By now everyone’s heard that Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Jackson Browne is suing John McCain and the Republican Party for using his song, “Running on Empty” without permission. The song appeared in an ad produced by the Republican Party of Ohio on McCain’s behalf, deriding Barack Obama for urging conservation as part of an American energy policy.

Most news stories about the lawsuit note that Browne is a lifelong activist for liberal causes, and therefore does not support McCain. What they miss is a profound divergence over nuclear power. Browne was one of the leaders of the anti-nuclear movement in the late ’70s and early ’80s that came about in the wake of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reactor accidents and was dramatized by movies like the China Syndrome. No cool record collection was complete without the album shown.

McCain supports nuclear power, and advocates rapid build-up of nuclear reactors on American soil despite the fact that no system exists for safe disposal of nuclear waste. From the McCain web site:

John McCain will put his administration on track to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants.

Sane people agree 45 new plants by 2030 is simply wacked. Nuclear plants, though better left unbuilt, must be constructed with painstaking care. Here’s one sample of the problems the McCain energy plan does not address, from the TimeForChange web site.

Disadvantages of nuclear power generation:

Florida’s Turkey Point Reactor

• The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10,000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).
• High risks:…It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security…The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human beings [and] for nature. The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world.
• Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.
• During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).
• The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
• The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.

A shut-down at Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point nuclear facility in February left people without power from Daytona to Key West. To this day, the reason for the shut-down, which crippled hospitals and snarled rush hour traffic, has never been lucidly explained, but officials swear it was necessary because nuclear reactors are at such great risk.

McCain’s plan would put America in greater danger of terrorist attack, while providing energy for only about 60 years in a best-case scenario. The volatile waste would be around forever. Seventy-two-year-old McCain likely will not be here in 2030 when those 45 new plants are online. God willing, I will be, and so will my niece, and the children of my friends who are expecting now. They, and we, are the best argument against nuclear power.

I hope Jackson Browne wins his lawsuit.

Tweet

One of the most dire repercussions of George Bush’s misbegotten invasion of Iraq in 2003 is that it has undermined U.S. credibility in speaking out against Russia’s invasion of Georgia today. Of course, having no credibility has never stopped Bush and his aides from speaking out, and it is not stopping them now.
The only criticism from the American media leveled at Bush for his hypocrisy in criticizing Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation has come from Jon Stewart’s comedy news show.
At a meeting of the United Nations Security Council this week, the brazen hypocrisy of the Bush administration’s mindset was put on full display. First, U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad accused Russia of trying to topple the leader of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili — to which Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Chuckin, responded in a news conference after the meeting, “‘Regime change’ is purely an American invention.”

At the news conference, Khalilzad dug the hole of U.S. hypocrisy even deeper: “We want to make sure our Russian colleagues understand, ” he told reporters later, “that the days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe — those days are gone.” (The emphasis was Khalilzad’s.)

As comedian Jon Stewart pointed out, “It’s amazing how adding the phrase ‘in Europe’ makes our actions [in Iraq] more palatable.”

Of course, Bush and his associates have been accused of far worse things than hypocrisy — including war crimes, lying to Congress and criminal neglect while an American city drowned, just for starters — and they have yet to be held accountable or suffer any repercussions.

Luckily for them, however — except for Stewart on his comedy news show — there hasn’t been any criticism in the American corporate media of these and other outrageous pronouncements by Bush and his senior foreign policy officials.