Now this is the kind of entrepreneural spirit of innovation that I wish we had more of in America. But it falls to Scotland to start the process. A Scottish company is setting up to use the waste products from the whiskey industry to make a biofuel that can be used in existing car engines with a far smaller carbon footprint than using petroleum based gasoline. Good for the environment, good for energy independence, good for the economy, and it creates jobs as well (see, THAT'S how it's done!). From BBC News:
A new company has been formed to commercialise a process for producing biofuel made from whisky by-products.
Edinburgh Napier University's Celtic Renewables Ltd will initially focus on Scotland's £4bn malt whisky industry to develop biobutanol and other chemicals.
The company said biobutanol could be used as a direct substitute for fossil-derived fuel...
Celtic Renewables is now working with Scottish Enterprise to produce the biofuel from sustainable resources on an industrial scale.
Its fermentation process uses the two main by-products of whisky production - 'pot ale', which is the residue left in copper stills, and 'draff', the spent grains...
Research has suggested biobutanol provides 25% more power output than the traditional bioethanol.
Hear that? Why aren't we doing this in America? You don't even have to have specially modified engines to use the stuff. It can directly substitute for the stuff OPEC and their Republican allies have addicted us to. The article does include a small dig at the rest of the world:
Mr Ewing said: "Turning our whisky industry's by-products into raw materials for sustainable biofuels which can be used to power ordinary family cars is an example of the sort of innovative thinking Scotland excels in."
Yep...I really think America, led by the anti-education, anti-science, anti-small business Republicans, has lost the innovative spirit it had through most oft he 20th century. Republicans just want us to keep on being addicted to oil and want most of the profit to go into the pockets of the 1%. And they are willing to cut education and science to do it.
But maybe Jack Daniels wants to sign up to be next in line. They can help the planet and create local jobs in Tennessee. I'd certainly drink to that!
The Putumayo collections of music are a wonderful way of discovering new music from parts of the world you have never thought of. I was introduced to them, interestingly, by my son back when he was 3 and 4 years old. When we visited California we would always visit the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. And we would always stop at the gift shop and my son would consider whether he would spend his souvenir option there or somewhere else. More recently he has moved on to other sources of souvenirs (always interesting) but initially he was always interested in listening to the various samples of Putumayo CD collections and he would pick one for his souvenir.
During his excursions into the Putumauyo CD collection, the African selection, the Women of Africa Selection and the Mali selection each caught his attention, and I tip my hat to his choices because they all are amazing collections.
All three are fantastic...but today I want to highlight music from Mali. One artist from the Women of Africa collection I have highlighted before is Afia Mala, a Royal Princess of Togo and Benin.
Perhaps surprisingly, Mali is one of the more democratic nations in Africa. A co-worker of mine was surprised that Mali is where the famous city of Timbuktu is...a city I would love to visit someday even though I hear it has declined from its former glory. Timbuktu was once a rich, major trading site along the Niger River, connecting sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, where salt, gold, ivory and slaves were traded in huge amounts.
Mali cuisine seems mostly to be a mixture of North African dishes (like Couscous) and Senegalese dishes. It is very much the juncture between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sadly, I don't think I will have much chance of trying some of the wonderful sounding dishes from Mali, short of cooking them myself (an option I may well attempt!) or visiting Mali itself (again, an option I would like to explore if I get the chance).
Now Mali is something of a backwater, and yet it manages to be one of the most democratic and forward looking nations in Africa. Though predominantly Muslim, it is also one of the few nations in Africa where homosexuality is not outright illegal. This does not mean that Mali is a paragon of civil liberties in a global context, but it does manage to be one of the more democratic nations despite its poverty. It has some dangers because of attempts of al-Qaeda related groups to establish themselves in the country, but so far Mali has done wonders at keeping such groups at bay. Mali may be one of the few Muslim nations of North Africa I would, as a Jew, feel fairly comfortable visiting.
But what strikes me is that when I listen to the Putumayo collection of music from Mali, I absolutely LOVE each and every song. There is not one song on that CD that I am even ambivalent about. It is one of my favorite CD's of all time. Generally I have no idea what they are singing about, but the sound of it is amazing.
Seemingly the most famous musician from Mali is Habib Koite...and here is a haunting, beautiful song from the Putumayo collection.
He also has a gorgeous song on the Putumayo Africa collection:
One of my favorites from the album is Moussa Diallo's Maninda:
Then there is Amassakoul 'N' Tenere by Tinariwen which strikes me as more generally "Musilm" in sound, if such a generalization is even close to valid, and slightly less uniquely Mali...but it is still super cool:
Here Kélétigui Diabaté's version of a traditional piece, Koulandian:
Habib Koite also performs this piece (not from the Putumayo collection), though I personally like Kélétigui Diabaté's version better:
This one is amazing (not from the Putumayo collection)...Gershwin's Summertime performed by two of Mali's top musical geniuses, Keletigui Diabate and Habib Koite:
I am blown away by that one!
Another haunting one, by Boubacar Tranore, is this one:
I urge my readers to explore the Putumayo collections. I don't connect with all of them, but they all are quality collections of amazing artists. The African ones in particular have greatly expanded my musical tastes, and the Mali collection is quite possibly my favorite. And it led me to look into the nation of Mali more than I might have. If I ever have the time and money, it is one of the nations I would love to visit, not least for the chance to visit Timbuktu!
When my wife and I traveled through Greece, Turkey and Israel, we visited the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This is one of the holiest places in Christianity, supposedly the site of Golgotha where Jesus was crucified. There is even a supposed post-hole where the cross was thought to be placed.
We were told an odd story about this church. It seems that several Christian sects cooperate, if that is the right word to describe the rivalries that result, to take care of the church. We were told that these various sects actually sometimes get into physical fights over who gets to sweep what parts of the church. I always assumed this was an exaggeration, but it seems it is literal, since the exact same kind of rivalry, this time between the Greek and Armenian Orthodox churches, erupted into a very silly brawl this very Christmas season, 2011, and was caught on film. From the church where Jesus was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem:
This isn't the first time, by ANY means that this has happened. From 2007:
Let me just say that this is the kind of thing that makes me so skeptical about organized religion...is THIS what Jesus was all about? Let me emphasize that THIS kind of crap makes organized religion (and it isn't just Christianity...brawls between Mitnagdim and Hasidic Jewish groups in the old country in the 19th Century were no different!) look outright stupid.
But these stupid, broom battles between Christian clergy have at times been part of international struggles leading to outright war. Specifically, it strikes me that this kind of stupid broom battle is a distant echo of some of the issues that led to the Crimean War. The Crimean War represents an early stage to the lead up to WW I and is one of the first instances of Britain and France acting as allies rather than enemies, something that became critical for WW I and WW II. Prior to the Crimean War, France and Britain were rivals or outright enemies for centuries, with only occasional moments of cooperation. The Crimean War, partly sparked by these kinds of stupid broom battles between clergy in the "holy" land, was the moment where France and Britain became firm allies, initially against Russia, and later along with Russia against Prussia/Germany and Austria.
The Crimean War was the result of the slow, steady decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was one of the longest living superpower of all history, spanning roughly 600 years. But that 600 years included about 250 years of strong, dominant expansion, some 100+ years of tenuous holding on to prestige as Europe caught up and surpassed the Turks, and then another 100+ years of clear decline. During the declining years of the Ottoman Empire, they were often kept alive by the fact that the European powers, generally Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia/Germany, couldn't decide how the spoils would be divided if the Ottoman Empire actually collapsed. So rather than fight it out over the spoils, the European powers, in the last 100 or so years of the Ottoman Empire, preferred to prop up that failing Empire. So although various territories (like Wallachia, Serbia, Greece, etc.) might be detached from the Ottoman Empire and made part of another empire or made an independent state, the European powers refused to allow the entire Empire to fail simply because it would lead to a world war among the dominant superpowers over the remnants of the Ottoman territories.
So at various times Austria and Russia, Germany and Russia, Britain and France, Britain and Russia, etc. discussed how the Ottoman Empire should be carved up, usually no solid agreement could be reached that would avoid war, so the Great Powers helped the Turks survive. This is not to say that the Turks themselves played no role in this diplomatic and military game. They at times were very skilled at playing the Great Powers against each other to secure their own existence. But there were times where they were unable to act effectively and were saved only by the actions of outsiders.
Russia had long had designs on Turkish territory. Russia envisioned itself the rightful ruler of the Balkans (in opposition to both Austria and the Ottomans), the rightful protector of ALL Orthodox Christian sects (many of whom hated eachother, as the broom battle video above illustrates today), AND the rightful heir of the Roman Empire and thus of Constantinople/Istanbul itself. Peter the Great and Catherine the Great particularly articulated these claims and tried to carry them out, with only limited success. The Ottoman Empire was already declining at these times, so both Peter and Catherine the Greats could enforce some of their claims. But by no means all because the Ottomans still had some fight in them and no one else wanted Russia to be so powerful.
Nicholas I was another Tsar who wanted to exert Russia's claims over the Balkans, over Orthodox Christians world wide, and over what was once the Byzantine Empire. He tried making deals with Britain (then ruled by Queen Victoria), his main ally against their mutual rival France (ruled by Napoleon III) to divide the slowly failing Ottoman Empire between them. Britain was not ready for this to happen, so no deal was made between these two Great Powers. Austria was another power that wanted to carve up the Ottoman Empire, but already at this time Russia and Austria were competing, in the name of Orthodox vs. Catholic, Slavic vs. Germanic rule, over who would dominated the Balkans. So Austria and Russia were already starting the collision course that would ultimately spark WW I. But where everyone else fell was not yet clear. France tended to side against Russia. Britain tended to side against France. Prussia tended to also side against France. So had WW I happened before the Crimean War, you might have had Britain, Russia and Prussia against France and Austria with Turkey and Italy falling where ever they had the temporary advantage. But in the 1850's this all began to change. Not that the alliances that fell into WW I were yet formed so early, but one key alliance was formed, first in opposition to Russia and in support of Turkey, that later became the key to WW I. France and Britain, whose rivalry formed the basis of most wars and diplomatic interactions up until then, started forming a firm alliance.
The rivalry between France and Britain was initially a Medieval issue, where rulers from both sides had claims on the same territories due to competing feudal claims. The British royal family were originally the Dukes of Normandy, so had claims in France. The French royals also had ties to key noble families in England who had claims to the throne. So for centuries France and Britain were at odds. It was one of the dominant themes in European politics from roughly 1066 until the 1850's. Roughly for 800 years the British-French rivalry was THE key theme in Europe and beyond. Even the American Revolution was a sideshow of this rivalry and our independence is due to the intervention of France against Britain in their long rivalry.
Tsar Nicholas I, whose main rival was France and whose main ally was Britain and whose main enemies were Austria and the Turks, tried to arrange with Britain a division of Turkey behind everyone else's backs. It was from this discussion that the famous term "Sick Man of Europe" was coined to describe the Ottoman Empire. Britain and Russia disagreed on what was needed. Russia felt that Turkey needed a surgeon to carve it up and Britain felt that it needed a physician to cure it. Russia's insistence on carving up Russia ultimately drove a wedge between it and the rest of Europe, and that wedge started to form the alliances that would lead to WW I even though those alliances evolved over the years between the Crimean War and WW I.
The Russian view was that the end of the Ottoman Empire was inevitable, so why not plan in advance and carve it up. If Russia and Britain cooperated in this, then France and Austria could be excluded and Prussia would probably go along with the winners. This really was no different from what many other European leaders had seen for decades, including Napoleon I, Metternich, and many others. The decline of the Turks had gone on for a long time and the end was seen as inevitable for at least 100 years. So Russia was not unreasonable in their views, even if they were greedy. But no more greedy than Austria, Britain or France, all of whom wanted spoils from the Sick Man of Europe. Prussia was the only country that stayed SOMEWHAT peripheral to this interest in carving up the Ottoman Empire.
But Britain was not willing to see ANYONE get the upper hand in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, not even their ally Russia, so they opted for a continuation of the Sick Man. Tsar Nicholas I was not willing to see that happen, so did everything he could to force war on Turkey on Russia's terms. Overplaying his hand, he slowly forced Britain into an alliance with their arch-rival France against Russia. That Anglo-French alliance, inconceivable in the early 1800's, has essentially persisted until today and was a key factor in the Crimean War, WW I and WW II as well as the Cold War. Tsar Nicholas I and his desire for Russia's traditional claims against Turkey established one of the enduring and dominant alliances of the 20th century.
But what was the main issue? France had traditionally claimed to protect, as a dominant Catholic force, the Christians within the Ottoman Empire. This was the basis of a long-standing alliance between the Ottoman Empire and France dating back to the expansionist days of Turkey. But Russia's very existence depended partly on its claim to be the protector of all Orthodox Christians in the world, particularly in the Ottoman domains. This claim had generally been at odds with what the Ottomans themselves thought as well as with the French claims. So when the Latin and Greek clergy in Bethlehem and Jerusalem got into a conflict over who had the right to sweep the floors and fix the facades of the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Russia used this as a way to exert its dominance in Ottoman territories. Needless to say the Ottomans objected. France, which had kind of ignored its claims of protection over Christians in the Ottoman Empire, awoke to the Russian threat and started preparing for war. So Russia and France were ready to go to war over sweeping rights, as it were, within Christian Holy sites within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were desperately trying to claim sovereignty over their own territory despite their near collapse. And Britain was trying to preserve peace, prevent anyone from taking an unfair share of Ottoman territory, and so wanted to prop up the Ottoman Empire.
When Russia clearly became the most belligerent power, using its naval force against Turkey, Britain felt compelled, against tradition, to side with France to preserve Turkey. From this came the Crimean War that embarrassed Russia, preserved Turkey, and cemented an alliance between France and Britain that was to dominate politics for the next century. So far the other alliances that initiated WW I (Germany and Austria, Germany and Turkey, France and Russia, Britain and Serbia) had not formed. But the French-British alliance that was to be critical to WW I and WW II and beyond was forged in the lead up to the Crimean War, in vague support of a traditional claim of France to protect the Catholic right to sweep floors in the churches in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. So those broom wars helped forge this key alliance.
The fact that Russia's other key rival was Austria started to form the Central Powers of WW I. The Russia-Turkey and Russia-Austria rivalries, combined with the battles over who would dominate the Balkans (Austria, Turkey or Russia, with Serbia one of the main local players) set the stage for WW I. Between the Crimean War and WW I the French/Russian and the British/Serbian as well as the Prussian/Austrian alliances were yet to form. And it was only because Prussia was allying with Turkey against Russia that Austria accepted Turkey, its traditional enemy, as an ally in WWI. Russia, as a traditional supporter of the Serbs, was MORE of a threat to Austria than Turkey in its decline ever could be, so Austria sided with Germany and Turkey against Russia. The French-British alliance, forged initially AGAINST Russia in the Crimean War, sided with Serbia against Germany and Austria, formalizing the sides in WW I. Italy could have gone either way, siding with France and Britain almost last minute.
Those alliances were NOT the same as in WW II, but they did set that stage. The French-British alliance continued and strengthened its ties with Russia despite the fall of the Tsars. The German/Austrian alliance became a key event in the lead up to WW II when Germany claimed not just Austria itself, but also some of Austria's German speaking territories (e.g. Czechoslovakia) for its own Empire. British protection of former Ottoman territories led to its ties with Greece, where the first Allied victories over the Axis occurred when the Greeks, with British weapons and uniforms, soundly defeated the Italian and Albanian allies of Germany. That Albanian-Greek fighting was something that was already occurring when various Albanian and Greek warlords were fighting for dominance as Ottoman control faltered.
So the silly broom battles among rival Christian sects in churches in Bethlehem and Jerusalem were one of several conflicts (the rise of Balkan nationalism and the fights among Austria vs. Russia, Albanians vs. Greeks, Greeks vs Greeks, Russia vs. Turkey) that led directly from the lead up to the Crimean War to WW I and through WW I to WW II and the Cold War. The key alliance that linked them all turned out to be the unexpected and new alliance between once arch-rivals France and Britain.
