Watch an Electron in Motion

"An electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom. Credit: Lund University via YouTube
"Scientists have filmed an electron in motion for the first time, using a new technique that will allow researchers to study the tiny particle's movements directly.

"Previously it was impossible to photograph electrons because of their extreme speediness, so scientists had to rely on more indirect methods. These methods could only measure the effect of an electron's movement, whereas the new technique can capture the entire event.

"Extremely short flashes of light are necessary to capture an electron in motion. A technology developed within the last few years can generate short pulses of intense laser light, called attosecond pulses, to get the job done.

"It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe," said Johan Mauritsson of Lund University in Sweden.

"Using another laser, scientists can guide the motion of the electron to capture a collision between an electron and an atom on film.

"The length of the film Mauritsson and his colleagues made corresponds to a single oscillation of a wave of light . The speed of the event has been slowed down for human eyes. The results are detailed in the latest issue of the journal Physical Review Letters."

1/31/09 President Obama's Weekly Radio Address

Go to The White House Blog for the 1/31/09 official transcript

President Obama used his weekly radio and YouTube address to talk about the economy that in my opinion is teetering on the verge of collapse thanks to the A'holes who have ruled since the time of Reagan (don't be suckerd into thinking Clinton was any different because he and his boys eliminated Glass-Steagall) and his deregulating cons of supply sider prevarications who shoved Laffer Curves down our wide open mouths.

But I digress.

According to the White House, Obama "also announced that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing a new strategy for reviving our financial system -- which will not only ensure that CEOs aren't abusing taxpayer dollars, but also get credit flowing and lower mortgage costs."

Let's View the Creation of the Universe From an Atheists Perspective

On this lovely mid -winters day, wherever you might reside; please enjoy these two basic introductions to the origins of the universe: A creation not of gods and supernatural beings or spirits; but one of our own atheistic appreciation for the results of natural forces that we strive to understand through the observational focus of the human mind using the lens of the arts and sciences.

*The video just below the headline is part 1 while the video below part 1 is part 2 - please enjoy!

Krugman Urges Obama to Aviod Allowing a Health Care Catastrophe to Occur

Paul Krugman rightfully says that the United States faces an economic crisis that has lead to a devastating recession and as a consequence of our shattered economic conditions, our nation also faces a "health care catastrophe" that will only get worse as more and more people lose their jobs due to our deteriorating economy.

Krugman complains that he doesn't understand why, in spite of our failing economic conditions; we are not "hearing more about ensuring health care access?"

All economic forecasters are showing that the economy is under a tremendous strain which is being demonstrated by a precipitous rise in the number of current workers who will become unemployed in the foreseeable future. And the economy isn't going to suddenly rebound. Krugman believes the U.S. faces "a prolonged period of very high unemployment."

Krugman does not profess to having any inside knowledge of how the Obama administration is planning to face off against the looming crisis in health care. However, Krugman, as he is often willing to share some of his observations on what is going on in Washington; proceeds with his thoughts.

What concerns Krugman the most is that he believes Obama is being inadequately advised not to push for health care.

Krugman thinks that too many members of the media and political classes are pointedly complaining that because of the supposedly enormous cost of reforming health care; coupled with our sick economy that will require vast sums of money to begin it's own recovery; the nation must make a 'one or the other' type of choice. In other words, America can't afford economic recovery and health care reform at the same time.

Krugman argues that this type of 'either or' thinking is highly flawed. He suggests that critics should review research provided by a philanthropic foundation that focuses on bringing higher performance to the nation's health system; the Commonwealth Fund. This highly respected private foundation shows that Mr. Obama already proposed a plan during the presidential campaign that could bring about universal health care if some of the all too numerous tax cuts that currently sit in the Democrat's economic stimulus bill were to be pared away to the extent that it would leave the required funds for health care to be made available on a universal basis. A simple enough task to perform considering Obama and the congressional Democrats only offered a considerable number of tax cuts as a carrot to gaining Republican support which of course failed to materialize.

Krugman expresses his concern that Obama's own advisers feel that health care reform must wait because of the severity of our current economic conditions! Obama's advisers are failing to realize that health care stands as a very significant fear that is felt daily by millions of Americans. Adding universal health care would allay those fears and would contribute to a much needed psychological stimulus to help people feel much more positively about economic conditions. And the funds needed to help Americans acquire health coverage would inject money into the economy that would add significant stimulation to the current speed of the flow of money through our economic system.

Taking these two similarly constructed arguments into consideration and that are working against the creation of health care reform; Krugman argues a slightly differing view that is constructed entirely from psychological considerations melded to political realities and goes like this: "the political argument that this is a bad time to be pushing fundamental health care reform, because the nation’s attention is focused on the economic crisis."

Krugman counters this argument and instead provides his own historically based explanation why we are now at a point in time when history is on our side and will provide the necessary reasoning behind making universal health care a reality now!

To take an example from recent history that broadly illustrates Krugman's point; think of the reasoning behind Karl Rove's strategy to make George W. Bush a war president. The Bush administration created a crisis that led to America's making war on Iraq that effectively wedded Bush to the American people. Why, you ask? It's simply an example of human nature and is based on a powerful argument that struck deeply within the psyches of the American people: When America is at war all Americans must support the president as the commander in chief of our armed forces.

Just as the old tale explains; you don't change horses while in the middle of a stream. Rove took that old tale and slightly modified it to form the common reasoning that argued that a nation at war; does not change its president during such a time of crisis; and in providing that simplistic form of reasoning, Rove got Bush elected to a second term in office which he never should have been able to achieve due to the disastrous circumstances that defined the twin wars against terrorism and versus Iraq that Bush blindly led our nation into.

In other words, as Krugman explains; crisis is an extremely powerful and effective tool that politicians can use to help them achieve the goals they may be seeking!

And Obama has his own version of Karl Rove; Rahm Emanuel. It was Emanuel, who Krugman reminds us who said: “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” No, to paraphrase Emanuel, you don't want the crisis presented by a faltering economy and the lack of universal health care to be wasted. It must, from Krugman's perspective, be used as a means to correcting the economy and gaining health care for all.

In addition, Krugman further emphasizes the power of the historic precedent before Obama by reminding us of FDR's masterstroke to point out America's lack of economic safeguards to provide socially funded means for helping the elderly cope with their financial needs after retirement or when physical infirmities made it difficult if not impossible for the elderly to earn enough to live on. FDR signed Social Security into law and created a government program that has provided millions of Americans for decades with a secure and dependable financial safety net.

Obama faces a similar opportunity brought on by crisis and in Krugman's opinion Obama must act quickly and decisively or he will "repeat the mistakes of Bill Clinton" who wasted valuable time by taking on the task of universal health care from an approach that allowed opponents to effectively counterattack and convince the public that was by then witnessing improvements in the economy that universal coverage was unnecessary.

Something else that Krugman points out regarding the overall temperament of the American people at this moment in history: "There’s a populist rage building in this country, as Americans see bankers getting huge bailouts while ordinary citizens suffer." And Obama must take full advantage of this populist outcry and use it to repair the economy and enact universal health care.

One important development that Krugman fails to include regarding the daunting nature of signing universal care into law. Has to do with the developing story that involves former-Senator Tom Daschle's seemingly growing difficulties to gain senate confirmation due to several possible legal and ethical problems that seem to become more daunting with the pasage of each day.

It is very important to remember that Daschle is an extremely vital member of the team that will push for the enactment of health care reform. And his loss, due to his failure to be confirmed by the Senate committee overseeing his confirmation; will cause innumerable problems for the Obama administration. How this part of the journey turns out may take some time before it is resolved.

Vice President Joseph Biden to Lead Middle Class Task Force

Link to the MIDDLECLASS TASK FORCE Page at the White House

Link to the White House Blog statement by Vice President Joseph Biden: “Time to put middle class front and center”

President Obama, today announced the formation of a middle class task force that will be headed by Vice President Joseph Biden. He also signed several executive orders that are intended to strengthen labor unions.

In choosing Mr. Biden to head up the new task force, the president remarked that he had chosen Biden because: "He has never forgotten his roots as a working class kid from Scranton."

In referring to the almost 4% drop in GDP during the final quarter of 2008, Mr. Obama remarked that the drop in GDP: "...isn't just an economic concept,... This is a continuing disaster for America's families."

The president continued: "The recession is deepening, and the urgency of our economic crisis is growing,... Every day it seems there is another round of layoffs, and another round of families' lives turned upside down."

In stating his opinion on the role of unions in the economic downturn, Obama added: "I also believe that we have to reverse some of the policies" toward organized labor. I don't see organized labor as part of the problem,... To me, it's part of the solution."

Reflecting on the poor health of the economy that mentioned growing unemployment and the downward slope of the economy, Obama said: "This is a difficult moment. But I believe ... if we act swiftly ... it can be an American moment."

Mr. Obama painfully referred to the state of the current American economy as "the American dream in reverse."

Urging support for his economic agenda, Obama said the American people "...need us to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." In order to create jobs that Obama vowed will last "for years to come." Including as the Los Angeles Times reports to: "rebuild crumbling roads, renovate schools, double the nation's capacity for alternative energy generation and "bring healthcare into the 21st century."

Obama concluded his remarks on the stimulus plan by adding: "I'm pleased that the House has acted. ... I'm hoping we can strengthen it further in the Senate,... What we can't do is drag our feet."

Turning his attention back to the creation of the "White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families" Obama related that "When I talk about the middle class, I am talking about folks who are currently in the middle class, but also folks who are aspiring to be in the middle class,... You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor union."

Reporting on the executive orders signed by Obama, the Times explained: "One of the executive orders prevents federal contract dollars from going to companies that try to prevent the formation of unions. Another requires workers to be advised of their rights to organize."

Biden promised that the task force should be viewed by the American people as "a very, very clear signal to everybody who goes to work in this country every day."

The Times added that: "The administration has assigned it these goals: "Expanding education and lifelong training opportunities, improving work and family balance, restoring labor standards, including workplace safety, helping to protect middle-class and working-family incomes, protecting retirement security."

Biden, as head of the task force will also receive assistance from "...the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Commerce, as well as the directors of the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council and the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors," the Times reported.

The first meeting of the task force was announced to take place in Philadelphia on February 27th and will focus on "Green Jobs: A Pathway to a Strong Middle Class."

Obama Slams Excessive Wall Street Executive Bonuses

President Obama criticized Wall Street Bank executives for having doled out nearly $20 billion in bonuses in 2008 at a time when severe recession has affecting America and the world. Mr. Obama expressed his scorn that the bonuses came at a time when the U.S. taxpayer was providing billions of dollars to keep America's most important financial giants afloat.

The president continued his attack: “That is the height of irresponsibility,... It is shameful. And part of what we’re going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility.”

Mr. Obama issued a challenge to Wall Street: "Part of what we are going to need is for folks on Wall Street, who are asking for help, to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility."

President Obama concluded by appealing directly to the American peoples' sense of fair play and honesty by explaining that Wall Street executives had chosen the wrong time to demonstrate greed when he remarked: "The American people understand that we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of,... But they don't like that people are digging a bigger hole even as they are being asked to fill it up."

Mr Obama made his remarks in the Oval Office in the presence of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Vice President Joseph Biden. Mr. Obama angrily declared: “There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses,... Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”

The president based his pointed reactions to the dispersal of the executive bonuses on media reports that explained that the size of the bonuses paid out in 2008, were, incredibly, equal in size to the the monies paid out during a much more successful and bullish period back in 2004.

During a later interview on the cable network, CNBC, Vice President Biden pledged that the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds would be distributed by the Obama administration “wisely and prudently and transparently.”

But Mr. Biden followed his reassuring remarks by echoing the president's disdain for Wall Street's top authorities having taken such excessively large bonuses when the country, and the world are facing severe financial disarray and possible ruin.

Mr. Biden saltily declared: “I’d like to throw these guys in the brig,... They’re thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They’re thinking, ‘Take care of me.’ ”

In a related development that demonstrated Democratic solidarity against the Wall Street executives' actions; Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee "threatened to bring before his committee any Wall Street executives who take big bonuses after their firms are propped up with public money."

Mr. Dodd expressed his displeasure by continuing his remarks: “Whether it was used directly or indirectly, this infuriates the American people and rightly so,... So I say to anyone else who does it, if you do it, I’m going to bring you before the committee.”

Liberal Groups Sponsor Ads to Support Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan

"Factory," the first of several ads intended to rally support for President Obama's economic stimulus plan by applying pressure on several key Republican Senators, will soon hit the airwaves in Alaska; targeting Senator Lisa Murkowski, Iowa; aimed at Senator Charles Grassley, Maine; focusing on Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, New Hampshire; to pressure Senator Judd Gregg and Washington, D.C.

The ads are sponsored by four liberal groups including:the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Americans United for Change; MoveOn; and the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The New York Times reports that: "Brad Woodhouse, the president of Americans United for Change, said the groups were paying $500,000 to run the spots against the senators, who they view as vulnerable to pressure. Whether they are remains to be seen."

In addition; the Times further reports that the groups now find themselves in a much different position from the past when they focused on attacking former-President Bush: "But in the meantime, the groups seem to be relishing their new role as presidential defenders. “It’s nice,” said Ilyse Hogue, the communications director of MoveOn.org. “President Obama campaigned on a very progressive platform and we will do everything we can to make sure that the progressive plans he campaigned on become a reality.”

Al Gore Provided Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 28th 2009 on Climate Change and Global Warming

Click here to view the entire 15 YouTube video play list.

During his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, former-Vice President, and yes I believe he was elected president in 2000, Al Gore spoke of the calamitous effects global warming will confront humanity with as he urged senators to adopt a binding carbon cap proposal designed to control greenhouse gasses, in addition to pledging U.S. support for the upcoming Copenhagen Summit next December that will construct an international climate change agreement.

Mr. Gore provided the committee with a commentary that was reinforced by his use of slides to focus the senators' attention for the need to take quick action to support President Obama's stimulus plan which is filled with billions of dollars in expenditures for alternative energy projects.

“The plan’s unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas -– energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy smart grid and the move to clean cars –- represent an important down payment and are long overdue,” The New York Times reported that Mr. Gore said. “These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery, while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.”

The committee chairman, Senator John Kerry, in response to Mr. Gore's testimony said: Frankly, the science is screaming at us," Kerry sympathetically added "A global problem demands a global effort, and today we are working toward a solution with a role for developed and developing countries alike, which will be vital as we work to build consensus here at home in tough economic times," the Washington Post reported.

President Obama Gives Interview to Al-Arabia

President Barack Obama gave his first presidential interview to an unlikely media outlet this past Monday when he sat down in the White House and was interviewed by Hisham Melhem of the Al-Arabiya television cable network.

During the interview, President Obama emphasized that United States foreign affairs with Middle Eastern countries will change under his administration because in the past; any American dialogue with the Middle East "all too often the United States starts by dictating."

President Obama also explained that: "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." Obama cited his pledge to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center as a sign to Muslims and the world that he should be judged by his actions which will signal his true policy intentions Muslims.

Reiterating an appeal he made in his inaugural address, Obama stressed that his administration will freely extend an offer of peace to a country such as Iran if the Iranians take advantage of the United States offer and decides it is wise if it "unclenched its fist."

President Obama expressed his approach to the Middle East from a greater perspective when he said: "It is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Regarding Iran, Obama provided a brief but succinct overview: "Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful, " Obama voiced optimism: "It is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but (also) where there are potential avenues for progress. If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

Obama explained during the interview that he has sent his special envoy, George Mitchell to the Middle East to "get engaged right away" by becoming involved in discussions with "all the major parties involved."

Remarking on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Obama explained: "We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people."

Obama said: "Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."

In remarking on Saudi King Abdullah's peace proposal regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; Obama said: "I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that,... I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace."

To read a full transcript of President Obama's interview with the Al-Arabiya television cable network; click here.

David Plouffe and Mitch Stewart Talk About Organizing for America

David Plouffe, Obama for America campaign manager, and Mitch Stewart, executive director of Organizing for America, discuss the future of this grass-roots movement for change. Get involved at www.barackobama.com.

Plant in Blakely, Georgia Suspected of Producing Salmonella Contaminated Peanut Butter

A peanut processing plant in Blakely, Georgia owned by The Peanut Corporation of America of Lynchburg, Va., is now the prime site under suspicion for having produced salmonella contaminated peanut butter. According to health inspection reports obtained by the New York Times from Georgia officials that indicate that the plant "has a history of sanitation lapses and was cited repeatedly in 2006 and 2007 for having dirty surfaces and grease residue and dirt buildup throughout the plant, according to health inspection reports. Inspection reports from 2008 found the plant repeatedly in violation of cleanliness standards."

The Times further reports that: "Inspections of the plant in Blakely, Ga., by the State Agriculture Department of Georgia found areas of rust that could flake into food, gaps in warehouse doors large enough for rodents to get through, unmarked spray bottles and containers and numerous violations of other practices designed to prevent food contamination."

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports: "The plant has shut down and laid off most of its workers."

The Constitution adds that: "The salmonella outbreak has sickened 501 people in 43 states, and may be linked to eight deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

The New York Times, reporting on the Blakely, Georgia peanut plant, from details provided from inspection reports prepared by Georgia officials adds: "A typical entry from an inspection report, dated Aug. 23, 2007, said: “The food-contact surfaces of re-work kettle in the butter room department were not properly cleaned and sanitized.” Additional entries noted: “The food-contact surfaces of the bulk oil roast transfer belt ... were not properly cleaned and sanitized. The food-contact surfaces of pan without wheels in the blanching department were not properly cleaned and sanitized.”

The Times cites other violations of code obtained from inspectors that: "clean peanut butter buckets (were) stored uncovered," and a "wiping cloth" served to “cover crack on surge bin.”

The times adds that: "Two inspection reports from 2008 found the plant out of compliance with practices for making sure" and Georgia officials added that “food and non-food contact surfaces were cleanable, properly designed, constructed and used.”

Under a "contractual agreement" the Georgia Agriculture Department conducts the inspections as a representative for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Arne Naess, the Norwegian Philosopher Who Developed the Concept of Deep Ecology has Died at the Age of 96

Life is fundamentally one. ... The deep ecology movement is the ecology movement which questions deeper. ..The adjective 'deep' stresses that we ask why and how, where others do not.

(Arne Naess, developer of the philosophy of 'deep ecology' in 1972)

Arne Dekke Eide Næss, more commonly referred to as Arne Naess, died on January 12th, 2009. Naess was Norway's most well known philosopher. He was best known for having developed the concept of deep ecology which came about as a result of his reading of and admiration for Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring," and his many years of practical involvement in environmental activism and advocacy. By 1973, deep ecology had gained world-wide status as a significant philosophical movement. Naess' use of the phrase deep ecology was intended to indicate that human beings garner no more importance than other living species, ecosystems, or natural processes. In layman's terms, Naess would often describe his central point that all life, regardless of it's size, or shape, or abilities are each equally valuable as one of many interconnected parts of the Earth's biosystem, and Naess, concentrating on his idea of value explained that life is in "need (of) protection against the destruction of billions of humans.”

To a believer of deep ecology, human beings and the Earth's ecosystem constitutes a living environment in which humans constitute no more more than an intrinsically small part of the whole of the Earth's biosystem. Deep ecology concentrates on the interconnections of all things with the substance of the wave structure of matter being the ultimate connector of everything. In Naess view, there is a dynamic unity, or singular commonality that exists to connect all of reality.

Naess' philosophy placed him squarely in opposition to western civilization's ideal of the importance and centrality accorded to the individualized self. It is this western cultural belief that the self is engaged in a constant struggle or competition against nature that opposed everything that Naess believed. For Naess saw the accepted belief of western culture that elevated the self above all else as being highly destructive to the planet, and consequently would lead to the destruction of what constitutes the greater whole of which we are but a minuscule part of. In opposition to the belief in the supremacy of the self; Naess' philosophy of deep ecology locates humanity as part of a greater whole often referred to as the universe.

For Naess, the study of ecology allowed humanity to achieve a "realisation of the Self" as a part of the Earth's ecosphere. His deep ecology provided green movements around the world with the fundamental encouragement to "not only protect the planet for the sake of humans, but also, for the sake of the planet itself, to keep ecosystems healthy for their own sake," as reported by the Guardian.

Naess promoted the idea that human population needed to be reduced to promote the Earth's sustenance. He also called for humanity to turn it's attention to the benefits that 'soft technology' which promotes a closer and noninvasive human relationship to the natural environment. All of Naess' beliefs grew out of his regard for the necessary union of a biosphere of planetary equilibrium as a means to insuring earthly ecological harmony.

When Naess was faced with an ecological movement that had grown significantly during his lifetime and developed many schisms that resulted in the creation and influence of splinter groups such as Earth First, who gained infamy for their use of tactics that often crossed the line from peaceful activism to outright violence, Naess suffered a great deal of embarrassment. He countered the abandonment of peaceful activism by emphasizing that: "We don't say that every living being has the same value as a human, but that it has an intrinsic value which is not quantifiable. It is not equal or unequal. It has a right to live and blossom. I may kill a mosquito if it is on the face of my baby but I will never say I have a higher right to life than a mosquito."

Arne Naess has left humanity to consider his philosophy of deep ecology as a call to rethink the values that underlie western society. Our dependence on current forms of economic development define humanity's niche in Earth's biosystem and considering Naess' philosophy may have reached a time for a significant reevaluation. Human beings view the world as a storehouse of natural resources that we treat as commodities waiting to be extracted and exploited for human needs. Such thinking has caused the Earth to sustain, in many cases, irreparable damage. As a species, we have overlooked, for too long, that our relationship with planet Earth must become a more equal partnership existent upon the concept of developing practices that lead to the sustainability of the biosphere. The threats posed by rapid and uncontrolled deforestation which has completely destroyed valuable ecosystems and the unchecked emissions of CO2 and other toxins that have contributed to global climate change are but two of the areas that humanity must confront regarding the overall health and well-being of the Earth. We live in precarious times. All species of life, not just humanity, face enormously complex threats to the continued existence of life on the Earth. Arne Naess proved himself a visionary who made us aware of the many menaces that our way of life has created over time. It is up to us, the human race, as the most intellectually capable species that the Earth has produced, to first, acknowledge on a world-wide scale, the scope of the problems that face us and then to take action to salvage, as best we can a livable Earth that promotes and maintains an ecologically sustainable planet

Republican Terrorist Fear-Mongering Tactics "101" The Jon Stewart Explanation

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Guantanamo Baywatch - The Final Season

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Could It Be It's Time for Turdblossom to Face the Music?

This is news millions of Americans have been waiting years to hear; at 6:53 PM EST, the Associated Press's Larry Margasak reported that House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has issued a subpoena that orders Karl "Turdblossom" Rove, former-Bush administration aide, to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on February 2nd, 2009 to provide the committee with a sworn deposition described by the AP: "on the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat."

Numerous attempts to subpoena Rove have failed in the past when former-President Bush cited his executive privilege to deny Rove and other various members of the former-Bush administration from having to testify before Congress. Bush's actions caused a legal battle to erupt over the powers and rights that exist between the executive and legislative branches of government in a court case that still sits unresolved before a federal appeals court.

But maybe, just maybe, with a new administration running the executive branch under President Obama; maybe times have changed and Rove and his fellow former Bushies will have to comply with the House-issued subpoena. The testimony under oath, being sought from Rove concerns, according to the AP; questions (that) were raised after Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey was forced to appoint a special prosecutor "to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings of the U.S. attorneys."

The Mukasey action had been prompted when an internal investigation led by Bush Justice Department officials decided that according to the AP: "political considerations played a part in the firings of as many as four of the federal prosecutors." Rove is being subpoenaed in order for the House Judiciary Committee to determine if Rove was a part of the scandal.

The AP provides further background information: "Siegelman has alleged his prosecution was pushed by Republicans, including Rove. The former governor was convicted on bribery and other charges and was sentenced to more than seven years in prison. He was released early, when a federal appeals court ruled his appeal raised "substantial questions."" Conyers issued a statement that raises the possibility that the subpoena will have to be honored with a new administration in power.

Conyers continued his statement by explaining that Bush's attempt to provide administration officials with "absolute immunity" has been "rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as 'completely misguided,'"

Conyers went on to say: "I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way. Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."

Could it be true that it will actually be time for Rove to acceed to the House Judiciary Committee subpoena and appear before the committee, fully required to give his legal deposition under oath? I certainly hope so; and so do millions of other Americans.

Obama Rapidly Staffing Department of Justice With Many of Bush's Fiercest Adversaries

For those of us who have been concerned that Obama is going too easy on Bush regarding an investigation of his war crimes and other illegal activities while in office, take heart! It seems Obama is methodically placing a large number of Bush's most dedicated and ferocious critics and lawyers into prominent positions of power.

In fact, signaling the ominous nature that these new officials may hold for Bush is belied by the fact that the top three jobs at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel - OLC, have been filled by David Barron, Dawn Johnson, and Martin Lederman. All three of the top members at the OLC have been close friends since the 1990s when they worked together for former-President Clinton. The Office of Legal Counsel has significant powers as it has been termed in the media as 'the president's law firm'.

The OLC is charged with the drafting of the Attorney General's legal opinions and communicates legal views and oral counseling requested by the Counsel to the President. In layman's terms the OLC oversee all legal activities that transpire between the President and the Attorney General by providing documented and oral opinions, acting in essence as an miniature version of the Supreme Court.

The bad news for Bush is that all three of the members of the OLC have made public pronouncements that Bush's legal reasoning behind his policy to interrogate suspected terrorists was constructed upon erroneously formed legal rational and each of the members of the OLC share very restrictive views on the scope of executive branch powers, which will also certainly act as an suppressant to Bush's 'unitary executive perspective.

In addition, Obama has also staffed the Justice Department with other well known critics of former-President Bush's executive policies. Among these critics are Neal Kaytal who defeated the Bush administration in a Supreme Court case involving Guantanamo Bay detainee legal rights; David Kris who is well know for his vocal opposition to warrantless wiretapping; and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired by Bush for not engaging in politically motivated rather than legally based prosecutions; will serve as a terrorist prosecuting attorney.

The three new members of the OLC jointly agreed in an Indiana Law Journal article that condemned and compared the actions of Bush appointed attorneys to the same type of activities that legal counsel for mob members often engage in.

Barron and Lederman have written in the Harvard Law Review that Bush's exercise of executive power that he believed gave him a legal right to engage in an unprovoked war of choice against Iraq as well as Bush's justification for creating the war on terror went far beyond the actual powers of the president. The two authors described Bush's claims that the president has the power to make and wage war as "a radical attempt to remake the constitutional law of war powers.”

Barron and Lederman counter Bush's ability to wage war by making it clear that they believe Congress alone has the constitutional right to declare war.

Johnson has stated that the Bush administration has engaged in illegal conduct and Lederman follows up on Johnson's opinion by writing that it appears that a “conspiracy to violate the Torture Act” occurred during the term of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other subordinate members of the Bush administration.

So Bush and other former members of his administration face an uncertain future in which their activities during their terms in office may face the legal scrutiny of critics with well established credentials and opinions regarding the Bush administrations conduct while in office.

1/24/09 President Obama's Weekly Radio Address

Go to The White House Blog for the 1/24/09 official transcript

HooRay! FDA Approves First Clinical Trial Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells

In a major development awaited by millions of American citizens for a number of years; The United States Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that it would now allow the very first clinical trial study to commence using the stem cells obtained from a human source.

Although the decision by the FDA comes on the heels of former-President Bush's departure from office this past Tuesday, January 20th, 2009, FDA officials were quick to point out that politics played no role in the decision. This may be the official position of the FDA, however, the agency had to be well aware that if the decision had been made while Bush was in office, it would have faced certain rejection. With Obama now president such considerations became inconsequential to FDA administrators.

The use of human embryonic stem cells holds such importance because the current use of stem cells from adult and fetal sources exhibit an inability to match the many different types of tissue produced. On the other hand, human embryonic stem cells display the rare ability to form any particular kind of cell found in the human body; making their usefulness much greater than the stem cells the Bush administration had approved for study. It is a well known fact that embryonic stem cells provide the body with the foundational building blocks needed for producing all of the blood, organs, and tissues needed to establish and maintain human life.

Geron, a Menlo Park, California-based biotechnology firm, is scheduled to begin its research using eight to ten individuals who suffer from acute types of spinal cord damage. Initially each patient will receive injections of nerve cells, derived from embryonic stem cells called oligodendrocytes, which will encase surrounding axons mending the insulation or myelin, and perhaps also prompting the damaged areas to regenerate. After the injections are made at the spinal injury site it is expected that they will conduct the transmission of electrical signals from the brain to other parts of the body.

If success is proven in the treatment of spinal cord injuries, the use of human embryonic stem cells could establish the field of regenerative medicine, which would mean that such incapacitating diseases as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis could face a more hopeful future of treatment and possible cures.

The cells being used in this initial study represent first human embryonic stem cells ever developed. Researchers had feared those cells could never be used to treat people because they were These initial cells were created from substances collected from cows and mice. Initially researchers feared that the human immune system would reject the cells.

Unfortunately, scientists engaged in stem cell research had to deal with a number of obstacles created in 2001, when former-President Bush preempted the use of animal-free stem cell lines. Bush's decision effectively pushed any embryonic stem cell therapy at least until the end of his term in office that unfortunately lasted until January 20th, 2009. To make the observation that Bush did everything in his power to derail human embryonic stem cell research would be an accurate although unfortunate point of fact. Bush needlessly politicized the topic of stem cells in order to satisfy his most deranged 'pro-life' supporters. In other words Bush made a very stupid and research crippling decision to gain a few votes. Now with Bush out of office FDA decision makers can resume with stem cell research that is safe for humans, and the floodgates will open to allow numerous clinical trials to proceed.

There is also hope that if the initial stem cell treatments do not prove to be completely successful; they could lead to improvements in many disease-stricken and injured people's lives. Regardless of the initial results; there is a considerable amount of optimism among medical researchers and doctors that humankind may be on the verge of initiating a burgeoning era of medical therapeutics in which medical breakthroughs are made at the cellular level obviating the reliance on current pharmaceuticals and surgical implements such as scalpels. Another advantage that presents itself is the possible lowering of medical costs since the cells could be mass produced.

Whatever the case might be, Americans, indeed people around the world must maintain their patience. Advancements in proceedures involving human embryonic stem cell rsearch show tremendous promise for all of humanity. But we must remember, scientific research is a long and tedious process that does not attain progressive developments in a linear manner. Many questions confront us now and more will develop over time. Perhaps the most important development we have achieved in the last few days has been the replacement of Bush the anti-science fanatic; with President Obama, a man who has pledged his complete support for the value of science to humanity in general and his unquestioned affirmation for the supported growth of human embryonic stem cell research in particular.

Officials Begin Movement Toward the Proscecution of Bush and Rumsfeld for Approving Illegal Torture

The first indications of global concerns being expressed for the United States to prosecute former president George W. Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld have begun to be made. In the January 20th, 2009 edition of the British newspaper, Telegraph.co.uk, referred to a recent interview given to the German television program "Frontal 21," on channel ZDF by Mr. Manfred Nowak, the United Nation's Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as appointed by The United Nations Commission on Human Rights

According to the Telegraph, Mr Nowak: "called on the US authorities to pursue the former president and his former defence secretary for the treatment of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba."

During his interview on German television, Mr Nowak said: "Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation," which according to the AFP news agency "to bring charges against Bush and Rumsfeld." By being a signatory nation to the United Nations torture convention, which Mr. Nowak said on ZDF; that the U.S. should employ "all means, particularly penal law" against offenders of the convention on torture.

Mr. Nowak observed on ZDF that: "We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," that AFP explains were "against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said."

Nowak also said on ZDF: "But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," AFP adds that Mr. Nowak "authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison."

When queried by ZDF whether prosecution against Bush and Rumsfeld would be possible Mr. Nowak replied: "In principle yes. I think the evidence is on the table." Mr. Nowak however acknowledged that it is questionable whether "American law will recognize these forms of torture."

The Telegraph reports that: "A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Mr Rumsfeld and other senior Bush administration officials responsible for the abuse of Guantanamo detainees." In an article published on December 11, 2008, according to Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, reporters for The New York Times; "top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and other military detention centers." The Telegraph continues it's reporting by adding: "that Mr Rumsfeld had authorized harsh interrogation techniques on Dec 2, 2002, although he ruled them out a month later. The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Mr Bush in February 2002."

Adding to the legal violations facing Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld is that in 1988, then-President Ronald Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the United States Senate, in 1990, ratified the treaty which by doing so, the Senate, as decreed by the Constitution of the United States, made violations of the treaty subject to punishment by the U.S. legal system.

In previously detailed developments, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward has reported that Susan J. Crawford: "The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in what Ms. Crawford termed a "life-threatening condition.""

In a story dated April 11th, 2008, then-President Bush told several ABC news reporters that: "... he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency,... Well," Mr. Bush explained: "we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people.... And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." ABC news also reported that: "... the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA. The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic. These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding."

During a January 11th, 2009 interview with Brit Hume of Fox News, former-President Bush acknowledged that he had authorized the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Although no legally definitive decisions have been reached yet; it would seem that either the United States, or the World Court are on a course that is leading them ever closer to the prosecution of former-President Bush and former-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a number of other, allegedly involved Bush administration officials for having participated in the conduct of illegal acts involving violations of U.S. and international legal documents.

Will Conservative Values Bring Progressive Ends?

I've gained a number of well-conceived insights from some of the recent columns written by E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post. Today's piece continues to offer several more examples of Dionne's acuity.

Dionne observes: "President Obama intends to use conservative values for progressive ends. He will cast extreme individualism as an infantile approach to politics that must be supplanted by a more adult sense of personal and collective responsibility. He will honor government's role in our democracy and not degrade it. He wants America to lead the world, but as much by example as by force."

Dionne succeeds in uncovering the temperament that Obama is attempting to instill in the American public. Obama's efforts include his effort to downgrade the 19th century fascination built on the catch phrase of 'rugged' individualism that over the decades and through the machinations of most recent conservative politicians who have used it to foster an insatiable avariciousness; always on the prowl for materialistic gain that has lost its hold and fascination over the American people and replaced with a public lead by Obama that is hungry to make a more concerted effort to achieve a collective effort that will finally make our nation more responsive to the needs of the many. And during his inaugural address, Obama struck a cord regarding our overt fascination with "childish things," reminiscent of St.Paul's admonitions and challenged Americans to become responsible adults as we confront our nation's woes.

Dionne accurately posits that Obama's intentions will cause many citizens a great deal of confusion at first. And it will not matter which part of the political spectrum that individuals identify themselves with because; as Dionne reveals: "One of the wondrous aspects of Obama's inaugural address is the extent to which those on the left and those on the right both claimed our new president as their own."

The struggle over the right to claim Obama as one of their own that has broken out between the left and the right allows Dionne to shine a light on: "Many conservatives (who) were eager to argue that Obama is destined to disappoint his friends on the left because the president who now wields power will be far more careful than the candidate who deployed rhetoric so ecstatically." Dionne continues on the boastfulness of those on the right: "Their evidence included Obama's stout defense of old-fashioned values -- "honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism."

The right has been overwhelmed with a giddiness not witnessed since the days of Ronald Reagan when Obama included in his inaugural address that: "These things are old,...These things are true." It was one of the most powerfully conservative sentiments ever to pass any president's lips," Dionne explains.

And Dionne cautions the right to be careful not to overreact with their expressions of joy: "But note the nature of that list: "Tolerance and curiosity," in particular, are values notoriously associated with the adventurous, with those who seek out the new and the novel. "Hard work" and "fair play" have long been invoked by egalitarians on behalf of the salt of the earth."

Obama came straight to the point, Dionne explains: "the ends toward which he was conscripting the old virtues." Was Obama's way of saying that: "They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history."

Obama has laid his trap expertly. Dionne explains: "That emphasis on progress pervaded what was in many ways a radical speech. Obama clearly broke with the conservative past, more recently associated with George W. Bush and more distantly with Ronald Reagan."

As Dionne explains from Obama's perspective: "As he has done so often, Obama pronounced debates about the size of government irrelevant. What matters is "whether it works." Quietly but purposefully, he was overturning the Reagan revolution." And in such an easy and unassuming way the task that had confounded Democrats for decades vanished; Obama turned Reagan into nothing more than an irrelevant curiosity of presidential politics past.

Dionne continues by arguing that Obama made further progress when he revoked the Bush administration's ill-conceived policy for domestic security when Obama announced: "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." As he proclaimed America's power, Obama revoked Bush's homeland security policies as he said: "that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please."

"Finally," Dionne reminds us it is not the usual role of a president to question if "the market is a force for good or ill." Obama understands that Wall Street has the "power to generate wealth and expand freedom" but Obama recognizes the key component achieved by market regulation is to ensure that the market does not "spin out of control." Obama also spoke against the inequality created by the market and, insisted that: "the nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

Obama used his inaugural address to introduce his strategy to displace the ingrained myth of Wall Street as a place governed by gods who wield their omnipotent powers over our nation's monetary resources and disperse their closely guarded authority by opening up the clubiness of Wall Street power brokers to enliven the prospects of the lower and middle classes.

To Dionne, this is: "What makes Obama a radical, albeit of the careful and deliberate variety, is his effort to reverse the two kinds of extreme individualism that have permeated the American political soul for perhaps four decades."

Obama, in Dionne's opinion: "... sets his face against the expressive individualism of the 1960s that defined "do your own thing" as the highest form of freedom. On the contrary," Dionne continues: "On the contrary, Obama speaks of responsibilities, of doing things for others, even of that classic bourgeois obligation, "a parent's willingness to nurture a child.""

"But he also rejects the economic individualism that took root in the 1980s," explains Dionne, because: "He specifically listed "the greed and irresponsibility on the part of some" as a cause for our economic distress. He discounted "the pleasures of riches and fame." He spoke of Americans not as consumers but as citizens. His references to freedom were glowing, but he emphasized our "duties" to preserve it far more than the rights it conveys."

"This communitarian vision fits poorly with "the stale political arguments" between liberals and conservatives that Obama condemned," Dionne insightfully explains; "because they are really arguments between these two varieties of individualism. Their quarrel has been fierce not only because of how the two sides differ but also because they share so many assumptions. Family feuds and civil wars can be especially brutal."

Dionne concludes by adding that: "For now, each side in the old debate can enlist aspects of Obama's rhetoric in their polemics against the other. But in associating our recent past with "childish things," in insisting that greatness is "never a given" and always "must be earned," Obama is challenging the very basis of their conflict."

Dionne determines that: "It is a worthy fight. It will also be a hard fight to win because rights are so much easier to talk about than duties, and freedom's gifts are always more prized than its obligations."

More importantly, the fight that Obama has decided to engage in could forever transform American political thought and action because it provides the opportunity to redefine our past in order to guarantee a more equitable future. Obama intends to reestablish an evolutionary progression for America that will enliven the lofty goals of our past that were proclaimed in the first sentences of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence; but never fully codified into the laws of the nation that America will once again strive to attain the truths of equality that guarantees the "unalienable Rights" for all American citizens to attain the promise of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Obama is simply attempting to reengage the source of hope that was intended for all Americans to obtain before it was derailed by the rapacity of the few and the acquiescence of the many.

The Cleaner the Air We Breath; the Longer We May Live

That next breath of air you take is just one of the many countless breaths we all take during our lifetimes. And now it seems that scientists and researchers have made the not so startling discovery that breathing cleaner air leads to a longer life. Why has it taken us so long to admit what would seem to be the most obvious of obvious parallels that science could proclaim?

News of this 'discovery' is found in today's edition of the Washington Post and reported by Juliet Eilperin, who says: "Reducing air pollution has extended average life expectancy by five months for urban residents in dozens of U.S. cities over the past two decades, researchers found.

Jay Bhatt, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine writes for ABC News Medical Unit also adds that: "If the air in your city is clean, you can tack on about five months to your life. So suggests a new study by researchers at Brigham Young University and Harvard School of Public Health."

Dr. Bhatt adds that the "... study found that the average life expectancy in 51 cities in the United States increased by nearly three years in recent decades and that approximately five months of that increase came as a result of cleaner air."

Dr. Bhatt further explains by including a statement from Brigham Young University epidemiologist, C. Arden Pope III, who served as the lead author of the anlysis appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine's January 22nd issue.

Pope states that: "Life expectancy is a well-understood indicator for public health,... We find that we are getting a substantial return on our investments in improving our air quality." Dr. Bhatt includes: "Pope is no stranger to this issue. He and co-author Douglas Dockery, chair of the Department of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health, teamed up with other researchers on important studies in the 1990s that revealed the negative health effects of infinitesimally small particles of pollution."

In her article for the Post, Ms. Eilperin quotes Pope's optimistic perspective: "We are getting a return on our investment," said Pope, an epidemiologist and economics professor at Brigham Young University, adding that cutting air pollutants in major cities amounted to "a large, nationwide, natural experiment."

Ms. Eilperin points out: "Between 1980 and 2000, federal regulations on power plants, including the acid rain program, helped reduce smog ingredients such as sulfur dioxide significantly, while the installation of catalytic converters on vehicles cut nitrogen oxide pollution across the country."

Ms. Eilperin furhter explains: "Every five years the government evaluates whether it should tighten the standards for fine particulates. In September 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to keep the limit unchanged at 15 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over an entire year, but it tightened the maximum permissible in any one 24-hour period from 65 to 35 micrograms. Both the EPA's scientific advisory panel and independent researchers urged the agency to impose a more stringent annual standard.

Ms. Eilperin adds another perspective, that of: "Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association, (who) said she hoped the new findings would spur policymakers to tighten federal soot standards the next time they issue new regulations, scheduled for 2011."

Ms. Nolan adds: "Air pollution shortens life, and when we reduce air pollution, it actually adds months to our life," Ms. Nolan also said: "While it's hard for people to see the connection, we can document it, and we know that the connection exists."

Ms. Eilperin concludes by quoting Pope's dedication to further research and future action: "There is room to improve," Pope said, noting that even relatively clean cities can experience the benefits of cutting down more on airborne particulates. Furthermore, Ms. Eilperin reports that Dr. Pope added: "there's a lot of room to improve in Chinese cities, and Indian cities, and cities throughout the world."

We're all hopeful that someday pollution can be better controlled and eventually eradicated. Until that day comes, will are left to support the efforts of scientists such as Dr. Pope and his fellow researchers. Let's hope that the new Obama Administration carries out its promise and fully includes the findings of scientific research in it's policy development and implimentation.

Distinguished Climate Scientist, Jim Hansen, Warns We Only Have Four Years Left to Address Climate Change

Sitting in an office dominated by stacks of papers and reports on climate change in New York City, Jim Hansen, “the distinguished climatologist” of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies serves as the institute’s director and according to Robin McKie, science editor for the Observer, Mr. Hansen has issued a warning to President Obama: “His four-year administration offers the world a last chance to get things right. If it fails, global disaster - melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts - awaits mankind.” Hansen believes future generations “are threatened by a global greenhouse catastrophe that is spiraling out of control because of soaring carbon dioxide emissions from industry and transport.” Hansen expresses an urgency that he explains: "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

Dr. Hansen has suffered through eight years of the Bush Administration in which he was frustrated at every attempt he made to publicize and gather the support of the American government to take decisive action against the climatological dangers that confront the world. Hansen argues that we must go beyond such ideas as “cap and trade” proposals that would have set up a global system allowing countries the opportunity, as McKie explained “to trade allowances and permits for emitting carbon dioxide, must now be scrapped, he insisted. Such schemes, encouraged by the Kyoto climate treaty, were simply "weak tea" and did not work.” As for Kyoto, Hansen adds: "The United States did not sign Kyoto, yet its emissions are not that different from the countries that did sign it."

Hansen is highly critical of the plans that had been proposed in the recent past. "It's just greenwash.” Hansen believes, adding: “I would rather the forthcoming Copenhagen climate talks fail than we agree to a bad deal." Hansen believes that: “Only a carbon tax, agreed by the west and then imposed on the rest of the world through political pressure and trade tariffs, would succeed in the now-desperate task of stopping the rise of emissions... This tax would be imposed on oil corporations and gas companies and would specifically raise the prices of fuels across the globe, making their use less attractive. In addition, the mining of coal - by far the worst emitter of carbon dioxide - would be phased out entirely along with coal-burning power plants which he called factories of death.”

Hansen says: “Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as other fossil fuels combined and it still has far greater reserves. We must stop using it." Instead, resources should be directed toward making advances in solar, wind, and other renewables. Hansen also suggests that research should be conducted into creating a new generation of nuclear power reactors.

McKie explains that: “Hansen's strident calls for action stem from his special view of our changing world. He and his staff monitor temperatures relayed to the institute - an anonymous brownstone near Columbia University - from thousands of sites around the world, including satellites and bases in Antarctica. These have revealed that our planet has gone through a 0.6C rise in temperature since 1970, with the 10 hottest years having occurred between 1997 and 2008: unambiguous evidence, he believes, that Earth is beginning to overheat dangerously.”

In a surprising development, McKie ironically adds: “Last week, however, Hansen revealed his findings for 2008 which show, surprisingly, that last year was the coolest this century, although still hot by standards of the 20th century. The finding will doubtless be seized on by climate change deniers, for whom Hansen is a particular hate figure, and used as "evidence" that global warming is a hoax.” Those who deny that global warming is a man-created problem that requires a man-resolved solution constantly target Hansen for derision.

McKie is quick to issue a warning: “...deniers should show caution, Hansen insisted: most of the planet was exceptionally warm last year. Only a strong La Niña - a vast cooling of the Pacific that occurs every few years - brought down the average temperature. La Niña would not persist, he said. "Before the end of Obama's first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that."

McKie provides a glimpse into Hansen’s career: “Hansen's uncompromising views are, in some ways, unusual. Apart from his senior Nasa post, he holds a professorship in environmental sciences at Columbia and dresses like a tweedy academic: green jumper with elbow pads, cords and check cotton shirt. Yet behind his unassuming, self-effacing manner, the former planetary scientist has shown surprising steel throughout his career. In 1988, he electrified a congressional hearing, on a particular hot, sticky day in June, when he announced he was "99% certain" that global warming was to blame for the weather and that the planet was now in peril from rising carbon dioxide emissions. His remarks, which made headlines across the US, pushed global warming on to news agendas for the first time.”

McKie continues: “Over the years, Hansen persisted with his warnings. Then, in 2005, he gave a talk at the American Geophysical Union in which he argued that the year was the warmest on record and that industrial carbon emissions were to blame. A furious White House phoned NASA and Hansen was banned from appearing in newspapers or on television or radio. It was a bungled attempt at censorship. Newspapers revealed that Hansen was being silenced and his story, along with his warnings about the climate, got global coverage.”

Once it became public knowledge that attempts were being made to silence Hansen, McKie elaborates: “Since then Hansen has continued his mission "to make clear" the dangers of climate change, sending a letter last December from himself and his wife Anniek about the urgency of the planet's climatic peril to Barack and Michelle Obama. "We decided to send it to both of them because we thought there may be a better chance she will think about this or have time for it. The difficulty of this problem [of global warming] is that its main impacts will be felt by our children and by our grandchildren. A mother tends to be concerned about such things."

McKie reports of Hansen’s views: “Nor have his messages of imminent doom been restricted to US politicians. The heads of the governments of Britain, Germany, Japan and Australia have all received recent warnings from Hansen about their countries' behaviour. In each case, these nations' continued support for the burning of coal to generate electricity has horrified the climatologist. In Britain, he has condemned the government's plans to build a new coal plant at Kingsnorth, in Kent, for example, and even appeared in court as a defence witness for protesters who occupied the proposed new plant's site in 2007.”

McKie provides information that: "On a per capita basis, Britain is responsible for more of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere than any other nation on Earth because it has been burning it from the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. America comes second and Germany third. The crucial point is that Britain could make a real difference if it said no to Kingsnorth. That decision would set an example to the rest of the world." These points were made clear in Hansen's letter to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, though he is still awaiting a reply.”

McKie adds: “As to the specific warnings he makes about climate change, these concentrate heavily on global warming's impact on the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. These are now melting at an alarming rate and threaten to increase sea levels by one or two metres over the century, enough to inundate cities and fertile land around the globe.” Hansen views this as a simple issue, and asks: “would each annual increase of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere produce a simple proportional increase in temperature or would its heating start to accelerate?”

Hansen “...firmly believes the latter. As the Arctic's sea-ice cover decreases, less and less sunlight will be reflected back into space. And as tundras heat up, more and more of their carbon dioxide and methane content will be released into the atmosphere. Thus each added tonne of carbon will trigger greater rises in temperature as the year’s progress. The result will be massive ice cap melting and sea-level rises of several metres: enough to devastate most of the world's major cities.”

Hansen said: "I recently lunched with Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and proposed a joint programme to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency, in partnership with the US National Academy of Sciences, but nothing has come of the idea, it would seem."

McKie concludes by assessing that: “Hansen is used to such treatment, of course, just as the world of science has got used to the fact that he is as persistent as he is respected in his work and will continue to press his cause: a coal-power moratorium and an investigation of ice-cap melting.”

Hansen insists that: “The world was now in "imminent peril",... and nothing would quench his resolve in spreading the message. It is the debt he owes his grandchildren, after all.”

The climate in figures

• The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million. This compares with a figure of some 315ppm around 1960.

• Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can persist for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, absorbing infrared radiation and heating the atmosphere.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last report states that 11 of the 12 years between 1995-2006 rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.

• According to Jim Hansen, the nation responsible for putting the largest amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is Britain, on a per capita basis - because the Industrial Revolution started here. China is now the largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide .

• Most predictions suggest that global temperatures will rise by 2C to 4C over the century.

• The IPCC estimates that rising temperatures will melt ice and cause ocean water to heat up and increase in volume. This will produce a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres. However, some predict a far faster rate of around one to two metres.

• Inundations of one or two metres would make the Nile Delta and Bangladesh uninhabitable, along with much of south-east England, Holland and the east coast of the United States.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address and the Challenges Faced by Two Presidents

There have been numerous comparisons made between John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. In simple terms, some speak of the charismatic presence both men presented to those around them. Others are content to focus on the description of the brilliant oratorical skills both presidents have demonstrated. And others concentrate on the two leaders handsome looks. But Richard Reeves; no stranger to the many ethereal depiction's of presidential persona's whether of the Kennedy pedigree or of the Obama genus would rather concentrate on the circumstances Kennedy faced when his inaugural address was given and how both presidents Kennedy and Obama looked to the words delivered by our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln to find the inspiration that words can deliver to the human heart and mind.

Reeves summons his thoughts from the vast storehouse of his memories of times past to present a tableau of one particular moment that occurred on the twenty-first day of January, 1961. Reeves provides us with a glimpse at the thoughts and events that engaged America's collective consciousness back then by reminding us:

"It was an anxious time, the beginning of 1961. In the eight years before Jan. 20, 1961, the Soviet Union had tested a hydrogen bomb and had put in orbit the first satellite, Sputnik, which passed over the United States for months. Central Intelligence Agency analysts estimated the the Soviet economy was growing at a rate of between 6 percent and 10 percent a year, compared with the United States’ growth rate of between 2 percent and 3 percent. Unemployment in America was at 7 percent and the country had gone into recession early in 1960.

Mr. Reeves proclaims: "Now, this day, the youngest man and the first Catholic ever elected, 43-year-old John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, was to be inaugurated as the 35th President of the United States."

Reeves recalls that: "Kennedy had defeated Vice President Richard Nixon in one of the closest of national elections, but the country was united — by fear. For the first time since early in the 19th century, the United States mainland seemed vulnerable to foreign invasion. Nearly 20 new countries, most of the former colonies in Asia and Africa, joined the United Nations in 1960 and most of them were looking for guidance not to the Americans but to the Soviets." Mr. Reeves recites Kennedy's signature statement of his presidential campaign: “We’ve got to get this country moving again!”

America's once thought of impervious boundary against the unpredictable forces of aggression had seemingly disappeared over the course of a few short years. The world that had less than just a decade ago, seemed poised for U.S. economic, political and military domination; had been lost amid countless obstacles and dangers. This was the shape of the world soon to be presided over by a young, inexperienced president, whose brief career in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate was short and consequently had failed to produce any remarkable actions or legislation.

"So" Reeves reminisces: ",... it was not surprising that the new President would give an inaugural speech that was essentially a cold war battle cry. Only two words in Kennedy’s speech even touched on domestic affairs. Those words were “at home,” and they were added by Kennedy and his gifted speechwriter, Theodore Sorensen, at the very last minute." Kennedy was determined to show the world that America would be no pushover against the gathering threat posed by nation's whose goals and ideologies placed them squarely against U.S. ambitions and policies.

Mr. Reeves points out that Kennedy also faced domestic threats when "The new president’s civil rights adviser, a young man named Harris Wofford, complained to Kennedy, pointing out that 24 hours before the inauguration, 23 Negro students had begun a sit-in at segregated lunch counters in Richmond, Va., the old capital of the (sic) Confederacy, 100 miles south of the Capitol of the United States."

Kennedy uttered a simple response to Wofford, according to Reeves: “Okay,” said Kennedy, who added the words so that one sentence declared that Americans were: “unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed and to which we are committed to at home and around the world.”

Mr. Reeves recalls that Washington provided an immaculate backdrop for Kennedy's moment in history: "The ceremony was in a city sparkling like a diamond. Eight inches of snow had fallen during the night and and the sky was perfect cold wintry blue. The temperature was 10 degrees below freezing. The young President made his first statement by not wearing an overcoat as he sat next to his 70-year old predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenower, who was bundled in a great coat, scarf and top hat."

Kennedy issued his bold proclamation to the assembled, huddling crowd: “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans … Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”

Kennedy had provided his listeners with a clarion call in which Reeves remembers: "The words rang, still do in television excerpts and classrooms. Kennedy was a man who knew that in his new job, words were often more important than deeds. Few people would remember whether he balanced the budget. Almost all Americans would remember his lines, particularly, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

Reeves recounts that: "The speech was bellicose and conciliatory at the same time:" As Kennedy announced that: “Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out …”

Kennedy continued by issuing a challenge that demonstrated America's proud self assuredness: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate …”

Mr. Reeves reflects on Kennedy's choice of words by explaining that: "Paradoxically, one of Kennedy’s worries that day was that he would be overshadowed by another speaker, the poet Robert Frost. When Frost, who was 86, asked to speak, Kennedy’s first reaction was: “He’s a master of words I have to be sure he doesn’t upstage me …” The President-elect suggested he recite an old poem, but Frost insisted on writing a new one. The day’s sun and the wind made it impossible for the old man to handle his papers and, in the end, he did recite from memory an older poem titled “The Gift Outright.”

Instead of diminishing the importance of the words Kennedy chose for his address, Frost's poem blended perfectly with Kennedy's speech. Frost's poem told the long, rich history of the development of American culture from our very beginnings when we were ruled by England as colonists to the time when we rose to gain independence from England and establish our own government that celebrated freedom and grew by moving ever westward. Frost's poem recounted how the growth of our country was gained through the bravery we displayed throughout many wars; our never ending work to commit ourselves to the betterment of our nation; and our firm commitment to expand the territory of our nation while we worked to increase it's power. Frost's poem served as not only a recitation of past deeds; but laid out a plan to continue expanding American culture into the future because it afforded us with the only means for our nation to achieve it's full potential. Frost's words did not diminish the words used by Kennedy, instead Frost provided the justification for Kennedy's bold declaration.

Richard Reeves concludes his analysis by disclosing the connection that now exists among presidents Kennedy, Lincoln, and Obama that follows a clear expression of American thought when Reeves explains: "So, it was Kennedy’s day and Kennedy’s words that are remembered. Like the 44th president, Barack Obama, the 35th read and re-read the inaugural addresses of the 16th, Abraham Lincoln, who had said exactly 100 years before: “In your hands, my dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.”" To which Kennedy added in his conclusion; to his audience a time honored refrain: “Let us begin. In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.” The truth spoken by Kennedy's words provide a truly American expression that conveys the real hope for our nation's days to come lies not as much in it's leaders hands, as it does in it's citizens' collective actions to work toward creating a better future for generations to come. And thus Reeves exposes for us, the words that close the circle that connects Lincoln to Kennedy to Obama that recognizes that the continuation of our nation's course into an unknown future can best be guided by the courage and resolve of the American people.