Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn these times, when the number of women in Congress has leveled off, it is great to see Diane Benson waging a spirited fight for Congress in traditionally Republican Alaska.
In 2006, Benson ran an impressive race against Republican Representative Don Young for Alaska's single at-large seat. She spent approximately 10% as much as her opponent but still won over 40% of the vote – only the third time in 33 years a Democratic challenger had crossed that threshold in vying for the seat.
This time around, Rep. Young has spent over $1 million – including campaign funds – as he faces criminal investigations for bribery and extortion. He's also tarnished by rampant Republican corruption in Alaska on the state and federal levels – the latest case involving Senator Ted Stevens who was indicted last Tuesday on federal corruption charges. Benson's candidacy offers a refreshing contrast to the abuse of power that Alaskans have grown weary of. But in 2008 she has also faced stiffer competition in the Democratic field – now whittled down to two candidates. On August 26, she and former State House Democratic leader Ethan Berkowitz will square off in the primary. Congressional Quarterly wrote that the race is too close to call.
As Benson told Indian Country Today, "People see that there's a wounded moose in their midst. I remind them it's like a pack of wolves circling the moose. It took the first wolf to strike to start bringing it down. The fact is, I'm the one who was out there when it didn't look possible. I frankly think that's the kind of representation people need."
But Berkowitz has received the nod and financial support from the Inside the Beltway Democratic establishment. He received contributions from Rahm Emanuel's PAC and is listed on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee website as part of its "Red to Blue" slate of candidates. The more progressive 21st Century Democrats, on the other hand, recently endorsed Benson. Among other issues, the group cited her commitments to universal healthcare, alternative energy, and clean elections. In a statement 21st Century Democrats wrote, "Diane's opposition to the war and disgust at the poor treatment of veterans like her son prompted her to challenge long-serving Congressman Don Young in 2006. Under-funded and without national support, Diane gave him the closest race he had faced in decades. She was willing to take him on again before his ethical troubles gained traction and other Democrats decided to enter the race."
I asked Benson how she responds to the fact that the Washington Democratic establishment hasn't supported her – or, at the very least – stayed out of the primary given her success in 2006.
"I think people are always scared of somebody who challenges their values," she told me. "I believe I have challenged the values of the party. I'm asking them to really step up to what they claim to be. And sometimes that's tough for people…. Not just in terms of the issues, which is one thing. There's a certain safety net in a good ole boy network. Insiders support insiders too often. And trying to break-up the game – it's like standing in front of a bunch of guys [who are watching] Monday Night Football [on] the TV set. Good luck."
But if there's one thing Benson has in abundance it's toughness. In her attempt to become the first Native American woman in Congress – as well as the first Alaskan Native man or woman – she calls on that toughness every day.
"You really take a beating out here when you run for office, I can tell you that," she said. "You have to be thick-skinned enough, you have to be tough enough to put up with this every single day. It's not to say that every day is really bad, it's not. It's just that it's a grueling exercise, it's like being interviewed for a job repeatedly, 24/7."
She says that's especially hard for people who "don't come from money," and believes that's part of the reason more women don't run for office – an issue she says she thinks about "every single day."
"How many women with a political bent come from money or aren't already overextended?" she asked. "Most women I know – and many brilliant women – are overextended with taking care of families, communities, and community obligations as well as their jobs."
Benson's strength and determination stems at least in part from her background. She "grew up in logging camps, boarding schools, foster homes and even on boat houses," according to Indian Country Today. At times she was homeless. She worked her way through college as a Teamster truck driver and was one of the first women tractor-trailer drivers on the Alaska Pipeline – she often was the only woman on the jobsite. Benson said that was a tough job to get.
"I could prove that I could do the job and the union stood up for me," she said. "And they stood up for me time and time again, and I will never forget that."
Educated in Alaska, she earned her Bachelors Degree, a Masters of Fine Arts in Creative Writing and is now working on her Masters in Public Policy. She also attended the American Film Institute in Los Angeles and co-produced a PBS documentary about Alaska Civil Rights. She ran sprint-races as a dogsledder and – along with her son –had 32 dogs at one time. But it wasn't until 2005 when her son, Spc. Latseen Benson, was injured by a road-side bomb in Iraq and was a double amputee that she turned to politics. She spent three-and-a-half months with him and his fellow-soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
"My family has a strong history of military participation and, you know, we're proud of it," she said. "And on the other hand, we don't – and I don't – see us just going to war at the drop of a hat, or at somebody's whim. I think it's really because I have this experience and this history I understand what it is to send our troops. And I feel that there are too many in Congress who do not, and that my opponents do not as well…."I've been very strong about seeing us get out of this Iraq War – as it's called – and have maintained that position all along. And at the same time have been able to garner a lot of veteran support as well as having spent a lot of time working on veteran issues. None of my opponents on either side of the aisle have a history with working for veterans, on veterans issues, or having any way of understanding veterans issues in their experience. That distinguishes me from all of them."
Benson was surprised that in a recent debate she was the only candidate to repeatedly bring up veterans issues – one of the other candidates brought it up maybe once, if that. With 80,000 veterans in the state, responding to their issues is a key part of her platform.
As for Iraq, said she would begin preparing for withdrawal right now. "I know what it is to mobilize and to bring them home – that's a major undertaking. I'm familiar with that just because I've watched the movement of our troops – especially when I was following my son's movements when he was serving over there. It takes time and strategy to safely redeploy them… [We need to] prepare for that step right now and plan the withdrawal right now."
Her son enlisted following September 11 to fight in Afghanistan and she believes the conflict there is "worthy of our attention." But she doesn't use the term "War on Terror" saying, "That's like having War on Poetry – what's that mean?" She wants to see "strong diplomacy and work with other nations to solve some of these problems…. I don't want to see us just caught up in only military solutions as our knee-jerk response to every problem or trouble that comes into the world."
Both Benson and Berkowitz poll far ahead of Rep. Young, and Benson is now focused on distinguishing herself as the progressive choice and turning out her voters.
"What stands out the most – one, I'm not a career politician. And two, I really do want to clean-up government and that to me means you don't take money from industry lobbyists and industry PACs, because if you do want to clean up government it should probably start with the campaigns," she said.
Benson points to the PAC and lobbyist support of both Berkowitz and Young and said it points to a "fundamental difference" between their campaigns. According to Benson, in the most recent debate both men "were speaking to how good having lobbyists really is, and that they take that money without expecting to be beholden to them." She reflected on Congressman Barney Frank's saying that "being a politician is the only profession in America where you're required to take money from strangers and pretend you don't owe them anything."
"I figure, you know, when was the last time a career politician went to Washington and became less indebted to special interests?" she said. "I mean, let's ask that question. To me it's like sending an alcoholic to a bar to sober up…. When we look at the make-up of Congress, what do we see? We see a lot of millionaires and a lot of lawyers, and how much of the people's interests are being represented over big special interests?"
Benson believes that reforming our big money, special interests politics is vital at this time of economic hardship.
"People are very sensitive right now about what the future holds and are rather frightened for it," she said. "When we have here in this day, a resource rich state, people who are suffering in poverty. We have a large homeless population in the Anchorage vicinity…. I would doubt that any of my opponents have done what I've done. I have visited the prisons, I visited the homeless shelter… I've spoken to treatment groups about drug and alcohol issues. I have spoken with Elders at luncheons on issues that affect them – particularly the families. And issues of homelessness and poverty in this state are not favorite issues, as a matter of fact it rarely comes up."
But the struggles of every day life are very real to Benson. "Our biggest threat this winter as Alaskans is the lack of fuel and just heating oil for homes across – especially in the rural areas of Alaska. And I think where we might differ is how I am more understanding and committed to rural Alaska than any of my opponents could possibly be, and I don't know if that's just because I understand it so well from growing up in rural Alaska having lived a good part of my life out there. And, coming from that kind of background, knowing what it is to subsist. I grew up with that, none of my opponents have grown up with subsistence nor have they had to."
She was the only candidate to attend a recent Energy Summit in the state. The Speaker of the State House introduced her and praised her for looking for solutions prior to serving in office. Benson emerged from the gathering feeling hope and excitement about at least one new technology that she discovered while touring a geothermal plant. She said that a "$3500 greenhouse system" could be used to grow food anywhere. With some federal funding "you could send that system out to all of the villages – we have over 200 villages – they could have fresh produce that they grow that serves the community. They could use it however they want – do they want to sell it to their community, do they just want to feed their community? It's so simple. And it would support certain transportation costs to those rural communities. They wouldn't be threatened by being weathered in and running out of food. I mean, it solves so many problems. I can't believe not one other person has talked about this."
Perhaps one of the most telling moments that distinguishes her as the progressive candidate in this race was her response to Senate Democrats passing the FISA bill. She was the only candidate to immediately release a tough statement criticizing its approval. "The Constitution is not a list of suggestions," she wrote. "It is a list of rights that no President and no Congress have the right to take away."
"You know, I was frustrated because – I'm a Democrat – we need more Democrats who are willing to take a stand like that rather than having Democrats that cave or end up being called Bush kinds of Democrats," she told me. "And it's very troubling to me to see anybody, frankly, regardless of party, compromise our civil rights and our civil liberties…. If it's about justice for people, about what's right, human rights matter to me maybe because I grew up so much without, that I've become very sensitive to the rights of fellow human beings."
Indeed Benson has fought long and hard for her own rights as she has blazed a unique trail for herself and her family. I think one particular story about working on the pipeline captures her spirit as well as her candidacy.
"I was on a trucking crew on the South side. It was a new crew and I was the last truck to come in," she described. "There were about 30 trucks all lined up, and instead of saving me a space on the end where I could park my rig, they saved a space in between two rigs. And then [the men] all sat on the bus and waited for me to park my rig while they all watched – to squeeze in between these two rigs…. And so I pulled the truck forward, and I pulled in one movement back into the parking place with only – literally, I got out and measured it – two inches on one side and one inch on the other, between the mirrors of their trucks and my truck….And I got on the bus and you could hear dead silence until one guy finally says, "Make room for the trucker."
Years later, Benson offers Alaskans the kind of fearless, progressive representation and leadership that all Americans really need right now. Click here to support her campaign.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Thank you for this great article on Diane Benson. She had the courage to take on Don Young before he was under a shadow and now that's he is "wounded" others have decided to take him on. It is disheartening that the Democratic Party is supporting Ethan Berkowitz and not Diane. The same thing happened in the state when she ran in 2004. This is how the Good Old Boy Network keeps churning out white males for Congress.
Posted by JuneauWoman at 07/30/2008 @ 5:20pm
Diane Benson has all of the qualifications needed to be an effective Representative and a respected member of Congress. I think that it is past time to have more capable women in Congress since I am sure that the number of women in the House is well under 20%. Lets have some fresh, honest perspectives from a woman who has no strings attached to any big money contributors. Lets stop just talking about reform and change and DO something. I strongly urge my fellow Alaskans, and all progressive minded people, to support Benson in any way that you can.
Posted by BlueBear69 at 07/30/2008 @ 6:03pm
>>>[Berkowitz] received contributions from Rahm Emanuel's PAC <<<
That's all we need to know!
Rahm is grooming another AIPACer who will be a reliable "Democratic" vote for more war and wasted military expenditures on the MIC.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/04/2008 @ 1:13pm
'Perhaps one of the most telling moments that distinguishes her [Diane Benson] as the progressive candidate in this race was her response to Senate Democrats passing the FISA bill. She was the only candidate to immediately release a tough statement criticizing its approval.' -- Katrina Vanden Huevel -- The Nation -- 4 August, 2008
'In addition to joining the majority in a 69-28 Senate vote to approve legislation that the American Civil Liberties Union describes as "a Constitutional nightmare," Obama backed a key move to silence debate on the FISA bill.' -- John Nichols -- The Nation -- 9 July, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/04/2008 @ 1:34pm
Sorry, but if the DNC is backing Berkowitz...he'll likely get the nomination.
But a Dem House win in Alaska (especially coupled with a win over Ted Stevens in the Senate)...signals a rough paradigm for the Repubs for YEARS to come.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/04/2008 @ 1:41pm
Posted by Zero at 08/04/2008 @ 1:43pm
Rahm Emanuel IS AIPAC in Congress, and the single most influential person in preventing the Democrats from moving forward on a wide range of progressive issues related to war, Iraq, Iran, the Palestinian conflict, etc.
His agenda is AIPAC's agenda, and there is not one degree of separation between them. AIPAC's financial network doles out the cash, and Rahm tells them where the cash is supposed to go.
If you want to run for Congress, and don't fill out the AIPAC questionare "properly", you get NO money from Rahm and he finds an AIPACer to run against you in the Democratic primary that he showers with cash.
Corruption pays, even in the Democratic party.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/04/2008 @ 1:57pm
Posted by JuneauWoman at 07/30/2008 @ 5:20pm
If I were Benson, I would be contacting the congressional finance people at Move-on, Progressive Democrats Alliance, J-street and Jews Against War (JAW), as this is the only way to counter Rahm Emanuel's AIPAC money.
But don't take my word for it, as Congressman Jerry McNerney, who is one of the few Democrats that beat Rahm Emanuel's hand-picked candidate in the Democratic primary in 2006.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/04/2008 @ 2:11pm
Great article Katrina.
Congress needs more progressive women candidates like Mrs. Benson. I kicked in a few bucks. I suggest everyone else do it too.
https://www.bensonforcongress.com/contribute
Posted by FWD at 08/04/2008 @ 2:47pm
Zero makes a good point. Emanuel hasn't supported many women, but his control of Berkowitz IS about power and control.
I've spoken to Ethan Berkowitz about this twice. In April, before I wrote an article for Progressive Alaska about Emanuel's unprecedented support for Berkowitz, I called Ethan and asked him if he knew what he was getting into. I explained Rahm's PAC to him as:
"A list that reads like a "who's who" of supporters of war with Iran, defenders of the worst aspects of our health care industry, opponents of net neutrality, and enablers of the financial deregulation that allows hedge fund managers to be taxed very little, and who helped engineer the sub-prime mortgage industry meltdown. The list includes the producer of Bill O'Reilly's radio show, several Fox executives, war criminal Henry Kissinger's main business partner, and a whole host of other people who make Alaska's Corrupt Bastard Club look like a kindergarten roster."
Ethan told me he'd "look into it." But when we next talked about the PAC at the Alaska Democratic Party Convention in Palmer, over Memorial Day weekend, he launched into my continued interest in the matter, saying he didn't care where this money came from, and that Emanuel would have no control whatsoever over his actions in Congress.
Ethan also refused to return VECO money back in 2006, when asked by the Associated Press if he intended to do that. When I asked Ethan about this in early 2008, he said "The company no longer exists and the campaign fund to which the money went is vacated."
Posted by PhilipMunger at 08/04/2008 @ 3:44pm
>>>Ethan also refused to return VECO money back in 2006, when asked by the Associated Press if he intended to do that. When I asked Ethan about this in early 2008, he said "The company no longer exists and the campaign fund to which the money went is vacated."
Posted by PhilipMunger at 08/04/2008 @ 3:44pm<<<
Doesn't sound like Change We Can Believe In!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/04/2008 @ 3:56pm
>>>he launched into my continued interest in the matter, saying he didn't care where this money came from, and that Emanuel would have no control whatsoever over his actions in Congress.<<<
Either Ethan is EXTRAORDINARILY naive, or he was trying to pull your leg!
That's not how Rahm Emanuel works. If you take his money, you have to vote his way, or you get royally screwed during the next election cycle.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/04/2008 @ 4:03pm
I'm more inclined towards the State Treasurer Steelman who is running for Governor in Missouri. Apparently, upon learning of a secret settlement involving some high level politicians over a sexual harrasment suit, she stopped payment on the guy's check. She didn't check with anybody: She just did it, cause it was the thing to do. I love it!
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/04/2008 @ 4:10pm
Nice pirate picture Mrs. "Black Kat" VanHelsing Doodle.
Hey, if Frosty 'Teacher's Pet' Zoom gets to do it, we all should.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/04/2008 @ 4:16pm
"She said that a "$3500 greenhouse system" could be used to grow food anywhere. With some federal funding "you could send that system out to all of the villages – we have over 200 villages – they could have fresh produce that they grow that serves the community. They could use it however they want – do they want to sell it to their community, do they just want to feed their community? It's so simple."
thats one of the solutions to one of the WORLD's problems that government should be proactively involved in supporting and encouraging.
check this site out...
http://www.verticalfarm.com/Designs.aspx
whether it be federal, state, or local, government has the potential to work with entrepeneurs to encourage creative, do-able solutions to all the problems we shaved apes are and have been creating.
technology does indeed have the capacity to solve gobs of problems, but leadership is also needed to implement such solutions and overcome inertial resistance. vertical farms, for example, could actually provide more than enough foodstuffs for huge communities including those in cold zones like in alaska. even tropical fuit and coffee could be grown in these things!
sooner or later t. boone pickens types are going to key in to the profit potential for green, high tech paradigm shifts but again - positive government action will be needed to encourage and enable such.
as mr O says...YES WE CAN!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/04/2008 @ 5:46pm
The Problem
By the year 2050, nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during the interim. An estimated 109 hectares of new land (about 20% more land than is represented by the country of Brazil) will be needed to grow enough food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA). Historically, some 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management practices. What can be done to avoid this impending disaster?
A Potential Solution: Farm Vertically
The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world's urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.
It took humans 10,000 years to learn how to grow most of the crops we now take for granted. Along the way, we despoiled most of the land we worked, often turning verdant, natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts. Within that same time frame, we
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/04/2008 @ 5:57pm
Advantages of Vertical Farming
Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres) No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of evapotranspiration VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.) VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers VF creates new employment opportunities We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on earth VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production. VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water and land for agriculture
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/04/2008 @ 5:59pm
again - check out the site i pasted above. its got gobs of those cool futuristic architechtural concept pics and gobs of more information, links, etc.
futhermore vertical farming could even be used to grow sugarcane ANYWHERE, and unlike corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol is a LOT easier and cheaper to refine into clean fuel grade stuff. look at what the brazilians have been doing for decades now - the only problem they have had is the massive rain forest destruction that has resulted - with vertical farms, however...no NEED to destroy natural filtering systems such as the rain forest or any other forest.
this transcends ideology. there's plenty of money to be made and immeasurable benefits for society and the world in general.
why not?
again...YES WE CAN!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/04/2008 @ 6:08pm
You must have javascript enabled to leave a comment.
booooooooooooo!!!!!
slows down the pages.....
heats up my computer.....
booooooooooooo!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 7:17pm
Benchrest
what on earth are you talking about?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 7:21pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 7:21pm
ha.....ha.....
We know who her favorite is.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/04/2008 @ 7:57pm
Does it by any chance, look like what Europe has accomplished (not) in these past 4~5 years with Iran while we were/are a bit busy in Afghanistan & Iraq......
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/04/2008 @ 9:12pm
and just look how much has been accomplished in those places!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 9:30pm
4132 accomplishments.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 9:31pm
oh, and 567 more accomplishments in afghanistan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 9:34pm
speaking of energy and global warming:
"Nocera calculates that if 9 billion people in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans do today that the world would have to generate 102.2 TW of power--more than seven times curent production. If peple adopted the energy lifestyle of Western Europe, power production would need to rise to 45.5 terawatts. On the other hand if the world's 9 billion in 2050 adopted India's current living standrds, the world would need to produce only 4 TW of power. Nocera suggests, assuming heroic conservation measures that would enable affluent American lifestyles, that "conservative estimates of energy use place our global energy need at 28-35 TW in 2050." This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW
So where will the extra energy come from? Relying on figures from the World Energy Assessment by the United Nations Development Program, Nocera looks at the maxmum amounts of power that varius non-fossil fuel sources might supply. Biomass could supply 7-10 TW of energy, but that is the equivalent of harvesting all current crops solely for energy. Nuclear could produce 8 TW which implies building 8000 new reactors ovr the 45 years at a rate of one new plant every two days. Wind would generate 2.1 TW if evry site on the globe with class 3 winds or greater were occupied with windmills. Winds at a class 3 site blow at 11.5 miles per hour at 33 feet above the ground. And hydro-power could produce 0.7-2 TW if dams were placed on every untapped river on the earth. Nocera concludes, "The message is clear. The additional energy we need in 2050 over the current 13.5 TW base, is simply not attainable from long discussed sources--the global appetite for energy is simply too great"
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 9:57pm
'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage system
Anne Trafton, News Office
July 31, 2008
In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
(Daniel Nocera describes new process for storing solar energy)
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.
Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 10:12pm
"Given the magnitude of the problem of fueling the future with carbon-neutral energy, Nocera argues that the only real alternative for carbon-neutral energy production is some form of solar power. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year. But converting sunlight into energy useful to people is a huge unsolved technological problem. In 2000, author Richard Rhodes and nuclear engineer Denis Beller calculated that using current solar power technologies to construct a global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources, take a century to build and cover a half-million square miles. Clearly a lot of technological innovation needs to take place before solar becomes an option for fueling the world."
soon, happy, soon.
if the plants can do it, so can we.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 10:14pm
More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year.
THE SUN. IT'S HOT.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 10:15pm
According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energ...
"Earth receives 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere at any given time. When it meets the atmosphere, 6 percent of the insolation is reflected and 16 percent is absorbed. Average atmospheric conditions (clouds, dust, pollutants) further reduce insolation traveling through the atmosphere by 20 percent due to reflection and 3 percent via absorption. These atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of energy reaching the earth's surface, but also diffuse approximately 20 percent of the incoming light and filter portions of its spectrum. After passing through the atmosphere, approximately half the insolation is in the visible electromagnetic spectrum with the other half mostly in the infrared spectrum (a small part is ultraviolet radiation)."
The article continues:
"- The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) [1 x 10^21 joules] per year.
- Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.
- Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.
- Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.
- Worldwide energy consumption was 0.471 ZJ in 2004."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 11:35pm
If Diane Benson is elected, the Democrats will immediately become measurably stronger as a party. This woman has everything for the job except MONEY.
Posted by JakobFabian at 08/04/2008 @ 11:36pm
that's a lot of joules.
anyhoo, climate mess up may or may not live up to the scientific theories.
nonetheless,
oil is a finite resource. it is dirty, toxic, and corrupting.
THE SUN. IT'S HOT.*
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 11:39pm
Parliamentary seats > Female by country
#1 Sweden: 43%
#2 Finland: 37%
#3 Netherlands: 36%
#4 Norway: 36%
#5 Iceland: 35%
#6 Germany: 31%
#7 South Africa: 30%
#8 New Zealand: 29%
#9 Cuba: 28%
#10 Argentina: 28%
#11 Austria: 26%
#12 Mozambique: 25%
#13 Seychelles: 24%
#14 Belgium: 23%
#15 Monaco: 22%
#16 Australia: 22%
#17 China: 22%
#18 Namibia: 22%
#19 Spain: 22%
#20 Canada: 21%
#21 Laos: 21%
#22 Korea, North: 20%
#23 Costa Rica: 19%
#24 Turkmenistan: 18%
#25 Guyana: 18%
#26 Lithuania: 18%
#27 Uganda: 18%
#28 United Kingdom: 18%
#29 Luxembourg: 17%
#30 Rwanda: 17%
#31 Latvia: 17%
#32 El Salvador: 17%
#33 Mexico: 17%
#34 Tanzania: 16%
#35 Angola: 15%
#36 Bahamas, The: 15%
#37 Eritrea: 15%
#38 Poland: 13%
#39 Jamaica: 13%
#40 San Marino: 13%
#41 Slovakia: 13%
#42 Portugal: 13%
#43 United States: 13%
#44 Guatemala: 13%
#45 Colombia: 12%
#46 Senegal: 12%
#47 Mali: 12%
#48 Bolivia: 12%
#49 Ireland: 12%
#50 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 12%
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2008 @ 11:48pm
Actually, "measurably stronger" is not the right term. "QUALITATIVELY IMPROVED" would be better.
It is tempting to call Diane Benson strong, because she certainly is. But more importantly, she's RIGHT. A big problem with our debased political rhetoric is that it carelessly expresses moral qualities using quantitative terms such as "strong" rather than more suitable qualitative ones such as "decent," "just," "honest," "compassionate," "wise," et cetera.
This explains the difference between Benson's "strong diplomacy" and Bush's, which has apparently mystified "2Happy." In this expression, "strength" is a metaphor for a "steady" moral compass and a "firm" idea of what works and what doesn't.
If a military threat is needed, then Benson certainly can't threaten anything QUANTITATIVELY more than Bush can. But I believe she can threaten that if she DOES assent to another war, it will have international support, a clear military objective, commitment to pay as we go, and a clear notion of what will be the terms of peace. In other words, what she would threaten would be QUALITATIVELY better leadership (probably with President Obama as Commander-In-Chief), so that the next military action by the United States would be a success rather than a fiasco.
Two more things need to be said about quantitative versus qualitative attributes. The first is that they are not mutually exclusive; you can be both quantitatively "strong" and morally "good" at the same time. The second is that a merely strong, but not good leader is the worst leader that we can possibly have. (Nobody can question that Hitler was strong, but was he good?) The next-worst possible leader is one who is strong, but also stupid. I'll let you guess which contemporary leader best fits THAT description.
Posted by JakobFabian at 08/05/2008 @ 12:03am
it seems the whole debate about new drilling is a bit pointless anyway. i've been hearing that new drilling would not have an impact for at least a decade anyway, but...
a switch to green paradigm will probably take longer.
at the very least some new drilling/refining capacity could give us some breathing room while we make the switch. if such drilling eforts are undertaken during the administration of a president who really cares about the environment, perhaps such could be done with minimal impact on the environment.
the main point is that even new drilling is, in the context of ADD nation, a "long term" solution.
let us not be grasshopper/ostrich fools. a sincere, dedicated, drive to implement new technologies and encourage development of the same will pay dividends beyond the imaginations of even fairly progressive types.
when we shot our countrymen up to the moon in those primitive space cans we had to develop all sorts of new technologies in order to do so, the research and implementation of which were encouraged and overseen by our government in conjunction with the best and brightest of the private sector.
the vertical agriculture thing i referenced above is a prime example. we could be building experimental/developmental versions of those things right now, and what if we had devoted half of the iraq war budget into such projects (and the other half to getting the guy who attacked us...)?
well...we still are possessed of the resources we need, human and other, but we also need that truly elusive resource - good leadership - and another factor - non-ADD mentality on the part of our people - to go there.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 07:17am
130 vertical farms in new york city could provide most of the food for the people of the city, and with a few innovations not far off at all (closer with some support for our government) could also seriously help with several other issues, like waste management, water purification, etc...
and free up huge tracts of farming land to be allowed to return to natural forest - the best way to reverse man made climatic damage we know as well as aesthetically pleasing for the rest of us.
and were WE, the US of A, the ones to pioneer new pardigm technologies, WE would be the financial beneficiaries as we then proceed to export such technologies WORLDWIDE.
when the soviet bloc collapsed we had a golden opportunity to "save the world" but CHOSE not to. we CHOSE to carry on business as usual in so many ways, to engage in foolish military ventures, to refuse to see the writing on the wall, to refuse to lead by example. well...now we still have the opportunity to "save the world", but we need dynamic, commited, far sighted leadership to mobilise the resources and effort of the country to do so.
most in the world realize that the stupidity of the last 8 years in terms of foriegn policy is the direct result of the current administration. while we redirect our military security efforts to battle the results of the past, we can be working to prevent such in the future by becoming the leaders in solving problems before such problems create more problems.
if indeed world population growth and resource depletion continues at the present rate we will have problems beyond our imagination. but we can "save the world" and the security benefits of doing so will dwarf those of attacking countries we need not attack...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 07:43am
otto von bismark - lefty socialist pig!
government action in terms of helping provide its masses with a measure of security and health are often disparaged by regressive rightwingers as socialist, but in fact the social safety net of one of the most economically competitive and technoligically advanced nations on the planet are direct descendants of the mind of one of the most regressive, militaristic bastards that ever lived - otto von bismark.
in order to gut his hated enemies, the social democrats, bismark co-opted much of their social program and implemented it.
the results of such proved to be so attractive that they have become the bedrock of the power of germany (for better or worse it turns out for their neighbors...) ever since. a mobilised nation of healthy, secure, prosperous schmuks have been beneficial to the wealthiest captains of industry and the country as a whole, it turns out.
socialist? what difference does it make? their system works and works profitably. private property is sacred, individual fortunes are made, and the power of the masses is directed toward the same goal as that of the wealthy because they feel sincerely that they have a stake in and benefit from the prosperity of the wealthy.
socialist?
really?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 07:59am
socialist?
really?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 07:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
in fact, one could indeed view the "socialist" democracies of western europe as naught more than the logical next step in...capitalism.
the security of the working/consuming class, the mitigation of the boom/bust cycle of capitalism in favor of a more sustainable growth COULD be seen as an evolutionary fine tuning of "capitalism" with an eye toward secure growth that by avoiding the uglier aspects of a free market in fact strengthens the same.
to me its kind of like the young worker who makes decent money yet eschews health insurance and retirement planning. party now, but watch out later.
the best businessmen understand that making money costs money and functioning, competent government is a great insurance policy that benefits rich, poor, and middle class alike.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/05/2008 @ 09:00am
However, if I accept that, why are we even remotely worried about man-induced Global Warming??????---Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/04/2008 @ 10:38pm
Uh, HAPP....you DO remember JOHN MCCAIN's position on man-made global warming....right???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 09:06am
Benson's primary opponent was a thoughtful and responsible state legislator; that plus an unsuccessful run for Governor got him visibility. His explicit endorsement by the DCCC (not the DNC or state party, which has to remain officially neutral in the primary contest) was based to considerable extent on his ability to raise a threshold of campaign donations - this indicating to DCCC the "viability" of his campaign.
For all the good reasons cited in this wonderful profile, progressives should work for the election of Diane Benson: she has articulated clear unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war, understands and forcefully opposes the attack on our civil liberties, and can speak authentically for so many segments of the unique Alaskan population. (A slight correction to the profile: Benson did run as a Green candidate for Governor in 2002 - this may explain some Democrat's lack of enthusiasm.)
I've seen Diane Benson captivate voters with her story and her passion - but getting Diane and her message out to our very large state is expensive. Please consider whether you can contribute to her campaign: visit http://www.bensonforcongress.com/
Posted by cyan_Alaskan at 08/05/2008 @ 4:20pm
Voters may want to take a look at Ms Benson's attack on the free speech rights of the UAA professor and poet, Linda McCarriston about 5 or so years ago, when Ms McCarriston wrote a poem about Native women. To my knowledge, she has never apologized for being on the wrong side of this issue. It will definitely get in the way of my voting for her.
Posted by Voter at 08/05/2008 @ 7:20pm
Excellent article on Diane Benson! I was very impressed by her recent debate with Ethan Berkowitz where she had good answers and a presence that was relaxed, confident, and didn't smack of 'politician' wrapped in platitudes. Of course, we all know platitudes win.
Ethan has name recognition, lots of legislative experience, and powerful backing. He's not a bad guy. He's progressive, interested in alternative energy, and I'd trust him to do a good job. But, I agree with Phil Munger, that he isn't being realistic about DC politics. And he doesn't strike me as being that well-informed on health care and things that are of domestic interest.
This is going to be an interesting election in Alaska. Both women candidates running against Don Young are strong candidates with good character, brains, and the ability to more than hold their own in a debate. Neither of them falls back on platitudes.
Rep. Gabrielle Ledoux (R.) has 2 terms in the legislature and is a former Kodiak borough mayor. In the Republican debate with Parnell and Young, she won - hands down!
As a progressive, I want the Democrat to win this seat, but, the sky won't fall in if Gabrielle Ledoux wins. Both women candidates are far more impressive than their male competitors. The women candidates I've seen are strong, on target, confident, smart, and running in both parties. They are so reasonable in their arguments that even the Republicans sound intelligent for a change. Unfortunately, we part ways on the social conservative's fave issues that I just cannot agree with.
If Diane doesn't win the primary I want her to run for statewide office next. She's got what it takes.
Frosty Zoom - great MIT article on solar, eh?!
Posted by alaskadiva at 08/07/2008 @ 1:28pm
let's hope it's feasible.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 1:34pm