2 Men Convicted in Kennedy Airport Plot
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/nyregion/03kennedy.html?th&emc=th
A federal jury found two Guyanese men guilty on Monday of conspiring to attack Kennedy International Airport, concluding a monthlong trial that focused on their plan to blow up fuel tanks and set off a series of explosions along a pipeline that cuts through New York City.
The plot never advanced beyond the conceptual stage, and the planning sessions, some of which were recorded by a confidential informant, were alternately grandiose and absurd in some of its details. Talk of destroying the American economy mixed with suggestions of a “ninja-style” attack.
As in some other recent terrorism cases, the threat as officials described it at the time of the arrests seemed to exceed the suspects’ capacity. Like most of those cases, though, it resulted in conviction.
The defendants, Russell M. Defreitas and Abdul Kadir, had been monitored from an early stage in the plot by the informant, who posed as a member of the group, which included a number of other participants.
The informant, Steven Francis, had recorded the men at the airport during surveillance missions and on international trips to secure financial and logistical support for the attack.
The recordings were used by federal prosecutors to portray Mr. Defreitas, 67, an immigrant who became a United States citizen and is a former cargo handler at the airport, as the “homegrown extremist” who conceived and drove the plot.
Mr. Kadir, 58, a prominent Guyanese politician who served in Parliament and as mayor of a major city, initially emerged as a secondary figure, one of several conspirators portrayed as facilitating the plot by providing advice and contacts. But in testifying in his own defense, he opened himself to questions about whether he had spied for Iran.
The case, with its international reach, high-profile target and unusual cast of characters, drew headlines when the men were arrested more than three years ago.
The United States attorney in Brooklyn at the time, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, said the planned attack had the potential to cause “unfathomable damage, deaths and destruction.”
But as time went on, more was revealed about the plot and the unlikelihood of its success (the fuel pipeline, for example, had safety mechanisms to prevent cascading explosions), as well as the level of government involvement (the informant had played a somewhat enabling role in pushing forward the plot).
The verdict came after five days of deliberations in a trial before Judge Dora L. Irizarry in United States District Court in Brooklyn. Both men showed no emotion as the decision was read.
Mr. Defreitas and Mr. Kadir face possible sentences of life in prison after their convictions on five counts of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. Mr. Defreitas was also convicted of surveillance of an airport; Mr. Kadir was acquitted of that charge. They are scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 15. Their lawyers said they planned to appeal.
Two other men, Abdel Nur and Donald Nero, have pleaded guilty to participating in the plot. Another man, Kareem Ibrahim, is awaiting trial.
A lawyer for Mr. Kadir said he was disappointed but not surprised by the verdict, because the case played on concerns about Muslims and terrorism that are particularly resonant in New York.
“There was more than just the evidence Mr. Kadir was up against,” the lawyer, Kafahni Nkrumah, said. “There was the atmosphere of fear in the country.”
Once the trial began on June 30, intrigue grew over which of the two defendants presented the greater threat. Mr. Defreitas had been the focus of the prosecutors’ opening statements, but by closing arguments, Mr. Kadir’s name was mentioned nearly as often.
The voluminous recordings played in court left little doubt that Mr. Defreitas had tried to push the plot forward: he videotaped the airport, traveled to Guyana and Trinidad searching for like-minded Muslim militants, and frequently boasted of the damage the attack would cause — promising that it would be “worse than the World Trade Center.”
A prosecutor said the tapes showed him “doing everything he can to make his nightmare a reality.”
Mr. Defreitas, a frail, gray-haired man who watched the trial in a listless slouch, was portrayed by his lawyers as what one of them said was “a man with a small mind, a big mouth and an ugly imagination.”
They said he lacked the resources or sophistication to pull off the attack without the constant encouragement and assistance of Mr. Francis, who purchased a camera for their surveillance missions and had to instruct him how to use it.
“Russell Defreitas can’t mastermind his way out of the on-off switch on a video camera,” one of his lawyers said.
In contrast, Mr. Kadir’s profile grew during the trial, particularly after his decision to testify in his own defense. Until that point, his contributions to the plot were less tangible, like suggesting that the men use Google Earth to view satellite photos of the airport; agreeing to store money for the plot in a bank account for his mosque; and helping to establish the code name for the attack: “the chicken farm.”
But once on the stand, he was confronted with circumstantial evidence of ties to Iran, to which he was traveling when he was arrested in Trinidad in June 2007. The evidence included letters he wrote to the Iranian ambassador to Venezuela and to an Iranian diplomat who has been accused of leading a major terrorist plot in South America. Mr. Kadir denied spying for the country.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, of the 591 individuals charged in terrorism-related cases that have been resolved, only 9 were acquitted, according to the Center on Law and Security at New York University.
Francesca Laguardia, director of research for the N.Y.U. center, who was present for most of the trial, said the Iranian connections provided legitimacy to a trial in which the seriousness of the allegations contrasted with the appearance of Mr. Defreitas, who inspired “no fear whatsoever.”
“One of the interesting things we learned is how much doesn’t come out in these court cases,” Ms. Laguardia said. “We never would have found out all these connections with Iran, if he hadn’t gotten on the stand.”
“Maybe it’s an example of the reason,” she added, “why law enforcement takes cases seriously that the rest of us don’t take seriously.”
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
In Speech on Iraq, Obama Reaffirms Drawdown
In Speech on Iraq, Obama Reaffirms Drawdown
By PETER BAKER
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/politics/03prexy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
ATLANTA — President Obama on Monday opened a monthlong drive to mark the end of the combat mission in Iraq and, by extension, to blunt growing public frustration with the war in Afghanistan by arguing that he can also bring that conflict to a conclusion.
The series of events, starting with a speech here to a veterans’ group, puts the president in the thick of a volatile national security debate at a critical moment for both wars as he draws down troops from one theater and sends more to the other. While seeking to shore up domestic support, he is also defining the limits of his ambitions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama vowed to complete his plan to withdraw designated combat forces from Iraq by the end of August “as promised and on schedule,” even though a political impasse has left Baghdad without the permanent government that his strategy originally envisioned. At the same time, he vowed to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while sticking to “clear and achievable” goals rather than aspiring to build a fully functioning democracy.
The president’s renewed public focus on the wars comes after many months in which his domestic agenda was at the center of the national conversation. But the White House calculated that the drawdown in Iraq and the change in mission there this month provided an opportunity to take credit for fulfilling one of Mr. Obama’s central campaign promises even as war fatigue takes its toll.
“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Mr. Obama told a convention of the Disabled American Veterans here. “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by Aug. 31, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing, as promised and on schedule.”
The drawdown will bring the American force in Iraq to 50,000 troops by Aug. 31, down from 144,000 when Mr. Obama took office. The remaining “advise and assist” brigades will officially focus on supporting and training Iraqi security forces, protecting American personnel and facilities, and mounting counterterrorism operations.
The mission’s name will change from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn, and the 50,000 transitional troops will leave by the end of 2011, according to an agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush and reaffirmed by Mr. Obama. And addressing the concerns of veterans, Mr. Obama vowed that “your country is going to take care of you when you come home.”
While not the end of the conflict — at least nine people were killed on Monday in attacks around Iraq — the transition this month represents a significant milestone after seven years of war that toppled a brutal dictator, touched off waves of sectarian strife and claimed the lives of more than 4,400 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
In his speech here, Mr. Obama hailed the improved security in Iraq without mentioning that he had opposed the 2007 troop buildup ordered by Mr. Bush, which along with a strategy change, is credited by many with turning the war around. Mr. Obama has now assigned the architect of that plan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to do the same in Afghanistan.
Republicans were happy to remind Mr. Obama of his opposition to the Iraq buildup, circulating his quotations from the time. “It’s worth remembering that prior to the full deployment of this force, some Democrats were already declaring the surge the president is referring to today a complete failure,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
Nonetheless, Mr. Obama has adopted Iraq as a relative success story, and aides said he and other administration officials would hold several events in August to honor returning soldiers and promote the drawdown. The notion that Iraq would be the political selling point while the “good war” in Afghanistan is now the sour note underscores how much has changed since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign.
Christopher Gelpi, a political science professor at Duke University, said Mr. Obama’s challenge is convincing Americans that Afghanistan is a worthy cause even if Iraq was not. “You may argue this is a good war, but they don’t have any information about it,” he said. “But they do know about the Iraq war and they’re using that as a lens to interpret Afghanistan. This creates a big problem for Obama because his core constituents view Iraq negatively.”
The conundrum is that his buildup in Afghanistan is supported more strongly by Republicans than by his own party. In the House, 102 Democrats voted against a war spending measure last week, 70 more than a year ago. As a former national security official, who requested anonymity to avoid offending the White House, put it: “The people who love him don’t support him on Afghanistan, and the people who support him on Afghanistan hate him.”
Moreover, the skepticism on Afghanistan comes at a time when Mr. Obama is weakened politically. His standing in Georgia is low enough, for example, that former Gov. Roy Barnes, running to reclaim his old office, chose to skip a Democratic fund-raiser starring the president after his speech to the veterans.
The White House used the occasion to argue that Mr. Obama is broadly reducing the American military presence abroad. A White House fact sheet noted that even with the buildup in Afghanistan, the drawdown in Iraq means the total number of uniformed Americans in the two countries will drop to 146,000 by September, down from 177,000 when he took office.
The president also argued the importance of succeeding in Afghanistan, reminding Americans that it was the home of Al Qaeda when it plotted the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “If Afghanistan were to be engulfed by an even wider insurgency, Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates would have even more space to plan their next attack,” he said. “And as president of the United States, I refuse to let that happen.”
But in making his goal the destruction of Al Qaeda, which American intelligence believes has only about 100 members in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama underscored the limits of his commitment.
And he made clear it was not open-ended: “It’s important that the American people know that we are making progress,” he said, “and we are focused on goals that are clear and achievable.”
By PETER BAKER
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/politics/03prexy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
ATLANTA — President Obama on Monday opened a monthlong drive to mark the end of the combat mission in Iraq and, by extension, to blunt growing public frustration with the war in Afghanistan by arguing that he can also bring that conflict to a conclusion.
The series of events, starting with a speech here to a veterans’ group, puts the president in the thick of a volatile national security debate at a critical moment for both wars as he draws down troops from one theater and sends more to the other. While seeking to shore up domestic support, he is also defining the limits of his ambitions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama vowed to complete his plan to withdraw designated combat forces from Iraq by the end of August “as promised and on schedule,” even though a political impasse has left Baghdad without the permanent government that his strategy originally envisioned. At the same time, he vowed to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while sticking to “clear and achievable” goals rather than aspiring to build a fully functioning democracy.
The president’s renewed public focus on the wars comes after many months in which his domestic agenda was at the center of the national conversation. But the White House calculated that the drawdown in Iraq and the change in mission there this month provided an opportunity to take credit for fulfilling one of Mr. Obama’s central campaign promises even as war fatigue takes its toll.
“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Mr. Obama told a convention of the Disabled American Veterans here. “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by Aug. 31, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing, as promised and on schedule.”
The drawdown will bring the American force in Iraq to 50,000 troops by Aug. 31, down from 144,000 when Mr. Obama took office. The remaining “advise and assist” brigades will officially focus on supporting and training Iraqi security forces, protecting American personnel and facilities, and mounting counterterrorism operations.
The mission’s name will change from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn, and the 50,000 transitional troops will leave by the end of 2011, according to an agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush and reaffirmed by Mr. Obama. And addressing the concerns of veterans, Mr. Obama vowed that “your country is going to take care of you when you come home.”
While not the end of the conflict — at least nine people were killed on Monday in attacks around Iraq — the transition this month represents a significant milestone after seven years of war that toppled a brutal dictator, touched off waves of sectarian strife and claimed the lives of more than 4,400 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
In his speech here, Mr. Obama hailed the improved security in Iraq without mentioning that he had opposed the 2007 troop buildup ordered by Mr. Bush, which along with a strategy change, is credited by many with turning the war around. Mr. Obama has now assigned the architect of that plan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to do the same in Afghanistan.
Republicans were happy to remind Mr. Obama of his opposition to the Iraq buildup, circulating his quotations from the time. “It’s worth remembering that prior to the full deployment of this force, some Democrats were already declaring the surge the president is referring to today a complete failure,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
Nonetheless, Mr. Obama has adopted Iraq as a relative success story, and aides said he and other administration officials would hold several events in August to honor returning soldiers and promote the drawdown. The notion that Iraq would be the political selling point while the “good war” in Afghanistan is now the sour note underscores how much has changed since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign.
Christopher Gelpi, a political science professor at Duke University, said Mr. Obama’s challenge is convincing Americans that Afghanistan is a worthy cause even if Iraq was not. “You may argue this is a good war, but they don’t have any information about it,” he said. “But they do know about the Iraq war and they’re using that as a lens to interpret Afghanistan. This creates a big problem for Obama because his core constituents view Iraq negatively.”
The conundrum is that his buildup in Afghanistan is supported more strongly by Republicans than by his own party. In the House, 102 Democrats voted against a war spending measure last week, 70 more than a year ago. As a former national security official, who requested anonymity to avoid offending the White House, put it: “The people who love him don’t support him on Afghanistan, and the people who support him on Afghanistan hate him.”
Moreover, the skepticism on Afghanistan comes at a time when Mr. Obama is weakened politically. His standing in Georgia is low enough, for example, that former Gov. Roy Barnes, running to reclaim his old office, chose to skip a Democratic fund-raiser starring the president after his speech to the veterans.
The White House used the occasion to argue that Mr. Obama is broadly reducing the American military presence abroad. A White House fact sheet noted that even with the buildup in Afghanistan, the drawdown in Iraq means the total number of uniformed Americans in the two countries will drop to 146,000 by September, down from 177,000 when he took office.
The president also argued the importance of succeeding in Afghanistan, reminding Americans that it was the home of Al Qaeda when it plotted the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “If Afghanistan were to be engulfed by an even wider insurgency, Al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates would have even more space to plan their next attack,” he said. “And as president of the United States, I refuse to let that happen.”
But in making his goal the destruction of Al Qaeda, which American intelligence believes has only about 100 members in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama underscored the limits of his commitment.
And he made clear it was not open-ended: “It’s important that the American people know that we are making progress,” he said, “and we are focused on goals that are clear and achievable.”
Monday, August 2, 2010
Controversial Ald. Shiller calling it quits
Controversial Ald. Shiller calling it quits
By LAURA WASHINGTON LauraSWashington@aol.com
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
August 2, 2010
http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/2555872,CST-EDT-laura02.article
An alderman no more. After a long guessing game among enemies and allies alike, Helen Shiller is hanging it up. Shiller, who has represented Uptown's 46th Ward since 1987, tells me she will not run for re-election.
It's a landmark moment for the most controversial, provocative and misunderstood member of the Chicago City Council. In nearly a quarter century in office, Shiller moved from radical activist/provocateur to budget expert par excellence.
The news will unleash political aspirations and expose true colors. There are already four candidates officially angling for her seat in the 2011 aldermanic elections -- and maybe more to come.
The Richard M. Daley-haters despise Shiller for her accommodationist ways. After years of fighting City Hall, she had an epiphany. She learned she could get more for her constituents by working with the mayor, rather than hurling brickbats from the peanut gallery.
"When I became alderman, this was an area that was totally disinvested in every way you can imagine," she recalled over coffee on a sultry afternoon at Cafe Descartes, a funky caffeine haven in the Loop. "We had one of the worst sewer systems in the city. You couldn't walk down almost any sidewalk. We had potholes everywhere."
On July 20, her beloved Wilson Yards development was inaugurated, after 12 years of dogged infighting and economic calamity. The public/private partnership includes a new Target store, a $32.3 million affordable-housing development for senior citizens, and another 80 units of affordable family housing. The project was boosted by $52 million in tax increment financing funds, a sore point for Shiller critics.
Shiller is a TIF booster. "Let's deal with how we find new revenues to deal with these problems," she said. "Whether it's education, or it's affordable housing, or it's safety and security. We are in a period of diminishing resources because of the economy. ... [It's] the only growth area."
She claims a legacy of preserving 5,000 housing units, improving the local schools, opening the city budgeting process, recycling and infrastructure improvements.
Most Chicagoans just want their aldermen to get the garbage toted, make the street lights work and plug the potholes. Opponents say her ward services were suspect, yet Shiller's grit and gumption got her elected six times.
Shiller is a wonk with a heart. Her longtime mission (which she has always struggled to communicate) is to protect the least powerful. She is guided by "a sense of justice," she said.
"You get to it by putting yourself in other people's shoes and figuring out how to have the broadest impact," she said, "and to impact the problems from an institutional point of view."
Many of the shoes in the 46th have morphed from Hi-Tops, dusty work boots and frayed flip-flops to shiny loafers and designer pumps.
Not every Uptowner is guilty, but some are looking only to boost their property values. Shiller has stood in the way of the capitalist, Not-in-My-Backyard crowd. The NIMBYs don't like it.
Shiller, 62, argued that her decision to retire from the City Council does not signal a surrender to the shrill, demonizing and obstructionist politics that has been the ward's calling card for far too long. She plans to continue her role as a budget and policy maven and champion of people on the margins. She will write books and pursue neighborhood and education advocacy projects.
She is done with the grind of everyday governing.
My sources tell me that as many as seven Council members will not stand for re-election. Shiller may not be the only one headed for the door.
By LAURA WASHINGTON LauraSWashington@aol.com
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
August 2, 2010
http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/2555872,CST-EDT-laura02.article
An alderman no more. After a long guessing game among enemies and allies alike, Helen Shiller is hanging it up. Shiller, who has represented Uptown's 46th Ward since 1987, tells me she will not run for re-election.
It's a landmark moment for the most controversial, provocative and misunderstood member of the Chicago City Council. In nearly a quarter century in office, Shiller moved from radical activist/provocateur to budget expert par excellence.
The news will unleash political aspirations and expose true colors. There are already four candidates officially angling for her seat in the 2011 aldermanic elections -- and maybe more to come.
The Richard M. Daley-haters despise Shiller for her accommodationist ways. After years of fighting City Hall, she had an epiphany. She learned she could get more for her constituents by working with the mayor, rather than hurling brickbats from the peanut gallery.
"When I became alderman, this was an area that was totally disinvested in every way you can imagine," she recalled over coffee on a sultry afternoon at Cafe Descartes, a funky caffeine haven in the Loop. "We had one of the worst sewer systems in the city. You couldn't walk down almost any sidewalk. We had potholes everywhere."
On July 20, her beloved Wilson Yards development was inaugurated, after 12 years of dogged infighting and economic calamity. The public/private partnership includes a new Target store, a $32.3 million affordable-housing development for senior citizens, and another 80 units of affordable family housing. The project was boosted by $52 million in tax increment financing funds, a sore point for Shiller critics.
Shiller is a TIF booster. "Let's deal with how we find new revenues to deal with these problems," she said. "Whether it's education, or it's affordable housing, or it's safety and security. We are in a period of diminishing resources because of the economy. ... [It's] the only growth area."
She claims a legacy of preserving 5,000 housing units, improving the local schools, opening the city budgeting process, recycling and infrastructure improvements.
Most Chicagoans just want their aldermen to get the garbage toted, make the street lights work and plug the potholes. Opponents say her ward services were suspect, yet Shiller's grit and gumption got her elected six times.
Shiller is a wonk with a heart. Her longtime mission (which she has always struggled to communicate) is to protect the least powerful. She is guided by "a sense of justice," she said.
"You get to it by putting yourself in other people's shoes and figuring out how to have the broadest impact," she said, "and to impact the problems from an institutional point of view."
Many of the shoes in the 46th have morphed from Hi-Tops, dusty work boots and frayed flip-flops to shiny loafers and designer pumps.
Not every Uptowner is guilty, but some are looking only to boost their property values. Shiller has stood in the way of the capitalist, Not-in-My-Backyard crowd. The NIMBYs don't like it.
Shiller, 62, argued that her decision to retire from the City Council does not signal a surrender to the shrill, demonizing and obstructionist politics that has been the ward's calling card for far too long. She plans to continue her role as a budget and policy maven and champion of people on the margins. She will write books and pursue neighborhood and education advocacy projects.
She is done with the grind of everyday governing.
My sources tell me that as many as seven Council members will not stand for re-election. Shiller may not be the only one headed for the door.
Electric aircraft generates buzz at Oshkosh air show - Boeing working on hybrid plane to cut fuel use, noise, emissions
Electric aircraft generates buzz at Oshkosh air show - Boeing working on hybrid plane to cut fuel use, noise, emissions
By Jon Hilkevitch
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
4:52 p.m. CDT, August 1, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-met-getting-around-0802-20100801,0,68902.column
OSHKOSH, Wis. — An electric airliner?
Imagine a hyper-efficient aircraft as large as a Boeing 737, although weighing much less. It would run quieter and cleaner than any other commercial plane ever made, requiring two-thirds less energy, according to NASA-funded research.
The hybrid-powered jetliner of the future would operate on batteries or jet fuel, depending on whether it's cruising or taking off and climbing, when the most thrust is required.
Register with Chicago Tribune and receive free newsletters and alerts >>
The concept of electric aircraft generated a resounding buzz amid the drone of pistons and the roar of gas turbine jet engines at the Experimental Aircraft Association's annual AirVenture air show, which wrapped up Sunday at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh.
Chicago-based Boeing is working on a concept plane called the SUGAR Volt that would use turbine engines and electric motors connected to the fans to more efficiently propel the electric airliner. On flights of up to 900 miles, the SUGAR Volt would cruise almost exclusively on battery power, said Marty Bradley, a technical fellow at Boeing's research and technology division in Huntington Beach, Calif.
An electric propulsion system would help slash the amount of fuel burned as well as noise around airports by about 70 percent compared with today's airliner fleet, say aerospace researchers who believe they can have such a flying machine up and running by about 2035.
That's a critical environmental issue. The number of commercial flights will double or triple over the next 50 years, according to some estimates.
"We want to make the airline industry less sensitive to high fuel prices, as well as address air pollution and noise,'' Bradley said.
On a smaller scale, a competition is under way to develop by next year a personal commuter aircraft that operates on electricity or fuel cells and can average at least 100 mph on a 200-mile flight while achieving greater than 200 passenger mpg. The Green Flight Challenge, sponsored by NASA and the CAFE Foundation, offers a $1.5 million first prize for the aircraft with the best performance.
Some of the competing teams presented their designs at the Oshkosh air show. The participants included aerospace engineers and students at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Georgia Tech University, Penn State University and the University of Colorado.
"The concept is winnable. The engineering still needs to get done,'' said Jack Langelaan, an assistant professor at Penn State.
Small planes or jumbos, disadvantages include the weight of battery packs and the lack of range that current battery technology provides.
Among the major challenges is improving the amount of power a battery can store for a given weight, said Stephen Beecher, director of advanced technology for power management at GE Aviation.
"You've got to replace a tank of gas with some other fuel source that is not combustible and that you can change somehow to electrical energy,'' Beecher said.
Electric propulsion will be a "game-changer and transform aeronautics in the next 20 to 30 years,'' predicted Mark Moore, an aerospace engineer and conceptual design expert at NASA. Moore said the first breakthroughs will occur with small aircraft, personal air vehicles that will replace the automobile on some trips; an expansion of unmanned aerial vehicles, currently used by the military, to civilian use; followed by much more environmentally responsible commercial transport planes.
Moore and his NASA colleagues are developing a one-person all-electric aircraft called the Puffin Gridlock Commuter. The 12-foot-long Puffin would take off and land vertically and be powered by an electric motor and rotors. The goal is to produce one-tenth as much noise as the quietest helicopter today, he said.
"It means being able to take off and land closer to where you live and work in a much more community-friendly, lower-emissions aircraft,'' Moore said.
"If we are able to do that, we can get away from the idea that the only way to get around in an on-demand way is through cars and ground congestion," he said. "More people will be able to take advantage of the expansive country that we have.''
By Jon Hilkevitch
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
4:52 p.m. CDT, August 1, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-met-getting-around-0802-20100801,0,68902.column
OSHKOSH, Wis. — An electric airliner?
Imagine a hyper-efficient aircraft as large as a Boeing 737, although weighing much less. It would run quieter and cleaner than any other commercial plane ever made, requiring two-thirds less energy, according to NASA-funded research.
The hybrid-powered jetliner of the future would operate on batteries or jet fuel, depending on whether it's cruising or taking off and climbing, when the most thrust is required.
Register with Chicago Tribune and receive free newsletters and alerts >>
The concept of electric aircraft generated a resounding buzz amid the drone of pistons and the roar of gas turbine jet engines at the Experimental Aircraft Association's annual AirVenture air show, which wrapped up Sunday at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh.
Chicago-based Boeing is working on a concept plane called the SUGAR Volt that would use turbine engines and electric motors connected to the fans to more efficiently propel the electric airliner. On flights of up to 900 miles, the SUGAR Volt would cruise almost exclusively on battery power, said Marty Bradley, a technical fellow at Boeing's research and technology division in Huntington Beach, Calif.
An electric propulsion system would help slash the amount of fuel burned as well as noise around airports by about 70 percent compared with today's airliner fleet, say aerospace researchers who believe they can have such a flying machine up and running by about 2035.
That's a critical environmental issue. The number of commercial flights will double or triple over the next 50 years, according to some estimates.
"We want to make the airline industry less sensitive to high fuel prices, as well as address air pollution and noise,'' Bradley said.
On a smaller scale, a competition is under way to develop by next year a personal commuter aircraft that operates on electricity or fuel cells and can average at least 100 mph on a 200-mile flight while achieving greater than 200 passenger mpg. The Green Flight Challenge, sponsored by NASA and the CAFE Foundation, offers a $1.5 million first prize for the aircraft with the best performance.
Some of the competing teams presented their designs at the Oshkosh air show. The participants included aerospace engineers and students at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Georgia Tech University, Penn State University and the University of Colorado.
"The concept is winnable. The engineering still needs to get done,'' said Jack Langelaan, an assistant professor at Penn State.
Small planes or jumbos, disadvantages include the weight of battery packs and the lack of range that current battery technology provides.
Among the major challenges is improving the amount of power a battery can store for a given weight, said Stephen Beecher, director of advanced technology for power management at GE Aviation.
"You've got to replace a tank of gas with some other fuel source that is not combustible and that you can change somehow to electrical energy,'' Beecher said.
Electric propulsion will be a "game-changer and transform aeronautics in the next 20 to 30 years,'' predicted Mark Moore, an aerospace engineer and conceptual design expert at NASA. Moore said the first breakthroughs will occur with small aircraft, personal air vehicles that will replace the automobile on some trips; an expansion of unmanned aerial vehicles, currently used by the military, to civilian use; followed by much more environmentally responsible commercial transport planes.
Moore and his NASA colleagues are developing a one-person all-electric aircraft called the Puffin Gridlock Commuter. The 12-foot-long Puffin would take off and land vertically and be powered by an electric motor and rotors. The goal is to produce one-tenth as much noise as the quietest helicopter today, he said.
"It means being able to take off and land closer to where you live and work in a much more community-friendly, lower-emissions aircraft,'' Moore said.
"If we are able to do that, we can get away from the idea that the only way to get around in an on-demand way is through cars and ground congestion," he said. "More people will be able to take advantage of the expansive country that we have.''
Cook County property tax break is extended - But seniors must reapply for it every year
Cook County property tax break is extended - But seniors must reapply for it every year
By Kristen Mack
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
6:44 p.m. CDT, August 1, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-property-tax-legislation20100801,0,5501703.story
Faced with a politically tricky situation, Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday signed legislation to extend a popular property tax break for Cook County homeowners but that also requires senior citizens to reapply each year for a tax exemption.
The law continues a 7 percent limit in annual growth of a home's value for tax purposes. Chicagoans will get up to a $20,000 exemption on property taxes billed this fall under the law, according to Assessor James Houlihan's office. Without it, the tax exemption would have dropped to $6,000.
But the measure also included a provision to make 280,000 seniors who now automatically get an exemption to reapply annually for the tax break. That means some senior homeowners could end up with higher property tax bills if they fail to file the correct paperwork year after year.
The Tribune reported Saturday that House Speaker Michael Madigan backed the little-noticed addition, which was opposed by two fellow Chicago Democrats: Mayor Richard Daley and Houlihan.
If Quinn vetoed or changed the legislation, he ran the risk of losing property tax relief for all Cook homeowners because the General Assembly would have had to vote them up or down. By signing it, he risks potentially angering senior citizens ahead of the Nov. 2 election.
Quinn said the provision requiring seniors to reapply for tax relief is "unnecessary" but can be dealt with later.
"The greater good is to enact a (property tax) cap," Quinn said. Without it, homeowners would not have property tax relief this year, he said.
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, Madigan's top lieutenant and the sponsor of the senior exemption amendment, has said the change is needed to weed out people who abuse the system by claiming the exemption before they are 65. Currie, a Chicago Democrat, has said it should be the responsibility of the person claiming an exemption to show that he or she qualifies.
The senior citizen homestead exemption results in tax breaks ranging from $157 for qualified homeowners last year in upscale Kenilworth to $823 for seniors in impoverished Ford Heights. In Chicago, the average senior break last year was $193.
Under the legislation, the automatic rollover for homeowners age 65 and older will end in fall 2011. At that point, senior homeowners need to fill out annual applications sent by mail and return them to the assessor's office. They'd also need to send copies of their driver's licenses and property tax bills, officials said.
Quinn's Republican foe, Sen. Bill Brady, of Bloomington, voted for the legislation, but his campaign criticized the governor on the senior issue.
"Under Quinn's plan, instead of automatically giving Cook County seniors a tax break as long as they own their home," spokeswoman Patty Schuh said, the next Cook County property tax assessor "will be notifying 280,000 Cook County senior citizens with promises of property tax savings every year."
Quinn backs an income tax increase to balance the budget, and he criticizes Brady for saying that cuts alone can do it and for failing to provide specifics.
kmack@tribune.com
By Kristen Mack
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
6:44 p.m. CDT, August 1, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-property-tax-legislation20100801,0,5501703.story
Faced with a politically tricky situation, Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday signed legislation to extend a popular property tax break for Cook County homeowners but that also requires senior citizens to reapply each year for a tax exemption.
The law continues a 7 percent limit in annual growth of a home's value for tax purposes. Chicagoans will get up to a $20,000 exemption on property taxes billed this fall under the law, according to Assessor James Houlihan's office. Without it, the tax exemption would have dropped to $6,000.
But the measure also included a provision to make 280,000 seniors who now automatically get an exemption to reapply annually for the tax break. That means some senior homeowners could end up with higher property tax bills if they fail to file the correct paperwork year after year.
The Tribune reported Saturday that House Speaker Michael Madigan backed the little-noticed addition, which was opposed by two fellow Chicago Democrats: Mayor Richard Daley and Houlihan.
If Quinn vetoed or changed the legislation, he ran the risk of losing property tax relief for all Cook homeowners because the General Assembly would have had to vote them up or down. By signing it, he risks potentially angering senior citizens ahead of the Nov. 2 election.
Quinn said the provision requiring seniors to reapply for tax relief is "unnecessary" but can be dealt with later.
"The greater good is to enact a (property tax) cap," Quinn said. Without it, homeowners would not have property tax relief this year, he said.
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, Madigan's top lieutenant and the sponsor of the senior exemption amendment, has said the change is needed to weed out people who abuse the system by claiming the exemption before they are 65. Currie, a Chicago Democrat, has said it should be the responsibility of the person claiming an exemption to show that he or she qualifies.
The senior citizen homestead exemption results in tax breaks ranging from $157 for qualified homeowners last year in upscale Kenilworth to $823 for seniors in impoverished Ford Heights. In Chicago, the average senior break last year was $193.
Under the legislation, the automatic rollover for homeowners age 65 and older will end in fall 2011. At that point, senior homeowners need to fill out annual applications sent by mail and return them to the assessor's office. They'd also need to send copies of their driver's licenses and property tax bills, officials said.
Quinn's Republican foe, Sen. Bill Brady, of Bloomington, voted for the legislation, but his campaign criticized the governor on the senior issue.
"Under Quinn's plan, instead of automatically giving Cook County seniors a tax break as long as they own their home," spokeswoman Patty Schuh said, the next Cook County property tax assessor "will be notifying 280,000 Cook County senior citizens with promises of property tax savings every year."
Quinn backs an income tax increase to balance the budget, and he criticizes Brady for saying that cuts alone can do it and for failing to provide specifics.
kmack@tribune.com
Editorial: The truth about global warming
Editorial: The truth about global warming
Monday, August 2, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080102850.html
IN A DEPRESSING case of irony by juxtaposition, the death of climate change legislation in the Senate has been followed by the appearance of two government reports in the past week that underscore the overwhelming scientific case for global warming -- and go out of the way to repudiate skeptics.
First came a report on global climate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which confirmed that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record -- as were, in their turns, the 1980s and the 1990s. Unlike year-to-year fluctuations, these 10-year shifts are statistically significant. Further, the report notes that it derived its conclusions from an array of data sources -- not just the land-surface readings that doubters challenge -- from ocean heat uptake to melting land ice to sea level rise.
"If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups," the report said. "The warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The gases most likely responsible for that warming, such as carbon dioxide, continue to accumulate.
Second was a strongly worded response from the Environmental Protection Agency to petitions that it revoke its finding that "climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and threatens human health and environment." As with much climate-change skepticism, the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. Among other things, the agency reviewed every document from the "Climategate" e-mail hack at a respected British climate research unit. The EPA found what four other independent studies did: that the e-mails contained some "candid" language but nothing that seriously discredits the scientific consensus on global warming.
Perhaps it is still too much to hope that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II will call off his misguided investigation of climate scientist Michael Mann, which seems to be based on the e-mail affair. Many climate-change skeptics will simply dismiss these reports as more evidence of a sprawling conspiracy instead of what they really are: yet more affirmation of the risks humanity runs if it continues to pump carbon into the atmosphere.
Monday, August 2, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080102850.html
IN A DEPRESSING case of irony by juxtaposition, the death of climate change legislation in the Senate has been followed by the appearance of two government reports in the past week that underscore the overwhelming scientific case for global warming -- and go out of the way to repudiate skeptics.
First came a report on global climate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which confirmed that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record -- as were, in their turns, the 1980s and the 1990s. Unlike year-to-year fluctuations, these 10-year shifts are statistically significant. Further, the report notes that it derived its conclusions from an array of data sources -- not just the land-surface readings that doubters challenge -- from ocean heat uptake to melting land ice to sea level rise.
"If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups," the report said. "The warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The gases most likely responsible for that warming, such as carbon dioxide, continue to accumulate.
Second was a strongly worded response from the Environmental Protection Agency to petitions that it revoke its finding that "climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and threatens human health and environment." As with much climate-change skepticism, the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. Among other things, the agency reviewed every document from the "Climategate" e-mail hack at a respected British climate research unit. The EPA found what four other independent studies did: that the e-mails contained some "candid" language but nothing that seriously discredits the scientific consensus on global warming.
Perhaps it is still too much to hope that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II will call off his misguided investigation of climate scientist Michael Mann, which seems to be based on the e-mail affair. Many climate-change skeptics will simply dismiss these reports as more evidence of a sprawling conspiracy instead of what they really are: yet more affirmation of the risks humanity runs if it continues to pump carbon into the atmosphere.
The auto industry lives. Can we admit that government intervention worked?
The auto industry lives. Can we admit that government intervention worked?
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Copyright by The Washington Post
Monday, August 2, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103286.html
Who could have imagined that the bailout of the auto industry, one of the single most unpopular moves by the Obama administration, would become one of its best talking points?
But don't for an instant imagine that the comeback of the nation's rescued car companies, particularly General Motors, will change the way we debate government's role in the economy. When it comes to almost anything the government does, ideology trumps facts, slogans trump reality, and loaded words ("socialism") trump data.
Let there be no mistake: Rescuing GM and Chrysler took political courage, and I want to put in a good word not only for President Obama but also for George W. Bush.
True, Bush's electoral career was over in December 2008 when he extended $17.4 billion of Troubled Assets Relief Program money to keep the companies alive long enough to give Obama a chance to act. Still, it took guts for Bush to decide not to "leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office." Yet it was Obama who put in the bulk of the cash -- in all, Bush's input had grown to $25 billion before he left office, while Obama put up an additional $60 billion -- and created the tough restructuring plan.
Both presidents faced broad public resistance. A CNN poll in December 2008 found that 61 percent of Americans opposed the bailout; only 36 percent supported it. When Obama acted two months later, a Gallup poll found 72 percent opposing the additional money for the auto companies and only 25 percent in favor.
At the time, I was in the bailout-supporting minority because a collapse of the car industry would have devastated an already ailing Midwest. Enterprises dependent on the auto companies would have come crashing down. A White House report last week concluded that one million jobs would have been lost if the government had not intervened, and some estimates last year went much higher.
The decision to lose one of our core manufacturing sectors would also have been irreversible -- a severe enough threat that even Bush, the staunch free-marketer, wouldn't let it happen. That's why the Obama administration is bragging a bit about the 55,000 auto jobs added since June 2009. "The auto rescue is a great example of how the administration's policies helped lead to a turnaround in the industrial base of our country," said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who met with a group of columnists last week. The arguments against the bailout were predictable but not unreasonable. Many suspected that government would inevitably make politicized choices: plant closings determined by political influence and Obama favorites on company boards pursuing pet administration projects at the expense of sound business judgments.
This didn't happen. Even though the administration lost one fight when Congress voted to protect the interests of the auto dealers, the White House let the automakers behave like private companies. Ron Bloom, a major architect of the restructuring, told the columnists: "For the last nine or 10 months, we've kept our hands off of it." Directors, Bloom added, were chosen for their business expertise, not for their politics.
Ironically, in an opinion piece designed to deny the administration any credit for the turnaround, Steve Forbes confirmed the administration's claim that it let GM run like a business. The former GOP presidential candidate wrote in Politico that "GM's management is using solid, conservative, free-market management principles to get the company back to long-term profitability." But this is exactly what opponents of the bailout said could never happen if the government stepped in. By Forbes's own testimony, they were wrong.
That's why Obama could declare at a Chrysler plant in Detroit on Friday (and repeat in his Saturday radio address) that "for the first time since 2004, all three U.S. automakers are operating at a profit," meaning that taxpayers are likely to recoup most of their investment and possibly more.
Might practical-minded business people now admit that there are occasions when government intervention can be good for capitalism by saving it from some of the very forces it unleashes?
Okay, Wall Street is full of whining ingrates who would have been wiped out absent government help. Many business folks ignore how much they depend on effective government so they can keep complaining about taxes and regulations.
But honestly: without government, we would have lost large parts of our auto industry. Doesn't this matter to anybody?
ejdionne@washpost.com
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Copyright by The Washington Post
Monday, August 2, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103286.html
Who could have imagined that the bailout of the auto industry, one of the single most unpopular moves by the Obama administration, would become one of its best talking points?
But don't for an instant imagine that the comeback of the nation's rescued car companies, particularly General Motors, will change the way we debate government's role in the economy. When it comes to almost anything the government does, ideology trumps facts, slogans trump reality, and loaded words ("socialism") trump data.
Let there be no mistake: Rescuing GM and Chrysler took political courage, and I want to put in a good word not only for President Obama but also for George W. Bush.
True, Bush's electoral career was over in December 2008 when he extended $17.4 billion of Troubled Assets Relief Program money to keep the companies alive long enough to give Obama a chance to act. Still, it took guts for Bush to decide not to "leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office." Yet it was Obama who put in the bulk of the cash -- in all, Bush's input had grown to $25 billion before he left office, while Obama put up an additional $60 billion -- and created the tough restructuring plan.
Both presidents faced broad public resistance. A CNN poll in December 2008 found that 61 percent of Americans opposed the bailout; only 36 percent supported it. When Obama acted two months later, a Gallup poll found 72 percent opposing the additional money for the auto companies and only 25 percent in favor.
At the time, I was in the bailout-supporting minority because a collapse of the car industry would have devastated an already ailing Midwest. Enterprises dependent on the auto companies would have come crashing down. A White House report last week concluded that one million jobs would have been lost if the government had not intervened, and some estimates last year went much higher.
The decision to lose one of our core manufacturing sectors would also have been irreversible -- a severe enough threat that even Bush, the staunch free-marketer, wouldn't let it happen. That's why the Obama administration is bragging a bit about the 55,000 auto jobs added since June 2009. "The auto rescue is a great example of how the administration's policies helped lead to a turnaround in the industrial base of our country," said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who met with a group of columnists last week. The arguments against the bailout were predictable but not unreasonable. Many suspected that government would inevitably make politicized choices: plant closings determined by political influence and Obama favorites on company boards pursuing pet administration projects at the expense of sound business judgments.
This didn't happen. Even though the administration lost one fight when Congress voted to protect the interests of the auto dealers, the White House let the automakers behave like private companies. Ron Bloom, a major architect of the restructuring, told the columnists: "For the last nine or 10 months, we've kept our hands off of it." Directors, Bloom added, were chosen for their business expertise, not for their politics.
Ironically, in an opinion piece designed to deny the administration any credit for the turnaround, Steve Forbes confirmed the administration's claim that it let GM run like a business. The former GOP presidential candidate wrote in Politico that "GM's management is using solid, conservative, free-market management principles to get the company back to long-term profitability." But this is exactly what opponents of the bailout said could never happen if the government stepped in. By Forbes's own testimony, they were wrong.
That's why Obama could declare at a Chrysler plant in Detroit on Friday (and repeat in his Saturday radio address) that "for the first time since 2004, all three U.S. automakers are operating at a profit," meaning that taxpayers are likely to recoup most of their investment and possibly more.
Might practical-minded business people now admit that there are occasions when government intervention can be good for capitalism by saving it from some of the very forces it unleashes?
Okay, Wall Street is full of whining ingrates who would have been wiped out absent government help. Many business folks ignore how much they depend on effective government so they can keep complaining about taxes and regulations.
But honestly: without government, we would have lost large parts of our auto industry. Doesn't this matter to anybody?
ejdionne@washpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)