We shall Miss secretary of State Hilary Clinton. She was one of the finest ones this nation has seen. She is the most traveled secretary to date.  

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.  –   Professor of Economics.

As 2012 begins here at Simply Carlos we are going to begin a series of indept analysis about the coming Post-America World. This year is going to be a critical year in which the Euros survival will come into question, and a war with Iran will increase in possibilities. As we continue to move forward into the future one thing remains clear. The American Super Power is on decline, and the world is no longer forged into the Post Cold war World Order, but is slowly changing the Status Que. As we look at the past year 2011 was filled with tumultuous events—the Arab Spring, the euro-zone crisis. But the most striking trend of 2011, one that will persist in 2012, was one that got little notice: the emerging powers that weren’t.

By now everyone knows that a new and rising group of nations, including China, India, Brazil and Russia, are reshaping the globe. Yet if 2011 demonstrated anything, it was the inability of these countries to have much influence beyond their borders. They continue to grow their economies, but they all face internal and external challenges that make them less interested and less capable of exercising power on an international or even regional scale.

Let’s start with China. though clearly the government is worried about the inflationary effects of the massive stimulus program it implemented after the financial crisis, which has created a boom-bust cycle and inflationary pressures across the country. The regime, however, is expert at dealing with economic challenges; political ones are harder. China faces a transfer of power in 2012 that is unprecedented. About 70% of the country’s senior leadership— the top 200 or so members of the Central Committee—will be replaced by autumn. The new leaders—Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang—are the first generation that was not personally blessed and selected by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of modern China. Perhaps as a result, we are beginning to see factions develop within the Chinese Communist Party along regional, functional and ideological lines. The change comes at a delicate moment. Beijing’s foreign policy assertiveness over the past two years on the South China Sea and related territorial issues has provoked other Asian powers to stand up to China, band together more closely and ask openly for American involvement in the Pacific. The result is that Beijing is now quieter on the regional stage. Global leadership is unthinkable. No Chinese leader today has the authority or the inclination to make big, bold decisions that would involve, say, shoring up the euro or initiating a new East-West climate compact.

India is even more obsessed with domestic affairs than China is. With a bewildering array of local and regional pulls on it, the central government has had little scope for foreign policy—or indeed any policy. Facing opposition on –every front, with state and national elections looming, the coalition government of Manmohan Singh is like a patient on life support grabbing for the oxygen mask, simply trying to survive.

  Indian growth rates are declining, its currency is the worst performer in all of Asia, foreign investment is slowing, and government policy has alternated between populism and paralysis. In this context, foreign policy has been almost entirely secondary, confined to regional issues like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and even in those showing little in the way of leadership.

The other emerging powers face their own challenges. Russia has presidential elections in 2012, though the outcome is predetermined. Still, it faces new political dissent on a scale not seen since the rise of Vladimir Putin. Abroad, it has a skeptical Europe on one border, an expansive China on another and a hostile and increasingly radical Muslim population on a third. Brazil is in better shape, though its economy actually contracted in the third quarter of 2011. (If that happens in the fourth quarter, it will technically be entering a recession.) And its moves to become a regional leader have run up against a Mexico that is determined not to be forgotten or dominated. Turkey has been the one emerging power that has successfully projected influence in its region, but there are natural limits to that influence. The rise of the rest is real, but the emerging powers are not ready for prime time.

The U.S. has been able to fill the leader–ship vacuum quite effectively in some places. It has deftly expanded its role in Asia; continues to forge strong ties with India, Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey; and has maintained a good relationship with Russia on nuclear-weapons reduction. But American influence is not what it used to be. During the Mexican and Asian crises of the mid-1990s, the U.S. managed global economic problems almost unilaterally. Today no one expects or believes that Washington could solve the euro-zone crisis or direct the outcome of the Arab Spring. It is a post-American world out there, one characterized more by the absence of great powers than by their presence.

Kim Jong Il’s passing closes a sad and tragic chapter for the people of North Korea. His 17-year reign will be remembered as a dark period in their history characterized by great suffering and steady and dangerous provocations to the outside world.

 Though North Korea is an extremely opaque country, we can have some confidence that a transition plan established over a year ago is now being implemented. Public pronouncements from Pyongyang indicate 29-year-old Kim Jong Un has assumed leadership, and preparations are under way for a public funeral for Kim Jong Il, with Kim Jong Un presiding. Even the launch of a short-range missile off North Korea’s east coast around the time of Kim’s death can be seen as “North Korean normalcy.”

Thus, this is not a time to hyperventilate; rather, we must take a deep breath and give sober-minded examination to the actions we can take to improve the situation on the Korean Peninsula and strengthen our own security. As a former ambassador in the region who worked on North Korea security issues, I am keenly aware that this delicate situation presents immediate risks but also long-term opportunities.

We must establish and maintain close channels of communications with our allies to ensure our activities going forward are aligned. First and foremost, we must be in complete lock-step with the South Korean government in Seoul. We also need very close cooperation with Tokyo.The United States should do the following:

We should establish close consultations with other parties with influence in North Korea, including Russia and primarily China. While our interests often diverge, we share with Beijing an aversion to instability and chaos on the Korean Peninsula. At a minimum, we need quality channels of communication with China to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. For example, if China were to mobilize forces to close her border with North Korea to prevent a massive influx of refugees, it would be important that no one misread those steps as Chinese preparations for sending forces across the border.

An immediate priority relates to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. We need solid intelligence to monitor any potential rogue activities or any moves to proliferate, and we must have credible plans to address such activities alongside our allies. Over time, we should work with allies and others to encourage the new regime in Pyongyang to make the wise decision to give up nuclear weapons permanently.

We must also monitor Pyongyang’s missiles. While North Korea’s new leader may continue to flex his muscles with a series of short range missile tests, we cannot forget that North Korea is suspected to have longer range variants of the Taepo Dong missile that may be able to reach Hawaii and Alaska with conventional payloads. And we know the North Koreans have flown a two stage missile over our ally Japan as far back as 1998.

Our Aegis ships and those of Japan need to be on alert for the unlikely, but very dangerous possibility, of a missile strike. As we look further ahead, we must note that April 2012 will mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung (Kim Jong Il’s father). Our intelligence analysts were already predicting the occasion would likely mean a range of provocative actions from Pyongyang to mark the birth of their country’s father and to extract payoffs from the outside world. 

Now we must add into the dangerous mix the probability that Kim Jong Un will encourage some activities to show his strength and demonstrate that he’s firmly in charge. The key going forward will be to help protect our allies and our interests but not to overact to the North Korean regime’s predictable pattern of behavior.

Looking out over an even longer horizon, we should see Kim’s passing as the best opportunity in decades for the people of North Korea to move toward political reform. Whether by supporting Seoul’s North-South dialogue, working with Kim Jong Un if he shows any interest in opening-up (not much is known about him, but we do know he had some exposure to the West during his school years) or interacting directly with the people of North Korea, we should seize opportunities to encourage meaningful reform.

We should be reminded that after Mao Zedong’s death in China in 1976, it took only two years for Deng Xiaoping to launch China’s opening to the outside world in 1978. Given the magnitude of these events, wise stewardship of our country and military is essential if we are to take advantage of this opportunity to help forge a more stable situation on the Korean Peninsula. The unpredictable events unfolding in North Korea and across the world should serve as a reminder that we need a president with hands-on foreign policy experience.

A long-smoldering debate over the Netherlands’ tolerance toward public marijuana use is heating up, with the Dutch government announcing last week that it will start banning tourists from pot-selling “coffee shops” by the end of the year. 

“In order to tackle the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking, the open-door policy of coffee shops will end,”  the Dutch health and justice ministers wrote in a letter to the country’s parliament on Friday. 

 While marijuana is technically illegal in the Netherlands, it has been sold for decades in designated cafés and police make no arrests for possession of small amounts.

In May, the lower house of parliament voted for the bill that will oblige The Netherlands’ 400 coffee shops to become member-only clubs. Under this new law the Dutch citizens will need to sign up for an early membership know as the, “Dope Pass” to be able to purchase the marijuana in coffee shops. The new law will begin in the southern parts of the nation by the end of this year, and make its way to the rest of the nation next year. 
Amsterdam has 220 coffee shops and many fear the passing of this new law. “Drug Tourist” accounts for nearly 40% of the 16 million annual visitors, and the industry is already taking a hit. (no pun intended) 
“For the moment it’s just bad for business, because everybody seems to think the law is already in effect as of this weekend,” says Foster, who is an owner of a coffee shop.  Most pot smokers “stay for three to ten days, eat at restaurants, go to museums and entertainment, and buy a little cannabis each day,” he adds. ” Many coffee shops will probably close because of the diminished tourism, but the effect will be much greater as the results of the ban trickle down to the hotel, restaurant, entertainment, and overall tourist industry.” 

But for those of you panicking right now about the new law, Don’t worry about it because the good people in Amsterdam are fighting for your right to smoke pot. The entire city is bracing for a fight over the tourist right to party. 

 
The capital’s town council, backed by the tourist board and local campaigners, is opposing a new law proposed by the Dutch government that would ban foreigners from frequenting the city’s cannabis-serving coffee shops by 2012. 

The city’s mayor Van der Laan is consulting with the center-right national government to convince it, “that these measures will be counter-productive for Amsterdam,” said City Hall spokeswoman Iris Resheef. “If tourists are denied access to coffee shops, illegal sales and drug dealing on the streets of Amsterdam will increase,” warned Mayor Eberhard van der Laan. “Amsterdam does not want to facilitate soft drug use by tourists, but to help those who wish to use drugs to do so as responsibly as possible.”

 
The law began after many appeals from the nations towns near the borders of Belgium, Germany, and France who have been complaining of the teens coming into the nation in search of drugs. Opponents of a plan by the Netherlands to ban foreigners from the country’s pot-smoking shops — known as coffee shops — have labeled it “tourism suicide.” 

 
I see that the pot usage has actually done more good then bad. People are able to do this drug in a responsible why in which is safe. The money that is brought in by Pot is a large number, and attracts many people from around the world. The fact that the nations government is willing to sacrifice the tourist industry in order to be able to make a stand on the usage of pot in the nation is quite silly. Crime related to weed has dropped in areas in which it is allowed, and for good reasons. We must make it legal here in the states, and the Dutch should continue selling weed to its tourist. Prohibition hasn’t stopped the use and domestic production of marijuana — it’s time everyone faced this. Here are 10 reasons alternet.org gives for the legalization of Marijuana in the States

 Prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana. The government has tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually, cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Claims that marijuana prohibition is a successful policy are ludicrous and unsupported by the facts, and the idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy.

Worst of all Arrests for marijuana possession disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics and reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities. African-Americans account for approximately 13% of the population of the United States and about 13.5% of annual marijuana users, however, blacks also account for 26% of all marijuana arrests. Recent studies have demonstrated that blacks and Hispanics account for the majority of marijuana possession arrests in New York City, primarily for smoking marijuana in public view. Law enforcement has failed to demonstrate that marijuana laws can be enforced fairly without regard to race; far too often minorities are arrested for marijuana use while white/non-Hispanic Americans face a much lower risk of arrest.

 A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market. The illegality of marijuana makes it more valuable than if it were legal, providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends. If the excessive profits for marijuana sales were ended through legalization there would be less incentive for teens to sell it to one another. Teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though those drugs are legal for adults, however, the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made even more widespread by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends and peers.

 Legalized marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs. Marijuana’s illegality makes foreign cultivation and smuggling to the United States extremely profitable, sending billions of dollars overseas in an underground economy while diverting funds from productive economic development.

 Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana’s illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana’s danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana’s dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society.

Marijuana’s legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source - especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States. 

Lets face it it would be a foolish decision to end Drug tourism in the Netherlands which would cripple the tourism industry in the nation. Here in the States the War on Drugs has raised a massive amount of deficit trying to end the distribution of weed. 

No matter what your view of this maybe one thing remains certain a very intense debate on Marijuana is coming, and the future of the industry of Drug Tourism is at risk.    

Has the time come for Greece to drop out of the Euro-zone? As the nation is quickly running out of options many European economist, and even a growing number of European politicians such as London Mayor Boris Johnson. And unless it can make good on massive debts it will default, with heavy consequences not only for the 17 Euro-Zone countries that share the single European currency, but for the global economy. As time moves on it seems that Greece may be forced to leave the Euro-Zone. 

The European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund and eurozone countries have poured money into Greece to prevent default and may have to continue doing so unless another solution can be found. This has led some to call for Greece to be allowed to quit or be thrown out of the euro, to ease the burden. Some Greeks also support this since they believe it would spare them from harsh austerity measures demanded as conditions for the bail out. Yet, lets not move to quick on the matter as the matter is not as easy as quitting. If Greece decided to leave the Euro-Zone it would liberate Greece from the eurozone’s fixed exchange rate, allowing it to become a more competitive exporter and an even more attractive tourist destination, but this would come with a heavy price. It would still leave Greece in debt and reliant on handouts that former eurozone partners would be less willing to supply. It would also mean Greeks would face higher prices for imported goods. A big issue with Greece leaving is that there is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty or in the Stability and Growth Pact — which sets out the fiscal criteria for membership — to regulate the removal of a member country. Procedures were never established because, quite simply, nobody thought such a crisis could occur. 

And now as the never established Procedure is needed many politicians are speaking up saying that Greece must leave the Euro-zone. Mr Johnson is among a growing number of British Conservative politicians who believe that Greece should now be left to go its own way. “For years, European governments have been saying that it would be insane and inconceivable for a country to leave the euro,” he wrote. “But this second option is now all but inevitable, and the sooner it happens the better.” He suggested that the Greece’s profligate behaviour - running up debts it could not pay - had been encouraged by its membership of the eurozone. “The euro has exacerbated the financial crisis by encouraging some countries to behave as recklessly as the banks themselves,” he said. “We are supposedly engaging in this bail-out system to protect the banks, including our own. But as long as there is the fear of default, as long as the uncertainty continues, confidence will not return across the whole of Europe.” left to go its own way. The issue is that if Greece leaves the Euro-Zone the affects will not only shake the very heart, and survival of the European Union, but will have far reaching affects into World Markets. If Greece leaves the euro then it will effectively be in default because the debts it owes to foreign banks and investors would be re-denominated into a new currency, says Elisabeth Afseth of Evolution Securities. If banks are forced to take this hit, it will have global economic consequences similar to those seen in the financial crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

“If Greece was to default, to leave the euro and re-invent the drachma interest rates would be 20% and inflation would probably soon be running at 90%,” says Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BCG partners. “The devaluation of actual foreign investment would be potentially massive.”  Greece’s exit and default would likely have a contagion effect on other eurozone economies. If Greece is forced to exit the eurozone, investor confidence in the bloc would fall, pushing other weaker economies such as Ireland and Portugal towards default but also threatening Spain, seen by many as too big to fail.

Economist are divided on what would be in the best interest if Greece left the Euro-Zone or if they stayed in the Euro-Zone? Many argue that if the Euro-Zone allowed them to leave that investors would lose Confidence in the Bloc and The consequences would be disastrous. “It’s inconceivable,” says Wheeldon. “There’s no mechanism for it and you can’t go back to a currency that no longer exists. Greece can decide internally that they want to leave the euro and spend two years doing that, but it is in no position to do it because it has billions of debt and is absolutely stuck fast.”

Yet others are saying that they shouldn’t rule out the possibility. 

“ It would be a mistake to say they can never leave,” says Simon Tilford, chief economist at the Center for European Reform. Tilford said an orderly transition could be planned with temporary backing from the rest of the eurozone to ensure that there is no panicked withdrawal of Greek investments. “If you argue that it can never happen you must be arguing that Greece must default on its debts in the eurozone and remain in the currency, that’s possible and it might be the most likely outcome. But I think it would be mistake to say they can never leave.”

About 25,000 demonstrators were on the streets of Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, June 15, to protest against the country’s austerity measures. The Greeks are feeling that the cost to continue with the Euro is to much to bare. In order to receive the bailouts The Greek Leader Giorgos Papandreou is having to pass massive austerity measures which are really hitting the markets hard.  

 Lets Face it, Greece will default on its debts, leave the euro and return to its own national currency, the drachma. This is one of the certainties in an uncertain world. The decision might be swift or it might be slow, but the question remains when, not whether. Sooner, of course, is always better than later when it comes to dealing with a crisis of any sort, but human nature is inclined towards procrastination.  It will not matter much which party or coalition is in power in Athens. The pressure from the Euro-authorities above will continue to be for more austerity measures while the pressure from below is to seek the opposite.  Whether Greece’s departure from the euro in due course leads to the sort of economic Armageddon which eurozone ministers seek to frighten us with remains to be seen. Of course, if the next on the list are Portugal, Ireland and, most ominously, Spain, then big problems lie ahead, But we should think carefully about how seriously we take the talk about a debt crisis for commercial banks if Greek bonds ‘default’. Options range from a straight devaluation of the current bonds’ face value to postponing interest payments — which some want to pretend is less than a default.  

Yet one thing remains Clear It is time to Bring the Curtain down on this Greek Tragedy. 

Germany’s ruling coalition has agreed to shut down all of the nation’s nuclear power plants by 2022. This comes months after the fukushima nuclear power plant incident, and amid massive protest through out Europe which has sent much of Europe in an anti-nuclear power stance.

The announcement came Monday May 30th, 2011, and was made by Minister of Ecology Norbert Roettgen of the Christian Democratic Union party. In a quote the Minister had this to add say about the matter, “The decision looks like this,” Roettgen said. “Seven older nuclear power plants … and the nuclear plant Kruemmel will not go back online … a second group of six nuclear reactors will go offline at the end of 2021 at the latest, and … the three most modern, newest nuclear plants will go offline in 2022 at the latest.”

The announcement has brought joy to many opposition parties for many for the opposition parties have long supported shuttering nuclear energy in Germany. In order to make up for the energy witch will be loss by the closure of this plant, the German government plans on increasing investments in clean, renewable energy. On the governments website they said, “But we will not be able to do without conventional power plants, above all cutting-edge gas power plants for a long time,” said a statement published last week. “New fruits of new research should contribute to making the energy transition more efficient and easier on the ecology.” 

The decision to end nuclear power in Germany first began back in March when German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced she would rethink a plan to extend the lifespan of her country’s nuclear power plants. “The events in Japan have shown us that even things that seem all but impossible scientifically can in fact happen,” Merkel said at a Berlin news conference. 

Across the EU nations are reviewing the safety of their nuclear power plants, and it is brought into question whether or not to continue the usage of nuclear power. Massive protest have been taking place across the continent in protest of nuclear energy. 

Currently across the EU, Nuclear Power accounts for nearly a third of the total energy used making it a big part of the energy sector. In France nearly 79 % of the nations energy comes from the usage of Nuclear energy, so it seems that facing out Nuclear energy in France is not an option that is heavy considered.

            To ensure the EU that it is still safe, Regardless of Germany’s U turn of the System, The European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) announced the so-called “stress tests” on nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the EU will begin Wednesday, the Dnevnik daily learned. The Executive Director of Kozloduy NPP Kostadin Dimitrov stated Tuesday the European Commission (EC) had already set its security requirements, adding that according to preliminary estimates the stress tests on the plant would be worth between BGN 10-12 million. In Bulgaria the tests will be supervised by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NPPs should prepare their final reports by 31 December. The EC’s final assessment on the condition of the NPPs’ safety will be announced in June 2012.

  The question for us here in the States now becomes…Should we follow suit with Germany?

   Lets be honest here…Americans aren’t freaked out as much as the Europeans about the possibility of a nuclear meltdown. Yet we all must agree that fukushima provides enough grounds to take every single nuclear power plant on the face of the Earth off-line. Regardless of whether the cause is an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood, a plane crash, a terrorist attack, or simple human error, failure of the emergency power system leads to uncontrollable consequences. In Germany the energy horizons are much different then the US. The renewable energy market has created thousands of jobs and is a visible part of German life. 

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is viewed as a constraint on this development. Nuclear and renewables are not perceived as allies, but as conflicting and competing energy sources. One is centralized, capital-intensive, ponderous, outdated, and anti-democratic, whereas the other is flexible, smart, labor-intensive, and open for community participation. Thus, in recent polls an overwhelming 85 percent of Germans favor a nuclear phaseout as fast as possible or at most within 10 years. To them it seems simply outdated to stick with a 1950s technology like nuclear that is risky, dirty, and blocking new investments in better technologies. 

 Things run by different rules here in the U.S. than they do in Germany, as the statements from the days after the Fukushima meltdown show. The Obama administration left no room for doubt that it was unimpressed by the events in Japan, and would hold tight not only to nuclear power, but also to the plans to expand it. Energy Undersecretary Dan Poneman announced: “We view nuclear energy as a very important component to the overall portfolio we’re trying to build for a clean energy future … Nuclear power has been a critical component to the U.S. energy portfolio [and] … we do see nuclear power as playing an important role in building a low-carbon future.” Most media outlets doubt that the United States can do without nuclear power, indeed without even more nuclear power plants. Cautious questions in editorials in The Washington Post and The New York Times regarding risks and safety standards at American nuclear power plants were a rare exception in the overall reports.

In the end would it be worth it if we face a Nuclear meltdown? In the long run i feel the United States should invest in clean, renewable energy, rather then continue investing in an outdated energy. How many more Chernobyls, and Fukushima’s do we need till we realize how dangerous it really is. Now I don’t propose getting rid of it all, but let us make a smart energy plan where over the next fifty year phase out nuclear energy and build a renewable energy infrastructural. Till then let us ensure that the nuclear power plants we use are safe, and secure for our nation. Also America let us not forget the three-mile island incident.