TOKYO (Reuters) - Ladies, take your battle for the environment a little closer to your heart with a solar-powered bra that can generate enough electric energy to charge a mobile phone or an iPod.

Lingerie maker Triumph International Japan Ltd unveiled its environmentally friendly, and green colored, "Solar Power Bra" on Wednesday in Tokyo which features a solar panel worn around the stomach.

The panel requires light to generate electricity and the concept bra will not be in stores anytime soon, said Triumph spokeswoman Yoshiko Masuda, as "people usually can not go outside without wearing clothes over it."

But it does send the message of how lingerie could possibly save the planet, Masuda said, adding that the bra should not be washed or sunned on a rainy day to avoid damaging it.

Being eco-friendly is now fashionable in Japan, and the "Solar Energy Bra" follows the company's other green-themed undergarments that include a bra that turns into a reusable shopping bag and one that featured metal chopsticks to promote the use of reusable chopsticks.

"It is very comfortable and I can really feel involved in eco-friendly efforts as well," model Yuko Ishida said.

(Reporting by Takanori Isshiki; Writing by Yoko Kubota; editing by Miral Fahmy)

If the offending picture is the White House - perhaps the they could tone the ad down a bit - know that you are competing with the old system - but perhaps be more subtle with it - the truth is nothing can stop the new energy - in 50 - 100 years - we are not going to be potting around with a combustion engine. The top of the range electric car is already more efficient than the gas guzzler, it goes from 0-60 mph almost as fast as you can put the pedal down, it is also faster and cheaper at 2¢/mile. Consider that like computers were 10/15 years ago.

The new buzz word is ET ~ energy technology, if we can do what we did with IT - with energy technology - then we don't know where we will end up and what will be the power of the future. It is likely - the crude oil and its cousins - will go the way of the whale oil they once had to pour in the sea (as the barrels were worth more) and the oil lamps that it powered.

An environmental action group founded by former vice president Al Gore is accusing ABC of censoring an advocacy ad the group paid to air on the network.

The Alliance for Climate Protection late Wednesday sent an e-mail blast to supporters with the ominous subject line, "ABC won't air our ad."

"Did you notice the ads after last night's presidential debate? ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby," wrote Alliance CEO Cathy Zoi. "But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad -- the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby." The message sent readers to to a web page where they could send a form letter to the network.

The ad in question, which was aired by several other networks, is a 30-second spot that starts off with a call to "Repower America," with images of a little girl, windmills and solar panels.

...

Zoi sent a letter to Disney-ABC Television Group President Anne Sweeney on behalf of the Alliance, protesting the decision.

"This advertisement simply points out that the massive spending by oil companies on advertising and lobbying is a primary reason our nation hasn't switched to clean and renewable sources for our energy. The assertions that our ad makes are factual, common sense and are needed in the national debate about our energy future. Your viewers should not be denied the right to hear this point of view," wrote Zoi.

"Your rejection is even more indefensible given the overwhelming number of misleading ads that the oil and coal industry have run on your network," she continued. "This year alone, oil and coal companies and interests have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to convince the American people that they are focused on solving our energy and climate crises. On its face, these assertions by oil and coal defy all reason."

Barry said the group did not receive a response from ABC. The "Repower America" ad ran on CBS, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC. ABC was the only one to reject the ad, according to the Alliance. The time spot purchased on ABC cost the group nearly $100,000, according to the Alliance. Instead of airing "Repower America," ABC ran the group's "Free Us" ad, which was already running on the network.

Source: Gristmill

Nuclear power is not an answer to our collective energy problem.  Essentially, turning to nuclear power as a primary solution to the current carbon-based system is like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.  It is not an "alternative".  Considering that, in resource-availability terms, we could already be powering most structures in this state with solar power, and that we have not done so out of adherence to constructs and public policies rooted in economic interests, it seems ridiculous to suggest that our power problem demands we dig up metal and devise ingenious was of containing and storing radioactive dust.  For me, there are three levels upon which nuclear power as a primary power source does not work.

1)     Forming a larger industry around the mining of uranium would recreate the oil-based market system that has contaminated the global markets, has instigated war, has tainted laws.  Wind is free.  Sunlight is free.  Yes, solar panels are built with silicon-but the silicon we use comes from sand and is the second-most common element on the earth (after oxygen).  If we want to progress as a planet, we must focus not only on outcomes, but the means of attaining them.  We need a new system that is not primarily driven by mining minerals-because that system can be too easily dominated by a relatively few people with the right land.   In a wind and solar-based system, opportunity to participate and regulate is inherently more accessible.  Wind is free.  Sunlight is everywhere.  So without even considering environmental impacts, a nuclear energy-based system is a repugnant proposition to me.   This is my number one reason for opposing nuclear energy.  We must question advocates of nuclear energy and consider whether they stand to benefit from mining, conversion of coal burning plants, or processing.

2)     We need to recognize and heed the signs (the glaring billboards!) that uranium mining and nuclear power are wrong at a deeper level.  At this point in our global evolution, we know what can lay ahead when indigenous people and "progress" meet.  In hindsight of world history, we now see how many of the worst aspects of contemporary society were foreshadowed in interactions with native peoples at the outset of a progressive undertaking.  So where indigenous people react adversely to something today, we should listen.  To ignore the response of native people to uranium mining would be a monumental failure-the prospect of so doing reminds me of the Zora Neale Hurston book Their Eyes were Watching God, when the workers watched the Native Americans leaving the land only to later find themselves in the worst hurricane in the nation's history.  Culture is the heart of the planet.  How can we advocate what causes the heart to bleed?

Consider these headlines from wise-uranium.org:

• Traditional heads oppose uranium mining in Meghalaya (India); January 9, 2008,
• Nova Scotia native leader calls for permanent ban on uranium mining; December 13, 2007,
• Contaminated groundwater from radioactive waste dump near Tuba City migrating towards    Hopi drinking water spring (Arizona); December 2, 2007,
• Tribal judge excludes uranium company from Pine Ridge reservation (South Dakota); November 9, 2007,
• Navajo Nation demands federal moratorium on uranium mining.  November 9, 2007,

Consider this excerpt from a recent article:

"First Nation leaders who were jailed and fined for protests against uranium mining last summer will now have a chance to appeal the decision. On July 7, 2008 Ontario's highest court ruled that the contempt of court sentences against the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation were ‘too harsh.' Robert Lovelace, a retired Ardoch Algonquin First Nation chief and his co-chief Paula Sherman, along with six others, were each sentenced to six months in jail over disputes with mining companies. Lovelace was fined $25,000, while Sherman was fined $15,000."   ("Ontario court calls native uranium mining protest punishment 'too harsh'", Ottawa Citizen, July 7, 2008, as quoted on wise-uranium.org)

3)     Finally, there is the environment.  Accidents happen.  There's a lawsuit currently underway in Texas in which Goliad County alleges a company didn't adequately plug boreholes when testing for uranium and contaminated an aquifer, allegedly rendering wells undrinkable and allegedly violating the Safe Water Act.  Accidents happen all the time.  You can find a list of them at: http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html.

But that's just the beginning of it.  Because let's say you could construct fool proof methods of testing and storing waste so that there was never a single accident.  Increased uranium mining and processing would still pose both immediate and long-term harm to the people, the animals, the planet.  The potential for harm was best stated by nuclear expert Dr. Gordon Edwards' in his address to the 1992 World Uranium Hearings in Slazburg, Austria.  He concluded the address by saying:

"Now, if I could just wrap up, I have to tell you something extremely important.  The title of my talk was ‘Known facts and hidden dangers'.  I've told you a bit about the known facts.  Now for at least one of the hidden dangers. When we extract uranium from the ground, we dig up the rock, we crush it and we leave behind this finely pulverized material -- it's like flour.  In Canada we have 200 million tons of this radioactive waste, called uranium tailings.

As Marie Curie observed, 85 percent of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock.  How long will it be there?  Well, it turns out that the effective half-life of this radioactivity is 80,000 years.  That means in 80,000 years there will be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as there is today. You know, that dwarfs the entire prehistory of the Salzburg region which goes way back to ancient, ancient times.  Even archaeological remains date back no further than 80,000 years.  We don't have any records of human existence going back that far.  That's the half-life of this material.

And as these tailings are left on the surface of the earth, they are blown by the wind, they are washed by the rain into the water systems, and they inevitably spread. Once the mining companies close down, who is going to look after this material forever? How does anyone, in fact, guard 200 million tons of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment?

In addition, as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Radon is about eight times heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. It'll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive byproducts that I told you about, including polonium. So that you actually get radon daughters in animals, fish and plants thousands of miles away from where the uranium mining is done. It's a mechanism for pumping radioactivity into the environment for millennia to come, and this is one of the hidden dangers.

All uranium ends up as either nuclear weapons or highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. That's the destiny of all the uranium that's mined. And in the process of mining the uranium we liberate these naturally occurring radioactive substances, which are among the most harmful materials known to science. Couple this with the thought that nuclear technology never was a solution to any human problem. Nuclear weapons do not bring about a sane world, and nuclear power is not a viable answer to our energy problems. We don't even need it for electricity. All you need for conventional electricity generation is to spin a wheel, and there's many ways of doing it: water power, wind power, geothermal power, etc. In addition, there are other methods for producing electricity directly: solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and so on. What we have here, in the case of nuclear power, from the very beginning, is a technology in search of an application.

So, I think that we as a human community have to come to grips with this problem and say to ourselves and to others that enough is enough. We do not want to permanently increase our radiation levels on this planet. We have enough problems already. Thank you."  The full text of Mr. Edwards' address can be found at: http://www.ccnr.org/salzburg.html#ta

- I don't support drilling in ANWR.  While the amount of land that would actually be used for drilling is the equivilant to land the size of a stamp in a football field, I hesitate to disturb Alaska's untouched land at this point. 

- McCain does support Nuclear Energy...as does Obama.  However both candidates believe we need to invest in and implement wind, tide, solar, and natural gas.  While McCain has been more forthcoming with his Nuclear Plan, Obama also acknowledges it's necessity.

 Obama's Energy Plan States: "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear energy."

Side note: An advantage to building nuclear plants is the number of jobs that will be created as a result. 

-  We currently import our oil, which in result costs over 300 Billion, some of which ends up in the hands of terrorists.  Regardless of who wins this election, the United States is not ready to stop utilizing oil, which means that we need an oil source NOW.  Liberals like to use the argument that drilling now will not affect gas prices at this point, but as seen in previous situations, when future traders believe that the suppliers of oil will increase and the cost per barrel will go down, it will curb speculation of the market, therefore providing some relief from the constant up and down of gas prices.  (www.ontheissues.org)

- I agree, drilling is not a solution, however I think that taking every possible action to solve the energy crisis will help us in the long run.  We should be developing alternative energy sources, and at the same time establishing off shore drilling to ease the current price of gasoline or at the very least stablize it.

- McCain is against drilling in ANWR, and his voting record proves that.

- While off shore drilling still has it's dangers, the developement of new technologies have dramatically reduced the number of oil spills.

- While I'm not necessarily thrilled with the idea of offshore drilling, (nor am I thrilled with Palin's support of aerial killings of wolves) I believe that in politics you have to pick and choose your battles.  In my opinion, Obama's stand on partial birth abortion is much scarier and damaging to human life than McCain's energy plan.  I also believe that sometimes unappealing actions, such as offshore drilling or going to war, are necessary in order to to achieve the solution.

- I think Obama's energy plan is unrealistic.  While McCain wants to promote all sources of energy and ease our country off of dependence of oil, Obama believes we can end it... just like that.  This editorial from the Wall Street Journal explains my feelings exactly regarding Obama's Energy Plan http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797838304214973.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

 A Highlight from the article "Currently, alternative sources -- wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal -- provide less than 7% of yearly domestic consumption. Throw out hydro and geothermal, and it's only 4%. For the foreseeable future, renewables simply cannot provide the scale and volume of energy needed to meet growing U.S. demand, which is expected to increase by 20% over the next two decades. Even with colossal taxpayer subsidies, renewables probably can't even slow the rate of growth of carbon-based fuel consumption, much less replace it."

*Aisling*

1)     Forming a larger industry around the mining of uranium would recreate the oil-based market system that has contaminated the global markets, has instigated war, has tainted laws.  Wind is free.  Sunlight is free.  Yes, solar panels are built with silicon-but the silicon we use comes from sand and is the second-most common element on the earth (after oxygen).  If we want to progress as a planet, we must focus not only on outcomes, but the means of attaining them.  We need a new system that is not primarily driven by mining minerals-because that system can be too easily dominated by a relatively few people with the right land.   In a wind and solar-based system, opportunity to participate and regulate is inherently more accessible.  Wind is free.  Sunlight is everywhere.  So without even considering environmental impacts, a nuclear energy-based system is a repugnant proposition to me.   This is my number one reason for opposing nuclear energy.  We must question advocates of nuclear energy and consider whether they stand to benefit from mining, conversion of coal burning plants, or processing.

2)     We need to recognize and heed the signs (the glaring billboards!) that uranium mining and nuclear power are wrong at a deeper level.  At this point in our global evolution, we know what can lay ahead when indigenous people and "progress" meet.  In hindsight of world history, we now see how many of the worst aspects of contemporary society were foreshadowed in interactions with native peoples at the outset of a progressive undertaking.  So where indigenous people react adversely to something today, we should listen.  To ignore the response of native people to uranium mining would be a monumental failure-the prospect of so doing reminds me of the Zora Neale Hurston book Their Eyes were Watching God, when the workers watched the Native Americans leaving the land only to later find themselves in the worst hurricane in the nation's history.  Culture is the heart of the planet.  How can we advocate what causes the heart to bleed?

Consider these headlines from wise-uranium.org:  

•      Traditional heads oppose uranium mining in Meghalaya (India); January 9, 2008,
•      Nova Scotia native leader calls for permanent ban on uranium mining; December 13, 2007,
•      Contaminated groundwater from radioactive waste dump near Tuba City migrating towards    Hopi drinking water spring (Arizona); December 2, 2007,
•     Tribal judge excludes uranium company from Pine Ridge reservation (South Dakota); November 9, 2007,
•     Navajo Nation demands federal moratorium on uranium mining.  November 9, 2007,

  Consider this excerpt from a recent article:

"First Nation leaders who were jailed and fined for protests against uranium mining last summer will now have a chance to appeal the decision. On July 7, 2008 Ontario's highest court ruled that the contempt of court sentences against the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation were ‘too harsh.' Robert Lovelace, a retired Ardoch Algonquin First Nation chief and his co-chief Paula Sherman, along with six others, were each sentenced to six months in jail over disputes with mining companies. Lovelace was fined $25,000, while Sherman was fined $15,000."   ("Ontario court calls native uranium mining protest punishment 'too harsh'", Ottawa Citizen, July 7, 2008, as quoted on wise-uranium.org)

3)     Finally, there is the environment.  Accidents happen.  There's a lawsuit currently underway in Texas in which Goliad County alleges a company didn't adequately plug boreholes when testing for uranium and contaminated an aquifer, allegedly rendering wells undrinkable and allegedly violating the Safe Water Act.  Accidents happen all the time.  You can find a list of them at: http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html. 

But that's just the beginning of it.  Because let's say you could construct fool proof methods of testing and storing waste so that there was never a single accident.  Increased uranium mining and processing would still pose both immediate and long-term harm to the people, the animals, the planet.  The potential for harm was best stated by nuclear expert Dr. Gordon Edwards' in his address to the 1992 World Uranium Hearings in Slazburg, Austria.  He concluded the address by saying:

"Now, if I could just wrap up, I have to tell you something extremely important.  The title of my talk was ‘Known facts and hidden dangers'.  I've told you a bit about the known facts.  Now for at least one of the hidden dangers. When we extract uranium from the ground, we dig up the rock, we crush it and we leave behind this finely pulverized material -- it's like flour.  In Canada we have 200 million tons of this radioactive waste, called uranium tailings.  

As Marie Curie observed, 85 percent of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock.  How long will it be there?  Well, it turns out that the effective half-life of this radioactivity is 80,000 years.  That means in 80,000 years there will be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as there is today. You know, that dwarfs the entire prehistory of the Salzburg region which goes way back to ancient, ancient times.  Even archaeological remains date back no further than 80,000 years.  We don't have any records of human existence going back that far.  That's the half-life of this material.

And as these tailings are left on the surface of the earth, they are blown by the wind, they are washed by the rain into the water systems, and they inevitably spread. Once the mining companies close down, who is going to look after this material forever? How does anyone, in fact, guard 200 million tons of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment?

In addition, as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Radon is about eight times heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. It'll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive byproducts that I told you about, including polonium. So that you actually get radon daughters in animals, fish and plants thousands of miles away from where the uranium mining is done. It's a mechanism for pumping radioactivity into the environment for millennia to come, and this is one of the hidden dangers.

All uranium ends up as either nuclear weapons or highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. That's the destiny of all the uranium that's mined. And in the process of mining the uranium we liberate these naturally occurring radioactive substances, which are among the most harmful materials known to science. Couple this with the thought that nuclear technology never was a solution to any human problem. Nuclear weapons do not bring about a sane world, and nuclear power is not a viable answer to our energy problems. We don't even need it for electricity. All you need for conventional electricity generation is to spin a wheel, and there's many ways of doing it: water power, wind power, geothermal power, etc. In addition, there are other methods for producing electricity directly: solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and so on. What we have here, in the case of nuclear power, from the very beginning, is a technology in search of an application.

So, I think that we as a human community have to come to grips with this problem and say to ourselves and to others that enough is enough. We do not want to permanently increase our radiation levels on this planet. We have enough problems already. Thank you."  The full text of Mr. Edwards' address can be found at: http://www.ccnr.org/salzburg.html#ta

En los próximos días culminará el debate que viene manteniendo el sector tecnológico acerca de la Agenda digital argentina. Según pudo averiguar PuntoGov, el documento final que definirá las principales líneas de acción no contempla al software libre. Y teniendo en cuenta el creciente uso por parte del Estado de esta plataforma -no sólo para reparar la situación de ilegalidad sino también para mejorar la capacidad de los sistemas de la administración pública-, lo que llama la atención es que no se haya discutido el tema en la preparación del documento que dará a conocer la presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner antes de fin de año. A días de dar por finalizado el debate oficial, la pregunta que flota en el aire y en más de uno es por qué empresas del sector o las organizaciones como Fundación Vía Libre o Solar -que cuentan con personería jurídica y representan ampliamente los intereses del ámbito de software libre- fueron ignorados, o por lo menos, no fueron convocados para aportar su perspectiva y conocimientos técnicos sobre el asunto.

Un breve repaso
En la Argentina, como en la mayoría de los países de la región a excepción de Venezuela, no hay una norma que obligue o impida el uso de determinado software en los organismos públicos. Sin embargo, si uno observa cómo avanza el Open Source en el Estado argentino, se distinguen las políticas que han llevado adelante organismos como AFIP o ANSES, que han elegido migrar a estas plataformas. Algunos ejemplos bastan para comprobarlo: Todas las aplicaciones de infraestructura en la AFIP se desarrollan con software libre. Aplicaciones gráficas, de telemetría, seguridad y monitoreo, así como la mayoría del software en este organismo, corren sobre SL, incluido las aplicaciones de misión crítica como la recepción de declaraciones juradas y pagos. “En un año o año y medio más del 100 por ciento de nuestras bases de datos y de los procesos centrales residirán en sistemas operativos abiertos”, señaló a PuntoGov, Jorge Linskens, la autoridad informática máxima de esa administración. Otro de los que viene desarrollando la modalidad es SIU, el consorcio de universidades que desarrolla soluciones informáticas y brinda servicios para el Sistema Universitario Nacional y distintos organismos de gobierno. Su directora, María Luján Gurmendi, indicó que en la Argentina el único software liberado para uso público es el SIU-Toba, que permite construir aplicaciones Web y que se puede descargar gratis de Internet. Otro modelo es Munix, un proyecto de software libre que ya tiene doce años de implementación en la Municipalidad de Rosario y que detalla en la columna de opinión de esta edición una de sus responsables, Mariela Borneman. Y la lista sigue.

Cuentas pendientes
Como venimos señalando en ediciones anteriores, la iniciativa de discutir una agenda digital para insertar a la Argentina en la sociedad de la información y el conocimiento fue impulsada por la secretaría de Gabinete y Gestión Pública encabezada por Juan Manuel Abal Medina y puesta en marcha operativamente por el subsecretario de Tecnologías de la Gestión, Nicolás Trotta y la directora de la ONTI, Elida Rodríguez, a través de un debate coordinado con las cámaras del sector privado, representantes de ONG vinculadas con la cuestión digital y funcionarios públicos. Aunque de acceso restringido, algunos pequeños retazos del debate asoman en el portal oficial de la Agenda Digital, donde -además de algunos documentos interesantes para descargar- se han señalado las comisiones a cargo de los ejes centrales de la futura estrategia digital. Para tener alguna idea de cómo se desarrolla este proceso: Las comisiones han sido organizadas por temas y lideradas por algunos exponentes del sector público. Por Capital Humano, está Elida Rodríguez, Contenidos y Aplicaciones, Laura Serra del ministerio de Educación, Infraestructura y Conectividad, Gonzalo Heredia de la secretaría de Comunicaciones, Financiamiento y Sostenibilidad, Rosa Wachenchauzer del ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva y Marco Legal, Olga Cavalli, del ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto. El resto de los ejes y el documento completo por ahora es una incógnita y habrá que esperar hasta el anuncio oficial.

Otra de las cuestiones que alimenta dudas –y malestar- es la manera de confeccionar las licitaciones en el Estado. Desde el sector privado la desazón hacia el gobierno de la ciudad de Buenos Aires por ver cómo las licitaciones de proyectos de gobierno electrónico dejan afuera a los proveedores locales es cada vez más evidente. Desde la otra vereda, la flamante CADESoL, Cámara de Empresas de Software Libre y que logró reunir a Openware, Gecoop, Opensa, Xtech, Raqlink, Menttes, Except y Entornos educativos, también se sostiene que las licitaciones públicas en general deberían funcionar de manera transparente y abarcativa. “Las licitaciones suelen estar armadas para contratar un producto, no soluciones”, opinó Daniel Coletti, quien presidirá la nueva CADESoL con el objetivo de servir de vínculo e intermediario ante el Estado, -en sus niveles nacional, provincial y municipal- y “ayudar a que entienda lo estratégico que es usar software libre y no propietario”. Similar es la visión de un directivo de uno de los gigantes multinacionales del Open Source que no integra la cámara –por ahora- y que destaca que “la actual administración tecnológica se basa en la neutralidad tecnológica” o lo que significa un “voto en blanco para no hacer nada y mientras tanto, el mundo sigue rodando”. O migrando, se podrá decir. Porque por algo la tendencia a nivel de las administraciones estatales en el mundo se inclina hacia el software libre.

El Estado no es una empresa. Acá, como en cualquier parte, la variable de ajuste siempre es el ciudadano. Y la opción por uno y otro sistema estatal que pueda garantizar un servicio seguro y confiable no parece ser un dato aislado. ¿O sí?

I wasn't around for today's nasty close - meetings wot.  But looking back at how stocks that had been muddling along through the day were being absolutely pitched over the side in the last hour with huge 10%, 15%, 20% losses is looking more like we're getting to a capitulation point.  Stock charts look like a swan-dive into steadily rising volume.  Expect a fairly big down opening tomorrow morning barring some other intervention like another 50 basis point cut, but we might see a snap-back later in the day.  If not, it's going to be one nail-biter of a weekend for a whole lot of people - especially Canadians, as this is our Thanksgiving weekend.  We get three days to stew.  Grace at Thanksgiving dinner is going to have a different twist to it this year - "Lord, we thank you for that which we are about to receive ..."  :)

We "only" did one REAP trade today.  Had I been around before the close there probably would have been a couple more. As it is, I have 4 out of 6 groups signaling trades for tomorrow. 

In a re-positioning move I finally parted with Trina Solar (TSL) and replaced it with the Claymore Global Solar Energy ETF.  Two reasons - (1) to diversify my solar exposure more into the US to take advantage of the recent renewable energy tax incentives with companies like First Solar (FSLR), Sunpower (SPWRA) and MEMC Electronics (WFR), and (2) eliminate the single stock risk in Trina, particularly in a now more uncertain China.  And I bought back CME Group.  Reached for that one - bought it back at $390 only to watch it close at $355.  If investing were easy ...

The trades ...

And the trials ...