Posts Made By: K. Michael Malolepszy

New light on Mars methane mystery

Large quantities of methane gas have been detected on Mars, Nasa scientists have announced in Science journal.

The gas could be produced either by geological activity or by life.

Methane was detected in the Martian atmosphere five years ago; scientists have found it is more abundant over particular parts of the planet.

It should last for only a short time in the atmosphere until it is destroyed by sunlight, and so its continued presence means it is being replenished.

This suggests the methane is made by an ongoing process.

But the ultimate origin of the methane could either be an ancient or a modern one, say the researchers.

"The fact that we have found three discrete regions where Mars is releasing methane at this time means we have a window into processes occurring under the surface of the planet," said co-author Michael Mumma, a senior planetary scientist at Nasa's Goddard Spaceflight Center in Maryland, US.

"The production (of methane) is likely due to only one of two possibilities. The first is geochemistry, the second is biology. That raises much interest on which one is the dominant production mechanism."

If the methane is produced by geological activity, it could either originate from active Martian volcanoes or from a process called serpentinisation.

The latter process occurs at low temperatures and occurs when rocks rich in the minerals olivine and pyroxene react chemically with water, releasing methane.

Seasonal release

"It could be occurring on Mars. In that case, we might expect the methane to be released only under regions that are volcanic districts," said Dr Mumma.

"On the other hand, there could be biology that's going on either very near the surface or deep below the permafrost layer. Then in order to release captured gases to the atmosphere one needs to access those sub-permafrost regions."

Some scientists consider it possible that microbes could have survived for aeons below the Martian permafrost layer, where water changes from ice into liquid.
In deep canyons, or the walls of yawning craters, ice might plug fissures or pores connecting these sub-permafrost regions to the atmosphere.

But the ice could disappear during spring and summer, Dr Mumma speculated.

The team used a technique called infrared spectroscopy at three different Earth-based telescopes to monitor about 90% of the planet's surface for seven years (equivalent to three Martian years).

They identified "plumes" of methane on Mars during 2003; at one point in their study, the primary plume of methane contained an estimated 19,000 tonnes of the gas.

Future exploration

This implies the gas was released from discrete regions on the planet. However, these regions do not move the researchers significantly towards one theory of methane production more than another.

"We've demonstrated there are regions of active (methane) release," said Dr Mumma.

"What we'd really like to do is map the entire planet identifying all such regions of release and validating that some are reproducible from year to year.

"In addition, we'd like to map the gases being released to establish which of those are more likely biological in origin versus others that may be geochemical in origin.

"On this basis we could target several interesting sites for lander missions."

Andrew Coates, from the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in Surrey, UK, said: "The observation of short-lived, seasonally varying clouds of methane from specific regions on Mars is a tantalising result. It shows there must be an underground source, past or present."

Dr Coates, who is not involved with the latest research, added: "Seasonal effects may open up fissures to allow increased escape into the atmosphere. But this could be a sign of either geology or biology.

"Both are exciting; we will not be sure which it is until we can analyse the methane in-situ at the surface."

Nasa's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover, due to launch to the Red Planet in 2011, will carry instruments that have the potential to distinguish between carbon in gases produced by biological activity and those with a geochemical origin.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7829315.stm

Published: 2009/01/15 19:01:21 GMT

Retired Air Force General Is Leading Candidate for NASA's Top Post

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123194781957381603.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Retired Air Force General Is Leading Candidate for NASA's Top Post

By ANDY PASZTOR

LOS ANGELES -- Scott Gration, a retired Air Force general with a long Washington resume but no experience running civilian space programs, has emerged as the leading candidate for the top job at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, according to people familiar with the matter.

While no final decision has been made, according to these people, talks about the appointment are under way and an announcement could come as quickly as the next few days. The former fighter pilot and foreign-policy adviser to President-elect Barack Obama has a long track record in military aerospace and has held some sensitive policy posts over the years, but his views on NASA's priorities and technical challenges aren't known.

Former NASA official Lori Garver, who has been serving on Mr. Obama's transition team for the agency, is considered the leading candidate to get the No. 2 NASA post, these people said. Mr. Obama transition officials weren't immediately available for comment.

The moves come at a critical time for the agency, which faces major uncertainties about its current plans, significant funding challenges and increasing rivalry from a number of countries as the U.S. strives to replace the space shuttle fleet and find a way to return astronauts to the moon and extend manned missions into the solar system.

The choice of Gen. Gration was first reported by online industry publications NASA Watch and SpaceRef.com.

The personnel moves follow weeks of speculation that the president-elect was leaning toward appointing a scientist or perhaps a former astronaut as NASA administrator. The current agency head, Michael Griffin, has angered some Obama insiders by publicly lobbying to stay on and bristling at the transition team's questions about current priorities.

Gen. Gration retired as a major general two years ago, and joined the Obama national-security brain trust. Gen. Gration's personal ties to the president-elect could give NASA a big morale boost and help the agency maneuver through budget constraints and competing pressures from lawmakers and contractors. He had a big role during the campaign in drafting Mr. Obama's space policies, which advocated beefing up spending and accelerating development of rockets and spacecraft to take astronauts to the international space station and then to the moon.

The Obama platform also called for extending somewhat the proposed 2010 retirement of the space shuttle. But since then, transition officials have sent mixed signals about their strategy to accomplish that goal. As a NASA outsider, many industry officials see Gen. Gration as more willing than other potential appointees to substantially redesign the agency's manned exploration programs.

One of the first big questions confronting NASA is whether the new team will embrace the Bush administration's concept of building a new fleet of space shuttle-derived rockets to reach the orbiting International Space Station and return to the moon. In the past few weeks, there have been increasing calls by outsiders to scrap some of those plans in favor of using existing military rockets.

Supporters of such a change in direction argue it would save time and money. Mr. Griffin and proponents of the current plan counter that switching to different boosters would delay project development and increase overall costs.

With no final decision so far and an announcement still at least two days away, Gen. Gration's name began sparking support and questions throughout the space community. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, a former astronaut and chairman of a key subcommittee with authority over the agency's budget, expressed concerns about picking an administrator without NASA experience. Retired Air Force general Pete Worden, who now runs NASA's Ames Research Center and had been considered a potential candidate for the agency's top job, sent out a message Wednesday applauding the choice of Gen. Gration.

Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III, who successfully ditched US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River, is quite an impressive guy; A USAF Academy graduate, former Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom pilot, "... an American commercial airline pilot, safety expert, and accident investigator... international speaker on airline safety." See

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

Where do people like this come from? You may want to see

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0116/p25s30-usgn.html

The Christian Science Monitor

Pilot was a 'hero,' but are more coming along for airlines to hire?

There are fewer military pilots to draw from, plus economic difficulties in the industry.

By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer from the January 17, 2009 edition

New York – There's no question that landing a plane with no power on a river in the middle of a city safely is an extraordinary feat.

Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III, whose smoothly water landing in the Hudson River helped ensure all 155 people aboard US Airways Flight 1549 could walk to safety rightly deserves his status as an instant hero.

But aviation safety experts are adamant that what happened Thursday afternoon was not simply a "miracle" but a product of years of disciplined training, invaluable experience, cutting edge engineering and an aviation culture that rigorously and regularly reviews and updates safety related procedures and engineering.

That's helped flying to become one of the safest modes of transportation in the United States. For the last two consecutive years there have been no fatalities in commercial aviation despite some potentially lethal incidents, like Thursday's water landing.

"How do you make a miracle? There are two things and the first isn't that glamorous: It's the systems analysts who've helped us get much better at understanding what causes accidents and do what needs to be done — in designing aircraft and training people — to prevent them," says William Voss, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation, an international nonprofit organization dedicated to improving aviation safety. "And then there's glamorous bit we saw yesterday: That kind of extraordinary sense of confidence, training, and skill that makes this system so safe. We still haven't given that away."

Captain Sullenberger is a veteran of that aviation culture in which safety has been a major preoccupation. But there's also growing concern within some aviation circles that the airlines recent economic turmoil will make flying a less attractive career to people like Sullenberger.

He began his career as an Air Force fighter pilot, and became a captain when flying for American carriers was still a high-status, high income job. The crack training he received enabled him to become an expert and start an aviation consulting business called Safety Reliability Methods, Inc. as well as to work with both the National Transportation Safety Board and the United States Air Force in working on accident investigations. He is currently a visiting scholar at the University of California's Berkeley's Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.

All of that experience and training served him well in the moment of crisis.

"He did a fantastic job and made all the right choices. He's a really instinctive, well-trained pilot," says Richard Golaszewski, executive vice president of GRA Inc., aviation consultants in Jenkintown, Pa. "But there were a lot of things that happened long before that: Design rules that say how long a plane has to float, training of the flight attendants and pilots. Ditching is something they train for."

Mixed with all of the accolades for Capt. Sullenberger, there's also some concern that the past 8 years of economic turmoil at the airlines during which pilot pay and benefits have been slashed will make it more difficult to attract people of Sullenberger's abilities.

"We still have some exceptionally trained and qualified crews," says a veteran pilot for a major airline who's not authorized to speak with the press. "But the fear is that in the future, because of the loss of quality of life and pay and turmoil that you're not going to attract people of that same caliber. For now at least we're enjoying the experience of people who chose it as a profession when it was still a highly coveted job."

Analysts note there has also been long-term trend of fewer military-trained pilots entering the commercial aviation world. Some contend that's because the job is now less attractive and they worry that this has led to a diminution in the skill and type of training pilots get. But others strongly disagree and say it's just a question of numbers. After the Vietnam War there were simply fewer military pilots being trained, and so fewer people like Capt. Sullenberger were joining the major airlines.

"There's absolutely no evidence I know of to suggest that the people coming from the civilian ranks aren't as qualified as military pilots," says Clint Oster, an aviation economist at Indiana University in Bloomington.

Prof. Oster and other analysts believe aviation still attracts people of high caliber, despite the changes in the job's pay. But there's also some concern about the future.

"There's no question that people feel less attracted to the aviation business because it's not the romantic, highly paid profession that it once was," says Mr. Voss. "But there's still a strong emotional attachment to it and we still see a lot of very positive young people wanting to go into it."

But Voss worries that when the economy recovers and the airlines again become profitable the nation will be facing a shortage of qualified pilots like Capt. Sullenberger.

"When we come out of this economic slow period there's going to be a sudden demand for pilots, and we'll be tested on our ability to put really talented people in these airplanes in sufficient numbers," he says.

Find this article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0116/p25s30-usgn.html

Scott, see my message to you. Mike

Scott Mortimer said:

Anyone else checking out the Vixen 130 currently for sale? FYI I dug up an old (but good) review by Lawrence Carlino, it's in Vol. 5 issue 1:

http://www.buffaloastronomy.com/index.php?id=32

It's on the net so I figured it was ok to post a link-

Scott

Mortars & artillery are a problem for the Green Zone in Iraq - DoD developed a land-based version of the US Navy's Phalanx anti-missile system for this. Officially it's known as C-RAM, but it's also called "R2D2" by some... videos of it on Youtube are.. interesting. Someone described it as being very LOUD - like your dentist using a chainsaw:

C-RAM Shot in Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5mQk-q6Uv4

CRAM during Mortar Attack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BRkbFbITY

Phalanx (CIWS) Block 1B LPWS Testing and Firing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpQBZF2sZQ

Navy version videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hA8IqSC58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2R4XAz193U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWS-z2hwM14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18G5ycZf-rc


For more Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM) background, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm

Getting to be one of the biggest Mardi Gras celebrations in the nation;

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/stories.nsf/visitstlouis/story/9DB61CF1F3843E13862575650014C5D9?OpenDocument

http://tinyurl.com/cn38ht

Interesting article at

http://tinyurl.com/ctddyx

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=gqchf08syrq7qfcxqfzjh9d949ndm2k2

CONSIDER THIS
The Virtues of Godlessness

The least religious nations are also the most healthy and successful

By PHIL ZUCKERMAN

The world seems more religious than ever these days.

Across the Middle East, fervent forms of Islam are growing more popular and more politically active. Muslim nations that were somewhat secularized 40 years ago — like Lebanon and Iran — are now teeming with fundamentalism. In Turkey and Egypt, increasing numbers of women are turning to the veil as an overt manifestation of reinvigorated religious commitment. But it isn't just in the Muslim world that religion is thriving. From Brazil to El Salvador, Protestant evangelicalism is spreading with great success, instilling a spirited, holy zeal throughout Latin America. Pentecostalism is proliferating, too — vigorously — and not only throughout Latin America, but in Africa and even, to a lesser extent, China. And many nations of the former Soviet Union, which had atheism imposed upon them for decades, have emerged from the communist era with their faith not only intact, but strong and vibrant. Here in the United States, religion is definitely alive and well. In terms of church attendance and belief in God, Jesus, and the Bible, religion in the United States is stronger and more robust than in most other developed democracies.

In sum, from Nebraska to Nepal, from Georgia to Guatemala, and from Utah to Uganda, humans all over the globe are vigorously praising various deities; regularly attending services at churches, temples, and mosques; persistently studying sacred texts; dutifully performing holy rites; energetically carrying out spiritual rituals; soberly defending the world from sin; piously fasting; and enthusiastically praying and then praying some more, singing, praising, and loving this or that savior, prophet, or God.

But that is not occurring everywhere. I am referring to two nations in particular, Denmark and Sweden, which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world. Amidst all this vibrant global piety — atop the vast swelling sea of sacredness — Denmark and Sweden float along like small, content, durable dinghies of secular life, where most people are nonreligious and don't worship Jesus or Vishnu, don't revere sacred texts, don't pray, and don't give much credence to the essential dogmas of the world's great faiths.

In clean and green Scandinavia, few people speak of God, few people spend much time thinking about theological matters, and although their media in recent years has done an unusually large amount of reporting on religion, even that is offered as an attempt to grapple with and make sense of a strange foreign phenomenon out there in the wider world that refuses to disappear, a phenomenon that takes on such dire significance for everyone — except, well, for Danes and Swedes.

What are societies like when faith in God is minimal, church attendance is drastically low, and religion is a distinctly muted and marginal aspect of everyday life?

Many people assume that religion is what keeps people moral, that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. But that doesn't seem to be the case for Scandinavians in those two countries. Although they may have relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary, and although these crime rates have been on the rise in recent decades, their overall rates of violent crime — including murder, aggravated assault, and rape — are among the lowest on earth. Yet the majority of Danes and Swedes do not believe that God is "up there," keeping diligent tabs on their behavior, slating the good for heaven and the wicked for hell. Most Danes and Swedes don't believe that sin permeates the world, and that only Jesus, the Son of God, who died for their sins, can serve as a remedy. In fact, most Danes and Swedes don't even believe in the notion of "sin."

So the typical Dane or Swede doesn't believe all that much in God. And simultaneously, they don't commit much murder. But aren't they a dour, depressed lot, all the same? Not according to Ruut Veenhoven, professor emeritus of social conditions for human happiness at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Veenhoven is a leading authority on worldwide levels of happiness from country to country. He recently ranked 91 nations on an international happiness scale, basing his research on cumulative scores from numerous worldwide surveys. According to his calculations, the country that leads the globe — ranking No. 1 in terms of its residents' overall level of happiness — is little, peaceful, and relatively godless Denmark.

The connection between religion — or the lack thereof — and societal health is admittedly complex. It is difficult to definitively establish that secularism is always good for society and religion always bad. However, the often posited opposite claim is equally difficult to substantiate: that secularism is always bad for a society and religion always good. To be sure, in some instances, religion can be a strong and positive ingredient in establishing societal health, prosperity, and well-being. And when considering what factors contribute to the making of a good society, religion can be a positive force.

Here in the United States, for example, religious ideals often serve as a beneficial counterbalance against the cutthroat brand of individualism that can be so rampant and dominating. Religious congregations in America serve as community centers, counseling providers, and day-care sites. And a significant amount of research has shown that moderately religious Americans report greater subjective well-being and life satisfaction, greater marital satisfaction, better family cohesion, and fewer symptoms of depression than the nonreligious. Historically, a proliferation of religious devotion, faith in God, and reliance on the Bible has sometimes been a determining factor in establishing schools for children, creating universities, building hospitals for the sick and homes for the homeless, taking care of orphans and the elderly, resisting oppression, establishing law and order, and developing democracy.

In other instances, however, religion may not have such positive societal effects. It can often be one of the main sources of tension, violence, poverty, oppression, inequality, and disorder in a given society. A quick perusal of the state of the world will reveal that widespread faith in God or strong religious sentiment in a given country does not necessarily ensure societal health. After all, many of the most religious and faithful nations on earth are simultaneously among the most dangerous and destitute. Conversely, a widespread lack of faith in God or very low levels of religiosity in a given country does not necessarily spell societal ruin. The fact is, the majority of the most irreligious democracies are among the most prosperous and successful nations on earth.

Just to be perfectly clear here: I am not arguing that the admirably high level of societal health in Scandinavia is directly caused by the low levels of religiosity. Although one could certainly make such a case — arguing that a minimal focus on God and the afterlife, and a stronger focus on solving problems of daily life in a rational, secular manner have led to positive, successful societal outcomes in Scandinavia — that is not the argument I wish to develop here. Rather, I simply wish to soberly counter the widely touted assertion that without religion, society is doomed.

If you can smell my ax starting to grind here, your nostrils are in good working order. The claim that without religion, society is doomed deserves to be challenged because, aside from being poor social science, it is a highly political claim that is regularly promulgated by some of America's most popular and most influential Christian conservatives. Those individuals do not represent or speak for the majority of believers in America, but together they do constitute a formidable and uniquely zealous chorus that reaches the hearts and minds of millions of people on a regular basis.

I am referring, for instance, to Pat Robertson, the successful televangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition, who regularly condemns secularism. And Ann Coulter, the Christian conservative media pundit, who has written in one of her best-selling books that societies that fail to grasp God's significance are headed toward slavery, genocide, and bestiality, and that when Darwinian/evolutionary theory is widely accepted in a given society, all morality is abandoned. Conservative pundit William J. Bennett has argued that "the only reliable answer" for combating societal ills is widespread religious faith, and that without religion, a society is without "the best and most reliable means to reinforce the good" in social life and human relations.

Conservative Christian Americans aren't the only ones who broadcast this perspective. Keith Ward, a professor of theology at the University of Oxford, has recently argued that societies that lack strong religious beliefs are essentially immoral, unfree, and irrational. He claims that any nonreligious society without a strong belief in God is a society "beyond morality ... and freedom" and ultimately predicated upon "the denial of human dignity." John D. Caputo, a professor of religion and humanities at Syracuse University, has declared that people who are without religion and who do not love God are nothing more than selfish louts, thereby implying that a society with a preponderance of irreligious people would be a fairly loveless, miserable place.

Belief in God may certainly give emotional and psychological comfort to the individual believer — especially in times of pain, sadness, or uncertainty — and history has clearly shown that religious involvement and faith in God can often motivate individuals or cultures to promote justice and healthy societal development. But the fact still remains that it is not the most religious nations in our world today, but rather the most secular, that have been able to create the most civil, just, safe, equitable, humane, and prosperous societies. Denmark and Sweden stand out as shining examples. The German think tank the Hans-Böckler Stiftung recently ranked nations in terms of their success at establishing social justice within their societies; Denmark and Sweden, two of the least-religious nations in the world, tied for first.

It is a great socioreligious irony — for lack of a better term — that when we consider the fundamental values and moral imperatives contained within the world's great religions, such as caring for the sick, the infirm, the elderly, the poor, the orphaned, the vulnerable; practicing mercy, charity, and goodwill toward one's fellow human beings; and fostering generosity, humility, honesty, and communal concern over individual egotism — those traditionally religious values are most successfully established, institutionalized, and put into practice at the societal level in the most irreligious nations in the world today.

Phil Zuckerman is an associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College. This essay is adapted from his book Society Without God (New York University Press, 2008).

I had a look at Comet Lulin with my 10X50 binocs sunday (2/22/09)night from my backyard here in the city (mag 4 skies at best) - and Lulin was quite easy to find, even without a map. I had a rough idea of where it was supposed to be from my recollections of a map I had printed but lost. Despite the glare from city lights, just pointing my binoculars at the part of the sky between Saturn (located in Leo) & Spica (the brightest star in Virgo) and scanning slowly near Saturn enabled me to find it in less than 15-20 seconds. Looks like your typical cotton ball shaped comet under those conditions. I had to wait until fairly late in the evening to get a good look at it - it doesn't transit here until roughly 1:00am right now.

Will try to get my 11" Starmaster out for this, even under my big, bad city lights.

Maps of Comet Lulin's track across the sky can be found at

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/highlights/35992534.html

http://cometchasing.skyhound.com/

info about the comet at

http://cometography.com/lcomets/2007n3.html

Picture gallery at

http://spaceweather.com/comets/gallery_lulin_page8.htm

Michael Malolepszy
St. Louis Astronomical Society

A War on the Rich?

The bogus GOP claim that Obama is bleeding the wealthy.
Daniel Gross

Mar 6, 2009 | Updated: 9:41 a.m. ET Mar 6, 2009

To hear conservatives tell it, you'd think mobs of shiftless welfare moms were marauding through the streets of Greenwich and Palm Springs, lynching bankers and hedge-fund managers, stringing up shopkeepers, and herding lawyers into internment camps. President Obama and his budgeteers, they say, have declared war on the rich.

On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist (and former Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson argued in an op-ed that "Obama chose a time of recession to propose a massive increase in progressivity—a 10-year, trillion-dollar haul from the rich, already being punished by the stock market collapse and the housing market decline." The plans are so radical, "there will not be enough wealthy people left to bleed." CNBC's Larry Kudlow wrote that "Obama is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds." Other segments on the financial news network warn of a tax on the rich, a war on the wealthy. My personal favorite was a piece from ABCNews.com, which had to be rewritten and reposted because the original was so poorly done. (The revised version isn't much better.) It quotes a dentist who is contemplating reducing "her income from her current $320,000 to under $250,000 by having her dental hygienist work fewer days and by treating fewer patients. [That way, she] would avoid paying higher taxes on the $70,000 that would be subject to increased taxation if Obama's proposal is signed into law."

It's hard to overstate how absurd these claims are. First, let's talk about the "massive increase in progressivity" that Gerson deplores. It consists largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001, before Gerson and the epically incompetent Bush administration of which he was a part got their hands on the reins of power. Obama wants to let marginal rates for families with taxable income (not total income, but taxable income) of more than $250,000 revert from 33 percent to 36 percent, and to let the top rate—currently 35 percent on family income above $357,000—revert to 39 percent. (Here are the current tax tables.) There's also talk of capping—not eliminating, but capping—deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest.

Obama's proposals don't mean the government would steal every penny you make above the $250,000 threshold, or that making more than $250,000 would somehow subject all of your income to higher taxes. Rather, you'd pay 36 cents to the government in income taxes on every dollar over the threshold, rather than 33 cents.

Second, this return to 2001's tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. The Republicans who controlled the White House and the Republicans who controlled the Congress earlier this decade decreed that all the tax cuts they passed would sunset in 2010. They put in this sunset provision to hide the long-term fiscal costs of the cuts. The Bush team and congressional supporters had seven years to manage fiscal affairs in such a way that they would be able to extend the tax cuts in 2010. But they screwed it up. Instead of controlling spending and aligning tax revenues with outlays, the Bush administration and its congressional allies ramped up spending massively—on two wars, on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, on earmarks, etc. Oh, and along the way, they so miserably mismanaged oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector that it required the passage of a hugely expensive bailout. Even before the passage of the TARP, the prospect of extending all the Bush tax cuts was a nonstarter. Once Bush signed the $700 billion bailout measure into law, extending tax cuts was really a nonstarter. The national debt nearly doubled during the Bush years. So if you want to blame someone for raising taxes back to where they were in 2001, don't blame Obama. Blame Bush, his feckless Office of Management and Budget directors, his economic advisers, and congressional appropriators like Trent Lott and Tom DeLay.

Third, we know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren't wealth killers. I was around in the 1990s, when tax rates were at that level, and when capital gains and dividend taxes were significantly higher than they are today. And I seem to remember that we had a stock market boom, a broad rise in incomes (with the wealthy benefitting handily), and strong economic growth.

Fourth, we also know from recent experience that lower marginal rates on income taxes, and lower rates on capital gains and dividends, aren't necessarily wealth producers. The Bush years, which had lower marginal rates and capital gains taxes, were a fiasco. In fact, if you tally up the vast destruction of wealth in the late Bush years—caused by foolish hedge funds, investment banks, and other financial services companies, it seems like the wealthy have in fact been waging war on one another.

Finally, there has been a near total absence of discussion of what higher rates will mean in the real world. Say you're a CNBC anchor, or a Washington Post columnist with a seat at the Council on Foreign Relations, or a dentist, and you managed to cobble together $350,000 a year in income. You're doing quite well. If you subtract deductions for state and property taxes, mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and other deductions, the amount on which tax rates are calculated might total $300,000. What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you'd pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you'd pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise? That dentist eager to slash her income from $320,000 to $250,000 would avoid the pain of paying an extra $2,100 in federal taxes. But she'd also deprive herself of an additional $70,000 in income!

Can she, or we, really be that stupid?

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/187933

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7376946

Iran's Leader Sparks Western Walkout at UN Meeting

Iran's president slams Israel, sparking Western walkout, clown protest at UN racism conference

By FRANK JORDANS
The Associated Press

GENEVA

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians, prompting European diplomats to walk out Monday from a speech disrupted by jeering protesters in rainbow wigs tossing red clown noses at the hardline leader.

A U.N. racism conference on the eve of Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day disintegrated into chaos moments after Ahmadinejad became the first government official to take the floor. Two protesters in wigs tossed the noses at Ahmadinejad as he recited a Muslim prayer to begin his speech.

A Jewish student group from France later took credit for causing the disturbance, saying members were trying to convey "the masquerade that this conference represents."

Ahmadinejad restarted his talk and delivered a speech that lasted more than a half-hour, saying the United States and Europe had helped establish Israel after World War II at the expense of Palestinians.

"They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," he said.

That prompted a walkout by some 40 diplomats from Britain and France and other European countries that had threatened to leave the conference if it descended into anti-Semitism or other rhetoric harshly critical of Israel, which marred the U.N.'s last racism gathering eight years ago in South Africa.

The United States and eight other Western countries were already boycotting the event because of concerns about its fairness.

Ahmadinejad went on to accuse Israel of being the "most cruel and repressive racist regime."

Protesters held placards reading "This is a circus. A racist cannot fight racism," and repeatedly interrupted the speech with shouts of "Shame! shame!" and "Racist! racist!"

Later, about 100 members of mainly pro-Israel and Jewish groups tried to block Ahmadinejad's entrance to a scheduled news conference.

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon met with Ahmadinejad before his speech and said he had counseled the Iranian leader to avoid dividing the conference. Ban later said he was disappointed Ahmadinejad had used his speech "to accuse, divide and even incite," directly opposing the aim of the meeting.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Ahmadinejad's speech and Ban's meeting with the Iranian leader.

"It is unfortunate that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deemed it appropriate to meet with the greatest Holocaust denier of our time, the head of a U.N. member state who calls for the destruction of another UN member state. This matter is especially severe, as it took place on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day," Israel said.

Ahmadinejad has been praised by some in the Muslim world for calling for Israel's destruction and for other anti-Israeli comments. The hard-liner has often used international forums to criticize Israel including at last year's U.N. General Assembly where he said Israel was on "a definite slope to collapse."

But his comments Monday could also further strain efforts to improve relations with the United States, Israel's top ally. Iran has been mostly lukewarm to overtures from President Barack Obama, but last week Ahmadinejad said the Islamic Republic was ready for a new relationship with Washington.

Alejandro Wolff, the U.S. deputy ambassador to the United Nations, denounced "the Ahmadinejad spectacle" and the Iranian president's "vile and hateful speech."

"It's inaccurate. It shows disregard for the organization to which he is speaking, the United Nations, and does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people," Wolff told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York.

"We call on the Iranian leadership to show much measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region, and not this type of vile, hateful, inciteful speech that we all saw ... this morning," he said.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman said Britain would return to the talks but "unreservedly condemns his offensive and unacceptable remarks."

"He ascribed all the problems relating to racism in the modern world to Israel and the Jewish state, and that was enough for me to walk out," British Ambassador Peter Gooderham said.

In Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned what he called "an intolerable call to racist hate" and urged a firm reaction by the European Union.

Ahmadinejad's speech also took aim at the United States for its role in the global economic crisis and at Western countries for imposing unfair economic conditions on the developing world. Among his more brazen claims was the allegation that Zionists instigated the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in concert with weapons manufacturers.

Iran's state TV broadcast pictures showing some delegates cheering and other delegates leaving the conference.

"The president confidently continued his speech despite efforts by some Western diplomats to disrupt his address," it said.

But Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel remarks may not be well-received among many others in Iran. Ahmadinejad is up for re-election in June, but his popularity has been waning as Iran's economy struggles with high-inflation and unemployment. Many have criticized Ahmadinejad for spending too much time on anti-Israel and anti-Western rhetoric and not enough on the country's economy.

Ahmadinejad, as head of state, had the right to speak and did not need a U.N. invitation to the weeklong event aimed at stamping out intolerance worldwide.

Joining the U.S. as boycotters were Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland.

And even before Ahmadinejad's speech, Israel withdrew its ambassador from Switzerland on Monday in a harsh diplomatic response to a pre-conference dinner shared by Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz and Ahmadinejad. In their Sunday night conversation, Merz pressed the case of a jailed American journalist in Iran, acting in Switzerland's role as the official representative of U.S. interests in Iran.

The Swiss government said it also took up other "unresolved cases" of U.S.-Iranian relations in the meeting, which occurred Sunday night hours after Obama said the United States would communicate with Iran about journalist Roxana Saberi through Swiss intermediaries.

Speaking directly after Ahmadinejad's speech, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said the Iranian leader's comments "run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference."

Ahmadinejad "has made Iran the odd man out," he said.