Skyminers

Atist's conception of an evolved orbital fuel depotThere may be gold in them there spacerocks, but there's sure to be a bunch of other valuable stuff, too. When the news of Planetay Resources, a company created with the intent of mining asteroid and comets, hit the toobz a few weeks ago, it sounded almost surreal. Asteroid mining has been a staple of science fiction for decades, how real can it be? But after speaking with the company's chief scientist, Chris Lewicki, it sounds like they have put together a realistic game plan. Lewicki has been studying asteroids for most of his professional life and even has one named in his honor:

One important thing to understand about our company, we're not a government program. For NASA and other civilian agencies, failure is not an option. But for us it's the exact opposite: failure is an option. It has to be, just think of where we might be as a species or a nation if we only took on projects where success was a virtual certainty.

Lewicki makes a good point. To succeed beyond expectations, one has to be willing to make a few mistakes. Losing an unmanned vehicle is a public relations disaster for NASA and a huge loss of money for taxpayers, a national tragedy for manned spacecraft. Planetary Resources, on the other hand, is backed by a who's who of entrepreneurs, including Ross Perot, Jr., Larry Page, and Peter Diamondis, just to name a few. That kind of capital is critical: this is an expensive and risky endeavour. Just getting started will cost millions. These guys are willing to shoulder that risk.
The company's first step is categorize objects and create a list of candidate missions. To that end, they will be analyzing material from meteorites and pouring over data collected by every unmanned mission from Dawn to New Horizons.

Lewicki explained the first vehicle likely to be deployed will be an orbital telescope, observing atseroids and comets in every wavelength, from deep infrared to UV. That device will not only serve the company's preliminary prospecting goal, it will also allow them to test onboard systems and other technology under development by Planetary Resources and other newspace firms.

One of the things they'll be looking for right off the bat is H2O. Water is one of the most useful substances we can find in space. Not just for human consumption, but water refined in space and then broken down via solar power into hydrogen and oxygen might be orders of magnitude cheaper than shipping from the surface. Right now every drop of water astronuats consume on the space station, and every kilo of liquid fuel burned by booster rockets, comes from the ground up. The cost is prohibitive, thousands of dollars a pound for now and at least hundreds per pound in the best case scenario offered by future cargo rockets like the SpaceX Falcon Heavy.

Planetary Resources will select several candidate objects, probably smallish Near Earth asteroids or comet nuclei that have been wandering close to earth's orbit for millennia, as a start. Paving the way for the next phase, multiple unmanned missions to sample the surface and subsurface of candidate objects with an array of sensors looking for signs of water. What next?

The company will determine if water and other substances exist in enough quantity and purity to be collected and transported back to where they're needed. Some material could certainly end up back on earth, but what we're talking about developing here is an infrastructure in space. Orbital fuel depots resupplied by autonomous deep space probes plying the trade routes of the future. Eventually even maintenence stations where spacecraft could be repaired with metal alloy and other material produced by the company. And there's even more wealth to be made, both for investors and for mankind.

"A single small asteroid might contain more platinum than has been mined on earth in all history," noted Lewicki. "And this kind of resource survey could be a big boon to science. Make no mistake, this is a viable business model focused on turning a profit. But there certainly could be huge spin off benefits for planetary science in ways we cannot even imagine."

That's what really fires me up! Think of the industrial revolution that began two centuries ago. Capitalists didn't dig deep mines and factory foundations all over the world in pursuit of pure scientific knoweldge. But the sheer volume of material collected in the first 50 years of the 19th century ignited an explosion in every field of natural science. In the space of a few decades our understanding went from Genesis to paleo-geology. Dinosaurs and ancient ferns plants were classifed by species and time, the familiar geologic periods were developed, mass extinctions revealed, and soon naturalists were debating a new idea, that species might not be immutable after all, that living things evolve over time.

What rare secrets might be buried a few meters beneath the frozen and baked surface of a small asteroid or comet? What ancient mysteries might be revealed in the regolith of objects that are essentially time vaults locked up five billions years ago? If Planetary Resources is successful, we might find out in the next two or three decades.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/XMoXh5h79I4/-Skyminers

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

McCain Calls Supreme Court 'Uninformed, Arrogant,
Naive' for Citizens United

Click here to view this media

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain says he's "worried" that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly may contribute up to $100 million in support of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, and others could have an undue influence on elections as a result of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

"I'm not only worried about him, I'm worried about many others," McCain told NBC's David Gregory on Sunday. "I've always been concerned about the labor unions who take money from their union members and without their permission, contribute to causes that they may not support. So am I concerned about the incredible amount of money that's washing around? Yeah."

"Sheldon Adelson makes money from a foreign casino as well," Gregory noted. "You said this week it's tantamount to foreign money getting into the [Romney] campaign."

"I think there will scandals as associated with the worse decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century," McCain explained. "Uninformed, arrogant, naive. I just wish one of [the justices] had run for county sheriff. That's why we miss people like [former Chief Justice] William Rehnquist and [former Justice] Sandra Day O'Connor, who had some experience with congressional and other races."

"Do you think Adelson himself will have undue influence on Mitt Romney?" Gregory pressed.

"Not any more than other people who give lots of money," Mccain replied. "The whole system is broken and it's a wash. I don't pick out Mr. Adelson any more than I pick out [AFL-CIO President Richard] Trumka."

"So the fact is that the system is broken. I predict to you that there will be scandals and I predict to you that there will be reform again."

In a Friday interview on PBS, McCain had said that Adelson's contributions to Romney's presidential ambitions amounted to "foreign money" influencing a U.S. political campaign.

That remark seemed to be somewhat at odds with Romney's assertion at the Iowa State Fair last year that "corporations are people, my friend."

"I think that in that context he was talking about they are made up of people and that?s true in that context," McCain explained. "But to be corporations for purposes of involving campaigns, to be treated the same as people, I just don?t agree with that."

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david/mccain-calls-supreme-court-uniformed-arrogan

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

McCain Calls Supreme Court 'Uniformed, Arrogant,
Naive' for Citizens United

Click here to view this media

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain says he's "worried" that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly may contribute up to $100 million in support of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, and others could have an undue influence on elections as a result of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

"I'm not only worried about him, I'm worried about many others," McCain told NBC's David Gregory on Sunday. "I've always been concerned about the labor unions who take money from their union members and without their permission, contribute to causes that they may not support. So am I concerned about the incredible amount of money that's washing around? Yeah."

"Sheldon Adelson makes money from a foreign casino as well," Gregory noted. "You said this week it's tantamount to foreign money getting into the [Romney] campaign."

"I think there will scandals as associated with the worse decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century," McCain explained. "Uninformed, arrogant, naive. I just wish one of [the justices] had run for county sheriff. That's why we miss people like [former Chief Justice] William Rehnquist and [former Justice] Sandra Day O'Connor, who had some experience with congressional and other races."

"Do you think Adelson himself will have undue influence on Mitt Romney?" Gregory pressed.

"Not any more than other people who give lots of money," Mccain replied. "The whole system is broken and it's a wash. I don't pick out Mr. Adelson any more than I pick out [AFL-CIO President Richard] Trumka."

"So the fact is that the system is broken. I predict to you that there will be scandals and I predict to you that there will be reform again."

In a Friday interview on PBS, McCain had said that Adelson's contributions to Romney's presidential ambitions amounted to "foreign money" influencing a U.S. political campaign.

That remark seemed to be somewhat at odds with Romney's assertion at the Iowa State Fair last year that "corporations are people, my friend."

"I think that in that context he was talking about they are made up of people and that?s true in that context," McCain explained. "But to be corporations for purposes of involving campaigns, to be treated the same as people, I just don?t agree with that."

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david/mccain-calls-supreme-court-uniformed-arrogan

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Thoughts On The Death Of Rodney King

I’m sorry for the death of Rodney King. Mr. King drowned yesterday in Southern California. Mr. King was a fellow human being who was responsible for his many mistakes, and who also very much part of a world that he never made. I’m sorry Mr. King was never able to find a right path in [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/thoughts-on-the-death-of-rodney-king
/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Workplace Toxics Reveal the Beauty Industrys Ugly
Side

While environmental justice campaigns have historically focused on localized pollution issues, the National Healthy Nail & Beauty Salon Alliance organizes around the intersection of workplace environmental health and racial and economic justice.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/x_Jyy3B3CEg/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

BCBS sued for tricking customers to leave better
health insurance plans

Someone should lock all the insurance executives and the airline executives in a room together and watch them try to nickel and dime each other.  From the SF Chronicle:When Blue Shield of California raised the rates for Robert Jeffrey Martin's family insurance policy by 23 percent, the health insurer offered him two options: Stay in his expensive old plan or switch to a policy that offered...

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/u5wDA7FhKv8/bcbs-sued-for-tricking-
customers-to.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

It may not be strictly partisan politics, but
there looks to be politics aplenty in the ouster of the U. of Virginia's president

The rotunda of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, designed by the university's 1819 founder, former President Thomas Jefferson

"If there's a reason to do it, it should be a very serious and substantive reason. We have a whole new administrative team. You would have thought that they'd want to give the team, now that it's together, more of a chance to work together."
-- University of Virginia law professor and Faculty Senate chair George Cohen, on the sudden ouster of President Terry Sullivan last Sunday
by Ken

It was just a week ago today that, following a secretly rigged "emergency" meeting of the executive committee of the governing Board of Visitors, a meeting announced only that morning and consisting of the bare minimum of three members, the University of Virginia community learned that President Terry Sullivan, on the job for only two years and apparently highly popular in that community, had agreed to step down as of August 15, as the end product of a putsch organized by the board's head, Rector Helen Dragas, a Virginia Beach devloper.

From the "Remarks of Rector Helen Dragas, meeting with vice presidents and deans" of the University of Virginia on June 10, as released by the university:

We deeply appreciate all that Terry has given to the University over the last two years. We like and respect Terry, and she has done many things well. Her broad engagement with all parts of the University community was refreshing to students, faculty, and staff, parents, and alumni. Her increased presence in Washington and abroad was commendable. Her administration's work with you on the initiation of the internal budget model has been a significant step towards creating an important tool for change. ?

Nevertheless, the Board feels strongly and overwhelmingly that we need bold and proactive leadership on tackling the difficult issues that we face. The pace of change in higher education and in health care has accelerated greatly in the last two years. We have calls internally for resolution of tough financial issues that require hard decisions on resource allocation. The compensation of our valued faculty and staff has continued to decline in real terms, and we acknowledge the tremendous task ahead of making star hires to fill the many spots that will be vacated over the next few years as our eminent faculty members retire in great numbers. These challenges are truly an existential threat to the greatness of UVA.

?We see no bright lights on the financial horizon as we face limits on tuition increases, an environment of declining federal support, state support that will be flat at best, and pressures on health care payors. This means that as an institution, we have to be able to prioritize and reallocate the resources we do have, and that our best avenue for increasing resources will be through passionate articulation of a vision and effective development efforts to support it. We also believe that higher education is on the brink of a transformation now that online delivery has been legitimized by some of the elite institutions.?

We want UVA to remain in that top echelon of universities well into the 21st century and beyond. We want this to be a place that lives up to Mr. Jefferson?s founding vision of excellence. We want it to be a place that attracts the best and the brightest in scholarship, teaching, patient care, and community service.

?To achieve these aspirations, the Board feels the need for a bold leader who can help develop, articulate, and implement a concrete and achievable strategic plan to re-elevate the University to its highest potential. We need a leader with a great willingness to adapt the way we deliver our teaching, research, and patient care to the realities of the external environment. We need a leader who is able to passionately convey a vision to our community, and effectively obtain gifts and buy-in towards our collective goals.?

?The Board believes this environment calls for a much faster pace of change in administrative structure, in governance, in financial resource development and in resource prioritization and allocation. We do not believe we can even maintain our current standard under a model of incremental, marginal change. The world is simply moving too fast. . . .

That's a lot of words, and especially a lot of words that say very little. And it's important because this remains, as far as I know, the only clue to the putsch completed last Sunday with the forced removal of President Sullivan, "because of an apparently abrupt rift between her and the school's governing board," as the Washington Post team that reported her ouster put it.

You don't have to take my word that Rector Dragas's "explanation" of the move is opaque. Amid the firestorm that erupted within the university community -- which seems to admired and approved of Sullivan's performance-to-date -- when the theretofore secret campaign against the president was made public as a fait accompli, it seems clear that nobody else who read it knew what it means either. From the first WaPo report:

"If there's a reason to do it, it should be a very serious and substantive reason," said George Cohen, a law professor who chairs the Faculty Senate. "We have a whole new administrative team. You would have thought that they'd want to give the team, now that it's together, more of a chance to work together." Cohen said Sullivan's departure came as a "complete surprise."

You could read Rector Dragas's statement as saying that President Sullivan wasn't paying faculty members enough, but does anyone believe that? It does seem possible, though, that there are certain kinds of professors Rector Dragas and her cronies would like to see hired.

You can certainly see a concern about money, but it's hard to imagine that President Sullivan would have disagreed about that. She might, however, have been unenthusiastic about Rector Dragas apparent vision of a cash-rich future for UVa as an online diploma mill -- a "University of Phoenix"-esque hustle of questionable suitability for what has long been one of the country's most-admired public universities. The fact is, though, that for all the statement's talk of "vision" and "realities," I don't think we're going to find out what Rector Dragas means by either until we see the replacement president she comes up with. And I think she's established that, whatever the actual search mechanism is, the choice will be basically hers.

And the manner of the rector's ouster of her friend Terry certainly warrants attention. It appears that she never raised the subject with the entire governing board. No meetings regarding the president's performance seem to have been held. Instead the rector appears to have conducted her removal campaign on a one-to-one basis, recruting voting board members one by one until she had enough votes to achieve the ouster, at which point she seems to have apprised the soon-to-be ex-president of the facts on the ground, to encourage her to go quietly, as she in fact did. This is apparently within the rules of the university but surely smacks of private agendas and strongly suggests that: (a) secrecy was a crucial consideration, and (b) the rector couldn't have made any better case to the full board than she made in this bizarre "statement."

Not surprisingly, the first question that seems to have occurred to most interested parties is the role played by politics -- and not just university politics, which undoubtedly play a major role in the functioning of every university trustee board everywhere, and especially the boards of public universities. No, the questions concerned more overt politics, considering the rapid change in the composition of the UVa board since intensely right-wing Gov. Bob McDonnell took office in January 2010. (The governor appoints the governing "boards of visitors" of all of Virginia's state universities.)
The 16-member board is now evenly split between McDonnell appointees and members appointed in 2008 by former Gov. Tim Kaine. But Rector Dragas, who ascended to the rectorship last summer, is herself a 2008 Kaine appointee, and the Democratic-appointed trustees don't appear to be a notably more high-minded group than the all-business-friendly McDonnell appointees. (For a closer look at the appointment process and the current board membership, check out the WaPo follow-up piece, "U-Va. president's ouster puts spotlight on governing board.") Vice Rector Mark Kington, an Alexandria business executive clearly heavily involved in the ouster, was reported in another Post follow-up piece (" Three members of U-Va. board were kept in dark about effort to oust Sullivan") to have been "in business with Sen. Mark R. Warner (D)" -- again not exactly a ringing endorsement when it comes to an enlightened view of university policy issues. It's very much of a piece with the increasingly prevalent hostility in the country to actual knowledge and learning of the sort that universities have traditionally been thought to exist to foster.

McDonnell was quick to insist that he had had no involvement in the Sullivan ouster, and I suppose it's possible that this is true, although it seems to me equally possible that it isn't. The governor doesn't have an especially impressive record for truthfulness, and there's always the cloak of plausible deniability. In any case, we still don't know what "vision" is driving Rector Dragas.

By the way, in the matter of what Governor Bob did or didn't know, that last-cited WaPo piece, "Three members of U-Va. board were kept in dark about effort to oust Sullivan," begins:

At least three members of the 16-person Board of Visitors at the University of Virginia were not privy to the campaign to remove President Teresa Sullivan and learned of it, as she did, in conversations with the board?s leader late last week.

University Rector Helen E. Dragas said the board had voiced "overwhelming support" to replace Sullivan, who resigned Sunday. A spokesman for Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), who was not involved in the decision, said he was told it was unanimous.

But some board members who had supported Sullivan knew nothing of the plan to remove her until Dragas notified them late last week, according to former board members and a university official with knowledge of the situation but who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Dragas said the board's concerns with Sullivan's leadership had been the subject of "ongoing dialogue" for "an extended period of time." She declined to comment on this issue Thursday, saying it was a personnel matter.

The move to replace Sullivan after less than two years has thrown the historic campus in Charlottesville into turmoil. On Thursday, the Executive Council of the university's Faculty Senate passed a unanimous resolution voicing lack of confidence in the rector, vice rector and the entire Board of Visitors. The faculty group expressed strong support for Sullivan.

The report goes on to say that when the rector had assembled enough dump-Sullivan votes, she "phoned McDonnell to inform him. He and his staff were surprised, but have not questioned the decision or involved themselves in the aftermath."

Pols of both parties are quoted questioning the process by which the ouster was accomplished, though the "R" is a mere ex-govenor, accent on the "ex."

"They have a duty to be more transparent," said former governor James S. Gilmore III (R), who tried to reform the way members of the Boards of Visitors were selected when he was governor. "They have a duty to tell the public what they're doing."

Emergency meetings do not require the same three-day notice as other board meetings. The notice for the Sunday meeting went public around 9 a.m. Sunday.

House Minority Leader David J. Toscano (D-Charlottesville) said he was troubled that the board effectively took action without a meeting, and that Sunday?s meeting involved only three people.

"It just boggles my mind," he said. "You might run a company like that but this is a public institution and a small number of people should not be making a decision."

Now if you truly believe that a change of administration is necessary, you shouldn't be stopped by considerations of the turmoil that's inevitable when you subject the institution to another transition after only two years, but surely you have to take it into consideration. Presumably Rector Dragas did so, and was persuaded -- and managed to persuade enough like-minded trustees -- that such a price had to be paid. She just doesn't seem to have felt compelled to let anyone else in on the reasons.

In today's WaPo report ("U-Va. Faculty Senate to meet in emergency session Sunday over Teresa Sullivan's ouster"), a picture begins to emerge of the actual basis of the Dragas group's concerns, which as best I can glean were never discussed with anyone who didn't agree, including nearly the whole of the university committee.

Besides broad philosophical differences, they had at least one specific quibble: They felt Sullivan lacked the mettle to trim or shut down programs that couldn?t sustain themselves financially, such as obscure academic departments in classics and German.

Sullivan?s position was clear. In a cordial Q and A posted to a U-Va. news site in March, Sullivan was asked whether there was ?room to reduce spending.? Her reply: ?[I]n terms of big areas where there are obvious cost savings, I don?t think we have those. .?.?. ? The university was already ?pretty lean,? she said. ?I worry about getting very much leaner.??

Supporters say Sullivan was a consummate public university president who understood finance as well as anyone on campus.

?Terry is the farthest thing from a fuzzy-headed academic,? said Austin Ligon, a former U-Va. board member. ?She mastered the way public higher education finance worked, and that was one of the strengths that led us to hire her."

Of course, what are described as "obscure academic departments" are usually a crucial component of any university that takes itself seriously as a university with academic stature. I mean, are we really talking about a university pretending to academic seriousness without a classics department? It may be no surprise that the putsch-makers, while paying lip service to the university's stature, didn't want any public discussion of their vision of financial "realities."
#

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/06/it-may-not-be-strictly-partisan.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

This Week: David Plouffe Explains Why Obama Isn't
A Dictator. Wingnuts Refuse To Believe Him.

I can't believe Plouffe has to appear on This Week and answer these stupid charges. As cautious as Obama appears to the rest of us, the Republicans paint him as some reckless dictator, imposing his will over the rule of law - which just goes to show what venal, shameless liars they are. Decent people should shun these Republican liars - that is, if any of them ever got out of the Beltway bubble long enough for you to actually see them.

But this new immigration policy also shows you that the president is more than capable of getting things done when it comes down to risking his reelection if he doesn't. Maybe there's some way he could use his "discretion" to help the unemployed - or at the very least, stop prosecuting medical marijuana cases, which the administration has previously resisted, using the exact same reasons they cited for immigration policy.

The LGBT community and the DREAM Act constituency held his feet to the fire, and they got results. There's a lesson in there for the rest of us: When they ask, "Are you in?" respond: "It depends on whether you're cutting Social Security and Medicare, and what you're doing to help the jobless."

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's begin with that immigration announcement the president made in the Rose Garden on Friday. Governor Romney has already criticized it. This morning, he's out in a new interview saying it was political, that if the president was serious about immigration reform, he would have gotten it done before now. What's your response?

PLOUFFE: Well, George, it's ironic coming from Governor Romney, who said he would veto the DREAM Act, whose immigration policy during the primary seemed to consist of just sending 11 million people home, asking them to self-deport.

We tried, as you know -- you covered it -- we've tried as hard as we can to pass both the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform. Congress has refused.

Now, this is not a permanent solution. This simply gives Homeland Security and our law enforcement officials the opportunity to enforce the law with some discretion and allows these young people, who came here many times early in their life, who want to serve in our military and work in our businesses and study in our colleges, the ability to apply for a two-year period for work authorization.

So we still need a permanent fix. The president would sign the DREAM Act tomorrow, the next day, the day after that. That's ultimately the only way to fix this, is for congressional action. But in the interim, this is a smart step by the Homeland Security Department.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But other Republicans have said it's an overstepping of the president's constitutional authority. Senator Jeff Sessions of the Senate Judiciary Committee says the president's -- this is a prosecutorial policy not to enforce plain law. And the president did seem to suggest last year that he couldn't take this kind of action on his own. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But isn't that what the president's doing now?

PLOUFFE: It's not, George. What the president was speaking about is he couldn't through executive order essentially establish the DREAM Act. And that's not what we did this week. You know, our attorneys -- the homeland security attorneys -- are absolutely confident this is within our authority, to use some discretion. And this builds on a series of steps we've taken to try and make sure that we're focusing on tougher border security, that we are deporting criminals, people who pose a threat to our community, not people who are just trying to live the American dream.

So this -- again, this is not a permanent fix. This for a two-year period allows people to try and apply for work authorization. All of those applications will be reviewed. But we need Congress to act here.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/week-david-plouffe-explains-why-obama

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Pique the Geek 20120617: Helium, Indispensable
and Finite

Helium is one of the elements that most people see (well, not see since it is a colorless gas) in everyday life.  We are familiar with it because it used to fill toy balloons so that they rise in air.  We shall get around to the calculation[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/30132/pique-the-geek-20120617-helium-indispensabl
e-and-finite

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Elections Egypt, France and Greece: Results

Cross posted from The Stars Hollow GazetteThe Greeks have decided to stay the course with the center right and have given a victory to the New Democracy Party headed by Antonis Samaras:New Democracy narrowly beat Syriza, an alliance of radical leftists,[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/30131/elections-egypt-france-and-greece-results

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!