Oceans of liquid diamond, filled with solid diamond icebergs, could be floating on Neptune and Uranus, according to a recent article in the journal Nature Physics.

The research, based on first detailed measurements of the melting point of diamond, found diamond behaves like water during freezing and melting, with solid forms floating atop liquid forms. The surprising revelation gives scientists a new understanding about diamonds and some of the most distant planets in our solar system.

"Diamond is a relatively common material on Earth, but its melting point has never been measured," said Eggert. "You can't just raise the temperature and have it melt, you have to also go to high pressures, which makes it very difficult to measure the temperature."


snip.............

When the pressure dropped to about 11 million times the atmospheric pressure at sea level on Earth and the temperature dropped to about 50,000 degrees solid chunks of diamond began to appear. The pressure kept dropping, but the temperature of the diamond remained the same, with more and more chunks of diamond forming.

Then the diamond did something unexpected. The chunks of diamond didn't sink. They floated. Microscopic diamond ice burgs floating in a tiny sea of liquid diamond. The diamond was behaving like water.


snip........

Up to 10 percent of Uranus and Neptune is estimated to be made from carbon. A huge ocean of liquid diamond in the right place could deflect or tilt the magnetic field out of alignment with the rotation of the planet.




http://news.discovery.com/space/diamond-oc...

I wonder?....

Anyway, until these War Criminals, Corporate Criminals and saboteurs
of America are brought to Justice

WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD
until then ....no matter how much change
you might think you are getting

everything will remain as fucked up
as you know it is

and are asked
once again

to roll over and take it and
compromise everything you stand for.

One of the Best documented books I've read lately.
Yes, the nightmare is true, yes there is a shadow government.

And your fears about JFK's death just took a new turn.



Russ Baker's Family of Secrets, a 600 page thriller that digs more deeply into the Bush Family than anyone has ever done. The paperback is now in its third edition and I've been urging Russ to work with someone on doing a synopsis that we could use to turn people on who are intimidated by books with hundreds of pages. Yesterday he finally sent me something that can be used here at DWT. He starts with the questions many of us have asked over and over again: "How did the spectacularly unqualified George W. Bush come to be the President of the United States, and arguably the most powerful person in the world? What lay behind his improbable rise and disastrous policies? Was there more to his controversial reign than the pundits’ standard bromides?"
These are the questions that launched Russ Baker into five years of research. The answers, based on hundreds of interviews, including with persons close to the Bush family who had never talked with reporters, proved astounding.

Not only, Baker found, had we missed the very essence of W., but also of his father and grandfather and in fact the entire clan. Moreover, behind the secrets of the Bushes and their circle lay larger ones that cast decades of American history in a new and revealing light.

The Bushes have been portrayed as everything from incompetents to ideologues to outright crooks. Many of their transgressions are now well known-- from grandfather Prescott’s involvement with Nazi-era financiers to W.’s initiatives that weakened Americans’ constitutional rights at every turn.

But Baker’s research took him to far deeper levels of insight into the American power machine, as it unearthed material of the sort more commonly identified with shady foreign regimes or Hollywood thrillers than with the still-hallowed U.S. presidency.

Baker explained this in a post-publication interview: “As I discovered, there was an entire hidden stratum of truth underlying the rise of the Bushes-- a truth that, if not reckoned with, threatens to derail the reforms we all hope are on the horizon.”



More here even chapters of the book.


http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/0...

Leaders who fail to provide true and proper command, inspiration and strategic vision for their followers leave a battered organization. I have
revolted against athletic coaches, principals and political leaders.

You and they need the flame you provide for their leadership. Hollow leadership is a failed leadership.
With all of these dire consequences hollow ship, why would they ever fail to fulfill their leadership responsibilities? The answer is often quite simple. Either they think they have the option of not changing, or they know that change should take place but somehow cannot execute it.

If you notice birds in flight the leadership is past back and forth, not so in mammals that much except with Cetacea family. I'm not in the "Top Dog" family concept of leadership even being a "silver back' aged primate that I am.

Socrates rejected the materialistic view of leadership as did others

"I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live."

I take Politicians with a grain of salt because they are a fish that need to
be salted in order to taste and digested for they all too human
just like us and I do not follow the "school"

I admire a few politicians but most are frontmen and don't follow
what leadership means which is having

... a high degree of self-knowledge.
....are willing to hear unpleasant messages.
..... Are able to tolerate uncertainty.
.....Maintain clear and logical thought under great pressure.
.....Know when to lead and when to recede.
....Pride themselves on operating at high standards of performance.
.....Have, and can create in others, a healthy sense of urgency.
.....Seek solution-oriented feedback with which to adjust performance.
......Do not have to be right all the time.

Very few politicians do this,
some CEOs do like Steven Jobs and others
but that is another kind of leadership vs political leadership
and you can't fire them like you can in a democracy which
levels they playing field.

So I guess I have to say ..... I still don't trust politicians
and vote.

Life giving you a comb after you are bald

At nearly 60 this coming year, and still somewhat a head of hair,
I count and experience each day more aware of what they mean

that my graduate degrees never adressed

They act like the old House of Lords back in the early 1800s
with the same powers, titles, wealth and privileges but now its corporate
with the exceptions of a few senators.

It took the English Civil Wars of the 1640s and the reform bill of the 1830s to get rid of its power.

The US will not diminish the Senate's powers in the foreseeable future
because it is not a parliamentary system but a federalist system


States have to be treated equally, or else the little ones will lose out. But who cares if they lose out? States don't vote. People do!


in Thomas Geoghegan's 1998 book, The Secret Lives of Citizens. Because each state is granted equal representation in the Senate regardless of population, Geoghegan writes, "a man who might own a gas station in Idaho might have more say in foreign policy than the whole Trilateral Commission."

Mindful that a filibuster can only be stopped by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate, Geoghegan calculates that 41 senators representing about 10 percent of the population can block a bill favored by 60 senators representing about 90 percent of the population.

A 90 percent majority in favor still doesn't guarantee that a law can be passed! OK, so we'll get rid of the filibuster. Given the practical difficulties of abolishing the Senate, that's a respectable fallback position. But even if the filibuster were scuttled, Geoghegan figures, 50 senators representing the 25 smallest states, and hence a mere 16 percent of the population, could still block passage of a bill favored by the other 84 percent of the population.

(Assuming, of course, the tie-breaking vice president abstained or went along with the naysayers; with 50 senators, the vice president wouldn't be a factor.) Similarly, he points out, 51 senators representing "16 percent and a bit more" could pass any bill they wished, even if 84 percent of the population opposed it. (Of course, the president, who has veto power, would have to favor the bill, too.)

Howie Hawkins, a Green Party USA candidate for Congress in New York, has slightly different numbers--the way he's figured it, 20 percent of the population, acting through its senators, can block legislation favored by 80 percent of the population--but the point remains the same.


Nebraska, the only state in the United States that has a unicameral legislature, can hardly be described as a hotbed of radicalism. Jesse Ventura wants the same thing in Minnesota. Why can't we have one in Washington, too?


In addition to being more democratic, it would also be loads more efficient. No conference committees! No duplicative hearings! And think of the office space you'd save on Capitol Hill!



This portion of my rant is from another poster:




The founding fathers and in particular james madison wrote about why they wanted this particular form of govt. They wrote about this in the federalist papers, madison's notes from the constitutional convention and in a letter to jefferson from madison.

Here is a basic summary of what they said:

They did not want democracy. In fact the primary reason the founding fathers installed our present constitution was that under the articles of confederation, the people were beginning to assert their will because under the articles of confederation, some of the several states were developing parliamentarian demcracies. That meant that the majority of working class citizens in those states were raising taxes on the rich and were allowing debt relief for people who were broke. The founding fathers, being rich, did not like that. So Madison created a type of govt that would give the appearance of democracy, but that in practice would prevent the will of the people from being exerted via the vote.



Let me tell you what madison said was the primary purpose of his new constitution: to preserve wealth inequality, to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," in his words. In fact, in that same paragraph he wrote that the Senate was the primary way that his constitution would achieve that goal.

Madison's new gov't would fragment the will of the people by increasing faction by increasing the size of the voting districts that elected politicians. He noted that politicians from small voting districts had to more or less follow the will of the people because in small districts the people were more able to "unite and discover their common interest" and thus force the politicians to do as the people wanted.

In larger districts that would be created under his new constitution (e.g., the office of the president and the senate), the districts were so large that there naturally existed more FACTIONS in these larger districts. More factions meant that the people were more diviided and could not thus unite and discover their common intererst and thereby make the politicians obey the will of the people.

Large districts like the entire nation (the president) and each state (the senate) were so fragmented by the factions in them that the voters would be divided and not united.

Divide et impera, wrote madison to jefferson, was how the USA should be ruled. Divide and conquer by fragment the people by increasing the number of factions in voting districts.

Madison and founding fathers created factions in voting districts by enlarging them.

In the quasi-parliamentarian governments that were growing under the articles of confederation before 1791 when the new constitution was installed, the politicians were elected from small disticts. Small meaning fewer factions and therefore more unity among voters.

OK..... Rant over but you know the Senate is the problem with our government and not the house.

Comet McNaught, the Great Comet of 2007, was the brightest comet of the last 40 years. Its spectacular tail spread across the sky and was breathtaking to behold from dark locations for many Southern Hemisphere observers. The head of the comet remained quite bright and was easily visible to even city observers without any optical aide.

Part of the spectacular tail was visible just above the horizon after sunset for many northern observers as well. Comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught), which reached an estimated peak brightness of magnitude -6 (minus six), was caught by the comet's discoverer in the above image soon after sunset in 2007 January from Siding Spring Observatory in Australia.

The robotic Ulysses spacecraft fortuitously flew through Comet McNaught's tail and found, unexpectedly, that the speed of the solar wind dropped significantly.


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091206.html

link added

All of them show world leaders as they would be in 2020








Just of few of them that greet world leaders at the airport.

For some reason my photobucket account won't add it so I can resize it.