The Promise of Meta-materials: A Glimpse at the Future under Construction?

by Nomad

If one professor's vision is correct, then the future may hardly be recognizable. The development of meta-materials has been evolving more quickly that anybody could have expected.  

One thing is certain. The technology will give rise to completely new materials with extraordinary properties and  will change the nature of construction. 

And it's just around the corner.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum,  Dr. Julia R. Greer,  a professor of Materials Science and Mechanics at California Institute of Technology, spoke about very small things which will soon make very big changes to our world.

In her fast-paced lecture, Greer explained how, by using a combination of techniques, scientists of the near future will be able to create new materials- meta-materials- with mind-bending properties. Building materials, for example, which can be strong or stronger than steel and yet weigh one million times lighter. That's not a random number pulled out of a hat.

"Imagine a world where the next generation of planes are just as powerful and just as efficient but weigh as little as a toy airplane? Imagine a world where the total amount of material used to construct a bridge the size of the Golden Gate is small enough to hold in the palm of your hand? We believe we have found a way to bring that world closer to reality."

So how is it possible? In Greer's lecture, she explains the process in detail. The fabrication technique is actually a synthesis of technologies, namely, architectural design, material science and nanotechnology, all working an incredibly small scale. It's like playing God with a molecular-sized 3D printer.

Controversial Arizona Bill Protects Homophobic Discrimination as Religious Right

by Nomad

New draft legislation in Arizona would give citizens the right to refuse service to gay customers based on their own religious beliefs. 

According to the sponsors, those with sincere religious beliefs are being denied their rights. Is discrimination based on religious values a constitutionally-protected form of free speech?

Arizona State Senators have voted to allow businesses to refuse service to gay citizens based on the owners’ “sincerely held” religious beliefs. An article in Arizona Daliy Star reports that the vote on SB 1062 was 17-13 with the Republican majority carrying the majority. No Democrats voted for the bill.

One of the sponsors of the bill, Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler explained:

“This bill is not about discrimination It’s about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”

The bill approves of the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs, but fell short of requiring a business to post signs stating the fact. Critics of the bill sought to include this provision. As Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix stated:

“If there is an organization or a business out there that wants to use the defense of religious freedom, I believe that consumers have a right to know.”

The GOP rejected its inclusion. Perhaps that would have been too obvious. Like segregated drinking fountains.The Republicans would prefer a more discreet form of discrimination.

Gallardo  told reporters:

“We all have the right to our religious beliefs. But I do not agree that we have the right to discriminate because of our religious beliefs. I do not believe we have to throw our religious beliefs to others that don’t share our same beliefs.”

Supporters of the legislation are turning the tables on that idea, suggesting that by forcing business to serve homosexuals, it is they who are being discriminated against. Yarbrough said SB 1062 is “aimed at preventing the rising attempts at discriminating against folks because they are sincere."

Outback Outrage: How Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Helped Destroy Australian Budget

by Nomad

Through a special tax arrangement with the Australian government,  Rupert Murdoch's New Corporation- parent company of Fox News- became  the largest single factor in the shortfalls in the Australian budget.

The Australian Financial Review is reporting a story which will probably never appear on Fox News.

The single largest factor in the underlying deterioration of the federal budget announced by Treasurer Joe Hockey in December was a cash payout of almost $900 million to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Despite Fox News and News Corp newspaper's near-constant drumbeat against government spending, it came right down to it, News Corp was just another corporation expecting special treatment. Documents last week revealed the company claimed a massive tax deduction- one of the largest cash payments- from the Australian Tax Office. 

When the Australian budget went south, it was not due to wild spending on foolish projects or due to the military appropriations but, if these reports are true, one main factor was a record-breaking tax deduction that the Tax Office allowed the media giant. 

The Guardian fills us in with other particulars:

The payment by a “foreign tax authority” was revealed in accounts published by News Corporation in the US earlier this month and related to a $2bn claim by News Corp for historic losses on currency transactions by its Australian subsidiaries.

The payment was estimated to be worth $600m to News Corp but the final figure grew to $882m after interest charges.

The Way Forward: Corporate Culture or Employee-Owned Business?

by Nomad

Isn't  there any better alternative to the classic corporate business model? With union membership in free-fall, where can the America worker turn to find a decent standard of living, job satisfaction and a more equal voice in the capitalist system? Could the Employee-owned business model be an answer? 

Everybody- except perhaps the 1%- would probably agree that the Capitalist structure is in need of an overhaul or at least a serious reconsideration. Unions- which have in the past provided a bulwark against corporate exploitation of labor and yet, a political power, a return of a influential organized labor  movement seems fairly unlikely. We all owe a lot to the existence of the unions. As The Nation pointed out:

Capitalism was “civilized” thanks to the unrelenting pressure of gritty working-class movements and the ever-present threat of strikes and even revolutions.

However, that may all be in the past.  That system has broken down. 

As the New York Times noted last year,  the long decline in the number of American workers belonging to labor unions accelerated sharply last year, sending the unionization rate to its lowest level in close to a century. States like Wisconsin, Indiana and others, with the help of corporate-funded ALEC enacted new laws that rolled back the power of unions. 
While it may be a bit soon to announce the deaths of labor union movement altogether, some would say this decline might be passed the point of no return. But there are reasons why of the unions haven't magically dissolved. If anything the original reasons for unions- low pay, poor working conditions, profits above all other considerations- are nearly as bad as the time before the rise of unions.

What then are the alternatives to union labor- besides throwing up one hands and leaving it to overpaid CEOs? Progressives often seem paralyzed. and Conservatives appear intend on pacifying the outrage of an imbalanced system where economic inequality and entitlements for the upper crust is the norm.

One possibility is a completely different model based not on union-company confrontation but on a model of participation between workers and the company. No, not a Kumbaya moment by the campfire with workers and management and owners all holding hands. 
I am speaking of employee-owned business model.