If you want to know the latest on electric cars, read Katharine Mieszkowski's "The Electric Cars are Coming!" at Salon.com. Yes, good things are on the way, but the article is framed around a long loud lament voiced by a woman who previously drove an EV1: "An American car company had a fantastic lead and threw it away."
Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach is a fighter pilot and weapons systems for the Air Force. Aubrey Sarvis writes that Fehrenbach has excelled at everything he has done for the Air Force. His reward? They are kicking him out of the Air Force because he is gay.
The Air Force is about to discharge this guy, a virtual poster boy for Air Force recruiting, because he is gay? Someone has to be kidding. This is sheer madness.
Let me check my calendar . . . yep, it's 2009. Obama is in office. This is insane. And it's been done many times before, for instance, when the military kicked out dozens of gay Arabic language specialists during the Iraq invasion because they were also gay. Sarvis advises that we need far more than an executive order to stop this madness to protect the remaining 65,000 gays and lesbians in the military. We need to change DADT immediately. We must rip it apart and choose our military personnel on one criterion: whether they can do the job.A law is a law, even a bad law. Our country and service members are suffering the consequences as we watch this theater of the absurd play out. We need this new 111th Congress and this new President to engage each other immediately and with a sense of urgency to stop this obvious madness.
To compound this tragedy, Fehrenbach was two years shy of retiring with a full pension. See Fehrenbach's interview by Rachel Maddow at the top link.Did you know that there are 200 known objects in our solar system that are larger than 200 miles in diameter. You'll find them all listed and pictured here
Linguist George Lakoff, who I have often discussed at this website (see here and here), has spent a lot of time discussing the power of framing. In fact, the way we frame serve as tectonic plates of sorts underneath all the chatter. Exposing the frames can clear up misunderstandings. Being careful of how one frames one's arguments can make for a much more effective message. Turning to environmental issues, Lakoff suggests that we need to consciously note that certain types of frames will enhance the message. What are those frames? Here's Lakoff's list, from a long post at Huffpo:
First, the public's very understanding of nature has to change. We are part of nature; nature is not separate from us. Nature nurtures us. The destructive exploitation of nature is evil. What is good is the use of nature that doesn't use up nature.
Second, the economic and ecological meltdowns have the same cause: the unregulated free market and the idea that greed is good and that the natural world is a resource for short-term private enrichment. The result has been deadly, toxic assets and a toxic atmosphere.
Third, the global economy and ecology are both systems. Global causes are systemic, not local. Global risk is systemic, not local. The localization of causation and risk is what has brought about our twin disasters. We have to think in global, system terms and we don't do so naturally. That is why a massive communications effort is needed.
Fourth, the Right's economic arguments need to be countered. Is it too expensive to save the earth? How could it be? If the earth goes, business goes.
Fifth, we are the polar bears. Human existence is threatened, and the existence of most living beings on earth.
Sixth, we own the air jointly and we can't transfer ownership. Polluting corporations are dumping pollution into our air. They need to gradually be made to stop, two-percent less a year for 40 years: that is what a "cap" on carbon dioxide pollution is about. And meanwhile the polluters should pay us dumping fees to offset the cost of fuel increases and pay for the development of better fuels.
Seventh, even the most successful emissions cap would only take us halfway. Business needs to do its part to take us the rest of the way. Large corporations need to face up to reality and join in the effort.
Finally, for those in the business world: Corporate interests are constantly putting forth arguments based on cost-benefit analysis. But the very mathematics of cost-benefit analysis is anti-ecological; the equations themselves are destructive of the earth . . . [I]n a fairly short time, any monetary benefits compared to costs will tend to zero. That says there are no long-term benefits to saving the earth!
Some scientists are touting a 47 million year old primate fossil as potentially being a direct descendant of humans, though they admit that there is a lot more work to do before making that conclusion with certitude. What is not in dispute is that this lemur-like fossil is extremely well preserved.