Military spending is not right way to boost America's economic security

• 

That Washington is holding defense cuts responsible for slow economic growth is a specious argument at best. War spending is unproductive and inflationary. Modern defense costs are capital intensive, not labor intensive, making the industry inefficient as a job creator.  

The defense industry has a presence in congressional districts across this country, so cuts affect every member. But every district in the U.S. has pressing infrastructure, education, health and environmental needs, and the return on the taxpayer’s dollar is much higher when invested on these areas.

Instead of concentrating money on capital intensive, military hardware purposed for destruction, and causing long term economic drain, our very limited and valuable economic resources should be invested in building the true strength and capacity of our economy, our nation, and her people.

In prioritizing military spending, Congress is cutting the very programs that can actually strengthen our economy.

During the heightened banking crisis in 2009, Rep. James Oberstar, then Chair of House Transportation Committee, called for a massive Eisenhower-level of investment in transportation infrastructure. He was right.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the U.S. requires $3.6 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2020 to bring our grade D+ standards to safe standards.  

This is exactly what we need: to put bridge-builders to work rather than funding technology and personnel to destroy bridges, and to take tank-making factories and repurpose them to build high-speed trains.

In prioritizing military spending, Congress is cutting the very programs that can actually strengthen our economy: Cutting federal assistance to the states, forcing them to lay off teachers, firefighters, and social workers; cutting opportunities for job creation, training, and placement programs; and eviscerating funding for children’s programs and assistance for seniors.

These actions make no economic sense. 

Military spending generates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than many other kinds of investments:  For every 100 jobs created by Pentagon spending, the same investment would create 251 jobs in education, 169 jobs in health care, or 147 jobs in clean energy.  

Conversely, every $1 billion cut in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program means 13,718 jobs lost. Many teachers, social workers, first responders, and other government workers have already lost their jobs from the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts since 2010.  

Even if $1 trillion were to be cut from the military budget over the next 10 years, America would still be spending at the peak levels of the Vietnam War and the Cold War. It is time to gather our senses.

In order to facilitate economic growth and development in America, defense spending is the wrong bellwether.  America's increasing number of military expeditions abroad, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, has undermined the long-term stability of our economy at home. It has neither resulted in an economically vibrant, healthy, and well-educated nation, nor has it made us safer.

Both our progressive and conservative representatives should be joining forces, restraining waste and investing wisely. The key is to conserve, as a good housekeeper would, and invest in that which supports the family and home -- our nation and people.

It is time for our representatives and the Obama administration to seriously address the nature of the structural reforms that need to take place in order for our economy to get back on track.

We understand that the nation cannot spend its way out of this current economic crisis, in the same way that it cannot save or tax its way out. 

Congress needs to address the cyclical nature of our debt-based monetary system, which perpetuates inflation and crashes, and reform it meaningfully while massively cutting wasteful spending and, instead, investing in necessary infrastructure improvements that will create millions of productive jobs – all of which will help improve America’s health, education and prosperity.

Michael Shank is director of foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Elizabeth Kucinich was a framer of 112th congress' HR 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act.

Related Stories

Rumors Swirl That Defense Department May Gut DACOWITS

Keeping Our Military Strong Through Free Markets

View the original article here

Why America's unemployment remains a problem

Friday, the Labor Department is expected to report the economy added 153,000 jobs in April—up from 88,000 in March—and unemployment is expected steady at 7.6 percent. This gain may prove short lived, and this pace is well below what is needed to get unemployment to acceptable levels.

New hiring lags behind broader economic growth. In the fourth quarter, GDP was up only 0.4 percent—with businesses continually improving productivity, the economy was lucky to have created any jobs at all this past winter. 

Businesses remain cautious about future demand, and reluctant to invest in new machinery, computers and software that would improve worker efficiency.

In the second quarter, GDP growth rebounded to 2.5 percent, but about 40 percent of that growth came from businesses piling up inventory—not from the final sales. Underlying demand remains weak—January tax increases limit household spending, trade deficits on China and oil continue to leak consumer dollars abroad, and sequester spending cuts reduce government purchases.

Generally, economists expect second quarter growth at 2 percent or less—about the same or less than potential improvements in worker productivity; hence, jobs creation should slow through the spring.  The unemployment rate would rise but for so many additional folks choosing not to work—663,000 in April.

Should economic growth pick up, many adults may be expected to rejoin the hunt, and the economy would have to add more than 360 thousand jobs each month for 3 years to lower unemployment to 6 percent. That would require growth in the range of 4 to 5 percent—this is possible but not likely with current policies.

Since turning the corner in mid-2009, GDP growth has averaged 2.1 percent and unemployment has fallen from 10.0 percent to 7.6 percent. 

In contrast, high oil prices and double digit interest rates pushed unemployment to 10.8 percent during Ronald Reagan’s first term; then GDP growth averaged 5.3 percent for the next three and half years, and unemployment fell to 7.3 percent.

Factors contributing to the slow pace of recovery include the huge trade deficits on oil and manufactured products from China and elsewhere in Asia—these drain demand for U.S. goods and services. Absent U.S. policies to confront Asian governments about their purposefully undervalued currencies, and to develop more oil offshore and in Alaska, the trade deficit will continue to tax growth.

The recent surge in natural gas production, and accompanying lower prices, is substantially improving the international competitiveness of industries like petrochemicals, fertilizers, plastics, and primary metals—as well as consuming industries like industrial machinery and building materials. 

However, the Department of Energy is considering proposals to boost exports of liquefied gas, which would create many fewer jobs, than keeping the gas at home.

Dodd-Frank regulations continue to make lending by regional banks to small businesses difficult. Many smaller banks have sold out or are considering consolidation with money center banks, which are less inclined to small business lending.

More onerous regulatory reviews are an increasing complaint among businesses. Government needs to subject policies to protect the environment and other goals to the same efficacy standards the market applies to commercial technologies—regulatory assessments and enforcement are needed but those must be delivered cost effectively and quickly to add value.

Many businesses look to Asia where government policies are more accommodating and prospects for growth remain stronger.

A better jobs market is simply not possible without better trade, energy and regulatory policies.

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

View the original article here

America's GDP growth disappoints, economy already slowing

The Commerce Department reported Friday that America's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew at a 2.5 percent pace in the first quarter but don’t break out the champagne. Several one-time factors contributed to this seemingly robust performance.

The economy is already slowing and new crises threaten. Most of first quarter growth likely was concentrated in January and February and the economy slowed, and it may have actually  contracted, in March.

In the fourth quarter, inventory investments and defense purchases were uncharacteristically weak—the former rebounded and the latter declined much less in the New Year. Also, extraordinary year-end corporate bonuses and dividend payments, intended to soften the blow of higher 2013 taxes, pushed up consumer spending early in the first quarter.

Those factors will not repeat in the second quarter, and January tax increases are finally starting to bite—consumers appear are hunkering down, and their confidence about the future is waning.

Higher payroll taxes and income taxes paid by the wealthy took away $165 billion in purchasing power. Working- and middle-class families adjusted spending to accommodate higher taxes, but with a lag, because they must keep driving to work and feeding their children—now car dealers and shopping malls report slowing sales.

For upper income families, changes in the tax code were extraordinarily complex, and many pay taxes on a quarterly basis on self employment and investment income. The full impact of higher taxes on their after-tax income was not reckoned until their accountants computed their first quarter payments due April 15—now they will be trimming purchases.

Along with sequestration, higher taxes are subtracting more than $200 billion from household purchasing power and government spending—that is slowing demand for what Americans make and makes jobs tougher to find.

A key element of the tax changes—reduced mortgage interest deduction—is dampening existing home sales. Holding up purchases are speculators, aided by the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies, and wealthy investors from continental Europe’s troubled economies who are parking capital in U.S. real estate.  

They are scarfing up properties in choice markets in Florida, New York City and elsewhere with cash offers that frequently squeeze out ordinary homebuyers seeking a primary residence.

In several markets, prices have zoomed past what these ordinary buyer’s incomes will support; hence, speculators bets require that somehow after-tax household incomes will somehow surge permitting them to unload at a profit. 

Slow growth and higher taxes on upper middle income and wealthy households makes that a dubious strategy, and the speculative surge cannot end well—housing price increases will slow, plateau or could crash all together. 

The housing market bump to household wealth that has supported consumer spending growth in recent months will relent.

Similarly, the Fed’s low-interest policies are boosting stock and agricultural land values—at a pace beyond what future profitability of either asset class can sustain. Either slower growing values or outright adjustments appear inevitable, and the resulting drag on consumer spending will slow the recovery.

The continuing surge of Chinese exports onto American store shelves, and weakening demand for U.S. products in recession torn Europe are dampening demand for U.S. manufactures. 

Japan’s weak yen policy is imposing tougher competition on U.S. automakers and other manufacturers of technology-intensive products. Already, the Commerce Department reported durable goods orders fell 5.7 percent in March, indicating much slower sales going forward.

The bottom line: most forecasters expect growth to slow to less than 2 percent in the second quarter and to remain below 3 percent through the end of 2014.

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

View the original article here

America's engine of the future to get 'Made in China' label

• 

Thanks to generous support from a foreign backer, there is renewed hope for an American attempt to revolutionize, modernize and sanitize the automobile engine.

The catch?  The finished product will be stamped “Made in China.”

EcoMotors, a startup engineering company based in Allen Park, Mich., plans to produce up to 150,000 of its opposed-piston, opposed-cylinder (OPOC) two-stroke engines annually in a factory funded by Zhongding Power. The facility will be located in China’s Anhui Province, west of Shanghai.

EcoMotors CEO Don Runkle told FoxNews.com that Zhongding has committed to building a plant for the engines with the hope of supplying generator companies and builders of medium-duty trucks.

“We have talked to a number of automobile manufacturers in the United States, as well as in China,” Runkle said.  He added that EcoMotors has “a letter of intent with Generac,” an American manufacturer of generators that currently buys engines from John Deere and Iveco.

Although Chinese-built generators and motorcycles are becoming more common in the United States, engines produced there have rarely seen duty in American automobiles. The first was when General Motors dropped a Chinese-made 3.4-liter V-6 into its 2005 Chevrolet Equinox and Pontiac Torrent crossovers.

In 2010, when Zhongding agreed to invest up to $18 million toward engineering costs for the OPOC engine, Runkle announced that “this initiative will create a range of high-skill R&D jobs here in southeast Michigan, further underscoring the region's critical role as the incubator of tomorrow’s high-efficiency powertrain solutions.”

The OPOC two-stroke engine is a markedly different concept than the four-stroke engines fitted to most modern automobiles. While two-strokes are generally lighter, have fewer moving parts and a higher power density than comparable four-strokes, they are often not as durable and burn a lot of oil, resulting in worse emissions. EcoMotors claims to have overcome these hurdles with its new technology.

The EcoMotors-designed power plant does without valves and cylinder heads, and places two pistons facing one another in each cylinder like boxers' gloves, with the pistons in turn connected to identical counterparts in an adjacent cylinder. The expansion stroke on one side creates a compression stroke in the other.

“Our innovation is an unusual engine architecture,” Runkle said.

The company says the motors can be configured to run on a variety of fuels, including gasoline and diesel, and will be cheaper to build while delivering between 20 and 50 percent better fuel economy than conventional internal combustion engines, depending on their application.

Production of the OPOC is set to begin in 2014.

Related: New internal combustion engine could boost electric cars

View the original article here

My shattering experience with America's immigration system

It’s been my dream for years to immigrate to the United States. Originally from the United Kingdom, I was attracted to America’s embrace of freedom, capitalism, and proud traditions of liberty sorely lacking in my native country. I wanted to defend those liberties in America. Like other immigrants, I do a job that most Americans don’t want to – defend the Constitution.

Recently, however, I found out that my American Dream is over. I will shortly have to leave the land I love and return to the United Kingdom. 

What happened that put me in this position? 

The Department of Labor (DOL) ruled that the American non-profit that wanted to hire me cannot.

I was offered a staff attorney position at a Washington, D.C. non-profit committed to advancing right to work laws. I went to university here and then law school at William and Mary and have called Virginia home for years.

I will not commit fraud to get a green card through a sham marriage nor will I stay here illegally.

As part of the application for the visa, the non-profit had to show that no American was available to do my job and that I was being paid wage similar to other attorneys in the city.

The DOL compared my anticipated wage at a non-profit to what lawyers make in private practice. Of course I would have made less at a non-profit, that’s how they work, but the government did not adjust its one-size fits all way of measuring wages. 

Despite proof that my salary was going to be in line with other non-profit lawyer salaries in the city, the DOL rejected the paperwork and me along with it.

The DOL gave me no reason for why the visa application was denied. By law, they do not have to provide one. 

I have no opportunity to appeal. There is no possibility to re-file for the visa because the government grants so few every year that they ran out weeks ago.

But my experience is just a microcosm of America’s disastrous immigration system. There is no immigration line. There is no Ellis Island. I can’t go down to the local post office and apply for a green card. I have lived here legally—studying and working hard—but under the law there is no way for me to stay .

An overly complex, tortuously slow, and arbitrary immigration system at the whim of unaccountable bureaucrats rules the day.

The laws that so many of my fellow Americans want to be enforced make it impossible for me – and many others like me – from living the American Dream. These laws also hurt our country in the process, burdening employers with expensive regulations for no conceivable end, and leaving positions unfilled.

I don’t want a hand out. I’ll gladly sign a piece of paper saying that I am ineligible for welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. I’ve always paid taxes, bought insurance, and played by all of the rules. I’ve never committed a crime nor do I intend to. All I want is a chance to legally live, work, and defend the Constitution of my country.

Highly-skilled immigrants have been voiceless in the debate over immigration reform. Illegal immigrants wanting legalization, immigration enforcement hawks, and guest workers have sucked all of the air out of the room. 

I understand the concerns of all those groups and share many of them myself, but please do not forget the millions of highly skilled immigrants and potential immigrants who are trying to follow the laws.

My dearest friends have started a White House petition called “Let Sophie Stay.” I implore you, please visit it. 

I will not commit fraud to get a green card through a sham marriage nor will I stay here illegally. I will not break the law no matter how unjust I think it is.

I feel American in every way that counts but the federal government and its laws think otherwise. In our knowledge economy, we need to attract the most talented and hard-working people as high-skilled immigrants. 

This is crucial to our competitiveness and growth since it creates more jobs and provides a better quality of life for everyone. As a plea from one would-be American to the citizens of this great country, please change these immigration laws to include highly-skilled workers.

Sophie Cole is a graduate of Oxford Brookes University, the University of Westminster, and the College of William and Mary. Originally from Southampton, England, she is now a licensed attorney living and working in Washington, DC.
 

View the original article here

Europe's Islamic radicals will soon land on America's doorstep

• 

• • 

    Could 'Olympus Has Fallen' scenario really happen?

  • 

    Does Obama really have Israel's back?

  • 

    Hume on Obama's 'sudden conversion' in attitude to GOP

President Obama should listen to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the "founder" of shuttle diplomacy.

Kissinger told Bloomberg TV's Judy Woodruff recently that he sees little hope in the "Arab Spring," nor is he optimistic about peace in the region following the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Welcome to the party, Dr. Kissinger. Some of us who have been denigrated for taking seriously the Muslim Brotherhood's goal to promote radical Islam worldwide are happy for you to join us in Realityville.

Too many people shy away from confronting the truth of radical Islam because they fear being attacked.

The New York Times headlined a recent story: "Muslim Brotherhood's Statement on Women Stirs Liberals' Fears." What took them so long? It isn't like the fundamentalist Muslim position on women is new.

President Obama's first in-office trip to Israel, the West Bank and Jordan, seemingly, is mostly about keeping Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear sites. He may also restate the failed policy of asking Israel to "do more" for peace. How about asking Israel's enemies to do less: Less terrorism, less incitement, less teaching young people that Israel is evil and must be destroyed?

Former Danish journalist and anti-Islamist Lars Hedegaard understands Islamic fundamentalism better than most. A self-described "secularist," Hedegaard has confronted the Islamist philosophy in the worst possible way. 

Last month, he was nearly assassinated by a jihadist pretending to deliver a package to his door. The man fired, the bullet narrowly missing Hedegaard's head, the gun jammed and, following a brief tussle with Hedegaard, the man fled.

On a recent visit to Washington, Hedegaard told me the growing presence of Islamic radicals throughout Europe will soon land on America's doorstep. "If," he says, "it hasn't already."
Does anyone believe America is ready?

"The concept of Jihad," he says, "is really not war in our sense of the word. ... It's not two armies opposing each other on the battlefield. Jihad is an instrumentarium of hundreds of different things you can do to further the cause."

Such as, I asked?

"One of them is terror," he says. "One is assassination."

Hedegaard says radical Muslims "know how to wage war because they've been at it for 1,400 years. I would say Muhammad as a strategist is unsurpassed. ... He has come up with a warfaring system that does not depend on a state. The warfare can even include factions that disagree with each other, such as Sunnis and Shia. ... At the same time they can wage war against the infidels. So as a warfaring concept, it is lodged in every man and woman's head. That's why it is so effective."

Germany appears to be heeding Hedegaard's warnings. BBC News reports the government has banned three Islamist groups, one of which allegedly inspired the man who shot and killed two American airmen at Frankfurt airport in 2011.

Too many people shy away from confronting the truth of radical Islam because they fear being attacked, as happened to Hedegaard and the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, shot and stabbed to death in 2004 because of a film he made that criticized the treatment of women in Islam.

Welcoming President Obama to Israel, op-eds in the official Palestinian Authority Daily implied that Hitler was greater than Franklin Roosevelt and that Americans were behind the 9/11 attacks. Parse that, Mr. President.

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

View the original article here

America's patent system is all wrong for today's high-tech world

• 

• • 

    Samsung's Galaxy S4 unveiled

  • 

    New exoskeleton technology helps paraplegic walk again

It’s no secret that the Obama administration is looking for excuses to regulate and intervene in the free market, whether it is telecommunications, energy, homeland security or everything else.

And unfortunately, there are “bad actors” in the technology community that are inviting increased scrutiny of their business practices and abuses. Patent pooling – or agreements between two or more companies to collectively license patents for specific technologies – is a fairly common practice among device companies. 

These for-profit pools are formed only following a business review by the Department of Justice, which agrees not to initiate antitrust enforcement against them if they operate fairly and adhere to a set of mutually agreed upon terms for operation. When structured and operated in accordance to the guidelines under which pools were formed, these organizations reduce the amount of intellectual property investment by the companies who use them, benefiting consumers with lower prices and helping to spur innovation. 

From the Googles and Motorolas of the world down to small Silicon Valley startups, companies are on the forefront of consumer innovations, developing new products and software that will no doubt inspire the technologies of tomorrow.

We have today a patent system that is ill-suited to today’s rapidly changing, high-tech world.

But because of patent abuses – particularly through the use of patent pools – the industry and the media are taking more notice of how companies manage and license their patents. The offenders inviting increased government oversight are not Google, Motorola and others which have encountered their own very public challenges with patent law as of late. Rather, patent holding entities that do not produce anything in the way of devices or technology are disrupting the free market and stifling innovation for consumers.

We have today a patent system that is ill-suited to today’s rapidly changing, high-tech world. Software patents have been approved that are overly broad, and these approvals have been done on a massive scale. No surprise, patent litigation has exploded. You produce any product these days and you’re likely to “infringe” on some vague, ill-defined patents.

These are companies you’ve never heard of – companies like MPEG LA and Mobile Media – which license technologies to innovators in the form of patent pools. Technologies like the MPEG 2 video format – which is likely used in the very device you have in your back pocket – should be offered at a fair and reasonable fee. 

Yet, these unscrupulous patent pools lock in licensors for extraordinarily long terms at rates which don’t reflect their near-valueless expired patents. MPEG LA has absolute power over the MPEG 2 technology, and innovators are forced to accept MPEG LA’s license fees and terms regardless of actual patent value.

Think of it this way: The Motorola RAZR has evolved from a simple flip phone to a dynamic touch screen smart phone in the last decade. While the technologies that made this evolution possible certainly build off each other, consumers would no longer pay the same price for a Motorola RAZR V3 today as they would have when it was first released. But this is what MPEG LA is asking of companies – to pay full price for patents that are expiring, rather than reflecting the current marketplace.

These license fees erect barriers to entry for small and medium sized tech startup companies, and these companies cannot afford to sink millions in IP like many larger corporations.

This is especially harmful to those small business startups that are most reliant on gaining access to patent pool technologies, the very startups that create jobs and fuel innovation here in America. MPEG LA’s manipulative price structures are not only standing in the way of consumers being afforded access to these new innovations, they are also driving up prices on devices that are currently available.

Even worse, MPEG LA’s Mobile Media subsidiary is also biting the hand that feeds it by deploying often frivolous “patent trolling” lawsuits on the very innovators that pay to access their patent pools. 

Companies like Mobile Media are labeled a "troll" because they don’t use their patents in building or innovating on anything, but rather exist to initiate legal action against those they allege who infringed upon their intellectual property. 

Many claim the “trolling” will only become more rampant under the ‘first to file’ terms set forth in the Patent Reform Act. Recent research shows that patent trolls bring more than half of the total patent lawsuit claims in the United States, which is astounding considering these companies, again, do not produce any technologies of their own.

If companies like MPEG LA and Mobile Media do not amend these unscrupulous business practices, the Department of Justice will have no choice but to intervene, inevitably slowing down innovation and creating even more barriers for a fast-moving marketplace.

And don’t we have enough regulatory hurdles to jump in the first place?

Steve Forbes is Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media and co-author of Freedom Manifesto:  Why Free Markets Are Moral and Big Government Isn’t (Crown Business)

View the original article here

The next Einstein? America's best and brightest minds

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” So said Albert Einstein, creator of the theory of relativity that revolutionized modern science.

Mar. 14 marked the 134th anniversary of Einstein’s birthday, but science has hardly stood still: In research labs, classrooms and even garages across the country, today’s best minds in science and technology haven’t stopped questioning.

These men and women haven’t created a formula as famous as e=mc² – not yet, anyway. But their contributions to science are poised to change the way we live today, and will continue to influence our culture in the coming decades.

A Cure for Blindness
Biologist Ann Morris has been conducting creative research on vision in zebrafish, a University of Kentucky spokesman explained. “Because the fish can re-grow lost cells and tissue … Dr. Morris is studying how precursor cells in their eyes generate the rods and cones necessary for vision.”

You read that right: Some fish can regenerate the biology needed for vision.

The doctor’s lab at the University of Kentucky believes its work will lead to new therapies for degenerative diseases like retinitis pigmentosa, macular degeneration and retinal detachment.

Someday, her work could cure some forms of blindness.

No More Collapsing Bridges?
Earlier this month, three engineers from GE’s Global Research Center -- Peter Andresen, Robert Schafrik, and Jan Schilling -- were named as new members of the prestigious National Academy of Engineering.

“These three individuals represent some of the best minds and brightest talent that we have across our company,” said Mark Little, GE’s chief technology officer. (His company was founded by yet another genius: Thomas Alva Edison.)

Andresen, a principal scientist at GE, was honored for more than three decades of work into the very slow growth of cracks in the hot water environments common to nuclear, steam turbine, and geothermal systems.

Much of his work has focused on detecting and predicting the growth of cracks on stainless steels, which are nominally resistant to corrosion but can still susceptible to "stress corrosion cracking."

That is, his work can save bridges from collapsing, and preserve other essential infrastructure.

Andresen holds 26 patents and is GE’s most prolific researcher, having authored more than 450 publications.

“My father was an engineer and I always pestered those around me to understand how things worked. The blend of sophisticated experimental measurements, underlying science, and technical intuition makes the work endlessly fascinating,” he said.

The Best and Brightest
A number of names consistently come up on lists assembled by scientific organizations of the best American brains:

•  Gordon Moore, who as founder of Intel merged business and science in bringing about the information technology revolution. “Moore’s Law” is named after him.

•  Timothy John “Tim” Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web by being the first to successfully implement the transfer protocols on which the Internet relies.

•  Edward O. Wilson, whose work on sociobiology has led to evolutionary thinking into ethics and psychology.

•  Andrew Wiles, who in solving the 300-year old Fermat Conjecture of mathematics decisively demonstrated how seemingly unsolvable problems may eventually yield to solution through creative insights.

•  James Watson, whose co-discovery with Francis Crick of the structure in the 1950s of DNA has revolutionized all of biology and is a landmark of the 20th century.

•  Craig Venter, whose leadership of the Human Genome Project and continued work on synthetic genomes and artificially constructed cells is fundamentally challenging our understanding of life.

•  Charles Townes, who decades ago invented the laser, which is today ubiquitous in technology and ordinary life.

But there are less well known names whose legacy may be felt even more in the future.

Saving lives through 3D

Jessica Lee, a healthcare executive at Alere Inc., cited Dr. Ben Carson -- a pediatric neurologist of the Johns Hopkins University, who has several inventions to his name.

“When it comes to innovation in medical science he is bar-none the man whose work has and will change the world,” she told FoxNews.com.

Carson was in the news recently for his remarks on Obamacare, but you should know his name for another reason: He has completed many complicated -- and famous -- surgeries. In 2003, he faced perhaps his biggest challenge: separating adult conjoined twins.

Ladan and Laleh Bijani were Iranians joined at the head. For 29 years, they had lived together in every way, sharing experiences, but as they aged and developed their own individual aspirations, they knew they could never lead independent lives unless they separated. They told Carson at one point, "We would rather die than spend another day together."

This type of medical procedure had not been attempted. But Carson had been conducting brain surgery for nearly 20 years and had performed several craniopagus separations. With more than 100 surgeons, he traveled to Singapore for what would be a 52-hour operation.

On July 6, 2003, Carson and his colleagues used a 3-D imaging technique he had created that let the team to conduct a virtual surgery before the real operation. During the procedure, they followed a digital reconstruction of the twins' brain. A specially created chair allowed the operation to be conducted, successfully, while both sisters were in a sitting position.

Let’s hear it for continuing to question!

Related Stories

Early birds sported 4 wings

Wright brothers 'first in flight'? Not quite, researcher claims

Intraterrestrials: life thrives IN ocean floor

No 'Jurassic Park': Dinosaurs off the de-extinction menu

View the original article here

America's willful blindness -- Obama is a divider not a unifier

The much discussed Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, which was released Thursday morning, shows a sharply divided America. Not much new there.

Half of those surveyed think that the across-the-board spending cuts that went into effect on Friday with the sequester will be too severe. And a smaller proportion of Americans say that they are necessary to reduce the deficit. Democrats would, unsurprisingly, prefer a plan that had fewer cuts and a majority of Republicans and independents show support for the cuts even if they do think the sequester is a bad idea (which they do).

To be sure, the impact of the sequester on the American psyche vis-à-vis economic outlook is a valuable addition to the budget battle discussion. But the finding that I see as most crucial in this poll is one that I have heard little about.

That the electorate believes the president to be a unifying force for the country, and by no small amount, is completely incongruous with his actions.

As Neil King Jr. writes, “By a more than 2-to-1 margin, poll participants say Mr. Obama is doing more than the GOP to unify the country in a bipartisan way. The poll found 48% of respondents saw Mr. Obama as trying to unify the country, compared with 22% who said that of Republicans and 37% who said that of the Democratic Party.”

That the electorate believes the president to be a unifying force for the country, and by no small amount, is completely incongruous with his actions on the campaign trail, through the fiscal cliff dispute, his inauguration speech, his State of the Union speech and now during the sequester negotiations.

Recent comments from President Obama include, “Republican leaders will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy” during a press conference on the debt ceiling in mid-January. And in his inaugural address while discussing climate change, he called Republicans neocons who don’t understand that “enduring peace and lasting security do not require perpetual war.” These are hardly the statements of a man working towards a united America.

Indeed, the president’s relentless engagement in identity politics – on the basis of race, gender, religion, and economic standing – has made him far from the bipartisan, solution-driven president he promised to be.

President Obama told Americans that we “have to break the habit of negotiating through crisis over and over again” and while I agree with the sentiment behind his statement, he has certainly not held up his end of the bargain.

Earlier last week, Speaker Boehner said, “Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It’s time to cut spending here in Washington.” And Speaker Boehner is right – it’s what the country needs and the American people want.

But history told us that there would be no last minute arrival of a compromising, balanced Obama. We are seeing a President Obama who is riding high on the popularity of his social policies and continually eschewing the importance of finding meaningful and substantive compromises with the GOP on the economy. This is not the mark of a unifying force, but a president who is clearly playing a partisan agenda.

What’s more is that the results of this survey continue to show a wildly out of control GOP. Though there were flashes of moderation in the wake of Romney’s loss from key players like Governor Jindal and Senator Rubio, but still only 22 percent of those surveyed think that the Republicans are trying to unify the country.

In light of this, the popularity of New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie is hardly surprising. A conservative politician in policy choices has been able to become a bipartisan force because he embraced the president when he came to hurricane ravaged New Jersey and because he has agreed to take ObamaCare Medicaid expansion.

It is a very scary reality that the most divisive president in recent history is viewed as a unifier. The American people have been starved of the kind of bipartisan, compromising lawmaking that we need to the point that they believe a man who has done nothing but divide them is working for their best interest above his own agenda. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

View the original article here

America's willful blindness -- Obama is a divider not a unifier

The much discussed Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, which was released Thursday morning, shows a sharply divided America. Not much new there.

Half of those surveyed think that the across-the-board spending cuts that went into effect on Friday with the sequester will be too severe. And a smaller proportion of Americans say that they are necessary to reduce the deficit. Democrats would, unsurprisingly, prefer a plan that had fewer cuts and a majority of Republicans and independents show support for the cuts even if they do think the sequester is a bad idea (which they do).

To be sure, the impact of the sequester on the American psyche vis-à-vis economic outlook is a valuable addition to the budget battle discussion. But the finding that I see as most crucial in this poll is one that I have heard little about.

That the electorate believes the president to be a unifying force for the country, and by no small amount, is completely incongruous with his actions.

As Neil King Jr. writes, “By a more than 2-to-1 margin, poll participants say Mr. Obama is doing more than the GOP to unify the country in a bipartisan way. The poll found 48% of respondents saw Mr. Obama as trying to unify the country, compared with 22% who said that of Republicans and 37% who said that of the Democratic Party.”

That the electorate believes the president to be a unifying force for the country, and by no small amount, is completely incongruous with his actions on the campaign trail, through the fiscal cliff dispute, his inauguration speech, his State of the Union speech and now during the sequester negotiations.

Recent comments from President Obama include, “Republican leaders will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy” during a press conference on the debt ceiling in mid-January. And in his inaugural address while discussing climate change, he called Republicans neocons who don’t understand that “enduring peace and lasting security do not require perpetual war.” These are hardly the statements of a man working towards a united America.

Indeed, the president’s relentless engagement in identity politics – on the basis of race, gender, religion, and economic standing – has made him far from the bipartisan, solution-driven president he promised to be.

President Obama told Americans that we “have to break the habit of negotiating through crisis over and over again” and while I agree with the sentiment behind his statement, he has certainly not held up his end of the bargain.

Earlier last week, Speaker Boehner said, “Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It’s time to cut spending here in Washington.” And Speaker Boehner is right – it’s what the country needs and the American people want.

But history told us that there would be no last minute arrival of a compromising, balanced Obama. We are seeing a President Obama who is riding high on the popularity of his social policies and continually eschewing the importance of finding meaningful and substantive compromises with the GOP on the economy. This is not the mark of a unifying force, but a president who is clearly playing a partisan agenda.

What’s more is that the results of this survey continue to show a wildly out of control GOP. Though there were flashes of moderation in the wake of Romney’s loss from key players like Governor Jindal and Senator Rubio, but still only 22 percent of those surveyed think that the Republicans are trying to unify the country.

In light of this, the popularity of New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie is hardly surprising. A conservative politician in policy choices has been able to become a bipartisan force because he embraced the president when he came to hurricane ravaged New Jersey and because he has agreed to take ObamaCare Medicaid expansion.

It is a very scary reality that the most divisive president in recent history is viewed as a unifier. The American people have been starved of the kind of bipartisan, compromising lawmaking that we need to the point that they believe a man who has done nothing but divide them is working for their best interest above his own agenda. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

View the original article here

Lincoln limousine built for Pope Paul VI on display at America's Car Museum

While the Catholic church prepares to elect a new Pope in Rome, an interesting piece of papal history is on display in Tacoma.

In 1965 the Vatican asked Ford to provide a limousine for Pope Paul VI to use during his visit to New York City to speak before the United Nations and at Yankee Stadium.

The automaker contracted noted Chicago limousine builder Lehmann-Peterson to prepare a special version of the stretched Lincoln Continentals it was known for.

In just two weeks, the shop converted its original 1964 Continental prototype into a 21-foot long car suitable for the task, complete with running boards for his Swiss guards, a raised seat for the pontiff and a removable roof, fold down transparent landaulet-style rear window and bulletproof shield.

In 1968, the car, which had been damaged in storage, was called into Papal duty again for a trip to Bogota, Columbia, but only after undergoing a complete restoration and engine modifications to deal with the city’s extreme altitude, which required that it run on aviation fuel.

Later that year, the car became an indelible part of U.S. history, when it was used to parade the astronauts of Apollo 8 through the streets of Chicago, after their historic trip around the Moon. It would go on to do the same for the crews of Apollo 11, 13 and 15.

The car eventually found its way into private ownership and changed hands several times over the years, the last in 2011 when it was sold at auction to an anonymous collector in Washington for $220,000.

The car is currently on loan to America’s Car Museum in Tacoma, one of the largest collections of classic cars in the country, where it will be on display for the next three months.

It’s unlikely that the new Pope will request its use again, but if he ever visits the Pacific Northwest, he’ll know where to find it.

View the original article here