Tomb

Finally, after 22 years, an International consortium is going to entomb the remains of the Chernobyl reactor. Russia really should have stepped up and done something about this sooner, now that it has huge income from gas and oil, but at least it is finally getting done. After shoring up the hastily-built sarcophagus that was erected after the disaster, the new plan is to build a giant dome and slide it over the entire ruin.

For years, the original iron and concrete shelter that was hastily constructed over the reactor has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. The new one, an arch of steel, would be big enough to contain the Statue of Liberty.

Once completed, Chernobyl will be safe, said Vince Novak, nuclear safety director at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which manages the $505 million project.

The new shelter is part of a broader $1.4 billion effort financed by international donors that began in 1997 and includes shoring up the current shelter, monitoring radiation and training experts.

The explosion at reactor No. 4 on April 26, 1986 was the world's worst nuclear accident, spewing radiation over a large swath of the former Soviet Union and much of northern Europe. It directly contaminated an area roughly half the size of Italy, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

In the two months after the disaster, 31 people died of radioactivity, but the final toll is still debated. The U.N. health agency estimates that about 9,300 will eventually die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Groups such as Greenpeace insist the toll could be 10 times higher.

As usual, the media cannot get this right. People do not die from radioactivity. They may die from radiation exposure. Regardless, the RBMK reactor design of the Chernobyl facility was, despite Soviet claims, a weapons reactor with an inherently unstable design. It should not have been used for electricity production and should certainly not have been operated in the manner it was.

I Forget… Which One Stands For “Change”?

Finally, something that would make the Democratic campaign new and interesting! Clinton to Obama: Let's debate like Lincoln

Sen. Hillary Clinton called for a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with no moderator against her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who says no more debates are needed before the May primaries.

In a TV interview to air Sunday, Obama flat-out denied any possibility that he would take part in a debate with Clinton before the next big round of primaries.

Shortly after maintaining that he isn't "ducking" debates with his Democratic rival, the Illinois senator admitted that the two hopefuls are "not going to have debates between now and Indiana."

Voters in Indiana and North Carolina will head to the polls May 6.

In the interview, Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Obama why he was ducking another one-on-one meeting.

"I'm not ducking one. We've had 21," Obama said. "We want to make sure we're talking to as many folks possible on the ground taking questions from voters."

How incredibly lame from Obama. This is the complete repudiation of the claim he represents any "new moment" in American politics. Ironically, he is now running as the "establishment" candidate. This would be fine were he crushing Clinton, but Obama's weaknesses are many and varied, and have directly contributed to this prolonged nomination battle. If Obama had the skills necessary to take on Clinton in a one-on-one-flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants debate he could end this race here and now.

He doesn't have such skills. In fact, when forced off of his prepared material he has shown himself prone to spectacular pratfalls of, almost, George Bush quality. (All he needs is Bush's penchant for stupid nicknames to equal the President on this score.) Given this truth, Obama's handlers have him taking the cowards way out and have him avoiding political risks at all costs. It isn't a stupid thing to do were this a general election campaign, where you just need to win no matter the way you do it. But in a nomination process, where you want to launch yourself into the general election with as much positive momentum as possible, this comes across as incredibly weak.

Obama is basically a mystery meat lunch special, which we are just supposed to take as is without asking a lot of questions about its origins (or what it will do to our insides after we consume it.) The more scrutiny he receives the less appetizing he becomes.

Cross-posted at The Iconic Midwest

Ding Dong

It sure ain't Avon calling. The Telegraph reports on a new trend in home sales parties. No, it isn't food storage systems, makeup, cookware or even sex toys. It's Tasers - marketed to women in home party settings.

First there were Tupperware parties. Then came cosy, at-home sales pitches to female consumers for everything from perfume to lingerie to Botox.

Miss Shafman, 35, is on a mission to persuade the fearful, but fashion-conscious, women of America to pack 50,000 volts of self-defence in their handbags.

"This device has changed my life," she told a room full of women in suburban Miami last week. "I no longer live in fear. I challenge you all with one question. How will you defend yourself if you’re attacked?"

The Arizona entrepreneur deployed her sales patter and folksy western charm as she praised the merits of the palm-sized C2 stun gun – available for $350 in a variety of fashionable colours, including the best-selling "hot pink".

Tasers are legal in all but eight states. I see nothing odd about this at all, incidentally. Tasers are small and light and easier to carry and handle than a gun in many cases. The only thing I'd caution here is that the devices should not give owners false confidence. You still have to be ready, willing and able to use the Taser when you need to. You also should not be putting yourself into risky situations just because you have one of these in your pocket. In other words, just possessing one grants no magic protection. Being armed with one - and being quite willing to use it when necessary - might make all the difference in the world.

Here's the product page for the C2 Taser.

Off Target

Michael Goodwin points out why the Obama camp is off target with its current racial rhetoric.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, sees white racism as a problem in the general election. "The vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already," he told the National Journal.

You knew it had to come to this, but you hoped it wouldn't. "Race doesn't matter" was the chant of many Obama supporters when he was winning. But now that he has hit a wall with many voters on legitimate issues, race does matter, his supporters claim.

Never mind Obama's long relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-American and anti-Semitic ties raise questions about Obama's willingness to confront bigotry. Never mind Obama's sneering comments that small-town Americans "cling to guns and religion" out of economic frustration. Never mind that Obama's plans for tax hikes and blame-America-first foreign policy fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

No, none of that could possibly matter.

For his campaign to blame voter prejudice is a poor excuse and a worse strategy. It also misses the point of Obama's stall.

After all, he is the same man who won in lily-white states like Iowa, Kansas, Idaho and Colorado. Are Ohio and Pennsylvania white voters more racist?

Also, whites have been more willing to vote for Obama than blacks have been to vote for Hillary Clinton. To liberals, blacks voting for Obama are expressing pride; whites voting for Clinton harbor racial prejudice, not gender pride or legitimate preference.

Yes, I had rather hoped this would not be played this way and it is a very bad move on the part of the Obama campaign. But then, it is a hallmark of David Axelrod's past - failed - political campaigns. Class warfare is his specialty. He tried "two New Yorks" with Fernando Ferrer in 2001 and "two Americas" with John Edwards in 2004. Both were spectacular failures.

That should make you wonder.

Losing History

There is a referendum today in Berlin. People are being given a chance to vote in a non-binding referendum on whether the city should close Tempelhof airport. The city planners have refused to be bound by the results, despite the public outcry that has forced the issue onto the ballot in the first place.

"Tempelhof is the pearl of the German capital," says Klaus Eisermann. 
Many Berliners feel strong nostalgia for Tempelhof airport

He has been working at Tempelhof airport for the last 44 years, and he knows every nook and cranny.

As he drives me around the vast airfield, the monolithic terminal building stretches out in front of us.

It is claimed that there are only two other buildings in the world bigger than Tempelhof - the Pentagon, and Ceausescu's palace in Bucharest.

"I'm really sad that they're going to shut down Tempelhof," says Mr Eisermann.

"It's such an easy airport to use and you can reach the city centre in 20 minutes - it's so simple and it's a beautiful historic building."

"Tempelhof survived World War II, it kept Berliners fed during the Soviet blockade of the city, but the authorities want to get rid of it. I can't understand it. It's a political decision which doesn't make any sense," he says.

On Sunday, Berliners will be able to give their verdict on the planned closure of Tempelhof airport. The referendum has become such a divisive issue that a big turnout is expected.

The city government is intent on shutting down the iconic airport, regardless of what the people want and are already publicly dismissing the voter's wishes. It's funny how soon they forget, isn't it? Tempelhof helped make sure that citizens of Berlin kept their right to choose for themselves during the Cold War.

Post war Germany was divided into three sections–the Allied part was controlled by the United States, Great Britain and France and other part by the Soviet Union. The city of Berlin, although located in the eastern Soviet half, was also divided into four sectors –West Berlin occupied by Allied interests and East Berlin occupied by Soviets. In June 1948, the Soviet Union attempted to control all of Berlin by cutting surface traffic to and from the city of West Berlin. Starving out the population and cutting off their business was their method of gaining control. The Truman administration reacted with a continual daily airlift which brought much needed food and supplies into the city of West Berlin. This Airbridge to Berlin lasted until the end of September of 1949—although on May 12, 1949, the Soviet government yielded and lifted the blockade.

When asked whether an airlift was even possible, General Curtis LeMay replied, "We can haul anything." And they did. Pilot Gail Halvorsen even made sure that candy and chewing gum for the children of Berlin were part of the effort.

Morning, With Frost

We had frost where I live this morning. These are pictures of the frost on my daughter's car.