Drilling Stops at Lake Vostok

Lake Vostok, a subglacial lake in East Antarctica

The director of Russia's Antarctic program, Valery Lukin,told Nature that drilling at Antarctica's Lake Vostok stopped on Feb. 5 at a depth of 12,200 feet (3,720.47 meters). The operation had to be halted so that the research team could make it off the ice and onto the last flight before the beginning of the Antarctic winter season. The drilling team left by aircraft on Feb. 6, and will have to wait until the next austral summer begins in December to try again.

Russian drilling station Vostok

Lake Vostok has been hidden under the miles-deep Antarctic ice sheet for some 25 million years. What will scientists find when they drill down to the lake's pristine waters? We'll have to wait until the summer thaw to find out. In the meantime, be afraid. Be very afraid!

Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal - The Equation

The Wall Street Journal becomes "Fox-ified."

A op-ed article signed by 16 scientists rejecting the need for “drastic action to decarbonize the world’s economy,” published Friday (1/27/2012) by the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, has been widely and thoroughly fact-checked and challenged elsewhere. For example, see: Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal - The Equation

What's happened to the good, old WSJ? Murdock's happened.

Republicans have only themselves to blame

By Richard Cohen, Washington Post, Published: January 30, 2012

On Saturday night, at precisely 9:19 and 30 seconds, my iPhone, my iPad, my computer and, for all I know, my toaster were informed that Herman Cain had endorsed Newt Gingrich. The ping-ping of the devices suggested that something momentous had happened — alerts from both The Post and the New York Times — but in fact it was just additional evidence that the Republican Party has become a circus: One clown endorsed another.

It’s hard to know who is the more ridiculous figure — the grandiloquent, bombastic and compulsively dishonest Gingrich, or the beguilingly ignorant Cain, a man who has never held elective office and who was reduced to speechlessness when asked a question about Libya. Nonetheless, Gingrich, his Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face, accepted the endorsement and then went on with his nihilistic campaign for the White House. This has been an exceedingly silly political season.

But it has also been a sad one. The Republican establishment acts as if this season’s goon squad of presidential candidates has come out of nowhere, an act of God — a tsunami that hit the party and receded, leaving nothing but nitwits standing. In column after column, conservative commentators lament the present condition, but not their past acquiescence as their party turned hostile to thought, reason and the two most important words in the English language: It depends.

If you ask me what I think of abortion, I’d say, “It depends.” It depends on whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill. But in the Republican contest, the answer to the question is always the same: no, no and no again. Thanks for giving the matter such careful thought.

It is the same with taxes. Should they be raised? It depends. It depends on economic and fiscal conditions — and on whose taxes will be raised and by how much. The answer cannot be “No, never.” That’s not an economic position; it is an ideological one and exhibits a closed mind.

Similarly with global warming, GOP candidates are not certain it is exacerbated by industry, auto emissions and such. They take this position not because they have studied the science but because they are opposed to government regulations. They fear the solution more than they do the problem. Some also take a skeptical position regarding the theory of evolution — proof right there that there is something wrong with this theory.

This rampant anti-intellectualism is worrisome. The world is a complex place, but to deal with it, the GOP presented a parade of hopefuls who proposed nostrums or, in the case of Michele Bachmann, peddled false rumors about vaccinations. When this started I cannot say — the late Richard Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for his “Anti-intellectualism in American Life” in 1964 — but the embrace of Sarah Palin by the GOP establishment has got to be noted. The lady has the gift of demagoguery and the required anti-elitism, but she knows next to nothing about almost anything — and revels in her ignorance.

Should the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear installations? It depends. Should America enable Israel to do it? It depends. How should China be handled? What about Russia and Turkey, not to mention Pakistan — our ally and a mosh pit of madmen? From the GOP candidates, the answers are simple: Bomb Iran if it goes nuclear, confront China, stare down Russia and — from the unfathomably shallow Rick Perry — kiss off Pakistan. Subtlety is banished. Yahoos stride the stage.

It is entirely appropriate that last week’s GOP debates fell between “Pawn Stars” and “American Pickers” in the 10 most-watched cable television shows. They are sheer entertainment having little to do with us and our problems. The Republican Party has veered so far from reality that Gingrich is lambasting Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate” — moderation being, as it was with the clueless Barry Goldwater, an epithet. Romney, who has all but collapsed his rib cage to conform to conservative dogma, must be perplexed. Others have prudently stayed out of the race.

The Republican establishment that has now risen up to smite the bratty Gingrich has only itself to blame. For too long it has been mute in the face of a belligerent anti-intellectualism, pretending that knowledge and experience do not matter and that Washington is a condition and not a mere city. The endorsement of Gingrich by Cain was not a bulletin. It was a feeble blip on a scope. The Republican Party is brain dead.

cohenr@washpost.com

Mia Culpa (Not the Actress)

Having reflected on my own rating system, I realize that I have mixed together two different types of rating measures; character, and views held, i.e., policy. They should be assessed separately, then brought together in a way that accounts for their weight, because a candidate could be rated high on things like his/her moral character, but hold views or espouse policies, entirely at odds with those of the rater. In such a case, the rater -- the prospective voter -- would not support the candidate no matter how highly he might rate his character. There is also the factor of importance, or weight. Some things on both the character scale and the policy scale will be more important to individual voters and they should have the option of giving those things greater weight in arriving at their figure of merit.

As I wrote previously, Article II of the Constitution specifies that the president has two primary job functions: to serve as chief executive of the federal government, and to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. In the latter role, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, as well as the power to decide whether to use nuclear weapons; awesome responsibilities. Our rating system should use this “job description” in considering how to rate our candidates: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (recent winner of the South Carolina primary), U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (winner of the New Hampshire primary), and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (winner of the Iowa primary).

So, once again, how does a committed Republican decide who they want to support as the GOP nominee for President of the United States of America? I developed the following scheme with my best friend in mind. He’s a staunch Republican, a former Marine, and a person who considers me sadly misguided in all things political. He's also a decision analyst. Here’s how such a person might decide their candidate choice among the four remaining Republicans running.

First, for the CHARACTER measures, rank the measures by how important they are to you, from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important). You must prioritize the measures, e.g., they can't all be 5s. Then rate each candidate on how closely they demonstrate the characteristic on each measure, as follows: MINUS 2 - fails, MINUS 1 - poor, ZERO - average, ONE - above average, TWO - outstanding. Multiply the candidate's score on the measure by the measure's importance, add all results (retain the sign, positive or negative), and set that figure of merit aside while you score the policy measures.

CHARACTER

1. (Importance: _____) Has a core set of principles that guide his life and the decisions he makes.
2. (Importance: _____) Has the maturity and confidence to seek different viewpoints, to learn from his mistakes, accept blame, and share the credit for success with others.
3. (Importance: _____) Has a strong moral compass, is able to master his “inner self” and execute self control at all times. Seldom or never gets his mouth in gear before engaging his brain.
4. (Importance: _____) Is courageous, stays strong in the face of adversity, conveys strength and resolve, and inspires others.
5. (Importance: _____) Is intelligent, farsighted, imaginative, in touch with popular sentiment, knowledgeable about key issues facing the Nation, and makes informed, well thought-out decisions.

For the POLICY measures you will be ranking the issues reflected in the statement according to how important they are to you, with 5 being most important and 1 being least important. Then you will rate the candidates on how closely they reflect the policy stipulated, as follows: MINUS 2 - definitely does not support, MINUS 1 - is non-committal,  ZERO - supports with major qualifications, ONE - supports with minor qualification, TWO - definitely supports without qualification. Now do the multiplication, importance by rating.

POLICY

1. (Rank: _____) The Environmental Protection Agency should be eliminated and environmental regulations severely curtailed or eliminated. No unilateral action by the United States should be initiated concerning global warming, which in any case, hasn't been shown to be human caused.
2. (Rank: _____) Roe vs Wade should be overturned, and a "personhood amendment" should be passed making abortion at any stage of conception, and for any reason, illegal. In addition, a constitutional amendment should be passed making marriage a strictly a union between a man and a woman.
3. (Rank: _____) Corporations are JOB CREATORS and should be relieved of unnecessary and burdensome regulations, including repeal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Corporate taxes should be eliminated, as they are simply passed on to consumers and thereby depress consumer spending.  should be repealed.
4. (Rank: _____) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") should be repealed and replaced with a common sense approach to reducing health care costs that includes tort reform and private health savings accounts.
5. (Rank: _____) The United States must maintain a strong military and continue to project force aboard, including maintaining a significant presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East at large. Draconian cuts to military spending must be off the table. Under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and all means must be employed to prevent such a development.

Now multiply the results for Character by the results for Policy. The candidate with the highest total is your Republican nominee for president. Remember the sign, negative or positive, and that if you multiple a positive by a negative, the result is negative (by the same token, if you multiple a negative by a negative, the result is a positive, in which case, you've selected Barack Obama as your nominee).

To illustrate, I've arbitrarily ranked the Character traits and Policy issues as some "thoughtful" Republican might and then ranked the candidates based on what this fellow or gal might have learned to date about the four candidates' character and their stated policies. Here's what the hapless Republican came up with.

CHARACTER

Item	Import 1-least 5-most	Gingrich		Paul		Romney		Santorum
		Rating	X	Rating	X	Rating	X	Rating	X
1	1	-2	-2	2	2	-2	-2	2	2
2	2	-2	-4	1	2	1	2	2	4
3	4	-2	-8	1	4	2	8	0	0
4	3	2	-6	1	3	0	0	0	0
5	5	1	5	-1	-5	1	5	-1	-5
	Total		-15		6		13		1

POLICY

Item	Import 1-least 5-most	Gingrich		Paul		Romney		Santorum
		Rating	X	Rating	X	Rating	X	Rating	X
1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	2
2	2	-2	-4	-1	-2	1	2	2	4
3	4	2	8	2	8	1	4	2	8
4	3	2	6	2	6	2	6	2	6
5	5	2	10	-2	-10	0	0	1	5
	Total		21		4		13		25

Multiplying Character totals by Policy totals yields the results below.

Gingrich		Paul		Romney		Santorum
-15*21	-315	6*4	24	13*13	169	1*25	25

Making Mitt Romney, the one person no "real" Republican seems to want, the "thoughtful" Republican's pick.

Now you try it. Rank the measures first, as you see their importance, then rate the Republican candidates on each measure, multiply ranking by rating, and total the five Character and then the five Policy columns. Then multiply Character by Policy and see who your pick would be. Record it in the Comments box below.

The Qualities of a Great President: Which Republican Candidate Has Them?

Here we are, the South Carolina primary is history, Newt Gingrich won, upsetting the GOP bandwagon, and Republican primary voters are ping-ponging back and forth between four men contending for the Republican nomination for president: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. How does a committed Republican decide who they want to support as the GOP nominee for President of the United States of America?

Article II of the Constitution specifies that the president has two primary job functions: to serve as chief executive of the federal government, and to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. In the latter role, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, as well as the power to decide whether to use nuclear weapons; awesome responsibilities.

There have been numerous books, essays, and articles written about what makes a great president. Doris Kearns Goodwin and David Gergen have each put pen to paper articulating in relatively recent articles the characteristics they believe they’ve gleaned from history and experience. I’ve taken these characteristics, added a few of my own, and created a set of ten questions that you can rate the Republican candidates on using a five-point scale: 1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - maybe yes/maybe no, 4 - agree, and 5 - strongly agree.

Go ahead and make your rating, and please be objective, even if you wouldn't vote for one of these clowns if they paid you (and they would).

1. Has a core set of principles that guide his life and the decisions he makes.
2. Has the maturity and confidence to seek different viewpoints, to learn from his mistakes, accept blame, and share the credit for success with others.
3. Has a strong moral compass, is able to master his “inner self” and execute self control at all times.
4. Is courageous, stays strong in the face of adversity, conveys strength and resolve, and inspires others.
5. Is aware and in touch with popular sentiment, and gives the sense that he will hear and understand the concerns, hopes, and aspirations of the people he hopes to lead.
6. Is intelligent, farsighted, imaginative, knowledgeable about key issues facing the Nation, makes informed, well thought-out decisions, and seldom or never gets his mouth in gear before engaging his brain.
7. I am comfortable with the views he espouses; the things he says make perfect sense to me.
8. Would “hit the ground running” and be an extremely hard working, exceptionally committed president.
9. Able to work effectively with other world leaders.
10. I am confident that as the commander and chief of our armed forces and the deciding authority on the possible use of nuclear weapons this man will make the right decisions.

Let us know your ratings and your selection for president in the comments box below.

Celibate Sex: Will the real Republicans please stand up?

Celibate Sex: Will the real Republicans please stand up?: Why do Republicans devalue intelligence? Republicans use the word “intellectual” as a pejorative. One of Newt Gingrich’s attack ads directe...

Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections | Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections | Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich home page