leaving, and threatening him with repercussions but begging him to invest 10s of millions of dollars to clean up the city's bad decisions in the past. 

I'm not sticking up for Singh. He just seems like a typical businessman. But he stands to lose a lot also if the quilt show leaves. Today at noon the proprietors of the Quilt Show are going to announce whether they will stay or take it elsewhere - Springfield, Missouri is the location being mentioned in local media. It almost seems like the media is preparing us for its departure. It will be a shock to actually hear that it's leaving. There should be and hopefully will be a lot of questions asked about the Big E deal, but not just starting with Singh taking over, but back to the very beginning. But I don't think Paxton media has the desire to give what could amount to, at least to an extent, a self examination. 

Maybe the Quilt Show will stay. If it leaves, I doubt if it will return. Paducah really is a nice town to visit. Its lovely, historic downtown is relaxed and attractive, sitting at the confluence of the Tennessee and Ohio Rivers - a remarkable location. There is just enough to do to keep people entertained for several days, and most of the people that come from around the world to the quilt show say that they enjoy Paducah. Things are reasonably priced. And, it's just the direction that the city has wanted to go - as an arts center. First, the Quilt show and Museum, then the Lowertown Arts program, and then the Four Rivers performing arts center, and now possibily the new art school downtown. Yes, it's a good direction for the city, although there is still a ways to go before the nation is convinced that this is truly an arts based community. Losing the quilt show is the last thing that this area needs. But it may happen. We'll keep you informed.
[Craig Rhodes contributed to this column]

Radioactive nickel at Paducah and other DOE sites needs to be contained, not sold

The U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) proposing to “release” for “limited use” millions of pounds of radioactive contaminated nickel which is currently being stored onsite at the Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge DOE sites. This material was created (to the best of my knowledge) for the most part by the need for rebuilds of the enrichment cascades at the 3 current and former enrichment plants at the locations listed above. The Paducah facility has the most I believe. Over the years significant quantities of DOE scrap metal were both generated at Paducah and sent here because the Paducah site operated the only foundry in the DOE complex. 

This nickel is “volumetrically” contaminated with uranium and all of the daughter products which include both transuranics and fission products. This is because it is my belief that this material was in continual contact with process gas in the enrichment “barriers,” and as we know, for a good bit of the time of the plant’s operation since 1952 feed stock was obtained from recycled reactor tails from the plutonium reactors primarily from the Hanford and Savannah river DOE sites. That’s the only way it could have gotten volumetrically contaminated in my opinion. Volumetrically contaminated metal means the radioactive elements have become part of the metal throughout and cannot be simply washed off the surface. 

Back over a decade ago, the DOE valued the nickel at about $50 million if it could be used and proposed to invest any receipts from the nickel in cleanup at the sites. Those days are long gone. Now, with the speculative run-up on metals and other commodities, the value of the nickel has inflated substantially. With two of the enrichment plants closed and the other limping along on life support from the government, there are a number of economic development types that are desperate for any money that they can get. Community Reuse Organizations want DOE to give them the metal, and now the government wants it too. But re-couping value from it is totally contingent on removing the current obstacles.

These obstacles range from federal regulations making it almost impossible to release the metal for any use to the lack of a proven and safe technology for decontaminating it to strong public opposition to releasing it to past documented history of some of these materials making into the public commercial metal supply and likely being distributed to the public in common products. 

When I chair of the Citizen’s Advisory Board at the Paducah site, I attended a presentation from a Canadian company that claimed that they could decontaminate the nickel safely. They would do this by gasifying the nickel with carbaryl gas and somehow separating the various gas streams. It has never been done on industrial scale, and carbaryl is very dangerous. I am worried about the safety of the process, and it would create a waste stream of transuranics, fission products, and uranium even if it is successful.

The Bush administration proposal is to amend the current regulations to allow the metal to be used in the nuclear industry. I’m not crazy about that, because that presupposes the continued growth of the nuclear industry, and not withstanding the current intense lobbying effort to re-establish the nuclear industry as a (false) savior of global warming, I do not think that nuclear power is part of a sustainable future. (at least the current fission based nuclear energy.)

Of course, the Paducah Sun, the most anti-environmental newspaper in the country editorially speaking, wants the nickel to be “cleaned” and sold to the general market. They bemoan the regulations restricting their use. Any surprise there?

This material is substantially contaminated, is very radioactive, and needs to be well contained. That’s my recommendation.