...this is more a reflection of a Democratic party that is rudderless... reflect splits within the party about what it means to be a Democrat -- and what a winning Democratic formula will be ... while Democrats have no shortage of criticism to offer, they have so far not introduced a strategy for governing...

You think that's because Democrats are a big tent and Republicans are just a bunch of white guys who all think alike?  Partly right.  But what makes Republicans able to march in lockstep isn't their similarity -- it's because they've learned to exploit their differences.  

The African plains, the tropical forests, and the jumbled landscape of the Rift Valley served as mankind's womb, incubator, and cradle.  By two million years ago, Homo erectus left Africa and spread across Europe and Asia.  "Upright Man" was followed by other species of hominids, and around 500,000 years ago the first Homo sapiens slipped away from Africa and started spreading across the Old World.  Around 40,000 years ago, a particularly astute, sophisticated group of humans established themselves in Africa, and then quickly moved on.  

The history of man on Earth is not just of one African Diaspora, but many.  So the question remains, if Africa is the source of man -- not just as a species, but the root of all the cultures we know today -- then why isn't modern civilization centered on Africa?  Why wasn't Europe divided up among Africa states?  Why wasn't it ships from Africa that sailed into the Caribbean and raised African flags among the islands they found there?  For that matter, why wasn't it African nations who brought their European and Asian slaves to work the fields of their new American colonies?

From front page - intro moved around for local relevance by Colman

No, I haven't been going over my newspaper with a highlighter, looking for signs of the end times.  I haven't been studying the proper type of cow needed to sanctify the Second Temple.  I haven't been contemplating the probability of a bird flu pandemic, or the effects of the Russians marketing long range bombers to the Chinese.

This is about a quieter end.  An end with all the inevitable entropy-driven ignominy as that which awaits us all personally.  What I'm going to talk about is not a popular thought, and not yet mainstream thought, but for some people it's starting to look like a sickeningly sure bet.  For everyone who has that little achy feeling down deep in their guts that Things Just Aren't Quite Right... this one's for you.

And it starts in 1989.

For decades, scientists have worked toward the dream of harnessing a fusion reaction.  Fusion, which involves the joining together of two light atomic nuclei, should produce much more energy and much less radioactive waste than the current nuclear reactors which are based on fission (splitting) of uranium.  Unfortunately, making a controlled fusion reaction has proved a lot harder than many people would have thought.  For years, the joke has circulated through energy circles: fusion is the power source of the future, and it always will be.  Things are not completely bleak on the fusion front.  Just last week, France was selected as the site for a massive international effort to build the first practical fusion reactor.  If all goes as plans, the reactor could be operational by the end of the decade.  Maybe.

But this diary isn't about fusion.  It's about that other kind of nuclear reaction, the kind in use around the world today -- fission.  It's about how we might be able to make fission not only cleaner, but 100% safe.