http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/hagels-call-for-nuclear-disarmament-has-been-mainstream-since-reagan/272597/

Hagel's Call for Nuclear Disarmament Has Been Mainstream Since Reagan

By Joseph Cirincione
Jan 29 2013, 8:01 AM ET

He wants to decrease the size of our arsenal. But so do most security experts, on both sides of the aisle -- something opponents of his nomination have forgotten.

Among the many heresies imputed to Chuck Hagel is the belief that we can greatly reduce our nuclear arsenal. The former Nebraska senator's views, however, are hardly radical -- in fact, they are downright boring. They represent the consensus of such a long list of security experts from both political parties that it is hard to list them and still keep this article interesting.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and several other key GOP leaders base their opposition to Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense in large part on the supposedly extreme policies he advanced. Inhofe said that while Hagel's military service was commendable, he has been "an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament" and "seeks a world free of nuclear weapons."

<snip>

Opponents of Hagel's appointment like to point to two people mentioned as alternatives to Hagel, former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy and current Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. They will be far more open to big nuclear budgets and big arsenals, Hagel critics hope. Sorry: Both have long shared Hagel's views. They were part of a working group that drafted a plan in 2007 for reducing nuclear threats that included the recommendation that "the U.S. and the other NPT nuclear weapons states ... should commit themselves to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and to pursuing practical steps that would lay the groundwork for moving toward that goal."

Their report also called for the rapid Senate approval of the nuclear test-ban treaty. It suggested the U.S. "explore means of increasing warning and reaction times including by lowering alert rates of their strategic systems," and consider "an operationally deployed force of fewer than 1,000 nuclear weapons." *

<snip>

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0130/Georgia-nuclear-power-plant-could-be-Solyndra-redux-report-says

Georgia nuclear power plant could be Solyndra redux, report says

A report by two energy-consulting firms says the US government has not protected US taxpayers well enough against the risks of federal loan guarantees to a new nuclear power project.

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / January 30, 2013

Construction of the first newly licensed US nuclear power plant in decades could become a "Solyndra-like" debacle thanks to billions in federal loan guarantees whose terms appear too weak to protect taxpayers, according to one group’s analysis of internal documents released by the US Department of Energy.

The two-reactor $14 billion Vogtle plant being built in Georgia is seen as a test of the US nuclear industry's planned "renaissance" with a new nuclear reactor design and updated construction processes all aimed at cutting time and costs.

But two Massachusetts-based energy-consulting firms, Earth Track and Synapse Energy Economics, say the $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees backing the project were crafted with excessively favorable financial terms for the recipient companies, weak federal oversight, and possible political interference in the loan-guarantee process.

The two firms analyzed hundreds of Energy Department e-mails and financial documents released earlier this month to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), a green-energy watchdog group that won access to them in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022279861

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:38 PM
Fire Walk With Me (35,278 posts)

Um, Why Are Military Helicopters Firing Machine Guns Over Houston and Miami?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by REP (a host of the General Discussion forum).
http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/joshua-holland/um-why-are-military-helicopters-firing-machine-guns-over-houston-and-miami

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire created a lot of concern Monday afternoon in one Houston neighborhood.

SkyEye 13 HD was over the south side where at first look, it appeared there was a massive SWAT scene happening.We received a lot of phones calls, Tweets and Facebook posts from worried neighbors, wondering what was going on.

With military helicopters flying above her southeast Houston neighborhood, Frances Jerrals didn't know what to think.

"When you see this, you think the worst. When you hear this, you think the worst," Jerrals said.

(More text and two videos at the link.)

http://quest.quaker.org/issue-10-johnson-02.htm

The Berrigan Tradition

One cannot address the issue of nonviolence and property damage without acknowledging the Berrigan brothers and the Plowshares movement. Daniel and Philip Berrigan were influenced by the writings of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement. After participating in some rallies, marches and being arrested in protests against the Viet Nam war, the brothers Berrigan decided to take a bolder stand against the war. 14

On 17 May 1968, Daniel and Philip Berrigan along with seven others raided the Catonsville draft board. "First, they liberated about four hundred folders from a Selective Service office, drenched them with homemade napalm in an adjoining parking lot, then set them on fire. While the papers crackled, the protestors joined in prayer." 15 The "ultra resistance" was born. Their goal was to bring attention to the injustices of the Viet Nam War. 16 On 9 September 1980 a Plowshares group broke into a General Electric facility and destroyed the casing on nuclear war heads by hitting them with hammers and pouring blood over them. 17

The main argument used by the Berrigans and those who have taken up their cause is that some property has no right to exist and therefore damage done to this type of property is not violence. The movement maintains it is nonviolent because property not human life was harmed. 18 Examples of property that has no right to exist can be seen in things like nuclear arms or the ovens at Hitler’s concentration camps. The impact of the Berrigans can be seen in groups like the War Resisters League. In the 1986 War Resisters League Organizer’s Manual, the following is written about property damage:

"Some property has no right to exist (e.g., nuclear weapons, napalm, electric chairs). Other property, such as fences around nuclear power plants or military bases, while ‘neutral,’ serve only to protect facilities which are harming all of us. The concern is not their destruction, but how they are destroyed. No one has suggested blowing them up or indiscriminate property destruction, but a calm deliberate cutting of a fence with a minimum of hardware can gain entry into a site otherwise not accessible." 19

What is key to the quote above, and to this paper, is the distinc-tion in the types of property being destroyed. It is not indiscriminate. The targets of this type of property destruction are carefully selected and the attitude of those doing the destruction is spiritual.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/moms-milk-different-for-boys-girls-dnews-nugget-121214.htm

Mom's Milk Different for Boys, Girls
DEC 14, 2012

Mom’s Milk Adapts: Breastmilk may be the first food for most babies, but it’s not the same for boys and girls.

Researchers at Michigan State University found that among 72 moms in rural Kenya, women with sons tended to give fattier milk. The boys drank breastmilk with 2.8 percent fat compared with 0.6 percent for girls. Among poor women, however, daughters got the creamier milk (2.6 versus 2.3 percent).

The finding, published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology jives with previous studies on macaque monkeys, red deer and gray seals, as well as with research on healthy affluent moms in Massachusetts. All the research appears to back up a 40-year-old evolutionary theory that natural selection favors parental investment in daughters when times are tough and in sons when times are good.

The thinking is that raising a popular male can lead to many grandchildren (at least in societies where males have many sexual partners). On the other hand, poorer families are better off raising a daughter who is sure to have at least some grandchildren, while a son of low ranking may not manage to have many or even any.

– via Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boys-and-girls-may-get-different-breast-milk