BBC– Twinkling in the sky is a diamond star of 10 billion trillion trillion carats, astronomers have discovered. The cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallised carbon, 4,000 km across, some 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus.

It’s the compressed heart of an old star that was once bright like our Sun but has since faded and shrunk. Astronomers have decided to call the star “Lucy” after the Beatles song, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

“You would need a jeweller’s loupe the size of the Sun to grade this diamond,” says astronomer Travis Metcalfe, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who led the team of researchers that discovered it.

The diamond star completely outclasses the largest diamond on Earth, the 546-carat Golden Jubilee which was cut from a stone brought out of the Premier mine in South Africa. The huge cosmic diamond – technically known as BPM 37093 – is actually a crystallised white dwarf. A white dwarf is the hot core of a star, left over after the star uses up its nuclear fuel and dies. It is made mostly of carbon.

For more than four decades, astronomers have thought that the interiors of white dwarfs crystallised, but obtaining direct evidence became possible only recently. The white dwarf is not only radiant but also rings like a gigantic gong, undergoing constant pulsations.

Continue reading about Diamond Star Thrills Astronomers.

© BBC, 2004

Photo by flickr user stevendepolo

TRUTHOUT– In a surprisingly candid speech at the annual Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council meeting Monday, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke warned of a potentially dangerous economic future for the country if government spending is not curbed within a few years.

“It is crucially important that we put US fiscal policy on a sustainable path,” Bernanke said. “We should not underestimate these fiscal challenges. Failing to respond to them would endanger our economic future.”

If budget deficits continue to rise at their current pace, Bernanke said, higher interest rates could slow formation of businesses, productivity and economic growth, while a large federal debt could hurt the amount of government funds available for future emergencies, from war to natural disasters.

“The threat to our economy is real and growing,” Bernanke said.

Bernanke outlined a number of “fiscal rules” for Congress to consider implementing through legislation, including constraints on total government expenditure, deficits or debt. Today, Congress operates under a “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO ) approach that requires tax cuts and spending increases to be offset within a ten-year budget time span, but may not be strong enough for the current economy. “The key question is whether the traditional PAYGO approach is sufficiently ambitious,” Bernanke said. “At its best, PAYGO prevents new tax cuts and mandatory spending increases from making projected budget deficits worse; by construction, PAYGO does not require the Congress to reduce the ever-increasing deficits that are already built into current law.”

Countries like Canada, Switzerland, Finland and the Netherlands have all seen marked improvements in their budgets since adopting fiscal rules that cap government spending. According to the International Monetary Fund, approximately 80 countries have implemented similar fiscal rules. “The weight of the evidence suggests that well-designed rules can help promote improved fiscal performance,” Bernanke said.

If the nation’s economic challenges are not addressed in the near future, Bernanke said, “projections by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and others show future budget deficits and debts rising indefinitely and at increasing rates … unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debts will never actually transpire, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a country in which the fiscal debt relative to the national income is rising without limit.”

According to the World Bank’s “Finding the Tipping Point – When Sovereign Debt Turns Bad,” the level at which a country is no longer viable to receive lending is a 77 percent public debt-to-GDP ratio. “If the debt is above this threshold, each percentage point costs 0.017 percentage points of annual real growth.”

According to the International Monetary Fund, the 2009 debt-to-GDP ratio in the United States was 83.2 percent. James A. Bacon Jr. of the Washington Examiner states, “the US is experiencing a small growth penalty today: about one-tenth of a percentage point. By mid-decade, however, the growth penalty could swell to .56 percent yearly – more than a half percentage point.”

The challenge of reducing deficit doesn’t end with capping government spending. In fact, Bernanke said, “economic conditions provide little scope for reducing deficits significantly further over the next year or two … premature fiscal tightening could put the recovery at risk.” But at the same time, “if current policy settings are maintained and under reasonable assumptions about economic growth, the federal budget will be on an unsustainable path in coming years, with the ratio of federal debt held by the public to national income rising at an increasing pace.”

Congress faces several unpopular choices to cut the deficit. The CBO has projected that federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid could be double the national income over the next 25 years. Social Security is also threatened as the country’s population ages and the number of workers paying taxes grows at a slower rate than the number of people receiving benefits. State and local budgets will also struggle to meet public pension and health care obligations for retired people. “Estimates of unfunded pension liabilities for the states as whole span a wide range, but some researchers put the figure as high as $2 trillion at the end of 2009,” Bernanke said, “[and] one recent estimate suggests that state governments have a collective liability of almost $600 billion for retiree health benefits.”

“Herbert Stein, a wise economist, once said, ‘If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.’ One way or the other, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the federal budget will certainly occur at some point,” Bernanke said. “The only real question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process that weighs priorities … or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will be a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis.”

Although Bernanke did not plainly endorse any particular methods of reducing the deficit, his message was clear throughout the speech. “History makes clear that countries that continually spend beyond their means suffer slower growth in incomes and living standards and are prone to greater economic and financial instability.”

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

MEDIA ROOTS- When my fiancé proposed two years ago, it took until the euphoria of the engagement had passed to realize that I had never fully developed my own thoughts about marriage.

As many people do, I accepted marriage as if it were as fundamental to life’s trajectory as birth or death- without ever really questioning if, or why, I wanted it.

Realizing that I had never critically examined the meaning of entering into a lifelong monogamous commitment to someone, I set out to discover what it means for my fiancé and I. What resulted was a personal journey that I had not seen coming.      

Raised in the era of booming divorce rates, I know plenty of people who say they will never marry. Some believe that true love is a farce or that monogamous dedication to one person for eternity is a recipe for a life built on lies and fading happiness. But as a deeply passionate romantic myself, I always believed in being swept off my feet into an all-absorbing vortex of everlasting, heart-racing love. What I did not initially understand is that my view of marriage was on the opposite end of the same simplified spectrum as those who reject it. Both perceptions are fed by cultural stereotypes – one of a fated fairy-tale love, and the other of a bachelor’s freedom lost to a ball and chain. 

The significance of an eternal union and the commitment it entails are simplified through and through in our society, crafting expectations that can be destructive to the relationship and family. The media, in the form of television, movies and tabloids, sensationalizes relationships to provide the most possible drama, ultimately painting black and white over the dynamics of marriage and reinforcing one extreme over the other – either a tumultuous love broken, or a star-crossed love sustained.  In family and religious contexts marriage is often portrayed as an end to abstinence, the fulfillment of a cultural expectation, or the means to a healthy family.   

Rarely is it explained to people growing up that marriage is different for everyone. Perhaps such a conversation seems like stating the obvious because, of course, marital outcomes are different. Yet marriage is often regarded as something that couples succeed or fail at, as if the factors and dynamics are the same for every pair. Also, rarely is it explained that this eternal and legal union serves different purposes and meanings for different people. The consequence of simplifying something that can take various forms is that people with different expectations and understandings of what marriage is, commit to it without consideration of what it means in very real, personal and practical terms.   

My fiancé is an exceptional person who embodies everything I want and need. There was never a doubt that the connection we share is unique and our ability to communicate and be real with each other, enviable. Yet, I was unclear about what it personally meant to marry someone. We had planned for a long engagement and in that time my relentlessly critical and questioning mind went to work diving into thoughts I had never before considered.  What would that kind of commitment be like for us, and how would we maintain it despite the challenges that repeatedly arise in life and relationships? How do we keep our relationship that we encounter every day from growing old? Is it possible to stay in sync with another person forever? The answers revealed themselves clearly over time; however, a couple trains of thought gave me considerable pause.

Naturally, I spent significant time contemplating monogamy. As animals, monogamy strikes me as unnatural. Marriage is a life path created by culture, not nature. This was an important realization in my process because I could not justify marriage as the natural progression of a relationship in love. I had to dig deeper to powerfully strengthen my personal understanding of marriage.       

Part of that process entailed figuring out if, and why, I want to be a part of a unit for the rest of my life. Did I still want time to grow on my own and apart from another? When was the last time that I got to just focus on myself? Months of introspection revealed that my doubt was not a matter of commitment to my fiancé. It centered on our timing and what it meant for my independence as a young person in my early twenties. It hit me, that in a culture bent on rugged individualism and every-man-for-himself independence, how important other people are for our growth is left heavily under-emphasized. Instead of recognizing the powerful impetus for growth that a relationship provides, I had questioned if I would be weak for not spending an extended period of my life with only myself to depend on.

Then I remembered a quote that had strongly resonated with me. It is a quote that speaks to something that I hear so little of in discussions about marriage- the opportunity that an eternal union provides for spiritual growth through introspection and self-betterment.

“In former times, if people wanted to explore the deeper mysteries of life, they would often enter a monastery or hermitage far away from conventional family ties. For many of us today, however, intimate relationship has become the new wilderness that brings us face to face with our gods and demons. It is calling on us to free ourselves from old habits and blind spots, to develop a full range of our powers, sensitivities and depths as human beings- right in the middle of every day life.” (John Welwood, Love and Awakening, 1996)

Rediscovering this passage landed me in the certainty and personal truth I had been seeking. I discovered that for us, marriage is a journey and the love that led my fiancé and I to this life-long commitment is what will shape and evolve us.

I learned that giving your full love and true commitment to one person is one of the most incredible and challenging adventures a human can embark on. How two partners move through changes together, and independently, continually shapes the possibilities and mood of their shared future. We reveal sides of ourselves to our long term partners that few, if any, ever see. As a result we are forced to deal head on with the consequences, good and bad, of who we are – our behavior and actions.

It becomes impossible to deny that the way we live and the energy we emit are inextricably linked to the feelings and well being of others, especially those who we share in love with. A union that is sustained by happiness and deep fulfillment requires that we are loving to ourselves yet firm in the understanding that we each make mistakes and feel a need to be heard and respected.      

A lifelong commitment of love is not easy because love alone is not enough. It takes bravery to fully expose yourself to, and to fully receive, someone. It takes courage and compassion to admit the ‘demons’ inherent in all of us and to take on the challenge of transcending those weaknesses. But the beauty of this challenge is that it is made possible through love. Love does not trap or imprison people. Love, free of the selfish ego, liberates us from our pain, our ‘old habits and blind spots’ by giving us the space to discover and grow while also illuminating the beauty in life that allows life to continue and flourish. When you can feel that you are fully loved and accepted for all the positive and negative that you are, it becomes easier to let go of the ego that holds you back from bettering yourself as well as the community.                     

It struck me that perhaps so many marriages end in divorce because it is an institution that people take for granted- many people do not create their own meaning and understanding of marriage and instead base their expectations on the experiences of others. Just as no two people are the same, no two relationships are identical. What is created when two people come together is something built and shaped over time. No relationship just spontaneously flourishes, or combusts – relationships become what their parts create.

This means that each relationship has the potential to be only what the people in it are willing to make it through dedication, focused attention and effort. A happy union requires a shared willingness to compromise and grow; an ability to admit when we are wrong and the willingness to critically reflect on, and take responsibility for, ourselves. We must be humble, generous and compassionate, always remembering the love that is shared and its true intention. As I often tell my fiancé, “We are on the same team. We can’t forget that.”            

If two people who truly, selflessly love each other can embark on the journey of a committed life together, I believe the reward is the most fulfilling, deeply felt and eternally lasting partnership. Yet, whether or not a partnership enters into marriage should be something determined by the pair alone, for reasons of their very own. For my fiancé and I, marriage is the path we will take, making it our eternal promise to always fully love and support each other in the life we share, constantly striving to understand and love one another more deeply and completely so that we may emanate love’s peace and goodness into the world around us. 

Written by alicia, editor for Media Roots

Photo by Brenna Finn

RAW STORY– Two CBS affiliates have been helping train US Army psychological operations soldiers, says an investigative report at Yahoo! News.

According to documents obtained by John Cook through a freedom of information request, WRAL in Raleigh, North Carolina, and WTOC in Savannah, Georgia, have both hosted psyops soldiers as part of the Army’s Training With Industry program.

The soldiers “used WRAL and WTOC to learn broadcasting and communications expertise that they could apply in their mission, as the Army describes it, of ‘influenc[ing] the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign audiences,'” the report states. The arrangement reaches back at least to 2001.

It is yet more evidence of an increasingly cooperative relationship between the US military and news media, that has led some media critics to question whether news organizations are becoming tools of military policy.

Cook reports that Raleigh’s WRAL says it hasn’t hosted a psyops soldier since 2007, but WTOC in Savannah currently has a psyops trainee in the newsroom.

Rick Gall, news director at WRAL, told Yahoo! News that the psyops interns’ work consisted primarily of “shadowing” employees to see how news is gathered and delivered.

“My sense was, this was an educational opportunity to see how the broadcasting industry operates,” he said. “They’d spend time in the various departments of the station, including the newsroom. I wasn’t concerned about having someone learn what we do, and there was no influence on newsgathering.”

But that will likely not satisfy media critics who have been raising the alarm about the increasingly close relationship between the military and the media. Among other things, critics point to the relatively recent practice of “embedding” reporters within military units as a sign that the military wants to shape the nature of news coverage.

Continue reading about Local News Stations Training Psychological Ops Soldiers.

© RAW STORY, 2010

Photo by flickr user @labnol