Out this week: Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath by Mimi Alford.

"I know he walked away with the hard drives in Massachusetts. But the video from the primary campaign is going to be hard to erase."

-- David Axelrod, quoted by the Washington Post, noting that Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time tacking back to the center for the general election.

Pile of leaves, or power plant?

It’s chore day. You’ve raked the leaves, taken out the recycling, and emptied out the old junk in your garage. But wait — don’t toss it all out! You have all the ingredients for your very own homemade solar system.

If new advances in “biophotovoltaics” research are any indication, you may someday be able to create your own solar “goo” from plant matter and apply it to metal or glass.

A group of researchers has found a way to break down plant matter, isolate photosynthetic molecules, and then spread those molecules on a metal or glass substrate. So theoretically, you could take a bag full of leaves and grass, pour in a mixture of chemicals to break them down, and then finish your chores by painting the liquid on your windows to produce electricity. Not bad for a day’s work.

Researchers have been working on biophotovoltaics for many years, only to be hindered by low efficiencies, rapid degradation, and difficulties in spreading the photovoltaic “goo” onto a substrate. But nine scientists have just published research on new advances that boost performance and may allow for inexpensive substrates like recycled glass and metal to be used:

To improve photovoltaic performance we increased the light absorption cross-section without changing the footprint by departing from the traditional flat electrode geometry in favor of mesoscopic, high-surface area semiconducting electrodes (TiO2 nanocrystals and ZnO nanowires). Finally, we showed how high affinity peptide motifs10 bioengineered to promote selective adsorption to specific substrates can enhance photovoltaic performance. These materials, geometries and design resulted in simple, robust biophotovoltaic devices of unprecedented performance.

In short, the researchers have created a method to stabilize the photosynthetic molecules. And by coating a substrate with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanowires, they can now turn any sort of glass or metal material into a working solar cell with efficiencies better than ever before.

It’s a fascinating discovery. But don’t get too excited yet. Efficiencies are still extraordinarily low — only at .01%. They’d need to be about 10 times that in order to power a light or charge a cell phone. So for the foreseeable future, don’t expect to be painting your house with a bag of grass clippings.

However, as research advances and performance continues to improve, MIT physicist Andreas Mershin says it could be perfect for remote applications in developing countries. In the video below, Mershin explains the significance of the findings:

During an NBC GOP presidential debate last month, Mitt Romney drew laughter from some in the crowd when he revealed that his plan for immigration reform amounts to “self-deportation, which is people decide that they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here.”

That idea — which forms the basis of the radical anti-immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama — is inspired by the work of Kris Kobach, Kansas’ Secretary of State. Kobach, who advises Romney on immigration, explained the “self-deporation” concept in an interview with ThinkProgress recently, calling it “attrition through enforcement.”

In an interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, John McCain — who has endorsed Romney — distanced himself from the former Massachusetts governor’s rhetoric. “We have to present a humane approach to a very difficult issue of illegal immigration into this country,” McCain said, adding that he favors a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Ramos forced McCain to concede that he did not agree with the policy of self-deporation:

RAMOS: You’re talking about a humane way. Is self-deportation a humane way to treat 11 million undocumented immigrants?

McCAIN: No. I think there are some people who want to leave this country and return to the country they came from, but obviously it requires a broader solution than that, and we all know that.

Watch it:

Romney and Kobach’s radicalism is alienating allies in the Republican Party — even those who have endorsed Romney. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who supports Romney, said self-deportation “was frankly a bad choice of words.” Alex Garza, the vice president of Hispanics in Politics–and a Republican said “the Republican Party shouldn’t promote policies of family separation. Self-deportation isn’t possible.”

Newt Gingrich also assailed Romney, saying “I think he’s amazingly insensitive to the realities of the immigrant community — his whole concept of self-deportation. I’ve not met anyone who thinks it’s in touch with reality. People aren’t going to self-deport.”

Marriage equality passes the New York Senate, July 2011 (Celebration Chapel/Wikicommons) As with every election season since time immemorial, the top priority of the New York Democratic Party is to capture majority control of the Senate. It's within reach, just a couple seats need to flip in 2012.

There is, however, this year a potentially awkward new dynamic that may play out in New York between Democratic loyalists and the LGBT community. Democrats looking to take out four specific Republican senators may find themselves at odds with one of their most dependable constituency and allies, the gays.

The ties that bind Democrats and LGBT groups are strong and go way back. Empire State Pride Agenda, Human Rights Campaign, and Marriage Equality New York are widely credited with playing a key role in the 2008 Democratic takeover of the Senate (which Democrats lost in 2010). The implicit bargain was, "Give us the majority, we'll give you marriage equality."

But unfortunately for everyone in the progressive coalition, that isn't how things worked out.

Marriage came later, and with the help of the Republican caucus—who didn't block the vote, though it was absolutely in their power to do so, and with the votes of four Republican senators.

Which immediately placed the LGBT community in the odd and nearly uncharted territory of being indebted to a few key Republicans.

New York has led on many nascent movements in the country's history, and this fall they may be providing another new template, namely: What does the LGBT movement look like when it truly goes bipartisan?

The 2011 legislative effort could well stand as a case study in success.

It remains to be seen if the 2012 elections will be a case study in diplomatically dealing with the potentially awkward consequences of bipartisan support for the LGBT movement.

Gays "supporting" Republicans is an incendiary topic, perhaps because there seems to be a great deal of anxiety among Democrats that LGBT victories will ultimately result in an attrition of that demographic (perhaps because we all know the LGBT community is monolithically male, rich and white, right?). The attrition worry seems overblown, perhaps fueled by the traditional media's outsized fascination with all things gay Republican. In truth, OpenSecrets reveals that for the 2010 national election cycle, Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud combined reported 112 donors representing about $188,000, to spread across every race nationwide. (It's also worth noting that heterosexual Republican Paul Singer makes up a huge portion of this these funds.) In a post-Citizen's United world, that is a drop of spit in the ocean. There isn't a lot of evidence they warrant as many appearances on CNN and other outlets as they are afforded. It's likely gay Republicans get so much attention because they are masterful, like Glenn Beck, at exploiting their iconoclastic branding with whacky antics and endless fail.

By contrast, Human Rights Campaign's national fund is considered a "heavy hitter" on OpenSecrets and spent nearly a million dollars in 2010, 97 percent of it in support of the Democratic candidates. And HRC represents only the largest electoral machine; there are countless others, like Victory Fund and state organizations like Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality Illinois and Equality California, who enjoy cozy relationships and endorse Democrats and have no Republican equivalent at the state levels.

It's easy enough to forget that these LGBT advocacy organizations are mostly incorporated as non-partisan issues advocacy groups, since there is criticism (or resignation, or delight, depending on your perspective) that HRC functions primarily as an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

So, I've been curious to see how this potentially incendiary dynamic of gays rewarding these Republicans would play out as the election draws closer. When queried on their 2012 electoral plans, major LGBT advocacy organizations assume the common talking point, "We'll stand with those who stood with us." And of course the best politics is built on mutually respectful relationships and delivered, not broken, promises.

A similar dynamic promises to play out in Washington state, where four Republican senators also crossed party lines last week to vote for marriage equality. It seems the lobbying for those votes went rather more swiftly and smoothly than the convoluted multi-year process in New York. Perhaps they got a whiff of the fundraising reports of the GOP marriage equality yes voters in New York? In a Jan. 18 article, titled "Money Flows to Republican Backers of Gay Marriage", the New York Times reported some truly eye-popping numbers for the GOP four. I was glad to see that supporting gay rights was framed as profitable, but I also braced myself for the inevitable screams of "filthy gay traitors!" from other coalition members.

I anticipated that sooner or later, the partisan battle over who owns "the gays'" money and activism to would bubble up, and probably not in a helpful way. I admit, though I did not anticipate it coming from first from the gay community.

Continue reading below the fold.

Marriage equality passes the New York Senate, July 2011 (Celebration Chapel/Wikicommons) As with every election season since time immemorial, the top priority of the New York Democratic Party is to capture majority control of the Senate. It's within reach, just a couple seats need to flip in 2012.

There is, however, this year a potentially awkward new dynamic that may play out in New York between Democratic loyalists and the LGBT community. Democrats looking to take out four specific Republican senators may find themselves at odds with one of their most dependable constituency and allies, the gays.

The ties that bind Democrats and LGBT groups are strong and go way back. Empire State Pride Agenda, Human Rights Campaign, and Marriage Equality New York are widely credited with playing a key role in the 2008 Democratic takeover of the Senate (which Democrats lost in 2010). The implicit bargain was, "Give us the majority, we'll give you marriage equality."

But unfortunately for everyone in the progressive coalition, that isn't how things worked out.

Marriage came later, and with the help of the Republican caucus—who didn't block the vote, though it was absolutely in their power to do so, and with the votes of four Republican senators.

Which immediately placed the LGBT community in the odd and nearly uncharted territory of being indebted to a few key Republicans.

New York has led on many nascent movements in the country's history, and this fall they may be providing another new template, namely: What does the LGBT movement look like when it truly goes bipartisan?

The 2011 legislative effort could well stand as a case study in success.

It remains to be seen if the 2012 elections will be a case study in diplomatically dealing with the potentially awkward consequences of bipartisan support for the LGBT movement.

Gays "supporting" Republicans is an incendiary topic, perhaps because there seems to be a great deal of anxiety among Democrats that LGBT victories will ultimately result in an attrition of that demographic (perhaps because we all know the LGBT community is monolithically male, rich and white, right?). The attrition worry seems overblown, perhaps fueled by the traditional media's outsized fascination with all things gay Republican. In truth, OpenSecrets reveals that for the 2010 national election cycle, Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud combined reported 112 donors representing about $188,000, to spread across every race nationwide. (It's also worth noting that heterosexual Republican Paul Singer makes up a huge portion of this these funds.) In a post-Citizen's United world, that is a drop of spit in the ocean. There isn't a lot of evidence they warrant as many appearances on CNN and other outlets as they are afforded. It's likely gay Republicans get so much attention because they are masterful, like Glenn Beck, at exploiting their iconoclastic branding with whacky antics and endless fail.

By contrast, Human Rights Campaign's national fund is considered a "heavy hitter" on OpenSecrets and spent nearly a million dollars in 2010, 97 percent of it in support of the Democratic candidates. And HRC represents only the largest electoral machine; there are countless others, like Victory Fund and state organizations like Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality Illinois and Equality California, who enjoy cozy relationships and endorse Democrats and have no Republican equivalent at the state levels.

It's easy enough to forget that these LGBT advocacy organizations are mostly incorporated as non-partisan issues advocacy groups, since there is criticism (or resignation, or delight, depending on your perspective) that HRC functions primarily as an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

So, I've been curious to see how this potentially incendiary dynamic of gays rewarding these Republicans would play out as the election draws closer. When queried on their 2012 electoral plans, major LGBT advocacy organizations assume the common talking point, "We'll stand with those who stood with us." And of course the best politics is built on mutually respectful relationships and delivered, not broken, promises.

A similar dynamic promises to play out in Washington state, where four Republican senators also crossed party lines last week to vote for marriage equality. It seems the lobbying for those votes went rather more swiftly and smoothly than the convoluted multi-year process in New York. Perhaps they got a whiff of the fundraising reports of the GOP marriage equality yes voters in New York? In a Jan. 18 article, titled "Money Flows to Republican Backers of Gay Marriage", the New York Times reported some truly eye-popping numbers for the GOP four. I was glad to see that supporting gay rights was framed as profitable, but I also braced myself for the inevitable screams of "filthy gay traitors!" from other coalition members.

I anticipated that sooner or later, the partisan battle over who owns "the gays'" money and activism to would bubble up, and probably not in a helpful way. I admit, though I did not anticipate it coming from first from the gay community.

Continue reading below the fold.

About a month ago, I started working on a long story about the state of abortion politics. It is published in the Outlook section of today’s Washington Post and, given the past week’s events, I hope it makes for a timely read:

Last spring, Cecile Richards’s BlackBerry buzzed with an unexpected text message. It was from her son Daniel, a college student in Pennsylvania. He was heading off to Toledo, having organized a bus trip of friends to attend a rally supporting Planned Parenthood. The message came as Congress was debating ending the group’s nearly $100 million in federal funding.

Richards was surprised: Despite her five years now as president of Planned Parenthood, her son had never been active in abortion politics. To her, Daniel and his friends represented a wave of young supporters whom groups such as hers had long struggled to engage. All it took was a sustained attack on government funding of family planning, waged at the federal and state level, to get them there.

Threats to private support haven’t hurt, either. When news broke this past week that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation had pulled its funding for cancer-screening programs at Planned Parenthood, the public relations disaster boosted Planned Parenthood fundraising and energized supporters. Komen saw such a strong backlash that, within 72 hours, it reversed its decision. An aggressive assault that took the battle beyond abortion to contraceptives and preventive health care may have been just what the abortion rights movement needed.

States passed 92 abortion restrictions in 2011, more than double the total in any other year over the past three decades. Last year was also when the abortion debate expanded beyond a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. While the Hyde Amendment has long prohibited federal funding of abortion, antiabortion activists have pushed for more stringent restrictions. They turned to national and state legislators to bar abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving funds for other services they provide, such as cancer screenings and contraceptives.

“I’ve been at Planned Parenthood for about five years and have spent those years telling people, ‘This is what we do, we see 3 million patients a year,’ and it’s just like the reaction is, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah,’ ” Richards says, reflecting on the congressional funding debate. “In the space of two months, we did more to educate people about who we are and what we do than anything else.”

In wide-ranging interviews over the past month, heads of a half-dozen major women’s groups echoed Richards’s sentiments. They are frustrated at the restrictions that passed in 2011, but they also recognize that the fight finally got young people involved.

For years, abortion rights advocates have battled an intensity gap: Their supporters don’t feel as strongly about protecting abortion access as antiabortion voters do about restricting it. This has been especially true for younger voters, the Millennials who grew up after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, with its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. In 2010, a NARAL Pro-Choice America survey found that most voters under 30 who opposed abortion rights considered it a “very important” voting issue. Among abortion rights supporters, that proportion was 26 percent.

“These are people that we haven’t quite crossed their radar screen,” NARAL President Nancy Keenan explained in a recent interview. “They share our values, they’re pro-choice, but the question is: How do we talk to them?”

Keenan’s opponents unexpectedly came up with an answer: Widen the reproductive-health debate to include family planning and contraceptives. Last spring, abortion became a linchpin issue in Congress. But the discussion shifted to a new kind of restriction: that providers that terminate pregnancies should not receive federal funding for family-planning services. Congress debated both ending Title X, the only federal program devoted to family planning, and cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood. The latter became one of the last sticking points in the budget debate in April, nearly shutting down the federal government.

“If Planned Parenthood wants to be involved in providing counseling services and HIV testing, they ought not be in the business of providing abortions,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who led the charge against Planned Parenthood, said in an interview last year. “As long as they aspire to do that, I’ll be after them.”

Planned Parenthood was eager to engage in a discussion of the services it provides that aren’t abortion. About two-thirds of the medical care it delivers consists of screenings for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

After the White House blocked House Republicans’ attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, state legislatures turned to the task. Nine states passed laws that bar abortion providers from receiving federal funding, leaving the White House to determine whether that makes them ineligible to participate in programs such as Medicaid.

On family-planning issues such as these, the intensity gap flips: A much larger segment of voters is willing to penalize a politician who does not support access to contraceptives. Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling firm, found that 40 percent of voters would be less likely to support a member of Congress who votes to defund family-planning programs. Just 22 percent would be more likely to support such a lawmaker.

“This year there were so many attacks, and so many aimed at birth control,” says Shelby Knox, a 25-year-old abortion rights activist who was the subject of a 2005 documentary on sex education in Texas. “That has activated a whole new generation who organize in a different way. If you want to find a silver lining in these attacks on women’s reproductive health, it’s causing the movement to grow.”

Planned Parenthood says its e-mail list increased by 1.2 million people last year, half of whom were under 35. In the 24 hours after the Komen funding news broke Tuesday, 6,000 online donors contributed $400,000. On an average day, the group receives 100 to 200 donations.

Other abortion rights groups, while not as much in the spotlight, have seen a similar effect. At the height of the congressional battle over Planned Parenthood’s funding, NARAL says it was adding more than 2,000 people to its mailing lists each day. Emily’s List, founded in 1985 to support pro-choice female candidates, has seen its membership more than double since Republicans took control of the House last January, from 400,000 to more than 1 million this past month.

Opposition can often have an energizing effect on social movements. Pro-abortion-rights fundraising was strongest in 2004, when groups campaigned against President George W. Bush, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Conversely, a lack of urgency can take the air out of a movement’s sails. As sociologist Suzanne Staggenborg wrote in “The Pro-Choice Movement,” donations to NARAL plummeted in 1973 after Roe v. Wade, because “supporters thought the battle was over.”

For many women who have grown up in an era of legal abortion, that mentality has persisted. NARAL’s Keenan often refers to the graying heads of the major women’s groups as the “menopausal militia.”

Knox adds: “Younger women have always been active around reproductive health; I think it’s a myth they haven’t. But I think this definitely energized people my age in a way we hadn’t been before.”

For abortion rights groups now, the focus is on whether a groundswell of support can translate into gains at the ballot box and the election of legislators who will reverse the laws passed in 2011. The voters they’ve energized overlap with those who stayed home in 2010. While 55 percent of women ages 18 to 29 voted in 2008, just 24.5 percent did in 2010, according to data from civic youth group CIRCLE.

“Women did not turn out to vote” in 2010, says Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. “Democrats had a double-digit lead [among female voters] in 2008, and there was a gender gap in favor of Democrats. That gender gap disappeared in 2010.”

NARAL has begun dividing its e-mail list between its younger and older supporters, testing different messages on about 10 percent of its subscribers. The group saw response rates double when younger people received a message from a NARAL staff member their own age, rather than one from the group’s president.

“Much of our list consists of people who are baby boomers,” says NARAL communication director Ted Miller. “With Millennials, we’re trying to be more strategic and communicate in a different way.”

Abortion rights opponents plan to continue their similarly aggressive campaign in 2012, one they say has energized their own base. The 2010 election cycle was by far the movement’s strongest for fundraising. Groups raised nearly $3 million, more than double the total of any other election cycle in the past two decades.

At this year’s March for Life, which drew thousands of pro-life advocates to Washington from across the country last month, Americans United for Life handed out hundreds of red “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. “That’s meant to be a signal,” says the group’s president, Charmaine Yoest, who plans to continue pressuring Congress to investigate the organization.

Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, has been leaning more heavily on social media and engagement. On Facebook, its page gets the second-most comments among nonprofits, coming in just after the Public Broadcasting Service. When the Komen controversy took off, the organization got thousands of messages on its Facebook wall.

Political candidates in tough races are now looking to these newly engaged voters to buoy their campaigns. One of them is Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), whose contest for an open Senate seat is expected to be a difficult one. She spoke last month to a crowd of nearly 400 young Planned Parenthood supporters at the Woolly Mammoth Theatre in downtown Washington to kick off “Women are Watching,” the group’s 2012 campaign. The attendees paid $50 to sip pink cocktails, and the crowd was relatively young; when Hirono asked women over 40 to raise their hands, barely an arm went up.

“The very first political letter I ever wrote in my life was to demand abortion rights for women, over 40 years ago,” she told them. “I’m looking out at you; you guys weren’t even born yet. I see all of you women who are activated, who are watching what’s happening. We need a whole generation of women like you.”

Newt Gingrich "predicted during a press conference following Saturday's Nevada caucuses that he would emerge as the GOP front-runner again by the Texas primary," the Washington Post reports.

"The one problem with that: We have no idea when Texas will hold its primary. A spat over redistricting is likely to push it beyond its scheduled date, April 3."

Said Gingrich: "I'm not going to withdraw. I'm actually pretty happy with where we are. We will go to Tampa."

The philosophy of Ubuntu derives from a Nguni word, ubuntu meaning "the quality of being human." Ubuntu manifests itself through various human acts, clearly visible in social, political, and economic situations, as well as among family.
Read More...
More on Christianity

The philosophy of Ubuntu derives from a Nguni word, ubuntu meaning "the quality of being human." Ubuntu manifests itself through various human acts, clearly visible in social, political, and economic situations, as well as among family.
Read More...
More on Christianity

It is no secret that many of our nation's institutions do not operate to their highest potential because of division. Many of the world's problems exist because the people are busy taking sides instead of working together. In no other institution is this issue more prevalent than in the Christian church.
Read More...
More on Christianity

It is no secret that many of our nation's institutions do not operate to their highest potential because of division. Many of the world's problems exist because the people are busy taking sides instead of working together. In no other institution is this issue more prevalent than in the Christian church.
Read More...
More on Christianity

Morning everyone. I’ll be back later today, meanwhile – chat away

Ten seconds left in a basketball game is an eternity, even 5 seconds or less if you are only down by one. Two minutes left in a football game, if the score is close, is an eternity.
Read More...
More on Super Bowl

Ten seconds left in a basketball game is an eternity, even 5 seconds or less if you are only down by one. Two minutes left in a football game, if the score is close, is an eternity.
Read More...
More on Super Bowl

Visual source: Newseum

Aaron Blake:

Mitt Romney confirmed his status as the prohibitive front-runner in the GOP presidential race Saturday with a win in the Nevada caucuses.

But Romney’s apparently large margin of victory may say more about his opponents than his own candidacy.

Karen Tumulty on Ronmey's dilemma: Move toward the center, he infuriates the base; refuse to, he will alienate independent voters. And however he maneuvers, will voters be left with a clear picture of why he is running? Nothing is more central to the GOP self-identity than that this is the party that stands for big ideas...

In the view of some in his party, Romney has an additional — and more serious — problem heading into the general election: He has thus far failed to brand his candidacy with an expansive vision.

“The fundamental question is whether Romney’s leadership can shape the Republican Party or will the far, far right define Romney?” Duberstein said.

WaPo:

After a likely second-place finish in the Nevada caucuses Saturday, former House speaker Newt Gingrich sought to dispel the idea that he might drop out of the Republican presidential nomination any time soon, promising a hotel ballroom filled with reporters that he will fight on to the convention in the summer.

Des Moines Register:

The undeniable tension between conservatives who want to light the fuse now on a single-minded fight against the president, and those waiting for a miracle from a long shot, will be a central theme of a national rendezvous of conservatives this week. Fight's over, folks. You got nothin' and Romney's your man. Now suck it up and live with him.

Maureen Dowd on Callista and Newt:

While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff.

Castellanos weaves the common tale of a “great but frustrated” man: “The first wife, and often the second, do not grasp his brilliance or grandeur. The starter wives try to confine him in their small world. But his drive to fulfill his gargantuan potential is too powerful. He rebelliously breaks conventions.

“Then he finds the muse who sees him as he sees himself. He is a man of history and belongs to something larger. She agrees that his rejections have been the fault of the audience. They cannot stare into a light so bright. She directs and channels him, saying, ‘This is what you have to do to achieve your destiny.’

“Now he is unleashed. The best and worst of him have been fed and watered.”

Oy veh.

Theda Skocpol:

“Many tea party folks are going to find me, I believe, to be the ideal candidate,” the Republican presidential contender said in a news conference in December. “I sure hope so.”

These words were uttered not by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul or Rick Perry — but by Mitt Romney. Yes, the same Romney who has been pegged as too moderate to attract tea party voters and hard-core conservatives.

"How many more dead and maimed will it take to finally force this Council into action?"
Read More...
More on Syria

In short, when you are a caregiver dealing with doctors, be prepared to ask questions. When dealing with nurses, be prepared to listen.
Read More...
More on Caregiving