Experts find new evidence in submarine mystery

Experts find new evidence in submarine mystery — Researchers say they may have the final clues needed to solve the mystery of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley, which never resurfaced after it became the first sub in history to sink an enemy warship, taking its eight-man crew to a watery grave.

Scientists said Monday that the Hunley apparently was less than 20 feet away from the Housatonic when the crew ignited a torpedo that sank the Union blockade ship off South Carolina in 1864. That means it may have been close enough for the crew to be knocked unconscious by the explosion, long enough that they may have died before awakening.

FILE - The Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley sits in a conservation tank after a steel truss that had surrounded it was removed in this Jan. 12, 2012 file photo taken at a conservation lab in North Charleston, S.C. Scientists say a pole on the front of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley designed to plant explosives on enemy ships may hold a key clue to its sinking during the Civil War. The experts are to release their findings Monday Jan. 28, 2013 at the North Charleston lab where the hand-cranked sub is being preserved and studied. (AP Photo/Bruce Smith, File)

For years, historians thought the Hunley was much farther away and had speculated the crew ran out of air before they were able to return to shore.

The discovery was based on a recent examination of the spar — the iron pole in front of the hand-cranked sub that held the torpedo.

The Hunley, built in Mobile, Ala., and deployed off Charleston in an attempt to break the Union blockade during the Civil War, was finally found in 1995. It was raised five years later and brought to a lab in North Charleston, where it is being conserved.

Conservator Paul Mardikian had to remove material crusted onto one end of the spar after 150 years at the bottom of the ocean. Beneath the muck he found evidence of a cooper sleeve. The sleeve is in keeping with a diagram of the purported design of a Hunley torpedo that a Union general acquired after the war and is in the National Archives in Washington.

"The sleeve is an indication the torpedo was attached to the end of the spar," Mardikian said. He said the rest of the 16-foot spar shows deformities in keeping with it being bent during an explosion.

Now it may be that the crew, found at their seats when the sub was raised with no evidence of an attempt to abandon ship, may have been knocked out by the concussion of an explosion so close by, said Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell, a member of the South Carolina Hunley Commission.

"I think the focus now goes down to the seconds and minutes around the attack on the Housatonic," he said. "Did the crew get knocked out? Did some of them get knocked out? Did it cause rivets to come loose and the water rush into the hull?"

The final answers will come when scientists begin to remove encrustations from the outer hull, a process that will begin later this year. McConnell said scientists will also arrange to have a computer simulation of the attack created based on the new information. The simulation might be able to tell what effect the explosion would have on the nearby sub.

Maria Jacobsen, the senior archaeologist on the project, said small models might also be used to recreate the attack.

Ironically, the crucial information was literally at the feet of scientists for years.

The spar has long been on display to the public in a case at Clemson University's Warren Lasch Conservation Lab where the Hunley is being conserved. With other priorities on the sub itself, it wasn't until last fall that Mardikian began the slow work of removing encrustations from the spar.

Scientists X-rayed the spar early on and found the denser material that proved to be the cooper sleeve. But Jacobsen said it had long been thought it was some sort of device to release the torpedo itself.

Finding evidence of the attached torpedo is "not only extremely unexpected, it's extremely critical," she said. "What we know now is the weapons system exploded at the end of the spar. That is very, very significant." ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Experts find new evidence in submarine mystery

105-year-old woman renews driver’s license

105-year-old woman renews driver’s license - 105-year-old Edythe Kirchmaier recently renewed her California drivers license (Facebook)There apparently isn’t much that can slow down Edythe Kirchmaier. The 105-year-old California resident made headlines on Monday when she passed her driving test – continuing 86 years without a blemish on her driving record and maintaining her status as the state's oldest living driver.

"I just couldn't imagine myself without a car," Kirchmaier told FoxNews.com. "It just didn't feel very good."

And that’s far from the only bit of notoriety to crop up recently in Kirchmaier’s life. Facebook has declared her its most senior user, she's the University of Chicago's oldest living former student, last week she appeared on The Ellen Degeneres Show to celebrate her birthday and she has been a volunteer with the Direct Relief International (DRI) organization for 40 years.

To honor Kirchmaier, who says she wants to use her age milestone to help inspire volunteer efforts around the world, DRI set up a Facebook app where her fans can light a virtual candle to help celebrate her 105th birthday. The page includes a short video narrated by "Glee" actress Jane Lynch and has been making the rounds on social media circles, referenced by celebrities and other notable individuals, including Victoria Justice, Ricki Martin journalist Nick Kristof and the musical band Depeche Mode.

Kirchmaier reportedly drives herself to DRI each week, where she leads a team of volunteers.

"I think I’m a pretty good driver," Kirchmaier told Fox. "I feel safe about getting my driver's license renewed because I’ve never had an accident."

READ MORE - 105-year-old woman renews driver’s license

Are You Carrying the Redhead Gene?

Are You Carrying the Redhead Gene? - Some parents worry that their children will be born with a rare disease or a hidden genetic disorder. Other parents, however, wonder if their children will possess something more obvious: red hair.

A British ancestry company, BritainsDNA, is now offering parents the chance to see if their children might inherit the so-called "ginger gene," the Telegraph reports. The test will scan each parent's DNA for signs of the so-called MC1R gene that causes redheadedness.

"Through a simple saliva test to determine deep ancestry, we can … identify whether an individual is a carrier of any of the three common redhead variants in the gene MC1R," said Dr. Jim Wilson, chief scientist at BritainsDNA, as quoted in the Huffington Post.

The gene for red hair is recessive, so a person needs two copies of that gene for it to show up or be expressed. That means even if both parents carry the gene, just one in four of their children are likely to turn out to be a redhead. As a result, families that have no redheads for decades can suddenly discover a carrottop in their midst.

"Families can carry a variant for generations, and when one carrier has children with another carrier, a redheaded baby can appear seemingly out of nowhere." Wilson said, as quoted in the Daily Mail.

Though there's no scientific evidence that redheads deserve their reputation for having fiery temperaments, some recent reports suggest having red hair is associated with a number of health issues. A study from the journal Nature found that the pigment pheomelanin, which is responsible for red hair, may also make redheads even more susceptible to melanoma than fair-skinned blondes, according to the Los Angeles Times.

And a widely reported study from the Journal of the American Dentistry Association found that redheads are more sensitive to pain and require extra anesthesia during surgery, according to ABC News.

But there may be some advantages to having red hair, too, EverydayHealth.com reports. The pale skin that redheads usually have is more efficient at soaking up sunlight — and sunlight is required for the body to manufacture vitamin D, an essential nutrient.

Worldwide, red hair is quite rare, and just over 0.5 percent, or one in 200 people, are redheads — this amounts to almost 40 million people, the Daily Mail reports.

In Ireland, an estimated 10 percent of the population has red hair, though about 40 percent of the Irish carry the recessive gene. In Scotland and England, 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively, are redheaded, according to the Daily Mail.

The DNA test will be offered by BritainsDNA at a genealogy and ancestry exhibition named Who Do You Think You Are, associated with the popular NBC television show and scheduled to be held in London next month. ( LiveScience.com )

READ MORE - Are You Carrying the Redhead Gene?

The case for Barack Obama

The case for Barack Obama - Why voters should choose the Democratic ticket - So far, 35 of the 72 largest newspapers by circulation have endorsed President Obama's re-election. All but one also endorsed him in 2008. Here are some of the arguments they are making for why voters should choose the Democratic ticket:

President Obama's first term was hardly perfect, argues The Washington Post, but he is still by far the superior choice.

What the editorials said

"Think back," said the Chicago Tribune. As President Obama took office in January 2009, the economy was in free fall. "Employers retrenched. Jobs vanished. Home values plummeted." No leader, least of all a "rookie president," could have foreseen how far we would fall, or how difficult it would be to come back. But Barack Obama, "with quick study and sure gait," has created the conditions for a real recovery. Not just by stimulus spending, but also by cutting payroll taxes on small businesses, creating investment tax credits, and agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts. Now look at where we are: The stock market is up, consumer confidence is returning, and the unemployment rate has fallen steadily from 10 percent at the height of the recession to 7.8 percent today. Yes, Obama has "vast unfinished business" left to do. But he, and not Mitt Romney, is the best candidate to do it.

Obama's pragmatic centrism may have disappointed some liberals, said The New Yorker, but few can deny his "run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign policy successes." The $767 billion stimulus bill helped "reset the course of the economy." The Dodd-Frank bill tightened regulations on Wall Street, making another crash less likely. And his health-care reform bill did something five Democratic presidents before him failed to do — guarantee universal access to medical care. It is the "single greatest expansion of the social safety net since the advent of Medicare and Medicaid." And on foreign policy, said the Montgomery, Ala., Advertiser, Obama's "calm, analytical style" has helped redefine our relationship with an increasingly complex world. It has also delivered notable successes: the killing of Osama bin Laden, the decimation of al Qaeda's leadership, and the end of our "profoundly mistaken" war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney's campaign for president presents a troubling question, said the Salt Lake Tribune. "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?" Romney has revealed himself to be a "shameless" chameleon who will "say anything to get elected" — including telling fellow millionaires that 47 percent of Americans are "freeloaders." Voters may not know what Romney really believes, said The New York Times, "but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda" — turning back the clock for minorities, women, and gays, while imposing "reckless budget cuts" on the government and "30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas" on the economy.

Obama's first term was hardly perfect, said The Washington Post. The president can be "both arrogant and thin-skinned," and he has failed to provide leadership on immigration reform and climate change, as he promised. But "economic headwinds" and a Republican Party committed to a "scorched-earth campaign against him" have made his many achievements even more impressive. The president is committed to reducing our crippling deficit "in a balanced way," offering a mix of spending cuts and modest tax increases. Romney, on the other hand, has presented a deceptive economic proposal relying heavily on 20 percent, across-the-board tax cuts "which deny math." Obama is "by far the superior choice." ( TheWeek.com )

READ MORE - The case for Barack Obama

Is Apple looking to disrupt the hybrid notebook market?

Is Apple looking to disrupt the hybrid notebook market? - A patent application from Apple published this month details a notebook computer with a detachable tablet touch screen.

Discovered by Patently Apple, application 250673, which was initially filed in September 2011 with the US Patent and Trademark Office, but was only made public on April 4 this year, describes a device very similar to the convertible notebooks and hybrid portable computers that have been launching on the market in recent months, many of which, like the HP Envy X2 and the Dell XPS 12 convertible Ultrabook run Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system. While the ASUS Transformer Prime looks like an ultrabook but runs Android like a traditional tablet.

Illustration of Apple patent Application 250673

The intriguing thing about Apple's approach is that the detachable screen and keyboard base can communicate, pass data and charge wirelessly. The application also details how the detachable screen portion of the device could wirelessly interact with other devices and work as both a remote control as well as a remote input device for the base computer.

However, nothing in the filing is revolutionary, merely innovative -- but therein lies the key to Apple's success: taking an existing idea and making it work better.

The company is reportedly hard at work integrating the best features of its mobile operating system iOS into its desktop OSX operating system. Many believe this will bring the Siri voice-operated virtual assistant to computers as well as tablets and smartphones, but the integration could also include touchscreen commands to complement the smart swipe and gesture-based track pad controls already built into Apple's computer range. ( AFP Relax )

READ MORE - Is Apple looking to disrupt the hybrid notebook market?

Can Obama Make History on Immigration?

Can Obama Make History on Immigration? - This is actually happening. That’s the viewpoint of Capitol Hill aides, lobbyists, advocates, and politicians who have been involved in the immigration debate for 10, 20, and in some cases 30 years. They are psyched. They are scared. They are sober.

They miss the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has been at the forefront of every immigration law since 1965. They are grateful for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who has spurred a new way of thinking about immigration among conservatives.

This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen people close to the immigration talks on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

President Obama’s speech on Tuesday in Nevada will mark the public unveiling of private planning that has been in the works at the White House and in Congress for at least a year. Administration officials have mulled every possible option for easing the paradox of too many illegal immigrants and a stilted legal system. The only real solution is broad legislation.

No one knows how it will end. The public statements from Obama and a group of bipartisan senators will reflect a possible resolution to years of conflict and confusion. The contours of the deal are so simple that a Martian visiting the United States would wonder why politicians have been fighting about it for 15 years. There will be some type of earned legalization for illegal immigrants, an ironclad way for employers to verify that their employees are legal, a smooth visa system for future immigrants, and robust border security.

Everyone with a stake in the outcome fears that a misstep on the part of one political party will offend the other party and blow up the deal. Two old hands at the debate, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., were extremely careful on ABC's This Week on Sunday talking about immigration. McCain said he wanted Obama's help. Menendez said Obama would work with Republicans. Liberals fear that Obama will be too dictatorial when he spells out his immigration reform plan. If his tone isn’t deferential enough, it could alienate Republicans whose support is needed for anything to pass. Conservatives fear that Democrats don’t actually want an immigration reform bill and would rather make Republicans look bad by alienating Hispanics.

Whatever happens, it will play out in a big way. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has designated immigration legislation with the bill number S.1, a signal the bill is the top Senate priority. (He did the same thing for Obama’s health care bill.) The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to begin crafting it in February. It should be on the Senate floor in May or June.

Lengthy congressional debates of this sort are public and messy. Drafters of the bill will have their hands full keeping the amendment process from sinking the effort. The White House will need to keep up the pressure without scaring away skittish Republicans. It’s a delicate dance that has never been attempted without Kennedy.

Advocates expect to lose at least five Democrats in the Senate, which means they will need upwards of a dozen Republicans to vote for the legislation. That’s where Rubio and other tea party favorites like Sen. Mike Lee of Utah will come into play. Rubio and Lee are newcomers to an old discussion among Republican veterans like McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Newly elected Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona will be a key Republican player as well.

Conservative senators who want an immigration bill will be pitted against fellow conservatives who don’t, like Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and David Vitter of Louisiana. To get past their own party’s naysayers, Republicans could make demands that are unpleasant, if not unpalatable, for traditional Democrats.

Next comes the House, where Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is in no hurry to rush any broad legislation. Goodlatte’s main objective is much more modest--to familiarize his committee members with immigration policy such that they understand the difference between a work visa and a green card. There are not enough Republican votes in the House to pass anything that would earn Obama’s signature or the nod from Senate Democrats.

So how can a sweeping immigration bill actually pass? Supporters from both parties are acutely aware that missteps in a few crucial areas could derail the effort. But they also sense a new political reality pushed into sharp relief by November’s election—the stalemate on immigration has to end. Republican strategists want nothing more than to remove the issue from their plates. The only way that happens is if a bill passes.

There are three main hurdles to passing an immigration bill—citizenship, guest-workers, and House Republicans. Any one of them could scuttle the prospects of passage, but all are surmountable.

Citizenship. 

A bizarre shift occurred in the last year when Rubio emerged onto the national scene and begged fellow conservatives to speak more positively about immigration. The sparring that used to be about “amnesty,” or legalizing illegal immigrants, is now about granting them citizenship. Rubio and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are among the conservatives who have protested any law that gives illegal immigrants their own method of becoming citizens.

That’s fine, say White House officials and congressional Democrats. They aren’t asking for a special path to citizenship. They just want it to be possible for non-criminal undocumented immigrants to live legally in the United States and use regular methods to become citizens within a reasonable amount of time. “Reasonable” is subject to negotiation—10 years? 20 years? No one disputes that the illegal immigrants need to be “at the back of the line.” The negotiation is basically a matter of logistics unless Republicans refuse to allow any way for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Then it’s over.

Guest-workers. 

Conservatives are worried that unions will sink the immigration deal by flatly opposing any bill that has a guest-worker component. Democrats and unions are wary of guest-worker programs because they fear that Americans will lose out on job opportunities and working conditions will slide. In the past, the business community and Republicans have insisted that any comprehensive immigration fix include guest-worker visas.

The weak economy has made this conversation easier. “Guest-worker” is a dirty word in business circles. It has now in vogue to talk about permanent green cards for skilled foreign workers, a topic far less inflammatory for unions. There is a dedicated consortium of influential employers who are willing to throw serious lobbying heft behind more green cards for foreign engineers and scientists. Obama and the bipartisan group of senators will probably make a big deal about the need for skilled workers at first and save the trickier question of temporary visas for low-skilled employees for a smaller stage. (Like, say, at the end of a 12-hour markup in committee.)

House Republicans. 

No one expects “regular order” in the House on immigration. Any broad bill that comes to the floor under normal proceedings would certainly be doomed. The House has killed Senate immigration legislation before (in 2006), and forces are gathering to do so again. The Judiciary Committee counts several bomb throwers as members; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, is the most well known in immigration circles. The committee also includes ruby-red conservatives like Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, whose actions are closely scrutinized by other Republicans. Its former chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is feverishly opposed to increasing immigration, particularly for low-skilled workers.

But that doesn’t mean an immigration bill can’t get through. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has been quietly working on an immigration bill that would satisfy conservatives and liberals. The Republican participants are a closely-held secret, but whisperers say they include serious conservatives like Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Ted Poe of Texas, and Raul Labrador of Idaho. House Speaker John Boehner is among the Republicans who desperately want the GOP’s hand-wringing on immigration to end. He has already demonstrated that he is willing to flout party rabble-rousers with the House's recent votes on fiscal cliff taxes and Hurricane Sandy, which passed with more Democrats than Republicans.

Boehner has to be careful. He only has so many chances to put incendiary legislation on the floor before his caucus stages an all-out revolt. To appease them, he will probably offer one or two high-profile House votes, where Democrats will protest like crazy, on enforcement-only immigration legislation. That gets the dealmakers to the next step, a conference committee where anything can happen. As Kennedy was fond of saying, "We'll fix it in conference."

If Boehner wants the issue to go away, he might be willing to put a conference report up for a vote despite a raucous caucus. It's possible that enough Republicans could join with Democrats to support it. ( National Journal )

READ MORE - Can Obama Make History on Immigration?

Jewish and Muslim presumed consent worries

Wales could have an opt-out organ donation system by 2015

Organ donation: Jewish and Muslim presumed consent worries - Plans to introduce presumed consent organ donation in Wales face opposition from within the Jewish and Muslim communities.

Some members of both religions have concerns about Welsh government proposals to create the UK's first opt-out donor system.

It would mean everyone is deemed to be a willing organ donor when they die, unless they have stated otherwise.

The Welsh government said it was committed to working with faith groups.

Other religious leaders have already voiced their objections to the plan.

Families of the deceased will still be involved in decisions about donation under the "soft opt-out" system.

“Start Quote

That information should then be given to key figures in the Muslim community because they are like role models... when those role models are convinced then people will have no problem”

Dr Abdalla Yassin Mohamed Islamic Social Services Association 

A survey conducted as part of a consultation into the draft Human Transplantation Bill found 49% were in favour and 22% were against.

But of the 2,891 responses to the consultation, 2,395 were identical letters signed by Muslims from Swansea, Cardiff and Newport based on a template produced by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Dr Abdalla Yassin Mohamed, director of Cardiff's Islamic Social Services Association and a member of the Muslim Council of Wales, said he had no objection to presumed consent.

Opposition was based on concern about the definition of brain death in Islam and the issue of consent, he said.

He called for a debate about the bill between medical and Islamic clerical experts.

"That information should then be given to key figures in the Muslim community because they are like role models," he said.

"When those role models are convinced then people will have no problem."

Dr Sajad Ahmad, a GP from Cardiff, who was one of those who petitioned against the bill, said: "I personally feel this is being rushed in without due consideration and discussion. To presume that a person's liver is yours after they have died - that's wrong."

'Taken as a gift'

Stanley Soffa, chairman of the South Wales Jewish Representative Council, said: "We believe that people should be able, or the family of the deceased should be able, to agree to organs being taken as a gift as a donation.

"I would have preferred there not have been a bill."

Welsh government officials stress that passing the bill will not change key aspects of clinical procedure.

At present, specialist nurses approach families of potential donors even if they have not signed the donor register, some 60% of whom agree to organs being taken.

The Welsh government believes that by passing the legislation, the figure will increase. It hopes to create 15 extra donors leaving around 45 more organs for transplant throughout the UK every year.

The bill has been discussed at the Welsh government's faith forum, chaired by the first minister, and a specialist firm has been contracted in an attempt to reach out to minority groups.

NHS leaflets endorsing organ donation for specific faiths are being distributed, including one which the Welsh government says sets out the "key facts regarding Islam and organ donation".

A Welsh government spokesman said: "We are fully committed, as part of the legislation, to ensure we communicate the changes to everyone in Wales.

"We are now reviewing the draft bill and the way we explain the role of the family in light of the consultation responses.

"We will continue to work with the faith communities in Wales and officials have met with Muslim and Jewish groups."

He added: "Under the current system, clinicians take a sympathetic approach with families and strive to help them make decisions in accordance with their faith, even though if the person is on the organ donor register they have the legal right to proceed with transplantation.

"There will be the same approach in principle if the new law is passed." ( bbc.co.uk )

READ MORE - Jewish and Muslim presumed consent worries

Obama faces familiar world of problems in 2nd term

FILE - This March 20, 2012 file photo shows House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and President Barack Obama walk down the steps of the Capitol in Washington. The people of an intensely divided nation just created a government that looks the same way as the one before. The only hope for progress on creating jobs and everything else would be if Obama and Republicans in Congress could find some incentive to compromise. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

Obama faces familiar world of problems in 2nd term — Now that his re-election is secured, President Barack Obama has a freer hand to deal with a world of familiar problems in fresh ways, from toughening America's approach to Iran and Syria while potentially engaging other repressive countries such as Cuba and North Korea and refocusing on moribund Middle East peace efforts.

The first tweaks in his Iran policy could come within weeks, officials said.

But a pressing task for Obama will be to assign a new team to carry out his national security agenda. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced her plans to retire but could stay a few weeks past January to help the administration as it reshuffles personnel. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is likely to depart shortly after her. CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus is expected to stay on.

The favorite to succeed Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, would face a difficult Senate confirmation process after her much-maligned explanations of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, meaning she could land instead as Obama's national security adviser. That job that doesn't require the Senate's approval. Tom Donilon, who currently holds that position, and Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator, are among the other contenders.

The chances of another early favorite, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, are hampered by Democrats' fear that Republican Scott Brown, who lost his Massachusetts Senate seat Tuesday, could win Kerry's seat in a race to replace him.

Officials, however, are pointing to Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor, Obama's ambassador to China and Republican presidential candidate, and the State Department's current No. 2, William Burns.

Huntsman is still widely respected by the administration even if he'd hoped to unseat Obama. Choosing Huntsman would allow the president to claim bipartisanship while putting an Asia expert in the job at a time when the U.S. is focusing more attention on the world's most populous continent. Burns would be an option as caretaker secretary until postelection passions in Congress subside and a permanent replacement might face smoother confirmation. He is a career diplomat who has no political baggage and would be unlikely to stir significant opposition among lawmakers.

At the Pentagon, speculation about successors has been limited. Panetta's deputy, Ashton Carter, is seen as a possibility, along with Michele Flournoy, who served as Defense Department policy chief from 2009-12 and would be the first woman in the top job.

New Cabinet members will enter at a time of various global security challenges, from the Arab Spring to China's rapid economic and military expansion in Asia. But the president's escape from any future campaigning also offers unique diplomatic opportunities, which Obama himself hinted at in March when he told then-Russian president and current prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that he'd have "more flexibility" on thorny issues after the election.

Obama's immediate predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, used their second terms to launch major, though ultimately unsuccessful initiatives for an Israeli-Palestinian accord, an elusive goal that Obama also deeply desires. This summer he listed the lack of progress toward peace among the biggest disappointments of his presidency so far, suggesting another U.S. attempt in the offing.

Clinton's Camp David negotiations and Bush's Annapolis process became signature foreign policy priorities in 2000 and 2007. But the Israelis and the Palestinians remain as far apart as ever on the contours of an agreement, from the borders of their two separate states to issues related to refugees and resources.

Any Obama-led plan for the Middle East will be complicated by Israel's fears about the Iranian nuclear program, civil war in nearby Syria and the new reality of an Islamist-led Egypt having replaced America's most faithful Arab ally. Obama's difficult relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could also complicate the process.

With Iran, the president is holding out hope that crippling economic sanctions will force the Islamic republic's leaders to scale back its uranium enrichment activity. Iran insists its program is designed for energy and medical research purposes, even as many in the West fear the ultimate goal is to produce nuclear weapons. Obama has stressed the narrowing time frame for Tehran to negotiate a peaceful solution to the standoff, while pressing Israel to hold off on any plans for a pre-emptive strike.

Officials say the administration is likely to adjust its two-track approach to Iran — which offers Tehran rewards for coming clean on its nuclear program and harsher penalties for continued defiance — in the coming weeks. Details are still being debated. In the end, however, Obama may have to resort to a military strategy if Iran continues to enrich uranium at higher levels and nears production of weapons-grade material — a possible scenario he acknowledges.

"The clock is ticking. We're not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere," Obama said in his last foreign policy debate with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "We have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program."

Syria's widening conflict is another concern. More than 36,000 people have died in the last 20 months, as a brutal crackdown on dissent by President Bashar Assad's regime has descended into a full-scale civil war. Obama has demanded Assad's departure, yet has ruled out military assistance to the rebels or American military actions such as airstrikes or enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

Last week, in a significant shift in policy, the secretary of state demanded a major shakeup in the opposition's ranks in the hopes of rallying Syrians behind the rebellion. However, Clinton's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, reiterated Wednesday the administration still rejects the notion of providing weapons to anti-Assad fighters or any talk of armed intervention.

In other places, Obama's engagement efforts may get another look. After some success with a rapidly liberalizing Myanmar, there are hopes for democratic reforms and human rights advances in Cuba and North Korea, among others.

But short of a rapid change in attitude from these governments, Obama's options for a landmark breakthrough in U.S. diplomacy are limited. He won't be able to reach out to Havana until it frees the jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross, while Pyongyang will have to denuclearize if it wants better relations with America — steps neither regime has shown a willingness to entertain. The recent re-election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has halted chances for now of any rapprochement between Washington and Caracas.

In Afghanistan, the president will seek to stick to NATO's 2014 withdrawal date for most international troops, a central campaign promise. His administration has been trying unsuccessfully to jump-start peace negotiations between President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government and the Taliban. The so-called reconciliation effort relies heavily on America's frustrating and unreliable ally Pakistan, where extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the Haqqani network will continue to face U.S. drone attacks.

Behind all the diplomatic efforts are larger questions of American geopolitical strategy. Obama had initial success improving U.S. relations with Russia, getting a nuclear arms-reduction pact in 2011, but has since seen America's former Cold War foe frustrate U.S. missile defense plans and hopes of an international consensus on Syria. The president has continued to trumpet the benefits of his Russia "reset" policy but may take a firmer stance against Moscow if it refuses to show compromise.

For economic reasons, China policy is less likely to change. The world's two biggest economies are deeply interdependent and, despite lingering disagreements over Beijing's currency exchange rates and intellectual property infringement, neither side will want to do anything that threatens a trade war and jeopardizes China's booming growth or America's still-fragile jobs recovery. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Obama faces familiar world of problems in 2nd term

The Movie About Islam That Sparked a Hostage Crisis in D.C.

'The Message': The Movie About Islam That Sparked a Hostage Crisis in D.C. - Released in 1977, it was intended to honor Muhammad as much as this year's The Innocence of Muslims was intended to degrade him; but it provoked a violent backlash.

A screenshot of the 1977 film The Message. (YouTube)

India's northernmost province, Jammu and Kashmir, was not the right place -- and September 14, 2012 was especially not the right time -- to be screening a film about the Prophet Muhammad. Nearby in Pakistan, protests over the controversial Innocence of Muslims had recently turned fatal, and demonstrators at the University of Kashmir carried placards that read "Obama, we are all Osama." Yet at a middle school in the Kupwara district -- where one-third of the population is illiterate and more than two-thirds are Muslim -- the Indian army went ahead with its screening anyway. The event instantly set off a riot.

Shouting first, then throwing stones, a contingent of Kupwara's residents, schoolteachers, and pupils misrecognized the movie as the devious and amateurish YouTube trailer that led to protests in Egypt. But after police arrested two and confiscated the Urdu-dubbed video, they discovered not the "Sam Bacile" production the locals had assumed -- soldiers were actually screening a three-hour, high-budget epic that earned an Academy Award nomination for best original score -- in 1977.

The Message (also released under the title Mohammad, Messenger of God) is now used in the military's hearts-and-minds campaign, intended for shoring up public relations in remote Muslim regions. That's a far cry from the big, late-1970s crowds that The Message was intended for, made on a budget of $17 million, according to its Syrian-American producer Moustapha Akkad .

"Being a Muslim myself who lived in the West," Akkad said, "I felt that it was my obligation, my duty, to tell the truth about Islam."

Akkad cast Anthony Quinn as Muhammad's uncle, Hamza, in the English version, and shot a separate version with Arabic-speaking actors. He gained support from Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University and filmed exclusively in the Arab world -- efforts to appease detractors who accused him of commercially exploiting the Prophet's life. And Akkad even placed this slide, about 5 minutes into the movie, to conciliate Islamic audiences:

So the case of misdirected aggression in Kupwara -- aimed at Innocence of Muslims but hitting The Message ­­-- reveals the two films' ironic parallel history. Though Akkad sympathized and practiced Islam -- making him a foil to Bacile, a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, one of the many monikers of the filmmaker who was recently jailed on November 7 -- his movie triggered a similar backlash. The Message provoked a bloody civilian protest 35 years ago that seems like Hollywood hyperbole today.

* * *

Washington, D.C., came to a standstill six weeks into the Carter administration when on March 9, 1977, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis and 11 other Hanafi Muslims drove a rented U-Haul from Maryland to the District of Columbia loaded with machetes, shotguns, and swords. By mid-afternoon they had seized control of the District Building, the Islamic Center, and the B'na B'rith Headquarters, shooting dead a police officer and local reporter in the process. Among the 149 hostages they seized were a future mayor -- Marion Barry, then a city councilman, who survived a shotgun wound to the chest -- and then-mayor Walter Washington, who was barricaded in his office.

Poorly remembered about the plot is what provoked it: the same film that sparked protests in India this year.

"We want the picture out of the country," Khaalis then declared. "Because it's a fairy tale, it's a joke. ... I'm Muslim and I'll die for my faith. It's a joke. It's misrepresenting the Muslim faith.

The 1977 Hanafi Siege dragged on for 39 hours, prompted Associated Press articles headlined "Moslem terrorists hijacking the capital," and would be considered the city's first major domestic-terrorism crisis. It's been commemorated as an artifact of District-security lore, staged decades before the 9/11 attacks.

After the Hanafi episode, President Carter criticized the crisis coverage in its aftermath for giving voice to extremists; he asked for "sober consideration" amongst journalists in future scenarios. United Nations ambassador Andrew Young was more blunt: "I wish there could be a law to restrict publication of information regarding violent crimes," he said days after the incident.

 
Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, the leader of 
the Hanafi Muslim Movement of America

Khaalis founded the Hanafi Muslim Movement of America in 1958, and recruited a group of middle-class blacks practicing moderate Islam to join. Though they never grew beyond a few thousand in number, the group received outsized attention for one member -- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the NBA Hall-of-Famer -- who was a prominent contributor of seed money. Before establishing the Hanafis, Khaalis was a high-ranking member of the Nation of Islam, but left disillusioned and even tried, to no avail, to convince his close friend Malcolm X to leave as well. Khaalis evolved from a preacher of "peace and racial harmony" into a "fanatic bent on revenge," as Newsweek put it, when seven members of Khaalis's family were murdered in 1973 by a criminal enterprise known as the Black Mafia from Philadelphia -- allegedly over Khaalis' criticism of Nation of Islam's leader, Elijah Muhammad.

Witnesses to Khaalis' Washington siege say The Message nudged him toward vigilantism. One hostage would later recount how Khaalis coordinated his attack to coincide with the movie's premiere: "[Khaalis] said he had been planning how and when to respond and waited for guidance...word of the showing of the motion picture." When Khaalis spoke to negotiators by phone from within the B'na B'rith building, he had two main demands: First, that the imprisoned murderers of his family be released and brought to him from jail. Second, that a sacrilegious movie be banished from theaters.

"First thing I want the killers of my babies . . . I say we want them right here. I want to see how tough they are. I want the one who killed Malcolm [X] too ... You killed my babies and shot my women ... we are going to kill foreign Muslims at the Islamic Center [and] create an international incident."

Police did not heed his first request, but accepted the second. That afternoon, The Message was frozen mid-reel at New York screenings, postponing its premiere. Akkad, the film's producer, told The Washington Post in an interview during the two-day siege, "I am willing to show this movie to any Moslem and if they don't like it, I am willing to burn it. If there is any offense, I promise I will burn it."

Many would later question whether the Hanafis had actually seen The Message, not only because public screenings had just begun, but because the movie seemed blatantly non-confrontational. It began with an opening interlude just before the disarming slide shown above.

The interlude starts with a white-turbaned actor, playing the part of the Prophet Muhammad's scroll carrier, uttering the first words.

"In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful ... accept Islam for your salvation."

Then the Emperor of Byzantium Heraclius retorts from underneath a purple jeweled crown.

"Was it like this when John the Baptist came to King Herod out in the desert, crying about salvation?"

New scene, another courier, this time with the Persian emperor, berating Muhammad's follower:

"You come out of the desert, smelling of camel and goat!"

Critics panned The Message in 1977 for its valorizing portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad's life. In Newsweek, film critic Janet Maslin deemed it "remarkably innocuous," dismissing the film as dumbed down and boosterish: "cinematically crude and so reverential toward its subject as to seem mechanical." The reviewers hardly mentioned the roadblocks Akkad overcame (not to mention the $700,000 replica of Mecca he constructed): Saudi and Moroccan officials, after initially permitting the project, revoked their permissions, which cost Akkad $6 million. Delays forced him to finish filming in Libya, with Muammar Qaddafi's willing approval. (And in 1981, Akkad reciprocated by producing Lion of the Desert -- about a Libyan revolutionary hero -- which was paid for by Qaddafi and also starred Anthony Quinn.)

Although The Message would be re-released for domestic and international audiences, the Hanafi Siege put a damper on Akkad's vision. In 1978, he about-faced to make his next feature, Halloween -- a low-budget slasher flick that grossed $60 million worldwide and gave Jamie Lee Curtis her first credit. After flopping with his epic, Akkad would spin Halloween into a franchise, making seven sequels. But Akkad could not escape religious fanaticism. He was killed in a terrorist bombing of a Jordan hotel in 2005. (Mark Steyn eulogized Akkad in The Atlantic in 2006.)

* * *

Stopping Akkad's so-called sacrilegious picture was Khaalis's only successful demand. While the hostage standoff dragged on, police brought in ambassadors from Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt to communicate with Khaalis and attempt to appease him. They recited Koran verses and poetry to keep him calm. The State Department briefed President Carter on the situation, but the conflict subsided with a steady stream of hostages being released, and the Hanafis surrendering peacefully.

During their trial, the defense lawyer emphasized The Message as a leading motive of their protest, hoping to earn more-lenient sentences by arguing they had only acted in religious expression toward a denigrating film. "You can't convict these men for stopping a movie without any criminal intent whatsoever." A jury convicted the 12 Hanafi attackers with armed kidnapping, conspiracy, and murder, with Khaalis serving the rest of his life behind bars.

The 1977 Hanafi Siege would become overshadowed by other national-security scares of the era, sandwiched between more-famous hostage standoffs like the 1972 Munich Olympics and the Iranian hostage crisis years later. But with the recent uproar over Innocence of Muslims, The Message now seems like an odd progenitor -- a film with a foreign-born backer, a strong tie to Libya, and a precipitating legacy of violence. ( theatlantic.com )

READ MORE - The Movie About Islam That Sparked a Hostage Crisis in D.C.

11 Simple Economic Lessons to Make You a Smarter Shopper on Black Friday

11 Simple Economic Lessons to Make You a Smarter Shopper on Black Friday - Getting the best deals starts with understanding the science of prices -- and the games retail companies play to fool us into paying more than we should

Reuters

The first and last rule of prices is that nobody knows what anything is really worth. Shoppers are guided by shallow clues ("this is cheaper than that") and latent emotions ("it just feels like a good deal") rather than knowledge and deliberate thinking. Smart shopping might be an oxymoron. But smarter shopping? That's a noble goal. Here are 11 tips from microeconomics, behavioral economics, and social psychology to guide you to successful and as-smart-as-possible Black Friday.

(1) Remember Why It's Called "Black Friday." 

No, not because it starts at 3 am. It's called Black Friday because it's the beginning of the season when many stores go from being in the red to being in the black. That doesn't sound like much of an economic lesson for you, but that's the point. Black Friday isn't for you. It's for the stores. 

The biggest mistake that people make on Black Friday is that they assume that the most popular day of the year to shop is the best day of the year to buy anything. If you're walking into a store at 5 AM Thursday morning, you're probably expecting floor-kissing prices in every corner. But store-wide discounts aren't in the best interest of the store. It's more common that a few tantalizing items will be sold at a loss to lure shoppers through the door while smart floor design guides them toward more profitable (even full-priced) items. "Black Friday is about cheap stuff at cheap prices, and I mean cheap in every connotation of the word," Dan de Grandpre, a veteran deal expert, told the New York Times. 

Stores know you're making this mistake, and they know how to manipulate floor traffic to their higher-margin stuff. As experts in "retail ergonomics" (it's a thing) have shown, counterclockwise traffic flows result in more spending; putting high-margin items at eye-level to the customers' right is most likely to motivate a purchase; and forcing you to walk around a display is an easy way to draw our attention to items the store wants us to throw in the cart.

(2) The Best Deals Aren't This Week (Probably). 

The two most common reasons for steep discounts are price discrimination and inventory pressure. Price discrimination is the store saying: "Hey you, cheapo, I know you won't buy this steel pot at $50, so we're selling it at $40. Buy it now!" Inventory pressure is the store saying: "You didn't buy our steel pot at $50, or $40, and now it's taking up overhead and costing us money, so how about $38?"

It's in the stores' interest to make you think prices will go up after Black Friday. But for many items, they probably won't. Instead, as inventory piles up, prices will stay low or go lower in early December. Still, it's better for the economy if more customers buy into the Black Friday hype and behave as though we're in a mini-inflationary cycle where prices on all goods are about to jump. The alternative -- everybody sits on their hands and waits until December 26 to shop for gifts -- isn't particularly good for anybody. Plus, predicting exactly when prices on your single favorite item will be lowest is like trying to buy a plane ticket at its single lowest price. Even our smartest algorithms struggle to do it. 

(3) Two Words to Remember: Net Cost. 

The damage from Black Friday won't be found on your mall receipts. To appreciate the net cost of your shopping trip, remember to include the gas you use commuting from mega-sale to mega-sale, the shipping and handling costs, and the warranties and rebates (much more on those later). 

We tend to ignore net cost when we shop because we're focused on the bargain story. Shoppers love stories -- "This skirt was 80% off, EIGHTY!!" -- precisely because we don't know what most items are really worth. Narratives fill the space where knowledge should be. If you drive 40 minutes to a super-sale and sit in a parking-lot line for another 20 minutes, that's an hour of your time and gasoline. That hour might not be part of the story you tell yourself and your friends later. But those are real costs counting against that magnificent 80% discount you found inside.

(4) Make a List. Check it Twice. 

Shoppers understand that spending a little money makes it easier to spend a little more money. We get a dopamine rush from buying the perfect thing. We also allow past savvy purchases to guide future (dumber) purchases. Making choice after choice depletes our good judgment. This effect, called decision fatigue, exhausts our ability to resist items that feel cheap at the end of a shopping trip. 

Keeping track of how much you've spent sounds like sage advice, especially if you're keeping a budget. But be aware that that number will also frame prices in a negative way. Economist Dan Ariely has called this the "problem of relativity." Imagine you see a fetching $50 chair. Would you be more likely to buy it after a $5 lunch or as part of a $500 spending spree? Fifty dollars is $50, no matter how you cut it. But it's easier to swallow when it's "only" a tenth of your total haul. 

The best way to overcome decision fatigue and "the problem of relativity" is to write a list and buy only what's on the list. That way you approach Black Friday not as an exploratory mission into the dark world of discounts and window shopping, but as a pure check-the-boxes trip.

(5) Beware of "Free." 

Something weird happens to our brains when the price for something goes from $1 to $0.01 to free. We stop thinking clearly. Getting things for free feels like such a good deal that we'll go out of our way to get it. Here's Dan Ariely in his book Predictably Irrational:

"A few years ago, Amazon.com started offering free shipping of orders over a certain amount. Someone who purchased a single book for $16.95 might pay an additional $3.95 for shipping, for instance. But if the customer bought another book, for a total of $31.90, they would get their shipping FREE! Some of the purchasers probably didn't want the second book (and I am talking here from personal experience) but the FREE! shipping was so tempting that to get it, they were willing to pay the cost of the extra book."

Free isn't bad. It's good. It's great. It's free! But we're often so enraptured by free that we overreact, tailoring our purchases around getting to FREE! shipping, or FREE! membership, or FREE! headphones, and wind up spending more in the process. Don't do it. Instead, just buy exactly what you want and nothing more.

(6) Warranties and Rebates Are Dastardly Tricks. 

Price discrimination is most dangerous when you can barely see it. Buying insurance on an electronic toy? Ah, such peace of mind! Rebates? Ah, such savings! 

Perhaps. But both are forms of price discrimination. Warranties push risk-averse customers into paying a higher price for the same product. "[Warranties] make no rational sense," Harvard economist David Cutler told the Washington Post. "The implied probability that [a product] will break has to be substantially greater than the risk that you can't afford to fix it or replace it. If you're buying a $400 item, for the overwhelming number of consumers that level of spending is not a risk you need to insure under any circumstances."

Rebates test customers' memories and willpower. A $10 rebate on a $40 candlestick feels right in the moment. But four months later, when the words "candlestick rebate" flash in your brain at work, are you really going to take time out of your day to save the equivalent of one day's lunch? Retail companies are betting that many of you will answer that question with a "meh."

(7) Avoid the Rush. 

Your brain is smarter in slow motion. Feeling hurried can force bad decisions in all aspects of life, as nowhere is it true more than a crowded store. When we're bombarded with stimuli, racing to grab cardboard boxes before the frantic mother of five behind us, we forget the key question in shopping: Will I still want this thing when I leave the store?

Thinking about how much we'll regret our purchases can radically change our shopping behavior. A recent study of holiday shopping out of Harvard and Columbia Business Schools devised a mischievous three-part experiment. First, shoppers chose between an expensive or cheap article of clothing. Second, they were randomly divided into groups and asked how much they expected to regret their purchase in one day or ten years. Third, they were released into a mall. The economists found that thinking about short-term regret moved shoppers to buy discounted products. Those primed to take the long view bought more extravagant goods.

One conclusion from the study is that short-term thinking leads to discount hunting while taking a longer perspective on our buying habits motivates us to price quality over bargains. In the frenzied atmosphere of a Black Friday store, we're manically focused on saving money. But a broader perspective might move us to spend more on the few items we really care about.

(8) Beware "Good Deals" on Items You Know Zilch About. 

I love this story from Priceless by William Poundstone. Once, Williams-Sonoma couldn't sell their $279 breadmaker, perhaps because, you know, it was a $279 breadmaker. But when the company introduced a $429 breadmaker next to their $279 model, sales of the cheaper model doubled even though practically nobody bought the $429 machine. 

Plausible Lesson 1: Williams-Sonoma shoppers are inscrutably nuts.

Plausible Lesson 2: We don't know what anything's worth, especially weird stuff like breadmakers, so we're more susceptible to cues that tell persuasive stories about what they *should* cost. Don't let that happen! Don't fall for what looks like a "good deal" just because you can justify it to yourself on the basis of "it was 40% cheaper than the other model." Research prices before you allow store cues to give you answers.

(9) The Most Efficient Gift Is the Worst Gift. 

It's cash. Yes, it's awful. It's cold and bloodless and impersonal and everybody will hate you if you get it for them. It's also extremely efficient for buying somebody exactly what they want for the perfect price. The famous economic paper "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas" showed that gift-giving "destroys" between a tenth and a third of the value in what we buy. That means the recipient of a $100 shirt would value it between $70 and $90. Cash is better.

You can't get cash for that special someone, unless you happen to be dating an economist studying deadweight loss. So best to follow the advice of Geoffrey Miller, the University of New Mexico professor, whose book The Mating Mind informs us the best gifts are "the most useless to women and the most expensive to men."

(10) Waking Up at 2 AM to Stand in Line For Hours Isn't *Necessarily* Crazy. 

Your shopping experience, like any experience, has a value. In other words, it has a price. It might seem silly for people to waste perfectly good hours of sleep to wait in line at Best Buy. I happen to think it is silly. But it is not irrational, for two reasons. 

First, it's another example of price discrimination, since retail stores are essentially gifting their best deals to their most discount-desperate customers. Second, if you love waiting in frigid Walmart lines at 2 AM, well that's just, like, your time-cost preference, man. Maybe the absurd inconvenience of the wait is a part of the story you want to remember and tell friends later. We pay for memories and stories and extreme experiences that will bring us joy later down the line all the time. Maybe this isn't any different. So don't think: While I was sleeping, my friends were wasting their lives for a slim bargain. Think: While I was sleeping, my friends were paying for an entertaining experience with their time.

(11) One Last Thing: Don't Buy That One Last Thing!

Black Friday is exhausting. And when you feel exhausted, your brain gets drunk with stupid. It's decision fatigue, it's leg fatigue, it's everything fatigue. Retail stores know this. So they put cheap stuff tantalizingly close to our arms in the checkout aisle. It's so cheap, and small, and cute, I have to have it, your decision-fatigued brain will plead. Don't listen. ( theatlantic.com )

READ MORE - 11 Simple Economic Lessons to Make You a Smarter Shopper on Black Friday

We will lead on climate change

We will lead on climate change - New York must press ahead with urgency to equip itself for the new age of extreme weather

A mailbox sits on the porch of a burned out home in the Breezy Point section of Queens.

In just 22 months as governor, I’ve witnessed firsthand the destructive force of three powerful storms that have crippled the state: Irene, Lee and now Sandy.

Each has taken an immeasurable toll on communities. Precious lives have been lost, and homes and businesses destroyed. This storm alone was responsible for 60 deaths to date and more than $30 billion in damage in New York State.

Extreme weather is the new normal. In the past two years, we have had two storms, each with the odds of a 100-year occurrence. Debating why does not lead to solutions — it leads to gridlock. The denial and deliberation from extremists on both sides about the causes of climate change are distracting us from addressing its inarguable effects. Recent events demand that we get serious once and for all.

We need to act, not simply react.

First, we must begin by thinking about where and how we rebuild. The next generation’s infrastructure must be able to withstand another storm. We must also reduce the energy consumption that contributes to climate change — which means, for starters, upgrading our building codes.

Thinking carefully about where we locate critical pieces of our infrastructure networks will avoid a disaster domino effect, such as the explosion of the Con Ed substation that knocked out power to much of lower Manhattan.

Second, we must fortify and upgrade the systems that paralyze us when they fail. That means building redundancies into our fuel system and putting in place generators and pumping systems that are readily deployable. Actions such as these will avoid panic at the pump, lengthy lines and frustrated motorists.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo inspects a deluge of water flooding the Battery Tunnel in Manhattan as Hurricane Sandy made its approach in New York.

Mass transit is the lifeblood of New York, and a 21st century city must protect and improve its mass transit infrastructure. Subways and tunnels are clearly vulnerable to major flooding that can bring us to a standstill. We must diversify transit options so that if one system is temporarily disabled, commuters are not stranded at work or stuck at home.

Similarly, cell phone networks and other communications systems must be strengthened to ensure that first responders and citizens never lose the ability to communicate fully and instantly. The power outage knocked out service in the hardest-hit areas and rendered service elsewhere spotty at best.

Our electrical power grid and the structures that control it must undergo a fundamental redesign. Power utilities are the equivalent of vinyl records in the age of the iPod: antiquated, 1950s-style institutions that don’t serve our current needs.

New York City firefighters look at the wreckage of several boats washed ashore by Hurricane Sandy in the Great Kills community of Staten Island.

The electrical system is particularly vulnerable. Entire above-ground wire networks in heavily wooded areas spell disaster in virtually every storm, yet nothing is being done to rectify this obvious vulnerability. To a large degree, the state and local governments are captive to the utilities in an emergency, just like their customers.

Six utilities do not compete for customers, but in a natural disaster they must compete against one another for scarce materials and personnel. We must investigate the weaknesses in the system and reform it to ensure that customers do not face catastrophic power losses every few years.

Finally, common sense demands reforming for the way we do business to protect against the impact of disasters. For example, we need a better system to track patients in health-care facilities and vulnerable people in the community so first responders know immediately who may need help.

Recent experiences also underscore the need for an improved cybersecurity monitoring operation, a well-trained army of people who can step in and help protect and rebuild vital systems without delay.

Volunteers deliver blankets to Staten Island residents affected by Hurricane Sandy.

There is no more time for debate. This is our moment to act. On Thursday, I am announcing the formation of three commissions to look at key components of managing a new, better prepared New York: how we get ready before an event, how we respond in its immediate aftermath and what changes we can make to our infrastructure that will better prepare us to face Mother Nature’s inevitable fury.

New York has a natural advantage in this seemingly daunting task. We begin with an extraordinary enterprising spirit, unparalleled resiliency and a long history of engineering the impossible.

We are the state that built the Erie Canal, opening up commerce to the West. We built a subway system so extensive that its 800 miles of track could run from New York all the way to Chicago.

Time and again, we pushed boundaries and broke records. We have been tested before, and we have always risen to the challenge. We will not allow the national paralysis over climate change to stop us from pursuing the necessary path for the future. ( nydailynews.com )

READ MORE - We will lead on climate change