@ the Beach

SCIENCE FRI: - POLITICS MEET Sci. Fi !

2012-01-27T12:39:00.002-05:00

Last Night's GOP Debate Was Like Bad 1950's-Style Science-Fiction

by Richard Eskow | January 27, 2012 - 11:28am

The GOP Presidential candidates continue to play their parts in an implausible story of a world that could never exist, acting out nonexistent conflicts while delivering dialog that insults the intelligence. That's not because they're stupid. It's because they think you are.

It's like watching a low budget science-fiction movie from the fifties: Dr. Strange vs. The Vulture in the Caverns of the Moon. It's badly executed, even by the low standards of its genre, complete with cheap sets, bad special effects and wooden acting.

They're counting on their audience to provide that state of mind which literature professors call "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Three of the candidates are selling an nearly identical story of hardy earth people who are only able to save their planet once they've been freed from taxes and regulations.The fourth, Ron Paul, is offering a different script, a 10,000 Years BCscenario of unparalleled economic savagery.

Sure, Dr. Paul seems like a likeable guy. And it's great that he's saying things about war, terrorism, and human rights that nobody else will, including Barack Obama. But he wants to lead us into a blood-drenched, kill-or-be-killed world. (Remember when he was willing to let an injured man die because he hadn't paid his health insurance premium?)

The candidates' scripted lines weren't all that was "retro,"either. In the year 2012, Wolf Blitzer actually asked them which of their wives would make the best First Lady. What would he have done if they hadn't answered - held a pie-baking contest? As the scientists' young assistant said when the monster entered the laboratory:Eek!

What did we learn tonight about the Republicans' collective and individual economic fantasies?

We come from a distant planet with news of a world vastly unlike your own ...

Rick Santorum was the first out of the box this time. By invoking the magic word, "deficits," he called the economic coven to order.

The New York Times analyzed the tax plans put forward by Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum to determine how much each of them would add to the national deficit in a single year. Romney's would add $600 billion. Santorum was tied with Gingrich at $1.3 trillion, or more than twice as much.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax altogether, making the economic future under his Presidency as difficult to predict as the space-time continuum inside a black hole. That's probably why the Times didn't try. (It would be an interesting project, though.)

Let's be clear: All of those deficit estimates - $600 billion for Romney, more than twice that for Santorum and Gingrich - vastly understate the true explosion in the deficit we'd see under any one of them.. They only consider the income lost through tax cuts. But other aspects of their economic plan would lead to greatly increased unemployment, prolonged recession, and an increased likelihood of another financial crisis brought about by deregulation.

So the real increase in the deficit could be several times as large. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both blew the deficit through the roof, and their numbers would be small-time compared to what a Romney or Gingrich Presidency would do.

What all four candidates share is the professed belief - which Paul and possibly Santorum sincerely hold, but Romney and Gingrich almost certainly don't - that deregulation and lower taxes will lead to a larger and healthier economy. What's wrong with this belief? There is no time or place in human history that these policies have ever led to that outcome.

Enter The Vulture

Thanks to the now-lamentably absent Rick Perry, Mitt Romney will always be known as the "Vulture Capitalist." Bain Capital and the hedge-fund business model ("Bain Capitalism") it represents is every bit as parasitic and non-constructive as the populist fulminators (and now, hilariously, Newt) say it is. Mitt got rich off of corporate and individual tax breaks and subsidies, and possibly from a bailout too.

Mitt's signature achievement as Governor of Massachusetts was, of course, RomneyCare. His Republican critics are right. The plan is virtually indistinguishable from ObamaCare. So tonight's back-and-forth about individual mandates was extremely instructive.

The Romney and Obama plans, including the individual mandate, are both based on the right-wing think tank proposal developed in the early 1990's as the Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's plan. That's why it's such a boon to private insurers.

Santorum scored well on this issue: "You are going to claim [about the Affordable Care Act] ... doesn't work and we should repeal and he's going to say, wait a minute Governor, you said it works well in Massachusetts. Folks -- we can't give this issue away in this election." Romney's defense of his plan could have been lifted verbatim from an Obama speech.

Santorum's right about losing a campaign issue, of course. And imagine what Obama might have done if he hadn't broken his campaign pledge to oppose the individual mandate and failed to fight for the public option (or deliberately traded it away). Health care could have been a major plus for him in this election.

Seeing the Wires

On the personal level, Romney is still forced to deal with his tax breaks. Given the selective nature of the tax forms he released - why just the last two years? - there's a good chance he paid little to no taxes for a number of years. And he's certainly bled the tax system for all it's worth, something I don't begrudge people for doing while that's the law - unless they belong to the party that helped write the law."

Then they're double-dippers and hypocrites. (And yes, we'll get to Newt shortly.)

There's one entertaining outcome to Romney's career embarrassments. They've forced Rush Limbaugh and other professional Republican operatives to defend vulture capitalism against the guy who wrote the Contract With America.

Gotta love it when the director of that sci-fi movie makes a mistake. That's when you see the boom mike enter the frame, or the shadow of a camera operator fall across the actors' faces, just as the space hero begins to fight his villain. And Mitt's villain is ...

Dr. Strange in Lunar Orbit

Newt Gingrich is striking at Romney from his secret moon lair with a personal animosity and stage sneer worthy of any screen villain. Except that Newt's not always wrong. When he slams Romney for his greed, he's right. Just as Romney's right when he calls Newt an influence-peddler.

Pass the popcorn, please.

About that $1.3 trillion his tax plan would add to the deficit: Apparently it's not enough. Newt wants to build a manned base on the moon. That would add a trillion or so to the deficit, easy. Why? The logical answer to that question would be the one given in the 1960s to justify the manned space program: Innovation and jobs. But that would mean promoting ... dare we say it? ... a stimulus.

And if you're talking about stimulus spending, there are much smarter ways to do it than building a base on the moon. So instead Newt invented a 1950's-era Red Menace. " I'd like to have an American on the moon before the Chinese get there," he said. And, no doubt, to get away from the nonexistent war on religion he's always talking about. After all, nothing brings you closer to God than breathing an artificial atmosphere beneath a transparent dome in the Mare Imbrium.

Americans walked on the moon more than forty years ago. The first Chinese have yet to arrive there. They don't seem to be in a big hurry. And guess what? If you're worried about the Chinese economically or militarily, the moon's a pretty good place for them to go. It would cost them a fortune to get there, making them less of an economic threat, and once they get there they would be very far away.

Gingrich even suggested that 13,000 Americans on the moon could apply for statehood. But Puerto Rico? Not so much.

Ron Paul punctured another one of Newt's sci-fi fantasies, that of Speaker Gingrich as deficit cutter, when he pointed out that the Federal deficit actually increased during Gingrich's years as Speaker of the House. That's true. It began dropping the year that Newt left (after an ethics scandal).

Splashdown!

Meet the Cast

Santorum and Paul don't stand a chance. They're the supporting actors in our science-fiction movie: the likeable but goofy sergeant who makes it to the third act before being grabbed by an alien tentacle, and the crusty old ship's doctor who says folksy things that make the whole crew laugh.

It'll either be Newt or Mitt, and after tonight Newt's chances are looking worse.

Yes, Newt is an influence peddler. But I have to admit I feel a little sorry for the guy. The Republican Machine - as scary a bunch of lockstep-marching automatons as you'll ever care to see - has turned out against him in the last few days with brutal determination. hen I remember his race-baiting rhetoric and I don't feel bad anymore.

He had a pretty weak night tonight, But he did get one major endorsement today. According to the Voice of San Diego, convicted felon and former Republican Representative Duke Cunningham (who's serving a 100-month term for bribery, conspiracy and tax evasion) said "I have 80% of inmates that would vote for you. They might not be able to but their extended families will."

And yes, Mitt is a vulture capitalist. At least one person who did business with Bain during his tenure says they were duplicitous and untrustworthy.

The End ... or The Beginning?

It's no surprise that Newt and Mitt both made money off Fannie and Freddie, and no doubt from other predatory lending schemes. Newt and Mitt are peddling the same alternate reality, with only a few minor tweaks between them. In some ways it doesn't matter which one wins, because the economic script has already been written.

Wolf Blitzer asked them about the role of religion and God in the Presidency. May I answer that question too? I've been pretty unhappy with Barack Obama at times. But God must love him or he wouldn't have given him opponents like these. Bo

And now it's time for the closing dialogue for our sci-fi film. After the invaders have been vanquished, we see our scientist hero and his son staring up at a bright blue sky that's once again free of menacing saucers. The scientist's last lines to the boy reflect our own sentiments about these Republican debates:

"They're gone for now, Billy. Sure, they'll be back - but next time we'll be ready for them!"

MY TAKE:

"Wolf Blitzer asked them about the role of religion and God in the Presidency. May I answer that question too? I've been pretty unhappy with Barack Obama at times. But God must love him or he wouldn't have given him opponents like these. " AMEN!

GOODNIGHT JOE!!

2012-01-26T14:26:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Sanctimonious Hypocrites Can't Diminish the Warmth for Joe Paterno

Walter Brasch

Academia | Sports

by Walter Brasch | January 26, 2012 - 9:28am

Gov. Tom Corbett (R-Pa.) praised Joe Paterno and ordered flags on all state buildings to fly at half-staff for four days.
That would be the same Tom Corbett who had said he was "personally disappointed" in Joe Paterno for not doing more to alert authorities in the Jerry Sandusky case, while acknowledging that Paterno did nothing illegal and followed university rules for conduct.
That would be the same Tom Corbett who, as attorney general, assigned only one investigator to the case in 2009, while devoting almost innumerable personnel and financial resources to prosecute high-profile cases that could help lead him to the governor's office.
That would be the same Tom Corbett who had the authority to order the arrest of Jerry Sandusky as soon as the claims were made, but who allowed the investigation to drag two years.
That would be the same Tom Corbett who stepped up the investigation only in the third year, after he was elected governor.
That would be the same Tom Corbett who accepted about $200,000 in campaign donations from trustees of Sandusky's Second Mile foundation and then danced around questions of why, as governor, he authorized a $3 million grant to the Second Mile.
That would be the same Tom Corbett who as an ex-officio member of the Penn State Board of Trustees, with the power to increase or decrease state appropriations to the university, big-footed his presence to demand that the Trustees do something to Joe Paterno.
Now, let's look at the Board of Trustees. On Jan. 22, the day that Joe Paterno died from lung cancer, the Board issued a honey-dripped PR-laden written commemoration.
That, of course, would be the same Board that, influenced by the harpies of the media and a horde of the public who knew everything about everything, except people and football, had wanted to terminate Joe Paterno's contract after his teams had losing seasons in 2003 and 2004. He was too old, they said. He was getting senile, they claimed. His coaching strategy was too conservative, they cried with the shrill cry of a wounded hyena. But, an 11-1 season in 2005 quieted their panic. And so they stewed, knowing that a football coach, educator, philanthropist, and humanitarian had a greater reputation than all of them combined.
That would be the same Board that violated every expectation of due process, listened to the other sanctimonious hypocrites who were quick to condemn someone without knowing the facts, and by a cowardly and impersonal phone call violated four levels of the chain of command and fired Joe Paterno hours after he had announced his retirement. It was their pathetic way to make people believe they, not the most recognizable person in Penn State history, were in control. The reality, of course, is they botched the firing in a feeble attempt to protect themselves, not Penn State and, certainly, not the rights of a tenured full professor, who had given 61 years of service to the university.
That, of course, would be the same Board that should have known for at least six months, and probably longer, of a grand jury investigation into Jerry Sandusky's conduct, but apparently had no crisis management plan to deal with what would become the greatest scandal in its 156-year history.
That, of course, would be the same Board that had operated in a culture of secrecy that regularly violated the state's Sunshine law and enjoyed its status as receiving state tax moneys while not having to be under the glare of the public right-to-know law.
That, of course, would be the same board that includes the CEOs of U.S. Steel, Merck, and a major division of the Bank of New York Mellon; and an assortment of senior executives from insurance, investment, and education. Even a retired assistant managing editor of The New York Times is on the Board. And, yet, this Gang of 32, which should have known better, bumbled, stumbled, and proved that malfeasance and incompetence is what it should be best known for. For the most part, they acted like undergraduates struggling to earn a grade of "C" in a course in human relations, having already decided they didn't need the course in business communications.
Now, let's turn to the new president. The Board forced the resignation of a respected 17-year president for not doing enough to investigate the Sandusky allegations. By most accounts, the new president, formerly the provost and executive vice-president, is a decent person with a good academic reputation. But, is it credible that if the No. 1 person should have known more and done more, how could the No. 2 person be ignorant of the allegations. Nevertheless, the Board sent the newly-minted president out on nothing less than a belated PR field trip to calm the rising storm against the Board for its incompetence and insensitivity in firing Joe Paterno. At three meetings with hundreds of alumni, the new president, facing alumni wrath, did little to alleviate their anger. But, he promised the university would do something--he didn't know what--he didn't know how or when--to honor Joe Paterno.
Of course, since the Board was so inept, secret, and hypocritical in its own actions, it had no idea what it was going to do. The Board statement the day of Joe Paterno's death merely stated the university "plans to honor him," and is considering "appropriate ways."
The greatest honor will not come from the Board, the administration, or even the Legislature, many of whom sought the media spotlight to pander to certain voters by condemning the coach. At the statue by Beaver Stadium, thousands of students, staff, faculty, and community residents are coming to pay their respects. Hundreds had met him, for he was one of the more accessible persons in the community, often walking home alone from practices and games; his phone number was in the book; his home was in a quiet residential area not a mansion on a hill reserved for the wealthy. Most of the mourners had never met him, but they all knew him.
On Tuesday, about 27,000 people from all over the United States stood in line up to three hours to walk past the body of Joe Paterno, guarded by past and present scholar-athletes. NFL super-stars and football fans, academics and those who never went to college, all were there to honor the man who was an outstanding quarterback and cornerback who earned an English literature degree from Brown University, one of the more prestigious in the country; a man who later created the "Great Experiment" to develop and promote a winning football program that would make education and citizenship more important than sports, and would make "success with honor" more than words.
On Wednesday, thousands stood shoulder to shoulder and lined the streets of Penn State and State College, an honor guard as the hearse carrying Joe Paterno slowly moved from the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center, past Beaver Stadium, and to a private funeral.
On Thursday, more than 12,000 packed the Bryce Jordan Center for a memorial service. The first 10,000 tickets were claimed within 10 minutes on Tuesday.
Sue Paterno need not have worried when she quietly asked some mourners at the viewing to keep her husband warm. When journalism turns into history, it will be written that Joe Paterno had done more than was expected, in every part of his life. The people, not the governor or the trustees who will quickly be forgotten in the cold, will keep Joe Paterno warm.
Dr. Walter Brasch is an award-winning journalist, former tenured full professor, and author of 17 books. His current one is Before the First Snow: Tales from the Revolution.
_______

NEWT SURGES IN FLA. !!

2012-01-25T15:28:00.000-05:00

How Newt Gingrich Shamelessly Feeds the Fears and Egos of White Conservatives

Joshua Holland

2012 Elections | Newt Gingrich

by Joshua Holland | January 25, 2012 - 11:08am

— from AlterNet

... and Why That May Win Him the GOP Nomination

More American families went on food-stamps during George W. Bush's term in office than under any other president in history – almost a half-million more than under Barack Obama. Facts don't matter much in a GOP primary contest, however; and Newt Gingrich catapulted himself to victory in South Carolina in large part by calling Obama “the foodstamp president” and then picking a fight about it with Fox News pundit Juan Williams during a January 16 debate.

Gingrich had set a brilliant trap for a Republican primary contest. Most people understood the foodstamp president line to be a classic example of the racist “dog-whistle” – the kind of rhetoric that has long been at the heart of the GOP's “Southern Strategy” -- and Newt was confident that he'd be called on it.

Williams obliged. “My e-mail account, my Twitter account, has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities,” he said.

Gingrich's response was practiced, and perfectly tuned for the Republican base. “Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. I know, among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable... and if that makes liberals unhappy...I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn, some day, to own the job.”

Newt earned a standing ovation from the audience, and immediately after the debate Team Gingrich turned the exchange into an online ad titled, “The Moment.” Five polls taken in South Carolina in the days leading up to the debate had Mitt Romney up by an average of 11 points. Six polls in the following three days found Gingrich up by an average of just under three points, and a week later – after another testy exchange with CNN's John King – Gingrich beat the former Massachusetts governor by 12 percentage points in the Palmetto State's primary.

Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed candidate. But fresh off his South Carolina trouncing of Romney, who has long been anointed the GOP front-runner, the political establishment is beginning to wonder – with horror or enthusiasm, as the case may be – if the veteran pol actually has a shot at becoming the Republicans' standard-bearer in 2012.

He does, although Romney still has formidable advantages in fundraising and organization on the ground. If Gingrich does manage to pull off an unlikely victory in the nominating contest, it will be the result of running a picture-perfect, almost archetypical right-populist campaign that is perfectly suited to this moment, with the ascendancy of the hard-right Tea Party among Republican primary voters.

The right-populist storyline is simple, and compelling for many at a time when Americans have seen an unprecedented loss of economic security. According to the right-populist narrative, the working class – especially the white working class -- is caught in a vice between two pernicious forces: an elite festering with corruption at the top and a legion of undeserving freeloaders at the bottom.

Sandwiched between these two forces is the “real America,” as Sarah Palin put it during the last election cycle. Gingrich defines the “middle-class” broadly enough to include white-collar professionals and all but the most affluent “entrepreneurs.”

Whereas traditional populism pits working people against corrupt bankers and the titans of big business, Gingrich's brand of right-populism is directed at cultural elites – intellectuals, the media and “latté liberals.”

During his exchange with CNN's John King, Gingrich was again happy to have the media serve as his foil. “I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country,” he said to King, who'd had the temerity to ask about Gingrich's past marital infidelities, before adding: “I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.” Again, the crowd went wild.

Later, during his victory speech, Gingrich drove the point home: “The American people,” he said, “feel that they have elites who have been trying for a half century to force us to quit being American and become some other kind of system.” At the same time, Gingrich said that the “African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

It's an updated version of Ronald Reagan's mythical “welfare queens” – suggesting that those receiving nutritional assistance are “undeserving” blacks content to live off the public teat. Never mind the fact that almost 60 percent of food-stamp recipients are children and the elderly – people who can't be expected to “demand paychecks” – or that only 8 percent of beneficiaries receive welfare. Never mind that whites make up the largest share of food-stamp households. In the right-populist view, lazy people of color are living high on the hog on an average benefit of $287 per month.

While he heaps scorn on those families that require some nutritional assistance during the worst economy America has seen for 70 years, warning that we are fast becoming an “entitlement society,” Newt's other big selling-point is his promise to bring Obama down to size in a series of unmoderated “Lincoln-Douglas-style” debates. It's a pitch that taps directly into the Right's sense of being talked down to by liberals – specifically, by a smartypants president with a degree from Harvard Law School. The GOP base wants nothing more than to see the elitist food-stamp president humbled intellectually – it lies at the heart of their bizarre obsession with the fact that he uses a teleprompter like every other pol -- and Gingrich is offering them an opportunity to do it vicariously through his bulldog campaign.

Conservatives have come to believe that their grievances are universally held by the American people. One of the most interesting tidbits from the South Carolina exit polls is that among those voters who said that the ability to defeat Obama in November was the most important characteristic in a candidate, Gingrich won by 14 points. That, despite the fact that Obama is leading Romney by less than two points in head-to-head polling but crushing Gingrich by 11 percentage points.

Ultimately, if Newt Gingrich does manage to claw his way to the nomination on the back of grievance politics, it could swing the election decisively to Obama. A poll released January 17 (PDF) found that Gingrich had a net positive favorability rating of 5 points among Republicans, but Americans as a whole view him unfavorably by a whopping 60-26 point margin.

MY TAKE:

My cousin in Miami , Steve thinks MITT "the Moreman" ( AKA uber 1%er) has it wrapped up already because of the early voting in Fla. I disagree, the northern part of the State doesn't vote early or at all most of the time, but this time these good ole' boys and girls will be lining up in their pick ups ( shot gun in the back window and confederate flag decal on the bumper) to vote for NEWTIE in mass. Newtie speaks their lingo, not MITT's elitist New England cant. Newt has been blowing the racial dog whistle loud and clear, signaling the KKK in every one of these losers. This article hits the nail on the head when describing the Faux populism of the tea party right these days. Simplified it's this "those fucking Jew bastard Wall st. bankers and the N-GGER welfare queens are crushing us." These pecker woods have had this line of crap drilled into them for over a 140 yrs., so its easy to raise the specter of racism and antisemitism in the south, because it's only an inch beneath its red blood soaked soil. Like Germany in the early 30's, elements of the South are like a time bomb these days ready to explode against those creatures ( they're not seen as people) they hate and resent. Newt is tapping into this dark energy to win and he just might.

_______

GingRICH wins in SO. CAROLINA !

2012-01-24T14:36:00.000-05:00

Gingrich Wins in the "Sahara of the Bozart"

Walter C. Uhler

Article ToolsE-mailPrintComments (3)

0digg

Newt Gingrich

by Walter C. Uhler | January 24, 2012 - 11:16am

Racism is alive and well in the Republican Party of South Carolina. You saw it up close and personal if you watched the recent presidential debates in that state and heard symbolic racists in the audience cheer Newt Gingrich every time he offered up the newest racial code words.

Code words are required in the Sahara of the Bozart because ugly overt racism needed to be replaced and has been replaced by what scholars call "symbolic racism"- "a coherent set of beliefs including the sense that discrimination is no longer an obstacle for blacks, that their current lack of upward social mobility is caused by their unwillingness to work hard, that they demand too much of government, and that they have received more than they deserve." [Vincent L. Hutchings and Nicholas A. Valentino, "The Centrality of Race in American Politics," Annual Review of Political Science 2004. 7:p. 390]

Code words took over, because, as Republican political operative Lee Atwater once put it: "You start out in 1954 by saying 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites." [Bob Herbert, "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant," New York Times, Oct. 6, 2005]

Thus, South Carolina's symbolic racists can now applaud Newt when he calls President Obama "the food stamp president," - notwithstanding the fact that non-Hispanic whites far outnumber blacks as food stamp recipients - just as they applaud his recommendation that "black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps."

No wonder. Few symbolic racists possess the education to know, let alone consider, that a study of over 100,000 businesses across America found that nearly 1.2 million instances of overt job discrimination against blacks, Latinos and Asian-Americans occur every year. They do not know, let alone consider, that "a white man with a criminal record is more likely to be called back for a job interview than a black man without one, even when their credentials are the same." [Tim Wise, Dear White America, pp. 30-31] But, how better to rebut the despicably empty claims of reverse discrimination, than by introducing such inconvenient facts?

Beyond those facts, there's the long troubling history of how "lazy" southern whites have employed blacks during the past four centuries. (As Stephen Innes has written, in Creating the Commonwealth, "Where there was a landed aristocracy based on slavery, as in Brazil or the ante-bellum American South, an anti-work ethic ideology became common." p. 187]

Thus, after stealing land from Native Americans and forcing slaves to work that land for them for some 250 years, lazy but predatory white folk produced children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who recovered from the ass-whipping they suffered at the hands of Yankee soldiers - and the 400,000 acres of South Carolina land given to former slaves by General William Tecumseh Sherman in 1865 -- to impose Jim Crow laws "essentially intended to criminalize black life" [Blackmon, p. 53] across the south.

Good Christian white folk - like the ones who previously justified slavery -- employed extrajudicial means, especially lynching, to "terrorize" African-Americans. South Carolina was probably the most egregiously racist of all the big lynching states - all southern - in the country. Although its good folks only lynched 156 African-Americans during the period 1882-1968, while Mississippi - its closest competitor for most egregiously racist - lynched 539, Georgia 492, Texas 352, Louisiana 335, and Alabama 299; South Carolina lynched only 4 whites, or less than 3 percent of the African-Americans lynched there. Even the fine white folk in Georgia, Newt Gingrich's home state, had the extrajudicial decency to lynch at last 7 percent as many whites as African-Americans.

During most of those lynching years (in fact, up until World War II) southern states re-enslaved African-Americans through the establishment of American gulags (labor camps) that were systematically populated with terrorized African-Americans, who had been arbitrarily arrested, convicted, fined and then jailed for failure to pay the fine and sundry fees associated with the adjudication of their arrest. Once securely in jail, small town sheriffs and governing officials leased them out to farmers and business owners until they worked off their fees and fines. Thousands died under the unsanitary and harsh work regimes imposed by good old white farmers and businessmen.

The crime of choice trumped up by these small town white racketeers was "vagrancy," a crime that curiously and coincidently touched few of the down and out white folk roaming the south. (As Douglas A. Blackmon has written in, Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War, "After white South Carolinians led by Democrat Wade Hampton violently ousted the last black government of the state in 1877, the legislature promptly passed a law for the sale of the state's four hundred black and thirty white prisoners." (p. 55))

In all, predatory white southerners exploited African-American slave labor for some 250 years and African-American gulag labor for another 70 years. Is that what the members of the Tea Party have in mind, when they talk about "taking our country back?"

Thus, I'm always amused when I hear Southerners like Gingrich recommend that blacks should demand jobs. But, seriously, do such Southerners even deserve the right to speak about the subject?

The spectacle of symbolic racism on display during the presidential debates in South Carolina brought to mind an article written in 1917 by the great journalist and thinker, H. L. Mencken. Titled, "The Sahara of the Bozart," Mencken argued that the Civil War had killed off most of the best men that the South had to offer to American civilization. The "white trash" that, generation after generation, reproduced itself would have been bad enough for the region, but their preoccupation with race, their need to keep the African-American down - which he called "the cornerstone of all their public thinking" -- virtually guaranteed that they would be unable restore the civilization they enjoyed during the lives of Washington and Jefferson.

Thus, wrote Mencken, "for all its size and all of its wealth and all the 'progress' it babbles of, it is almost as sterile, artistically, intellectually, culturally, as the Sahara Desert."

Now, I'd never go so far as to say that Mencken's description accurately captures southern life in its entirety. The South has its fair share of artists, intellectuals and cultural centers. But it certainly captured the life of those Republicans in South Carolina who applauded the symbolic racism of Newt Gingrich a week ago.
_______

MY TAKE:

I'm not surprised that NEWT won in So. Carolina and will also win in Fla. Both these southern states are filled to over flowing with ignorant rednecks and they're the nice people in those states. Fla. in particular next to So. Carolina has probably done more damage to this country then any other State. Just the disaster of the 2000 Nat'l election alone will take decades to recover from, if ever. Anyway, I hope NEWT ends up the candidate for the GOP this yr. he's the perfect candidate for that party, a disgraced serial adulterer and uber corrupt DC "insider." Mean as a junkyard dog and prone to bouts of extreme foot in the mouth disease, he'll hopefully pull down good chunks of the tea party infested rabble in Congress along with himself. In short Gingrich is a travesty and an utter disaster for the Rethuglikens this year and they certainly deserve someone like him.

CHEERING IN THE WH

They must be cheering in the WH these days as they watch the GOP tear itself to pieces this winter. Obama will be lucky if he gets either Newt or Mitt to run against, both by summer should be almost totally compromised. It's all Barry really has going for himself this year, because his last 3 yrs. have been a sour joke for most Americans. However, given the choice between an Ego maniac like Newt or a smug Vulture Capitalist and uber 1%er like Mitt it's my guess many Americans will hold their noses and pull the lever for Barry once again. Sadly.

WAR TENSIONS GROW !!

2012-01-23T11:53:00.003-05:00

Iran: Flotilla Of Warships Sent Through Strait of Hormuz Heightens Tensions

PA/The Huffington Post UK Paul Vale First Posted: 01/23/2012 6:20 am Updated: 01/23/2012 1:05 pm

The strait, a 34-mile-wide sea passage, connects the petroleum-producing Persian Gulf states to the ocean, making it a strategic choke point on the world's economy.

The EU gave preliminary approval to new sanctions against Iranian oil on Monday. On the table is a total ban on European purchases of Iranian oil - a sanction that would not just hit Iran but key EU buyers including Greece Italy and Spain.

Sanctions are already expected against Iran's central bank.

The full implementation of the sanctions would be delayed until 1 July, due to concerns about their impact on the European economy.

The UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands had been leading calls for nothing more than a three-month delay before the sanctions bite, but Greece, which fears its economic woes will worsen if it cannot find alternative suppliers at Iran-style preferential rates - has urged a much longer phase-in to ease the pain.

The embargo is yet to be formally approved by the EU nations' foreign ministers, who are meeting in Brussels.

In response to the expected sanctions the Iranians have threatened to close the strait - through which 35% of the world's tanker-borne oil exports pass - in retaliation.

It came as Foreign Secretary William Hague urged Iran to "come to its senses" and resumenegotiations on its nuclear programme.

Any bid by Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, through which 20% of the world's oil exports pass would be "illegal" and "unsuccessful", Hague warned.

The new sanctions follow the stepping up of economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran last month, targeting members of the ruling regime and associates who are subject to visa bans in Europe and the freezing of assets.

But today's ramping up of measures reflects concern that Iran is developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a nuclear energy programme.

Hague commented: "These (sanctions) are peaceful and legitimate measures. They are not about conflict.

"I hope Iran will come to its senses on this issue and agree to negotiate."

EU governments are calculating that the loss of European oil markets will persuade Iran to reopen talks on its nuclear plans.

On Monday, a MoD spokesman confirmed that "HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a U.S. carrier group transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law."

The six-strong flotilla was led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with up to 90 warplanes on board.

It reportedly passed through the Strait of Hormuz without incident.

The Abraham Lincoln is the first American carrier to enter the Gulf since the end of last year.

It replaced another carrier, the USS John C Stennis, in a routine ship rotation.

The departure of the USS John C Stennis had prompted the head of the Iranian armed forces, General Ataollah Salehi, to warn the Americans not to send any more carriers to the region.

"We don't have any intention of repeating our warning and we warn only once," he said.

The MoD spokesman said that Britain maintained "a constant presence in the region as part of our enduring contribution to Gulf security".

Royal Navy warships have been patrolling there continuously since the 1980s.

MY TAKE:

As always it's all about OIL and when you add the trillions we spend and the thousand of young lives lost defending the $ of a few thousand 1%ers that own the OIL, it's a really raw deal for the rest of us. Instead of converting to alternative energy sources to free ourselves from these situations the Gov't and the OILY Corps. would rather ride herd over a region that is hostile and volatile. Is this anyway to run an economy or a country? This whole game is gettin old folks.

SCIENCE FRI: - LA NINA NOW @ IT'S PEAK !

2012-01-20T14:48:00.000-05:00

NASA Sees Repeating La Niña Hitting Its Peak

ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2012) — La Niña, "the diva of drought," is peaking, increasing the odds that the Pacific Northwest will have more stormy weather this winter and spring, while the southwestern and southern United States will be dry.

See Also:

Earth & Climate

Reference

Sea surface height data from NASA's Jason-1 and -2 satellites show that the milder repeat of last year's strong La Niña has recently intensified, as seen in the latest Jason-2 image of the Pacific Ocean.

The image is based on the average of 10 days of data centered on Jan. 8, 2012. It depicts places where the Pacific sea surface height is higher than normal (due to warm water) as yellow and red, while places where the sea surface is lower than normal (due to cool water) are shown in blues and purples. Green indicates near-normal conditions. The height of the sea surface over a given area is an indicator of ocean temperature and other factors that influence climate.

This is the second consecutive year that the Jason altimetric satellites have measured lower-than-normal sea surface heights in the equatorial Pacific and unusually high sea surface heights in the western Pacific.

"Conditions are ripe for a stormy, wet winter in the Pacific Northwest and a dry, relatively rainless winter in Southern California, the Southwest and the southern tier of the United States," says climatologist Bill Patzert of JPL. "After more than a decade of mostly dry years on the Colorado River watershed and in the American Southwest, and only two normal rain years in the past six years in Southern California, low water supplies are lurking. This La Niña could deepen the drought in the already parched Southwest and could also worsen conditions that have fueled recent deadly wildfires."

NASA will continue to monitor this latest La Niña to see whether it has reached its expected winter peak or continues to strengthen.

A repeat of La Niña ocean conditions from one year to the next is not uncommon: repeating La Niñas occurred most recently in 1973-74-75, 1998-99-2000 and in 2007-08-09. Repeating La Niñas most often follow an El Niño episode and are essentially the opposite of El Niño conditions. During a La Niña episode, trade winds are stronger than normal, and the cold water that normally exists along the coast of South America extends to the central equatorial Pacific.

La Niña episodes change global weather patterns and are associated with less moisture in the air over cooler ocean waters. This results in less rain along the coasts of North and South America and along the equator, and more rain in the far Western Pacific.

The comings and goings of El Niño and La Niña are part of a long-term, evolving state of global climate, for which measurements of sea surface height are a key indicator. Jason-1 is a joint effort between NASA and the French Space Agency, Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES). Jason-2 is a joint effort between NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, CNES and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). JPL manages the U.S. portion of both missions for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C.

For more on how La Niña and other climate phenomena are affecting weather in the United States this year, see:http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/17jan_missingsnow/ .

For more information on NASA's ocean surface topography missions, visit: http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov .

Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:

|More

Story Source:

The latest image of sea surface heights in the Pacific Ocean from NASA's Jason-2 satellite shows that the current La Niña is peaking in intensity. Yellows and reds indicate areas where sea surface height is higher than normal (due to warm water), while blues and purples depict areas where sea surface height is lower than normal (due to cool water). Green indicates near-normal conditions. (Credit: NASA/JPL Ocean Surface Topography Team)

AMAZING!!!

2012-01-18T17:30:00.000-05:00

LAND OF THE FREE?

2012-01-17T00:07:00.001-05:00

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free

Published 1, January 15, 2012 Academics , Columns , Congress , Constitutional Law ,Free Speech , International , Media , Politics , Society , Supreme Court187 Comments

Below is today’s column in the Sunday Washington Post. The column addresses how the continued rollbacks on civil liberties in the United States conflicts with the view of the country as the land of the free. If we are going to adopt Chinese legal principles, we should at least have the integrity to adopt one Chinese proverb: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.” We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies. Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were.

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”

And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Washington Post (Sunday) January 15, 2012

ANSWERING THE CALL

2012-01-16T00:39:00.000-05:00

December 15, 2010 1:44 PM

Volunteer Firefighters: Answering the Call

By: CBSNews

(CBS) The many volunteers who protect our lives and communities all year long deserve our heartfelt thanks this weekend. That's the way it is with these volunteers, of whom our Peter Greenberg is one. Here he is with their story:

It happens every 23 seconds . . . somewhere in this country firefighters are responding to a call.

And what you probably don't know is that three-quarters of them are volunteers, taking their lives in their hands - and sometimes paying the ultimate price . . .

Every October, thousands converge on northern Maryland town of Emmitsburg, at the National Fire Academy, to pay tribute to these men and women who've lost their lives in the line of duty.

This year 105 firefighters were recognized, and 43 were volunteers.

Volunteers like Steven Koeser. His friends and family called him "Peanut"…

"One way to describe him, he had a heart of gold," said Kelly Walesh. She met Koeser seven years ago. Not long afterward, they became a couple . . .

"He was a jack of all trades," she said, who loved his daughter.

So, a few weeks ago, Walesh traveled from the village of St. Anna in central Wisconsin to remember, AND honor, the father of their daughter, Lexus.

It happened last December. Koeser, a 15-year veteran volunteer, responded to a call . . . a dumpster fire at a metal foundry.

The dumpster exploded, injuring eight and killing Steven Koeser.

Kelly "freaked out." The first thing in her mind, she said, was their daughter.

At first, four-year-old Lexus didn't quite understand.

"She'd say once in a while, 'When's Daddy coming home?' And I said, 'He's not,'" Kelly recalled. "And after a couple months she started asking questions about what happened, and [I] answered them honestly and I think she understands now."

"I do," Lexus said.

Towns across the country rely on volunteers like Steven Koeser to respond when the call comes in. In Wisconsin alone, of the state's 870 fire departments, some 800 are volunteer.

In the town of La Farge (population 775), just about anyone can join.

Chief Philip Stittleburg is an attorney and retired criminal prosecutor. Dave Sarnowski is a retired schoolteacher. Reggie Nelson works for Verizon Telephone.

The department's budget is just $35,000 a year.

Nationwide, it's estimated that volunteers save communities $37 billion a year in labor costs.

"In addition to providing coverage for the village, we provide coverage to all parts of seven surrounding townships, too," said Stittleburg. "So we've got a coverage area of 135 square miles."

"They're the backbone of our rescue system across the United States," said Jamie Smith, director of the Museum of Firefighting in Hudson, N.Y. "I mean, what would we do without them?"

Smith says the very first volunteer fire brigades in America were organized by Peter Stuyvesant, Governor of the Dutch settlement of New Netherland.

"He did a lot for fire prevention safety," she said. "He appointed fire wardens to go around and examine chimneys - and, if they were not clean, to fine those people."

The museum's collection chronicles the legacy of volunteer firefighting in America . . .

"It's part of our culture," said Smith. "They've just always been there, and then they're taken for granted and no one thinks twice about it."

But NOT in towns like La Farge. Here, volunteers aren't just part of the fabric of the community . . . they are the community.

So when they respond to a call, there's a 100-percent chance that the person in need will be either a neighbor, a friend, or someone even closer.

As tough as it can be sometimes, helping your neighbor in their hour of need is what volunteer fire fighting is all about.

Payday, says Chief Stittleburg, is "Thank you."

"When the person comes up, and shakes your hand and says, 'Thank you for saving my house.' 'Thank you for cutting my child out of that crashed vehicle.' 'Thank you for saving everything in the world that's important to me.' That's payday."

VOLUNTEER & Paid Fire fighters

Most Fire fighters in this country 71% are Volunteers and largely unpaid. These men and woman put there lives on the line for little or nothing but the satisfaction of serving their communities. Read this article for a better understanding of just how important they are in our society and many others. Does this diminish the job our paid Fire fighters do? Not at all, but I think it's time that in this ongoing debate locally that we honor the fact that plenty if not most of our fire fighters in this country do this job for little beyond a thank you and they don't always even get that. As to whether or not in the future our communities decide on mixing these two modes of operation should be the decision of the whole community. An open debate about the benefits and drawbacks of the different approaches should be thoroughly aired and examined. All of this has to be put in context with the changing nature of the Downbeach communities and the the public's needs going forward. The costs of operating are just one factor in this debate, but every factor should be weighed.

BEACH REPORT:

2012-01-14T14:09:00.000-05:00

THE FIRE

Over the course of the last two years there has been a lot of controversy in both Margate and Ventnor concerning their Fire Depts. In Margate it's mainly concerned the living Qtrs. for the town's full time Fire squad and in Ventnor of late over the idea of using a Volunteer Fire dept. instead of a Full time dept. as in Margate and AC. One of the KEY elements however in all of this discussion has been the idea of RESPONSE time in a suburban environment. This is the time it takes for a fire team to get from it's stations to a reported fire or possible fire. In the middle of all of this however a tragic and deadly fire has occurred in Margate not even a mile from the main Fire station and at night. Interestingly, but not surprisingly this fire went unreported it's thought at this time for over an hour before Margate, Ventnor and even one offshore Fire Dept. was called to the scene. Unfortunately, by that time both of the elderly inhabitants had perished. So, what happened? Why did this happen? We'll know more of the facts as the investigation of this event goes forward, but we do know this, RESPONSE time is some what meaningless isn't it, if nobody reports the fire? Or is it?

DENSITY

One of the reasons given for maintaining full time fire fighting teams in Margate and Ventnor is the density of the housing in both towns and particularly in Ventnor where for most of the town housing lots are packed very closely together. In Margate lots are bigger and this was evident in the recent fire that reportedly burned for an hour and never threatened the neighboring homes, or at least at this juncture nobody is saying it did. So, why did nobody report the fire?

DOWNBEACH & ITS PART-TIME RESIDENTS

Maybe one of the reasons ( besides the late hr.) the tragic recent Margate fire went unreported for at least an hr., is because at this time in Margate's history more then half of the homes are owned by people that are ONLY part-time residents and some areas of the town ( like the beach blocks) are virtually empty of people 8 mos. of the year. Let's remember in Longport where 90% of the population is absent 8 mos. of the yr. they have a Vol. Fire force. Now what does all of this mean? Does such a fire negate the idea that RESPONSE time is as big a deal as the local fire authorities say it is? Maybe, and maybe not? It certainly points to some interesting questions about this and related topics going forward.

REMOTE SENSING NEEDED ?

Nowadays almost every structure has smoke detectors and some commercial and residential homes and businesses have elaborate fire sprinkler systems with very sophisticated smoke and fire systems that are tied directly to the Fire stations. When I had my business years ago, we had just such a system and it worked very well and even on one occasion IMO saved the building when a fire started in an external doorway sign and spread into the building. However, such systems are very expensive and only cover a small no. of the structures in any given town. Maybe, what's needed is some kind of more diffuse sensing system for wide areas of towns where large segments of the population aren't around? I can see in the future the possibility of fires in Longport burning unreported and in Margate and Ventnor's beach blocks. But, that leads to another question, which is is that really so important? If these areas are devoid of people and ONLY buildings are threatened then why do we need full-time fire teams for those areas? Couldn't we use combined teams or a mix of Vol. and full teams for Margate and Ventnor?

LONGPORT - Property Vs. People

Longport's situation certainly points to such a solution going forward. Longport with a tiny yr. round population and fairly dense zoning hasn't ever seen the need for a full time force and my guess is precisely because so few people are at risk if a fire does burn unreported in most of the town. The same thing is true for areas where houses stand on acre lots or larger offshore. I doubt that in the next 20 yrs. the numbers of full time residents will increase in any of these towns. Atlantic City's full time population as an example, peaked in the early 1930's and today is half of what it was back then. Yet, I bet AC has twice as many Police and Fire fighters today as it had back then and these people are being paid fairly hefty amounts of $$ when you add up all their pay and benefits. Is this necessary today with steadily declining full time populations? Again, maybe and maybe not. I do know this as we go forward in time these questions will continue to surface if the population, tax and employment dynamics of this Island stay the same. Anyway it will be for the rest of the full time voting residents to decide the answers and solutions going forward.

SCIENCE FRI: - ANIMAL BEHAVIOR & CLIMATE CHANGE

2012-01-13T22:18:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Blog Cite

Save Email Print Share

Wandering Albatross Alters Its Foraging Due to Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2012) — Paris/ Leipzig. Wandering albatrosses have altered their foraging due to changes in wind fields in the southern hemisphere during the last decades. Since winds have increased in intensity and moved to the south, the flight speed of albatrosses increased and they spend less time foraging. As a consequence, breeding success has improved and birds have gained 1 kilogram. These are the results of the study of an international research team published in the latest issue of the Science journal. However, these positive consequences of climate change may last short if future wind fields follow predictions of climate change scenarios, researchers warn.

See Also:

Plants & Animals

Earth & Climate

Reference

For this study, biologists had combined data on the duration of foraging trips and breeding success over the last 40 years, as well as foraging and body mass over the last 20 years of wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) breeding in Crozet Islands. This archipelago lies approximately in the heart of the southern Indian Ocean (halfway between Madagascar and Antarctica). It belongs to the French Southern Territories and it is located in the windiest part of the Southern Ocean. The new findings are the result of an international research team from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS-CEBC) and the German Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).

Thanks to miniaturised tracking devices, researchers were able to track the foraging movement of albatrosses at a distance of 3500 kilometers from the colony. They found that albatross have altered their search patterns following changes in wind conditions over the past two decades. Females used increasingly more poleward and windy areas for foraging. As a consequence their travel speed increased while the total distance covered during foraging flights did not change. "This means that they spend less time at sea while incubating the egg and thus the breeding success increases" explains Dr. Henri Weimerskirch of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS-CEBC). Researchers were surprised that both females and males have increased their body mass in one kilogram, which corresponds approximately to one tenth of their total body weight. This could be not only a result of shorter incubation periods on the nest, but also an adaptation to windier conditions.

"The wandering albatross Crozet population has decreased as a result of adult mortality on longline fishing in subtropical waters, especially females since they favour warmer subtropical waters in the north compared to the more southerly distribution of males" says Dr. Maite Louzao Arsuaga, who has been modelling albatross movement from 2009 to 2011 at the UFZ. "Due to the changing wind conditions, females are now foraging in more southward areas where such fishing is not that widespread." However, the positive effects of changing environmental conditions of the last decades will not last in the future. Climate scenarios predict that westerly winds will move even further south by 2080 and wandering albatrosses might have to fly further to find optimal conditions for flying.

The total population of the wandering albatross is currently estimated at around 8,000 breeding pairs. All populations have shown a decrease at some stage over the last 25 years. This endangered species is threatened primarily by incidental catch in fisheries, especially longline fishing at sea, whereas the introduction of alien species (such as rats or cats) are a key conservation threat for the species on breeding colonies. Additionally, the accumulation of anthropogenic debris such as plastic and fishing hooks on albatrosses have negative effects on their populations. Thus, it is important to continue with monitoring programs of population trends and distribution at sea, as well as to undertake effective conservation measures. The foraging habitat of wandering albatrosses is managed by more than one Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, which makes it difficult to implement conservation measures for the species.

The wandering albatross has fascinated people for centuries. With a wingspan of over three meters and a half, it is the largest seabird in the world, surpassing just the Andean condor (Vultur fulvus). This elegant sailor, which spends most of its life flying, breeds on remote subantarctic islands over the Southern Ocean. They travel thousand of kilometers searching for fish and cephalopods like squids, often following ships and feeding on offal. The plumage of wandering albatrosses is variable, whitening with age. The maximum known age is 55 years old. Since the rearing of chicks takes a whole year, they breed only every second year

Apart from the study published in the latest Science issue, the research team has identified the key marine areas for the conservation of wandering albatrosses in the southern Indian Ocean published in 2011 in the Journal of Applied Ecology. This study provided the first map to support the future development of a network of priority protected areas in the southern part of the Indian Ocean, which are based on habitat predictions. "Because the species has no natural enemies and is at the top of the food web, it is particularly well suited as an indicator of the health of marine ecosystems," says Dr. Thorsten Wiegand from the UFZ, who supervised the work of Dr. Maite Louzao. "This could help not only a single species, but the underlying biodiversity associated with pelagic key habitats to protect Southern Ocean. Moreover, we have developed methods of habitat modelling broadly applicable and can be used to assess changes in species distribution within the current global change scenario."

2012-01-08T09:53:00.001-05:00

MY TAKE:

Great weather news! The present pattern is being caused by a strong La Nina in the Pacific this year and is being forecast to extend to the spring! I'll take this as our winter! Golf anyone?

Article:

La Niña to Continue Into Spring

OurAmazingPlanet Staff

Date: 05 January 2012 Time: 06:03 PM ET

During December 2011, below-average sea surface temperatures (SST) associated with La Niña continued across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean.
CREDIT: NOAA/CPC

View full size image

The weather system La Niña is expected to outlast the winter, government scientists said today, which means the already parched South could stay dry well into the spring.

La Niña is a naturally occurring climate phenomenon located over the tropical Pacific Ocean which results from interactions between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. During La Niña, cooler-than-average Pacific Ocean temperatures influence global weather patterns.

A persistent La Niña dominated climate patterns in late 2010 and early 2011. La Niña was blamed for everything from a record-breaking tornado season to spring flooding. After dying down over the summer, La Niña re-emerged in the tropical Pacific Ocean in late summer 2011 and gradually strengthened as winter began.

A majority of climate models now predict a weak or moderate-strength La Niña to peak between December and February. La Niña should then continue into early spring before dissipating between March and May, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center.

During January to March 2012, there is an increased chance of above-average temperatures across the south-central and southeastern United States, and below-average temperatures over the western and the northwest-central United States. Also, above-average precipitation is favored across most of the northern states and in the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys, and drier-than-average conditions are more likely across the southern United States.

According to climate and weather experts, 2011's record-breaking number of billion-dollar weather disasters was caused by a combination of factors, including La Niña, local atmospheric patterns and potentially climate change — though the importance of climate in any individual weather scenario is still nearly impossible to put an exact number on.

This story was provided by OurAmazingPlanet, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow OurAmazingPlanet for the latest in Earth science and exploration news on Twitter @OAPlanet and on Facebook.

MORE OFF THE GRID SOLAR -Solar Panels Made From Weeds Create Cheap Energy

2012-01-05T09:30:00.000-05:00

MY TAKE:

Another interesting article about the coming revolution in cheap solar energy. The problem with Solar has always been it's cost relative to existing methods of producing electricity, which is the life blood of modern civilization. Of course the problems associated with hydrocarbon based methods of producing electricity , especially coal and oil are that they're all extremely toxic to human life and the planet. If you add into their cost of production the health and environmental damage bill they cost society, wouldn't seem so cheap . Then if you subtract the huge tax incentives and Gov't subsidizes these methods of producing energy now enjoy and add these costs to their production costs the price of electricity and transportation would almost immediately sky rocket.

Solar's day for off grid production is coming soon and is already here for the well to do. The challenge for the market and for Gov'ts and society in general is to continue to bring down the costs and then figure out ways to distribute these systems to the billions of poor folks living off-grid. The article below makes a lot of very good pts. in regards to how and why this should be a goal of planet wide society.

Solar Panels Made From Weeds Create Cheap Energy

by Beth Buczynski
December 30, 2011
10:01 am

78 comments

A scientist at Wake Forest University has found a way to replace expensive elements of solar panels with berries from the common pokeweed. Success on a commercial scale could be the key to supplying cheap, renewable energy to the developing world.

As people continue to realize the dirty and finite nature of fossil fuels, the quest for affordable-yet-renewable energy has picked up speed. The need for reliable sources of clean electricity is especially acute in the developing world, where coal and natural gas plants are springing up at an alarming rate.

Solar power presents a unique opportunity for impoverished nations to leap-frog the fossil fuel era, skipping decades of pollution, and allowing them to establish the smarter grid that so many developed countries are struggling to implement. There’s just one problem: solar technologies are still just too costly to utilize on a large scale.

While brainstorming ways to overcome this roadblock, David Carroll, director of the Center for Nanotechnology and Molecular Materials at Wake Forest, was inspired by the flashy red berries of the pokeweed growing near his house.

Carroll and his team realized that natural dyes from plants rich in compounds called flavonoids can produce electrical current when sandwiched between the layers of a solar cell, in the spot where silicon would normally go. Pokeweed is a hardy plant that produces dark red berries that are not traditionally eaten.

To test its conductivity, the team smashed up the raw pokeberries and painted the purple juice on a transparent conductor, a piece of glass or plastic with an aluminum zinc oxide coating. That was sandwiched against a second plate covered with a very thin metal coating with a dilute solution of iodine between and placed in the sun.

Carroll and the students soon saw the results: poke power. They produced their first test pieces last summer.”A large panel of this stuff, a couple of meters on each side, could produce 5 to 10 watts pretty easily. That’s going to charge a battery up pretty fast,” Carroll said.To be sure, that’s a very low-power solar panel – creating enough power to run a small light bulb through the night, perhaps. But that low efficiency is just the point, Carroll said.

In many developing countries, work, study, and play time is dictated by the availability of light. Often remote villages depend on kerosene lamps to provide light after sundown, but these are dangerous and heavily pollute the air inside a home. With low-cost solar panels powered by pokeweed, families could enjoy clean electric light and perhaps enough power for a radio or cell phone that would drastically improve their quality of life.

SOLAR POWER OFF THE GRID!!

2012-01-04T15:29:00.000-05:00

Published on Wednesday, January 4, 2012 by Yale Environment 360

Solar Power Off the Grid: Energy Access for World’s Poor

by Carl Pope

After the Durban talks last month, climate realists must face the reality that “shared sacrifice,” however necessary eventually, has proven a catastrophically bad starting point for global collaboration. Nations have already spent decades debating who was going to give up how much first in exchange for what. So we need to seek opportunities — arenas where there are advantages, not penalties, for those who first take action — both to achieve first-round emission reductions and to build trust and cooperation.(Photo Credit: Abbie Trayler-Smith for DFID and hiyori13)

One of the major opportunities lies in providing energy access for the more than 1.2 billion people who don’t have electricity, most of whom, in business-as-usual scenarios, still won’t have it in 2030. These are the poorest people on the planet. Ironically, the world’s poorest can best afford the most sophisticated lighting — off-grid combinations of solar panels, power electronics, and LED lights. And this creates an opportunity for which the economics are compelling, the moral urgency profound, the development benefits enormous, and the potential leverage game changing.

As the accompanying graphs show, the cost of coal and copper — the ingredients of conventional grid power — are soaring. Meanwhile, the cost of solar panels and LEDs, the ingredients of distributed renewable power, are racing down even faster.

If we want the poor to benefit from electricity we cannot wait for the grid, and we cannot rely on fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency, historically a grid-centric, establishment voice, admits that half of those without electricity today will never be wired. The government of India estimates that two-thirds of its non-electrified households need distributed power.

Fortunately, the historic barriers to getting distributed renewable power to scale in poor villages and neighborhoods are rapidly being dismantled by progress in technology, finance, and business models. Getting 1.2 billion people local solar power they can afford is within grasp — if we only think about the problem in a different way. In fact, the world can finish this job by 2020.

The poor already pay for light. They pay for kerosene and candles. And they pay a lot. The poorest fifth of the world pays one-fifth of the world’s lighting bill — but receives only .1 percent of the lighting benefits. Over a decade, the average poor family spends $1,800 on energy expenditures. Replacing kerosene with a vastly superior 40 Wp (Watts peak) home solar system would cost only $300 and provide them not only light, but access to cell-phone charging, fans, computers, and even televisions.

Kerosene costs 25 to 30 percent of a family’s income — globally that amounts to $36 billion a year. The poor do not use kerosene because it is cheap — they are kept poor in significant part because they must rely on expensive, dirty kerosene.

And the poor pay in other ways. A room lit by kerosene typically can have concentrations of pollution 10 times safe levels. About 1.5 million people, mostly women, die of this pollution every year, in addition to those who die from burns in fires.

So why do the poor use kerosene? Because they can buy a single day’s worth in a bottle, if that is all they can afford. For the poor, affordability has three dimensions: total cost, up-front price, and payment flexibility. Solar power comes in a panel that will give ten, or even 20, years of light and power — but the poor cannot afford a ten-year investment up front. And many cannot handle conventional finance plans, which require fixed payments regardless of their income that month.

Nor, for the record, do the electrified middle class pay for electricity up front. When I moved into my house in San Francisco, I did not get a bill for my share of the power plants and transmission grid that give me power each month. I pay as I go, based on how many kwh’s I use that month.

So lighting the lives of 1.2 billion people with off-grid renewable electricity requires three ingredients:

Capital to pay for solar or other renewable electrical generation for 400 million households that depend on kerosene;
Business models for those households to pay for the electricity they use, at the price it really costs, which is a lot less than kerosene;
Financing, public policy, and partnerships to create the supply chains and distribution networks capable of getting distributed electrical systems to every household that needs them. (These needs might require $6 billion in credits and loan guarantees.)

The money is on the table. It’s just on the wrong plates. Purchase and finance of solar power for 1.2 billion people would cost about $10 billion a year over a decade. The 11 countries with the largest number of households without electricity spent $80 billion each year subsidizing fossil fuel — only 17 percent of which benefits the poor. In 2010, the World Bank spent $8 billion on coal-fired power plants, few of which provided meaningful energy access to the poor. The UN’s Clean Development Mechanism is proposing to give $4 billion a year to anything-but-clean coal-plants. So there is already far more capital in the system than is needed.

Even five years ago the business models did not exist to enable the poor to afford solar. Solar was much more expensive. The only alternative to buying a solar system with cash was a bank or micro-credit loan for which most of the poor could not qualify.

But the combination of dirt-cheap solar, the cell-phone revolution, and mobile phone banking has changed everything. There are almost 600 million cell-phone customers without electricity — using their phones very little, still spending $10 billion to charge them in town. There are hundreds of thousands of rural, off-grid cell towers powered by diesel — at a price of about $0.70/kilowatt hour. All over the world cell-phone towers are being converted from diesel to hybrid renewable power sources. So cell phone companies have a powerful motivation to get renewable power into rural areas, to get electricity to their customers, and to charge for electricity through their mobile phone payment systems.

At least three commercial models have been launched in the last several months. India’sSimpa Networks — in partnership with SELCO in India and DT-Power in Ghana, India and Kenya — are testing models in which solar distributors can allow customers to pay for electricity through mobile banking “pay as you go” plans. Zimbabwe’s Econet Power has launched an even more intriguing model, in which it provides its cell-phone customers with solar power as a customer benefit, charging them only $1 week to use a home solar system provided by Econet, with the bills tied to the customer’s cell phone account.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has proclaimed 2012 the Year of Universal Energy Access. His initiative is keyed not to the UN climate talks, but to the Rio +20 Earth Summittalks scheduled for June.

Imagine that at Rio, instead of embracing business-as-usual solutions to energy access, the world decided to empower the poor with the electricity they can truly afford — distributed solar?

What would the benefits be? In carbon terms alone, kerosene for lighting emits almost as much greenhouse-gas pollution as the entire British economy. 1.5 million lives a year would be saved from respiratory ailments. The available income for the world’s poorest fifth would be increased by 25 to 30 percent — a pretty big development bang-for-the-buck. Numerous studies have shown that providing basic energy access increases household income by 50 percent or more by providing more time and opportunities for home-based income generation.

Carl Pope is the chairman of the Sierra Club.

ANTI-ISRAEL/ ANTISEMITISM from the Left

2012-01-03T19:51:00.000-05:00

MY TAKE:
Of late a growing concern of mine is the intense antisemitism I've been experiencing when making comments in the defense of Israel and of late Jews specifically, at left wing websites, I've been frequenting for many years.. At first, I thought it was just a minor thing and tried to slough it off as an aberration. Unfortunately, I've come to realize that it's not a minor segment of the left, nor is it aberrational. The truth, sadly for me as a JEW is that segments of the left are deeply infected with a particularly ugly strain of this sickness and it worry's me. To a large extent it hides behind what it calls being anti-zionist, but the more and more I look at the statements of people claiming that they aren't anti-semites but "anti-Zionist," the more I realize there is precious little space between the two positions. So, I've decided to speak out against this ugly stain on the Progressive side of the political sphere today. I do this without renouncing my own Progressive beliefs , but aiming specifically at those on the left who seem to exist in a totally one-sided fact free zone when it comes to the whole issue of Israel even existing and Jews in general as a people. This re-printed post , which is admittedly a few yrs. old makes some very good pts. about this issue. Take the time to read it.

Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitism from the Left

A Zionist HuffPoster linked to this article and it was so awesome I had to post it here. It's a couple years old, but still extremely relevant.

Why do so many intelligent people, when talking about Israel, suddenly become idiots?

This speech was given December 16, 2009 at the Conference in the Global forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem. Pilar Rahola is a Spanish Catalan journalist, writer, and former politician and Member of Parliament, and member of the far left.

A meeting in Barcelona with a hundred lawyers and judges a month ago.
They have come together to hear my opinions on the Middle-Eastern conflict. They know that I am a heterodoxal vessel, in the shipwreck of “single thinking” regarding Israel, which rules in my country. They want to listen to me, because they ask themselves why, if Pilar is a serious journalist, does she risk losing her credibility by defending the bad guys, the guilty? I answer provocatively – You all believe that you are experts in international politics when you talk about Israel, but you really know nothing. Would you dare talk about the conflict in Rwanda, in Kashmir? In Chechnya? – No.

They are jurists, their turf is not geopolitics. But against Israel they dare, as does everybody else. Why? Because Israel is permanently under the media magnifying glass and the distorted image pollutes the world’s brains. And because it is part of what is politically correct, it seems part of solidarity, because talking against Israel is free. So cultured people, when they read about Israel, are ready to believe that Jews have six arms, in the same way that during the Middle Ages people believed all sorts of outrageous things.

The first question, then, is why so many intelligent people, when talking about Israel, suddenly become idiots. The problem that those of us who do not demonize Israel have, is that there exists no debate on the conflict.

All that exists is the banner; there’s no exchange of ideas. We throw slogans at each other; we don’t have serious information, we suffer from the “burger journalism” syndrome, full of prejudices, propaganda and simplification. Intellectual thinkers and international journalists have given up on Israel. It doesn't exist. That is why, when someone tries to go beyond the “single thought” of criticizing Israel, he becomes suspect and unfaithful, and is immediately segregated. Why?

I’ve been trying to answer this question for years: why?

Why, of all the conflicts in the world, only this one interests them?

Why is a tiny country which struggles to survive criminalized?

Why does manipulated information triumph so easily?

Why are all the people of Israel, reduced to a simple mass of murderous imperialists?
Why is there no Palestinian guilt?

Why is Arafat a hero and Sharon a monster?

Finally, why when Israel is the only country in the World which is threatened with extinction, it is also the only one that nobody considers a victim?

I don’t believe that there is a single answer to these questions. Just as it is impossible to completely explain the historical evil of anti-Semitism, it is also not possible to totally explain the present-day imbecility of anti-Israelism. Both drink from the fountain of intolerance and lies. Also, if we accept that anti-Israelism is the new form of anti-Semitism, we conclude that circumstances may have changed, but the deepest myths, both of the Medieval Christian anti-Semitism and of the modern political anti-Semitism, are still intact. Those myths are part of the chronicle of Israel.

For example, the Medieval Jew accused of killing Christian children to drink their blood connects directly with the Israeli Jew who kills Palestinian children to steal their land. Always they are innocent children and dark Jews. Similarly, the Jewish bankers who wanted to dominate the world through the European banks, according to the myth of the Protocols, connect directly with the idea that the Wall Street Jews want to dominate the World through the White House. Control of the Press, control of Finances, the Universal Conspiracy, all that which has created the historical hatred against the Jews, is found today in hatred of the Israelis. In the subconscious, then, beats the DNA of the Western anti-Semite, which produces an efficient cultural medium.

But what beats in the conscious? Why does a renewed intolerance surge with such virulence, centered now, not against the Jewish people, but against the Jewish state? From my point of view, this has historical and geopolitical motives, among others, the decades long bloody Soviet role, the European Anti-Americanism, the West’s energy dependency and the growing Islamist phenomenon.

But it also emerges from a set of defeats which we suffer as free societies, leading to a strong ethical relativism.

The moral defeat of the left. For decades, the left raised the flag of freedom wherever there was injustice. It was the depositary of the utopian hopes of society. It was the great builder of the future. Despite the murderous evil of Stalinism’s sinking these utopias, the left has preserved intact its aura of struggle, and still pretends to point out good and evil in the world. Even those who would never vote for leftist options, grant great prestige to leftist intellectuals, and allow them to be the ones who monopolize the concept of solidarity. As they have always done. Thus, those who struggled against Pinochet were freedom-fighters, but Castro’s victims, are expelled from the heroes’ paradise, and converted into undercover fascists.

This historic treason to freedom is reproduced nowadays, with mathematical precision. For example, the leaders of Hezbollah are considered resistance heroes, while pacifists like the Israeli singer Noa, are insulted in the streets of Barcelona. Today too, as yesterday, the left is hawking totalitarian ideologies, falls in love with dictators and, in its offensive against Israel, ignores the destruction of fundamental rights. It hates rabbis, but falls in love with imams; shouts against the Israeli Defense Forces, but applauds Hamas’s terrorists; weeps for the Palestinian victims, but scorns the Jewish victims, and when it is touched by Palestinian children, it does it only if it can blame the Israelis.

It will never denounce the culture of hatred, or its preparation for murder. A year ago, at the AIPAC conference in Washington I asked the following questions:

Why don’t we see demonstrations in Europe against the Islamic dictatorships?

Why are there no demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of Muslim women?

Why are there no declarations against the use of bomb-carrying children in the conflicts in which Islam is involved?

Why is the left only obsessed with fighting against two of the most solid democracies of the planet, those which have suffered the bloodiest terrorist attacks, the United States and Israel?

Because the left no longer has any ideas, only slogans. It no longer defends rights, but prejudices. And the greatest prejudice of all is the one aimed against Israel. I accuse, then, in a formal manner that the main responsibility for the new anti-Semitic hatred disguised as anti-Zionism, comes from those who should have been there to defend freedom, solidarity and progress. Far from it, they defend despots, forget their victims and remain silent before medieval ideologies which aim at the destruction of free societies. The treason of the left is an authentic treason against modernity.

Defeat of Journalism. We have more information in the world than ever before, but we do not have a better informed world. Quite the contrary, the information superhighway connects us anywhere in the planet, but it does not connect us with the truth. Today’s journalists do not need maps, since they have Google Earth, they do not need to know History, since they have Wikipedia. The historical journalists, who knew the roots of a conflict, still exist, but they are an endangered species, devoured by that “fast food” journalism which offers hamburger news, to readers who want fast-food information. Israel is the world’s most watched place, but despite that, it is the world’s least understood place. Of course one must keep in mind the pressure of the great petrodollar lobbies, whose influence upon journalism is subtle but deep. Mass media knows that if it speaks against Israel, it will have no problems. But what would happen if it criticized an Islamic country?

Without doubt, it would complicate its existence. Certainly part of the press that writes against Israel, would see themselves mirrored in Mark Twain’s ironical sentence: “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

Defeat of critical thinking. To all this one must add the ethical relativism which defines the present times: it is based not on denying the values of civilization, but rather in their most extreme banality. What is modernity?
I explain it with this little tale: If I were lost in an uncharted island, and would want to found a democratic society, I would only need three written documents: The Ten Commandments (which established the first code of modernity. "Thou shalt not murder" founded modern civilization.); The Roman Penal Code; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And with these three texts we would start again. These principles are relativized daily, even by those who claim to be defending them.

“Thou shalt not murder” ... depending on who is the target, must think those who, like the demonstrators in Europe, shouted in support of Hamas.

“Hurray for Freedom of Speech!”..., or not. For example, several Spanish left-wing organizations tried to take me to court, accusing me of being a negationist, like the Nazis, because I deny the “Palestinian Holocaust”. They were attempting to prohibit me from writing articles and to send me to prison. And so on... The social critical mass has lost weight and, at the same time ideological dogmatism has gained weight. In this double turn of events, the strong values of modernity have been substituted by a “weak thinking,” vulnerable to manipulation and Manichaeism.

Defeat of the United Nations. And with it, a sound defeat of the international organizations which should protect Human Rights. Instead they have become broken puppets in the hands of despots. The United Nations is only useful to Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad, or dangerous demagogues like Hugo Chavez which offers them a planetary loudspeaker where they can spit their hatred. And, of course, to systematically attack Israel. The UN, too exists to fight Israel.

Finally, defeat of Islam. Tolerant and cultural Islam suffers today the violent attack of a totalitarian virus which tries to stop its ethical development. This virus uses the name of God to perpetrate the most terrible horrors: lapidate women, enslave them, use youths as human bombs. Let’s not forget: They kill us with cellular phones connected to the Middle Ages. If Stalinism destroyed the left, and Nazism destroyed Europe, Islamic fundamentalism is destroying Islam. And it also has an anti-Semitic DNA. Perhaps Islamic anti-Semitism is the most serious intolerant phenomenon of our times; indeed, it contaminates more than 1,400 million people, who are educated, massively, in hatred towards the Jew.

In the crossroads of these defeats, is Israel. Orphan and forgotten by a reasonable left, orphan and abandoned by serious journalism, orphan and rejected by a decent UN, and rejected by a tolerant Islam, Israel suffers the paradigm of the 21st Century: the lack of a solid commitment with the values of liberty.

Nothing seems strange. Jewish culture represents, as no other does, the metaphor of a concept of civilization which suffers today attacks on all flanks. The Jews are the thermometer of the world’s health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered. In the Spanish Middle Ages, in Christian persecutions, in Russian pogroms, in European Fascism, in Islamic fundamentalism. Always, the first enemy of totalitarianism has been the Jew. And, in these times of energy dependency and social uncertainty, Israel embodies, in its own flesh, the eternal Jew.

A pariah nation among nations, for a pariah people among peoples. That is why the anti-Semitism of the 21st Century has dressed itself with the efficient disguise of anti-Israelism, or its synonym, anti-Zionism. Is all criticism of Israel anti-Semitism? NO. But all present-day anti-Semitism has turned into prejudice and the demonization of the Jewish State. New clothes for an old hatred.

Benjamin Franklin said: “Where liberty is, there is my country.” And Albert Einstein added: “The World is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” This is the double commitment, here and now; never remain inactive in front of evil in action and defend the countries of liberty.

Thank you.

MY PREDICTIONS FOR 2012 !!

2012-01-02T11:06:00.000-05:00

MY PREDICTIONS FOR 2012

1. The World will not end on Dec. 21st as some misguided folks believe the Mayan calendar predicts. It doesn't and it won't.

2. Obama will win a second term in a very close race.

3. REVEL will NOT expand the AC Casino Market. It will finish off a few already very weak Casinos and further weaken a few others. Over all it will be a bitter disappointment for AC.

4. The US will NOT go to War with IRAN even though the same crowd that sent us to War against Iraq will attempt every way possible to drive us there.

5. The US economy will expand this year, just enough to get Obama reelected.

MARGATE NEW YRS. POLAR BEAR PLUNGE!

2012-01-01T17:20:00.001-05:00

The warmest New Yrs.Polar bear plunge anyone can remember is what they're saying. Temps. on the beach were mid-50's with a 5 kt. Southerly blowing and the Ocean temp right around 50 degs. , which is extraordinary for this time of yr. It's just more of this warm fall and early winter weather we've been enjoying lately. After what we've been through the last couple yrs. it's ok by me. Anyway it was mobbed down by Margate Pier at noon , must have been over 5K people on the beach and a couple thousand took the plunge this yr. It seems to be getting bigger and bigger each yr.

2012!!!

2012-01-01T00:01:00.003-05:00

NEW FOR 2012 @ the Beach now has it's own Facebook page!!

http://www.facebook.com/groups/225054044236692/

GOOD-BYE 2011 !!

2011-12-31T14:18:00.000-05:00

SCIENCE FRI: - Gas heating vs. Oil heating

2011-12-30T17:43:00.000-05:00

EarthTalk | Energy & Sustainability

Oil vs. Natural Gas for Home Heating: Which Costs More?
December 30, 2011 | 8
Share Email Print

Only eight percent of U.S. homes use oil heat today. Natural gas is both cheaper and has lower carbon emissions than oil, though it is still a fossil fuel and its green-friendliness is overstated. Most eco-advocates would rather see a shift to truly renewable heating sources like geothermal or solar.
Image: iStock/Thinkstock
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that gas furnaces cost less to run and burn cleaner than their oil counterparts? If I make the switch, how long should I expect it to take for me to pay back my initial investment? And are there any greener options I should consider?
-- Veronica Austin, Boston, MA

It is true that natural gas has been a more affordable heat source than oil for Americans in recent years. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that the average American homeowner will pay only about $732 to heat their home with gas this winter season (October 1 through March 31) versus a whopping $2,535 for oil heat. While the price of natural gas has remained relatively stable in the last few years, oil prices have been high and rising thanks in large part to continued unrest in Middle Eastern oil producing countries. Just two years ago the average winter home oil heating bill was $1,752.

While oil prices are likely to remain high and volatile in the foreseeable future, most energy analysts agree that pricing for natural gas, much of which is still derived domestically, is not expected to rise or fluctuate substantially in the U.S. any time soon. According to EIA economist and forecaster Neil Gamson, the U.S. already has a glut of natural gas and expects even more domestic production to come online soon as drillers are set to open up the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York to more gas development.

Only about eight percent of U.S. homes are on oil heat today. Most are in the Northeastern U.S. and were built back in the day when oil was the cheapest way to keep toasty through the long winters. Many utilities have since put gas lines into neighborhoods that didn’t have them in the past, opening the door for homeowners to switch out old inefficient oil furnaces for more efficient gas units.

The federal government’s 30 percent tax credit (capped at $500) for upgrading to a high efficiency furnace expires at the end of 2011 but will likely be extended in one form or another into 2012. In the meantime, some states, municipalities and utilities offer their own incentives and low-interest loans on upgraded, high-efficiency furnaces. Check what’s available in your area via a zip code or map-based search online at the website of the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). Regardless of incentives, gas furnaces tend to cost less than their oil counterparts anyway, but installing one from scratch will incur an extra thousand dollars or two to run a gas line to it from the street. If natural gas continues to be substantially cheaper than oil, the fuel cost savings alone would pay back the up-front equipment and infrastructure investment within five years in most cases.

Environmentally speaking, gas has lower carbon emissions than oil, but hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”)—the highly controversial gas extraction method increasingly employed today (drillers inject water, sand and chemicals at high pressure underground to break through rock and access the natural gas)—takes a heavy toll on surrounding ecosystems and regional water quality. Most environmental advocates would rather see people transition to truly renewable heating sources like geothermal or solar. If you’re going to the cost and trouble of switching out an oil furnace for something new, a geothermal heat pump may cost more ($7,500 and up) than a new gas heating system but will save big bucks and emissions in the long run. For those in reliably sunny areas, a solar heating system will cost even more up front but can deliver similar long term economic and environmental benefits.

CONTACTS: EIA, www.eia.gov; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org.

INSIDE JOB

2011-12-26T00:01:00.004-05:00

Untitled from harisgr on Vimeo.

Take the time to watch this if you can. It's one of the best documentary's around detailing how the great crash of 2007-2008 actually happened and who were the central players.

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM @ THE BEACH !!

2011-12-25T00:01:00.002-05:00

HO! HO! HO!

AN X-MAS MESSAGE FROM THE 1% !!

2011-12-24T11:02:00.002-05:00

Published on Saturday, December 24, 2011 by Rolling Stone

A Christmas Message From America's Rich

by Matt Taibbi

It seems America’s bankers are tired of all the abuse. They’ve decided to speak out.

True, they’re doing it from behind the ropeline, in front of friendly crowds at industry conferences and country clubs, meaning they don’t have to look the rest of America in the eye when they call us all imbeciles and complain that they shouldn’t have to apologize for being so successful.

But while they haven’t yet deigned to talk to protesting America face to face, they are willing to scribble out some complaints on notes and send them downstairs on silver trays. Courtesy of a remarkable story by Max Abelson at Bloomberg, we now get to hear some of those choice comments.

Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, for instance, is not worried about OWS:

“Who gives a crap about some imbecile?” Marcus said. “Are you kidding me?”

Former New York gurbernatorial candidate Tom Golisano, the billionaire owner of the billing firm Paychex, offered his wisdom while his half-his-age tennis champion girlfriend hung on his arm:

“If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit,” said Golisano, who turned 70 last month, celebrating the birthday with girlfriend Monica Seles, the former tennis star who won nine Grand Slam singles titles.

Then there’s Leon Cooperman, the former chief of Goldman Sachs’s money-management unit, who said he was urged to speak out by his fellow golfers. His message was a version of Wall Street’s increasingly popular If-you-people-want-a-job, then-you’ll-shut-the-fuck-up rhetorical line:

Cooperman, 68, said in an interview that he can’t walk through the dining room of St. Andrews Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida, without being thanked for speaking up. At least four people expressed their gratitude on Dec. 5 while he was eating an egg-white omelet, he said.
“You’ll get more out of me,” the billionaire said, “if you treat me with respect.”

Finally, there is this from Blackstone CEO Steven Schwartzman:

Asked if he were willing to pay more taxes in a Nov. 30 interview with Bloomberg Television, Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman spoke about lower-income U.S. families who pay no income tax.
“You have to have skin in the game,” said Schwarzman, 64. “I’m not saying how much people should do. But we should all be part of the system.”

There are obviously a great many things that one could say about this remarkable collection of quotes. One could even, if one wanted, simply savor them alone, without commentary, like lumps of fresh caviar, or raw oysters.

But out of Abelson’s collection of doleful woe-is-us complaints from the offended rich, the one that deserves the most attention is Schwarzman’s line about lower-income folks lacking “skin in the game.” This incredible statement gets right to the heart of why these people suck.

Why? It's not because Schwarzman is factually wrong about lower-income people having no “skin in the game,” ignoring the fact that everyone pays sales taxes, and most everyone pays payroll taxes, and of course there are property taxes for even the lowliest subprime mortgage holders, and so on.

It’s not even because Schwarzman probably himself pays close to zero in income tax – as a private equity chief, he doesn’t pay income tax but tax on carried interest, which carries a maximum 15% tax rate, half the rate of a New York City firefighter.

The real issue has to do with the context of Schwarzman’s quote. The Blackstone billionaire, remember, is one of the more uniquely abhorrent, self-congratulating jerks in the entire world – a man who famously symbolized the excesses of the crisis era when, just as the rest of America was heading into a recession, he threw himself a $5 million birthday party, featuring private performances by Rod Stewart and Patti Labelle, to celebrate an IPO that made him $677 million in a matter of days (within a year, incidentally, the investors who bought that stock would lose three-fourths of their investments).

So that IPO birthday boy is now standing up and insisting, with a straight face, that America’s problem is that compared to taxpaying billionaires like himself, poor people are not invested enough in our society’s future. Apparently, we’d all be in much better shape if the poor were as motivated as Steven Schwarzman is to make America a better place.

But it seems to me that if you’re broke enough that you’re not paying any income tax, you’ve got nothing but skin in the game. You've got it all riding on how well America works.

You can’t afford private security: you need to depend on the police. You can’t afford private health care: Medicare is all you have. You get arrested, you’re not hiring Davis, Polk to get you out of jail: you rely on a public defender to negotiate a court system you'd better pray deals with everyone from the same deck. And you can’t hire landscapers to manicure your lawn and trim your trees: you need the garbage man to come on time and you need the city to patch the potholes in your street.

And in the bigger picture, of course, you need the state and the private sector both to be functioning well enough to provide you with regular work, and a safe place to raise your children, and clean water and clean air.

The entire ethos of modern Wall Street, on the other hand, is complete indifference to all of these matters. The very rich on today’s Wall Street are now so rich that they buy their own social infrastructure. They hire private security, they live on gated mansions on islands and other tax havens, and most notably, they buy their own justice and their own government.

An ordinary person who has a problem that needs fixing puts a letter in the mail to his congressman and sends it to stand in a line in some DC mailroom with thousands of others, waiting for a response.

But citizens of the stateless archipelago where people like Schwarzman live spend millions a year lobbying and donating to political campaigns so that they can jump the line. They don’t need to make sure the government is fulfilling its customer-service obligations, because they buy special access to the government, and get the special service and the metaphorical comped bottle of VIP-room Cristal afforded to select customers.

Want to lower the capital reserve requirements for investment banks? Then-Goldman CEO Hank Paulson takes a meeting with SEC chief Bill Donaldson, and gets it done. Want to kill an attempt to erase the carried interest tax break? Guys like Schwarzman, and Apollo’s Leon Black, and Carlyle’s David Rubenstein, they just show up in Washington at Max Baucus’s doorstep, and they get it killed.

Some of these people take that VIP-room idea a step further. J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon – the man the New York Times once called “Obama’s favorite banker” – had an excellent method of guaranteeing that the Federal Reserve system’s doors would always be open to him. What he did was, he served as the Chairman of the Board of the New York Fed.

And in 2008, in that moonlighting capacity, he orchestrated a deal in which the Fed provided$29 billion in assistance to help his own bank, Chase, buy up the teetering investment firm Bear Stearns. You read that right: Jamie Dimon helped give himself a bailout. Who needs to worry about good government, when you are the government?

Dimon, incidentally, is another one of those bankers who’s complaining now about the unfair criticism. “Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it,” he recently said, at an investor’s conference.

Hmm. Is Dimon right? Do people hate him just because he’s rich and successful? That really would be unfair. Maybe we should ask the people of Jefferson County, Alabama, what they think.

That particular locality is now in bankruptcy proceedings primarily because Dimon’s bank, Chase, used middlemen to bribe local officials – literally bribe, with cash and watches andnew suits – to sign on to a series of onerous interest-rate swap deals that vastly expanded the county’s debt burden.

Essentially, Jamie Dimon handed Birmingham, Alabama a Chase credit card and then bribed its local officials to run up a gigantic balance, leaving future residents and those residents’ children with the bill. As a result, the citizens of Jefferson County will now be making payments to Chase until the end of time.

Do you think Jamie Dimon would have done that deal if he lived in Jefferson County? Put it this way: if he was trying to support two kids on $30,000 a year, and lived in a Birmingham neighborhood full of people in the same boat, would he sign off on a deal that jacked up everyone’s sewer bills 400% for the next thirty years?

Doubtful. But then again, people like Jamie Dimon aren’t really citizens of any country. They live in their own gated archipelago, and the rest of the world is a dumping ground.

Just look at how Chase behaved in Greece, for example.

Having seen how well interest-rate swaps worked for Jefferson County, Alabama, Chase “helped” Greece mask its debt problem for years by selling a similar series of swaps to the Greek government. The bank then turned around and worked with banks like Goldman, Sachs to create a thing called the iTraxx SovX Western Europe index, which allowed investors to bet against Greek debt.

In other words, Chase knowingly larded up the nation of Greece with a crippling future debt burden, then turned around and helped the world bet against Greek debt.

Does a citizen of Greece do that deal? Forget that: does a human being do that deal?

Operations like the Greek swap/short index maneuver were easy money for banks like Goldman and Chase – hell, it’s a no-lose play, like cutting a car’s brake lines and then betting on the driver to crash – but they helped create the monstrous European debt problem that this very minute is threatening to send the entire world economy into collapse, which would result in who knows what horrors. At minimum, millions might lose their jobs and benefits and homes. Millions more will be ruined financially.

But why should Chase and Goldman care what happens to those people? Do they have any skin in that game?

Of course not. We’re talking about banks that not only didn’t warn the citizens of Greece about their future debt disaster, they actively traded on that information, to make money for themselves.

People like Dimon, and Schwarzman, and John Paulson, and all of the rest of them who think the “imbeciles” on the streets are simply full of reasonless class anger, they don’t get it. Nobody hates them for being successful. And not that this needs repeating, but nobody even minds that they are rich.

What makes people furious is that they have stopped being citizens.

Most of us 99-percenters couldn’t even let our dogs leave a dump on the sidewalk without feeling ashamed before our neighbors. It's called having a conscience: even though there are plenty of things most of us could get away with doing, we just don’t do them, because, well, we live here. Most of us wouldn’t take a million dollars to swindle the local school system, or put our next door neighbors out on the street with a robosigned foreclosure, or steal the life’s savings of some old pensioner down the block by selling him a bunch of worthless securities.

But our Too-Big-To-Fail banks unhesitatingly take billions in bailout money and then turn right around and finance the export of jobs to new locations in China and India. They defraud the pension funds of state workers into buying billions of their crap mortgage assets. They take zero-interest loans from the state and then lend that same money back to us at interest. Or, like Chase, they bribe the politicians serving countries and states and cities and even school boards to take on crippling debt deals.

Nobody with real skin in the game, who had any kind of stake in our collective future, would do any of those things. Or, if a person did do those things, you’d at least expect him to have enough shame not to whine to a Bloomberg reporter when the rest of us complained about it.

But these people don’t have shame. What they have, in the place where most of us have shame, are extra sets of balls. Just listen to Cooperman, the former Goldman exec from that country club in Boca. According to Cooperman, the rich do contribute to society:

Capitalists “are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be” and the wealthy aren’t “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot,” Cooperman wrote. They make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas…”

Unbelievable. Merry Christmas, bankers. And good luck getting that message out.

MY TAKE:

Our arrogant Aristocracy is how I read Matt's little X-Mas message from the Oligarchy. If anything of value has come from this fall's Occupy movement, as flawed as it was and is, it was that it brought into sharp focus what had become starkly obvious to many of us out here for quite some time, that our country and the World to some degree is now RULED by groups of people that literally no longer connect in any meaningful manner with the rest of their fellow humans on this planet. They've made it startling clear these last few decades that THEY are different then the rest of US. That their wealth sets them apart and gives them "the almost divine right" to do as they damn well please the rest of US ( the 99%) and the planet ( nature) be damned. So keep in mind, when this crowd and their endless paid for shills and functionaries lecture us all on FREEDOM it's not about our freedom it's about their's to do with us and the physical planet as they please with absolutely no restrictions.

NO LONGER DO THEY WANT TO BE SEEN AS MIDDLE CLASS!

The VELVET glove is off, some of these folks have declared their utter contempt for the rest of us and in particular the so called "MIDDLE CLASS" of which they have now openly stated that they do not any longer share many common interests , nor concerns. The old theory that a stable society needed a robust middle class has been effectively abandoned by these people. They, by their actions have made it eminently clear that they are much happier with a return to an America more like the one in the 18th and 19th Centuries, where there was three classes, but the middle classes were tiny in comparison to the middle classes of the mid-to late 20th century that many of us grew up in. In the "new " Normal" we are rapidly returning to a society with an enormous working / poor class a tiny ruling class ( the 1%) and a small and shrinking "middle class" made up of what will be left of the Unionized and Civil Service / Public sector workforce and the middle level managerial class and Professional classes ( Lawyers, Drs, Accountants , stock brokers etc.) of the middle and upper middle class. The big change from this 19th Century arrangement is the massive Military and Intelligence apparatus the American Empire now has. ( 800+ military bases world-wide.) The 1% have made it clear they ONLY want to fund the MILITARY / INTELL. aspects of our Gov't going forward. To that end they want the old "New Deal " Social Welfare programs like SSI, Medicare and Unemployment Ins. among others de-funded and eventually ended or privatized ( handed over to Wall st. to gut and consume as it will.) In the article above Matt lays out their UTTER contempt for us in all it's angry and self-righteous indignation. They are essentially telling us TO EAT CAKE as their once Queen Maria Antoinette was heard to utter when told her subjects were starving in the streets. The Irony is, she actually meant feed them, we have an abundance and history misinterpreted her statement, but today's Royals are clear on this point , they want us to EAT a SHIT Sandwich and if we don't like it, we can all GO to Hell !

2012 -The Presidential Campaign

In the coming year our nation faces another Presidential election contest. President Obama is already running and the Republican field is developing it's endless list of candidates de jour as we go forward. One day it's Bachman and the next Palin then it's Perry and now it's Newt, who they'll select is of little interest to me , because whomever it is BOTH candidates essentially answer to the same body of un-elected Oligarchs who will finance their campaigns and then expect royal re-payment and tacit control of our Gov't. Needless to say I no longer consider most of our Nat'l elections as of much interest. Our Republic and it's democracy are a thing of the past as is our Middle Class society that dominated it.

A PREDICTION:

Going forward I believe the mold is formed of an increasingly un-equal society in America and many other areas of the planet. A warning here from recent history, this is an extremely volatile and unstable situation to say the least. Not because of the masses of desperately poor people that will be coming, but because of the ever greedier and power crazed elites that will fight over the remaining resources available. We just fought three such wars in a row these last 20 yrs. and I predict many more in the near future. As the planet heats up WATER is the next OIL that the elites will come to blows over. The FLASH pts. as always the Middle East and ASIA.

SCIENCE FRI: - SOLAR PAINT !

2011-12-23T15:27:00.000-05:00

Science News

Blog Cite

Save Email Print Share

Paint-On Solar Cells Developed

ScienceDaily (Dec. 21, 2011) — Imagine if the next coat of paint you put on the outside of your home generates electricity from light -- electricity that can be used to power the appliances and equipment on the inside.

See Also:

Matter & Energy

Earth & Climate

Reference

A team of researchers at the University of Notre Dame has made a major advance toward this vision by creating an inexpensive "solar paint" that uses semiconducting nanoparticles to produce energy.

"We want to do something transformative, to move beyond current silicon-based solar technology," says Prashant Kamat, John A. Zahm Professor of Science in Chemistry and Biochemistry and an investigator in Notre Dame's Center for Nano Science and Technology (NDnano), who leads the research.

"By incorporating power-producing nanoparticles, called quantum dots, into a spreadable compound, we've made a one-coat solar paint that can be applied to any conductive surface without special equipment."

The team's search for the new material, described in the journalACS Nano, centered on nano-sized particles of titanium dioxide, which were coated with either cadmium sulfide or cadmium selenide. The particles were then suspended in a water-alcohol mixture to create a paste.

When the paste was brushed onto a transparent conducting material and exposed to light, it created electricity.

"The best light-to-energy conversion efficiency we've reached so far is 1 percent, which is well behind the usual 10 to 15 percent efficiency of commercial silicon solar cells," explains Kamat.

"But this paint can be made cheaply and in large quantities. If we can improve the efficiency somewhat, we may be able to make a real difference in meeting energy needs in the future."

"That's why we've christened the new paint, Sun-Believable," he adds.

Kamat and his team also plan to study ways to improve the stability of the new material.

NDnano is one of the leading nanotechnology centers in the world. Its mission is to study and manipulate the properties of materials and devices, as well as their interfaces with living systems, at the nano-scale.

This research was funded by the Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences.