“Monsters Out of Us All”: A Case Study in the Glorification of Violence in Contemporary American Wartime Literature and Artwork

Ben Percy’s short story “Refresh, Refresh” conveys inconsistent messages on the subjects of war and the military. There can be little question as to the central theme of the short story being unabashedly pro-violence from the very first paragraph; and to the very end, the plot events are decidedly pro-military. This otherwise straightforward message is complicated significantly, however, by the words of the characters themselves, many of the lines of which are decidedly anti-war in tone. Danica Novgorodoff’s graphic novel adaptation of Percy’s short story, on the other hand, flips this dichotomy on its head, but does not take nearly such an ambivalent approach to its message, as does Percy. In Novgorodoff’s graphic adaptation, the characters’ words are equal parts anti-military on the one side and anti-antiwar on the other. The plot of the graphic novel, while equally as pro-violence as that of the story, does not tend nearly so pro-military.

On page three of the short story, Josh and Gordon, albeit facetiously, describe the experiences of being in the military as follows: “Killing some crazy ass Muslims…Then get[ting] myself killed”. [1] On page six of the short story, after David Lightener comes to Josh’s house to deliver the news that Josh’s father had done just what Josh described military duty as being, that is, gotten himself killed, Josh and Gordon volunteer to do the same thing that got Josh’s father killed. [1] Whereas, in the short story, the boys join the military in an effort to make their fathers proud of them, in the graphic novel, this action is instead depicted as the last resort of desperate individuals with nowhere else left to turn. This coincides with the readily apparent lack in the graphic novel of any real desire on the part of the boys to make their fathers proud of them, in striking contrast to the central them of the short story. This is demonstrated in the top frames of page 77, where Cody refers to his father as an “asshole” and a “fucker”. [2]
From the very first scene, the graphic novel exhibits a disproportionately more violent theme, beginning with Cody’s quip in the lower right frame of page three concerning his supposed desire to “burn down” Disneyworld. [2]. In this light, it comes as no great surprise that the graphic novel later takes a starkly anti-antiwar position, with Cody stating, in the upper left frame of page 71, that Josh becoming a lawyer is tantamount to him being an Al-Qaeda terrorist. [2]

In the same scene, from page 19 to 22, as Josh expresses, in the short story, his opinion that being a soldier is getting oneself killed, the graphic novel adapts what is by far its most pro-military stance, when Corey Lightener brags, in the last frame of page 20, the first frame of page 21, and on page 22, about, among other things, how many Iraqis he shot. [2] This is one of many places at which the graphic novel departs radically from the short story.

In the scene form page 3 of the short story, Josh and Gordon respond to Lightener’s unwitting attempt to recruit them by ridiculing what soldiers do, earning them a shaming rebuke from Lightener. [1] In the same sequence on page 20 of the graphic novel, Lightener holds Josh, Gordon, and Cody up as premier examples of the sons of active service soldiers, in his attempt to recruit a couple of visibly younger children. [2] The scene on page 3 of the short story ends with Lightener setting up to con a skateboarder; [1] whereas on page 22 of the graphic novel, Lightener is readying to launch into a list of the misdeeds of an executed Middle Eastern dictator. [2]

With its pro-military and anti-antiwar dialogue, though notably neither pro-military nor Pro-war plot, Danica Novgorodoff’s graphic novel adaptation all but reverses the anti-military dialogue, though pro-military plot, of Ben Percy’s short story, while it maintains the pro-violence central theme of the story itself.

Works Cited:

1. Percy, Benjamin. “Refresh, Refresh.” The Paris Review. 175 (2005) http://www.theparisreview.org/fiction/5585/refresh-refresh-benjamin-percy
2. Novgorodoff, Danica, James Ponsoldt, and Benjamin Percy. “Refresh, Refresh: A Graphic Novel”. Array. 2009. http://books.google.com/books/about/Refresh_Refresh.html?id=RWCjPwAACAAJ

Yellowstone and Supervolcanoes Definition, Mechanics, History, Threat Nature and Potential Future Risk A Research Study

Hidden Beneath the Earth’s surface lie one of the most destructive and yet least understood natural phenomena in the world—supervolcanoes. The term “supervolcano” implies an eruption of magnitude 8 on the Volcano Explosivity Index. A supervolcano refers to a volcano that produces the largest and most voluminous kinds of eruptions on Earth, Only a handful exist in the world but when one erupts it will be unlike any volcano humanity has ever witnessed. A super-eruption would equal the force of 1,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs exploding every second. A supervolcano is the most destructive force on this planet. “A super-eruption is the world’s biggest bang.” says Aon Benfield  University College London Hazard Research Centre Director and Geohazards Professor Bill McGuire. “It’s a volcanic explosion big enough to dwarf all others and with a reach great enough to affect everyone on the planet.” [11]

An event as massive as a super-eruption would change the Earth and human society forever. Though there is no well-defined minimum size for a supervolcano, there are at least two types of volcanic eruption that have been identified as supervolcanoes. The actual explosivity of these eruptions varies, but the sheer volume of extruded magma and gas is immense enough to radically alter the landscape and severely damage global climate for years, with a cataclysmic effect on life.

It’s difficult to predict the full devastation that would follow. The greatest danger would be within 1,000 km of the blast where 90 percent of people could be killed. Such an eruption erases virtually all life in a radius of hundreds of kilometers from the site, and entire continental regions further out can be buried meters deep in ash. “The whole of a continent might be covered by ash, which might take many years—possibly decades—to erode away and for vegetation to recover.” Said University of Rhode Island Graduate school of oceanography NATO postdoctoral fellow and University of Bristol Department of Earth Sciences Chaning Wills Chair of Geology Robert Stephen John Sparks. [11] And it would devastate the planet. Experts say such an event would have a colossal impact on a global scale. Such a giant eruption would have regional effects such as falling ash and short-term (years to decades) changes to global climate. We know there would be great loss of life and ill health, changes to our planet and major economic losses. The fallout from a super-eruption would cause a volcanic winter, devastating global agriculture and causing mass starvation. The volcanic winter resulting from a super-eruption could last several years of decades, and according to recent computer models and predictions could cause cooling of global annual average temperatures on a global scale from 5 to 10 degrees C, depending on the scale of the eruption. Experts say colder temperatures could last 6-10 years, before gradually returning to normal.

Such an eruption would have a similar effect as a 1.5 km-diameter space rock striking Earth. But the chances of a supervolcano are twelve times more likely than a large globally destructive asteroid or meteorite impact. While it may in the future be possible to deflect asteroids or somehow avoid their impact, even science fiction cannot produce a credible mechanism for averting a super-eruption.

Volcanic Explosivity Index-8 eruptions (VEI-8 for short) are mega-colossal events that extrude at least more than 1,000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles) of magma (partially molten rock) and pyroclastic material. Granted, it’s not the typical volcano, either in scale (it’s huge), appearance (it’s a vast depression, not a single mountain) or frequency of eruption (at least hundreds of thousands of years apart). A super-eruption is a scaled up version of a typical volcanic outburst, explains Sparks. [11]

Supervolcanoes differ from normal volcanoes in many ways. The main feature is a large magma chamber, which is an underground reservoir filled with flowing hot rock under enormous pressures. A supervolcano also differs from a regular volcano in that there is often no mountain peak associated with it. The stereotypical volcano is a towering cone, but supervolcanoes form in depressions in the ground called calderas.

About forty supervolcanoes are dotted around the globe. Although they’re called “super”, most people would have trouble spotting a supervolcano. Some are identifiable only by the deep layers of ash they leave behind, such as the more than 1,000 cubic miles of tuff dumped in Eastern Africa and the Red Sea by a mystery eruption somewhere in Ethiopia. Other supervolcanoes would likely include the large caldera volcanoes of Japan, Indonesia, and South America.

There are other supervolcanoes on Earth, some of which erupted in prehistoric times, and could erupt again. Several super-eruptions large enough to cause global disaster may occur every 100,000 years. Volcanoes that produced exceedingly voluminous pyroclastic eruptions and formed large calderas in the past 2 million years include Yellowstone, Long Valley in Eastern California, Toba in Indonesia, and Taupo in New Zealand.

The most recent such supervolcano eruption event on Earth occurred 74,000 years ago at the Lake Toba Caldera in what is now Sumatra, Indonesia. A volcano called Toba blew with a force estimated at 10,000 times bigger than Mount Saint Helens. It created a global catastrophe dramatically affecting life on Earth, plunging the planet into a volcanic winter. Climatologists now know that Toba blasted so much ash and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere that it blocked out the sun, causing the Earth’s temperature to plummet. Temperatures plummeted by up to 21 degrees at higher latitudes, according to research by New York Academy of Sciences Geological Sciences Section Chair and New York University Earth and Environmental Science Program Associate Professor of Biology Michael Robert Rampino. Ash darkened the sky all around the planet, blocking the sun’s rays and cooling the Earth’s atmosphere, which took years to recover. Rampino has estimated three-quarters of the plant species in the Northern hemisphere perished. [10]

It’s also true that three of the most astonishing volcanic eruptions in the geologic record, each hundreds to thousands of time the volume of 1980’s Saint Helens eruption, occurred around what is now Yellowstone National Park, which includes parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Identified by an explorer in 1871, the massive Yellowstone “caldera”, a depression in the Earth equivalent to a crater top, is some 1,500 square miles.

Yellowstone National Park sits atop a subterranean chamber of molten rock and gases so vast that the region, known for its geysers, is arguably one of the largest active volcanoes in the world. “Yellowstone is much larger than any other volcanic feature in North America.” Says University of Utah Emeritus Professor of Geology and Geophysics Robert Smith. “People don’t realize this.” [3][12]

“To the public, an active volcano is one that’s erupting now.” Says U.S. Geological Survey research geologist Jacob B. Lowenstern. [4] Although Yellowstone is not erupting, it is active, and the evidence is everywhere.

The Yellowstone region has produced three exceedingly large volcanic eruptions in the past 2.1 million years. The first of Yellowstone’s three big eruptions was 2.1 million years ago, the next was 1.3 million years ago, and the last was 640,000 years ago. The first of these caldera-forming eruptions 2.1 million years ago created a widespread volcanic deposit known as Huckleberry Ridge Tuff. This titanic event, one of the five largest individual volcanic eruptions known anywhere on Earth, formed a caldera more than sixty miles (100 km) across. A similar smaller eruption occurred 1.3 million years ago. But the region’s most recent such major caldera-forming eruption at Yellowstone occurred some 640,000 years ago. It created the 35-mile-wide fifty-mile-long (55 by 80 km) Yellowstone Caldera, ejected 8,000 times the amount of ash and lava of Mount Saint Helens, and spread a layer of volcanic ash over most of the North American continent.

There are several levels of eruptions smaller than Huckleberry Ridge and still much larger and more destructive than any volcano ever witnessed by modern man. Smaller explosive eruptions, similar to the 1980 Mount Saint Helens eruption, occur approximately every 20,000 years. “Two of the three eruptions put out enough volcanic ash to spread a cloud all the way to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.” Says Howard Heasler of the U.S. Geological Survey. [4] Huge volumes of volcanic ash were blasted high into the atmosphere, and deposits of this ash can still be found in places as distant from Yellowstone as Iowa, Louisiana, and California.

Other new information is being uncovered all the time. Scientists have very few answers, but they do know that the impact of a Yellowstone eruption is terrifying to contemplate. There is no argument that a major eruption at Yellowstone in modern times would be devastating. If another caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, it’s effects would be worldwide. A modern full-force Yellowstone eruption would kill millions, directly and indirectly, and would make every volcano in recorded human history look minor by comparison. A full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano could result in millions of deaths locally and catastrophic climatic effects globally. Huge areas of the USA would be destroyed. The US economy would probably collapse, and thousands might die. The surrounding states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming would be affected, as well as other places in the United States and the world. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gasses into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate.

Fortunately, there is little indication that such an eruption is imminent in the near future, although study of Yellowstone is ongoing and the system is not yet completely understood. Geologists are uncertain whether Yellowstone is winding down from the third eruption or ramping up to a fourth. However, catastrophic eruptions occur so infrequently in the geologic record that it is statistically not likely anytime soon. The odds of a globally destructive volcano explosion in any given century are extremely low, and scientists cannot predict when the next one will occur. Given Yellowstone’s past history, the yearly probability of another caldera-forming eruption could be calculated as 1 in 730,000 or 0.00014%. This probability is roughly similar to that of a large (1 kilometer) asteroid hitting the Earth. Such eruptions are quite frequent on a geological timescale, although not one has occurred on Earth in the short time that an interdependent human civilization has existed. In fact, super-eruptions from supervolcanoes have occurred on a geological timescale so vast that a study by the Geological Society of London declared an eruption on the scale of Yellowstone’s biggest (the Huckleberry Ridge eruption 2.1 million years ago) occurs somewhere on the planet only about once every million years. [11] However, the number is based simply on averaging the two intervals between the three major past eruptions at Yellowstone; this is hardly enough to make a critical judgment. While those eruptions have been spaced roughly 800,000 and 660,000 years apart, three events are not enough statistically to declare this an eruption pattern, explains Smith. [3] Heasler demurs. “Three data points do not make a compelling argument for almost anything in science.” He says. [4]

Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption. Technically, the next eruption could happen anytime. Ye the geologists that monitor it are unconcerned about a large imminent eruption. Though Yellowstone could erupt again someday, there is no evidence that the caldera is readying for another massive blast, says Smith. [3] [12] Lowenstern shares that outlook. [4]

Volcanologists with the U.S. Geological Survey believe that supervolcanoes are likely to give decades, even centuries, of warning signs before they erupt. The scientists think those signs would include lots of earthquakes. Massive bulging of the land, an increase in small eruptions, “swarms of earthquakes in specific areas, changes in the chemical composition of lavas from smaller eruptions, changes in gasses escaping the ground and, possibly, large-scale cracking of the land. None of these indicators are present at Yellowstone, says Smith. [4]

Bibliography

1. Bindeman, I.N. “The Secrets Of Supervolcanoes.” Scientific American. June 2006. 36-43. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-secrets-of-supervolca
2. Blank, H.R., Christiansen, R.L., Eaton, G.P., Gettings, M.E., Iyer, H.M., Mabey, D.R. Pitt, A.M., & Zietz, I. “Magma Beneath Yellowstone National Park.” Science. 1975. 787-796. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/188/4190/787.long
3. Christiansen, R.L. & Smith, R.B. “Yellowstone Park As A Window On The Earth’s Interior.” Scientific American. 1980. 104-17.
4. Christiansen, R.L., Heasler, H. Lowenstern, J.B., Morgan, L.A. & Smith, R.B. “Steam Explosions, Earthquakes, And Volcanic Eruptions—What’s In Yellowstone’s Future?” U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet. 2005. 2005-3024. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3024/http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/factsheets/pdfs/2005_3024.pdf
5. Dzurisin, D. Svarc, J., Thatcher, W. & Wicks, C. “Uplift, Thermal Unrest, and Magma Intrusion At Yellowstone Caldera.” Nature. 2006. 72-75. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7080/full/nature04507.html
6. Keefer, W.R. “The Geologic Story Of Yellowstone National Park.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin. 1971. 1347. http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1347/report.pdf
7. Kuntz, M.A. & Link, P.K.; Eds. Morgan, L.A., Pierce, K.L. & Platt, L.B. “The Track Of The Yellowstone Hot Spot: Volcanism, Faulting And Uplift. Regional Geology Of Eastern Idaho And Western Wyoming.” Geological Society of America Bulletin. 1-53. http://www.rcn.montana.edu/pubs/pdf/1992/YellowstoneHotSpot11.pdf
8. O’Hanlon, L. “Yellowstone’s Super Sisters.” Discovery. February 20, 2007. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/others/others.html
9. O’Hanlon, L. “What’s Under Yellowstone? America’s Explosive Park.” Discovery. February 20, 2007. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html
10. Rincon, Paul. “Experts Weigh Supervolcano Risks.” BBC News. 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4326987.stm
11. Self, S. & Sparks, S. et al. “Super-Eruptions: Global Effects And Future Threats.” Report Of A Geological Society Of London Working Group. 2005. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/en/Education%20and%20Careers/Resources/Papers%20and%20Reports/~/media/shared/pdfs/education%20and%20careers/Super_eruptions.ashx
12. Smith, R.B. “Windows Into Yellowstone: An Interview With Geologist And Geophysicist Robert B. Smith.” Yellowstone Science. 2000. 1-13. http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/files/pdf/YS_Smith.pdf

The Earth’s Magnetosphere and Geomagnetic Polar Transitions

Thesis and Introduction:

Though there is little scientific or academic disagreement as to the reality of the existence of geomagnetic polar shifts and reversals, there is much speculation and theorizing as to what the hypothetical impacts and effects of such an event would be; and still more controversial is just how hypothetical such an eventuality actually is.

The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, they flip. Every so often, our planet’s magnetic poles reverse polarity. J.A. Jacobs of the Institute of Earth Studies at the University of Wales writes: “Apart from it spatial variation, the earth’s magnetic field also shows temporal changes: secular changes on a timescale of hundreds of years, and, on an even longer timescale, to complete reversals of polarity.” [21]

Reversals happen on average once every 250,00 years, and they take hundreds if not thousands of years. Each published polarity transition reported a slightly different duration, from just less than 1,000 years to 28,000 years. [17] Earth’s magnetic field reverses every few thousand years at low latitudes, a geologist funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) has concluded. [32] Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time—contrary to popular belief—the magnetic field does not vanish. [15]

According to S.S. Tsygankov and E.I. Shemyakin and F. Stasey of the Institute of Geosphere Dynamics at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow: “The phenomenon of Geomagnetic Field Inversion (GFI) is one among the eight most important problems in paleomagnetology.” [35]

How It Works:

It was not until 1600 that the true nature of the magnetic field was revealed by the experiment work of  Royal College of Physicians of London President William Gilberd, whose famous treatise "De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure" ("On the Magnet and Magnetic Bodies, and on That Great Magnet the Earth") has been described as the first modern scientific work. Gilbert found that the variation in direction of magnetic force and the distribution of magnetic dip was in agreement with what was then known about the Earth’s magnetic field. Gilbert concluded that the Earth behaved as a large magnet, its magnetic field being due to causes within the Earth, and not from any external agency, as was supposed at that time. [22]

However, we still don’t know for certain how the Earth’s magnetic field is generated and maintained. The origin of the magnetic field and its reversals is one of the oldest problems in physics, and one of the most active areas of research in geophysics today. [21]

Scientists believe Earth’s magnetic field is generated deep within our planet. “To understand what is happening;” Says American Geophysical Union Fellow and University of California Santa Cruz Earth and Planetary Sciences Department Professor Gary A. Glatzmaier; “We have to take a trip…to the center of the Earth where the magnetic field is produced.” [11] [12]

Roughly speaking, Earth is like a chocolate-covered cherry—layered, with liquid beneath the surface and a solid inner core. [6]

Beneath the planet’s relatively thin crust is a thick solid layer called the mantle. At the heart of our planet lies a solid iron ball 70% as wide as the moon and about as hot as the surface of the sun. Researchers call it the inner core. The inner core has its own ocean: a very deep layer of liquid, believed to be composed of swirling convection flows of molten iron and nickel, known as the outer core. The Earth’s magnetic field is understood to come from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. [6]

The Earth’s magnetic field is created deep within our planet’s outer core through what is known as the geodynamo. There, the heat of the Earth’s hot solid inner core churns the liquid outer core sitting atop it like water on a hot stove. These complex motions generate our planet’s magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect. The churning acts like convection, which generates electric currents and, as a result, a magnetic field. [7]

This idea that turbulent activity at the outer core of the planet generates its magnetic field currently dominates scientific thinking. [35]

Our planet’s magnetic field varies with time, indicating it is not a static or fixed feature. Instead, some active process works to maintain the field. “The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like the Earth’s;” Says Glatzmaier; “Is several tens of thousands of years. The fact that it’s existed for billions of years means something must be regenerating it all the time.” That process is most likely a kind of dynamic action in which the flowing liquid material in the outer core generates the magnetic field, geologists believe. [17]

Most scientists believe Earth’s magnetic field is sustained by a complex self-sustaining interaction known as the “geomagnetic dynamo”. The term describes the theoretical phenomenon believed to generate and maintain Earth’s magnetic field. According to general accepted theory—the dynamo theory—interactions between the churning convecting flow of molten iron in the Earth’s outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. [27] “It’s a very complicated chaotic system, and it has a life of its own.” Glatzmaier said. [11] [12]

However, there is no way to peer 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometers) into Earth’s center to observe the process in action. [18]

It is known, however, that the mechanism of magnetic field generation is related to Earth’s rotation. [35] The rotation of planets may be among the necessary conditions for the formation of their magnetic fields. However, rotation alone is insufficient for the creation of a planetary magnetic field. [3]

The inner core spins at its own rate, as much as 0.2 degrees of longitude per year faster than the Earth above it; [18] and there is also stormy activity deep in the Earth’s molten outer core, such as “hurricanes”—whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of the Earth’s rotation. [6]

Process And Effects:

Figuring out what happens as the field reverses polarity is difficult because reversals are rapid events, at least on geologic time scales. It is generally accepted that during a reversal during a reversal, the geomagnetic field decreases to about 10 percent of its full polarity value. After the field has weakened, the directions undergo a nearly 180-degree change. Magnetic North heads South, and—over about 1,000 years—the field does a complete flip-flop, and the field strengthens in the opposite polarity direction. [10] [15] A major uncertainty, however, has remained regarding how long this process takes. “Although this is usually the first question people ask about reversals.” Says Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Postdoctoral Scholar, Geological Society of America Elected Fellow, U.S. Geological Survey Research Geophysicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Department Visiting Scientist and Georgia Institute of Technology Associate Professor of Geophysics Carolyn Ruppel. [32]

Paleomagnetism:

Scientists have been observing changes in the direction of Earth’s magnetic which took place recently as well as in the distant past. [2] The study of Earth’s past magnetism is called paleomagnetism.

The magnetic field has exhibited frequent but dramatic variation at irregular times in the geologic past: It has completely changed direction. Jacobs writes: “Secular changes can take place even on a time scale of 10-20 years, and appear to be regional rather than planetary phenomenon. Such changes cannot be extrapolated accurately over intervals longer than 4 or 5 years.” [20]

The geological record confirms that magnetic field reversals have occurred in the past. Earth’s magnetic field has flipped many times over the last billion years, according to the geologic record. “We can see the reversals in the rocks, but they don’t tell us how it happens.” Says Glatzmaier. These records make it possible to determine the major features of reversals, he said. “Some reversals occurred within a few 10,000 years of each other;” He says; “And there are other periods where no reversals occurred for tens of millions of years.” [16]

Rocks in an ancient lava flow in Oregon suggest a brief erratic span 16 million years ago magnetic North shifted as much as 6 degrees per day. After a little more than a week, a compass needle would have pointed toward Mexico City. [23]

Although the Oregon data is controversial, Earth scientists agree that the geological evidence as a whole—the “paleomagnetic” record—proves such reversals happened many times over the past billion years. [30] [19]

Jacobs writes: “considerable changes over 104 years may be determined from archaeomagnetic and paleomagnetic studies.” [21]

Since the time of Albert Einstein, researchers have tried to nail down a firm timeframe during which reversals of Earth’s magnetic field occur.

Extrapolated Predictions Future Reversals:

Once could only perhaps take comfort in the knowledge that these reversals happen infrequently—on average every 250,000 years—according to the geologic record of Earth’s polarity, but maybe not when one considers that the last time Earth’s magnetic field flipped was over 780,000 years ago, and, since more than double the time interval has elapsed since the last reversal, compared to the time lapse between the previous two reversals, some believe we may be overdue for the next North-South flip, and the next one may be currently underway. [26]

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy Commission on Geophysical Risk and Sustainability Member  and Geomagnetic Observatories, Surveys and Analyses Data and Models Division Chair, American Geophysical Union Member, and Natural Environment Research Council British Geological Survey Earth Hazards and Systems Geomagnetism Team Head Alan W P Thomson writes: “Reversals happen every 250,000 years or so, and as there has not been one for almost a million years, we are due one soon.” [16]

Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge Fellow Sir James Clark Ross  located the North Magnetic Pole for the first time on June 1, 1831 on the Boothia Peninsula in the far north of Canada, after an exhausting journey during which his ship got stuck in the ice for four years. In 1904, Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen found the pole again and discovered that it had moved—at least 50 km since the days of Ross. [9]

It is not only the direction but also the strength of the magnetic field that is a concern. Earth’s magnetic field—the force the protects us from deadly radiation bursts from outer space—is weakening dramatically. [8] While nobody quite knows why this is occurring, the weakening of Earth’s magnetism is believed by many of the most respected scientists in the field of geomagnetism to be one of the factors predictive of a pole realignment, a precursor, and perhaps even a forecaster, of magnetic polar reversal sometime in the near future. [26]

In the time of the dinosaurs, at an estimated 2.5 gauss, it was eighty percent stronger than it is now. [23]

Today the field is about 10 percent weaker than it was when Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences foreign member and Royal Observatory Göttingen Director and Göttingen University Observatory Astronomy Professor  Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss first measured it in 1845. For more than 100 years, scientists have noted the strength of Earth’s magnetic field has been declining, but have disagreed about interpretations. [19] In the past century, there has been further decline of Earth’s magnetic field by another five percent down to only .5 gauss. [26] Gauthier Hulot of the Paris Institute of Earth Physics has discovered that Earth’s magnetic field seems to be disappearing most alarmingly near the poles, a clear sign that flip may soon take place. [28]

But according to Glatzmaier, even the weakening currently underway may be a false alarm. The ongoing 10% decline doesn’t mean that a reversal is imminent. “The field is increasing and decreasing all the time.” He says. “The field often gets weak, then bounces back, never having flipped. We know this from the paleomagnetic record.” [29] [8]

References:

1. Bagenal, F. “Giant Planet Magnetospheres.” Annual Review Of Earth Planetary Sciences. 1992. 289-328. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.20.050192.001445
2. Bloxham, J. & Gubbins, D. “The Evolution of Earth’s Magnetic Field.” Scientific American. December 1989. 68-75.
3. Bowler, S. “A Simple Model For Planets’ Magnetic Fields?” New Scientist. 126, 32. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617213.300-science-a-simple-model-for-planets-magnetic-fields.html
4. Busse, F.H. & Zhang, K.K. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1990. 208-222.
5. Channel, J.E.T. & Lehman, B. Nature. October 16, 1997. 712.
6. Cussler, C. “Atlantis Found.” G.P Putnam’s Sons, Florida. December 6, 1999. 534 p.
7. Cussler, C. & Kemprecos, P. “Polar Shift.” G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. July 26, 2005. 433 p.
8. Dudeney, J. & Rodger, A. “Merging At The Magneto-Pause.” Nature. February 4, 1993. 36, 407.
9. Fuller, M. “Fast Changes In Geomagnetism.” Nature. June 22, 1989. 582-3.
10. Fuller, M., Herrero-Bervera, E., Laj, C., Mazaud, A. & Weeks, R. “Geomagnetic Reversal Paths.” Nature. 1991. 351, 447. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6326/pdf/351447a0.pdf
11. Glatzmaier, G.A. & Olsen, P. Scientific American. April 2005. 51-57.
12. Glatzmaier, G.A. & Olsen, P. “Special Edition.” Scientific American. July 2005. 28-35.
13. Glatzmaier, G.A. & Roberts, P.H. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1995. 65-76.
14. Glatzmaier, G.A. & Roberts, P.H. “A Three-Dimensional Self-Consistent Computer Simulation Of A Geomagnetic Field Reversal." Nature. September 1995. 203-209. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v377/n6546/pdf/377203a0.pdf
15. Harrison, C.G.A. & Somayajulu, B.L.K. “Behavior Of Earth’s Magnetic Field During A Reversal.” Nature. 1966. 1193-1195. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v212/n5067/pdf/2121193a0.pdf
16. Hoffman, K. “Ancient Magnetic Reversals: Clues To The Geodynamo.” Scientific American. May 1988. 76-83.
17. Hoffman, K.A. “Long-Lived Transitional States Of The Geomagnetic Field And The Two Dynamo Families.” Nature. 1991. 273-277. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v354/n6351/pdf/354273a0.pdf
18. Hoffman, K.A. “Dipolar Reversal States Of The Geomagnetic Field And Core-Mantle Dynamics.” Nature. 1992. 789-794. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v359/n6398/pdf/359789a0.pdf
19. Jackson, A. “Still Poles Apart On Reversals.” Nature. July 16, 1992. 194-5. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v358/n6383/pdf/358194a0.pdf
20. Jacobs, J.A. “Earth Science: What Triggers Reversals Of The Earth’s Magnetic Field?” Nature. May 10, 1984. 309, 115. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v309/n5964/pdf/309115a0.pdf
21. Jacobs, J.A. “The Earth’s Magnetic Field.” Contemporary Physics. July/August, 1995. 267-277.
22. Langel, R.; Ed. Jacobs, J.A. “Geomagnetism." Academic, San Diego. 1987. 249-512.
23. LaRochelle, A. & Morley, L.W. “Paleomagnetism As A Means Of Dating Geological Events.” Geochronology In Canada, Royal Society Of Canada Publication. 1964. 39-50.
24. Lee, S., McFadden, P.L. & Merrill, R.T. “Reversals Of The Earth’s Magnetic Field And Temporal…” Journal Of Geophysical Research. 1991. 3923-3933.
25. Lee, S. McElhinny, M.W. & Merrill, R.T. “Physics And Astronomy: The WIND Magnetic Field Investigation.” Space Science Reviews. Wednesday, December 8, 2004.
26. Lewin, R.R. “Earth’s Field Flips Flipping Fast.” Science. January 25, 1992. 26.
27. Matthews, P.C. & St. Pierre, M.G.; Eds. Matthews, P.C., Proctor, M.R.E. & Rucklidge, A.M. “Solar And Planetary Dynamos.” Cambridge University Press. 1993. 211-218.
28. McElhinney, M.W. & Merrill, R.Y. “The Earth’s Magnetic field." Academic, London. 183.
29. Monastersky, R. “Earth Burps And Magnetic Flips.” Science News. 1991. 141, 14.
30. Monastersky, R. “The Flap Over Magnetic Flips.” Science News. June 12, 1993. 378-380. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/214929/description/The_Flap_over_Magnetic_Flips
31. Niitsuma, N. & Okada, M. “Detailed Paleomagnetic Records During The Brunhes-Matuyama Geomagnetic Reversal, And A Direct Determination Of Depth Lag For Magnetization In Marine Sediments.” Physics Of The Earth And Planetary Interiors. 1989. 1-2, 133-150.
32. Roach, J. “Why Does Earth’s Magnetic Field Flip?” National Geographic News. September 27, 2004. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0927_040927_field_flip.html
33. Schwarzschild, B. Physics Today. February 1987. 17.
34. Tric, E. et al. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1991. 319-336.
35. Tsygankov, S.S. “On The Possible Mechanism Of Geomagnetic Field Inversion.” Dokladay Physics. July 2006. 393-396.

Iran Leader Orders Stop to “Treason”

In March, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was hauled before the Majilis, Iran’s conservative-dominated 290-seat Parliament, over his alleged mismanagement of the nation’s economy as well as his perceived defiance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the President’s dismissal of an intelligence minister in May 2011 among other policies, the first time in the Islamic republic’s history an Iranian President has been questioned by the Parliament and forced to defend his record since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. [12]

On November 4th, 77 MPs submitted a petition requiring Ahmadinejad to appear before lawmakers within a month to explain his “government’s procrastination in managing” Iran’s sanctions-hit economy. Lawmakers voted to summon Ahmadinejad over the country’s currency collapse. He was supposed to appear in an open session of parliament in early December. [4] In early October, Khamenei said: “some mismanagement of the draconian measures were adding to problems” for Iran’s economy. Kahamenei said parliament’s concern over the economy was positive, and that the Parliament initiating the plan “showed a sense of responsibility in the assembly and a readiness by government officials to answer question” on Iran’s economic woes. [7]
Ahmadinejad, whose disputed 2009 reelection brought charges of fraud and set off unprecedented street protests by the mostly urbanized middle class, is completing his second term which expires in August 2013 as a lame-duck President who cannot stand for a third term, and is not eligible to run in the Presidential elections scheduled for June 14th, 2013. [10]
Iran’s Judiciary Chief, Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani wrote a confidential letter to Ahmadinejad rejecting the President’s request to visit Tehran’s Evin prison, where his top press adviser, Ali Akbar Javanfekr was jailed after being convicted of publishing material deemed insulting to Khamenei. The judiciary turned down the request as not “appropriate” in the country’s current political and economic mood. Iran’s State Prosecutor Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi asked why the President never asked to visit Evin during his seven years as President, and said the judiciary rejected Ahmadinejad’s request because the President’s planned visit appeared to be politically motivated: The President wants to go there now that his close aide is behind bars. [11] Ahmadinejad revealed the contents of the note and publicly accused the Judiciary Chief of “unconstitutional” behavior, claiming that as Iran’s President he did not need permission to visit Evin prison. [8] Larijani responded, saying Ahmadinejad does not understand the limits of his constitutional powers, and barred him from accessing the jail. [5]
According to the state-run Mehr news Agency, in a speech broadcast on state TV on Wednesday, October 3rd, Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in the Islamic Republic, warned that the political infighting by his subordinates must end: “I am warning top officials, do your job…I warn the heads of the three branches to mind their own business…One of the harmful cases is differences among authorities, and worse than that is taking it to the public. I warn the officials and the heads of branches of power to be careful and not take their differences to the people…be careful not to let minor matters turn into material for scandals.” [6] “The recent exchange of letters and the contents were not important at all but these disputes should not be made public as it gives ammunition to foreign media and enemies to create controversy.” Khamenei said during a meeting with high school students a few days before the commemoration of the anniversary of the hostage taking at the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4th, 1979. “From today to election day, whoever willfully takes disputes to the people and uses their sentiments to provoke differences has definitely committed treason again the state.” [3]
Speaking at a meeting of the Basij, a volunteer militia, Khamenei demanded that the Parliament drop its bid to summon Ahmadinejad for further questioning over the nation’s plummeting currency and economic crisis: “I demand that the respected MPs not go ahead with this.” Saying if the matter went further, such a session would play into the hands of Iran’s enemies, Khamenei issued an order to the legislature declaring: “The country need tranquility. Authorities also need to carry out their tasks. People like peace.” [4]
The Parliament Speaker, Judiciary Chief Sadegh Larijani’s brother Ali Lrijani, wrote to Khamenei accepting his demand and pledging that lawmakers would not pursue the summons further, after which MPs quickly fell into line, potentially endng, at least for the moment, a possible impeachment process against Ahmadinejad. “By adhering to the supreme leader, we announced that we would not pursue the task.” Said lawmaker Evaz Heidarpour on behalf of the 77 MPs behind the move. In a letter to Khamenei, Ahmadinejad backed down from his public dispute with the judiciary: “The government fully welcomes your notice and won’t engage in domestic quarrels and disputes and will patiently tolerate all unkind behavior as before.” Ahmadinejad pledged to concentrate on overcoming Western economic sanctions instead: “The nation and the country are under pressure as a result of enemy plans. My colleagues and I have employed all our energies around the clock to handle the affairs and confront the wide-ranging conspiracies by those who wish us ill, to alleviate pressures on the people…But it requires the contribution of all branches and a sense of their responsibility and cooperation with the government, which is now at the forefront of fighting the West’s full-fledged economic war.” [1]
BBC correspondent Sebastian Usher comments: “Ayatollah Khamenei…has already fought and won his own, widely reported political battle with President Ahmadinejad. The President’s closest allies have been picked off one by one by factions backing the supreme leader…Ayatollah Khamenei’s demand to the Majlis…may also indicate his preference for Mr. Ahmadinejad to see out the remaining months of his Presidency…Ahmadinejad may be more useful as a scapegoat for growing public frustration with the failing economy—damaged by international sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear prograsmme and government management. The alternative if were to be impeached is that he might re-emerge as a political martyr, who might attempt revenge with some uncomfortable revelations about the inner workings of the ruling religious elite. [12] [10]

1. The Associated Press. “Iranian President Backs Down, Will Follow Top Leader’s Order To Stop Public Political Clashes.” November 2, 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/02/iranian-president-backs-down-will-follow-top-leader-order-to-stop-public/
2. The Associated Press. “Iran’s Leader Stops Lawmakers Grilling President.” Wednesday, November 21, 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/irans-leader-stops-lawmakers-grilling-president-162704071.html
3. The Associated Press. “Iran’s Leader Warns Officials Against Taking Political Disputes Public, Calls It ‘Treason’.” October 31, 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/31/iran-leader-warns-officials-against-taking-political-disputes-public-calls-it/
4. The Associated Press. “Iran’s Top Leaders Order Parliament To Call Off Planned Questioning Of President Over Economy.” November 21. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/21/iran-top-leader-orders-parliament-to-call-off-planned-questioning-ahmadinejad/
5. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh. “Khamenei Moves to Ease Infighting.” Financial Times. November 21, 2012. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d2796678-33d6-11e2-9ce7-00144feabdc0.html
6. Dareini, Ali Akbar. “Iran Leader Warns Against Public Political Clashes.” The Associated Press. Wednesday, October 31, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/iran_leader_warns_against_public_political_clashes/
7. Davari, Mohammad. “Khamenei Halts Iran President’s Grilling By Parliament.” Agence France-Presse. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iIVvRP53kp9D4T7o5hTOx9b6kXyQ?docId=CNG.b9b3b652b4be184b8d91f0b4ad1e1237.5b1
8. Erdbrink, Thomas. “Iran Supreme Leader Warns Subordinates To Stop Bickering.” The New York Times. October 31, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/middleeast/iran-ayatollah-warns-subordinates-to-stop-bickering.html?_r=0
9. Erdbrink, Thomas. “Iran’s Supreme Leader Warns Bickering Politicians.” The New York Times. November 1, 2012. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/10/31/iran-supreme-leader-warns-bickering-politicians-that-their-public-disputes-amount-treason/agEzHPO1OVNW5K7vLzwqoL/story.html
10. Ghosh, Palash R. “Iran’s Leader Khamenei Spares Ahmadinejad From Parliamentary Grilling.” International Business Times. November 21, 2012. http://www.ibtimes.com/irans-leader-khamenei-spares-ahmadinejad-parliamentary-grilling-895974
11. Nasseri, Ladane. “Khamenei Warns Iran’s Top Officials To Avoid Political Spats.” Bloomberg. October 31, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-31/khamenei-warns-iran-s-leaders-to-avoid-political-disputes.html
12. Usher, Sebastian. “Iran Supreme Leader Tells MPs Not To Summon President.” BBC News. November 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20426775

Lula‘s Magic Aura Dims

On Tuesday, October 9th, Brazil’s Supreme Court found former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s first chief of staff from 2003 to 2005 Jose Dirceu Oliveira e Silva, 66, co-founder of the governing left wing Workers’ Party (PT) in the early 1980’s who was once considered as the natural successor to Lula, former Workers Party Chairman Jose Genoino, currently an adviser to the Defense Ministry, and former PT Treasurer Delubio Soares guilty of overseeing a wide-ranging cash-for-votes a scheme of siphoning millions of dollars in public money to pay secret monthly bribes – known as “mensalao” (or “big monthly payments”) - which prosecutors said equal in some cases to more than $10,000, to opposition lawmakers of other parties in the National Congress to buy their votes for the PT’s leftist government during the first Lula administration in 2003-2005, to build the congressional majority that the government failed to obtain at the polls when it came to power a decade ago in 2002. [8 & 9]
The case, known in Brazil as the “mensalao”, which means “big monthly allowance” in Portuguese, for the bribes congressmen allegedly received, has riveted Brazil for months since the case’s first details were revealed in the summer of 2005 when lawmaker Roberto Jefferson accused the Workers Party of having bribed legislators, has convinced most Brazilians that the Workers Party, once an island of relative trustworthiness, can be as crooked and delusional as its opponents, has spurred optimism that the country has taken a significant step toward fighting government corruption, and has resulted in the largest corruption trial in Brazil’s history. The Mensalao trials tarnished the reputation of the Workers Party, sparked a wave of outrage against corruption in the public sector, and given hope that the government is capable of holding politicians accountable. [7]
Likened in scope to the Watergate Scandal in the United States, the case has been dubbed the “trial of the century.” [11]
Dirceu, a former leftist urban guerrilla exiled in Cuba by Brazil’s long 1964-89 military dictatorship, has been out of public life for several years, forced to resign his post as chief of staff and banned from politics when the scandal exploded in 2005 and almost toppled Lula. [3] But Lula survived the ensuing scandal, and the scandal didn’t stop Lula from winning a second four-year term a year later in 2006. Brasilia University politics professor David Fleischer said: “He was surfing an international wave of good times.” The scandal tarnished the image of Lula, who left office with an astronomical 88 percent popularity rating and remains Brazil’s most popular head of state and arguably one of the South American nation’s most popular politicians, among the middle class, but he still has solid support among 30 percent of voters who would back him no matter what, and he would probably beat any candidate the opposition could field today in a presidential race, polls show. The scandal did not appear to hurt the Workers Party at the ballot box on October 7th: It won more municipalities than it got at the height of Lula’s success in 2008.
The convictions also mark a critical, if uncomfortable, step in the anti-corruption campaign of President Dilma Rousseff, who refrained from commenting on the scandal, and established a reputation for clean government while attempting to reinforce her image as a leader cracking down on corruption. At least six of her cabinet ministers resigned in her first year due to corruption allegations. There has been no fallout for Rousseff, who served as Lula’s chief of staff until the fast growth of 2010 helped sweep his handpicked anointed successor into office in the 2010 presidential contest, and built on Lula’s popularity by establishing her own style of governing, filling her cabinet with her own people, distancing her self from Lula’s faction within the Worker’s Party. [2]
The convictions sully the legacy of Da Silva, a key political figure who still has strong pull in Brazilian politics—a former factory worker and labor union leader who climbed to the presidency and introduced policies that helped to modernize Brazil and lift more than 35 million people out of poverty. Da Silva was not implicated in the case, has not been charged himself with any crime in the scandal, insists he knew nothing of the scheme, and maintains that the vote-buying scheme at the heart of the scandal did not exist. [10] [11]
Dirceu, who was convicted of racketeering and masterminding the bribery scheme during Lula’s first term in office, among other charges, including Brazil’s equivalent of unlawful conspiracy and outward corruption, the rough equivalent of bribery, faces possible prison sentences of as long as up to 12 years. [2] Dirceu, a former communist student leader who introduced policies to aid the poor, pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing, and claimed on October 10th that he’d been “prejudiced and lynched”, convicted of corruption without proof, by a Supreme Court acting under “heavy pressure from the press.” Officials in the PT, including Dirceu, have alleged that the Supreme Court is persecuting the party as part of a right-wing conspiracy against it. [11]
On October 24th, the Supreme Court determined that public relations executive Marcus Velario Fernandez de Souza, a consultant convicted of being the key money conduit in the cash distribution scheme, acted under Dirceu’s command, with Supreme Court justice Joaquin Barbosa, 58, the court’s only black justice, who is the justice overseeing the Mensalao trial, noting that “Marcos Velario agreed to take part in this criminal enterprise headed by Jose Dirceu to seize political power.” The court condemned Velario—who fought the charges and maintained his innocence—to more than forty years in prison and fined him more than $1.3 million. Valerio’s three former business partners, including Ramon Hollerbach, his attorney and one of his employees were also found guilty. Former Transport Minister Anderson Adauto, another Fernandez employee, was acquitted. [1] [4] Catholic University of Brasília penal and constitutional law professor Soraia Mendes said the Velario sentences were tough, signaling similar treatment for the other convicted participants. [10]
25 of the around 40 elected and appointed officials, ranging from bankers to secretaries to a host of other politicians, senior government officials, consultants and bankers working for and with the Workers Party, including 10 legislators, bank executives, and business intermediaries, on trial have so far been convicted on fraud, money-laundering, or conspiracy charges related to taking part in the diverting of public funds into political campaigns during the 2003-10 Da Silva presidency. [5]

The law professors of the Sao Paulo Fundacao Getulio Vargas (FGV), an elite Brazilian educational institution, set up an on-campus “situation room” to provide live commentary on the Mensalao case in the Supreme Court to the media. [8 & 9]
Although the guilty verdicts against Dirceu and other senior members of the Workers Party were widely expected, they were nonetheless shocking. The Dirceu verdict is arguably the most important rendered in the scandal—one of the country’s biggest tests yet as it moves closer to joining the club of developed nations. The conviction of Dirceu was a big step for Brazil, where courts have traditionally been timid in punishing corruption. The trial at the Supreme Court reawakened public interest in the high-profile case because Brazil’s highest court has never convicted a Brazilian politician for corruption. To many, in this country where public service has long been marred by corruption and impunity, the sentence was a powerful message signaling improving political health. The prospect of jail time for Brazilian politicians accused of corruption is new for a country where even voters have shown a high tolerance for graft. Brazilians are accustomed to graft, yet the idea that several of the nation’s best-known political figures could go to jail for corruption was until recently unthinkable. [3] [7]
Washington’s American University School of International Service Professor Matthew Taylor cautioned against investing the case with too much significance, saying that Brazil’s judiciary still has shortcomings and impunity in Brazilian politics will not disappear overnight. Taylor said that the judicial system is “lagging behind”, and that one of the problems impeding justice is the “glacial pace of the courts”: “If anything, the courts remain the chief bottleneck to accountability in Brazil. This trial is the exception that proves the rule, a baby step.” Taylor pointed to the special privileges afforded to politicians, including the right to be heard directly in Brazil’s highest court, and to a plethora of avenues for appeal available to the elite: “The fact that there are special privileges for politicians is anachronistic for a democracy as vibrant as Brazil.” [1] [4]
Getulio Vargas Foundation Professor of Constitutional Law, Oliver Stuenkel, disagrees, saying: “The trial is emblematic of a rupture with the long-standing culture in Brazil that those who hold power get preferential treatment under the law. The law is being taken more and more seriously.” [8 & 9]
FGV constitutional law professor Oscar Vilhena Vieira follows up by saying: “This case is a result of the strengthening of the rule of law in Brazil.” [7]
Mendes said: “Imagine, this is a positive surprise, that these things weren’t swept under the table, that they didn’t get away with it because of their high positions.” [10]
FGV law professor Thiago Bottino agrees: “This trial shows that Brazil’s institutions are functioning with vigor. The Justices could have easily washed their hands of this case and walked away; instead, they entered the fight for an ethical democracy.” Taylor called the sentencing ”a watershed for Brazil”, noting that this is the first major political corruption scandal where the Supreme Court found the defendants guilty, and saying that Brazil has made significant strides in promoting accountability in government and combating corruption at various levels: “This case is very important. It is promising to see the court take on the mensalao. Progress is being made, and the “mensalao" demonstrates that there is both public support for anti-corruption efforts and the institutional wherewithal to effectively combat corruption.” [11]
Stuenkel said that Mensalao is leading some people, especially the young, to dare to take an interest in politics again: “It’s amazing to see optimism without cynicism.” [8 & 9]

1. Barbassa, Juliana. “Sentencing Begins In Brazil Corruption Trial.” The Associated Press. Friday, October 26, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/10/26/world/americas/ap-lt-brazil-corruption-trial.html?ref=world
2. Boadle, Anthony. “Brazilian Corruption Trial Dims Lula’s Aura.” Reuters. October 9, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/brazil-lula-idUSL1E8L4FAV20121009
3. Boadle, Anthony. “Brazil’s Supreme Court Convicts Lula Aides Of Corruption.” Reuters. Tuesday, October 9, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-brazil-lula-idUSBRE8981ID20121010
4. “Brazil Begins Punishing Politicians, For First Time.” The Associated Press. October 26, 2012. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/10/26/brazil-begins-punishing-politicians-for-first-time/
5. “Brazil Begins Sentencing Corruption Convicts In Massive Trial.” The Wall Street Journal. October 24, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/10/24/brazil-begins-sentencing-corruption-convicts-in-massive-trial/
6. “Brazilian Political Heavyweight Found Guilty of Corruption.” EFE. October 9, 2012 http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/10/09/brazilian-political-heavyweight-found-guilty-corruption/
7. Downie, Andrew. “Brazil’s Largest Corruption Trial Yields Its Most Important Guilty Verdict.” Time. October 10, 2012. http://world.time.com/2012/10/10/brazils-largest-corruption-trial-yields-its-most-important-guilty-verdict/
8. Leahy, Joe. “Brazil Gripped By Anti-Corruption Battle.” Financial Times. October 30, 2012. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1b686ccc-21b1-11e2-b5d2-00144feabdc0.html
9. Leahy, Joe. “Brazilians Dare To Hope Crackdown On Corruption Is Real.” The Washington Post. October 30. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilians-dare-to-hope-crackdown-on-corruption-is-real/2012/10/30/1d1673f0-22b2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html
10. Lewis, J. & Lyons, J. “Brazil Starts To Hand Out Corruption Sentences.” The Wall Street Journal. October 23, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204425904578075102238148748.html
11. Romero, Simon. “Brazilian Corruption Case Raises Hopes For Judicial System.” The New York Times. October 9, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world/americas/brazilian-corruption-case-raises-hopes-for-judicial-system.html?pagewanted=all

Putin Grips Kremlin

In the December elections for the lower house of the national parliament, President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party took 49 percent of the vote. Public anger over suspicions that election rigging propelled the party to victory shook the country with unprecedented anti-Kremlin and antigovernment protests against election manipulation and against Putin that brought tens of thousands, as many as up to 100,000 protestors, into the streets of Moscow at their height, the biggest opposition protests of Putin’s nearly thirteen years in power. After the first big protest, Putin’s successor, then-President Dmitri A. Medvedev, as one of his parting moves as President shortly before leaving office to become Prime Minister this May, signed a law reviving the practice of direct elections for regional governors, which Putin had banned in favor of appointees in 2004, after more than 330 people including 186 children were killed when Chechen militants occupied the Beslan school in the North Caucasus region of North Ossetia, calling it a necessary measure to prevent separatism and crime. [9]

Putin was elected president for a third time in March, after a campaign of targeted television coverage meant to discredit the opposition, and returned to the presidency in May amid protests against the longtime leader’s continuing rule. [8]
Ten months after United Russia’s dismal setback in the parliamentary elections, Putin’s allies won powerful regional governorships in five; Amur, Bryansk, Novogrod, Belgorod, and Ryazan; of Russia’s 83 provinces in its first gubernatorial elections in eight years. [9] United Russia also dominated majorities in most of the nearly 5,000, more than 4,500, contests for six regional parliaments and various city councils and mayor’s offices held in most, 77, of 83 regions, with the exception of Moscow and Saint Petersburg and a few other big cities among the few not to vote. [12]
Many opposition leaders protested the Kremlin winnowing the contenders in gubernatorial elections through introducing a so-called “municipal filter” system, a law that required would-be gubernatorial hopefuls to garner signatures for their bid from 10 percent of municipal lawmakers of local legislatures in the region to get on the ballot, to impose strict screening of candidates. With most regional parliaments controlled by United Russia, and most local legislators Kremlin supporters, heeding Kremlin orders, the requirements ensured Putin an outlet for control and made it difficult for most opposition candidates to enter races. Putin Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov told Bloomberg: “Maybe we acted too harshly with the filters but in my opinion filters are needed. I can’t quite understand how we can allow 120 to 150 candidates to compete in gubernatorial elections.” [7]
Earlier this year, in response to the major protests against Putin’s rule last winter, the Kremlin sought to quell public anger by simplifying registration rules for political parties, easing restrictions that had made it very hard for political parties to officially register and contest elections. The change meant the ballot saw dozens of new parties running. Only a few of them were genuine opposition while most others were loyal to the government or were created as spoilers to steal votes from Kremlin critics. “United Russia’s success was determined from the beginning by the character of the election itself. At the level of local legislative elections, spoilers and decoy candidates were used to drain some of the votes.” Said Moscow Center for Political Technology head Igor Bunin. [4]
Medvedev said: “As far as I know, nobody found any serious irregularities” and “no significant violations have yet been spotted.” “The Kremlin lost a chance to show a willingness to allow for soft democratization. We see almost as many violations and as much administrative pressure during the election campaign as before.” Said the deputy head of Russia’s Golos vote monitor, a non-profit independent vote-monitoring election watchdog organization which came under ferocious fire from the authorities for its role in exposing massive electoral fraud in last December’s Duma elections, Grigory Melkoyants. Golos head of election monitoring Andrei Y. Buzin said: “I think we are registering more violations this time because we have a much better qualified corps of observers that we are fielding, and they are highly motivated to watch for anything out of place. This is a big improvement.” The Moscow Center for Political Technologies’ Aleksei V. Makarkin said: “The types of violations which people used to accept calmly, and accepted as something unavoidable—people are now taking them much more seriously.” [8]
Opponents also accuse the Kremlin of using its position to make back-room deals to replace or reappoint the governors of 20 of Russia’s 83 provinces in the months before the legislative reforms entered into effect, so that they would not have to face voters and to force strong contenders to drop out, removing potential competitors from races. [3]
Prime Minister Medvedev, who took over chairmanship of United Russia from Putin a year ago, declared victory for the party and congratulated party members in Moscow, saying United Russia had garnered “good results”: “I’ll say it straight. United Russia did well, better than in the December state Duma elections. Everyone expected a party fiasco after December’s election. Supposedly there was downward trend, and everything was going to collapse under us. But nothing of the kind happened—under completely different circumstances, this was the result.” Medvedev said heightened competition had improved the party’s performance, but went on to caution party officials against letting the results make them overly confident: “Work hard, and do all that we have promised.” [6]
Moscow Independent Center for Political Information director Alexei Mukhin said: “This was more of a defeat for the opposition than a victory for United Russia. The opposition needs to learn a lot of lessons, and the authorities would make a big mistake if they become complacent. The opposition needs to recruit more capable managers, and learn to use more normal, practical political slogans. It was no great victory for United Russia, the system worked for them just as it was designed to. But it was a telling defeat for the opposition—and one they should learn from.” “The low turnout is a very important indicator that no one really won these elections. People clearly have little interest in supporting the government, but they’re not enthused by the opposition either. Actually, a lot of recent opinion polls show a curious paradox unfolding: Support for the authorities is falling, but support for the opposition is falling faster. That’s why we this odd result, that seems to show a big victory for United Russia, but standing upon a very narrow base of the population.” Said director of the independent Moscow Institute of Globalization and Social Movements Boris Kagarlitsky. [5]

1. Arkhipov, Ilya. “Putin Loyalists Assert Control In Russian Regional Elections.” Bloomberg. October 15, 2012.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-14/russia-votes-in-putin-s-first-election-test-since-kremlin-return.html
2. Baczynska, Gabriela. “Russia Local Elections Seen Extending Putin’s Power in Regions.” Reuters. Friday, October 12, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/russia-elections-idUSL6E8LB1JG20121012
3. Baczynska, G. & Gutterman, S. “Russian Elections Underscore Problems Faced By Putin Foes.” Reuters. Monday, October 15, 2012.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/russia-elections-opposition-idUSL5E8LF7UC20121015?type=marketsNews
4. Baczynska, G. & Tsvetkova, M. “Russian Local Elections Test Putin’s Grip.” Reuters. Sunday, October 14, 2012.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/14/russia-elections-idUSL5E8LE0HS20121014
5. Barry, E. & Roth, A. “Ruling Party Shows Strength Amid Low Turnout in Russian Vote.” The New York Times. October 14, 2012.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/europe/russia-elections.html?_r=0
6. Elder, Miriam. “Vladimir Putin Hails Russian Local Election Victory.” The Guardian. Monday, October 15, 2012.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/15/vladimir-putin-hails-russia-election
7. Lally, Kathy. “Russian Opposition Weak At Polls.” The Washington Post. October 14.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-opposition-weak-at-polls/2012/10/14/60f7f9a8-1638-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html
8. Malpas, Anna. “Reported Violations Mar Russia’s First Polls Since Putin’s Return.” Agence France-Presse. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0Z_ECDuAoSSL6cEJLYZkQ_fneqA?docId=CNG.ea900d58bb25acbb22b1563afa808e4f.7c1
9. Ralph, Talia. “Russia Votes In First Gubernatorial Elections in 8 Years.” GlobalPost. October 14, 2012.http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/russia/121014/russia-votes-first-gubernatorial-elections
10. Seddon, Max. “Russia Local Elections: Putin Loyalists Likely To Win Local Votes.” The Associated Press. October 14, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/russia-local-elections-putin-loyalists_n_1965435.html
11. Seddon, Max. “Putin Loyalists Win Russian Local Elections.” The Associated Press. October 15, 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/putin-loyalists-win-russian-local-elections-154954589.html
12. Weir, Fred. “Putin’s United Russia Dominates Regional Elections.” The Christian Science Monitor. Monday, October 15, 2012http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/1015/Putin-s-United-Russia-dominates-regional-elections