zzoottland

The Irony that is Russia Today - www.rt.com

2014-06-12T10:25:00.001-04:00

So, good ol' Zzoott's not written much here in quite a long while. Could be that the blogosphere is just too clogged, what with a thousand thousand thousand voices all shouting at the same time, rather like the intro to U2's 1993 Zooropa www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIMqyHIwlQ. Trying to get a word of any kind in edgewise among all that din and clatter seems a futile effort most of the time - sort of like banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall - www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvZqLchakTo. But, well, the show must go on, and so, too, must the world of zooty things still be explored. Thus, Russia Today and the ironic enigma it presents is fodder for today's blogging effort.

If you have not yet visited Russia Today's website - www.rt.com - or watched any of its broadcast 'news' reports carried on any number of cable systems or available 'live' through its website, you are doing yourself a disservice. Not all that different than the initial iteration of Al Jazeera http://america.aljazeera.com/ in concept and scope (and Al Jazeera's come a long, long way since then, turning into a fairly comprehensive, mature, and objective - yes, objective - news point), Russia Today is a rollicking romp, cast in the guise of providing legitimate news, but so Pravdaesque in its presentation and production values as to appear much more Daily Show http://thedailyshow.cc.com/ or Colbert Report http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/ than PBS Newshour http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ . Lest you be skeptical, take a gander, for instance, at the following article in today's RT, regarding the poor, stranded, man-without-a-country Edward Snowden: http://rt.com/news/165468-snowden-courage-foundation-launch/

Read it - no, actually read it - amusing and astonishing at the same time, but, upon reflection, troubling in the same sense that the former USSR's Pravda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda was so concerning back in the First Cold War's day: It provides a single-source point for 'news' coverage for, quite literally, hundreds of millions of folks who turn to no other news service, either because they can't or they won't. It makes even better watching fodder - and do yourself a favor and actually watch an entire broadcast - and you'll find it so much more reality television than legitimate news source. It's not bad stuff, really, from an entertainment standpoint; however, if one's trolling the channels or surfing the internet for actual, legitimate, objective news, well, RT is decidedly not that place.

Now, good ol' Zzoott's no prude to politicking, and not one for nationalistic chest-pounding or one of those 'Merica folks - http://merica-for-mericans.tumblr.com/ - but you have to recognize RT as it is, for what it is, rather than take it too seriously: a Russian propaganda tool, plain and simple. That's what Al Jazeera was before it worked hard to reach legitimacy, and that's where RT lies right now in the spectrum of 'news' sources. It's in an infantile stage, and that goes a long way toward explaining its infantile content and presentation.

While lots of folks, including lots of legitimate news media sorts, have complained about RT and what it is and does, it is that kind of press that raises RT's stock as, the more fuss one makes about something the more likely it is to gain a better foothold by the act of that mention, no matter how denigrating the commentary or lop-sided the presentation. It's like a politician said to me once: "Zzoott," he said, "I don't care what they might choose to say about me in the newspaper, as long as they spell my name correctly." The same logic applies to Russia Today - it does not really matter what anyone might say, it only matters that they say it about Russia Today in order to drive their numbers up. And, I think it's safe to say Tsar Vladimir I approves of this message.

2013-11-07T09:29:00.000-05:00

Hello, fellow zzoottophiles - the mighty zzoott will conjure something new to post shortly, as there is no shortage of zooty stuff to post, but, for the first time, I'm going to repost and redirect you to something decidedly hilarious: http://www.brandpowder.com/911-ds-the-perfect-car/

Sure, it's a photoshopper's cornucopia of fun, but, why not?

Besides, the nose of the DS was always a spiritual precursor to the 911's own schnoz, appearing almost a decade later.

With this shout-out to the funny, creative folks at www.brandpower.com, enjoy!

Googlelanden Uber Alles

2013-07-19T12:42:00.001-04:00

Just a quick new post to post up here. I'm continuing to be a bit curmudgeonly about Google's AdSense unit and just what it is and does.

With the latest I response back from Google, it appears that the Googleandi can do whatever they wish to do with anything Blogger-related, and without providing any kind of explanation whatsoever for doing what they do.

Sure, you can ask, "Hey, Googlemanders! What is it that you're doing? Why?"

And, you'll get this response - no joking here:

"After thoroughly reviewing your account data and taking your feedback into consideration, our specialists have confirmed that we're unable to reinstate your AdSense account.

"If you'd like more details on our activity policies or review process, please visit http://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=57153. As a reminder, further participation in the AdSense program by publishers whose accounts have been disabled is not permitted.

"Thanks for your understanding, The Google AdSense Team"

And, no, again, you'll find no answers there, either.

And if you ask any questions, you'll be informed, again, that you won't get any answers.

I'm thinking this may be the next Google Doodle:

Zooty? You be the judge....

So What is Google AdSense....and Why?

2012-01-20T21:07:00.001-05:00

So - Google draws in lots of occasional bloggers - like me - and invites us to allow the fine folks at Google AdSense to make our little bloggies look more professional, with ads and banners running along with our blogginess....zzootty, I thought...at least at one time. Figured if it did any of the monetizing Google AdSense promised, well, I could take the booty and donate it to my favorite charities....like http://www.redcross.org/ or http://www.gennesaret.net/ or any number of other well-meaning and well-doing organizations.

Well, turns out that one of my little bloggettes - this on on the launch of what was then the world's largest cruise ship - somehow hit the net in such a manner that it received a great deal of traffic and attention, and a huge number of hit and clicks compared to the mild attention my other drivel receives. Fine, I thought - must be something striking a net-nerve out there...zooty!

Then the folks at Google AdSense contact this little bloggie and say, "Guess what? We think there's something funny about the hits and reads your getting. We've taken a little look - mind you, we won't tell you at what, or how, or why - but, on our own, we've decided that we don't like what we see, so we're going to cancel your Google AdSense account, take down the banners and such and, by the way, we're going to delete your account. Have a good day!" When I inquired as to the how, why, and how-come of this, the only explanation I received was "Sorry - we don't have to explain. Have a good day!"

Well, turns out that I'm not the only blogifier that Google AdSense does this to - in fact, as soon as you reach the first plateau of "earnings" in Google AdSense - and my reaching that plateau took some 18 months or so - seems they use that to cancel and delete accounts and zero the earnings. Thus, good ol' Google AdSense folks automatically pass those meager earnings - all of 'em - right into Google's pockets without any explanation to the poor and poorer blogger.

So - beware the Google AdSense come-on.....you're likely to be used, abused, then cast aside as soon as Google AdSense has what it wants...your work, your words, their money. And isn't that zzootty!!!

Not Quite Zzootty - but funny, nevertheless....Closer from a Craigslist Ad

2011-06-26T14:36:00.000-04:00

This is the actual closing paragrpah from a recent Craigslist ad:

SPAMMERS/SCAMMERS, I'LL MAKE YOU A DEAL: I won't spam you, if you don't spam me. What do you say, deal? Besides, I already laundered money for the prince of a small foreign country. He was a nice enough guy, but he didn't come through on his end of the bargain. I already bought all of those "enhancing" pills, they didn't seem to work for me. I tried the job that was offered that would make me thousands of dollars per week, and the police officer said I probably shouldn't do it anymore. I already saw you naked, if I want to see it again, I'll contact you.

Here's a link to the actual ad: http://bit.ly/ixQPoW

Might be that ol' zzoott will have to do a piece on all the spammers and scammers on Craigslist, and what Craigslist administrators and users are doing to block it or fight back against the scheming scammer-spammer-phishers of the Craigslist world.

zzoottland: Who Knows What Evil Lurks In The Hearts of Men? The Shadow (Budget) Does

2011-06-18T11:03:00.000-04:00

zzoottland: Who Knows What Evil Lurks In The Hearts of Men? The Shadow (Budget) Does

Who Knows What Evil Lurks In The Hearts of Men? The Shadow (Budget) Does

2011-04-13T19:57:00.000-04:00

Alrighty - so we're taking a little license this time, borrowing a bit from the tag line of an old radio-days radio show, The Shadow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow

But, this blog entry is not about The Shadow - it's about the Shadow Budget, loosely translated as the mountains of cash and credit our own Federal Reserve http://www.federalreserve.gov/ has put "into" the financial stream of commerce, and how, and why, and who's benefitted and benefitting from this quasi-governmental largesse.

And, no, you won't have to read through my rehashed Zzoottlandese to get to the nitty-gritty gospel truth - rather, like the aggregator zzoott somtimes is, you're being redirected to the venerable Rolling Stone Magazine http://www.rollingstone.com/ for a pre-read of the article that hits the stands on Friday, April 15: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?print=true Please pardon the zzootted one for the bits of vulgar language the author apparently feels must be salted into popular reporting in order to actually be read - personally, it's plenty zzootty without the bow to base language.

So - who actually does know what evil lurks in the hearts of men - and, apparently, women - you decide.

Now that's zzootty!

And Now for Something Completely Different

2011-03-19T13:48:00.000-04:00

So....enough with the whole NPR - PBS - CPB debate for now - we'll leave that to Congress, now that the House passed a bill (H.B. 1076, see http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-house-npr-idUSTRE72G7GL20110317) and sent it off to the Senate. We’ll pick that potato back up when it gets hot again.

And - Japan - an incredible, still unfolding story that, one hopes and prays, will find a better end than its beginning. The one-two punch of earthquake and tsunami wreaked such destruction that words, photographs and video cannot capture and convey the whole - silently sifting through the media outlets in the days after simply rends the heart. The sucker punch of nuclear dysfunction only adds to that misery. Do what you can for the folks of Northern Japan – a thought, a prayer, a word, anything. A good, general website for direct information is http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/.

Rather, since we just sprang forward into the twice-a-year clock-resetting ritual we know and love as Daylight Saving Time, it seemed zooty to delve into the actual etymology for this apparently agrarian pastime. Dusty cerebral pathways pointed to Benjamin Franklin and his Poor Richard’s Almanac – and that seemed a good start, with youthful memories of “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise”.

Instead, a little research yielded a far better germ and gem: it was in fact that wiz of wisdom, Ben Franklin, who served as the basis for our current observance of falling back and springing ahead. However, what he wrote in 1784, where and how it was published, and what he was really up to are far, far different than where we’ve gone in 2011.

It would seem that while living in Paris following the successful American Revolution, Ben Franklin had a fair number of friends well placed in publishing and, as a fair jape, he convinced one to publish an anonymous piece of journalistic farce in the form of a satirical letter entitled “An Economical Project” to the Journal of Paris that is reprinted below, with links following. The thrust of Franklin’s feature was to paint Parisians as unrelenting night owls, burning the midnight oil and the candle at both ends while routinely sleeping until noon each day – if it seems he’s calling them lazy and unproductive – well, he is.

Here goes:

To THE AUTHORS of The Journal of Paris

1784

MESSIEURS,

You often entertain us with accounts of new discoveries. Permit me to communicate to the public, through your paper, one that has lately been made by myself, and which I conceive may be of great utility.

I was the other evening in a grand company, where the new lamp of Messrs. Quinquet and Lange was introduced, and much admired for its splendour; but a general inquiry was made, whether the oil it consumed was not in proportion to the light it afforded, in which case there would be no saving in the use of it. No one present could satisfy us in that point, which all agreed ought to be known, it being a very desirable thing to lessen, if possible, the expense of lighting our apartments, when every other article of family expense was so much augmented.

I was pleased to see this general concern for economy, for I love economy exceedingly.

I went home, and to bed, three or four hours after midnight, with my head full of the subject. An accidental sudden noise waked me about six in the morning, when I was surprised to find my room filled with light; and I imagined at first, that a number of those lamps had been brought into it; but, rubbing my eyes, I perceived the light came in at the windows. I got up and looked out to see what might be the occasion of it, when I saw the sun just rising above the horizon, from whence he poured his rays plentifully into my chamber, my domestic having negligently omitted, the preceding evening, to close the shutters.

I looked at my watch, which goes very well, and found that it was but six o'clock; and still thinking it something extraordinary that the sun should rise so early, I looked into the almanac, where I found it to be the hour given for his rising on that day. I looked forward, too, and found he was to rise still earlier every day till towards the end of June; and that at no time in the year he retarded his rising so long as till eight o'clock. Your readers, who with me have never seen any signs of sunshine before noon, and seldom regard the astronomical part of the almanac, will be as much astonished as I was, when they hear of his rising so early; and especially when I assure them, that he gives light as soon as he rises. I am convinced of this. I am certain of my fact. One cannot be more certain of any fact. I saw it with my own eyes. And, having repeated this observation the three following mornings, I found always precisely the same result.

Yet it so happens, that when I speak of this discovery to others, I can easily perceive by their countenances, though they forbear expressing it in words, that they do not quite believe me. One, indeed, who is a learned natural philosopher, has assured me that I must certainly be mistaken as to the circumstance of the light coming into my room; for it being well known, as he says, that there could be no light abroad at that hour, it follows that none could enter from without; and that of consequence, my windows being accidentally left open, instead of letting in the light, had only served to let out the darkness; and he used many ingenious arguments to show me how I might, by that means, have been deceived. I owned that he puzzled me a little, but he did not satisfy me; and the subsequent observations I made, as above mentioned, confirmed me in my first opinion.

This event has given rise in my mind to several serious and important reflections. I considered that, if I had not been awakened so early in the morning, I should have slept six hours longer by the light of the sun, and in exchange have lived six hours the following night by candle-light; and, the latter being a much more expensive light than the former, my love of economy induced me to muster up what little arithmetic I was master of, and to make some calculations, which I shall give you, after observing that utility is, in my opinion the test of value in matters of invention, and that a discovery which can be applied to no use, or is not good for something, is good for nothing.

I took for the basis of my calculation the supposition that there are one hundred thousand families in Paris, and that these families consume in the night half a pound of bougies, or candles, per hour. I think this is a moderate allowance, taking one family with another; for though I believe some consume less, I know that many consume a great deal more. Then estimating seven hours per day as the medium quantity between the time of the sun's rising and ours, he rising during the six following months from six to eight hours before noon, and there being seven hours of course per night in which we burn candles, the account will stand thus;--

In the six months between the 20th of March and the 20th of September, there are:

An immense sum! that the city of Paris might save every year, by the economy of using sunshine instead of candles. If it should be said, that people are apt to be obstinately attached to old customs, and that it will be difficult to induce them to rise before noon, consequently my discovery can be of little use; I answer, Nil desperandum. I believe all who have common sense, as soon as they have learnt from this paper that it is daylight when the sun rises, will contrive to rise with him; and, to compel the rest, I would propose the following regulations; First. Let a tax be laid of a louis per window, on every window that is provided with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.

Second. Let the same salutary operation of police be made use of, to prevent our burning candles, that inclined us last winter to be more economical in burning wood; that is, let guards be placed in the shops of the wax and tallow chandlers, and no family be permitted to be supplied with more than one pound of candles per week.

Third. Let guards also be posted to stop all the coaches, &c. that would pass the streets after sunset, except those of physicians, surgeons, and midwives.

Fourth. Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.

All the difficulty will be in the first two or three days; after which the reformation will be as natural and easy as the present irregularity; for, ce n'est que le premier pas qui coûte. Oblige a man to rise at four in the morning, and it is more than probable he will go willingly to bed at eight in the evening; and, having had eight hours sleep, he will rise more willingly at four in the morning following. But this sum of ninety-six millions and seventy-five thousand livres is not the whole of what may be saved by my economical project. You may observe, that I have calculated upon only one half of the year, and much may be saved in the other, though the days are shorter. Besides, the immense stock of wax and tallow left unconsumed during the summer, will probably make candles much cheaper for the ensuing winter, and continue them cheaper as long as the proposed reformation shall be supported.

For the great benefit of this discovery, thus freely communicated and bestowed by me on the public, I demand neither place, pension, exclusive privilege, nor any other reward whatever. I expect only to have the honour of it. And yet I know there are little, envious minds, who will, as usual, deny me this and say, that my invention was known to the ancients, and perhaps they may bring passages out of the old books in proof of it. I will not dispute with these people, that the ancients knew not the sun would rise at certain hours; they possibly had, as we have, almanacs that predicted it; but it does not follow thence, that they knew he gave light as soon as he rose. This is what I claim as my discovery. If the ancients knew it, it might have been long since forgotten; for it certainly was unknown to the moderns, at least to the Parisians, which to prove, I need use but one plain simple argument. They are as well instructed judicious, and prudent a people as exist anywhere in the world all professing, like myself, to be lovers of economy; and, from the many heavy taxes required from them by the necessities of the state, have surely an abundant reason to be economical. I say it is impossible that so sensible a people, under such circumstances, should have lived so long by the smoky, unwholesome, and enormously expensive light of candles, if they had really known, that they might have had as much pure light of the sun for nothing. I am, &c.

A SUBSCRIBER

And is that not fantastic! Links to both a copy of the first page of the Journal of Paris where the letter was published, and a good link to learn more about Daylight Savings Time follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Franklin-Benjamin-Journal-de-Paris-1784.jpg

http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/franklin3.html

Now that's what I call zooty!

Wow...New NPR and CPB Issues Ignite the Media

2011-03-10T11:37:00.000-05:00

When zzoott last blogged in early February, 2011, after listening to the Diane Rehm Show http://www.thedianerehmshow.org/ on NPR http://www.npr.org/ in late January discussing CPB http://www.cpb.org/, NPR and PBS http://www.pbs.org/, the focus was on just what each of this public triumverate bring to the table, and how they are each fed, at least from a public standpoint. Frankly, zzoott's concern was not political but, rather, driven by a desire to learn more about the financial aspects of the behemoth that has become public broadcasting in these United States.

That being said, the events of the last two days, as they impact on all three, has been nothing short of astonishing. Lest the fine folks at NPR decide to revise their own website's recent postings on the controversy surrounding recently-resigned former CEO Schiller, I thought it might be prudent to post them here, so as to at least lock in NPR's own take on things. First is the current link to NPR's running story, and second is a simple lifting of what that link currently brings:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/10/134388981/npr-ceo-vivian-schiller-resigns?ps=cprs

(3/9/2011, 5:25 p.m. ET: This post has been given an end-of-day write-through and re-ordering. After the following introduction, it lays out our updates in chronological order.)

Vivian Schiller, NPR's CEO and president since January 2009, left that job today in the wake of the second high-profile controversy to hit the organization in the past six months.

Dave Edwards, chairman of NPR's board, said directors came to the conclusion that the controversies under Schiller's watch had become such a distraction that she could no longer effectively lead the organization. She had told the directors that they should take the action they felt was appropriate, and Edwards said the board decided it would be best for her to depart.

The controversies in recent months that led to Schiller's departure have given NPR's critics opportunities to accuse it of liberal bias and to push for elimination of any federal funding for public broadcasting:

— Tuesday, a videotape surfaced of then-NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller (no relation) slamming conservatives and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding. His comments were secretly recorded by men posing as members of a Muslim organization (they were working with political activist James O'Keefe on a "sting").

— Last fall, NPR dismissed news analyst Juan Williams after he said on Fox News Channel (where he was also a paid contributor) that he gets nervous when he sees people in "Muslim garb" on an airplane. Williams went on to say it's wrong to profile or sterotype anyone based on their appearance, but NPR said it was the latest in a series of comments he had made that violated NPR's standards. The handling of his dismissal and the controversy surrounding it ultimately led to the resignation of NPR's top news executive at the time, Ellen Weiss.

We live-blogged today's developments. Here is how things happened and the news along the way:

Our original post, at 9:19 a.m. ET:

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned after NPR's board of directors decided that she could no longer effectively lead the organization.

This follows Tuesday's news that then-NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller (no relation) was videotaped slamming conservatives and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding during a lunch with men posing as members of a Muslim organization (they were working with political activist James O'Keefe on a "sting").

Vivian Schiller, 49, quickly condemned Ron Schiller's comments, and he moved up an already-announced decision to leave NPR and resigned effective immediately. But Ron Schiller's gaffe followed last fall's dismissal of NPR political analyst Juan Williams, for which Vivian Schiller came under harsh criticism and NPR's top news executive, Ellen Weiss, resigned.

NPR just sent this statement from NPR Board of Directors Chairman Dave Edwards to its staff and member stations:

"It is with deep regret that I tell you that the NPR Board of Directors has accepted the resignation of Vivian Schiller as President and CEO of NPR, effective immediately.

"The Board accepted her resignation with understanding, genuine regret, and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past two years.

"Vivian brought vision and energy to this organization. She led NPR back from the enormous economic challenges of the previous two years. She was passionately committed to NPR's mission, and to stations and NPR working collaboratively as a local-national news network.

"According to a CEO succession plan adopted by the Board in 2009, Joyce Slocum, SVP of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, has been appointed to the position of Interim CEO. The Board will immediately establish an Executive Transition Committee that will develop a timeframe and process for the recruitment and selection of new leadership.

"I recognize the magnitude of this news – and that it comes on top of what has been a traumatic period for NPR and the larger public radio community. The Board is committed to supporting NPR through this interim period and has confidence in NPR's leadership team."

We'll have much more on this as the story develops.

Update at 9:30 a.m. ET: "I'm told by sources that she was forced out," NPR's David Folkenflik just said on Morning Edition.

Update at 9:43 a.m. ET. More from NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik,via Twitter:

"The board for NPR NEWS has just ousted CEO Vivian Schiller in the wake of video sting by conservative activist of a top exec."

Update at 9:47 a.m. ET. On Vivian Schiller:

— She joined NPR in January 2009.

— Before that, she was senior vice president and general manager of NYTimes.com.

— In previous years, she worked in top posts at Discovery Times Channel and CNN Productions.

Update at 9:55 a.m. ET. What some others are writing:

— The Associated Press: "NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller resigned Wednesday in the wake of comments by a fellow executive that angered conservatives and renewed calls to end federal funding for public broadcasting."

— The New York Times' Media Decoder blog: "Controversy has swirled around NPR in recent months, as Republicans in Congress have sought to reduce or eliminate money for NPR from the federal budget and as conservatives have accused the network of having a liberal bias."

Update at 10:25 a.m. ET: As we reported, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik was on Morning Edition earlier and said that he's been told Schiller was forced out.

Update at 11 a.m. ET: NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards "confirms board ousted her — said Schiller set tone by saying board should take any action it felt necessary," our colleague David Folkenflik reports via Twitter. He just interviewed Edwards. We're on the phone awaiting a conference call that the board chairman is supposed to be on. We'll pass on more from that shortly.

Update at 11:06 a.m. ET: NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards just told reporters, on a conference call, that "the CEO of any organization is accountable for all of the operations of that organization." So, he said, even though Vivian Schiller wasn't personally responsible for all the mistakes made in recent months "we determined that it was the wise move for us to accept her resignation and move on."

Update at 11:10 a.m. ET: The comments made by Ron Schiller in the video produced by Project Veritas "were so opposite" to what NPR stands for that "I cannot tell you how much [they] bothered me to my core," NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards just told reporters.

And he said the decision to part ways with Vivian Schiller should prove the board's commitment to NPR's standards.

Update at 11:15 a.m. ET: On the issue of whether Vivian Schiller resigned or was forced out, NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards just told reporters that:

"The board had a wide-ranging conversation with Vivian last night," about recent events and "how the organization needed to move forward."

Schiller, he said, told the board members that they should have "the flexibility to do what [they] felt was important." She "offered to step aside if that was the board's will," he said, "and the board ultimately decided that was in the best interest of the organization."

Update at 11:22 a.m. ET. As NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards continues to talk with reporters, The Associated Press reports this:

"National Public Radio President and CEO Vivian Schiller is not saying whether she offered to quit or was forced out by the organization's board of directions. Schiller told The Associated Press on Wednesday that she resigned after a discussion with the board."

Update at 11:25 a.m. ET. More from NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards on why Vivian Schiller has departed:

"The events that took place [particularly Ron Schiller's statements and Juan Williams' dismissal] became such a distraction to the organization that in the board's mind it hindered Vivian Schiller's abilty to lead the organization going forward."

Update at 11:40 a.m. ET. Ron Schiller is no longer going to take a job at the Aspen Institute. Yahoo's The Cutline reports that:

" 'Ron Schiller has informed us that, in light of the controversy surrounding his recent statements, he does not feel that it's in the best interests of the Aspen Institute for him to come work here,' [an institute] spokesman said in a statement to The Cutline."

Update at 11:48 a.m. ET: Based on what NPR Board Chairman Dave Edwards has said in the past hour about Vivian Schiller's departure, we've added a phrase to our headline — "after board decides she should go." That reflects his statements that she told the board members to do what they thought needed to be done, and that they decided the wisest thing would be for her to leave.

Update at 12:02 p.m. ET: The issue of whether NPR and PBS should receive any federal funding has been front-and-center in recent months, with conservative lawmakers in particular saying it should be cut.

Aides to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who has been among those calling for the funding to be eliminated, just released this statement from him:

"Our concern is not about any one person at NPR, rather it's about millions of taxpayers. NPR has admitted that they don't need taxpayer subsidies to thrive, and at a time when the government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, we certainly agree with them."

Update at 1:20 p.m. ET. More from Vivian Schiller:

"I did not want to leave NPR. There's a lot of pressure on NPR right now," Schiller said today in an interview with The Associated Press. But, she said, "it would have made it too difficult for stations to face that funding threat in Congress without this change."

And, according to the AP:

"Schiller said she and the board concluded that her 'departure from NPR would help to mitigate the threat from those who have misperceptions about NPR as a news organization. NPR is one of the finest news organizations I've ever encountered. Our journalists are unassailable in their work.' "

Update at 1:45 p.m. ET. NPR's David Folkenflik has now spoken with Vivian Schiller and reports that:

"In an interview, now ex-NPR CEO Schiller said she recognized her departure might help public radio get past controversies of recent months."

Update at 3:40 p.m. ET: On today's edition of All Things Considered, NPR's David Folkenflik will report that Vivian Schiller "helped NPR emerge on firm financial footing from the recession with deep, but targeted cuts." And NPR's radio and online audiences continued to grow when she was CEO.

"But some at NPR found Vivian Schiller's leadership under fire wanting," David will say. Susan Stamberg, who has been with NPR nearly 40 years, tells him that "we have not been well served by recent management. Many of our managers are talented and solid, but others have not been — and have exposed us to some terrible, terrible hits."

Update at 3:55 p.m. ET. PBS Was Also Targeted:

The Associated Press writes that "PBS said it also was contacted by the same fake Muslim group that met with Ron Schiller. PBS spokeswoman Anne Bentley said an executive there had an initial conversation with the Muslim Education Action Center, but concerns were raised about the group and PBS couldn't confirm the organization's credentials, so they halted discussions."

Update at 4:10 p.m. ET. More On PBS:

The New York Times' Media Decoder blog writes that "Anne Bentley, a PBS spokeswoman, said PBS' senior vice president for development, Brian Reddington, attended a lunch with the fake donors in February. ... Ms. Bentley said that Mr. Reddington came back from the lunch with 'profound concerns about the organization' and began what she called a routine vetting process 'when there is an appearance of a conflict of interest and to ensure they meet requirements of transparency and openness.' "

Wow. Then, CPB decided it was time to say something, too, on its own website today. Again, in the good sense of preserving that text, lest it likewise be later revised, it's reprinted here in its entirety, first with the link, then with the text:

http://www.cpb.org/pressroom/release.php?prn=874

Statement from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Board of Directors and Management

For Immediate Release on March 10, 2011

The following statement should be attributed to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting:

For nearly fifty years, the federal investment in public broadcasting has helped to strengthen our society. Public broadcasting educates our children, increases our sense of community as Americans, and provides a respectful non-commercial alternative on a hyper-commercial media landscape.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is responsible for the health and vitality of public broadcasting in the United States and the investment of taxpayer dollars in locally owned and controlled public broadcasting stations and national producers and distributors of content such as PBS and NPR.

Recent events involving NPR officials have not reflected the values and aspirations of public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is committed to fair, balanced, objective, and transparent journalism that reflects a variety of viewpoints. The Corporation is committed to editorial standards that clearly separate decisions about content from financial or political considerations. We demand respect for all Americans whatever their racial or ethnic background, political belief, educational level, or occupation.

The Corporation condemns the unprofessional conduct and offensive statements by Mr. Schiller and Ms. Liley that are inconsistent with these values. We will continue to work with our local station and national network partners to achieve these values and we will support NPR in its search for a Chief Executive who can strengthen NPR and fulfill them.

Again, wow.

And, from PBS on March 9, 2011, the following:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june11/npr_03-09.html#

JEFFREY BROWN: And finally tonight, NPR's CEO departs amid a growing storm.

CRAIG WINDHAM, National Public Radio: From NPR News in Washington, I'm Craig Windham.

JEFFREY BROWN: News of Vivian Schiller's departure followed yesterday's release of this hidden-camera video. It showed NPR fund-raising executive Ron Schiller -- no relation -- at what he thought was a meeting with potential funders.

Among much else, he was heard disparaging Tea Party Republicans.

RON SCHILLER, National Public Radio: They are -- they believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting -- I mean, it's pretty scary. They're seriously racist.

JEFFREY BROWN: And he also commented on the hot-button issue of NPR's use of public money.

RON SCHILLER: It is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding.

JEFFREY BROWN: Indeed, the video came as Republicans in Congress are pressing to eliminate more than $400 million a year in federal funding of public broadcasting, including PBS.

The man behind the video release was conservative activist James O'Keefe. His associates, posing as members of a fake Muslim organization, lunched with Ron Schiller in late February, offering to donate $5 million to NPR. The fund-raiser resigned yesterday, though he had been planning to leave NPR anyway.

Vivian Schiller had served in her post two years. She drew criticism last year over the firing of commentator Juan Williams, after he said on FOX News that flying with some Muslims scared him.

James O'Keefe has previously gone after the community action group ACORN with hidden cameras. And last year, he was arrested and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempting to bug the offices of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

This afternoon, a spokeswoman at PBS, the TV side of public broadcasting that operates separately from NPR, said one of its executives also met with people who claimed to be with the same fake Muslim organization. Those discussions ended when PBS couldn't confirm the group's credentials.

For more on all this, I'm joined by Brian Stelter, media reporter for The New York Times.

Brian, you talked to Vivian Schiller and others today. Tell us about the decision to end her tenure.

BRIAN STELTER, The New York Times: The decision happened pretty quickly yesterday. It was all about 12 hours after this video emerged on the Internet.

It was seized upon by conservative blogs and also generally by the media as yet another setback for NPR. And, by about 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Vivian Schiller was on a phone call with NPR's board of directors, many of whom are managers at local stations who have been frustrated for months about all the controversies that have surrounded NPR.

After about an hour, she offered to resign, if the board wished that to happen. And, sure enough, later in the evening, they decided they did want that, and she did resign. It was announced on Wednesday morning. And now NPR finds itself without a permanent chief executive or a chief of fund-raising.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, fill in a little bit more this -- the video itself. As we said, it was a group saying it was a Muslim organization, but even further, they were saying they had some ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

BRIAN STELTER: That's right.

This was a classic setup, where they were trying to goad the NPR executives into saying things on camera that were going to make news. Sometimes, the NPR executives didn't take the bait. Sometimes, they just sat there and nodded their heads or didn't - or didn't comment.

But, other times, they did seem to take the bait. This executive, Ronald Schiller, said he was expressing his own personal opinions, but he was talking about Tea Party members as being racist. He was talking about Republicans generally as being anti-intellectual.

And, as we heard in the segment there, he also talked about the fact that NPR has federal funding and that NPR would be better off without it. That was seized upon quickly by congressional Republicans who say NPR shouldn't have any federal funding. And I think, going forward here in the next few days, we will continue to hear that point come up again and again.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, let's talk about that last point, because that, of course, is not the official -- the official point of view of NPR.

BRIAN STELTER: That's right.

NPR says that this federal funding is vital. It helps the average station by about 10 percent of their budget. And for some stations, that means $100,000. For other stations, that means millions of dollars. And it would be hard to recoup that money any other way.

I talked to station managers across the country today who said that it would mean less journalists, less high-quality programming, and in some cases, less transmitters and repeaters. These are the small stations that transmit signals out to rural areas. Clearly, this funding is important to those stations.

And maybe they could make up some of the difference from private groups and from citizens. But managers at stations are worried they wouldn't be able to make up all of it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. O'Keefe, who -- the man behind all this, he has a history, as we said, of these kinds of provocative stings, right? I guess that's what you would call them?

BRIAN STELTER: He does. And what he often relies on is compelling, edited videotapes that he can then get attention for in the media.

In the past, he's used networks like FOX News to carry his messages. They will leak the videos very carefully in order to -- in order to encourage maximum exposure of his videotapes. He did this with the group ACORN a while back. And -- and now we see him going after NPR in the same way.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, of course, as you mentioned, I mean, this -- this was seized upon quickly. And of course, it's something we watch with great interest here.

How much has -- has NPR become the focus? I mean, how much have these kinds of developments...

BRIAN STELTER: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: ... become a focal point for what is, after all, part of a much larger budget debate now?

BRIAN STELTER: You know, NPR becomes a symbol, really, I think, in this case.

Juan Williams was fired only a couple weeks before the election. So, some -- some people that were running for office that are now in Congress actually see this as a campaign promise, to defund NPR, because to them, NPR is a symbol of what they view as liberal bias and as elitism. And they want to take that down.

Many of their constituents listen to NPR, most likely, but it has become a symbol for them. Even though it's a relatively small amount of the budget, it's -- it's a main talking point, I think, for -- for some of these congressmen.

JEFFREY BROWN: And -- and, briefly, NPR going forward, they -- what do they tell you about how they try to separate them -- separate themselves from what this fund-raiser did?

BRIAN STELTER: The fact that both he -- both Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller, who are unrelated, have both left is essentially a fresh start for NPR.

They hope this means they can -- they can have a new direction with a new chief executive. But they're going to have a tough time finding a new chief executive in the middle of this budget battle. The timing is not great for an organization that's been beset by controversies for the next -- for the last few months...

JEFFREY BROWN: Right.

BRIAN STELTER: ... now to have to figure out a new way forward.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Brian Stelter of The New York Times, thanks very much.

BRIAN STELTER: Thank you.

Wow..again.

Now - check out the actual video - very interesting itself:

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/watch?v=xd9OYJMX9t4

Wow...again. Mr. Schiller's comment that there are not enough "educated elites" is what is dragging the country down...and he certainly counts himself among that small group of intellectual elites. A big ouch for NPR, CPB, Ms. Liley at the table with him, former CEO Schiller, and, frankly, we, the taxpayers paying for this whole mess.

Nice. Have a zzootty day!!! Look for more later!

The Future of Public Broadcasting

2011-02-05T19:41:00.004-05:00

I’m not quite sure wherein the zoot lies in this blog entry, but I’ll go with it anyway. The topic: public broadcasting in these United States, what it was intended to be, where it is, and where it’s going.

I have to admit that this bloggy had its genesis in my hearing a portion of National Public Radio’s The Diane Rehm Show http://www.thedianerehmshow.org/ on January 20, 2011, around 11:00 a.m. EST, while returning from a court appearance. The guests: Vivian Schiller, President and CEO of NPR http://www.npr.org/ ; Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) http://www.cpb.org/ ; Paula Kerger, President and CEO of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) http://www.pbs.org/ ; and Kevin Brady U. S. House of Representatives (R-TX) www.house.gov/brady/ , and the segment entitled “The Future of Public Broadcasting.” One has to recognize, of course, that these were the three most powerful persons in public broadcasting – the heads of NPR, CPB and PBS – all talking with one of NPR’s own very popular syndicated hosts, Diane Rehm…so, one might have rightfully presumed that the show would be nothing less than a public broadcasting love-fest. That, it turned out, it was decidedly not. You can access the show yourself at http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-20/future-public-broadcasting . As usual, Diane Rehm moderated her show with excellence and aplomb, not afraid to raise the issues and admit the comments of listeners who were none to pleased with how the public broadcasting leaders were acquitting themselves. Rep. Brady, unfortunately, did not get much airplay - but what the CEO's had to say generated a load of commentary on the show's own website that day.

First, a little background. Public Broadcasting received its initial big push as one of the last pieces of legislation President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law – in 1967 – as a part of his Great Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society set of domestic programs. CPB – the government-funding arm of public broadcasting, otherwise known as our tax dollars at work – was created on November 7, 1967 when President Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The new organization initially collaborated with the pre-existing National Educational Television network – a private network founded in 1952 with a grant from the Ford Foundation http://www.fordfound.org/ – and through a series of public and private spats running through the turbulent 1960s, NET merged out of existence in 1970, on the exact day PBS came to life, when it became a part of the former Newark, New Jersey public station, WNDT-TV, which eventually became today’s familiar WNET http://www.wnet.org/ . In 1969 CPB talked to private groups to start the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). In 1970, CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR), a network of public radio stations.

CPB’s public charter charged it with a duty to operate with a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." It also requires that the CPB regularly review national programming for objectivity and balance, as well as report to Congress on "its efforts to address concerns about objectivity and balance." The Congressional declaration in the preamble of the bill that created CPB states, in part, http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/text.html , that the bill was in the interest of the Nation, as “it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation.” Some might rightfully question whether CPB, NPR and PBS are continuing to meet the lofty expectations and requirements Congress demands and the nation should expect.

What most folks don’t know is just how CPB is funded – in 2010, a line-item appropriation of some $424 million in the deficit-rich federal budget – and what it does with those funds. While CPB provides some funding for PBS and NPR, much more of its funding goes directly to public television and radio stations that are members of PBS or NPR, as well as to other broadcasters that are independent of those organizations. In more recent years, CPB has started funding some internet-based projects. So, nearly a half-billion of our federal tax dollars go directly to CPB to parse out to PBS, NPR, and directly to public television and radio stations and public broadcasters and producers of public media. A half-billion dollars…tax dollars…and that represents a bit more than a quarter of the close to $3 billion juggernaut that public broadcasting has become in the United States, as the remainder comes from state and local funding, private sponsors and donors…and big corporate advertisers, too. More on that later.

This is, of course, a far cry from CPB’s initial funding of just $5 million in 1967 – as recently as 1978, a decade after its founding, CPB’s line-item Congressional budget funding was limited to “an amount equal to 40 percent of the total amount of non-Federal financial support received by public broadcasting entities during the fiscal year second preceding each such fiscal year” but not more than $121 million for that year. In the three decades since, that tax funding has nearly quadrupled. To be sure, Congress mandated in the bill that the funding annually granted is to “be used by the Corporation, in a prudent and financially responsible manner, solely for its grants, contracts, and administrative costs…”, and that CPB is “to make grants for production of public television or radio programs by independent producers and production entities and public telecommunications entities, producers of national children's educational programming, and producers of programs addressing the needs and interests of minorities, and for acquisition of such programs by public telecommunications entities…” Prudent and financially responsible – prudent and financially responsible – you decide. By the way, CPB has already asked for some $604 million for line-item funding in 2013 – and that’s just its base request.

NPR CEO Schiller’s base salary in 2010 was $450,000 – in May, 2010, she received a bonus, after just 17 months on the job, of $112,000, pushing her base compensation to $564,000. Compare that to the President of the United States’ salary of $400,000 – and that’s just NPR’s CEO. PBS’ Paula Kerger? A cool $534,500 base in 2008. Good luck trying to find CPB CEO Harrison’s salary on the absurdly simple or annoyingly complex sections of its own website – but suffice to say that CPB took significant heat in 2005 when a Congressional inquiry found that it was finding a way to pay its prior CEO over $614,000 in base and deferred compensation. Heck, the line item in CPB’s 2010 Fiscal Budget for just the 9.5 “full-time equivalent positions” of CPB’s required Office of the Inspector General (CPB OIG) amounts to some $1.27 million, nearly $1 million of which is in salary alone – mandated, of course, in part due to the funny business discovered in 2005. http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_11-13.pdf You do the math.

And….that’s not the end of it. As The Chronicle of Philanthropy noted in 2009, the non-profit world is apparently quite lucrative for its leaders and, in the case of public broadcasting, its star, or quasi-star, talent:

Former NPR C.E.O. Kenneth Stern, who departed in 2008, is atop the pubcasting list, receiving $1,319,541 as part of his four-year contract. Another former exec, PBS C.O.O. Wayne Godwin, who served from 2000 to 2008, was paid $398,063. Current PBS C.E.O. Paula Kerger, $534,500, up from $424,209 at end of fiscal 2007.

Rounding out the list, in descending order: Laura Walker, CEO of WNYC Radio, $474,808; Al Jerome, KCET president, $426,688; Jeff Clarke, CEO, Northern California Public Broadcasting, $406,501; Neal Shapiro, WNET president, $400,570; Sharon Percy Rockefeller, WETA president, $391,904; Thomas Conway, WNET V.P., $374,321; Daniel Schmidt, WTTW president, $347,491.

William Kling, Minnesota Public Radio/American Public Media president, $347,217; Jonathan Abbott, WGBH president, $337,870; Jon McTaggart, MPR/APR CEO, $313,967; Joseph Bruns, WETA executive v.p., $303,108; Linda O'Bryon, Northern California Public Broadcasting chief content officer, $282,360; Paula Apsell, senior exec producer at WGBH, $278,209; Dean Cappello, chief creative officer, WNYC Radio, $272,072; Deborah Hinton, KCET exec v.p., $251,446; Dennis Haarsager, NPR interim CEO, $219,369; and Reese Marcusson, WTTW CFO, $214,397.

http://currentpublicmedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/top-pubcasters-salaries-listed-in.html

And…it doesn’t end there. A few near-“star NPR” salaries from 2008:

Robert Siegel makes $350,288.
Renee Montagne's salary is $332,160.

Steve Inskeep makes $331,242.

Scott Simon makes $300,648.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/09/scott_simons_salary_and_steak_1.html

Simply remarkable. And - don’t get me started on the multi-media multi-millionaires the CPB/NPR/PBS triumvirate has launched, from Garrison Keillor to Ira Glass, Michael Feldman to the Magliozzi brothers, Ken Burns to Gwen Ifill. All on….at least in part…your federal tax dimes…and your state tax dimes…and your local tax dimes…and your donations of your coffee money, and your lunch money, and your old cars and trucks…and those sponsorships from those advertisers…errr…corporate sponsors.

As the New York Times noted in a 2005 story, “Since the mid-1990's, the underwriter announcements that precede and follow many public television programs (and usually conclude with the narrator thanking ‘viewers like you’) have gradually adopted many trappings of regular advertising, despite appearing on ‘commercial-free’ television.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/business/media/28adcol.html?_r=1 And, despite the clear Congressional mandate that put federal funds behind public broadcasting in 1967, as the article further notes, “the [Federal Communications C]ommission relaxed its policy in 1984 to allow company logos and ‘value-neutral’ descriptions of products or services, as long as they do not actually promote the products or services.”

This, of course, would seem to be directly at odds with the paramount legislation itself, which provides at Sec. 399b. [47 U.S.C. 399b]:

(a) “Advertisement” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “advertisement” means any message or other programming material which is broadcast or otherwise transmitted in exchange for any remuneration, and which is intended —

1. to promote any service, facility, or product offered by any person who is engaged in such offering for profit;

2. to express the views of any person with respect to any matter of public importance or interest; or

3. to support or oppose any candidate for political office.

(b) Offering of services, facilities, or products permitted; advertisements prohibited

1. Except as provided in paragraph (2), each public broadcast station shall be authorized to engage in the offering of services, facilities, or products in exchange for remuneration.

2. No public broadcast station may make its facilities available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.

To be sure, the bill as currently amended does provide for the use of “business or institutional logograms” - Sec. 399a. [47 U.S.C 399a]:

(a) “Business or institutional logogram” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “business or institutional logogram” means any aural or visual letters or words, or any symbol or sign, which is used for the exclusive purpose of identifying any corporation, company, or other organization, and which is not used for the purpose of promoting the products, services, or facilities of such corporation, company, or other organization.

(b) Permitted uses

Each public television station and each public radio station shall be authorized to broadcast announcements which include the use of any business or institutional logogram and which include a reference to the location of the corporation, company, or other organization involved, except that such announcements may not interrupt regular programming.

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Commission to prescribe regulations relating to the manner in which logograms may be used to identify corporations, companies, or other organizations.

Seems to me, however, that what we’re all hearing on NPR and public radio stations across the county, and viewing through PBS and public television stations, from “sponsors” is nothing less than frank, rank commercial advertising – exactly that which Congress banned.

So, in the end, what was made public, for the public, by the public, and funded with $5 million in initial federal funding, with laudable goals and earnest thoughts by Johnson’s Great Society has turned into a nearly $3 billion enterprise generating fabulous personal and commercial wealth. This from the same folks who ask me, at least four times per year, to stop what I’m doing, put that coffee cup down or skip that tatty sandwich at lunch, and contribute to my local NPR and PBS stations my coffee money, my lunch funds, or my old car or truck.

Now, as dearly as I love NPR and PBS, learing about all this made me wonder if it just might be time to rethink that for myself – and for Congress to rethink CPB and how we’re all funding that noble, or once-more-noble, enterprise. For me, well – I’m going to pick up a latte at Starbucks® http://www.starbucks.com/ , drop by Panera® http://www.panera.com/ for soup and a sandwich, then take a drive in my old, rusty, trusty truck – and think on that for a bit longer.

Having a Hard Time Thinking of Zooty Things to Post About....Anyone, Anyone??

2010-08-13T11:02:00.001-04:00

So - I'm suffering from an acute case of blogfunk. What's zooty that need's zzoott's Zzoottland comment these days? What suffices for zooty in today's decidedly non-zooty world. As it's Friday the 13th, maybe something on triscadecaphobia?

Should I or Shouldn't I - The LeBron Conundrum

2010-07-15T13:02:00.000-04:00

So, all you faithful followers, should I or should I not bloggeth about The Once and Future - or Former - King? I love this photo - it shows the face The Chosen One typically put on, deep into a game that only he could pull out through superhuman effort ... I don't recall seeing this visage in the Celtic series, especially during games 5 and 6. I wonder if he's had it in storage, and if it will return with the Heat. Hmmmmm.

Natural Seeps – Mother Earth Weeps Petroleum and Methane

2010-06-19T12:22:00.002-04:00

So, with all the venom being spilled over BP’s http://www.bp.com/ big boo-boo in the Gulf of Mexico, it got me to thinking about crude just “bubblin’ up”, like it did for old Jed Clampett, http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=beverlyhillb across the planet. Truth be told, the Earth’s been weeping and seeping petroleum for eons – and she still is, even without BP’s crack assistance. Think of the famous La Brea tar pits http://www.tarpits.org/ – yes, the place where all those fossilized and preserved remains have been unearthed near Los Angeles over the last century – and you’ll know what a petroleum seep is, land-wise.

The gurus at the federal Minerals Management Service – the same folks that brought us the Gulf disaster, bribes, payoffs, pandering, prostitutes and Minerals Mis-Management, and a host of other sins – are responsible for monitoring and reporting on these natural seeps, many of which are located in California, both on land and in coastal waters, especially near Santa Barbara. Occasionally, they come up with good ideas that actually work. Time Magazine http://www.time.com/ wrote an article about one such idea back in 1982 – jointly funded by ARCO, Mobil and Aminoil – that’s still working: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923013,00.html

In fact, in a study some two decades ago, and that pilot project started then, two underwater containment structures - not unlike the multi-story concrete and steel structure BP futilely attempted to corral the Gulf spill with in May – were put on the ocean floor near Goleta Point to capture both seeping oil and natural gas. In their nearly two decades of operation they have captured over 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas – enough, according to the MMS, to supply the natural gas needs of 25,000 residential users annually. See the recent comments on the study at http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/seeps1.htm - ironically, released April 15, 2010, just a few days before the Gulf’s current disaster unfolded.

So, with all this seepage and weepage, how does BP’s blunder asunder measure up to the Earth’s daily dosage of crude and methane? Good question. No less a think-tank than the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute http://www.whoi.edu/ has written volumes about methane and petroleum seeps distributed widely throughout the world’s oceans, postulating that of all the seepage and weepage, less than 2% ever makes its way in to commercially tapped reservoirs – meaning that 98% of what’s in the ocean is being put – and typically kept there – by Mother Nature herself: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2441 Now that’s a staggering thought.

On May 14, 2009, Christopher Eddy, Woods Hole’s Coastal Ocean Institute Director, noted that a “result of our study is that for the first time, we can quantify the amount of oil residue that ends up in seafloor sediments after a “natural” oil spill. To compare the amount the oil in the Santa Barbara sediments with a figure people might understand, it's equivalent to 8 to 80 times the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident. But our study by no means is a direct comparison on the overall fate and impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill and the Santa Barbara seeps. … That estimate is as close as we could get, since we don’t know how thick the layer of sediments is. But before this research, for all we knew, it could have been the equivalent of 0.0001 or 10,000 Exxon Valdez spills.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272

So – it would appear to be relatively clear that Mother Earth has been belching, bleeding, seeping and weeping fantastic amounts of crude and methane daily for decades, centuries, millennia, eons and epochs. That is not said lightly as to minimize the mess BP’s made of the Gulf – what’s happened there is no less than criminal, at least to some – but in the sense that this old blue planet has more going on than we might ever understand. Although we don’t need to encourage and assist the old girl in urping up oil and gas without equally slurping it up, we need to understand that as a biosphere, we still don’t understand enough.

Now that’s zooty, isn’t it?

The Greening of Automobiledom

2010-04-22T16:58:00.007-04:00

There was a time when motive variety was the rule, not the exception, in the fledgling auto industry. Besides internal combustion gasoline engines – that which became ubiquitous within the first few decades of the 20th century – there have been, from the start, many other powerplants used with many forms of fuel for motive transportation. Electric-powered battery jobs, steam-powered speedsters, waste oil, coal oil, methane, waste gas, biofuels, and others came and went as needs arose. Stanley Steamers http://www.stanleysteamers.com/ once ruled the road and held land speed records; eelectric cars enjoyed popularity between the mid-19th century and early 20th century, when electricity was among the preferred methods for automobile propulsion, providing a level of comfort and ease of operation that could not be achieved by the gasoline cars of the time. Detroit Electric made electric cars for more than thirty years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Electric_Car_Company.

Biofuels, likewise, are nothing new - Rudolf Diesel's prime model, a single 10 ft (3 m) iron cylinder with a flywheel at its base, ran on its own power for the first time in Augsburg, Germany, on August 10, 1893 running on nothing but peanut oil. In remembrance of this event, August 10 has been declared "International Biodiesel Day". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel.

Now, as we enter the second decade of the 21st century, we’re witnessing a real rebirth of many of those left along the roadside technologies. For instance, the Nissan Leaf http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666654.&dcc=0.216878497#/leaf-electric-car/index is a fully electric roadgoing commuter automobile – a real car with real-car attributes, and the ability to range about 100 miles per charge. Chevrolet’s Volt http://www.chevroletvoltage.com/ is likewise a full-time electric/car, with an electric-only range of some 40 miles, but with the additional attribute of an onboard gasoline engine that will charge the system after depletion, adding hundreds of miles to its range, rendering it more than a simple commuter. Determined backyard mechanics are getting into the act, converting their own cars on their own terms, utilizing net resources like http://www.evworld.com/. Both go into production – and on sale to the public – this year.

Diesel-powered cars are also making new inroads – from the east and the west – with traditional Diesel powerhouses like Daimler http://www.daimler.com/ and Volkswagen http://www.vw.com/ bringing out more efficient, more powerful, more quiet, less polluting technologies, while the Japanese manufacturers, including Toyota http://www.toyota.com/, Nissan http://www.nissanusa.com/, and, most directly, Honda http://www.honda.com/, have all made marked investments in future Diesel product lines. Diesel-electric hybrids are under development by all major manufacturers.

So – what’s old is new, and what’s new is old….can a new steam-powered car be on the horizon? Now that would be zooty!

In the Land of Zoot, Dubai Takes Things to a New Level

2010-01-16T14:01:00.011-05:00

On January 4, 2010, Dubai, one of the seven Emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates on the Arabian Sea, revealed to the world, in full spectacle, not only the world’s tallest skyscraper, but the world’s tallest man-made structure ever at a stunning sky-topping 2,717 feet (828 meters). Something current Chicagoans may not either know or remember: the one and only Frank Lloyd Wright designed and proposed over five decades ago a similar tower, to be built in Chicago and called “The Illinois”, that would have dwarfed even the Burj Khalifa. More on that later.

Known as the “Burj Dubai”, or Dubai Tower over the five years of its construction, Dubai offered homage to Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi, largely responsible for the recent, huge infusion of billions of dollars into debt-ridden and real estate rich – until recently so – Dubai, by renaming it in his honor on opening day. Dubai has become, in the last two decades, the playground of the uber-rich, embarking on an unprecedented building spree that includes, among other things, islands built in the shape of palm trees with homes and condos for exclusive vacationers and a fully enclosed year-round snow skiing resort http://www.skidubai.com/.

Construction started September 21, 2004, and the ultimate height of the tower was clothed in secrecy until the “unveiling” of the tower on January 4 – to a spectacular show of lights, fireworks, music, and general celebration. There’s an interesting time-lapse animated video showing the phases of construction on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burj_Dubai_Evolution.ogv

Its height is truly remarkable – some 1,000 feet taller than any previously built skyscraper, and nearly 700 feet taller than any structure ever erected, including the still-extant KVLY-TV http://valleynewslive.tv/info/info_tower.html mast in Blanchard, North Dakota, USA, at some 2,063 feet (628.8 meters), a guyed mast television tower erected in 1963 in 33 working days by a crew of eleven. By contrast, the Burj Khalifa took more than five years to build, with over 58,900 cubic yards of concrete used to construct the concrete and steel foundation, featuring 192 piles, each pile buried more than 164 feet (50 meters) deep. Another 431,600 cubic yards of concrete and 55,000 tons of steel rebar were used in the tower’s construction. A staggering twenty-two million man-hours were required over the period of construction – think of that any way you like – like the entire population of, say, Australia http://www.australia.com/ working for an hour, or one poor sot working 22,000,000 hours - that’s 916,667 days, or 2,511 years non-stop.

The Burj Khalifa was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, which also designed the Willis Tower http://www.willistower.com/ (formerly the Sears Tower) in Chicago, Illinois and 1 World Trade Center in New York City, among numerous other famous high-rises. The building resembles the bundled tube form of the Willis Tower, but is not a tube structure. Its design is reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright's vision for The Illinois, a mile-high skyscraper designed for Chicago.

Speaking of The Illinois, Frank Lloyd Wright, near the end of his long career and long life, proposed and designed that skyscraper as his answer to the New York skyline that he decidedly did not find appealing. He wanted to have, for his beloved Chicago, a colossal structure that would far outreach anything proposed before – or, frankly, since. Comparing the eminent architect’s design drawings to the Burj Khalifa, one can easily discern the striking similarities. No wonder that design architect Adrian Smith, himself a Chicagoan and the lead designer of the Burj Khalifa, looked back to Wright’s design motif to bring into the present that which Wright could find no support for in the past.

At a stunning 5,280 feet, The Illinois was intended to be built in Chicago, was to include 528 stories, with a gross area of 18.46 million square feet. The mile high tower was never built. Frank Lloyd Wright intended his Mile High Illinois skyscraper to be the focal point of Broadacre City, the theoretical city, he began planning in the 1920s. Because the Broadacre project was an exploration of horizontal space, a one-mile-high skyscraper might at first seem out of place—but by the 1950s Wright had decided that some cities were “incorrigible,” and that even Broadacre City could use a tall building as a cultural and social hub. The foundation of Wright’s building was a massive column, shaped like an inverted tripod, sunk deeply into the ground. This supported a slender, tapering tower with cantilevered floors. In keeping with his belief that architecture ought to be organic, Wright likened this system to a tree trunk with branches. He planned to use gold-tinted metal on the facade to highlight angular surfaces along balconies and parapets and specified Plexiglas for window glazing. Inside the building, mechanical systems were to be housed inside hollow cantilevered beams. To reach the building’s upper floors, Wright proposed atomic-powered elevators that could carry 100 people.

To be sure, Wright’s vision was not realized in 1956, when he proposed it, nor, really, in 2010, with the Burj Khalifa. Wright’s plan was even more outlandish and spectacular than the Burj Khalifa – and certainly now the Burj is planting seeds in the minds of budding architects and designers about things to come. With a half-mile tower standing in the sun against the critics in 2010, who’s to say that Wright’s vision might not come to fruition in another generation….

Oasis of the Seas: Blurring the Lines Between Cruise Ship and Floating City

2009-11-18T11:43:00.009-05:00

After a three-month break, a return to zootiness, in the form of the world’s newest, longest, biggest, strongest cruise ship, Royal Caribbean International’s http://www.royalcaribbean.com/ Oasis of the Seas, which just pulled into Fort Lauderdale this week, to her new berth at Port Everglades, Florida, www.porteverglades.net/about-us is in order.

This ship’s dimensions are just staggering:

1,187 feet total length (yes, that’s closing in on a quarter-mile)

208 feet wide (yes, that’s two-thirds of a football field)

213 feet above the water line (the height of a 20-story building)

225,000 tons displacement (450 million pounds)

Six Diesel engines generating a combined 130,000 horsepower

Accommodates 8,461 passengers and crew

Cruising speed of 22.6 knots (or about 27 mph for you landlubbers)

It is, at its intended contingent of 8,000 plus souls, literally a floating city, by most municipal measurements – if the United States Census Bureau was involved, it would be categorized as such.

This is, in fact, a mega-hybrid machine, but not exactly a Toyota Prius www.toyota.com/prius or Chevrolet Volt http://www.facebook.com/chevroletvolt. Three Wärtsilä http://www.wartsila.com/ 16-cylinder engines produce 25,290 hp each, while three 12-cylinder engines each crank out 18,590 hp, with the total output converted to electricity. That prodigious power is then used for the operation of the lights, elevators, electronics, galleys, water treatment plant, and every other power-consuming system on or in the vessel, including propulsion.

No, there’s no mighty Mercury outboard http://www.mercurymarine.com/ or Volvo Penta stern drive www.volvo.com/volvopenta pushing this puppy through the seas. Rather, propulsion comes from three, 26,800 hp "Azipods" http://www.abb.com/ or azimuth thrusters, suspended under the stern (again, for you landlubbers, this is the rear of the ship), each containing a massive electric motor driving a 20-foot diameter propeller. Each Azipod is independently rotatable, so no rudders are needed to steer the ship. Docking (again, landlubbers, think parallel parking here) is managed with the help of four 7,380 hp bow thrusters mounted in tunnels (the bow is the front of the ship). Want to be wowed and entertained? Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzHem_zie-c

It enjoys some unique and unusual features as the world’s largest floating city. For instance, the Central Park Neighborhood is the first ever “living park at sea” as the folks at RCI fancy to call it, with 12,175 plants, 62 vine plants, 56 trees and bamboo, some over 24 feet tall. RCI proudly points out that it will go through nearly 625,000 gallons of fresh water each day…although some might say this is a dubious honor.

It has twenty-one swimming pools and jetted hot tubs, including the largest sea-going pool, the AquaTheater, which at nearly eighteen feet deep accommodates diving performances viewed both above and below-decks. Heck, swimming that deep could probably induce the bends in unseasoned amateurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness

Now, to me – and maybe just to me, mind you – the Oasis of the Seas looks much less like a sleek, seagoing ocean liner, and much more like a Las Vegas hotel that’s been stuffed into a ship’s hull. Just look at her! Deck upon deck upon vertical deck, squared up and stacked up, layer on layer, more Italian torte than Norwegian nymph. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it would be hard to imagine RCI spending the megabucks it took to build this behemoth unless it had a business model that would support the effort, so the beauty, to RCI, must be in the bookings.

Zooty to be sure, and certainly high-zoot stuff for those prepared to pony up their pennies to ply the planks and peruse the pulchritude. Me? Well, for now, I think I’ll just step into a nice 1953 Chris Craft Riviera 16, fire up the mighty Hercules marine engine, and go carve some late-autumn morning glass on the local pond.

-Zzoott-

To add a bit here - why, oh, why is this story getting so many, many, many pageviews? I hope all the folks at Royal Caribbean http://bit.ly/xy3lEo appreciate the exposure!

-Zzoott-

Nothing like a three-month hiatus....

2009-11-09T08:28:00.000-05:00

I'll get back to blogging shortly - just too much to do in the real world to spend much time dabbling in the Land of Zoot.

Electric Vehicles Charge Into the Future

2009-08-14T11:45:00.000-04:00

Well, now, this week we’ve been intrigued by the most unlikely of duels: General Motors http://www.gm.com/ capped an interesting teaser campaign by announcing, on Tuesday that the Chevrolet Volt www.chevrolet.com/Volt will return the equivalent of 230 mpg, based on its own EPA-related fuel economy testing and, just a day later, Nissan http://www.nissanusa.com/ trumped GM by announcing that its own electric automobile, the Leaf EV www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/ , will hum along at the equivalent of 367 mpg based on DOE-related energy use standards. Certainly some zoot here to blog about.

First, bear in mind that neither of these cars are “traditional” – if that word might be properly used here – hybrids, like the Toyota Prius http://www.toyota.com/ or Honda Insight http://www.honda.com/.

The Volt has been developed as a plug-in electric car, powered by an on-board battery pack, with a small internal combustion gasoline-fueled engine. The Volt is intended to be charged, at most times, “from the grid” – i.e., plugged in – and, if the batteries are depleted while in use, the engine turns on only to charge the batteries and provide electricity to the Volt as needed. The gasoline engine does not drive the wheels, leaving that work to the electric motor and driveline – and the hybrid part of the equation is that it carries with it the ability to keep itself charged and running as necessary, giving it a range of about 40 miles on a full charge, and 300 or so miles with a full charge and a full (six gallons) tank of gasoline. In this way, its closest relative is the most ubiquitous of all hybrids, the diesel-electric locomotives that have been ruling the rails for more than six decades. Heck, the Volt’s distant relatives would also include such zooty things as nuclear submarines and warships. All use the same principle: an on-board power source that generates electricity to charge batteries and operate electric motors. The Volt has been under development by GM for the last five years or so. GM’s viral marketing campaign included a cute logo and tight lips about who and what was “230/8-11”, miniscule ad spots, and tee-shirt giveaways. GM’s 230 mpg figure comes from calculations GM did based on current EPA-testing requirements for hybrid vehicles.

Meanwhile, Nissan’s one-upsmanship came in the form of an announcement, just a day later, that its own pure electric plug-in vehicle, the Leaf EV, would return the equivalent of 367 mpg, based on different testing criteria created by the Department of Energy. So, one might wonder if we’re talking apples and oranges. And, to be fair, we probably are.

In this case, the Leaf EV is purely and electric vehicle - no onboard gasoline or alternative fuel motor, no on-board electricity generator. The Leaf EV’s battery pack and powerplant are designed to give it a fully-charged range of about 100 miles, significantly greater than the Volt. However, whereas the Volt carries its own electricity-generating capacity to extend its range, the Leaf EV does not. Moreover, while GM has positioned the Volt to enter the market in about a year, at a price point close to $40,000, Nissan claims the Leaf EV will be more affordable, in the sub-$30,000 range. Boiling it down a bit, the Leaf EV is a matured electric golf cart – really, really matured into a full-fledged car – that uses plug-in power only to send it down the road before it needs plugged in again. The Leaf EV bears a family resemblance to other Nissan and Renault products, most notably, Nissan’s Cube www.nissanusa.com/cube, more upright and squared-off, while the Volt’s Chevrolet heritage shows through in decidedly lower and swoopier packaging. They represent very different approaches to the same quest: wringing out the most from the new Electric Power Generation.

So, while the Volt touts not only its electrically-powered driveline, but its range-extending on-board generating station, the Leaf EV stresses its greater range without fueling up and, thus, its apparently greater efficiency. Again, apples and oranges, as the Leaf EV will never actually use gasoline or any other fuel directly to power itself, while the Volt will carry with it the designed ability to do so. Thus, while the Volt will only go 40 miles fully charged before the gasoline generator kicks in to extend that range another 300 miles, the Leaf EV will carry its passengers 100 miles before it runs out of juice, and will need access to a charging station or electrical outlet to recharge. These may appeal to very different markets.

As GM well knows, when it attempted the first “modern” roll-out of a purely electric vehicle, the late and lamented EV1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 , from 1996-1999, it learned a great deal about what the driving public will embrace, and what it will reject. The EV1 initially had a range of 50-75 miles, which was eventually extended to 75-150 miles with updated battery packs, and, at the time of its debut, was the most aerodynamically-efficient production car ever produced, with a drag coefficient of just 0.19. While GM made and leased less than 2,000 EV1s, and while the program was officially terminated by GM in 2003, citing costs and the failure to gain the public’s broader interest, the EV1 nevertheless developed a cult-like following that generated protests, lessees trying to hide or keep their EV1s, fan websites, conspiracy theories, and, ultimately, a 2006 documentary film entitled "Who Killed the Electric Car?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

So, one might say we have a zooty future in electric vehicles – of many shapes and sizes, and in many varieties – coming down the pike. From the looks of things, it would appear that market acceptance and market capacity will determine doom or boon for each such entrant, and the variety of offerings just might be what saves the day for one or more of the automakers. This should provide a little fodder for the filmmaker's intended sequel, "Who Saved the Electric Car?"

Beach Houses – When it Comes to Location, Oceanside is the Only Side

2009-07-24T09:09:00.000-04:00

Beach houses are certainly within the realm of zooty. Let’s face it, very, very few of us mere mortals will ever get to own a beach house – and not as many as should get the chance to stay at one. But for those of us that worship the sun and sand, saving up for a beach vacation, and spending time with family and friends, makes what we do day to day worthwhile.

Now, I will posit, not all beach houses are made equal. There are the fantastic beach houses that grace the covers, and fill the pages, of magazines like Southern Living http://www.southernliving.com/. To be sure, those homes are fantastic – but the odds of staying at one, much less owning one, are, if you’re anything like we are, slightly less than being struck by a meteorite while discovering King Solomon’s mines. Then, there are the “regular” beach houses, the kind that regular folks, saving regularly, regularly rent and stay at for spring breaks or summer vacations, like the homes on Edisto Island, in South Carolina http://www.goedisto.com/. Edisto Island’s a sleepy place, stuck firmly in the 1960s, and most of the folks who go there, stay there, work there or play there, decidedly want it to stay that way.

It seems, however, that prior to the collapse of the housing market, there was a major spike in housing starts on what formerly had been the less desirable beach locations – not beachfront/oceanfront properties, but the second row, third row, and “beachwalk” properties. Seems folks decided that if an oceanfront lot might set them back a million or so, it was just as easy to buy a street or two away, and build a mini-mansion on that lot instead with the money saved.

However, the first three laws of real estate, even in these troubled times, remain “location, location, location”. Thus, no matter how zooty one’s second or third row 5,000 square foot beach mansion might be, if you’re looking across the street, and around, under, or over that 1950s vintage bungalow just to get a peek of the ocean beyond, know that the family happily spending time in that run down old shack by the sea is still, well, by the sea…and you’re not. In the world of beach houses, there truly are the haves and the have nots: Those who have their little spot of sunshine with nothing between them and the ocean but a couple of faded deck chairs will always trump those who may have an elevator and a couple of upper level decks, but can’t feel the salt-spray as it whistles through the sea oats.

In A World Full of Zooty Things, French Hydrofoil Trimaran Takes the Cake

2009-07-22T11:56:00.000-04:00

When I started this column – and that’s what it really is, I suppose – the thought of writing about, reviewing, or otherwise discussing zooty things was foremost. And what could be zootier, I might suggest, than a French trimaran, sailing on hydrofoils at about the same velocity you speed down the local expressway?

The sport of ultra-yachting is for the uber-rich, no doubt. Cup racing is typically not for the purse, but for pride in the winning of the cup itself, the bragging rights, the special table at the club reserved for champions. Frankly, at this level of extravagance, nothing is too good for the participants and the patricians.

At an even higher level in this very limited field are the dedicated hull boats, the playboys of a playboy world. Among those are the unlimited-class catamarans and trimarans – and, in an even more rarified atmosphere, the hydrofoils. These are the true speed demons of the sailing world, reaching unparalleled speeds ripping across ocean swells.

Within this stratosphere, one particular craft is, for those involved in the sport, the most well-known of the bunch, a particular French beauty, the l'Hydroptere, http://www.hydroptere.com/_en/. It is truly a magnificent purpose-built boat of monumental numbers in every respect, from total sail area, to length, to beam, to what is in, or out, of the water at speed. And speed it does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_w3k5PuJOA&feature=related It holds the “unofficial” speed record for a wind-powered sailboat at over 61 knots, or approximately 71 mph. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRuLpZoTIoQ&feature=related This is a truly staggering number if one thinks about it for a moment: recall that this boat is gargantuan by any measure, but that it is powered by nothing other than wind, and wind alone. That monumental structure, that full crew, the huge array of electronics and oceanics, and it still flies along at expressway speeds powered by just the wind. Al Gore only wishes he had the ability to harness this kind of power.

Sadly, although this phenomenal craft among phenomenal craft showcases all that can be currently wrung out of the wind, sailboat-wise, what it can do on water does not easily translate to land-based disciplines. While the ocean may offer limitless options for mega-yachts, the same can not be said for terra firma and the vehicles that ply our roads and rails. While we can hope that some of the technology might find its way into and onto our roads and rails, we won’t, anytime soon, see ultra-sleek land yachts whisking across the Great Plains.

And that’s, frankly, too bad. What a joy it would be to rip across, say, eastern Kansas, the breeze to your back, the wind in your sails, cutting an eastward tack. For now, however, most of us mere mortals will have to allow others exploits to serve as our entry into the sport – and, for most, that’s not a bad thing.

The Rebirth of the Common Man's Aviation - Cessna 162 Skycatcher

2009-07-20T10:02:00.001-04:00

Well, the title might be a little off the mark, but that's how Cessna rolled this program out a little more than two years ago. Cessna http://www.cessna.com/ determined, after demonstrating a static model of a smaller sport and private aircraft at the 2006 Oshkosh, Wisconsin EAA AirVenture annual airshow, that there was and would be a viable business model for a new aircraft, the Cessna 162 Skycatcher. Just a year after that show, the first prototype was put into the air. The first production aircraft flew in May, 2008, and by the end of 2008, Cessna had orders for more than 800 aircraft.

Cessna's announced intention was to bring back the sport to sport flying by making a new aircraft available for under $100,000 - and it came close, eventually setting the price at $109,500, and recently moving that to $111,500. The program has not been without some controversy, however.

Based on a lack of production facility space in the United States, Cessna determined to partner with a Chinese-government controlled entity, Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, to produce the new 162. Cessna announced that by doing so, it was saving over $70,000 per aircraft, and that, combined with the lack of domestic production capacity, is what made the business case. There have been some skeptical to this methodology.

The aircraft itself represents a pleasant and practical entry into the world of sport aviation. It is constructed mostly of aluminum, with a fiberglass cowling, powered by an air cooled Continental 100 hp engine. Its cruising maximum is 118 knots, and it has a 470 nautical mile range.

So - the jury's still out, so to speak, on the affordable everyman's flyer - let's hope, for the industry's sake, that the 162 Skycatcher represents the right step, in the right direction, at the right time.

Chevrolet Malibu - A Surprisingly Taut Teuton

2009-07-16T21:51:00.000-04:00

I noted a few posts back the recent opportunity I had to drive a 2009 Malibu 2LT www.chevrolet.com/malibu - in a way, Chevy's analog to Ford's Fusion www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion recently reviewed, equipped with a standard 2.4 liter inline four with variable valve timing mated to a six-speed automatic transmission with paddle shifters on the steering wheel. It wasn't long ago that one found six-speed paddle-shifting manumatics only on GT cars or exotics - to find them in a ubiquitous daily driver was a real treat. As was this car.

A drive through the rolling mountains of Virginia, the Carolinas and northern Georgia gave this sedan a fairly strenuous workout, but it never broke a sweat. The trip computer gave a wide array of constant, snapshot, or progressive feedback, and although this 1,500 mile plus trip included both urban and expressway routes, the car returned a surprising 33.1 mpg (3.1 gal per 100 miles) despite vigorous driving. The power remained constant and quiet, never wheezing or protesting, and the cruise control smoothly handled the sloping contours of I-77, I-95 and I-75.

Inside, fit and finish were top-notch, displaying an aura (not unlike its Epsilon-platform sister, the Saturn Aura http://www.saturn.com/) not commonly experienced in prior Malibu models. Svelte surfaces mated to satin finishes, well-matched colors from dashboard to console, right down to those oh-so-comfortable heated seats whose bolstering was just right for a long ride for a quick trip south and north again. The cabin was spacious and cozy at the same time - almost coddling - and the trunk is simpy huge. And the hush: This car is simply, purely, elegantly quiet.

Speaking of elegance, some might say the exterior seems a little bland, a little too Impala-like www.chevrolet.com/impala in presentation. However, one cannot size up the body of this sedan without realizing that it's simply handsome. Not sporty, not overbearing, not overdone - just handsome. Handling, too, is top notch for what used to be a bland and forgettable people mover. Kudos go to the GM www.gm.com designers and brass who realized just how good a platform they had in the Epsilon, which originally entered service in the German Opel Vectra and Signum, the Swedish Saab 9-3, and the European Cadillac BLS, as well as the Pontiac G6, Fiat Croma, and Saturn Aura, as well as the Chevrolet Malibu. The Epsilon II platform is destined to underpin a number of future GM products. Overall, the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu 2LT left me with a great impression - if the new GM is smart and capable of producing such a pleasing product, there's no reason it won't be here for the long haul. And that, as Martha Stewart http://www.marthastewart.com/ seems fond of saying, is a good thing.

The Re-Emergence of Shared Transit

2009-07-15T21:51:00.001-04:00

As much as, I like automobiles - and, mind you, I do - even a hard-line autophile like me has to take notice of what can only be described as a modern resurgence of interest in shared transit. And I say this intentionally, avoiding the common moniker of "mass transit", as it doesn't really do justice to what's been occurring, not only just the last few years, but over the last several decades, in our large metropolitan areas as well as our suburban, and even rural, locales.

Shared transit - and let's stick with overland travel for now - really began to hit its initial stride with coach travel (stagecoaches in the United States, analog transportation in other countries and places) - within the last two centuries. Prior to that, most traveling folks either hoofed it, traveling on foot, or found a way to ride a horse or other beast of burden. As the mechanized age began to displace the coach lines and beasts of burden - trains, in particular - the rise of shared transportation gave new horizons to everyone who could manage to pay the fare. Trains begat urban and interurban lines, including trolleys, then electric trolleys, subways and elevated trains across the globe. As the Nineteenth Century turned into the Twentieth, the automobile arrived, in fits and jerks, then in full force. By the midde of the century, contemporary mass transit was rapidly being replaced by individual transport - the rise of the automobile, by the fifties, had effectively sounded the apparent death knell for passenger rail lines, trolleys, interurban lines and the like. While city bus lines hung on in many areas - having displaced the electric interurban lines quite literally, the lines and rails being ripped out or abandoned - riders tended to be only those poor folks who couldn't afford the new individuality of automobiles and the embrace of suburban living.

Fast-forward through the dismal 1960s and the pain of war and civil unrest, and we ran right into the Oil Embargo of the early 1970s, striking the first blow at the heart of the sanctity of personal automobile travel. Gas rationing lines, spiking prices, and inefficient automobiles led to a decades-long mercurial makeover of the automobile, and the whole idea of shared transit. Year after year cities propped up their aging mass transportation systems - subways, trains, els, buses - with subsidies, while the occasional vanguard shouted out the need to develop infrastructure and a true directive toward shared transportation. While the 1980s saw us stumble along at the beginning of that decade, by the end of the eighties SUV sales were starting to roar, and by the end of the next decade, SUVs ruled the roads, with truck and SUV sales outsripping automobile sales across the country, and around the globe.

The events of the new millenia changed all that. Terrorist attacks brought escalating energy prices and shook the financial markets, destabilizing the entire transportation structure. Hybrid automobiles entered the fray, slowly, cautiously nibbilng away at wide public acceptance while SUVs became the social pariahs of the transportation scene. As the financial model caved in 2006, and as the recession became apparent in 2007, markets continued to shift, and the long-muted voices of shared transit began to be heard again. The complete reshuffling of all that is and was automobile production, worldwide, portends a seismic shift in priorities.

In the last two decades, shared transportation systems have cropped up all over, in varying forms, and to varying degrees of success. Los Angeles has methodically made over the sprawling city's transportation system at phenomenal expense, while Phoenix has, after decades of resistance, embraced an effective shared transporation system including light rail - http://www.valleymetro.org/metro_light_rail. Cities and states that long ago wrote off light rail and interurban lines have begun to resurrect long-dormant plans - in Ohio, for example, causing a re-examination of the often-mentioned but never built light rail lines envisioned on the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati corridor.

In other places, other shared transit ideas are coming to fruition. Shared automobiles, rented by the hour as needed - like http://www.zipcar.com/, have taken hold, not only in Europe, but in the United States, on both coasts, as effective means by which to avoid automobile ownership and all of the attendant costs while still having means to access. In Paris, a shared bicycle system, Velib http://www.velib.paris.fr/ allows shared use of a bevy of bicycles, cutting down on the number of bicycles used and parked by riders while allowing the increased availablility of a ride for all.

Future shared transport systems are growing, too - from mass bicycle renatal programs to individual pods that can attach to others to more efficiently move - and even automated automobiles http://www.mazda.com/, with the clear intent to enhance efficiency while offering safe alternatives in shared travel.

Now, as a boy, I may have fallen for a little red Corvette http://www.corvette.com/ - and, my, that 1968 red Stingray looked awfully good to my 6-year-old eyes - but now I find that, as we peer with greater, daily concern, frustration and intensity at the sign in front of the filling station, shared transportation truly is on the rise. Again.

The new CARS program, some links and advice...

2009-07-15T11:51:00.000-04:00

So, Congress moved quickly - for once - and passed a pared-down version of a bill Ohio Representative Betty Sutton introduced in the House just a few months back, modeled after similar programs in Germany and other European Union countries, initially called "Cash for Clunkers", but recently and kindly renamed by NHSTA http://www.nhsta.gov/ with the simpler acronym, CARS; read all about it here http://www.cars.gov/.

In brief, if your ride qualifies - and do read the fine print - then you may qualify for a credit, issued directly to the dealer as a part of any sale or lease of a qualifying new car - of between $3,500 - $4,500, depending on the car you bring in, and the car you buy or lease.

Your old ride will not be "traded", per say, but rather credited as turned in, and it will be, as they say, "taken out of service." The program requires that the drive line for the turned-in car be removed and destroyed, including the engine and transmission, and that although the rest can be harvested for transplant, the VIN and the viscera of the once-proud vehicle will be no more.

The program was introduced by way of the bill in Congress to be funded for a year - and that was pared down to just a few months worth of funding in the final analysis. If the program goes well - and a similar program in Germany was very well received - look for Congress to add more funds and extend the program.

Dealers are already queueing up for the program, which is to officially start July 24, 2009. I've spoken to a few who indicate that they are already writing contingent contracts for putative purchasers postulating that they'll probably pursue the plenty. In addition, the manufacturers are already in the game, posting ads that reference the program and the cars they have that will qualify, and even advertizing the potential discount applicable.

So, do your part, prime the well of commerce, and see about getting a new car with your freshly-minted-and-printed federally supported greenbacks. Heck, it's one way to get your little piece of the bailout....

Ford's Pleasing Fusion

2009-07-13T22:48:00.000-04:00

I managed to take a 2010 Ford Fusion http://bp2.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/2010-Ford-Fusion#page=/Style/ for a spin today, and found it, to my surprise, rather pleasing. I drove the SE I4, equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission mated to a four cyliner powerplant.

Nice, tight ride, well-controlled, not underpowered, but not overpowering either. Better interior surfaces than the prior model, better integration overall. There's less brand identity in this Fusion, and the friendly Ford rep touted the connection to Volvo and the prevalence of the multiple safety systems. I can't say I was thrilled with the blocky bulkiness of some of the interior spaces and spots - like the high center mounted bin on top of the dashboard - but it all seems to have function, if not form.

It was not quite as quiet as I anticipated, especially after the rep pointed out the silicone seals and the presence of sound-deadening inserts throughout. I could clearly hear the perky powerplant working out with the smooth transmission to get us down the road - not growly and snarling, however, just buzzing away doing its work. I'll give you my impressions in the next post to Chevrolet's highly competitive Malibu 2LT, which has a similar I4/six-speed setup, but gave a very different flavor to the driving experience.

So, Ford, bravo to the updated Fusion - even without the added zoot and high profile the much-more-expensive Fusion hybrid provides, this Fusion proved that Ford, indeed, may have a better idea.